Mentality / Role / Duty Breakdown

[Matt ex SEGA]

Hi all,

I have a question about roles / mentality.

I tend to do what I believe is (or used to be) the customary thing - set up three tactics all based around the same positional fundamentals, and then adapt the mentalities so I can play in different ways depending on match circumstances - currently balanced, positive and attacking.

I've always used predominantly similar roles and duties for my players regardless of the mentality.  However - my assistant manager is advising that I make changes (more attacking duties for attacking mentality) etc.

Can someone explain what he's trying to get me to do here?  I always understood that if you wanted to play in a fluid, modern fashion, you'd need a certain number of different duties in your team.  Is this now different?  What difference will I see from my team if I go from, let's say, 3 attacking duties on my "balanced" setup to 6 attacking duties on my "attacking"?

Thanks - been trying to get my head around this for a while and hoped I could ask an expert. Apologies if I've missed this elsewhere.

[Mitja]

Not an expert but I'd suggest only one more than on balanced. Two more on very attacking. This is how AI plays you can play as you want, even less attack duties. 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Matt ex SEGA said:

I've always used predominantly similar roles and duties for my players regardless of the mentality.  However - my assistant manager is advising that I make changes (more attacking duties for attacking mentality) etc

If you want my honest opinion - don't pay attention at all to what the assistant tells you. Only take care that your tactic(s) make(s) sense. 

 

1 hour ago, Matt ex SEGA said:

I always understood that if you wanted to play in a fluid, modern fashion, you'd need a certain number of different duties in your team.  Is this now different?  What difference will I see from my team if I go from, let's say, 3 attacking duties on my "balanced" setup to 6 attacking duties on my "attacking"?

If you are referring to the "team fluidity" (label), you need to know that it's (pretty much) different from what the team shape (instruction) meant in earlier versions of the game.

[Matt ex SEGA]

Thanks - I guess I always saw duties as a means to help the player understand what's expected - for example, I expect one of my central midfielders to primarily sit in and defend, so he gets a defensive duty - and thats regardless of whether the team is playing in an attacking or defensive fashion overall.  The ASSMAN advice seemed to counter that which got me wondering if I was understanding the duties correctly.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Matt ex SEGA said:

I guess I always saw duties as a means to help the player understand what's expected - for example, I expect one of my central midfielders to primarily sit in and defend, so he gets a defensive duty - and thats regardless of whether the team is playing in an attacking or defensive fashion overall

Yes, the duty tells what's a player primary responsibility, although that's not literally set in stone. If a player is set to defend duty, it does not mean he'll never move slightly more forward to support the attack. Conversely, if a player is played on attack duty, it does not mean he'll never get back to help the team when defending. Here - as in everything else relative to tactics - the mentality also plays an important part. And then of course, there are player roles, which more closely define how different roles (should) generally behave in certain phases of play, both irrespective of and in relation to the assigned duty.

Also bear in mind that the (team) mentality you select does not necessarily (automatically) determines your style of play. You can play essentially defensive/counter-attacking football on higher mentalities, and vice versa - control/possession football on lower ones. That's the area of the game where many people make mistakes due to the (wrong= assumption that mentality means style of play.

[Guest]

There is one important thing to note; rule no1 of management, as the manager you are always right so you should ignore the Assistant Manager's advice especially when it's tactical. A lot of the time they don't seem to have the understanding (haven't tested it with 17+ Tactical Knowlege).

Otherwise though Experienced Defender nailed it in a nut shell.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Guest

[Matt ex SEGA]

Hahaha - hard agree.  This was less "should I be listening to him" and more "is my understanding of what this means in the game correct, or am I making some bad assumptions".  I.e. am I hamstringing my own tactic by not using duties correctly.  Doesn't seem so but thought I'd ask.

Thanks for the replies, fellas - much appreciated.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Matt ex SEGA said:

Hahaha - hard agree.  This was less "should I be listening to him" and more "is my understanding of what this means in the game correct, or am I making some bad assumptions".  I.e. am I hamstringing my own tactic by not using duties correctly.  Doesn't seem so but thought I'd ask.

Thanks for the replies, fellas - much appreciated.

No worries chap, does get tedious when your Assistant Manager seeds self-doubt into your tactic. Imagine using a 2125 like this Assistant Manager pulls his hair out and has no idea what is going on.