AFC Bournemouth - How do I replicate them

Having read this - http://spielverlagerung.com/2015/05/28/the-rise-of-afc-bournemouth-team-analysis/ I am interested in replicating AFC Bournemouth's tactic. The problem is Championship matches simply aren't televised in Australia so I will be heavily relying on this to get it working.

Currently I have a Real Sociedad/Russia game going and I am planning on making this my Russia tactic. So far I have gone with this:

So, in no particular order here is the reasoning for the role choices:

Artur Boruc has been virtually ever-present as goalkeeper behind a common defence of Charlie Daniels, Steve Cook, Tommy Elphick and Simon Francis. The two full-backs, Francis in particular, are amongst the best in the league albeit more considered for the attacking qualities which they bring.

To me this quote says the full backs are CWBa's. This to me is further justified by this:

For the standard of the league, the full-backs are both quite free in their marking and will move high up if the winger they’re covering drops.

This to me also says that the full backs close down much less, thus allowing them to perform the attacking duties as described in the article.

As the full backs are very attacking there needs to be cover in the middle so the team isn't totally picked apart:

In the centre of the pitch, Bournemouth possess two of the best central midfielders in the Championship in a double pivot which is vital to most of their play.

This lead me to plumping two DLP's in the DM line - one support and one defend. Really, both could be on defend but I am concerned about link-play with having two defending players here. I may change this though as this comment suggests they both play as DLPd's:

In more advanced positions however, they rarely move ahead of the ball and instead stay behind to support circulation and penetrate the midfield line when the situation allows.

The wingers are easy to go for as the article is pretty clear in the roles of the players:

The roles of the two wide players have slight differences, as Ritchie is more of an inside forward where Pugh has a variable role where he can come inside as an extra midfielder, or take up a wide position to stretch the opposition whilst Daniels moves inside.

So, an IFa on the right wing and I have gone with a Ws on the left wing. He has been told to roam as he seems to have the licence to and I have also told him to mark tighter due to this:

Like most teams the wingers man mark, however not to the same extent in relation to strictness, and they can often move to occupy a different player instead of the respective full-back. It should not be confused with a zonal marking system with man-orientation as they will often follow the player outside of their zone. An example of this was in the above Derby game, where Pugh often moved onto Hughes who frequently makes dropping movements into the left half-space.

This is probably more of a game-by-game instruction but it was noted in the article so I thought it was worth putting in the tactic. It also seems that the AMR is told to man mark so I probably should tell him to mark tighter too.

The striker is an AFa I feel:

Callum Wilson has occupied the role of striker for virtually the whole season. The young forward doesn’t have a great influence in the build-up but is a strong finisher, scoring 20 goals in the season – 2nd in the league behind Daryl Murphy. His pace is his biggest attribute and with the passing ability behind him, he possesses the capacity to find space in behind the defensive line.

Not involved in build up but scores heavily. Seems a straight forward role to me.

The AMC is an interesting position. As I am going for a 4-2-3-1 I have decided he should be an APs:

Perhaps the only variable in Howe’s selection has been just behind Wilson. This role has been shared relatively equally between Yann Kermorgant and Pittman. Kermorgant plays just off of their leading scorer in a supportive role whilst in the presence of Pittman, the shape becomes more of a 4-4-2.

He is told to close down much more because of this:

he key player in Bournemouth’s pressing is Kermorgant as the Frenchman has a role in the pressure of virtually every space.

So far I have TI's of exploit the flanks, drop deeper and close down more.

Bournemouth’s pressing game can nullify teams such as Rotherham and Brighton (who play the definition of tiki-taka) without being at a very high level.

Despite a strong pressing game and their superiority over many teams in the league, there were a number of cases last season in which Howe chose to utilise a low defensive block.

They close down hard but not much more so 'Close Down More' seems appropriate here. The old theory of not using 'Close Down More' and 'Drop Deeper' seems not to have made it to Eddie Howe though.

Their defensive low block is always paired with at least situational pressing, usually when the opposition’s possession isn’t fully secured as well as other common cues such as a poor body position.

One weakness in Bournemouth’s deep possession lies within their two centre-backs – Cook and Elphick. Both are technically competent but weak against pressing and when paired with the lack of dropping support from the two central midfielders, it becomes an issue which could be potentially exploited.

Despite a strong pressing game and their superiority over many teams in the league, there were a number of cases last season in which Howe chose to utilise a low defensive block.

Here it tells me that they drop deeper. It also seems that the CB's are closing down less here. The second quote is pretty much the downside of dropping deeper.

Like most teams in the Championship, Bournemouth have quite a notable focus on attacking down the flanks.

'Exploit The Flanks'

More options I feel I should look at:

Eddie Howe’s side have been acclaimed the most this year by their possession game which has received massive praise in a country where such a style is rarely seen effective.

'Retain Possession'. The tooltip says it prioritieses keeping possession of the ball so this to me seems to be a sensible shout.

Howe demonstrates his understanding of the influence of such features, whilst also making Bournemouth’s shape slightly more vertically-oriented than the standard positional structure of a possession team – which is much more based on a slower, more horizontal game (the archetypal and true ‘tiki-taka’).

In deep possession, they take some preparation to make the positional structure virtually pressing resistant against the oft-uncoordinated pressing which they face. One of the key mechanisms, is a simple switch to the ball-far centre-back.

A couple of things I could pick up here - 'slower play' could be 'Lower Tempo' or it could be a counter mentality. Read in it's entirity I feel it is leaning towards a mentality of 'Control' and 'Lower Tempo' as the 'Control' mentality should make the passing a bit more direct (i.e. "more vertically-orientated")

Some things I'm not sure of are quotes like this:

During their wide attacks, the roles of Arter and Surman are relatively simple. Although situationally they can make ball-oriented movements to support in the overloads, they generally stay deeper than the ball. Through doing so, the central midfielders stop Bournemouth from becoming isolated in a wide position and offer a stable means of which to circulate the ball back inside.

Also, things like goalkeeper distribution and mentality are not covered. I don't think the DM's are setup correctly and I think I'm missing TI's. Really interesting and may lead me to taking up an AFC Bournemouth game in the future.

I have never watched Bournemouth in my life, so I won't pretend to know how they play or line up, but one thing jumped out at me.

If the wingers drop back and cover for the rampaging fullbacks, they need to be played in the wide mid slots. AMR/L won't cover near enough for their fullback.

I've watched Bournemouth a bit and their set up translates more to 4411 or 442 in FM than the deep 4231 you've got. Control and Flexible probably a fair description of their strategy and mentality. Shorter Passing and Close Down More are the key TIs. Then roles and duties are something like this;

WBs - CD - CD - WBa

WMa - DLPs - CMd - WMs

Enganche/Treq/AP

AF

or with a DLFs instead of the AMC.

And as for Close Down More/Drop Deeper, I think you've misunderstood the article there. Bournemouth usually play high up the pitch on the front foot, but against the better sides away from home (Middlesbrough is one game I remember) they drop deeper and look to counter attack.

I've watched Bournemouth a bit and their set up translates more to 4411 or 442 in FM than the deep 4231 you've got. Control and Flexible probably a fair description of their strategy and mentality. Shorter Passing and Close Down More are the key TIs. Then roles and duties are something like this;

WBs - CD - CD - WBa

WMa - DLPs - CMd - WMs

Enganche/Treq/AP

AF

or with a DLFs instead of the AMC.

And as for Close Down More/Drop Deeper, I think you've misunderstood the article there. Bournemouth usually play high up the pitch on the front foot, but against the better sides away from home (Middlesbrough is one game I remember) they drop deeper and look to counter attack.

Cool. Thanks for that. Interesting to see if others have watched them.

Nice thread, a few comments:

The article discusses a couple of different set-ups that Bournemouth uses, and I don't think they can be combined into a single, coherent tactic. You would be better off creating one tactic to model their higher press and one to model their low block approach whilst possibly using OIs against the DCs to model the mentioned situational pressing.

Another point to keep in mind is that FM doesn't allow us to fine tune the exact way in which a team presses. A real coach can, as the article outlines, tell his winger to push up and mark the channels like an AMCLR when a DC has the ball, but in FM, you have to compromise on these details and it's not often a good idea to try to recreate them with broader instructions that will knock on to every phase of play.

With the DLR, I think the reference to being "free" in their marking means they're not required to operate in strict zonal lines, allowing them to follow an opposition winger if he drops off from the defence. I would replicate this with tighter marking, not less closing down.

Also, nothing to do with the OP, but why do the formation graphics in Spielverlagerung always designate attackers with the Star of Chaos :

Pet peeve of mine, but then, I was a Bretonnia man in my younger days.

I like that Ritchie even has an arrow coming out from one of his arrows, movement oh yeah!

Pet peeve of mine, but then, I was a Bretonnia man in my younger days.

I actually have a Green Knight sitting in a cupboard for the last few years waiting to be painted. I've never even played warhammer, but that model was incredible. That and a Be'lakor The Dark Master.

I like that Ritchie even has an arrow coming out from one of his arrows, movement oh yeah!

I saw that too - was wondering how to recreate it

I saw that too - was wondering how to recreate it

Roan from position, I guess, as it seems he gets about.

Either that or pray to Khorne.

Either that or pray to Khorne.

Roan from position, I guess, as it seems he gets about.

Either that or pray to Khorne.

Will an IF still make the cut inside movements with roaming on?

Will an IF still make the cut inside movements with roaming on?

Yes, it's an inherent part of that Role.

Yes, it's an inherent part of that Role.

I probably didn't ask the question right - will the cutting in still be effective? If he is roaming could he not find himself in the middle of the park leaving no room to cut in?

I probably didn't ask the question right - will the cutting in still be effective? If he is roaming could he not find himself in the middle of the park leaving no room to cut in?

If you think about it, common sense should say if the player is already centrally then how can he cut in? Roaming can be a good or a bad thing, it entirely depends what you want the player to do. If you want the player to cut inside frequent then it might not be the best choice giving him something that can make him not in the correct kind of areas to be able to cut inside how you want. By giving him roaming you give him license to leave his natural position and wander how he sees fit, that you've set with the role you've given him.

If you think about it, common sense should say if the player is already centrally then how can he cut in? Roaming can be a good or a bad thing, it entirely depends what you want the player to do. If you want the player to cut inside frequent then it might not be the best choice giving him something that can make him not in the correct kind of areas to be able to cut inside how you want. By giving him roaming you give him license to leave his natural position and wander how he sees fit, that you've set with the role you've given him.

Cool - pretty much what I was thinking

As a Cherries fan I find this very interesting,Eddie actualy uses a formation/tactic very similar to mine in FM(I've been using it in FM for years),I don't think any player roams(mine stick to position),one of the most important things of AFCB last season was the combinations between players,you need to create the WBacks to Winger combo's both sides,as for the wingers Pugh LW(he is right footed),Ritchie RW(he is left footed),I always have in preferred moves hug line&cut in boxes ticked,it sounds contradicting but it works for me,all players track back except for Wilson,as in IRL things don't happen overnight i'd say(FM also) it can take 2 seasons for the team to click!

Theres loads more,it took me I think 5/6 FM's to fine tune my tactics on an almost identical 4-4-2!

PS only the Boro away game last season he tried something different from the start,he changes formation/tactic late in games if we're chasing it!