Great tactic! But one thing I dont understand in this year's engine is how come WB wide on a build up are a good thing... In reality most top teams in PL moved away from this and are keeping minimal width at the back and maximum at the front. It seems somewhat reverse in FM.
Just to add on top of what has been discussed: I have been long time frustruated at SI's inability to differentiate the importance of attributes and roles for non-league and top league games.
For example, it is very obvious that in real life in lower leagues you will not find a Ball Playing Defender, Roaming Playmaker, Libero etc. as they do no have the mentals or technicals to pull such roles and, generally, direct game is the way to go. Nonetheless, in FM world that doesn't matter at all because you can imitate any fancy tactic with fancy roles in non-league and dominate as long as you have players with pace/acceleration.
The proper way to do is to change the importance of attributes based not only on the role, but also on the league level that you play at:
- Pace/Accelaration, Target Man/No-nonsense Defenders etc, Direct pass game should be the king in lower leagues. - Decisions/Technique, Ball Playing Defenders/Roaming Playmakers etc, Short pass game should be the king in top leagues.
However, I do not expect SI to be so intelligent and actually try to replicate what's happening in the real life in their game.
P.S. Maybe my examples of attributes and roles are debatable, but I think you get a point in that the importance of attributes should not be the same for the very best and worst in football.
@Delicious Thanks! I already had work in the ball, but will try to lower tempo as well... The midfield on attack seems to work great in testing and counter-plays, but kind of looks a bit anti-football in match engine to be honest.
@Delicious what about wing backs that sit wider and IF narrower? Or it's not that good? I would like to have more possession, but not sure which flank combination would be better for that or maybe no PI at all...
I believe "Get Stuck In" (TI) is essential in big underdog games on a balanced mentality as it increases your overall tactic's intensity and applies more pressure to the opposition where you are trying to force a mistake and score a goal. In such games you will not score by "beautiful" passing - its either forcing a mistake or a set piece usually.
Playing on balanced mentality has a quite lower intensity level vs when on attacking so I think with "get stuck in" (TI) you are able to compensate for that. That's what I concluded from my own testing - every time I played with equal or lesser opponent it felt that there was no need to have "get stuck in" (TI) but when playing a much bigger side we would just not apply enough pressure to the opposition without this tactical instruction.
tom100000000000 said: This testing is only conclusive if we view each instruction as being worth ‘x’ points, in total isolation of the rest of the tactic. I don’t agree it works like this.
You’ve tested the impact of overlaps… in that exact shape/roles/instructions. For a different tactic it doesn’t necessarily translate across 1:1 Expand
I would have to agree on that. My personal "feeling" is overlap/underlap instruction is really good when you have attacking fullback inside or outside - the winger will hold the ball and wait for the runs, on support duty the numbers of runs by the fullback is lower so naturally it just slows down your overall team's offensive power. That's why I think @Delicious tests showed no difference basically with it on or off. In any case, we are going off-topic here. Let's admire the new powerhouse tactic!
tom100000000000 said: I was just starting to think overlaps or underlaps were essential. Good job. Expand
I am not sure its about the underlap/overlap in this case... My thinking is to do with the higher D line compared to the lower one. Naturally you will score more and concede more and you can see that when comparing both top tactics - same amount of points, but this one more goals.
I've been thinking about this... I think the tactic testing that you guys perform should take into account (some) opposition instructions - let me explain you why.
There could be a reason that the best tactics are always where you have nice coverage over the pitch - 4 on the flanks, at least 2 in the middle and probably 2 strikers. The thing is that using this kind of shape doesn't really require any specific opposition instructions against most popular opposition tactics - 433, 4231, and 442.
For example, if my tactic is narrow 343 - regardless of opposition I always need to trigger press their fullbacks, otherwise, they would just have too much space to attack. Another example if my tactic doesn't have DMs, I always would need to tight mark opposition's AM as he would just destroy my team.
I could be wrong and maybe its not such a big difference - but at least some proper testing should be done to verify this. Otherwise, each year we will see similar shape tactics being always at the top and not knowing whether they are truly the best or just the best when not taking into account "mandatory" opposition instructions.
After some iterations I think I was able to create the "best" 3 at the back system by seeing what works in this year's engine (corsair, xmas_tweaked etc.)
Key ideas of the tactic:
- Ball carrying center backs that dribble through tiers, which in turn allows your Segundo Volante's position higher up. - Wing backs are encouraged to stay wider and pump diagonal deadly crosses to strikers. - Great for underdog as well as dominant teams - shape turns 532 when defending and 325 when attacking. - Set pieces used from FM-Arena testing.
In my local league I was expected to win it so I guess it doesn't prove anything, but then what's impressive are the European performances (I am only a 2 star reputation club that reached semi-final):
@crizeKOS Thanks for the explanation - its true that you can achieve certain effects either through PI's and TI's and keeping it clean is probably for the better.
I was just wondering if its a risk factor to let your BPD's "dribble more" and you can mitigate that by adding "pass it shorter" so they dribble but are cautious once entering those dangerous areas
@crizeKOS out of curiosity: "dribble more" PI on BPDs work really well, but in your tactic I think you the only one keeping standard passing while in other tactics people been putting "pass it shorter". Have you found it to work better?
Great results! Makes sense, with IW suffering a bit in terms of defense but gaining on offence. I would anticipate if IW works then a simple winger should work as well. Has anyone tested it?
@Turocurvasud It's here mate - https://fm-arena.com/thread/3082-it-s-xmas-inspired-by-kjarus/@txkuiyo which mentality are you testing on? I think has to be balanced, positive is too aggressive for protecting properly DM area. I've been testing on my local save and DM(s) is consistently ranking up highest numbers of key passes even if he doesn't have a good game:
Seems to add more variability on offence as mentioned by @crizeKOS Maybe the key is to use DM(s) when you better or equal compared to opposition, but once you underdog go with DM(d).
@crizeKOS Have you tried to use DM(s) with PI "hold position" instead of DM(d)? The possession numbers are much better and no need to add "pass it shorter" to other players. Not sure how much loosing on defense...
For example, it is very obvious that in real life in lower leagues you will not find a Ball Playing Defender, Roaming Playmaker, Libero etc. as they do no have the mentals or technicals to pull such roles and, generally, direct game is the way to go. Nonetheless, in FM world that doesn't matter at all because you can imitate any fancy tactic with fancy roles in non-league and dominate as long as you have players with pace/acceleration.
The proper way to do is to change the importance of attributes based not only on the role, but also on the league level that you play at:
- Pace/Accelaration, Target Man/No-nonsense Defenders etc, Direct pass game should be the king in lower leagues.
- Decisions/Technique, Ball Playing Defenders/Roaming Playmakers etc, Short pass game should be the king in top leagues.
However, I do not expect SI to be so intelligent and actually try to replicate what's happening in the real life in their game.
P.S. Maybe my examples of attributes and roles are debatable, but I think you get a point in that the importance of attributes should not be the same for the very best and worst in football.
That's why basically no difference in terms of results between this and the top tactic for this formation.@Tomaka
Playing on balanced mentality has a quite lower intensity level vs when on attacking so I think with "get stuck in" (TI) you are able to compensate for that. That's what I concluded from my own testing - every time I played with equal or lesser opponent it felt that there was no need to have "get stuck in" (TI) but when playing a much bigger side we would just not apply enough pressure to the opposition without this tactical instruction.
You’ve tested the impact of overlaps… in that exact shape/roles/instructions. For a different tactic it doesn’t necessarily translate across 1:1
I would have to agree on that. My personal "feeling" is overlap/underlap instruction is really good when you have attacking fullback inside or outside - the winger will hold the ball and wait for the runs, on support duty the numbers of runs by the fullback is lower so naturally it just slows down your overall team's offensive power. That's why I think @Delicious tests showed no difference basically with it on or off. In any case, we are going off-topic here. Let's admire the new powerhouse tactic!
I am not sure its about the underlap/overlap in this case... My thinking is to do with the higher D line compared to the lower one. Naturally you will score more and concede more and you can see that when comparing both top tactics - same amount of points, but this one more goals.
I've been thinking about this... I think the tactic testing that you guys perform should take into account (some) opposition instructions - let me explain you why.
There could be a reason that the best tactics are always where you have nice coverage over the pitch - 4 on the flanks, at least 2 in the middle and probably 2 strikers. The thing is that using this kind of shape doesn't really require any specific opposition instructions against most popular opposition tactics - 433, 4231, and 442.
For example, if my tactic is narrow 343 - regardless of opposition I always need to trigger press their fullbacks, otherwise, they would just have too much space to attack. Another example if my tactic doesn't have DMs, I always would need to tight mark opposition's AM as he would just destroy my team.
I could be wrong and maybe its not such a big difference - but at least some proper testing should be done to verify this. Otherwise, each year we will see similar shape tactics being always at the top and not knowing whether they are truly the best or just the best when not taking into account "mandatory" opposition instructions.
After some iterations I think I was able to create the "best" 3 at the back system by seeing what works in this year's engine (corsair, xmas_tweaked etc.)
Key ideas of the tactic:
- Ball carrying center backs that dribble through tiers, which in turn allows your Segundo Volante's position higher up.
- Wing backs are encouraged to stay wider and pump diagonal deadly crosses to strikers.
- Great for underdog as well as dominant teams - shape turns 532 when defending and 325 when attacking.
- Set pieces used from FM-Arena testing.
In my local league I was expected to win it so I guess it doesn't prove anything, but then what's impressive are the European performances (I am only a 2 star reputation club that reached semi-final):
I was just wondering if its a risk factor to let your BPD's "dribble more" and you can mitigate that by adding "pass it shorter" so they dribble but are cautious once entering those dangerous areas
Seems to add more variability on offence as mentioned by @crizeKOS Maybe the key is to use DM(s) when you better or equal compared to opposition, but once you underdog go with DM(d).