Tactical and Role translations

[roger redknapp]

I’ve read that the games descriptions of mentality and team shape are poorly written. 

For example that Counter is actually a better mentality for control than control. 

Is there a thread on here that translates things from the tactical screen, and offers shared observations about instructions, individual instructions, roles etc?

I’m quite hungry to expand my playing styles in different careers, as well as learn how to make tactical changes based on the ME and not using real life logic and staring at misunderstood instruction definitions.

Also ive seen people make comments such as “the recommended attributes for a position are guidelines only, if you employ a trequarista with strength, stamina and pace you have a completely different animal” 

Id love to find a thread dedicated to translating and brainstorming player roles also, as I feel there is more to the game than the misleading face value in game descriptions. 

I have favourite player roles but would like to understand them all. 

[herne79]

There is no thread which covers this as it would be huge.  There are however plenty of guides found in the Tactics & Training Forum in the "Please Read" thread pinned at the top which discuss such topics as styles of play for example.  Rashidi's YouTube channel ("Bust the Net") is also a fantastic resource.

1 hour ago, roger redknapp said:

Also ive seen people make comments such as “the recommended attributes for a position are guidelines only, if you employ a trequarista with strength, stamina and pace you have a completely different animal”

This is absolutely true.  The role definitions found in game give you an overview of how the role is designed based on their real life counterparts.  So reading the definition of the Trequartista will relate to Totti, Riquelme, etc.  In game, player roles define player behaviour on pitch whilst everything else modifies that behaviour.  So to continue your example, a TQ will always be a TQ so long as the player you use has complimentary attributes which you may associate with a TQ.  But use a player with loads of Work Rate and Aggression instead and that TQ role will now be modified and behave differently.  Tactical settings will also modify the behaviour.  (I actually wrote about that when I employed Tevez as a TQ).

Always always read the role description (and it's default Player Instructions) to get an idea of how the role is designed and then consider whether the player you use in that role will compliment the role (or not).

[roger redknapp]

3 hours ago, herne79 said:

There is no thread which covers this as it would be huge.  There are however plenty of guides found in the Tactics & Training Forum in the "Please Read" thread pinned at the top which discuss such topics as styles of play for example.  Rashidi's YouTube channel ("Bust the Net") is also a fantastic resource.

This is absolutely true.  The role definitions found in game give you an overview of how the role is designed based on their real life counterparts.  So reading the definition of the Trequartista will relate to Totti, Riquelme, etc.  In game, player roles define player behaviour on pitch whilst everything else modifies that behaviour.  So to continue your example, a TQ will always be a TQ so long as the player you use has complimentary attributes which you may associate with a TQ.  But use a player with loads of Work Rate and Aggression instead and that TQ role will now be modified and behave differently.  Tactical settings will also modify the behaviour.  (I actually wrote about that when I employed Tevez as a TQ).

Always always read the role description (and it's default Player Instructions) to get an idea of how the role is designed and then consider whether the player you use in that role will compliment the role (or not).

Thanks for the response.

surely there must be a well known ongoing thread where people leave their observations and learn from others. If not that would be a great thread. 

[roger redknapp]

Can anybody point me to a thread where people interpret what the actual tactical instructions mean?  

hearing that the counter mentality doesn’t mean counter, and control doesn’t mean control, I think I need to wrap my head around instructions more than I currently know.

[Snorks]

7 hours ago, roger redknapp said:

Can anybody point me to a thread where people interpret what the actual tactical instructions mean?  

hearing that the counter mentality doesn’t mean counter, and control doesn’t mean control, I think I need to wrap my head around instructions more than I currently know.

Difficult as everybody has a slightly different perception on what each means. 

I once saw a piece written about it where it described each mentality as a 'level of riskiness' - the higher up you went, the more risks your team would take. It kinda all made more sense to me after that.

So, Counter means, keep the ball safe until an opportunity presents itself. A counter attack used to be triggered when a certain number of opposition players were in your half, or were ahead of the ball, the counter attack was triggered automatically. In fact, I think it still is regardless of the mentality. 

I have noticed in some matches that when I play 'Defensive' mentality, we seem to get more bodies in the opponent's half - partly because of the way the opponent sets up, but also because my 'Defensive' means keep the ball safe, play short and simple, don't take risks. Once we lose the ball the team drops, contracts and sits tight until it's won back.

'Counter' is similar to Defensive, but when gaps open up a counter attack is triggered. So sit deeper, tighten up and contract and when we get the ball if there is space to exploit we go for it, if not, we keep the ball safe until there is. So Defensive and Counter are a less risky approach, based around keeping the ball until an opportunity presents itself. 

Control is a pressing mentality, compressing the pitch vertically and defending a bit higher, which is inherently more risky. With three players on Attack duty, they also take  more risks in trying to get forward, although your defenders will tend to hold position more.

Attack is just that, four or more players trying to get forward ad attack, means the ball has to played forward quicker and therefore is even riskier.

Overload is the riskiest - none of your players will bother with defending much at all.

So what you are telling your players is roughly:

CONTAIN = don;t take any risks

DEFENSIVE = Don;t take many risks

COUNTER = It might be worth the risk

STANDARD = Balance risk and reward

CONTROL = Defensive line higher up the pitch and control the play in their half

ATTACK = Push up, get forward, take risks.

OVERLOAD = throw everything we've got at them and bugger the risk

 

Within that of course you have player duties, that can compliment (or increase) and hold back (decrease) the risk:

DEFEND: Take no risks

SUPPORT: Balance risk/reward

ATTACK: Take risks

 

This a vague outline but hope it helps

 

[themadsheep2001]

3 hours ago, Snorks said:

Difficult as everybody has a slightly different perception on what each means. 

I once saw a piece written about it where it described each mentality as a 'level of riskiness' - the higher up you went, the more risks your team would take. It kinda all made more sense to me after that.

So, Counter means, keep the ball safe until an opportunity presents itself. A counter attack used to be triggered when a certain number of opposition players were in your half, or were ahead of the ball, the counter attack was triggered automatically. In fact, I think it still is regardless of the mentality. 

I have noticed in some matches that when I play 'Defensive' mentality, we seem to get more bodies in the opponent's half - partly because of the way the opponent sets up, but also because my 'Defensive' means keep the ball safe, play short and simple, don't take risks. Once we lose the ball the team drops, contracts and sits tight until it's won back.

'Counter' is similar to Defensive, but when gaps open up a counter attack is triggered. So sit deeper, tighten up and contract and when we get the ball if there is space to exploit we go for it, if not, we keep the ball safe until there is. So Defensive and Counter are a less risky approach, based around keeping the ball until an opportunity presents itself. 

Control is a pressing mentality, compressing the pitch vertically and defending a bit higher, which is inherently more risky. With three players on Attack duty, they also take  more risks in trying to get forward, although your defenders will tend to hold position more.

Attack is just that, four or more players trying to get forward ad attack, means the ball has to played forward quicker and therefore is even riskier.

Overload is the riskiest - none of your players will bother with defending much at all.

So what you are telling your players is roughly:

CONTAIN = don;t take any risks

DEFENSIVE = Don;t take many risks

COUNTER = It might be worth the risk

STANDARD = Balance risk and reward

CONTROL = Defensive line higher up the pitch and control the play in their half

ATTACK = Push up, get forward, take risks.

OVERLOAD = throw everything we've got at them and bugger the risk

 

Within that of course you have player duties, that can compliment (or increase) and hold back (decrease) the risk:

DEFEND: Take no risks

SUPPORT: Balance risk/reward

ATTACK: Take risks

 

This a vague outline but hope it helps

 

In terms of mentality thats exactly how I play. I've maintained for years they should be renamed for risk. Because you can be attacking on a "defensive" Mentality and vice versa. What separates them is the level of risk they take 

[Tom8983]

On 06/05/2018 at 20:39, roger redknapp said:

hearing that the counter mentality doesn’t mean counter, and control doesn’t mean control, I think I need to wrap my head around instructions more than I currently know.

Open the 'team instructions' pop up, and have a play flicking through the different mentalities and look at what changes. It's all in there. Even play around during friendlies, set your team up with a defensive mentality and watch for a half or full game. Then change nothing else but the mentality to attacking and watch what's different. People could spend hours explaining it, but I find the only way to actually understand it rather than just knowing about it is by figuring it out by yourself. It takes longer, and can be frustrating, but is much more satisfying when you get it, and also can lead to a better overall understanding of how the game works.

[westy8chimp]

On ‎06‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 20:39, roger redknapp said:

Can anybody point me to a thread where people interpret what the actual tactical instructions mean?  

hearing that the counter mentality doesn’t mean counter, and control doesn’t mean control, I think I need to wrap my head around instructions more than I currently know.

What does the term 'counter' mean to you though?

Counter to me means -> start the attacking phase immediately after recovering possession.

I could achieve this with almost any formation or mentality... surely any tactic using 'direct' passing style is counter attacking? You could use bottom heavy formation with lots of attack duties... or attacking mentality, you could use a top heavy formation on defensive mentality... any number of TI/PI formation, player roles, duties could contribute to counter football.

I understand and agree it would be good to have that kind of thread in theory... but in practice it would just be another topic full of opposing opinions and interpretations.

Head over to tactics forum and you will get a far greater feel for the basics, hopefully (such as useful snippets of information you may not know because it is FM under the hood i.e PI>TI ... or does a TM attract the ball more than an AP?)

But when it comes to achieving a specific condition of satisfaction, or style of play... you will realise there are a hundred caveats to any question.

there are more ways to kill a pig other than choking it to death with butter

[Snorks]

8 hours ago, westy8chimp said:

What does the term 'counter' mean to you though?

Counter to me means -> start the attacking phase immediately after recovering possession.

 

Which is an example of my previous post.

To me, the Counter mentality includes more phases, starting without the ball., about players being in positions to attack when we do get the ball, but regaining possession isn't the trigger. As the extreme example, regaining the ball with 10 opposition players in front of us requires more thought.

So the Counter mentality ( a team strategy) differs from a Counter Attack (an in-match event or passage of play) - took me a while to figure that one out myself, and I only did because I noticed much better possession stats when my team played 'Counter Mentality' over 'Attacking'.

In game, a Counter attack as you describe happens automatically, I believe, on all mentalities to lesser or more extent, depending on the number of opposition players ahead of you. So in game, draw the opposition in to your half then rapidly exploit the space they leave - watch what happens on defending corners if you set your two fastest players on 'Edge of Box' and 'Stay Forward'. Almost guaranteed a Counter Attack under your definition on any mentality. It did take a long while to realise that the Counter mentality is possession based rather than, as you point out, an immediate push up the field when the ball is won.

I have probably been playing the game too long and am starting to define IRL by aligning it to the FM lingo rather than the other way around but until SI change the 'language' used, then that's what helps me in the game.

Can't disagree that it needs to be looked at, but then I would need to relearn everything I have learned over the last 10 years of the game - :-)

[roger redknapp]

Thanks very much for your input guys 

[RorysRocketThrow]

So this begs a question re. Counter mentality vs fast counter attacks.

I think a lot of people see a counter attack in real football as a fast burst from a defensive position to an offensive position upon changeover of possession, or in modern terms a "transition".

In terms of FM, given we are now openly talking about mentality as risk, would it be better to pick an attacking mentality to trigger the fast burst, and mould the defensive TI's to try and mimick a deeper, more narrow defensive structure, with the increased mentality (risk) triggering the aggressive fast transition?

Is this effectively possible?  I've never played around with it.

I've never got to see that type of football on a counter mentality to be fair, more what is described above.

[westy8chimp]

1 hour ago, RorysRocketThrow said:

In terms of FM, given we are now openly talking about mentality as risk, would it be better to pick an attacking mentality to trigger the fast burst, and mould the defensive TI's to try and mimick a deeper, more narrow defensive structure, with the increased mentality (risk) triggering the aggressive fast transition?

Is this effectively possible?  I've never played around with it.

yes and yes. If that is what you are going for. Personally I prefer my own purpose built counter attacks -> either by low block with TI/PI & roles that seek to break forward (Lib, Reg, RPM, SV, BBM, SS...) or a high block with hard working roles  (DF, DW, BWM, CAR, AMC) set to press and tackle etc

It's important to remember that FMs interpretation is also a valid choice for 'counter' attacking football. There is some under the hood behaviour coming into play. Yes ,it is deemed less risky and suggested you play with a deeper formation and entice the enemy into the ambush... less risk 'under the hood' includes narrower, deeper defence [to the best of my understanding], but then once a certain number of their players are committed, if you win the ball a 'counter-attack' will be sprung... and again 'under the hood' this turns your players into one minded ultra attacking fiends who charge forward to score.

This also happens on 'defensive' mentality but not as often.

 

[herne79]

4 hours ago, westy8chimp said:

This also happens on 'defensive' mentality but not as often.

Unless something's changed that I haven't heard about, it's the other way around .

If using the Defensive, Counter or Overload mentalities, the threshold for opposition players overcommitting in order to turn your own team into ultra attacking fiends on the counter is lowered to encourage the behaviour.

[westy8chimp]

4 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Unless something's changed that I haven't heard about, it's the other way around .

If using the Defensive, Counter or Overload mentalities, the threshold for opposition players overcommitting in order to turn your own team into ultra attacking fiends on the counter is lowered to encourage the behaviour.

I thought being on defensive meant you would only go to overload if more opponent players committed? as it is less risky strategy... hmmm add some metrics, even if anecdotal, to explain your perspective?

i.e. if for instance 8 opponent players 'overcommitted' was the trigger for a counter on Counter mentality ...then it would be 9 on defensive

[herne79]

31 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

I thought being on defensive meant you would only go to overload if more opponent players committed? as it is less risky strategy... hmmm add some metrics, even if anecdotal, to explain your perspective?

i.e. if for instance 8 opponent players 'overcommitted' was the trigger for a counter on Counter mentality ...then it would be 9 on defensive

Anecdotally if the counter trigger in the ME fires at 6 opposition players overcommitting if using the Standard, Control or Attacking mentalities, that trigger would lower to 5 when using the Defensive, Counter or Overload mentalities in order to encourage more counter attacks.

I know that may sound a bit back to front given the Defensive and Counter mentalities are supposed to be low risk, but it's that low risk aspect (playing passively in defence to encourage the opposition forward) combined with a relaxing of the trigger which encourages more counter attacks.

There are of course other variables to consider - formation perhaps being the biggest one - and I'm talking purely about a counter attack in the ME.  A counter attack being hit the opposition fast and at pace from deep in order to overwhelm their defence before they can reorganise themselves.

The thing is, in the T&T forum we tend to start using aspects such as Mentality in other ways than it's described in game, which can of course get even more confusing.  I've just been writing about my heavily possession focussed system with loads of ball recycling and short passing using the Attacking mentality for example, or we start using the Defensive mentality to play attacking football.  That kind of thing.  So if all we actually want to do is play "counter attacking football", going by the in game description we'd use the Counter mentality.  The problem is - and this is where the in game descriptions can fall down - there is more to playing counter attacking football than simply picking the Counter mentality.

[westy8chimp]

Ta ...

25 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I know that may sound a bit back to front

it does  and probably exactly why the OP wanted wider discussion.

[Svenc]

19 hours ago, herne79 said:

The thing is, in the T&T forum we tend to start using aspects such as Mentality in other ways than it's described in game, which can of course get even more confusing. 

Or as likely 99% of SI staff use it. This has always happened, creative members being ahead of what SI had envisioned. Long-term, the thing needs massively work anyhow. Shor-term, the problems as to the counter mentality are two fold.

- There is a difference between direct football (fast transitions back to front a la Egil Olsen, Leicester too arguably -- having won the EPL with a pass completion of like 65%) and a counter attack (sit deep, lure the opp out and if they overcommit, launch a counter).

- At one point, at the very start, the now counter mentality (formely strategy) made additionally sense in a way. You couldn't tweak the d-line near as much. Even with a push higher up, it was still inherently deep to lure opposition out. The same goes for other aspects not being near as tweakable.

-There is a third factor, in that counter attacks are a mechanic in the ME, as described by you. Counters are triggered automatically when they are "on." However, they can't be triggered all that oftenly if you don't actually lure out (or the opposition doesN't actually commit too many players forward)

[MBarbaric]

4 ore fa, Svenc ha scritto:

Or as likely 99% of SI staff use it. This has always happened, creative members being ahead of what SI had envisioned. Long-term, the thing needs massively work anyhow. Shor-term, the problems as to the counter mentality are two fold.

- There is a difference between direct football (fast transitions back to front a la Egil Olsen, Leicester too arguably -- having won the EPL with a pass completion of like 65%) and a counter attack (sit deep, lure the opp out and if they overcommit, launch a counter).

- At one point, at the very start, the now counter mentality (formely strategy) made additionally sense in a way. You couldn't tweak the d-line near as much. Even with a push higher up, it was still inherently deep to lure opposition out. The same goes for other aspects not being near as tweakable.

-There is a third factor, in that counter attacks are a mechanic in the ME, as described by you. Counters are triggered automatically when they are "on." However, they can't be triggered all that oftenly if you don't actually lure out (or the opposition doesN't actually commit too many players forward)

this is a horrendous thread exactly on topic here

hope SI reads that as it blatantly shows that virtually nobody understands frigging shape. People attribute to it what it doesn't do, misinterpret it... and all this after it has been 10 years in the game. 

 

EDIT: Love how it got closed down for being off topic these forums are really going south

[Svenc]

2 hours ago, MBarbaric said:

hope SI reads that as it blatantly shows that virtually nobody understands frigging shape. People attribute to it what it doesn't do, misinterpret it... and all this after it has been 10 years in the game.

That said it's been somewhat reworked in the last couple iterations. The only tactical mod/s who from my experience have ever tried to translate it into something that could be linked to actual football concepts, they're not around anymore (read THOGs great Lines And Diamonds, there's a couple more). This involved more than one. I'm still suspecting that there is a connection... as that rework started just that version they suddenly stopped being around. Bit off-topic though. 

 

[Tom8983]

2 hours ago, MBarbaric said:

hope SI reads that as it blatantly shows that virtually nobody understands frigging shape. People attribute to it what it doesn't do, misinterpret it... and all this after it has been 10 years in the game

I'm pretty sure that the Assistant Manager tactical 'advice' has a huge part to claim in the blame game here. It seems to always equate 'Attacking' mentality with 'Very Fluid' shape, and 'Contain/Defensive' mentality with 'Highly structured/Structured' shape. Add in the stupid descriptions that don't really relate to what they do, you're bound to spread confusion and misinformation. This game needs a huge overhaul of the tactics/assman elements like this otherwise this will just turn into Groundhog Day.

[Svenc]

Aye, a lot of the game's design can be pretty much summed up by this anyhow.

Back to playing bits of Pillars Of Eternity now -- nothing more beautiful/transparent than shatloads of numbers.