Tactics 4231 Midfield destruction; input appreciated

[Jens]

Hi all,

I'm currently still messing with my Unicorn challenge (which can be found here) where I try to get a midfielder, an AMC to be exact, as close as possible to 1.000 goals. The closest I've come thus far is 501 goals with my Irish regen (picture below). I'm still meddling with different players, sometimes trying different tactics, but this far what you'll find below has been my most successful try. While I'm messing around, I'd thought it was time to make this an open-source project, to get as many of you involved in the thinking process as possible. And there you have the reason why I thought this deserves its own thread. Any thoughts are possible and feel free to try it out, and let me know what you think.

As stated, the goal of this tactic is to get the attacking midfielder as many goals as possible, while also picking up silverware (which you need in order to keep your job, expand the club, etc.). Every single cog in this machine has been built towards that. That means that the tactic is not always balanced, especially not against the very best teams. Nevertheless, I did manage to win the Champions League with Belenenses, using this tactic.

Allow me to explain a thing or two about the tactic. Player role-wise, I chose a four man defense. I've never really cracked the 3 man at the back code, so 4 it was. My midfield is supposed to offer support and keep things tight at the back. The real magic, however, happes in front. I chose a winger on the right to deliver crosses on the counter, exploiting the pace my AMC (needs to have/)has. On the left, I went for an APM as you really need someone who is dedicated to creating chances. My striker is a DLF in the hope that he'll drop deep and act as a kind of false 9, supplying the AMC with assists (which works reasonably well). He links the work of the winger, APM and midfielders back to the AMC, who is an InF. I chose to put them in this weird way so the InF would have no one in his way while storming towards goal. The DLF is placed slightly to the right, in order to get out of the InF's way. I chose to put the InF as close to the APM as possible, so he would restrict the space of the AML, so the playmaker wouldn't steal to many goals from the AMC.

I feel you really need to have a striker, for two reasons: without someone directly in front of the AMC, he will tire very quickly. He'll be asked to fill the hole at the top, which results not in goals, but in the player arriving in front of goal, knackered, and unable to score. The second reason is linked to the first: you really need a striker to put pressure on the defenders. Otherwise your AMC won't get enough space. You can try a striker on the flanks to solve problem two, but then problem one will remain. It's a delicate situation up top.

In the department of team instructions, I've found that these are the most productive settings. Attacking is best for the goal production of the AMC. If you put it on balanced, the team will perform slightly better, conceding fewer goals, but the AMC will lose some of the goals. Counter to exploit the pace the AMC should have. Finally, the primary attacker should be your AMC, naturally, for the best results.

Please, let me know what you guys think.

[BatiGoal]

Looks very interesting. And that's no surprise coming from the TFM Cup champ

The things you've tried so far make sense and honestly I don't know if I have any advice for you regarding your own set up. It looks solid and having your AMC come out like that as an IF is probably what I would have done as well. I would try loads of different match settings as you probably have already. And I'm sure every guy in every position stands his ground so on that regard I think your formation looks very promising.

As with my BPD Bazoer career (trying to score 250+ gls with a defender) I spend time analyzing my BPD's behaviour -at some point I placed him as the most left CB of the three (#6) in order to get him up into opponent's box with corners- as well as the opponents' formation and players.

One thing that you may want to try is looking at the opponents CB duo. Their "right" one is facing your AMC guy while their "left" is facing your DLF. I would look into the attributes of this pair and pick the weaker of the two to face your AMC (IF) to give him a little advantage. So depending on the opponent switch your AMC to the more left side in front of your CM or more to the right in front of your BBM. You may then have to swap those two CMs as well to keep your midfield balanced. Look for positioning the CD with a lower number here would make for a good target for example. Physicals pace, stamina, strength as well since he'd be tired towards the end of the game and not be as fast or strong for defensive responsibilities. I mean, you've probably tried a lot by this point but maybe such details could have your IF get those few goals extra per season.

[Jens]

1 hour ago, BatiGoal said:

Looks very interesting. And that's no surprise coming from the TFM Cup champ

The things you've tried so far make sense and honestly I don't know if I have any advice for you regarding your own set up. It looks solid and having your AMC come out like that as an IF is probably what I would have done as well. I would try loads of different match settings as you probably have already. And I'm sure every guy in every position stands his ground so on that regard I think your formation looks very promising.

As with my BPD Bazoer career (trying to score 250+ gls with a defender) I spend time analyzing my BPD's behaviour -at some point I placed him as the most left CB of the three (#6) in order to get him up into opponent's box with corners- as well as the opponents' formation and players.

One thing that you may want to try is looking at the opponents CB duo. Their "right" one is facing your AMC guy while their "left" is facing your DLF. I would look into the attributes of this pair and pick the weaker of the two to face your AMC (IF) to give him a little advantage. So depending on the opponent switch your AMC to the more left side in front of your CM or more to the right in front of your BBM. You may then have to swap those two CMs as well to keep your midfield balanced. Look for positioning the CD with a lower number here would make for a good target for example. Physicals pace, stamina, strength as well since he'd be tired towards the end of the game and not be as fast or strong for defensive responsibilities. I mean, you've probably tried a lot by this point but maybe such details could have your IF get those few goals extra per season.

You make some excellent points. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a tinkerer. My philosophy is: sit back and relax  

What I could/should try now is see what other combinations do. E.g. footedness of AML and AMC, perhaps put the AMC closer to the APM to see what the extra space allows etc

[BatiGoal]

Ok, lazy philosopher lol try this then:

BPDs, as you know, are generally no top shelf defenders. They're known for their attacking abilities. Forward runs, risky passes and so on. In short, they are a liability in the opponent's backline. No need to take the more meticulous approach and explore players' profile pages for attribute numbers to exploit.

Simply place your AMC (IF) in front of their BPD, wait for a bad pass or risky forward run, and get your undeserved goal in

[Jens]

13 minutes ago, BatiGoal said:

Ok, lazy philosopher lol try this then:

BPDs, as you know, are generally no top shelf defenders. They're known for their attacking abilities. Forward runs, risky passes and so on. In short, they are a liability in the opponent's backline. No need to take the more meticulous approach and explore players' profile pages for attribute numbers to exploit.

Simply place your AMC (IF) in front of their BPD, wait for a bad pass or risky forward run, and get your undeserved goal in

That's more like it! I'll definitely try that. I'll finally have a use for my tactics scout then  

[veerus]

I always assumed you used a striker less formation for this challenge but your explanation about needing one makes perfect sense. 

The only thing I'd suggest is making your right FB into a WB. With your winger pushed up high, he almost acts as an AP there so the WB may be more effective by being a bit more forward thinking. 

Could also try direct passing to encourage the team to utilize your PA more often. Might be especially effective against smaller teams where he can split their defense all the time with his pace (and movement). 

[Jens]

17 minutes ago, veerus said:

I always assumed you used a striker less formation for this challenge but your explanation about needing one makes perfect sense. 

The only thing I'd suggest is making your right FB into a WB. With your winger pushed up high, he almost acts as an AP there so the WB may be more effective by being a bit more forward thinking. 

Could also try direct passing to encourage the team to utilize your PA more often. Might be especially effective against smaller teams where he can split their defense all the time with his pace (and movement). 

I've been in doubt about the passing thing. In past years I've been a big fan of direct passing, but on the EME I always feel I lose some effectiveness with players rushing play too much. As for the WB; I've chosen not to do that since I don't want the winger being pushed inside, I need him to stay out wide (he's cutting inside enough as it is ) 

But thanks for the ideas though, I'll see if any of that comes through.

[veerus]

Yeah I have no feeling about the effectiveness of passing options besides "short". I often use "direct" because of what I assume it should do but don't know if it actually does that. 

Come to think of it, it may be a quick and easy test I could run since I already have a ton of match data on short passing from my PO/PA tests...

[BatiGoal]

8 hours ago, Jens said:

My striker is a DLF in the hope that he'll drop deep and act as a kind of false 9, supplying the AMC with assists (which works reasonably well). He links the work of the winger, APM and midfielders back to the AMC, who is an InF. 

Another interesting point. Lots of options here as well. In theory, the Target Man and Defensive Forward could do just as well given the appropriate attributes. Even better, still in theory, would be the Trequartista who aims to provide zero support in defensive duties. Meaning he burns his energy being a menace to opponents' CBs wearing them out. Also, one of the T's characteristics is finding space and dragging the CB duo apart thus opening space for your IF to exploit in the center...in theory

What is beautiful on paper can turn ugly on the pitch fast. Have you experimented with a T? Or any of the other roles?

[Nicolol]

Perhaps you could experiment with different roles for the cm, e.g. Testing a Dlp in the cm spot to see whether that improves/changes anything.

[Jens]

20 hours ago, BatiGoal said:

Another interesting point. Lots of options here as well. In theory, the Target Man and Defensive Forward could do just as well given the appropriate attributes. Even better, still in theory, would be the Trequartista who aims to provide zero support in defensive duties. Meaning he burns his energy being a menace to opponents' CBs wearing them out. Also, one of the T's characteristics is finding space and dragging the CB duo apart thus opening space for your IF to exploit in the center...in theory

What is beautiful on paper can turn ugly on the pitch fast. Have you experimented with a T? Or any of the other roles?

So far I've tried using the DF, but that didn't do much good. I'm reluctant to use a TM as that really is an out an out striker role on FMM (while you can playing him as a support role on FM pc). Treq could possibly work though

[veerus]

On 6/8/2017 at 09:16, veerus said:

Yeah I have no feeling about the effectiveness of passing options besides "short". I often use "direct" because of what I assume it should do but don't know if it actually does that. 

Come to think of it, it may be a quick and easy test I could run since I already have a ton of match data on short passing from my PO/PA tests...

So I just ran some tests with "direct" passing...  I will probably write it up more later but, in short, the results weren't unexpected.  Possession % was down and passing % was way down for everyone involved.  However, on the attacking end it seemed to have had the desired effect - xG, and actual goals scored (if you're into raw #s), were 3nd best of the 9 different scenarios I've tested so far (and not far behind the top 2) and it had the most CCC generated.  The two attacking players (Martial/Zlatan) had 2nd most 3xP+S (3 highest pass attempts + shot attempts to show best case scenario) and 3rd most average actions on the ball (pass attempts + shot attempts).  It was also the first test (of the 9) to win all 25 matches.

So in the context of this thread, I think direct passing may be worth trying as it does seem to help unlock the attackers to do their thing.

So I noticed a cell formula error in the Martial numbers.  His shot numbers were actually pretty low as the IF compared to the many tests I did with short passing.  Curiously, Mata as the AP posted his highest shot total average while having the fewest average passes.  Zlatan's numbers as the CF were decent (3rd best out of 9).  And as I mentioned above, this test had the most CCC generated but this was despite having the lowest amount of total shots taken.  So, on second thought, in the context of this thread, direct passing is probably not a good idea as it seems to bypass the attacking-mid players completely.

[AndersJ]

10 hours ago, veerus said:

So I just ran some tests with "direct" passing...  I will probably write it up more later but, in short, the results weren't unexpected.  Possession % was down and passing % was way down for everyone involved.  However, on the attacking end it seemed to have had the desired effect - xG, and actual goals scored (if you're into raw #s), were 3nd best of the 9 different scenarios I've tested so far (and not far behind the top 2) and it had the most CCC generated.  The two attacking players (Martial/Zlatan) had 2nd most 3xP+S (3 highest pass attempts + shot attempts to show best case scenario) and 3rd most average actions on the ball (pass attempts + shot attempts).  It was also the first test (of the 9) to win all 25 matches.

So in the context of this thread, I think direct passing may be worth trying as it does seem to help unlock the attackers to do their thing.

Sounds really interesting! Let me know if you want some help in testing :)!

[Brenty92]

13 hours ago, veerus said:

So I just ran some tests with "direct" passing...  I will probably write it up more later but, in short, the results weren't unexpected.  Possession % was down and passing % was way down for everyone involved.  However, on the attacking end it seemed to have had the desired effect - xG, and actual goals scored (if you're into raw #s), were 3nd best of the 9 different scenarios I've tested so far (and not far behind the top 2) and it had the most CCC generated.  The two attacking players (Martial/Zlatan) had 2nd most 3xP+S (3 highest pass attempts + shot attempts to show best case scenario) and 3rd most average actions on the ball (pass attempts + shot attempts).  It was also the first test (of the 9) to win all 25 matches.

So in the context of this thread, I think direct passing may be worth trying as it does seem to help unlock the attackers to do their thing.

Very interested to see your write up on this!

[veerus]

18 hours ago, veerus said:

So I noticed a cell formula error in the Martial numbers.  His shot numbers were actually pretty low as the IF compared to the many tests I did with short passing.  Curiously, Mata as the AP posted his highest shot total average while having the fewest average passes.  Zlatan's numbers as the CF were decent (3rd best out of 9).  And as I mentioned above, this test had the most CCC generated but this was despite having the lowest amount of total shots taken.  So, on second thought, in the context of this thread, direct passing is probably not a good idea as it seems to bypass the attacking-mid players completely.

See above revision to my previous post. 

By the way, I must say that direct passing seems to be the way to go if you have a Zlatan-type target man forward.  Zlatan had 10+ headers attempted in more than half the matches and the message "Striker was dominant in air" showed up 21/25 times.

[Jens]

17 hours ago, veerus said:

See above revision to my previous post. 

By the way, I must say that direct passing seems to be the way to go if you have a Zlatan-type target man forward.  Zlatan had 10+ headers attempted in more than half the matches and the message "Striker was dominant in air" showed up 21/25 times.

It makes sense that direct bypasses the AMC, since it's designed to get the ball as close to the goal as possible, as quickly as possible. What do you advise for the time being? Use short or keep it mixed?

Thanks nonetheless for the effort, mate  

[Scratch]

Hmm, might be crazy and I've never tried it, so probably won't work, but have you ever tried with two wide DLFs (none in the centre), with the IF in the centre behind them? 

Having the DLFs there may limit the exhaustion for the IF, while still leaving space for him to come into. The DLFs would probably come inside and take some goals from him, but he'd probably be in a decent position most of the time. Could be worth a try...

 

[Scratch]

Okay, just did a quick test using this formation:

 

When the team took possession and went forward, the IF (#9) was basically in the central forward position (last one going the opposite way):

Could be worth trying...

[Jens]

14 minutes ago, scratch99 said:

Okay, just did a quick test using this formation:

 

When the team took possession and went forward, the IF (#9) was basically in the central forward position (last one going the opposite way):

Could be worth trying...

I'll give it a go when I find the time. I've tried something similar before, which worked fine for 2-3 games before becoming useless again  So I don't have high hopes for it.

[samhardy]

Believe I used something similar to that earlier on in the year to great success @scratch99 Unfortunately can't remember much about it or even the player roles

[Jens]

6 minutes ago, samhardy said:

Believe I used something similar to that earlier on in the year to great success @scratch99 Unfortunately can't remember much about it or even the player roles

I used this formation on the original engine, to great success in Ireland  

[Scratch]

@samhardy @Jens That looks pretty similar... ? 

Anyway, my thinking is simply that if you create plenty of room for him, he'll be the one in the best position for scoring opportunities, but those wide DLFs will be providing support so he won't get too worn out. I used something similar, only with the IF as a P one step forward, when I was trying to extend Armstrong's life in the 1KC - for exactly those reasons. It worked reasonably well, but I only used it for a short time before I moved on to something else as he got even slower and lost more stamina. 

As for how long it will work - I've found most tactics go off after a while and you need to vary things up, at least until you have a team with great players, then they can make almost any tactic work (even a 2 2 1 5!!). If you try it with a really good team you've got more chance of it working...

Anyway, if you give it a go, let me know how it goes. Otherwise, I may just retrain Armstrong to be a green AM (he's yellow now) and go for a third 1KC with him as a midfielder!  (course I have to finish the second one first).

 

[veerus]

3 hours ago, Jens said:

It makes sense that direct bypasses the AMC, since it's designed to get the ball as close to the goal as possible, as quickly as possible. What do you advise for the time being? Use short or keep it mixed?

Thanks nonetheless for the effort, mate  

Based on what I understand about the effects of Primary Attacker option (and I swear it's less and less with each test that I do due to unintended consequences elsewhere on the pitch), short passing with your guy as the PA is probably the best you can do. 

Not a fan of mixed since short passing seems to be really good and consistent. With mixed, you're probably losing opportunities everytime it decides to go long or direct which may be fine for non-scoring challenges/careers but not when you're on the clock. 

[Jens]

22 minutes ago, veerus said:

Based on what I understand about the effects of Primary Attacker option (and I swear it's less and less with each test that I do due to unintended consequences elsewhere on the pitch), short passing with your guy as the PA is probably the best you can do. 

Not a fan of mixed since short passing seems to be really good and consistent. With mixed, you're probably losing opportunities everytime it decides to go long or direct which may be fine for non-scoring challenges/careers but not when you're on the clock. 

That is a very good notion to think about. I will try that out later tonight or tomorrow. Thanks for the insights!

[Scott]

Enhanced engine? I might try a few things

[Jens]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Enhanced engine? I might try a few things

Enhanced as crap ?