How comes that out of so many roles combinations I never got one working?

[Armistice]

In two years of FM I had only ONE save longer than 1 season. And that was with Hartlepool, posted about it here. Since then I lost motivation and stopped playing the game for some good time, a few days ago I got back into it and felt my head, ideas got clearer and more simplified which is what I needed.

But hey, tactical wise I realized I’m still awful. After all these years of testing tactics, ideas, theories, guides, still bad. Listen, there are like 3-4 roles per each position and you have 10-15 positions which is basically like 30-40 combinations, add duties in the play and we have 50-60 combinations, I’m pretty sure I tried everything in my power to beat this huge mental disadvantage and I always ended up the same. Quitting the game. I know it’s not a winning formula but when you find a “sweet spot”, a system, roles & duties that compliment each other, it should work right? But it doesn’t for me. I’m so numb right now that I don’t have any ideas left. Should I stop playing the game again?

[yonko]

You probably overthink it too much. Keep it simple. Go back to basics. At least for awhile. Think of a vision....how do you want your team to play....overall. And then think how each position and role will play a part in that overall vision/style.

Little by little you have understand what the roles do and what they don't do. The in-game description and the default instructions (for each role) should give you enough to go about.

It's a puzzle that you have to put together piece by piece. Good luck.

[kingjericho]

Why don't you compare your tactic to some of those posted here in the forums? Sometimes it's not a matter of working well or not, sometimes the team takes a little while to gel and play better.

[FMunderachiever]

Id say dont make changes for the sake of being different.

Im nowhere near an expert on the game but ive had lots of good saves, winning leagues and cups. my saves dont last long, 2 maybe 3 seasons, not because they frustrate me constantly (some do) but more because i want to manage someone else.

but what id say is i still think its good to build tactics around the more "basic" roles, using wide midfielders, central midfielders, central defenders, attacking midfielders etc.

I think its easier to be more flexible with these roles, than picking say, a trequartista. He has loads of instructions programmed into him so i dont think you can as easily tailor players in these roles to what you want to do.

I used to fall into the trap of setting lots of team instructions. Now i dont do this. Pre season, i might set one or two. my current save is Plymouth you can see in the cant win with Argyle thread greenarmy made, and im currently using a 4411 tactic that only uses 3 team instructions and those are higher tempo (moved it up one notch), pass into space, and low crosses. this was after studying a few games, and making some changes that benefitted the team after that.

I then developed small adjustments to player roles to make them more effective.

Id also sat play close attention to what the roles do, just so you dont assume something thats not true. I used to assume ball playing defenders were good for trying to build from the back because in my head, a ball playing defender would be one that passes into midfield, perhaps dribbles a little, looks to play his way out of trouble etc.

The game's idea of one is someone who tries long passes to try and create a chance.

So if wanting to play from the back, i would choose two central defenders, and id tell them to maybe pass shorter as a player instruction. or make less risky passes.

 

just a few opinions

 

[Armistice]

What’s basic stuff definition, like really, I don’t even know what basic is anymore. I get a lot confused by roles who do similar stuff like F9 and DLF, IF & Raumd, people told me to look at the hardcoded PIs before but I feel it’s not enough for me to have the roles understood. A F9 drops deep like a DLF, but a F9 does not use his body to hold up the ball. A F9 also moves into the space between defenders aka the channels. So now I might want to come up with a project of making a tactic good enough to turn a F9 into a decent goalscoring option, but I don’t even know how to set up the team around him to make use of those runs from deep I think he makes. Make it too direct and it might lead to not giving my F9 enough time to get back in the box, make it too slow and he’ll be forever deep.

 

 

And on top of that I can’t find a good team to start some experiments.

[Torskus77]

You can't find a good team, honestly?  I totally get some of the frustrations with tactics, but you can find a good team, there are loads of them around the world, whatever you want, you can literally choose any club.  Use the team you support if you can't think of anything else, that's pretty much what I do, but you are not limited to that, find something that will keep your interest.

 

The F9 role is more of a creative role, not a goalscoring role. They can and do score goals, but their man role is to drop deep to create space.  So you need attacking options around him in some way, to make him effective. There is no limit on what you can do, you just have to figure out what you want to do, it is harder than it sounds, but when it comes together, it's beautiful.

[Svenc]

Creating play around getting the most around a particular player (let alone role) isn't basics, it's advanced. Basics is ensuring movement, covering attacking runs, all to various extents depending on the balance, which can be achieved with pretty much anything, as long as the role/duty supplies such. For as long as the AI doesn't create systems around players/getting the most out of roles, that's a non-issue. And it never, ever may anyway. You have to do pretty horrible **** to consistently underperform, as player quality factors in too. Looking for the magic sweet spot, is too, futile.

[yonko]

20 minutes ago, Armistice said:

What’s basic stuff definition, like really, I don’t even know what basic is anymore. I get a lot confused by roles who do similar stuff like F9 and DLF, IF & Raumd, people told me to look at the hardcoded PIs before but I feel it’s not enough for me to have the roles understood. A F9 drops deep like a DLF, but a F9 does not use his body to hold up the ball. A F9 also moves into the space between defenders aka the channels. So now I might want to come up with a project of making a tactic good enough to turn a F9 into a decent goalscoring option, but I don’t even know how to set up the team around him to make use of those runs from deep I think he makes. Make it too direct and it might lead to not giving my F9 enough time to get back in the box, make it too slow and he’ll be forever deep.

 

 

And on top of that I can’t find a good team to start some experiments.

First, study what the roles do so you can fully understand them.

The F9 is a variation on the DLF. It has playmaking qualities and more specific instructions to do a specific job. The DLF is more generic role, more basic. F9 is not a goalscoring role. It can score goals but his primary function is not to be the finisher/top scorer for the team. It's more about making space for others to exploit and link play.

IF and RMD are also different and have different instructions. Read the descriptions and compare the default instructions to understand the purpose of each role and how they are different. Why is one available as Support and Attacking duty while the other one is just attack duty, for example?

Roles like F9 and RMD are more demanding roles and their purpose is to make the player perform more specific role on your team. They are more functional roles if you will.  

[Alerion]

What helped me get better at FM is to read about football tactics in RL, not FM. Spielverlagerung.com is a great way to start and it certainly helped not only get better at FM but also understand and analyse football matches more and more. 

[Armistice]

15 minutes ago, Alerion said:

What helped me get better at FM is to read about football tactics in RL, not FM. Spielverlagerung.com is a great way to start and it certainly helped not only get better at FM but also understand and analyse football matches more and more. 

There are concepts that I do not understand, I can barely afford game time nowadays, I'm really too busy with work to be able to read any additional stuff.

 

So back to basics. What would count as basic in FM?

[yonko]

2 hours ago, Armistice said:

There are concepts that I do not understand, I can barely afford game time nowadays, I'm really too busy with work to be able to read any additional stuff.

 

So back to basics. What would count as basic in FM?

How do you want to play in attack and in defense?

How much risk do you want to take?

Do you want to control or counter-attack?

Start from here

[isignedupfornorealreason]

What roles did you combine? 

[FMunderachiever]

3 hours ago, Armistice said:

There are concepts that I do not understand, I can barely afford game time nowadays, I'm really too busy with work to be able to read any additional stuff.

 

So back to basics. What would count as basic in FM?

You understand actual real life football? Use styles you see in real life. Positions you understand. You dont HAVE to use a carrilero and a raumdeuter to be successful.

Its why i said use basic roles. You can make a central midfielder behave how you want with PIs. Or a wide midfielder rather than lots of added PIs that cant be changed.

 

Go with a simple 442 perhsps. Dont overdo the team instructions and think of a style of play.

[summatsupeer]

Why do you expect to randomly stumble across a "sweet spot" with so many combinations?  Even assuming your using the same players to reduce that variable, your opponents every game are different.

You need to analyse more and make less random changes.  Identify what are system issues (reoccurring) and what were player issues (good situation, bad execution).  Are you asking players to do things they aren't good at or did an opponent just get the better of them?  No players are perfect so don't expect your tactic to be perfect, you could ruin a good tactic trying to fix every little mistake players make.  Fix what you can tactically and put the players in the best situation you can for the team, minimize the weaknesses and emphasis the strengths.  Even if you do that things won't always go your way.  Don't just judge by results, try and be honest about what you saw. 

As others have said, keep things simple.  There's many guides on how to build a tactic, most start with assessing the players.  The basics of tactics for me is "balance", who's covering and providing simple options (defend duty), who's getting up and down the field doing the dirty work and/or creating (support duty), whos more focused on getting behind the opposition (attack duty).  Not only should the roles+duties be balanced but the players in them.  For example if playing a 2 man midfield, can you afford to have a AP who can't tackle, positions poorly and can't mark?  The other thing is whilst keeping things simple and not over thinking, don't go to basic, just because a player is attack duty and another player is a support duty doesn't mean one should score and the other should create.  You need a plan for working the ball to goal, if teams give you space how are you exploiting it, if they don't then how will you create it?

[felley]

13 hours ago, Armistice said:

There are concepts that I do not understand, I can barely afford game time nowadays, I'm really too busy with work to be able to read any additional stuff.

 

So back to basics. What would count as basic in FM?

The 'basics' are whatever you already feel like you understand well. For example, maybe you understand how to set up a balanced back 4 formation but struggle with a back 3/5. If you're getting stuck, it's logical to then start with the one that makes the most sense to you and build from there.

Of course there are basic principles of play that are important to understand, but if you want to cut out that depth and keep it simple then I would advise selecting a formation you know/have used effectively and logically go through each position and what you expect from the player that plays there (i.e. - their role). FMunderachiever suggests 4-4-2 and I think it's always a great place to start due to the formation being relatively easy to balance (players spread pretty effectively across the pitch).

So say you do choose 4-4-2... ask yourself what you expect the back four to do... if one of the wide defenders is expected to attack, who will cover his advance? Which of your four midfielders will be protecting the defence? ...and who will be supplying the forwards with balls? Will you play wingers and focus on crosses? These are all examples of questions you should ask yourself. Once you feel they've been answered, you can move on to more complicated stuff when analysing in detail.

[FMunderachiever]

9 minutes ago, felley said:

The 'basics' are whatever you already feel like you understand well. For example, maybe you understand how to set up a balanced back 4 formation but struggle with a back 3/5. If you're getting stuck, it's logical to then start with the one that makes the most sense to you and build from there.

Of course there are basic principles of play that are important to understand, but if you want to cut out that depth and keep it simple then I would advise selecting a formation you know/have used effectively and logically go through each position and what you expect from the player that plays there (i.e. - their role). FMunderachiever suggests 4-4-2 and I think it's always a great place to start due to the formation being relatively easy to balance (players spread pretty effectively across the pitch).

So say you do choose 4-4-2... ask yourself what you expect the back four to do... if one of the wide defenders is expected to attack, who will cover his advance? Which of your four midfielders will be protecting the defence? ...and who will be supplying the forwards with balls? Will you play wingers and focus on crosses? These are all examples of questions you should ask yourself. Once you feel they've been answered, you can move on to more complicated stuff when analysing in detail.

I agree with this.

Also, not adding lots of team and player instructions doesn't mean a tactic is bad as they already have defaults built into them to behave certain ways.

Id recommend watching the games at first with players on their default instructions and team instructions, maybe add one or two if you have a clear idea of style of play, and then make small, gradual adjustments based on watching the matches. They don't have to be wholesale adjustments though. It might be say, to tell a central midfielder to hold his position. Just one tweaked instruction and no more to him could set him up to behave more effectively in your team.

 

[Armistice]

I'm playing a 4-4-1-1 with Spurs right now and I've set up like this.

 

FB (S), CB (D) CB (D), WB (S)

W (A), CM (S), CM (D), WP (A)

AM (S)

DLF (A)

 

We've got some decent results, I'm trying not to get disappointed because we don't dominate the opponent but I'll try to get the basics right first before focusing on other things. The only annoying thing is that the players are taking way too many long shots even when it's not necessary, instead of looking to play the ball wide, a central midfielder might choose to shoot from long range.

[LooseFirstTouch]

It's easy to try too many things. In my current Athletic Bilbao save, I've tried about 10 tactics in the first season, mainly because I've been trying to get the best out of Raul Garcia. It's only been recently that I've chosen to go back to something basic.

first up, I just picked a formation that suited the team. 4231 worked on paper, so I ran with it. Next up, I tried to think of roles that would give us options in attack. So, on the left wing, I have an inside forward and a FB on attack to go up on the overlap. Then, through the centre, there's an AP in the No. 10 position and a CM on support to help with getting some passing combos going on the left side of the field. There's also a DLP on defend to hold his position while the CM on support gets up higher.

on the other wing, it's just a winger who runs along the touchline and hits crosses. The FB behind him is more conservative and doesn't get up into the final third a lot, so whereas the other wing is ultra aggressive, the right side is pretty basic and more conservative. The striker is just an AF who leads the line, and the CBs are just normal on defend duties. 

That's kind of how I thought through it. One on wing, there's more link up. On the other, it's just a direct winger feeding crosses into the box. The idea is to have a couple of routes to goal, as well as ensuring there's enough balance between defence and attack. 

Like the others said, I also kept TIs to a minimum as well. That's a good way to start, as you can then assess whether you need to alter things after seeing how it works out on the field.

[felley]

2 hours ago, Armistice said:

I'm playing a 4-4-1-1 with Spurs right now and I've set up like this.

 

FB (S), CB (D) CB (D), WB (S)

W (A), CM (S), CM (D), WP (A)

AM (S)

DLF (A)

 

We've got some decent results, I'm trying not to get disappointed because we don't dominate the opponent but I'll try to get the basics right first before focusing on other things. The only annoying thing is that the players are taking way too many long shots even when it's not necessary, instead of looking to play the ball wide, a central midfielder might choose to shoot from long range.

Without seeing your entire set up and/or direct examples of how the players perform, it's difficult to surmise too much... but I would ask who is going to be in the box for your Winger to cross to? It appears like you are opting for a slower buil-up with a striker dropping off, an AM that doesn't look too readily to get into the box, a playmaker - and a midfield pairing that will be realtively sensible with their distribution. This of course, isn't a bad thing, but I would question how your Winger fits in to that thinking.

RE: Long shots. This is often due to the forward options being limited. You say your Midfielders are choosing to shoot from distance... but how are you expecting them to play? Should they be supplying through balls? Is there anyone with space to run into that they could pick out? How are you expecting goals to be created with that forward set up?

[Armistice]

I looked through the last few games of the season and I noticed that usually my CM takes a long shot because 1) Winger is very close to the opponent's fullback, in other words he might be pushing up too early for a slow build-up; 2) My WP gets in some crowded area. Ideally I want my WP to act like a playmaker in more advanced areas since Eriksen is the main creator of my side, but it's probably a good idea to make him drop a bit more to find some space.

Now I will look again in the next couple of games, we facing Atletico Madrid in the Champions League so if Atletico decide to attack, we might not have many issues, but after that we play at Watford so then again we might face difficulties so I'll look further into that aswell. Currently I'm planning to change either Winger's role or WP's role to support, but not decided yet.

 

For instance, you can take a look at the pkms and see what happens for yourself.

For example against West Ham I had to use a different set-up because Kane got injured so I used Son up top with a DF (S) role and Alli was given an attack duty.

Southampton v Tottenham.pkm

Tottenham v Brighton.pkm

Tottenham v Newcastle.pkm

Tottenham v West Ham.pkm