If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
Ah, the beautiful game. Simple in so many ways: eleven against eleven, the fans in the stands baying in anticipation, the work colleagues readying their scything retorts in the face of defeat. Win, lose or draw. Simplicity itself, but the journey…
So many ways to win, lose or draw. Variables galore. Not only the human frailties of the twenty-two men on either side, but the foibles of the law enforcers, and of course the intervention of the elements. But who bears the consequence of this amalgamation of random factors…? Why us, the sheepskin-wearing, varicose-vein sporting martyrs of the dug-out. The Football Managers.
Confusion.
So how can we influence what happens on the pitch? Can we change things? With Football Manager 2007, we most certainly can. For the most part, the weapons SI Games has given us are a tad ambiguous; and we must rely on all our footballing intuition to wield them effectively. We have the transfer market, the training field- but crucially, in amongst the tactics board we have our secret weapon- the slider.
Philosophy
I’m fascinated by the tactical aspects and nuances of this game. People like wwfan and his peers provide no end of fascinating, thorough and concise interperetations of the intricacies of the new game engine. As with any art form it has mirrored the real world- coaching schools of thought such as that of total football, catenaccio et al have their likenesses in the world of FM – in SI’s world there are philosophies such as the rule of two, and radius theory. In short, there are many theories of the game, and equally as many opinions as to how it should, and can be played. I cannot stress the relevance of this notion to FM2007 any higher: no one tactical style will be ultimately effective with every team. All philosophies are valid- it is knowing which one to implement, and when to do so. The beauty of this game is that you can develop and implement a richly detailed tactical philosophy, or simply put together a basic 4-4-2 and succeed either way.
Lethargy
Wake up call. I work a nine-to-five. I don’t have time to discuss the relative merits of creative freedom when applied to an attacking midfielder with poor decision-making attributes. I want to get home and wind down in front of a few matches, try out that new Peruvian wing-back I snapped up and try to convince that seventeen year-old libero to agree senior terms. Long-gone are the school days of eyesight withering and socially dysfunctional all-night sessions. This is how I play the game. I like to form my tactical shape and team instructions in pre-season, and do not want to have to tweak it to suit every occasion. I want to set my first eleven, build the formation around them and get my teeth into that promotion challenge. With this in mind, I have a simple but effective system that I apply to all formations I construct. I hope to test it out with everyone on here, and have given it the working title of the slider apathy approach. If any success is gleaned from this little experiment then hopefully we will have a basic framework that new players can follow, and eventually develop and improve themselves.
The Premise…
The slider apathy approach stems from a theory a few of us discussed a while ago, and that the old tactical luminaries had mulled over since the advent of FM2005’s unveiling of the “defensive line” slider. It comprises the setting of a pre-defined defensive unit, and basing the offensive players’ instructions around the team instruction settings. With this in place, the adjustments the manager need make are purely team slider based, as opposed to any in-depth changing of the team’s shape or individual instructions.
In other words, it’s quick and easy. You can make one or two quick changes per game, and you have a solid and effective unit as the basis of success. Here’s hoping…
FM2007
The new game has seen some profound tactical changes- the much maligned sliders’ effects have been amplified considerably now: changes seem much more noticeable. Creative freedom and time wasting seem to actually work now (or are better represented visually). Defensive line seems to have changed. Mentality seems to be more potent than ever.
I haven’t changed my approach that drastically from FM2006 at all (hence the reproduction of a lot of the old thread here). However, I have started to relate my players’ individual instructions to their mentalities. The manual stresses the importance of mentality throughout, so I decided I would use this as a rough guide to avoid conflicting instructions. The most clear change here is in the full-back position. Whereas before I’d set all my defenders to a defensive mentality- if I wanted attacking full-backs I’d set their forward runs instruction to “often.” This struck me as somewhat contradictory, and their average ratings seemed to be affected too. It’s fairly logical to assume that all settings set to “rarely” would put the emphasis on ball retention and caution, whereas all on “often” would encourage an aggressive and purposeful style. In short, defensive or attacking. There are loosely three approaches to take: defensive, normal and attacking. These are reflected in the individual instructions, and so formed the basic philosophy behind this overall approach.
Defensive/Attacking Units.
The basis of “Slider Apathy” for FM2006 was based on having a defensive unit and an attacking one. The defensive unit were set to individual mentalities and not touched- whereas the rest of the side (the attacking unit) were controlled by the team sliders. I still play the game this way in 2007, but with the above approach to individual instructions.
Every side has players that are predominantly attack-minded, or defence-minded.
For example, Liverpool will sometimes play Xabi Alonso and Momo Sissoko as the defence-minded midfielders, with Steven Gerrard as the attacking foil (or used to, before Mr Benitez went all Ranieri on us and Sissoko got injured). If you were to incorporate these factors into a 4-2-3-1 for example, you would have a basic six-man defensive unit, and a four man offensive one.
You could also then use this setup in a basic 4-5-1 or a 4-3-3, as you still have six defensive players and four offensive ones. The offensive players are all controlled by team instructions.
If you wanted to play more offensively, you could merely set up Sissoko with low mentality/creative freedom and leave Alonso’s settings on “team”. You now have a basic five-man defensive foundation, with the other five players attacking.
If you wanted an extremely attack-minded side then you could even opt for a two-man defensive unit with attacking full-backs- but obviously you’d need a high defensive line to compensate (or an anchorman-discussed later).
It’s down to you to decide each players’ role within your team, and whether they are part of your defensive unit. I always include central defenders here, occasionally the full-backs (if they don’t have the offensive capabilities) and a holding midfielder or two.
The whole system is based on that solid defensive unit. If we’re theoretically keeping it simple then we can start with the following settings for the defenders:
The Defensive Unit.
Mentality
All players set to 5 (5 clicks from the far left of the slider- description should be “defensive”). The theory being they’re defenders- they should defend!
Creative Freedom
Defenders set to 5 again- “little” (should be in line with mentality slider). As before- they’re defenders, they need to keep it simple.
Closing Down
Same again (don’t call it slider apathy for nothing!)- 5 (“rarely”- in line with the others). This so the defenders don’t get drawn out of position and leave gaps in the backline.
Individual Instructions
Adhering to the mentality approach discussed above- all to “rarely.” These players have defence in mind first and foremost- they don’t want to be getting forward, running with the ball, hitting through balls or giving the ball away. They keep it simple and tight. Any players you feel should be doing these things- perhaps consider excluding them from the defensive unit and letting them operate within the offensive one under team instructions.
On the Offensive!
The monkey work is now done. You’ve set up your defence. You’ve built from the back- so now you have your canvas for those flambuoyant strikers to embellish with their flair and creativity. With your four, five or six (depending on your formation and players) defensive players set up, it’s time to assess the firepower.
Mentality, Creative Freedom, Closing Down
Individually, I set all these to “team-” the reasons for which are explained below. In accordance with the mentality theory, I set all players’ individual instructions to their mentalities. “Mixed” is fine to use when playing with a normal team mentality (and means you don’t have to change instructions constantly). However, if you want to go on the attack then you might want to set the individual instructions to often.
Teamwork
By keeping both sets of defensive and attacking players on the same mentalities, I find that it keeps the team together, and more effective as a unit. This theory is very simplistic indeed, but it was my intention to provide a simple alternative to the approach of other tactical deep-thinkers that take the game to a level that I don’t really have the time to play it at. As much as I admire their multi-system methodologies, I don’t get the time to go that in-depth (although if I carry on typing up my forum contributions at work, I may have soon enough). With this system, I find that you can set it up pre-season, make a couple of individual instruction adjustments, sit back and play through games, without too many glaring tactical deficiencies that need amending. This works for me, as I only now get the time to play for an hour or less every day after work.
The other crucial element of success with this simplistic style is down to squad assessment. I touched on it earlier, but need to stress its importance. If you put together a 4-4-2 with a conference team in this way and attempt to play short passing and a high tempo then it probably won’t work. You have to be realistic with your footballing ambitions for your side. This of course, is down to you, the manager.
Testing and Ambiguity
There are still many grey areas in the tactical side of FM2006. There doesn’t seem to be one direct formula to establish which team instructions work alongside one another, and why.
The current philosophy I follow is based around two aspects of the game- the positional side and the technical one.
Positional
We can be sure that of the team instructions, the sliders that affect your players’ literal position on the pitch are mentality, width, closing down, their individual instructions and defensive line. The relationship between mentality and defensive line has already been well documented. Width seems to gauge how horizontal your players will move to find space, and closing down seems to work in that it dictates how far from the payers’ starting position he will move to close down the opposition.
So hypothetically, the attacking optimum would be thus:
-High mentality
-High width
-High closing down
-High defensive line
-Positive individual instructions as a result
This would mean your players playing high up the pitch (mentality), pulling out wide to receive the ball (width) and penning back the opposition in their own half. This would work with a high defensive line, as giving the opposition time on the ball would lead to them hitting balls over the top of your back four, which is not good. A high defensive line would of course be necessary as your attack and midfield would be high up the pitch, and would lead to massive gaps between defence and midfield if “deep.” The individual instructions further encourage positive attacking play in accordance with their mentality.
Conversely, the defensive option would be thus:
-Low mentality
-Low width
-Low closing down
-Deep defensive line
-Negative/low-risk individual instructions
This would make your team sit back.. Low width means that you’ll congest the midfield. Low closing down means you’ll have men behind the ball (in conjunction with all the other settings), and have a solid unit that won’t be drawn out of position.
So, in theory- you can decide how attacking/defensive your team is capable of playing, and just set all these sliders to the same variable. Of course a neutral game would adopt a “normal” team slider position, whilst keeping the predetermined defensive unit. The unit controlled by team instructions would have individual instructions reflecting their mentality. Defensive=rarely, normal=mixed and attacking=often.
Technical
If the team instruction sliders we’ve already discussed are positional, then what can we deem the others? The other idea I’ve been mulling over is that perhaps the other sliders should be set according to the technical capabilities of the team. I’m talking about the Passing Style and,Tempo sliders.
According to the manual and various other sources (hello Cleon!), setting team passing to the far left of the slider would encourage your team to play free-flowing, one-touch football. Another 2007 revelation has been the confirmation (in the manual) that these two factors are “inextricably linked-“ the general concensus being that the two sliders should generally be matched. This is something I adhere to.
Example: As Exeter are a technically poor side, I’m not that confident of playing a very attack-minded game. Putting into practice the above theories, I’ve set my team instructions as such:
If I was searching for an equaliser for example, I’d knock all these up to 15 for example, to push higher up the pitch and look for more space and press the opposition back into their own half.
As a contrast, if one were to follow this theory and apply it to Real Madrid for example, you would do the following:
Technical (awesome!):
-Passing: 3-5 (“Short”)
-Tempo: 3-5 (“Slow”, with the emphasis on keeping possession and probing the opposition)
As I’ve said before, this is only a theory and needs comprehensive testing, but please feel free to use these principles in accordance with the Slider Apathy templates to help you set up your team, and please let me know how you get on.
Creative Freedom & Time Wasting
I personally treat these two as specialist tools, and generally keep both at “rarely” except when in exceptional circumstances; or when dealing with one or two exceptional players that stand out from the rest. The former I always tend to keep low (the team slider), or as the manual confirms it can lead to some rather disparate and uncoordinated play. However, if I have a particularly talented playmaker, or someone I have complete faith in I’ll generally give him the creative freedom he needs to change a game the way only he can.
Time wasting I only tend to use when necessary.
Defensive Line
The crux of the defensive line in FM2006 was mirroring it to team mentality, as described below:
Quote:
This is the key area of this theory. Defensive Line must mirror team mentality at all times. So, if you begin with an attacking mentality of 15 on the slider (15 notches from the left), then you would start with the defensive line on roughly the same notch. There are 22 notches on the team mentality as opposed to 20 on the defensive line slider, but they should always be as close as is physically possible.
This is so your defensive and attacking units are synchronised on the pitch, and don’t leave enormous gaps between defence, midfield or attack.
Decide on the mentality you wish your team to begin playing at, and match your defensive line to it. During the game, you can now make your team play more defensively by lowering their mentality (and of course matching the defensive line to the new mentality).
However, now we know that the defensive line only comes into effect when your team has lost possession, and the ball is in your own half (a profound change from FM2006). As a result, a high defensive line is even more harder to pull off effectively without a fast and unified back line. The old correlation can still apply (mirroring defensive line with team mentality), but if you start out with an attacking formation you’re going to be vulnerable if your defence isn’t quick and well-organised. I tend to tick offside trap if playing a high line (and if I have the utmost confidence in my defence). If you feel your back line isn’t up to playing a high defensive line, you can follow the advice of the manual and deploy a withdrawn defence with a defensive midfielder (DMC). This way you can still play an attacking style without having an enormous gap between your defence and midfield. Other than this consideration I find the old theory to be effective- just be wary of playing high unless you have utter confidence in your defence.
Flexibility
Fitting in with the original apathetic premise of this thread- the advantage of this system is it easily implementable flexibility. Your attacking players will, in the most part, be controlled by the team sliders. So, you can switch from attacking to defensive, by adjusting the team sliders. However, I find it easier still to save three versions of a formation I’ve decided upon- attacking, normal and defensive (with the individual instructions matching the mentalities).
Disclaimer.
This is simply my approach that works for me- the various other influential factors such as morale, team talks, training etc will also profoundly affect your game. Due to personal preference I haven’t really experimented with back threes or fives using this philosophy, but would be interested to know how/if/why it doesn’t work. The main purpose of this post is merely to highlight another approach to the game and hopefully help develop your own if you’re struggling. Failing that hopefully it’ll just spark some discussion. In no way am I even implying that the methods herein are “correct,” or gospel or whatever.
Cheers to everyone who contributed to this and the old thread and I hope it’s not just a load of poorly-constructed nonsense. As the edit function was fleetingly withdrawn I apologise for the inevitable errors.
All players set to 5 (5 clicks from the far left of the slider- description should be “defensive”).
The general concensus on this forum is that five clicks makes it six (since the complete left is 1)
Anyway, I understand it correctly that for now this is only theory which still needs to be tested, or have you already used it yourself for a while? (to a degree)
have you had a lot of success using these theories?
It sounds like a good theory because it is not too complicated but sounds like a bit more in-depth and realistic than simply pure global. However, in the manual it says:
"Typically, mentalities should be balanced accross the team"
and it seems that (if i have read correctly) you split your team into 2 halves; attack and defense which could lead to confusion amongst the team and create gaps for the opposition to capitalise on?
Nevertheless, i believe that it was a very good post and i will be giving these theories a try.
second of all, i think your theory on the defense all on the same mentality is great, i do this myself and it works very well.
thirdly, i am having a problem with my d-line in my villa game, i have a defense of (left to right) G.Barry D. van buyten F. collocini AVB
im in the year 2009 making barry 27(i think), van buyten 30 collocini 27 and AVB 21
i am playing a 4-2-3-1 with flat back 4 2 CM's (sometimes barrowed) an AML,AMC and AMR and 1 up front, at the moment im using a d-line of 8(which i am not verry happy with) i am EPL champions and 11 points ahead with 7 games left, but d-line still concerns me, as in the EPL there are a lot of quick players i thought it dangerous to play a high d-line with offside trap becuase i only have 1 quick defender, and i also found that with a low d-line there was too much space between the attack and defence(dropping MC's to DM's doesn't work becuase there is a massive gap in the middle of park allowing the opposition to take over) i play a short slow passing game, so i need the players to be quite near eachother, so do you think that i will be able to pull off a high d-line with the offside trap? if not could you please help as d-line is the only slider i am unsure about
This was the way I played in 2006, where it was really successful for me. I've not quite had the same success for 2007, but I've still been using it. I've never thought about matching individual instructions to the team mentality, so I'm going to try that. I definately have experienced distrupted play when using too much creative freedom, so I'm going to keep it low, and only keep it for very good players.
However, what if you are Real Madrid, Barcelona or Brazil? Surely they would be worthy of high creative freedom? I know it causes disrupted play, but surely there players are so good that they deserve?
Once again, a very good approach for people that can't (or don't want to, like me) take tactics into a lot of detail. :thup:
This is also how i have been playing the game for many years with much success.
Before patch played a system with my DC/DRL on individual mentality and the rest of my team all on same mentality. As i started to wait for the patch i noticed a thread about team mentality overriding the individual settings and decided to make changes to my tactics.
Have now grown tired of having to micro manage all individual settings in tactics so am looking to go back to a similar tactic that i used before the patch.
So the question now is
How does this work (mentality overriding)
ex. My DC has individual mentality of 8
My midfield/striker has team 15
What is the mentality of my DC?
Is it still 8, or is it higher?
Or does the overriding only happen when going all out on your mentality slider?
Top stuff as always my good man.
You have just inspired me to go all apathetic again (haven't really got the time anymore to tinker and tweak either, allthugh I've found myself doing it too much lately with mixed success).
Slider Apathy FM2007- My Approach. 
(since the complete left is 1)
Linear Mode
