11 replies to this topic

[Henri]

I'm currently playing a 4-3-1-2 formation with a deep lying forward and a poacher, but my two best strikers can't stop scoring when in the poacher role, whereas the deep lying forward doesn't contribute that much. Naturally, I'm considering playing two poachers up front.

However, I'm a bit reluctant as I fear it might mess up my possession game.. So has anyone played two poachers up front? And how did it work out?

[Michael]

I tried playing 2 poachers up front with CSKA, playing both Doumbia and Love as poachers. It worked out fairly well, but I did have periods where Love wouldn't score, but Doumbia would score 10 in 7, and vice versa. Possession wise, I didn't really notice as I tore that league to part anyway.

[Henri]

Acrotis, on 12 June 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

I tried playing 2 poachers up front with CSKA, playing both Doumbia and Love as poachers. It worked out fairly well, but I did have periods where Love wouldn't score, but Doumbia would score 10 in 7, and vice versa. Possession wise, I didn't really notice as I tore that league to part anyway.

Just tried it for a couple of games and it seems to be working well! Thanks for your input dude.

[Game]

I find it's best to play players in roles that suit their attributes. I would never, ever have a formation where I had to select players to fit a role; if that means you have two Poachers or two Complete Forwards, then go with that. I'd always say it was more beneficial to play players in roles that complemented their style of play rather than having them play roles where you think it would benefit another player.

Short version –– play each player in the role they're best suited to. Trying to cater to other players by making roles interlink with each other isn't a safe bet because X might drag down Y if X has a bad game and Y is in a role dependant on X.

[Henri]

Game, on 12 June 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

I find it's best to play players in roles that suit their attributes. I would never, ever have a formation where I had to select players to fit a role; if that means you have two Poachers or two Complete Forwards, then go with that. I'd always say it was more beneficial to play players in roles that complemented their style of play rather than having them play roles where you think it would benefit another player.

Short version –– play each player in the role they're best suited to. Trying to cater to other players by making roles interlink with each other isn't a safe bet because X might drag down Y if X has a bad game and Y is in a role dependant on X.

I appreciate your point, but it doesn't always work out that way. The idea is to create a tactic that makes the team play well, not just the players in it.

Thankfully this isn't the situation, but it is feasible to say that playing Jay Rodriguez as a poacher increases his goals scored and thus his match ratings. However, this change of role could lead to decreased closing down and involvement in build up play, making the team vulnerable defensively. If this affected results I'd (obviously) rather have a winning team where Jay Rodriguez scores less.

[Game]

Henri, on 12 June 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

Game, on 12 June 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

I find it's best to play players in roles that suit their attributes. I would never, ever have a formation where I had to select players to fit a role; if that means you have two Poachers or two Complete Forwards, then go with that. I'd always say it was more beneficial to play players in roles that complemented their style of play rather than having them play roles where you think it would benefit another player.

Short version –– play each player in the role they're best suited to. Trying to cater to other players by making roles interlink with each other isn't a safe bet because X might drag down Y if X has a bad game and Y is in a role dependant on X.

I appreciate your point, but it doesn't always work out that way. The idea is to create a tactic that makes the team play well, not just the players in it.

Thankfully this isn't the situation, but it is feasible to say that playing Jay Rodriguez as a poacher increases his goals scored and thus his match ratings. However, this change of role could lead to decreased closing down and involvement in build up play, making the team vulnerable defensively. If this affected results I'd (obviously) rather have a winning team where Jay Rodriguez scores less.

Of course, changing the roles can and will affect how the team operate, but you still shouldn't play a player in a role which doesn't get the best out of him. If you feel the team is more productive with players using a certain role, you then need to look for players who have the attributes to perform in that role best. If you think about it, it's no different to playing a player out of position; you can put a forward on the wing, but you know in doing so that he won't be as productive as a proper wide man.

[Henri]

Game, on 12 June 2011 - 05:25 PM, said:

Henri, on 12 June 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

Game, on 12 June 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

I find it's best to play players in roles that suit their attributes. I would never, ever have a formation where I had to select players to fit a role; if that means you have two Poachers or two Complete Forwards, then go with that. I'd always say it was more beneficial to play players in roles that complemented their style of play rather than having them play roles where you think it would benefit another player.

Short version –– play each player in the role they're best suited to. Trying to cater to other players by making roles interlink with each other isn't a safe bet because X might drag down Y if X has a bad game and Y is in a role dependant on X.

I appreciate your point, but it doesn't always work out that way. The idea is to create a tactic that makes the team play well, not just the players in it.

Thankfully this isn't the situation, but it is feasible to say that playing Jay Rodriguez as a poacher increases his goals scored and thus his match ratings. However, this change of role could lead to decreased closing down and involvement in build up play, making the team vulnerable defensively. If this affected results I'd (obviously) rather have a winning team where Jay Rodriguez scores less.

Of course, changing the roles can and will affect how the team operate, but you still shouldn't play a player in a role which doesn't get the best out of him. If you feel the team is more productive with players using a certain role, you then need to look for players who have the attributes to perform in that role best. If you think about it, it's no different to playing a player out of position; you can put a forward on the wing, but you know in doing so that he won't be as productive as a proper wide man.

Yeah, I'm with you there. However, in Rodriguez's case, his attributes (and the PPM of "comes deep to get ball") lend him more to the role of a deep lying forward in my opinion. But through trial and error, I have found that he plays better as a poacher, despite having poor dribbling stats.

[Validicus]

Enjoying sustained success with a 4-4-2 that uses 2 poachers should be difficult, unless of course you have a vastly superior team to the point where any tactic will win. Otherwise, having 1 striker contributing precious little to a team's build-up can be an issue, let alone 2. The role of the support striker is often essential for the continuity of a move, whether it be providing a link for the midfield, or dropping deep and attempting to play his strike partner into space. That's not going to happen If both strikers are playing off a centerback's shoulder, and the midfield suddenly have to work much harder. In short, you should notice less chances being created due to the amount of moves either coming to an end, or not leading up to much due to the omission of a forward dropping into the hole when needed. It might not be so bad if it's 4-4-2 vs 4-4-2, or even 4-4-2 vs 4-2-3-1, but it should struggle especially against 4-1-4-1, 4-5-1/4-3-3, 4-1-3-2/4-1-2-1-2/4-3-1-2, 5-3-2/3-5-2. i.e. The formations that will outnumber your midfield in the central zone during its defensive phase, thus rendering it crucial for one of the strikers to contribute to the build-up of a move in order for it to amount to something. In absence of this, the 3v2 in the middle suddenly becomes even more of a problem than it would be normally.


Now, if you were playing 2 poachers in a narrow diamond variant or possibly even a 4-2-2-2 box, that's a different beast due to your numbers in the middle. As long as the build-up is patient with either shape, the need for a support striker isn't as important and it may even be advantageous tactically to probe until one of the 2 pure consumers uptop can be played into space. Since you're probably not using either formation though, I would recommend considering 1 poacher alongside a support striker and having them swap positions. Kind of like as we've seen David Villa and Fernando Torres do for the Spanish national team. They've never been both playing off a defender's shoulder at the same time, but as Fernando himself said in an interview a year or two ago, he and David would take turns to do so.

Edited by Validicus, 17 June 2011 - 05:14 PM.

[jones.]

Game, on 12 June 2011 - 05:25 PM, said:

Henri, on 12 June 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

Game, on 12 June 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

I find it's best to play players in roles that suit their attributes. I would never, ever have a formation where I had to select players to fit a role; if that means you have two Poachers or two Complete Forwards, then go with that. I'd always say it was more beneficial to play players in roles that complemented their style of play rather than having them play roles where you think it would benefit another player.

Short version –– play each player in the role they're best suited to. Trying to cater to other players by making roles interlink with each other isn't a safe bet because X might drag down Y if X has a bad game and Y is in a role dependant on X.

I appreciate your point, but it doesn't always work out that way. The idea is to create a tactic that makes the team play well, not just the players in it.

Thankfully this isn't the situation, but it is feasible to say that playing Jay Rodriguez as a poacher increases his goals scored and thus his match ratings. However, this change of role could lead to decreased closing down and involvement in build up play, making the team vulnerable defensively. If this affected results I'd (obviously) rather have a winning team where Jay Rodriguez scores less.

Of course, changing the roles can and will affect how the team operate, but you still shouldn't play a player in a role which doesn't get the best out of him. If you feel the team is more productive with players using a certain role, you then need to look for players who have the attributes to perform in that role best. If you think about it, it's no different to playing a player out of position; you can put a forward on the wing, but you know in doing so that he won't be as productive as a proper wide man.

off topic slightly but that isn't true. Look at David Villa, plays on the left for Spain and more often than not there for Barcelona, and yet he's still lethal. Also, you could argue that Steven Gerrard had one of his best seasons for Liverpool playing on the right wing - not his 'natural' position.

It's more important to how that team play, than playing that player out of position. Spain focused their attack down the right, so Villa was left with space on the left and it worked a treat.

In terms of FM - Neymar and Munian are both regarded as strikers naturally, although I've found with both that they've performed better as inside forwards coming in off the left flank..

[Game]

jones., on 17 June 2011 - 02:40 PM, said:

Game, on 12 June 2011 - 05:25 PM, said:

Henri, on 12 June 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

Game, on 12 June 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

I find it's best to play players in roles that suit their attributes. I would never, ever have a formation where I had to select players to fit a role; if that means you have two Poachers or two Complete Forwards, then go with that. I'd always say it was more beneficial to play players in roles that complemented their style of play rather than having them play roles where you think it would benefit another player.

Short version –– play each player in the role they're best suited to. Trying to cater to other players by making roles interlink with each other isn't a safe bet because X might drag down Y if X has a bad game and Y is in a role dependant on X.

I appreciate your point, but it doesn't always work out that way. The idea is to create a tactic that makes the team play well, not just the players in it.

Thankfully this isn't the situation, but it is feasible to say that playing Jay Rodriguez as a poacher increases his goals scored and thus his match ratings. However, this change of role could lead to decreased closing down and involvement in build up play, making the team vulnerable defensively. If this affected results I'd (obviously) rather have a winning team where Jay Rodriguez scores less.

Of course, changing the roles can and will affect how the team operate, but you still shouldn't play a player in a role which doesn't get the best out of him. If you feel the team is more productive with players using a certain role, you then need to look for players who have the attributes to perform in that role best. If you think about it, it's no different to playing a player out of position; you can put a forward on the wing, but you know in doing so that he won't be as productive as a proper wide man.

off topic slightly but that isn't true. Look at David Villa, plays on the left for Spain and more often than not there for Barcelona, and yet he's still lethal. Also, you could argue that Steven Gerrard had one of his best seasons for Liverpool playing on the right wing - not his 'natural' position.

It's more important to how that team play, than playing that player out of position. Spain focused their attack down the right, so Villa was left with space on the left and it worked a treat.

In terms of FM - Neymar and Munian are both regarded as strikers naturally, although I've found with both that they've performed better as inside forwards coming in off the left flank..

The point is, in FM everything is calculated based on attributes/traits, so if a player isn't adaptable he won't play as well in positions which he isn't very comfortable in (this makes him ineffective in that position). Obviously, if he's very comfortable in a number of positions that gives you the ability to play him in those positions without considering him out of position (thus far fewer side-effects). This is the similarity between Roles/Duties and players out of position because whilst players may perform well, they won't be playing to the best of their abilities as often as they would in a more natural role –– this is a fact based on the maths of the game and the calculations of the match engine measuring the variables of the player and how they're deployed by the manager.

That point is best made by considering how many different roles/duties a player is able to be given in one position, and comparing that to how many players can actually play all the roles in that one position. The DMC is a good example, where the 'Anchor Man' role is something that you can't give to all Defensive Midfield players because they don't always have the attributes to play that role, even if they are a natural DMC and an exceptional Defensive Midfielder.

Now, I'm not saying that you won't find success in players who are very comfortable in a position which is not considered their 'natural' position, but that comes down to their attributes versus the role/duty you've given them and how comfortable they are playing in the position they've been given (the likes of Neymar is very suited to the Inside Forward role because he can play on the wing comfortably, for example). Sometimes I find players who are better suited to other roles or positions based on how I read their attributes –– which is what I was saying about the importance of attributes based on roles/duties earlier on –– and finding a player's best position, role and duty based on his attributes, rather than deploying players based on the way you want the team to play. Short version –– build the tactic around the players and not the opposite.

[Amadou]

An enjoyable debate indeed.

I had a thought on mind regarding attributes & positions and it goes a little like this. When you have a defender who's good on the ball with a nice range of passing ( Think Lucio ) you should quickly be able to train him into a midfield position, and i mean really quick. In a matter of 2-3 weeks he should be at least competent there as he already has the ability to play there, he only needs to conform with the surrounding and tactical needs. It shouldn't only depend on hidden attributes, his actual, visible stats have to come into play effectively. One example of real life is Mascherano. He plays in the heart of defense as if he was born there, well, maybe not born there, but he feels really comfortable despite the fact that, a couple of months ago, he was only considered as a holding/killer midfielder. There are lots of other examples around of players perceived in one position but turned out capable elsewhere without the need to work for months on it.

[Pedroptz]

I once played 2 poachers in a 4-1-2-1-2 formation, I think what made it sucessful was the hard-working and good passing midfield that was behind the forwards, but I liked it alot, I didn't need wingers, because a poacher can run directly to the center backs who are, in most cases, slower than the wing-backs, and therefore more vulnerable.