Had this tactic on my mind for a while now

[danthemanwhocan]

Essentially I have been ruminating on this 'tactical idea' for the past few iterations of FM; it now seems like this could be the best version to try to implement my idea given the tactical/training overhaul that has occurred in this years version.... so here goes. 

 

What goes on in my head 

This is essentially the shape I have quasi-decided on: 

 

 

What I would like is for the F9 to drop deep and essentially create opportunities for the RMD and the (L)CM- whose Individual instructions are to essentially get further forward, roam, dribble more, etc. (essentially a BBM or CM(A)). The RMD I want them to find space to run in to and exploit it. 

I want the Full backs to stretch the field of play and offer an option to keep the play as far up the field as possible, they have been asked to cross from the byline and cross to the near posts on their side, hopefully keeping the crosses low as per the team instruction to do so. 

The CM(R) is, for all intents and purposes a DLP- direct passes, hold position, take more risks. 

In my previous versions of this tactic the HB has been an Anchor man, however, I thought I would experiment with a HB here as I like the idea of creating a back 5 when we loose possession but also have him be there as an option further back to the CM(R) to recycle possesion (I think this is what will happen). 

My previous version looked something like this:

 

I think if we compare the two, the latter version is slightly more balanced. I will utilise both versions during my Liverpool save and see which, if any, are better. 

 

Any feedback, criticism, help would be greatly appreciated. 

 

Thanks! 

[Experienced Defender]

17 hours ago, danthemanwhocan said:

the (L)CM- whose Individual instructions are to essentially get further forward, roam, dribble more, etc. (essentially a BBM or CM(A))

 

17 hours ago, danthemanwhocan said:

The CM(R) is, for all intents and purposes a DLP- direct passes, hold position, take more risks

I fear it does not work that way. Setting PIs for one role like those of another role will not make the former behave like the latter, because there are "invisible" settings under the hood that make each role unique. So if you want a player to behave in a certain way, give him that specific role.

[VinceLombardi]

You can do a lot with generic roles and PI. They should work the way you want. More or less.

The MCR is going to get a bit further up vs the DLP role. It's also not going to attract passes like a DLP. I actually avoid playmaker roles and do generics for this reason. 

The MCL is not going to get forward as well as a CM (a) or a BBM (assuming the BBM also has get further forward). But again this may be preferable based on the tactic.

 

Both should do what you are describing, more or less.

[Rashidi]

If you want those wingbacks supporting midfield more through the transition by taking a higher initial position, you are just better off putting them in the same tier with the central defenders and asking both of them to overlap. You will get the same effect but you will be more stable defensively. I am referring to the first incarnation.

[summatsupeer]

On 18/12/2018 at 23:47, danthemanwhocan said:

I think if we compare the two, the latter version is slightly more balanced. 

I agree with everything said in previous posts, the only thing I can add is that symmetry != balance. If anything, having both flanks doing the same things might give fewer options.

The back 5 in your last version looks a bit passive but I prefer the front 5 as there's more variety.

[danthemanwhocan]

Thank you for all the comments and advice. 

I have somewhat changed the tactic based on advice so i will post an update tonight/tomorrow morning. 

Depending on how it goes i my do a thread devoted to building my club around this tactic.. need to come up with a snazzy name now!