Structured and highly structured shape

[Ellandroadhero]

I feel like fluid and very fluid get most of the love round here, but I’ve found my best tactics this year have come using structured. Anybody else a fan of the structured or highly structured shape? I like knowing my team is following my game plan to the letter! Maybe I’m more Jose than I thought... 

[vara]

Currently using/tweaking a structured 442 on counter attack. been working well for me.

Still can't get a few areas how i want it yet but may also be due to quality of personnel. Plus, i'll likely be forever tweaking.

[Argonaut]

I like to go Structured with a Counter system, as it helps keep the play simple and also lets the striker(s) focus on scoring. I like to go Fluid with a Short Passing game, as the extra creativity may be needed to unlock defenses, and it also brings everyone's mentality closer together. Works as intended for the most part, though I'm sure there's many different combinations you can do.

[Ellandroadhero]

36 minutes ago, Argonaut said:

I like to go Structured with a Counter system, as it helps keep the play simple and also lets the striker(s) focus on scoring. I like to go Fluid with a Short Passing game, as the extra creativity may be needed to unlock defenses, and it also brings everyone's mentality closer together. Works as intended for the most part, though I'm sure there's many different combinations you can do.

I get that. I often set up a team to play possession, attacking football on fluid, but then felt it worked better on structured. Do many play attacking tactics on structured shape? 

[herne79]

Plenty of guides and articles in the "Please Read" pinned thread at the top use Structured.

[Colorado]

48 minutes ago, Argonaut said:

I like to go Structured with a Counter system, as it helps keep the play simple and also lets the striker(s) focus on scoring. I like to go Fluid with a Short Passing game, as the extra creativity may be needed to unlock defenses, and it also brings everyone's mentality closer together. Works as intended for the most part, though I'm sure there's many different combinations you can do.

Interesting you feel this. My logic is that Fluid would've been better suited for a counter attacking system as the players defend and attack more collectively. I'm not saying you're wrong, just an example of how the same idea can be interpreted differently within the game. 

[Cleon]

Team shape isn't better suited to any style, shape or general formations. It all depends on what you want from the players and how close to each other you want them to be. By going structured you aren't keeping play more simple like was said above, it's not a modifier for keeping things 'simple'.

It's also not as simple as saying short passing = fluid as it works best because more creative freedom and players are closer together. By having players closer together you reduce space and can take time away from the player and make him rush decisions more as he has no space to play in and no-one really making movement as everyone is too close. The reverse can be said about structured too, there might be far too much space between players.

It's all about the context of what you are creating and why that will determine which team shape benefits you the most.

You can play any combination of team shape you want it isn't specific to any tactical settings, shape, formation, roles etc.

[Ellandroadhero]

2 hours ago, Cleon said:

Team shape isn't better suited to any style, shape or general formations. It all depends on what you want from the players and how close to each other you want them to be. By going structured you aren't keeping play more simple like was said above, it's not a modifier for keeping things 'simple'.

It's also not as simple as saying short passing = fluid as it works best because more creative freedom and players are closer together. By having players closer together you reduce space and can take time away from the player and make him rush decisions more as he has no space to play in and no-one really making movement as everyone is too close. The reverse can be said about structured too, there might be far too much space between players.

It's all about the context of what you are creating and why that will determine which team shape benefits you the most.

You can play any combination of team shape you want it isn't specific to any tactical settings, shape, formation, roles etc.

Thanks that’s helpful. One tactic I had on very fluid and even with a standard mentality, the play was just frantic for some reason. I wasn’t even playing at a high tempo. Changing down in shapes allowed more space and the actual play looked a lot more ‘fluid’ though it wasn’t a fluid shape. 

[Argonaut]

7 hours ago, Cleon said:

By going structured you aren't keeping play more simple like was said above, it's not a modifier for keeping things 'simple'.

If going more Fluid allows more creative freedom, then going more Structured allows less creative freedom, yes? I would call that keeping it simple. On top of the modifier which adjusts mentalities to make attackers more attacking and defenders more defensive.

I do agree that you don't have to go Fluid with Short Passing or Structured with Counter. Lots of different ways to skin a cat. It's just what I like to do.

7 hours ago, Colorado said:

Interesting you feel this. My logic is that Fluid would've been better suited for a counter attacking system as the players defend and attack more collectively. I'm not saying you're wrong, just an example of how the same idea can be interpreted differently within the game. 

Well, when a counterattack is triggered, there will be players rushing forward anyway, I don't need Fluid shape for this to happen. In a "normal" attack I want my defenders to stay deep so that they can easily defend during a transition and not get countered myself. Similarily I want my strikers to be in space up front so that they can get in behind the opposition defense with long balls or through balls.

[Cleon]

13 minutes ago, Argonaut said:

If going more Fluid allows more creative freedom, then going more Structured allows less creative freedom, yes? I would call that keeping it simple. On top of the modifier which adjusts mentalities to make attackers more attacking and defenders more defensive.

I do agree that you don't have to go Fluid with Short Passing or Structured with Counter. Lots of different ways to skin a cat. It's just what I like to do.

Well, when a counterattack is triggered, there will be players rushing forward anyway, I don't need Fluid shape for this to happen. In a "normal" attack I want my defenders to stay deep so that they can easily defend during a transition and not get countered myself. Similarily I want my strikers to be in space up front so that they can get in behind the opposition defense with long balls or through balls.

Creative freedom doesn't equal complicated though, so my point still stands. It's important to point this out as people reading the thread could mislead into believing it's something that it isn't. If it was though and we was used your original analogy we could argue that the opposite was true and that by going structured you complicate things more because the roles are more defined hence complicating your role/duty selection.

However it has nothing to do with being a 'simplify/complicate' modifier.

All team shape does is alter the 'base' settings of a role along with mentality. If you go more fluid then your defenders aren't suddenly going to become playmakers they'll basically still be the same, however they'll have a very slight boost to the creative freedom which is set by the role and the mentality will be altered. 

The way people on here speak about team shape you'd be led to believe it was some kind of super setting with magical powers , when it's not. No wonder people get so confused reading some of the threads on here. This isn't specific to you Argonaut, I'm speaking more in general terms rather than addressing you per se.

[cez]

9 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Creative freedom doesn't equal complicated though, so my point still stands. It's important to point this out as people reading the thread could mislead into believing it's something that it isn't. If it was though and we was used your original analogy we could argue that the opposite was true and that by going structured you complicate things more because the roles are more defined hence complicating your role/duty selection.

However it has nothing to do with being a 'simplify/complicate' modifier.

All team shape does is alter the 'base' settings of a role along with mentality. If you go more fluid then your defenders aren't suddenly going to become playmakers they'll basically still be the same, however they'll have a very slight boost to the creative freedom which is set by the role and the mentality will be altered. 

The way people on here speak about team shape you'd be led to believe it was some kind of super setting with magical powers , when it's not. No wonder people get so confused reading some of the threads on here. This isn't specific to you Argonaut, I'm speaking more in general terms rather than addressing you per se.

Would you say the tactic screen and it's settings are done in the right way though? specially the shape and mentality settings which confuse a lot of people

[Rashidi]

15 hours ago, Argonaut said:

If going more Fluid allows more creative freedom, then going more Structured allows less creative freedom, yes? I would call that keeping it simple. On top of the modifier which adjusts mentalities to make attackers more attacking and defenders more defensive.

You are making inferences, here. Dangerous ones...Yes,  there is a gradual increase in creative freedom as you move up the slider, but does it mean that a team will keep things simple? No.

Shape alters mentalities causing divergence in mentalities or convergence. It also helps to raise CF, but this is what a lot of people fail to realise : Raising CF in itself does not mean things get more complicated or simpler. It will depend on the kind of team you are playing their attributes, roles and duties, player traits and the player instructions you have assigned.

If you have a team with poor players with low decision making, you could get them to play fluid, to encourage them to expand and think outside of the box when it comes to making decisions. Does this mean they will be trying more complicated stuff on the pitch? No. 

The thing about shape is simple, and I fear everyone goes around just mucking things about.  If you want to keep things simple, start with roles and duties. Thats where you keep things simple. Shape just tells more players to take the same amount of risk with their decision making. So on lower shapes if I had a complete forward and an AF playing alone up top in a 4132, they would definitely try and do something more complicated like trying to jink their way past a defence instead of waiting for the rest of the team to come up in support, IF my duty distribution and role selections were off.

Oversimplifying shape to say that Structured is simple and Fluid is complicated is super wrong on a lot of levels. I have played champions leagues finals with contain very fluid and we kept things super simple for 90 minutes. Everyone defended.

[Argonaut]

Alright fair enough, "simple" is probably the wrong word on the Structured side.. probably more akin to what the game uses for the option be more "disciplined".

I think the more important aspect of shape is how it affects the mentalities of your individual players based on their duty and position on the field. That's why I want my Advanced Forward or Poacher in a Counter system to be cherry-picking (is this an expression in England too?) rather than having the lower mentality that he would on a Fluid shape.

[ajsr1982]

There's no rule of thumb, exactly, but my preference is to use Team Shape as a multiplier on top of roles and duties. If I find I have a reasonable divergence of duties in my team, I might go more structured, but it depends on the situation.

If my default situation is Standard/Flexible, and I have a winger with an attack duty. I might be defending a lead and so I drop my team mentality to Counter, but perhaps I want my winger to be the out ball to maintain an attacking threat. I might change to Structured to help that. 

Similarly, I might switch to fluid to being him closer to the team mentality if I want him to get back in and help his full back out more.

As the others have said, roles and duties are the main thing. I use Team Shape to get the details how I want them. I see it as useful for having control over things that might be 'in between' roles and duties.

[Ellandroadhero]

Well, once again I’ve learnt a lot from this. This forum has helped me with this game loads, although it can be more confusing at times! 

I do think that ‘shape’ is confusing though as it is easy to think it means you’re keeping it simple by going very structured, although as we’ve read above, that wouldn’t be correct. Clearly my tactics work better with structured shapes because my players are getting a little more space than they were in fluid, rather than any other reason. 

[AFCBeer]

Shape does confuse people but really it shouldn’t. Honestly I have no idea how much of an impact it has on creative freedom, but what I do know is that having players witho good vision, flair and passing will give more creativity to any side regardless of “shape”

I think the main element of shape is attacking compactness. The more fluid you play, the more players you throw forward into the attack. This can overwhelm defensive teams but also play into their hands. 

[kpsia518]

i think structured and highly structured shape just means :
 

Quote

 

stay in the position at all cost,don't help you mate.Trust them,they can do it at they own.

 

 

[mikcheck]

@Rashidi to try to not overcomplicate things when it comes to shapes, I think like this: Do I want more players in offensive/defensive transitions? Then I play fluid. Do I want them to be more "positional"? Then I choose more structured shapes. 

 

[Cleon]

10 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

@Rashidi to try to not overcomplicate things when it comes to shapes, I think like this: Do I want more players in offensive/defensive transitions? Then I play fluid. Do I want them to be more "positional"? Then I choose more structured shapes. 

 

Your roles determine this though and not team shape as such. An easier way to think about it is, do I want players mentalities closer together? If so you want the fluid or very fluid end. If it’s no then it’s the structured side of things. If you don’t care then stay flexible.

It really doesn’t get more simpler than that.

[mikcheck]

Thanks Cleon

[samuelawachie]

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

Your roles determine this though and not team shape as such. An easier way to think about it is, do I want players mentalities closer together? If so you want the fluid or very fluid end. If it’s no then it’s the structured side of things. If you don’t care then stay flexible.

It really doesn’t get more simpler than that.

That's exactly why the word "Fluidity" made more sense.. 

[Cleon]

6 minutes ago, samuelawachie said:

That's exactly why the word "Fluidity" made more sense.. 

I don't believe it did, as you can use structured and the play still seem fluid. The words fluid shouldn't be included in any of the wording at all as its this what causes/adds confusion. People think more fluid = more fluid movement when it actually doesn't.

[Fletty]

So what I think @Cleon and @Rashidi are trying to say is.

'Fluid' - If you want your players to have the same or a closer attacking/defensive mentality

'Structured' - If you want your players to have a different mentality to each other, I.E your defenders/defensive players stick to defending and your forwards/attacking players concentrate more on the attacking?

Some amount of detail you guys put into this, can be confusing at times but has really helped me enjoy the game more, as I really like the tactical side of it.

 

Cheers

[mikcheck]

Basically how close you want your players to be.

[Cleon]

6 minutes ago, Fletty said:

So what I think @Cleon and @Rashidi are trying to say is.

'Fluid' - If you want your players to have the same or a closer attacking/defensive mentality

'Structured' - If you want your players to have a different mentality to each other, I.E your defenders/defensive players stick to defending and your forwards/attacking players concentrate more on the attacking?

Some amount of detail you guys put into this, can be confusing at times but has really helped me enjoy the game more, as I really like the tactical side of it.

 

Cheers

That's the short and long of it yeah.

[Rashidi]

49 minutes ago, Fletty said:

So what I think @Cleon and @Rashidi are trying to say is.

'Fluid' - If you want your players to have the same or a closer attacking/defensive mentality

'Structured' - If you want your players to have a different mentality to each other, I.E your defenders/defensive players stick to defending and your forwards/attacking players concentrate more on the attacking?

Some amount of detail you guys put into this, can be confusing at times but has really helped me enjoy the game more, as I really like the tactical side of it.

 

Cheers

Long and short of it, very fluid, everyone holds hands and sings "Kumbaya", very structured, people break off Into groups to sing their own song, they all know they need to sing a song, but they all want to do it in different groups.

[Atarin]

Anyone got any suggestions for better words the game could use instead of Structured and Fluid? 

Some suggestions...

Vert Stratified ---> Stratified ---> Balanced ---> Compact ---> Very Compact

Very Departmentalised ---> Departmentalised ---> Balanced --->  Integrated ---> Very Integrated

Very Divided ---> Divided ---> Balanced ---> Collective --- Very Collective

Very Loose ---> Loose ---> --- Balanced --->  Tight ---> Very Tight 

[Fletty]

2 minutes ago, Atarin said:

Anyone got any suggestions for better words the game could use instead of Structured and Fluid? 

Some suggestions...

Vert Stratified ---> Stratified ---> Balanced ---> Compact ---> Very Compact

Very Departmentalised ---> Departmentalised ---> Balanced --->  Integrated ---> Very Integrated

Very Divided ---> Divided ---> Balanced ---> Collective --- Very Collective

Very Loose ---> Loose ---> --- Balanced --->  Tight ---> Very Tight 

The last one seems a bit too dirty for a 3+ game

[Cleon]

25 minutes ago, Atarin said:

Anyone got any suggestions for better words the game could use instead of Structured and Fluid? 

Some suggestions...

Vert Stratified ---> Stratified ---> Balanced ---> Compact ---> Very Compact

Very Departmentalised ---> Departmentalised ---> Balanced --->  Integrated ---> Very Integrated

Very Divided ---> Divided ---> Balanced ---> Collective --- Very Collective

Very Loose ---> Loose ---> --- Balanced --->  Tight ---> Very Tight 

My suggestion is even better, just remove it 

[herne79]

What? ---> Eh? ---> Meh ---> Seriously? ---> WTH

Cleaned that last one up .

[yonko]

On December 4, 2017 at 15:36, Ellandroadhero said:

I feel like fluid and very fluid get most of the love round here, but I’ve found my best tactics this year have come using structured. Anybody else a fan of the structured or highly structured shape? I like knowing my team is following my game plan to the letter! Maybe I’m more Jose than I thought... 

Let me open a can of worms here....

Do you think Jose Mourinho's style means Very Structured on FM? He expects attacking players to contribute to defense more. Fluid or Very Fluid achieves that better than Very Structured. Just something to think about.

[TheJanitor]

1 hour ago, Atarin said:

Anyone got any suggestions for better words the game could use instead of Structured and Fluid? 

Some suggestions...

Vert Stratified ---> Stratified ---> Balanced ---> Compact ---> Very Compact

Very Departmentalised ---> Departmentalised ---> Balanced --->  Integrated ---> Very Integrated

Very Divided ---> Divided ---> Balanced ---> Collective --- Very Collective

Very Loose ---> Loose ---> --- Balanced --->  Tight ---> Very Tight 

Everyday we stray further from god's light

[Ellandroadhero]

52 minutes ago, yonko said:

Let me open a can of worms here....

Do you think Jose Mourinho's style means Very Structured on FM? He expects attacking players to contribute to defense more. Fluid or Very Fluid achieves that better than Very Structured. Just something to think about.

Yes, I've realise my mistake throughout this thread!

[cez]

1 hour ago, yonko said:

Let me open a can of worms here....

Do you think Jose Mourinho's style means Very Structured on FM? He expects attacking players to contribute to defense more. Fluid or Very Fluid achieves that better than Very Structured. Just something to think about.

well, the problem with Jose is that he does use structured on most of the positions but the wingers which he instructs to track back and contribute in defence, and thats something thats pretty much impossible to do by just adjusting the shape, I'd say structured/very structured with Wingers having close down more, tight marking, and marking opposition fullbacks/wings 

[Gee_Simpson]

9 hours ago, Cleon said:

My suggestion is even better, just remove it 

This please.

[Jean0987654321]

23 hours ago, cez said:

well, the problem with Jose is that he does use structured on most of the positions but the wingers which he instructs to track back and contribute in defence, and thats something thats pretty much impossible to do by just adjusting the shape, I'd say structured/very structured with Wingers having close down more, tight marking, and marking opposition fullbacks/wings 

That's easy. Just put them in the midfield strata...

[Artin]

here's a good image about team shape. same role+duty and same team mentality and the only thing that changes is the team shape. notice how the player's mentality becomes less attacking the more fluid the team shape is:

https://i.imgur.com/temJAZ1.png (credit to Ö-zil to the Arsenal)

if i want a player to be more individualistic, i choose a structured team shape. if i want him to stick more to the team plan, i choose a fluid team shape.