The Art of Attacking Football

[Cleon]

Hi Cleon,

iv had a real good read through this - good stuff, im a MASSIVE fan of the 3 at the back way of playing - conte/cruyff spring to mind.

recently been trying it myself, maybe im overcomplicating matters - i set up with attacking/fluid and the following formation...

team instructions...

iv set player instructions on the IF to stay wider/roam, poacher to close down more as he needs to move forward to create space for the AM to run into who has player instructions of dribble more/more risky passes. The team instructions is to stick to positions but i assume the player instructions for the front 3 would overide that.

it got absolutely demolished in a pre-season friendly after a good 6 weeks of training it up, was trying to follow and implement the LVG/Ajax team of 1995 and how they set up to play. I even set the marking up so the two BBM marked opposition wingers, both IF marked opposition wingbacks.

Iv read the article rashidi has done on shape, seems to drum it home more to me now that it can have a massive impact and leave you open to counters or just genereally vulnerable if your fluid and your defence are pushed right up keeping close to the midfield, also that your defence can be dragged out of position to close down attacking mids etc.

There is a lot of conflicting articles knocking about no doubt, im just trying my best to understand how everything works relative to each other at the moment because i like to KNOW these things i suppose im a perfectionist in that sense that i like to have every angle covered, its a game to most but to some of us its much more involving

Have a look see if you can give me some pointers where iv gone wrong with this as it HAS totally gone wrong and does not function, i need to reset and start over but at least if i have a second opinion on whats not right with it i can come from a different angle (which i will be doing anyway).

A genuine question here but have you actually read the thread? It seems you've done the total opposite and gone against every logical decision mentioned throughout the thread. The tactic is one of the worst I've seen posted on the forums in some time, no wonder you posted a thread about not getting a back 3 to work. Surely you can see the reasons why it doesn't work even before I give my comments? You have to be able to see the issue........

Let's start with the front four shall we. All four of them are attacking and based on the mentality you use and roles you've given them, all four will be extremely high up the pitch and offer no variety. Giving them roaming won't help either as they're already high up the pitch. I can't see how this front four gives you and kind of intelligent movement. I'm pretty confident that you're relying on individual moments of brilliance rather than using a well thought out, well balanced front four. The IF's offer no cover or protection to the wings at all, nor will they really help with any kinds of defensive stability.

Now we move on to the centre of the pitch. Two roles both doing the exact same thing. There's nothing wrong with that. However taking your front four into consideration and the roles and duties they've been allocated then the last thing you want or need is the central two joining attacks too. You already have four players really advanced, you don't need six. That's limiting options and taking away space from the players in front of them. It also makes you vulnerable to be countered, especially when you have no wide cover at all in the side. They will get run ragged in every game.

Come on, you seriously can't be shocked or surprised you got hammered in preseason? It doesn't matter how long you trained the formation for, it's the roles used and the duty allocations that is the issue. You have no balance, no stability, no variety, a lack of intelligent movement and your side is split into two different bands. Either deep in their own half or camped on the edge of the oppositions box. You don't have a tactic that works as a unit.

There is a lot of conflicting articles knocking about no doubt, im just trying my best to understand how everything works relative to each other at the moment because i like to KNOW these things i suppose im a perfectionist in that sense that i like to have every angle covered, its a game to most but to some of us its much more involving

Where have you seen these conflicting articles? I've not seen many at all. You got any links to the stuff that contradicts please?

Have a look see if you can give me some pointers where iv gone wrong with this as it HAS totally gone wrong and does not function, i need to reset and start over but at least if i have a second opinion on whats not right with it i can come from a different angle (which i will be doing anyway).

Start again and this time put effort into the roles you use and try and see how they all link together and how they will work. I've shown this thought process in every single thread I've done recently. You should be doing the same so you have a general idea of what the role offers and how it'll play. Post two in this very thread shows what I'm talking about.

yeah i think i have completely gone "gung-ho" with this,

Which isn't ever going to work is it? It's an extremely top heavy formation and you need to create space and movement, players can't do that high up the pitch. As the space they have is behind them, so you need them to drop deeper not push up. I talked about this in the third article.

however... note that i have set the front three behind the striker to roam so as to create movement in and around the box area,

There is no however as the players are far too advanced with the mentality used and the roles/duties you allocated. Add to this the compact narrowness of the formation and the TI's you've used and they have absolutely no where to roam.

i have like i stated tagged the players either side of the diamond to man mark opposing AMR/L and the wide front men to mark opposition wing backs

An absolute car crash and you seem to completely ignore what happens to the players who are central when the players side of the diamond follow the AML/R? It leaves you even more exposed.

i have three at the back anyway facing only MOSTLY one striker so they should be able to deal with that threat especially with the sweeper dropping behind them.

That's all good and well but the issue if you have no defence or players really offering defensive contribution anywhere advanced of the defence. You can have the best defenders in the world all set up correctly but if the players in front of them aren't doing their job in helping out then they'll always look average. It's a team game. You don't have any kind of team element to the tactic though. You have 4 players who will basically be watching the game and what happens at the back from up front.

should give you a much clearer picture as to why iv picked the formation i have, i may have the instructions wrong though and i may also have the mentality and shape wrong.

I seem critical above but I feel I need to be as you don't seem to be aware of how your current set up works. You've just gone for as many attacking roles as possible.

[HUNT3R]

Cleon, I wonder if it is because (in general) people don't "get" duties? I see this sort of thing a lot and it's the only reason I can think of. I used to be in the same boat during FM12 or FM13. I made the classic defenders on Defend, midfield on Support and forwards on Attack error. Then it suddenly clicked and I was able to make decent tactics as I understood what all the terms, particularly Duties, meant.

Excellent piece, by the way.

[Cleon]

Cleon, I wonder if it is because (in general) people don't "get" duties? I see this sort of thing a lot and it's the only reason I can think of. I used to be in the same boat during FM12 or FM13. I made the classic defenders on Defend, midfield on Support and forwards on Attack error. Then it suddenly clicked and I was able to make decent tactics as I understood what all the terms, particularly Duties, meant.

Excellent piece, by the way.

It's possible. But a lot of systems I see like the one above, it seems the user doesn't think about how the roles you use all work together. A lot of people (not all) set tactics up for individuals for rather than what's best for the team.

[HUNT3R]

Cleon, I'm sure you will be, but are you planning on writing about the defensive side of this tactic/philosophy? This is of more interest to me than the attacking side, oddly enough.

Looking at the roles and instructions, it seems absolutely relentless in pressing and getting the ball back. I assume you have somewhat of a gap between the D-Line and midfield due to the support roles, but that it doesn't matter too much since you're not giving the opposition time on the ball and even if they do get it past, there are still 3 DCs, 2 of whom are stoppers as well.

I guess it is again a case of risk and reward.

[Cleon]

Cleon, I'm sure you will be, but are you planning on writing about the defensive side of this tactic/philosophy? This is of more interest to me than the attacking side, oddly enough.

Looking at the roles and instructions, it seems absolutely relentless in pressing and getting the ball back. I assume you have somewhat of a gap between the D-Line and midfield due to the support roles, but that it doesn't matter too much since you're not giving the opposition time on the ball and even if they do get it past, there are still 3 DCs, 2 of whom are stoppers as well.

I guess it is again a case of risk and reward.

It's exactly that yeah. You either press as a unit and win the ball back aggressively or you stand off and win it back in your own half. Both are valid and work, however there's no real in between, it's either one or the other. I don't believe you can mix both and be consistently efficient.

I do plan on writing about the defensive side though. In fact it's that what's the most important factor in all honesty because it's the defence that allows for the construction of attacking bases.

[RTHerringbone]

Maybe as a slight diversion you could use iamneallyons's tactic to highlight its defensive flaws, and maybe even demonstrate what one or two changes could do to tighten it up?

Obviously the preference will be to see how your own system defends, but it might be handy to highlight how other peoples' interpretations of Attacking succeed and fail?

[Cleon]

Maybe as a slight diversion you could use iamneallyons's tactic to highlight its defensive flaws, and maybe even demonstrate what one or two changes could do to tighten it up?

Obviously the preference will be to see how your own system defends, but it might be handy to highlight how other peoples' interpretations of Attacking succeed and fail?

I started writing something based on that earlier yeah. I was going to do an incoherent systems section and I think this could be really beneficial using that as an example and showing the kinds of changes you can make to get it working somewhat.

[Rashidi]

*off my blog*

Football Manager 2016 is all about managing transitions.

Today on the forums, my attention was piqued by an issue people had with 2 man midfields, common in top heavy systems. The key to setting up any system is making sure the right areas are being covered and making sure enough players are involved in transitions.

There are several kinds of transitions, and these depend entirely on what you want to achieve, some people may want to have a transition that is quick and involves pacey strikers. This means that you need to have the right players making forward runs, more importantly you need the right ones in the right positions to make those telling passes to find them.

Too often I see people use the Ball Winning Midfielder. Using a BWM in a 2 man midfield is inefficient. First he has an enormous closing down area, and secondly, when he goes on his leg breaking runs, he leaves your defense exposed. This forces teams into funny shapes to compensate and then they lose any attacking flavour.

If those 2 in midfield can't act as defensive pivots you are going to find it hard to release the 3 up front. In the first screenshot the opponents are going to defend transition to midfield. My 2 MCs are tracking back while the 4 in blue are taking up positions.

I like how my backline is set up, defenders are in good covering positions. In the second screenshot you can see the front strikers go to close an opposing player down.

A few seconds later my entire team except for my striker have formed a tight bank to defend, our DLP has got the ball and is going to play the pass forward.

As the pass is played to the right (yellow line) the right AMR is making a run down the flanks while the rest are moving up to support. Note where my fullbacks are and where the AML/FW are. The 2 MCs are still in the shape they need to be.

A few seconds later you can see how quickly we have transitioned from defense to attack. When playing with a 2man midfield, the most important thing to be aware of is transitions. Managing these is the difference between a solid 4231 and a weak one. And in my honest opinion, the ball winning midfielder is just too one dimensional for a midfield that needs to be more than just about winning the ball.

So the next time you set up a system in Football Manager 2016, think first about transitions. Coming up in a few days will be a detailed video guide on this in my Attacking Special called the Dark Arts of Attacking Football on BusttheNet. So keep a lookout for it or follow me on twitter for the latest updates. (@Bustthenet)

Oh by the way I am using almost exclusively a 4231 in all competitions, the only time I used another tactic was a 4411 against PSG. A third into the season, won each game in the Serie A except for drawing against Juventus, and qualified top of the group for the ECL. A group that featured Man City and PSG..

[Cleon]

Excellent Rashidi as usual. I think this would make a good subject on it's own too, you should add it as a new thread. Lot's of people are struggling with the defensive transitions so I think lot's will relate to this. You've also saved me a job, as I don't have to cover this aspect now, so thanks

[Rashidi]

Excellent Rashidi as usual. I think this would make a good subject on it's own too, you should add it as a new thread. Lot's of people are struggling with the defensive transitions so I think lot's will relate to this. You've also saved me a job, as I don't have to cover this aspect now, so thanks

Yeah it would, I just thought it would be useful for attacking transitions. It was a response to the BWM discussion

[Cleon]

Yeah it would, I just thought it would be useful for attacking transitions. It was a response to the BWM discussion

I think it highlights the issue perfectly too. It goes hand in hand with the analysis I did in the 4231 yesterday and today too. Hopefully people can recognise this now and see why you need to be aware of it, as it takes away from what happens and how fast stuff can happen in transitions.

[WayneRomney]

Why thank you Swansea for not using wingers against me:

This is from The Carling Cup semifinal return leg at Swansea. First match ended 0-0 after we piled on but couldn't score. Deulofeu is of course a beast in this, but in this particular match his link-up play with the wingbacks is amazing. Since the AI isn't deploying wingers or a DMC he's slipping past anyone and anything. I started off by having him as an IF(s), but changed to RMD as soon as I saw the lineup of Swansea. He doesn't have the work rate of a RMD, but the movement - so nice.

[iamneallyons]

A genuine question here but have you actually read the thread? It seems you've done the total opposite and gone against every logical decision mentioned throughout the thread. The tactic is one of the worst I've seen posted on the forums in some time, no wonder you posted a thread about not getting a back 3 to work. Surely you can see the reasons why it doesn't work even before I give my comments? You have to be able to see the issue........

Let's start with the front four shall we. All four of them are attacking and based on the mentality you use and roles you've given them, all four will be extremely high up the pitch and offer no variety. Giving them roaming won't help either as they're already high up the pitch. I can't see how this front four gives you and kind of intelligent movement. I'm pretty confident that you're relying on individual moments of brilliance rather than using a well thought out, well balanced front four. The IF's offer no cover or protection to the wings at all, nor will they really help with any kinds of defensive stability.

Now we move on to the centre of the pitch. Two roles both doing the exact same thing. There's nothing wrong with that. However taking your front four into consideration and the roles and duties they've been allocated then the last thing you want or need is the central two joining attacks too. You already have four players really advanced, you don't need six. That's limiting options and taking away space from the players in front of them. It also makes you vulnerable to be countered, especially when you have no wide cover at all in the side. They will get run ragged in every game.

Come on, you seriously can't be shocked or surprised you got hammered in preseason? It doesn't matter how long you trained the formation for, it's the roles used and the duty allocations that is the issue. You have no balance, no stability, no variety, a lack of intelligent movement and your side is split into two different bands. Either deep in their own half or camped on the edge of the oppositions box. You don't have a tactic that works as a unit.

Where have you seen these conflicting articles? I've not seen many at all. You got any links to the stuff that contradicts please?

Start again and this time put effort into the roles you use and try and see how they all link together and how they will work. I've shown this thought process in every single thread I've done recently. You should be doing the same so you have a general idea of what the role offers and how it'll play. Post two in this very thread shows what I'm talking about.

Which isn't ever going to work is it? It's an extremely top heavy formation and you need to create space and movement, players can't do that high up the pitch. As the space they have is behind them, so you need them to drop deeper not push up. I talked about this in the third article.

There is no however as the players are far too advanced with the mentality used and the roles/duties you allocated. Add to this the compact narrowness of the formation and the TI's you've used and they have absolutely no where to roam.

An absolute car crash and you seem to completely ignore what happens to the players who are central when the players side of the diamond follow the AML/R? It leaves you even more exposed.

That's all good and well but the issue if you have no defence or players really offering defensive contribution anywhere advanced of the defence. You can have the best defenders in the world all set up correctly but if the players in front of them aren't doing their job in helping out then they'll always look average. It's a team game. You don't have any kind of team element to the tactic though. You have 4 players who will basically be watching the game and what happens at the back from up front.

I seem critical above but I feel I need to be as you don't seem to be aware of how your current set up works. You've just gone for as many attacking roles as possible.

I'm on my mobile here so I can't cover everything I want to reply but il have a go briefly at a reply..

I take everything in what you have said, it is definitely a car crash but the formation is a copy of cruyffs I feel it's the shape and. Mentality and role selection and duty that's totally wrong, you've seen my previous tactics and they do work.. I can create decent tactics and have done, this one isn't that though!

The marking system in used is exactly how cruyff an Co set this system up to mark that's why iv used that, iv watched games to also linked where you can see that happening.. And you can see how far up the field the wide players are.

I done the system before I had read/seen this article to btw so iv not used this as a Base to work from so iv not gone against anything you said because I wasn't going off anything in the first place.

[ajsr1982]

There is a very good point being made here. I often think central midfield is a relatively easy part of the game to get right, but people try to be too ambitious with it. I think there are three reasons for this:

- There are so many options to choose from.

- The game tells us that a player's best role is x, y or z, and we feel the need to play them in that role to get the best out of them, rather than what suits the system.

- There is a tendency to ignore the most basic roles, because they're 'boring.'

For me, there are two types of setup. The first kind is where you have a base of three players behind the central midfield. That can be three CBs, or two CBs and a DM. The second type is where you have two CBs behind your central midfield.

In the latter, I believe it's imperative that your two CM players have to be relatively static. No marauding runs, no mindless chasing of the ball. That rules out a whole host of roles and duties. It also tells you that this sort of set-up probably won't work too well for attacking football, because you need to create lots of movement in all areas of the pitch.

And this goes back to what Cleon was talking about further up the thread. His base of three CBs allows him to have more adventurous roles in central midfield, without leaving himself too open to the counter attack.

My final observation would be to say that I think you need to pick your battles. Trying to implement this system with a relegation threatened team would surely be suicidal. It's great for teams that would expect to win most games, but taking this system to a top team with a strong three-man midfield is surely going to see you lose the battle in central midfield. I'd be interested to hear thoughts on that.

[Orikoru]

There is a very good point being made here. I often think central midfield is a relatively easy part of the game to get right, but people try to be too ambitious with it. I think there are three reasons for this:

- There are so many options to choose from.

- The game tells us that a player's best role is x, y or z, and we feel the need to play them in that role to get the best out of them, rather than what suits the system.

- There is a tendency to ignore the most basic roles, because they're 'boring.'

These are bang on, and it took a little while for me to realise it myself. But I now know there are lots of advantages to having my CM as simply a 'central midfielder, support'. Not least because the majority of CMs should be able to play that role reasonably well, so you can bring in other players without having to alter the system completely.

[gunnerfan]

- The game tells us that a player's best role is x, y or z, and we feel the need to play them in that role to get the best out of them, rather than what suits the system.

Absolutely true! And I think the corollary is to put 11 players out there, all in their "best roles", with no thought as to how incoherent it might make the tactic. When I consider a new tactic (like a new team), the first thing I do is inventory what roles I've got available to me and then decide how best to utilize them. But the system has to make sense.

In the tactic posted by iamneallyons above, the first thing that jumped out at me was that the two IFs and the P would likely crash into one another, possibly taking the P out with them. Put differently, they force the team shape to narrow at the very point you need width. I use an IF in a 4-1-2-3, but I have a supporting winger on the opposite side.

[iamneallyons]

The inside forwards are instructed to stay out wide, the poacher instructed to close down more and by default he gets further forward to allow space for the attacking midfielder behind him.

I'm going to start a fresh tonight, come at it from a different angle - I'm confident I can get it to work (the formation) but it needs to be reset and started over.

[Orikoru]

The inside forwards are instructed to stay out wide

Isn't that the opposite of an inside forward's job? I thought inside forward was literally the type of winger who would cut inside and get in the box?

[WayneRomney]

Isn't that the opposite of an inside forward's job? I thought inside forward was literally the type of winger who would cut inside and get in the box?

Not really. They will still cut inside, but from a wider position. It helps on crowded spaces for instance.

[alinp]

The inside forwards are instructed to stay out wide, the poacher instructed to close down more and by default he gets further forward to allow space for the attacking midfielder behind him.

I'm going to start a fresh tonight, come at it from a different angle - I'm confident I can get it to work (the formation) but it needs to be reset and started over.

I may be wrong, but won't "Stay Wider" for an IF just affect his starting position? Surely then the roles natural inclination to head towards the box will kick in as he moves up the pitch (and then bump into the roaming Poacher, as suggested)?

[iamneallyons]

Well that's what I wanted them to do, start wider and cut inside think Henry... An the poacher will move about to sniff out space - this was my hope anyway but it's not worked, needs re working totally.

[alinp]

Well that's what I wanted them to do, start wider and cut inside think Henry... An the poacher will move about to sniff out space - this was my hope anyway but it's not worked, needs re working totally.

Assuming your inspiration is the Ajax formation you've posted, I can't say I've ever thought of Overmars as an IF or Kluivert as a Poacher

[ajsr1982]

Assuming your inspiration is the Ajax formation you've posted, I can't say I've ever thought of Overmars as an IF or Kluivert as a Poacher

I think the IF role is massively overused in this game. To the point that it's almost the default option for the wide AM spots. In reality, it's less common. Overmars was almost certainly a winger, and Henry was a CF that drifted wide. In his early years for France and Juventus, perhaps he was an IF, but Wenger changed this.

An IF, to me, is a centre forward that's playing out wide, usually to offer some added defensive protection due to the rise of the attacking full back. Think Welbeck, Martial, Alexis Sanchez.

Playing a right-footed left winger will see him naturally cut inside, and you should still get the effect you're looking for. He'll hit the back post when the ball goes down the right hand side.

[RTHerringbone]

In seems a very literal interpretation of this:

https://timhi.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/ajax-1995/

The challenge in FM is getting the DCs up against the strikers with the Sweeper a sensible distance behind. More often that not, the AI will just look to sit in the gaps behind the DCs to take advantage of that space. When using narrow MCs to mark wingers, you have to mitigate this by getting the AMC to drop deep (like Litmanen did) which isn't possible early enough with an Attack Duty.

[iamneallyons]

I picked inside forward with stay out wide because I still wanted the player to get into the box where as a winger will stay exclusively wide, and in that system you either used a poacher to break the like or a 9 and a half who dropped back deep.

[Cleon]

I'm on my mobile here so I can't cover everything I want to reply but il have a go briefly at a reply..

I take everything in what you have said, it is definitely a car crash but the formation is a copy of cruyffs I feel it's the shape and. Mentality and role selection and duty that's totally wrong, you've seen my previous tactics and they do work.. I can create decent tactics and have done, this one isn't that though!

The marking system in used is exactly how cruyff an Co set this system up to mark that's why iv used that, iv watched games to also linked where you can see that happening.. And you can see how far up the field the wide players are.

I done the system before I had read/seen this article to btw so iv not used this as a Base to work from so iv not gone against anything you said because I wasn't going off anything in the first place.

But if you'd read the thread you'd have known the answers and the reasons why your system was failing. I spoke about (in great length) what makes attacking football work and why. None of your tactic had any of the key points. I also stated those were for all shapes too.

It doesn't matter what Cruyff used in real life because the game isn't real life. It's also an anomaly too because no-one has been able to create anything closely to this formation ever again. There's a reason it doesn't work in the modern game or is extremely difficult to do. It'll be the same on the game. It's something you would build towards like I do in the Arsenal thread. You can't expect to get it right instantly.

There is a very good point being made here. I often think central midfield is a relatively easy part of the game to get right, but people try to be too ambitious with it. I think there are three reasons for this:

- There are so many options to choose from.

- The game tells us that a player's best role is x, y or z, and we feel the need to play them in that role to get the best out of them, rather than what suits the system.

- There is a tendency to ignore the most basic roles, because they're 'boring.'

For me, there are two types of setup. The first kind is where you have a base of three players behind the central midfield. That can be three CBs, or two CBs and a DM. The second type is where you have two CBs behind your central midfield.

In the latter, I believe it's imperative that your two CM players have to be relatively static. No marauding runs, no mindless chasing of the ball. That rules out a whole host of roles and duties. It also tells you that this sort of set-up probably won't work too well for attacking football, because you need to create lots of movement in all areas of the pitch.

And this goes back to what Cleon was talking about further up the thread. His base of three CBs allows him to have more adventurous roles in central midfield, without leaving himself too open to the counter attack.

My final observation would be to say that I think you need to pick your battles. Trying to implement this system with a relegation threatened team would surely be suicidal. It's great for teams that would expect to win most games, but taking this system to a top team with a strong three-man midfield is surely going to see you lose the battle in central midfield. I'd be interested to hear thoughts on that.

Excellent post

The inside forwards are instructed to stay out wide, the poacher instructed to close down more and by default he gets further forward to allow space for the attacking midfielder behind him.

I'm going to start a fresh tonight, come at it from a different angle - I'm confident I can get it to work (the formation) but it needs to be reset and started over.

This time come at it from the angle of back to front, not front to back. Make sure you have players covering space, make sure your roles all link together. Make sure the roles/duties you use allow the team to play as a unit. If not you'll still have every single issue I've mentioned so far.

[iamneallyons]

Yeah you are right and I had set the amc to close down a lot less hoping he would drop back to fill the space, but as an attack duty it obviously hasn't worked.

[iamneallyons]

A genuine question here but have you actually read the thread? It seems you've done the total opposite and gone against every logical decision mentioned throughout the thread. The tactic is one of the worst I've seen posted on the forums in some time, no wonder you posted a thread about not getting a back 3 to work. Surely you can see the reasons why it doesn't work even before I give my comments? You have to be able to see the issue........

Let's start with the front four shall we. All four of them are attacking and based on the mentality you use and roles you've given them, all four will be extremely high up the pitch and offer no variety. Giving them roaming won't help either as they're already high up the pitch. I can't see how this front four gives you and kind of intelligent movement. I'm pretty confident that you're relying on individual moments of brilliance rather than using a well thought out, well balanced front four. The IF's offer no cover or protection to the wings at all, nor will they really help with any kinds of defensive stability.

Now we move on to the centre of the pitch. Two roles both doing the exact same thing. There's nothing wrong with that. However taking your front four into consideration and the roles and duties they've been allocated then the last thing you want or need is the central two joining attacks too. You already have four players really advanced, you don't need six. That's limiting options and taking away space from the players in front of them. It also makes you vulnerable to be countered, especially when you have no wide cover at all in the side. They will get run ragged in every game.

Come on, you seriously can't be shocked or surprised you got hammered in preseason? It doesn't matter how long you trained the formation for, it's the roles used and the duty allocations that is the issue. You have no balance, no stability, no variety, a lack of intelligent movement and your side is split into two different bands. Either deep in their own half or camped on the edge of the oppositions box. You don't have a tactic that works as a unit.

Where have you seen these conflicting articles? I've not seen many at all. You got any links to the stuff that contradicts please?

Start again and this time put effort into the roles you use and try and see how they all link together and how they will work. I've shown this thought process in every single thread I've done recently. You should be doing the same so you have a general idea of what the role offers and how it'll play. Post two in this very thread shows what I'm talking about.

Which isn't ever going to work is it? It's an extremely top heavy formation and you need to create space and movement, players can't do that high up the pitch. As the space they have is behind them, so you need them to drop deeper not push up. I talked about this in the third article.

There is no however as the players are far too advanced with the mentality used and the roles/duties you allocated. Add to this the compact narrowness of the formation and the TI's you've used and they have absolutely no where to roam.

An absolute car crash and you seem to completely ignore what happens to the players who are central when the players side of the diamond follow the AML/R? It leaves you even more exposed.

That's all good and well but the issue if you have no defence or players really offering defensive contribution anywhere advanced of the defence. You can have the best defenders in the world all set up correctly but if the players in front of them aren't doing their job in helping out then they'll always look average. It's a team game. You don't have any kind of team element to the tactic though. You have 4 players who will basically be watching the game and what happens at the back from up front.

I seem critical above but I feel I need to be as you don't seem to be aware of how your current set up works. You've just gone for as many attacking roles as possible.

But if you'd read the thread you'd have known the answers and the reasons why your system was failing. I spoke about (in great length) what makes attacking football work and why. None of your tactic had any of the key points. I also stated those were for all shapes too.

It doesn't matter what Cruyff used in real life because the game isn't real life. It's also an anomaly too because no-one has been able to create anything closely to this formation ever again. There's a reason it doesn't work in the modern game or is extremely difficult to do. It'll be the same on the game. It's something you would build towards like I do in the Arsenal thread. You can't expect to get it right instantly.

Excellent post

This time come at it from the angle of back to front, not front to back. Make sure you have players covering space, make sure your roles all link together. Make sure the roles/duties you use allow the team to play as a unit. If not you'll still have every single issue I've mentioned so far.

No doubt, I need to figure out what shape/mentality is going to work best for such a setup. After reading rashidis post about shape, in my mind now I see it as fluid will keep the team closer together vertically and laterally where as structured will give more lateral space but defenders to forwards further apart?

So fluid systems can be good for quick interchanges of movement, fast passing and gengen style pressing, defending as a team... Where as structure seems to suit specific set out roles and when you want to move the ball up the field directly from back to front (direct style of play) or with a slower methodical approach build up style of play?

Pitfalls would be fluid if your attacking is open to counters and trying to find a balance of not being too narrow and bunching up.

Pitfalls of structured would be move enough movement, can be played between the lines if you don't have varied roles?

I could be totally wrong but an opinion of how I'm viewing this would be appreciated.

[KongeMeier]

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/423054-Lines-and-Diamonds-The-Tactician-s-Handbook-for-Football-Manager-2015

@iamneallyons: Sorry for breaking into your discussion here, but I would recommend taking the time to read through this master piece written for FM15. Some of the concepts have changed a bit for FM16, but it should give you a much better understanding of general football concepts and how to translate these into FM. I know it helped me a lot, and I've been playing FM from the very beginning!

Good luck!

[Cleon]

I think you're putting too much emphasis on team shape. I'd honestly figure out the roles first and stay flexible until you know how the roles you use will work. Your roles and duties are the key not the team shape or mentality.

[Rashidi]

I think you're putting too much emphasis on team shape. I'd honestly figure out the roles first and stay flexible until you know how the roles you use will work. Your roles and duties are the key not the team shape or mentality.

Exactly. The whole thing is inter-related. Roles/duties AND making sure you have the right players playing there for what you want to achieve is vital.I can give you my 4231 setup, TI,PI kitchen sink and all, but your players may not suit it at all. In my system as the screenshot shows I have 9 men behind the ball. When we don't have the ball, I have 10 men willing to press. My Inside Forwards are tackling inside my 25 yard area. When I change my players around I sometimes lack the same bite. When I have my preferred eleven, I know I can even win with 10 men. Shape helps but you can play an attacking system with any kind of shape...it's the players, and the roles and duties that will influence what they can do.

[gunnerfan]

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/423054-Lines-and-Diamonds-The-Tactician-s-Handbook-for-Football-Manager-2015

@iamneallyons: Sorry for breaking into your discussion here, but I would recommend taking the time to read through this master piece written for FM15. Some of the concepts have changed a bit for FM16, but it should give you a much better understanding of general football concepts and how to translate these into FM. I know it helped me a lot, and I've been playing FM from the very beginning.

By "from the very beginning", do you mean since it's been known as FM, or do you mean going back to the CM days? :-)

[iamneallyons]

I will give that article a read, I'm not new to fm iv played since the first champ manager - I'm just delving deeper into how other people see the game working now and what effect shape, mentality, roles and duty tend to have in this game as it has changed since last year, rashidi even pointed this out when it comes to shape.

I agree the roles and dutys for this need to be completely re done, I'm a massive tactical guy and love to get deep into what makes something work or more so not in this case lol.

[RTHerringbone]

The danger is reading too much. There's a load of content about and loads to read, but they are concepts and experiments that other people have done with their own teams. You can only learn so much by reading, you learn the most by doing and observing.

[iamneallyons]

In seems a very literal interpretation of this:

https://timhi.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/ajax-1995/

The challenge in FM is getting the DCs up against the strikers with the Sweeper a sensible distance behind. More often that not, the AI will just look to sit in the gaps behind the DCs to take advantage of that space. When using narrow MCs to mark wingers, you have to mitigate this by getting the AMC to drop deep (like Litmanen did) which isn't possible early enough with an Attack Duty.

That's just one of many articles about this system or way of playing, but I don't feel I'm too far away from how iv set the instructions up and even a few of the roles.. I had two bbm players but a few here seem to think that's wrong but I thought that role would be best because in this ajax team rdboer/davids both tracked back and supported going forward.. That's why I picked bbm as their roles.

[Cleon]

That's just one of many articles about this system or way of playing, but I don't feel I'm too far away from how iv set the instructions up and even a few of the roles.. I had two bbm players but a few here seem to think that's wrong but I thought that role would be best because in this ajax team rdboer/davids both tracked back and supported going forward.. That's why I picked bbm as their roles.

If you want to use it successfully, you are miles away from making it work. Seriously, you're not even close. It's also a specialised system which means players are just as important too and you'll have to squad build towards that which will take an age. Tactically though, I don't think you've nailed any of the roles correctly and not even in a manner that shows some positives from you to build on as a base.

[Mojam]

If you want to use it successfully, you are miles away from making it work. Seriously, you're not even close. It's also a specialised system which means players are just as important too and you'll have to squad build towards that which will take an age. Tactically though, I don't think you've nailed any of the roles correctly and not even in a manner that shows some positives from you to build on as a base.

Cleon would you guide people into creating such a tactic. i myself have tried to create it using the same formation but it seem difficult. ive tried many things such as manual marking but it seems hard

[Cleon]

I've gave you the basics already though.....I've gave you the outline of what is needed to be successful playing attacking football. I spoke about all the elements needed to pull it off. How much more of a guide do you need?!

Also remember the overview you see of the tactic is your defensive shape.

[johnnyyakuza78]

I've no idea if such a shape is possible in FM16, maybe it isn't considering how it works. But I'd suggest it would more related to the inverted wingbacks concept than central midfielders who move out wide.

Anyway, don't want to derail the thread by all this.

[KongeMeier]

By "from the very beginning", do you mean since it's been known as FM, or do you mean going back to the CM days? :-)

I mean "from the very beginning"!

[James9]

*off my blog*

Football Manager 2016 is all about managing transitions.

Today on the forums, my attention was piqued by an issue people had with 2 man midfields, common in top heavy systems. The key to setting up any system is making sure the right areas are being covered and making sure enough players are involved in transitions.

There are several kinds of transitions, and these depend entirely on what you want to achieve, some people may want to have a transition that is quick and involves pacey strikers. This means that you need to have the right players making forward runs, more importantly you need the right ones in the right positions to make those telling passes to find them.

Too often I see people use the Ball Winning Midfielder. Using a BWM in a 2 man midfield is inefficient. First he has an enormous closing down area, and secondly, when he goes on his leg breaking runs, he leaves your defense exposed. This forces teams into funny shapes to compensate and then they lose any attacking flavour.

If those 2 in midfield can't act as defensive pivots you are going to find it hard to release the 3 up front. In the first screenshot the opponents are going to defend transition to midfield. My 2 MCs are tracking back while the 4 in blue are taking up positions.

I like how my backline is set up, defenders are in good covering positions. In the second screenshot you can see the front strikers go to close an opposing player down.

A few seconds later my entire team except for my striker have formed a tight bank to defend, our DLP has got the ball and is going to play the pass forward.

As the pass is played to the right (yellow line) the right AMR is making a run down the flanks while the rest are moving up to support. Note where my fullbacks are and where the AML/FW are. The 2 MCs are still in the shape they need to be.

A few seconds later you can see how quickly we have transitioned from defense to attack. When playing with a 2man midfield, the most important thing to be aware of is transitions. Managing these is the difference between a solid 4231 and a weak one. And in my honest opinion, the ball winning midfielder is just too one dimensional for a midfield that needs to be more than just about winning the ball.

So the next time you set up a system in Football Manager 2016, think first about transitions. Coming up in a few days will be a detailed video guide on this in my Attacking Special called the Dark Arts of Attacking Football on BusttheNet. So keep a lookout for it or follow me on twitter for the latest updates. (@Bustthenet)

Oh by the way I am using almost exclusively a 4231 in all competitions, the only time I used another tactic was a 4411 against PSG. A third into the season, won each game in the Serie A except for drawing against Juventus, and qualified top of the group for the ECL. A group that featured Man City and PSG..

Rashidi can you tell me which series or episode in the Torino Diaries you are using the 4231 set up it would be interesting to see this set up in action. It might also give me ideas.

[alinp]

I picked inside forward with stay out wide because I still wanted the player to get into the box where as a winger will stay exclusively wide, and in that system you either used a poacher to break the like or a 9 and a half who dropped back deep.

Just try a W(A) in an AMR/L position and watch him... you may be pleasantly surprised.

[Jean0987654321]

Looking for a bit of defensive stability, I would recommend moving the IFs back and making them WM (a) with the same PIs as IFs have hardcoded.

I tried a similar shape as the user above (3-3-3-1) and you have to set the line so high to deal with any counters. You have to press and run like hell to prevent your team from being found out defensively

So, I guess you could do one of the two

[Trainspotting90]

hello cleon, this is an interesting topic: you know zeman and his philosophy?

[Rashidi]

Rashidi can you tell me which series or episode in the Torino Diaries you are using the 4231 set up it would be interesting to see this set up in action. It might also give me ideas.

Season 3

[James9]

Season 3

HivRashidi what video diary is season 3. You gave quite a few video diaries for Torino on You Tube.

[Cleon]

Updated post 4

[roggiotis]

@james

it hasn't come out yet ,no 20 is end of season 2

[RTHerringbone]

The critical thing that post #4 shows for me is that difference between offensive and defensive shape. It's another extension of the whole 4-2-3-1 vs 4-4-1-1 or 4-3-3 vs. 4-1-4-1 debate. It's really easy to get sucked into the Match Of The Day way in which "formations" are presented in the media. There's nothing wrong with using those formations I mentioned in that way, but that Ajax formation was just never going to be able to function fully coherently in FM within that formation.

[Cleon]

The critical thing that post #4 shows for me is that difference between offensive and defensive shape. It's another extension of the whole 4-2-3-1 vs 4-4-1-1 or 4-3-3 vs. 4-1-4-1 debate. It's really easy to get sucked into the Match Of The Day way in which "formations" are presented in the media. There's nothing wrong with using those formations I mentioned in that way, but that Ajax formation was just never going to be able to function fully coherently in FM within that formation.

Indeed and the best part is I still attack in the shape the original poster wanted. And now it can function the way he wanted.