Few Questions About Tactics..

Really struggling with FM at the moment, anything I seem to try doesn't work out and the biggest problem is I don't know why, I don't know what I'm looking out for, I think that's what frustrates me so much about the game, when it's going well I don't know why it's going well, when it's going bad I don't know why it's going bad, I think that's the biggest frustration and at times I'm guessing what I should be changing.

1) Is it best to have at least one attacking full back? I have read this a few times on the forums, now I prefer to have two supporting full backs as they will venture forward but not to far to get caught to far up the pitch, especially when I'm playing with a winger in the attacking midfield position, what do you think?

2) I still am pretty lost on the philosophy side of a tactic, I've read quite a few threads but still don't understand it fully. My understanding of it is rigid means the attackers will focus on just attacking, the defenders will focus on defending. With fluid all players try help with all phases of play, so when attacking the defenders will push up and help the attack I imagine and vice versa with the attackers when defending, am I right here or completely off the mark? Also is a philosophy linked with the roles of a player or their mentality?

3) I struggle to find what roles are best for a centre midfield partnership, I'm AFC Wimbledon at the moment and currently play a 4-5-1, I have an Anchor man in the DM position and in front of him a centre midfielder on support and an advanced playermaker on attack to push forward when attacking, would you say that's balanced?

I have many more questions but lets just focus on these first, I have a reason for any tactical change I make and it seems to make sense in my head but it doesn't seem to work on the pitch unfortunately!

I can post my tactic for you to have a look at so you can get a better understanding of it.

Cheers.

I think you really need to decide what you want from your players: do you want your FB's to stick to their duties (more rigid styles) or do you want them to participate more in other tasks (more fluid) ? This is where you need to start. Also study your squas to learn what roles adapt more to your players, your assman will tell you this.

I want my full backs to like I said push up a bit to support my wingers rather than really act as wing backs as I don't want them leaving massive gaps at the back and their crossing isn't good enough anyway, that's why I have them on support but like I said I've heard it's better to have one on attack? I still concede a lot of goals even though I have cover in front of the defence in a anchor man and my full backs aren't exactly very attacking.

If you want them to just support, and only support you will have to choose a support duty and a more rigid style, but remember that style will affect all duties assigned.

That is my tactic above, now I'll give you some reasoning's behind why I've chosen what I have and what I want to happen.

I have my fullbacks on support, like I've described in my previous posts I want them to venture forward but only to support the midfield and give them another option for a pass more than anything, I don't have them on attack as like I've said I'm worried they may get caught out of position to much if we lose possession and there will be big gaps behind them if that happens.

In the central defence I have them both as central defenders and on defend, I want them to keep possession when they have the ball rather than just boot it long so that's why I didn't choose the other two roles, I see no reason for either of them to be stoppers as I already have an anchor man in front of them who should in theory defend that space, cover could be an option but I feel they may drop off to much then and be to deep.

Just in front of the defence I have my defensive midfielder who is an anchor man. I simply just want him to help out the defence and stick just in front of them getting stuck in and laying off a simple pass when in possession to the more advanced midfielders.

I then have the my left sided central midfielder on support, I want him to just stay around the centre of the pitch and recycle possession while doing the dirty work and help win the ball back, I've thought about putting him as a ball winning midfielder or a deep lying playmaker as well but a centre midfielder makes more sense to me.

Just to the right of him I have my advanced playmaker who I want to push forward in to the attacking midfield role really and help link the midfield to the striker, if he was on support I feel he wouldn't push forward enough and there may be quite a big gap between my midfield and striker leaving the striker very outnumbered going forward.

On the wings I have an inside forward on the left as he has a finishing of 14 and feel he could chip in with quite a few goals while giving my striker another option while attacking and on the right I have a standard winger on support, I thought about giving him an attack duty but I feel that may be to many on attack?

For the striker I have a target man as that is simply his best role and as a lone striker with no attacking midfielder behind him I feel it is needed for your striker to hold the ball up for the midfielders to join in the attack.

My mentality is standard, I feel my team isn't any where near the best in the league but I don't think it's in the bottom 5 either so I think it's a good middle ground.

Fluidity is on balanced, I'm thinking about changing it to rigid as we aren't exactly a great team and I don't think they should be given much creative freedom.

Team instructions are get stuck in, I want them to be very physical which I think is needed in the lower leagues. Play out of defence, as I said earlier in the post I don't want my defence just booting it forward, I want them to try keep possession. Higher tempo, I want them to get the ball forward quickly rather than dwelling on it for to long which happens some times if it's on lower and they get dispossessed. Hassle opponents, I chose this because I want them to be in the opponents faces and not give them any time on the ball. Retain posesssion, to well, retain possession and work ball in to box as I want them to be patient and create better chances rather than taking long shots.

So yeah, that is why I've chosen everything, I could be well off the mark but I think it makes quite a bit of sense but I need help as I seem to be struggling all the time which shouldn't be happening.

Would love some of your thoughts.

Thanks!

You should really set a mentality

He has one.

@OP You need more suppot from the back. I would set the left back on WB(S) and right one on FB(A). That way they will provide more width.

Yeah I have picked standard as I think it's a middle ground between attacking and defending, if I was a better team I'd put it up to attacking but I could be missing a trick?

Wouldn't that leave me even more vulnerable at the back though Double0Seven?

I think Cleon or THOG once said this. Look at it this way. You need your backs to be a bit more attacking, because this way you will give the opponent something to deal with. Attacking full backs. The opponent will notice that they can't attack and have to defend a bit more.

Tried more attacking full backs but no such luck. I have now lost 6 games in a row and am 5 points from safety with 11 games to go, I need to do something fast but am running out of ideas. My players are very poor and maybe trying to play football with them is a bad idea, how about trying a more direct approach and getting in as many crosses to the box as I can?

Bad idea . You need more support from midfield. I would set one CM on attack and have the playmaker on support.

You can cross a lot but don't forget that you only have one striker. Is he good enough to fit this idea?

I've tried this though and instead of having a DM I switched it to a AM but I still didn't seem to create much at all, I've got a decent target man, it's not how I'd like to play but the quality of my players just can't seem to carry the tactic that I want.

Bad idea . You need more support from midfield. I would set one CM on attack and have the playmaker on support.

You can cross a lot but don't forget that you only have one striker. Is he good enough to fit this idea?

That would definitely be my first suggestion. When I look at the formation in post #5, all I can think of is "where are the goals coming from?" The striker is there to link up play, and while he'll score some, it's not his primary role. The attack minded CM is a creator. The AMR stays wide. In the end, that leaves just the IF to score. At the very least, you want someone else trying to get into the box, and making the MC® into a CM(A) is the obvious change.

I also am not really a fan of the TM(S) role. It's too static for me. DLF(S) or F9 seem to work much better, even for "target man" type players, as they tend to create more space for your other players to exploit..