Arsenal 433 - horrific results

[Experienced Defender]

Just now, The Solman said:

Soo ensuring my LOE and defensive line are as close together as possible

Not as close as possible, but optimally close. In my book, the optimal distance between DL and LOE is when DL is one notch higher than LOE (higher DL/standard LOE or standard DL/lower LOE). 

 

2 minutes ago, The Solman said:

Changing some player roles, PIs and TIs

Yes, but very little and in a sensible manner. It should not be too different from your regular tactic.

[The Solman]

2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Not as close as possible, but optimally close. In my book, the optimal distance between DL and LOE is when DL is one notch higher than LOE (higher DL/standard LOE or standard DL/lower LOE). 

 

Yes, but very little and in a sensible manner. It should not be too different from your regular tactic.

Any other factors that come into play for you. If you were playing a top team say in the CL. Would you alter anything else or is it down to believing in your well oiled players.

[Experienced Defender]

10 minutes ago, The Solman said:

Any other factors that come into play for you. If you were playing a top team say in the CL. Would you alter anything else or is it down to believing in your well oiled players.

It's not just about what (if anything) you need to alter, but how and why. If you have a tactic that works, it means that it suits your players well. Therefore, any big change automatically means the risk of forcing your players into unknown territory. 

I'll give you an example. Let's assume this is your primary setup:

DLFsu

IFat                                    IWsu

DLPsu   MEZat

DMde

WBsu   CDde  BPDde   WBsu

SKsu

And this is how I would tweak it for a tough match:

AF/PFat

Wsu                                 IWsu

BWMsu  MEZat

ACMde

WBsu   CDde  BPDde  FBsu

SKsu

Let's now assume these are your regular instructions:

Positive mentality

- play out of defence, shorter passing, be more expressive, work ball into box

- counter-press

- higher DL, higher LOE, offside trap

And these would be my tweaked instructions:

Balanced or (still) Positive mentality

- shorter passing, be more expressive

- counter, distribute to CBs and FBs

- higher DL, standard LOE, offside trap

Do you now see what I mean?

[The Solman]

11 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

It's not just about what (if anything) you need to alter, but how and why. If you have a tactic that works, it means that it suits your players well. Therefore, any big change automatically means the risk of forcing your players into unknown territory. 

I'll give you an example. Let's assume this is your primary setup:

DLFsu

IFat                                    IWsu

DLPsu   MEZat

DMde

WBsu   CDde  BPDde   WBsu

SKsu

And this is how I would tweak it for a tough match:

AF/PFat

Wsu                                 IWsu

BWMsu  MEZat

ACMde

WBsu   CDde  BPDde  FBsu

SKsu

Let's now assume these are your regular instructions:

Positive mentality

- play out of defence, shorter passing, be more expressive, work ball into box

- counter-press

- higher DL, higher LOE, offside trap

And these would be my tweaked instructions:

Balanced or (still) Positive mentality

- shorter passing, be more expressive

- counter, distribute to CBs and FBs

- higher DL, standard LOE, offside trap

Do you now see what I mean?

I think so, in the fact that you have made changes but kept your structure overall. You've removed minor elements but kept the core system in place not causing changes that are too drastic? So the shape is the same way rs they way the players operate within that shape.

Edited January 6, 2020 by The Solman

[3LionsFM]

Hi, I've been reading this thread with keen interest as I have my own 433 I'm using.  Can I ask for some opinions and advice please on how my tactic(s) look? 

I'm currently managing the England National Team and want to play a short passing, possession style, with Kane dropping deep to create space for my IW(a) and my CM(a). When up against stronger teams I want to keep the shape solid and hit the front 3 quickly so they can use their pace and finishing.

Thanks.

Against weak/similar teams

Against stronger teams

 

[The Solman]

45 minutes ago, 3LionsFM said:

Hi, I've been reading this thread with keen interest as I have my own 433 I'm using.  Can I ask for some opinions and advice please on how my tactic(s) look? 

I'm currently managing the England National Team and want to play a short passing, possession style, with Kane dropping deep to create space for my IW(a) and my CM(a). When up against stronger teams I want to keep the shape solid and hit the front 3 quickly so they can use their pace and finishing.

Thanks.

Against weak/similar teams

Against stronger teams

 

What's your LOE and Defensive line like? Also I'm far from an expert but in the 2nd formation you have no real attacking roles so your team's attack will be predictable. 

 

@Experienced Defender may have some pearls of wisdom on the attacking side of things. 

Defensively the roles look good but I may be wrong.

[3LionsFM]

44 minutes ago, The Solman said:

What's your LOE and Defensive line like? Also I'm far from an expert but in the 2nd formation you have no real attacking roles so your team's attack will be predictable. 

 

@Experienced Defender may have some pearls of wisdom on the attacking side of things. 

Defensively the roles look good but I may be wrong.

Against stronger teams my DL is standard and LOE much lower. 

Against weaker teams my DL is Higher and LOE standard. 

[Experienced Defender]

3 hours ago, The Solman said:

I think so, in the fact that you have made changes but kept your structure overall. You've removed minor elements but kept the core system in place not causing changes that are too drastic?

Yes. And in this type of matches you also need to pay more attention to player selection, especially in the midfield, where between 2 players competing for the same position (role) within the system - I would always look to pick the one that is better defensively and more hard-working.

Up front, you are normally playing Laca in the middle, Auba on the left and Pepe on the right. But in these tougher games, I would mix them around a bit - Laca in AMR, Pepe in AML and Auba as the striker.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Experienced Defender

[Experienced Defender]

3 hours ago, 3LionsFM said:

Against weak/similar teams

Against stronger teams

 

3 hours ago, 3LionsFM said:

Can I ask for some opinions and advice please on how my tactic(s) look? 

I'm currently managing the England National Team and want to play a short passing, possession style, with Kane dropping deep to create space for my IW(a) and my CM(a). When up against stronger teams I want to keep the shape solid and hit the front 3 quickly so they can use their pace and finishing

The first thing I would change in both tactics is - mentality. I'd start with the Balanced.

I really don't see why have you opted for the Cautious? Maybe you think that a more defensive mentality will automatically make you more solid defensively, but that's not how it works in the game. Defensive solidity is primarily about (an optimal level of) compactness (DL/LOE) and proper, well-balanced selection and distribution of roles and duties. The mentality is of secondary importance when it comes to defensive stability/solidity. 

However, it does not mean that the mentality is not important. To the contrary - it's a very important factor because it affects all other elements of the tactic. So when you change the mentality just a notch (either up or down), you may well need to tweak a couple of other instructions in order to sort of counter-balance the mentality change. 

Now, would you like to know how I would set up both types of tactics for your England team (using the same starting 11 like you), making as small changes as possible compared to your tactics?

[3LionsFM]

7 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

The first thing I would change in both tactics is - mentality. I'd start with the Balanced.

I really don't see why have you opted for the Cautious? Maybe you think that a more defensive mentality will automatically make you more solid defensively, but that's not how it works in the game. Defensive solidity is primarily about (an optimal level of) compactness (DL/LOE) and proper, well-balanced selection and distribution of roles and duties. The mentality is of secondary importance when it comes to defensive stability/solidity. 

However, it does not mean that the mentality is not important. To the contrary - it's a very important factor because it affects all other elements of the tactic. So when you change the mentality just a notch (either up or down), you may well need to tweak a couple of other instructions in order to sort of counter-balance the mentality change. 

Now, would you like to know how I would set up both types of tactics for your England team (using the same starting 11 like you), making as small changes as possible compared to your tactics?

Thanks for replying. I would be very interested to see how you would up this team. 

[Experienced Defender]

21 minutes ago, 3LionsFM said:

I would be very interested to see how you would up this team

Ok, so this is your 1st tactic (against similar/weaker teams): 

 

4 hours ago, 3LionsFM said:

The first thing I would do is slightly change the positions of a couple of players. In my setup, Sterling would be played as IF on attack in AML, whereas Hudson-Odoi would remain the winger but in AMR. Maddison would stay in MCL, but as a mezzala on support. The right back - btw, not sure if James would be my first choice, but okay - would be changed into WB on support, in order to more actively provide attacking width on that side. 

On the left, Chilwell can either remain standard FB on support or become IWB on defend. In the latter case, the Overlap left may be considered as an option, both to encourage him to occasionally move wider (according to the movement of those in front of him) and thus provide width in the final third and also to add more dynamic interplay on that side. 

Kane would remain the DLF, but preferably on attack duty, so as to add more penetration up front while still being involved in the build-up phase due to the nature of the DLF as a role. Because otherwise, you would have only Sterling on attack duty.

There is another option though: Kane remains DLF on support, but Hudson-Odoi becomes IW on support, whereas the RB is changed into FB on attack. 

I would also swap Winks and Dier around - Winks in MCR either as BWMsu or carrilero, and Dier as the DM, but on defend duty.

Finally, Pickford absolutely suits the SK role, which should be utilized (especially when playing with a higher DL).

So essentially, these are 2 potential setups for your 1st tactic:

DLFat

IFat                                        Wsu

MEZsu  CAR/BWMsu

DMde

FBsu/IWBde  CDde  CDco  WBsu

SKsu/de

Or:

DLFsu

IFat                                      IWsu

MEZsu  CAR/BWMsu

DMde

FBsu/IWBde  CDde  CDco  FBat

SKsu/de

As I already  said, I would start with the Balanced mentality. For the style of play you want to implement, these would be my starting instructions: 

In possession - shorter passing (and optionally overlap left, but only if the LB is played as IWB on defend duty)

In transition - distribute to CBs and FBs

Out of possession - higher DL, standard LOE (note that I put Gomez on cover duty, simply because he's more reliable CB than Tomori)

You can also consider a split block as an option. 

Of course, if you insist on having a deep runner in the form of CM on attack duty, then this could be a way to go:

DLFsu

IFat                                     Wsu

CAR/BWMsu  CMat

A/DMde

WBsu  CDde  CDco   IWBsu

SKsu/de

Madison is now MCR, Sterling is still AML and HO is still AMR. The mentality and instructions should remain the same (but the overlap left is no longer an option).

* * *

Now, what about your other, more defensive/counter-attack-minded tactic? Here is your original one: 

4 hours ago, 3LionsFM said:

The point here is to achieve a combination of solid defensive shape and sufficient penetration. Which essentially means both wide forwards need to be more defensively responsible and involved in helping the fullbacks to protect the flanks, which allows a deep midfield runner to be more attack-minded and thus provide more direct support up front. Therefore:

DLFat

IFsu                                    Wsu

BWMsu  CMat

Ade

FBat   CDde  CDde/co  FBsu

SKsu

The mentality need not be changed - so it's still the Balanced. But the instructions should be given slight tweaking:

In possession - higher tempo (and optionally be more expressive)

In transition - counter

Out of possession - standard DL, lower LOE (not much lower) and possibly get stuck in as an option

So these would be my starting tactics for these 2 styles of play. Any questions?

 

[3LionsFM]

@Experienced Defender Thank you for sharing your ideas, I'm going to try out the Kane as DLF(a), secondly the deep runner version and finally the counter attacking one. 

A quick question though, why have you chosen an IWB(D) on the left? Is it because of the attacking tendencies of the IF(a) and the MEZ(s)? 

Edited January 6, 2020 by 3LionsFM

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, 3LionsFM said:

A quick question though, why have you chosen an IWB(D) on the left? Is it because of the attacking tendencies of the IF(a) and the MEZ(s)?

Yes, but also in order to act as a quasi DM and thus cover the space behind the mezzala. But as I said, IWB on defend is just an option you may want consider. If you don't feel comfortable with the role, then go with standard FB on support (or WB on defend). It's important to understand the context. 

[The Solman]

On 05/01/2020 at 13:24, Experienced Defender said:

When I am also a strong (top) team, or when I am the complete underdog in a match against a top team? In either case, I do not make any dramatic changes to my primary tactic. 

 

Lowering the mentality can be an option, but not more than just one notch (from Positive to Balanced, for example). But the lower mentality itself does not make you more defensively solid. Good vertical compactness and proper distribution of roles and duties are more important for this particular type of tactical adjustment.

 

17 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Yes, but also in order to act as a quasi DM and thus cover the space behind the mezzala. But as I said, IWB on defend is just an option you may want consider. If you don't feel comfortable with the role, then go with standard FB on support (or WB on defend). It's important to understand the context. 

Is the attack role misleading in the game. I assume if I have a player in attack they'll be more attacking in terms of making the runs or pushing further forward. I take it that is not always the case as in my Arsenal 4-3-3 I was reluctant to show Pépé on support as he weighed in with a lot of goals for me. 

 

Could this work if Auba IF-A and Pépé IW-A. 

Also out of curiosity would you every play with to midfielders on an attacking role the 3 of the 4-3-3.

 

I'm getting there as I creat plenty chances, defensively I like my shape, it's just opposition instructions now, I normally press the back four, tackle hard on CMs and depending on the composure of wide players I may press and their bravery I'll tackle hard. Tackling hard on forwards scares me as I worry I'll give away a pen.

What I notice is a lot of teams playing out from the back seem to be able to bypass the press. Not just good team either.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, The Solman said:

Is the attack role misleading in the game. I assume if I have a player in attack they'll be more attacking in terms of making the runs or pushing further forward. I take it that is not always the case as in my Arsenal 4-3-3 I was reluctant to show Pépé on support as he weighed in with a lot of goals for me

Are you talking about your regular tactic or the one for tougher games? 

 

1 hour ago, The Solman said:

Could this work if Auba IF-A and Pépé IW-A

Having both wide forwards on attack duty at the same time is not a good idea IMHO. Btw, support duty does not prevent players from scoring goals or getting into chances. I often have situations where a support-duty player scores, whereas the assist comes from one on attack duty. All you need to worry about is to have a well-balanced and logically designed tactic. 

 

1 hour ago, The Solman said:

Also out of curiosity would you every play with to midfielders on an attacking role the 3 of the 4-3-3

Yes, if that suits my team and style of play. I guess you are talking about 4141dm wide, not the flat narrow 433? 

 

1 hour ago, The Solman said:

I'm getting there as I creat plenty chances, defensively I like my shape, it's just opposition instructions now, I normally press the back four, tackle hard on CMs and depending on the composure of wide players I may press and their bravery I'll tackle hard. Tackling hard on forwards scares me as I worry I'll give away a pen

Opposition instructions are not necessary. And even if you use them, you don't necessarily need to apply OIs to every single opposition player or position. Btw, I (also) never use hard tackling on opposition forwards. 

[The Solman]

7 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Are you talking about your regular tactic or the one for tougher games? 

 

Having both wide forwards on attack duty at the same time is not a good idea IMHO. Btw, support duty does not prevent players from scoring goals or getting into chances. I often have situations where a support-duty player scores, whereas the assist comes from one on attack duty. All you need to worry about is to have a well-balanced and logically designed tactic. 

 

Yes, if that suits my team and style of play. I guess you are talking about 4141dm wide, not the flat narrow 433? 

 

Opposition instructions are not necessary. And even if you use them, you don't necessarily need to apply OIs to every single opposition player or position. Btw, I (also) never use hard tackling on opposition forwards. 

I was talking about my regular tactic but for instance in a tougher you mentioned Auba up front as a PF and Laca on the right and Pépé on the left. Against tough oppo would you play with both IF on supp or still mix it up?

 

My grammar and spelling was atrocious 😄, I meant two Mezzala-A in the CM region or a Mezzala-A and CM-A  combination with my DM-D. I am wondering if it will open up more movement and create more opportunities for the IFs.

So you wouldn't use OIs at all. Cause I was using them mainly to get my front 5/6 players pressing the opposition.

 

[Experienced Defender]

24 minutes ago, The Solman said:

Against tough oppo would you play with both IF on supp or still mix it up?

I would play both wide forwards on support duty, but in different roles. 

 

25 minutes ago, The Solman said:

My grammar and spelling was atrocious 😄, I meant two Mezzala-A in the CM region or a Mezzala-A and CM-A  combination with my DM-D. I am wondering if it will open up more movement and create more opportunities for the IFs

I would never ever play both CMs on attack duty, regardless of their roles. You can try if you want, but I personally wouldn't take such a huge defensive risk. 

 

27 minutes ago, The Solman said:

So you wouldn't use OIs at all. Cause I was using them mainly to get my front 5/6 players pressing the opposition

You can use them if you have a clear idea what you want and which OIs you should use to achieve that. I just said that OIs are not necessary. Because if you use them in a wrong way, you can cause needless defensive issues to yourself. 

Btw, OIs do not determine which of your players (and how many of them) will do a particular OI. but to which opposition players/positions OIs should be applied. And - just like everything else - OIs do not work in isolation.

[The Solman]

12 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

I would play both wide forwards on support duty, but in different roles. 

 

I would never ever play both CMs on attack duty, regardless of their roles. You can try if you want, but I personally wouldn't take such a huge defensive risk. 

 

You can use them if you have a clear idea what you want and which OIs you should use to achieve that. I just said that OIs are not necessary. Because if you use them in a wrong way, you can cause needless defensive issues to yourself. 

Btw, OIs do not determine which of your players (and how many of them) will do a particular OI. but to which opposition players/positions OIs should be applied. And - just like everything else - OIs do not work in isolation.

So in terms of pressing what I'd do is press the back four and then turn up the pressing on certain players and down on others. Before I had high pressing in my formation set up so  I found my back 5 coming out of position whereas this way the back 5 seem to have good shape, I'm tight and compact whilst the front 4 press.

 

If Pépé, Auba and Laca can stay fit, I'm curious if I could get similar numbers to a Liverpool front three. In my first season Auba scored 24, Pépé 11(He was my main Penalty taker) then got injured for 3 months. Laca scored 11 but I was struggling to get this DLF to play well. He seems to come wide a lot and what I wanted was him to come deep, link play then get into the box. Can this role ever be a consistent 15-20 goals a season role?

 

The role that is working perfectly for me is the DM-D Torriera is a monster, I started him as a DLP-D. 

Would you recommend having my WBs having the PI of stay wide but both Pépe and Auba staying Narrow?