Machismo said: I play with mid/lower-table teams. Can you fashion a Zazz Copper setup for when I'm up against the elites like Liverpool ManCity, Barca etc? (My skill level with tactics is to wind the mentality back from positive to cautious. And that's the extent of my skills so far.) Expand
Cooper is already suited to weak teams. You probably don't need to set it to cautious since it's already pretty strong in the back. There are some similar tactics with DW instead of WB, higher score but weaker defense, like Threedom from @Egraam or Ghost from @Mika.
crazyfmguy93 said: hey, do you have any advice position's favourite foot? Like this is better? DCL Left Foot DCR Right Foot AMCR Left Foot AMCL Right Foot Expand
According to @Zippo, it was already tested and the best is to use the same foot as side for both DC and AMC/ST.
Houldsworth Hatter said: It seems to work. I am Stockport in 2033 and well established in the PL. Had a rough start to the season though but plugged this in and beat Ajax away 5-0 in my first game followed by a 2-0 home win over Man City. Expand
Machismo said: Can you comment on the DWs vs other roles? Expand
I believe the key feature of DW is the closing down option, which got more effective this patch because of shorter throw-ins. There is a version of Blue with wingers instead of DW, using close down more PI, but it was untested for being too similar to Blue. Link is below. https://fm-arena.com/thread/1062-zaz-blue-wings-3-0/
It had higher points per match than Blue 3.0, but lower goal difference. Obviously, results from my tests can be different from tests in FM-Arena or even in managed play, depending on the players. Maybe I should try close down more with other roles, like Wide Midfielder.
Machismo said: Sorry I'm not a Statzy manager. Still a novice at FM. But I watch my DM more than the others because he's my super-hero wonderkid. His contribution to defense caught my eye. Feeding the players up front was similar. Defensive positioning was where I enjoyed the change. I even had him as a roving playmaker a few games. But in the go forward roles him & the IWBs tend to occupy the same space. The halfBack stood back & let the IWBs do their job & supported them passing-wise. Certainly the halfback earns more 7+ ratings than the DM. (Save is Leeds 20/21.) Expand
Indeed, DLP is the position that consistently gets bad grades, because it works as a transition role. That doesn't mean it plays badly, just that it doesn't do what it needs to get good scores in the engine. Changing it to DM is often better for weaker team, but DLP is still king for teams with good players, which is the case in FM-Arena tests.
In the end, what matters is the win rate, not the grade of a specific role. I tried to improve conditions for DM lots of times, but it always end up with lower win rate. I tried all roles in that position, but DLP just seems to do better, despite the low scores.
PeacemakerBR said: @ZaZ , would it be possible for a version of ZaZ that is aimed at high possession and with good efficiency? Have you tried something like that? Expand
Can you be a bit more clear with what "efficiency" means?
TactocTestor said: I use your schedule but it seems that every player is complaining about high volumes of quickness training. Should I just leave them be and stick with the schedule? Expand
It's normal to have bad spells every now and then. If you win too much, your team can get complacent. If you lose, your team loses morale. Not only that, some players have low consistency or low important matches and just perform bad for five or ten games in a row. If that happens with both strikers at once, or a number of other positions, then you are bound to enter a losing streak.
In short, the tactics improve your chances of winning, but don't make you invincible. If you lose with a strong tactic, you would probably do even worse with a weaker tactic.
Poacher said: As far as I know you can choose the volante role for a DM position only if there are 2 or more DMs positions in your tactic and if there's only 1 DM position in your tactic then the volante role isn't available. Expand
It can be Volante as long as it's not in the center.
Asstem said: I was try it to test 2 times on mrl base test league. AM choose players. Don't know why, but when I pick fast players FMRTE settings break( Expand
Thank you for testing! It seems to be stronger than Blue for weak teams, so I'm satisfied.
TactocTestor said: Thanks. How about the defensive winger guys? Do i need to train them in defensive positioning attributes? Here's my regen. Would you advise developing his defensive positioning or going all in on quickness development. He already has 15 in both attributes. Expand
Defensive attributes don't matter much. For a defensive winger, you want pace, accelerations and agility (like anyone else), as well as dribbling and vision, since they do the most dribbles and assists in the team.
Your regen is pretty good, he will definitely become a beast in the future. I would still train him in quickness because nothing stops him from reaching 20 in those key attributes. =)
Red is clearly a better mid table tactic - even if we exclude the bad Chester performance, it got better results with every team apart from Accrington (but still there was only 4 point difference there). Blue got better results with underdog teams - mainly because how much better it performed with West Brom and Dover - Red got better results with 3/6 of the teams, so part of it could be just randomness. And it seems like Hungerford is just a really bad team, no matter what tactic you use with it.
Here are the save files if anyone wanted to get more data from them (they were too big to upload directly to fmarena):
TactocTestor said: So for youth team training do you let the youth team managers do it or do you also set them up for pace and acceleration training? Expand
Same for youth. If they don't get enough speed, they won't even have a spot in the upper team.
Machismo said: Does blue 3.0 replace Blue 2.0 or have you uploaded both to use as specific tactic? e.g. Tighter marking when up against the elite teams thus switching to 2.0? Expand
Blue 3.0 is the best. The others are there for history value, but they are outdated.
Thanks for the test and thorough explanation. I would like to see the result for Blue to see how they compare. Looking just as it is, it seems bad for West Browwich and Hungerford, but they might just be very weak teams recently promoted. Have to compare with Blue to know for sure.
JTC said: I have been using Phoenix/Blue in my online game with friends and have achieved great success. High scoring (spread across the front 5 players) and solid defence. Biggest problem is with DLP(Su). Even when I play Camavinga he still has very low rating. I understand that rating does not reflect all but it would seem odd for a great player to score so low.
I have changed to Red in the last two games and immediately I noticed a few things.
First, the DM(Su) position now has much better rating. I believe the problem with Blue in that regard is that DLP(Su) is positioned too close to CM(A) so there is "too little" for the DLP(Su) to do save to recover the ball and pass upwards (occasionally long killer pass but rare). Now with DM(Su) you can see that he is positioned half notch downwards so there is more space away from the CM(A). I have a strong feeling that in this game rating is at least partially influenced by how much "work" a player will do during a match. From what I see from the match highlights, the DM(Su) is contributing much more than DLP(Su). There is more interaction with the the back four (given his closer position) and he runs more before passing to other players: in Blue he mainly interacts with CM(A) who is closest to him.
Second, and by similar logic, the DW(Su) contributes more than W(Su) because of their lower position. This made them interact more with the rest of the whole team. In Blue, W(Su) keeps bombing down the sideline to cross from the byline, and to great success, but far too monotone. When the DW(Su) is positioned further down, they would interact with others more, and this instills greater variety in terms of approach play e.g. I now see much more chances created by DW(Su) passing not from the byline but actually down the centre cutting across the opponent team's CB and FB.
Third, I think removing "take more risks" from most players save for CM(A) is a good move. It enhances the quality of the chances and definitely helps maintain possession.
Overall speaking, from what I observe so far, I think Red is a much better version than Blue even for strong/elite teams, provided of course you have the right players in each position. In fact I think Red whilst being a gegenpress does not necessarily need very pacey players. Running is important, but the player interaction and passing around the field mean chances are now created by slicing through the opponent's team rather than a particular player running past your opponent's players. Expand
Thanks for testing! Later I'll see if something from Red can be used in Blue, but it has been really hard to improve Blue as it's very close to optimal for strong teams. I know for a fact that Red is better than Blue for weak team, but most of those tweaks that improve for weaker team makes strong team play worse. In simple words, better players perform well with risky moves, while worse players perform better playing safer.
(My skill level with tactics is to wind the mentality back from positive to cautious. And that's the extent of my skills so far.)
Cooper is already suited to weak teams. You probably don't need to set it to cautious since it's already pretty strong in the back. There are some similar tactics with DW instead of WB, higher score but weaker defense, like Threedom from @Egraam or Ghost from @Mika.
Not really. I usually run my experiments with Manchester City and Fulham.
Behind for strong team. I don't remember if it was better for weaker team.
Like this is better?
DCL Left Foot
DCR Right Foot
AMCR Left Foot
AMCL Right Foot
According to @Zippo, it was already tested and the best is to use the same foot as side for both DC and AMC/ST.
Do they use jetpacks to play football in 2033?
I believe the key feature of DW is the closing down option, which got more effective this patch because of shorter throw-ins. There is a version of Blue with wingers instead of DW, using close down more PI, but it was untested for being too similar to Blue. Link is below.
https://fm-arena.com/thread/1062-zaz-blue-wings-3-0/
It had higher points per match than Blue 3.0, but lower goal difference. Obviously, results from my tests can be different from tests in FM-Arena or even in managed play, depending on the players. Maybe I should try close down more with other roles, like Wide Midfielder.
(Save is Leeds 20/21.)
Indeed, DLP is the position that consistently gets bad grades, because it works as a transition role. That doesn't mean it plays badly, just that it doesn't do what it needs to get good scores in the engine. Changing it to DM is often better for weaker team, but DLP is still king for teams with good players, which is the case in FM-Arena tests.
In the end, what matters is the win rate, not the grade of a specific role. I tried to improve conditions for DM lots of times, but it always end up with lower win rate. I tried all roles in that position, but DLP just seems to do better, despite the low scores.
Can you be a bit more clear with what "efficiency" means?
P.S.: Seems like an "unrealistic strikerless tactics" will be in the finals of UCL.
I just let them whine.
It's normal to have bad spells every now and then. If you win too much, your team can get complacent. If you lose, your team loses morale. Not only that, some players have low consistency or low important matches and just perform bad for five or ten games in a row. If that happens with both strikers at once, or a number of other positions, then you are bound to enter a losing streak.
In short, the tactics improve your chances of winning, but don't make you invincible. If you lose with a strong tactic, you would probably do even worse with a weaker tactic.
And an AMC & SS up front rather than two SS?
Difference isn't big, but it's not better in my tests.
It can be Volante as long as it's not in the center.
Thank you for testing! It seems to be stronger than Blue for weak teams, so I'm satisfied.
Here's my regen. Would you advise developing his defensive positioning or going all in on quickness development. He already has 15 in both attributes.
Defensive attributes don't matter much. For a defensive winger, you want pace, accelerations and agility (like anyone else), as well as dribbling and vision, since they do the most dribbles and assists in the team.
Your regen is pretty good, he will definitely become a beast in the future. I would still train him in quickness because nothing stops him from reaching 20 in those key attributes. =)
Red is clearly a better mid table tactic - even if we exclude the bad Chester performance, it got better results with every team apart from Accrington (but still there was only 4 point difference there).
Blue got better results with underdog teams - mainly because how much better it performed with West Brom and Dover - Red got better results with 3/6 of the teams, so part of it could be just randomness.
And it seems like Hungerford is just a really bad team, no matter what tactic you use with it.
Here are the save files if anyone wanted to get more data from them (they were too big to upload directly to fmarena):
Blue - https://www.mediafire.com/file/fflxk98xz5kr6j5/ZaZ_Blue_-_Results.fm/file
Red - https://www.mediafire.com/file/gzmjar1xsfesetb/ZaZ_Red_-_Results.fm/file
Thanks, I'll check on it.
Same for youth. If they don't get enough speed, they won't even have a spot in the upper team.
Blue 3.0 is the best. The others are there for history value, but they are outdated.
I have changed to Red in the last two games and immediately I noticed a few things.
First, the DM(Su) position now has much better rating. I believe the problem with Blue in that regard is that DLP(Su) is positioned too close to CM(A) so there is "too little" for the DLP(Su) to do save to recover the ball and pass upwards (occasionally long killer pass but rare). Now with DM(Su) you can see that he is positioned half notch downwards so there is more space away from the CM(A). I have a strong feeling that in this game rating is at least partially influenced by how much "work" a player will do during a match. From what I see from the match highlights, the DM(Su) is contributing much more than DLP(Su). There is more interaction with the the back four (given his closer position) and he runs more before passing to other players: in Blue he mainly interacts with CM(A) who is closest to him.
Second, and by similar logic, the DW(Su) contributes more than W(Su) because of their lower position. This made them interact more with the rest of the whole team. In Blue, W(Su) keeps bombing down the sideline to cross from the byline, and to great success, but far too monotone. When the DW(Su) is positioned further down, they would interact with others more, and this instills greater variety in terms of approach play e.g. I now see much more chances created by DW(Su) passing not from the byline but actually down the centre cutting across the opponent team's CB and FB.
Third, I think removing "take more risks" from most players save for CM(A) is a good move. It enhances the quality of the chances and definitely helps maintain possession.
Overall speaking, from what I observe so far, I think Red is a much better version than Blue even for strong/elite teams, provided of course you have the right players in each position. In fact I think Red whilst being a gegenpress does not necessarily need very pacey players. Running is important, but the player interaction and passing around the field mean chances are now created by slicing through the opponent's team rather than a particular player running past your opponent's players.
Thanks for testing! Later I'll see if something from Red can be used in Blue, but it has been really hard to improve Blue as it's very close to optimal for strong teams. I know for a fact that Red is better than Blue for weak team, but most of those tweaks that improve for weaker team makes strong team play worse. In simple words, better players perform well with risky moves, while worse players perform better playing safer.