Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Romano338

Did FM became too elitist tactic-wise?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Viking said:

Too much of a hassle indeed. I used to think FM (or rather the old CM) was relaxing and fun. Now it's just exhausting.

Technically you can fire up a save, get your ass man ready and click "holiday". And that's genuinelly not lying -- I've done such a quickie save just yesterday and gained another promotion, only ever coming back in the respective transfer windows to check a) what's cookin' and b) get the players. How stimulating that is as a gaming experience is a bit subjective, naturally. Still this is the only game series I've ever played where you can be rewarded and where the world keeps on spinning despite you being AWOL like 80% of the time. :D [Well that, and SimAnt™. Must be a simulation games thing .]

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il 28/4/2018 in 21:07 , Viking ha scritto:

Too much of a hassle indeed. I used to think FM (or rather the old CM) was relaxing and fun. Now it's just exhausting.

You won't find many users more critical than me to current FMs, but in all honesty, I could NEVER go back to the old CMs.

There was as much randomness, but you didn't even have a graphical rendition of what was going on in a game... Your top side could struggle to defeat a 4th division team in a cup game and you'd have no way to understand why. Or to fix it, besides going from Short, to Long Ball, to Mixed... Or switching formation without even knowing why.

The current feedback is confusing, the tactical creator is a mess of convoluted specific lingo, many instructions can lead to self-contradicting setups and to tactics being completely different from what the user expects... But at least you can work around them. In older CMs, it was the equivalent of a hidden dice roll in a RPG game... "Sorry, your Lv30 Warrior has been killed by a goblin. Game over"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RBKalle said:

In older CMs, it was the equivalent of a hidden dice roll in a RPG game... "Sorry, your Lv30 Warrior has been killed by a goblin. Game over"

:D That goblin probably exploited a bug in the engine that reduced the armor class of the warrior from 100 to 1. Upon which -- the empire striked back.  Randomness no more, actually, possible frustration and inconsistency no more. I find this all a little curious as personally I've grown up on C64 games. Basically, matches were dice rolls, however, weighted ones. The higher rated teams more often won over the lower rated one. As such, your dealings (mainly transfers and making the money for them) mattered. Games I played in the early 1990s, same.

Luck and bad luck could still influence the seasons, so that with a worse side you could go on a few lucky streaks that took you up the tables, and I still vividly remember a season where the opposing thing happened. A season that looked secure, and then it all went against us, relegation. Emotional rollercoasters, as without the setbacks any victory is just empty hollow. For all the dice rolling, dynamically that's much more like football than any game that could be rigged*... bit of a paradox, the core of 1980s games written in Basic being more robust than that of games released 20 years later. :D

* As seen in the ME loophole thread, the lines between exploit and tactical masterstroke can blur a bit here.

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if CM was random tactic-wise it's probably why I liked it; I could win matches without knowing the first thing about tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Viking said:

I could win matches without knowing the first thing about tactics.

But it is a football management simulation. You have to expect that tactics are somewhat important. But tactics are only 'somewhat' important - squad management (morale, fitness, teamwork) are arguably more important, and in the long run building a better team (rather than buying 11 great individual players) might be more important than anything.

That said, I do think that SI need to rip the tactics creator apart and rebuild it so it makes more sense. It's like we have the TC on the one hand, and the Match Engine on the other, and how they fit together is usually difficult, and often impossible, to figure out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Viking said:

Well, if CM was random tactic-wise it's probably why I liked it; I could win matches without knowing the first thing about tactics.


Still can, no less as matches are also contests of better against worse footballers. Plus same as CM, there is players doing the donkey work for you (downloads). Also technically you cannot only win matches, but more without engaging here any, in big parts due to the assistant manager module. Which similar to a game simulating ant colonies, simulates a worker staff that keeps on going even if you're not around. Delegating a few tasks, and all that. If you don't let go, the game won't either. And if that doesn't work out, you may be able to express what specifically you would change.

That is, except for taking the tactical engine out of the game completely, which may not happen*.  Btw. on officially accounts, the "successor" to CM has become FM mobile, so technically, its legacy is still firmly in place. It's even headed by Marc Vaughan afaik, who was one of the main guys behind some CM classics, and had written all the guides andn tips&tricks for it (they also included a few tactics though). That "processed cheese" is still there.

*

 

What I can personally see happen is that it may incorporate a bit more common sense player decisions which may influence the tactical gameplay, particular as of defending as it is debatable whether FM actually models proper intelligent zonal defending at this point.

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/04/2018 at 23:02, RBKalle said:

You won't find many users more critical than me to current FMs, but in all honesty, I could NEVER go back to the old CMs.

There was as much randomness, but you didn't even have a graphical rendition of what was going on in a game... Your top side could struggle to defeat a 4th division team in a cup game and you'd have no way to understand why. Or to fix it, besides going from Short, to Long Ball, to Mixed... Or switching formation without even knowing why.

The current feedback is confusing, the tactical creator is a mess of convoluted specific lingo, many instructions can lead to self-contradicting setups and to tactics being completely different from what the user expects... But at least you can work around them. In older CMs, it was the equivalent of a hidden dice roll in a RPG game... "Sorry, your Lv30 Warrior has been killed by a goblin. Game over"

The old CMs' appeal was basically a different game: it was fundamentally about signing players and if you had better players you didn't have to worry about struggling to defeat lower division teams that much as you raced through seasons. Whereas recent incarnations of FM is mostly about reacting to tactical changes and with the right setup and tweaks you can overachieve with massively inferior players.

Of course, you can still play full fat FM without grasping its tactics engine at all, but you'll have to download someone else's exploit tactic to do so. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider myself knowledgeable about Football and have played at a decent level, but I cannot get my head around tactics in FM these days, any tactic I create lasts 2/3 games if I'm lucky, then no matter who the opposition is they will either beat me or batter me and I'll only manage a draw.

 

Ive said it before but Football is just as much about the players, how good they are, their morale, and how they can figure situations out for themselves, as it is about tactical nuances that this game is fully based on.

 

Wayne Rooney said on MNF Sir Alex never used to over complicate it, his main thing was man management,  we were organised defensively, then he said when you get the ball in the final third, express yourself, play with freedom. He also sometimes left it for us to figure out on the pitch, if we had a red card, the opposition did, or we weren't playing well.

 

I always feel like on FM whatever philosophy I've got in my head, the opposition will always exploit its weaknesses. For example if I push my defence up and close down more, the opposition just clip it over the top and I concede loads, if I sit off, and play short passing with a lower tempo and stand off, they will just play Barcelona-esque football around me, even at Vanarama National level and whack 30 yarders in. The AI is always so much more clinical as well.

 

Players roles are becoming silly as well, should the way a player plays be defined by your team instructions, then their own preferred moves merged with their attributes when they are on the ball?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, enigmatic said:

The old CMs' appeal was basically a different game: it was fundamentally about signing players and if you had better players you didn't have to worry about struggling to defeat lower division teams that much as you raced through seasons. Whereas recent incarnations of FM is mostly about reacting to tactical changes and with the right setup and tweaks you can overachieve with massively inferior players.

I'd be careful here, as the line between an AI/ME exploit and "tactical masterstroke" as documented can be fine. The criticism that the game was "too much about tactics" is warranted, in a sense. A realistic tactical simulation would shift the odds a few. Never  would it allow anybody to deny clearly superior opposition over and over again. This game tries far too much to appeal to too different people. However, the core is still intact. Nobody is going to change that likely. The ad blurb says:  " Win the title with any one of world’s top 2500 clubs". The problem is in parts UI, guidance, in parts it can be players looking for CM like win buttons exploits and magic consistency always caused by such exploits. Some consistency in some form other than ME glitches (a super assistant) could likely be provided easily, but I have a feeling that enough players would deem such "beneath them".

The other "problem" is that SI likely agreed what goes tactically into the game is pretty simple concepts (I agree, and I'm not a tactical nut). A few years back the current assistant manager of RB Salzburg reviewed the game (PM me if interested, it's in German), and had a few interesting things to say about how in-depth the game tactically is. The more advanced tactical discussions and guides are harmful in a sense.  Probably a reason why SI don't promote much of the more in-depth stuff on their social media. For as in-depth as you can play this game , it's never been a requirement. At all. I'm actually waiting for the opposite of this thread. But as frustration is more likely to trigger response, the "I don't get it" threads will always rule supreme.

 

14 hours ago, roquesantacruz said:

I consider myself knowledgeable about Football and have played at a decent level, but I cannot get my head around tactics in FM these days, any tactic I create lasts 2/3 games if I'm lucky, then no matter who the opposition is they will either beat me or batter me and I'll only manage a draw.

So you know that teams in football beat opponents in sequence despite struggling to create opportunity -- same as they go on sequences of losing despite creating them. After all, this is some 90 minutes of a ball getting kicked, and a key moments determining the winner. Likewise, not every opportunity comes off a (tactically) planned move. Actually, like 98% of moves don't go anywhere. Of course, whether the game should roughly replicate  that is another discussion. Still tactics aren't on/off buttons that stop or start providing results. How anybody can perceive it as such, is the crux of the matter. Fergie btw had his tactical assistants (and wasn't ashamed to use them). See also Rijkaard's assitant ten Cate etc.

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To try to answer the initial question, I think we all need to accept we'll never have perfection. Real-world tactics are far, far more complex than anything we can concoct in FM. Even if we somehow could manage that, I imagine it would be impossible to tune an AI manager to that degree.

I'll say I'm another of those who has a decent understanding of football. I can watch a game and understand, from a tactical point of view, why one team won and the other lost. Not down to the finest detail, because I wasn't present at the tactical briefing, but I can see tactical patterns emerging to a reasonable degree. The same as many others, I love FM because it enables me to step into that world, on some level. Fantastic.

So here I am, with a head full of ideas and FM at my fingertips. I can understand, in my own terms, what it is I want to do and how I want my team to play. I can even create a detailed thread on the tactics forum that lists things out in a manner that (I think) most others can understand.

Where things fall down is moving that into the framework that FM provides. And look, I don't envy the people that are tasked with putting this thing together; it must be incredibly hard to attempt to be the middle-man/woman between users and developers who are disparate groups with different needs. I don't have all/any of the answers to that particular problem, but I can point out a couple of things that frustrate me.

Having put in the hours (and hours) to understand what roles, duties and instructions mean, how they synergise, etc, and build a decent system in one version of FM, which I believe is grounded in sensible footballing principles, it's incredibly annoying to see that the same system is hopeless in the subsequent version. Ouch, right? Now, that's not the end of the world in itself. Where things are exacerbated is that I don't know why what used to work no longer works. Football hasn't changed so much in 12 months that my system should be redundant. The game has changed though, and it is exactly this situation that makes it feel like I'm not trying to figure out a footballing problem, but a problem that pertains to the mechanics of the game. The question has become: 'What buttons do I need to press in order to get the same effect as before?'

The second issue I have is related. Learning a new version of FM. It's not like the whole playing field has seismically shifted and I'm like a baby bird in a field full of foxes. But... What is the best way to learn? Trial and error, sure. Asking for help, yes. I'm going to pick on @Rashidi here. Sorry, but you're a victim of your own success. I can read his posts, watch his podcasts, and so on. and I can find myself nodding along in agreement. All looks good, even if I'm thinking 'What? You're playing a Mezzala in the middle of a 4-4-2 in League Two? If I do that I'll lose. A lot.' But off I go to try to apply those principles in my own way, with varying degrees of success. Problem is, I feel like I've taken in a lot of information. I feel like I've understood it, but the application/interpretation often falls short, and that's a problem. Not just for me, but a general problem. Why? Because any success I have is achieved via something of a scattergun approach, rather than understanding what I did and why it works. The upshot being that I can't learn too much from people who are better than me at this game, because I can't get myself anywhere close to their wavelength, and I don't consider myself to be an idiot. If I'm taking good practice and applying it, I would expect to see some improvement, and I can't say that this is the case. Could it be that good practice comes as a whole and taking only parts of the package will only lead to me continuing to plateau, rather than seeing modest improvement? The fact that I can't even answer that question probably says it all.

Edited by ajsr1982

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎01‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 12:31, enigmatic said:

The old CMs' appeal was basically a different game: it was fundamentally about signing players and if you had better players you didn't have to worry about struggling to defeat lower division teams that much as you raced through seasons. Whereas recent incarnations of FM is mostly about reacting to tactical changes and with the right setup and tweaks you can overachieve with massively inferior players.

Of course, you can still play full fat FM without grasping its tactics engine at all, but you'll have to download someone else's exploit tactic to do so. :D 

I think tactics only have slightly more sway than they used to ... not to the extent that you either need to be a tactical genius or download an exploit.

It's more about not creating something illogical, than coming up with something inspiring. You can still do great with a standard 442 if you have the right (best) players.

I'd argue that you will enjoy FM more if you aren't particularly a tactician at heart. My biggest gripes are that I am quite knowledgeable when it comes to tactics, and being limited by ME behaviour and FM tactic creator, I can't create the tactical play I desire, so I don't feel like I can put my stamp on the footballing philosophy my team employ.

That said... I understand the limitations and enjoy it for what it is and always has been from CM to now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent years buying every version and getting lost in the tactic screen, making things way to complicated (ticking Team Instructions randomly because they sounded good, not knowing what the roles and duties did - because I didn't take the time to even read the ingame descriptions). After 2 matches that did not go my way (which does happen IRL as well, so it might not even be a bad tactic) I gave up and came to this forums with the intention "I will read some tactic threads"... after searching and spending time finding what I want I gave up because those threads were "too long, too difficult" (I'm not saying they are, it was just my state of mind) So I ended up downloading a tactic and getting frustrated because the results were not realistic, my players are getting to high ratings (off course, because I was using a tactic that probably exploits the ME...)

So what I was basically doing was telling myself: "Casual players with more real-life knowledge  say the game is to difficult tactic-wise, so off course it's to difficult for me and I won't be able to create a decent tactic, the help threads are too  long and difficult, It's not realistic if I lose a game that I should win...."

taking a step back, this is not an issue with the game, but with how I approached playing the game. This year, I bought FMT18, said to myself: "play the game as it was designed to be played". So I didn't go and read all the topics about 'it's way to difficult, tactic is for experts only' and put things in my head before I even started playing.

I started playing the game like the forums didn't exist and it was the very first time I played an FM. I kept everything logical, and based all my tactics and changes on what the game gives me from feedback, tools, descriptions and my own common sense... It turns out I have the best & most enjoyable save ever in the 15 years I'm playing FM.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DavyDepuydt1 said:

I started playing the game like the forums didn't exist and it was the very first time I played an FM. I kept everything logical, and based all my tactics and changes on what the game gives me from feedback, tools, descriptions and my own common sense... It turns out I have the best & most enjoyable save ever in the 15 years I'm playing FM.

 

4 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

It's more about not creating something illogical, than coming up with something inspiring. You can still do great with a standard 442 if you have the right (best) players

exactly what I was trying to say with this statement :D use common sense and basic principles and you will do fine :thup:

 

If you think you can replicate a great system by a specific team/manager/generation and spend hours creating a tactic - you will probably be disappointed - or fool yourself into thinking it works and you are great just because you win a few games

If you don't think at all and just treat every PI and TI as a one off choice and create a really contradictory tactic - chances are you will hate the game because you will either be thrashed, or find an exploit and massively overachieve

Edited by westy8chimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, ajsr1982 said:

 I'm going to pick on @Rashidi here. Sorry, but you're a victim of your own success.

More a victim of obsession.  :p Rash is a great guy, but if you ask me, loading up the same match a couple hundred times until you can fiddle the thing like Neo does the Matrix is neither particular compelling gameplay, nor has it anything to do with management, nor is it desirable in a football game. Not that anybody keeps you trying, mind. ;)Couple that with a few valuable insights gained from internal testing, voila. At the end, it's a computer code, and that has patterns, both in the play as well as the AI manager manages matches. I'd argue it's been demonstrated also quite clearly in some threads that here the line oft starts blurring between "tactics" and "exploiting", but I hold a different perspective here than some.

 

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Svenc said:

More a victim of obsession.  :p If you ask me, loading up the same match a couple hundred times until you can fiddle the thing like Neo does the Matrix is neither particular compelling gameplay, nor has it anything to do with management, nor is it desirable in a football game. Not that anybody keeps you trying, mind. ;) I'd argue it's been demonstrated also quite clearly that here the line starts blurring between "tactics" and "exploiting", but I hold a different perspective here than some.

 

Haha, well that's possibly true. It's a grey area, but perhaps relates to something I mentioned in my post. You could argue that @Rashidi (and others) are merely trying to answer the question I posed: What buttons do I need to press to get the response I want from the game? Doesn't this sort of answer the question in the OP? If those are the lengths one needs to go to in order to implement one's vision, then something has indeed fallen by the wayside. Depends on the vision of course, but I don't think many of the 'over-achievers' do anything particularly wild or revolutionary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ajsr1982 said:

I don't think many of the 'over-achievers' do anything particularly wild or revolutionary.

There's a difference though between overachieving (which probably everybody does anyway in some form, also through outperforming AI through good transfers, youth development or keeping their side fresh, ready and motivated) to going like 400 matches unbeaten on some past releases. :D That's basically eliminating bad luck from the game, which is quite something. Computer code with repeat patterns or no. :D My personal opinion: The more you treat this like a football management game fantasy, one that lets you take over jobs you would never get for realz to begin with, and the less desperate you try to decisively "beat it", the more fun you'll get out of this. Maybe just me though!

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Svenc said:

There's a difference though between overachieving (honestly has nobody ever done this?) to going like 400 matches unbeaten on some past releases. :D Breaking this down to its most simple: Every opposition shot, however poorly, may still result in a goal (that entire bad luck part). Thus, eliminating this pretty much completely, I'd argue that isn't a) quite what SI want the game to be like and b) intentionally meant anybody be able to do.

I agree with you, hence the inverted commas and the 'grey area' comment. A football match is a chaotic system; we refer to this as 'luck', but the nomenclature is immaterial. What I mean to say is that we can't control it, and I'm completely okay with that. But as with anything that has defined parameters, there will always be a bunch of people who play it merely to see how far along the curve they can go in terms of exploiting it. Like you, I find that joyless, but I think those people are very, very few in number.

My observations are aimed at people who would define themselves in the majority. The people that are here to take a team/club with issues and go after continuous improvement through learning what works and what doesn't in the context of their own save. Everyone will have their unique natural saturation point on that journey in terms of what they can achieve.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ajsr1982 said:

 Everyone will have their unique natural saturation point on that journey in terms of what they can achieve.

This is a fantastic quote. Connected , I found that most difficulty discussions tend to be pointless, as there is many standards applied. For instance, players that pick big sides tend to be blamed for picking that side. How dare you complain if you go to Real Madrid? Yet both camps may hold different standards. After all, it is demonstrated over and over again that jobs at big clubs have their own unique set of challenges, and that even elite proven managers oft don't last for very long at their respective clubs. So some may expect to see that replicated in the game some, whilst for others the gauge is how long it takes to get Stafford Rangers into the EPL. My personal gauge here is always AI, and how they perform with respective clubs.

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes. How you measure your own success is important. I'd love to be able to do what Rashidi and Cleon do, but the reality is that I know I can't, and this doesn't mean I'm useless at the game. So I look at the media prediction and the pre-season odds and measure myself against that. Am I comfortably the worst team in the division? Well, staying up means I'm doing okay. That, by definition, is over-achievement, and it's important to realise that.

There is a flip-side though, which was in my original post. If I invest the time to try to improve, to do things differently to how I currently do them, I'd hope to be rewarded for that. I don't think I'm unreasonable, in that I know I'll have to deal with one thing at a time and improve slowly and that's a challenge I enjoy. I guess I just find that I've hit the wall in this version of FM after getting into a nice position in the previous version where I could diagnose issues and fix them - an 'ability' which appears to have deserted me this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as you're able to overachieve I don't see the issue. Have you ever seen a professional or even semi-professional playing Starcraft2? Without hours of training and ninja reflexes you're out. There comes a point where any game stops being simply fun and turns into a second job (for such players, it literally is). And even Rashidi makes a bit of money off his FM advice. This is naturally actually physically stress in the case of these games. This would be more relevant in competitive multiplayer. If the game would someday render a realistic rendition of football (tactical decisions shifting the odds), the match performance gap between players may likely be decreased some. Which some may like, others not much.

You can see it the other way too: For as long as there is areas to improve (tactics, youth development, man management etc.), the game has still some legs to stand on. Else there may come a point where everything just becomes routine completely -- or the worst that could happen in a footbal game, imo -- the thing being this predictable that you know where your session ends before you sit down to start. Football is many things. Predictable it ain't.

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a decent knowledge about tactics but I find the ME glitches counteract my tactics. Exploit the middle starts off deep in the middle of the pitch, 2 passes later it's out to one of my wingbacks cross comes in and tapped in by one of the strikers. Corners seem to now be 7 out of 10 being played across to the player floating around the edge of the box and then a blocked shot. I have not set up corners this way and there's nothing in there to stop it. I've now found that the only way to be successful on this game is to exploit it, at the moment it's reverted back to 2012 where 3 strikers are deadly in attacking/ v fluid, why do we have to exploit to get fun from this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, jc1 said:

why do we have to exploit to get fun from this?

Define "fun"! If semi-regularly shipping 7 goals past a hugely dominating Celtic playing initially barely competitive Hibs is your idea of fun, which is viable, you may have an answer. The game has never been coded so that Hibs can't ever overachieve, or be turned into Celtic, even world beaters. If even offers tools that lets you make them world beaters out of the bat. But in that case it would speak to reason that anything like that takes a few "exploits", as tactics in football don't have quite that devastatingly an effect. :) FM12 with 3 strikers are similar too, as the middle one oft wouldn't be marked proper. Likely the game will always have a few, even though their efficiency may big time vary. Almost any game has glitches or AI routines that can be taken advantage off. I think, the problem is, when it's not acknowledged or realized what is going on, but that is nother matter. :) [And this goes all the way back to straight good old CM, as much of its perceived easiness was exploits all the same, oft even bigger ones].

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Svenc said:

Define "fun"! If semi-regularly shipping 7 goals past a hugely dominating Celtic playing initially barely competitive Hibs is your idea of fun, which is completely viable (!), you may have an answer. The game has never been coded so that Hibs can't ever overachieve, or be turned into Celtic, even world beaters. If even offers tools that lets you make them world beaters straight out of the bat. But in that case it would speak to reason that anything like that takes a few "exploits", as tactics in football don't have quite that devastatingly an effect. :)

Precisely, I find getting a decent tactic that I've worked on hard to get going, as you say Hibs shouldn't be putting 7 past Celtic but it happens when you use a tactic that exploits the ME. There's always going to be tactics that do this, I never usually download a tactic but always try to do my own thing but tried it for a couple of weeks and lo and behold dozens of goals and a thumping of Celtic, it didn't feel right somehow, yes top of the league and winning but not the same. Hibs in real life are pushing for 2nd and recently beat Celtic so defeating them and the other teams is not too extreme a thought but putting 6 past Rangers, 7 at Celtic and 5 at Aberdeen is just so wrong. Many people will have FUN getting these results but not for me, I've went back to my own tactics and watching my team get 2-1 wins. 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/12/2017 at 15:48, Cougar2010 said:

It does as thats the point.

Its perhaps not the clearest area but the way I think about it is:

The more rigid you play the more players will stick to their individual roles/duties/instructions.

The more flexible you play the more the players will stick to the overall team instructions.

 

So a winger on attack duty will attack a lot with a rigid/defensive team mentality but he will be much more defensive with a flexible/defensive team mentality.

I agree with the first guy, can’t agree with what you said. 

I would say the more rigid you play the more players stick to the game plan, and the team instructions. The more fluidity you give, should negate them being more worried about what they are going to do next, rather than where they should be within a team shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎06‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 03:08, roger redknapp said:

I agree with the first guy, can’t agree with what you said. 

I would say the more rigid you play the more players stick to the game plan, and the team instructions. The more fluidity you give, should negate them being more worried about what they are going to do next, rather than where they should be within a team shape.

No - Cougar is correct. Rigid - people stick closer to their assigned role and duty. Fluid makes the team play 'together' so less inclined to their specific duty/role.

A 442 Defensive mentality, Rigid shape is going to be less defensive than a 442 Defensive with fluid. The fluid will tell your strikers and midfield to play more compactly in line with the teams overall strategy and drop deep ignoring their set roles.

In game application for me is if I switch to overload in desperation to score late on... I switch to Rigid - I want my 2 CBs and GK to stick their defend duty ... everyone else I switch to support/attack. and I make my formation more top heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...