Learning how to play

[facman]

11 hours ago, Loversleaper said:

If I may. I would like to explain a small issue that I think you need to take a look at ---- the Wing Back choice. I can understand that one might want to use a Wing Back when you have three center defenders - but using them with only two Center Backs will leave your team very vulnerable. The Wing Back has the 'move forward more' instruction so chances they get caught out of position will be a lot higher and, in my opinion, pretty unnecessary. I might go with a Wing Back in a 4 man defense if I were playing Attack Strategy - but in reality, the Full Back has more of the instructions that suit a 4 man defense. I see a lot of people make the Wing Back choice in a 4 man defense and I am not convinced this is the best solution...

Normally to have my tactics working better, what I do is that in the Defensive Mentality Strategies (Defend & Contain) usually I would have the Full Backs running forward less (defend duty) - in the Normal Mentality Strategies (Counter, Standard & Control) have them on sometimes (Support Duty) - and in the Attacking Mentality Strategies (Attack & Overload) have them getting forward more often (Attack Duty). This position is one of the areas that I use to get the Duty roles more coherent with the overall tactical structure that in turn makes the tactic more sound - in my experience...

I would say that it isn't as simple as that. My Defensive/Fluid 4-4-2 has my DL operating as a WB(A), alongside a CD(D), CD(C) and FB(S). Last season I finished 3rd in the Premiership and conceded the fewest goals. I've found that on the less adventurous mentalities it is vital to have one of my defenders on an attack duty, otherwise my attack lacks dynamism, width and unpredictability. As to whether or not I choose a WB or FB role, that will depend on my shape. I tend to only use the WB role when I am operating with a Fluid shape, as I think they get too attacking in Structured systems.

[looping]

To be honest, I don't know what else to try. No more ideas, no more thoughts. 

At this point, what would yo do? Give up playing?

 

[jukilo]

11 hours ago, looping said:

To be honest, I don't know what else to try. No more ideas, no more thoughts. 

At this point, what would yo do? Give up playing?

 

Normally, I wouldn't say something like this but I'm with you. Nothing that I try would get me the results I want. Defensive, attacking, counter-attacking, nothing. Palermo, Stoke or Alaves suddenly became greatest teams and play even better than Barcelona.

It's sad that this has become an increasingly difficult game, the game wasn't like this. And I put a lot of effort in the game. 

Maybe, this isn't a game for me anymore.

Sad, sad game and days. 

[facman]

15 hours ago, looping said:

To be honest, I don't know what else to try. No more ideas, no more thoughts. 

At this point, what would yo do? Give up playing?

You could try giving some feedback...

You posted a long post with a new tactical plan last weekend, and have given no feedback as to what you saw with it in-game...

[looping]

5 hours ago, facman said:

You could try giving some feedback...

You posted a long post with a new tactical plan last weekend, and have given no feedback as to what you saw with it in-game...

 

On 20/11/2016 at 23:48, looping said:

Questions
I'd like you to answer the following questions:

- Are the choosen roles and duties right? Do they fit with the theory exposed? Are they balanced?

- Do you see any inconsistency, contradiction or mistake?

- What style of football would you play? 

- Would you use a Structured or fluid shape?

- Would you use a Control or Counter mentality

- Would you add any PI?

- Which TI would you add?

- Any other idea?

Unfortunately, I'm not able to identify the answer on my own just watching games..

[FrankFizzle]

Have you tried any 3 defender formations? Ive spent hours trawling forums for guides and nothing I was doing really seem to work. 

I ditched my under performing wingbacks and tried a 3-4-3 formation. Granted Im prone to attacks from the wings depending how attacking my wingers are, but ultimately there isnt a lot of difference compared to my past formations of a 4-4-2 & 4-5-1.

Despite being Weymouth, im having a decent season with my 3 strikers many chances compared to the usual 1 or 2 upfront.

[Bitner]

On 20/11/2016 at 20:48, looping said:

So, how I want to play?

Roles and duties
The purpose is to translate what has been exposed above into roles and duties.

Goalie
Gk-de. Already covered

Full-backs
I'll use wb (su), because we need a full-back who generally likes to get forward as often as possible but I don't want to leave my flanks exposed on the counter attack.

Centre Backs
Cd (de). Already covered.

Central Midfielders
Tackler-passer partnership. Cm (de) and dlp (su).

Wingers
Here comes one of the critical decisions. The first idea is to place my wingers to the am strata but in fm terms, this would result in a top heavy attacking formation and this is not my (initial) intention, so I'll drop them to midfield strata. W-at role.

Nº 10
Playmaker, link the team together,  the hook. Trequartista-at

Striker
A player who can hold up the ball, link play, run in behind, create chances, beat players, offer an aerial threat and, of course, put the ball in the back of the net... Cf-at

 

Shape and mentality
The formation is fairly versatile  so I can play any football style. To be honest, I don't want to decide it until I know the team and players I'll have, so I'll stay on Standard/Flexible, which will allow me to adapt to whatever circumstances (To some extent, I'm not defining a style of play yet. I have the roles and duties, which are crucial, but I can adjust it via shape, mentality and Team Instructions)

Team Instructions
For the same reason, no team instructions.

Player Instructions
I'm not defining (to some extent) a style of play, but I know what I want my players to do. Or better said, I know what I don't want my players to do. Fot that reason, I'll use the following PI:

Goalie
Goalies can waste silly amounts of possession by just hoofing it up the pitch. I tell him to:

- Distribute to Centre Backs

- Roll It Out

- Slow Pace Down

Tactic

Draw your soccer tactics with this11.com

 

Potential issues
- I'm using 4 attack duties, which can be too much

- I'm using two playmakers

- Wingbacks and wingers may stay both wide, in the same space

- Winbacks have PI get further forward, which can result on leaving huge gaps behind.

- I have 2 wingbacks and 2 wingers, but only 1 striker. Am I crossing to nobody?

 

Questions
I'd like you to answer the following questions:

- Are the choosen roles and duties right? Do they fit with the theory exposed? Are they balanced?

- Do you see any inconsistency, contradiction or mistake?

- What style of football would you play? 

- Would you use a Structured or fluid shape?

- Would you use a Control or Counter mentality

- Would you add any PI?

- Which TI would you add?

- Any other idea?

 

After I receive the feedback expected, I'll write down another post, adjusting whatever is raised and defining style of play, with mentality, shape and TI. Once this is done, we'll all agree we'll have a balanced tactic so we'll only need to fit the right players in the right positions.

Thanks for reading.

 

Hey, good morning

I'll try to answer your questions with my vision, which is no absolut truth, but i think i can help you to solve some problems. 

1 - I don't think so. Too little variation, seems like you're playing very structured. Defenders defend, midfielders create and attackers attack. Need to make it a little bit more mixed. 

2- Wingers and wingbacks are stumbling on each other. 2 central midfielders who are sitters, no real penetration for them or the Number 10. Also 2 playmakers. If i'm wrong, @Rashidi can correct me.

3- I would sort this roles from the start, seems like a great mess. I understood you've got your concepts, but like Felipão, the 7-1 Managers, you can't be stuck with them forever, and also, you can adapt them to a new reality, like Fergie always did.

4- the one you want to.

5- I'm a sucker for fluid, so i'll tend to use flexible or fluid, depending on the team's quality.

6- Also, i love control, but i don't know how your tactic would like at the end.

7- Nothing to be done before revamping the Roles.

8- working the ball into the box, but again, MY philosophies.

9- There i'll just input MY suggestions for roles.

GK and CD. nothing doing, they keep it simple and it's ok.

FB - One to FB (s) with an W(a) at his front, and a B2B at their side.

FB - The other as an FB (a) with an IF(s) (or an WM(s) moulded to be an IF) at his side and a CM-D

AMC - AP(s), believe me, i think this is the best role to have a playmaker who drop a little deep to transition defence into attack. You can give him more freedom to shot or dribble with some PI.

Striker -CF(a) is ok.

there are my two cents, mate. hope it helps.

Cheers,
Bitner 

[looping]

 

9 hours ago, FrankFizzle said:

Have you tried any 3 defender formations? Ive spent hours trawling forums for guides and nothing I was doing really seem to work. 

I ditched my under performing wingbacks and tried a 3-4-3 formation. Granted Im prone to attacks from the wings depending how attacking my wingers are, but ultimately there isnt a lot of difference compared to my past formations of a 4-4-2 & 4-5-1.

Despite being Weymouth, im having a decent season with my 3 strikers many chances compared to the usual 1 or 2 upfront.

Yes, I've tried, but not now. This is not the style of play I want to implement. 442 (or 4411 one striker dropped to am strata) is not optional.

Thanks for your answer

[looping]

8 hours ago, Bitner said:

1 - I don't think so. Too little variation, seems like you're playing very structured. Defenders defend, midfielders create and attackers attack. Need to make it a little bit more mixed. 

This is exactly what I want. gk-> saves, central defenders--> headers, fb--> cover flanks, cm-de---> destroy, dlp-su--> create, wm-at-->run, am--> link, striker-->score. That simple.

8 hours ago, Bitner said:

Wingers and wingbacks are stumbling on each other

This is totally right and that's why I use fb-su most of the times.

8 hours ago, Bitner said:

2 central midfielders who are sitters

I accept to have a runner (in fact, I want my creator to be more attacking, it's just the role doesn't exist), but then I lose a lot of cover in midfield. I've already tried with cm-su, bbm... 

9 hours ago, Bitner said:

Also 2 playmakers

That's right and for that reason I use an am-su instead of a treq

9 hours ago, Bitner said:

I'm a sucker for fluid, so i'll tend to use flexible or fluid, depending on the team's quality.

I like structured, but I think my roles are already very "structured" so I would use flexible.

9 hours ago, Bitner said:

Also, i love control, but i don't know how your tactic would like at the end.

I don't like to control the games I like to sit deep and wait.

9 hours ago, Bitner said:

FB - One to FB (s) with an W(a) at his front, and a B2B at their side.

FB - The other as an FB (a) with an IF(s) (or an WM(s) moulded to be an IF) at his side and a CM-D

AMC - AP(s), believe me, i think this is the best role to have a playmaker who drop a little deep to transition defence into attack. You can give him more freedom to shot or dribble with some PI.

And finally this explains everything. I know this setup would produce much better results (because I've already tried and even posted it here), but this is not how I want to play. I don't want attacking fb, I don't want my wide midfielders to cut inside. That simple: I don't want.

9 hours ago, Bitner said:

Striker -CF(a) is ok.

If I add to your setup a striker dropping deep and holding up the ball, my team is almost unbeatable. But again, this is not how I want to play. I want a striker on the shoulder of the defenders, waiting for through balls.

 

I can't implement my style of play in fm. This is the conclusion.

Thanks for your answer.

 

[Bitner]

2 minutes ago, looping said:

This is exactly what I want. gk-> saves, central defenders--> headers, fb--> cover flanks, cm-de---> destroy, dlp-su--> create, wm-at-->run, am--> link, striker-->score. That simple.

This is totally right and that's why I use fb-su most of the times.

I accept to have a runner (in fact, I want my creator to be more attacking, it's just the role doesn't exist), but then I lose a lot of cover in midfield. I've already tried with cm-su, bbm... 

That's right and for that reason I use an am-su instead of a treq

I like structured, but I think my roles are already very "structured" so I would use flexible.

I don't like to control the games I like to sit deep and wait.

And finally this explains everything. I know this setup would produce much better results (because I've already tried and even posted it here), but this is not how I want to play. I don't want attacking fb, I don't want my wide midfielders to cut inside. That simple: I don't want.

If I add to your setup a striker dropping deep and holding up the ball, my team is almost unbeatable. But again, this is not how I want to play. I want a striker on the shoulder of the defenders, waiting for through balls.

 

I can't implement my style of play in fm. This is the conclusion.

Thanks for your answer.

 

Well, i won't be defeated, but then again, my style is suited to the game, so i'm biased.

For what i read from you, you want a 4-4-2 Fergie-esque, that's right?

Well, in that case, i would try having an attacking pair of a CF-A and a DF-D, that would help your midfielders, but it would go away from your structured setup a bit.

But i'm taking Fergie treble as reference, and even back then he had an attacking FB, which was Gary neville, primarly a DEFENDER, then an attacking threat. What i see is that you're stuck at some concepts.

Your sitter can be your playmaker, for an example, and then you can have a runner. Or maybe trying an RPM wouldn't help? 

And as you want to play more structured, maybe having more specialist roles, Like an Inside forward and stuff? or an defensive winger, which could competently get to the byline and deliver crosses?

I'm just trying to put some alternatives, to take you to a winning path

Cheers,
Bitner 

[looping]

43 minutes ago, Bitner said:

Well, i won't be defeated, but then again, my style is suited to the game, so i'm biased.

To be honest, I used this tactic for some matches:

 

Find your football tactics app at this11.com

 

Control, fluid, work ball onto the box

12 games 9 won 2 draw 1 lost (my team is Malaga, mid table team in Spain). Rock solid defending. Decent attacking. Huge possession.

Am I happy? Absolutely not, because this is almost the opposite of how I want to play.

43 minutes ago, Bitner said:

For what i read from you, you want a 4-4-2 Fergie-esque, that's right?

 

43 minutes ago, Bitner said:

Well, in that case, i would try having an attacking pair of a CF-A and a DF-D, that would help your midfielders, but it would go away from your structured setup a bit.

I want 2 central defenders and 2 fullbacks who basically defend, destroyer-creator pairing in midfield, two fast wide players down the flanks, one player linking and a top scorer upfront.

Defend deep, not interested in possession, more direct passing (if I had to choose, despite mixed seems ok),  fast transitions exploiting space created by my deep block.

My linking player can be a big tall striker (tm or even dlf is he is creative) or a more talented man playing in the am strata. I prefer a player in the am because I don't know how to make my strikers track back to defend.

 

43 minutes ago, Bitner said:

But i'm taking Fergie treble as reference, and even back then he had an attacking FB, which was Gary neville, primarly a DEFENDER, then an attacking threat. What i see is that you're stuck at some concepts.

I'm not trying to replicate Ferguson. I'm trying to implement my style. Any resemblance  is mere coincidence. 

43 minutes ago, Bitner said:

Your sitter can be your playmaker, for an example, and then you can have a runner. Or maybe trying an RPM wouldn't help? 

I don't want my sitter to be my playmaker. My sitter must be the destroyer. Not optional. I know I can do different things, it's just that I don't want because it is not how i want to play. RPM has dribble more PI which results on my player trying to dribble instead of passing and I don't want that.

43 minutes ago, Bitner said:

And as you want to play more structured, maybe having more specialist roles, Like an Inside forward and stuff? or an defensive winger, which could competently get to the byline and deliver crosses?

I don't want to instruct my wide players to cut inside. Not a problem if they do it because there is space available or a good option, but I want them to focus down the flanks.

I've never used a defensive winger. His closing down area may be too big leaving huge gaps as a consequence and I want to defend deep and keep the shape.

 

To keep things simple:

Draw your soccer tactics with this11.com

Right/left back: I can use there fb-su or wb-su

central defenders: cd-de

cm destroyer: cm-de, bwm-de

cm creator: cm-su, dlp-su

wide midfielders: wm-at or w-at

link: am-su/at, treq, 

Striker: af/poacher

 

Mentality: not higher than counter.

Shape: structured or flexible

With this premises I have to create my tactic.

 

 

EDIT: I know I'll have to adjust and tweak my tactic during matches because I can't play exactly the same in every match. 

[Bitner]

26 minutes ago, looping said:

To be honest, I used this tactic for some matches:

 

Find your football tactics app at this11.com

 

Control, fluid, work ball onto the box

12 games 9 won 2 draw 1 lost (my team is Malaga, mid table team in Spain). Rock solid defending. Decent attacking. Huge possession.

Am I happy? Absolutely not, because this is almost the opposite of how I want to play.

 

I want 2 central defenders and 2 fullbacks who basically defend, destroyer-creator pairing in midfield, two fast wide players down the flanks, one player linking and a top scorer upfront.

Defend deep, not interested in possession, more direct passing (if I had to choose, despite mixed seems ok),  fast transitions exploiting space created by my deep block.

My linking player can be a big tall striker (tm or even dlf is he is creative) or a more talented man playing in the am strata. I prefer a player in the am because I don't know how to make my strikers track back to defend.

 

I'm not trying to replicate Ferguson. I'm trying to implement my style. Any resemblance  is mere coincidence. 

I don't want my sitter to be my playmaker. My sitter must be the destroyer. Not optional. I know I can do different things, it's just that I don't want because it is not how i want to play. RPM has dribble more PI which results on my player trying to dribble instead of passing and I don't want that.

I don't want to instruct my wide players to cut inside. Not a problem if they do it because there is space available or a good option, but I want them to focus down the flanks.

I've never used a defensive winger. His closing down area may be too big leaving huge gaps as a consequence and I want to defend deep and keep the shape.

 

To keep things simple:

Draw your soccer tactics with this11.com

Right/left back: I can use there fb-su or wb-su

central defenders: cd-de

cm destroyer: cm-de, bwm-de

cm creator: cm-su, dlp-su

wide midfielders: wm-at or w-at

link: am-su/at, treq, 

Striker: af/poacher

 

Mentality: not higher than counter.

Shape: structured or flexible

With this premises I have to create my tactic.

 

 

EDIT: I know I'll have to adjust and tweak my tactic during matches because I can't play exactly the same in every match. 

I was thinking HOW to make your style of football being quite useful, and i arrived at the following conclusion.

GK - standard.

FB - FB-S, both of them.

CB- CD-D

There i started to think and i thought it would be the better suit

DMC - Anchorman and DLP-S. I think as you want to play deep and not having posession, why not having a full block of 6 defenders? that would open field to your counters, right?

MC - AP-S/A As he'll have to link the team, and your CMs droped Deep, he dropped deep aswell. He'll be the link for whatever you want to do.

Wingers - AMR/L - Winger-A Simple as you like.

Forward - CF-A

I would probably try to play with a counter mentality, long passes, high tempo and spread the ball to the wings quickly.

This could be a wrong interpretation, but from what i got, this resembles how you want to play, not caring about overlappings, posession and penetration a lot, just sheer pace on the break.

If i'm wrong, sorry. I just felt this would fit your ideals a lot more.

Cheers,
Bitner 

[looping]

32 minutes ago, Bitner said:

I was thinking HOW to make your style of football being quite useful, and i arrived at the following conclusion.

GK - standard.

FB - FB-S, both of them.

CB- CD-D

There i started to think and i thought it would be the better suit

DMC - Anchorman and DLP-S. I think as you want to play deep and not having posession, why not having a full block of 6 defenders? that would open field to your counters, right?

MC - AP-S/A As he'll have to link the team, and your CMs droped Deep, he dropped deep aswell. He'll be the link for whatever you want to do.

Wingers - AMR/L - Winger-A Simple as you like.

Forward - CF-A

I would probably try to play with a counter mentality, long passes, high tempo and spread the ball to the wings quickly.

This could be a wrong interpretation, but from what i got, this resembles how you want to play, not caring about overlappings, posession and penetration a lot, just sheer pace on the break.

If i'm wrong, sorry. I just felt this would fit your ideals a lot more.

Cheers,
Bitner 

What do you think about playing strikerless? A SS instead of a CF?

[Bitner]

Just now, looping said:

What do you think about playing strikerless? A SS instead of a CF?

Sounds nice aswell, i'd definately try it, if the CF-A/S don't work. Sounds like a good way to push the other team forward and punish them, which seems to be your plan A, am i right?

Cheers,
Bitner 

[looping]

Sacked again. 

If I don't use this tactic I can't play the game.

 

[Bitner]

Just now, looping said:

Sacked again. 

If I don't use this tactic I can't play the game.

 

You tried my input at your type of football and failed? :/

Cheers,
Bitner

[looping]

Just now, Bitner said:

You tried my input at your type of football and failed? :/

Cheers,
Bitner

Exactly. Basically, I lost 10 of the first 12 games.

I restarted the season, changed to the tactic I've just described and results were rational according to the quality of my players.

[Bitner]

Just now, looping said:

Exactly. Basically, I lost 10 of the first 12 games.

I restarted the season, changed to the tactic I've just described and results were rational according to the quality of my players.

Well, i'm sorry then. I really tried to help.

Cheers,
Bitner 

[looping]

Just now, Bitner said:

Well, i'm sorry then. I really tried to help.

Cheers,
Bitner 

I know I know. It's my fault and my total unability to understand this game. Thanks for trying to help  .

[Bitner]

Just now, looping said:

I know I know. It's my fault and my total unability to understand this game. Thanks for trying to help  .

I never call someone inapt... Maybe a little bit stubborn haha...

Have you ever tried to lurk at the Simeone 4-4-2 tactics topics? Maybe they have a path to follow...

Cheers,
Bitner 

[looping]

8 minutes ago, Bitner said:

I never call someone inapt... Maybe a little bit stubborn haha...

Have you ever tried to lurk at the Simeone 4-4-2 tactics topics? Maybe they have a path to follow...

Cheers,
Bitner 

Yes I have. But a) in my opinion, tactics that try to replicate Simeone are far away from real Atletico b) Simeone doesn't play with 2 quick players down the flanks.

There are 2 posible causes of my failing: a) My idea of football can't be implemented in fm. Simple and weird because I see every weekend many many teams using the style I want to implement or b) I don't know and it seems nobody knows how to implement it.

I've created this 4231 which is reasonably successful. I have another decent tactic (41212) using a regista and a trequartista but this is not how I want to play.

I'll keep trying anyway.

[Bitner]

1 minute ago, looping said:

Yes I have. But a) in my opinion, tactics that try to replicate Simeone are far away from real Atletico b) Simeone doesn't play with 2 quick players down the flanks.

There are 2 posible causes of my failing: a) My idea of football can't be implemented in fm. Simple and weird because I see every weekend many many teams using the style I want to implement or b) I don't know and it seems nobody knows how to implement it.

I'll keep trying anyway.

Out of curiosity, which teams plays at the way you're looking at?

Cheers,
Bitner 

[looping]

4 minutes ago, Bitner said:

Out of curiosity, which teams plays at the way you're looking at?

Cheers,
Bitner 

Most of the teams in Liga 123 (spanish Sky bet Championship) play this style. 

[Bitner]

1 minute ago, looping said:

Most of the teams in Liga 123 (spanish Sky bet Championship) play this style. 

Well... I don't watch, can't say, today even less... I just think that maybe we're missing a detail.

Cheers,
Bitner 

[looping]

6 minutes ago, Bitner said:

Well... I don't watch, can't say, today even less... I just think that maybe we're missing a detail.

Cheers,
Bitner 

Disregarding from that, my idea is very simple:

1 gk. If he doesn't score own goals is enough.

fullbacks: cover their flakn

cb: clear crosses and through balls

cm (defensive): destroy

cm (attacking): create

wide midfielders: run

attacking midfielder/withdrawn striker: link

striker: score

 

Sit back and defend. If the opponent attacks we'll have space. If the opponent doesn't attack, we'll draw 0-0. 

This is how I see football.

[NoTekkersRB]

Have you looked at any Leicester City threads? And thought about changing mentalities to a higher one but lowering your closing down to stand off more so players drop off into defensive positions when losing possession?

 

It's difficult looping, you may need to be less Arsene Wenger and be a bit more pragmatic! ?

[Bitner]

3 hours ago, NoTekkersRB said:

Have you looked at any Leicester City threads? And thought about changing mentalities to a higher one but lowering your closing down to stand off more so players drop off into defensive positions when losing possession?

 

It's difficult looping, you may need to be less Arsene Wenger and be a bit more pragmatic! ?

He wants to play football like this, but he's not having any success... Maybe Leicester is a great team to look at. And maybe their results this season aren't that good aswell...

Cheers,
Bitner 

[Kcinnay]

16 hours ago, looping said:

Yes I have. But a) in my opinion, tactics that try to replicate Simeone are far away from real Atletico b) Simeone doesn't play with 2 quick players down the flanks.

Out of curiosity: in what way are the 'replicate Simeone'-tactics far away from real Atlético? How would you replicate Atlético in FM?

[Rashidi]

36 minutes ago, Kcinnay said:

Out of curiosity: in what way are the 'replicate Simeone'-tactics far away from real Atlético? How would you replicate Atlético in FM?

I am curious too.

[PonjaConRulos]

Well, I'm gonna show you how I achieved something very similar to what you wanted in first place: 4 man defense (fullbacks defensive-minded), 4 midfielders (2 wide, 1 defensive, 1 creator), 2 strikers (1 link, 1 goalscorer). Counter mentality, structured shape

------------------GK------------------

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

WM(S)--CM(D)-AP(S)--WM(S)

-----------F9(S)---AF(A)------------

Defense: I want a 4 man defense at all times. Fullbacks also sit narrower, as I don't want to concede any space. 

Midfield: I want one defensive midfielder, one playmaker to create the play (Advance Playmaker is more vertical than Roaming Playmaker; Deep-Lying is too static), and 2 Wide midfielders with get forward, run wide, cross from byline, shoot less, mark tighter and closing down more. I want them to plays as Wingers but I don't like the starting point, it's too wide. 

Strikers: I use a False Nine to link up with the midfield and create chances for the goalscorer. So the player I use is a playmaker, a midfielder indeed, I don't care if he hasn't learned that position. Lanzini worked great, but I had excellent results with Tom Lawrence, who is not that good. I saw you have troubles with Luiz Adriano, who is definitely a striker. Advanced Forward makes runs and pushes the defense, so the F9 and the AP can have space behind him. I need a fast player, so Vardy and Luc Castaignos made great performances beating the offside trap. 

Team Instructions: Play narrower, Work ball into box.

Play narrower helps to keep shape during attacks, and Work ball into box reduces long shots. If I'm struggling to penetrate, I remove both. Sometimes I add Dribble less to move the ball faster. 

I use Structured because when I attack, my defense keeps the shape: 4 man defense + 1 Defensive midfielder. When I defend I have 8 players behind the ball with two banks of four, so I don't need strikers who track back. 

Results? With Leicester (forget about the champions' squad, it's very different) I finished 2nd, and made it to the Europa League final. I met a Barcelona who just have won the Liga, a little unfair. 5th best defense in the Premier League, 6th best offense. 

 

What you want is possible, but you need to be more patient. This tactic is not exactly what you want, as I made a lot of chances with through balls, and you want more flanks and crosses. But it can give you some ideas. 

[vlad.condurache]

I think he meant in the past Cholo used to play with Koke and Arda/ Oliver Torres/ Saul on the flanks and these players are more close to wide playmakers than wingers that bomb forward. But things have changed and now even Simeone plays with true wingers (Carrasco and Gaitan) and moved Koke to the middle of the pitch, alongside Gabi. But, IMO, you don't need to play wide playmakers to replicate Atletico's style of play. With the right PI's, Koke can be a brilliant WM.

[looping]

3 hours ago, Kcinnay said:

Out of curiosity: in what way are the 'replicate Simeone'-tactics far away from real Atlético? How would you replicate Atlético in FM?

 

2 hours ago, Rashidi said:

I am curious too.

 

1 hour ago, vlad.condurache said:

I think he meant in the past Cholo used to play with Koke and Arda/ Oliver Torres/ Saul on the flanks and these players are more close to wide playmakers than wingers that bomb forward. But things have changed and now even Simeone plays with true wingers (Carrasco and Gaitan) and moved Koke to the middle of the pitch, alongside Gabi. But, IMO, you don't need to play wide playmakers to replicate Atletico's style of play. With the right PI's, Koke can be a brilliant WM.

This.

Koke can be a brilliant wm but not in the way I want.

[looping]

23 hours ago, PonjaConRulos said:

Well, I'm gonna show you how I achieved something very similar to what you wanted in first place: 4 man defense (fullbacks defensive-minded), 4 midfielders (2 wide, 1 defensive, 1 creator), 2 strikers (1 link, 1 goalscorer). Counter mentality, structured shape

------------------GK------------------

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

WM(S)--CM(D)-AP(S)--WM(S)

-----------F9(S)---AF(A)------------

Defense: I want a 4 man defense at all times. Fullbacks also sit narrower, as I don't want to concede any space. 

Midfield: I want one defensive midfielder, one playmaker to create the play (Advance Playmaker is more vertical than Roaming Playmaker; Deep-Lying is too static), and 2 Wide midfielders with get forward, run wide, cross from byline, shoot less, mark tighter and closing down more. I want them to plays as Wingers but I don't like the starting point, it's too wide. 

Strikers: I use a False Nine to link up with the midfield and create chances for the goalscorer. So the player I use is a playmaker, a midfielder indeed, I don't care if he hasn't learned that position. Lanzini worked great, but I had excellent results with Tom Lawrence, who is not that good. I saw you have troubles with Luiz Adriano, who is definitely a striker. Advanced Forward makes runs and pushes the defense, so the F9 and the AP can have space behind him. I need a fast player, so Vardy and Luc Castaignos made great performances beating the offside trap. 

Team Instructions: Play narrower, Work ball into box.

Play narrower helps to keep shape during attacks, and Work ball into box reduces long shots. If I'm struggling to penetrate, I remove both. Sometimes I add Dribble less to move the ball faster. 

I use Structured because when I attack, my defense keeps the shape: 4 man defense + 1 Defensive midfielder. When I defend I have 8 players behind the ball with two banks of four, so I don't need strikers who track back. 

Results? With Leicester (forget about the champions' squad, it's very different) I finished 2nd, and made it to the Europa League final. I met a Barcelona who just have won the Liga, a little unfair. 5th best defense in the Premier League, 6th best offense. 

 

What you want is possible, but you need to be more patient. This tactic is not exactly what you want, as I made a lot of chances with through balls, and you want more flanks and crosses. But it can give you some ideas. 

I tried something similar,inspired by your post.

As usual I totally failed. My attack is better, I'm scoring almost 2 goals per game, which is understandable as long as I'm playing with 2 strikers and 2 midfielders with attack duty. THe problem, again, as usual, is my defense, absolutely terrible, conceding, almost 2 goals per game.

I'm very close to give up. My feeling is that the game is forcing me to play in a way that I don't want. I don't want attacking fullbacks. I don't want wide midfielders cutting inside.

The fact is that if I do that, my results are much much better, but I don't want that.

[looping]

In every tactic I see in the forums I see the same pattern: most of tactics which use 4 defenders and 4 midfielders (flat) use one fb on attack duty one wm on support one fb on support one wm on attack. This is because the game forces the user to do that? Why most of the players do that? Does everybody have a particular preference to attacking fullbacks or are they assuming that is the only way the game allows you to play?

[Bitner]

Just now, looping said:

In every tactic I see in the forums I see the same pattern: most of tactics which use 4 defenders and 4 midfielders (flat) use one fb on attack duty one wm on support one fb on support one wm on attack. This is because the game forces the user to do that? Why most of the players do that? Does everybody have a particular preference to attacking fullbacks?

This creates some movement and variation between lines, which confuses the defenders and drags them out of position. 

Cheers,
Bitner 

[looping]

Just now, Bitner said:

This creates some movement and variation between lines, which confuses the defenders and drags them out of position. 

Cheers,
Bitner 

Ok I get it.

So the game is forcing us to play like this?

[Bitner]

Just now, looping said:

Ok I get it.

So the game is forcing us to play like this?

Not necessarily, i ran a 3-4-1-2 which of course hadn't an attacking full back, and had some sucess (relegated, but won 6, drawn 6 and lost only one)

Cheers,
Bitner 

[looping]

Just now, Bitner said:

Not necessarily, i ran a 3-4-1-2 which of course hadn't an attacking full back, and had some sucess (relegated, but won 6, drawn 6 and lost only one)

Cheers,
Bitner 

Yes, but you were not using 4 defenders and flat 4 midfield.

So, the game is forcing me to use an attacking fb. I'm not following the rules, so I lose?

[Bitner]

Just now, looping said:

Yes, but you were not using 4 defenders and flat 4 midfield.

So, the game is forcing me to use an attacking fb. I'm not following the rules, so I lose?

Well, i guess it's a common pattern, as an 4-4-2 with no threat from the back becomes too easy to read. I just don't like to treat as rules, i'm trying to keep my mind away from the mindset like 'the game doesn't want me to win', this makes me demotivated, and i don't want to.

But i think it's hard to play two banks of 4 and don't have some late runs. but now i'm getting into the end of the season, maybe i'll try some formation like you want to play, and see how it goes on.

In FM16 i had a team who played long passes, counter-attacking football, but i had an attacking full back, so don't fit your philosophy...

Cheers,
Bitner 

[looping]

2 minutes ago, Bitner said:

Well, i guess it's a common pattern, as an 4-4-2 with no threat from the back becomes too easy to read. I just don't like to treat as rules, i'm trying to keep my mind away from the mindset like 'the game doesn't want me to win', this makes me demotivated, and i don't want to.

But i think it's hard to play two banks of 4 and don't have some late runs. but now i'm getting into the end of the season, maybe i'll try some formation like you want to play, and see how it goes on.

In FM16 i had a team who played long passes, counter-attacking football, but i had an attacking full back, so don't fit your philosophy...

Cheers,
Bitner 

I'm not saying the game doesn't want me to win,I'm saying the game is forcing me to play in a way I don't want.

Attacking fb and deep lying lone forward (support duty or trequartista). This seems to me another must. What if I want my striker to be a goal thread and not a supportive player?

Why being very common in real life, I can't do that in fm? It's me that I do things wrong or it's simply not posible?

[Bitner]

Just now, looping said:

I'm not saying the game doesn't want me to win,I'm saying the game is forcing me to play in a way I don't want.

Attacking fb and deep lying lone forward (support duty or trequartista). This seems to me another must. What if I want my striker to be a goal thread and not a supportive player?

Why being very common in real life, I can't do that in fm? It's me that I do things wrong or it's simply not posible?

I play with Man United, CF-A scoring loads of goals, but i have the Attacking full-back.

And with FCUM , i run a 4-1-2-1-2 (narrow diamond) which focus on the left wingback attacking and delivering crosses. But i'll try to scratch an formation with a rock-solid back four and build from there. 

Cheers,
Bitner 

 

[looping]

1 minute ago, Bitner said:

I play with Man United, CF-A scoring loads of goals, but i have the Attacking full-back.

And with FCUM , i run a 4-1-2-1-2 (narrow diamond) which focus on the left wingback attacking and delivering crosses. But i'll try to scratch an formation with a rock-solid back four and build from there. 

Cheers,
Bitner 

 

CF, even on attack duty, is a supportive player (holds up the ball, at least).

I'll keep trying..

[herne79]

21 minutes ago, looping said:

I'm not saying the game doesn't want me to win,I'm saying the game is forcing me to play in a way I don't want.

Attacking fb and deep lying lone forward (support duty or trequartista). This seems to me another must. What if I want my striker to be a goal thread and not a supportive player?

Why being very common in real life, I can't do that in fm? It's me that I do things wrong or it's simply not posible?

No, the game doesn't force you to play in that manner.  As Bitner says, having one FB on attack, one FB on support and vice versa for the wingers helps with movement between the lines to create variety of play.  This variety (with similar variety for the strikers) provides more options in attack and thus becomes harder to defend against.  Without this variety, attacks may become one dimensional and perhaps easier to defend against.  This is true in the ME as in real life.

Some guides on this forum refer to this, and so as people read them a pattern may emerge that you make note of.  These are not "rules" though, and so it's quite possible to play in either manner, so long as you take into account the differences.

[looping]

2 minutes ago, herne79 said:

No, the game doesn't force you to play in that manner.  As Bitner says, having one FB on attack, one FB on support and vice versa for the wingers helps with movement between the lines to create variety of play.  This variety (with similar variety for the strikers) provides more options in attack and thus becomes harder to defend against.  Without this variety, attacks may become one dimensional and perhaps easier to defend against.  This is true in the ME as in real life.

Some guides on this forum refer to this, and so as people read them a pattern may emerge that you make note of.  These are not "rules" though, and so it's quite possible to play in either manner, so long as you take into account the differences.

Then we are watching different sports. I see many many many teams with 2 fb who almost don't cross their own half and a lone striker playing on the shoulder of the defense, without contributing in build up.

This teams create chances and score a lot of goals.

Anyway, I have a different idea. I'm already trying.

[BillHoudini24]

Very interesting thread! Don't lose hope looping, FM can get in your nerves, but once you get it right, the feeling is amazing! Keep an open mind and read as many guides in this forum as possible. There are some incredible stuff to study in here.

[PonjaConRulos]

1 hour ago, looping said:

I tried something similar,inspired by your post.

As usual I totally failed. My attack is better, I'm scoring almost 2 goals per game, which is understandable as long as I'm playing with 2 strikers and 2 midfielders with attack duty. THe problem, again, as usual, is my defense, absolutely terrible, conceding, almost 2 goals per game.

I'm very close to give up. My feeling is that the game is forcing me to play in a way that I don't want. I don't want attacking fullbacks. I don't want wide midfielders cutting inside.

The fact is that if I do that, my results are much much better, but I don't want that.

What is your defensive problem? On the flanks or the centre? Crosses, through balls, long shots?

In my tactic I don't have midfielders with attack duty, because defense is my priority. You said you wanted to win 1-0, so you must play with very few attacking duties. 

[NoTekkersRB]

Looping, are you still using play out from the back TI? And as someone mentioned, how are you conceding goals? Through balls, wing play?

[looping]

 

14 minutes ago, PonjaConRulos said:

What is your defensive problem? On the flanks or the centre? Crosses, through balls, long shots?

In my tactic I don't have midfielders with attack duty, because defense is my priority. You said you wanted to win 1-0, so you must play with very few attacking duties. 

If my midfielders are not on attack duty, they don't bomb forward. On support duty,midfielders are more "creators" and with attack duty "runners". Am I wrong?

THe main defensive problem is the space between central defenders and central midfielders. Even if I push higher or I drop my cm to dm strata, players operating between the lines are very dangerous.

How can I tell my wide midfielders to run to the middle off the ball on the back of the defenders? Is that possible? They only look for through balls running wide. One of the most important movements, in my opinion, are wingers running past diagonal to central defenders.

Use this11.com for drawing your football tactics

Here you can see my "runners" (wingers) and my passer (midfielder). Arrows for runners are forward runs and for passer are long passes. Cb are opponents. I hope you understand.

May I use more risky passes PI for my midfielder? How can I make my wingers act like this? May I use a Ramdeuter? In de the cm strata? I give my wm the pi of a ramdeuter? I'm not sure because I want my wingers to run wide with the ball and run to the middle off the ball

[Bitner]

33 minutes ago, looping said:

 

If my midfielders are not on attack duty, they don't bomb forward. On support duty,midfielders are more "creators" and with attack duty "runners". Am I wrong?

THe main defensive problem is the space between central defenders and central midfielders. Even if I push higher or I drop my cm to dm strata, players operating between the lines are very dangerous.

How can I tell my wide midfielders to run to the middle off the ball on the back of the defenders? Is that possible? They only look for through balls running wide. One of the most important movements, in my opinion, are wingers running past diagonal to central defenders.

Use this11.com for drawing your football tactics

Here you can see my "runners" (wingers) and my passer (midfielder). Arrows for runners are forward runs and for passer are long passes. Cb are opponents. I hope you understand.

May I use more risky passes PI for my midfielder? How can I make my wingers act like this? May I use a Ramdeuter? In de the cm strata? I give my wm the pi of a ramdeuter? I'm not sure because I want my wingers to run wide with the ball and run to the middle off the ball

Wingers in support with get further forward?

Cheers,
Bitner 

[looping]

47 minutes ago, Bitner said:

Wingers in support with get further forward?

Cheers,
Bitner 

They don't run inside off the ball because they have PI stay wide. Am i wrong?