I couldn't start the new season as I had hoped this morning with Tactic.
my players; neither good nor bad. But we have the potential to be champions in our own league.
I buy 2 Pressing Forwards. But when I put it in Shadow Striker, I couldn't get any efficiency, they don't even press... Despite their good finishing, they hit the opposite positions all the way to the crown, ahaha...
I took Nicolas Dominguez as the Defensive Playmaker. I discovered this football player on FM20. Reminds me of Toni Kroos. But I still didn't get any results.
Center Midfielder - Attacking role; I loaned mcAtee from Manchester City. But unfortunately I couldn't get any results from it.
Also, all the players in the team are officially incapable of pressing. They don't even bother!
By the way, we are very bad in defense; A lot of oppositing player are getting out behind the defense.
As training; I use the training methods you gave me. As for Individual Player training, I use the methods you gave me.
Where am I doing wrong?
More precisely, what do I need to send you a screenshot of so that you can interpret and analyze it correctly? Expand
Show your squad page with the following columns added: pace, acceleration, agility, dribbling and jumping reach. You can add new columns by right clicking in the top bar, in the name of any column.
Also, show team report -> analyst report -> comparison -> physical. Make sure each player is at least accomplished in the position they are playing, team morale is not so bad and players have good tactical affinity (it should be fine if they are set to train for the role they play).
That will cover the quality of your players.
Next, click medical centre and show me a screenshot after you sort the list by fatigue (just left click fatigue column name to sort it, from higher fatigue to lower). This will allow me to see if you are rotating well, as well as training load and injuries.
Finally, show me a screenshot of dynamics page, to see if the atmosphere is going well.
You might very well identify problems by yourself when you look at those pages, but I will also try to give you some input on how to solve any issues there.
Alexis said: Hi, I have some questions. Is it really important to keep this formation for the tactic to work, or can I put the same team instructions on a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3, for example, if I prefer those formations? Will the tactic lose a lot of its effectiveness, or will it still be successful?
Same with player roles and instructions. For example, if I put a good, but not great player who is natural in the SS-At role, will he be better than a great player who is only accomplished or competent in that role?
And if, in the player instructions, you tell a player for example to "run with ball often", but my player is bad at running with ball (10 or less), is it important to keep the instruction that you added, or should I take it off for that player? (in other words, what is more important for the effectiveness of the tactic, the capability of the player for that instruction, or the instruction itself?)
I hope I was clear! Expand
For your first question, changing player positions will have a negative impact in the tactic. Some changes are less bad, while others will make this tactic way worse. If you want to change formation, I would rather recommend you to filter a tactic in that formation from the table, since tactics are usually optimized to a specific shape.
About your second question, there is no much difference between natura and accomplished, but anything below that is not worth using yet. Train them to the new position and maybe let them play as subs, and they should become accomplished in around six months (from completely untrained).
About your last question, keeping the tactic instructions is more important than the quality of your player. I mean, I don't even pay much attention to most stats, I usually only look at pace, acceleration, agility and dribbling (for attacking players) or jumping reach (for defending players), since those are the attributes that impact the most on performance.
A friend of mine reviewed and commented on the tactic and said:
"For this tactic to be very effective, the Backs must have good technique, pass, vision, decision-making and composure. CM and SS's should be fast players and their off-ball characteristics should be high. Defensive playmaker, Backs and CM are key players for this tactic…
Since the opponent's defense will be pressed later in the tactics without a striker, if the defense line is max, the opponent defenders or the goalkeeper who pass well will miss too many people in the back. instead, very effective strikerless tactics can be created by pulling the defensive line forward one level and maximizing the pressure line.
The tactic is good in this state, and it presses a mixture of medium block and high block, but because the length of the team is very short, the balls that can be thrown back are very risky. this is the only one for me. Also, it is difficult to find a good Backs and usually coaches play players by recruiting from another position."
What do you think? Expand
When looking for players, I usually look for pace, acceleration, agility and either jumping reach (defenders and defensive midfielder) or dribble (all front position). I usually give double weight to pace and acceleration, so my filters are like: Acc/Pace 12+, Agi/Dri 11+ Acc/Pace 14+, Agi/Dri 12+ Acc/Pace 16+, Agi/Dri 13+ ...
You get the idea, acceleration and pace are double of agility and dribble or jumping reach, counting after 10.
I only look to other attributes to break ties, but if any player is clearly better in those more important attributes, then I completely ignore things like technique, passing, vision, decisions and composure.
I'm not saying those attributes are not important, I'm just saying I prefer to focus in 3 or 4 attributes that affect performance the most and it usually works for me, allowing me to overachieve even more than the tactic allows.
100ka said: seasone finsih and what tell ... so good tactic ... dont have that success whit normal FM 2021 (this is Touch verison ) i win some records in Serbian league whit most pts win in history of Serbian league 110 pts and no lose game in seasone so good evriting Expand
As training programs, should we use the "Pre-Season" image for the pre-Season you mentioned and the "In-Season" program during the Season for the whole season? Or will we have to do a different program? Expand
That's what I do, but I don't think it will be much worse if you use a different training routine (as long as you don't kill your players with too much work).
channibalism said: First of all, thank you very much for the tactic, I found it successful, yes... Thanks to Light Blue 3.0, I defeated Trabzonspor, standing at the top of the league, 6-2 and became the champion with double goal difference.
However, there are a few things I don't understand:
1- You said that we will play Dark Blue 3.0 against weak teams; yes, I play it like that, but we are very open in defense.
2- When you were in Blue 3.0, you said to switch to Light Blue 3.0 while we were ahead with 2 or more goals, we gave a deficit again and conceded a goal.
What would you suggest?
There are 4 tactics; Blue 3.0, Solid Blue 3.0, Light Blue 3.0, Dark Blue 3.0... When should we use these tactics? Expand
Thank you for testing the tactic!
About your questions, let me talk about the 4 tactics individually: Dark Blue is supposed to be used when you are desperate to score goals, sacrificing defense for attack. Personally, I don't use it, openning space for the other three tactics. I added it there because people asked for it, but I think Blue 3.0 is attacking enough already. Solid Blue is the opposite of Dark Blue, sacrificing attack to concede less goals. It's supposed to be used when you want to hold the score, usually when winning by 2+ goals, or even less if your opponent is stronger. It's also the tactic I use in the first half against very strong opponents, to make their players anxious at second half for not winning, which makes them play worse and allow me to grab a victory when I switch to Blue 3.0 at half time. Light Blue is a tactic to save energy and avoid bookings, supposed to be used when you think you can't lose anymore. I often use it when winning by 3+ goals. Also, the version I use has neutral tempo, saving even more energy. It's important to understand that this tactic performs worse than Blue or Solid Blue, because it sacrifices good opportunities in order to waste time. Blue is the standard tactic to be used anytime you want to maximize your winning chance. You can even use it the entire season without any problems, without any of the other tactics. It's very solid in the attack and defense, which is why it's in the top of the table for goal difference.
So, how would I use that against a team evenly matched? Start with Blue, change to Solid when winning by two goals, change to Light when winning by three goals. If they score a goal and reduce my lead to two goals, then I go back to Solid, and if they score again and reduce the lead to one goal, I then change back to Blue. That's what I usually do, but you can very well use Blue 3.0 the entire match without any problem.
Try it cautious instead of positive, it really helps me conceding less goals. P.S.: I'm so blind that I didn't notice it was an old tactic, first time I see it.
Just finished a quick one season run with West Bromwich Albion. I tried to do the run in pandemic mode, trying to save as much money as possible. Finished the season in 5th (while stopping Arsenal's title in the last round) and won FA Cup. As a bonus, I upgraded training and youth facilities twice, as well as youth recruitment and junior coaching. Squad with CA/PA and main attributes is below, as well as the two only transfers I did this season (to balance the squad, two players with CA under 100). Tactic used was Blue 3.0.
thepunisher23 said: ok thanks and how do you determine if the opponent has a stronger team? compared to the match odds? Expand
Just by "feeling", trying to identify which teams I probably can't win in a normal day. For example, if I'm West Brom in Premier League (first year), then I know Liverpool and Manchester City are almost impossible to beat in normal conditions. For those teams I need a special strategy, different than what I would use for weaker teams like Aston Villa, Leeds and West Ham.
thepunisher23 said: @ZaZ hello, what do you advise in case of a red card and depending on the results? Expand
I usually remove the CM and try to keep the rest of team shape. Other than that, just team motivation and finger crossing.
P.S.: Below are two matches were I got my players sent off very early in the match. My team was the weakest from Brazilian first division, while Santos and Flamengo were among the strongest. For some reason, opponents get complacent when that happens, so you can try to take advantage on that by holding on cautious until half time, then going back to positive in second half, when they start feeling nervous for not winning.
Stan Seymour said: Test results can be deceiving. I don't think Tank can dominate as much as this tactic. It is almost impossible to increase the attack power to this level without making a gambit. Expand
Tests are not exactly deceiving. Each methodology has a different bias, and the goal of testing is usually to minimize possible biases. Most tactics over 6.0 are good and will overachieve, as well as some tactics under that score with good management. Tests are important because they are usually less biased than personal feeling, which is specially important when you are overoptimizing something (like optimizing more than what you need to win).
Metal said: I wanted to keep the exact same shape with the three man midfield and same attack philosophy/mentality because I think it's genius and easy to build the team around. I also didn't want to do a disservice to the original creator and change the formation around just to concede less and then calling it an improvement.
There are many easy ways of tightening the defence but then the attack is compromised and I didn't want to take that facet of play away in this tactic where the attack is an endless barrage of shots to goal where you always have a high xg
I used inspiration from my own experience with the M.E, knowing the exploits and previous tactics that I've made and used where I enjoyed certain patterns of play and carefully synthesized them all together so on the pitch it plays exactly how I want the game to play out which is complete total domination and supremacy over the opponent whether big or small and making the most of out the forwards to ensure they get high numbers and become candidates for individual awards Expand
It's fine, I was just showing the tactic with best results in FM-Arena with three defenders and goals scored over 3 per match. I thought it could have some interesting insights for what you are looking for.
I think you could look for inspiration in the Tank tactic. It also uses three defenders and has similar attack power, but the defense is more solid and the results are more consistent.
Metal said: No they were the original tactic where I went unbeaten.
In fact ignore/scrap those modifications they're not working out as well as I thought they were i.e inconsistent and finding losing more games with the mods.
I'm still trying to find a way to tweak it to maximise this tactic's potential because I still think the defense can be improved Expand
As a tip, Mezzala don't work in this version. Try some other role if you want to use players in that position.
Middleweight165 said: What do you do when you need a goal because your are losing? Expand
When I need goals I use Blue 3.0, it's already a very offensive tactic. My other two spots go to Solid and Light because I am more often winning than losing, so they help way more in the long run.
alex said: @ZaZ what's your opinion on using BWM on support instead of DLP? I've seen people talking on diff forums that BWM would get higher ratings than the DLP. Do you think this change would impact the tactic on a higher scale? Expand
Maybe the DM would get better scores, but the tactic would definitely perform worse as a whole. I already tested it in the past.
The low scores of a specific position say very little about the tactic performance. DM might be the only one in the team scoring under 7, but he is directly responsible for the others scoring well. When you change his role, all other positions perform worse, which isn't worth it in the end.
Middleweight165 said: Thanks @ZaZ. How does one isolate the variables? I'm assuming this how the tests are run on this site? Expand
Yeah, that's how they do here.
If you make both sides have maximum morale, for example, then you know no side is taking advantage of higher morale. That means morale is not influencing the result of the match for either side, or in other words, the tactic and morale are now two independent variables.
The same can be applied for injuries, happiness, fatigue, condition and fitness, for example. That way, you know the thing being evaluated is the tactic, and not player management. Since the same is also applied to the opponent, then no team is taking advantage of having a better or worse management (or larger squad).
There are different ways of freezing those things, but you can easily find about it with a Google search or creating a topic asking that here.
Another variable you can remove is making sure all teams have capable players for all positions, so a tactic doesn't fail because some team doesn't have good wingers, for example. That is one of the main differences between here and FM-base, if I remember correctly.
I couldn't start the new season as I had hoped this morning with Tactic.
my players; neither good nor bad. But we have the potential to be champions in our own league.
I buy 2 Pressing Forwards. But when I put it in Shadow Striker, I couldn't get any efficiency, they don't even press...
Despite their good finishing, they hit the opposite positions all the way to the crown, ahaha...
I took Nicolas Dominguez as the Defensive Playmaker. I discovered this football player on FM20. Reminds me of Toni Kroos.
But I still didn't get any results.
Center Midfielder - Attacking role; I loaned mcAtee from Manchester City. But unfortunately I couldn't get any results from it.
Also, all the players in the team are officially incapable of pressing. They don't even bother!
By the way, we are very bad in defense; A lot of oppositing player are getting out behind the defense.
As training; I use the training methods you gave me. As for Individual Player training, I use the methods you gave me.
Where am I doing wrong?
More precisely, what do I need to send you a screenshot of so that you can interpret and analyze it correctly?
Show your squad page with the following columns added: pace, acceleration, agility, dribbling and jumping reach. You can add new columns by right clicking in the top bar, in the name of any column.
Also, show team report -> analyst report -> comparison -> physical. Make sure each player is at least accomplished in the position they are playing, team morale is not so bad and players have good tactical affinity (it should be fine if they are set to train for the role they play).
That will cover the quality of your players.
Next, click medical centre and show me a screenshot after you sort the list by fatigue (just left click fatigue column name to sort it, from higher fatigue to lower). This will allow me to see if you are rotating well, as well as training load and injuries.
Finally, show me a screenshot of dynamics page, to see if the atmosphere is going well.
You might very well identify problems by yourself when you look at those pages, but I will also try to give you some input on how to solve any issues there.
Same with player roles and instructions. For example, if I put a good, but not great player who is natural in the SS-At role, will he be better than a great player who is only accomplished or competent in that role?
And if, in the player instructions, you tell a player for example to "run with ball often", but my player is bad at running with ball (10 or less), is it important to keep the instruction that you added, or should I take it off for that player? (in other words, what is more important for the effectiveness of the tactic, the capability of the player for that instruction, or the instruction itself?)
I hope I was clear!
For your first question, changing player positions will have a negative impact in the tactic. Some changes are less bad, while others will make this tactic way worse. If you want to change formation, I would rather recommend you to filter a tactic in that formation from the table, since tactics are usually optimized to a specific shape.
About your second question, there is no much difference between natura and accomplished, but anything below that is not worth using yet. Train them to the new position and maybe let them play as subs, and they should become accomplished in around six months (from completely untrained).
About your last question, keeping the tactic instructions is more important than the quality of your player. I mean, I don't even pay much attention to most stats, I usually only look at pace, acceleration, agility and dribbling (for attacking players) or jumping reach (for defending players), since those are the attributes that impact the most on performance.
A friend of mine reviewed and commented on the tactic and said:
"For this tactic to be very effective, the Backs must have good technique, pass, vision, decision-making and composure. CM and SS's should be fast players and their off-ball characteristics should be high. Defensive playmaker, Backs and CM are key players for this tactic…
Since the opponent's defense will be pressed later in the tactics without a striker, if the defense line is max, the opponent defenders or the goalkeeper who pass well will miss too many people in the back. instead, very effective strikerless tactics can be created by pulling the defensive line forward one level and maximizing the pressure line.
The tactic is good in this state, and it presses a mixture of medium block and high block, but because the length of the team is very short, the balls that can be thrown back are very risky. this is the only one for me. Also, it is difficult to find a good Backs and usually coaches play players by recruiting from another position."
What do you think?
When looking for players, I usually look for pace, acceleration, agility and either jumping reach (defenders and defensive midfielder) or dribble (all front position). I usually give double weight to pace and acceleration, so my filters are like:
Acc/Pace 12+, Agi/Dri 11+
Acc/Pace 14+, Agi/Dri 12+
Acc/Pace 16+, Agi/Dri 13+
...
You get the idea, acceleration and pace are double of agility and dribble or jumping reach, counting after 10.
I only look to other attributes to break ties, but if any player is clearly better in those more important attributes, then I completely ignore things like technique, passing, vision, decisions and composure.
I'm not saying those attributes are not important, I'm just saying I prefer to focus in 3 or 4 attributes that affect performance the most and it usually works for me, allowing me to overachieve even more than the tactic allows.
Gratz!
I'll try and let you know the results!
As training programs, should we use the "Pre-Season" image for the pre-Season you mentioned and the "In-Season" program during the Season for the whole season? Or will we have to do a different program?
That's what I do, but I don't think it will be much worse if you use a different training routine (as long as you don't kill your players with too much work).
Thanks to Light Blue 3.0, I defeated Trabzonspor, standing at the top of the league, 6-2 and became the champion with double goal difference.
However, there are a few things I don't understand:
1- You said that we will play Dark Blue 3.0 against weak teams; yes, I play it like that, but we are very open in defense.
2- When you were in Blue 3.0, you said to switch to Light Blue 3.0 while we were ahead with 2 or more goals, we gave a deficit again and conceded a goal.
What would you suggest?
There are 4 tactics; Blue 3.0, Solid Blue 3.0, Light Blue 3.0, Dark Blue 3.0...
When should we use these tactics?
Thank you for testing the tactic!
About your questions, let me talk about the 4 tactics individually:
Dark Blue is supposed to be used when you are desperate to score goals, sacrificing defense for attack. Personally, I don't use it, openning space for the other three tactics. I added it there because people asked for it, but I think Blue 3.0 is attacking enough already.
Solid Blue is the opposite of Dark Blue, sacrificing attack to concede less goals. It's supposed to be used when you want to hold the score, usually when winning by 2+ goals, or even less if your opponent is stronger. It's also the tactic I use in the first half against very strong opponents, to make their players anxious at second half for not winning, which makes them play worse and allow me to grab a victory when I switch to Blue 3.0 at half time.
Light Blue is a tactic to save energy and avoid bookings, supposed to be used when you think you can't lose anymore. I often use it when winning by 3+ goals. Also, the version I use has neutral tempo, saving even more energy. It's important to understand that this tactic performs worse than Blue or Solid Blue, because it sacrifices good opportunities in order to waste time.
Blue is the standard tactic to be used anytime you want to maximize your winning chance. You can even use it the entire season without any problems, without any of the other tactics. It's very solid in the attack and defense, which is why it's in the top of the table for goal difference.
So, how would I use that against a team evenly matched? Start with Blue, change to Solid when winning by two goals, change to Light when winning by three goals. If they score a goal and reduce my lead to two goals, then I go back to Solid, and if they score again and reduce the lead to one goal, I then change back to Blue. That's what I usually do, but you can very well use Blue 3.0 the entire match without any problem.
Ronaldo
C. Ronaldo - Pelé - Maradona - Messi
Matthäus
Maldini - Baresi - Beckembauer - Cafu
Neuer
Best player ever, in my opinion, is Matthäus, so he would definitely be there.
I would be surprised if a team with Maldini, Beckembauer, Kahn, Garrincha and Zidane didn't win every single game.
P.S.: I'm so blind that I didn't notice it was an old tactic, first time I see it.
Just by "feeling", trying to identify which teams I probably can't win in a normal day. For example, if I'm West Brom in Premier League (first year), then I know Liverpool and Manchester City are almost impossible to beat in normal conditions. For those teams I need a special strategy, different than what I would use for weaker teams like Aston Villa, Leeds and West Ham.
I usually remove the CM and try to keep the rest of team shape. Other than that, just team motivation and finger crossing.
P.S.: Below are two matches were I got my players sent off very early in the match. My team was the weakest from Brazilian first division, while Santos and Flamengo were among the strongest. For some reason, opponents get complacent when that happens, so you can try to take advantage on that by holding on cautious until half time, then going back to positive in second half, when they start feeling nervous for not winning.
Red Star for the win!
Tests are not exactly deceiving. Each methodology has a different bias, and the goal of testing is usually to minimize possible biases. Most tactics over 6.0 are good and will overachieve, as well as some tactics under that score with good management. Tests are important because they are usually less biased than personal feeling, which is specially important when you are overoptimizing something (like optimizing more than what you need to win).
Metal said: I wanted to keep the exact same shape with the three man midfield and same attack philosophy/mentality because I think it's genius and easy to build the team around. I also didn't want to do a disservice to the original creator and change the formation around just to concede less and then calling it an improvement.
There are many easy ways of tightening the defence but then the attack is compromised and I didn't want to take that facet of play away in this tactic where the attack is an endless barrage of shots to goal where you always have a high xg
I used inspiration from my own experience with the M.E, knowing the exploits and previous tactics that I've made and used where I enjoyed certain patterns of play and carefully synthesized them all together so on the pitch it plays exactly how I want the game to play out which is complete total domination and supremacy over the opponent whether big or small and making the most of out the forwards to ensure they get high numbers and become candidates for individual awards
It's fine, I was just showing the tactic with best results in FM-Arena with three defenders and goals scored over 3 per match. I thought it could have some interesting insights for what you are looking for.
In fact ignore/scrap those modifications they're not working out as well as I thought they were i.e inconsistent and finding losing more games with the mods.
I'm still trying to find a way to tweak it to maximise this tactic's potential because I still think the defense can be improved
As a tip, Mezzala don't work in this version. Try some other role if you want to use players in that position.
When I need goals I use Blue 3.0, it's already a very offensive tactic. My other two spots go to Solid and Light because I am more often winning than losing, so they help way more in the long run.
just me said: The best.. thanks again zaz
You're welcome! Thanks for using it!
Maybe the DM would get better scores, but the tactic would definitely perform worse as a whole. I already tested it in the past.
The low scores of a specific position say very little about the tactic performance. DM might be the only one in the team scoring under 7, but he is directly responsible for the others scoring well. When you change his role, all other positions perform worse, which isn't worth it in the end.
Yeah, that's how they do here.
If you make both sides have maximum morale, for example, then you know no side is taking advantage of higher morale. That means morale is not influencing the result of the match for either side, or in other words, the tactic and morale are now two independent variables.
The same can be applied for injuries, happiness, fatigue, condition and fitness, for example. That way, you know the thing being evaluated is the tactic, and not player management. Since the same is also applied to the opponent, then no team is taking advantage of having a better or worse management (or larger squad).
There are different ways of freezing those things, but you can easily find about it with a Google search or creating a topic asking that here.
Another variable you can remove is making sure all teams have capable players for all positions, so a tactic doesn't fail because some team doesn't have good wingers, for example. That is one of the main differences between here and FM-base, if I remember correctly.