Help with my Sunderland tactic

[Sunlinlad]

Really need a hand with my tactics. I'm playing a 3-4-1-2 with wing backs which was relatively successful in my first season. I'm in my 2nd season now having previously finished 11th last season.

 

Started the season off quite well but then the rut kicked in and I've lost 5 on the bounce all against relegation rivals.

 

Pickford

LWB- Tierney - Support

CB - Djilobodji - Defend 

DCD - Rannochia - Defend

CB - Kone - Defend 

RWB - Manquillo - Support

BBM - Ajer - Support

BWM - N'Dong - Support l

AM - Khazri - Support 

CF - Dembele - Attack

TM - Sakho - Attack

 

Have no instructions and play on counter/control depending on fixture. 

 

Maths ks in advance for any help. 

[jorgvandervloed]

Well, what is going wrong in your opinion? Not scoring enough? Too many goals against? Not enough chances created?

[Sunlinlad]

38 minutes ago, jorgvandervloed said:

Well, what is going wrong in your opinion? Not scoring enough? Too many goals against? Not enough chances created?

Not creating enough chances and the team just keeps getting cut open far too often. 

 

[Sunlinlad]

Any ideas. 

 

Close set to just giving it up tbh. Can't seem to defend a single cross yet when my full backs get in threatening positions they just kick it anywhere.

 

always seems to be second season in I just can't seem to do anything even though I'm strengthening my team and improving my staff. Boringly predictable to be honest. 

[summatsupeer]

I don't like your central midfield, I think its too open.  Whilst you have 3 central defenders to cover the full width of the field, if they have to step up it could leave gaps.  i think it could be open because the BBM can be far from his position.  His partner, the BWM, could of even made a run into the opponents box, but even if he didn't he will go closing opponents down whilst the BBM might not be back in position.

I personally don't like having only defend duties in defence, only support duties in midfield and only attack duties in attack.  It reduces running between the lines and movement to create space.

My guess is since you over-achieved (11th with sunderland in 1st season!) teams don't attack you so much, especially teams at the bottom of the table.  When teams did attack you those attacking forwards will of had space to counter into, but they won't get that as much if teams play more cautious against you so you need to create the space.

[Sunlinlad]

1 hour ago, summatsupeer said:

I don't like your central midfield, I think its too open.  Whilst you have 3 central defenders to cover the full width of the field, if they have to step up it could leave gaps.  i think it could be open because the BBM can be far from his position.  His partner, the BWM, could of even made a run into the opponents box, but even if he didn't he will go closing opponents down whilst the BBM might not be back in position.

I personally don't like having only defend duties in defence, only support duties in midfield and only attack duties in attack.  It reduces running between the lines and movement to create space.

My guess is since you over-achieved (11th with sunderland in 1st season!) teams don't attack you so much, especially teams at the bottom of the table.  When teams did attack you those attacking forwards will of had space to counter into, but they won't get that as much if teams play more cautious against you so you need to create the space.

Thanks for the reply.

 

what would your advice be?

 

being relatively new to FM17 I don't know much about what roles complement each other well. I was also thinking about making a 4-3-3 formation with a CM 3 and inside forwards with Kuki as a trequartista. What would your opinion be on that?

 

thanks in advance mate. 

[summatsupeer]

If your new I would recommend reading the FAQs which explains some of the options available and some of the guides that might give you ideas.  There's countless options available, I don't know if it will work, i'd need to see the full tactic and feedback on issues your having.  Just make sure you have the right players for the job, you might end up tweaking to try and improve things but really your limited by the players, only change things as a response to a consistent issue caused by your tactic.

Looking at your existing tactic consider:

1. Your formation is your defensive positioning.  Your contesting the central area and conceding space for opponents fullbacks and between your central defence and midfield.
2. Targetmen will be looked for by team mates more than other roles, similar to how playmakers work.  Do you want this focus to him?
3. Who are creating and who is looking to get on the end of chances.  Some players could be doing both, others could be more focused.  What are your players good at doing?  Don't just select the best role for the player as you might end up with bad combinations of roles+duties.

My personal preference (not knowing what many of these players are good at!) would be:

• A role and/or duty change in central midfield to have a player stay in that area: DLP-S, DLP-D, CM-D, BWM-D etc.   They all have Hold Position which reduces forward runs and non of them have Roam From Position.
• If I need to protect the DM area in my formation I would make the midfield a DM+2xCM instead of 2xCM+AM.  I can have the AM-A become a CM-A and the CM role typically is available in DM.  It could be a flat 3xCM if I want to make a solid line.
• Make one of the forward two a support duty so he drops, hopefully pulling a defender with him creating space for his partner or the runner from deep (CM-A/AM-A).

Try to not make too many changes at once so you can see the effect each change you make and if it is playing how you expect or if you prefer how they did things before.

[ajsr1982]

I'd echo all of what @summatsupeer says.

With three at the back, you can afford to be a little more adventurous in central midfield. This is exactly the change Arsene Wenger has made in the last couple of weeks. So, you can get away with two support duties, but you still absolutely need at least one player to hold their position. When I've played this formation before, I've typically used something like a CM-S, DLP-S combination.

Other thing I tend not to like is the TM in a formation that relies on width from full backs or wing backs. Thinking about how your play builds up, you're telling your team to punt the ball up to the big fella sooner rather than later. Your WBs have a hell of a job to get up and support things from there.

[Sunlinlad]

5 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

If your new I would recommend reading the FAQs which explains some of the options available and some of the guides that might give you ideas.  There's countless options available, I don't know if it will work, i'd need to see the full tactic and feedback on issues your having.  Just make sure you have the right players for the job, you might end up tweaking to try and improve things but really your limited by the players, only change things as a response to a consistent issue caused by your tactic.

Looking at your existing tactic consider:

1. Your formation is your defensive positioning.  Your contesting the central area and conceding space for opponents fullbacks and between your central defence and midfield.
2. Targetmen will be looked for by team mates more than other roles, similar to how playmakers work.  Do you want this focus to him?
3. Who are creating and who is looking to get on the end of chances.  Some players could be doing both, others could be more focused.  What are your players good at doing?  Don't just select the best role for the player as you might end up with bad combinations of roles+duties.

My personal preference (not knowing what many of these players are good at!) would be:

• A role and/or duty change in central midfield to have a player stay in that area: DLP-S, DLP-D, CM-D, BWM-D etc.   They all have Hold Position which reduces forward runs and non of them have Roam From Position.
• If I need to protect the DM area in my formation I would make the midfield a DM+2xCM instead of 2xCM+AM.  I can have the AM-A become a CM-A and the CM role typically is available in DM.  It could be a flat 3xCM if I want to make a solid line.
• Make one of the forward two a support duty so he drops, hopefully pulling a defender with him creating space for his partner or the runner from deep (CM-A/AM-A).

Try to not make too many changes at once so you can see the effect each change you make and if it is playing how you expect or if you prefer how they did things before.

 

51 minutes ago, ajsr1982 said:

I'd echo all of what @summatsupeer says.

With three at the back, you can afford to be a little more adventurous in central midfield. This is exactly the change Arsene Wenger has made in the last couple of weeks. So, you can get away with two support duties, but you still absolutely need at least one player to hold their position. When I've played this formation before, I've typically used something like a CM-S, DLP-S combination.

Other thing I tend not to like is the TM in a formation that relies on width from full backs or wing backs. Thinking about how your play builds up, you're telling your team to punt the ball up to the big fella sooner rather than later. Your WBs have a hell of a job to get up and support things from there.

Thanks for the feedback guys. 

 

Decided to give 4--1-2-3 a go. Bare in mind with this formation Borini is playing in front of Taylor in the left and Khazri is playing in front of manquillo on the right. Also Ajer is playing just in front of the defence as a DLP.

 

GK-Pickford - Defend

WB - Taylor - Defend

CB - Kone - Defend

CB - Djiliobodji - Defend

WB - Manquillo - Attack

DLP Ajer - Defend

CM - Cattermole - Support

BWM - Ndong - Support

IF - Borini - Attack

W - Khazri - support

DLF - Dembele - Support

 

Is there anything you can see wrong with this tactic so far or anything you would change with each players roles or duties? Cheers in advance. 

[Tajerio]

I think the WB-D role for Taylor is possibly overly restrictive.  I don't remember what his attributes are like off the top of my head, but unless he's slow and terrible going forward, that might be a bit of a waste.  If you're worried about him getting caught upfield and being the only man on his flank due to Borini cutting in, you could try FB-S.  Not a gung-ho role by any means, but will get up and support attacking moves when it's appropriate.

[summatsupeer]

Have a think about how those outside players will combine.

On one flank you have a IF, who will cut inside and vacate the flank.  The wide player who could attack that space is a WB-D, he can still do it but it has to be low risk for him to do so.

On the other flank you have a winger who will stay wide.  The wide player behind him is a WB-A looking to make overlapping runs, but the winger is already in that space.

If i'm using a winger I prefer a more conservative fb or inverted wingback to cover him and provide something different.  If I have a IF then i'll look for a player who can overlap, even a simple FB-S can provide width in the attacking phase.

Your midfield 3 are a bit conservative but i'd see how it plays.

[Sunlinlad]

On 11 May 2017 at 19:51, summatsupeer said:

Have a think about how those outside players will combine.

On one flank you have a IF, who will cut inside and vacate the flank.  The wide player who could attack that space is a WB-D, he can still do it but it has to be low risk for him to do so.

On the other flank you have a winger who will stay wide.  The wide player behind him is a WB-A looking to make overlapping runs, but the winger is already in that space.

If i'm using a winger I prefer a more conservative fb or inverted wingback to cover him and provide something different.  If I have a IF then i'll look for a player who can overlap, even a simple FB-S can provide width in the attacking phase.

Your midfield 3 are a bit conservative but i'd see how it plays.

Thanks mate. 

 

Gave a 4-3-1-2 a go with a few instructions I pinched from this forum and I'm undefeated in 10 and in the Europa League places. 

 

Now im safe I'm going to try and make my own.