Fluid Shapes being more vulnerable to Counters

[NabsKebabs]

Yesterday @Cleon and I were having a pretty interesting discussion regarding shape and I think it actually deserves a thread of it's own.

I'm convinced that more fluid shapes are a lot more vulnerable to counter attacks and balls over the top. I first heard the idea that fluid shapes were more vulnerable to balls over the top in one of @Rashidi's videos.

According to Cleon, being on a higher mentality plays a much bigger part than shape in being vulnerable to counters. But I actually think that standard/very fluid is much more risky than say control/highly structured.

Standard/Very Fluid vs Control/Highly Structured

The interesting thing here is that standard/very fluid has a lot more closing down than control/highly structured. Control/highly structured has a a higher defensive line. BUT is there a bug in the UI? When you change shape, closing down changes but defensive line doesn't change. But when you change closing down by itself, defensive line does change. It doesn't make any sense.

In terms of mentality distribution, it's quite interesting to look at how some positions are effected.

Central defenders mentality on standard/very fluid vs control highly structured:

As you can see from the green bar at the top, the mentality of a central defender is considerably higher on standard/very fluid then on control highly structured. From my understanding, this means he will position himself higher up the pitch. You can also see closing down is more which makes sense considering the comparison on the TI screen.

I also looked a wingback on support (in WB strata).

Again considerably higher mentality and closing down on standard/very fluid vs control/highly structured. Higher mentality - positions himself higher up the pitch and make more forward runs.

I have also seen Cleon say that closing down does not effect defensive line at all which I don't understand. It does on TI UI and if you are closing down more, aren't you effectively making the pitch smaller and therefore the defensive line pushes up? 

Shape can get very confusing. The way I use is if I want to compress the pitch and throw everyone in to their opposition half I go more fluid. If I want to hit the opposition on the break, I go structured, to let my attackers bomb forward earlier in transitions.

[phnompenhandy]

I can only say that in my experience it very much is NOT the case. I was getting done regularly by balls over the top when I started by following Cleon's 4231 tactic to the letter, but my tweaks closed the holes.

 

I've kept fluid/counter-attacking BUT dropped the midfield to a Very Deep formation (ML, MC, MR all on support duty with one side being a defensive winger); the full backs were leaving critical gaps as wingbacks so they've dropped to FB(d) duties. With 6 defensive and 5 support duties I simply don't leave spaces for the opposition to exploit with those long balls, and I have bodies in numbers to crowd out the opponents. I'll also add that my default TIs are close down/hard tackling; yes that goes against Cleon but the point is due to sheer numbers, if a player is pulled out of position, there are others to fill in.

The downside is of course that my set-up is utterly defensive, and my goals rely totally on those damned long balls over the top for my lone striker to latch onto. If the oppo defence are good he doesn't get a sniff but usually they're good for a lapse or two.

[Cleon]

Quote

I have also seen Cleon say that closing down does not effect defensive line at all which I don't understand.

No I didn't say that at all. I said heavy closing down does not mean all your players close down heavily at the same time. It just means your players radius for closing down is slightly larger than normal. I also said that on fluid players have higher mentalities, they still carry out the role they have. Defenders will still be defenders and defend. If you are going to quote me at least provide the proper quote to provide proof and don't make stuff up I never said. Please correct your post as this is how myths get made when people like yourself state someone said something when he didn't.

You can use structured and because of the roles/Mentality you use, be more vulnerable for counters. Being vulnerable is not mutually exclusive to what team shape you use. It does not increase the chance of being hit by counter attacks. Mentality, actual formation shape and role distribution are the key. 

I like how you think a 2 bar change equates a considerable change though in the screenshots, when in reality it's a small change in the grand scheme of things and the scale it uses. A considerable amount would be more extreme and move to the opposite end of the scale. 2-3 bar increases are small and just incremental. It's not as extreme as you are trying to make out, you're over playing the importance of each incremental change.

Quote

Shape can get very confusing. The way I use is if I want to compress the pitch and throw everyone in to their opposition half I go more fluid.

Except you don't have everyone in their own half. 

Also I'm not sure @Rashidi would have said fluid shapes were more vulnerable to counter attacks either. Maybe in the set up he used in that particular video but that would have been down to the mentality and the way he'd set his roles up. But he should also be able to tell you that he can be just as vulnerable on any team shape. 

You guys don't half complicate things for yourself at times by thinking there are 'set rules'. No wonder some of you struggle because you have preconceived ideas about what can/can't work and try attaching it to settings like team shape etc and making rules that don't actually exist. 

[Cleon]

2 hours ago, phnompenhandy said:

I can only say that in my experience it very much is NOT the case. I was getting done regularly by balls over the top when I started by following Cleon's 4231 tactic to the letter, but my tweaks closed the holes.

 

I've kept fluid/counter-attacking BUT dropped the midfield to a Very Deep formation (ML, MC, MR all on support duty with one side being a defensive winger); the full backs were leaving critical gaps as wingbacks so they've dropped to FB(d) duties. With 6 defensive and 5 support duties I simply don't leave spaces for the opposition to exploit with those long balls, and I have bodies in numbers to crowd out the opponents. I'll also add that my default TIs are close down/hard tackling; yes that goes against Cleon but the point is due to sheer numbers, if a player is pulled out of position, there are others to fill in.

The downside is of course that my set-up is utterly defensive, and my goals rely totally on those damned long balls over the top for my lone striker to latch onto. If the oppo defence are good he doesn't get a sniff but usually they're good for a lapse or two.

My 4231 deep is a risky set up. This is down to the roles and duties used and the natural positions. It's why I state in the thread, the set up you use with ML/MR etc is superior. The team shape doesn't really matter and make a single difference. It's because the role and duty allocation is very aggressive hence why you saw improvements when you dropped players back/changed duty/roles.

[NabsKebabs]

2 hours ago, phnompenhandy said:

I can only say that in my experience it very much is NOT the case. I was getting done regularly by balls over the top when I started by following Cleon's 4231 tactic to the letter, but my tweaks closed the holes.

 

I've kept fluid/counter-attacking BUT dropped the midfield to a Very Deep formation (ML, MC, MR all on support duty with one side being a defensive winger); the full backs were leaving critical gaps as wingbacks so they've dropped to FB(d) duties. With 6 defensive and 5 support duties I simply don't leave spaces for the opposition to exploit with those long balls, and I have bodies in numbers to crowd out the opponents. I'll also add that my default TIs are close down/hard tackling; yes that goes against Cleon but the point is due to sheer numbers, if a player is pulled out of position, there are others to fill in.

The downside is of course that my set-up is utterly defensive, and my goals rely totally on those damned long balls over the top for my lone striker to latch onto. If the oppo defence are good he doesn't get a sniff but usually they're good for a lapse or two.

I don't think that addresses the point to be honest. You have a solid defence due to player roles and formation. The fact is playing on fluid raises the mentality of your defenders. On structured, you would be even more defensively sound. 

[NabsKebabs]

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

No I didn't say that at all. I said heavy closing down does not mean all your players close down heavily at the same time. It just means your players radius for closing down is slightly larger than normal. I also said that on fluid players have higher mentalities, they still carry out the role they have. Defenders will still be defenders and defend. If you are going to quote me at least provide the proper quote to provide proof and don't make stuff up I never said. Please correct your post as this is how myths get made when people like yourself state someone said something when he didn't.

You can use structured and because of the roles/Mentality you use, be more vulnerable for counters. Being vulnerable is not mutually exclusive to what team shape you use. It does not increase the chance of being hit by counter attacks. Mentality, actual formation shape and role distribution are the key. 

I like how you think a 2 bar change equates a considerable change though in the screenshots, when in reality it's a small change in the grand scheme of things and the scale it uses. A considerable amount would be more extreme and move to the opposite end of the scale. 2-3 bar increases are small and just incremental. It's not as extreme as you are trying to make out, you're over playing the importance of each incremental change.

Except you don't have everyone in their own half. 

Also I'm not sure @Rashidi would have said fluid shapes were more vulnerable to counter attacks either. Maybe in the set up he used in that particular video but that would have been down to the mentality and the way he'd set his roles up. But he should also be able to tell you that he can be just as vulnerable on any team shape. 

You guys don't half complicate things for yourself at times by thinking there are 'set rules'. No wonder some of you struggle because you have preconceived ideas about what can/can't work and try attaching it to settings like team shape etc and making rules that don't actually exist. 

I have you seen you say closing down doesn't effect anything else. Here is is:

https://community.sigames.com/topic/362872-the-art-of-possession-football/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-200381

"Closing down does not raise the defensive line. It changes closing down only nothing else."

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

You can use structured and because of the roles/Mentality you use, be more vulnerable for counters. Being vulnerable is not mutually exclusive to what team shape you use. It does not increase the chance of being hit by counter attacks. Mentality, actual formation shape and role distribution are the key. 

I like how you think a 2 bar change equates a considerable change though in the screenshots, when in reality it's a small change in the grand scheme of things and the scale it uses. A considerable amount would be more extreme and move to the opposite end of the scale. 2-3 bar increases are small and just incremental. It's not as extreme as you are trying to make out, you're over playing the importance of each incremental change.

I'm just isolating team shape in this discussion though. Obviously everything else plays a part but my overall point is that fluid shapes are more vulnerable so you have to assume that everything else is constant.

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

Also I'm not sure @Rashidi would have said fluid shapes were more vulnerable to counter attacks either. Maybe in the set up he used in that particular video but that would have been down to the mentality and the way he'd set his roles up. But he should also be able to tell you that he can be just as vulnerable on any team shape.

In numerous videos, Rashidi says he uses a normal defensive line when playing a fluid shape because balls are more prone to going over the top. He often uses push higher up when playing on structured or flexible. And that all makes sense to me. 

[Cleon]

3 minutes ago, NabsKebabs said:

I don't think that addresses the point to be honest. You have a solid defence due to player roles and formation. The fact is playing on fluid raises the mentality of your defenders. On structured, you would be even more defensively sound. 

But you claim on fluid you are less solid and more vulnerable to counters. So which is it? You can't claim that he has a solid defence due to the roles and formation then on the other hand claim fluid makes you more vulnerable when he is using fluid. You are arguing against this, this is what I've said all along.

As for the last part of your sentence, again this is not true. How defensively sound/exposed you are is not exclusive to the team shape you use.  If he went structured he might not be as solid in his defence at all, it could raise issues and make his defenders more cut off from his midfield depending on roles he uses. You think of things in isolation without understanding the big picture, which in turn makes you come out with sweeping incorrect statements. 

[Cleon]

Quote

I have you seen you say closing down doesn't effect anything else. Here is is:

https://community.sigames.com/topic/362872-the-art-of-possession-football/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-200381

"Closing down does not raise the defensive line. It changes closing down only nothing else."

From a thread over 2 years old when things have changed since then. Again, don't quote stuff that is outdated and from threads years ago to try and prove an inaccurate point regarding todays game.

[NabsKebabs]

2 minutes ago, Cleon said:

But you claim on fluid you are less solid and more vulnerable to counters. So which is it? You can't claim that he has a solid defence due to the roles and formation then on the other hand claim fluid makes you more vulnerable when he is using fluid. You are arguing against this, this is what I've said all along.

Yes I can claim that. His system is naturally solid due to player roles and formation. But when he has the ball, due to the fluid shape, more played are involved in the transition and that leaves less cover at the back. 

[Argonaut]

I agree that there's no hard and fast rule about Fluid systems being more vulnerable to balls over the top. An example being if you play with Complete Wingbacks on Attack Duty. They will be more adventurous in a Highly Structured setup than a Very Fluid one on say.. Counter mentality.

[Cleon]

22 minutes ago, NabsKebabs said:

Yes I can claim that. His system is naturally solid due to player roles and formation. But when he has the ball, due to the fluid shape, more played are involved in the transition and that leaves less cover at the back. 

Nope, the roles still determine how involved someone is. He can still have cover and does have cover. All team shape does is alter settings, it doesn't have no hidden settings that make players do things you cannot see in the instructions. All team shape does is alter the role bases that you use.

You cannot state he is solid due to roles and formation he uses and then on the other hand claim he is at more risk because he plays on fluid. By default your argument is fluid makes you more vulnerable yet at the very start you claim he is solid. Your argument is actually he would always be vulnerable because he plays on fluid. Come on, I know you always argue the opposite of what I say but this is becoming ridiculous ffs . Next you'll be arguing your forum name isn't NabsKebabs 

The fact you think structured = a more solid defence and that fluid = more vulnerable is wrong on every level. You can argue as much as you like but it doesn't stop it being an inaccurate opinion.

You claiming that @phnompenhandy is solid because of the roles /shape he uses just further enhance what I've said since the start.

 

[NabsKebabs]

10 minutes ago, Argonaut said:

I agree that there's no hard and fast rule about Fluid systems being more vulnerable to balls over the top. An example being if you play with Complete Wingbacks on Attack Duty. They will be more adventurous in a Highly Structured setup than a Very Fluid one on say.. Counter mentality.

Very fluid increases mentality of defenders to bring them closer to the other players. So they will be more adventurous on fluid shapes than structured ones.

9 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Nope, the roles still determine how involved someone is. He can still have cover and does have cover. All team shape does is alter settings, it doesn't have no hidden settings that make players do things you cannot see in the instructions. All team shape does is alter the role bases that you use.

You cannot state he is solid due to roles and formation he uses and then on the other hand claim he is at more risk because he plays on fluid. By default your argument is fluid makes you more vulnerable yet at the very start you claim he is solid. Your argument is actually he would always be vulnerable because he plays on fluid. Come on, I know you always argue the opposite of what I say but this is becoming ridiculous ffs . Next you'll be arguing your forum name isn't NabsKebabs 

The fact you think structured = a more solid defence and that fluid = more vulnerable is wrong on every level. You can argue as much as you like but it doesn't stop it being an inaccurate opinion.

 

What is wrong with saying that? I'm not saying playing on a fluid shape means you are automatically gonna be conceding counters like crazy. I'm just saying it's more vulnerable. You can be solid and play on a fluid shape, I do it all the time. I'm just saying you are a bit more vulnerable to balls over the top and counters then on structured.

I'm not exactly saying structured = more solid defence. I'm saying structured is better at defending from balls over the top and counters as you committing defenders less in transitions. You can play on low mentality and very fluid and have everyone sit back and defend. It's just that on fluid, when you have the ball, defenders will commit themselves forward more which does leave you mroe prone to balls over the top/counter attacks. 

 

[phnompenhandy]

19 minutes ago, NabsKebabs said:

Very fluid increases mentality of defenders to bring them closer to the other players. So they will be more adventurous on fluid shapes than structured ones.

But that absolutely doesn't happen in my set-up. All 4 + a DM are on defensive duties and pretty much never behave 'adventurously'. What they do is simply launch the ball way up the park for the striker to chase after.

 

n.b. my set-up is 'fluid' as per your title. Not sure how VERY fluid slipped into the convo!

[NabsKebabs]

12 minutes ago, phnompenhandy said:

But that absolutely doesn't happen in my set-up. All 4 + a DM are on defensive duties and pretty much never behave 'adventurously'. What they do is simply launch the ball way up the park for the striker to chase after.

 

n.b. my set-up is 'fluid' as per your title. Not sure how VERY fluid slipped into the convo!

Player roles and duties are the most defining thing about the player's behaviour so yes in your set up with all those defend duties, they are going to be just thinking about defending. Your set up is extremely defensive. Fluid shapes still increase their mentality though.

Fluid shape in the title doesn't mean I'm isolating fluid. I mean the fluid spectrum 

[Cleon]

31 minutes ago, NabsKebabs said:

Player roles and duties are the most defining thing about the player's behaviour so yes in your set up with all those defend duties, they are going to be just thinking about defending. Your set up is extremely defensive. Fluid shapes still increase their mentality though.

Fluid shape in the title doesn't mean I'm isolating fluid. I mean the fluid spectrum 

But you made the sweeping statement of;

Quote

But I actually think that standard/very fluid is much more risky than say control/highly structured.

Quote

I'm convinced that more fluid shapes are a lot more vulnerable to counter attacks and balls over the top

 

He is using standard and fluid, so by your own pure definition of how you think team shape works he is more vulnerable now than if he played on control and the structured side of the spectrum regardless of his roles/formation which wouldn't actually be true.

Also you keep mentioning that going more fluid alters mentality, we know this. But just because someone has a slightly higher (that's all it is) mentality than normal based on the base of the role you've set, that doesnt mean its a negative thing or that players will be more reckless in giving space up. Depending on how you've balanced the roles, players being closer together can get a good thing and reduce the chance of being countered in some cases as the space the opposition uses to counter doesn't exist in the first place. 

In some structured set ups you can be too deep or players to far away and this leaves space to be countered. The 4231 is a great example of this, the gap between the fullbacks and AML/R can be that great, that you get hit with counter after counter like I highlighted in the 4231 thread.

It's all about the context. It's not a case of fluid is more vulnerable and structured is better at defending balls over the top. You can play a team shape that allows players to be closer together like fluid yet still use a low mentality structure that keeps players further down the pitch and compact so that the space isn't available to play balls over the top.

You don't seem to grasp this though and are thinking in very black and white terms when it's not that simple and either spectrum can have the same amount of vulnerability. There is no 'best' or 'more suitable' settings in isolation.

Also;

Quote

Again considerably higher mentality and closing down on standard/very fluid vs control/highly structured. Higher mentality - positions himself higher up the pitch and make more forward runs.

Higher mentality doesn't mean he will make more forward runs at all. It means he will make quicker decisions, might take more risks than normal etc. It doesn't translate to running and ultimately his role and duty set the settings of what the player will actually do, not the mentality. The mentality sets a risk for those 'settings the role has and how he uses them based on his attributes'.

[phnompenhandy]

31 minutes ago, Cleon said:

He is using standard and fluid

counter-attacking and fluid, so sat deeper.

[Scrench]

Years have passed and there is still no clear agreement on what team shape precisely does. Shows how terrible the in game descriptions are.

[mkkadi]

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

 

Also;

Higher mentality doesn't mean he will make more forward runs at all. It means he will make quicker decisions, might take more risks than normal etc. It doesn't translate to running and ultimately his role and duty set the settings of what the player will actually do, not the mentality. The mentality sets a risk for those 'settings the role has and how he uses them based on his attributes'.

Just for the clarifacation, apart from what you've written above, does mentality affect the transition? I mean players with higher mentality don't do defence part like the players with lower mentalities. (I assumed both player role same) 

Let’s assume a winger with support duty. And for one tactic he has mentality of 15 out of 20 and for other tactic he has 10. On which case he react faster when his team losts possession. As far as I know players do the transition phase faster than the players who has higher mentalities. Even if they have the same role. 

If I am right, players dont track back fast enough and this can be resulted open spaces behind the players for contra attacks. It just a possibility. We should count other factors also like you said. 

[jc577]

Whilst I do ultimately agree with @Cleon, I do sympathise with the OP. Context is everything in football manager, so to say ‘fluid shapes are more vulnerable to counters than more structured shapes’ without taking into account formation, roles & duties etc simply isn’t accurate. However, I think the OP was mainly referring to innately risky set-ups (possession styles, attacking football) where inevitably your defensive line will be fairly high in order to dominate the match - in these instances I believe using a fluid shape could be more vulernable. @Rashidi Has spoke several times in some of his videos about how many ‘bands’ or ‘lines’ a formation has, and why it could be risky using a fluid shape with a 442 due to there only being 3 lines of cover - there’s a lack of depth to the formation.

However, the point still remains that everything is contextual imo but in more aggressive set-ups then using a fluid shape could be more risky.

[Rashidi]

For me it’s real simple, you are vulnerable to counters if several things happen. 

You have roles and duties that are too attacking at the back, you play with a pushed up defensive line and play on very fluid settings.

The same thing could happen on structured, too if you had the wrong kinds of duties. 

Playing on a certain shape doesn’t make you less or more vulnerable how you distribute duties does.In a lot of my tactics I have very attacking backs, hence my aversion to play with a pushed up Dline on higher shape settings. As they push up to join the attack we te vulnerable, now that’s a function of duty and shape.

[roykela]

5 hours ago, Cleon said:

From a thread over 2 years old when things have changed since then. Again, don't quote stuff that is outdated and from threads years ago to try and prove an inaccurate point regarding todays game.

Hi, Cleon.
Great seeing you being active again.

The reason i'm quoting what you say here is because this, kind of, represents stuff that confuses me in the game itself.

A 2 year old thread is outdated, yet people are still recommended to read the Tactic building & Training Guides.
Stuff there that are outdated way more than 2 years ago are being recommended. How are people supposed to know what is outdated or not?
If important stuff have changed that much from just 2 years ago, how much have changed since 4 years ago?
What is relevant and what is not? How much can people trust the content when it might be outdated?

It's like watching a Youtube guide (nothing in particular here) about tactics advising players to keep it simple and don't use too many Ti's; 
while showing their own tactics with a plethora of Ti's (hyperbole).

One example of user advice and in-game advice that is confusing, is about playmakers.
"My playmakers never shoot!"
"That's because they're playmakers. They're creating play. They're not finishers."
While the in-game description of a DLP, as an example, says that a DLP in a support role will look for long shot opportunities as well as supplying through balls.
And to add to that, the active PI for the DLP support is Shoot Less Often.
That, in my interpretation of it, is a contradiction. In that case there should neither be Shoot Less Often nor Shoot More often set as a default instruction for that role.
It is just confusing.

What's being said directly to users, explanations in-game and guides recommended, don't match.
A thread over 2 years old is outdated and shouldn't be quoted, while people are recommended to read guides that are over 4 years old.
And you might say, understandably so, people have to take everything into context.
I agree, but how will they know that and in which context? Yours, the game, their own context....? They're already lost and/or confused.

There has to be more clarity about aspects. Both with advice given on the forums and in-game explanation.

[Cleon]

While the descriptions aren't magnificent, they all give you a basic idea of what they do and give you an idea of how something should work. That's all people need. If you want to learn the intricacies of the game then great but there is no real need to. Games are games and they evolve over time, on a yearly basis for some things too. Guides are just that guides, you can look at the date of a guide and when it was posted and then if its a few years old you should be wise enough to know that things could have changed. The basic footballing principles though will always be the same and the ideas behind them.

Also if you'd heard the podcast that myself and @Rashidi did, I advised everyone to avoid blogs, forums and guides when learning how the game works 

I've also not been inactive either. I stopped posting on here for a while and likely will again now, but I've always been active apart from about 6 months 18 months ago.

[Armistice]

So I haven't touched the game for some weeks now (lack of free time) but sometimes this is quite beneficial. You see, I just noticed that these type of discussions are not pointless, don't wanna be harsh and say that, but they're not very productive either. I was about knowing every effect of any tool in the game. But this makes things more complicated rather than making me wiser about what I have to do in order to avoid defeat or win bla bla. Yeah ultra tweaking, micromanaging can be fun for some people, can be stressful to others, but it's not a massive part of the bigger picture if you don't wanna play that way. I think people just need to think hmm I need to play this type of football, alright what do I need to do this? (Don't go just I wanna score goals and concede none because it's not gonna work) Compact defence, possession or high press etc, think of how you can achieve that using the standard game tools, watch games, don't rush into making changes, just wait until you get a decent understanding of what's going on, then change/add one thing at a time to see if you get the desired results. So that's it. Really don't understand why people think it could help them a lot if Very Fluid is more prone to CTs than Highly Structured. If you want to use Very Fluid and you think it's important to your type of football just do it. Buy better defenders. If you can't (LLM), drop defensive line. Don't think about 'but hey it's more prone to CTs, not gonna use this'. Not sure if you get my point but I thought I'd put this in a post.

[AFCBeer]

The general consensus is more fluid shapes give greater compactness while structured shapes use more space. I realise there are other differences too but I don’t want to over complicate things for now. 

This being the case, I see no reason why a compact team would be any more vulnerable to a counter attack, especially if played on a lower mentality setting. It’s a combination I often use to frustrate sides with good dribblers or who like to dominate possession in my half. 

Equally, structured teams can still be vulnerable to attacks. If attack duty defenders and midfielders aren’t coming back quick enough in defensive transitions then there will be a lot of space the AI can exploit. Even if highly structured means a 50 metre gap from D-Line to striker, if that D-Line is near the half way line, balls over the top will still punish you. 

I can see how shape can affect vulnerability to counters in some set ups, but in the systems I play, the common denominator is D-Line, mentality and duty. I’d mainly be changing shape to achieve different tactical objectives. 

[Argonaut]

9 hours ago, NabsKebabs said:

Very fluid increases mentality of defenders to bring them closer to the other players. So they will be more adventurous on fluid shapes than structured ones.

No, that is not always true. Take this example of a Complete Wingback (Attack) on Defensive/Very Fluid:

Now look at that same Complete Wingback (Attack) on Defensive/Highly Structured:

He has a much higher mentality bar, meaning he will not prioritize defense as much as the same player on Very Fluid.

The reason being is that in a Very Fluid system, the wingback will look more to the team mentality (Defensive), whereas in a Highly Structured system, the wingback will look more to his own duty (Attack).

You should read this thread by Ozil, which is the best explanation of Team Shape on the forums: 

Also, Team Shape is not even that great for "bringing your lines closer together" as some insist it is. Show me a screenshot of an Advanced Forward tracking back to defend in a Very Fluid 4-4-2 system. Spoiler: they won't.

[roykela]

3 hours ago, Cleon said:

While the descriptions aren't magnificent, they all give you a basic idea of what they do and give you an idea of how something should work. That's all people need. If you want to learn the intricacies of the game then great but there is no real need to. Games are games and they evolve over time, on a yearly basis for some things too. Guides are just that guides, you can look at the date of a guide and when it was posted and then if its a few years old you should be wise enough to know that things could have changed. The basic footballing principles though will always be the same and the ideas behind them.

Also if you'd heard the podcast that myself and @Rashidi did, I advised everyone to avoid blogs, forums and guides when learning how the game works 

I've also not been inactive either. I stopped posting on here for a while and likely will again now, but I've always been active apart from about 6 months 18 months ago.

The basic idea i agree with.
I did hear the podcast. And for me having read and heard most stuff over the years i also agree with most being said.
From a personal point of view though. It's also confusing. For every guide i've read i've become progressively worse at the game.
My understanding of some things in the game has ironically enough increased about different areas.

I want to agree with basic footballing principles but i can't do that 100%. That's where the confusion began for me.
I find very little correlation between IRL footie and FM footie. Especially when i try to replicate my own coaching style into the game.
It does not work as it is impossible to create that kind of football in FM. 
I don't know if it is your actual personal opinion but i agree with the statement of, how about getting rid of shapes altogether.
It's just an unnecessary layer of detail that one should be able to replicate through instructions (they're also named the complete opposite of everything i've learned in the footballing world )

All that, together with possible outdated stuff, as FM footie tends to be very different from IRL footie, can make the learning-curve much steeper.
It just creates confusion. And for a newbie that can very much be off-putting.
I'd almost argue that having very little knowledge of real football can be more of a benefit when playing FM. Almost!

Ah, ok. Then it's just me having missed your post. Either way, it's great seeing more of your posts though.
Always insightful

[Gegenklaus]

51 minutes ago, roykela said:

The basic idea i agree with.
I did hear the podcast. And for me having read and heard most stuff over the years i also agree with most being said.
From a personal point of view though. It's also confusing. For every guide i've read i've become progressively worse at the game.
My understanding of some things in the game has ironically enough increased about different areas.

I want to agree with basic footballing principles but i can't do that 100%. That's where the confusion began for me.
I find very little correlation between IRL footie and FM footie. Especially when i try to replicate my own coaching style into the game.
It does not work as it is impossible to create that kind of football in FM. 
I don't know if it is your actual personal opinion but i agree with the statement of, how about getting rid of shapes altogether.
It's just an unnecessary layer of detail that one should be able to replicate through instructions (they're also named the complete opposite of everything i've learned in the footballing world )

All that, together with possible outdated stuff, as FM footie tends to be very different from IRL footie, can make the learning-curve much steeper.
It just creates confusion. And for a newbie that can very much be off-putting.
I'd almost argue that having very little knowledge of real football can be more of a benefit when playing FM. Almost!

Ah, ok. Then it's just me having missed your post. Either way, it's great seeing more of your posts though.
Always insightful

Or just make the shape converted in to a level of compactness like the width instruction: A picture of the field compact, fairly compact, balanced, less compact and so on. And let the level of creative freedom being told through team instruction/player instruction. 

Maybe Thats a step back to the slider system though, I dont know. 

[AFCBeer]

22 minutes ago, Gegenklaus said:

Or just make the shape converted in to a level of compactness like the width instruction: A picture of the field compact, fairly compact, balanced, less compact and so on. And let the level of creative freedom being told through team instruction/player instruction. 

Maybe Thats a step back to the slider system though, I dont know. 

See I’m not sure. It makes sense in FM terms but not sure that reflects real life. 

I know I used the phrase ‘compact’ in my earlier post but that was a simplification. I can’t believe any manager IRL would ask their defence to be anything but compact, but not all sides have the ability or coaching quality to do so. 

To be honest, Shape settings are like penalty shootouts. We all know it’s not ideal but until someone finds a better idea....

[Gegenklaus]

26 minutes ago, AFCBeer said:

See I’m not sure. It makes sense in FM terms but not sure that reflects real life. 

I know I used the phrase ‘compact’ in my earlier post but that was a simplification. I can’t believe any manager IRL would ask their defence to be anything but compact, but not all sides have the ability or coaching quality to do so. 

To be honest, Shape settings are like penalty shootouts. We all know it’s not ideal but until someone finds a better idea....

You are absolutely right. 

[Jean0987654321]

How many of these threads are going to pop up until SI themselves step in and explain everything? This is not good. To a new FMer creating their own tactics, their heads must be spinning :o

[TCSSkin]

4 hours ago, Jean0987654321 said:

How many of these threads are going to pop up until SI themselves step in and explain everything? This is not good. To a new FMer creating their own tactics, their heads must be spinning :o

3000 hours into the past three FMs and I still can't create a decent tactic for ****. All of my most enjoyable moments on 15/16/17 have been with downloaded tactics, and 18 I'm starting to use them because trying to create my own is creating stress at a time that i really can't deal with it. Been debating since mid FM17 whether to just give FM up. It's sinking far too much of my time, and it's not fun for me anymore.

[Jean0987654321]

1 minute ago, bluestillidie00 said:

3000 hours into the past three FMs and I still can't create a decent tactic for ****. All of my most enjoyable moments on 15/16/17 have been with downloaded tactics, and 18 I'm starting to use them because trying to create my own is creating stress at a time that i really can't deal with it

I was like you in FM13,14, and then 15. So, I can relate

[Gee_Simpson]

3 hours ago, bluestillidie00 said:

3000 hours into the past three FMs and I still can't create a decent tactic for ****. All of my most enjoyable moments on 15/16/17 have been with downloaded tactics, and 18 I'm starting to use them because trying to create my own is creating stress at a time that i really can't deal with it. Been debating since mid FM17 whether to just give FM up. It's sinking far too much of my time, and it's not fun for me anymore.

I understand you mate, I'm not the best at creating tactics either. I used to use downloaded tactics but then I realised after a while the success was down to someone else's super tactic and it all felt cheap afterwards.

Funny thing is, I have purchased FM 16 & 17 but have never got around to creating a proper save  The reason for this is because I am trying to create a possession based tactic which hasn't went well. What I do is, before starting a proper save I will test on FMT trying to come up with something I'm happy with. I have yet to do so.  That's all I have done over the past 2 editions, tested possession based tactics on FMT unsuccessfully  Because of this I won't be purchasing FM 18. I won't be wasting more money on another FM until I have come up a tactic I'm happy with