Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Neil Brock

Football Manager 2019 Feature Blogs: Revamped Tactics Module

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Barside said:

AI managers are not good at role selection? 

No that's the roles the game suggests for you, so it's been done on purpose. But like I say, in FM18, people said this was a contradiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, craiigman said:

Have noticed with the Gegenpress, the default 4231 has a Carrilero. However all of FM18 the experts have been saying a Carrilero should only be used when not playing any wingers. Any thoughts on this at all?

Not really.

The original intention behind the role is a midfielder who'll move wide towards the flanks to help defensively when using narrow (wingerless) formations.  There was even some debate at the time about whether the role should be restricted to only narrow formations.  However, it's always been possible to use this role with wide players - the issue was that when using a Carrilero it could have a knock on (detrimental) effect to the winger.

So it's never been said it should only be used without wingers, but it can be advisable not to if the knock on effects to your wingers start to unbalance your side.

We'll have to wait and see if that's been changed in FM19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Barside said:

AI managers are not good at role selection? 

He's talking about the template is he not ?

Tbf and also been told it's bad to use a dozen TI's yet those presets all come with loads on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, treble_yell_:-) said:

He's talking about the template is he not ?

Tbf and also been told it's bad to use a dozen TI's yet those presets all come with loads on

Custom all the way for me. I’m loathed to choose any of the presets due to the sheer number of TIs and how extreme they are, eg ‘Much more’. The gegenpress preset is OTT on that front. The default of a BWM in a 4231 is a terrible idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, herne79 said:

So it's never been said it should only be used without wingers, but it can be advisable not to if the knock on effects to your wingers start to unbalance your side.

"Essentially it has hardcoded behaviour to move side to side and cover the wide areas. It's also hardcoded to play wider than any of the CM roles. It's not a role that gets advanced and is more focused on protecting the middle and wide areas. It's supposed to be used with no wide players (ML/R/AML/R) or behaves strangely when used with those roles."

That's a quote from Cleon. I'm sure I've also seen him say that he argued for the role not to be available in a formation with wide players, and that it would just act as a CM support when picked with wide players. Literally every time I've seen him talking about that role, he's been advising people not to bother with it when using wide roles. Not that I care greatly, but to say it's never been said that it should only be used without wingers isn't true. Or playing on semantics at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, treble_yell_:-) said:

He's talking about the template is he not ?

Tbf and also been told it's bad to use a dozen TI's yet those presets all come with loads on

That was then. This is now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, treble_yell_:-) said:

You're making assumptions on how you think it might play out and how counter press has been implemented.

The 2 choices on "when ball is lost" are counter press or regroup , I would have thought high pressing and the low D / low engagement line coupled with regroup would work better.

 

Edit - what will the team do when neither regroup or counter press is selected ? If the team will just retreat back to their shape then what's the point of the regroup option.

I mean counter-press only means one thing. If it works differently than what I've described then it's a bug that needs to be fixed.

I'm making assumptions on how it works because that's what counter-press means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Amarante said:

That was then. This is now. 

You think the ME has changed that much ? probably going to want to temper your expectations.

Edited by treble_yell_:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Tom8983 said:

That's a quote from Cleon.

Cleon?  Never heard of him.  But the quote says exactly what I posted above, so thanks for the confirmation :thup:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Cleon?  Never heard of him.  But the quote says exactly what I posted above, so thanks for the confirmation :thup:.

Really ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, herne79 said:

So it's never been said it should only be used without wingers

 

48 minutes ago, Tom8983 said:

It's supposed to be used with no wide players

 

11 minutes ago, herne79 said:

But the quote says exactly what I posted above

Really? Like i say, playing on semantics at best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, treble_yell_:-) said:

Tbf and also been told it's bad to use a dozen TI's yet those presets all come with loads on

Who said its bad? Its bad if they arent thought out... But as long as they are used for a reason in line with overall strategy.... Go to town. 

I think a lot of good advice gets really misconstrued in the tactic forum. Rarely is anything advised to be taken as gospel or 100% fact or the only way of doing something. Afterall if you change one variable (player, role, duty, ti, pi, mentality, shape, oi, opponent...) then the situation is different so the advice might change. 

What some of us try to do is give good principle that work across most strategies... But the underlying message needs to be understood not just copied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, treble_yell_:-) said:

He's talking about the template is he not ?

Tbf and also been told it's bad to use a dozen TI's yet those presets all come with loads on

Again, you're not using context. It's bad to use loads of Tis if you have not real idea of what you're doing with them, which is what plenty used to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

Who said its bad? Its bad if they arent thought out... But as long as they are used for a reason in line with overall strategy.... Go to town. 

I think a lot of good advice gets really misconstrued in the tactic forum. Rarely is anything advised to be taken as gospel or 100% fact or the only way of doing something. Afterall if you change one variable (player, role, duty, ti, pi, mentality, shape, oi, opponent...) then the situation is different so the advice might change. 

What some of us try to do is give good principle that work across most strategies... But the underlying message needs to be understood not just copied. 

This 100%  I say this time and time again, context is key. There is too much black and white thinking about information 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tom8983 said:

"Essentially it has hardcoded behaviour to move side to side and cover the wide areas. It's also hardcoded to play wider than any of the CM roles. It's not a role that gets advanced and is more focused on protecting the middle and wide areas. It's supposed to be used with no wide players (ML/R/AML/R) or behaves strangely when used with those roles."

That's a quote from Cleon. I'm sure I've also seen him say that he argued for the role not to be available in a formation with wide players, and that it would just act as a CM support when picked with wide players. Literally every time I've seen him talking about that role, he's been advising people not to bother with it when using wide roles. Not that I care greatly, but to say it's never been said that it should only be used without wingers isn't true. Or playing on semantics at best.

I respect Cleon massively. Master of the ME he is 

 

 i use the Mez with inside forwards and Wingers. The Mez is more aggressive than a CM-S and doesn\'t hog the ball like a playmaker. I've found that they create great overloads with my fullback and winger and provide good combination with the striker a well. In a c couple saves my Mez was my highest assist maker

Edited by Amarante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Some roles though should come with restraints though imo. The carrilero is the perfect example, it's a role both in real life and in the game that is based on having no wide players at all. The role only exists without wide players. With wide players it's just a CM support because the role cannot function correctly. It's silly to have it be able to be selected when it shouldn't be possible. It's coded to play a specific way and this includes no wide players at all in the midfield areas"

"No as that does work. However carrilero role only exists because its a role that is supposed to work due to not having wide players both in the real world and the game. So doesn't make any sense whatsoever to be available with wide players currently. It makes the role behave incorrectly, which defeats the purpose of the role in the first place"

"Carrilero should only be selectable when you don't use ML/R/AML/AMR's. This has already been feature requested. The reason why is simple, it's a role that is supposed to function in a system without wide players so doesn't make sense in its current form that you can select them"

"I gave a lot of feedback on his role to SI so understand how it should work and how it currently does. I requested that the role should not be available when utilised with wingers of any kind whether that be AML/R/MR/ML positions. As the role is designed to have neither of those in the side.

When utilising the role with players in those positions then the role just becomes a BBM/CM which defeats the point of the role. 100% it should have restrictions of when it can be used, so that the role stays unique like intended and more importantly, behaves like it should."

A few more quotes from Cleon regarding the CAR role. But sure, it's unreasonable for us to think we've been told not to use the role with wide players. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Amarante said:

I respect Cleon massively but i use the Mez with inside forwards and Wingers. The Mez is more aggressive than a CM-S and doesn\'t hog the ball like a playmaker. I've found that they create great overloads with my fullback and winger and provide good combination with the striker a well. In a c couple saves my Mez was my highest assist maker

Yea I use the same, my standard tactic in my last save had a mez on the same side as an IF, with a CWB behind them. It was pretty awesome. I don't take Cleon's word as gospel either, but he's clearly very good at getting his tactics to work how he wants, and is very highly regarded on here it seems so it's only natural that people will take his word for gospel, especially as he does seem to have some insider info. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Tom8983 said:

"Some roles though should come with restraints though imo. The carrilero is the perfect example, it's a role both in real life and in the game that is based on having no wide players at all. The role only exists without wide players. With wide players it's just a CM support because the role cannot function correctly. It's silly to have it be able to be selected when it shouldn't be possible. It's coded to play a specific way and this includes no wide players at all in the midfield areas"

"No as that does work. However carrilero role only exists because its a role that is supposed to work due to not having wide players both in the real world and the game. So doesn't make any sense whatsoever to be available with wide players currently. It makes the role behave incorrectly, which defeats the purpose of the role in the first place"

"Carrilero should only be selectable when you don't use ML/R/AML/AMR's. This has already been feature requested. The reason why is simple, it's a role that is supposed to function in a system without wide players so doesn't make sense in its current form that you can select them"

"I gave a lot of feedback on his role to SI so understand how it should work and how it currently does. I requested that the role should not be available when utilised with wingers of any kind whether that be AML/R/MR/ML positions. As the role is designed to have neither of those in the side.

When utilising the role with players in those positions then the role just becomes a BBM/CM which defeats the point of the role. 100% it should have restrictions of when it can be used, so that the role stays unique like intended and more importantly, behaves like it should."

A few more quotes from Cleon regarding the CAR role. But sure, it's unreasonable for us to think we've been told not to use the role with wide players. :rolleyes:

Ok lets understand how the Carrilero works, it shuttles the ball. Its a shuttler basically and is the ONLY role that does not enter either box, unlike the box to box midfielder. The problem since day one is that we have never had a shuttler role that focused on covering the lateral areas of the pitch without going into the box. So yes it can play whether you are using it in a 2 man midfield or a 3 man midfield. The only time the Carrilero will behave like a BBM is when its player traits tell it to Get into Opposition Area. 

People often come up to me and tell me I shouldn't use a Mezzala with an IF. Or a Mez with an AP, I am intentionally using two players in close proximity no other two roles will do this. Is it wrong? Well thats just how i want my system to play. I can create unique passing patterns down one flank. And that's the beauty of having the roles play out the way they are.  

At the moment, because there is no single midfield role that is purely non box to box, the carrilero does offer people more options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Amarante said:

I respect Cleon massively. Master of the ME he is 

 

 i use the Mez with inside forwards and Wingers. The Mez is more aggressive than a CM-S and doesn\'t hog the ball like a playmaker. I've found that they create great overloads with my fullback and winger and provide good combination with the striker a well. In a c couple saves my Mez was my highest assist maker

He's talking about Carreillo not Mezzala mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Ok lets understand how the Carrilero works, it shuttles the ball. Its a shuttler basically and is the ONLY role that does not enter either box, unlike the box to box midfielder. The problem since day one is that we have never had a shuttler role that focused on covering the lateral areas of the pitch without going into the box. So yes it can play whether you are using it in a 2 man midfield or a 3 man midfield. The only time the Carrilero will behave like a BBM is when its player traits tell it to Get into Opposition Area. 

People often come up to me and tell me I shouldn't use a Mezzala with an IF. Or a Mez with an AP, I am intentionally using two players in close proximity no other two roles will do this. Is it wrong? Well thats just how i want my system to play. I can create unique passing patterns down one flank. And that's the beauty of having the roles play out the way they are.  

At the moment, because there is no single midfield role that is purely non box to box, the carrilero does offer people more options.

You're still not addressing the point though. As other people have pointed out, we've been told in no uncertain terms by Cleon that you should never use the CAR role with wide players, yet for some reason people are now pretending like it never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RocheBag said:

You're still not addressing the point though. As other people have pointed out, we've been told in no uncertain terms by Cleon that you should never use the CAR role with wide players, yet for some reason people are now pretending like it never happened.

Why don't you wait for FM19 and try it yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RocheBag said:

He's talking about Carreillo not Mezzala mate.

I know. i just wanted to point out that Cleon also thinks the Mez doesn\t work well with the IF on the same side.  

I wanted to point out that this is also one of the roles persons often say don't do this and don't do that with. As Rashidi posted above

Edited by Amarante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RocheBag said:

You're still not addressing the point though. As other people have pointed out, we've been told in no uncertain terms by Cleon that you should never use the CAR role with wide players, yet for some reason people are now pretending like it never happened.

The context of what cleon said was a combo of a) how he wants it implemented (only available in narrow formations b) how the role is intended to play (for maximum impact on the way it was coded)

The fact it is available means people use it and some like myself and it sounds like rashidi too... Enjoy the way it plays in a wide formation. Whether it was coded to behave the way it behaves in my formation is irrelevant to me if its working the way i want it to...ive spoken to cleon about it... And he elaborated his point that its more "this is how it should play, and this is why it was made..." not forbidding anyone to use it in a wide formation. 

You also need to remember this is a written communication forum... Sometimes the exact words a person uses can be very open to interpretation and if in doubt seek further clarity or try yourself to read between the lines of what was the intent rather than the exact quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Amarante said:

I know i just wanted to point out that Cleon also thinks the Mez doesn\t work well with the IF. 

This is also not true. As I've seen him use it. 

People should really stop with the "x said this, x said that" 

I'm half tempted to tag him in so he tells most of you to stop parroting him. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Why don't you wait for FM19 and try it yourself.

I'm not the one asking, and the person who did ask was talking about the difference between the two games - as in whether fm19 will be different or whether the information provided by Cleon was inorrect to begin with.

There seems to be some really strange fraternity on here between a few people where it's more about protecting each other than it is about getting the correct information out there.

Cleon said the role should never be used with wide players. Theres no point in pretending it didn't happen, or being snarky and deflecting the question, it's right there for all to see.

So now the question is, is something different in the match engine this year so that advice no longer applies, or was it never correct to begin with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

The context of what cleon said was a combo of a) how he wants it implemented (only available in narrow formations b) how the role is intended to play (for maximum impact on the way it was coded)

The fact it is available means people use it and some like myself and it sounds like rashidi too... Enjoy the way it plays in a wide formation. Whether it was coded to behave the way it behaves in my formation is irrelevant to me if its working the way i want it to...ive spoken to cleon about it... And he elaborated his point that its more "this is how it should play, and this is why it was made..." not forbidding anyone to use it in a wide formation. 

You also need to remember this is a written communication forum... Sometimes the exact words a person uses can be very open to interpretation and if in doubt seek further clarity or try yourself to read between the lines of what was the intent rather than the exact quote

I'm not bothered by it either, I've always used the role in any and all formations and will continue to do so. I'm merely clarifying what other posters are asking because there appears to be either a) a misunderstanding of what's being asked, or b) a reluctance to answer the question or even acknowledge what's been said in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RocheBag said:

You're still not addressing the point though. As other people have pointed out, we've been told in no uncertain terms by Cleon that you should never use the CAR role with wide players, yet for some reason people are now pretending like it never happened.

Nah I didn’t say that at all. You’re taking stuff out of context. I said when you use with wingers the carra can’t always fulfil his duty correctly how he should. The role exists and revolves around playing without wide players. So when you then play them next to the wingers, you get weird behaviour at time because the winger makes the carra move differently to what he should be doing. 

Dont just pick and choose what you want to read and leave important parts out.

This is why I don’t contribute in the tactics forum any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cleon said:

Nah I didn’t say that at all. You’re taking stuff out of context. I said when you use with wingers the carra can’t always fulfil his duty correctly how he should. The role exists and revolves around playing without wide players. So when you then play them next to the wingers, you get weird behaviour at time because the winger makes the carra move differently to what he should be doing. 

Dont just pick and choose what you want to read and leave important parts out.

I can only assume you've replied to the wrong person. There are about five people on here quoting you telling them different things about the roles, but I'm not one of them.

As I said several times now, I was clarifying the questions those people were asking as they've gone ignored several times over.

However from the quoted they provided it certainly seems like you did say that, unless they edited them or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cleon said:

Nah I didn’t say that at all. You’re taking stuff out of context. I said when you use with wingers the carra can’t always fulfil his duty correctly how he should. The role exists and revolves around playing without wide players. So when you then play them next to the wingers, you get weird behaviour at time because the winger makes the carra move differently to what he should be doing. 

Dont just pick and choose what you want to read and leave important parts out.

And maybe more important; when it comes to FM, nothing is set in stone. You can do whatever you want and if it is working like you want it to work - then cool! FM is such a great game that truly allows for plenty of ways to achieve your goal. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RocheBag said:

I can only assume you've replied to the wrong person. There are about five people on here quoting you telling them different things about the roles, but I'm not one of them.

As I said several times now, I was clarifying the questions those people were asking as they've gone ignored several times over.

However from the quoted they provided it certainly seems like you did say that, unless they edited them or something.

No I quoted coreectly, the post above you even said I said in no uncertain terms it shouldn’t be used. 

The role was added to FM to be used in systems that had no wide players, that’s the only reason the role exists and was added. Even in real life examples, that’s me role doesn’t exists with wide players either. Hence why the original quote you are referring to says it’s been feature requested to be limited to which formations it was available from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RocheBag said:

I can only assume you've replied to the wrong person. There are about five people on here quoting you telling them different things about the roles, but I'm not one of them.

As I said several times now, I was clarifying the questions those people were asking as they've gone ignored several times over.

However from the quoted they provided it certainly seems like you did say that, unless they edited them or something.

Doesn't matter, you are the one quoting other people and using them as the basis for your argument. Claiming it wasn't you is irelevant, you literally demanded that this be cleared up. So stop with all this cluttering up the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cleon said:

No I quoted coreectly, the post above you even said I said in no uncertain terms it shouldn’t be used.

For the fourth time, I said other people have stated that they were told it should never be used.

Don't just pick and choose what you want to read and leave important bits out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rashidi said:

Doesn't matter, you are the one quoting other people and using them as the basis for your argument. Claiming it wasn't you is irelevant, you literally demanded that this be cleared up. So stop with all this cluttering up the thread.

I asked it be cleared up because people kept asking the same question over and over, which was very useful information, and it kept getting glossed over repeatedly. So I clarified the question because apparently it was difficult to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RocheBag said:

For the fourth time, I said other people have stated that they were told it should never be used.

Don't just pick and choose what you want to read and leave important bits out.

You used the phrase ‘we have been told’ so that indicated you was told because you are included in ‘we’. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cleon said:

You used the phrase ‘we have been told’ so that indicated you was told because you are included in ‘we’. 

I used the phrase "other people have said we've been told"

You must be doing this on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RocheBag said:

I used the phrase "other people have said we've been told"

You must be doing this on purpose.

I have already asked you to stop politely once. The moment you started quoting other people it became a WE. So please stop and drop the topic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

I have already asked you to stop politely once. The moment you started quoting other people it became a WE. So please stop and drop the topic.

 

I take it no one is going to answer the question for them then? Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kpsia518 said:

look like tiki-taka too "defensive" ?:applause:

This is fantastic mate. I've started at the first one "Control Possession" but I'm going to watch them all.

You can really see the team playing as the instructions have set out. Hopefully all the styles are as noticable as the Control Possession one is. If so it's really going to feel dynamic this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d suggest waiting for the official data to be released before worrying about ratings & once it is out wait to see how the player performs in game compared to IRL before posting in the data forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, kpsia518 said:

 

Wing play

direct + risky passes + higher tempo seems hardcore possession wise but it's nice to see striker dropping deep to help defensivly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/10/2018 at 16:05, PHITSO said:

Ah yes, another season of 4-1-2-3 and 5-3-2WB.

Please SI, just name these formations properly (4-3-3/3-5-2) etc so that you are able to use the correctly named formations with a holding mid (4-3-3) and wing backs (3-5-2/3-4-3)

And how do you differentiate between 3-5-2 with midfielders or wingbacks ? Is 4-3-3 with 3 strikers or attacking midfielders?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...