Career Klopp Out - Ashez In!

[Scratch]

Fascinating read! Especially like the thoughts behind the BPD being on the left.

To be honest, I probably would have gone the other way - both left players will be forward more often and the right ones will be back more often, so I'd be worried that might make the left side vulnerable. I would have gone WB CD BPD FB so there is more balanced coverage when the WB and BPD both go forward.

But that's just something I've assumed and never tested or even really watched closely, so I love seeing someone laying out good reasons for the opposite. I'll have to experiment! 

[Nucleus]

2 hours ago, scratch99 said:

Fascinating read! Especially like the thoughts behind the BPD being on the left.

To be honest, I probably would have gone the other way - both left players will be forward more often and the right ones will be back more often, so I'd be worried that might make the left side vulnerable. I would have gone WB CD BPD FB so there is more balanced coverage when the WB and BPD both go forward.

But that's just something I've assumed and never tested or even really watched closely, so I love seeing someone laying out good reasons for the opposite. I'll have to experiment! 

I was thinking the same as this actually. It would give the option of the BPD able to switch the play with a cross field pass from right to left if needed. With the added bonus of being more balanced defensively. Could be totally wrong however! Lol

[Ashez]

2 hours ago, scratch99 said:

Fascinating read! Especially like the thoughts behind the BPD being on the left.

To be honest, I probably would have gone the other way - both left players will be forward more often and the right ones will be back more often, so I'd be worried that might make the left side vulnerable. I would have gone WB CD BPD FB so there is more balanced coverage when the WB and BPD both go forward.

But that's just something I've assumed and never tested or even really watched closely, so I love seeing someone laying out good reasons for the opposite. I'll have to experiment! 

Typically I do agree, however as I'm basing this on real life I didn't have much choice haha. 

This formation role wise is pretty lopsided as you can already tell it is stacked on the left side. This might seem bizarre considering our most dangerous player IRL is Salah from the right, however that's also the point. 

In this set up you give your opponent two things to worry about, our stacked left side which can overwhelm you with pace and numbers or our best player coming from the right. If the opposition focus on the left side Salah will have space, if they focus on Salah you'll have Robertson and Mane running riot. 

Look at the City game this week where City just couldn't deal with us, Salah had their LB on toast and as they couldn't pin Robertson back in the first half we had our left sided combining constantly putting them under pressure. If they attempted to close up the left side Salah would have been even freer, if they try and stop Salah then Mane runs the show. Then you have Bobby central and floating to where ever he's needed. 

So while we can be seen as unbalanced there is method in our madness. 

58 minutes ago, NucleusNT said:

I was thinking the same as this actually. It would give the option of the BPD able to switch the play with a cross field pass from right to left if needed. With the added bonus of being more balanced defensively. Could be totally wrong however! Lol

The tucking in FB is how we stay balanced defensively as they shuffle into a more central position. Yes the BPD will venture forward but that's when you're relying on the decision making of your LB, BPD and DMC to push, press and cover as needed. 

Remember these players should only be pushed forward when we have the ball and are attacking, the question becomes how often do they get caught out and how effective are they at getting back into position if the opposition break on us. Thankfully my defence is pretty good pace wise so we hopefully have time to recover from any breaks. 

If I went more balanced defensively and in an attacking sense with say a standard WB back four would we be better off or would we be allowing ourselves to be more exposed? The RB might be a valuable option pushing forward in support of Salah but then we could in theory be leaving ourselves with one at the back, in this system we should always at least have two back. 

@scratch99 @NucleusNT

[Scratch]

@Ashez Thanks for the excellent explanation. That all makes sense to me and has given me a lot to think about! I guess there are lots of ways to skin a cat so it's great to details on one particular way. Great job mate!

[Nucleus]

Cracking explanation @Ashez! Although you’ve given us some idea as to what the rest of your tactic will be 

[Ashez]

6 hours ago, scratch99 said:

@Ashez Thanks for the excellent explanation. That all makes sense to me and has given me a lot to think about! I guess there are lots of ways to skin a cat so it's great to details on one particular way. Great job mate!

Thanks, don't get me wrong I'm not saying this is the best option or how it even works as it's just my take on it. I do also agree and understand the points you put across but as I'm going for realism I've ended up here. 

it's not uncommon for me to get lost in working out how my formations slot together, hell I even worry about footedness of the players and how that could impact preferred passing? Imo it has no impact btw from the little research I have done. The tactical aspects and finding players is why I love FMM, it's just a frustrating process as we have limited information. 

4 hours ago, NucleusNT said:

Cracking explanation @Ashez! Although you’ve given us some idea as to what the rest of your tactic will be 

Potentially but I hoped this thread would produce these types of conversations. I love this type of talk but it doesn't seem most people's cup of tea, @PriZeand myself have spent hours discussing such ideas. 

 

[Nucleus]

I could talk about tactical if’s and buts all day! Lol 

[Ashez]

Just now, NucleusNT said:

I could talk about tactical if’s and buts all day! Lol 

It's a fascinating topic, I just wish we had more information. Limited stats, the random factor and short highlights make following the game in a deep way kind of awkward. Then you have the issue that the deeper you look into the game the more issues with the game you find, I have so many irritations with the EME it's not even funny! I think that's why I'm enjoying shorter saves played here and there, sure I miss the big epics but I just can't get through them anymore

[FuddledFox]

2 minutes ago, Ashez said:

It's a fascinating topic, I just wish we had more information. Limited stats, the random factor and short highlights make following the game in a deep way kind of awkward. Then you have the issue that the deeper you look into the game the more issues with the game you find, I have so many irritations with the EME it's not even funny! I think that's why I'm enjoying shorter saves played here and there, sure I miss the big epics but I just can't get through them anymore

If the rumours are true about FM Touch being released on the Switch do you think you will get it to see if you like it?

[Ashez]

2 hours ago, Foxy said:

If the rumours are true about FM Touch being released on the Switch do you think you will get it to see if you like it?

I have two thoughts when I debate this topic

1. I'd be terrified it would ruin FMM for me, sure it might become a game I love but I'm loyal to FMM due to point 2.

2. FMT wouldn't (and shouldnt) have Vibe support so that's 80% of the appeal gone instantly. Most of the time I play for Vibe and without being in love with this site I doubt i'd care for FMM at all. In truth I'm not even sure if I like FMM anymore but I play it from time to time due to you guys.