Trying 1 more time to create a stable, "common sense" tactic

[DJ Sir Matthew]

I really want to like the game again but the thing that holds me back the most is tactics. Before I downloaded tactics (thx to Mr. U Rosler and knap) but after a while the feeling of satisfaction wasn't just there 'cause I felt like a cheat and felt I was coming short. So here we go one more time. I have FM18 loaded with the FM-inside 2018 UK deadline update and chose my favorite (ex-)home team KSV Roeselare in the Proximus League (2nd tier).

I'll try to lay out my thought process so far. I started with the comparison league sheets:

First let's start with our GK's above. 2 things spring to mind: 1v1 is the lowest in the league, so it seems we have to try to avoid 1v1 situations. My thinking is this is best done by a lower defensive line, limiting the space between GK and defence? On the other hand, we have best kicking of the league, which might be interesting to start counter attacks?

Ok, on to our defenders. It's clear from the start their acceleration & pace resembles that of the better. This makes me think we definitely need a lower defensive line as my defenders will never be able to catch an opposing attacker who ran behind them. On the plus side, we seem to be decently strong, even in the air, and decent in marking and tackling (recovering the ball). So we should be able to handle crosses from out wide better than incisive through balls. Currently no idea how I might force the opposition in going down the crossing lane.

Our midfield has good vision and good tackling (1st line of defence, maybe skewed results because we have more defensive minded midfielders than offensive minded midfielders?) but absolutely sucks in passing. Since our midfield should be the best passers of our team, I can only conclude our whole team can't pass a ball. So no tiki-taka for us but a more direct approach (counter attacking?).

Our attack seems bad at long shots and jumping. So no crosses from out wide (but through balls is not really an option since our passing is so bad) or at least not in the air. Our attack is fast though and has decent finishing.

All this seems to direct me to a defensive counterattacking strategy, taking advantage of our speed in attack? A deep defensive line to compensate the lack of speed and maybe with an extra DM to prevent the opposition the space and time to find the right through ball? The transitions will sometimes fail because of the bad passing but we have good vision and decent decisions and I suppose our attackers will be fast enough to pick up some of the bad passes as their space to move in should be big enough.

Now to the following team comparison screens:

I have a bunch of lazy bums it seems. Or at least not the type of players to be playing 3 or 4 different competitions at the same time. So best to focus on the domestic competition and nothing else, not even the domestic cup. It makes me wonder if having many friendlies in pre-season is a good idea as it might make them more tired towards the end of the season (too many games). How many games does one need to get to a good level of Match Fitness at the start of the season anyway?

Ok, so mentally we are almost the worst in the league on any attribute. No teamwork, work rate, determination or concentration. This does not bode well? Does it even matter what tactic I make? How can I counteract or diminish the effects of these very low mental attributes? Only composure and off the ball are slightly better than the average.

We suck at corner taking, so unless we have a special specimen that's very good at it, I see us preferring a short corner and getting the ball crossed in (since crossing is better, even only marginally so). We have good dribbling and finishing, so those counter attacks might work (as we also have the acceleration and pace to outrun most) and it might just a case of going route 1 (no passing, first attacking minded player just goes as close as possible to the goal and tries to score)?

The following stop I made is the best XI on the team report. I don't have an Assistant Manager just yet to give advice on the best roles, so it makes me wonder who fills in the roles then? Anyway, playing a bit with different formations and looking at the star ratings, these seemed like the best possibilities:

A 4-1-2-3 DM Wide formation. The LB and FC are the weakest links (the same in almost all formations) but besides that all have at least 3 stars. Not too top heavy. I'm not looking too much to the proposed roles just yet, as I still need to analyse my players 1 by 1 and see what their best roles are (and then once we have an Assistant Manager maybe look at his recommendations). And read pairs & combinations to see I don't make mistakes there.

A 4-2-1-3 DM Wide. Even less top heavy than previous one. Maybe this will help to get less goals in our net while we can still try to take advantage of the speed up ahead of Van Kessel and our AF (now Saviour Godwin but there are other quick options too). I would not know in this moment which to choose from the above 2.

A 4-2-3-1 DM Wide. Seems a bit too top heavy and too separated between defense and attack. I also don't think my players are good enough for a fluid strategy, so I'm more inclined towards a structured approach and using one the above 2 mentioned formations. Correct me if I'm wrong!

A 4-3-2-1 DM Narrow. Interestingly enough, I wonder if this would make the opposition use the flanks more and get crosses in from out wide which we should be able to defend better against?

A 4-1-4-1 DM Ass AMR. Yes, I tried all formations  While this seems to work for my players, it looks a bit too exotic for my taste. Although the more defensive positioning on the left side might help with the weaker left back?

 

So I'm inclined to use a 4-1-2-3 DM Wide or a 4-2-1-3 DM Wide with a counter mentality and a structured shape. As team instructions I would choose a deeper DL, more direct passing, low crosses and run at defense.

Please let me know if I'm on the right track here, where I might have overlooked things or misjudged things. Next step will be to look at individuals, their preferred roles and their recommended roles by AM.

[westy8chimp]

1 hour ago, DJ Sir Matthew said:

Please let me know if I'm on the right track here

Id say you are very much on the right track... Every step youve talked about, in my opinion, youve assessed the right data, made the correct conclusions and come up with a sensible solution

Youve realised in many areas you are one of the weaker side. Youve created a tactic to combat your weaknesses and emphasise your strengths.

The only part of the puzzle left is managing your expectation. Surviving is a good start... Youve made the best of what you have but that doesnt mean you should expect to massively overachieve. 

Hope it goes well

[DJ Sir Matthew]

Just now, westy8chimp said:

Id say you are very much on the right track... Every step youve talked about, in my opinion, youve assessed the right data, made the correct conclusions and come up with a sensible solution

Youve realised in many areas you are one of the weaker side. Youve created a tactic to combat your weaknesses and emphasise your strengths.

The only part of the puzzle left is managing your expectation. Surviving is a good start... Youve made the best of what you have but that doesnt mean you should expect to massively overachieve. 

Hope it goes well

Thanks to chime in. And thank you for confirming my thought process being correct.

Well, board expectations are at least a mid-table position, which is prolly the best I can hope for. I'm currently reading @herne79 stickied guide (West Ham FM15) which I pumped in a word doc myself. I like his Club DNA idea but I'm afraid I find it hard to find one for my team... Although we don't score bad on the attributes he set out (except for Work Rate) but I don't want to copy cat him (even if his 2 original formations are 2 of the recommended ones I got here).

[DJ Sir Matthew]

Question: does the "Run at Defense" Team Instruction make my GK, defenders and/or DM inclined to dribble more? Given the structured shape they shouldn't be willing to divert much from their position to move into attacking positions but of course I don't want them to try to dribble and lose the ball. 

Maybe it's a wiser approach to have it checked off and use roles and PI's for the attacking players to have them dribble more often?

[Robson 07]

18 minutes ago, DJ Sir Matthew said:

Question: does the "Run at Defense" Team Instruction make my GK, defenders and/or DM inclined to dribble more?

No just forwards and players in the attacking midfield band.

[DJ Sir Matthew]

Moving on, I finalised looking at the squad , searching for the best players and their best roles. I came up with the following 2 formations & roles:

The 4-1-2-3 with the main problem being the Attacking Midfield strata

The 4-2-1-3 suffering from the same trouble area even dripping into MC strata

I haven't looked yet at combination of roles & duties (except for the wide player combinations). If you have any remarks on pairs and combinations on the above that won't work according to you, please let me know and also why, so I can learn from it  

If it appears everything is balanced, then I'm done (for now) except that there is 1 of our best players that I just can't seem to fit anywhere, so any advice on how to use him is appreciated:

[Grimboslice]

Going to be following this, hope it works out. 

 

From another tactical rookie.

[DJ Sir Matthew]

After reading pairs & combinations and reading up on the carrilero role, I've decided to change the tactic a bit:

Since the carrilero was moving wide to into the Wingers' space, I made the Winger an attacking one (to get him more forward and easier to get to the long balls kicked upfield by our GK & defenders) and changed the carrilero to a CM Att to get him a bit higher up the pitch. Together with changing the DLP to support instead of defend, this gives my midfield trio a sitter - runner - attacker kind of formation. I also changed the Advanced Forward to a Poacher as the latter has a more route one approach which might help with the counter attacking we envision.

In the other tactic I made the same changes. However this tactic still has some major issues in the MC-AMC strata where Dufour is the only guy taking up space. Any advice how to overcome this is most appreciated.

 

Another advantage of the changed roles is that I can fit in Lecomte in the CM Att slot too

[DJ Sir Matthew]

53 minutes ago, Grimboslice said:

Going to be following this, hope it works out. 

 

From another tactical rookie.

I'm hoping with you  Updates might far and between, but this allows others to chime in and me to give the necessary attention to my 2 girls running around the house (plus the big girl  )

[mernild]

I'm no expert, but I would guess that 4 attacking roles is a bit much - especially since I expect that you will use one of the defensive mentalities (since you want to trigger counter attacks). Could be completely wrong though.

[DJ Sir Matthew]

On 16/08/2018 at 19:29, mernild said:

I'm no expert, but I would guess that 4 attacking roles is a bit much - especially since I expect that you will use one of the defensive mentalities (since you want to trigger counter attacks). Could be completely wrong though.

Actually, I think not because of the Counter Mentality and the two DM's in front of the back four. That gives 6 defending players already. Actually, the 4 attacking players are needed to have successful counter attacks and having less might lead to even fewer scoring possibilities? I have to be careful not to place all 4 of them too high up the pitch on a separate island making them unreachable (although direct passes should resolve that).

It's true that this tactic invites a lot of pressure on us. Possession wise we will have less of the ball but that's to be expected. Vs really better teams we will lose as they will have too many chances not to score one and our attack is too one-dimensional and players too weak to get one past their keeper (but you never know). Vs slightly better teams and worse is where I hope we get most of our points to reach the board's expectations.

BTW, I almost finished pre-season and have more losses than wins, and I do seem to hit the same ceiling as before: not being able to distill the correct information from the reports/matches and subsequently make the right analysis and the right adjustments. I'll try to make a post on the pre-season matches soon with an overview of goals for and against and hopefully some people can chime in and help out.

[mattjeffery]

On 15/08/2018 at 20:13, DJ Sir Matthew said:

After reading pairs & combinations and reading up on the carrilero role, I've decided to change the tactic a bit:

Since the carrilero was moving wide to into the Wingers' space, I made the Winger an attacking one (to get him more forward and easier to get to the long balls kicked upfield by our GK & defenders) and changed the carrilero to a CM Att to get him a bit higher up the pitch. Together with changing the DLP to support instead of defend, this gives my midfield trio a sitter - runner - attacker kind of formation. I also changed the Advanced Forward to a Poacher as the latter has a more route one approach which might help with the counter attacking we envision.

In the other tactic I made the same changes. However this tactic still has some major issues in the MC-AMC strata where Dufour is the only guy taking up space. Any advice how to overcome this is most appreciated.

 

Another advantage of the changed roles is that I can fit in Lecomte in the CM Att slot too

I would personally reconsider the balance of your roles there. On the first screenshot, when you're on the ball in the attacking phase, you'll have the AMR, MCL, and ST all pushing the defensive line leaving big gaps behind them. As your DL is on a defend duty, there won't be anyone offering to plug that gap. There won't be much of a variation of movement and options on the left side.

On the right, you've got two playmakers. Playmakers will naturally act as ball magnets, so you may find the ball passed between them while they play in a fairly static manner (you won't get much movement from playmakers, even on attack duty). The two playmakers being on the opposite side to your runners (MCL, AMR) might mean the ball will struggle to get from one to the other.

There may be similar issues with your second tactic. Your four most advanced players may become quite detached from your 6 less advanced players once they start making forward runs.

I'm no expert so do watch the games to see what happens in reality. You may well get it to work.

On a separate point, I've recently had success playing a fairly compact, almost defensive counter attacking strategy. The biggest source of success was ditching the AMR/AMLs, and moving them to MR and ML on attack duties. Defensively it'll make a huge difference as generally speaking AMR and AMLs offer nothing when the opposition has the ball in the attacking third. If you choose the right roles you can get them to play identically to AMR/ AMLs when your team has the ball.

Good luck and keep us posted.

[DJ Sir Matthew]

12 hours ago, mattjeffery said:

I would personally reconsider the balance of your roles there. On the first screenshot, when you're on the ball in the attacking phase, you'll have the AMR, MCL, and ST all pushing the defensive line leaving big gaps behind them. As your DL is on a defend duty, there won't be anyone offering to plug that gap. There won't be much of a variation of movement and options on the left side.

On the right, you've got two playmakers. Playmakers will naturally act as ball magnets, so you may find the ball passed between them while they play in a fairly static manner (you won't get much movement from playmakers, even on attack duty). The two playmakers being on the opposite side to your runners (MCL, AMR) might mean the ball will struggle to get from one to the other.

There may be similar issues with your second tactic. Your four most advanced players may become quite detached from your 6 less advanced players once they start making forward runs.

I'm no expert so do watch the games to see what happens in reality. You may well get it to work.

On a separate point, I've recently had success playing a fairly compact, almost defensive counter attacking strategy. The biggest source of success was ditching the AMR/AMLs, and moving them to MR and ML on attack duties. Defensively it'll make a huge difference as generally speaking AMR and AMLs offer nothing when the opposition has the ball in the attacking third. If you choose the right roles you can get them to play identically to AMR/ AMLs when your team has the ball.

Good luck and keep us posted.

Thanks for responding. There is some logic in your comments. The space on the left is more or less intended (as I've read somewhere, I think from Westy, football pitches are formed the  way they are so it's impossible to cover all space with 10 outfield players) as I have the DLP on the left side and the DL Def on the left side. So when opponent comes from that side (which looking at my first matches seems to be mostly the case), the space is limited once they get in our third half and the only options are passing back or crossing. Since we should be able to deal with most crosses, it's a kind of pressure I don't mind seeing. Does that make sense?

I'll have a look out on what the two playmakers do and if they indeed slow down the counter attacking moves. This might be a golden nugget for my thought process and what to look out for during matches. Thanks!

Regarding the 2nd tactic and the 'split' between the advanced and less advanced is true and what I discussed above. Maybe 6 defending players isn't enough but I'm afraid that having less numbers up front will lead to less successful counter attacks. Continuing with that thought and your separate point, I've seen Westy make a similar defensive counter attacking strategy using MR/ML on attack duties instead of AM R/L. While I hate "copying" others I would be foolish not to try it out if my original plan doesn't work. There are reasons why his and yours work and I might need to incorporate them. Something to keep at the back of the head as thus.

[westy8chimp]

1 hour ago, DJ Sir Matthew said:

The space on the left is more or less intended (as I've read somewhere, I think from Westy, football pitches are formed the  way they are so it's impossible to cover all space with 10 outfield players)

Good attention to detail, that was a very small snippet in one of my write ups! Its true tho, pretty much always a man short when picking your tactic, so its about making a choice... Where am i going to leave some space for the opponent, and how to minimise the risk? (eithrr make the space the least threatening area possible ie strikerless formation, or use the right players with the right role to cover the space ie a defend duty hard working player?)

Where do i think i can exploit the space they give me? (either an overload ie two/three players attacking the same area... Or by attacking space ie if the opponent has a back 3 there is space outwide for an attacking winger or wb to exploit) 

E: or option 3 (i cant really omit this as its my approach in the relevant thread!) was to accept the risk i was taking. I went with 4231 wide with a high defensive line, leaving lots of space behind... My thinking, in terms of risk, is that the pass in behind, vs a fairly pacey back 4, is quite hard to pull off consistently

[DJ Sir Matthew]

Pre-season is over and here are the results:

Opposition	H/A	Score	Opp Division	Rank Div
Aston Villa	H	1-3	Sky Bet Championship	20
Feyenoord	H	1-5	Eredivisie	13
Olympic Charleroi	H	2-2	2e Amateurklasse C	103
Düdingen	A	1-3	1. Liga Gruppe 1	134
Hildesheim	A	2-3	Regionalliga Nord	85
Podbeskidzie	A	1-3	Nice I Liga	64
Charleroi	H	1-2	Belgian Jupiler Pro League	9
Osasuna	H	0-1	La Liga 1/2/3	26
Celtic	H	1-3	Scottish Premiership	27
Sporting Gijón	H	1-0	La Liga 1/2/3	26
De Ruiter	H	6-0	1e Prov. W-Vlaanderen	280
Barnsley	H	2-3	SkyBet League One	42
Oostnieuwkerke	H	7-0	1e Prov. W-Vlaanderen	280

13 matches, 23 goals against. When comparing divisions (our division Proximus League ranks 47) we lost mainly against teams of bigger leagues and won vs teams from lower leagues. Initially the tactic familiarity was bad as was team cohesion (many new players tp fit in). 1 outstanding result vs Sporting Gijon where we scored after triangles tiki-taka in midfield, sudden tempo switch with a direct ball into penalty area.

Looking at the goals against, we can "roughly" divide them as following:

vs our left flank	10
from set pieces	8
other	5
total	23

So basically the place where we leave the most space (left side) is where AI focus it's attention and attacks. Most set pieces where given to player standing free at edge of area, so that is something that should be easy to avoid in the future.

1 thing I noticed and that semi-troubles me was, especially in the first games, that the DLP was going to our left flank to help covering, leaving space in the middle. Even though a DLP should hold position even more than other DMC roles. Not sure how to avoid and if it's advised to avoid.

Looking at our goals (31), a lot came from throw ins and set pieces, some from regular midfield buildup (especially vs the weaker teams) but also some counter attacks. All in all a lot more diverse than anticipated which can only be a good thing.

Any threads on how to further analyse matches using the analyse tab or ... is much appreciated. For the meantime, let's see how we start the regular season...

[DJ Sir Matthew]

Pfft, 4 league games in. 1 draw, 3 losses. 5 !! penalties against. Hard to keep going if things go south so quickly in the league...

[westy8chimp]

32 minutes ago, DJ Sir Matthew said:

Pfft, 4 league games in. 1 draw, 3 losses. 5 !! penalties against. Hard to keep going if things go south so quickly in the league...

But you have one of the weaker teams...

Stick with it. What situations are the penalties given away in? (is your d-line too deep inviting runs and passes into a congested area? Raise the D-Line. Do your CBs have high aggression and poor decision/concentration/tackling? Maybe tell them to stay on feet and close down less... or make them DCB so they play a simpler game)

are you getting any possession? whats your shot count and conversion like?

Could you shut up shop and try and get some points under your belt and better morale before playing more expansive?

Have you shut up shop too much... do you need to try and score more and take leads in matches then shut  up shop?

----------------

Don't pick a bad team if you are not going to enjoy a dogfight... there's no shame in starting a City save and having it a bit easier!

[DJ Sir Matthew]

26 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

But you have one of the weaker teams...

Stick with it. What situations are the penalties given away in? (is your d-line too deep inviting runs and passes into a congested area? Raise the D-Line. Do your CBs have high aggression and poor decision/concentration/tackling? Maybe tell them to stay on feet and close down less... or make them DCB so they play a simpler game)

are you getting any possession? whats your shot count and conversion like?

Could you shut up shop and try and get some points under your belt and better morale before playing more expansive?

Have you shut up shop too much... do you need to try and score more and take leads in matches then shut  up shop?

----------------

Don't pick a bad team if you are not going to enjoy a dogfight... there's no shame in starting a City save and having it a bit easier!

They are DCB's with a very deep d-line because of their slowness. While we are a weaker team, expectations (midtable) and media prediction places us at 5th position (8 teams in league). 

Penalties look random sometimes. I'll try the close down less and stay on feet though. 

Every game there is another defensive player that makes 1 or 2 critical error. Be it FB or DCB or DMC. 

We have taken lead in some games but it seems opposition scores a bit too easy. 

I'll stick with it but I'm afraid I will get the sack sooner than later. I've got some loanees in from parent club (Lille) as that's the only way to get fresh flesh in. They seem to be slightly better than my 1st team choices but will probably need some time to gel in... 

[DJ Sir Matthew]

So we missed our league start. It can happen. Instead of wallowing in despair I had a hard long, well not so long, look at the matches and our team after @westy8chimp gave me a deserved kick under my butt   Since we're 500k in the red (1M already now), the only way to inject some quality in the team is through free loans from our affiliate clubs. We have Club Brugge (Belgian top league) but somehow none of the Belgian top league clubs want to loan out a single player... Other affiliate is Lille (French 1st division) which has some decent youth.  So we got 5 loanees in: a left-back, 2 central defenders and 2 attackers. I also had a DM/MC loaned from Toulouse earlier on as there was no depth in midfield.

I also changed some roles in the tactic:

I had the feeling the playmakers roles (DLP and AP on right flank) were slowing down and actually counterproductive for our counter attacks. Our left flank I closed the big gap between both players a bit by having the Winger on Support instead of Attack. Results improved (before 3 losses and 1 draw, now 2 cup wins and 1 cup loss vs bigger team, in the league 2 draws and 2 wins putting us currently in 3rd position (but only 1 point more than dead last, it is a competition not for the faint of heart) but we're not out of the woods just yet. I do feel though making the tactic simpler helped the players (and myself) and that we might have a platform to work further on.

Things to still consider:

1. We have quite a few shots but 80% is off target. Considering "work ball into the box" to get better results there?

2. Our DM Defend is getting low ratings. Not sure if it's merited or not. Maybe there is a way to get more out of this player, but I'm afraid that might make our weak defense even more vulnerable?

[DJ Sir Matthew]

Mini-Update

Season's ended (2 play-offs of 14 matches each, so basically you playing the same team 4x a season which maybe helps AI to "read" my tactic faster). First play-off we ended 6th of 8 teams, 2nd play-off we finished 3rd. Winners of 1st and 2nd play-off play for promotion, the overall table is split in 2 halves, top 4 plays with 1A teams (except for the promoted team which doesn't play from March on orso), bottom 4 play the play-down.

We won our last game and were sitting 4th but there was 1 match left and if the home team won, they would jump over us again. Which they did. So it's play downs for us, but in pole position. Board is pleased. I am too but I'm not blind for the biggest issue of this club: money. Or more precisely: the lack of. In January I sold our 2nd best player (attribute wise but he was too inconsitent). Actually, the whole team is quite inconsistent. With only 1 fairly professional player (but with determination of 5), there isn't really a suited tutor.

Currently I play with 4 loanees in my first XI and 2 that come on almost every game. Actually I could probably play with 11 loanees (currently 12 at our club, all from affiliated clubs except 1). The club isn't set-up for youth development (too weak facilities & coaches) and most players don't improve (those with potential seem to only imrpove by playing games).

Is it a crazy idea to sell all and play with loanees only to balance the books? The only issue is the rule of having at least 6 players trained by a club in Belgium. But that could be my youngsters (philosophy is develop players using club's youth system - which sux)...

[Experienced Defender]

Based on the information you provided, I'd like to give you a bit of advice on tactics. I think you diagnosed very well both the strengths and weaknesses of your squad. From what I see, I can agree with your idea to use the structured shape and a basically defensive mentality such as Counter. I also agree on the formation - having at least one DM in order to better protect your defensive line on one hand, and on the other hand, wide forward players that can be utilized for counter attacks.

Where I see the main problem is your distribution of duties across the formation (probably also of roles, but I cannot tell you more on that because I don't know much about your individual players). More precisely, I am primarily talking about the attacking trio (AMR/L and FC). I would put both your wing forwards on support duty because in a structured shape they already tend to be more isolated from the rest of the team, which not only makes their job more difficult in attack, but also leaves your flanks pretty much unprotected when you defend. With support (instead of) attack duties, they would be more useful in both the defensive and attacking phase. A good idea is to give one of them the inside forward role in order to make the (counter)attacks less one-dimensional.

If you want your sole striker on attack duty in this type of tactical configuration, I'd rather opt for DLF (again to prevent him from being too isolated).

I'd also look to set both wide defenders on support duties (though I cannot tell you what their roles should be as I don't know what type of full/wing backs they are).

As for the midfield trio, I would do the same as you did on duties - 1 on defend, 1 on support and 1 on attack. When playing with 2 DMs, the one with support duty might be given the SV role (provided you have a suitable player).

Finally, since you said your forwards possess a relatively good speed but aren't much of a threat aerially, maybe Low Crosses could be a good option.

[DJ Sir Matthew]

17 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Based on the information you provided, I'd like to give you a bit of advice on tactics. I think you diagnosed very well both the strengths and weaknesses of your squad. From what I see, I can agree with your idea to use the structured shape and a basically defensive mentality such as Counter. I also agree on the formation - having at least one DM in order to better protect your defensive line on one hand, and on the other hand, wide forward players that can be utilized for counter attacks.

Where I see the main problem is your distribution of duties across the formation (probably also of roles, but I cannot tell you more on that because I don't know much about your individual players). More precisely, I am primarily talking about the attacking trio (AMR/L and FC). I would put both your wing forwards on support duty because in a structured shape they already tend to be more isolated from the rest of the team, which not only makes their job more difficult in attack, but also leaves your flanks pretty much unprotected when you defend. With support (instead of) attack duties, they would be more useful in both the defensive and attacking phase. A good idea is to give one of them the inside forward role in order to make the (counter)attacks less one-dimensional.

If you want your sole striker on attack duty in this type of tactical configuration, I'd rather opt for DLF (again to prevent him from being too isolated).

I'd also look to set both wide defenders on support duties (though I cannot tell you what their roles should be as I don't know what type of full/wing backs they are).

As for the midfield trio, I would do the same as you did on duties - 1 on defend, 1 on support and 1 on attack. When playing with 2 DMs, the one with support duty might be given the SV role (provided you have a suitable player).

Finally, since you said your forwards possess a relatively good speed but aren't much of a threat aerially, maybe Low Crosses could be a good option.

Thank you for your advice.

WIngers on support was actually already done on left side and now on right side too. IF might help, but I haven't an adequate player for that just yet. Good idea about being less one-dimensional though.

DLF I haven't tried out, will do so and report back.

Wide defeners: one was on support (right side), the left is the weakest spot of the team and pushing him up the field too much might make the spot even weaker?

SV role never tried out, how does it differ from a Regista role? I tried the Regista sometimes and depending on the player it works quite well. I try to stay away from playmaker kind of roles because I feel they tend to slow down counter attacks. On the other hand, vs weaker teams that don't attack hard enough to have succesful counterattacks against, it might be a better option.

Low Crosses was already implemented from the start

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, DJ Sir Matthew said:

Wide defeners: one was on support (right side), the left is the weakest spot of the team and pushing him up the field too much might make the spot even weaker?

If so, then you might try setting LB as WB on defend duty (instead of FB support). Of course, you should check out his suitability for that particular role/duty.

2 hours ago, DJ Sir Matthew said:

SV role never tried out, how does it differ from a Regista role? I tried the Regista sometimes and depending on the player it works quite well. I try to stay away from playmaker kind of roles because I feel they tend to slow down counter attacks. On the other hand, vs weaker teams that don't attack hard enough to have succesful counterattacks against, it might be a better option.

Sv is more like BTB midfielder, albeit in a DM spot. Contributing equally to both defense and attack, he is a very good option when using 2 DMs, but you need a player with high ratings for tactical, physical and mental attributes. Otherwise, better avoid using SV. As for regista, he is a sort of playmaker, though better utilized when playing with more attacking mentalities. If you don't want a player that could slow down your counter attacks, then SV is a better choice than regista.

[westy8chimp]

 

16 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

If you don't want a player that could slow down your counter attacks, then SV is a better choice than regista.

3 hours ago, DJ Sir Matthew said:

I try to stay away from playmaker kind of roles because I feel they tend to slow down counter attacks

Ball travels quicker in the air, and regista is not afraid of the direct pass... SV would be somewhat inclined to dribble the ball forward.

It all depends;

What kind of counters are you trying to trigger?

Will players be able to attack space if you have a player playing direct passes?

------------------

24 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

If so, then you might try setting LB as WB on defend duty (instead of FB support).

not saying I disagree, but why would you do that? WB would have higher starting position... I personally prefer FBs defensively and attacking to a WBd (a role I don't think should exist anyway!)

24 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Of course, you should check out his suitability for that particular role/duty.

In terms of attributes I hope you mean :P if you are referring to FMs role suitability... don't... it's entirely meaningless and misleading.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, westy8chimp said:

In terms of attributes I hope you mean :P if you are referring to FMs role suitability... don't... it's entirely meaningless and misleading.

Actually I did refer to FMs role suitability. I thought it had sense because I guessed they otherwise wouldn't have introduced it into the game, but you may well be right. I tend(ed) to give my players roles/duties in which the circle gets as green as possible, but I must admit that in many cases I wasn't pleased with how some of then execute the roles. Thanx for advice!

[westy8chimp]

3 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Actually I did refer to FMs role suitability. I thought it had sense because I guessed they otherwise wouldn't have introduced it into the game, but you may well be right. I tend(ed) to give my players roles/duties in which the circle gets as green as possible, but I must admit that in many cases I wasn't pleased with how some of then execute the roles. Thanx for advice!

Yes I strongly recommend to ignore it. In my Leverkusen series, I've made a point of ignoring players given roles or positions. If I want a regista or BPD or target man... I categorise a handful of attributes I think are essential/preferential for the role and do a player search. Most of the time it goes hand in hand... the best players (attributes wise) for a Regista tend to be DM/CM but if my search pokes up a winger or striker... then so be it.

I have a player who when I signed him was a DM only... he's played BPD, Regista, AMC, WTM for me as well as Mez, BBM etc... he has great all round attributes.

I have a pacey SC who has played wide in AML/AMR as both winger, ramdeuter etc.

I'm not alone... I think the majority now accept that there is little rhyme or reason to the role suitability in FM (let alone the position of a given player).

A typical example... I'd say some of the best F9 are actually classic playmakers... good ppm's to come deep and receive the ball... good vision, dribbling, technique and flair. They might be red-orange as F9 but far better than say a Giroud who would be yellow/green simply because he is classed a striker.

[Experienced Defender]

The more I read your explanations, the more logic I am finding in them. I am relatively new to FM18, so the hints you provided here will help me a lot. Cheers mate 

[b101]

On 25/08/2018 at 13:23, DJ Sir Matthew said:

had the feeling the playmakers roles (DLP and AP on right flank) were slowing down and actually counterproductive for our counter attacks.

Yep, that would definitely happen.

On 25/08/2018 at 13:23, DJ Sir Matthew said:

I also changed some roles in the tactic:

A few questions that may help you ponder. I'm not necessarily trying to lead you to answers, there are just a few things that leap out to me when looking at this (that doesn't mean to say my observations are right - I don't know your team and haven't watched the matches :

As a one man up top system, are you happy with the poacher doing very little other than trying to score? Do you want him involved in build up by holding up the ball, dropping deep to play in others etc?

I liiked that earlier you referenced the destroyer, creator, shuttler trio in central midfield. Do you feel you still have this? Also, f you have two DMs and then a CM in front of them bombing forward, does that create too big a gap in game? 

On 25/08/2018 at 13:23, DJ Sir Matthew said:

Our left flank I closed the big gap between both players a bit by having the Winger on Support instead of Attack. Results improved

Careful - results could be due to any number of factors. Did the gap change and did you notice that helping?

On 25/08/2018 at 13:23, DJ Sir Matthew said:

We have quite a few shots but 80% is off target. Considering "work ball into the box" to get better results there?

Who is taking shots? Where from? Why are they missing?

On 25/08/2018 at 13:23, DJ Sir Matthew said:

Our DM Defend is getting low ratings.

What's he doing or not doing? Sometimes they get low ratings for just fulfilling an important but underappreciated role (say, the water-carrier in midfield), sometimes it's because they aren't involved due to wrong role, sometimes it's mistakes or lack of suitability.

---

Good thread though - this will help you improve massively (and quickly!)