Jump to content

Right role combination for three strikers


Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

I've had quite the run with the lowly Forest Green Rovers of Nailsworth. Starting in League 2, I clawed my way up to the Premier League by 2024. Now in 2037, I am one of the top teams in the league (I have won the euro cup and gotten to the finals of the champions league, but no premier league trophy yet...)

The team is generally performing well, but I think I can achieve more in the attacking third. Specifically, I have a truly world-class player that I cannot seem to get the best out of - Maurizio de Jong.

I'll start with my overall tactical approach, which I've attached - simply put, a high tempo/high urgency style with my team DNA focused on Work Rate, Teamwork, and Acceleration/Pace attributes.

My strikers right now are AML Maurizio de Jong (who should be one of the best players in the world on paper), AMR Tony Smith, and ST Mario de Rose. On the bench I have Tom Walsh, who could be a starter in his own right. All three starters are world class, and do alright, but we are fifth in the league in scoring when I really reckon we could do better.

I think it has something to do with my role combinations. My lead scorer is Tony Smith, which surprises me in his IF-S role and low finishing. Both him and De Jong are better suited for winger roles, and with Mario De Rose about to turn 30 I could try to replace him with a more classic striker instead of a trequartista? Alternatively, De Jong can also play Striker as an advanced forward...

Anyhow, what role combinations do you think could work here? De Jong has typical average ratings of 6.8-6.9, and De Rose 6.9, so I feel like there is a lot of room for improvement.

Thank you for any help!

20200401211550_1.jpg

20200401211557_1.jpg

20200401211611_1.jpg

20200401211536_1.jpg

20200401211543_1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, thedrdrive said:

20200401211611_1.jpg

Honestly, looking at your tactic, I would say the problem stems much more from your team instructions than the setup of roles and duties. While roles and duties can also be tweaked a bit, instructions look very problematic to me.

First, your defensive instructions are overly aggressive, which reduces the space for your forwards to operate. And this becomes even more pronounced when coupled with your in-possession instructions such as extremely high tempo and pass into space (plus the high team mentality), which for their part are needlessly gung-ho as well. So you want your team to play extremely fast football, but are at the same time denying them the space that is vital for such style of play. So you need to tone down a number of team instructions, both in and out of possession. 

When it comes to roles and duties - as I already said - they look pretty decent. The only (small) changes I personally would consider are these:

TQ

IFat                                IWsu

BBM     CAR

DMde

WBsu    CDde   CDde   WBat

As you can see, I only moved the BBM to the left side and changed the other CM into a carrilero so that he would provide defensive cover for the attacking WB on the right flank. And also a subtle tweak of the AMR role from IF on support into IW on support, simply for the sake of variety.

But again - if you fail to make your team instructions more sensible and logical, I fear that no setup of roles and duties is going to help.

P.S: Regarding the thread title, your formation does not employ 3 strikers but 1 striker and 2 wide forwards ;)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Experienced Defender – that is very helpful feedback!

Your comments on the team instructions resonate; it makes sense that the defensive instructions are compressing the space for my offensive players. It sounds like some good adjustments could be:

-Normal defensive line instead of Higher defensive line

-High tempo instead of Extremely high tempo

Does that make sense?

Regarding the roles & duties, I like the idea of converting my AMR to an IW-support. I am curious though about moving the BBM over to the other side. With a BBM and an IF-AT on the same side, is that overloading the left with players who push forward? I had always tried to stick to the philosophy that if the AMR was on attacking duties, the associated midfielder should be more conservative.

Thanks again! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, thedrdrive said:

Normal defensive line instead of Higher defensive line

Rather normal (standard) Line of engagement. Higher D-line and standard LOE is a better combination from both defensive and attacking perspectives than the opposite, because it gives you a good level of compactness when defending while at the same time providing you with more space in attack. 

 

4 hours ago, thedrdrive said:

High tempo instead of Extremely high tempo

Higher is definitely a better option than extremely high, although under the positive team mentality even default tempo should be fast enough, especially when coupled with standard passing (as opposed to shorter). Keep in mind the impact that the team mentality has on all instructions. 

 

4 hours ago, thedrdrive said:

I am curious though about moving the BBM over to the other side. With a BBM and an IF-AT on the same side, is that overloading the left with players who push forward?

Coupling a BBM with IF on support would be more of an issue, because there is a possibility they could end up "competing" for the same space a bit too often. Then you also need to consider the broader context, rather than just separate combinations of roles. For example, you can see that I put a WB on support duty on that flank behind the BBM and IF, so that he would provide some width in attack. But if you played in a 4231 instead of the 4123, then WB on support could be too risky defensively due to the absence of a DM in that system. So in a 4231, I would rather opt for a FB on support than WB on support if I played a BBM on that side. I hope you understand what I am referring to. 

And btw, you use a CM on support on that side, which does not make a substantial difference compared to the BBM in relation to the IF on attack. 

4 hours ago, thedrdrive said:

I had always tried to stick to the philosophy that if the AMR was on attacking duties, the associated midfielder should be more conservative

Depends on how other roles and duties are set up, especially those behind and around them, as well as (the type of) your formation. Because - as I pointed out above - the whole context matters. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...