Matches getting ridiculous and unbearable

[herne79]

10 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

I manage in League 1 too and I'd love to have a player that good! I'm behind Lyon and PSG in terms of quality (they have players like yours) but I'm catching up slowly. Based on the players I've seen in the league, he is damn good. What I find most impressive is that he's a Left Foot Only player, but then I guess the Agility helps to turn quickly and get his body into positions so he can use the left.

I'm in the year 2041 so I'm on par with PSG in quality now.

It's those top 3 Physicals (Accel, Agil and Balance) which put him a cut above (most of) the rest.  Not this guy though who is just nuts (I can't afford him, he plays for Milan and is "Natural" at AMC and STC).  Again, those top 3 Physicals...

[HUNT3R]

13 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I'm in the year 2041 so I'm on par with PSG in quality now

That gives me hope. It's my 3rd season here now and I'm in 2029.

14 minutes ago, herne79 said:

It's those top 3 Physicals (Accel, Agil and Balance) which put him a cut above (most of) the rest.

More than ever, I value Agility and Balance a LOT in FM20. It's always been important, but I think I took a step back this year and re-assessed what each attribute means and paid attention to players, exactly what their attributes (especially strengths and weaknesses are) and how they play. I've always been obsessed with Mental Attributes, but this year I'm giving more value to Physical Attributes too.

Quote

Not this guy though who is just nuts (I can't afford him, he plays for Milan and is "Natural" at AMC and STC).  Again, those top 3 Physicals...

I think I'll dream about him tonight  

[Louisking1992]

14 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I'm in the year 2041 so I'm on par with PSG in quality now.

It's those top 3 Physicals (Accel, Agil and Balance) which put him a cut above (most of) the rest.  Not this guy though who is just nuts (I can't afford him, he plays for Milan and is "Natural" at AMC and STC).  Again, those top 3 Physicals...

We overachieved massively, predicted to finished 17th in the prem, but finished 6th and won the Carabao cup. even though we as a team performed, he was getting poor ratings most games, minimal key passes per game and not many goals or assists (see picture below). Lucas had a few more assists but that was because he took set pieces, in-game he was average most games. 

 

Ive attached a picture of my system - 

please note that the AM-A role isn't set in stone and I have been tinkering with that role most season, trialing different roles with limited success. 

Ideally I want assists from the AM, and I was going to use AP-A/Treq but i didnt want to use another play maker infront of the DLP-S (im funny when it comes to having play makers to close together) 

Then I thought, maybe change the AM-A to a AP-A & DLP-S to another role, wasnt   sure which role yet as I didnt want to lose the stability the DLP gives me when we defend and attack. 

Im desperate to get the AM working next season, so im all ears!! 

[herne79]

8 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

More than ever, I value Agility and Balance a LOT in FM20. It's always been important, but I think I took a step back this year and re-assessed what each attribute means and paid attention to players, exactly what their attributes (especially strengths and weaknesses are) and how they play. I've always been obsessed with Mental Attributes, but this year I'm giving more value to Physical Attributes too.

Yeh, I mean take my guy.  I've got him playing as a Trequartista behind my front 2.  So I need creativity from him (passing, vision, flair) but also roaming into space and interacting with the front two.  The physicals help tons with that.

4 minutes ago, Louisking1992 said:

We overachieved massively, predicted to finished 17th in the prem, but finished 6th and won the Carabao cup. even though we as a team performed, he was getting poor ratings most games, minimal key passes per game and not many goals or assists (see picture below). Lucas had a few more assists but that was because he took set pieces, in-game he was average most games.

There you go.  Like I said above we all like to see our AMCs getting assists and goals, but it's impossible for him to have been rubbish if you overachieved like that.  "Poor" ratings don't necessarily mean someone has played poorly - they just mean the things FM take account of to calculate those ratings haven't really been met.  So ok, he didn't get assists and goals, hence a "poor" rating, but you finished way above your predicted finish, won a cup and qualified for Europe.  And you don't do that unless all 11 eleven players consistently play well, despite what ratings may say .

[Louisking1992]

3 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Yeh, I mean take my guy.  I've got him playing as a Trequartista behind my front 2.  So I need creativity from him (passing, vision, flair) but also roaming into space and interacting with the front two.  The physicals help tons with that.

There you go.  Like I said above we all like to see our AMCs getting assists and goals, but it's impossible for him to have been rubbish if you overachieved like that.  "Poor" ratings don't necessarily mean someone has played poorly - they just mean the things FM take account of to calculate those ratings haven't really been met.  So ok, he didn't get assists and goals, hence a "poor" rating, but you finished way above your predicted finish, won a cup and qualified for Europe.  And you don't do that unless all 11 eleven players consistently play well, despite what ratings may say .

I think im always to hard on myself and the players, even when winning I like to do better 

I still think I can get more from the AM, I think we need to get the numbers up slightly for sure but I need to decide one the CM pairing first. 

 

How are you finding using two BWMs in the middle behind the Treq? whats the thinking about this? I considered a CM-D - BWM-S pairing before playing behind a playmaker but werent sure it would work

[HUNT3R]

9 minutes ago, Louisking1992 said:

Ive attached a picture of my system -

Herne is in a much better position to give you advice, playing the same formation as you and of course him being a former tactics section mod, for a reason.  

Looking at your system, I don't get the feeling that there's counter attacking potency. Or rather, not something really fluid involving your AMC. I'll tell you why I bring it up. You selected Counter for when you win the ball. Where do you win the ball usually and what happens?

In my own game, I made an easy mistake. Ticking counter sounds good and sounds like it's what I want as a bit of an underdog... right? Sure, if you're set up for something more direct, IMO. With the tactic I had, I usually won it in deep midfield, so it would get punted forward and I'd have 1, maybe 2, players attacking 3 or 4 defenders. Not the best conditions for a counter attack. My counters weren't good. So I thought, what if I unticked Counter? What did happen, you ask? We worked it forward more safely in the transition until there was an opportunity to really hit them. We'd have 3 on 3 or at worst, 3 on 4. That caused chaos. I wasn't set up for a more direct counter so working it forward until a counter attack was on, was a better move for my tactic.

Have a look when you play again. I have a feeling, he's getting bypassed because it COUNTER!!!!! when you win the ball. It obviously works for you, for now since with that prediction, teams will leave a lot of space for you. I wouldn't necessarily fix anything that isn't broken, but if you observe what I think happens, it's something to keep in mind for when you encounter teams leaving you less space.

[WelshMourinho]

On 22/07/2020 at 06:22, HUNT3R said:

The other thing I noticed last season, was my own tendency to use Positive or Attacking if I want to force a goal against these teams. It worked but wasn't a guarantee and it often felt lucky if I did get a goal, so it didn't seem like something to rely on. This season, I thought about that as well. What if that's what those teams 'want'? With the more attacking Mentalities, I'm shifting the ball forward quicker, players make their runs earlier and we take more risks in doing so, including passing. With my tactic how it is, is that the best way of doing things? Am I rushing to much and then my players just sit on top of the opposition, so they don't have to move? I'm on Balanced now. Play is more measured. We knock the ball around more. There's no need to take too much risk, so I don't see crazy passing or shooting attempts. 

I've never really understood why this 'works' if I'm honest, and I'm really not sure if I'm happy with often it's given as advice around these forums. The idea of reducing risk, to me, is the option that shouldn't be relied upon.

We see it irl all the time, teams who are happy to pass the ball around and aren't decisive with it, and the vast majority of the time these teams simply aren't taking enough risk. THink Spain in any recent tournament, or LVG's Man United.  I'm fully on board with a lower LOE to draw these teams out, that makes more sense to me than "okay so the plan is to take less risk and play safer passes and hope the opposition messes up."

Risk in this scenario should be a good thing, you want to play risky passes and you want the opposition to have to deal with aggressive dribblers on the ball. You want to make them uncertain. Like in what world does it make sense to not make early runs? The idea of letting the opposition defence settle into their shape so we can play safer passes is the complete opposite of what you'd want.

I guess what I don't like about it is it feels more like an FM work around, more than it does something you'd actually see irl. Teams have attempted to sit back against Man City for years, and it's resulted in them breaking the points record.

Edited July 25, 2020 by WelshMourinho

[HUNT3R]

16 minutes ago, WelshMourinho said:

I've never really understood why this 'works' if I'm honest, and I'm really not sure if I'm happy with often it's given as advice around these forums. The idea of reducing risk, to me, is the option that shouldn't be relied upon.

We see it irl all the time, teams who are happy to pass the ball around and aren't decisive with it, and the vast majority of the time these teams simply aren't taking enough risk. THink Spain in any recent tournament, or LVG's Man United.  I'm fully on board with a lower LOE to draw these teams out, that makes more sense to me than "okay so the plan is to take less risk and play safer passes and hope the opposition messes up."

Risk in this scenario should be a good thing, you want to play risky passes and you want the opposition to have to deal with aggressive dribblers on the ball. You want to make them uncertain. Like in what world does it make sense to not make early runs? The idea of letting the opposition defence settle into their shape so we can play safer passes is the complete opposite of what you'd want.

I guess what I don't like about it is it feels more like an FM work around, more than it does something you'd actually see irl. Tams attempted to sit back against Man City last season, and it ended with City breaking the points record lol.

Balanced isn't me or my team NOT taking risks. It's us not throwing the ball away too easily. I'm also not giving it as advice. It's what I'm doing and I've outlined my thinking behind it. If someone else wants to follow it, that's their choice.

See it as a workaround if you want. I'm observing what happens in matches and I'm making changes based on what I see. You're making a LOT of assumptions and it seems that most of them are wrong. I may be "only" on Balanced, but my team is still attacking enough (I average 21 shots on goal, scoring 44 in 20 matches and 19 in 6 CL matches) so there's no "sitting back". I mentioned that for how I am setting up, it's making sense.

[herne79]

8 hours ago, Louisking1992 said:

How are you finding using two BWMs in the middle behind the Treq? whats the thinking about this? I considered a CM-D - BWM-S pairing before playing behind a playmaker but werent sure it would work

Roles & duties are just one half of the equation.  The players themselves make up the other half.  So my BWM-D is a hard tackling midfield destroyer with great positional awareness but is still comfortable on the ball.  Think an aggressive ball playing defender but in midfield.  The BWM-S is better on the ball and will get forward more in support, but can still tackle.  Think an aggressive BBM or RPM.  Both have bags of aggression, determination and work rate.

The thinking here is to provide a hard working, tough tackling front line of defence - players who will get in the face of the opposition, break up attacks before they start and recycle the ball back to my lethal front 3.  I could have used other roles & duties and adjusted PIs to suit, but if the BWM role is already set up there's no need to bother.

I think there's a general misconception that the BWM is some sort of headless chicken who gets pulled out of position all the time.  So I'll go back to my first sentence - the role is just one half of the equation: so use the wrong player and yeh, you'll be asking for trouble.

[Louisking1992]

9 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

Herne is in a much better position to give you advice, playing the same formation as you and of course him being a former tactics section mod, for a reason.  

Looking at your system, I don't get the feeling that there's counter attacking potency. Or rather, not something really fluid involving your AMC. I'll tell you why I bring it up. You selected Counter for when you win the ball. Where do you win the ball usually and what happens?

In my own game, I made an easy mistake. Ticking counter sounds good and sounds like it's what I want as a bit of an underdog... right? Sure, if you're set up for something more direct, IMO. With the tactic I had, I usually won it in deep midfield, so it would get punted forward and I'd have 1, maybe 2, players attacking 3 or 4 defenders. Not the best conditions for a counter attack. My counters weren't good. So I thought, what if I unticked Counter? What did happen, you ask? We worked it forward more safely in the transition until there was an opportunity to really hit them. We'd have 3 on 3 or at worst, 3 on 4. That caused chaos. I wasn't set up for a more direct counter so working it forward until a counter attack was on, was a better move for my tactic.

Have a look when you play again. I have a feeling, he's getting bypassed because it COUNTER!!!!! when you win the ball. It obviously works for you, for now since with that prediction, teams will leave a lot of space for you. I wouldn't necessarily fix anything that isn't broken, but if you observe what I think happens, it's something to keep in mind for when you encounter teams leaving you less space.

This is an interesting take for sure, counter is one of the first things I tick when creating a tactic because it just makes sense, win the ball > counter quickly but what you said does make sense for sure

[Louisking1992]

14 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Roles & duties are just one half of the equation.  The players themselves make up the other half.  So my BWM-D is a hard tackling midfield destroyer with great positional awareness but is still comfortable on the ball.  Think an aggressive ball playing defender but in midfield.  The BWM-S is better on the ball and will get forward more in support, but can still tackle.  Think an aggressive BBM or RPM.  Both have bags of aggression, determination and work rate.

The thinking here is to provide a hard working, tough tackling front line of defence - players who will get in the face of the opposition, break up attacks before they start and recycle the ball back to my lethal front 3.  I could have used other roles & duties and adjusted PIs to suit, but if the BWM role is already set up there's no need to bother.

I think there's a general misconception that the BWM is some sort of headless chicken who gets pulled out of position all the time.  So I'll go back to my first sentence - the role is just one half of the equation: so use the wrong player and yeh, you'll be asking for trouble.

For sure that makes sense to me, I'm a fan of the BWM, especially in recent editions of the game. I'll have to see what happens with the AM role, work to be done! 

[herne79]

4 minutes ago, Louisking1992 said:

For sure that makes sense to me, I'm a fan of the BWM, especially in recent editions of the game. I'll have to see what happens with the AM role, work to be done! 

Try to make improvements for sure, just remember not to fix something that isn't broken .

[WelshMourinho]

8 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

Balanced isn't me or my team NOT taking risks. It's us not throwing the ball away too easily. I'm also not giving it as advice. It's what I'm doing and I've outlined my thinking behind it. If someone else wants to follow it, that's their choice.

See it as a workaround if you want. I'm observing what happens in matches and I'm making changes based on what I see. You're making a LOT of assumptions and it seems that most of them are wrong. I may be "only" on Balanced, but my team is still attacking enough (I average 21 shots on goal, scoring 44 in 20 matches and 19 in 6 CL matches) so there's no "sitting back". I mentioned that for how I am setting up, it's making sense.

That's what you're observing and doing and that's fair enough, my point was that to me it would be the last thing I'd do against an all out defensive side. They're often very bottom heavy and don't venture forward at all, so me losing the ball is the last thing I'm worried about. If you're pushing that high anyway, you've probably got the defenders with the concentration and physical attributes needed for that not to be a problem.

Of course you'll be taking an element of risk on balanced, you will on all mentalities. But the higher mentalities are the ones that encourage attacking with more risk, and quicker. All things that irl we've seen are required and useful to breaking down teams with no threat ( or very little threat) of the counter.

I'm not sure what assumptions you think I'm making? I didn't talk about your style of play, your tactics, or anything to do with you really. All I said was that teams who do this often need to be tested with risky passes and direct runners to cause a bit of panic and disrupt them. Mentality obviously affects all of that.  I at no point said you were "sitting back" so why you've quoted that is a mystery to me. 

Why you felt the need to reply like I was talking to you personally I'm not sure, pretty much all of my comments were about football in general, not you and your save.

[mikcheck]

Em 20/07/2020 em 12:06, herne79 disse:

Not the only way no.

This is how my current Le Havre team line up:

 

 

You're one of the best teams in the league and only 1 TI? That's great to see, people (me included) have the tendency to use bunch of TI's, most of them certainly unnecessary.  

Do you normally change much? I also believe you don't use PI's?

If you just showed the formation without the roles, I'd bet in a BMW in the midfield, I know you love that role 

[zyfon5]

1 hour ago, Louisking1992 said:

This is an interesting take for sure, counter is one of the first things I tick when creating a tactic because it just makes sense, win the ball > counter quickly but what you said does make sense for sure

The ME will trigger counter attacks automatically when the conditions are met even if you do not tick the 'Counter' button. Ticking the 'Counter' button just lower the threshold for a counter attack if I'm not mistaken.

[HUNT3R]

48 minutes ago, WelshMourinho said:

That's what you're observing and doing and that's fair enough, my point was that to me it would be the last thing I'd do against an all out defensive side. They're often very bottom heavy and don't venture forward at all, so me losing the ball is the last thing I'm worried about.

It's something I do worry about. I am fine with taking risks, but like I mentioned - I don't want to overdo it and give the ball away too easily. That's what happened in my case. Right now, I'm ripping them apart because we're more measured and we wait for better chances more than we did before.

48 minutes ago, WelshMourinho said:

But the higher mentalities are the ones that encourage attacking with more risk, and quicker. 

Yes and with how I set up and the players I have available to me - that wasn't a good fit.

Quote

All things that irl we've seen are required and useful to breaking down teams with no threat ( or very little threat) of the counter.

I disagree here. You're making the assumption first that these top teams who break defensive teams down aren't (or can't be) on Mentality equivalent to "Balanced" and second, that's disregarding everything else about the tactic. Then, you contradict yourself by saying you know Balanced still takes risks, but then the 2 quoted parts above states you 'need' risk to break down teams and implying that's only possible on the higher Mentalities. Roles and Duties will significantly decide how you actually play and how attacking you are as well. It's not just Mentality. Even the top teams who are on the equivalent of Positive, will have more Support duties so they can knock the ball around more. They're taking a bit more risk, but with roles and duties, making themselves less gung ho and more measured. I could have done the same. I didn't and decided to go a different route.

If instead of an extremely risky through ball, I can create space to make that same through ball less of a risk and more of a chance of completion, why is Balanced such an issue?

In my team, I have a BWM/S who provides (similar to @herne79's) some penetration as he has Runs With Ball Often and Tries Killer Passes and I have a quarterback of a DLP/D who sprays the ball all around the pitch, probing for openings. I have an AMR who is an extreme handful in terms of dribbling and changing pace/direction and an AML who cuts inside pulling defenders laterally which opens some space. 

At the same time, I also have an AML who is left footed, so can give me a different option depending on who I face or how things go in a match. For a striker, I have either one with pace, off the ball and dribbling or I have a second who is a fast target man with flair. Again, very different options. I can change things with personnel and sometimes I bump a duty from support to attack.

All that is going on, and I haven't even mentioned my B2B midfielder who does a bit of everything or my late overlapping fullback who loves causing chaos. He'll take defenders on and either cross or run further into the box to pull another before a cut-back.

I have many ways to score and like I said, I sit in the top 3 in terms of goal scoring, chance creation etc. 

 

 

 

[dunk105]

16 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

I'm still not getting a lot of teams who line up with a defensive tactic. They're usually using a Cautious 4231 or something. I'm about at the halfway mark and had my first truly defensive team -

Burnley are the worst for me- always play a 3422-  somehow they cover the wings well even though they only have wingbacks wide, and getting through the middle- well you can imagine how much fun that is...

[HUNT3R]

4 minutes ago, dunk105 said:

Burnley are the worst for me- always play a 3422-  somehow they cover the wings well even though they only have wingbacks wide, and getting through the middle- well you can imagine how much fun that is...

I should have included the scoreline. 

 

[dunk105]

I'm fine with that- I wish teams would line up against me only with a cautious 4231. Think thats down to how dominant my Spurs side are, I cant blame teams as this is what happens when they play 4411 against me. I dont use exploit tactics either, teams sit back so much its actually hard for me not to create chances.

 

Pic above is me at half time right now- been trying to draw teams out a bit hence my low passing, but the stats are an example of how AI teams have utterly meaningless possession.

I'm not even really pressing!

 

Sorry forgot to quote as in reply to above!

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2020 by dunk105

[herne79]

1 hour ago, mikcheck said:

You're one of the best teams in the league and only 1 TI? That's great to see, people (me included) have the tendency to use bunch of TI's, most of them certainly unnecessary.  

Do you normally change much? I also believe you don't use PI's?

If you just showed the formation without the roles, I'd bet in a BMW in the midfield, I know you love that role 

I only really use TIs and PIs if I want to achieve either a certain style of play (eg., possession football) or to address one or more very specific issues (in this case I want a slightly higher def line to help combat that gap between defence and midfield).

If I make changes during matches they're usually fairly small, for example if I notice my players are standing off a bit too much allowing penetrating runs from the opposition I may tell them to press more; if a wingback is getting caught upfield too often I may change him to a defend duty.  That kind of thing.  I rarely (if ever) touch Mentality or formation.  I also use touchline shouts fairly extensively.

And yeh I do love a BWM, but only if I have the right player .

1 hour ago, HUNT3R said:

In my team, I have a BWM/S who provides (similar to @herne79's) some penetration as he has Runs With Ball Often and Tries Killer Passes

This is exactly the point - have the role and player combining: two sides of the same coin.  Using a player's attributes and Traits in combination with the role/duty selected to our advantage to help define a player's behaviour on pitch.

That right there can be a reason why some people get "FM'd" so often - for example they give their wingback an attack duty and then use a player with the Trait to get forward often.  Worse they can even combine it with an aggressive mentality and the look for overlap TI.  Do all of that and you have a winger, not a wingback, who will get caught out of position by a quick break and you get FM'd.

If people stop and think about these combinations you can very quickly understand that if you want an attack minded wingback (to carry on the example) you simply don't need such aggressive settings.  Depending on the player and other settings I'll rarely (if ever) use anything more than a support duty wingback, and very often just a defend duty.  The player will still get forward in support but he'll be a damn sight better in defence.  I achieve my Board's desire for attacking football and I can't remember the last time I got "FM'd".  Of course you absolutely can play with attack duty players, but you'd better make damn sure you understand the risks and what you can do to mitigate them.

[Louisking1992]

14 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I only really use TIs and PIs if I want to achieve either a certain style of play (eg., possession football) or to address one or more very specific issues (in this case I want a slightly higher def line to help combat that gap between defence and midfield).

If I make changes during matches they're usually fairly small, for example if I notice my players are standing off a bit too much allowing penetrating runs from the opposition I may tell them to press more; if a wingback is getting caught upfield too often I may change him to a defend duty.  That kind of thing.  I rarely (if ever) touch Mentality or formation.  I also use touchline shouts fairly extensively.

And yeh I do love a BWM, but only if I have the right player .

This is exactly the point - have the role and player combining: two sides of the same coin.  Using a player's attributes and Traits in combination with the role/duty selected to our advantage to help define a player's behaviour on pitch.

That right there can be a reason why some people get "FM'd" so often - for example they give their wingback an attack duty and then use a player with the Trait to get forward often.  Worse they can even combine it with an aggressive mentality and the look for overlap TI.  Do all of that and you have a winger, not a wingback, who will get caught out of position by a quick break and you get FM'd.

If people stop and think about these combinations you can very quickly understand that if you want an attack minded wingback (to carry on the example) you simply don't need such aggressive settings.  Depending on the player and other settings I'll rarely (if ever) use anything more than a support duty wingback, and very often just a defend duty.  The player will still get forward in support but he'll be a damn sight better in defence.  I achieve my Board's desire for attacking football and I can't remember the last time I got "FM'd".  Of course you absolutely can play with attack duty players, but you'd better make damn sure you understand the risks and what you can do to mitigate them.

Love this Herne! 

I automatically lose interest when I see a tactic with 50 TIs, but love seeing the simple tactics, a lot easier to analyse as well which i prefer.

[bibird.]

4 hours ago, herne79 said:

Roles & duties are just one half of the equation.  The players themselves make up the other half.  So my BWM-D is a hard tackling midfield destroyer with great positional awareness but is still comfortable on the ball.  Think an aggressive ball playing defender but in midfield.  The BWM-S is better on the ball and will get forward more in support, but can still tackle.  Think an aggressive BBM or RPM.  Both have bags of aggression, determination and work rate.

The thinking here is to provide a hard working, tough tackling front line of defence - players who will get in the face of the opposition, break up attacks before they start and recycle the ball back to my lethal front 3.  I could have used other roles & duties and adjusted PIs to suit, but if the BWM role is already set up there's no need to bother.

I think there's a general misconception that the BWM is some sort of headless chicken who gets pulled out of position all the time.  So I'll go back to my first sentence - the role is just one half of the equation: so use the wrong player and yeh, you'll be asking for trouble.

It doesn’t sound entirely dissimilar from van Gaal‘s 3-5-2 that the Netherlands used in the 2014 WC against Spain. Two hard tackling, grafting, ball winners in the centre of midfield (de Jong and de Guzman), numbers to provide stability in defence and three lethal attackers (Sneijder, Robben and van Persie) allowed to play their natural game.

[WelshMourinho]

3 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

I disagree here. You're making the assumption first that these top teams who break defensive teams down aren't (or can't be) on Mentality equivalent to "Balanced" and second, that's disregarding everything else about the tactic. Then, you contradict yourself by saying you know Balanced still takes risks, but then the 2 quoted parts above states you 'need' risk to break down teams and implying that's only possible on the higher Mentalities. Roles and Duties will significantly decide how you actually play and how attacking you are as well. It's not just Mentality. Even the top teams who are on the equivalent of Positive, will have more Support duties so they can knock the ball around more. They're taking a bit more risk, but with roles and duties, making themselves less gung ho and more measured. I could have done the same. I didn't and decided to go a different route.

I don't think I have contradicted myself though. The quoted bits don't say that's only possible on higher mentalities or that there's no risk on balanced, what you quoted says higher mentalities will encourage more risk, which it does. If anything that's me acknowledging that the lower mentalities have risk involved, just not as much as the higher mentalities. You've acknowledged this yourself, as you talk about playing in a safer manner. Would you disagree with that? 

I completely agree about support duties, I love them. I use plenty of them myself and I love the work they do in transitions. I'm not suggesting people need to have 7 attack duties and have all the risk in the world. I was suggesting how higher mentalities often encourage plays that to me are necessary for breaking down a defence and especially one that isn't looking to spring counters.

I only disregarded the rest of the tactic because I was focusing solely on the comment about mentality.

3 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

If instead of an extremely risky through ball, I can create space to make that same through ball less of a risk and more of a chance of completion, why is Balanced such an issue?

And I think this is where we just have different viewpoints when it comes to football at least on FM. Which is absolutely fine btw, I'm not trying to say my way is right and yours is wrong. 

For example you've talked about passing, but mentality is also gonna have an impact on your width and tempo. Obviously these can be changed with TIs so you can alter them, but your players are still going to be taking more risk on higher mentalities, and I rely on these things against defensive sides.

You see taking these risks as not worth it, and would rather have more measured build up play. You also said earlier you could win with higher mentalities but you felt like you were getting lucky. To me, it's the opposite. I see playing more measured as letting teams get back into their shape, which means I'm relying on them making a mistake. If I'm playing against these sides I'm happy to play a bit wider, and a bit faster because we're going to encourage them to make mistakes. 

For me it's not about balanced being an issue. That wasn't the point I wanted to make. There's more than one way to win in football after all. I just find this way to be the way for me. It's just I see this opinion commonly expressed on the forums (especially in the tactics forum) where people often talk down the higher mentalities as being wasteful, when that can be far from the case.

Your tactic obviously works for you, and I can see why. It follows sound logic, has numerous options which can cause havoc for the opposition and you've found a way of tempering your players risk taking so they aren't being sloppy. That works for you and that's the beauty of football after all, there's more than one way to do it. 

My initial post was supposed to show how real life examples have shaped the way I approach playing FM. Mentality seems to be one of the most misunderstood things on FM, and I think it would be easy for someone to read your post and think the higher mentalities would just constantly give the ball away. I realise that wasn't your intention, but I find too many people play this game and think there's like an ultimate winning strategy or whatever, when there's not.  

Edited July 26, 2020 by WelshMourinho

[HUNT3R]

6 minutes ago, WelshMourinho said:

---

Thanks for the clarification. That makes a lot more sense. We have differing views, but that doesn't mean either is wrong. Different ways of approaching things.

[mikcheck]

2 horas atrás, herne79 disse:

And yeh I do love a BWM, but only if I have the right player .

The players you use there, are they comfortable with the ball too?

Edited July 26, 2020 by mikcheck

[herne79]

3 hours ago, mikcheck said:

The players you use there, are they comfortable with the ball too?

Yeh, comfortable on the ball:

9 hours ago, herne79 said:

Roles & duties are just one half of the equation.  The players themselves make up the other half.  So my BWM-D is a hard tackling midfield destroyer with great positional awareness but is still comfortable on the ball.  Think an aggressive ball playing defender but in midfield.  The BWM-S is better on the ball and will get forward more in support, but can still tackle.  Think an aggressive BBM or RPM.  Both have bags of aggression, determination and work rate.

[HUNT3R]

On 26/07/2020 at 14:50, WelshMourinho said:

Your tactic obviously works for you, and I can see why. It follows sound logic, has numerous options which can cause havoc for the opposition and you've found a way of tempering your players risk taking so they aren't being sloppy. That works for you and that's the beauty of football after all, there's more than one way to do it. 

My initial post was supposed to show how real life examples have shaped the way I approach playing FM. Mentality seems to be one of the most misunderstood things on FM, and I think it would be easy for someone to read your post and think the higher mentalities would just constantly give the ball away. I realise that wasn't your intention, but I find too many people play this game and think there's like an ultimate winning strategy or whatever, when there's not.  

If you're interested, here's a match where I think being more measured than say, Positive, shows.

It seems I didn't create many CCCs or even HCs, but even when in or around the box, my players seemed quite focused. I'll attach the PKM if you want to watch. I was on my usual "Balanced" Mentality until the 5th goal and then switched to "Positive" to really put the pressure on. I'm not posting this because of the scoreline, because some of the goals (like the 3rd) are just pure player quality and in that one, the keeper could have done better. I'm playing El Idrissi, who is just a youngster from the academy, even though I have better players available and Scaffidi, my top scorer is on the bench and didn't come on at all. Goals like this (below) is what shows me that more measured side:

I brought in Ramazzotti, who scored a hattrick and had an assist, was brought in because I rested my top scorer. Another reason I chose Ramazzotti and put him on the right (instead of his usual ST slot), moving my usual AMR to ST, is because Ramazzotti was just an insane match-up vs their fullback. He's faster, stronger, an above average dribbler against an average tackler and quite a height difference too, so he beat him everywhere that mattered. 

 

FC Metz v LOSC.pkm

[Svenc]

52 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

 

 

 

FC Metz v LOSC.pkm 222.87 kB · 0 downlo

 

Always nice to see a goal / build-up that has actually wrong-footed the keeper. Cut-backs, lay-offs having drawn the keeper etc. are so underrated as opposed to your bang average one on one, where the keeper has to focus just on that one man.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, Svenc said:

 

Always nice to see a goal / build-up that has actually wrong-footed the keeper. Cut-backs, lay-offs having drawn the keeper etc. are so underrated as opposed to your bang average one on one, where the keeper has to focus just on that one man.

I agree. That's a player that has the Shoots with Power trait too and it was cool to see him having the composure to not even do that since it wasn't necessary.

[dunk105]

Once you get successful virtually every single game is this. I like clean sheets too so tend to play quite balanced formations- not even really pressing and leaving myself exposed as I know I'll get the ball back from the long ball upfield- my formation looks a bit weird as I switched to a 442 from 4321 to try and stretch the game. IMO its why a lot of games for people are seeing just goals from setpieces and longshots as when the AI does this even going wide doesnt help as players (quite sensibly) havent got crossing targets, but also there is really no point in trying to play through the middle. Teams dont even come out even a bit when they are losing too.

Imagine playing the game and after a couple of good seasons having every single game bar ones against the few teams who feel they can beat me. SI need to have players who are high in technical and creativity stats be able to unlock defences, as its just too OP to put 10 men behind the ball. Its also a reason that we see ridiculous shot counts- as even pragmatic formations and tactics result in this.

 

[HUNT3R]

So I won the league from a predicted 3rd place (again). I also won the CL when only rated 40-1 and with a salary per annum spend of a quarter of the other finalist, Man Utd. In the league, I lost once (to a 10th placed Amiens, so not a park the bus team) and the 7 draws were against mid-table or better teams.

This season, with the big rep boost, I'm facing quite a few more defensive teams. I've already faced a few of the bottom teams and 2 of the 3 rated at 1001-1 to win the title, winning 5-0 and 5-1. It's 10 matches in, but safe to say, it's a 2 horse race and my players are not scared to score. Even had a 9-0 in there.

As far as Chances Created goes, I'm at 44 while the closest team (PSG) is at 25.

 

 

[Svenc]

14 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

So I won the league from a predicted 3rd place (again). I also won the CL when only rated 40-1 and with a salary per annum spend of a quarter of the other finalist, Man Utd. In the league, I lost once (to a 10th placed Amiens, so not a park the bus team) and the 7 draws were against mid-table or better teams.

This season, with the big rep boost, I'm facing quite a few more defensive teams. I've already faced a few of the bottom teams and 2 of the 3 rated at 1001-1 to win the title, winning 5-0 and 5-1. It's 10 matches in, but safe to say, it's a 2 horse race and my players are not scared to score. Even had a 9-0 in there.

 

At a ridiculous 5.x goals per game, it seems we're finally back on topic.