Tactical Shape in FM2008
Average Rating: 7/10 Hits: 2350 Submitted: Nov 7, 2007
Here you can find an interesting and useful little guide explaining the different shapes a tactic should take depending upon the attitude of the side, such as whether its more attack or defence minded.
In choosing a strategy and ultimately a tactic, the shape of the side is going to be very important. In general, attacking sides want to be open, expansive and have plenty of options "up top", whereas defensive sides will want to be tight, deep and have plenty of bodies behind the ball. Of course, there are many different ways to do this. TT&F outlines the ways to do it with a 4-4-2, but there are a series of things to look out for and to be aware of when building tactics of all formations - all shapes and sizes, if you will.
Shape vs. Formation
There is, obviously, a difference between the two. Formation is, as wwfan outlined:
"A formation is the basic framework deciding the position each player generally takes on the field of play. Thus, a 4-4-2 will have four defenders, four midfielders and two attackers. Likewise, the Chelsea/Bolton formation has four defenders, one defensive midfielder, two central midfielders, two wingers and one centre forward."
Shape, however, is slightly different. The formation could be a 4-4-2 with a flat midfield and flat defence, but it will have a different shape to a narrow, deep style of play, or a wide, deep style of play. Thus, the formation defines the role of the player, but not entirely his position. However, it does, on the whole, define the position of the player relative to his team mates. Another distinction needs to be made here:
Position vs. Role
A player is standing on the halfway line. What position is he playing? Precisely. We don't know. He could just as easily be a FL as a DC. The formation determines the role of a player - is he someone who must stay ahead of the majority of his teammates (a striker), a player who must stay wider than the majority of his teammates (a fullback, a winger etc.), a player who is allowed to use his hands when defending his goal (not Phil Neville, usually)... ?
Shape affects the positioning of players in that being "wider than the majority of his teammates" may involve being 10 yards from the touchline or may involve being stuck to it. Either way, your ML has a role to play. While he may physically stand and run in a narrow formation in the same geographical position as an MC in a wide formation, his role is very different. A ML and a MC with the same instructions will behave differently. This may sound obvious, but it's an important point when considering how you want your side to play.
All shapes and sizes
With the boring definitions out the way, let's get down to business. Consider a flat 4-3-3, with three central midfielders and three strikers. We could play this with ultra wide mentality, pushed high up to put pressure on the opposition: (fig. 1)
Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Or, conversely, we could play it narrow and deep: (fig. 2)
Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Both give us quite obvious advantages and disadvantages. The first option gives us good wide options, a spaced out midfiled and room to play. The high line also keeps the pressure on. However, it has massive holes to exploit, both behind the defence and through the gaps between players.
This one reason why the 4-5-1/4-3-3 system has become popular as both a formation (and the roles the players play in it) and the shape (the coverage of the pitch): (fig. 3)
Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Notice how although we have fewer players truly "up top", we have more coverage on the wings and more stability in the centre of midfield.
Implications
In the most simple terms, for a team wanting to defend we want to keep these "holes" in our shape as small as possible, and for attack we need to make as much "space" as possible. As with everything, we need a good balance between holes and space. Both the user's need to score or defend and the opposition's desire to attack or defend will change our approach. Against a team who wants to attack, we need to be defensively vigilant. Against a team who wants to defend, we need to open them up. All this has been covered in TT&F and is nothing new.
Formation can add to this, as we have seen with the examples above. It would be easier, perhaps to break a team down with three true forwards as the shape of the team gives us more options up front. However, it also left us exposed on the wings and, because of the distribution of players, in the centre of midfield. It may seem very obvious to say, but it's worth saying - you need more players in attacking positions and attacking roles when you need goals than when you're defending.
Farrow, barrow, sarrow... darrow?
Consider also the role of arrows. Were I to put farrows on my AML and AMR from example 3 and a farrow on my DMC, I would end up with a similar shape while in attack as in examples 1 and 2.
In TT&F, the arrows give a new dimension to the formation, and a new shape. A 4-4-2 with long farrows as in the control and attack variants give us a 4-2-4 in attack (which we want, since we need attacking options) and a 4-4-2 in defence (giving us defensive stability).
The tools
All of this leads us to the question - how do I change my shape. In my opinion there are five key tools:
* The formation screen - Where do I physically plonk my players on the pitch?
* Our right mouse button (sorry Mac users) - Or arrows. Where our players can move to with or without the ball
* Mentality - which has a positioning implication as well as a behavioural one
* Width - how wide our players play
* Defensive line - where our team starts defending
The final three are the ones we shall wrap this article up with, and their relationship with each other. In general, TT&F has advocated that attacking tactics play wide and defensive ones play narrow. There is a loose relationship, certainly, between mentality and width, and there has always been a relationship between defensive line and mentality. Too high a mentality compared to defensive line tends to lead to a team being spread up the pitch, leaving gaps. Too high a defensive line can be counter productive - why defend high up the pitch when you're trying to keep the ball out of the net? It's asking for people to run in behind you.
In general, then (and the word 'general' must be stressed) we may see a situation like this:
Men.* Def Line** Width**
Attacking Tactic: 15 15 15
Defending Tactic: 5 5 5
* - average mentality of the team (global, RoO or RoT)
** - Width and defensive line will obviously change slightly according to the strengths and weaknesses of your players
Formations without true wide players may require more width (examples 1 and 2 would fit this bill), and multi-strata formations, particularly ones with DMCs (example 3) may be able to function with higher defensive lines. Similarly, tactics with fewer players in the centre of the park may need narrower width in order to be defensively solid, while a normal width may give them more than enough space to exploit the positioning of the opposition.
As with all guidelines, you will almost certainly need to modify them. But they should give you a decent enough idea of where to start.
Conclusions
The revelation that attacking teams need more attackers and more width is hardly new. However, it should be something that players consider when developing tactics and variations upon them. "Control" tactics, for example, need attacking options, but they also need deeper defensive lines to stretch the play. It might even be useful for teams with fast defenders to play a higher defensive line than normal and narrow width to squeeze the play and give the opposition no room.
Obviously, other instructions are needed than shape. Closing down plays a big part in how expansive you can play, and passing and tempo are strongly linked to how far apart your players are and whether you're trying to keep the ball, go for goal or just hoof it away. But hopefully these basic ideas on shape will give you a basis for you tactics.
Once you have your shape, you can do what you want with it.
Shape vs. Formation
There is, obviously, a difference between the two. Formation is, as wwfan outlined:
"A formation is the basic framework deciding the position each player generally takes on the field of play. Thus, a 4-4-2 will have four defenders, four midfielders and two attackers. Likewise, the Chelsea/Bolton formation has four defenders, one defensive midfielder, two central midfielders, two wingers and one centre forward."
Shape, however, is slightly different. The formation could be a 4-4-2 with a flat midfield and flat defence, but it will have a different shape to a narrow, deep style of play, or a wide, deep style of play. Thus, the formation defines the role of the player, but not entirely his position. However, it does, on the whole, define the position of the player relative to his team mates. Another distinction needs to be made here:
Position vs. Role
A player is standing on the halfway line. What position is he playing? Precisely. We don't know. He could just as easily be a FL as a DC. The formation determines the role of a player - is he someone who must stay ahead of the majority of his teammates (a striker), a player who must stay wider than the majority of his teammates (a fullback, a winger etc.), a player who is allowed to use his hands when defending his goal (not Phil Neville, usually)... ?
Shape affects the positioning of players in that being "wider than the majority of his teammates" may involve being 10 yards from the touchline or may involve being stuck to it. Either way, your ML has a role to play. While he may physically stand and run in a narrow formation in the same geographical position as an MC in a wide formation, his role is very different. A ML and a MC with the same instructions will behave differently. This may sound obvious, but it's an important point when considering how you want your side to play.
All shapes and sizes
With the boring definitions out the way, let's get down to business. Consider a flat 4-3-3, with three central midfielders and three strikers. We could play this with ultra wide mentality, pushed high up to put pressure on the opposition: (fig. 1)
Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Or, conversely, we could play it narrow and deep: (fig. 2)
Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Both give us quite obvious advantages and disadvantages. The first option gives us good wide options, a spaced out midfiled and room to play. The high line also keeps the pressure on. However, it has massive holes to exploit, both behind the defence and through the gaps between players.
This one reason why the 4-5-1/4-3-3 system has become popular as both a formation (and the roles the players play in it) and the shape (the coverage of the pitch): (fig. 3)
Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Notice how although we have fewer players truly "up top", we have more coverage on the wings and more stability in the centre of midfield.
Implications
In the most simple terms, for a team wanting to defend we want to keep these "holes" in our shape as small as possible, and for attack we need to make as much "space" as possible. As with everything, we need a good balance between holes and space. Both the user's need to score or defend and the opposition's desire to attack or defend will change our approach. Against a team who wants to attack, we need to be defensively vigilant. Against a team who wants to defend, we need to open them up. All this has been covered in TT&F and is nothing new.
Formation can add to this, as we have seen with the examples above. It would be easier, perhaps to break a team down with three true forwards as the shape of the team gives us more options up front. However, it also left us exposed on the wings and, because of the distribution of players, in the centre of midfield. It may seem very obvious to say, but it's worth saying - you need more players in attacking positions and attacking roles when you need goals than when you're defending.
Farrow, barrow, sarrow... darrow?
Consider also the role of arrows. Were I to put farrows on my AML and AMR from example 3 and a farrow on my DMC, I would end up with a similar shape while in attack as in examples 1 and 2.
In TT&F, the arrows give a new dimension to the formation, and a new shape. A 4-4-2 with long farrows as in the control and attack variants give us a 4-2-4 in attack (which we want, since we need attacking options) and a 4-4-2 in defence (giving us defensive stability).
The tools
All of this leads us to the question - how do I change my shape. In my opinion there are five key tools:
* The formation screen - Where do I physically plonk my players on the pitch?
* Our right mouse button (sorry Mac users) - Or arrows. Where our players can move to with or without the ball
* Mentality - which has a positioning implication as well as a behavioural one
* Width - how wide our players play
* Defensive line - where our team starts defending
The final three are the ones we shall wrap this article up with, and their relationship with each other. In general, TT&F has advocated that attacking tactics play wide and defensive ones play narrow. There is a loose relationship, certainly, between mentality and width, and there has always been a relationship between defensive line and mentality. Too high a mentality compared to defensive line tends to lead to a team being spread up the pitch, leaving gaps. Too high a defensive line can be counter productive - why defend high up the pitch when you're trying to keep the ball out of the net? It's asking for people to run in behind you.
In general, then (and the word 'general' must be stressed) we may see a situation like this:
Men.* Def Line** Width**
Attacking Tactic: 15 15 15
Defending Tactic: 5 5 5
* - average mentality of the team (global, RoO or RoT)
** - Width and defensive line will obviously change slightly according to the strengths and weaknesses of your players
Formations without true wide players may require more width (examples 1 and 2 would fit this bill), and multi-strata formations, particularly ones with DMCs (example 3) may be able to function with higher defensive lines. Similarly, tactics with fewer players in the centre of the park may need narrower width in order to be defensively solid, while a normal width may give them more than enough space to exploit the positioning of the opposition.
As with all guidelines, you will almost certainly need to modify them. But they should give you a decent enough idea of where to start.
Conclusions
The revelation that attacking teams need more attackers and more width is hardly new. However, it should be something that players consider when developing tactics and variations upon them. "Control" tactics, for example, need attacking options, but they also need deeper defensive lines to stretch the play. It might even be useful for teams with fast defenders to play a higher defensive line than normal and narrow width to squeeze the play and give the opposition no room.
Obviously, other instructions are needed than shape. Closing down plays a big part in how expansive you can play, and passing and tempo are strongly linked to how far apart your players are and whether you're trying to keep the ball, go for goal or just hoof it away. But hopefully these basic ideas on shape will give you a basis for you tactics.
Once you have your shape, you can do what you want with it.
