Cannot adapt to opponent successfully

[Kenny Peeters]

Hello guru's,

To start...I am aware that you can't win EVERY game in Football Manager. I am also not looking for a "cheat"-tactic where you win 90% of the games. What I want should make the game FAR more enjoyable even though Football Manager 15 is approaching end October (I guess?).

I just want the following thing to make FM 14 and perhaps FM 15, 16, ... more enjoyable. I want to achieve this by actually understanding what I am doing when I create a tactic, set player instructions, set team instructions and even "choose" the right players for the previous points based on "discoveries" by looking at the opponent, looking at the opponent's manager and looking at the scout report.

At the moment I am in my second season of the Belgian first league with KV Mechelen. I TOTALLY overachieved that season and I played champions...although during the second half of the season just everything went wrong. I guess the game decided to make it harder and that way I fell into bad habits and trying...basically...everything to just win.

It was that point where I decided to replay games until I won (making it easier to overachieve and well basically cheat) and even qualify for Champions League. Ofcourse I got tired of getting frustrated by trying everything and still lose until I found something successful for that fixture, without actually knowing WHAT made the success.

So...enough introduction...as mentioned before I am a mediocre team in the Belgian First Division with the name KV Mechelen. Last year I overachieved and got a lot of money to buy good players, which I think I did. After reading that you "should" base your tactic around your key-players.

If I look at my team-report I can see the following things:
Selection-Overview: the parts I learned about my squad depth are that I have a good midfield and attack, but that my defense is not good.

The best-players per position are:
View attachment 366612

So, like I see it...:
Goalkeeper: Great

Defense:
Central: Mediocre
Right: Bad
Left: Great

Midfield:
DMC: bad
MC: Great
MR: Great
ML: Great
AMC: Very great (I even have 3 great AMC's)
AMR: Great
AML: Great
ST: Great

As everyone can see I have John Guidetti from Manchester City but that is only because KVM has a partnership with MCFC.

Based on this information it seems like my "best" players, the players I have to base my tactic around are my attacking midfielders and ofcourse Guidetti who should be a "success" on goals. Although my defense is my backbone that probably will get exploited every game for a numerous of times as my central defence and right defence are terrible.

What I also learned after searching/reading/etc. is that it is best to set player's roles/mentalities on their best role/mentality keeping in mind that the team should work as a unit and not as a bunch of individuals using their strengths and losing with their weakness.

Is it wrong of me to believe that I should place the players in their best role/mentality and "tweaking" their flaws with the player settings? For example I take Josué and I look at what the scout think is his best role being "Advanced Playmaker". After highlighting this I get the following result:
View attachment 366611
I first have a question here on what I just saw: Right of the screen I have 1 star and if I hover it says "Average". What is this?

Which player-settings should I take for this role for Josué?

Josué's key-attributes are: First Touch, Passing, Anticipation, Creativity, Flair, Off The Ball
Josué's minor-flaws are: Dribbling (although 14 is not really bad for Belgium First Division), Decisions and Teamwork

Straightforward questions:
- What should I learn from this?
- What could be the consequences for rest of team?
- Which player-settings could I give him to make use of his strenght's but convering his weaknesses?
View attachment 366610

I am aware it is a long post, but I would really appreciate some guidance.

 

[callamity]

Screenn shots havent worked mate, it will be hard for the guys to answer these questions without them

 

[Kenny Peeters]

I know, I added them couple minutes after your post. I accidentally posted this first in FM 2013...so I tried copy-pasting. Anyhow...I added the screenshots.

 

[callamity]

The main problem you are going to get with what you are asking is that this is fully open to interpretation, and there will be varying views on wether or not you should set a player to his "best" role. First off these roles to my knowledge are set based on the reports given by the in game staff. The star rating also is given by the staff but is dependant on how the players attributes fit into the role. so firstly use the star ratings as a very basic guideline of how good a player is in the role. Secondly look at the players attributes, these are far more important when determining how good a player actually is. Lastly players have preffered moves, you may have a player whose so called best role is anchor man with runs through middle alot as a prefered move, would you really want your anchor man running through the middle?

It is my opinion that your tactic must be created with a specific structure and style of play in mind, or atleast the final product will have some form of logical, methodical approach to it. When you first take over at a club it might be impossible to play to your final product with the players at your disposal so you may have do adapt it slightly over the years. with that being said build your tactic how you want your team to play in the end, put the players you have at your disposal and see if they fit, if not adapt a little to suit the players without actually spoiling the balance of the team.

lastly on Josue

It will be difficult to set him to play based on his strengths, and not on his weaknesses

Technically you see he has dribbling as a weakness, but he has decisions as a weakness in mental, this will effect his passing among other things. you also have to take into account his orefered moves, which will over ride instructions to my knowledge. I personally give a player a role, and leave his instructions default unless I want him to complete a specific job, fir example, distribute to defenders on goal keepers, or move into channels on attackers.

This might sound like a big waffle but I have tried to answer your question.
hope it helps haha

 

[Igneos79]

my suggestion would be to make a tactic that is sound on paper...with roles and duties set correctly...then pick a style that would suit those roles and duties, and finally pick philosophy...if your team is mediocre, balanced philosophy, if they are weak, rigid, and if they are good fluid...no player instructions is needed, just team instructions. You may think you should lower your player dribbling if he has a poor attribute in it, but I think he should try to dribble anyway, if his role and duty demands it, or you will unbalance your tactic and make the rest of your players struggle...

 

[rocheyb]

Hi Kenny,

This thread that I created a while back demonstrates how I made the breakthrough in FM14, especially in terms of getting to grips with the tactics element of the game and understanding how to use the player and team instructions to positively influence results and start winning the major trophies.

There is a lot there, so perhaps just read the opening post to begin with and if you find it useful, you'll find plenty more information by simply reading on and following the links to my other threads that expand on particular tactical formations and later developments within the same save - which I am still playing and still writing about on this forum.

I try to write in a way that explains which FM data (information about my team, my players or the opposition) influence the decisions I make and to provide the kind of nitty-gritty detail that FMers can really understand and make use of - so it's less about just using the tactics that I describe and more about adopting a similar theoretical approach to FM that enables you to make whatever choices best suit your own players and footballing preferences:

http://www.fm-base.co.uk/forum/foot...ics/158222-you-need-more-than-one-tactic.html

 

[Kenny Peeters]

Hi Kenny,

This thread that I created a while back demonstrates how I made the breakthrough in FM14, especially in terms of getting to grips with the tactics element of the game and understanding how to use the player and team instructions to positively influence results and start winning the major trophies.

There is a lot there, so perhaps just read the opening post to begin with and if you find it useful, you'll find plenty more information by simply reading on and following the links to my other threads that expand on particular tactical formations and later developments within the same save - which I am still playing and still writing about on this forum.

I try to write in a way that explains which FM data (information about my team, my players or the opposition) influence the decisions I make and to provide the kind of nitty-gritty detail that FMers can really understand and make use of - so it's less about just using the tactics that I describe and more about adopting a similar theoretical approach to FM that enables you to make whatever choices best suit your own players and footballing preferences:

http://www.fm-base.co.uk/forum/foot...ics/158222-you-need-more-than-one-tactic.html

I have read above post and there are some things I obviously could do better and explore more, like for example:

- Building three (or more) tactics although I have some questions about these too:

1. I do understand that you need following tactics: David vs Goliath tactic where you are likely to lose and you want to have a solid-defensive tactic with maybe a chance on the counter where you can score 1-0 out of the blue. a David vs Goliath tactic where you should win with numerous goals (or at least that's the media/board/supporters-opinion) where the opponent play's basically like you would play in your own David vs Goliath tactic. And a third tactic where you are basically not sure which one to use and want to see what the game brings. But if I think this through and use my common sense (to a real-life situation). At home you play different against Goliath, different against David as you would away or are you supposed to "assume" they just play the same at home as away. In my idea, I should change the mentality for the three tactics based on if I am home or I am away, agreed?

Another question I have is when you play against an opponent where they tend to play through the center and you tend to play wide, the opponent's team will always rip your center apart. I guess teams who play through the center are more vulnerable to wide plays and vice versa. So this will also be of consideration when you create a tactic, right?

I suppose I have to create three tactics with variable team-instructions, based on trial and error, at what you learn about the team-reports. So I come, at the moment, to the following play-sets:
1. You are David and they score more often through center
2. You are David and they score more often wide with passes
3. You are David and they score more often wide with crosses
4. You are Goliath and they score more often through center
5. You are Goliath and they score more often wide with passes
6. You are Goliath and they score more often with crosses
7. You are Equal and they score more often through center
8. You are Equal and they score more often wide with passes
9. You are Equal and they score more often wide with crosses

And there are probably WAY more but those are the most frequent ones...I guess?

After typing this, my final conclusion is that I need three tactics: Home where you would attack more, Away where you are caution about the attacking play a home-team should play in at home and a very defensive one if you stumble in the Champions League with a less than average team and you don't want to get butchered with a strong (packed) midfield as all games are won in the midfield according to Gary Lineker.

Does this sound anything close to realistic?

2-3. You shouldn't use too much of the player instructions as players "know" how to play, I just seem to make use of them based on their ppm. For example: "Marks opponent tightly" translates perfectly to the player instruction: "Tight marking". That brings me to point three I should consider adding to my game => player preferred moves. I NEVER make use of them and I often just forget they even exist but now after thinking about it I can't really understand why I was never bothered with these.

Tonight (between the World Cup-games) I will start a new save with a team that should easily dominate the league and look at what the PPM's can do for me.

I saw you said something about the book "Inverting the pyramid" and I am about to start reading it through. Although I have an idea how I want a(ny) team to play and maybe the book helps me to grasp a little more understanding of the tactical-game itself.

 

[Kenny Peeters]

After some consideration I realize I had my focus quite wrong with the basic-tactic.

I was about to create 3 tactics (home/away/midfield-filled) and developing a numerous of play-sets with team-instructions. I am about to switch it a bit into the following setup:

1. Creating 3 tactics being:
- David vs Goliath
- Goliath vs David
- Neutral

This way I will still have to create some play-sets with team instructions for following teams:
- Teams who tend to score on pass through center.
- Teams who tend to score on pass from left/right side.
- Teams who tend to score on cross from left/right side.

 

[rocheyb]

Wow - I'm impressed by the depth of thought that you have gone into, here. While I agree with your reasoning regarding the ever-shifting David/Goliath status of your team in comparison to opponents from fixture-to-fixture and how important it is to incorporate an understanding of whether the upcoming opponent is stronger in wide or central areas, I'd point out that in FM, all that it basically boils down to is deciding whether or not to play a Defensive Midfielder (or in French, as I learned today in relation to Morgan Schneiderlin's first full cap last night, 'Le Sentinel') just in front of your defence and whether your team should look to play on the counter, look to control possession or go on the attack.

So, the fact that there are so many variables that one could consider is tempered - mercifully - by the limited range of choices that FM offers for you to instruct your team how to play.

In terms of deciding whether to attack from wide or central positions, I would say play to your own team's strengths - but be aware, if you play wide as I prefer to, that some teams are very good at blocking crosses and winning aerial balls, so sometimes you have to switch to drilling crosses or to playing through the middle into the channels. Stoke City, and Ryan Shawcross in particular, brought about this realisation and encouraged me to experiment with a Trequartista in the No.10 position, where I was able to get faster Strikers to beat him for pace in the channels.

You're definitely right about using limited player instructions - I usually limit to it 3 per player - and choosing instructions that correspond to their own stated attributes. And you can re-train players to gain specific attributes so that you can then exploit them in future matches, or to ensure that new players can play a chosen role the same way as an established player who is already doing what you want from them. Limiting player instructions also helps you to monitor how well the players are doing and deciding whether to change the instruction, substitute the player or switch to an alternative formation when things aren't going so well.

I have now evolved my tactics to include a 3-5-2 formation that has my 4-4-1-1 Trequartista operating as an Advanced Playmaker from the centre of the midfield five, running at the opposition from deep to carry the fight forward, where he can then play shorter passes into the channels for the Advanced Forward or out wide for the Wide Midfielders. The other two central midfielders are defensive, Deep-Lying Playmaker and Ball-Winning Midfielder but both with instructions to play More Direct Passes, and the back-3 comprises a Ball-Playing Defender_Cover in the middle with a Central Defender_Defend on either side of him. The Wide Midfielders are both on Support and the other forward is a False-9_Support. The Advanced Forward always plays on whichever side corresponds to his strongest foot; left-footers on the left, right-footers on the right. The team is scoring more goals than ever, but they are more concentrated among the strikers than was the case with the 4-4-1-1.

The 3-5-2 enables strong possession in midfield, through balls into the channels, crosses from the flanks, two up-front and plenty of bodies to take part in the build-up play. The only downside is the occasional vulnerability at the other end when a good No.10 can get in-behind my midfield to exploit the gaps between the back-3 by releasing forwards into the channels. The wings are not such a problem in general play because the defensively instructed midfielders drop back and the centre-backs go wide to operate, briefly, as full-backs. Counter-attacks on the wing will see one of the centre-backs go out to challenge, but of course that leaves two in the middle, which is better than in a back-four when the counter is launched behind a pushed-up full-back.

 

[Kenny Peeters]

At the moment I haven't got the time yet to think about which formation I should/could/would use but at least I know how I want my team to play and I have some possible situations in my back-head I should keep in mind when creating a tactic + team-instructions when I play a David and when I play a Goliath.

For example, if I play a David I am sure that they will have higher backs and a lot of attacking players who have a free role to do whatever they please and wherever they want to run...of course the better the team, the better they execute this.

I am not a soccer-tactic-guru, but my thought of how a team, with a basic 4-4-2, plays when they are Goliath in attack is the following:

A	ML		ST1		MR
AM			ST2
M	VL		MC2		VR
DM			MC1
D		DC1		DC2
S
GK			GK

The GL stays in the goal obviously.
The VL/VR runs forward in back-up of attacking play. His function in attack is primarly:

1. Give an option to the ML/MR to pass back when he can’t make a clear cross (or run in the box to finish)
2. Give an option to the ST2/MC1 to pass to when he can’t make a through ball to the ST1 or can’t pass to the ML/MR who can cross.
3. Give an option to the DC1/DC2 to start the attack when he can’t pass to the MC1 or a more risky pass to the ST2/MC1.

When the VL/VR are high on the pitch the wingers can also get higher on the pitch. Based on the header-strength of the attacker they will get more inside or they stay on the wing.
If I match duties to this formation I would probably go with this:
GK: Defence
DC1 & DC2: Defence
VL & VR: Support or Attack*
MC1: Defence or Support **
MC2: Attack
ML& MR: Attack
ST1: Attack
ST2: Support
* I don’t know how high they get on the pitch with attack + how higher they attack, how more likely that side of the pitch get overcrowded with own team players and opponent’s team markers. I think this depends on the wingers. If they come inside, the backs should have attack-duty. If the wingers stay on the flanks, they should have support-duty.
** In the assumption that a MC with defend-duty doesn’t drop back to the line of the central defender I could give the MC a defend-duty to provide back-up for the central defenders when the backs are high on the field. In this way, I hope to achieve that every center counter will get picked up by the MC1. I am not too keen about my MC1 going to the flanks though to “attack” the opponent’s flank-counter. I rather have a DC going to the flank and the MC drops deeper to take the position of the DC that steps out of his position to attack the winger who has the ball to counter.
So in attack I think the opponent (and me) the formation changes from a 4-4-2 to a 3-4-3 while in defense with above duties a 5-4-1:

A			ST1
AM			ST2
M	ML		MC2		MR
DM			MC1
D	VL	VC1		VC2	VR
S
GK			GK

I hear a lot that I “overthink” things too much, and I guess they are right. When I start to build a David-formation I often end up creating a David-formation that plays too attacking because I forget that drawing (and maybe score one goal on a counter) against a Goliath should be a good score. I guess I should keep in mind that I don’t have to win my 3 points against a Goliath but against a David.
A draw against a Goliath is more than enough based on following (basic) math that is based on prediction in the media and a “fail”-rate of 20% of the tactic (I have no clue if this is realistic and it should be lower/higher).
For example a team that is considered the league winners will have a “formula” that looks like this: (30*3)/1.2, for a team considered as runner-ups: ((28*3) + (1*2))/1.2 and so on. If I calculate this for a team that is predicted to be 9th​, they score 48/90 which in my experience make them probably a top 4-team making them overachieve.
I do realize I am making it too easy and theoretical but it is only to prove my point that a win against a David and a draw against a Goliath should be enough to overachieve his media-prediction.

A	ML		ST1		MR
AM		ST2		MC1
M	VL		MC2		VR
DM			MC1
D		DC1		DC2
S
GK			GK

The GL stays in the goal obviously.
The VL/VR runs forward in back-up of attacking play. His function in attack is primarly:

1. Give an option to the ML/MR to pass back when he can’t make a clear cross (or run in the box to finish)
2. Give an option to the ST2/MC1 to pass to when he can’t make a through ball to the ST1 or can’t pass to the ML/MR who can cross.
3. Give an option to the DC1/DC2 to start the attack when he can’t pass to the MC1 or a more risky pass to the ST2/MC1.

When the VL/VR are high on the pitch the wingers can also get higher on the pitch. Based on the header-strength of the attacker they will get more inside or they stay on the wing.
If I match duties to this formation I would probably go with this:
GK: Defence
DC1 & DC2: Defence
VL & VR: Support or Attack*
MC1: Defence or Support **
MC2: Attack
ML& MR: Attack
ST1: Attack
ST2: Support

* I don’t know how high they get on the pitch with attack + how higher they attack, how more likely that side of the pitch get overcrowded with own team players and opponent’s team markers. I think this depends on the wingers. If they come inside, the backs should have attack-duty. If the wingers stay on the flanks, they should have support-duty.
** In the assumption that a MC with defend-duty doesn’t drop back to the line of the central defender I could give the MC a defend-duty to provide back-up for the central defenders when the backs are high on the field. In this way, I hope to achieve that every center counter will get picked up by the MC1. I am not too keen about my MC1 going to the flanks though to “attack” the opponent’s flank-counter. I rather have a DC going to the flank and the MC drops deeper to take the position of the DC that steps out of his position to attack the winger who has the ball to counter.
So in attack I think the opponent (and me) the formation changes from a 4-4-2 to a 3-4-3 while in defense with above duties a 5-4-1:

A			ST1
AM			ST2
M	ML		MC2		MR
DM			MC1
D	VL	VC1		VC2	VR
S
GK			GK

I hear a lot that I “overthink” things too much, and I guess they are right. When I start to build a David-formation I often end up creating a David-formation that plays too attacking because I forget that drawing (and maybe score one goal on a counter) against a Goliath should be a good score. I guess I should keep in mind that I don’t have to win my 3 points against a Goliath but against a David.
A draw against a Goliath is more than enough based on following (basic) math that is based on prediction in the media and a “fail”-rate of 20% of the tactic (I have no clue if this is realistic and it should be lower/higher).
For example a team that is considered the league winners will have a “formula” that looks like this: (30*3)/1.2, for a team considered as runner-ups: ((28*3) + (1*2))/1.2 and so on. If I calculate this for a team that is predicted to be 9th​, they score 48/90 which in my experience make them probably a top 4-team making them overachieve.
I do realize I am making it too easy and theoretical but it is only to prove my point that a win against a David and a draw against a Goliath should be enough to overachieve his media-prediction.

 

[GodCubed]

This is top notch stuff guys. Real good.

 

[Kenny Peeters]

This is top notch stuff guys. Real good.

Hi GodCubed,

Thank you. To me it is just to get a better "understanding" of what I am doing. I hope to "grow" in the game as the thread grows itself with the help of the community... I guess this could be a great help for other players too.

 

[rocheyb]

It took me a while to work out your matrices but I understand them now - you're showing the average positions that you expect each player to occupy during the course of the match. I think you're reasoning is sound and within a 4-4-2, you're probably right that a centre-back will more often be the one to go wide to stem an opposition counter-attack while the more defensive central midfielder slots into the heart of defence. It would depend on who was closest to the ball going to shut it down, and I would think that would most often be the centre-back.

When I use full-backs, it's with Support duty and I instruct the team to Play Wider. I became frustrated with Luke Shaw getting to crossing positions near the corner of the penalty area but constantly short-passing infield, instead, so I gave him specific instructions to Cross More Often. With the Support duty, the full-backs get forward often enough and contribute to the build-up play. When trying to get a late goal to save a match, I would often include Look For Overlap in the Team Instructions and put Shaw on Attack duty with Get Further Forward. I generally leave the right-backs as they were - but as I mentioned before, I usually play 3-5-2 now, with Shaw sometimes operating as a Wide Midfielder_Support on the left of a flat midfield-5.

As for the rest of what you have written, I think you're reasoning is sound so go for it - and see what happens.

 

[Kenny Peeters]

It took me a while to work out your matrices but I understand them now - you're showing the average positions that you expect each player to occupy during the course of the match. I think you're reasoning is sound and within a 4-4-2, you're probably right that a centre-back will more often be the one to go wide to stem an opposition counter-attack while the more defensive central midfielder slots into the heart of defence. It would depend on who was closest to the ball going to shut it down, and I would think that would most often be the centre-back.

When I use full-backs, it's with Support duty and I instruct the team to Play Wider. I became frustrated with Luke Shaw getting to crossing positions near the corner of the penalty area but constantly short-passing infield, instead, so I gave him specific instructions to Cross More Often. With the Support duty, the full-backs get forward often enough and contribute to the build-up play. When trying to get a late goal to save a match, I would often include Look For Overlap in the Team Instructions and put Shaw on Attack duty with Get Further Forward. I generally leave the right-backs as they were - but as I mentioned before, I usually play 3-5-2 now, with Shaw sometimes operating as a Wide Midfielder_Support on the left of a flat midfield-5.

As for the rest of what you have written, I think you're reasoning is sound so go for it - and see what happens.

After reading my post again and checking my matrices I see I made a terrible mistake. I see now that I am playing with 12 players instead of 11. I probably should correct that, but I don't really have the time at the moment. Maybe I can overthink that part tomorrow but I used the MC1 twice so probably my MC2 will have a role that goes to help the flank who has possession. I don't know from the back of my head which role has those specifications but probably a Advanced playmaker or trequartista or something?

 

[Igneos79]

It's a nice effort you are making here guys, but I don't think it will work. Simply because opponent attacks through middle, for example, you would setup tight marking and exploit the flanks? If you do that, you will ruin your own tactical style, and you may not even have the necessary players to play that right. And if you even do have the players, they may be injured, or banned. Adapting to opponent will make your players play something they are not good at, or at least familiar with. It may work to some degree with stronger clubs, but probably not as good as you would expect. I think your best bet isn't adapting to opponent, but instead training your players to do what you want, and make them able to do it in their dreams, not just on the pitch. Also, every time you get a new player, or sell a standard one, you will need to practice everything again. Your method may work to some degree, but I beleive it is the wrong way of approach.

Some may argue that, for example, you can't play through middle if opponent is using offside trap, so you need aditional tactics. That is plain wrong. You need a pacey striker to brake the offside trap, or if you don't have one, setup your tactics on the flanks, which you should have done in the first place. You need to play to your strengths and eliminate your weaknessess, and that's about it.

 

[Kenny Peeters]

It's a nice effort you are making here guys, but I don't think it will work. Simply because opponent attacks through middle, for example, you would setup tight marking and exploit the flanks? If you do that, you will ruin your own tactical style, and you may not even have the necessary players to play that right. And if you even do have the players, they may be injured, or banned. Adapting to opponent will make your players play something they are not good at, or at least familiar with. It may work to some degree with stronger clubs, but probably not as good as you would expect. I think your best bet isn't adapting to opponent, but instead training your players to do what you want, and make them able to do it in their dreams, not just on the pitch. Also, every time you get a new player, or sell a standard one, you will need to practice everything again. Your method may work to some degree, but I beleive it is the wrong way of approach.

Some may argue that, for example, you can't play through middle if opponent is using offside trap, so you need aditional tactics. That is plain wrong. You need a pacey striker to brake the offside trap, or if you don't have one, setup your tactics on the flanks, which you should have done in the first place. You need to play to your strengths and eliminate your weaknessess, and that's about it.

Thanks for your response.

The aim of this thread to me is to understand how I could/should play the game without getting at a point where I want to throw my computer outside the window...basically...

The game can be played on different ways I am sure but stating: "I don't think it will work" is not really helpful. You don't think it works, which means you don't know if it will work or not. So basically "don't know" is for me not enough to stop me from trying this approach. Maybe the approach is completely wrong, but maybe not...

 

[Kenny Peeters]

After changing my matrice I decided to test my theory with a team that is predicted champion.

I just skip all the meetings and accept the suggested season expectations. I won’t do any team talking either as I just want to see how they play with the tactic I create, if I can get my matrice correct based on what I see on the heatmap.
So I will start in Belgium’s first division with the team that is predicted to be champion, being Anderlecht.

For Anderlecht, the season expectations are title challenger. Based on media-prediction this is fine. Continuing on my David vs Goliath-theory, Anderlecht is a Goliath. If I follow my matrice I would come to the following tactic:


The mentality set to: Attacking
The Fluidity set to: Fluid

1. Heist - Anderlecht

My line-up:
GK: Silvio Proto
DL: Fabrice N’Sakala
DR: Guillaume Gillet
DC: Bram Nuytinck & Cheikhou Kouyaté
ML: Frank Acheampong
MR: Massimu Bruno
BWM: Demy de Zeeuw
AP: Dennis Praet
DLF: Mathias Suarez
AF: Aleksandar Mitrovic
The opponent’s tactic: 4-5-1 where the midfielders are from left to right: AML, MC, DMC, MC, AMR.
Half-Time score: 0-3
Full-Time score: 2-4
Opponents goals:

• BWM didn’t mark his opponent so his opponent can give a through ball to the side of the 16. My defender is slower not getting at the ball. Opponent can give a cross and the attacker scores.
• Basically a long shot.

Match-stats:
View attachment 365117

Player-stats:
View attachment 365536

Average position:
Heatmap Heist:
View attachment 365116

Heatmap Anderlecht:
View attachment 365115

Thoughts:
1. Maybe I should make my team to hassle opponent more.
2. According to the heat map, my defenders aren't that high up. Going to try and change the tactic to DL/R and A.

 

[callamity]

Thanks for your response.

The aim of this thread to me is to understand how I could/should play the game without getting at a point where I want to throw my computer outside the window...basically...

The game can be played on different ways I am sure but stating: "I don't think it will work" is not really helpful. You don't think it works, which means you don't know if it will work or not. So basically "don't know" is for me not enough to stop me from trying this approach. Maybe the approach is completely wrong, but maybe not...

I think what Igneos meant was that if you change for every game your players will lack the familiarity with their jobs on the park to do them naturally. Which in turn will hurt your performances leading to poorer results.

I personally find setting my team up how I want them to play and giving opposition instructions dependant on the opposition is enough to bring the success I need. I have never used more than one single tactic making changes only during off season. Again this is my preference I am not telling you to do this. I will also then develop my squad to play how I want them to. I still have never read a scouting report on an opposition team xD. These arent always accurate. For my OI's I look at the team im playing against on match day, evaluate their individual players strengths, weaknesses and who is playing well or not and then try to exploit them using OI's.

From my understanding of the thread so far you are looking at creating 3 different tactics, each with 3 different play sets. This resulting in 9 tactics in total? Maintaining the familiarity here is going to be difficult. I am really interested in how you hope to achieve this.

 

[Kenny Peeters]

I think what Igneos meant was that if you change for every game your players will lack the familiarity with their jobs on the park to do them naturally. Which in turn will hurt your performances leading to poorer results.

I personally find setting my team up how I want them to play and giving opposition instructions dependant on the opposition is enough to bring the success I need. I have never used more than one single tactic making changes only during off season. Again this is my preference I am not telling you to do this. I will also then develop my squad to play how I want them to. I still have never read a scouting report on an opposition team xD. These arent always accurate. For my OI's I look at the team im playing against on match day, evaluate their individual players strengths, weaknesses and who is playing well or not and then try to exploit them using OI's.

From my understanding of the thread so far you are looking at creating 3 different tactics, each with 3 different play sets. This resulting in 9 tactics in total? Maintaining the familiarity here is going to be difficult. I am really interested in how you hope to achieve this.

I understand what you are saying and I can't say if your approach is the way to go. The only thing I want to achieve is a more understanding of how the game works and how you can get something out of the game. For me personally it is just a thread to share my thoughts of the game to, in fact, get opinions of people on why my thoughts aren't realistic.

I am not really planning on creating 3 different tactics with each 3 different play sets. If you play a team that is considered to play central...I will have a play-set for that type of play, as well as a play-set for flanks. The only thing I will create is:
A 4-4-2 tactic where the roles/duties change depending on my/the game's opinion if I am the stronger team or not. Every other thing I want to see if I can handle it with the team-instructions.

For me, this thread is a way to see if my thoughts are logical and to test if it CAN work.

 

[Kenny Peeters]

2. Heist - Anderlecht


My line-up:
GK: Silvio Proto
DL: Fabrice N’Sakala
DR: Guillaume Gillet
DC: Olivier Deschacht & Chancel Mbemba
ML: Andy Najar
MR: Luka Milivojevic
BWM: Anthony Vanden Borre
AP: Sacha Kljestan
DLF: David Pollet
AF: Cyriac Gohi Bi
The opponent’s tactic: 4-4-2
Half-Time score: 0-1
Full-Time score: 1-1
Opponents goals:
· Attacker runs past defenders outside the box. He gets inside the box and scores.
Match-stats:
View attachment 365110

Player-stats:
View attachment 365109

Average position:
Anderlecht:
View attachment 365108

Lokomotiv Moskou:
View attachment 365107

Thoughts:
1. I consider Lokomotiv Moskou to be a better team but I am satisfied, for now, with the heatmap.