The methods of a defensive and cautious manager, by Validicus

So, this is ultimately a personal guide with rules that I follow in my games. I’d love to see it draw any comments, opinions, or even critique. First and foremost, I am a big fan of tinkering tactics in accordance to the opposition. A lot of FM players like to make a tactic and then stick with it for all purposes. Fair enough if that works for you, but I prefer to make adjustments for each match with the strength of my opposition in mind. If such a frequent rate of changes if something you fundamentally disagree with, I doubt you’ll agree with much of the content in this post.

As someone who has preferred to play as modest teams more often than not in my 12+ years of playing football management simulations, I have developed into quite a defensive player. I like my teams to be compact, organized, possession orientated, and difficult to break down above all else. Just as can be said in real life, if the team isn’t one of the better ones in the division, you have much more chance of preventing the opposition from scoring than you have of scoring yourself, so this can be and often is the platform for their results. To be boring but effective is ultimately what the cautious manager sets out to achieve. Of course, it is possible to play defensive football on a large pitch in FM, but this requires ever more emphasis on team structure and sitting back, as well as making direct passing a necessity. In conclusion, it should be remembered that defensive football can be effective for top sides, as well as less reputable ones.

There are two different approaches with home fixtures in mind:

Minimum allowed
I believe this is beneficial and important for a player who advocates a defensive mindset combined with possession orientated football going forward. A bigger pitch will not only compromise your intentions to make your side difficult to beat while playing this way, but it will also benefit stronger teams that are able to make better use of the extra space than you are.

Maximum allowed
I’m of the view that a large pitch should be chosen if the following cases apply: A) My squad is generally poor on the ball to the point of not feeling assured about the chances of them being able to retain and recycle possession effectively on a small pitch. B) I have a big targetman capable of coming out on top, pun very much intended, in physical battles with opposition central defenders. I also have wingers who are reasonably quick for the level they’re playing at, or they are uncharacteristically good in the air. C) My central defenders possess at least average speed in proportion to the attackers in their division (due to the increased vulnerability to route one balls).

On a larger pitch, I’d say it’s important to be even more meticulous about maintaining team shape. This is because it is easier for defending players to be pulled out of position, as well as the fact that good players are more comfortable when they have more space and time on the ball.

Personally, I prefer formations with just the one forward. Of course, this is to allow for the benefit of having one extra player defending and supporting. A formation need not be chosen and set in stone, although my favourite whenever possible is a standard 4-5-1 in the TC (DMC, 2 MCs and 2 advanced wingers). When choosing a formation based on the opposition, I try to adhere to the rule of having 1 extra player dealing with their attacks. A classic example of this is 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2.

Small pitch:
Home: Rigid – Rigid vs all.
Away: Rigid/Very Rigid – Rigid vs weaker teams-similar strength teams. Very rigid vs strong teams.

Large pitch:
Home: Rigid/Very rigid – Rigid vs weaker teams. Very rigid vs similar strength-stronger teams.
Away: Very rigid vs all.

The logic? I don’t want to compromise defensive stability in favour of smoother transitional play when building team moves. As a defensive manager, stability and resilience always take priority. This policy is even more essential on a larger pitch.

It is difficult to set general rules and principles here. I go by the rule that initial passing should be short on a small pitch, and more direct on a larger pitch. However, passing is something that one needs to monitor constantly over the course of a match. I don’t believe it is merely a co-incidence that no fewer than 10 of the touchline instructions/shouts alter your team’s passing either as a main change, or a minor one alongside something else. Needless to say, you gain the most insight from what you see (extended highlights always gives you plenty of clues), but the match stats also help a lot. If playing direct on a larger pitch, I feel that 45% passing completion is fine all things considered; it may even be very good if your opposition are themselves playing a short passing game, thus inflating their stat and deflating that of my team’s. However, if you’re trying to execute a short passing game and the stats are going that far against you, it is clear that your team is being outplayed and are struggling to construct moves for one reason or another. Alternatively, if passing completion is in excess of 60% while playing a shorter passing game, I feel it’s worth considering usage of a control match strategy if you’re not already, as well as the Get Ball Forward shout (increase in passing length). Another option when dominating possession is to encourage through balls by using the Pass Into Space shout. In a nut shell, if I have plenty of possession yet am not winning the game, the goal should be to get the team to do more with the ball than they are. If a team move of 20+ passes doesn’t come close to creating a chance, it is blatant that the passing game is not penetrating enough.

Small pitch:
Home: Default/More Disciplined – Default vs weaker-similar strength teams. More disciplined vs stronger teams.
Away: More Disciplined vs all.

Large pitch:
Home: Default/More Disciplined – Default vs weaker teams. More disciplined vs similar strength-stronger teams.
Away: More Disciplined vs all.

When playing away, I prefer my team to retain discipline no matter what. At home and on a smaller pitch, I am more open to allowing players some freedom to deviate slightly from tactical instructions since the consequences for doing so seem much less dangerous than on a larger pitch.

Small pitch:
Home: Stand-Off/Default – Default vs similar strength-stronger teams. Stand-off vs weaker teams.
Away: Stand-Off/Default – Default against weaker-similar strength teams. Stand-off against stronger teams.

Large pitch:
Home: Stand-Off/Default – Default vs weaker teams. Stand-Off vs similar strength-stronger teams.
Away: Stand-Off vs all.

Conflicting principles here. At home on a small pitch, I actually prefer higher levels of closing down against similar strength-stronger sides (a la’ defending from the front), despite the fact that higher closing down is preferred by most FM players only when attacking, yet this guide is supposed to be concerned more with defending. However, this is to achieve the aim of disrupting the opposition. They will already struggle a little to get their passing game going due to playing away from home, let alone when being restricted further by being closed down quite avidly on a pitch where they already have limited space due to its compact dimensions. In contrast, against weaker teams playing away against me, I prefer to be as inviting as possible with low levels of closing down. This helps entice them forward, which then leaves the space to be exploited that may otherwise be hard to come by. Away from home, I have the opposite preference. I seek to deny space against weaker-similar strength teams, because they will be attacking as the home team and won’t need inviting like they do when playing on my patch. Then, I give respect to the stronger teams and feel that less closing down / more emphasis on keeping shape is a better strategy when playing them away. After all, this case entails being an underdog going into the lion’s den!

On a larger pitch, I very rarely advocate high levels of closing down regardless of the strength of the opposition. This is due to the ease in which players may be dragged around the pitch, thus creating far more space than if this happens on a small one. Low levels of closing down tend to be very important for a team looking to keep its defensive shape on a large pitch. Only at home against weaker sides am I open to moderate levels of closing down. I do not believe in inviting a weak team forward like on the small pitch. This is purely down to how they are not able to be as compact when parking the bus here, so the space to attack them is much less elusive and I’ve no reason to be counter-attacking for this reason. Therefore, better to hassle them and attempt to get the ball back sooner.

Small/Large pitch:
Home: Default/More Aggressive – Default vs weaker-similar strength teams. More aggressive vs stronger teams.
Away: More Aggressive vs all.

At home, I prefer to invite the weaker teams to make mistakes that I can punish them for, but this aim can be compromised with a physical approach which breaks up play too soon. Against the stronger sides, I like be as physical as possible since I’d rather focus more on keeping them at bay, as opposed to seeking to counter their much more dangerous attacks. Away from home, I feel that aggressive tackling is important whether your team is seeking to deny space, sitting back and being resilient, or trying to play on the counter. After all, the home team will be throwing plenty of players forward. Even if you break up the play early with stern challenges, there is always going to be space to be found on the break.

Small/Large pitch:
Home: Zonal/Default/Man Marking – Zonal vs weaker teams. Default vs similar strength teams. Man marking vs strong teams.
Away: Man Marking vs all.

I believe man marking to be generally superior defensively, but again, I adjust marking according to my rule of how inviting I want to be. Instead of acknowledging the definitions here, I think of it as “how much space do I want to allow?” with looser/zonal marking being the most lenient, and man marking as the most restrictive. If I want to invite a team to attack with a view to hitting them on the break, I feel it’s counter-productive to man mark since this seems to lead to the breaking up of attacks much earlier.

Small/Large pitch:
Home: Float crosses/Drill Crosses – Float Crosses only if attacking, as well as fortunate enough to possess good wingers *and* having a forward who’s very good in the air. Drill Crosses in all other scenarios.
Away: Drill Crosses vs all.

Float crosses allow for emphasis on the quality of crosses if attacking, but why bother if A) You don’t have a top class winger for your division & B) Don’t have a top class forward to get on the end of the cross? Drill crosses can be very effective on the counter, which may be as good as you can hope for. Away from home, I always go for drill crosses since I’m of the opinion that flows better when hitting teams on the break. i.e. Getting it forward and then into the box ASAP, in the hope that someone finds the space to get on the end of it.

Small/Large pitch:
Home: Default/Stick To Position – Default vs weaker-similar strength teams. Stick To Position vs strong teams.
Away: Stick To Position vs all.

I only ever go for a standard freedom to roam at home if I believe that I am able to see much more of the ball and should make more chances, or else the allocation of free roles gives the other team too much space to counter-attack. Against teams who will look to attack me, I much rather players to remain as organized as possible. Away from home, the emphasis is always on players sticking to their instructions.

So, there you have it. I feel the need to reiterate that the aforementioned are but opinions and personal preferences. I feel that they work very well for me. If you have found this at all helpful or the slightest bit thought provoking, I’m glad. If not, and you have very different views or counter-theories, I’m sure that would make for some good discussion and/or debate. I tried to condense it as much as possible in the hope of preventing it from being a dull wall of text. Thanks for reading!