Dealing with double team on the wings

[djpdavey]

Playing a back 3 with 2 wingbacks as the only 2 wide players. I am struggling in the scenarios when opposition pushes both their FB and wide midfielder against my wingback on one or even both sides. Does anyone have a way they deal with the same situation? I am still able to get forward and create them problems however I want to combat this.

[Experienced Defender]

Which formation do you exactly use? Is it 5-4-1 narrow diamond, or maybe 5-2-2-1, or some other? You also need to tell us more about your mentality, shape, TIs, PIs etc. before we could give you any useful advice. 

[herne79]

That's the main weakness of narrow formations.  But you still have 3 central defenders to deal with things in the box, plus a midfield who should also be tracking back.

Are your central defenders up to the task of dealing with whatever comes in from the wings?  Are you playing too high so your defence is getting caught on the back foot?  Are you using a defensive midfielder?  Are you pressing in bad areas?  Do you use central defenders with a Stopper duty and/or lots of Aggression which may cause them to step up at inopportune moments?  Perhaps you can try using a Carrilero or at least a player with better defensive skills in midfield to help the fullback?  Are you taking too many risks overall with Mentality?  Are your wingbacks too attacking without the right cover for them if/when they get caught up field?

It's about finding the right balance between attack and defence and it sounds like you're a bit overcommitted in attack at the moment.  And above all else, remember that it's not about just your wingbacks.

[djpdavey]

Quote

Which formation do you exactly use?

3-5-2

Quote

Are your central defenders up to the task of dealing with whatever comes in from the wings?

Yes.

Quote

Are you playing too high so your defence is getting caught on the back foot?

No standard line. The WB's are on support. The WB's get back in time but its still 2v1. 

Quote

Are you using a defensive midfielder?

No. Reason being I have an AM. I don't really want to lose this position as a threat.

Quote

Are you pressing in bad areas?

Maybe? I don't really no the answer to this question.

Quote

Do you use central defenders with a Stopper duty and/or lots of Aggression which may cause them to step up at inopportune moments?

All 3 CD are using a BPD role on defend. Not lots of aggression either. 

Quote

Perhaps you can try using a Carrilero or at least a player with better defensive skills in midfield to help the fullback?

I shall try this on the problem side but if double teamed on both wings both CMs i'd have to change them to both. I read somewhere on here that carrilero's should be assigned to the outside CM's of a midfield 3 and not in a 2. Is that rubbish?

Quote

Are you taking too many risks overall with Mentality? 

Standard mentallity

Quote

Are your wingbacks too attacking without the right cover for them if/when they get caught up field?

WB's on support. I think if I put on defend it seems to invite more pressure on him. 

Quote

It's about finding the right balance between attack and defence and it sounds like you're a bit overcommitted in attack at the moment. 

Only the Strikers and AM's have attack duties. The CM's on Support & WB's on support.

[djpdavey]

10 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Which formation do you exactly use? Is it 5-4-1 narrow diamond, or maybe 5-2-2-1, or some other? You also need to tell us more about your mentality, shape, TIs, PIs etc. before we could give you any useful advice. 

I use a 3-5-1-2. GK, BPD(D), BPD(D), BPD(D), WB(S), WB(S), CM(S), CM(S), AM(S)/SS(A), F9, AF.

Fluid. Standard. Play out of defence, Exploit the middle (seems to prevent losing the ball on the wings), Work ball into box. More direct passing / Mixed depending on opposition.

[westy8chimp]

Oh no another 532 being abused, another dead fairy. 

I really dont understand having wing backs but playing through the middle, with work ball into box. POD but no Dm... More direct passing plus BPD x 3...

There must be 3-4 players in your side that go for long periods without touching the ball. 

Sorry djp...just seems like no clear strategy. 

[djpdavey]

19 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

Oh no another 532 being abused, another dead fairy. 

I really dont understand having wing backs but playing through the middle, with work ball into box. POD but no Dm... More direct passing plus BPD x 3...

There must be 3-4 players in your side that go for long periods without touching the ball. 

Sorry djp...just seems like no clear strategy. 

Play through middle where I have 3 CB's 2 CM & an AM and preventing losing the ball on the wings. Goal keeper gives it to WB who will either put a through ball in or give it to CM or AM. From here we are ok.

Long periods without touching the ball? No. Its direct passing depending on the opposition.

Look I know you don't like this formation but you don't need to contribute if you are just going to moan about this. I have read your last 2-3 comments moaning about this on other peoples topics. Yes I know you dont like it we all get it. You don't have ago at @Rashidi for his 4-3-1-2 which is similar formation but played differently. 

[westy8chimp]

I'm a crossing fiend! 442 is my favourite formation closely followed by 532.

I suspect Rashidi has a clearer plan, and even if it only looks like one different role and one less or additional TI... it's all in the detail (Butterfly effect!)

Perhaps explain a bit more your vision, or how you want the tactic to play out? It may help understand why certain roles and TI have been picked, or at least allow me to be more constructive.

WBs, whilst I've used them in a structured manner to provide a wide outlet for possession, are generally best utilised for attacking width. As you are doing, they are most commonly used instead of wingers rather than with them, so they become your only way of stretching play in attack.

In a narrow formation the WBs are a great tool for basically providing two players in one. But you have emphasised the narrow aspect of the formation...without seeming to create natural passing lanes. BPD will look for risky passes, so they want to feed aggressive wing backs in space, or look over the top for runners... they don't really want to 'play out of defence' in a possession based manner. You have no one dropping deep as an easy outlet, nor anyone making really attacking runs out wide for the long ball. AF is the best role you have, that fits nicely... and the SS will feed off the F9 - that's a good combo in isolation.

Variety is good but you seem to have two plan As rather than a plan A and plan B

[summatsupeer]

3 hours ago, djpdavey said:

I use a 3-5-1-2. GK, BPD(D), BPD(D), BPD(D), WB(S), WB(S), CM(S), CM(S), AM(S)/SS(A), F9, AF.

Fluid. Standard. Play out of defence, Exploit the middle (seems to prevent losing the ball on the wings), Work ball into box. More direct passing / Mixed depending on opposition.

If you have a front 3 and wingbacks that's typically 5 attackers giving width and presence in and around the box.  What do the CM-S pair add to this?  Yes you have a back 3 to cover but the CM pair won't have a lot of space in front of them so for me i'd want them to provide a base and win the ball back rather than doing a bit of everything.  With the front 3 and only a CM pair I think the formation is best suited to a pressing strategy, stopping them getting into crossing areas.   But then how does pressing high affect your attacking strategy if its effective and wins the ball high before opponents push up?  Press to high and your multiple BPD's and direct passing won't have space.  Though if using Play Out Of Defence with multiple BPD seems to be trying to mix two plans into one, especially if adding Direct Passing in there as well.

Most of your players are central, but why focus passing even more to them?  Why make them take more risks than the team mentality combined with player role&duty gives them?  How does using the wings less help you create chances?

Maybe sacrificing one of the BPDs (central) for a CB whos stronger defensively rather than a ball player could help.  Maybe having defensively strong mobile central mids with roles that will get them winning the ball and helping the flanks could help.  I think the main thing is to make sure your formation, defensive plan and attacking plan fit together.

[djpdavey]

2 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

If you have a front 3 and wingbacks that's typically 5 attackers giving width and presence in and around the box.  What do the CM-S pair add to this?  Yes you have a back 3 to cover but the CM pair won't have a lot of space in front of them so for me i'd want them to provide a base and win the ball back rather than doing a bit of everything.  With the front 3 and only a CM pair I think the formation is best suited to a pressing strategy, stopping them getting into crossing areas.   But then how does pressing high affect your attacking strategy if its effective and wins the ball high before opponents push up?  Press to high and your multiple BPD's and direct passing won't have space.  Though if using Play Out Of Defence with multiple BPD seems to be trying to mix two plans into one, especially if adding Direct Passing in there as well.

Most of your players are central, but why focus passing even more to them?  Why make them take more risks than the team mentality combined with player role&duty gives them?  How does using the wings less help you create chances?

Maybe sacrificing one of the BPDs (central) for a CB whos stronger defensively rather than a ball player could help.  Maybe having defensively strong mobile central mids with roles that will get them winning the ball and helping the flanks could help.  I think the main thing is to make sure your formation, defensive plan and attacking plan fit together.

I'll state it for the 3rd time that passing is Mixed OR direct depending on op. With using the wings less I only use them when the BPD pass the ball out or the GK distributes to them. They popup and get the ball in the final 3rd. I just know if the WB's lose the ball high up then the OP Wide players will be away behind him. What risks are you inferring to?

The DCB's are not the problem. They rarely lose the ball. I have previously tried a BWM on the doubled up side which helped a bit but not all the time. Some times they'd close down the OP central midfielder then the OP would pass out wide now that the BWM was out of the way so Carrilero is one of the next thing I will try. will also try to remove the passing focus on the central area.

When the play out of defence occurs we have the numbers and can always get it the ball into the final 3rd.

I will see the difference when I add different pressing strategies as well.

[westy8chimp]

3 hours ago, westy8chimp said:

I really dont understand having wing backs but playing through the middle, with work ball into box. POD but no Dm... More direct passing plus BPD x 3...

 

3 hours ago, djpdavey said:

No. Its direct passing depending on the opposition

 

1 hour ago, westy8chimp said:

you seem to have two plan As rather than a plan A and plan B

 

40 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

Though if using Play Out Of Defence with multiple BPD seems to be trying to mix two plans into one, especially if adding Direct Passing in there as well

 

40 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

Most of your players are central, but why focus passing even more to them?  Why make them take more risks than the team mentality combined with player role&duty gives them?  How does using the wings less help you create chances?

 

41 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

I think the main thing is to make sure your formation, defensive plan and attacking plan fit together.

 

26 minutes ago, djpdavey said:

I'll state it for the 3rd time that passing is Mixed OR direct depending on op

Similar advice from us both, we may not be answering your question... but observationally it is not a connected formation. The only issue you have highlighted is defending the flanks. Maybe trying CAR will work, maybe not. What if we said, play 442 to double up your flanks?

There must be a reason you chose 532... if you explain the whole vision it helps others advise in a way that fits in, rather than random advice.

Also, out of curiosity, what would trigger you to choose when to go more direct? Do you also change mentality of roles etc when you make that choice?

[djpdavey]

13 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

What if we said, play 442 to double up your flanks?

I would like to stick to the current tactic and have one tactic only if I can. I just wanted to get us many ideas as possible to counter this threat for this tactic.

14 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

There must be a reason you chose 532... if you explain the whole vision it helps others advise in a way that fits in, rather than random advice.

I was looking for general advice from people who use a back 3 with WB's but seeing as that limits the amount of advice people can give... I liked and wanted a back 3 for this career. I've been able to gain 2 promotions so far but I am vulnerable to this scenario in particular. I assumed that have a front 2 with a deeper attacking threat behind the best idea would be to get the back to them quicker and if the ball is lost then it is lost furthest from my goal and mainly in the centre where I have most bodies to get it back or recover quicker.

 

13 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

Also, out of curiosity, what would trigger you to choose when to go more direct? Do you also change mentality of roles etc when you make that choice?

I would usually go more direct if facing something like a 4-2-3-1 (Not deep) and try and get behind their 2 CM quicker. If they have a DM then I would go to mixed passing instead. If I find that the opposition is chasing the game and throwing men forward I would also go direct to hit them on the counter quickly. That was my thinking and it made sense to me but I don't have the same level of understanding as you do.

[djpdavey]

Also if I need to sacrifice the AM to make more of a 3 man CM then I'm going to have experiment a bit which may mess with my progress while I tinker.

 

[Experienced Defender]

Frankly, I'd never play more than one CB as BPD, even if all (2 or 3) of them were technically capable enough. If I used your formation specifically, I would put my both outer CBs on Cover duty in order to cover for WBs. The central CB would be either on Defend or Stopper, depending on his relevant attributes. 

There are also other options, of course. Maybe something like this:

DLF(s)    AF

AMC(s)

MEZ(s)   DLP(s/d)

WB(d)                                        WB(s)

CB(d)  CB(st)  CB(cov)

Btw, do you use OIs and if you do, which ones?

[djpdavey]

1 minute ago, Experienced Defender said:

Frankly, I'd never play more than one CB as BPD, even if all (2 or 3) of them were technically capable enough. If I used your formation specifically, I would put my both outer CBs on Cover duty in order to cover for WBs. The central CB would be either on Defend or Stopper, depending on his relevant attributes. 

There are also other options, of course. Maybe something like this:

DLF(s)    AF

AMC(s)

MEZ(s)   DLP(s/d)

WB(d)                                        WB(s)

CB(d)  CB(st)  CB(cov)

I like this back 3 mentality of these roles. I will experiment with the BPD's with these mentality settings first. If it does not solve the problem I will try the CB's as suggested. 

[Experienced Defender]

In any case, you'll have to try and see if it works. I haven't experimented with this formation so far, so I'm just trying to think logically how best to balance the team. The reason why I suggest having only one player with Attack duty (AF) and switching one WB to Defend is that your formation is already top-heavy a bit, with only two CMs and no DM, which makes the team inherently more vulnerable not only on the flanks but also at the back.

[westy8chimp]

57 minutes ago, djpdavey said:

that have a front 2 with a deeper attacking threat behind the best idea would be to get the back to them quicker and if the ball is lost then it is lost furthest from my goal and mainly in the centre where I have most bodies to get it back or recover quicker.

Yes, losing the ball high up is better.

You have more central players, correct, but with the D-line setting they aren't particularly close. Your CMs could be bypassed very early in the transition... but still 3CBs should cope with a central attack.

58 minutes ago, djpdavey said:

 

I would usually go more direct if facing something like a 4-2-3-1 (Not deep) and try and get behind their 2 CM quicker. If they have a DM then I would go to mixed passing instead. If I find that the opposition is chasing the game and throwing men forward I would also go direct to hit them on the counter quickly. That was my thinking and it made sense to me but I don't have the same level of understanding as you do.

This all makes sense

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

I'm not 100% on how you score goals. I think it's the F9 and work ball into box that I don't like. Work ball into box is a patient way of probing, but it's best employed when you anticipate having a lot of options in and around the box... so eventually one player finds space etc. I.e. having a very good AP with attack options ahead and out wide and a runner from midfield (bbm, mez, cm(a))

You don't really have that, and perhaps a quicker transition in attack is better, to prevent the opponent getting into defensive shape.

-----------

changing CM-s to CAR should help defend the flanks, but you'll have to monitor how much you lose from an attacking sense.

[djpdavey]

4 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

but still 3CBs should cope with a central attack.

That was my thinking at the time.

5 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

I'm not 100% on how you score goals. I think it's the F9 and work ball into box that I don't like. Work ball into box is a patient way of probing, but it's best employed when you anticipate having a lot of options in and around the box... so eventually one player finds space etc. I.e. having a very good AP with attack options ahead and out wide and a runner from midfield (bbm, mez, cm(a))

You don't really have that, and perhaps a quicker transition in attack is better, to prevent the opponent getting into defensive shape.

Thinking about this now I may try and remove this.

6 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

changing CM-s to CAR should help defend the flanks, but you'll have to monitor how much you lose from an attacking sense.

Got a few things to change now but want to try one at a time to get a complete sense of how the dynamics change with the tweak in isolation.