Time Wasting - Is it more than simply wasting time?

[mista T]

I am actually testing this with a 4-4-2 wide diamond, 2 wingers (might need to draw them in soon, injury crisis on the right) and it is working well. The last match (3-2 to me against kettering) wasn't a great example as they scored 2 long shots (both 20+ yarders) and I scored 2 set pieces and an own goal. Still, it does work and retains possession well too.

[mista T]

Also, direct or short passing? I'm playing direct due to the absolute state my pitch is in. It is working fairly well so far.

[JD nawrat]

Also, direct or short passing? I'm playing direct due to the absolute state my pitch is in. It is working fairly well so far.

I play:

Short, if the weather conditions are warm.

Direct, if the weather is raining.

If it's warm AND raining, I'm not quite sure. I've just had a game there, which was 22 degrees Celsius, with a downpour, and although I had 6 CCCs, all of which I should easily have scored, the final score was 1-0 to me. But I still dictated the game, had 76% of possession, 80% of passes complete, and the opposition didn't have 1 chance.

I'll need to keep testing with the Passing in different conditions...

[Jaynm]

Been testing it out myself and it seems to be working, not sure where to exactly put the time wasting slider but it seems to improve the passing accuracy and also allows the side to take their time to set up attacks, quite a great tactical idea.

[lam]

Just a thought, lam, but would it not be better to implement a flat 4-4-2 diamond if you're not using your wingers to cross? This would create more defensive stability in the midfield. You could also focus passing through the middle.

Hi mate. I am not sure what a 'flat' 442 diamond is to be honest. Also.... i think like the post below. As its a pressure tactic, I like using width, at the time is was up around 19 or so. The beauty of combing this thread and that of SFrasers is that despite me telling the players not to cross, they were actualy doing so on occassions. Those occassions, in my opinion were formed by A) their high creative freedom and B) the highest mixed timewasting making the team wait for a great opportunity. When said opportunity arose, points A & B kicked in and a cross was thrown in.

The only reason I turned off crossing was because I wanted the team to really think about possession before attacking. The wingers were on 12/13 mentality and if i wanted to do this with mentality then I would have to have lowered them to a defensive mentality which simply wouldnt have worked for me.

As I said though, when you combine the two threads, its amazing what you can get your team to do, without actualy asking them to do it!!!!!.

Been testing it out myself and it seems to be working, not sure where to exactly put the time wasting slider but it seems to improve the passing accuracy and also allows the side to take their time to set up attacks, quite a great tactical idea.

Jay - I think its all circumstantial. I found a high mixed TW was to much for me team throughout the whole game, where as a often TW setting was to much for them when playing around the box. However, a setting of 14 worked perfect.

The one key thing that you have to do, and its a very common theme through my favoured topics, is to watch the whole game. Many of these topics will only give you 50% of the results others are getting if you dont watch the game. This is, for me, the ONLY starting place in understanding tacitcs. (point was more for others than a direct response to you).

If I were you, I would start the game on mixed (in the middle) and move it around from there to A) see what it does to game play and B) when you think its needed - its worth noting (mentaly or on paper) when you chose to do this and why as sometimes its not the correct choice.

LAM

[zaq]

Been thinking a bit more how player stats affect decision making and I have a hunch how it could work. Its not even a theory yet its just a hunch and I would like to get you people to report if you think it could be true or false.

Watching a few games with different teams has lead me to believe that if my thoughts about "Time Wasting" and decisionmaking is true or at least close enough to true to be a help in setting up your tactic, then there must be other factors that also affects the decision process.

To be able to explain this I first want to remind you that this is based on a belief that "Mentality", "Tempo" and "Time Wasting" are linked variables that are essential to the decision making process. "Mentality" seems to decide the priority of action and "Time Wasting" is a modifier to the quality of the decision or rather what chance of success the player believes he need to try to perform an action. "Tempo" is also essential and very closely linked to "Time Wasting" as it probably decides how much time the player has to make a decision and perform a specific action.

If this observation is correct then its likely that in most circumstances, a higher tempo benefits more from time-wasting than a low tempo.

I think that "Flair" decides how flamboyant the moves are that the player has as an option and that "Creativity" is the key attribute to even see an opportunity, which I think would be a prerequisite to even consider a specific action. Not really much new so far as it seems to be at least some consensus at what these stats affect.

I now also believe that "Decisions" is what provides the base threshold for a players decisionmaking. In essence if you want frequent flamboyant moves you should look for players with high "Creativity", high "Flair" and low "Decisions". This however would probably not add much to the efficiency of your tactic. It seems likely that "Creative Freedom" is somehow a modifier to "Flair" that allows and/or makes flamboyant moves more likely although the exact interaction is still a mystery and there may well be some other ingredients in the mix.

But what are the effects then in regard to time wasting? Well if I'm right, it probably has the, at least to me, surprising effect that high "Creativity" and "Flair" in some ways are counteracted by high "Decisions". This together with the linking to "Mentality" and "Tempo" is probably why it is so hard to say what "Time Wasting" does and what amount of "Time Wasting" is right and why some find a medium high time-wasting give a positive effect while another finds a high time-wasting is better. Where there seem to be a consensus is that "Time Wasting" affects the quality of play.

So what is the secret? Well I think that the secret is that an intelligent team can play high tempo, low time wasting football without loss of quality and therefore can create more and better chances than a less intelligent team.

[lam]

Zaq,

I am on a different wave length.

This is what I beleive.

Mentality: Defines a players risk vs reward stats within a given play.

Tempo: Pace of the ball being moved around within a play.

TW: How strong a play needs to be before it is started or how long a player will wait for a play.

So... technically, it would work in this order.

Timewasting .......... Mentality .......... Tempo

or (working with a high TW, high Mentality, and high tempo)

Waiting for a play,

waiting for a play,

waiting for a play,

looks like a play is on,

move to assess the quality of the play.

Mentality is high,

therefore the reward outweighs the risk,

the play is started.

The ball is moved around fast as tempo is high.

Thats what I am working towards at the moment.

I dont beleive that tempo and TW are linked. there are to many permatations for them to be linked directly. They will of course, complement eachother, but I do not think they are linked.

LAM

[mista T]

Just had a result and a half implementing this idea into my tactic (it is worth noting the rest is my design and that tactical ideas can be implemented to improve your tactic, not just to change it). I was expected to be destroyed by Mansfield. They had 7 shots: I got that many on target. ONE of their shots was on target. I won 2-0, including a missed penalty. DOMINATED them throughout the entire game. Was away as well. I had an incredible EIGHT clear cut chances. EIGHT. This is against an opponent expected to crush me, at their ground, and they got a single shot on target. Amazing result, just tinkering with the less than obvious things can yield very promising results. As a fellow tactician, I believe you have pioneered many good ideas in the game lam. KUTGW

[SFraser]

I think that "Flair" decides how flamboyant the moves are that the player has as an option and that "Creativity" is the key attribute to even see an opportunity, which I think would be a prerequisite to even consider a specific action. Not really much new so far as it seems to be at least some consensus at what these stats affect.

I would agree with this analysis, it makes a lot of sense and certainly seems accurate when considering on-pitch behaviour. I have noticed that high Creativity and Technically skilled players look more dangerous when given high Creative Freedom, but don't necessarilly waste possession.

As I said though, when you combine the two threads, its amazing what you can get your team to do, without actualy asking them to do it!!!!!.

Less is more eh? You need the right players, but there is no substitute for putting quality players in the right positions, giving them freedom and letting them do what they do best. Not all players are up to that level though, where when given the freedom they can single handedly destroy teams with a bit of genius you could never instruct.

I really like that quote as it sums up how I view the tactical side of FM. The better your players the less you interfere, the worse your players the more you need to control them. Ofcourse if the opponent is quality you need to take measures to stop them exploiting your freedom.

[lam]

Just had a result and a half implementing this idea into my tactic (it is worth noting the rest is my design and that tactical ideas can be implemented to improve your tactic, not just to change it). I was expected to be destroyed by Mansfield. They had 7 shots: I got that many on target. ONE of their shots was on target. I won 2-0, including a missed penalty. DOMINATED them throughout the entire game. Was away as well. I had an incredible EIGHT clear cut chances. EIGHT. This is against an opponent expected to crush me, at their ground, and they got a single shot on target. Amazing result, just tinkering with the less than obvious things can yield very promising results. As a fellow tactician, I believe you have pioneered many good ideas in the game lam. KUTGW

1. I am very glad its providing you with the results you wanted.

2. Thank you very much for your last comment. Its always nice to have some work recognised

[Avelives]

Having tested your theory further im now starting to see the main difference with having higher TW is simply better distribution from my goalie, which in turn leads to better attacks and prevents the constant giving away of the ball from goal kicks.

Even set to defender collect on low TW goalies often clear the ball far to quick resulting in loss of possession almost immediately.

Im not saying the rest of your theory isnt right but for my team over 7 games now thats the major difference ive seen.

[zaq]

Zaq,

I am on a different wave length.

This is what I beleive.

Mentality: Defines a players risk vs reward stats within a given play.

Tempo:

TW: How strong a play needs to be before it is started or how long a player will wait for a play.

So... technically, it would work in this order.

Timewasting .......... Mentality .......... Tempo

or (working with a high TW, high Mentality, and high tempo)

Waiting for a play,

waiting for a play,

waiting for a play,

looks like a play is on,

move to assess the quality of the play.

Mentality is high,

therefore the reward outweighs the risk,

the play is started.

The ball is moved around fast as tempo is high.

Thats what I am working towards at the moment.

I dont beleive that tempo and TW are linked. there are to many permatations for them to be linked directly. They will of course, complement eachother, but I do not think they are linked.

LAM

Actually I dont think what you are saying in essence is in conflict with what I have observed...

Mentality governs how aggresive the play is and a high mentality gives more weight or priority to attacking moves or if you want gives the player rights to take higher risks - I would say that we agree on this.

Tempo governs the "Pace of the ball being moved around within a play." I agree on this effect, but primary I think this is achieved by adjusting how much time the player have to decide on his next action or if you want, how long he will hold on to the ball before continuing or starting a play. While you seem to mainly attribute this to TW. So we agree on the effect but maybe not on the method.

TW: "How strong a play needs to be before it is started or how long a player will wait for a play". I agree to the first part, as it is a logical explanation to the radicaly changed behavior when TW is taken to its extremes. I'm less sure about the second part but there is a possibility that apart from modifing the risk/reward requirements it also gives the player some flexibility to wait for a suitable play, another although less likely explaination could be that at a given moment there is no play that fills the criteria of "quality" so a percieved "waiting" is an indirect effect of high demand on all other possibilities.

"To be able to explain this I first want to remind you that this is based on a belief that "Mentality", "Tempo" and "Time Wasting" are linked variables that are essential to the decision making process." - I guess you refer to this and I will refrase it:

"To be able to explain this I first want to remind you that this is based on a belief that "Mentality", "Tempo" and "Time Wasting" are essential variables that are linked to the decision making process."

So what I wanted to say is that I think we agree more than we disagree when it comes to the effects, but we might have a differnt view of the process or method used by the GE to produce them.

To say with any certainty how the actual mechanism works in the GE we probably need to see the code or at least be given more info from SI. I suspect there are additional subtle effects of the sliders that is less than obvious. What I have tried to do is to make an example on how it could work, based on my observations. This is to make it possible to visualise the effects of certain sliders and therefore make them easier to understand - I do not lay any claims to know the actual workings of the GE.

[Miksu]

I played with this yesterday when I was creating new tactics for my team. My game was against a very weak team which I ended up winning 6-0. I watched the game in full to see the difference between high and low time wasting.

My default time wasting was mixed (9). I had 73% ball possession. After 30 minutes (when I was leading 3-0), I changed the time wasting to 15. The change in my players actions was really noticeable: They almost completely stopped closing down on opponents. If the opponent got the ball in the middle of the field, they could keep it there because none of my players were chasing them. My ball possession shrank quite rapidly to around 55%. I then changed the time wasting back to 9 and my ball possession started growing again: If the opponent got the ball, my players came and took it away.

I re-tested this couple times, every time watching the changes in full. And every time the same thing happened. It was like high time wasting made my players think "They have the ball but it's not in a bad place. Lets wait and see if the opponent comes closer to our goal".

For me tinkering with time wasting felt like I was tinkering with the "opponent pressure".

[lam]

Miksu,

The GK is clearly (for me) the most visual effect of this change, however, I did find that its not really about what you DO see, its about what you DON'T see, or to be more specific, its about what stops happening, ie the pot shots on goal, the silly through balls etc etc.

I might be wrong here, and if so I apologise, but you make reference twice to watching the games in full, which to me sounds like something you do not normal do, if this is the case, then its likely you were not seeing the negatives of a wrong (cant really be a wrong setting, but I'm sure you know what I mean) setting.

I have seen/noticed a significant drop in the number of crappy shots. My accuracy has gone through the roof and although this hasn't, yet, turned into major results. I am now 4 games won with 1 draw from the opening of the first season. This is something I had not acheived previously. Please note that I do not have a high TW setting all the time. I start in the middle and play around with it.

I am sure the actual results could have been better, but I have been 'playing' alot with the settings.

Zaq,

I think we agree on lots too. However, I think the one thing where I do differ or where maybe I have not explained myself correctly is that (again, not fully tested), TW comes into effect mainly at the begining of plays. I beleive that once a play is underway its all down to mentality and tempo. That said, it doesnt always need a loss of possession to break a play, therefore this is why you see, after buzzing the ball around, the team seem to slow up again and hold possession somewhere. This can be used to your advantage as it if you get the settings right.

Really, what I want to try today, although severely limited for time today, is to set up a game that plays sharp quick football with a possessional mentality in place whilst waiting for opportunities to arise. This I feel can be acheived by the following:

Normal mentality (on average)

Low mixed passing

high normal tempo

high normal TW

On another note, you will notice that there are no (what I call) extremes in there, ie there are no oftens, quicks, slows, shorts etc etc. I may be wrong on this next point, but I am slowly coming to the conclusion that (at least for me as Spurs) I should NOT be setting up within any of the extremes. I beleive that extreme settings are now for acheiving a specific result or course of action from your players on the pitch during specific times of play. This was evident for me with the TW setting once I started using it, however it also seems to be the case with passing, though having said that, it does change to direct very quick.

It may be a case of Spurs being a mid quality team and once I start improving them I can start moving to more extreme setups.

LAM

[Miksu]

Miksu,

The GK is clearly (for me) the most visual effect of this change, however, I did find that its not really about what you DO see, its about what you DON'T see, or to be more specific, its about what stops happening, ie the pot shots on goal, the silly through balls etc etc.

I might be wrong here, and if so I apologise, but you make reference twice to watching the games in full, which to me sounds like something you do not normal do, if this is the case, then its likely you were not seeing the negatives of a wrong (cant really be a wrong setting, but I'm sure you know what I mean) setting.

I have seen/noticed a significant drop in the number of crappy shots. My accuracy has gone through the roof and although this hasn't, yet, turned into major results. I am now 4 games won with 1 draw from the opening of the first season. This is something I had not acheived previously. Please note that I do not have a high TW setting all the time. I start in the middle and play around with it.

Actually I've watched quite many matches in full lately, to the point where I know what to expect from my players in different situations. The change in closing down was very obvious. I used a term "opponent pressure" in my last post but now I would just say that with higher time wasting my players were operating more defensively. Without knowing anything about the game engine, I would guess that time wasting operates as a multiplier to tempo and mentality settings.

[zaq]

I'm kinda leaning towards the same direction as Miksu

You can change the TW one or two nothes right and you see players starting to dribble the ball more they stop shooting at every opportunity its definatly changing player behaviour.

I have started to look at TW as an alternative way to change team mentality during a game while retaining individual mentality differences between say defence and attack (RoO, RoT, etc). Could almost describe it like an old radio - first you use the tune dial to find the station and then you use the fine tune dial to get a clear reception. I also use it to tighten up my play when I waste to many shoots etc... Tempo and TW is the two sliders I now tend to adjust the most when I want to change the behaviour and "mentality" of my team.

The best simple way to describe TW is probably how much risk the team are willing to take.

LAM I agree with you that extreme settings tend to produce extreme results - it seems like most sliders are working after some sort of x^2 formula so the effect of moving a notch produce more drastic results the closer they get to an edge.

[lam]

I am not seeing what Zaq and Miksu are seeing.

My team defend the same as wether the setting is high or low.

I think have a better translation for Timewasting now.

High TW = Patiently wait for something to happen.

Low TW = Go and make something happen.

I am establishing good uses for the setting.

some examples:

For controled non stop play. Take a low TW with a low tempo. This will see the ball continually passes around, but in a controled manner.

Alternatively. for a break type play, take a high TW and high tempo. This see's your team dwelling on the ball a little more, but when a break is on, they snap into action.

LAM

[zaq]

I am not seeing what Zaq and Miksu are seeing.

High TW = Patiently wait for something to happen.

Low TW = Go and make something happen.

I am establishing good uses for the setting.

LAM

I don't think your wrong in this and I must confess I have primaraly looked at what adjusting TW does when you are in possession. I don't dare to say much about its effect in defence at this point.

From your post it sounds like you are looking at the difference between playing "Much TW" and "Little TW" from an overall team perspective while I mainly are look at differences in individual player behaviour when I change the TW slider one or two notches and I can observe a clear change in behaviour. We might be approaching TW from opposite directions.

I'm still convinced that TW primarily alters the "required chance for success" or "risk/reward ratio" for different actions and that these alteration is weighted. There is likely other more subtle effects on TW linked to tempo etc.

The process of decision-making is likely to be a rather complex part of the GE. Clearly involving multiple inputs not only from variables like sliders, position of ball and players but also from constants like player attributes, playing position etc and any conclusions is likely to be influenced by these factors. Our limited knowledge of the GE is certainly not helping us here and these "other" inputs could certainly be a source for difference in oppinion.

Although I'm far from certain I'm inclined to think that TW have more effect on a balanced Mentality setting and that the Decisions attribute also are a modifier to the "risk/reward ratio".

At least in effect this could imply that TW is a modifier to Decisions or even more likely that Decisions is a modifier to TW.

If I am correct this would also imply that TW could be a less effective tool for a top team with intelligent players playing at a very high mentality than it would be for a more mediocre team playing at a medium mentality.

[liam crane]

I have recently had my time wasting on often and have had some sucess no more smashing the ball up field more controlled play passing forward and then back if nothing is on

[rougess]

This may be a ground-breaking discovery for all tactics. I have always shyed away from Time-Wasting, as I took the meaning literally. I think I've set it to 5 on all my tactics, regardless of situation or ability, but now I'll try to experiment. Will let you know how this pans out

[rougess]

Thinking about it, the part about the player waiting for the right opportunity makes perfect sense, as the number of times I've read the the opposition's "he's heading for the corner flag..." and they've scored within the next 5 comments has happened way too often. At least now I understand it

[lam]

This may be a ground-breaking discovery for all tactics. I have always shyed away from Time-Wasting, as I took the meaning literally. I think I've set it to 5 on all my tactics, regardless of situation or ability, but now I'll try to experiment. Will let you know how this pans out

Thinking about it, the part about the player waiting for the right opportunity makes perfect sense, as the number of times I've read the the opposition's "he's heading for the corner flag..." and they've scored within the next 5 comments has happened way too often. At least now I understand it

I beleive that it has made a huge difference to my games. I am working well with SFrasers thread now, 'Tactics - A less is more theory', but I have not got a start to the game like I have whilst encorporating this.

I am glad its working for you. Its worth remembering though, 'little' time wasting still has its uses!

LAM

[ZdlR]

Having played around with the timewasting slider, I've come to the conclusion that you're quite right in your assumption of where the divide lies between timewasting and tempo. General play seems to be very sensitive to timewasting, whereas the speed of an attack once an opening presents itself appears to be governed by tempo.

As a general rule I try to avoid general rules but, I currently use middle- to high-mixed timewasting when playing a better opponent or away to similar opponents. Providing they aren't being closed down quickly, your players use that extra time to pick out a pass, make a better decision or craft something less obvious than the first option they see. This leads to increased possession and better chances in the final third. If I feel I should be winning a game I will use low-mixed or rarely timewasting, so that we sharply move the ball around and avoid any opposition tackles. This can result in play breaking down early, but I find that is better than being caught in possession in your own third.

Setting timewasting to often is reserved for sitting on a lead and trying to frustrate the opposition in the last 20 mins or so.

[lam]

Most of my success is coming from having TW in the middle or on highest normal (14). My gameplay is just to rushed with anything below. I guess I need to work more on that side of things as I do not really know what I am missing out on.

If playing a top 4 team (EPL) then I will set this to 14 from the off. However, one of the best uses I have found so far is setting it to normal to start and then moving it to 14 in the following conditions:

1-0 up in a cup game

2-0 up in a league game

The reasons for this is that the opposition teams seem to react at these points. If in a cup game you go 1-0 up then the oppo team needs to get back in fairly soon else risk being booted from the competition (unlike league games).

Once you go up, then opposition then start to push the game and will make errors, and working with the mindset of TW working as a 'looking for a play', you will then be presented with many openings.

The same applies for league games, however I find that teh breaking point for most opposition is 2 goals down.

I tend to move my tempo up when I make that change too, and it seems to work as a mild counter attack. ie your team plays it around for a while, someone over commits and then they break into a fast tempo play.

LAM

[ZdlR]

1-0 up in a cup game

2-0 up in a league game

The reasons for this is that the opposition teams seem to react at these points. If in a cup game you go 1-0 up then the oppo team needs to get back in fairly soon else risk being booted from the competition (unlike league games).

I've seen the 2v0 one, definitely. It is mainly true when you are at home and it's <70 mins. They seem quite happy to maintain their normal play if you are 1v0 up and it's not near the end of the game. Late on, the usually increase the pressure before going 4-2-4.

[lam]

Anyone else trying this out or had any joy with it? Comments are welcomed!

LAM

[phnompenhandy]

Yes, I've been implementing your time-wasting theory for a half-season now. I've integrated it with SFraser's ideas and constant tweaking on my part. I haven't changed the 14-15 TW setting since it appears to do what you said. My assman often despairs that our passing is woeful, especially short-range, so I often reduce the tempo. In other words the combination of TW (cautious build-up) with 15 (quick) tempo doesn't come off and I drop tempo to 11 or 12.

In the last 10-15 minutes, if I'm leading I'll up TW to max; if not winning drop to 10.

Do you think my assessment of TW v tempo is in the right ball-park or not?

My other settings (generally) are team mentality 15-16, CF 15, passing 15 (dependent on weather, pitch etc), width 19, CD 15, DL 20 (unless quick oppo strikers). 3-2-2-1-2 formation.

[SFraser]

I have been having a bash at these ideas myself and there definately seems to be some merit in them. I have been increasing Time Wasting from first notch of rarely to bang in the middle and the build up play of my team certainly appears more composed and far less direct.

From what I have seen I would tend to interprate the sliders according to what they say, i.e. low time wasting means "waste no time" and aims to get the ball in the back of the net asap whereas high time wasting means "take your time" and aims to keep control of the ball. Tempo would therefore remain the overall speed of play once a decision has been made, with high Tempo meaning each move is sharp and fast.

There definately seems to be something in this approach. Time Wasting is a much maligned slider that has been rarely touched in my tactics, but this has changed since reading this thread.

[TheBetterHalf]

Without proof I'm inclined to say that time-wasting as long as its not in its extreme will dictate not the tempo but the urgency or if you want the quality of play.

?

My thoughts exactly.I use a TW of around 12 and my build up looks like SFraser is describing it in the quote below.

I have been increasing Time Wasting from first notch of rarely to bang in the middle and the build up play of my team certainly appears more composed and far less direct.

.

[TigerJoe]

After deciding too start another save with my favouritem team Hull I decided that the reason why I'd not been overly successful on other occanions was my tactics. So I decided to do some experiments in different ways of playing. My first experiment was to create a tactic which allowed slow build up play and a domination of possession.

So too make this happen there were two things tactically that I new would be a good start. Turn time wasting to max, this would allow my team time on the ball and would allow me to play slow, sensible but creative technical football. I also needed a formation that dominated possession, so I chose the classic W-M formation.

Now I new this wasn't the only thing that needed concentrating on. To make this tactic work I decided I needed to make drastic slider movements. I set tempo and passing to min and creative freedom and time wasting to max. Then with the rest of the instructions I set them as I would in a normal W-M formation but making sure I didn't set anything that would intervene with the style I wanted to play.

Also I turned everyones crossing to never and long shots to never and encouraged every player on the pitch to play through balls. I did this because I didn't want my wingers to give away the ball by crossing the ball and giving away the ball, also I didn't want lots of long shots for excatly the same reason as the crossing. And I put through balls on high because since I've set time wasting to max the players passing will be a lot better so I wanted to make full use of this.

Now I decided to choose a suitable team that would excell in this tactic. I chose Italy.

My first game was against Austria. Here's the team I chose:

GK: Buffon

RB: Oddo

CB: Materazzi

LB: Zambrotta

DM: Gattuso

DM: Pirlo

AM: Cassano

AM: Aqualini

RFC: Cambronesi

LFC: Di Natale

TM: Toni

The game went thankfully to plan. I controlled the possession and the football was very good and it was obvoius that employing time wasting really does help. At the bottom of the screen about 10 times I saw "what a great move" but unfortunately I only scored twice. Austria were limited to long distance shots but after a while after a slip by Materazzi they capatalised and scored with what was there only real chance of there game.

I'm intending to carry on using/tweaking this tactic until I'm completely happy with the results.

Any comments?

Update

Next game was against Cyprus. I made no adjustments too last matchs tactics and I was very pleased. We won the game 5-2. We had many chances to score and all of them came from well worked passing moves. Cyprus capatalised on 2 long balls which went over my defense. Atleast this told me that my defensive line needs to be deep when playing with 1 centre back.

Update 2

Tweaked the tactic slightly so the defensive line was deeper and overall the game went well. We could of scored a lot more and Georgia hardly ever touched the ball. Again the link up play was brilliant and it all just seems very simple. Also reducing the tempo and hiring time wasting has highered my passes completed like SFraser has show and 95% of passes for more players are completed. The final score was 3-0. I don't think the bad finishing is the tactics fault, it's more of the strikers so I'm not to worried about that. Hopefully I'll be able to score more over time.

Update 3

Well I've drawn 1-1 with a good Bulgaria side. Overall we were the better team but we didn't take are chances and Bulgaria took there only chance! Tactically I don't think anything went wrong but adjustments still need to be made!

Update 4

With lots of first team players injured I had a tough game at Motengro. I decided to put creative freedom down to 0 too see the effects on the passing. Every thing was very controlled but the lack of killer balls meant there weren't as many clear cut chances. But we scored quickly but fortunately for Motengro they scored twice in quick succession even though the goals were a bit "dubious". At half time I decided to put the creative freedom up to 19 and the game in the second half turned around and we scored 3 times. I think that creative freedom is essential for a short passing time wasting tactic because with out it the players don't show any attacking creativity and start to dwindel on the ball. Creative freedom encorouges more passing and good moves!

[lam]

Yes, I've been implementing your time-wasting theory for a half-season now. I've integrated it with SFraser's ideas and constant tweaking on my part. I haven't changed the 14-15 TW setting since it appears to do what you said. My assman often despairs that our passing is woeful, especially short-range, so I often reduce the tempo. In other words the combination of TW (cautious build-up) with 15 (quick) tempo doesn't come off and I drop tempo to 11 or 12.

In the last 10-15 minutes, if I'm leading I'll up TW to max; if not winning drop to 10.

Do you think my assessment of TW v tempo is in the right ball-park or not?

My other settings (generally) are team mentality 15-16, CF 15, passing 15 (dependent on weather, pitch etc), width 19, CD 15, DL 20 (unless quick oppo strikers). 3-2-2-1-2 formation.

PH - sorry for the late reply. I have been away from the game for a while and just came back to this thread to 'remind' myself of my own thoughts!

You comments are interesting. I think you are on the right path, but may be adjusting the wrong sliders. I created a post a while back 'I think I am on to something', which details my responses to the assistant managers in game comments.

In response to the poor passing, I adjust one of two things, depending on the comment. If he is saying that we are miss placing to many easy passes then I slow the tempo down. If he states that a specific style of passing is not working then I will adjust by 1 or 2 clicks in the opposite direction.

I have been having a bash at these ideas myself and there definately seems to be some merit in them. I have been increasing Time Wasting from first notch of rarely to bang in the middle and the build up play of my team certainly appears more composed and far less direct.

From what I have seen I would tend to interprate the sliders according to what they say, i.e. low time wasting means "waste no time" and aims to get the ball in the back of the net asap whereas high time wasting means "take your time" and aims to keep control of the ball. Tempo would therefore remain the overall speed of play once a decision has been made, with high Tempo meaning each move is sharp and fast.

There definately seems to be something in this approach. Time Wasting is a much maligned slider that has been rarely touched in my tactics, but this has changed since reading this thread.

SFraser - any more success from this for you?

On another note. I had not, at least right until this moment, thought about the assistant managers comments about long shots, nor had I thought about the seemingly lack of comments on the games timewasting. However, it stands to reason (untested) that these two could be the connection. Maybe if he is commenting about to many long shots, its because you are being to impatient.... the players are getting frustrated and want to make somethink happen (obviously based on a low time wasting (4/5)).

Will give this a try now.

LAM

[dankrzyz]

I read this thread a few months ago, when my grasp of tactics was elementary at best... so I think it was lost on me. However thanks to some more experience, and the ease of setting & manipulating tactics (with the wizard), my research and reading on FM tactics is now more onto the teamplay. Just re-read this thread and I'm eager to get home and play with the time-wasting and tempo settings, as you all have discussed above.

When I read about the higher time-wasting and quick tempo... wait wait wait, then explode into an attack... I think about the Italian leagues, or perhaps more appropriately watching Mexican or Central American clubs. A lot of standing around, then BAM! the attack is on.

I hope this thread can get resurrected now that FM10 is out. Anything to add or change, due to the new ME?

[dankrzyz]

Played give games last night, experimenting with the tempo & time wasting combos. Interesting results, though I think it's sometimes hard to sort out what is due to the players, the opposition, the tactics, and now the new FM10 ME. I think the new ME helps the tempo & time wasting suggestions that you all have been talking about. Players seem to move more naturally with the ball in the new ME, in my opinion.

Played a high tempo (first notch of high) with high time wasting (first notch of high) with your classic 4-4-2 setup (control, short passing, no in-match tweaking) and found exactly what some of you have been suggesting & seeing: careful play picking out opportunities, then exploding into an attacking move. Attacking sequences were quick and decisive when actually in the move. Passing rate was between 68% to 74%, shots on target were 55% to 80%, fewer-than-usual blocked shots. It just seemed like the passes they attempted were wisely chosen. I would say that in all the games, I didn't have a large advantage in possession %, if any.

In three games, I briefly turned down time wasting to the highest notch of rarely, and passing rates started falling.

FYI... was playing friendlies as FC Lorient (FRA) vs Cercle Brugge (BEL), who I beat 8-0; also vs Stoke City (ENG), who I beat 5-0; vs Borussia Dortmund (GER), who I beat 3-1; and vs NK Osijek (CRO) who I drew 1-1 with a team of my bench players. The other game was versus a lower league French club, so hardly a test of the tactic when outmatched so badly.

*** I will try different teams and different opponents tonight... to see if the trend continues. Gotta be fair and do good research when trying to reach conclusions.

*** Also, will try a 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 tactic... think it will be as effective with a short passing possession tactic?

(Also had some strange forward play in a number of the games... perhaps too much free role... often found my wide attacks moving the ball from fullback, up the line to the wide midfielder, then up the line again to my forward who moved to the sideline. An effective passing chain to move the ball up the pitch, but my forward ended up in a wide winger spot, but without the instructions/skills to cross to his strike partner. But that's off topic, sorry!)

[lam]

(Also had some strange forward play in a number of the games... perhaps too much free role... often found my wide attacks moving the ball from fullback, up the line to the wide midfielder, then up the line again to my forward who moved to the sideline. An effective passing chain to move the ball up the pitch, but my forward ended up in a wide winger spot, but without the instructions/skills to cross to his strike partner. But that's off topic, sorry!)

Hey,

Glad to see this thread come alive again.

I am glad its working out for you!

In relation to your forward, check out his roaming instructions and wide play instructions. Its highly likely that at least one of them is set to yes/move into channels.

LAM

[aunmar]

I tried this, and my players played fantastic in front of the opponents box. But, in the second half the opponent suddenly managed to get more possession than me. What should I say in the team talk to get my team to pass the ball through the second half also?

Thanks.

[lam]

It sounds like the opposition team did one of two things...

1. They pressed you heavily and you lost possession.... though you did not indicate this

or

2. They in turn decided to play a slower and more defensive game.

Just remember, possession is not the 'be all and end all' of a game. If they have possession in their half and do not break out then providing you are not chasing the game, its no bad thing.

If they have gone defensive then to be honest, its going to be hard to get possession % back, but I wouldnt be to concerned about it. In my view, if you can force a formation/tactics change on a team then you are doing the right thing. Personaly, and assuming they are pegged back a little, I would opt for an attacking game whilst keeping in consideration the time wasting.

Its a sensative thing and has multiple uses, so you need to use it wisely. If they are defensive, you may infact have to 'force' your way through and in the spirit of this thread, that will mean forcing oportunities rather than waiting for them.

the biggest thing that I can comment on based on your reply is to be aware of their possession but be concerned about what they are or are not doing with it.

If they are playing a passing game at the back, then step up your closing down a little and man mark their key passes (the one who is doing the most).

let me know how you get on.

LAM

[lam]

It just seemed like the passes they attempted were wisely chosen. I would say that in all the games, I didn't have a large advantage in possession %, if any.

Just thought I would reply to this particular comment based on my previous post.

Possession is something to be aware of. Its not to be feared unless you are chasing a game or if the possession is in your half.

The time wasting approach would technically create more possession on the ball, however, that will be countered with your high tempo.... for the simple reason that when you do finaly start attacking, you are doing so at a great pace which means that you are either likely to score OR lose possession.

If your tempo was slow and your timewasting high(ish) then you 'should' see your possession in the high 70's and low 80's.

LAM

[dankrzyz]

This is a great thread and I hope our continued discussion brings more people to read it. You're right, possession for the sake of possession isn't a good goal. The stats I watch are total chances, shots on target, and passing percentage, as those are better indications of how the offense is doing.

Last night's research was against roughly equal opponents, but using a 4-2-3-1 formation. Passing percentages were high and the team was able to press into the opponent's end, but the attack stalled due to the forward and attacking midfielder not being able to pierce the opponent's centerbacks with a throughball or one-two. A lot of the time, wingers got caught down in the corner, despite having "cut inside" instructions. But that's a deficiency of the tactic, not the timewasting/tempo we're discussing here. All in all, mixed results last night, but nothing to disprove the hypothesis.

You're absolutely right, LAM, about the free role on the strikers that I described. Free role allowed them to come to the sideline; turned it off and didn't see that behavior.

[redmark]

To resurrect this thread (after seeing lam refer to it in a discussion about reducing long shots)... A few people using my Liverpool 4411 'Paisley' tactic (http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=196342) are having trouble with the packed defences and too many long shots from the midfielders; I linked to this thread and quoted from the OP as a possible solution.

For me personally, the more interesting possibility is about how time wasting can combine with tempo. I've always used a quick tempo in trying to recreate the 4411 (see the OP in the link). But what it really involves - which isn't immediately apparently possible in FM - is a variable tempo; 'slow, slow, quick, quick, slow (or goal)'. To do this, I've used control with high tempo (and high freedom, fluid, etc) which does seem to work quite well. I've just got over a mental block on ticking 'counter attacking' (based on a post from SI suggesting it merely puts your players into 'quick attack' mode in more circumstances than without; it doesn't make you sit deep) and now combined this with increased time wasting (highest notch of 'sometimes').

In a handful of games, I've not yet seen a reduction in long shots - the first game with the tactic had a higher % of long shots than any other game all season. The variable tempo isn't easy to spot - but then on 'extended highlights', I suppose you're often going to be watching play just as 'something happens' and the tempo picks up. What does appear to be happening immediately is that my possession has increased slightly and players are maintaining condition a few points higher - which suggests they are 'slowing play' successfully and conserving energy at times.

Interesting idea; one which on the face of it is 'counter intuitive', but might be used with other settings to produce something rather different.

[melogroovy]

I've been using Loversleaper's tactic with FM10 so I have not played with Time wasting much. However, there was a thread that suggested using an increasing setting for Time Wasting as a way to cut down on longshots and make the team more willing to work to break down the defense. I had good success with it in FM09. A club with good passing skill and creativity s was more likely to look for the extra pass or two rather than just take that first opportunity at a long shot. I would assume that FM10 isn't all that much different.

[Guv'nor]

Use Time Wasting - Often, whenever the underdog in a game. Recently completed a season with Stoke, finished 7th, Europa Cup, "Pipp, Pipp!". The rabbitt in the hat vs. Chelsea et al, was counterattack, direct passing, normal tempo, narrow with lots of time wasting. Works a treat. 1-nil up, switch to a high defensive line, more closing down and more time wasting! Lol! Had Fuller up top, target man, run on to ball, all day every day! Splendid!

[ceevee]

hmmm.. this might be the missing element to my tactics with QPR. i've been using Control settings with a high line, moderate tempo and short passing on all but the CMs. i play a 451 variant with the 2 CMs asked to bomb forward whilst the wingers hold the ball or cut inside. it's made for some solid results for my team. but i've never been a satisfied purist since many shots are from distance and many passes, though short, seem hurried and poorly executed.

i'm going to try the high time-wasting as i want to play in and around the opponent's box for that right opportunity. i'll post some findings. thanks for the info

[RSARS]

Great post. Read whole thread and think it holds quite true in FM10. (I believe OP was in reference to FM09). I really think Iam's metaphor works:

TEMPO - the speed of player's "next action" within a play

TIME WASTING - the speed of a player's "decision about next play" when a combination / attacking move is not "on."

I've been experimenting in-game and that feels right. For example, my senior Arsenal squad can play high tempo (15+) with low time wasting (4 or 5), and still keep possession. But the ball pings around frenetically, and we seem to create chances by generating chaos. When I raise time wasting to 10 or so, we can still put together 3 or 4 one-touch passes that carve open a defense, but we seem to make better decisions such as:

1. We switch field more often (with same short vs. direct passing setting) when I use higher time wasting. When players are not "in a play," the higher time wasting gives a moment to glance around and check for the best passing option, rather than just banging it quickly to whoever is (a) in the line of vision, (b) open and © in a good position.

2. With higher time wasting, we try back passes more often, sometimes from the attacking third all the way back to the keeper. This plus a counter mentality (or defensive) helps us keep our shape and knock the ball around between the opponents' 18-yard box and the center circle, looking for a chance to unlock the defense.

3. When coaching the reserves to practice tactics and experiment, I've noticed that they can play a higher temp if you give them a higher time wasting setting. They can still, at times, produce the quick one-twos, but they seem to need extra time to think between plays, or they give the ball away.

[lam]

Hey all,

Glad people are finding this of use again.

One other thing that you may want to consider, especially so if you are a weaker team.

If you play with a little more timewasting AND a slower tempo, what you allow is the opposition to get back into their positions. Now, this doesnt sound to good to start with, but if you think about it, if they are in their own positions when you lose the ball, the chances of a counter attack are relatively small.

If however, you have pushed the ball forward thinking to catch them off guard and you lose the ball then they will have a lot of men in your half!

LAM

[RSARS]

I would agree with this analysis, it makes a lot of sense and certainly seems accurate when considering on-pitch behaviour. I have noticed that high Creativity and Technically skilled players look more dangerous when given high Creative Freedom, but don't necessarilly waste possession.

Less is more eh? You need the right players, but there is no substitute for putting quality players in the right positions, giving them freedom and letting them do what they do best. Not all players are up to that level though, where when given the freedom they can single handedly destroy teams with a bit of genius you could never instruct.

I really like that quote as it sums up how I view the tactical side of FM. The better your players the less you interfere, the worse your players the more you need to control them. Ofcourse if the opponent is quality you need to take measures to stop them exploiting your freedom.

I could not agree more. Example, my Gunners are all injured - seriously, I'm down to like 5 healthy midfield players, all CM/AMC/CM types. So who to play out wide? I tend to use Inside Forwards cutting in from the wings with overlapping FB's providing width. So I put Traore out there on the left wing, and his stats and role say he's an "Inside Forward" accomplished. Yeah, right. Check his motivation, and he's playing "nervously." No kidding.

He's not supposed to drive to byline and cross - ever. I checked his instructions, and he's supposed to cut inside, but he won't. And we've got midgets in the box, so I don't want crosses from the corner flag, which is all he'll provide. We're playing Blackburn, and we can beat them if we don't keep giving the ball to their CB's and GK. I don't need him to be Ribery. I just need to him to play with our team, not theirs.

So I take his creative freedom down to 5 or 6 (wingers are typically set to 14+), and put his passing even further toward short. Now, we slip him the ball and he drives forward, cuts toward the box, then holds up a step or two short of the 18-yard box. His FB runs up the touch line to support him, and the other midfielders and the striker are now providing those runs off him.

Funny, he takes a while to make the pass 'cuz the creative freedom is so low. You can almost see him straining. I think with higher creative freedom, he would decide to do his "natural" move of driving to the byline and crossing. His mentality allowed him to disregard his instructions. When I set it lower, he tried an "unnatural" move, which he's not good at. So it takes him longer to make the decision. This is where a bit higher time wasting for the team really helped him as he wasn't caught in possession unable to keep up with his teammates.

Anyway, long story longer, we won the match, and his hesitation on the corner of the box meant that Diaby, van Persie and Song kept putting him through to the corner of the 6 yard box, where he fluffed two clear cut chances. No worries, because he kept recycling possession back into the middle of the field where we created (just) enough chances to come from behind and beat them 2 to 1 (we were the away team).

In general, I like using the preset roles and positions, especially because then the touchline shouts actually work as expected. And you can usually get your team playing as you want them to, if you work at it. But sometimes we have to "get by" using a teenager who isn't ready for the role the team needs him to play.

[kajito99]

Very interesting thread. A thought occurred to me though. I've always seen 'hold up ball' as a sort of selective 'wasting time' which can be used on a few players on the team or even the whole team if you wanted. If used on the whole team it would work in pretty much the same way as time wasting in that your players would take an extra touch before making a better decision. However, if it were put on a few (defensive) players we could still get the relative slow build-up in a high tempo tactic that we have seen by using timewasting. The players without HUB could then quicken the pace in the final third as a result of the overriding high tempo.

Thoughts?

[lam]

Be careful on using HUB on actual defenders. If you get caught in possession you are seriously going to regret it.

I play as you have indicated now. HUB on most Midfield and Forwards, however I will not use it on any of my back 4. Defenders generaly speaking to not possess the abilities to hold onto the ball. The only thing they have in their favour is time.

It may work if you have a composed defence that always have passing options..... ie maybe a short passing game (allowing side and back passes more often). If this were the case then there may be an option to draw the opposition out. THough.... its a risky tactic.

LAM

[kajito99]

Thanks for your thoughts LAM

Interesting that you use HUB on some of your midfield and forwards. What criteria do you use to decide which players you use it on?Do you find that these players get caught on the ball more than those that don't?

[heathxxx]

Favoured attributes I tend to look for in players instructed to HUB, are composure and strength.

Composure to keep his cool if a player approaches him to challenge, strength to hold off any challenge, whilst holding onto the ball.

[lam]

Thanks for your thoughts LAM

Interesting that you use HUB on some of your midfield and forwards. What criteria do you use to decide which players you use it on?Do you find that these players get caught on the ball more than those that don't?

Well......

I tend to play with a high tempo (2 clicks into high) but I am not using the tempo adjustments any more. I tend to stick with the default for whichever philosophy I am using.

Because of that, I still want my play held up. I will generally take the view that if they can not hold onto the ball themselves by running with it (Lennon forexample) then I will tell them to HUB as an instruction. It slows the play down a little but I play with a high creative freedom, therefore if something is 'on', then they simply get on with it.

In relation to HeathXXX post. I agree with these stats, but especially so, if using HUB on defence.

HUB (at least to me) doesn't always mean hold on to it when you are being tackled by 3 opposition players. If used by Lennon (as example) then he would get to the byline, HUB, see who is in the box and cross if there is someone or run with it if there is not.

Whereas, Lennon without the ball will run to the byline and swing in a cross if there is someone incoming. Now, this is likely to miss them, but when it works, it works a treat.

SO, as usual with this game.... its all a matter of balance.

Regards

LAM