Tactics - Piecing Them All Together

[Jommelb]

I recognize your problem, that's what I find the hardest part in the game. I can try to give you some input ( but I don't know if this is the right thread to ask this question).

I think you have a lot of players who will end up in the same position when attacking: 2x IF, Mez, Tm and if the move takes longer your BBM and IWB will also arrive in the centre of the field, just outside the box. On top of that, teams will park the bus against you, because you're City plus you push your d-line higher up and press more, that will keep the other team in their own half denying you space. So I guess it's very crowded and there will be no space. What you need is to create space to run into. An option is to drop down so the opponent will move up the field and there is space behind them to exploit. Another option is to create diversion around the box to get defenders out of position, but that's what I find very hard too. 
Check out the threads from Cleon: explaining the 4231 and meeting the inside forward, there he is explaining this more.

 

[Cleon]

Quote

My strategy is dominating games and playing attacking football, and want to play a style which relies heavily on passes, mainly though balls. Long or short through balls, I want that to be up to the player to decide since I have lots of creative and good passer in midfield. Ideally, I want players to pass the ball around outside the opponents box patiently and playing through balls out wide or in the half spaces on a runner,

How is it going to be possible to pass into the half spaces when you're already outside the opponents box? You realise that space doesn't really exist when you're than advanced right? It just becomes a side way pass. To attack the half spaces you do it from deeper areas. I'm also pretty sure I gave you advice about building a strategy around through balls the other day. It relies heavily on movement, without it, it isn't going to happen.

Quote

then getting crosses in to my strikers and late runners into the box, either a tall guy or short guy.

I'm confused here, you are wanting to play a passing game with throughballs and yet also want to play a crossing game? You're trying to fuse 3 styles into one, which means you won't be doing any of them to the full capability. Having options is good but I don't see how you translate these 3 things into a strategy i.e passing outside the opponents area and camping the edge of the area while playing a crossing game and doing through balls. Surely you can see you're asking too much here for a strategy. I'm not saying you can't achieve all 3 at once but you have to have a strategy first and foremost that allows the type of play you want. Instead you're approaching this at the same time from 3 different angles. You need to pick which is the most important first and foremost before you can build something that has elements of all 3 of those things.

Quote

Problems I am having is players doing stupid shots out on the sides or outside the box.

Because you lack options and movement. It seems you are focused on players being high up the pitch more so than creating movement. How do you expect to create movement when players are so advanced already and 3 of your 4 attackers in the tactic all the do the same thing? Both your IF's and the Mez all do the same. In fact I'd never ever pair a Mez and a IF on the same side, it doesn't make sense and nor does it work correctly as they both do the exact same and use the same areas. By using them next to each other neither will be doing what they should to their full capabilities. It's actually been feature requested that you can't use both on the same side in future versions of the game as it shouldn't be possible due to what both players do.

Another thing is, you come really narrow on the tactic yet above claimed you wanted crosses into the striker. How? I don't think you've really used this thread and tried to look at your own tactic and see how everything you currently use works together. If you had, you'd have seen that the IF's come inside, so who is going to provide crosses from wide like you mention at the very start? You're confused about how you want to play.

Realistically in your system who provides the crosses? The WB support maybe but most of those will be from deep. The IWB again cuts inside, also the same side as the IF and Mez. The right hand side of your tactic is a total mess and disjointed. I've highlighted throughout the thread what you should look at to see how players link up. I get the feeling (maybe wrongly) you've just posted the question in here hoping for an answer without actually reading/trying to understand the article.

Quote

Problems I am having is players doing stupid shots out on the sides or outside the box. As a rage quit reaction, I decided to take every single player in my squad and give the PPM "Look for passing rather than shooting" and I think it helped somewhat, but I do get a lot of shots anyway.

The issue is a lack of options and movement to occupy the opposition players. Giving them a PPM isn't suddenly going to create the space and movement you lack. 90% of all long shot issues are tactic created and due to the reasons I've mentioned already. Fix that and it'll fix the long shot issue. Blindly ignoring it or blaming other things isn't going to help you one bit.

Edit - 

I've just seen a comment you made in another thread though, so not sure if I'll be wasting my time with the above or not when you already have preconceived ideas and refuse to believe it can be down to you;

Quote

But of course this is just a problem with our tactic and players, not the ME.

Until you change the sarcastic tone and accept that is could actually be down to you, it doesn't matter what anyone says as you don't truly want to believe it can down to you. Which means everyone will just be wasting their time even attempting to help you.

You need to be open minded when asking for help

[TheMagician16]

Thanks for the replies jommelb and cleon.

I realize the tactic image I posted is actually not the tactic I'd use normally, sorry for that. Reason is, I've watched many games with different roles and the last game I played I must have ended up with those roles. Usually I play wingbacks if I have inside forwards or IWB and Wingers, as to have option on the width and stretch the opponent. I also turn the balanced witdh TI usually to use the whole pitch to stretch opposition. My RCM has mostly had the DLP-S or CM-A/S role depending on opponent and the striker is usually DPF or CF but lately I've found more success with TM, since I have a very good guy there.

 

I don't want to replicate Pep's team, but one way to see how I want to play is to heavily rely on brilliant passers to create CCC. For example, KDB/David Silva sometimes with a single pass opens up the opponent with an extremely good pass, that is inch perfect. I want from deeper or outside the box to get through balls inside behind their defensive line to ideally my wide players who then in turn cross. My rage regarding the players shooting comes mainly from this actually because whenever I managed to get through on and towards the line, my players (or everyones, since I've seen people complain about it) shoot instead of squaring it in to Sane, Saul, my ST or others making a run, which would result in a goal 99% of the time, having only an open goal to beat. Basically think both making through balls to wide areas or behind the defence utilizing my midfielders brilliant passing skills. I also want to press the opponent heavily ONLY when losing the ball very high up in the middle but I've not managed to make that work, which I suppose where my IWB would come in, press the opponent after losing the ball high up on central areas.

 

Trust me, I am very open minded and have read probably every guide for FM18 here including this guide, but I do have memory of a goldfish so I may have to re-read, again. Sorry for coming off as a sarcastic jerk, please understand I did not mean any offence and it is because of my short temper and inability to understand certain aspects of football and ME, and thus always looking for a spacegoat. Whilst I may sound sarcastic I take every bit of advice and see how it works for me from you guys.

 

Edit: One of the reasons I've used Mez is to make him run where my IF would be initially after moving more centrally and have my IWB take up the Mez position, but I realise that may be too much to ask for or completely the wrong way to go on about

[FatRonaldo]

On 1/4/2018 at 14:34, FatRonaldo said:

I just finished reading this. Enjoyed reading it, thank you very much for this.

But I have few questions which I still struggle to understand (incase  you cover it in this article and i might didn't understand it correctly, please forgive me I try my best to understand with my English).

does standart mentality can be categorized also as lower mentality in game? (I know standart means what it means, but realating to football manager wise).

I found when playing with defensive mentality or counter mentality especially against bigger teams, i'm getting stomped in my own half (i understand there are quality differences even thought i made some good signing, but it feels like my players are useless and we cannot move further from our own half with lower mentalities), I'm asking you this becaue i don't want to feel obligated in game, which obviously have lot of differential ways to play.

only when i switch to control mentality, it feels like my players are more willing to attack (which i understand why, with higher mentality we are pushing much higher and closing down more etc...), and even we have highlight where we are attacking and threating the opposition goal (as your mentioned in onw of your previous threads, those might not be quality chances, which sometimes it's really true).

what i find hard for me is after a while of playing the game (like something around november or half season), I start to end up losing without scoring (we have chances, and i'm talking abotu really quality ones, I'm not gonna say every quality chance should end up as a goal, but i'm more refering to 1vs1 situations that i cannot really remember if we had scored one), and this is where i'm struggeling to realise what's going on (even on lower mentality), and how I manage to avoid that.

as i mentioned before, I play 4-3-3

                                   DLF (attack)

ramdauter (attack)                                            winger (support)

 

 CML - AP (attack) (sometimes i changed it to CM (support) this player also have the get forward whenever possible PPM)       CMR - Ball winning MF (support)               

                                                         DM (Defend)

WB mostly on (defend)      CD(defend)       CD(defend)                wingback on attack

                                                           GK (d)

sometimes i change my left WB from defend to support when i see that we are struggeling creating chances from the right

 tend to play defensice/couter- structured shape (no ti's, pi's or OI's) this is my default tactic (sometimes i add ti's such as push higher up, and prevent GK destribution and offside trap.

when i see the opposition is trying to exploit my right side, I switch/reverse roles and duties to protect the right (with more support duties to the right and BW midfielder to the right aswell to protect this side etc..)

 

am i on the right direction in the way i analyze it?

on this articel you didn't mentioned which shape you were using (or maybe you mentioned it and i missed it?, I understand that it's either structured or flexible?) it's really importat from my current understanding with the game, since fluid shape and attacking mentality with one striker up front could become a disaster ?!

 

another question: 

there are matches which my defenders hold the ball and there is no movement from my players so he hoofing the ball forward... not sure what to do in this case (play out of defense might reduce his options same as use short passing in P'I)

@Cleon any advice buddy?

[Cleon]

Quote

I just finished reading this. Enjoyed reading it, thank you very much for this.

But I have few questions which I still struggle to understand (incase  you cover it in this article and i might didn't understand it correctly, please forgive me I try my best to understand with my English).

does standart mentality can be categorized also as lower mentality in game? (I know standart means what it means, but realating to football manager wise).

It's right in between lower and higher mentalities. It's the neutral mentality so to speak.

Quote

I found when playing with defensive mentality or counter mentality especially against bigger teams, i'm getting stomped in my own half (i understand there are quality differences even thought i made some good signing, but it feels like my players are useless and we cannot move further from our own half with lower mentalities), I'm asking you this becaue i don't want to feel obligated in game, which obviously have lot of differential ways to play.

Defensive mentality can be really attacking. I've done articles on using this kind of mentality before. 

https://teaandbusquets.com/category/defensive-football

 

The midfield in your tactic is a bit tame and no-one really helping the Raum or DLF get in the box and score. You have a defensive midfielder behind them meaning you can be more adventurous with the 2 central ones. I personally think your AP has the wrong duty or is on the wrong side. I'd change one or the other as you don't want him in similar space to the Raumdeuter. 

Quote

on this articel you didn't mentioned which shape you were using (or maybe you mentioned it and i missed it?,

I did, you can see it in the very first image at the top of the thread. You can see everything in the screenshot. 

[dan_bre_1988]

Very good article @Cleon I'm playing a similar system and method of playing, albeit 2 amc behind a lone striker as opposed to 3 Cms and 2nd striker so there's a lot I can take away from this. One question I do have however, I find it very interesting how you don't use any PIs except goalkeeper. With the wing backs being the only source of natural width in the team, I'd of thought you would at least need a 'stay wider' PI in order to stretch teams and try make it less congested in central areas. What's the reason for not having this? In order to provide a better passing option, as is alluded to in the article?

[Cleon]

1 hour ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

Very good article @Cleon I'm playing a similar system and method of playing, albeit 2 amc behind a lone striker as opposed to 3 Cms and 2nd striker so there's a lot I can take away from this. One question I do have however, I find it very interesting how you don't use any PIs except goalkeeper. With the wing backs being the only source of natural width in the team, I'd of thought you would at least need a 'stay wider' PI in order to stretch teams and try make it less congested in central areas. What's the reason for not having this? In order to provide a better passing option, as is alluded to in the article?

Why would I need more width? I have width in the midfield due to using three CM’s and I have width with the fullbacks. 

Not sure why you’d think I needed a PI to add more width; when I already have lots of it naturally. It doesn’t make sense to use the TI for more, or PI’s. 

[herne79]

1 hour ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

Very good article @Cleon I'm playing a similar system and method of playing, albeit 2 amc behind a lone striker as opposed to 3 Cms and 2nd striker so there's a lot I can take away from this. One question I do have however, I find it very interesting how you don't use any PIs except goalkeeper. With the wing backs being the only source of natural width in the team, I'd of thought you would at least need a 'stay wider' PI in order to stretch teams and try make it less congested in central areas. What's the reason for not having this? In order to provide a better passing option, as is alluded to in the article?

Genuinely interested here - what have you noticed about the Wingback's play that has led you to believe they don't offer enough width?

It's a leading question by the way (sorry ) and designed to help you stop and think "do I need to add in this tactical setting?  In what way(s) are my players not playing in the manner I desire?"  In other words, don't just add in tactical settings because you think you need to, add them because you've seen something isn't right and needs changing .

[Cleon]

4 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Genuinely interested here - what have you noticed about the Wingback's play that has led you to believe they don't offer enough width?

It's a leading question by the way (sorry ) and designed to help you stop and think "do I need to add in this tactical setting?  In what way(s) are my players not playing in the manner I desire?"  In other words, don't just add in tactical settings because you think you need to, add them because you've seen something isn't right and needs changing .

This question with width and wingbacks/wingers is one I see mentioned frequently and always wonder what people are seeing or doing to make their wide players not be wide.

In some cases I am wondering if it’s the reasons you mention above or not. I think people forget that shapes like that already have natural width.

[dan_bre_1988]

@Cleon @herne79 not so much in the examples above, I was more referring to my own style of play. Perhaps, as you say, I have based it on what I think my tactic needs as opposed to what I've seen.

I always thought that, in my system, I would need the PI on wing backs since they are the only width I have (I play 2cms and 2 amcs) which then begs the question- when WOULD you use that PI on a wing back and why is the option there if natural width is provided anyway?

I will have to revisit my tactic and take that PI off and see the effect it has, if any, on their play.

[Cleon]

2 minutes ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

@Cleon @herne79 not so much in the examples above, I was more referring to my own style of play. Perhaps, as you say, I have based it on what I think my tactic needs as opposed to what I've seen.

I always thought that, in my system, I would need the PI on wing backs since they are the only width I have (I play 2cms and 2 amcs) which then begs the question- when WOULD you use that PI on a wing back and why is the option there if natural width is provided anyway?

I will have to revisit my tactic and take that PI off and see the effect it has, if any, on their play.

You asked about my system in your reply though?

The option exists to give you extra width if you feel you need it, just like with some roles you can add more closing down etc. 

Personally speaking I’d not use it unless I needed the wingback to stay as wide as possible at all times and hug the line. But off hand, I can’t think of a single instance where this would be beneficial for me. That doesn’t mean someone else doesn’t feel it might add something for them though.

It all comes down to what you are wanting. 

[herne79]

11 minutes ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

when WOULD you use that PI on a wing back and why is the option there if natural width is provided anyway?

 

5 minutes ago, Cleon said:

It all comes down to what you are wanting. 

This, a million times.

It's such an easy trap to fall into (which I remember all to well doing myself).  The thing with this game is that people actually look for the complex answer without realising it.  They think they need to add in all kinds of tactical settings to make teams play football when it is so much more simple than that (and it took me about 2 years to figure that out btw).  Breaking things down to it's simplest form, all you actually need to do is:

1)  Balance your player roles and duties.

2)  Have players that are suitable for and able to carry out those roles and duties.

3)  Only start dicking around with tactical settings if you are trying to create a certain style of play or you see something on the pitch that isn't working.

4)  It can help if you have a plan to begin with (or work towards).

It sounds too simple doesn't it?  Hell, I've just re-read it and even I think it sounds too simple.  Crazy huh? 

[dan_bre_1988]

6 minutes ago, herne79 said:

 

This, a million times.

It's such an easy trap to fall into (which I remember all to well doing myself).  The thing with this game is that people actually look for the complex answer without realising it.  They think they need to add in all kinds of tactical settings to make teams play football when it is so much more simple than that (and it took me about 2 years to figure that out btw).  Breaking things down to it's simplest form, all you actually need to do is:

1)  Balance your player roles and duties.

2)  Have players that are suitable for and able to carry out those roles and duties.

3)  Only start dicking around with tactical settings if you are trying to create a certain style of play or you see something on the pitch that isn't working.

4)  It can help if you have a plan to begin with (or work towards).

It sounds too simple doesn't it?  Hell, I've just re-read it and even I think it sounds too simple.  Crazy huh? 

I do have a style of play I'm looking to recreate and fairly new to this forum so not had chance to read all the wonderful articles you guys have wrote about. 

I guess the ideas I have about my play style isn't always recreated in the game through options I select and some of them are much more complex than initially realise in terms of knock on effects (for instance I used to religiously select retain possession before realising the formation I used and 'shorter passing' naturally retained possession anyway and was overkill.

I guess a lot of it is playing around and seeing what works and what doesn't for creating what you want from the tactic.

It comes across like I've completely wasted your time so apologies

 

[herne79]

10 minutes ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

It comes across like I've completely wasted your time so apologies

lol if I thought it was wasting my time I wouldn't have answered .

[Rashidi]

On 1/2/2018 at 22:05, Rooks said:

So you would say that sticking with one formation/tactic and tweaking that - if necessary - to the opposition rather than having 2 or even 3 different tactics? 

The most effective way of playing is knowing the one tactic very well, that it offers you the possibility of making slight changes to it to handle different circumstances.

a. If you use 1 tactic and make no changes at ALL. Then I doubt anyone is really doing that

b. If you use 1 tactic and make the occasional role/duty shout change, then I think this is more effective. The challenge here is knowing what you can do.  

Personally I have a Plan A right through to Plan F. Some of my plans may include :
- Sub change - to change the style of attack. eg. Strong, tall striker who is good at holding up the ball, compared to speedy players who need to break into space.
- Role change - Perhaps I need to bring a player on and he is taking the place of a playmaker who is not getting enough time and space on the ball, then I change to a different role. In my next Ajax Diaries show I show how I make one sub change, with a role and duty change to turn a game on its head.

- Shout change - Fundamentally a higher and more riskier option which I rarely do, unless I see things that clearly need to be done in a game, or an opportunity has presented itself. For example, the AI has decided to go overload and has left spaces for me behind the defensive line, I may opt to go Pass Into Space, since I have two players attacking that empty space, and getting these players the ball is the priority since they have good deliveries on them.

- Completely tactical change - If I do make such a change, it's always a complementary change, ie. I have the players who can play in the roles already on the pitch and all I have to do is tell them to go from a 4132 to a 41221 for example. I rarely make this change, but this is usually done because if I don't make the change I feel things are going to get out of hand. The last option I think has only been done once or twice a season. 

Can we play on one tactic? Yes. Can we play on multiple tactics? Yes. It all depends on what you see happening in the game and whether your changes are meant to react to them. 

[phnompenhandy]

^ It depends on many factors. I manage a lower league team whose players are somewhat limited, so I can't expect them to familiarise themselves with vastly different systems, and I maintain a very small squad which restricts flexibility.

What I did was in the first season train rigorously one tactic, a 4231 counter/fluid tactics. I stuck at it for the season.

In the pre-season of the second season I've added a variant - 4231 contain/very fluid with different TIs. This is to hold onto a lead late on - with the same personnel.

By keeping the same basic framework, the players have become fully familiar with Plan B in time for the start of the season.

That's as much as I can manage within my squad's limitations, but I expect it to do the job well. 

[mernild]

On 7/1/2018 at 20:51, dan_bre_1988 said:

Very good article @Cleon I'm playing a similar system and method of playing, albeit 2 amc behind a lone striker as opposed to 3 Cms and 2nd striker so there's a lot I can take away from this. One question I do have however, I find it very interesting how you don't use any PIs except goalkeeper. With the wing backs being the only source of natural width in the team, I'd of thought you would at least need a 'stay wider' PI in order to stretch teams and try make it less congested in central areas. What's the reason for not having this? In order to provide a better passing option, as is alluded to in the article?

 

On 7/1/2018 at 22:44, Cleon said:

The option exists to give you extra width if you feel you need it, just like with some roles you can add more closing down etc. 

Personally speaking I’d not use it unless I needed the wingback to stay as wide as possible at all times and hug the line. But off hand, I can’t think of a single instance where this would be beneficial for me. That doesn’t mean someone else doesn’t feel it might add something for them though.

It all comes down to what you are wanting. 

The Complete Wingback has the Stay Wider PI ticked by default.

[dan_bre_1988]

7 minutes ago, mernild said:

 

The Complete Wingback has the Stay Wider PI ticked by default.

I realised that when I loaded up FM to adjust my own tactic 

[Cleon]

This is one of the most enjoyable articles I've written. So much so, I have began writing another article based on this one that explores every single step of  the tactical creation. 

[mernild]

47 minutes ago, Cleon said:

This is one of the most enjoyable articles I've written. So much so, I have began writing another article based on this one that explores every single step of  the tactical creation. 

Really looking forward to that, since I'm playing with a similar tactic that I think is not quite optimized yet. Thanks for making great content.

[anorthernboy]

6 hours ago, Cleon said:

This is one of the most enjoyable articles I've written. So much so, I have began writing another article based on this one that explores every single step of  the tactical creation. 

For me it is the analysis that I struggle with. I can see my players are taking wild long shots from silly places I just can't fathom what changes are to be made. Is it my forward not moving the defence or is it he has no pass so takes a shot. I see the problem just not the solution.

[Old Scouser Tommy]

On 1/7/2018 at 06:42, Cleon said:

 

Defensive mentality can be really attacking. I've done articles on using this kind of mentality before. 

https://teaandbusquets.com/category/defensive-football

 

I really enjoyed reading this article @Cleon. At the time I was playing around with a defensive system that wasn't too defensive and was still capable of attacking with intent. It gave me some good pointers that helped out a lot. I still go back to it for the odd read .

[Jorgen]

@Cleon As long as I've known you (since 2004) on the Susie and SI forums, you have always written with high quality. Great! And thank you for that. 

[FatRonaldo]

I read all the articles (also out of curiosity and the articles was intresting).

But in game i just still struggle some fundemental understanding (my assumption) or i just don't know what is the reason.

I get decent results at start, but than my team really struggle to score.

I also assume it's something related to roles and duties which i probably need to change after a while (when things doesn't seems to work), but it doesn't seems to work for me either way.

I just don't know if it's the ME which translated it badly, but my team gets chances not only striker but also the wingers and ramdauter, but they constantly missing them.

I manage to limit the AI opposition for long shots but he managed to score somehow (I just finished a game right now, but i had much worse examples than this).

it feels like the game is very very frustrating for me atleast (football IRL can be very frustrating aswell, but in FM there is a point in the game where it becomes constant frustration for the user without a balance, this is atleast my feeling, it might be wrong).

I really don't know what to do, i want to play the game because even though it's frustrating it's also enjoyable (even when i lose i enjoy, but as i said, there is a point in the game which i think it's the way the ME translated/or interpretation things badly, by showing things on 2d badly, i hope you know what i mean).

 

I'm lost.

Bournemouth v Lazio.pkm

Edit: btw, it's FM17

[loisvale]

This was one of the most interesting articles I've read for some time on these forums. I am particularly interested around further thoughts on different types of players playing the same role which would then have the greatest impact when making substitutions. I do understand that this very much depends on the system being used and what the user is trying to achieve. Thus, I would be very interested to read further examples on the 352 that Cleon is using in his Sheffield United save as a good example to base other ideas on. I have seen the articles on the advance forward and deep lying forward from that system which were very interesting and something I hadn't really thought about previously despite playing the game for a long time.

Taking the advance forward as an example it was an eye-opener to think about recruiting a more target man orientated individual to carry out this role if the position is being bullied, having a more creative option and the more standard option. The article about the DLF is pretty clear as well. I would assume that the the two outer midfield positions could have more defensive and offensive types of players to choose from as well as more creative and hard tackling varieties. Central midfielder attack could be a version that arrives late in the box and the version that constantly tries to get forward as examples. In terms of the the complete wingbacks I would imagine that very pacey wingers being retrained is one option, a standard complete wing back and a more defensive variety also been options.

 

A lot of variety can also be achieved through PPM's and different attributes which again is something I have not paid enough attention to over the years. Trying to train defenders to play out from the back has been pretty challenging for me so far.

 

Hopefully my thinking is along the right lines but any further articles on various types of players for these roles to provide the variety would be very welcome in my view. This would allow much more depth to be provided to my own tactics.

 

Very interesting work and thank you for taking the time to share.

[lam]

Very interesting thread.

I've only recently returned to the game and have been bouncing around formations with Spurs and I'm only halfway through season 1. I'm top on points and with massive goal differences but I am not happy with the playing style.

Yesterday afternoon I setup very similarly to this but with my MC(C) as AMC(C) but was having to adjust this role constantly vs DM formations.

And then I found this

I was looking at the WB's and see that CWB can work well as they look for high risk passes too. Mine were set to WB(Support) as they were just crossing to much and whilst it's still a key feature of the CWB they split this with higher risk passing.

I'm going to tweak today and see how it works. I've got some fantastic players to fit this formation perfectly. Lets see how it goes.

 

LAM

[Mr_Demus]

I am really thick when it comes to tactics, so sorry if I sound stupid.

I have read this article and several others, but I am not sure if I understand everything correctly.

The roles you use, are they set in stone, or would it be better to change them according to my players skill sets?

For instance, if my WB's aren't really suited for CWB can I change them?

To me it seems that it's very important that they play like they do, but would changing them to WB S take away too much of their firepower?

[Cleon]

6 minutes ago, Mr_Demus said:

I am really thick when it comes to tactics, so sorry if I sound stupid.

I have read this article and several others, but I am not sure if I understand everything correctly.

The roles you use, are they set in stone, or would it be better to change them according to my players skill sets?

For instance, if my WB's aren't really suited for CWB can I change them?

To me it seems that it's very important that they play like they do, but would changing them to WB S take away too much of their firepower?

My roles aren't set in stone but they are the best suited for what I have created and help create the end goal. If I change anything, no matter how small the change seems, it will have a knock on effect everywhere else in the tactic. It wouldn't function the same.

The key to everything is to use roles that compliment and allow the players to do what you want them to do. If you want a particular striker to score the majority of your goals, then the rest of the side has to be set up to allow this to happen and to funnel the ball to him constantly. Likewise if you wanted a winger to the main creator from crosses, then you'd set up the side to feed the striker the ball constantly so he can do the crosses you crave and so on.

Everything is relative to what you've created or what you are wanting, not what I have done.

[summatsupeer]

14 minutes ago, Mr_Demus said:

I am really thick when it comes to tactics, so sorry if I sound stupid.

I have read this article and several others, but I am not sure if I understand everything correctly.

The roles you use, are they set in stone, or would it be better to change them according to my players skill sets?

For instance, if my WB's aren't really suited for CWB can I change them?

To me it seems that it's very important that they play like they do, but would changing them to WB S take away too much of their firepower?

I think that having a less ideal attribute balance of the player playing the ideal role for the tactic is better than having him play a different role he's more suited to but doesn't fit as well into the tactic.  If he is absolutely terrible at the role, for example all your RBs are really CBs then i'd re-assess your tactic overall or try and find a more suitable players.  Either through recruitment (loan/transfer) or maybe a reserve/u18 would fit better whilst having "worse" ability overall or maybe convert a hard working winger to the position.

[DavyDepuydt1]

On 08/01/2018 at 07:42, Rashidi said:

The most effective way of playing is knowing the one tactic very well, that it offers you the possibility of making slight changes to it to handle different circumstances.

a. If you use 1 tactic and make no changes at ALL. Then I doubt anyone is really doing that

b. If you use 1 tactic and make the occasional role/duty shout change, then I think this is more effective. The challenge here is knowing what you can do.  

Personally I have a Plan A right through to Plan F. Some of my plans may include :
- Sub change - to change the style of attack. eg. Strong, tall striker who is good at holding up the ball, compared to speedy players who need to break into space.
- Role change - Perhaps I need to bring a player on and he is taking the place of a playmaker who is not getting enough time and space on the ball, then I change to a different role. In my next Ajax Diaries show I show how I make one sub change, with a role and duty change to turn a game on its head.

- Shout change - Fundamentally a higher and more riskier option which I rarely do, unless I see things that clearly need to be done in a game, or an opportunity has presented itself. For example, the AI has decided to go overload and has left spaces for me behind the defensive line, I may opt to go Pass Into Space, since I have two players attacking that empty space, and getting these players the ball is the priority since they have good deliveries on them.

- Completely tactical change - If I do make such a change, it's always a complementary change, ie. I have the players who can play in the roles already on the pitch and all I have to do is tell them to go from a 4132 to a 41221 for example. I rarely make this change, but this is usually done because if I don't make the change I feel things are going to get out of hand. The last option I think has only been done once or twice a season. 

Can we play on one tactic? Yes. Can we play on multiple tactics? Yes. It all depends on what you see happening in the game and whether your changes are meant to react to them. 

I don't see you mentioning changing the mentality. Is this something you would normally never do? or do you categorize that as a Shout change or completely tactical change

[Rashidi]

10 hours ago, DavyDepuydt1 said:

I don't see you mentioning changing the mentality. Is this something you would normally never do? or do you categorize that as a Shout change or completely tactical change

I do change mentality if I need to, if you think of mentality as a risk throttle, but I do it less often. Most of the time I play on a certain mentality and shape, cos I know my players. Lets say I go a goal down, maybe I raise mentality, maybe I change duties or I bring a sub on. It really depends on the situation in the game. Sometimes all I need to do is change a role or duty cos we are not exerting ourselves well. Sometimes a specific player is having a bad day and its affecting my transitions, then I sub him. So you see, seeing your system play out, understanding how your players fit into the whole system via their roles and duties is infinitely more important than anything else.

When I need to guide players to play the game more effectively. I usually suggest making a tactic on a lower mentality and a flex shape or a structured shape. Then I tell em, if you want a goal without changing roles and duties, then try to raise shape, see if more players support your attack duties. Ok so maybe you need them to be more aggressive, how about not everyone? Then raise mentality and keep shape the same or lower shape. 

Things like this are harder to do, but to do them you need to understand how roles and duties work with PIs or player traits. Understanding that part is infinitely more important. In fact, most people can't appreciate why a Winger on attack behaves one way as opposed to a WM. They know that the role plays a certain way, but they forget it when they start playing with mentality or shape changes.

Change one role or one duty...or even sub on a player with a certain player trait. Now that is the thing people need to learn first!.

I keep editing this post, cos I keep thinking of more stuff...*****, will stop here.

 

[Kuchiki]

I'm itching to get back to my 3 man defence tactic (currently on holiday for a few days). Thank you Cleon for taking the time out to write an insightful thread hopefully I can glean something positive from it. 

[lam]

Between this and my attempts at the 4231 tactic I'm really learning to look at space and how it works and who uses it.

My first observation here was that your midfield trio were very attacking. One MC(A) and two MC(S). I thought that would not have any space. However unlike the 4231 where you have an advanced player cutting in from the wing, here you do not. Thus there is more space for the midfield trio to attack and exploit whilst the wingbacks should keep the width.

I have a question.

Given that the midfield trio will be fairly advanced would the use of a Libero(S) work. I believe the (A) version would put him in places where the MC(A) is and/or clash with the two MC(S). However with the (S) role he would not break beyond the DM position (in theory). I can't test this yet as I am going to use it next season and I have 4 games left now.

LAM

[westy8chimp]

Glad this has been bumped, first time i've seen it. 

Just moved onto 532 in my Leverkusen save... 

Theres a few tactics now that we overlap on (not a surprise as im now on my 10th formation in the journey). Its really interesting how on paper our formations are seemingly very similar... But one or two subtle role changes or TI mean we play the same formation a completely different way. 

[Cleon]

7 hours ago, lam said:

Between this and my attempts at the 4231 tactic I'm really learning to look at space and how it works and who uses it.

My first observation here was that your midfield trio were very attacking. One MC(A) and two MC(S). I thought that would not have any space. However unlike the 4231 where you have an advanced player cutting in from the wing, here you do not. Thus there is more space for the midfield trio to attack and exploit whilst the wingbacks should keep the width.

I have a question.

Given that the midfield trio will be fairly advanced would the use of a Libero(S) work. I believe the (A) version would put him in places where the MC(A) is and/or clash with the two MC(S). However with the (S) role he would not break beyond the DM position (in theory). I can't test this yet as I am going to use it next season and I have 4 games left now.

LAM

Only 1 of the midfield is aggressive, the CMA. The DLP plays quite deep and hangs back and the CMS is somewhere in between. They've all got space because they all do different things and are not occupying the same space due to them all starting from different places and how they use space differs. 

I've wrote about the libero. However why would you want one on support, what's the point in this system with these roles? There is zero benefit. There is more downside to using a support one than there is upside in this current system. The libero stuff I've wrote is actually using this tactic funnily enough, you can find it here;

 

[Jasonnumber13]

I know it sounds simple, but it would be something like:

4-1-2-1-2

AF-a      DLF-s

     MAC-a

MC-s     MC-s

      DM-d

Cwb-a Dc-d Dc-d Cwb-a

       Gk

Or 4-1-2-2-1

           Dlf- a/s

If-a               ap-s/w-s

Cm-s         Cm-a

          Dm-d

Fb-s   dc-d dc-d Fb-a

            Gk

knowing that it can change depending on the form I want to play or the players available on my team, but it would be something as one player supports and another tries to seize or create spaces in an attempt to connect all of them hopefully going in the right direction. Thank you Cleon and all the other contributors!