Stupid questions?

[WJ]

Right im going to give this a try. In theory I should possible be able to get the following tactic to work however I'm not 100% confident that I will

gk d
rb (fb) d cb d cb d lb (fb) d
dm anchor man
rm (dw) d cm (d) cm (d) lm (dw) d
st (df) d

structured, narrow, deepest d-line, closing down much less, stay on feet, play out of defence, shorter passing, retain possession, more disciplined, dribble less and stick to positions.

do you think this could be physically possible bearing that the team had players capable to do so? The idea would obviously be to keep the ball as best possible when they have the ball in open possession and then as soon as we win the ball back, hope the counter triggers and then even the defensive minded midfielders, wingers and striker should by theory get forward for the counter? For some reason I feel this will not work however I don't know why it shouldn't as by theory everything adds up to my knowledge

You've chosen pretty much every role and duty you can find who will specifically not make any runs forward. Who will make runs at all then?

As for the TIs (and the entire post, really) you really need to read Cleon's thread again. There are default settings for each mentality already, so you don't necessarily have to add so much. For instance, if you go with a defend/counter Mentality, the D-Line will already be deep, closing down low etc. There's not necessarily a need to go that extreme with TIs, especially when you haven't yet seen anything in action.

 

[rrj2415]

You've chosen pretty much every role and duty you can find who will specifically not make any runs forward. Who will make runs at all then?

As for the TIs (and the entire post, really) you really need to read Cleon's thread again. There are default settings for each mentality already, so you don't necessarily have to add so much. For instance, if you go with a defend/counter Mentality, the D-Line will already be deep, closing down low etc. There's not necessarily a need to go that extreme with TIs, especially when you haven't yet seen anything in action.

my thinking behind the roles chosen was that the team will play the most safe defensive football they can when they have the ball not during a counter attack, just keeping the ball. But then from my understanding of reading the thread was that as soon as the counter starts, their forward runs and other PI's will max so on the counter they should still get forward (counter attacking being the only time which they would run from deep).

As for the extreme TI's my thinking was that the deeper and the less I close down wether it be the most extreme of all extremes, it would or at least SHOULD leave that extra space in behind their defence as they will have more space in front of my team to push their whole team that extra bit forward. I do appreciate the replies though and I will try things out both ways (With my extremes and then a seperate tactic with the same setup just trusting the default counter TI's)

 

[WJ]

Just be careful of inviting too much pressure.

 

[Humid]

Complete forwards aren't going to be perfect. Either find a good fit or use another role. I can't tell you what to choose because I don't know what team, which players you have and what they're good at or the tactic and what you need the forward to do. If you're not sure, use a general role, like AF or DLF.

WJ mate you might have just won me the championship, still early days View attachment 158217View attachment 158216View attachment 158215honestly i tried a game with this guy as a CF and he didnt get involved in the game but then i switched to DLF and i could see the diff, cheers!

 

[GeorgiieBoii]

When using hit early crosses, do I need to have plenty of players making forward runs into the box or does the amount of players getting forward not matter? And does a lower tempo and hit early crosses go against each other?

 

[WJ]

When using hit early crosses, do I need to have plenty of players making forward runs into the box or does the amount of players getting forward not matter? And does a lower tempo and hit early crosses go against each other?

As long as you have someone getting on the end of the crosses.

It could, it could not. It depends on everything. LOW tempo may not be the best, since early crosses won't be very early then? LOWER tempo (just a TI adjustment) will probably be fine. Just try it though?

Early crosses depends on there being space behind the D-Line and someone to get onto it.

 

[CaptiveBridge]

In opposition instructions, if a specific player instruction contradicts the positional instruction, which takes precedence?

 

[WJ]

In opposition instructions, if a specific player instruction contradicts the positional instruction, which takes precedence?

It all stacks, so you're then left with whatever is default.

 

[CaptiveBridge]

It all stacks, so you're then left with whatever is default.

I was thinking more in the case of footedness. I'm stronger in the middle of the park so I tell my team to show them inwards, however every once in a while you come across players who prefer going inside and swap with players who prefer going outside. The default positional instruction for footedness only works with one, so I was wondering if the player instruction for tthe other would suffice or if I have to get rid of the positional instruction and have player instructions instead.

 

[WJ]

I was thinking more in the case of footedness. I'm stronger in the middle of the park so I tell my team to show them inwards, however every once in a while you come across players who prefer going inside and swap with players who prefer going outside. The default positional instruction for footedness only works with one, so I was wondering if the player instruction for tthe other would suffice or if I have to get rid of the positional instruction and have player instructions instead.

Oh I see what you mean. Not 100% on this, but it would make sense then that in general the position will be active unless that specific player is in that position.

 

[CaptiveBridge]

Oh I see what you mean. Not 100% on this, but it would make sense then that in general the position will be active unless that specific player is in that position.

That's what I'm thinking, but I wouldn't really know how to test it long term. Thanks though.

 

[El Guapo]

Hi, I'm new to the game not played since the days of Tonton and Cherno Samba. I have a few questions...

Can you unteach a PPM?

Should I make use of all three tactic slots? I’m trying to play a 4-1-2-3 formation based on possession football which I have set in one slot but in the others I have a 4-1-4-1 counter. Should I be sticking to my preferred formation and setting the other two as slight variations (ie a more attacking and/or defensive one) to change to depending on how a match is going?
Do in-match team talks do anything? (ie get forward, tighten up, concentrate etc) How long does the instruction last for, I notice you can only use them every 10-15 mins of match time so I assume it’s for that period of time. I use them but they don’t seem to do much, yet I’m sure it wouldn’t be a feature if it didn’t do anything.

 

[El Guapo]

oh and one more...

What match prep should I use? (team cohesion, att movement, def set pieces etc) I feel I blindy follow the asst mgr's advice on this.

 

[WJ]

Can you unteach a PPM?

Yes, same way you teach one. Just look for the sentence that asks him to stop a certain behaviour.

Should I make use of all three tactic slots? I’m trying to play a 4-1-2-3 formation based on possession football which I have set in one slot but in the others I have a 4-1-4-1 counter. Should I be sticking to my preferred formation and setting the other two as slight variations (ie a more attacking and/or defensive one) to change to depending on how a match is going?

If you want. You can use 1, 2 or 3. Everyone plays in a different way.

Do in-match team talks do anything? (ie get forward, tighten up, concentrate etc) How long does the instruction last for, I notice you can only use them every 10-15 mins of match time so I assume it’s for that period of time. I use them but they don’t seem to do much, yet I’m sure it wouldn’t be a feature if it didn’t do anything.

It's not going to be in the game if it does nothing. What would be the point then? All team talk effects last about 10 minutes.

What match prep should I use? (team cohesion, att movement, def set pieces etc) I feel I blindy follow the asst mgr's advice on this.

Again, up to you. It will depend on your needs.

 

[SamJGeno]

quick tactical question- managing Arsenal

I have very quickly got myself in a position where I have so many great CMs that I cant get them in my current tactic (a 442 similar to athletico's). Has any one had any success in creating a tactic that can get the most out of a squad with lots of CMs?

 

[CaptiveBridge]

Not sure if it'll work here, but let's see.

Have a small/quick question that's not worth opening an entire thread for? Not sure how something works? Not sure what something means? Post here and let us see if we can help! The question may be small or 'stupid' but if you don't ask, you may never know.

This is intended for quickfire tactical questions and answers.

If you want advice on your tactical setup (a more complicated subject!) then have a read of this and create a thread: http://www.fm-base.co.uk/forum/foot...tics/350220-looking-tactical-help-advice.html

WJ (and other helpful souls),
A couple of questions on the 4-2-3-1, I wasn't sure if it was enough for it's own thread, but let me know and I can move it there.

In the 'pure' sense of it, does the strength of the tactic lie in allowing you to overload both flanks with the fullbacks as the 2 centremids or centre defensive mids hold their position and provide a false sense of threat? As in, the 2 CMs/DMs by virtue of being midfielders that can pass into the attacking phases pose a threat but that threat is an attempt to distract from the larger threat of the marauding full backs?

As for the 3 in the AM strata, ideally you want them to be using the negative space of their corresponding full back - and striker in the case of the central attacking mid. The wide AMs seemingly have more space to work with as they don't have players the positions that touch their strata vertically. So the wide AM full back relationship has both vertical and horizontal space to work with. Whereas with the AMC, you have to juggle the demands for space with the STC and the 2 CMs while noting that you can't venture too wide horizontally as you have the AM/full back space. Does this further stress the importance of the 2 CMs being false threats because if they push up, you limit the effectiveness of the AMC? [By negative space, I mean the complementary space. So if the full back hugs the line, the wide AM cuts inside. The wide AM drops off the front, the full back overlaps. The striker drops off, the AMC runs from deep. Etc.]

However how does that space usage change as you go from the wide to the narrow version (AML-AMC-AMR to AMCL-AMC-AMCR). The first thing is that you have to get the full backs up to give you width, further highlighting that the roles of the two CMs have to be defensive in nature. The amount of negative space available to each AMC decreases especially for the central one, so then do you have to place greater importance on creating vertical spaces? Keeping shape the same, the two ways I am thinking is to push the STC up by use of an attacking duty (not Treq) and keeping the 2 CMs on defensive duties or having the STC drift wide or drop off (F9, Treq, some sort of support/defend duty) and have one or more of the AMCs run from deep. The former for deeper, less aggressive teams and the latter for more aggressive, higher defensive blocks.

But doesn't this sort of dictate what sort of roles would be needed and make the 4-2-3-1 Narrow a rather predictable formation? The AMC immediately behind the striker, assuming it is also the central one, has to hold his position so as to not encroach on the AMCL, AMCR, and STC; The CMs have to hold their position so as to not encroach on the AMCs and to allow the full backs to move - plus they have to either be accurate with passes to the feet or passes into space to maintain some level of threat from deep; The fullbacks have to push up to provide attacking width and would have to 'hug' the line; and lastly a combination of attack and support duties for the AMCL, AMCR, and STC. There has to be other viable ways to play this formation, right?

For both the 4-2-3-1 Wide and Narrow, the horizontal space is constrained by the size of the pitch, the TIs on width/passing/tempo, and the player roles. Too narrow and they get in each others way, too wide and they become isolated; while the vertical space would depend upon defensive line height, team shape, and roles.

To counter these formations, would you then have to plug the spaces among the AMC and STC strata forcing them into each other or isolating them out wide?
Let's say I'm playing a 4-4-2 against the 4-2-3-1, assuming all the players are of the same quality, would taking one, or more, striker to specifically man mark a CM to expose the attacking full back on that side?

That's a lot and it sorta rambles at points, sorry.

 

[WJ]

In the 'pure' sense of it, does the strength of the tactic lie in allowing you to overload both flanks with the fullbacks as the 2 centremids or centre defensive mids hold their position and provide a false sense of threat? As in, the 2 CMs/DMs by virtue of being midfielders that can pass into the attacking phases pose a threat but that threat is an attempt to distract from the larger threat of the marauding full backs?

There are many strengths. It depends on what you decide to do with it. It does rely on the fullbacks giving width and the "3" (or at least 2 of them) finding space between the lines to create chaos.

As for the 3 in the AM strata, ideally you want them to be using the negative space of their corresponding full back - and striker in the case of the central attacking mid. The wide AMs seemingly have more space to work with as they don't have players the positions that touch their strata vertically. So the wide AM full back relationship has both vertical and horizontal space to work with. Whereas with the AMC, you have to juggle the demands for space with the STC and the 2 CMs while noting that you can't venture too wide horizontally as you have the AM/full back space. Does this further stress the importance of the 2 CMs being false threats because if they push up, you limit the effectiveness of the AMC? [By negative space, I mean the complementary space. So if the full back hugs the line, the wide AM cuts inside. The wide AM drops off the front, the full back overlaps. The striker drops off, the AMC runs from deep. Etc.]

Again, you can set this up in a lot of different ways, but the key is to find space to operate in.

However how does that space usage change as you go from the wide to the narrow version (AML-AMC-AMR to AMCL-AMC-AMCR). The first thing is that you have to get the full backs up to give you width, further highlighting that the roles of the two CMs have to be defensive in nature. The amount of negative space available to each AMC decreases especially for the central one, so then do you have to place greater importance on creating vertical spaces? Keeping shape the same, the two ways I am thinking is to push the STC up by use of an attacking duty (not Treq) and keeping the 2 CMs on defensive duties or having the STC drift wide or drop off (F9, Treq, some sort of support/defend duty) and have one or more of the AMCs run from deep. The former for deeper, less aggressive teams and the latter for more aggressive, higher defensive blocks.

The key to both formations is the AM. He links the midfield to the attack. Both formations are supposed to let the AM find space. A big, big reason why so many FM'ers aren't as successful with this formation, is precisely because they're not getting that part correct.

But doesn't this sort of dictate what sort of roles would be needed and make the 4-2-3-1 Narrow a rather predictable formation? The AMC immediately behind the striker, assuming it is also the central one, has to hold his position so as to not encroach on the AMCL, AMCR, and STC; The CMs have to hold their position so as to not encroach on the AMCs and to allow the full backs to move - plus they have to either be accurate with passes to the feet or passes into space to maintain some level of threat from deep; The fullbacks have to push up to provide attacking width and would have to 'hug' the line; and lastly a combination of attack and support duties for the AMCL, AMCR, and STC. There has to be other viable ways to play this formation, right?

Not at all. There are many, many ways to set up. Normally one AML/AMR player is a goal threat. Then (as every other formation) it is about using space.

For both the 4-2-3-1 Wide and Narrow, the horizontal space is constrained by the size of the pitch, the TIs on width/passing/tempo, and the player roles. Too narrow and they get in each others way, too wide and they become isolated; while the vertical space would depend upon defensive line height, team shape, and roles.

Yes, of course, but on any pitch, players can move wide, come inside or drop deep.

To counter these formations, would you then have to plug the spaces among the AMC and STC strata forcing them into each other or isolating them out wide?
Let's say I'm playing a 4-4-2 against the 4-2-3-1, assuming all the players are of the same quality, would taking one, or more, striker to specifically man mark a CM to expose the attacking full back on that side?

You will have to make sure the AM strata players do not get a lot of space. How you do that is up to you. Again, there is more than one way to do this.

 

[CaptiveBridge]

From Lines and Diamonds: "With a Cover Duty, the central defender will be more inclined to delay attackers when engaging them. With a Stopper Duty, the central defender will be more inclined to pressure attackers when engaging them. Despite the name, this does not create the cover/stopper split that was historically used in man-marking defences."

Does that still hold true in 16?

 

[WJ]

From Lines and Diamonds: "With a Cover Duty, the central defender will be more inclined to delay attackers when engaging them. With a Stopper Duty, the central defender will be more inclined to pressure attackers when engaging them. Despite the name, this does not create the cover/stopper split that was historically used in man-marking defences."

Does that still hold true in 16?

Nothing has changed.

 

[CaptiveBridge]

Something that has been bothering me for a while, you know how when it's hot conventional wisdom says to play slower so you don't get as tired. Is there a reverse for cold conditions in FM? Play quicker so you don't suffer from the cold too much?