What to do if you just can't win

[fabregas2]

Dominating at no point leads to a win if you are leaving yourself open to a counter attack. Most of the teams that truly "dominate" tend to absolutely miserly in giving up opposition chances, and good ones at that. Bayern would be a great example of this.

Dont focus on the CCC its a horribly misleading stat. Frankly I;d like to see it removed from the game

What should I focus on instead? And how do I stay defensively sound whilst dominating?

 

[Mike.]

Guys my only issue is that the game scores goals always...They create 1-2 chances and even if its a very bad team their strikers are clinical...they don't miss chances...this is fact...I've been playing FM series (since there is no USM and LMA anymore) and had great results-good tactics...FM13 is a bit over the edge...It would be much more realistic if the opposition team actually made chances and lost some...and the CPU GK are much better even if their stats are very bad...same chances from human teams = misses...that's just my opinion...I respect all your opinions guys! This game maybe isn't for me this year...I will try again next year...I just miss old style manager games where it was pure fan...building your stadium-building shops etc...I really miss that...I love the depth of this game but don't really enjoy its 3D games...

This isn't true though, the Match engine is the same for the AI and the user.

You are going to have the same issues next year though, because its mostly approach driven, i'd rather see you try and get some success than give up.

post up how you play etc.

One thing I will say, is that the game needs far more information, far far more. They cant always expect people to go looking on forums.

 

[Mike.]

What should I focus on instead? And how do I stay defensively sound whilst dominating?

The overall quality of each chance, and how they are created, and when they are taken.

And the second, well that is the million dollar question. Not many sides can do this, and rightly so, its actually difficult

I couldnt even begin to tell you in detail without know what your side is and what players you have.

But I generally start with a control mentality, sometimes standard. You want to control and create atatcks while not being overtly risky. You arent looking to create 25-30 chances, but maybe 12-18 give or take, but good chances. You will have more than one avenue of attack.

Generally attack with precision, not volume. Well thats my personal approach anyway

 

[fabregas2]

The overall quality of each chance, and how they are created, and when they are taken.

And the second, well that is the million dollar question. Not many sides can do this, and rightly so, its actually difficult

I couldnt even begin to tell you in detail without know what your side is and what players you have.

But I generally start with a control mentality, sometimes standard. You want to control and create atatcks while not being overtly risky. You arent looking to create 25-30 chances, but maybe 12-18 give or take, but good chances. You will have more than one avenue of attack.

Generally attack with precision, not volume. Well thats my personal approach anyway

Well you seem like a top player on FM, couldn't you just give general tips like what type of tactics to employ and what sort of players to look for? I'm in 2016 with Arsenal and we're decent attacking but poor defensively and playing away is difficult.

 

[TheBetterHalf]

Well you seem like a top player on FM, couldn't you just give general tips like what type of tactics to employ and what sort of players to look for? I'm in 2016 with Arsenal and we're decent attacking but poor defensively and playing away is difficult.

Mate, try to set it up really, really simple. What formation suits your squad the best ?. A 442, a 4231 with DMCs, a 451 etc ?

 

[fabregas2]

Mate, try to set it up really, really simple. What formation suits your squad the best ?. A 442, a 4231 with DMCs, a 451 etc ?

Is that literally it? Surely there's more to it since I already do that. And I don't get what you mean by simple. I don't touch the sliders except long shots but then there's the team instructions which I choose depending on my mood with the TC when I create the tactic.

 

[TheBetterHalf]

Is that literally it? Surely there's more to it since I already do that. And I don't get what you mean by simple. I don't touch the sliders except long shots but then there's the team instructions which I choose depending on my mood with the TC when I create the tactic.

No its not as there its much more to football than the tactics/direct orders to the players . I merely asked to get the information I needed to be able to help you

(

 

[Mike.]

Well you seem like a top player on FM, couldn't you just give general tips like what type of tactics to employ and what sort of players to look for? I'm in 2016 with Arsenal and we're decent attacking but poor defensively and playing away is difficult.

Hah, thanks but I wouldnt say I'm a top player, that's for someone like TBH. What I tend to be good at is having a clear approach to how I play

My 3 mentalities: Control, Standard, Counter.

Generally a 4-2-3-1, a 4-3-3 (the lopsided one) and the 4-2-3-1 deep/4-4-2

Fluid, Fluid, Rigid

Firstly, none of my lone forward roles has the striker on attack role, even if i field a poacher type player. Link play is the key to my approach. Usually a complete forward. I will typically have a goal scoring wide player, usually inside forward attack, but often winger if i need more width. Behind him is a playmaker, or a playmaker/scorer, usually again a mixed RFD, more link play. The other wide player is a supporting winger, I don't need him playing on the shoulder, but offering an option from deeper

One full back will always have an attack role, usually the one behind the inside forward. Overlaps are important. The other a bit deeper, offering a different angle of attack But both of them must be quick, excellent ball readers, and very fit. They will be running all day.

In a 4-2-3-1, I general have my centre mids sitting (DLPs, or a CM/ defend) this guys are my pivot. They must be defensively sound positionally robust and above all intelligent, and one of them absolutely must be a passer at all ranges. They sit win the ball make interceptions and spread the ball round the pitch.

Controlling a game requires reading the game well, offensively and defensively, and being able to then execute it, so strong mentals and technicals throughout the spine. Then physical attributes come in more down the flanks

There is no point trying to get a player with say 8 decisons, being a a key player when he has not got the intelligence.

 

[fabregas2]

No its not as there its much more to football than the tactics/direct orders to the players . I merely asked to get the information I needed to be able to help you

(

Oh sorry, I didn't know it was a direct question I thought you were basically saying I should use whatever formation best suits my players. It's a 4-2-3-1 with CM-CM-LW-AM-RW

 

[TheBetterHalf]

My 3 mentalities: Control, Standard, Counter.

Generally a 4-2-3-1, a 4-3-3 (the lopsided one) and the 4-2-3-1 deep/4-4-2

Fluid, Fluid, Rigid
.

Thats interesting. Are those the "philos" for the formations or the Stragety ?. As it looks, you are playing the Deep 4231 within a Rigid one and the "high" 4231 within a fluid one etc. Am I correct or are they also connected to the strategy ?


EDIT: rewording

 

[TheBetterHalf]

Hah, thanks but I wouldnt say I'm a top player, that's for someone like TBH. What I tend to be good at is having a clear approach to how I play

Not true./With that said, Mike is probably better giving advice.

 

[fabregas2]

Modesty from both sides

 

[Mike.]

Thats interesting. Are those the "philos" for the formations or the Stragety ?. As it looks, you are playing the Deep 4231 within a Rigid one and the "high" 4231 within a fluid one etc. Am I correct or are they also connected to the strategy ?


EDIT: rewording

The formations are more tied to the philosophy, that will pretty much never be adjusted. The mentalities are the default for each, but they can change between the 3. The first two are all about imposing MY play as a team, playing unit football rather than a specialist role.

The 4-2-3-1 is the"Hollywood" one. This plays the sexiest football, when we get going, especially at home, few teams can live with us. Teams are physically shattered by intensity, baffled by our movement, and forced into fouls by our direct runing. The highest demands but the greatest reward.

The lopsided for 4-3-3 is a little more cautious but almost as big a threat. Leave the AML alone at your peril. This its aginst those who possess a significant counter threat, usually through their AMC.

The deep and rigid 4-2-3-1 is my fall back, when going toe to toe isn't my primary concern, scoring goals is. Best comparison is Real Madrid, there is still enough in that set up for me to try and control a game if I get on top, but its all really about the quick transitions on the counter. Every player really is about do a set job , this is against the toughest of teams, i need to know quickly who is not doing their job, and sort it immediately

But also it allows me options in between. If i want to go up against a weaker side, who have a star AMC (QPR for example) I would use the lopsided 4-3-3, but with the control mentality, imposing myself on the game, while knowing their most dangerous threat is being entirely snuffed out. As a result I can be simultaneously reactive and proactive. The demands of this on the players is high, but when it works, its near ruthless in its results.

I could probably play the lopsided 4-3-3 with rigid, but haven't tested it.

 

[fabregas2]

The formations are more tied to the philosophy, that will pretty much never be adjusted. The mentalities are the default for each, but they can change between the 3. The first two are all about imposing MY play as a team, playing unit football rather than a specialist role.

The 4-2-3-1 is the"Hollywood" one. This plays the sexiest football, when we get going, especially at home, few teams can live with us. Teams are physically shattered by intensity, baffled by our movement, and forced into fouls by our direct runing. The highest demands but the greatest reward.

The lopsided for 4-3-3 is a little more cautious but almost as big a threat. Leave the AML alone at your peril. This its aginst those who possess a significant counter threat, usually through their AMC.

The deep and rigid 4-2-3-1 is my fall back, when going toe to toe isn't my primary concern, scoring goals is. Best comparison is Real Madrid, there is still enough in that set up for me to try and control a game if I get on top, but its all really about the quick transitions on the counter. Every player really is about do a set job , this is against the toughest of teams, i need to know quickly who is not doing their job, and sort it immediately

But also it allows me options in between. If i want to go up against a weaker side, who have a star AMC (QPR for example) I would use the lopsided 4-3-3, but with the control mentality, imposing myself on the game, while knowing their most dangerous threat is being entirely snuffed out. As a result I can be simultaneously reactive and proactive. The demands of this on the players is high, but when it works, its near ruthless in its results.

I could probably play the lopsided 4-3-3 with rigid, but haven't tested it.

And you've done all that with the TC without touching sliders?

 

[Mike.]

And you've done all that with the TC without touching sliders?

I have touched one slider. The AMC has a support role, ​I have changed RWB from mixed to often.

I removed the hold up from the MCs in the 4-2-3-1, and I'm currently experimenting with them having roaming.

 

[SmallTimeCaesar]

A few years ago on FM you could set up a reasonable tactic based on your squad's strengths and, as long as you didn't do something stupid, you'd be fairly successful. What was so wrong with that?

When I was younger I had the time to go into media interaction, team morale, and all the other stupid nonsense SI have added to the game in recent years. I'm not that young any more and I have other responsibilities than playing on the computer. I'm not Pep Guardiola and I don't get paid to dream up the next tactical innovation in world football like he does. All I want to do is sit down for a couple of hours after work and play a fun but challenging game. What I definitely don't want to do is worry about if my striker isn't scoring any more because he's worried his haircut has gone out of fashion!

If I make a tactic based on sound footballing knowledge I want it to work....permanently! Don't tell me that's not realistic. Brian Clough, Jock Stein, Bill Shankley, Frank Rickard and Arsene Wenger all did/do this and it works. Others like Mourhino, Ferguson and Guardiola like to tailor to the opposition, which is fine if that's how you manage. On this Fm we're all forced to do the latter or fail. FM IS A FOOTBALL SIMULATOR NOT A TACTICS SIMULATOR!!!

 

[Mike.]

A few years ago on FM you could set up a reasonable tactic based on your squad's strengths and, as long as you didn't do something stupid, you'd be fairly successful. What was so wrong with that?

When I was younger I had the time to go into media interaction, team morale, and all the other stupid nonsense SI have added to the game in recent years. I'm not that young any more and I have other responsibilities than playing on the computer. I'm not Pep Guardiola and I don't get paid to dream up the next tactical innovation in world football like he does. All I want to do is sit down for a couple of hours after work and play a fun but challenging game. What I definitely don't want to do is worry about if my striker isn't scoring any more because he's worried his haircut has gone out of fashion!

If I make a tactic based on sound footballing knowledge I want it to work....permanently! Don't tell me that's not realistic. Brian Clough, Jock Stein, Bill Shankley, Frank Rickard and Arsene Wenger all did/do this and it works. Others like Mourhino, Ferguson and Guardiola like to tailor to the opposition, which is fine if that's how you manage. On this Fm we're all forced to do the latter or fail. FM IS A FOOTBALL SIMULATOR NOT A TACTICS SIMULATOR!!!

Back then the match engine is incredibly limited. and miles off realistic football

Everyone of them made some kind of small adjustment. You should also realise that football has moved on for 3 of them, one of them has long since fallen from the top, and the 5th is under supreme pressure.

FM is a football simulator, and tactics are an integral part of football. As is man managment and tranfser acumen.

 

[SmallTimeCaesar]

Back then the match engine is incredibly limited. and miles off realistic football

Everyone of them made some kind of small adjustment. You should also realise that football has moved on for 3 of them, one of them has long since fallen from the top, and the 5th is under supreme pressure.

FM is a football simulator, and tactics are an integral part of football. As is man managment and tranfser acumen.

Football is a simple game complicated by idiots-Bill Shankley.

Good managers would be good managers in any era. the point I was trying to make was there are different styles of management and different routes to success. My frustration is that imo SI assume that tactics are the be all and end all, the result being tactics that aren't gamey enough won't succeed. Anyone into football who picks up FM13 for the first will get frustrated very quickly.

 

[Mike.]

Football is a simple game complicated by idiots-Bill Shankley.

Good managers would be good managers in any era. the point I was trying to make was there are different styles of management and different routes to success. My frustration is that imo SI assume that tactics are the be all and end all, the result being tactics that aren't gamey enough won't succeed. Anyone into football who picks up FM13 for the first will get frustrated very quickly.

If you put a solid simple working approach in, and can get success from man management and transfers you will go a long way. But not all the way. But the first sentence far too simplistic, because you don't delve in to what makes them good managers.

There are, and many people play the game and succeed in many different ways.

The bold is incorrect in the extreme. That's a seriously flawed misconception. If anything you are considerably worse off playing unrealistic gamey approaches.

Your frustration is misplaced too, because that's also an incorrect assumption.

To be honest, you have already decided that you cannot be at fault for what you are suffering, as a result, you're probably going to keep having the same issues. You

 

[Mike.]

And you've done all that with the TC without touching sliders?

At some point I will do an article on how I go about things.