Creating a Tactic - How Not to Design, Create and Maintain

[AngryDad]

I have read Cleon’s admirable thread about designing, maintaining and creating a tactic. The best thing I can say about it is it makes me want to get back home and try again. I read it and I understand.

Only problem is, I’ve read it four times now gone back home, started again, and ended up nearly putting my head through the monitor.

I suspect those of you who have cracked FM14 think those of us who haven’t are yearning for the days when we could come on here, download a killer tactic and pilot Blyth Spartans to European glory. I’m genuinely not. My last game was FM10. I spent 3 years playing it, managed 5 teams, got sacked twice and jumped once before I was pushed before finally getting the hang of it. I ended up managing Everton in 2027, but never won the league and only qualified for the Champions League in the last season. I had a couple of relegation battles along the way. In short, I want a realistic game experience. But, just as that doesn’t include going from conference to champions league in 5 years without buying a player, so it doesn’t include going 6 games without actually having a shot on goal.

So here is my antidote to Cleon’s thread. This is how not to do it. I’m going to give it my best shot. Who knows, this time I may crack it. But if not, maybe those of you that can actually play this damn game can see why it is that some of us just can’t understand where we’re going wrong. If anyone wants to contribute and actually help me then for the love of God speak now.

So I’m AFC Wimbledon. We’re League Two, and not particularly good, but I don’t think particularly bad. My players seem to have decent work rate and fitness stats. I’m going to design a tactic that is based on the premise of keeping it simple. 4-4-2. Centre backs are there to defend, win headers, repel attackers and not fall over. Full backs and central midfielders are there to track back and win the ball when we don’t have it, and find space and support the wingers when we do. Wingers are there to get down the wings and get the ball into the danger areas. Front two are there to take the chances.

My detailed tactic will be built around the players below. Midson is a hard working striker, decent in the air and not a bad finisher. He’ll play as an advanced forward. Sweeney is an excellent passer for this level, and his other attributes are decent for a midfielder. I may make him an advanced playmaker or deep lying one if that isn’t too complicated, but he’ll start as plain old central mid. Francomb is a reasonable all round player without any particular special qualities, but he’ll do for a winger at this level. He’s a bit injury prone but I have a quicker, if less technical, winger on loan for the season who can maybe do a job.

First match, home to Margate from two or three divisions below us. When I get there I’ll play the game, analyse the tactic and let those of you still reading know how I’ve got on, using some of Cleon’s rules as I understand them.

This time, I’m sure it will work…

[Wesley6]

I look forward to this, I also struggle so I am here to share your pain I'm certainly no expert but I will try and chip in with any thoughts I have.

[AngryDad]

Thanks Wesley, might be a couple of days before I can access the machine and actually play the damn game, but watch this space. All comments gratefully received!

[MeesterCat]

Great idea. I think there was something similar last year and it was a really interesting thread. I look forward to the moment it clicks.

[Dr. Hook]

Second the motion of great idea. I'll be following with interest. I'm probably like you in that none of this stuff ever just *clicked* for me, rather it was a long time of bit by bit improvement, with still a good ways to go.

[AngryDad]

Thanks all!

So I got to the machine after all tonight for a brief go. In fact I played Maidstone not Margate, but they are way below me, and a comfortable win was predicted. Well, so far, so good. As promised I kept things simple. 4-4-2, making sure to put defenders and attackers on support duties to keep fluidity between the lines, but otherwise very orthodox positions. No team instructions, no player instructions, no shouts:

And it all went to plan for once. 4-1 win, 3-0 at half time at which point I bought on some kids (this is the second day since I took over, so wanted to keep some freshness for a bigger match in 4 days time). 3 goals from crosses from the wingers and 1 from a corner. 20 shots, passing and tackling above 70%. For me, the big thing has to be clear cut chances. We had 6, of which we converted 4, and they had 0. They were poor, so nothing is proven, but I've messed these games up before, so that was quite heartening.

Trying to do some analysis afterwards, and I think rather than try and analyse every aspect for each game I need to look at one or two individual performances and aspects. So I thought I would look at the target man, and specifically where he's winning headers. Which looks good from this:

Winning his fair share both in and out of the box. He's a bit of a lump, big and strong with good heading and jumping attributes, but not much else. I did wonder if he was a little far away from his strike partner, but hopefully that will come with familiarity.

Their goal was a long shot that my 43 year old third choice keeper dived over, but they did cause the odd problem with a 5-2-1-2 tactic, specifically with the AMC joining the attack and not being picked up. The goal came from this set up:

And was scored by the chap in space between my right back and DCR. By that time I had plenty of fairly rubbish U-18s playing, so I'm not too worried, but I'll try to keep an eye on teams who have formations that can turn into 3 up front to see if we're giving too much space in danger areas.

Next up is Bradford from League 1, which should be an altogether stiffer test, and should give me some more info as to whether I'm on the right lines.

[AngryDad]

3-0 defeat. 23 shots against, with 4 clear cut chances, vs 10 shots / 1 CCC. Normal service resumed

Actually I'm not too worried just yet. I went out with no team instructions, no OIs and resolved to play that way throughout the match, so see the flaws and strengths. It was clear that Bradford were better than us, and in particular their front two, Wells and Hanson. Wells has fantastic acceleration and pace and decent technical skills, and Hanson excellent in the air. In a match I would have looked to get Wells on his weaker foot and marked Hanson closely.

The first two goals were basic defensive errors I think, worrying in terms of the personnel, but not really to do with tactics. My centre back should have dealt with this situation:

But he missed the challenge, Wells cut inside and thumped into the top corner from outside the area.

The second was a cross that could and should have been blocked and should have been dealt with by the keeper or centre back when it came in:

But it wasn't. The marking looks fine, they've got no players over, but we just didn't deal with it. Hopefully some match fitness, tactical familiarity and playing against worse players will iron those flaws out. Looking at the shots they had, they were pretty much all outside the area, including the CCCs and half chances:

The third goal was a late break away.

On the plus side, we did create a clear cut chance and their keeper made two excellent saves. We had 48% possession and got into some decent positions. The next match is against Conference side Braintree, so I might take the same approach there (no OIs, shouts etc) and see what the outcome is of that.

One other slight worry - my MR is playing as a winger, and is one of the best players in the side, but in the first half failed to attempt a single cross. His replacement who came on at half time, and is a natural winger, attempted four. Maybe I'm not utilising my MR in the best way.

[Seagullfan]

Maybe if the DC continues to be exposed and miss tackles you may want to consider using a DMC to provide a bit of cover. If the DC in question is not good enough and you don't have a replacement then it will just keep happening to you so you will have to find some way to protect him.

[Reedy_1988]

One thing i'd maybe do is change one of the wingers from (A) to (S) and make the full back on his side FB/WB (A), that (i think) would add an extra dimension to your attacking play

On second glance that'd be the left hand side, Midfielders looks adapt at playing variety of roles down that side and the full back would one assume is pretty comfortable further forward if needs be.

[Dr. Hook]

Maybe if the DC continues to be exposed and miss tackles you may want to consider using a DMC to provide a bit of cover. If the DC in question is not good enough and you don't have a replacement then it will just keep happening to you so you will have to find some way to protect him.

Agreed. You could set one of the DCs to a cover duty as well, so he sits a bit deeper. Further, how are they pace-wise? You might even look at using a deeper d-line to compensate for either slowness or poor abilities.

[AngryDad]

Thanks all. I've played 2 more friendlies since against Braintree and Cambridge, and won 2-0 and 5-1, so I'm hopeful Bradford was simply us being exposed by a team that's better than anything I'm likely to come up against in the league. I could switch the duties of my left back and left mid - the left back is decent, but I'm weak at left mid, and am trying to get someone else in. On the right my normal right back is very much a defender, although my reserve right back, who is a decent 19 year old, could be a better option, as could Francomb currently playing in right midfield.

On the centre backs, the chap that missed that challenge was on loan, and he's just got injured for five months so I've sent him back. I'm hoping to get a decent player in. I have a reserve formation in mind using a DM as an anchor man, for when I might need to park the bus a little - maybe that will be the time to use a defend / cover partnership, so I'm covered in front and behind the defensive line?

One more friendly to go against Conference North FC United of Manchester, so that one will be more about breaking down the walls than defending.

[AngryDad]

Sorry, didn't answer Dr Hook's actual question. The CB's I've been playing with up to now are OK for pace at this level -Acceleration 11, Pace 8/9. I've got two more in the squad who are significantly slower though (7/8 and 7/6). I'm hoping my loanee will be around 12/13.

On the full back thing; I'm trying to grasp the theory behind switching FB(s) / W(a) to FB(a) / W (s). I guess with the first one there's a chance that the winger will push too far from the full back and be isolated, and I guess also having an overlapping full back (is that what the FB(a) / W(s) roles translate as) will be less predictable. But is their more to it than that? Bottom line is my FBs have limited technical skills and my wingers are much more adept at dribbling and crossing, so I want the wingers to be the ones who have the ball when they get into crossing territory.

[Dr. Hook]

That pace will do a job at the level, most likely. One thing that you may encounter (and may already know) is that the AI managers will often value pace above other attributes, so have a peek at their forwards on your opposition instructions screen (or wherever it's handiest). I do this before every match because I have slow defenders (good in other areas, but SLOW), and I can get some idea of what I might need to do with my d-line. That said, it's basic and I probably didn't need to clutter your thread with it.

As for the fullback thing, let me try to explain it as I understand it: the basic idea here is to vary your attack to give the opposition more to worry about from different angles and points on the pitch, so a fullback making a run on one side provides a different look than a winger doing the same on the other. So, I do the FB (S) W (A) on one side, and FB (A) W (S) on the other.The Fullback on support will still get up enough to cover the space left by the attacking winger, and on the other side, you get the overlap as you rightly point out. I don't see the problem with the FB (S) W (A) as long as you aren't doing that on both sides of the pitch. There will be some space left between the FB (S) and W (A), but if you have your CM (s) on that side, then he will drift over if the play goes that way and provide help. Same on the other side with the CM (D), he will drift over to cover for the attacking fullback a bit deeper than the support winger.

I hope that makes sense, and of course there are numbers of ways to set up, but that is what I would do with the shape, to give you that varying lines of movement and cover.

[FMWolf]

Not even close to be an expert at this year's version of the game, but one thing that has worked for me when playing with a 4-4-2 is setting up both the wingers to wide midfielders (and then see how they play to see if they need any instructions). The team seems more balanced and they still provide assists and score goals. Another thing that worked quite well was set up both my forwards to have a support duty (mainly a Target Man and a DLF). This gives some nice movement between the forwards and they'll help more at the midfield battle. The last thing, and as said by Dr. Hook is setting up the fullbacks and the wide midfielders with support/attack duties to provide movement and interaction

[AngryDad]

Should have listened:(

The warnings were there with a dodgy 3-2 win against FC United. We went a goal down after 13 seconds, and were dominated for the first ten, and never looked that comfortable after that.

But onto the first league match away at Torquay. It ended 0-2, they had 14 shots to my 5, and 5 clear cut chances to my 1, hitting the woodwork twice.

Four of their CCCs came in the first 25 minutes. They played a standard 4-4-2, as did I, and I think my big error was to use player instructions, asking my two centre backs to mark their two centre forwards specifically. I think this meant that they failed to cover other threats. Once I switched that off and moved to shorter passing and a counter attacking game we came a bit more into it, but the damage had been done.

Their first goal started from here:

Looks safe, but we somehow go from that to this:

Add in a powder puff tackle from my left back (who had a mare) and the right winger coasts in and thumps home. The second was a goalmouth scramble. Our attacks looked pretty pedestrian, and as this shows, my target man won plenty of headers but none of them in any danger areas:

So I think I will immediately institute the FB(a)/W(s) set up; we played too much like banks of four and were too easy to defend against. I'm considering putting a permanent "shorter passing" shout, as without it we simply give the ball away too many times; I may also ask the keeper to distribute to defenders as goal kicks are just passing the ball to the opposition.

Next up is Watford away and that is going to be backs to the wall - I'm going to play that one with an anchor man and look to damage limitation. Following that it's a game at home to Wycombe which may already be a must win.

[Dr. Hook]

Yes, the banks of four is what we are trying to avoid with the role/duty mixture Re: keeper distribution, in addition to distribute to defenders, you can see his passing to short and, check to be sure his through balls are not set above rarely. You can stop most of the long aimless balls forward. You're doing well, and I am enjoying watching this go.

[AngryDad]

Two more games, and I have more questions than answers at the moment. Watford was a 0-4 defeat, but I’m not that bothered – I played a weakened team, and we did well in the first half, and could even have taken the lead, before their superior forwards exposed us.

Wycombe at home was on the face of it more encouraging. Our first point from a 0-0, both sides having seven shots but we edged on CCCs by 2-1. There were a couple more that I would have called clear cut as well. But they didn’t look a good side and played a 4-5-1 formation with a slow striker that, I thought, played into our hands. But after we dominate the first half they came back in it in the second, for reasons that I couldn’t quite work out.

I’m not sure that my strike force (Target Man Smith / Advanced Forward Midson) is getting the best out of Midson – he’s a hard working striker, decent in the air and a reasonable finisher, but not quick – I’m not sure the AF role is getting the best out of him. What I want is for his movement and strength to pull the CBs around the place and wear them out, enabling us eventually to get the ball to him in the danger areas – but I’m not sure what role would do this best (any suggestions???)

Also, I think I’ve undercooked the team a little, with several going into the first game needing match fitness and not really able to cope with 3 games in a week. Not much I can do about that now. I’ve brought in 3 new loan signings and a permanent, in part because of a couple of injuries – it would have been better to have these earlier, but I didn’t know at that point the strengths and weaknesses. I’m hoping that tactical familiarity and match fitness will improve matters, but we’re 3 games without a goal now and counting. Next up Exeter away, who have a similar record to us. I’ll be sticking with 4-4-2, but looking to play a lower tempo counter attacking game (as with the last hour of the Torquay match which was a little more successful than the first half hour).

[JOSEPH!]

I agree with Dr. Hook - I am enjoying the journey!

Perhaps the best way to approach your partnership pairing is to think of it as a dual pivot. With your target man (on attack duty?) pretty much leading the line it might be an idea to try Midson as a deep lying forward on a support duty. He should drop deep (maybe dragging a defender with him) and here would be where his good work rate, determination and team work should come into play - chasing anything that Smith can knock down for him and trying to put himself in a good position (his off the ball doesn't seem too bad either). It seems they are a bit disjointed at the moment and creating some sort of movement between the lines would really add something.

You mentioned you have good work rate and fitness within the team. Could you perhaps use that to your advantage? Perhaps a high tempo, short passing game with a counter/defensive mentality? In the Torquay example your defensive line was quite high and your CB was dragged out of position by some clever movement - it seems they don't have the pace to track back either so dropping deeper and utilising your team's fitness and work rate to tire out the opponents may be a good idea.

[AngryDad]

Thanks Joseph, I've wondered about using Midson as a Defensive Forward, perhaps with Smith as an attacking TM, or perhaps with Luke Moore as a poacher (decent pace and finishing but little else), so a DLF is definitely an option worth considering if I don't start scoring in the next couple of games. I've also wondered how to use our fitness and work rate - one thing that's stopped me is the idea of playing a counter attacking game when we're so short of pace - I would have thought you need good acceleration and pace to break quickly, although it definitely seemed to improve matters against Torquay.

[AngryDad]

Goals! Victories! By Jove, I think I've cracked it.

Let's not go mad, but I can see progress at last. Played 3 games, won 1 and drew 2. Exeter saw me win 2-1 away from home, courtesy of a fortunate set piece goal to break the drought and a decent goal from my target man, latching onto a pass from the right winger down the side and firing home. Followed that with a bit of a fortunate draw against Scunthorpe at home, who are top - I feared the worst when they scored in the second minute, but we jammed one home from a corner, and although they have a bit of a star man on loan from Man City, Alex Nimely, they never really threatened.

The most heartening game was the next one at home to Fleetwood. It ended as a 2-2 draw, having blown a lead twice, but they were two proper goals, one volleyed in from a cross and the first a superb goal from Midson, now playing as a defensive forward, latching on to a knock down from Target Man Smith and hammering home into the top corner. Videos are beyond me, but it went a bit like this:

to this:

Forgive me, this doesn't add a lot to the debate, but pick that one out Fleetwood

Scunthorpe and Fleetwood are very good L2 teams, so 2 points from 2 games, albeit both at home, is good going. I've switched Francomb to a supporting wide midfielder and he's got more into the game. My front two is still an issue, I've made Midson a defensive forward alongside Smith as an attacking Target Man, and it hasn't led to a CCC blizzard, but they're getting good end-of-game ratings (7+). We've got 2 difficult games (away at Peterborough in the Johnsons Paint which I won't be taking very seriously and away at Chesterfield, another strong team at this level), plus a game away at York who are not a particularly strong team - if I can get 3 points from the two away games I really will start to believe...

[JOSEPH!]

Well done! That is a screamer from Midson!

I'm not sure if you're doing this already but the match engine will usually tell you enough to make very informed decisions. Try watching a previous game as full as possible and just look at your centre forwards and see how they are behaving. It may open your eyes and let you really change aspects of their play to suit your style.

[tjampman]

Good thread topic, and interesting to follow, I have never been successful with a 4-4-2 formation so, I'd like to see how you will fare, I am sure that with experts helping out here you will nail it in the end.

Now I will not claim to be an expert, I haven't read any of the guides afterall and I rarely if ever offer advice to others, but I have picked up on a tip or two laying around on these forums, so I will offer my input as well with full disclaimers :-)

At the moment I play a 4-1DM-3-2 formation with wingers sort of like you do, so with that in mind, I feel our tactics are sort of related.

Roles/duties

I see you have gone with the basic roles central defenders and midfielders, while I like that my feeling from playing the game is that at the lower levels (I would say L2 fall in to this) those roles seem to be to generic for the players to cope with and I have preferred to use more specific duties.

Defense

I don't like Limited defenders but for my experience the defence have been better with LDs instead of CDs, and unless my defenders have been good enough I have chosen to set the to LD roles. The cost of this I find is the conversion from defence to offence as the LD tend to just blast the ball away even if set to play out of defense. So as everything it is a compromise.

Full backs. What can I say... I love symmetry, so have FB(S) both sides. My understanding is that varying the FB/WB is better when in position of the ball... But I consider this a 'hack', but I have heard it should be useful.

Midfield

Well I will update this later... I have to get back to work... :-)

Bye for now

Update: So with the new update out, with a lot of changes I will postpone any tactical advise and see how I will get along with the game first.

[JOSEPH!]

Tjampman, with regards to your point about the variation of FB/WB being a 'hack': It isn't.

Would you consider it cheating if a manager in real life had a defensive central midfielder and an attacking one? No - it is the same logic.

What I will say AngryDad is that I think there is room for one of your wide men to supplement your attacks through the middle. It seems the screamer from Midson came from a bit of individual brilliance. Tactically speaking the opposition should have you completely covered with a very tight defensive three on your attacking two. Perhaps looking at putting one of your wide players as Wide Midfielder with instructions to stay narrow, cut inside and get further forward would be beneficial. If you look at the last screenshot there is a lot of space to be exploited between the opposition CB and FB and it seems if one player could attack that space then it would really add more to your attack (perhaps the player on the side of the TM could be more attacking as the TM could knock the ball down into the channel they would be attacking) and help create an overload in your favour through the middle.

Of course you know the team far better than I so this may not be applicable.

[AngryDad]

Thanks all!

I think our tactics are closely related Tjampman, and I play 4-1-3-2 (with an anchorman) when I'm up against much better opposition (it's worked fine apart from against Watford, which doesn't really count). I am thinking of making my technical CM a deep lying playmaker, but trying one small change at a time - keeping it simple is the philosophy. I've tried limited defenders before and as you say their habit of blasting the ball anywhere just means we end up under more pressure, particularly as we don't have a lot of attacking pace - unless the passing is accurate its easily mopped up. I've always gone with symmetrical formations, but of course at this level I'm stuck with the players I have, and also I think it probably makes your attacks that bit more predictable. At the moment of got an FB(S) / Winger (A) on the left, and an FB (A) / Wide Midfielder (S) on the right, as my right midfielder doesn't seem to be able to get past the full back and deliver a cross (he's got acceleration / pace / dribbling / crossing stats of around 11 - maybe this isn't enough).

I think your suggestion might be a good one Joseph - I'm looking for a way to get Francomb (the RM) more involved, and staying narrow in particular might be the answer (if he's not going to get past the FB then he needs to play a pass when in front of him - so playing narrow might give him the space to do so and get more involved further forward. But will the "get further forward" instruction conflict with his support duties, and would I need to give him an attack duty (and re-balance the duties elsewhere) to make this work do you think?

[JOSEPH!]

I think your suggestion might be a good one Joseph - I'm looking for a way to get Francomb (the RM) more involved, and staying narrow in particular might be the answer (if he's not going to get past the FB then he needs to play a pass when in front of him - so playing narrow might give him the space to do so and get more involved further forward. But will the "get further forward" instruction conflict with his support duties, and would I need to give him an attack duty (and re-balance the duties elsewhere) to make this work do you think?

Good question. I think that even with the get further forward instruction he should be OK and you shouldn't notice a particular difference in his defensive contribution. Keep his support duty in the hope that it gives him the chance to join attacks a bit later and really drive into any gaps he may see. Definitely experiment if you can - I realise though that you may not have the luxury of being able to experiment in games when you're confident of a win.

[AngryDad]

I realise though that you may not have the luxury of being able to experiment in games when you're confident of a win.

I would say I could always play our u-18s - but I did that in a previous save and managed to lose that one as well

[tjampman]

Tjampman, with regards to your point about the variation of FB/WB being a 'hack': It isn't.

Would you consider it cheating if a manager in real life had a defensive central midfielder and an attacking one? No - it is the same logic.

No, I don't think there is anything wrong/cheating with using an asymmetrical formation, and I have done so myself previously. So to be clear I don't take any offence to using the FB(A)/WB(S) setup.

My gripes with it, is because many times when I have heard the suggestion made, it seems to imply that it will give your play more variation. But I cannot personally make that translation to real life, because in my mind it is still as static if you look at the wings separately.

[JOSEPH!]

No, I don't think there is anything wrong/cheating with using an asymmetrical formation, and I have done so myself previously. So to be clear I don't take any offence to using the FB(A)/WB(S) setup.

My gripes with it, is because many times when I have heard the suggestion made, it seems to imply that it will give your play more variation. But I cannot personally make that translation to real life, because in my mind it is still as static if you look at the wings separately.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that you don't see evidence of a supporting full back and an attacking full back in real life?

[AngryDad]

Before reading these pages I had always taken the view that defenders were there to defend, strikers to score goals etc, so the idea that you would instruct a full back to attack and a striker to defend didn't compute (hence tactical disaster).

The way I've got to grips in my mind with it is to treat the duties as relative to the position. Putting a full back on "attack" doesn't mean that he'll camp in the opposition penalty area while the opposition winger makes hay in the vacated space - just that he'll get forward if the opportunity arises. He remains a defender. So real life comparisons might be Baines and Coleman at Everton, Walker at Spurs and Cole at Chelsea.

As far as symmetry goes, I've realised its over-rated, after many months of assuming that the left back must play a similar game to the chap on the right. Again, IRL full backs can have very different roles - Rafael gets forward much more than Evra, Cole (when he plays) is much more attacking than Ivanovic (other than for set pieces). I think part of the key is realising just how individual instructions are; it's pretty rare now for a team to play two out-and-out wingers rather than, say, Man City playing one direct winger and a very different type of player on the opposite side.

[JOSEPH!]

Exactly couldn't have put it better myself.

[tjampman]

Alright, I will try and be a little bit more concise.

• I do not feel there is any tactical advantage to having separate instructions to your fullback players.
  
• There might be other reasons to having separate instructions to your fullbacks i.e. player abilities
  

The reason I said 'I consider it a hack' is because people on the forum seem to suggest it for a tactical improvement, whereas I feel it should only be used if it fits your players better, both your fullbacks but certainly also depending on your wide midfielders

I hope this clears up my position a bit.

[themadsheep2001]

Alright, I will try and be a little bit more concise.

• I do not feel there is any tactical advantage to having separate instructions to your fullback players.
  
• There might be other reasons to having separate instructions to your fullbacks i.e. player abilities
  

The reason I said 'I consider it a hack' is because people on the forum seem to suggest it for a tactical improvement, whereas I feel it should only be used if it fits your players better, both your fullbacks but certainly also depending on your wide midfielders

I hope this clears up my position a bit.

There is undoubtedly an advantage, because it can create a two on one overload on that flank. It is precisely why inside forwards have become so prevalent in football, and why full backs have become so attacking. The downside of course is when a flank is that attacking there is space left to be countered in. Indeed many games are have often been decided by who could get their full backs into the game the most, and who could create most overlaps ( particularly prevalent when 3 man midfields meet). You will see asymmetric set ups (such as City) to prevent teams just sitting deep and narrow, and cluttering up space for players attacking inside.

[AngryDad]

I think for "hack" read "plug and play" - I must admit I implemented the change without really knowing why I was doing it. But I think I understand now.

Anyway, I've played one game (0-1 Johnstone's Paint vs Peterborough, last minute goal and I played pretty much a reserve team), so I thought I would write about training. Frankly, even after reading the Ajax thread, I don't know what I'm doing. For LLM managers the idea of bringing through a bunch of youth teamers to first team regulars is a pipe dream; our youth players aren't any good and the facilities aren't good enough even if they were. So for me training is very much about the first team, getting them match fit, familiar with the tactics and adding a few extras like set piece training and the odd PPM.

At the moment I have match training on full and will keep this on until I have full tactical familiarity. Players have a rest day after matches, and I've also had general training mostly on tactics / team cohesion, again for tactical familiarity purposes. Once they have this I'll want to keep them working hard at the start of the season, gradually reducing as we go through and moving from fitness to technical skills to avoid tiredness. But whether this is a sensible approach is anyone's guess.

I've also taken the view training players specifically on technical skills once they're 27+ is a bit of a waste of time.

I have picked out 6 players from each youth cohort to focus on development, working out which attributes to work on via specific training instructions (I'm keeping them away from PPMs as they need to focus on attribute improvement if they're ever going to play for the first team), and tutoring to try and get the players to more determined personality types.

Does this all sound reasonable?

[AngryDad]

So, 3 games, 3 defeats and I'm heading back down a familiar road.

First game vs York go 1-0 up to a penalty that sees them have a player sent off, they equalise, we score to make it 2-1 with 15 minutes to go and then concede two goals to set pieces in the last ten minutes. We didn't play well mind. The second game away at Chesterfield we were actually better but lost 3-0, 2 late goals when I was throwing a bit of caution to the winds. We should have taken the lead and had more chances before they scored, but after that we lost our way.

The third game is the most worrying. Home to Burton who were 16th. I suppose it could have been different - we had more shots and clear cut chances, but I'm beginning to lose my way I think. We lined up standard 4-4-2, with a defensive forward and advanced forward. I tried to switch my CM(s) to CM(a) as we didn't seem to be finding any space in the final third, but it seemed to have little effect, and they always looked dangerous on the break, playing 4-5-1 with plenty of runners from deep.

Here's an example. We get the ball in this area, but there seems to be a huge gap, with my AF totally isolated.

I want the left mid to drive on, attack the full back, or play the ball short and then look to receive the return. But all I end up with is an aimless long ball.

I tried to move from low to high tempo as, with 10 players behind the ball, we needed to move it faster, but it made no difference (apart from the passes just got more aimless). One header from a cross and a late long range free kick and we've lost 2-0 at home and I'm 22nd.

I will try and have a longer look at the game next time out, but I'm struggling to see just what it is that I'm doing wrong.

[llama3]

What is your current system now?

[AngryDad]

No access to screenshots unfortunately from here, but I was playing:

GK

FB(A) CB (D) CB (D) FB (S)

WM(S) CM (S) CM (D) W(A)

DEF FWD (S) AF (A)

Started with 1 team shout (lower tempo) and very few player shouts, allowing my assistant to choose OIs. During the match I changed to higher tempo as the oppo were playing 4-5-1 and had plenty of men over by the time we got anywhere near their penalty area. I also changed the CM(S) to CM(A) to try and get him involved - he's been my best player this year, a decent creative passer for this level.

I think my problem is a lack of attacking strategy. "Keep it simple" is a platform for a strategy but not a strategy itself. Problem is I can come up with a defensive strategy easily enough based on my hard-working, fit, tall but slow team; well organised, difficult to break down, deny space in the middle and keep the opposition out of the penalty area. I could also add harassment of the defenders, getting them to play long balls that at this level will almost certainly end up out of play.

But I am struggling to come up with an attacking strategy, and I think the problem is that for years I have relied on pace, and for FM14 pace is not as crucial, and anyway I don't really have any (my quickest striker is Acc 10 Pace 14, the rest all 8-10 for either attribute). I think I need to work out how I use movement - can I get my strikers to pull defenders out of position? Can I then get my midfielders or even full backs to fill the space? I think in any simple strategy 4-4-2 you will have 8 players normally capable of contributing to attack - the full backs plus midfield and strikers. My wide midfielders / wingers don't seem capable of beating the full back and putting a cross in. My central midfielders haven't really made any late runs into the box. I could try attacking / overlapping full backs, but worry that this will give them too much to do defensively.

My attackers are one archetypal Target Man (big, good in the air, strong, slow, not much good technically), one hard worker (decent in the air, reasonable technical ability, not quick), one finisher (slow, 6 foot but not great in the air, good technical ability and finishing attributes) and one quicker player who is more at home as an AMC, decent stats but rarely seems to contribute in practice.

I am now going to read about pairs and combinations to see if that can help, and maybe looking back at Joseph's post 18 on this thread think about a short passing high tempo counter attacking game - but can counter attacking really work without pace?

[AngryDad]

So, back to the drawing board.

My strategy is going to be that we will set ourselves to be well organised and hard to beat; offensively we'll look to be a counter attacking side, with a variety of options based on hard work and stamina, with the midfield and full backs joining attacks and the forwards working hard to move defenders around and creating space. The goals will flow either from orthodox wing play and crosses, from my creative central midfielder playing in the forwards or from my three non-defensive midfielders making late and hopefully untracked runs into the box.

The set up is:

The plan is that we have an overload in attacking down the flanks - on the left my FB, Winger and defensive forward will form a triangle with the CM, AF and Right WM getting into the box. On the right it will be the FB, WM and CM, with the two forward and left winger getting into the danger zone.

Individual instructions are for the FBs both to run wide with the ball (so as to create space in a narrow formation), Right WM to get further forward (hopefully into the space between full back and centre back, the DLF to move into channels (to make the triangle) and both strikers to tackle hard, so as to pressure the centre backs and make them play the ball long.

Any obvious flaws so far?

[SnUrF]

Be careful with that right flank as you've got FB(a) and WM(s) with Get Further Forward instruction and the CM on that side has support duty. Not to say it couldn't work but the right flank might be a bit weak when countered. Perhaps swap the duties in CM and also up top, but that might make a mess of your plan alltogether.

-SnUrF

[AngryDad]

I think you might be right - the first principle is to make us difficult to break down. I also got confused - counter attacking must need to be high tempo and not low. So I think I'll change it to high tempo, make the DLF a defensive forward and switch off the "get further forward" instruction - if I swap the midfielders around I think I end up with only two attacking players on the right side (with a defensive CM and an advanced forward who won't link the play up). I could switch the attackers as well - I'll see how the set up works now away at Cheltenham...

[Dr. Hook]

Counter attacking should be a slow tempo- you were right about that. The idea is to slow down play, frustrate the opposition, then hit fast when the opportunity comes.