The Mentality Ladder - A Practical Framework For Understanding Fluidity and Duty - Page 2 - Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion - Sports Interactive Community

09/08/2017 The Mentality Ladder: A Practical Framework for Understanding Fluidity and Duty - Page 2 - Tactics, Training &
Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion - Sports Interactive Community
Sports Interactive Community Existing user? Sign In  Sign Up
Browse Activity Leaderboard Search... 
Forums Guidelines FAQs Online Manual
 Home  Football Manager Game Help Forums  Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion   All Activity
The Mentality Ladder: A Practical Framework for Understanding Fluidity and Duty
The Mentality Ladder: A Practical Framework for  Sign in to follow this Followers 4
Understanding Fluidity and Duty

By THOG, January 23, 2014 in Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion

 PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT  Page 2 of 9 
Telemachos Posted January 25, 2014 Report post 

Amateur
Great post and my hat o to you for all the work you put into this.
Members
178 posts
https://community.sigames.com/topic/309785-the-mentality-ladder-a-practical-framework-for-understanding-fluidity-and-duty/?page=2 1/59
09/08/2017 The Mentality Ladder: A Practical Framework for Understanding Fluidity and Duty - Page 2 - Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion - Sports Interactive Community
Lavuz Posted January 25, 2014 Report post 

Amateur
i just fainted..
Members
18 posts
Team: REAL MADRID
Svenc Posted January 25, 2014 Report post 

Semi Pro
Hand of God: Totally see your point too. I think I misunderstood your intentions a bit. For advanced players that want
to delve deeper, this provides a mind-boggingly exhaustive groundwork for tinkering. It's just that for the average
player this has the danger of making a game more complicated than it truly is. But then he likely won't bother reading
anyway.
Members
2,890 posts
Managing: Casino Calavera
Cleon Posted January 25, 2014 Report post 

International Star Player
Can we make sure we keep this about the OP please, if you are providing feedback about the game in general
or its faults then that belongs in the feedback thread in the general section of the forums and not in here. All
posts that are not about the OP will be deleted from this point on because if not it ruins the thread and turns
it into a feedback thread and that's not the purpose of the thread.
Thanks.
Members
40,458 posts If anyone disagrees then PM me, this thread is not the place to carry on this debate.
Team: She eld United
Ö-zil to the Posted January 25, 2014 Report post 

Arsenal!
Right OK so I have spent a hungover Saturday afternoon trying to put this into practice and I was wondering if you
Amateur
could sanity check the results...
Plan A: Dominate possession
Members
805 posts
Quite simply the aim of this tactic is to dominate possession, sit reasonably deep and draw the opposition out leaving
space behind for Theo to run into or to simply pass through them.
Went with a 4-2-3-1 and chose Very Fluid & Control which gives me players with the following priorities.
GK/D: Cycle Possession
DR/S: Keep Possession
DC/D: Keep Possession Away From Pressure
DC/D: Keep Possession Away From Pressure
DL/S: Keep Possession
MC/S: Shuttle Ball
DLP/S: Keep Possession Under Pressure
IF/A: Spearhead Attacking Moves
Treq/A: Create Chances Patiently
Wing/S: Create Chances
TM/S: Create Chances Urgently
By my logic, this gives me a back 4 and mid eld who will control possession with Ozil, Cazorla and Giroud creating
chances for Theo. I added Hassle Opponents so we close down as a team and Roam from Position take advantage of
good O the Ball and Decision stats.
Plan B: Sit Deep & Counter
OK so the objective here is to for a solid back 4 and double pivot to sit deep and invite the opposition to attack. When
we gain possession of the ball I want a lightning quick counter and to get the ball in the net ASAP. Think Real Madrid
under Mourinho.
This is the approach I have changed the most having read your guide. Initially I looked at Very Rigid because I wanted a
nice compact defence. I looked at Counter but I found the attacking players to be too low on the mentality ladder and
the play was too slow. I then looked at Attack having read an article on CCC but I think the defence was too possession
focused. In the end I went for this:
I found Standard & Balanced gave me the best mixture of solid defence and quick attack. I then use Team Instructions
to modify the defence and transition. It gives me players with the following focus:
GK: Distribute Safely
DR/S: Recover Possession
DC: Disrupt Attacks Judiciously
DC: Disrupt Attacks Judiciously
DL/S: Recover Possession
DMC: Disrupt Attacks Quickly
MC: Shuttle Ball
IFR/A: Spearhead Attacking Moves
Treq/A: Shuttle Ball Into Space
AP/L: Shuttle Ball Through Defence
TM/S: Shuttle Ball Through Defence
Hopefully my shouts have the following e ects:
1. Sit Deep reduces my DCs to Restrict Space Aggressively and DR/L to Recover Possession
2. More freedom for AML, AMC, and FC increase their mentality to Create Chances
3. Get Forward for MC increases his mentality to Spearhead Attacking Moves
Shouts to create the Counter Attacking e ect:
1. Sit Deep
2. Stand O Opponents
3. Play the ball out of Defence
4. Very Direct Passing
5. Very High Tempo
What do you think? Is this a sensible approach?
THOG Posted January 26, 2014 Report post 

Semi Pro
Thanks for stepping forward and o ering such a detailed example, OttA. This is very helpful in identifying some areas
that may need clari cation and also interesting to nally see this project from someone else's perspective.
I'm not able to write out a proper reply at the moment, but I will get back to you with a detailed response by tomorrow
evening.
Members
3,919 posts

Semi Pro
Interestingly enough, your idea about setting up a fast, counterattacking system was one of the rst things that
occurred to me when I started putting this into practice. The Counter team mentality refers to one approach to
counterattacking (sitting deep and waiting patiently for clear opportunities to break forward in numbers), but
obviously, the idea of counterattacking football encompasses a lot more than that. And like you, when setting up what
you might call "an elaborate counterattack approach" (as opposed to a simple approach involving sitting deep and
usually just relying on 1-3 players to get forward in most cases), I settled on Standard with defensive TI's and a higher
tempo.
Members
3,919 posts One thing I would note here though is that I personally wouldn't think of the TI's and PI's as changing a player's tactical
priority (with the exception of those I speci cally mentioned like Exploit the Flanks). Think of them, rather, as slight
adjustments to role which de ne how a player carries out his tactical priority and how quickly and dramatically he
deviates from it to do something more defensive/attacking when his teammates need support doing something else.
The defensive line instructions, speci cally, are a little ambiguous. I like that you called it "Sit Deeper" rather than
"Drop Deeper" as this is probably a more accurate way to think of it in relation to a player's tactical priority. In terms of
the TC as it stands now, "Drop Deeper" basically achieves what you assume it will in terms of on the pitch action, but I
would really think of the d-line instructions as being more of a team counterpart to closing down (that is, pressing in
formation as opposed to pressing individually out of formation). So think of it more in terms of "Push Up More" and
"Push Up Less" with the instruction controlling how frequently your d-line will push forward from a comfortable
defensive position to help more advanced teammates carry out their more aggressive defensive responsibilities by
compressing the playing area.
So, in this example, telling a defender to "Push Up Less" won't alter his tactical priority (i.e., his general focus and
disposition); instead, it will have the defender adhering to it more stubbornly. With that said, I like how you're using it
here and it's very close to the general set-up I'm experimenting with at the moment.
"Get Forward" is going to modify how quickly a player joins the attack, so by assigning it to Ramsey on Plan B, you're
giving him what might be thought of as a "Super Attack" duty that will have him blasting forward on the ball (or, if he
gets bypassed, when it's already ahead of him), but it won't change his tactical priority and, thus, won't necessarily
leave you without a dedicated "shuttler" in mid eld.
In regards to both your plans, I should clarify that "Create Chances" is very aggressive for a main responsibility, and I
actually considered calling it "Stay Forward and Create Chances." Now, it's important to again emphasize here that
players respond dynamically to what needs to be done, and while a tactical priority centres and orients a player's
approach, a player will naturally be spending a lot of time carrying out tasks that are "close" to his tactical priority. So,
a support duty player told to Shuttle the Ball is still going to be looking to create chances fairly frequently once the ball
gets near the area, but he's always rst going to focus on making absolutely sure the ball gets there and, certainly,
when he gets around the area, he will be slightly more inclined to work the ball around a bit if there isn't quite such a
clear cut opportunity to play it in and he's not quickly running out of options.
By comparison, a player told to focus on "Creating Chances" is really going to operate as a fairly traditional #10:
looking for space between the mid eld and defence from which he can quickly play the nal ball (if a chance is on) but
less inclined to drop back, make himself available for easy passes and do the unheralded grunt work of early build up
play (in part because doing so will draw defenders' attention to him more quickly... thus, potentially, compromising his
ability to quickly create a chance). Now, maybe this is what you want, but I thought I should clarify just in case (and I'll
look to clarify the "in detail" description accordingly).
Beyond that, I would make a few more fairly general comments:
In Plan A, you could really use another attack duty even if you're going for a slower build-up, possession approach.
Remember, I consider the playmaker roles to all be on a sort of "Super Support" duty, so with Ozil as a treq, you
should have another player getting forward to give your creative players options. I would also suggest putting Gibbs
on an attack duty to ensure you've got the option of getting up to the byline on the left (and if you nd this results in a
few too many crosses for the build-up style you want, you can adjust his PIs accordingly). As wwfan recommends in his
twelve step guide, it's always good to have one attack duty defender on non-defensive approaches to prevent your
defensive-to-attacking transition from being overly static and predictable. Going into matches, if you're nding the
opposition hard to break down, don't hesitate to commit more players to an attack duty.
Finally, deviating a little from the mentality ladder, I would add that I'm not a big fan of this variety of 4-2-3-1
formation. This is partially because I'm a "defence rst" kind of manager, but I interpret this formation as a variation
on a 4-2-4. It's inherently very attacking, and as you can see, it leaves your two CMs covering a massive amount of
space between the attack and defence. This isn't to say it can't work. It can be very e ective against sides that keep
numbers back and don't press (which is how the AI will often play against sides like Arsenal), especially if they have
cautious fullbacks who will be inclined to stay back to mark your wide forwards, but it lacks versatility and will typically
leave you very exposed against more aggressive sides.
I don't want to say don't use it, but against tougher opponents, you may want to mix it up and go for a 451, 4411 or 4-
2DM-1CM-2AMLR-1. These are all di erent ways of producing what's generally thought of as a 4-2-3-1 which, IMO, is a
common modi cation on several di erent systems (that is, it's a way of setting up a 442, 424, 451 or 433) as opposed
to an altogether separate family of systems. And on that note, I should point out that positional familiarity is probably
the most overthought aspect of tactics. SI themselves have said it doesn't matter that much, and while my personal
opinion is that a lot of researchers are far too hesitant to give familiarity at ML/R, you'll bene t from training your
wingers to be more comfortable there as opposed to using wide forwards (i.e., AMLR) at all times.
EDIT: I would also add that "Stand O Opponents" lowers your tempo. I'm not convinced that it should since this has
an e ect on build-up play, but it may be better to individually lower closing down for players (as cumbersome as that
is).
llama3 Posted January 26, 2014 Report post 

Third Team
Now in my opinion, OttA - by trying to adhere to the framework, I can see a lot of (certainly in my opinion, cannot
speak for everyone else), some illogical decisions, as well as some choices that neglect the inherent abilities of the
system. For example:
Your full backs are far too reserved - in both systems you need them to o er more o ensively. To form
combination play with Cazorla on your possession system, and to overlap Walcott on both systems.
Members
You have neglected the main strength of the 4-2-3-1 in your 2nd system - the lack of a solid defensive block
7,928 posts
between the DC's and DM/MC's. Ramsey as a CM(A) will simply not provide it. The lack of a distributing role in
Team: Arsenal
Managing: Arsenal these parts of the eld will inevitably see Arteta and the defence isolated. To be blunt, a DLP in that system
would be far more important as otherwise you have no transitional passers.
On top of the lack of width, you have a highly congested central attacking area with players coming inside, and
only a single man trying to break the lines in your entire attack (Walcott).
A TM(S) rarely provides the playmakers with a man to combine with. They tend to recieve and o er opposite
forms of deliver. The TM will rely on ick ons from long balls, crosses etc, as well as having a partner to play with.
The T(A), AP(S) & DLP(D) all require more forward runs, moves into channels etc.
Finally the amount of specialist roles in that team is huge. In your very uid possession system you play 3
specialist roles, and in your balanced, counter-attacking system you play 4! They contradict the point of
specialism and universality.
Sorry mate, I don't mean to pull you apart, it is kind of because you are the rst main example to be posted here, and I
haven't really had the chance to express what I mean until now. I feel while this is a massive piece of work, I nd it
hard to see how this framework actually guides tactical decision making, as most decisions can be made simply by
adding logical instructions and combinations together, providing a framework of general rules. This is also extremely
hard to follow and very wordy. I feel bad for criticizing such a large piece of work, and did not want to unless I had an
excellent example to clearly illustrate my point, but with people complaining FM is harder and you need a degree in
management to play it, I feel this is totally the wrong step/pattern/message to provide.

Semi Pro
 llama3 said:
Now in my opinion, OttA - by trying to adhere to the framework, I can see a lot of (certainly in my opinion, cannot
speak for everyone else), some illogical decisions, as well as some choices that neglect the inherent abilities of the
system. For example:
Members Your full backs are far too reserved - in both systems you need them to o er more o ensively. To form
3,919 posts combination play with Cazorla on your possession system, and to overlap Walcott on both systems.
You have neglected the main strength of the 4-2-3-1 in your 2nd system - the lack of a solid defensive block
between the DC's and DM/MC's. Ramsey as a CM(A) will simply not provide it. The lack of a distributing role
in these parts of the eld will inevitably see Arteta and the defence isolated. To be blunt, a DLP in that
system would be far more important as otherwise you have no transitional passers.
On top of the lack of width, you have a highly congested central attacking area with players coming inside,
and only a single man trying to break the lines in your entire attack (Walcott).
A TM(S) rarely provides the playmakers with a man to combine with. They tend to recieve and o er
opposite forms of deliver. The TM will rely on ick ons from long balls, crosses etc, as well as having a
partner to play with. The T(A), AP(S) & DLP(D) all require more forward runs, moves into channels etc.
Sorry mate, I don't mean to pull you apart, it is kind of because you are the rst main example to be posted here,
and I haven't really had the chance to express what I mean until now. I feel while this is a massive piece of work, I
nd it hard to see how this framework actually guides tactical decision making, as most decisions can be made
simply by adding logical instructions and combinations together, providing a framework of general rules. This is
also extremely hard to follow and very wordy. I feel bad for criticizing such a large piece of work, and did not want
to unless I had an excellent example to clearly illustrate my point, but with people complaining FM is harder and
you need a degree in management to play it, I feel this is totally the wrong step/pattern/message to provide.
As I said to Svenc, I completely understand and respect that not everyone will like this approach. If you asked me if I
thought this framework should be slapped onto the game itself, my response would be a big, emphatic "No!" However,
I do maintain that it's useful as both a way of clarifying ideas and identifying confusing and misleading aspects of the
game that could use some re nement and clari cation.
In terms of OttA's post, I actually disagree with you that the framework led to the illogical decisions. The decisions he
made are fairly common problems you see among tactics created with the basic TC, and I thought the explicit
mentality structure outline successfully helps identify and pinpoint many of the problems you mention, especially in
terms of the excessively attacking nature of the whole set-up, the lack of options in the box in Plan A, the likely excess
of players performing support tasks in the attacking third, the very thin link between defence and attack, and the
paucity of defensive cover in front of the defence in Plan B. Moreover, taking such advice, the framework then
provides a set of comparative reference points to ensure similar mistakes aren't made on di erent settings.
Yes, further consideration needs to be given to the speci c interaction between roles, but I never suggested that the
mentality structure outlines and tactical priorities were a substitute for roles, far from it. This framework also
obviously isn't a substitute for learning the ins and outs of tactics but a reference for helping to put existing tactical
knowledge into practice and identifying problem areas in the transition from idea to speci c TC settings.
And again, I absolutely agree that the TC provides all you need for a general approach to the game and that someone
with a good understanding of tactical principles won't have any problem setting up a functioning tactic, but even then,
you're assuming both that the player is bringing a fairly in-depth, intuitive grasp of tactics to the game and that they
will have played long enough to learn how the more vague concepts of the TC translate onto the pitch. What may
seem like basic tactical logic to you may actually be a revelation to the player who plays with 4 attack duty attackers
and a single, box-to-box mid elder in front of a static defence. And even then, I feel that some aspects of the TC are
misleading and while this initial presentation is obviously way too in depth to be a beginner's guide, its purpose as a
theoretical endeavor is to identify more accurate, intuitive applications and interpretations of various settings.
EDIT: And the reason people joke that FM14 requires you to have a coaching badge to play has more to do with the
fact that recent improvements do require you to have a stronger understanding of basic tactical principles. Obviously,
the TC itself is vastly simpli ed compared to what previously existed.

Semi Pro
Now, in response to your speci c advice, I would like to make a few points to clarify a few things:
 llama3 said:
* Your full backs are far too reserved - in both systems you need them to o er more o ensively. To form
combination play with Cazorla on your possession system, and to overlap Walcott on both systems.
Members
3,919 posts *On top of the lack of width, you have a highly congested central attacking area with players coming inside, and
only a single man trying to break the lines in your entire attack (Walcott).
*A TM(S) rarely provides the playmakers with a man to combine with. They tend to recieve and o er opposite
forms of deliver. The TM will rely on ick ons from long balls, crosses etc, as well as having a partner to play with.
The T(A), AP(S) & DLP(D) all require more forward runs, moves into channels etc.
I agree with this, and on top of my comment above, I would point out that this is all addressed in the section on
assigning duties. In fact, I took the standard advice a step further by suggesting that the Enganche, Treq and AP-A be
treated as support roles. Looking at a lot of threads on here, you'll see a common problem people have even if they
follow the twelve step guide to the letter is that they go and end up assigning all their attack duties to playmaker roles
who don't actually make many forward runs.
I generally agree on the fullbacks, but with Plan B, OttA speci cally said he wanted a solid, conservative back four with
build-up being based around a very direct, rapid attack that attempts to overload the middle before the opposition can
transition back into shape. You are correct to point out a potential danger in this, but I wouldn't say that advice should
be such a hard rule. There are teams that do play with both fullbacks in a support capacity, and there are big sides,
especially outside of England, that do try to overload and overpower the middle. It has its limitations and a manager
should be prepared to recognize when it's not working against a speci c opponent, but it's a valid approach and I think
sometimes the advice given on here tends to ignore context (and I include myself in this). Part of this is because
tactical design is still biased towards setting up a single, general tactic that will serve you from match to match against
every conceivable opponent, but this doesn't mean that set-ups that are too unbalanced for general, match-to-match
use are totally useless or not re ective of actual real world tactics.
The use of the 4-2CM-3-1 is a good example of this. I think both you and I would agree that it's not the most balanced
defensive shape, but a lot of players have success with it, mainly because they play big sides and the AI sits deep,
doesn't press their mid eld and doesn't commit a lot of players to the attack. That's obviously one area where the AI
could be improved a bit, but in the context of a big side vs. smaller sides, a system with four forwards can work.
 llama3 said:
[*]You have neglected the main strength of the 4-2-3-1 in your 2nd system - the lack of a solid defensive block
between the DC's and DM/MC's. Ramsey as a CM(A) will simply not provide it. The lack of a distributing role in
these parts of the eld will inevitably see Arteta and the defence isolated. To be blunt, a DLP in that system would
be far more important as otherwise you have no transitional passers.
Again, as I said in my response to OttA, I basically agree with this and I'm not a fan of this kind of 4-2CM-3-1 since it
leaves the defence so exposed. For the most part, I would recommend just using a more standard defensive shape as
opposed to using an asymmetric shape on a uidity setting that already promotes positional asymmetry.
I agree that playing Arteta as an anchor man puts too many restrictions on the early build-up. However, I wouldn't say
Arteta will inevitably get isolated. This is an instance where it is important to have a more speci c idea of how role
interacts with your uidity/mentality settings. In this case, Ramsey and Cazorla will actually go deep enough to provide
outlets for transition play while, since it's a balanced system, the fullbacks will be pushing ahead of Arteta to o er
more options out wide. I agree that Ramsey getting forward will leave the defence vulnerable to counterattacks
(though he will still be perfectly willing to help defend and press after tracking back), though this is more of a question
of how aggressive his opponent will actually be.
This is one limitation of the way roles are presented in the current system. Roles are very sensitive to your
uidity/mentality settings, and I don't think this is adequately re ected in the TC.
 llama3 said:
I partially agree with Svenc here in that I don't put too much importance on getting the number of generalist/specialist
roles just right. It's a good guideline if you're new and looking to avoid a lot of basic mistakes, but I think wwfan would
agree that it's just a guideline for getting started and not a commandment. I agree that there are some issues with the
balance of roles here, but the speci c numbers are less important than the actual roles used. In this case, it's the
limited roles (target man and anchor man) that stand out as problematic.
Cleon Posted January 26, 2014 Report post 

Silly none constructive/rude posts will be deleted I've already stated that in the thread. The next one will result in a ban
because I'm tired of ungrateful people on this forum posting utter nonsense in threads. That's the 3rd comment I've
had to delete in the last half hour, anymore and its a ban, enough is enough.
No wonder people don't post or help anyone any more when the idiots come out and mock people who are trying to
help.
Members
40,458 posts
Ö-zil to the Posted January 26, 2014 Report post 

Arsenal!
Amateur  The Hand of God said:
Finally, deviating a little from the mentality ladder, I would add that I'm not a big fan of this variety of 4-2-3-1
formation. This is partially because I'm a "defence rst" kind of manager, but I interpret this formation as a
variation on a 4-2-4. It's inherently very attacking, and as you can see, it leaves your two CMs covering a massive
amount of space between the attack and defence. This isn't to say it can't work. It can be very e ective against
sides that keep numbers back and don't press (which is how the AI will often play against sides like Arsenal),
Members especially if they have cautious fullbacks who will be inclined to stay back to mark your wide forwards, but it lacks
805 posts versatility and will typically leave you very exposed against more aggressive sides.
I don't want to say don't use it, but against tougher opponents, you may want to mix it up and go for a 451, 4411
or 4-2DM-1CM-2AMLR-1. These are all di erent ways of producing what's generally thought of as a 4-2-3-1 which,
IMO, is a common modi cation on several di erent systems (that is, it's a way of setting up a 442, 424, 451 or
433) as opposed to an altogether separate family of systems. And on that note, I should point out that positional
familiarity is probably the most overthought aspect of tactics. SI themselves have said it doesn't matter that
much, and while my personal opinion is that a lot of researchers are far too hesitant to give familiarity at ML/R,
you'll bene t from training your wingers to be more comfortable there as opposed to using wide forwards (i.e.,
AMLR) at all times.
Wow - rstly, thank you so much for the help!
I have taken your advice and made a few modi cations. Plan A, Possession now looks like this:
Major changes:
1. Changed shape to 4-2-3-1 Assymetric

2. Changed Fluidity to Balanced
3. Made Gibbs CWB-A
4. Made Giroud a DLF-S
By my logic, my team should look something like this:
-------------------------------------CONTROL-------------------------------------
GK: GK/D (Szczesny): Distribute Safely
DR: FB/S (Sagna): Shuttle Ball Into Space
DC: DC/D (Mertesaker): Disrupt Attacks Quickly
DC: DC/D (Koscielny): Disrupt Attacks Quickly
DL: FB/S (Gibbs): Shuttle Ball Into Space
DMC: DLP/S (Arteta): Keep Possession
MC: MC/S (Ramsey): Spearhead Attacks from the Hole
ML: W/S (Cazorla): Shuttle Ball
AMC: Treq/A (Ozil): Shuttle Ball Through Defence
AMR: IF/A (Walcott): Penetrate Gaps Intermittently
FC: DLP/S (Giroud): Create Chances
I like the change in shape, agree with what you are saying there. Seems to reduce the gaps. Also creates a nice
diamond between Arteta, Ramsey, Cazorla and Ozil.
I felt the change in uidity gave me 3 main bene ts:
1. Mertesaker & Koscielny are better suited to Disrupting Attacks than Keeping Possession.
2. Cazorla & Ozil's roles have been watered down. Shuttling Ball rather than creating chances means they should be
more involved.
3. Aaron Ramsey is Spearheading Attacks from the Hole so I should have an additional attacking runner. Hopefully
like he does in real life.
Do you think that Balanced / Control (as above) would be a good choice for a Counter Attack System with high tempo,
longer passing lower closing down etc?

Third Team
 The Hand of God said:
As I said to Svenc, I completely understand and respect that not everyone will like this approach. If you asked me
if I thought this framework should be slapped onto the game itself, my response would be a big, emphatic "No!"
However, I do maintain that it's useful as both a way of clarifying ideas and identifying confusing and misleading
aspects of the game that could use some re nement and clari cation.
Members
7,928 posts Ok
Team: Arsenal
Managing: Arsenal
 Quote
In terms of OttA's post, I actually disagree with you that the framework led to the illogical decisions. The decisions
he made are fairly common problems you see among tactics created with the basic TC, and I thought the explicit
mentality structure outline successfully helps identify and pinpoint many of the problems you mention, especially
in terms of the excessively attacking nature of the whole set-up, the lack of options in the box in Plan A, the likely
excess of players performing support tasks in the attacking third, the very thin link between defence and attack,
and the paucity of defensive cover in front of the defence in Plan B. Moreover, taking such advice, the framework
then provides a set of comparative reference points to ensure similar mistakes aren't made on di erent settings.
This is a point I stand my ground on, the framework was followed to the letter (which I am under the impression is not
the intention of it's use), and as such it created what we saw. I also feel the most basic and solid tactics are created
with the TC. I think an issue is that the advice for each position depends hugely on formation, you may not want a
certain position/role to "shuttle the ball" if he is the most defensive player in the team, so I think formation needs to
be taken into account quite signi cantly.
 Quote
Yes, further consideration needs to be given to the speci c interaction between roles, but I never suggested that
the mentality structure outlines and tactical priorities were a substitute for roles, far from it. This framework also
obviously isn't a substitute for learning the ins and outs of tactics but a reference for helping to put existing
tactical knowledge into practice and identifying problem areas in the transition from idea to speci c TC settings.
And again, I absolutely agree that the TC provides all you need for a general approach to the game and that
someone with a good understanding of tactical principles won't have any problem setting up a functioning tactic,
but even then, you're assuming both that the player is bringing a fairly in-depth, intuitive grasp of tactics to the
game and that they will have played long enough to learn how the more vague concepts of the TC translate onto
the pitch. What may seem like basic tactical logic to you may actually be a revelation to the player who plays with
4 attack duty attackers and a single, box-to-box mid elder in front of a static defence. And even then, I feel that
some aspects of the TC are misleading and while this initial presentation is obviously way too in depth to be a
beginner's guide, its purpose as a theoretical endeavor is to identify more accurate, intuitive applications and
interpretations of various settings.
Agreed on the level this guide suits/applies to.
 Quote
And the reason people joke that FM14 requires you to have a coaching badge to play has more to do with the fact
that recent improvements do require you to have a stronger understanding of basic tactical principles. Obviously,
the TC itself is vastly simpli ed compared to what previously existed.
I think the other demands of the game have gone up, and the game is less forgiving - meaning you have to have the
concepts already, or the inclination to learn them.

Now, in response to your speci c advice, I would like to make a few points to clarify a few things:
I'm all ears...
 Quote
I agree with this, and on top of my comment above, I would point out that this is all addressed in the section on
assigning duties. In fact, I took the standard advice a step further by suggesting that the Enganche, Treq and AP-A
be treated as support roles. Looking at a lot of threads on here, you'll see a common problem people have even if
they follow the twelve step guide to the letter is that they go and end up assigning all their attack duties to
playmaker roles who don't actually make many forward runs.
Fully agree about mis-use of playmaker roles.
 Quote
I generally agree on the fullbacks, but with Plan B, OttA speci cally said he wanted a solid, conservative back four
with build-up being based around a very direct, rapid attack that attempts to overload the middle before the
opposition can transition back into shape. You are correct to point out a potential danger in this, but I wouldn't
say that advice should be such a hard rule. There are teams that do play with both fullbacks in a support capacity,
and there are big sides, especially outside of England, that do try to overload and overpower the middle. It has its
limitations and a manager should be prepared to recognize when it's not working against a speci c opponent,
but it's a valid approach and I think sometimes the advice given on here tends to ignore context (and I include
myself in this). Part of this is because tactical design is still biased towards setting up a single, general tactic that
will serve you from match to match against every conceivable opponent, but this doesn't mean that set-ups that
are too unbalanced for general, match-to-match use are totally useless or not re ective of actual real world
tactics.
Without a exible base tactic, or adapted set of tactics it is hard to make some systems work against each other. A well
constructed tactic o ering the varieties of movement and chances should always o er chances, but can be adapted
more easily. e.g. Making your IF(S) a W(A) to provide more width. A single change but drastically changing the way the
team approaches creating chances. A lack of movement is a fundamental issue, not a speci c tactical plan. Accept the
points on the narrow attacking design & mentality structure that tries to compensate the lack of width. A perfect
example, Spain in South Africa 2010 - matchday 1, lost to Switzerland because they were far too narrow, they switched
to Jesus Navas wide right to o er width in the remaining games, and they bene tted immensely, as Navas o ering
width was enough to alter the opposing defensive shapes, drag them wider and create more room to exploit in the
middle - sometimes exploiting the middle means dragging play wider.
 Quote
The use of the 4-2CM-3-1 is a good example of this. I think both you and I would agree that it's not the most
balanced defensive shape, but a lot of players have success with it, mainly because they play big sides and the AI
sits deep, doesn't press their mid eld and doesn't commit a lot of players to the attack. That's obviously one area
where the AI could be improved a bit, but in the context of a big side vs. smaller sides, a system with four
forwards can work.
If applied well it is excellent defensively in my opinion. Not as superb at keeping shape as the DM variant, but o ers
more pressing and ball retention - alternative defensive strategies - therefore it suits di erent defensive strategies in
di erent variants.
 Quote
Again, as I said in my response to OttA, I basically agree with this and I'm not a fan of this kind of 4-2CM-3-1 since
it leaves the defence so exposed. For the most part, I would recommend just using a more standard defensive
shape as opposed to using an asymmetric shape on a uidity setting that already promotes positional
asymmetry.
I agree that playing Arteta as an anchor man puts too many restrictions on the early build-up. However, I
wouldn't say Arteta will inevitably get isolated. This is an instance where it is important to have a more speci c
idea of how role interacts with your uidity/mentality settings. In this case, Ramsey and Cazorla will actually go
deep enough to provide outlets for transition play while, since it's a balanced system, the fullbacks will be
pushing ahead of Arteta to o er more options out wide. I agree that Ramsey getting forward will leave the
defence vulnerable to counterattacks (though he will still be perfectly willing to help defend and press after
tracking back), though this is more of a question of how aggressive his opponent will actually be.
Absolutely categorically disagree, Arteta WILL be isolated. He does not have the freedom the spread the ball or passing
range save to the nearest safe player(s) - these are only ever his defenders behind him, he is easy to isolate, as there is
not enough linking runs or players dropping into space to o er the outball. Cazorla is far too far away to be able be
considered a genuine passing option for an Anchorman (a DLP or Regista yes, an Anchorman, no chance), and in fact
his most likely outball is Ozil dropping deep, looking for the ball vacating space overcrowded by Ramsey, Cazorla,
Walcott & Giroud.
 Quote
This is one limitation of the way roles are presented in the current system. Roles are very sensitive to your
uidity/mentality settings, and I don't think this is adequately re ected in the TC.
Agreed.
 Quote
I partially agree with Svenc here in that I don't put too much importance on getting the number of
generalist/specialist roles just right. It's a good guideline if you're new and looking to avoid a lot of basic mistakes,
but I think wwfan would agree that it's just a guideline for getting started and not a commandment. I agree that
there are some issues with the balance of roles here, but the speci c numbers are less important than the actual
roles used. In this case, it's the limited roles (target man and anchor man) that stand out as problematic.
I believe that the creative roles carry their limitations too (forward runs mainly, movement and wideplay too), which
makes them just as di cult to integrate. Although accept it cannot be a set in stone rule, but I feel the guideline is
there for a reason.

Semi Pro
 llama3 said:
This is a point I stand my ground on, the framework was followed to the letter (which I am under the impression
is not the intention of it's use), and as such it created what we saw. I also feel the most basic and solid tactics are
created with the TC. I think an issue is that the advice for each position depends hugely on formation, you may
not want a certain position/role to "shuttle the ball" if he is the most defensive player in the team, so I think
Members
formation needs to be taken into account quite signi cantly.
3,919 posts
Well, it's simply and demonstrably incorrect to say the whole guide was followed strictly to the letter. That's
understandable, as there's a lot of information here, but numerous recommendations and guidelines weren't
incorporated, particularly in terms of the whole section on duty assignment. That's ne. People don't pick up on every
bit of advice with most guides, and they will occasionally make decisions that re ect inexperience with the game as
opposed to plainly illogical tactical decisions (for example, a lot of players don't realize the Advanced Playmaker will
cut inside and crowd the centre). In both your thread and the Twelve Step Guide, there are numerous examples of
players reading the thread and then posting tactics much more awed and problematic than those from OttA's initial
post.
By your reasoning, then, your thread created that narrow 4231 with 7 attack duties with TI's to play narrower, exploit
the middle, retain possession, etc. And how about the 4-3-3 with no defend duty in mid eld and only the striker on
attack? Is that a damning indictment of your guide as well?
Of course, it's not, and your argument here is silly. It just so happens that people who are less familiar with the game
and tactics in general won't absorb every bit of advice and will still make mistakes. That's why it's important for the
more experienced users on this forum to continue to provide personal feedback on top of writing guides and
developing theories. You've done a great job in your thread in that regard.
As far as the rest of the above quote, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to express. I agree that the TC is great for
developing tactics, and nothing in the above suggests otherwise. This project only outlines and interprets what the TC
produces on certain settings. The tactical priorities listed in the mentality structure outlines are not recommendations
of how to use a player but indications of how aggressive the team will be and, accordingly, how responsibilities will
end up being distributed throughout the formation to serve the team mentality. Combined with general tactical
knowledge, this can be used (as I use it) to inform formation changes or role choice.
Thus, if you have technically poor DMs or defenders who are only suitable to limited roles, you can use the outlines to
recognize which uidity and mentality combinations may have them carrying out responsibilities that will require more
positional support/cover or just simply ask too much of them (on top of indicating that, perhaps, the choice of
mentality is far too aggressive for general, match-to-match use). In the case of having defenders shuttling (which I
de ne somewhat liberally here as picking up/winning the ball in mid eld and getting it, via dribbling or passing, to a
player near or in the attacking third), the outlines are telling you that you're asking your players to compress play so
high up that your defenders will often be operating as de facto mid elders. In this case, the manager might say,
"That's exactly what I'm looking for" or "Hmmm, wait a minute, maybe overload is just too aggressive after all."
Again, like the TC itself, this framework is not a substitute for understanding tactics. It's a tool to be used in
conjunction with it.
 llama3 said:
Without a exible base tactic, or adapted set of tactics it is hard to make some systems work against each other.
A well constructed tactic o ering the varieties of movement and chances should always o er chances, but can be
adapted more easily.
It was my understanding that OttA was developing a set of tactics to alternate between based on the situation. One a
more general, possession tactic and a Plan B that involves sitting back and hitting the opposition fast down the middle.
I agree that both needed some re nement (which I'm in the process of advising), though it seemed obvious that we
were already beyond the "you need more than one tactic to work with" stage. Obviously, all tactics require mid-match
adjustments to be employed optimally, but IMO, this is something that comes with experience and can't be summed
up with a few handy tips.
 llama3 said:
If applied well it is excellent defensively in my opinion. Not as superb at keeping shape as the DM variant, but
o ers more pressing and ball retention - alternative defensive strategies - therefore it suits di erent defensive
strategies in di erent variants.
I agree that it works well enough now because the AI doesn't recognize when to press a bigger side or exploit the
space it leaves around the mid eld. For the same reason, you can nd insane 4-2-4's with two support duty CMs that
will absolutely dominate the league. IMO, it's not re ective of any system that sees a lot of general use at the moment,
though a lack of roles in the ML/R position makes the more common, real world variants on what's generally called a
"4231" di cult to implement.
 llama3 said:
Absolutely categorically disagree, Arteta WILL be isolated. He does not have the freedom the spread the ball or
passing range save to the nearest safe player(s) - these are only ever his defenders behind him, he is easy to
isolate, as there is not enough linking runs or players dropping into space to o er the outball. Cazorla is far too
far away to be able be considered a genuine passing option for an Anchorman (a DLP or Regista yes, an
Anchorman, no chance), and in fact his most likely outball is Ozil dropping deep, looking for the ball vacating
space overcrowded by Ramsey, Cazorla, Walcott & Giroud.
Well, there was a problem (that I didn't catch at rst), but it was not really the choice of role. It was the "Play Out of
Defence" instruction which would have also reduced a DLP's passing range to the minimum. Without that instruction,
with all the other team settings OttA used, an anchor man is actually going to have a direct passing range, and given
the tempo and d-line settings, the whole point was that the ball would be played and moved into an attacking position
before the wide players would even begin cutting inside. For such a quick transition with a team dropping back deep
into shape, you don't particularly need a DLP. The tactic wasn't based around possession football. I actually tested the
tactic (without Play Out of Defence) against Barca (using Schalke), and despite the relatively aggressive pressing,
getting the ball out of defence wasn't a problem. Certainly, other problems were evident, but distribution options for
the DM wasn't one of them. Against a smaller that will sit back and largely leave Arteta to himself, an Anchor Man in
that particular set-up was not facing a huge risk of being isolated, especially given how the mentality/ uidity a ected
the early build-up contribution of the AML and CM(A).
With that said, I would still prefer a more versatile role, especially given the personnel available, but this is a good
example of how the various complexities and interactions of di erent settings are poorly understood, even by
experienced players. And that's precisely the sort of problem this project is intended to address.
 llama3 said:
I believe that the creative roles carry their limitations too (forward runs mainly, movement and wideplay too),
which makes them just as di cult to integrate. Although accept it cannot be a set in stone rule, but I feel the
guideline is there for a reason.
In both cases, he was one specialist over wwfan's recommended limit. In my opinion, that's negligible.
Anyway, as a fan of your guide, I certainly respect and understand your reservations about some of the ideas I've
presented, but to be honest, I think your attempt to make some sort of example out of OttA was a tad too hasty and
not particularly well thought out. I realize this is the internet, but I would appreciate being given the opportunity to
demonstrate how this framework can be applied.

Semi Pro
 Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:
Members
3,919 posts
This looks fairly reasonable. A few notes:
I would be concerned about giving Gibbs a CWB role. Keep an eye on his passing and crossing choices. If he's trying
the spectacular too often, it might be advisable to tone him down to a standard WB.
Is Ramsey on a support or attack duty? On an attack duty in a Balanced/Control system, he may not stay back long
enough or drop back consistently enough to give Arteta the outlets you'll need for a possession-oriented system (i.e.,
everything will tend to be channeled up the left). You might also consider giving him a B2B Mid elder role so he'll
make more use of the wide space between Sagna and Walcott (and also give Ozil more breathing room).
Again, the asymmetric defensive shape on Balanced gives me pause. I understand using Walcott there as he's
intended to be more of a second forward, but I would pull Arteta up to CML in order to tighten up your shape. As a
DLP(S), he will not only be inclined to run with the ball, but it will have him pushing up a bit into mid eld despite the
use of a DM lowering your DC's tendency to push up the d-line. A Central Mid elder (Defend) told to play riskier passes
will get you a similar e ect as a DLP without so much of a risk of exposing your central defenders.
EDIT: And just because it can't be emphasized enough, remember that you don't have to micro-manage the tactical
priorities to ensure your players will take up more attacking responsibilities when appropriate. That is what
duties/roles are for. Balanced is a good option if you're speci cally looking for a pronounced pivot or a more
asymmetric shape in all phases (which I think is what you're going for here), but even with a defensive tactical priority,
an attack/support duty is still going to move up and help get the ball forward, he will just be more cautious about
doing it while ensuring he doesn't sprint forward o the ball when the defence is under pressure and needs an escape
route.
 Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

Do you think that Balanced / Control (as above) would be a good choice for a Counter Attack System with high
tempo, longer passing lower closing down etc?
For that particular approach, I would say that Balanced might not be the best choice if you're really going to emphasize
keeping shape, and on a Control mentality, you'll want to carefully distribute your roles/duties in more attacking
positions to ensure they're not inclined to just stay forward with a focus on attacking responsibilities. It can work, but it
needs to be carefully, ahem, balanced.
Fabian Jonsson Posted January 28, 2014 Report post 

Amateur
This project only outlines and interprets what the TC produces on certain settings. The tactical priorities listed in
the mentality structure outlines are not recommendations of how to use a player but indications of how
aggressive the team will be and, accordingly, how responsibilities will end up being distributed throughout the
formation to serve the team mentality. Combined with general tactical knowledge, this can be used (as I use it) to
Members
inform formation changes or role choice. Thus, if you have technically poor DMs or defenders who are only
548 posts
suitable to limited roles, you can use the outlines to recognize which uidity and mentality combinations may
have them carrying out responsibilities that will ask too much of them (on top of indicating that, perhaps, the
choice of mentality is far too aggressive for general, match-to-match use).
Exactly, that's how I've used it so far, and it's been an eye opener. Since I have a tendency to be very impatient during
matches and blast through them too quickly to pick up on the details, this has helped me identify potential problems
immensely.

Semi Pro
 Fabian Jonsson said:
Exactly, that's how I've used it so far, and it's been an eye opener. Since I have a tendency to be very impatient
during matches and blast through them too quickly to pick up on the details, this has helped me identify potential
problems immensely.
Members Glad to hear you're nding it useful, Fabian.

3,919 posts
For those interested, in the next week or two, I will be putting together detailed examples of how I use and interpret
the framework in speci c situations. This will hopefully clarify some things and provide some ideas as to how it can be
used to guide tactical decisions.
TwinsFan86 Posted January 28, 2014 Report post 

Amateur
I'll bite the bullet next and submit a tactic for discussion here and examine the roles and priorities. I'm consistently
ddling with di erent tactics, probably to my detriment, but I like trying to get di erent ideas to work, but anyways,
this is my most recent iteration of a counter attacking deep 4-2-3-1 (2 DM's). I thought it'd be a good idea to examine it
from this angle, because I think this thread has been fantastic so far.
Members
439 posts
An examination of the priorities as explained in this thread.
GK - (SK/s) Distribute Safely
RB - (FB/a) Recover Possession Immediately
CD - (CD/d) Restrict Space
LB - (WB/s) Disrupt Attacks Quickly (or Recover Possession?) For this one I'm not entirely sure which one would apply
since I'm using the WB role in the LB position.
DM - (DM/d) Disrupt Attacks Judiciously
DM - (RG/s) Recover Possession after Defensive Transition
AMR - (W/a) Shuttle Ball Through Defense
AML - (IF/a) Shuttle Ball Through Defense
AMC - (AP/s) Recover Possession Immediately
ST - (P/a) Spearhead Attacking Moves from the Hole (not sure I agree with this one, I haven't noticed the poacher
dropping away from the defensive line very often)
Team Instructions:
Play out of Defense
Stay on Feet
Work Ball into Box
Hassle Opponents
More Direct Passing
Thought process - The team will hassle without over-committing to risky tackles, the CD's will play simpler passes to
the Regista and the DM who will then look to get the ball quickly forward (I think Play out of Defense and More Direct
accomplish this) and I despise long shots, so that should be self explanatory.
As a whole, it looks pretty good on paper, at least to me. So far from an average position standpoint, it plays kind of
like a 3-3-3-1 with the 2 DM's and the RB in a sort of line (the DMR is a little deeper and shaded to the right a bit,
covering for the attacking RB). Last game had a couple opportunities from the AMR/L that I thought they should've
nished, but they're young and still growing, but the ball is getting in to good positions.
This tactic wasn't originally set up with this guide in mind, but I thought it would be interesting to examine it from the
principles presented here.
EDIT: I wasn't pleased after a hammering at home to Atletico in the CL, so I made a couple changes.
Changes:
W/a - W/s - Keep Possession Under Pressure
AP/s - SS/a - Spearhead Attacking Moves from the Hole
P/a - CF/s - Shuttle Ball into Space
The ST and AMC link up a lot better. Had a spectacular play where the ST had dropped deep and pulled both DC's to
him and played a ball through to the AMC, who unfortunately missed, but I really liked the link-up play and movement
they created with this role selection.
Simpli ed some of the team instructions since I wanted to see how the role changes would work without being
modi ed by a bunch of TI's. Still felt like I needed to push up a little higher since I don't have any CM's, and I don't like
long shots, even if the player thinks it's a good option.
oescus Posted January 28, 2014 Report post 

Part-Timer
I have now read through all of this three times today. Am I the only person who can't understand it? Is there a
layman's version which is printed in plain English? I'm impressed with the amount of time and e ort all of this must
have taken but it goes way over my head. Maybe this is why my tactics end up failing, except for two seasons when I
had some good success. Now I am back to square one and seriously thinking of never trying to make my own tactic
again. I'm not sure whether or not the game is now beginning to get far too deep. I now seem to be trying to make a
successful tactic more than I am playing the game itself.
Members
1,072 posts
The Hand of God, you have my full admiration for this work and it deserves better than the likes of me to comment
Team: Liverpool
upon it. I ask only this of you. Don't forget those like myself who still struggle with FM tactics after thinking that I had
the thing under some control.
Brick_Tamland Posted January 29, 2014

Amateur Report post 

OESCUS - He laid out and did all the groundwork for each mentality fused with the philosphy for each role type and
where "in the mentality ladder" that role is expected to perform ....so looking at the previous post by TWINSFAN he
shows you each role and where it falls in the ladder for his tactic ....
Members
305 posts
Team: Liverpool

Part-Timer
 Brick_Tamland said:
OESCUS - He laid out and did all the groundwork for each mentality fused with the philosphy for each role type
and where "in the mentality ladder" that role is expected to perform ....so looking at the previous post by
TWINSFAN he shows you each role and where it falls in the ladder for his tactic ....
Members Brick_Tamland, I've gone over the two examples but it is beyond me. I shall keep trying but I'm not very hopeful of
1,072 posts understanding it all. Not to worry.
Team: Liverpool

Semi Pro
 oescus said:
I have now read through all of this three times today. Am I the only person who can't understand it? Is there a
layman's version which is printed in plain English? I'm impressed with the amount of time and e ort all of this
must have taken but it goes way over my head. Maybe this is why my tactics end up failing, except for two
seasons when I had some good success. Now I am back to square one and seriously thinking of never trying to
Members
3,919 posts
make my own tactic again. I'm not sure whether or not the game is now beginning to get far too deep. I now
seem to be trying to make a successful tactic more than I am playing the game itself.
The Hand of God, you have my full admiration for this work and it deserves better than the likes of me to
comment upon it. I ask only this of you. Don't forget those like myself who still struggle with FM tactics after
thinking that I had the thing under some control.[/Quote]
You absolutely do not need to use the ideas here to be successful at the game. I will de nitely be looking to make
the writing for future revisions more accessible and I think more concrete examples would also have helped in
that regard, but even then, this is not required reading and I don't think it re ects any increasing complexity in
the game. Basically, everything here could have been written about the game 5 or 6 years ago. In fact, the things
that were being written about the game 5 or 6 years ago still often boggle my mind when I go back to read them.
Anyway, to try to sum it up in a few points:
(a) I reinterpreted the di erent combinations of mentality and uidity settings as a set of basic, individual
instructions telling players to focus on speci c responsibilities. These responsibilities aren't the only thing a player
will do, just what he's mainly concerned with under that tactical setting.
(b) These responsibilities will give you a basic sense of where and when the player will mainly be looking to get
involved in play and how cautious they are going forward.
© Duty then tells you how stubbornly a player will stick to his main responsibility and how quickly he will get
forward to participate in the attack when play progresses beyond a point where his main responsibility is a
pressing issue.
(d) Role then tells you how he goes about carrying out both his main responsibility and his duty. For example, role
tells you how he will move around the pitch; how he likes to play the ball; how much he relies on his physical,
mental or technical attributes to do things, etc. One important idea here is that the roles are all a bit more exible
than the in-game descriptions sometimes suggest.
(e) I then listed what main responsibilities are assigned to each role for every combination of uidity and
mentality.
(f) The idea is that this will better enable people to ne tune tactics to achieve very speci c e ects and styles of
play, but again, this is absolutely unnecessary if you're just looking to get a basic, functioning set of tactics that
you can carry over from match to match.
(g) There is also a more general, theoretical argument that the e ects of uidity are a lot more subtle and exible
than the in-game descriptions suggest.
The conclusion I would hope people draw from this is not that the TC is too complicated but that the TC is very
exible. It's very easy to set up basic tactics that work, but contrary to a lot of the criticism directed at FM14,
you're not limited to only a few ways of playing. So again, if you're just wanting to get going with a set-up that isn't
broken, you don't need to be too concerned with this.
Of course, you're welcome to post any tactics you're having trouble with and I will see if I can give you any advice
that you can put to use right away.

Semi Pro
TwinsFan86, I will try to respond to your post in detail tomorrow. Very busy day ahead, but I should be able to get to it
in the evening.
Members
3,919 posts

Third Team
Glad to hear you're nding it useful, Fabian.
For those interested, in the next week or two, I will be putting together detailed examples of how I use and
interpret the framework in speci c situations. This will hopefully clarify some things and provide some ideas as to
how it can be used to guide tactical decisions.
Don't misunderstand my intentions or preconceptions THoG - I don't want to reply further to most of your above
Members
7,928 posts points (some I agree, some I disagree) because I don't want to derail this thread o course - I will be interested to see
Team: Arsenal these examples, they may clear the waters somewhat as to my understanding of the application of it.
Managing: Arsenal

Part-Timer
You absolutely do not need to use the ideas here to be successful at the game. I will de nitely be looking to make
the writing for future revisions more accessible and I think more concrete examples would also have helped in
that regard, but even then, this is not required reading and I don't think it re ects any increasing complexity in
the game. Basically, everything here could have been written about the game 5 or 6 years ago. In fact, the things
Members
that were being written about the game 5 or 6 years ago still often boggle my mind when I go back to read them.
1,072 posts
Team: Liverpool
Anyway, to try to sum it up in a few points:
(a) I reinterpreted the di erent combinations of mentality and uidity settings as a set of basic, individual
instructions telling players to focus on speci c responsibilities. These responsibilities aren't the only thing a player
will do, just what he's mainly concerned with under that tactical setting.
(b) These responsibilities will give you a basic sense of where and when the player will mainly be looking to get
involved in play and how cautious they are going forward.
© Duty then tells you how stubbornly a player will stick to his main responsibility and how quickly he will get
forward to participate in the attack when play progresses beyond a point where his main responsibility is a
pressing issue.
(d) Role then tells you how he goes about carrying out both his main responsibility and his duty. For example, role
tells you how he will move around the pitch; how he likes to play the ball; how much he relies on his physical,
mental or technical attributes to do things, etc. One important idea here is that the roles are all a bit more exible
than the in-game descriptions sometimes suggest.
(e) I then listed what main responsibilities are assigned to each role for every combination of uidity and
mentality.
(f) The idea is that this will better enable people to ne tune tactics to achieve very speci c e ects and styles of
play, but again, this is absolutely unnecessary if you're just looking to get a basic, functioning set of tactics that
you can carry over from match to match.
(g) There is also a more general, theoretical argument that the e ects of uidity are a lot more subtle and exible
than the in-game descriptions suggest.
The conclusion I would hope people draw from this is not that the TC is too complicated but that the TC is very
exible. It's very easy to set up basic tactics that work, but contrary to a lot of the criticism directed at FM14,
you're not limited to only a few ways of playing. So again, if you're just wanting to get going with a set-up that isn't
broken, you don't need to be too concerned with this.
Of course, you're welcome to post any tactics you're having trouble with and I will see if I can give you any advice
that you can put to use right away.
Many thanks for your welcome and comforting response to my concerns. I can only speak for myself, of course, I may
well be the only person have a little trouble understanding your ideas but I would welcome simple to understand
examples showing how and why I should go about aligning my tactics and player instructions with your system.
Anything that might improve my tactics is most welcome.
sneek Posted January 29, 2014 Report post 

Amateur
@The Hand of God
If i want to line up a 4-2-3-1 assymetrical with my Liverpool side, what sort of uidity do you think i should use based
on the formation itself?
Members
67 posts
Beest4ever Posted January 29, 2014 Report post 

Amateur
This post has made such a di erence for my understanding of how to implement what I desire into FM14, very
grateful, thanks. Looking forward to reading through it again presently.
I do though have a question... A players tactical priority, does he just have the one? or would he have a tactical priority
for each phase of play ie, Def, Control and Attacking?
Members Your explanation of Roles and their e ect on shape inspired me to create this... A 14.2.2 Defensive monster,
33 posts
Amateur Here is the set of the tactics...
Members
33 posts

Amateur
Also wondered if your ideas explain somewhat the really bad defending of corners after the initial header has been
won/lost. It seems as though, if the defensive team wins that initial header their team mates situated around the edge
of the box and ignore defensive duties. Almost as if they feel possession has been won and that they can solely focus
on their attacking priority of making space etc.... Maybe because play is restarted via the set play, players haven't
climbed far enough down the mentality ladder by default :o
Members
33 posts

Semi Pro
 TwinsFan86 said:
Members
3,919 posts
This looks a lot stronger than your initial tactic. I gave your earlier one a go and managed to beat Leverkusen away (1-
2) using no changes, though there were some problems. "Play Out of Defence" restricted the passing of your Regista
and wingback too much, but with the Advanced Playmaker having a borderline defensive/control priority, he was back
deep enough to e ectively do the job the Regista should have been doing. This still left your build-up options fairly
limited which would have been a problem if the AP had been more e ectively targeted or the DMs more aggressively
pressed, though in my case, Draxler had the dribbling ability to work the ball out from deep positions.
Still, it was far too one-dimensional for my liking, and with three attack duties across the forward line, it obviously
wasn't going to be well suited for picking apart a smaller opponent (as you probably saw, the poacher and wide
forwards would all just tend to hang on the shoulder of the defensive line once the attack got into the opposition third
and they redirected their attention to penetration/overload-type tasks).
Anyway, on to your second tactic. Here is what your basic build-up shape will probably look like:
As you can see, the mobility of your regista and complete forward means they will be the heart of your attack with
both able to shift side to side in a way that creates passing diamonds utilizing both anks. The main potential
weakness is your shadow striker pushing up to create more of a 2-4-1-3 in attack. This means a packed mid eld will
probably cut o direct links between your regista and complete forward, so you may need to play wider against 3-man
mid elds to avoid needless passing down the middle that might give away a lot of counterattacking opportunities.
Your complete forward will really need to have excellent passing and creativity, as he will be taking the ball forward
and distributing it to your two attacking forwards. Your shadow striker will obviously need to be your best nisher
while your inside forward will need superb dribbling to drop o his defender, pick up the ball and take it inside. So you
may want to identify your opponent's weakest fullback and " ip" your formation accordingly.
Your winger should be fairly conservative. With a possession-oriented priority, I would expect him to hold o on risky
runs and passes to mainly provide a link-up hub on the right. That's ne. This player may not get good ratings, but you
can see how he and his counterpart (the wingback) provide balance relative to their ank partner. With a more
defensive tactical priority, the wingback will probably tend to sit back until play moves up a bit, after which he should
cover space vacated by the inside forward to serve basically the same function as your winger.
The fullback is obviously the main man providing width and mixing up the attack if your shadow striker and inside
forward hit a wall. He should overlap a lot and he'll need good crossing/pace/stamina to do it. The DM and winger
should provide enough cover to let him do his thing, though pulling the winger back to MR should help if a wide
forward keeps pinning him back to a defensive posture (which he will be fairly sensitive to on a mid-control priority).
Again, the biggest potential stumbling block will be a loss of control in mid eld. The shadow striker will press high, but
he won't help provide defensive structure in front of your mid eld, so your Regista typically won't have the option of
forming a 1-2 in defence. If he moves forward to press, your DM won't be able to cover all the angles. If that happens
and you nd yourself getting pushed deep, a Central Mid elder instructed to roam and an Advanced Forward will
preserve the fundamentals of your attack while adding a bit more defensive solidity in mid eld. However, the above
set-up will probably be more e ective against less aggressive opponents.
Overall, on paper, this looks like a good starting point.
Speaking generally, it's usually a good idea to add TI's slowly after seeing your basic tactic in action. The interactions
between di erent instructions don't always quite pan out how you'd expect. Hopefully, this lack of detailed
information in the interface will be addressed in FM15.

Semi Pro
 sneek said:
@The Hand of God
If i want to line up a 4-2-3-1 assymetrical with my Liverpool side, what sort of uidity do you think i should use
based on the formation itself?
Members
3,919 posts
It depends on the roles you want to use and the style of play you want to implement. Personally, I avoid asymmetric
formations unless I'm targeting/countering a speci c feature of my opponent's system. It's more e cient to just
retrain players rather than trying to t them all into a weird formation. Combining Balanced with a standard defensive
shape will give you the bene ts of more dynamic attacking movement without sacri cing a solid defensive structure.

Semi Pro
 oescus said:
Many thanks for your welcome and comforting response to my concerns. I can only speak for myself, of course, I
may well be the only person have a little trouble understanding your ideas but I would welcome simple to
understand examples showing how and why I should go about aligning my tactics and player instructions with
your system. Anything that might improve my tactics is most welcome.
Members
3,919 posts Just think of yourself as a Very Fluid manager. You like to set up a basic framework, tell your players what you basically
want and trust them to have the quality to see the match through. A more rigid manager, on the other hand, will want
to organize things more meticulously to carry out a highly speci c plan. Both are valid playing styles that have their
counterparts among managers in real life.
shlaurant Posted January 30, 2014 Report post 

Amateur
Great Post!. but i have problems with understanding what some responsibilities mean.
I've tried to nd some hints on google but failed.
I'm not good at English because English is not my rst language
So I'll appreciate it if you guys help me to understand these things.

Members
3 posts
1. What is the di erence between 'challenge defenders' and 'overload defenders'???. Actually, i can't understand
both.....
2. What does 'Spearhead Attacking Moves' mean??. And how things be changed with ' Closer to Defence. ' or ' from the
hole.'
3. Isn't 'Disrupt attack' conclude 'Divert Attacking Movement, Contain Attacking Movement, Slow Attacking
Movement'???. what does it mean?
4. What does 'Test Defence' mean???? I just have no idea.
5. Is it right that 'shuttle balls' means passing?
6. What does 'limit pressure' means?
Thanks!
Semi Pro
Yeah, describing the di erent tactical priorities was something I was very con icted about. Basically, there are only 11
clearly distinct tactical priorities (or, it might be better to call them "primary responsibilities") with the middle 9 having
more adventurous/aggressive and less adventurous/aggressive variants. I wanted to include these more/less
aggressive margins because those minor di erences are important to seeing how the more rigid settings subtly a ect
your mid eld set-up, but I also wanted to illustrate what "more adventurous/aggressive" or "less
adventurous/aggressive" would actually involve in practice. At the same time, I was concerned that people might get a
Members
bit too xated on the speci cs of how I described those more/less aggressive di erences when everything is a
3,919 posts
question of tendencies or preferences instead of hard rules. In that case, it might be easier for some to think of the
tactical priorities in terms of more general categories. So, the mentality ladder, from most to least aggressive:
PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES
------ATTACKING------
- Break (try to immediately get yourself or the ball beyond the defence at every opportunity, zero interest in keeping
possession)
- Overload (try to overwhelm defence with numbers and fast, desperate passes/shots to force a mistake - defensively,
press and win the ball rapidly in the attacking third)
- Penetration (quickly move into or play the ball into openings to exploit every possible half chance - defensively, press
and win the ball rapidly even deeper in the opposition half)
- Creation (pick up the ball deep in the opposition area and move it forward with an eye towards creating a clear
chance if possible and keeping the ball moving around the opposition third if not - defensively, press and win the ball
rapidly inside the opposition half)
------CONTROL------
- Shuttling (win/pick up the ball near or just inside the opposition half and move/pass it deep into the opposition area,
then moving into the attacking third if there's plentiful space or attacking support)
- Possession (win the ball in the middle of the park and keep it circulating around the middle until it can be safely
moved or played higher up)
- Recovery (win the ball as it enters your half and keep it circulating in deep positions until it can be safely moved out
of your half)
------DEFENSIVE------
- Disruption (break up attacks as they approach the defensive third and just clear the ball forward if under pressure)
- Restriction (close down opponents moving into the defensive third and try to force a mistake without risking a foul)
- Containment (stay in the path of opponents moving into the defensive third to try to simply slow their advance or
divert them into a safe area without risking needless tackles or giving them the slightest opportunity to beat you and
break into the box)
- Obstruction (stay near or in your penalty area to simply intercept passes and block shots)
Then, duties tell your players to do the following:
- Attack (take the initiative in assuming more attacking responsibilities when you've carried out your main
responsibility)
- Support (focus on your main responsibility and then, when play moves forward and there's defensive support behind
you, assume more attacking responsibilities to prevent the attack from getting isolated)
- Defend (focus strictly on your main responsibility unless it is safe/necessary to move up behind the support players
to prevent the team from getting too stretched/fractured)
The goalkeeper priorities are mostly a question of de ning distribution preferences and involvement in build-up play.
As you may have noticed, keepers on lower team mentalities will frequently ignore your distribution instructions when
it con icts with what you've indirectly de ned as their primary responsibility. So:
------KEEPER------
- Support Attacks (gets even further o line to o er a backpass option and attempts high risk passes to help get the
ball into the area quickly)
- Initiate Attacks (gets o line to o er a deep backpass option and, if possible, looks to play the ball to open teammates
in the opposition half)
- Cycle Possession (when not under pressure, gets o line to o er a deep backpass option and looks to play the ball
back to defenders)
- Distribute Safely (typically plays it very safe in terms of positioning, will hold onto ball if it comes to him and there's
no pressure before looking to get it to a safely open defender)
- Limit Pressure (cautious in terms of leaving his line, looks for close support from defenders to deal with balls played
into the area, not interested in helping keep possession, will hoof it if it comes to him, will clear it if there's any chance
of a forward knicking the ball o a defender)
- Shield Goal (very hesitant to get o his line unless absolutely necessary, focused entirely on shot stopping and
hoo ng the ball away at every opportunity)
Is this easier to understand? Would it be simpler and easier to understand to just put them in more general terms and
add something like (More Aggressively/Less Aggressively) to the middle 9? I'm very open to feedback for change in this
regard, as again, I was a bit con icted on how to present the marginal di erences.

Amateur
Is this easier to understand? Would it be simpler and easier to understand to just put them in more general terms
and add something like (More Aggressively/Less Aggressively) to the middle 9? I'm very open to feedback for
change in this regard, as again, I was a bit con icted on how to present the marginal di erences.
Members
33 posts
Totally understand where you are coming from... But, with perseverance I (and I guess like many others are) am slowly
understanding your concepts, so in general, I think you have done a very good job of making the language easy
enough to comprehend... Obviously the most e ective way for you to tutor all of the di erent priorities with regard to
how they are actually implemented within the GE, would be to video capture a selection of in match footage and
provide commentary in which you outline the relevant roles and highlight certain players that are behaving in the way
in which you are describing... Thus you could physically show us the subtle details (which are somewhat awkward to
describe in lay mans terms) in action... This would require a lot of work though, mind you, looking at what you have
already pitched I suspect that is something you would relish!!!

Semi Pro
 Beest4ever said:
Totally understand where you are coming from... But, with perseverance I (and I guess like many others are) am
slowly understanding your concepts, so in general, I think you have done a very good job of making the language
easy enough to comprehend... Obviously the most e ective way for you to tutor all of the di erent priorities with
regard to how they are actually implemented within the GE, would be to video capture a selection of in match
Members
footage and provide commentary in which you outline the relevant roles and highlight certain players that are
3,919 posts
behaving in the way in which you are describing... Thus you could physically show us the subtle details (which are
somewhat awkward to describe in lay mans terms) in action... This would require a lot of work though, mind you,
looking at what you have already pitched I suspect that is something you would relish!!!
In future posts, I will be going through my design process and looking at speci c matches, and I expect that will clear a
lot up for people who prefer to learn from concrete examples.
Another thing I would point out is that these tendencies are more apparent when you watch a full match. This isn't to
say you have to watch the full match to play the game or identify tactical problems during a match, but if you watch
extended or key highlights, you're typically going to be seeing moments where your players break from their normal
tendencies to do something more exciting out of necessity or desperation.
looking busy Posted January 30, 2014 Report post 

Amateur
I'm slowly trying to get to grips with the tactical stu in FM14. I last played FM12 and this version seems to be a huge
step forward, and massively more detailed.
Not sure what work will think about my printing out you whole posts above. Reckon it would be well over 50 pages in
word. Good job I don't like my work, and don't care what they think...
Members
379 posts

Semi Pro
 looking busy said:
I'm slowly trying to get to grips with the tactical stu in FM14. I last played FM12 and this version seems to be a
huge step forward, and massively more detailed.
Not sure what work will think about my printing out you whole posts above. Reckon it would be well over 50
Members pages in word. Good job I don't like my work, and don't care what they think...
3,919 posts
FM13 brought a big change in collision detection. Previously, players would "ghost walk" through one another, so you
could set up a team to channel through balls down the middle and have a bunch of forwards who would literally run
through the defensive line to get onto them. You can't do this now, so unless you're playing a smaller, smash & grab
team, you have to be more careful how you set up your side. If you're having trouble with the basics, I would strongly
recommend reading wwfan and llama's stickies rst, as this guide is less about tactical fundamentals and more
guring out how to translate a speci c plan into the TC.
Anyway, because of collision detection demanding more elaborate build-up strategies, it's now harder to play as a big
side and totally dominate. At the same time, since defenders can actually use their bodies to defend now, it's actually a
little easier to play as a smaller side than before as long as you remember to take a more defensive approach and
adjust your expectations. This is also likely why the AI has had a tendency to over-perform with teams like Stoke and
Wolves since FM13.

Semi Pro
 Beest4ever said:
This post has made such a di erence for my understanding of how to implement what I desire into FM14, very
grateful, thanks. Looking forward to reading through it again presently.
I do though have a question... A players tactical priority, does he just have the one? or would he have a tactical
Members priority for each phase of play ie, Def, Control and Attacking?
3,919 posts
Your explanation of Roles and their e ect on shape inspired me to create this... A 14.2.2 Defensive monster,
Happy to hear your players are doing what you want. This kind of makes me want to go on a cup run with a plucky
gang of thugs.
Keep an eye out on how your league opponents respond to your form though. If they start sitting back, you will need
to vary your build-up approach.
To answer your question, players only have one tactical priority, but the phase of play it corresponds to (attack,
control/transition, defend) will give you a sense of how quick they are to contribute to other phases of play and how
much risk they take when doing it. So a very defensive player will be slower going forward and more likely to work the
ball around the box to carve out a credible chance while a very attacking player will look to force a chance quickly but
may not be so diligent about tracking back and providing an extra bit of support for his defenders (as he may think
staying forward will improve his chances of hitting the opponent on the break). At the same time, when defending,
attack and control-oriented players will risk fouls and breakaways to try to win back possession quickly while
increasingly defensive players will be more patient and rely on defensive structure and cooperation to neutralize
attacks.
But as noted above, attacking and defensive aggressiveness will be occasionally in uenced by, respectively, air and
aggression while roles will also make a player more or less likely to perform speci c actions to achieve their objectives.
In terms of attack/support duty attacking priorities and defensive play, the corresponding defend duty priorities will
give you an indication of how the attack and support duty players will defend, though often, play will have already
progressed beyond that point by the time they get back into their defensive positions.
But again, for the sake of much needed simplicity, players only have one tactical priority.
kstoyle Posted January 30, 2014 Report post 

Torquay Utd Researcher
The Hand of God - this looks amazing. I have only skim read as at work but have printed it out and will read it all later.
As others have done can you look at my formation and do a critique? I am not one to build my own, but have done so,
with limited success in the last 2 versions. I usually play 451/433 but this came about due to injuries to 3 of my 4
wingers so had to think of something di erent. Anyway I liked it immediately and had some great success - won my
rst 9 games scoring 34 and conceding just 8. Since then it has been good and I have messed around with roles.
Members
players etc but still good enough to take me to Serie C1 play o s with an un-fancied side - Foggia. I have done some
603 posts
research about the formation and I think this is what I want to build for the future of this save and try and get Foggia
Team: Torquay United
Managing: Nice/Inter to Serie A and win the league and Champs League with it.
Milan/Torquay United
This is the tactic and roles etc.
http://imageshack.com/a/img89/1033/tfqp.png
I want to play deep, draw the opposition and then hit them with fast quick attacks. I have placed the 2 CM there but
really I want to give them both free roles to go where they want and create space and chances. I am a bif fan of David
Silva who doesn't seem to have a set position just oats around - that is what I want to create with 1 of the CM.
The strengths as I see it
Strong in the middle
I have the two strikers to move into channels to the CM can run through the gap
The FB bomb forward and score and create a lot - scored 11 assist 8 between them
We score a lot - top scorers with 92 goals in 38 games.
Weaknesses
We do tend to get 'overlapped' and a lot of goals conceded do come from the wings. I need a way of defending the
wide areas better.
The attacking mentality leaves us open
Conceded a lot - 59 in 38
What do I change?
I was thinking of moving one of the DM to a HB to push the CB wider to support the FB but this seemed to leave us a
bit exposed in the middle
How do I get the CM to be totally free spirits?
Anyone got any help, feedback, criticism (it doesn't even have to be constructive).
I want to keep playing this way an need help perfecting the formation.
Thanks
shlaurant Posted January 31, 2014 Report post 
Amateur
Thank you!. Helped a lot!
Members
3 posts
bababooey Posted January 31, 2014 Report post 

Part-Timer
THOG,
As I've written above this post is completely mind-blowing and has me oored. I'm trying to read through it again and
get a better understanding however there is something that I have to ask:
As someone who began playing FM a bit late in the series (FM12), I've found the new tactics to be incredibly intuitive
Members and I don't have that desire for sliders that many still do.
1,460 posts
Team: Manchester United However, it can be di cult to translate what I want to see into the actual tactical framework, especially when it comes
to choosing shouts and determining whether or not they are necessary.
This is directly linked to mentality, IMO, because if for instance I play as Arsenal, and I want the boys to really control
games in the other half, push up, retain the ball, etc I COULD have the mentality set to "control" or I suppose I could
set the mentality to something like.. Standard or Counter, and then add shouts to tweak it, right? To me that process is
a bit weird. It's like there are a million ways to do things, which can be really confusing / daunting.
It's sort of like, wwfan did that post on Barcelona and he used a Counter mentality. If you do a bit of google searching
you'd be hard pressed to nd an FM tactic for Barca that isn't using "Control."
Am I putting too much stock into the mentality names? And what is a good way to determine if I'm overdoing it with
the shouts?
Brick_Tamland Posted January 31, 2014 Report post 

Amateur
THOG I just want to thank you again for a great post and analysis. You have de nitely 110% improved my enjoyment
of this version of this game as I was really struggling to link things up. The ladder and your breakdown of each
uidity/mentality has been fabulous.
Members
305 posts
Team: Liverpool
THOG Posted February 1, 2014 Report post 

Semi Pro
 kstoyle said:
...
I don't want to propose too many changes as you seem to like how things are working. I would say a Halfback
shouldn't push your CBs wider unless they're pressing high up. If you're staying deep, your CBs are going to stay
Members narrow out of necessity and you will need to rely on your DMs to help stop overload situations. I would suggest
3,919 posts changing your BWM to a standard DM or, if he's really just terrible on the ball, an Anchor Man. Your CMs are going to
be doing the pressing, so you don't need a BWM who will come forward to close down opponents. You want someone
to provide structure next to your DLP. If I had to guess, I'd say a lot of situations where you're hit from the anks result
from the BWM coming forward unnecessarily to help close down mid elders, leaving the wingback on his own.
It sounds like you want something like an Interiores role (defends wide then drifts around the middle in attack) which,
unfortunately, doesn't exist. It doesn't seem quite possible to get a CM to act in a "free role" manner. The closest
would be to tell your team to be more expressive and switch both CMs to "Central Mid elder" Attack with instructions
to roam and get further forward, but they will still mainly work through the middle and not cross over into one
another's halves very often.

Semi Pro
 bababooey said:
THOG,
As I've written above this post is completely mind-blowing and has me oored. I'm trying to read through it again
and get a better understanding however there is something that I have to ask:
Members
3,919 posts As someone who began playing FM a bit late in the series (FM12), I've found the new tactics to be incredibly
intuitive and I don't have that desire for sliders that many still do.
However, it can be di cult to translate what I want to see into the actual tactical framework, especially when it
comes to choosing shouts and determining whether or not they are necessary.
This is directly linked to mentality, IMO, because if for instance I play as Arsenal, and I want the boys to really
control games in the other half, push up, retain the ball, etc I COULD have the mentality set to "control" or I
suppose I could set the mentality to something like.. Standard or Counter, and then add shouts to tweak it, right?
To me that process is a bit weird. It's like there are a million ways to do things, which can be really confusing /
daunting.
It's sort of like, wwfan did that post on Barcelona and he used a Counter mentality. If you do a bit of google
searching you'd be hard pressed to nd an FM tactic for Barca that isn't using "Control."
Am I putting too much stock into the mentality names? And what is a good way to determine if I'm overdoing it
with the shouts?
IMO, the interface needs to include more detailed information so people can see how everything interacts. There's just
too many ways to interpret what di erent settings mean. Of course, it needs to be a descriptive system rather than a
bunch of abstract numbers, and looking at tactics from people who are struggling, it's clear that one of the biggest
issues with FM14 is that a lot players just have no idea how things actually add up, even if they know a lot about actual
football tactics apart from FM.
Then again, the same could be said for earlier FMs as it doesn't seem like many people really took a very close look at
the sliders other than the odd adjustment here and there. And classic tactics people, obviously, weren't the least bit
interested in what the TC was doing. So everyone tends to just look at the TC and read their own biases/assumptions
into it, and for me, the process of actually sitting down and meticulously looking at setting after setting really
underlined how you can't expect a one or two sentence tooltip to help people see how the pieces actually t together.
To use your Barca tactic example, I didn't know that using Shorter Passing on Control with a DLP would still have all my
attackers on the direct side of the mixed passing range.
As far as the mentality names go, wwfan himself said you should view them as being more "plastic" than the names
suggest, but then, if you change the names to something more general, you're just leaving them open to another
round of misinterpretations. That's why I think the game would really bene t from systematizing all the details in a
more cohesive, descriptive way. But obviously, that is easier said than done.
As far as avoiding unwanted interactions, I would suggest avoiding most TIs and PIs until you've actually seen your
tactic in action against a few opponents of varying ability level. I know most people like to breeze through the game
and I do the same once I'm comfortable with my options, but when you are rst starting a save or when you hit a bad
patch of form, it does pay to watch at least one full match and make adjustments based on what you see there.
AvatarST Posted February 1, 2014 Report post 

Amateur
THOG,
I would set up a link to this post on the OP if I were you, under something like "Tactical priorities summary":
http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/382854-The-Mentality-Ladder-A-Practical-Framework-for-
Understanding-Fluidity-and-Duty?p=9397923&viewfull=1#post9397923
Members I found it unbelievably helpful, much like the rest of your guide, but being able to categorize each of the tactical
309 posts priorities under those general priorities more easily does add a lot in my opinion.
Thanks
kstoyle Posted February 2, 2014 Report post 

Torquay Utd Researcher
Thanks for your response, I will have a play around with the roles later. I did read in another thread that avoiding the
overload down the wings might be prevented by stopping the supply, so that is something I am going to look at next.
Just out of interest, would you say that any formation (within reason, not 9 up front) can work if you get the roles,
player instructions and mentality?
Members Your guide is excellent btw. Lots of people who moan about the game should take the time to read it rather than
603 posts moan on.
Team: Torquay United
Managing: Nice/Inter
Milan/Torquay United

Semi Pro
 kstoyle said:
Just out of interest, would you say that any formation (within reason, not 9 up front) can work if you get the roles,
player instructions and mentality?
Yes, but I think some popular formations are too attacking for smaller sides and that's a big source of trouble for a lot
Members of players.
3,919 posts
 kstoyle said:
Your guide is excellent btw. Lots of people who moan about the game should take the time to read it rather than
moan on.
But then they'll just moan about the guide!
bababooey
bababooey Posted February 2, 2014 Report post 

Part-Timer
Gonna try out using "lower" mentalities with big clubs. I've got an Arsenal save loaded and we're gonna go with
"standard" and see what happens. I've almost exclusively used "control" for my entire FM career...
Members
1,460 posts
Team: Manchester United
Cleon Posted February 2, 2014 Report post 

 bababooey said:
Gonna try out using "lower" mentalities with big clubs. I've got an Arsenal save loaded and we're gonna go with
"standard" and see what happens. I've almost exclusively used "control" for my entire FM career...
I won the Prem/champs league 3 times in a row playing defensive

Members
40,458 posts
 PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT  Page 2 of 9 
Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account Sign in

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy! Already have an account? Sign in here.
Register a new account Sign In Now
 Sign in with Facebook  Sign in with Twitter  Sign in with Steam
 GO TO TOPIC LISTING
Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion
       
RECENTLY BROWSING 0 MEMBERS
No registered users viewing this page.
 Home  Football Manager Game Help Forums  Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion   All Activity
The Mentality Ladder: A Practical Framework for Understanding Fluidity and Duty
Privacy Policy Contact Us

© Sports Interactive 2016
Powered by Invision Community

The Mentality Ladder - A Practical Framework For Understanding Fluidity and Duty - Page 2 - Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion - Sports Interactive Community

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Mentality Ladder - A Practical Framework For Understanding Fluidity and Duty - Page 2 - Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion - Sports Interactive Community

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

09/08/2017 The Mentality Ladder: A Practical Framework for Understanding Fluidity and Duty - Page 2 - Tactics, Training &

Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion - Sports Interactive Community

Sports Interactive Community Existing user? Sign In  Sign Up

Browse Activity Leaderboard Search... 

Forums Guidelines FAQs Online Manual

Understanding Fluidity and Duty

Telemachos Posted January 25, 2014 Report post 

Lavuz Posted January 25, 2014 Report post 

Svenc Posted January 25, 2014 Report post 

Cleon Posted January 25, 2014 Report post 

Ö-zil to the Posted January 25, 2014 Report post 

Plan A: Dominate possession

GK/D: Cycle Possession

DR/S: Keep Possession

DC/D: Keep Possession Away From Pressure

DC/D: Keep Possession Away From Pressure

DL/S: Keep Possession

MC/S: Shuttle Ball

DLP/S: Keep Possession Under Pressure

IF/A: Spearhead Attacking Moves

Treq/A: Create Chances Patiently

Wing/S: Create Chances

TM/S: Create Chances Urgently

Plan B: Sit Deep & Counter

GK: Distribute Safely

DR/S: Recover Possession

DC: Disrupt Attacks Judiciously

DC: Disrupt Attacks Judiciously

DL/S: Recover Possession

DMC: Disrupt Attacks Quickly

MC: Shuttle Ball

IFR/A: Spearhead Attacking Moves

Treq/A: Shuttle Ball Into Space

AP/L: Shuttle Ball Through Defence

TM/S: Shuttle Ball Through Defence

Hopefully my shouts have the following e ects:

Shouts to create the Counter Attacking e ect:

What do you think? Is this a sensible approach?

THOG Posted January 26, 2014 Report post 

THOG Posted January 26, 2014 Report post 

Beyond that, I would make a few more fairly general comments:

llama3 Posted January 26, 2014 Report post 

THOG Posted January 26, 2014 Report post 

THOG Posted January 26, 2014 Report post 

Cleon Posted January 26, 2014 Report post 

Ö-zil to the Posted January 26, 2014 Report post 

Wow - rstly, thank you so much for the help!

1. Changed shape to 4-2-3-1 Assymetric

By my logic, my team should look something like this:

GK: GK/D (Szczesny): Distribute Safely

DR: FB/S (Sagna): Shuttle Ball Into Space

DC: DC/D (Mertesaker): Disrupt Attacks Quickly

DC: DC/D (Koscielny): Disrupt Attacks Quickly

DL: FB/S (Gibbs): Shuttle Ball Into Space

DMC: DLP/S (Arteta): Keep Possession

MC: MC/S (Ramsey): Spearhead Attacks from the Hole

ML: W/S (Cazorla): Shuttle Ball

AMC: Treq/A (Ozil): Shuttle Ball Through Defence

AMR: IF/A (Walcott): Penetrate Gaps Intermittently

FC: DLP/S (Giroud): Create Chances

I felt the change in uidity gave me 3 main bene ts:

llama3 Posted January 27, 2014 Report post 

Agreed on the level this guide suits/applies to.