Creating A Tactic - Step By Step

[argenmik]

i read this on your blog and to be honest without seeming too much of a brown noser i thought it was so concise i didnt need to ask questions. The only question I have is I believe you do alot of analysis in your first season post preseason so competitive games. you analyse your tactics and then work out your changes from there (i would imagine the game is slower at the start of your career than it is a 2 seasons in as it would be for most people). The thing that surprised me about your post was that it seemed that this analysis on the way you're  playing was well into your save. how much are you still watching your games, 2/3 years in? apologies if I've made some assumptions there.

[Cleon]

14 minutes ago, argenmik said:

i read this on your blog and to be honest without seeming too much of a brown noser i thought it was so concise i didnt need to ask questions. The only question I have is I believe you do alot of analysis in your first season post preseason so competitive games. you analyse your tactics and then work out your changes from there (i would imagine the game is slower at the start of your career than it is a 2 seasons in as it would be for most people). The thing that surprised me about your post was that it seemed that this analysis on the way you're  playing was well into your save. how much are you still watching your games, 2/3 years in? apologies if I've made some assumptions there.

The analysis posted is all from the first season, in fact its all from the first 5 competitive games. I learn the system, understand the strengths and weakness etc and then make any changes I need to make. Once I'm happy I don't change anything usually unless I'm forced to, i.e chasing a game, playing badly etc. In the first season I didn't change anything other than  stated in the first 3 parts of the article. The 4th article I did, is what I did from the second season onwards and about taking us to the next level. So in short I didn't watch games/change anything after the first 5 games. I could have probably gladly carried on playing how I was in the second season too but like I said in the article, I felt something wasn't quite right and I could get more about it.

So the 4th post and the next one I'm doing are all about the changes I'll make for the second season. But again, after 5 games I likely won't have to change anything or watch much.

 I only watch games to begin with when creating a tactic to understand how it works and functions or because something has gone wrong during my season. Those are the only times where I slow things down and pay more attention than usual.

I'm in my 7th season now and in total I've perhaps watched 12 games maximum for tactic reasons, in this time. 5 of them from the first season while I was getting sorted, 5 in the second season and 2 others because I was looking for something specific to see how a player trait changed things if I gave my MC killer balls.

There's not a single bit of analysis though from in the future, it's all from the first few games of the season and the start of season 2 for the complete wingback stuff I wrote obviously.

[mdougal]

Hi Cleon

Firstly I don’t think you should take any lack of posts in this topic as a way of people not having an interest etc, as if people are like me and I certainly speak for myself here, im a little nervous about asking something stupid or coming across as clueless.

What I would say for me is I have been a big fan of reading your posts for the last 4-5 years and have attempted to garner as much information from your posts as possible and put them into my games. Where I have struggled in the past is I haven’t had the patience nor the ability to spot holes in my tactic and have then simply downloaded the best super tactic and then gone on to lose interest with the game due to the plug and play nature of doing this and not having to do any thinking whatsoever.

Where your topic this year has given me real interest is the concept of the W-M formation as after reading Jonathan Wilson’s inverting the pyramid years ago I’ve always tried to insert the idea in FM mainly without any real success due mainly to being far too easy to play against and conceding goal after goal down the sides of the wide centre back/full back.

After reading you topic and seeing that you had managed to have a stable defence even with this formation I simply copied the formation to see how the tactic played out in front of my eyes, and could see almost straight away a solidity due to having an almost box like grip on the game with the 2 halfbacks and then the 2 midfielders infront. This gave me real hope for being able to try this formation and I have since tried to move away from simply copying your tactic and instead use it a base for what I’d like to see. 

I actually moved one of the full backs from inverted to complete wingback before I had seen that you had so that gave me some solace in the fact you thought it could work but I have found that by doing this I have become more vulnerable to quick attacks which playing as Heerenveen in the Dutch league means I maybe haven’t quite got the right personnel to pull it off exactly as I’d like to see

I am very interested to see your swap from AP to CM(a) due to the fact I actually went the other way as I tried to see an almost Kevin De Bruyne effect with that midfielder but am yet to be convinced either way tho we do keep the ball and play some good looking football at times.

I am flip flopping from Attacking mentality and Balanced due to opposition and probably not quite seeing what benefit either is giving me in truth (more a general idea of surely I’m less stable playing Attacking) and I have to say I was happy to see your counter attacking video above as I’ve noticed when I counter I counter in big numbers even if my players don’t always make the right choice

I think in the long term playing this way my hope is to see something that I would pigeon hole under total football I guess as I’ve had a long held fascination with the Puskas Hungarian sides as well as the Dutch 70s sides and the idea of a all player can play anywhere idea (within reason on a computer game) as I have a desire to see good football as well as win rather than just win by any means.

If I could ask any questions of what you see in your tactic or in general of the tactic they would be

*Do you think it would be an overkill of middle third somethings to maybe drop the striker into a deeper position maybe SS or something similar to try to give him that interaction and feel of everyone does everything as I’ll admit I can’t seem to get any striker role working for me

*Whats your opinion on mentality with this system is Attacking too much but then you have the middle block of 4 to cover some of that

*Maybe for me with a lesser team one inverted wingback and one complete wingback could be a workable solution though I’m not entirely sure that would work in reality

*Im also tempted to drop a halfback back a strata to centreback and move the full backs up a strata but then have misgivings that then would mean the tactic would play a complete different way

 

Anyway sorry for rambling and thanks for any reply

[forlegaizen]

9 hours ago, Cleon said:

I'd flip this around and ask - Do you need to know the attributes of players, if all you are concentrating on is how things work? To understand the settings, I don't think the attributes are that important. Even the poorest players will be enough to show you the basics of any role or settings used. Maybe this is why people are struggling? 

Having played this way for some time would you recommended it to someone who struggles with the tactics part of the game ?

Speaking for myself, I feel that sometimes I get "blinded" by the attributes when analysing some of the behaviours of the players, maybe if only had some vague idea of the strong/weak points (like in those in Scout Reports) I would be more undertsanding.

9 hours ago, Cleon said:

I'd also argue that a lot of people have ideas and think they work from the off, without realising that should be the end goal and not the starting point.

Yeah, I'm guilty of this too. I get too bored and/or demotived when something I had in mind doesnt work.

[Gee_Simpson]

9 hours ago, Cleon said:

Don't worry, I don't see it as a rant.

I think your selling yourself short a bit in the post mind. I've seen some of the replies over the years you've done and the questions you've asked, you know a lot more about how the game works than you think. You don't really need to be analytical to see if something isn't working either. You just need eyes that work . Everyone no matter how limited they are with football or how the game works, is able to see if a player is crossing the ball when he should be. If not, then it's easy to see why he isn't. And so on. It's really that simple. It's not as complicated as guides make it seem. You have to remember that guides are written to show you how things work and are kind of 'walkthroughs' so they always give more detail than needed, or we can't get the points across.

If you want something to work with minimal tweaking then the more effort you put in at the start, the less you'll have to do for the entire of the save. 

And don't worry about taking elements of others tactic, you don't have to feel guilty. That's what football has always been based on. The best coaches in the world always take other peoples ideas and put their own spin on them.

Ah cheers mate 

It's definitely a laziness really, I get frustrated even after 1 loss. I've actually been stuck on a loop for the last few editions of FM (skipping 18 completely) where I am constantly going on test saves with the same team and trying multiple different tactics until I can get a good result each match. Of course this has never happened so unbelievably this has resulted in me never starting a proper save, I only ever test for a few games then give up. My last proper save was on FM13, I took Real Sociedad to 4th in my first season with my own tactic.

I watch the matches on full for a while but I know myself that I don't spot enough. I get frustrated when a player randomly boots the ball out of play, I wonder is it because of his attributes or is it my tactics? I usually use play out of defence TI but then my centre back launches the ball forward even if there is an option to play it short. Small things like that put me off and it frustrates me because sometimes I can't figure it out. I won't lie, I'm slightly obsessed with possession football so when I'm getting under 60% I usually scrap it. I think I just need to take the leap and start a save and try and prepare to learn as I go, as the test save restart loop I've been in over the last few editions isn't helping me get better at the game at all. Then that way if I get stuck I can come on here and ask you guys for help by posting up my tactic. Obviously I don't have a tactic to show at the moment as I restart all the time 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Gee_Simpson

[Cleon]

Quote

Firstly I don’t think you should take any lack of posts in this topic as a way of people not having an interest etc, as if people are like me and I certainly speak for myself here, im a little nervous about asking something stupid or coming across as clueless.

Ask away, there's no such thing as a silly/stupid comment. No need to be nervous, these threads are designed for people to ask any kind of questions

Quote

What I would say for me is I have been a big fan of reading your posts for the last 4-5 years and have attempted to garner as much information from your posts as possible and put them into my games. Where I have struggled in the past is I haven’t had the patience nor the ability to spot holes in my tactic and have then simply downloaded the best super tactic and then gone on to lose interest with the game due to the plug and play nature of doing this and not having to do any thinking whatsoever.

Where your topic this year has given me real interest is the concept of the W-M formation as after reading Jonathan Wilson’s inverting the pyramid years ago I’ve always tried to insert the idea in FM mainly without any real success due mainly to being far too easy to play against and conceding goal after goal down the sides of the wide centre back/full back.

After reading you topic and seeing that you had managed to have a stable defence even with this formation I simply copied the formation to see how the tactic played out in front of my eyes, and could see almost straight away a solidity due to having an almost box like grip on the game with the 2 halfbacks and then the 2 midfielders infront. This gave me real hope for being able to try this formation and I have since tried to move away from simply copying your tactic and instead use it a base for what I’d like to see. 

I actually moved one of the full backs from inverted to complete wingback before I had seen that you had so that gave me some solace in the fact you thought it could work but I have found that by doing this I have become more vulnerable to quick attacks which playing as Heerenveen in the Dutch league means I maybe haven’t quite got the right personnel to pull it off exactly as I’d like to see

I am very interested to see your swap from AP to CM(a) due to the fact I actually went the other way as I tried to see an almost Kevin De Bruyne effect with that midfielder but am yet to be convinced either way tho we do keep the ball and play some good looking football at times.

You seem to have a decent grasp of how things should work and how you can change things to be better. So I'd say you're along the right tracks, just carry on doing things like you are currently and you'll be fine.

Quote

*Do you think it would be an overkill of middle third somethings to maybe drop the striker into a deeper position maybe SS or something similar to try to give him that interaction and feel of everyone does everything as I’ll admit I can’t seem to get any striker role working for me

You could drop the striker back if you wanted but then it wouldn't really be a W-M. And by doing this you'd likely have to adapt all the other roles around them too, as play in general would dramatically change even though you only changed the striker. This has a knock-on effect everywhere else and changes how you attack.

I personally don't have issues with the striker but I made a slight change which I'll be talking about in the next article because of the change to the IWB to a CWB. This changed how I attacked which I spoke about in the last article.

I'd say you'd be better off focusing on the striker in your own save and try and figure out why he isn't involved as much as you'd like. Is he getting a constant supply of the ball? Is he isolated? Is he drifting too wide? Maybe he's far too deep and so on. These are the things I'd be looking at.

Quote

*Whats your opinion on mentality with this system is Attacking too much but then you have the middle block of 4 to cover some of that

Personally speaking I don't think this tactic works that good on higher mentalities because it's naturally attacking based on shape alone. It's a solid formation but only if you don't over-commit and be too aggressive all the time. This is why I use balanced, I'm still as attacking as a positive/attacking mentality due to the roles and duties I use but it's not forced. The formation itself is better played on lower mentalities imo

Quote

*Maybe for me with a lesser team one inverted wingback and one complete wingback could be a workable solution though I’m not entirely sure that would work in reality

You've already made this change haven't you? So you should already know the answer to this question shouldn't you? I'm also not sure what it is a workable solution for though, what is it you are wanting?

Quote

*Im also tempted to drop a halfback back a strata to centreback and move the full backs up a strata but then have misgivings that then would mean the tactic would play a complete different way

It would change things yes. This is why its important, that if you make any changes you then learn how the system you're using works again. You'd have to pay attention to the details and learn how the players are behaving now.

[Armistice]

6 hours ago, Gee_Simpson said:

It's definitely a laziness really, I get frustrated even after 1 loss. I've actually been stuck on a loop for the last few editions of FM (skipping 18 completely) where I am constantly going on test saves with the same team and trying multiple different tactics until I can get a good result each match. Of course this has never happened so unbelievably this has resulted in me never starting a proper save, I only ever test for a few games then give up. My last proper save was on FM13, I took Real Sociedad to 4th in my first season with my own tactic.

You just described me in the last two years.

[Cleon]

7 hours ago, forlegaizen said:

Having played this way for some time would you recommended it to someone who struggles with the tactics part of the game ?

Speaking for myself, I feel that sometimes I get "blinded" by the attributes when analysing some of the behaviours of the players, maybe if only had some vague idea of the strong/weak points (like in those in Scout Reports) I would be more undertsanding.

Yeah, I'm guilty of this too. I get too bored and/or demotived when something I had in mind doesnt work.

If you want to learn how specific settings work, I'd ignore the attributes for now and just keep an eye on how the player behaves and executes the settings the role has.

[Cleon]

6 hours ago, Gee_Simpson said:

Ah cheers mate 

It's definitely a laziness really, I get frustrated even after 1 loss. I've actually been stuck on a loop for the last few editions of FM (skipping 18 completely) where I am constantly going on test saves with the same team and trying multiple different tactics until I can get a good result each match. Of course this has never happened so unbelievably this has resulted in me never starting a proper save, I only ever test for a few games then give up. My last proper save was on FM13, I took Real Sociedad to 4th in my first season with my own tactic.

I watch the matches on full for a while but I know myself that I don't spot enough. I get frustrated when a player randomly boots the ball out of play, I wonder is it because of his attributes or is it my tactics? I usually use play out of defence TI but then my centre back launches the ball forward even if there is an option to play it short. Small things like that put me off and it frustrates me because sometimes I can't figure it out. I won't lie, I'm slightly obsessed with possession football so when I'm getting under 60% I usually scrap it. I think I just need to take the leap and start a save and try and prepare to learn as I go, as the test save restart loop I've been in over the last few editions isn't helping me get better at the game at all. Then that way if I get stuck I can come on here and ask you guys for help by posting up my tactic. Obviously I don't have a tactic to show at the moment as I restart all the time 

You need to remember that you're not trying to play the perfect game, that doesn't exist. So even the most drilled teams and best tactics will still see people make mistakes, boot the ball out of play and so on. That's what football is, it's full of stuff like this. The key is, does it happen frequent and if so exactly how often. Then it becomes an issue. But if its just occasionally it likely doesn't need investigating at all

Also 60% for possession is extremely high on FM due to how possession works. So I'd not over focus on that. You can get higher ofc but remember that possession on FM = time spent on the ball. So it's a tough balancing act to get possession that has attacking intent to it. Start aiming for anything above 50% and then just work from there. Don't scrap your tactic, persevere and make little subtle changes until you know you're getting the best out of what you are wanting to create.

[mdougal]

Hi Cleon thanks for the reply

Yes I have already tried with the swap of one full back from inverted to complete but found it unstable I think more owing to my players rather than the actual idea of it. It’s something that I will keep trying throughout the save I think at times hopefully when I manage to train a few defenders or failed wingers into the role 😀

As for the idea of dropping the striker down a strata it purely comes from something I’ve always tried to replicate in previous versions that has then been abandanoned due to lack of defensive stability. But your thread and then me trying it has shown me it is possible to be stable defensively which has given me a new optimism I may be able to incorporate the rest of the tactic. I have attached a picture of the formation from the 1950s Hungary team I have been attempting to copy for years but I’m also of the opinion that it may lack a presence at the top of the formation that would cause it not to work fully though if I could get it working with the movement around it I would have got as close to the idea I’ve had for years and for that I’d like to thank you for your writing of this thread and showing that this formation is possible to pull off

[Cleon]

3 hours ago, mdougal said:

Hi Cleon thanks for the reply

Yes I have already tried with the swap of one full back from inverted to complete but found it unstable I think more owing to my players rather than the actual idea of it. It’s something that I will keep trying throughout the save I think at times hopefully when I manage to train a few defenders or failed wingers into the role 😀

As for the idea of dropping the striker down a strata it purely comes from something I’ve always tried to replicate in previous versions that has then been abandanoned due to lack of defensive stability. But your thread and then me trying it has shown me it is possible to be stable defensively which has given me a new optimism I may be able to incorporate the rest of the tactic. I have attached a picture of the formation from the 1950s Hungary team I have been attempting to copy for years but I’m also of the opinion that it may lack a presence at the top of the formation that would cause it not to work fully though if I could get it working with the movement around it I would have got as close to the idea I’ve had for years and for that I’d like to thank you for your writing of this thread and showing that this formation is possible to pull off

Half the fun for me is messing around with formations like this.

If you give it a go and need a hand, create a thread for it and I'm sure myself and many others would chip in and offer advice/suggestions. Or you can post about it in here

[Grimboslice]

Hi Cleon a quick question about when you go back to analyse after your first 3 matches.... Do watch them games in full or break them up as you described I.E first 15 mins 30 mins 45 mins? 

 

Thanks. 

[Gee_Simpson]

11 hours ago, Cleon said:

You need to remember that you're not trying to play the perfect game, that doesn't exist. So even the most drilled teams and best tactics will still see people make mistakes, boot the ball out of play and so on. That's what football is, it's full of stuff like this. The key is, does it happen frequent and if so exactly how often. Then it becomes an issue. But if its just occasionally it likely doesn't need investigating at all

Also 60% for possession is extremely high on FM due to how possession works. So I'd not over focus on that. You can get higher ofc but remember that possession on FM = time spent on the ball. So it's a tough balancing act to get possession that has attacking intent to it. Start aiming for anything above 50% and then just work from there. Don't scrap your tactic, persevere and make little subtle changes until you know you're getting the best out of what you are wanting to create.

Thanks for the advice, it's appreciated. I haven't followed your 3 games and do nothing system either yet so I will look to do that before I make any changes in future 

[AndySummers]

Interesting to see the development of your 'WM' @Cleon - you are well ahead of me now, I am barely halfway through my second season. What was the reason for seven different mezzala's in consecutive seasons? Were you upgrading players as you go, having your players poached or using the 'no attribute' model to see if you could gain consistency/enhanced performance across a range of players in that role?

The IWB vs CWB comparison shows exactly how just simply watching how roles perform can inform changes that can have a significant impact in the level of threat and performance a tactic offers. I decided early that I wanted tucked-in WB(s) rather than IWB(s) and I've also started to consider whether or not to upgrade to a CWB. The RPM is an interesting role for me; I have been firmly on the fence with it for half a season and a CM is one of the few options I hadn't yet tested. I can see a lot of logic in that.

@mdougal - there are numerous ways you could approach your 'Hungarian' formation. We all play the game differently of course and there is no right or wrong way, but for me there is much more satisfaction in bringing something unorthodox to life and testing the boundaries - whether successfully or not - than another identikit 4231 etc. Good luck with it.  

[Cleon]

22 minutes ago, AndySummers said:

Interesting to see the development of your 'WM' @Cleon - you are well ahead of me now, I am barely halfway through my second season. What was the reason for seven different mezzala's in consecutive seasons? Were you upgrading players as you go, having your players poached or using the 'no attribute' model to see if you could gain consistency/enhanced performance across a range of players in that role?

The IWB vs CWB comparison shows exactly how just simply watching how roles perform can inform changes that can have a significant impact in the level of threat and performance a tactic offers. I decided early that I wanted tucked-in WB(s) rather than IWB(s) and I've also started to consider whether or not to upgrade to a CWB. The RPM is an interesting role for me; I have been firmly on the fence with it for half a season and a CM is one of the few options I hadn't yet tested. I can see a lot of logic in that.

@mdougal - there are numerous ways you could approach your 'Hungarian' formation. We all play the game differently of course and there is no right or wrong way, but for me there is much more satisfaction in bringing something unorthodox to life and testing the boundaries - whether successfully or not - than another identikit 4231 etc. Good luck with it.  

Well I started in the Serie D, so promotions etc made me need different players. Plus some of them are still at the club, just doing other roles now or filling in for the CM role.

[Gee_Simpson]

So I'm trying to watch the first 3 matches back, is it possible to do that in FMT? I only have the option of key, extended or comprehensive highlights.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Gee_Simpson

[bere23]

@Cleon once again mate amazing stuff and helpfull as every time for us newbies  i see u started from lower division and got promotions.well got back to back or stayed any year in the same division?the reason im asking u is i want to know when u got promoted if did any changes to ur tactic.coz i think in the new div u probably would supposed to be relegated right?and it bit hard to bring good enough players to make a run for promotion again.the reason im asking all these is i managed a team in serie C and finally i made a tactic that worked amazingly(finaly i said to myself i made a tactic that i like to see play ) i promoted to serie b and tried to not change anything in my tactic,bring some players i think they good for the level im but then problems started and doing a very bad season.of course im predicted to finish last in division but i tried not change the tactic it worked perfectly at least for me.if i remember right u said in older posts u stick with the plan and dont change ur tactic,also said risk vs reward which im definatelly agree with that.but in these situations like mine what would u do?

sorry for my bad english and long post but im a bit disappointed..tnx again for everything u are doing for us!!  

[fthy]

good job

 

 player  Instructions?

[Cleon]

On 08/04/2019 at 07:43, bere23 said:

@Cleon once again mate amazing stuff and helpfull as every time for us newbies  i see u started from lower division and got promotions.well got back to back or stayed any year in the same division?the reason im asking u is i want to know when u got promoted if did any changes to ur tactic.coz i think in the new div u probably would supposed to be relegated right?and it bit hard to bring good enough players to make a run for promotion again.the reason im asking all these is i managed a team in serie C and finally i made a tactic that worked amazingly(finaly i said to myself i made a tactic that i like to see play ) i promoted to serie b and tried to not change anything in my tactic,bring some players i think they good for the level im but then problems started and doing a very bad season.of course im predicted to finish last in division but i tried not change the tactic it worked perfectly at least for me.if i remember right u said in older posts u stick with the plan and dont change ur tactic,also said risk vs reward which im definatelly agree with that.but in these situations like mine what would u do?

sorry for my bad english and long post but im a bit disappointed..tnx again for everything u are doing for us!!  

I spoke about this in the 4th part? I discussed the changes I was going to make to get the most out of things. Stuff was working fine but something felt like it wasn't clicking as much. I talked about all of this in part 4, the article is all about making changes because I've been promoted and I want to ensure I get the most out of the tactic and players. 

15 hours ago, fthy said:

good job

 

 player  Instructions?

You've missed the entire point of the thread. I mean, the title even tells you what the topic is about. It's about how to create your own tactic and talks you through the whole process. It's not a replication thread.

[bere23]

6 minutes ago, Cleon said:

I spoke about this in the 4th part? I discussed the changes I was going to make to get the most out of things. Stuff was working fine but something felt like it wasn't clicking as much. I talked about all of this in part 4, the article is all about making changes because I've been promoted and I want to ensure I get the most out of the tactic and players. 

yep i understund what u say,i just thought if the tactic worked well the only better thing i should do was to bring better players but it was difficult to find good players to join my team,thats why i thought maybe was the players the problem and not tactic.can i show u my tactic and if u want to give me some advice ?u can see the faults of the tactic

[Cleon]

POST 5 UPDATED 

[Cleon]

I love this goal, it shows a patient side to the W-M and shows how we use the whole pitch while probing the opposition without rushing.

 

[bere23]

On 13/02/2019 at 07:23, Cleon said:

We can see that the role is very customisable but don’t let the lack of instructions fool you as to what he does. The role is basically that of a runner and will see the player make aggressive runs into the final third and support attacks. He still defends too, the role is very rounded and you can expect the player to do a bit of everything. But on attack duty, he is very aggressive.

His movement from deep can cause lots of issues for the opposition because he is so hard to pick up and mark. Especially when he is playing alongside a mezzala who is also running forward at every opportunity. Both players are committing the opposition to either tracking them or allowing them space to run into. If they get tracked then this opens up space for either the other midfielder, the inside forward or the striker. It’s all about creating opportunities in many different ways and making the opposition make decisions. The key here is that any decision the opposition makes, it will always be likely the wrong one because of the variety we have in the way we attack.

amazing post again Cleon    I absolutely love the CM-ATCK and use him a lot in my tactic..that aggresive runs is awesome and it worked perfectly in my previous season in serie B with dlf combo.was the player of the year   

i wonder what attributes are you looking for this position?

[Rien102]

I must admit I find it funny that all your RPM was doing, was not what you wanted for your WM when, in a 3-5-2WB I made in a Villa save a while back, was exactly everything I wanted!  I did flanked him with 2 CMs mind you, one on Attack duty to his left and antoher on Defend duty on his right (the same side as WB that was on Attack).  I actually changed the system for my team because of a single player that appeared in a youth intake: he was perfect for that role.

The question I have though is the interactions between you RPM and the halfbacks.  Was the latter a bit in the way when you were building from the back or were they leaving room for the RPM?

Edited April 15, 2019 by Rien102

[Cleon]

32 minutes ago, bere23 said:

amazing post again Cleon    I absolutely love the CM-ATCK and use him a lot in my tactic..that aggresive runs is awesome and it worked perfectly in my previous season in serie B with dlf combo.was the player of the year   

i wonder what attributes are you looking for this position?

Thanks

I play without attributes so I don't actually look for any 'attributes' for any position. This whole exercise has been done to remind people of what the roles do rather than focusing on the attribute side of things.

[Cleon]

23 minutes ago, Rien102 said:

I must admit I find it funny that all your RPM was doing, was not what you wanted for your WM when, in a 3-5-2WB I made in a Villa save a while back, was exactly everything I wanted!  I did flanked him with 2 CMs mind you, one on Attack duty to his left and antoher on Defend duty on his right (the same side as WB that was on Attack).  I actually changed the system for my team because of a single player that appeared in a youth intake: he was perfect for that role.

The question I have though is the interactions between you RPM and the halfbacks.  Was the latter a bit in the way when you were building from the back or were they leaving room for the RPM?

The role was actually fine for me, I could have gladly left it and been successful in my own right. But changing the role allowed me to unlock the attacking potential of the other players and as a result, we became a better side overall. It's not that the RPM didn't do what I want, it's more I saw a better way of doing things which actually gave me more variety.

As for the RPM and Halfbacks question, they all linked well together and allowed me to build from the back patiently. They didn't get in the RPM's way as such, no.

[bere23]

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

Thanks

I play without attributes so I don't actually look for any 'attributes' for any position. This whole exercise has been done to remind people of what the roles do rather than focusing on the attribute side of things.

i know that u play without atts and the reason u are doing this is for helping us  i just wonder in general what atts would have picked to see if i would have chosen the same atts coz i wanna see if i can "read" correct the roles  

[Cleon]

30 minutes ago, bere23 said:

i know that u play without atts and the reason u are doing this is for helping us  i just wonder in general what atts would have picked to see if i would have chosen the same atts coz i wanna see if i can "read" correct the roles  

The game tells you the attributes needed for a role, so that is always the best starting point. If you want to play more complex as I do, then experiment with a different skillset in the position and see how those attributes offer a different take on the role. I wrote about this last year. I used a creative player as an attacking forward, you can read about it here; 

https://teaandbusquets.com/blog/forged-steel-meet-david-brooks

I genuinely can't give you a direct answer because if I could see attributes, I'd likely try and recruit two different kinds of players. I'd have the player who plays the role how you expect then someone else the totally opposite but who put a specific spin on the role.

The player I'm using as the CMA now, he has playmaking traits I guess. So his attributes would likely be more playmaker if I was to try and guess what his attributes were. But that's based on nothing other than he has playmaking traits. 

[bere23]

23 minutes ago, Cleon said:

The game tells you the attributes needed for a role, so that is always the best starting point. If you want to play more complex as I do, then experiment with a different skillset in the position and see how those attributes offer a different take on the role. I wrote about this last year. I used a creative player as an attacking forward, you can read about it here; 

https://teaandbusquets.com/blog/forged-steel-meet-david-brooks

I genuinely can't give you a direct answer because if I could see attributes, I'd likely try and recruit two different kinds of players. I'd have the player who plays the role how you expect then someone else the totally opposite but who put a specific spin on the role.

The player I'm using as the CMA now, he has playmaking traits I guess. So his attributes would likely be more playmaker if I was to try and guess what his attributes were. But that's based on nothing other than he has playmaking traits. 

i have read all your threads of  course  and yes i read all the atts need for the role but when im recruiting players for roles trying to think what does the role by description and "locked" PIs and pick something like that.E.g for CM-ATCK according to this i would picked accel,stamina,work rate,off the ball,dribbling,passing and technique

and to my save now to serie A newly promoted i have picked some nice players especially to mid and def position with an average atts to13-14 and again struggle hard..dont know why..coz i know im predicted to relagate but with these players at least expect to win the more weaker opponents...so even i have some good players it matters so much to the media prediction?

[Cleon]

On 15/04/2019 at 16:56, bere23 said:

i have read all your threads of  course  and yes i read all the atts need for the role but when im recruiting players for roles trying to think what does the role by description and "locked" PIs and pick something like that.E.g for CM-ATCK according to this i would picked accel,stamina,work rate,off the ball,dribbling,passing and technique

and to my save now to serie A newly promoted i have picked some nice players especially to mid and def position with an average atts to13-14 and again struggle hard..dont know why..coz i know im predicted to relagate but with these players at least expect to win the more weaker opponents...so even i have some good players it matters so much to the media prediction?

The media prediction doesn't really matter if you have a solid set up and good players.

[bere23]

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

The media prediction doesn't really matter if you have a solid set up and good players.

tnx mate  can i ask u something about regista? is he so aggresive role as volante for example?he demands a very strong setup or atts set?

[Cleon]

1 hour ago, bere23 said:

tnx mate  can i ask u something about regista? is he so aggresive role as volante for example?he demands a very strong setup or atts set?

Segundo Volante on attack is probably the most aggressive role on the whole of FM, it's very intense. A regista isn't that aggressive in comparison no.

[bere23]

2 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Segundo Volante on attack is probably the most aggressive role on the whole of FM, it's very intense. A regista isn't that aggressive in comparison no.

allright   regista to be more efficient needs free space in front of him?in my 4-1-4-1 dm wide for example can work with 2 mc in front of him?

[zlatanera]

@bere23 depends what you want from him - if you want a lot of long "Hollywood" passes as they were called when Steven Gerrard did them, you probably want to set your Tis to encourage it (or his PIs) and not have too many options for the short pass. But you can also use it for more possession where you just want him roaming about helping the team keep the ball then occasionally playing a killer ball, which I did with Ajax where I had a Reg behind CM-Su and MEZ-Su, with Play Out Of Defence meaning he had shorter passing.

[bere23]

6 minutes ago, zlatanera said:

@bere23 depends what you want from him - if you want a lot of long "Hollywood" passes as they were called when Steven Gerrard did them, you probably want to set your Tis to encourage it (or his PIs) and not have too many options for the short pass. But you can also use it for more possession where you just want him roaming about helping the team keep the ball then occasionally playing a killer ball, which I did with Ajax where I had a Reg behind CM-Su and MEZ-Su, with Play Out Of Defence meaning he had shorter passing.

exactly this set up trio was thinking about.take more risks means more direct passes or some kind of though balls?

[zlatanera]

4 minutes ago, bere23 said:

exactly this set up trio was thinking about.take more risks means more direct passes or some kind of though balls?

If you go into the Player Instructions screen you can see passing directness, as well as customise it. Take More Risks is separate from that, it can lead to long balls of course, but a risky pass could also be a quite short distance. 

[bere23]

21 minutes ago, zlatanera said:

If you go into the Player Instructions screen you can see passing directness, as well as customise it. Take More Risks is separate from that, it can lead to long balls of course, but a risky pass could also be a quite short distance. 

ok mate tnx  

[buachuta]

Easily one of the best threads I've ever seen on these forum. Is the final part close to getting published @Cleon? I'd really like to see your end product of this system.

[Cleon]

13 minutes ago, buachuta said:

Easily one of the best threads I've ever seen on these forum. Is the final part close to getting published @Cleon? I'd really like to see your end product of this system.

I was planning on finishing it this weekend but it's been 2 of my daughters birthdays and now we are having a promotion party because of the Blades. Hopefully I'll have it finished this week though, as a lot of it is written. 

[Pilcs]

Smashing thread. I particularly like the 'first 15 minutes' analysis, been using that a lot and it really is spot on. Cheers @Cleon.

[mikcheck]

This is a great thead, as always @Cleon

I guess using IWB in a system with 2 DMC won't work as it should? They would act more like WB/CWB? If you have a DMC on that same side the player won't go behave like a IWB. At least that's what happened to me when I tried it in other versions.

Would using 2 AMC'S work as good?

Thanks.

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by mikcheck

[Cleon]

1 hour ago, mikcheck said:

This is a great thead, as always @Cleon

I guess using IWB in a system with 2 DMC won't work as it should? They would act more like WB/CWB? If you have a DMC on that same side the player won't go behave like a IWB. At least that's what happened to me when I tried it in other versions.

Would using 2 AMC'S work as good?

Thanks.

 

The IWB worked fine as you can see in the earlier analysis, the only reason I changed to use just one instead, was because I wanted a more direct/aggressive supply from the left-hand side of the tactic. It allows me to attack in a different way to the right side of the tactic. 2 DM's shouldn't make the IWB act like wingbacks, as they don't cover the same space. Unless you use aggressive DM roles and that might alter the behaviour slightly not in no way would it make them act like WB's.

Would using two AMC's work as good as what? In what system? It all depends on the context of your question

[Experienced Defender]

14 minutes ago, Cleon said:

2 DM's shouldn't make the IWB act like wingbacks, as they don't cover the same space. Unless you use aggressive DM roles and that might alter the behaviour slightly not in no way would it make them act like WB's

Well, this is somewhat confusing. Because the in-game description says that if there is more than one DM, an IWB will act as a standard FB. And - also according to the role description - if there is no other wide player in front of him, he'll again behave like a standard FB. Now... I haven't tried to play an IWB with 2 DMs, but I did try the role without wide mids/wide forwards (in a narrow diamond 442), and the IWB did behave as an IWB is supposed to behave (not like FB/WB but exactly like IWB) despite what the description says. So it seems the role description isn't quite accurate 

[mikcheck]

2 horas atrás, Cleon disse:

The IWB worked fine as you can see in the earlier analysis, the only reason I changed to use just one instead, was because I wanted a more direct/aggressive supply from the left-hand side of the tactic. It allows me to attack in a different way to the right side of the tactic. 2 DM's shouldn't make the IWB act like wingbacks, as they don't cover the same space. Unless you use aggressive DM roles and that might alter the behaviour slightly not in no way would it make them act like WB's.

Would using two AMC's work as good as what? In what system? It all depends on the context of your question

Thanks!

I asked about the AMC's, would it also work if you use them insted of MC's?

[Cleon]

For the W-M I use? It can yeah but then I’d have to change other stuff to compensate. So the roles would be all  different. 

[Rashidi]

On 02/05/2019 at 01:16, Cleon said:

2 DM's shouldn't make the IWB act like wingbacks, as they don't cover the same space.

Nah they will. This was raised before as an issue but the devs confirmed that you can't use an IWB in a system which is already populated with 2DMs. 

[Cleon]

8 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Nah they will. This was raised before as an issue but the devs confirmed that you can't use an IWB in a system which is already populated with 2DMs. 

I'm using the system now and it behaves the exact same as a normal IWB. I've been using it for 12 seasons. So please don't tell me how it behaves when I'm using it now and can see it working no differently with 1 or 2 DM's. I mean, I even did analysis on it in the thread, if it worked like a normal WB/FB I'd have not needed the analysis or to change the role. 

It clearly works.

[argenmik]

7 hours ago, Cleon said:

I'm using the system now and it behaves the exact same as a normal IWB. I've been using it for 12 seasons. So please don't tell me how it behaves when I'm using it now and can see it working no differently with 1 or 2 DM's. I mean, I even did analysis on it in the thread, if it worked like a normal WB/FB I'd have not needed the analysis or to change the role. 

 

It clearly works.

i can also confirm that i have 2 DMs and my IWBs come inside slightly ahead of them, creating a box where my 2 DMs are more narrow and my IWB slightly wider.

i just watched the video and thats exactly what yours are doing.

Edited May 3, 2019 by argenmik

[RPM_01]

Very good read, I use a similar tactic with a few roles tweaked to suit my team.

How are you finding the CF-Su role? I felt like the game almost passed him by when I used him. When I changed it up to a CF-A it felt like my identity changed. Players were looking for the longer ball as the CF tried to push higher. Currently trying the DLF-A which doesn't change the identity at least but still doesn't have much impact. Fortunately my left winger and Mez are banging in goals for fun!

[Cleon]

1 hour ago, RPM_01 said:

Very good read, I use a similar tactic with a few roles tweaked to suit my team.

How are you finding the CF-Su role? I felt like the game almost passed him by when I used him. When I changed it up to a CF-A it felt like my identity changed. Players were looking for the longer ball as the CF tried to push higher. Currently trying the DLF-A which doesn't change the identity at least but still doesn't have much impact. Fortunately my left winger and Mez are banging in goals for fun!

The CF for me was okay but I didn't expect great things of him anyway because it's set up for the Mez, CM and IF to score a goal in the set up I use now. But because of the changes I made and documented in the thread, I've also changed the striker role now because the CF didn't suit any longer. I'll hopefully have the final part out this weekend which will explain more.

 

1 hour ago, argenmik said:

i can also confirm that i have 2 DMs and my IWBs come inside slightly ahead of them, creating a box where my 2 CBs are more narrow and my IWB slightly wider.

i just watched the video and thats exactly what yours are doing.

The role behaves exactly like the IWB does with or without multiple DM'S. It was an issue on FM18 but on FM19 it isn't. If anything, the bug for FM19 is that the IWB doesn't act like a WB when it should in various shapes. Not the other way around.

In the Inverted wing-back vs Complete wing-back post in this thread, I'd not have had to make any change at all to the role if acted like a WB because I'd have the width in the channels and the IWB wouldn't come inside as much as he did. But this wasn't happening so the role had to be changed.

The stuff you see on the video, you see it happening time and time again when you use this set up. You also see the IWB stay more central in general, as you expect.