What is the Overall best Philosophy

[donkarlito]

Hi all I wanted to know what people thought was the best philosophy on game ? if people could give ratings out 5 for each one would be good

I'll start.
Very Rigid- Only used once when I was the manager of Ghana against Brazil so can't really rate it.

Rigid- Used a few times with mixed result most notable when I manage Blackpool i won the fa cup beating man u in the semi final, and chelsea in the final but on the other side of the coin I used it for Chelsea and got beat at home against wigan and stoke so I give it a 3/5

Balanced- Well I went 2 seasons upbeaten one with Sevilla and one with Man utd so I'll give it a 5/5

Fluid-I loss matches that i should of won with my reserves been sacked just cant get it to work with any formation or team 1/5

Very Fluid- I have gone unbeaten with Juventus with some mixed results one match against udinese 7-2 away from home but got a 93rd min penatly to save myself an embarrsing defeat to Chievo at home so I give it a 4/5

 

[Mike.]

there isnt one best philosophy, people have found great success with different ones. there is no "right" way to play

 

[donkarlito]

there isnt one best philosophy, people have found great success with different ones. there is no "right" way to play

But their must be one that just simply works for you no matter which team team you are or what formation

 

[taida]

for me, it's Very Fluid. Always seems to work.

 

[Ben]

But their must be one that just simply works for you no matter which team team you are or what formation

No. Because, if you used fluid with Blackpool in the Premier League you are most likely going to lost most games and if you used rigid with Manchester United you wouldn't fulfill your teams potential so it is about what team you are. There is no overall best philosophy.

 

[Kylo]

Well, you've only tested 2 out of 5 to be fair, and I doubt those tests are good enough.

I agree with madsheep, there isn't a significant best.

I tend to use fluid philosophy for teams such as Brazil and Argentina, who pass and pass around, a number of players have different jobs. On the other hand, I tend to use rigid with teams such as Blackburn, who rely on say, one big name striker, and hoof the ball up to him. (Kalinic)

That's just for me, I like using Rigid with any team.

 

[donkarlito]

No. Because, if you used fluid with Blackpool in the Premier League you are most likely going to lost most games and if you used rigid with Manchester United you wouldn't fulfill your teams potential so it is about what team you are. There is no overall best philosophy.

.

But doesnt it say in TacticalTheorems10 that Alex ferguson philosophy is rigid.

"As with the very rigid philosophy, teams may find that they lack attacking flair with this system. Like we mentioned before, however, extra creativity and roaming instructions can help combat this. Rigid may be a good option for those who find that their team shape is being too easily broken by the opposition."

 

[KidBlink56]

there is no "right" way to play

This.


@Donkarlito: It's all about what works for you. And even that will vary year to year based on what players you buy and sell and how long you've used those tactics. Because the other teams in the league will figure out eventually.

 

[hazmanv2]

i play with "weaker" premiership and la liga teams and i think a fluid philosophy is the most successful road to take because you cant sit back against the bigger teams the more bodies upfront there is the more options there are which results in more chances and goals.
As to a rigid philosophy there wont be as many options up front and you get closed down and lose the ball
i did this with leicester and now 3 seasons in we're in the europa league ( should have been in champions league after finishing 4th in the prem but man utd won the champions league but eh what can you do ) haha

---------

 

[Ben]

.

But doesnt it say in TacticalTheorems10 that Alex ferguson philosophy is rigid.

Not sure however I doubt it. United's attacking players often interchange, I'd think of the way Ferguson plays as balanced.

 

[Mike.]

.

But doesnt it say in TacticalTheorems10 that Alex ferguson philosophy is rigid.

"As with the very rigid philosophy, teams may find that they lack attacking flair with this system. Like we mentioned before, however, extra creativity and roaming instructions can help combat this. Rigid may be a good option for those who find that their team shape is being too easily broken by the opposition."

in 10.1 i used rigid with united, 10.2 balanced, and 10.3 fluid. the current united side is more fluid than rigid

 

[Mr.T]

Rigid or Very Rigid; Never lets you down

 

[donkarlito]

Well, you've only tested 2 out of 5 to be fair, and I doubt those tests are good enough.

I agree with madsheep, there isn't a significant best.

I tend to use fluid philosophy for teams such as Brazil and Argentina, who pass and pass around, a number of players have different jobs. On the other hand, I tend to use rigid with teams such as Blackburn, who rely on say, one big name striker, and hoof the ball up to him. (Kalinic)

That's just for me, I like using Rigid with any team.

it not tested its my rating i have used fluid with german style 4-2-3-1 with man utd for a whole season and it was very uncommitting if thats the right word alot of 1-0 and 2-1 and very fancy every match was it could go either way.

---------- Post added at 11:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 PM ----------

"Rigid
As one might expect, rigid is less rigid than “very rigid”, but more rigid than “balanced”. The emphasis is on holding shape, but a certain degree of overlap between defence, midfield and attack is encouraged for certain players in order to help give a little more movement in attack.
In previous guides, you may have seen this referred to as “Bands of Two”. Again, this will not be an exact recreation of the TT&F09 framework, and will depend on formation, role and duties.
With this philosophy there is more interplay between the different parts of the team. In a basic 4-4-2, the full backs will have a higher mentality than the centre backs to encourage them forward. The central midfield will be staggered as one player goes forward and the other hangs back as a holding player. There is still an emphasis on structure (the full backs are still considered defensive players, for example), but a certain amount of flexibility is accounted for.
As with the very rigid philosophy, teams may find that they lack attacking flair with this system. Like we mentioned before, however, extra creativity and roaming instructions can help combat this. Rigid may be a good option for those who find that their team shape is being too easily broken by the opposition.
Real World Equivalent: Sir Alex Ferguson (Manchester United)
It may seem odd to equate a “rigid” philosophy with a team famous for its attacking football in recent years, but one of the other traits of Manchester United has been their stability. Players such as Nicky **** and Darren Fletcher over the years have thrived in their specific roles despite being far less illustrious than some of their teammates. Everyone has a role and a purpose, which has led United to be as famed for their clean sheets as their goals. The extra freedom given to their forward players has meant that, given the superb technical and mental attributes of their squad, the team can produce aesthetic attacking football as well as grinding out results when needed."

 

[Mike.]

it not tested its my rating i have used fluid with german style 4-2-3-1 with man utd for a whole season and it was very uncommitting if thats the right word alot of 1-0 and 2-1 and very fancy every match was it could go either way.

---------- Post added at 11:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 PM ----------

"Rigid
As one might expect, rigid is less rigid than “very rigid”, but more rigid than “balanced”. The emphasis is on holding shape, but a certain degree of overlap between defence, midfield and attack is encouraged for certain players in order to help give a little more movement in attack.
In previous guides, you may have seen this referred to as “Bands of Two”. Again, this will not be an exact recreation of the TT&F09 framework, and will depend on formation, role and duties.
With this philosophy there is more interplay between the different parts of the team. In a basic 4-4-2, the full backs will have a higher mentality than the centre backs to encourage them forward. The central midfield will be staggered as one player goes forward and the other hangs back as a holding player. There is still an emphasis on structure (the full backs are still considered defensive players, for example), but a certain amount of flexibility is accounted for.
As with the very rigid philosophy, teams may find that they lack attacking flair with this system. Like we mentioned before, however, extra creativity and roaming instructions can help combat this. Rigid may be a good option for those who find that their team shape is being too easily broken by the opposition.
Real World Equivalent: Sir Alex Ferguson (Manchester United)
It may seem odd to equate a “rigid” philosophy with a team famous for its attacking football in recent years, but one of the other traits of Manchester United has been their stability. Players such as Nicky **** and Darren Fletcher over the years have thrived in their specific roles despite being far less illustrious than some of their teammates. Everyone has a role and a purpose, which has led United to be as famed for their clean sheets as their goals. The extra freedom given to their forward players has meant that, given the superb technical and mental attributes of their squad, the team can produce aesthetic attacking football as well as grinding out results when needed."

on the the other hand ive been using fluid with united into my third season. i average roughly 2.76 goals a game, and concede 0.4 goals a game

---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 PM ----------

football manager, like football is subjective. just because something doesnt work for you, doesnt make it bad. any philosophy, if used well, can create a devastating tactic.

 

[TheRiddl3R]

what players do you have, what system do you us, how good are you at getting your players to preform to their max potential? that last bit is the most important imo, if you play with a very fluid system but can't motivate your players you'll fail hard. whereas a rigid system will be more forgiving for your lack of manager skill^^