Viable counter-attacking setup?

For years I've mainly used downloaded tactics, as whenever I tried to create one myself, I found myself out of depth and usually, out of results and a job... No I want to see it through. Thanks to THOG's manual, the pairs&combinations and the countless posts from Cleon, Rashidi and others, I hope I have some more knowledge & insight but still unsure.

I'm planning on playing a team that is considered mid-level for its competition (Belgian 2nd division) but that can quickly get promotion. The first few years will be an uphill struggle to real success, so I figure I want to play a counterattacking style as Base 1 approach (back-up plans can follow later once I can prove to myself I can get this right). Basically, want to invite some level of pressure on to ourselves so the opposition commits numbers forward and then try to recover the ball and have a fast transition forward through direct play. Here is the defensive formation & team instructions:

Basically the people responsible for carrying out the attacks are the 2 wingers and the AM-ST combination. Hence the clear to flanks (exploit right flank since that is our strongest flank, can be changed depending on opposition).

The F9-SS striker combo is based on the best players in the team. I'm not sure if the F9 is a good choice for the direct play? Another striker combo possible within the current team is a DLF & Trequarista although the same question about the F9 is valid for the Tre too?

The Box-to-box midfielder should provide some link-up play if necessary (f.e. if the wingers are marked out of the game or in the current situation) although do I need link-up play if I just want to have 2 'separate' units (one for stopping opposition from making goals and one for making goals ourselves). The player previsioned to play there is actually better suited in a Ball Winning Midfielder and I wonder (given the half-back/anchor man before the defense) if that is a possibility? It would allow to recover the ball higher up the field so not to only launch counter-attacks from out the defense. If the half-back to defensive?

The limited defenders are chosen now because of bad level of defenders, but ideally I would like to play a cover central defender and a stopper ball-playing defender. The latter can recover the ball and should have the passing & vision attributes to set up counterattacks. I wonder if dictate tempo & change flanks PPM's would be interesting to have in this case?

The GK has the PI's to throw it long and distribute to the flanks to start counterattacks from the flanks. I currently want early crosses as my wingers aren't the world's greatest dribblers. Depending on the chose striker I might use whip or low crosses. Do float crosses take away from directness and counterattacking? (since those crosses are 'slow speed' crosses)

I have no playmakers as they would contradict the directness (I think) and a fluid shape since there are nearly no specialist roles in the team except for the Striker combo...

You should check out this thread : http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/444680-The-Art-of-Counter-Attacking

Counter attacking concepts are explained in there. 2 Key things to note though

1 - each mentality has defaults. Counter already has fairly low closing down and a deep-ish line.

2 - The TIs you select are how you're going to play when a counter attacking is NOT on.

It's all explained in the link though.

Once you've picked up on the concepts, implement something and give it a go. If something isn't working like you intended it to, ask away.

2 - The TIs you select are how you're going to play when a counter attacking is NOT on.

Will check out the link, I think I've read it some time ago, will have a re-read thanks.

Concerning the remark above, does that mean that the build-up and attack section shown in the TI window, is when we have possession but choose not to go for a counter-attack given the situation on the field?

Will check out the link, I think I've read it some time ago, will have a re-read thanks.

Concerning the remark above, does that mean that the build-up and attack section shown in the TI window, is when we have possession but choose not to go for a counter-attack given the situation on the field?

That's exactly what it means.

If a counter is on, it will automatically be attacking and high tempo.

That's exactly what it means.

If a counter is on, it will automatically be attacking and high tempo.

Good to know! This way one can have 2 attacking patterns : the 'automatic' counterattacking one and the 'mannually decided' plan-B attacking...

Exactly. Counter mentality is supposed to be a 'safe' mentality. Safe passing. Get the ball forward and then keep it there and with safe choices, work it forward. If a counter attack is on though, all of that is forgotten.

If you're sitting deep and relying on being solid in your half, you should probably use a more conventional defensive shape like 4411, 4411DM, 451 or 4141. Unless there's some ME quirk I don't know about, you generally don't want to pick a shape that's going to leave wide open passing lanes in your midfield whilst three players are arranged in a vertical line. Technical & agile strikers who like to work the channels would run riot playing against this formation.

As, a couple of mods have already said, The Art of Counter thread is a must-read

Taking a look at your system, everything is wrong.

Limited Defefenders - They'll just hoof the ball away preventing any counters to be created.

Half Back -Why? You need numbers when counter-attacking. A half-back will just drop deep while an attack is on.

False 9 - Why? An attacking playmaker will attract the ball high up the field and slow down the play. (I do love me some defensive playmakers tho )

Taking a look at that shape, I don't think you'll have enough numbers deep enough to soak in pressure.

Question: One of the loading screen tips says something along the lines of "Different tempos work with different styles, I.E a higher tempo works better with a counter-attacking style" which implies that there is more of a link between team instructions and countering than people say, doesn't it?

If it says that, it's wrong. Also, as said, when a counter is on, you will automatically move it forward at a high tempo so it doesn't matter what it is 'normally'. Counter Mentality HAS a fairly low tempo anyway, so you can't possibly get a high tempo by using that Mentality. You're relying on triggering counter attacks, which is the whole point.

If it says that, it's wrong. Also, as said, when a counter is on, you will automatically move it forward at a high tempo so it doesn't matter what it is 'normally'. Counter Mentality HAS a fairly low tempo anyway, so you can't possibly get a high tempo by using that Mentality. You're relying on triggering counter attacks, which is the whole point.

If that is wrong then how did it find it's way into the game? Shouldn't someone report it as a bug or something?

If that is wrong then how did it find it's way into the game? Shouldn't someone report it as a bug or something?

Probably left over from old versions. You were the one who found it. Report it please.

As, a couple of mods have already said, The Art of Counter thread is a must-read

Taking a look at your system, everything is wrong.

Limited Defefenders - They'll just hoof the ball away preventing any counters to be created.

Half Back -Why? You need numbers when counter-attacking. A half-back will just drop deep while an attack is on.

False 9 - Why? An attacking playmaker will attract the ball high up the field and slow down the play. (I do love me some defensive playmakers tho )

Taking a look at that shape, I don't think you'll have enough numbers deep enough to soak in pressure.

Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. Bit harsh to say everything is wrong but I see where you're coming from.

Limited Defenders: my DC suck, like really. I don't want them to dwell on the ball and loose it. Also I figured, when they recover the ball, it will be deep in our own half with the opposition (normally) having loads of players in our half too. With the wingers and forward lurking at the halfway line, when a defender gets the ball and hoofs it forward, one of them might be able to beat the marking defender to get to the ball first and start a counterattack.

Half-Back: I was under the impression (just recently admittedly) that once a counter is on, everyone gets forward, regardless of their role? Still, he would be one of the people I would like to keep deep and defend in case our counterattack breaks up.

False 9: I got this from THOG's lines&diamonds manual:

The False Nine is a striker who specialises at dropping deep and offering support to the midfield. This can open up space for goal-scoring midfielders or wide forwards to attack, and it can also help establish numerical superiority in midfield during build-up play without requiring the team to pull an attacker into a deeper defensive position. This can be useful if the manager wants to use the false nine as a counterattacking outlet or simply does not want him exerting himself too much in the defensive phase.

Regarding shape, my initial idea was to play with 2 DM and 1 AM, but changed it for 2 reasons: the MC is one of my best players & I thought the defensive & attacking units would be too isolated. However, taking into account yours and The Hand of God's comment just above yours, it seems a 2 DM would be more sensible. Also taking into account Cleon's thread on counterattacking that Hunt3r linked too, it seems that having 1 AM, 2 wingers and 1 ST as attacking unit for counterattacking is too much and just need at most 2 attacking duties...

Reading through the art of counter attacking by Cleon, I just stumbled upon this little nugget (written by Cleon):

If you are defending deep and then win the ball back deep in your own half, when you go direct you'll bypass majority of your own players. So when that happens where will the support come from? In your example a direct ball from the back to your deep-lying forward would in most cases isolate the player because he wouldn't have any support and I find it hard to believe the AI would have over commit it's defenders, especially central ones. So I can't see how you'd benefit from that or be able to make use of it? If you wasn't deep and had players pushed further up the field then I can see it working but then were in the realms of direct play and fast transitions rather than actual counter attacking football.

I was off the impression that having 1 to 3 players forward and having a defender hoof the ball forward for 1 of them to run onto it and then having only the opposition keeper to beat as the fulcrum of counterattacking football. It seems I was wrong?

Reading through the art of counter attacking by Cleon, I just stumbled upon this little nugget (written by Cleon):

If you are defending deep and then win the ball back deep in your own half, when you go direct you'll bypass majority of your own players. So when that happens where will the support come from? In your example a direct ball from the back to your deep-lying forward would in most cases isolate the player because he wouldn't have any support and I find it hard to believe the AI would have over commit it's defenders, especially central ones. So I can't see how you'd benefit from that or be able to make use of it? If you wasn't deep and had players pushed further up the field then I can see it working but then were in the realms of direct play and fast transitions rather than actual counter attacking football.

I was off the impression that having 1 to 3 players forward and having a defender hoof the ball forward for 1 of them to run onto it and then having only the opposition keeper to beat as the fulcrum of counterattacking football. It seems I was wrong?

That's direct football not counter attacking football, the styles are different. One is focused on sitting deep as a unit and allowing the opposition to come onto you to create counter attacking opportunities and then breaking forward as a unit. The other is more focused on getting the ball from the back to the front as quick as possible regardless of how many men the opposition did/didn't over commit. In short counter attacking football is about taking advantage of the numbers when the AI over commit and then break as a group going forward.

Also I know it was only an example but how many times, realistically, is there ever only going to be the opposition keeper to beat. Once in every one thousand chances created? Maybe less maybe more. My point being, just only the keeper to beat is highly unlikely unless you've created this situation. A long ball from the defence to attack isn't really going to do this as you're forgetting the opposition also has defenders, also has a plan and the back line won't have over commit that much to leave them that exposed. You create this action yourself by forcing the AI to move and pick up players etc. It's all about making the opposition make choices. The more options available the better your attacking chances as it's impossible to cover every single option.

It comes down to what you want to create in the end. There is nothing wrong with having players positioned high up the pitch or who are attack minded. But then this changes the type of football you are creating and how the supply/support work. In both counter and direct systems this is totally different how this is achieved.

In the system you posted in the opening post, I don't see how that shape with the roles/duties you've used offer either of these styles. You're somewhat caught between two styles yet aren't replicating any of them if that makes sense? Your shape and roles don't replicate what you have in your head and the style of play you expect from the players.

In the system you posted in the opening post, I don't see how that shape with the roles/duties you've used offer either of these styles. You're somewhat caught between two styles yet aren't replicating any of them if that makes sense? Your shape and roles don't replicate what you have in your head and the style of play you expect from the players.

Agreed, I think I was indeed confusing a direct attacking style played from the back with sucking up pressure as a whole team and break away as a whole team. I guess I was too focused on those chances where a counter happens IRL and 2 vs 1 or 3 vs 2 situations arise instead of 5 vs 4 for example. Probably because 10 years ago that might still have worked but it does no longer (maybe should look for some example videos...)

Agreed, I think I was indeed confusing a direct attacking style played from the back with sucking up pressure as a whole team and break away as a whole team. I guess I was too focused on those chances where a counter happens IRL and 2 vs 1 or 3 vs 2 situations arise instead of 5 vs 4 for example. Probably because 10 years ago that might still have worked but it does no longer (maybe should look for some example videos...)

To get 2v1's or 3v2's it tends to happen when you make the opposition make a choice and isolate their players. In order to get these types of advantages you need to look at the team as a whole and ask yourself how the shape you use, allows for this? In the system you use in the opening post it's clear to see that for you the likelihood of this happening would be between the SS and F9. But look at the other players around them, they don't really have any support or options. You use two wingers who are focused on crossing the ball so their bread and butter is crosses. So they're not really going to create space for anyone or occupy the central opposition players are they? This means you can't create those 2v1 or 3v2 situations that often because you're making it too easy for the defenders.

However imagine you changed the shape slightly and pushed the half-back up to MC and then the central roles you used were CM D and a CM A. This would change the dynamic of the F9 and SS and mean you also have constant support going forward from the CM A. This means even if the opposition has two centrebacks who have to pick the players up, there is only two of them (usually) to deal with 3 players looking to get in behind them. While the F9 is a deep player he will still look to get beyond the defence just from much later/deeper positions. Now I know the opposition will also have midfielders trying to pick your midfielder up but that still makes it 3v3 in central battles. But also consider how many times the oppositions central player will be caught out of position or have to pick someone else up. This would give you the 3v2 situation.

It's all about using the roles and duties to overwhelm the opposition in certain areas and make them make a choice but also that no matter the choice they choose, it will be the wrong one. Imagine the situation above if you added a IF into the situation too, the dynamics then change again.

I'm not saying change shape, I'm saying put more thought into the role/duty allocation process and try and vision how the roles and duties all link together and interact with each other.

Probably left over from old versions. You were the one who found it. Report it please.

donezo. wasn't sure what section so ended up filing it under 'User Interface' issues. i'll not lie i dont entirely believe you that the two aren't linked. not because think you're intentionally lying or that you dont know your ****, just that my natural inclination is to believe what i read in the game before something i read on a forum *shrugs*. if it turns out to be an incorrect inclusion on the devs part then cool, it's no shade at you, just a mental issue. would be happy to have it cleared up either way.

donezo. wasn't sure what section so ended up filing it under 'User Interface' issues. i'll not lie i dont entirely believe you that the two aren't linked. not because think you're intentionally lying or that you dont know your ****, just that my natural inclination is to believe what i read in the game before something i read on a forum *shrugs*. if it turns out to be an incorrect inclusion on the devs part then cool, it's no shade at you, just a mental issue. would be happy to have it cleared up either way.

Your assumption is wrong and Hunter is 100% correct it's an hang over from really old versions when counter attacking worked much different to what we see today. Because once a counter attack is triggered the game automatically switches the tempo for the players involved in the move to max automatically along with a couple of other settings.

There is no best tempo for different styles etc. Any can and does work.

Your assumption is wrong and Hunter is 100% correct it's an hang over from really old versions when counter attacking worked much different to what we see today. Because once a counter attack is triggered the game automatically switches the tempo for the players involved in the move to max automatically along with a couple of other settings.

like i say, i believe you there's just a final mental hurdle that i cant get over until i have it confirmed for me

like i say, i believe you there's just a final mental hurdle that i cant get over until i have it confirmed for me

You've had it confirmed twice 100% now

I've now read THOG lines & diamonds, the pair combinations, several of Cleons threads (including the Ajax youth team , pre season take, ...) and blog, and while everything seems to make sense when reading it, once I fire up FM and select my home team (Roeselare, currently Belgian 2nd division) and see the list of players, I feel out of depth, a bit overwhelmed, not knowing where to start, because they don't seem to fit any reasonable tactic (while I'm sure they should or the IRL scouts should be fired ).

Looking at the 4 best players of the team (ability rating wise, not sure if that is a good way to tackle things), they are:

ST , Trequarista Attack

AMC , Att Mid Support

DW, support

BWM, support

Just below that are 2 Defensive Midfielders, 2 wingers, 1 wide target man and 1 central defender. Then another winger and DMC before getting into the 'trash' category of the team.

It clearly shows that the whole defense is a problematic zone for the team, so I doubt a counter-attacking style is suited for this team. It would seem we should somehow try to get the ball mostly in midfield play as that is where we are strongest?

I think you're over complicating things and making it hard for yourself. Simplify things and do it like this;

1 - Have an idea of the brand of football you want to play

2 - Start trying to develop it straight away

3 - Remember it's long term for most parts and not going to be perfect after 1 game or a season

4 - Buy players who fit what you want

5 - Refine the style until it suits. This might take long due to personnel you have etc

You start with a plan and build towards the end goal. I feel you start with expecting to be at the end goal pretty quickly

I feel you start with expecting to be at the end goal pretty quickly

Yups, like I want to be at the oppositions goal pretty quickly too

Anyhow, buying players isn't an option, they play in a 'cemetery' kinda league and are a bit in the red... So, guess I have to be patient too...

Selling a star can fund improvements or bring in players more suitable for your style. Target the right players for loans will also be important.

Don't be afraid of retraining players to fit the formation you need for your style, get that AML back to ML if you need him to shield your LB better. Get that AMC back to MC if your DM and MC are being pulled about whilst he sits up field and you need him to help deeper.

Keep things simple, your job is to bring out the best in your players and try to minimize the weaknesses to create a winning balance. Just because your defenders don't have lots of stars doesn't mean they are bad at everything. You might need to protect them by playing defensive/counter with close help in front. Your team might be pretty good with the ball so can protect them by playing possession football. Your team might be fit, aggressive and high work rate so create mistakes before your defenders are put in difficult positions. Your team overview should tell you what your squad is good/bad at so you can be pragmatic at the start and get the best out of them whilst bringing in your own philosophy.

Selling a star can fund improvements or bring in players more suitable for your style. Target the right players for loans will also be important.

Don't be afraid of retraining players to fit the formation you need for your style, get that AML back to ML if you need him to shield your LB better. Get that AMC back to MC if your DM and MC are being pulled about whilst he sits up field and you need him to help deeper.

Keep things simple, your job is to bring out the best in your players and try to minimize the weaknesses to create a winning balance. Just because your defenders don't have lots of stars doesn't mean they are bad at everything. You might need to protect them by playing defensive/counter with close help in front. Your team might be pretty good with the ball so can protect them by playing possession football. Your team might be fit, aggressive and high work rate so create mistakes before your defenders are put in difficult positions. Your team overview should tell you what your squad is good/bad at so you can be pragmatic at the start and get the best out of them whilst bringing in your own philosophy.

With current team already 10% over wage budget, so I'll need to offload some loaned in players that don't suit the style/shape and bring in other loan players (fortunately most 1st division players are willing to come and the team don't ask for wage contribution).

Being pragmatic at the start, maybe then the "Best XI" tab on "Team Depth" might be a good place to start? Browse through the formations and see which one uses my star players the best? It seems to be a 3-1-3-3 DM (christmas tree) formation. The 'weakest' links are all loaned in players, so I can get rid of them, replace with other loan players for free, get within wage budget and have a decent start. Now just have to look if the roles appointed make sense (leaving space and creating space wise) and if a possession based (mainly between the MC & 2 WM's and the 2 AMC's and ST) approach is possible to keep our defenders being put in difficult situations...

A back-up option is offered by the assistant manager (meet the staff) who says a 4-2-4 DM Wide is the best formation. Looking at it, it is very secure defensively (flat 4 with 2 DM's ahead of it) but there is a huge gap between the DMC's and the 4 upfront (2x W and DLF+AF combo). My first impression is that this formation can only serve as a very direct fast transition style but I fear some link-up problems here...

Don't just do what the game recommends, use the info to give you a quick overview, is there a massive star difference between the best player at the position and the backup? If not does the lower star play suit what you want to do? Does he have more potential in the long run?

I have no idea what a 3133 DM is according to the game.

The game will recommend what the player are currently good at, so your wide players are probably natural at AML/AMR but not good at ML/MR. You can choose to train them at ML/MR if that fits what you want to do, you won't see much attacking difference from wingers playing from ML/MR compared to AML/AMR.

Stick with a "simple" formation, 442, 433 DM Wide, 4231 Deep, a 532 variation etc. Minimize the instructions to begin with then as you get a feel of what you want you can add/remove as needed and not just to try something different.

After much deliberating, I've come to this formation:

It's a bit of a shifted 4-1-4-1. It gets the best out of my better players but it does need a better right WM and also if possible an extra DC.

I've played 2 games, friendlies against similar oppositions, and looking at the matches, some things came to light:

- defensively (despite being the worst department starwise) we're looking solid, didn't allow a goal, moreso, both games the opposition only had 2 shots on target.

- attacking wise I would have expected the attacking Shadow Striker to overlap with the Defensive Forward when the latter holds up the ball, but I only saw that happen once in both games combined? The image above shows DLF att, but I changed it both games after 30 minutes to DF Def.

- in the build-up phase many of our attacks break down because a central player passes out wide to the winger or wide midfielder. Usually the pass is good direction wise (just behind the full back into pocket of space) but too hard and the ball goes out before the wingman can get there. This could be bad decisions,vision,passing & technique from the central player or bad anticipation,off the ball, acceleration of the wingers, or am I missing something?

- not a single counterattack happened or I might have missed it. Could also be because it are friendlies and the opposition is playing a standard game as well..

Anyone any advice?

Well (considering that I did post a link to counter attacking concepts) the first thing that strikes me, is to ask how you are actually going to draw a team in and counter with that setup?

I think I see what you getting at , the BWM will try to recover the ball hence not allowing the opposition to advance far enough in our own half?

I think I see what you getting at , the BWM will try to recover the ball hence not allowing the opposition to advance far enough in our own half?

You still have all the concerns you did with the original tactic, you've not really addressed them for the style you want to create. You've moved players around slightly but it's still basically the same shape. Remember the shape you see on the overview is your defensive shape. So these are the positions players will take up while you're expecting to hit teams on counters.

If I look at my shape and compare it with the 4-1-4-1 Cleon posted in the counterattacking thread, then the only differences I see (correct me if I'm wrong!):

- BWM instead of BBM, which might lead to too much pressure too early

- 3 players 'upfield' (the DF Def (no longer DLF Att btw), the SS Att and the W Sup) vs 1 player 'upfield' in Cleon's shape (the DLF Att/DF Def depening on opp). Is 3 players too much to avoid the opposition to take the ball into our half and pressure us again the penalty area?

If I look at my shape and compare it with the 4-1-4-1 Cleon posted in the counterattacking thread, then the only differences I see (correct me if I'm wrong!):

- BWM instead of BBM, which might lead to too much pressure too early

- 3 players 'upfield' (the DF Def (no longer DLF Att btw), the SS Att and the W Sup) vs 1 player 'upfield' in Cleon's shape (the DLF Att/DF Def depening on opp). Is 3 players too much to avoid the opposition to take the ball into our half and pressure us again the penalty area?

If you've read the thread then you'd know that there is a big difference between how our formations works. I designed a tactic to work a specific way and to offer me the style I was creating. I discuss in that thread why the principles I wanted to adopt took me to the 4-1-4-1. Your basing our differences on how the overview screen looks, which is part of the issue. As our tactics function completely different. Just one player role difference or one player placed elsewhere and that drastically changes how the tactic plays.

The more players you have up the field the less likely you'll trigger natural counter attacks in the ME because you need to have numbers back in order to trigger them. For manual counters attacks/direct style of play your system can work but still needs tweaks to get what you're after. But for proper counter attacks then numbers behind the ball matter the most because then when the opposition commit men forward and leave themselves exposed at the back, then you break at speed with numbers. But you can't out number the opposition consistently if you have three players in the oppositions half...............

As when you do have the numbers advantage it would be when phases of play were on the edge of your box or inside it, which isn't, really a way to play as its dangerous.

May be seen as a stupid question but if i was to set up a team with a counter mentality but then have short passing and slow tempo am i right in thinking that the team would play slowly and keep the ball when they opposition has a few players back but when the opportunity arises they would ignore the instructions and go fast and direct? I understand that from Cleon's other threads that when a counter is activated then the other instructions go out the window? Or would the counter and short passing instructions confuse things and contradict each other?

May be seen as a stupid question but if i was to set up a team with a counter mentality but then have short passing and slow tempo am i right in thinking that the team would play slowly and keep the ball when they opposition has a few players back but when the opportunity arises they would ignore the instructions and go fast and direct? I understand that from Cleon's other threads that when a counter is activated then the other instructions go out the window? Or would the counter and short passing instructions confuse things and contradict each other?

Correct. Your instructions are how they play when a full counter attack isn't available. When a full counter is triggered all instructions, roles and duties are ignored and the players in position to counter act more like on overload.

Correct. Your instructions are how they play when a full counter attack isn't available. When a full counter is triggered all instructions, roles and duties are ignored and the players in position to counter act more like on overload.

Perfect thank you

@DJ Sir Matthew

It seems you're getting too caught up on the positional ratings for your players as it's the main thing informing the shape you choose. You don't need to make sure that players are "natural" and have the luminous green colour in order for them to play well - the more important thing is the system and how they can fit into it. Take Seoudi and De Rechter for example. Without seeing their profiles, I'd imagine they wouldn't be too adversely affected if they were moved back, Seoudi as a CM(A) perhaps and De Rechter again as a W(S). This wouldn't instantly give you a great tactic but the overall 4-1-4-1 shape is vastly superior for counter attacking football as it naturally has more players back.

Playing counter is like asking your team to be a coiled spring, your players should be squashed back ready to explode forward. How can you achieve that when nearly half of your players could be ahead of the ball at times? You want to counter attack so you need numbers behind the ball, as Cleon says you have 3 in the oppositions half for most of the game.