Playing FM more reactively

[scwiffy]

 

Hi all,

After years of taking ready-made tactics and morphing them to my own team, this year I've decided to play differently. I want to really take on board team reports, opponent weaknesses and adapt my tactics game by game. 

So far this has gone quite well (I'm playing with Brighton so have had to stick to some certain tactical styles that suit my personnel). I have a fairly decent tactical understanding but am desperate to learn more. There's a lot of knowledge out there (on this site already of course) but I specifically want to learn more about weaknesses in certain formations and play styles.

I know not all formations are the same and you can play them in many different ways with different roles, mentality and fluidity, but some rules still apply generally. For example, my next opponent play a 442 which I know is vulnerable through the middle, so I should maybe use 3 CMs or 2 with an AM to exploit the space between the lines (as they have no DM). That's the sort of advice I'm after.

Also, any other advice I can get on playing this way (which is new to me) would be very welcome.

[TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos]

I tried playing this way for a while on a previous version, and stumbled across this thread by @VinceLombardi, which blew my mind. A lot to read, but there's so much info on the way you want to play. I think it was written for an older version, but the ideas still apply. Enjoy!

 https://community.sigames.com/topic/american-football

[scwiffy]

On 02/12/2018 at 09:11, TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos said:

I tried playing this way for a while on a previous version, and stumbled across this thread by @VinceLombardi, which blew my mind. A lot to read, but there's so much info on the way you want to play. I think it was written for an older version, but the ideas still apply. Enjoy!

 https://community.sigames.com/topic/american-football

Wow, that is without question the best post/thread I've ever read about FM19. The way he understands the game really talks to me. All the more impressive as it comes from someone who isn't familiar to the game. I'm realising now that what I'm looking to exploit is numerical matchups and how spaces are created .

I've been putting what he is saying into practice and its working very well in my Brighton save. It's difficult to translate some of the more general TIs into FM19 without shape and mentality, but I think I get the idea. Some formations are still very difficult to break down anything with 2CB's and 3 in the middle (with at east1 DM).

Thank you very much for forwarding/posting. Any more on this subject is more than welcome.

[VinceLombardi]

On 02/12/2018 at 04:11, TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos said:

I tried playing this way for a while on a previous version, and stumbled across this thread by @VinceLombardi, which blew my mind. A lot to read, but there's so much info on the way you want to play. I think it was written for an older version, but the ideas still apply. Enjoy!

 https://community.sigames.com/topic/american-football

 

3 hours ago, scwiffy said:

Wow, that is without question the best post/thread I've ever read about FM19. The way he understands the game really talks to me. All the more impressive as it comes from someone who isn't familiar to the game. I'm realising now that what I'm looking to exploit is numerical matchups and how spaces are created .

I've been putting what he is saying into practice and its working very well in my Brighton save. It's difficult to translate some of the more general TIs into FM19 without shape and mentality, but I think I get the idea. Some formations are still very difficult to break down anything with 2CB's and 3 in the middle (with at east1 DM).

Thank you very much for forwarding/posting. Any more on this subject is more than welcome.

Appreciate the link and the feedback. Glad folk still find it useful.

Playing the system in FM 19 now and there are a few big adjustments you need to consider:

1) The first you identified. The system leans heavily on team shape to fine tune how the team mentality is applied to the players. In particular, the Attack/Counter-Attack really used the highly structured shape to great effect. Because there is no mechanism to do this anymore, you have to dial back the duties on a number of the player/roles to keep the defense together. Thankfully though, the new transition instructions allow for a lot of new options to get some of the same effects so it should still work.

2) The AMC SS (A) role/duty doesn't play anything like it did in FM16. In 16, he was drawn into space like a magnet. He was dynamic and equal parts creator and scorer. He could single handedly pressure the A gap. In 19, he is none of that. There are other ways to pressure the A gap, but SS (a) isn't it -- at least as those formations uses it.

3) There are tons of ways to pressure the B gap now. In FM 16, there was only 1 reliable way to pressure the B gap -- bring an outside player inside, like a IF or the wide midfielder with instructions like an IF. Other roles could get there via channels and whatnot, but you couldn't count on them to roam into the channel reliably enough to count on it. In 19, You can bring players into the B gap from about anywhere. Lots more options for lateral movement now that you can use PI for it on midfield central players and the Inverted Wingback works properly.

 

[scwiffy]

23 hours ago, VinceLombardi said:

 

Appreciate the link and the feedback. Glad folk still find it useful.

Playing the system in FM 19 now and there are a few big adjustments you need to consider:

1) The first you identified. The system leans heavily on team shape to fine tune how the team mentality is applied to the players. In particular, the Attack/Counter-Attack really used the highly structured shape to great effect. Because there is no mechanism to do this anymore, you have to dial back the duties on a number of the player/roles to keep the defense together. Thankfully though, the new transition instructions allow for a lot of new options to get some of the same effects so it should still work.

2) The AMC SS (A) role/duty doesn't play anything like it did in FM16. In 16, he was drawn into space like a magnet. He was dynamic and equal parts creator and scorer. He could single handedly pressure the A gap. In 19, he is none of that. There are other ways to pressure the A gap, but SS (a) isn't it -- at least as those formations uses it.

3) There are tons of ways to pressure the B gap now. In FM 16, there was only 1 reliable way to pressure the B gap -- bring an outside player inside, like a IF or the wide midfielder with instructions like an IF. Other roles could get there via channels and whatnot, but you couldn't count on them to roam into the channel reliably enough to count on it. In 19, You can bring players into the B gap from about anywhere. Lots more options for lateral movement now that you can use PI for it on midfield central players and the Inverted Wingback works properly.

 

 

Yes. The problem for me personally is not so much the fm19 adaptation but trying to understand what you were achieving with each of the balanced, control, attacking mentalities, especially in the transitions. I can’t help but feel the new fm19 TIs could greatly help each. The main one I can’t decide about is using counter press as it sounds like you want to do that but without comprising defensive shape which I think is difficult to execute.

I’ve been using the roles you set out and they’ve been working well but certainly some of the newer roles sound like exactly what you want. The stand out two are Inverted winger (a) instead of WM and Pressing Forward (a) instead of DLF. I’m going to experiment using these roles instead for my next few games. A Mezzala (a) is perfectly built to attack the B gaps but that will only fit into you 4-6-0 formation (replacing BBMs), as most of the time the WMs/IWs are supposed to be attacking that gap. I'm also going to look at changing the SS in the 4-6-0 to a Pressing Forward(d), that sounds like more what you're after.

The biggest eye-opener for me has been how well the DM pairing work. It’s often felt overkill for me in the past but seeing the way they draw out opposition CMs (opening up space behind them) and the way they control the play when in the opposition half is a joy to watch. At times I’ve felt that maybe they should be DLPs so they could play more defence-splitting passes if they open up, but at the moment I’m just thinking “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”

I know what you mean about the SS. I think lots of players have complained about all the AM roles in this years game. The only one I’ve managed to get working (in other tactics) is the Trequista. But that would literally be the opposite of what you are after, attacking the wrong space and not offering anything defensively. I think a Pressing Forward (d) or Attacking Midfielder (a) are the closest options, but SS is still viable. Its a shame you can't have Mezzala(a) centrally, as that attacks vertically very aggressively, maybe a CM(a)?

[VinceLombardi]

“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”

That's a lot of what is informing my decisions right now and with the system generally. I'm always trying to improve the worst parts and anything that works is a low priority for experimentation at that moment.

With the Team Instructions, particularly the "Attack" system, I was concern when I started, but I'm not too worried having played around with it.

Right now, I'm using the counter-press transition instruction on the Control and Attack systems. Both systems apply pressure to force the opposing team to pass the ball. I combine that with the Counter Attack instruction in the Attack system because I'm trying to create an attack in transition. But the Control system's goal on defense is to just to regain possession, so I have the Hold Shape instruction there. I use neither instruction on the Balance system as it leans harder players making the right call situationally. I get most of what I want. Might fine tune it some more after I sort the other issues with the system.

Really enjoying the new roles for the outside players. They work really well and give me tons of options I didn't have in 16.

Still playing around with what to do inside. I've thrown the SS (A) out entirely. And because the old formations were so reliant on that player/role to destabilize the defense, they are getting tossed too.

Early experiments with PF(S), AF(A) and CM(A) have been showing promise and I suspect that the final product will feature more runners from deep and no strikerless formations. I also think the final product in 19 is going to resemble an actual playbook even more than the 16 version.

[loisvale]

2 hours ago, VinceLombardi said:

“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”

That's a lot of what is informing my decisions right now and with the system generally. I'm always trying to improve the worst parts and anything that works is a low priority for experimentation at that moment.

With the Team Instructions, particularly the "Attack" system, I was concern when I started, but I'm not too worried having played around with it.

Right now, I'm using the counter-press transition instruction on the Control and Attack systems. Both systems apply pressure to force the opposing team to pass the ball. I combine that with the Counter Attack instruction in the Attack system because I'm trying to create an attack in transition. But the Control system's goal on defense is to just to regain possession, so I have the Hold Shape instruction there. I use neither instruction on the Balance system as it leans harder players making the right call situationally. I get most of what I want. Might fine tune it some more after I sort the other issues with the system.

Really enjoying the new roles for the outside players. They work really well and give me tons of options I didn't have in 16.

Still playing around with what to do inside. I've thrown the SS (A) out entirely. And because the old formations were so reliant on that player/role to destabilize the defense, they are getting tossed too.

Early experiments with PF(S), AF(A) and CM(A) have been showing promise and I suspect that the final product will feature more runners from deep and no strikerless formations. I also think the final product in 19 is going to resemble an actual playbook even more than the 16 version.

Really enjoyed this last time. Most I have enjoyed playing the game. Will watch this with interest and have a go recreating myself. Hope you can offer up your fm19 playbook sometime. 

[scwiffy]

3 hours ago, VinceLombardi said:

Early experiments with PF(S), AF(A) and CM(A) have been showing promise and I suspect that the final product will feature more runners from deep and no strikerless formations. I also think the final product in 19 is going to resemble an actual playbook even more than the 16 version.

CM(a) has the most promise for attacking centrally (the a gap) but arrives too late I think.

I think another option is 3 strikers. AF(a) - PF(d) - DLF(s), that’ll be good to experiment with. I think the DLF is still working well so don’t really want to change that, and PF doesnt draw defender out of shape in the same way.

i tried one game with IWs instead of WMs, might have been a one off but it didn’t go well. Lost game against poorer opposition. I think the IWs come a little too far in and a little too early.

Also recently got completely out played with 3-5-0 against a 442. I think WBs might be better for that instead of WMs. Might be PPMs on my wide men but they kept coming inside which isn’t penetrating the gap you want them too

Overall i think it’s very close to being an amazing setup. Just needs a little extra work. Could end up being better than the original though with new roles and transition TIs. Haven’t tried the 4-6-0 with Mez(a)s yet but think that could be a vast improvement

[scwiffy]

Played a few games with 350 against 442. And it’s mostly as I predicted in my last post.

WB(a)s workd much better for me than Ws, this might be because all me players who play that position all have ‘cuts in from the wing’ PPMs.

For me personally Pressing Forward (a) has been much more effective at breaking the opposition back line than an Advanced Forward. This has been true in other tactics I’ve used this year also (I have a very good PF so not sure if that is making a difference).

SS(a), I’m still not sure. CM(a)s arrive too late, Trequista has been most effective even though it’s not pressing the A gap as intended. I think an PF(d) might be the best option but haven’t tried it. Going with PF(a)-PF(d)-PF(a) up top looks like it could be highly effective. Or a CF(s)-PF(a)-CF(s), it would do something completely different to what you intended but exploit the A gap highly effectively. CF(s) often drift out wide