Attacking my own tactic vulnerabilities

How I think tactics work...

I started a thread here the other week which some of you helped me with, however it suffered some sort of crash dump which means it's no longer available for me to play, so I've decided to start up another career with Liverpool Football Club. I'm not the most advanced of FM users when it comes to tactic, and have always preferred the "tracksuit manager" type of role. I'm hoping that this is going to change which is why I've decided to start this thread. I have ideas in my mind, but I struggle to translate them in to Football Manager and I'm even worse at trying to work out what's going wrong in matches.

So, what do I want?...

OK, so I'll admit - there's no Guardiola, Schmidt or Klopp style of play here. About as basic as it comes with no real identity.

- A tactic that will allow me to utilise the attacking strength of Liverpool through players such as Coutinho, Firmino, Sturridge etc.

- Defensive stability. It's great winning games 4-2, 3-1 etc but I want to try and keep a solid foundation

So, how am I going to transfer this into FM?...or at least how do I think I will?

Shape & Mentality.

I've decided to opt for CONTROL. I want some assertiveness with some attacking intent, and I'm far from the best team in the league so I figured this would be the best shout for now. Shape wise, I think FLUID is good. I don't want players bunched up (which I think anything below 'structured' would cause), I want my more attacking players to have a little bit of freedom.

Team Instructions

Zero. Zilch. None for now, because I don't know how any of them will benefit the way I want to play.

Now, before I start on the below, I want to reiterate that I will be looking to play to my players strengths, and not expecting them to play to the tactic, so.

Defence

WB(S) - Moreno.

I've given him the PI's that replicate the CWB(S), MINUS the roam from position. I want him to bomb forward and offer a presence in the final third. I hope and expect him to be a big player for me.

CD(D) - Sakho.

No nonsense.

CD(D) - Lovren.

No nonsense.

FB(S) - Clyne.

If Moreno is going to bomb forward, I want some stability in the back line which is why I've decided to opt for a more reserved approach here. I think this role would suit Clyne perfectly.

DM(D) Lucas.

With me expecting so much from Moreno (being the only wide threat on that side, I want the DM to fill in and do a job in defence when he does drive forward. Hopefully this will reinact what I want. Also toyed with the idea of Half back / anchorman.

Midfield & Attack

DLP(S) - Can.

I quite like the idea of at least one playmaker in the team, who offers that cool head and has the ability to slow play down when needed.

CM(A) - Coutinho.

I need a runner from midfield, and I think he will offer this. I've also given him the PI of "More Risky Passes" as this is what Coutinho is about.

W(S) Ibe.

Little confused with this one. I only have Ibe to play here, who has great potential but not that such great ability as of now. I've given him a support duty because I don't think he has the skills & intelligence to do too much when in the final third, and I think it offers the team a little bit more balance.

DLF(S) - Firmino.

He's made for this position and should hopefully link up well with Can.

AF(A) - Sturridge.

Not the most efficient team player, so I'm praying he just finishes chances when he can from this position.

I don't plan on making any big signings that will instantly improve my starting XI. I feel the current squad are good enough to prove their worth in the league this season, but I will be signing some players who I can develop over the next couple of years. My next step is to play 12-13 friendlies, get the tactic as fluid as possible and report back after 5 league games to see how I'm doing.

Could I be more adventurous with my roles, i.e. using a Shadow striker instead of a DLF(S)? I think until I understand the basics of how I want this to work, I should just stick to what I think will work instead of what I want to work and take it from there.

Until then, if any of you would like to add some observations of certain areas you think will / won't work, how you can or would improve the current set up I am all ears

Thanks guys.

"Shape wise, I think FLUID is good. I don't want players bunched up "

Not true...structured reduces lateral gaps, fluid doesn't

"Shape wise, I think FLUID is good. I don't want players bunched up "

Not true...structured reduces lateral gaps, fluid doesn't

Exactly right? So if I didn't want my players bunched up, I should go with a more fluid approach?

More fluid team shapes reduce the amount of space between players when in possession, and adds creativity to individual players.

More structured team shapes are the opposite.

However, it's extremely unlikely you'll get players "bunching up" no matter which team shape you choose. It's just a question of how you want your team to play.

See, just when I thought the tactic started to look like it was making sense before playing a game. That's why I'm registered here.

rashidi, my above post to you makes it sound like I was doubting you, apologies, that wasn't the case - I misinterpreted what you said.

I think Rashidi got his words mixed up. Herne79 is correct.

Just want to add a reminder that your formation is your defensive positioning, so your left flank is open. You may need to setup your LCM and make sure its a player that can help your LB. Can isn't really a playmaker, he lacks the mental attributes but has great physical attributes.

Structured/Fluid doesn't bunch players up. Roles/Duties/Width the tactical shape you choose, OI, unrealistic closing down of much more..all these things they influence players coming together to close down as a bunch. Its possible to get like 2 players to close down ALL the time on a zone if you have the right settings.

When you choose different kinds of shape, this influences how a team moves together as a unit. How many players get up or how many players stay down. Shape does not define the numbers of players that go up and down, duties and mentalities do. The more fluid you are the greater the number of players are likely to work together and the risk they follow your orders to the letter decreases the higher your shape becomes. So if you are playing very fluid the gaps between defense/midfield and attack are reduced. This reduces the distances between players and CAN have the effect of increasing the likelihood that players bunch up if you have modified the closing down instructions. Lateral gaps get influenced by width and to some extent shape as well, but the horizontal ones are very evident. For more you can watch the Dark Arts of Attacking video I did on shape. Most people find it hard to spot, you can if you are looking closely at transitions.

This has turned out horribly, cheers for the advice anyway gents. I've found inspiration from Ozi's 4-4-2 Very Fluid thread.

Structured/Fluid doesn't bunch players up. Roles/Duties/Width the tactical shape you choose, OI, unrealistic closing down of much more..all these things they influence players coming together to close down as a bunch. Its possible to get like 2 players to close down ALL the time on a zone if you have the right settings.

When you choose different kinds of shape, this influences how a team moves together as a unit. How many players get up or how many players stay down. Shape does not define the numbers of players that go up and down, duties and mentalities do. The more fluid you are the greater the number of players are likely to work together and the risk they follow your orders to the letter decreases the higher your shape becomes. So if you are playing very fluid the gaps between defense/midfield and attack are reduced. This reduces the distances between players and CAN have the effect of increasing the likelihood that players bunch up if you have modified the closing down instructions. Lateral gaps get influenced by width and to some extent shape as well, but the horizontal ones are very evident. For more you can watch the Dark Arts of Attacking video I did on shape. Most people find it hard to spot, you can if you are looking closely at transitions.

I agree with your points, but I still think your mixing up your axis of movement which is confusing, see the bolded sentence.

Lateral, Horizontal and Width are all wing to wing. Surely you meant "Lateral gaps get influenced by width and to some extent shape as well, but the vertical ones are very evident." ?

This has turned out horribly, cheers for the advice anyway gents. I've found inspiration from Ozi's 4-4-2 Very Fluid thread.

Try to learn from it rather than just washing your hands of it.

Try to learn from it rather than just washing your hands of it.

I appreciate your sentiment, and usually I would, but I got so caught up in the idea's of Ozil's thread I wanted to try and manipulate that in to my own career with Liverpool. I sort of lost interest of wanting to develop this tactic, I wouldn't say it's a case of washing my hands with it and not wanting to learn. I spend a good half hour / hour a day in these threads reading and learning mate - or trying too