The World Cup: Tactical Interpretations for FM14

[peleJunior]

It's pretty hard to get a 433 with AML/AMR positions to work well without using 2 DM's. I think one of the reason's is the AI use their own variants quite like you have described France here, they hit balls to the flanks very fast leaving your fullbacks in alot of 1 v 1 situations that they lose.

[killacam0913]

Thanks. I'm hoping to have the time to do Klinsmann's USA against either Portugal or Germany.

Haha I would appreciate that. Personally, I think the Germany game would be more interesting tactically, but it's ultimately up to you. I am pretty curious to see your interpretation, and how close it is to mine.

[THOG]

It's pretty hard to get a 433 with AML/AMR positions to work well without using 2 DM's. I think one of the reason's is the AI use their own variants quite like you have described France here, they hit balls to the flanks very fast leaving your fullbacks in alot of 1 v 1 situations that they lose.

With the database mostly set up to prefer AMLR over MLR in this version, you can do a lot of damage by just being direct and focusing play down the flanks. This is also one of the reasons a lot of people who use AMLR tend to struggle against teams like United (since AI Moyes, for example, tends to be attacking and use 'play wider'). A lot of AI teams tend to compensate by using very defensive fullbacks though, so it depends a bit on who you're playing against.

Haha I would appreciate that. Personally, I think the Germany game would be more interesting tactically, but it's ultimately up to you. I am pretty curious to see your interpretation, and how close it is to mine.

Yeah, I'll probably do the Germany game since that's the one that matters to Klinsmann.

[THOG]

A relevant point from Roberto Martinez on the possibility that Argentina would play an outright 4-3-3 (in FM terms, it was more of a diamond 4-3MC-1-2 but the point still applies):

MARTINEZ: "When they have to defend in [the final third], Argentina has to come up with seven players defending. You have three players up here who are not bothered by their defensive ability. Yes, it suits Messi going forward, but do you think playing that way, you can win the World Cup?"

SOLARI: "No."

[HamoudiLFC]

Great job, I love reading this. As a tactical newbie myself being used to FM's terms, this is great learning from me on how players' act in the real-life game and how it can be almost interpreted into the game!

[Jyuan83]

THOG would you also do one for portugal as it would be interesting to see how they line-up in your opinion considering Ronaldo being so further forward in the game in his AML position without really tracking back to defend while Nani tracks back to help balance up things defensively on the right flank. I think it could possibly be an assymetric 442 like what you described earlier about france

[aderow]

A relevant point from Roberto Martinez on the possibility that Argentina would play an outright 4-3-3 (in FM terms, it was more of a diamond 4-3MC-1-2 but the point still applies):

MARTINEZ: "When they have to defend in [the final third], Argentina has to come up with seven players defending. You have three players up here who are not bothered by their defensive ability. Yes, it suits Messi going forward, but do you think playing that way, you can win the World Cup?"

SOLARI: "No."

Agreed completely.

[CRN711]

Great thread, but what about making France tactic?

[mattrjones]

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2006/oct/18/championsleague.barcelona

An old article by David Pleat on Rijkaard's barcelona team

"The difference between Barcelona and other sides that play 4-3-3 is that Barcelona really do play it: the three up front are attackers who open up the pitch, stretching the game and getting right out to the touchline. It's not an excuse for a five-man midfield - Ronaldinho, for instance, doesn't defend"

[lennon67]

This is a brilliant thread, I wish the Italians still played a 4-3-1-2 would have been good to see how they set up on FM.

[THOG]

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

For the Americans, this match was neatly segmented into three parts. There was a lengthy middle period in which the Americans successfully probed an undermanned Portuguese midfield book-ended by two brief episodes of desperate American defending culminating in an avoidable Portuguese goal. At the outset, the U.S. sat very deep and were likely looking to play for the point, but the reemergence of their bad habit of conceding early, soft goals in international tournaments meant they had to quickly transition to a more aggressive posture within the opening 10 minutes. This post was largely focus on how the teams set up for the majority of the match as opposed to the opening game plan.

To their credit, the Americans responded well. In fact, for the defence, there was almost a sense as if they were happy to get the inevitable error out of the way, allowing them to push up and be more proactive. Going forward, the American attack was similarly patient and composed with a focus on gradually overwhelming Portugual's 4-man midfield. Portugal themselves were happy to allow the Americans to step forward and chase an equaliser with the prohibitive heat and humidity of Manaus posing an obvious risk to any player intending to press aggressively for the full 90 minutes. Consequently, the tilting midfield triangle of Beckerman/Jones/Bradley was allowed to operate more freely, creating a series of decent chances and eventually winning Portugal's wager that they lacked the quality to break them down.

Further aiding the American cause was Portugal's decision to play Ronaldo through the middle as a second striker. Though Beasley tended to sit deeper to maintain a step or three (or five) on Nani, this generally allowed the U.S. fullbacks to push up further and provide more width with Bedoya looking to tuck inside next to an otherwise Dempsey. Despite his goal, Dempsey played a surprisingly limited role. Looking at the pre-match team sheets, I would have expected Dempsey to drop deeper in both the attacking and defensive phase, especially with the Americans looking to play more patient and technical passing game, but his role was not altogether different from the one usually played by Altidore. Of course, Dempsey has vastly different qualities as a player and his inability to effectively hold up the ball meant he spent the majority of the match simply drifting across Portugual's back line.

In FM terms, the U.S.'s shape was mostly a 4-1-4-1, though Bradley sometimes operated in a defensive role somewhere between an AMC and MC, pressing very high as a second forward before moving back to allow the 4-4-1-1 to become a 4-1-4-1. In doing this, Bradley could offer an immediate link to Dempsey in the event of a quick turnover as well as a fifth defender in midfield in what turned out to be the much more likely event of a comfortable, Portuguese transition. This is difficult to replicate organically, but a combination of PI's and the loose marking of an attack duty will give you a hint of it. For the fluidity setting, I would choose rigid. There was a clear separation of attacking phase responsibilities within the team that largely aligned with the players' defensive positions. The striker and wide midfielders pushed up, the central midfielders worked together as a compact unit linking defence and attack, and while Fabian Johnson did burst forward as Meireles dropped deep, the fullbacks were careful not to risk leaving Cameron and Besler in a 2v2 situation with Eder and Ronaldo.

While the U.S. clearly planned to start with a defensive mentality, Nani's early goal demanded a change of plan. For most of the match, the Americans appeared to be playing with what I would interpret as a Standard mentality, carefully balancing risk and reward as they got forward. I did not think Counter was a good option as the Americans were neither especially possession-oriented when the Portuguese were sitting back nor were they inclined to break forward quickly with only Dempsey up front. On the other hand, Control would make the team far too direct and eager to push numbers forward against a cautious and well-disciplined defence. Finally, for team instructions, I would add "Shorter Passing" and "Higher Tempo."

And the individual roles:

GK: Goalkeeper - Defend

DL: Fullback - Support

DCL: Central Defender - Defend

DCR: Central Defender - Defend

DR: Fullback - Attack

DMC: Anchor Man - Defend

ML: Wide Midfielder - Attack

MCL: Advanced Playmaker - Attack + Close Down More + Dribble Less + Roam from Position

MCR: Box to Box Midfielder - Support

MR: Winger - Support + Roam from Position

STC: Advanced Forward - Attack + Move Into Channels

PORTUGAL

The Portuguese were forced into a change of system by a combination of injuries, suspensions and the unusual environmental challenges of playing at the Arena Amazonia. The basic shape was a 4-4-2 with Ronaldo operating as a centre forward as he's done rather frequently for Ancelotti's Madrid. There are several reasons for simply playing Ronaldo up front. First and foremost, America's strengths run right through the middle and playing two centre forwards allowed Portugal to better isolate Besler and Cameron from the American midfield. Furthermore, America's central defenders (in fact, Cameron is more often played as a fullback at the club level) can be shaky and error prone, so putting Ronaldo up front with a powerful centre forward was more likely to instill panic in the American back line, an estimation that ultimately helped lead to Nani's early goal. Finally, playing Ronaldo as a forward (be it wide or central) as opposed to a midfielder in a more defensively stable 4-1-4-1 minimised the risk of exhausting Portugual's key player in oppressive weather conditions.

Still, every tactical choice bears both risks and rewards. In this case, keeping Ronaldo forward left Portugal with only four players defending midfield, and unable to sustain a high block to pin back the American attack, this gave the Americans the opportunity to create numerical advantages in attack. With this in mind, Bento was likely disappointed with Ronaldo's lack of productivity on the break as, until the very last moment of the match, the Americans were remarkably successful at curtailing dangerous transitions. While Portugal's secondary plan of slowly moving forward and unnerving the American defence with high crosses into the box brought early results, it proved wholly ineffective once the Americans found their footing.

The 4-4-2 shape was also hindered by the questionable decision to play Meireles at wide left for much of the match. Though Almeida reliably moved forward in attack to act as a wingback with Meireles operating in a deeper and slightly central role, this defensive positioning meant transitions were predictably channeled down the right, allowing Beasley to focus on containing the threat of Nani while Johnson was able to provide close support to Graham Zusi. Eventually, Portugal brought on an outright winger in place of Meireles, adding the directness that the Portuguese were missing on their left flank and ultimately leading to Varela's last second equaliser.

As suggested above, the formation in FM should be a 4-4-2. For the fluidity, I would use Balanced as the team looked to dramatically restructure itself into an attacking shape closer to what you would expect from a 4-1-4-1/4-3-3, most notably with Meireles sitting quite deep and Almeida surging forward on the flanks. In other words, in the attacking phase, players roles/duties took precedent over their defensive positions. The mentality was probably closest to Counter with Portugal looking to break forward quickly if they could but otherwise playing a more patient game. For team instructions, I would add "Pass Shorter," "Lower Tempo," "Float Crosses," "Push Higher Up" (to achieve more of a medium block from Counter's mid-low baseline) and "Stick to Positions" (this latter TI will be offset by a few PIs). To further clarify in regards to my preceding comments about the fluidity setting, I'd add that "Stick to Positions" does not concern defensive position but attacking position as defined more by the player's role.

And for individual roles:

GK: Goalkeeper - Defend + Distribute to Defenders

DL: Wingback - Attack + Stay Wider

DCL: Central Defender - Defend

DCR: Central Defender - Defend

DR: Fullback - Support

ML: Wide Midfielder - Support + Sit Narrower + Cross Less Often + Shoot Less Often + Roam from Position

Meireles played an usual role somewhere between a very conservative wide midfielder and a box-to-box midfielder. He would sometimes drift into a very central position which can be difficult to replicate in FM but can be approximated by telling him to roam.

MCL: Deep Lying Playmaker - Support

Moutinho's role and position were somewhat fluid over different stretches of the match. At times, he operated to the right of Veloso when defending and occasionally took up defend duty responsibilities to allow his midfield partner to move out wide.

MCR: Central Midfielder - Defend

As with Moutinho, Veloso's role and position changed throughout the match. At various points, he moved to MCL and drifted wide in a more aggressive support role.

MR: Winger - Attack

STCL: Complete Forward - Attack + Moves Into Channels + Roam from Position

Ronaldo and Eder would also periodically swap sides or duties throughout the match.

STCR: Deep Lying Forward - Support

[yonko]

I don't agree with your analysis of the US tactic. They didn't use higher tempo. Beasley also overlapped on the left side. Beckerman saw a lot of the ball, so perhaps he needs a playmaking role. I'm thinking DLP-D. And Bradley was playing as AMC.

[THOG]

I don't agree with your analysis of the US tactic. They didn't use higher tempo. Beasley also overlapped on the left side. Beckerman saw a lot of the ball, so perhaps he needs a playmaking role. I'm thinking DLP-D. And Bradley was playing as AMC.

Fair enough, though FWIW, I'll explain those decisions in a bit more detail:

An FB-S will overlap, just not as often. For the most part, Beasley sat deeper and was more cautious about getting forward, as you can see on his squawka heat map.

Higher tempo is not an absolute TI (meaning higher tempo does not necessarily mean high tempo, if that makes sense), and it was chosen to offset the tempo reduction from shorter passing. They played a technical game, but they moved the ball rather quickly and I didn't think the relative tempo of Shorter Passing/Standard was high enough.

While Beckerman saw a lot of the ball, this was largely because, given Portugal's shape, he was a consistently open outlet when Bradley and Jones were under pressure. His passes were almost uniformly short, lateral passes or passes directly to the feet of an unmarked teammate. He didn't play the expressive, high risk passing game of a playmaker or even, IMO, just a generalist holding player. His teammates certainly weren't looking for him to make things happen.

As I said in the write-up, Bradley had elements of both, but when deep, he was mostly even with Jones while Beckerman consistently dropped between the lines and was focused more on supporting the wide players as Bradley/Jones covered options through the centre. The marking instructions of an attack duty AP will also encourage that player to stand off a bit more and look to provide the quick outlet... though he won't be positioned as high up as an AM. I think you could reasonably go either way, but I lean more to the MC interpretation.

[bababooey]

THOG,

These writeups have been lovely. I wanted to get your take on something though, about possession.

We've seen matches where the possession has been HEAVILY dominated by one side (Argentina v Iran, Germany v Ghana, etc) yet we can agree most of the bigger teams are using lower mentalities. For instance, Germany certainly played on counter/standard (if we want to translate to FM terms) in their last match. The issue here though, is that in FM if you play on a lower mentality you will concede possession most of the time. I remember back when I used Arsenal on "counter" we would routinely give up tons of possession to whoever we played, unless we hassled and pushed higher up. With those defensive adjustments we saw a huge difference in the possession numbers.

So my question to you is, have you ever come up with a tactic that consistently keeps hold of the ball well, without any sort of heavy pressing? In my new Napoli save (the thread is worth checking out), I've decided to completely disregard possession, and I'm having a blast. Creating amazing amounts of shots on target, and CCC's, with like 39% of the ball. It's great to see. But I'm curious how you feel about this.

[THOG]

There are a lot of issues that play into this. Some of them are ME issues, some of them data issues, some AI tactical issues and also the fact that the ME and Opta have very different definitions of "possession." In terms of the ME, lower mentality keepers' tendency to hoof it long if defenders are under any remote threat of pressure plays a part, as does players' reluctance to just break off from an attack that's not going anywhere and just recycle possession. In terms of data, a lot of teams play extremely aggressive formations that keep a lot of players forward, and this has the double effect of discouraging backpasses to deeper players and encouraging more forward movement/passing into the ample space that's often available in the opposition half. For various reasons, play in the ME tends to be more end-to-end than it should be when more should be happening in the middle third. Then, you have the fact that Opta defines possession as the team's proportion of all attempted passes while the ME just has a clock that switches between teams when there's a turnover of possession... meaning in real life, a lot of possession stats are skewed because two DCs might just make a bunch of quick passes between one another during the match.

But while all those are complications, there's also the tactical issue that you will, ultimately, have to press a team that's happy to sit back and waste time. Whether teams in FM are, on balance, generally too happy to do that is probably debatable as well.

[yonko]

Fair enough, though FWIW, I'll explain those decisions in a bit more detail:

An FB-S will overlap, just not as often. For the most part, Beasley sat deeper and was more cautious about getting forward, as you can see on his squawka heat map.

Higher tempo is not an absolute TI (meaning higher tempo does not necessarily mean high tempo, if that makes sense), and it was chosen to offset the tempo reduction from shorter passing. They played a technical game, but they moved the ball rather quickly and I didn't think the relative tempo of Shorter Passing/Standard was high enough.

While Beckerman saw a lot of the ball, this was largely because, given Portugal's shape, he was a consistently open outlet when Bradley and Jones were under pressure. His passes were almost uniformly short, lateral passes or passes directly to the feet of an unmarked teammate. He didn't play the expressive, high risk passing game of a playmaker or even, IMO, just a generalist holding player. His teammates certainly weren't looking for him to make things happen.

As I said in the write-up, Bradley had elements of both, but when deep, he was mostly even with Jones while Beckerman consistently dropped between the lines and was focused more on supporting the wide players as Bradley/Jones covered options through the centre. The marking instructions of an attack duty AP will also encourage that player to stand off a bit more and look to provide the quick outlet... though he won't be positioned as high up as an AM. I think you could reasonably go either way, but I lean more to the MC interpretation.

I agree more now that you've given such explanation. But would a FB-S really overlap even occasionally a WM-A on Rigid fluidity? I haven't tried it so I can't be sure. Have you tried any of these tactical write ups in actual FM matches? Or are you basically using your broad knowledge of all tactical elements in FM?

[THOG]

I agree more now that you've given such explanation. But would a FB-S really overlap even occasionally a WM-A on Rigid fluidity? I haven't tried it so I can't be sure. Have you tried any of these tactical write ups in actual FM matches? Or are you basically using your broad knowledge of all tactical elements in FM?

Here's a screen of the same settings using Italy with Montolivo as the WM and Santon as the FB (Santon does not have any "get forward"-type PPMs):

Yes, I take a close look at each tactic before I post the write-up. I'm not testing for FM-effectiveness since there are too many variables to make short-term testing feasible (and I don't really care if any of these work as plug & play tactics), but I put it on full match for a bit and make sure the movement/passing patterns are what I'd expect. At this point, I'm confident enough in my grasp of the TC that I can intuitively get results that don't really conflict with my interpretations outside known limitations in the ME itself. The write-ups also aren't based on memory but notes that I take during the match on both general team behaviours and individual decision-making (yes, I'm a blast at viewing parties ).

Now, whether you actually agree with my interpretations is totally up to you. As I've said, I'm not going to be too dogmatic about them since this is mostly just for fun and giving people (myself included) ideas about how to approximate different styles or how to modify roles to get specific effects.

[Jyuan83]

THOG for Portugal's tactic, i was thinking more along the lines of 4-1-4-1 as ronaldo's knee issue would not enable him to play a really mobile role up front as a CF(a) and move fast away from defenders to attack. As the match progressed, he took up a much deeper position almost as a creative base for others to attack no doubt due to his knee problem. What is your opinion on ronaldo's role in the USA match?

[THOG]

THOG for Portugal's tactic, i was thinking more along the lines of 4-1-4-1 as ronaldo's knee issue would not enable him to play a really mobile role up front as a CF(a) and move fast away from defenders to attack. As the match progressed, he took up a much deeper position almost as a creative base for others to attack no doubt due to his knee problem. What is your opinion on ronaldo's role in the USA match?

I think he alternated between an attack and support role at various points, but just now rewatching some passages of American possession between 65-80 minutes, Ronaldo's defensive position was around the centre circle so I think STC is the way to go for him.

[killacam0913]

Great stuff again THOG! The Altidore injury forced the US to change tactics after the Ghana game. Any thoughts on what formation the US lined up in against Ghana. To me it looked like a 4-1-3-2 with Jones and Bedoya allowed to get wider on attack

[Jorgen]

Another tactical masterpiece by Louis van Gaal: Dirk Kuijt as left wing back.

The Dutch style was always about possession, changing positions and attacking.

Now it is too, but without the possession and in a formation that lets one think it is not attacking at all, but it can be so effective attackingwise.

I hope I can make such a tactic for my game, starting with the things THOG allready wrote.

[aderow]

As you can see in the following image, when you combine roaming and attack duties, you do not necessarily need "Cut Inside" to make a player move up and inside as a second forward. In my opinion, the question is really whether it's a priority for the player to move inside to encourage an attacking fullback to move forward:

THOG I actually think this has a lot to do with the 'moves into channel' ppm. I've been trying to get players in the ML and MR positions to come inside not unlike inside forwards. And despite whichever instructions that I have given to the WMs, to get them to behave like inside forwards, the player that done this the best (drifted inside with the most frequency) is a player with the 'moves into channels' ppm.

I've always wanted wide players moving inside but doing so off the ball so I've never really been a fan of 'cuts inside' tbf. It's unfortunate that 'moves into channels' is not an instruction you can give wide players.

[sweep17]

Any chance you could look at Columbia OP they've been great on the counter attack all tournament with some great movement and interchange. They have built their attacks really quickly but also really intelligently, James Rodriguez has been particularly good at finding pockets of space to work in and is my player of the tournament so far. They seem to play a 4-4-2 but certainly against Japan today they were definately playing a back 5 with the DMC dropping back. Their wide players sometimes push high up as well and make what looks like a front three with Rodriguez floating about in the space they create.

[Lyssien]

And despite whichever instructions that I have given to the WMs, to get them to behave like inside forwards, the player that done this the best (drifted inside with the most frequency) is a player with the 'moves into channels' ppm.

I've always wanted wide players moving inside but doing so off the ball so I've never really been a fan of 'cuts inside' tbf. It's unfortunate that 'moves into channels' is not an instruction you can give wide players.

Right, I have noticed this too. "Moves into channels" is a difference maker for side midfielders in FM14.

[aderow]

Right, I have noticed this too. "Moves into channels" is a difference maker for side midfielders in FM14.

Not just FM14; it's been the same for some time now. At least in my opinion.

[Jyuan83]

What i have tried is that by getting the WM to cross less often, they drift centrally much more than just being asked to cut inside and roam. Received inspiration from THOG in his configuration of Germany's WMs in the match against Portugal in which they were instructed to cut in, roam, dribble more, more risky passes and cross less often. This has turned my otherwise average WM into a key member of my team. Scored in his last 4 matches so far. Having said that, the lack of pronounced horizontal movement in the ME will not enable us to have a player drift right into the centre to playmake most of the time like what silva and james rodiguez are doing at the world cup.

[THOG]

Great stuff again THOG! The Altidore injury forced the US to change tactics after the Ghana game. Any thoughts on what formation the US lined up in against Ghana. To me it looked like a 4-1-3-2 with Jones and Bedoya allowed to get wider on attack

It looked like a 4-4-2 to me.

THOG I actually think this has a lot to do with the 'moves into channel' ppm. I've been trying to get players in the ML and MR positions to come inside not unlike inside forwards. And despite whichever instructions that I have given to the WMs, to get them to behave like inside forwards, the player that done this the best (drifted inside with the most frequency) is a player with the 'moves into channels' ppm.

I've always wanted wide players moving inside but doing so off the ball so I've never really been a fan of 'cuts inside' tbf. It's unfortunate that 'moves into channels' is not an instruction you can give wide players.

It's my understanding that "Moves Into Channels" primarily encourages central players to move wider and what I've read/seen suggests it does not have an effect on wide players (compared to 'Normal' wideplay which I personally prefer to "Cuts Inside" anyway).

As I recall, "Cut Inside" also has some off the ball influence and is not just an on-the-ball instruction.

Width will influence player's movement choices in this respect. On lower mentalities and shorter passing settings, the team as a whole will try to move things into more central areas with both movement and passing.

Any chance you could look at Columbia OP they've been great on the counter attack all tournament with some great movement and interchange. They have built their attacks really quickly but also really intelligently, James Rodriguez has been particularly good at finding pockets of space to work in and is my player of the tournament so far. They seem to play a 4-4-2 but certainly against Japan today they were definately playing a back 5 with the DMC dropping back. Their wide players sometimes push high up as well and make what looks like a front three with Rodriguez floating about in the space they create.

Yeah, I'm taking a bit of a breather at the moment since there are four matches a day and a lot of advancing/eliminated teams treat them as formalities, but I'll be doing Colombia and Chile when the knockout round starts up. I was going to do Netherlands vs. Chile but decided to hold off and look at Chile when they're playing in a more high stakes context.

[aderow]

It's my understanding that "Moves Into Channels" primarily encourages central players to move wider and what I've read/seen suggests it does not have an effect on wide players (compared to 'Normal' wideplay which I personally prefer to "Cuts Inside" anyway).

As I recall, "Cut Inside" also has some off the ball influence and is not just an on-the-ball instruction.

Width will influence player's movement choices in this respect. On lower mentalities and shorter passing settings, the team as a whole will try to move things into more central areas with both movement and passing.

Any particular reason you prefer 'normal' wideplay?

[Mercurio.3]

[Corner]

I would say Di María is CM(A), possibly with play wider or run wide with ball etc.

[delra]

Argentina playing Cleon's tactics...

[Mercurio.3]

I would say Di María is CM(A), possibly with play wider or run wide with ball etc.

Yeah, I thought about it. He could be a CM(A) or BBM. I'd add "Move into channels" as PPM. But I believe BBM it's better option. More deffensive implication. More aggressive support in attack. And basically 4 players defend duty, 3 players support duty, 3 players attack duty.

[efesta]

If you have some time, please make Greece vs Ivory Coast .

[THOG]

I think you should be careful about using a DM triangle when you only have three players in midfield. The reason is that the two MCs will struggle to cover space laterally (even in a 4-3-3), more often forcing the fullback out to deal with threats, while the DM's influence on the positioning of the defensive line will further open up vertical space on the pitch, giving the two overworked MCs yet more ground to cover. Argentina was probably closer to a 4-3-1-2 for this reason while France's 4-3-3 would be interpreted as a flat three across midfield. A 4-3-1-2 and 4-1-3-2 will still translate to what we call diamond systems, even if the diamond shape isn't quite so literal on FM's formation screen.

Here are some example images to illustrate that point. In the first image, I'm playing a 4-1-2-1-2. The narrow positioning of the diamond in deeper areas leaves the flanks badly exposed, forcing the fullback out as the two central midfielders struggled to shift over in time. This situation actually led to an early goal for Croatia.

In the case of a three man midfield with an AM ahead of them, the DM may be largely unnecessary as the flanks will almost always represent the better option for the opposition. The DM will be better positioned to cover for the fullback if the fullback rushes forward and gets beat, but on balance, I don't think the presence of the DM balances out the risks of having the fullback being so frequently exposed and forced out of position.

With the flat midfield three in the 4-3-1-2, the flanks are still vulnerable, but the midfield is able to cover horizontal space more quickly and more effectively, keeping the fullback in position in a similar situation shortly after the change of formation:

EDIT: I'd note that I'm playing against 4-4-2 in the above images, and against a 4-4-2, a narrow formation is at a much greater risk of having the ball moved quickly down the flanks.

[James9]

I think you should be careful about using a DM triangle when you only have three players in midfield. The reason is that the two MCs will struggle to cover space laterally (even in a 4-3-3), more often forcing the fullback out to deal with threats, while the DM's influence on the positioning of the defensive line will further open up vertical space on the pitch, giving the two overworked MCs yet more ground to cover. Argentina was probably closer to a 4-3-1-2 for this reason while France's 4-3-3 would be interpreted as a flat three across midfield. A 4-3-1-2 and 4-1-3-2 will still translate to what we call diamond systems, even if the diamond shape isn't quite so literal on FM's formation screen.

Here are some example images to illustrate that point. In the first image, I'm playing a 4-1-2-1-2. The narrow positioning of the diamond in deeper areas leaves the flanks badly exposed, forcing the fullback out as the two central midfielders struggled to shift over in time. This situation actually led to an early goal for Croatia.

In the case of a three man midfield with an AM ahead of them, the DM may be largely unnecessary as the flanks will almost always represent the better option for the opposition. The DM will be better positioned to cover for the fullback if the fullback rushes forward and gets beat, but on balance, I don't think the presence of the DM balances out the risks of having the fullback being so frequently exposed and forced out of position.

With the flat midfield three in the 4-3-1-2, the flanks are still vulnerable, but the midfield is able to cover horizontal space more quickly and more effectively, keeping the fullback in position in a similar situation shortly after the change of formation:

EDIT: I'd note that I'm playing against 4-4-2 in the above images, and against a 4-4-2, a narrow formation is at a much greater risk of having the ball moved quickly down the flanks.

THOG are you saying that a 433 is also a vunerable formation even with DMC between the lines protecting the defence. I always thought thwt the 433 was the aa solid formation on FM now I am confused and have my doubts. It seems that tbe 4-1-4-1 formation is the way football formations are going now. What are thoughts on the 4-1-4-1 vs the 433 (DMC) version. I would like to know what a great tactical mind like yours thinks about tbe advantage and disadvantages of both formations.

[peleJunior]

Nice job explaining that THOG, it's a pity the two central mids in a narrow diamond don't shuttle across well enough in the game, more so given that the formation is propping up again e.g. Liverpool, Villa.

[peleJunior]

THOG are you saying that a 433 is also a vunerable formation even with DMC between the lines protecting the defence. I always thought thwt the 433 was the aa solid formation on FM now I am confused and have my doubts. It seems that tbe 4-1-4-1 formation is the way football formations are going now. What are thoughts on the 4-1-4-1 vs the 433 (DMC) version. I would like to know what a great tactical mind like yours thinks about tbe advantage and disadvantages of both formations.

The 433 has extra protection on the flanks with its wingers/ inside forwards. Lower mentalities with fluid philosophies can get them tracking back pretty good but still not as good as a ml/mr starting position you get in the 4-1-4-1

[THOG]

THOG are you saying that a 433 is also a vunerable formation even with DMC between the lines protecting the defence. I always thought thwt the 433 was the aa solid formation on FM now I am confused and have my doubts. It seems that tbe 4-1-4-1 formation is the way football formations are going now. What are thoughts on the 4-1-4-1 vs the 433 (DMC) version. I would like to know what a great tactical mind like yours thinks about tbe advantage and disadvantages of both formations.

Yeah, I'm not sure it's really all that beneficial to use a DMC as seems to be the standard when people play 4-3-3. This mostly came up after watching France recently and considering the implications/reasons of their own half positioning. As PeleJr said, the 4-3-3 will give you more flank protection at the outset because you will have the AMLR pressing in the attacking half, but as play moves deeper, your fullbacks can get exposed as the MCs will struggle to cover space across midfield.

Nice job explaining that THOG, it's a pity the two central mids in a narrow diamond don't shuttle across well enough in the game, more so given that the formation is propping up again e.g. Liverpool, Villa.

I have a few old matches of note on my DVR, so I went back and watched a bit of Liverpool vs. Man City at Anfield just now. It seemed to be more of a 4-1-3-2 with Sterling dropping quite deep which leads me to think that 4-1-3-2/4-3-1-2 may be the way to represent a contemporary diamond generally and the literal diamond in FM could be another case of colloquial football terms not quite aligning with the exact logic of FM.

[peleJunior]

That a 4132 with 3 CM? Light bulb!! I could play sterling/ coutinho as CMa and in offense I get the diamond, and like you said sterling dropping deep in defence transition with the flat 3 midfield covering flanks and still having a DM, how did I miss that all this time, d'oh

[THOG]

That a 4132 with 3 CM? Light bulb!! I could play sterling/ coutinho as CMa and in offense I get the diamond, and like you said sterling dropping deep in defence transition with the flat 3 midfield covering flanks and still having a DM, how did I miss that all this time, d'oh

Glad to help!

[RTHerringbone]

THoG - those observations about DMs, central MC trios etc. are rather interesting.

I've been sticking to a flat 5-3-2 for a while, and hadn't really considered why the MC's in particular were giving such decent cover.

The 5-3-2 possibly is the perfect formation in terms of covering the flanks and offering central, numerical supremacy, so it all figures.

In view of that suddenly becoming clear, I'm working on a FM 4-1-2-2-1 (4-5-1 in my head) where the DM is pushed into the MC line to create a sort of 4-3-2-1 with the "2" at AML/R.

What I really enjoy about this game is that a small observation from someone can sow a seed of a plan in another person's head.

[James9]

THoG - those observations about DMs, central MC trios etc. are rather interesting.

I've been sticking to a flat 5-3-2 for a while, and hadn't really considered why the MC's in particular were giving such decent cover.

The 5-3-2 possibly is the perfect formation in terms of covering the flanks and offering central, numerical supremacy, so it all figures.

In view of that suddenly becoming clear, I'm working on a FM 4-1-2-2-1 (4-5-1 in my head) where the DM is pushed into the MC line to create a sort of 4-3-2-1 with the "2" at AML/R.

What I really enjoy about this game is that a small observation from someone can sow a seed of a plan in another person's head.

I would like to know what roles and duties you would consider using in the midfield trio

[RTHerringbone]

I would like to know what roles and duties you would consider using in the midfield trio

They are all Centre Midfielders. Defend in the middle, Support one side (same side as IF (A)) and Attack on the other (same side as W (S)).

[RTHerringbone]

Chile were terrific again tonight. Keen to see your interpretation of their system.

[delra]

Have you noticed how Chile played long ball when Brazilians had their faces to the sun?

The part that interests me in their tactics as interpretted for FM is about making strikers go to the side to receive a direct pass, rather than waiting in the centre. PPM only?

[themadsheep2001]

Have you noticed how Chile played long ball when Brazilians had their faces to the sun?

The part that interests me in their tactics as interpretted for FM is about making strikers go to the side to receive a direct pass, rather than waiting in the centre. PPM only?

You mean moving laterally in game?

[FMWolf]

How would you put Colombia style in FM terms? I've been trying and trying and just can't make anything work. I'm trying it with Monaco since they have James Rodriguez, but things are just going terrible. Lost 5 in 9 and draw 2. From my point view they play a really James' focused game and he just plays very very well. Then they have Cuadrado just dribblin like mad and normally one more central forward with an inside forward upfront. And that's pretty much it. The rest of the team doesn't contribute much for their offensive phase from what I see. Zuniga and Armero will go forward but they do not have much of a big role. And the 2 central midfielders (who I see more as defensive midfielders really) are there to just win the ball and give it to James. In FM I went for this:

GK (D)

FB(A)-CD(D)-CD(D)-FB(A)

-------DM(S)-DM(S)

W(A)

-----------AP(S)------IF(A)

-----------AF(A)

Controlo - Rigid

TI's: Higher Tempo (I really don´t know what else to add)

PI's: IF(A) - Get further forward, Sit narrower; AP(S) - Roam from position; DM(S)'s - Pass it shorter

Can you give me some help? And also, how would you say they play?

[jpcote09]

How would you put Colombia style in FM terms? I've been trying and trying and just can't make anything work. I'm trying it with Monaco since they have James Rodriguez, but things are just going terrible. Lost 5 in 9 and draw 2. From my point view they play a really James' focused game and he just plays very very well. Then they have Cuadrado just dribblin like mad and normally one more central forward with an inside forward upfront. And that's pretty much it. The rest of the team doesn't contribute much for their offensive phase from what I see. Zuniga and Armero will go forward but they do not have much of a big role. And the 2 central midfielders (who I see more as defensive midfielders really) are there to just win the ball and give it to James. In FM I went for this:

GK (D)

FB(A)-CD(D)-CD(D)-FB(A)

-------DM(S)-DM(S)

W(A)

-----------AP(S)------IF(A)

-----------AF(A)

Controlo - Rigid

TI's: Higher Tempo (I really don´t know what else to add)

PI's: IF(A) - Get further forward, Sit narrower; AP(S) - Roam from position; DM(S)'s - Pass it shorter

Can you give me some help? And also, how would you say they play?

ThoG will certainly chime in with better answers, but for the sake of discussion here are my 2 cents.

James Rodriguez didn't play at AMC today. Haven't watched the other games carefully enough but he was out wide most of the time today. I think it would be hard to reproduce his behaviour for Columbia in the TC, since he has such a "free" role in their transition play. IMO a 4-2-2-2 would be a better bet for today's (starting) tactic.

I haven't watched the game very carefully but I'd probably start with something like Standard-Fluid with TI's shorter passing, higher tempo, allow wide players to swap, maybe play wider if you feel you don't have enough width.

Now to the formation - (please note that I don't have the TC with me right now so I might get some PI's wrong, forgive me )

gk -Ospina - G(D)

dr -Zuniga - FB(S) - Shoot more often, Cross Less Often, Fewer Risky Passes, Dribble Less

dcr - Zapata - CD (D)

dcl - Yepes - CD (D)

dl - Armero - WB(A) - Cross Less Often, dribble less, Fewer Risky Passes, Shoot less often

dmr - Sanchez - HB(D)(well, you could experiment with his role a bit but due to his positioning I'd say HB) -- Mark Tighter (in this particular game he was given an instruction to specifically mark Uruguay's STCL which was for the most part Cavani)

dml - Aguilar - DM(S) - More Risky Passes, Get Further Forward, Shoot Less Often (well, he played quite higher than Sanchez for sure, maybe enough to play him in the CM spot actually. But you could do well with him as a DM too I guess)

amr - Cuardado - W(A)

aml - Rodriguez - AP (S) - Sit Narrower, Roam From Position, Cut Inside

stcr - Gutierrez - AF(A)??? Move Into Channels??? -------Gutierrez was invisible to me in that game. I don't know really.

stcl - Martinez - TM (S) ---- Not so sure about Martinez either but he appeared to be playing a little bit deeper and was definitely the target when they launched long balls forward. He held up the ball (and his position) well IIRC, but he didn't drop in the midfield that much to link up.

That could be a starting point. Of course they changed tactics during the match. Now if you set it up exactly as I told you, you will face a huge problem because the Fluid philosophy will create an even greater gap between your defensive and attacking units, therefore your central midfield will be a huge hole. Maybe you'd be better off putting Aguilar as a BBM or something like that, after all, even though he might not be able to cover all the ground needed..Yes, MEdoes have limitations. We know that. Experiment and see what works best. Other thing is, when your wide players swap flanks you would have to change their roles and PI's accordingly (Rodriguez on the right getting the AP(S) + above instructions, Cuardado on the left becoming more of an IF(A)).

I'm sure ThoG, if he has time, will be happy to help much more than I did, but thanks for reading and if you have any comments, feel free to express yourselves. I love talking tactics

[THOG]

BRAZIL

Despite a pair of unconvincing performances at the start of the tournament, Scolari has persisted with the 4-4-1-1 system that he used against Croatia. This speaks to the underlying pragmatism that defines Scolari's tactical approach. For him, it didn't particularly matter how well Brazil played against Croatia or Mexico. They got the results they needed, and by the end of the group stage, they were comfortably on top of a difficult group. At the start of the tournament, the probabilities favoured Brazil if they didn't push their luck, and on balance, the dice fell as expected.

Still, as risk-averse as this approach may seem, the nature of football makes relying on narrow victories as potentially treacherous as any other approach. You may have a better chance of avoiding the sort of blowouts that unceremoniously ended Spain's international dominance, but you can just as easily be undone by one of those inevitable moments where your fate balances on the smallest of margins. Fortunately for Scolari, the cross bar was there both times.

This isn't to say Brazil haven't improved. Though there is still a noticeable lack of any meaningful interplay between Neymar and Fred, the team as a whole is becoming more comfortable at diversifying the direction of their attack. Hulk is no longer totally isolated when on the left flank, and aside from setting up Alexis Sanchez's goal, he had his best game of the tournament. And while Fernandinho's lack of impact should tell Scolari that his second central midfielder could use a more clearly defined purpose in the attacking phase, Gustavo is becoming more assured and dynamic as the team's controller, covering more ground with his passing and movement while preventing Neymar from having to drift too deep in search of the ball.

Of course, this has quite a lot to do with the fact that an aggressive Chilean side allowed Brazil to play firmly inside their comfort zone. Scolari may have said that Chile is a pain to play against, but the truth is that Brazil have been waiting to grind past the minnows and finally play counterattacking football against a team that isn't afraid to pour numbers forward. The only problem in this case is that Chile aren't quite as accomodating as the Spanish or the Argentines. Like the Dutch, they charge forward in attack while keeping their backline largely intact, allowing their defence to be exposed for the sake of ensuring numerical superiority at the back when defending against fast transitions. They invite an end-to-end battle with no concern for possession, and this largely kept Brazil in check in a match defined by a rapid succession of quick attacks with surprisingly few moments of genuine danger for either side.

Translating this to FM, the fluidity and formation was again a Balanced 4-4-1-1 with Neymar lurking behind a mostly stationary Fred (and later, Jo) as the team defended. However, I would drop the mentality to Counter to reflect that the team was wary of Chile's attack but also more willing to break at pace when the (many) opportunities to transition quickly arose. For team instructions, I would add "Push Higher Up," "Higher Tempo" and possibly "Allow Wide Players to Swap" (though I prefer to just do this manually). Even though Brazil were slightly more cautious when they didn't have an opportunity to break, they still wanted to move the ball quickly to take advantage of the space that Chile left in midfield.

The individual roles are largely the same with a few adjustments:

GK: Goalkeeper - Defend

DL: Fullback - Support + More Risky Passes + More Direct Passes + Sit Narrower

Again, Marcelo was tasked with providing a supporting link and reliable defensive cover to Hulk, though against Chile's shape and style of play, he was given more freedom and space to play a more ambitious passing game.

DCL: Ball Playing Defender - Defend

Against Chile's aggressive press, Luiz not only had the opportunity to play a few long balls forward, but he often had to play a slightly riskier passing game to get the ball safely out of the back.

DCR: Central Defender - Defend

DR: Complete Wingback - Attack

ML: Winger - Attack

MCL: Central Midfielder - Defend

As with Marcelo, Gustavo showed more ambition with his passing, finally bringing Brazil's left flank to life.

MCR: Box-to-Box Midfielder - Support

MR: Winger - Support

AMC: Advanced Playmaker - Attack + Roam from Position + Shoot More + Move Into Channels

ST: Target Man - Attack

CHILE

Speaking of that era of Spanish dominance, the most refreshing tactical development of this World Cup has been the way in which Chile and the Netherlands so effectively brushed away years of conventional wisdom about our supposedly inevitable midfield-heavy, striker-less future. Of course, the tactical trends of the current season tend to be direct responses to the tactical trends of the last season, and the sort of 5-2-3/3-4-3 that has turned this tournament on its head is an especially clever way of undermining the basic principles of tiki-taka.

With possession football reliant on its defenders to act as de facto midfielders in creating playable space and continuously redistributing the ball when attacks fizzle out, the 5-2-3/3-4-3 operates on the premise that simply using three, narrowly positioned forwards cuts the problem off at the source. If the opposition's defensive line becomes a vital part of the opposition's attack, then there's no reason that your forward line can't prove an equally vital part of your defence.

The particular structure of the 5-2-3 used by Chile and the Netherlands is an important part of this since the triangular shape corresponds directly to the default shape of the two central defenders and defensive midfielder. The two strikers can harry the central defenders and track them into wide areas while the attacking midfielder marks the defensive midfielder and can track him into the defensive line if he looks to create space by splitting the defenders.

With the defence occupied, the ball is forced more quickly into midfield where the possession system's elegant arrangement of diamond-shaped passing networks are rendered largely unnecessary by the fact that the 5-2-3 just doesn't bother to establish a sound, defensive structure in its midfield. Instead, with both the defensive line and forward line free to commit players to apply pressure on hesitant midfielders from all sides, the team in possession is encouraged to just get forward and attack. This puts a lot of pressure on the 5-2-3's defence, despite the extra man, but by forcing the attack onto itself, it also expedites its own opportunities to counterattack and, in doing so, neutralises the defensive aspect of possession football.

This idea worked well against a Spanish side that had refused to adapt since its loss at the Confederations Cup. However, Scolari's Brazil is not del Bosque's Spain. While they have played possession-oriented football during the tournament, this was more out of necessity than preference. Scolari's natural inclination is to play on the counterattack, and while the Spanish were rattled by how effectively the Chileans manipulated their footballing instincts, Brazil comfortably accepted the consequences of playing into Chile's system. To some extent, the two systems complemented one another by providing exactly what the other wanted. The Brazilians moved forward more quickly, and the Chileans provided space in which Neymar could receive the ball and run at their defence. With that in mind, the Chilean defence deserves a lot of credit for limiting Brazil's chances, but for the most part, Vidal's aggressive pressuring up front seemed to be largely wasted on a Brazilian defence that wasn't particularly concerned about holding onto the ball.

Going forward, Chile's shape quickly compacted to compensate for the thin numbers in midfield. The defence pushed up to and often beyond the halfway line, the wingbacks darted high into attacking positions and either Vidal or Sanchez dropped deep to link up with the midfield. Sanchez, in particular, was impressively industrious in attack and proved effective at holding up the ball under pressure from Brazil's physically powerful midfield and defence, but with Vargas kept quiet by Thiago Silva, Sanchez and Vidal were too often overwhelmed and left waiting for support from their defence. The nature of Chile's system puts the burden on their attack to strike quickly, and with Brazil playing it just safe enough to keep their three forwards contained and isolated, Chile failed to deal the early blow that had also crucially evaded them against the Netherlands.

As a result, Chile ended the first 45 minutes having exhausted themselves and a half-fit Vidal for a 1-1 draw. In the second half, they dropped deeper and adopted a much more cautious mentality. Vargas was eventually substituted for a third midfielder with Vidal moving forward as an outright striker in a more traditional 5-3-2. Sampaoli likely reasoned that the crowd would become increasingly agitated with a draw, provoking Brazil into increasingly aggressive attacks, but Scolari's men kept their discipline and Chile were often left attempting long balls to an isolated Vidal and Sanchez. While the Chilean defence adapted well with the defensive approach and Pinilla's late strike came close to sending them to the quarterfinals, there was a sense of resignation shortly after Vargas's departure that their best chance would be to drag the match to a penalty shootout.

Translating this to FM, I will focus on the first half tactics. While Chile kept three players forward when defending, the widely divided structure of their defensive shape requires them to pull together quickly in attack to avoid isolating the forwards. Therefore, for the fluidity and formation, I would go with a Very Fluid 5-2-1-2. Very Fluid encourages the team to stay compact and cooperate closely in attack with all of the forwards dropping back to more effectively link up with the midfield and the wide defenders promptly moving into a more advanced position.

For the mentality, I would interpret Chile's initial approach as Control. In earlier posts based on viewing their matches in the group stage, I suggested Attack, but after closer viewing, I felt this would make the defenders far too aggressive, especially on Very Fluid. While the Chilean defence did push up into very advanced positions and attempted to quickly distribute the ball to attackers, their central defenders and central midfielders were more selective in their passing than what you would see on an all-out attacking mentality.

However, while they were not especially wasteful in possession, they did move the ball around very quickly, so I would add the team instructions "Higher Tempo" and "More Direct Passing." Finally, to get the high block in defence and positional fluidity in attack, I recommend "Push Higher Up" and "Roam from Positions."

For individual roles and personal instructions, I suggest:

GK: Sweeper Keeper - Support

DCL: Ball Playing Defender - Defend + Less Risky Passes

DCC: Central Defender - Cover

DCR: Ball Playing Defender - Defend + Less Risky Passes

WBL: Wingback - Support

WBR: Wingback - Attack

MCL: Deep Lying Playmaker - Defend

MCR: Central Midfielder - Support

AMC: Shadow Striker - Attack + Move Into Channels + More Risky Passes

The Shadow Striker's aggressive defensive instructions make it a perfect fit for Vidal's role.

STCL: Advanced Forward - Attack + Move Into Channels

STCR: Complete Forward - Support

[yaşar]

The Hand of God How about columbia tactic?