Looking for input - widemen roles

[santy001]

So first of all here's the tactic:

Bear in mind I could be way off the mark with this, its me applying my thought process to it and asking for input on that. After observations have been made. Overall I'm not doing badly, it just feels like sometimes I'm winning despite the tactic, rather than because of it.

Observed First Issue - LB & AML occupying the same space during build-up play:

My thinking with this set up had been to try and get the LB and AML providing a layered/overlapping attack. To be fair, at the opponents box it somewhat achieves this. Previously I had the LB as a Fullback Support role which kept him deeper, but with support at AML no one was really going to the byline. Another big problem was that during build up play they would both end up within 5-10 yards of each other not really offering much in the way of passing options.

Eventually I went with a WB attack to create a later overlapping run to the byline which works quite well but there's still so many instances during the build-up where the 2 players are occupying the same space. 

In a few instances where I'd ended up down to 10 men I would sacrifice the AML and noticed a dramatic upturn in performance from the LB position. Being less clustered and having more space to make runs into really opened things up to the point that it was almost a non-concern being down to 10 men in an attacking sense. 

My Thoughts/Concerns:

The next easiest role to get my head around in the AML slot is an inside forward. However, I feel an inside forward would infringe on and cluster around the Advanced Forward and block the space the BBM would normally work in. It just feels like I'd be shifting the current problem on the wings infield 10-15 yards and then clustering 3 players too close to each other. Neither the attack nor support role really stand out as being useful.

In fact, I somewhat feel like I'm pushing myself down route here where I don't have too many options. In build up and attack I feel like the rest of the set-up almost renders the AML ineffective. It is only having two wide players defensively that is of benefit. 

The Raumdeuter sounds like it could therefore be a possible option, giving more free reign to pick up space. But it forsakes defensive duties by its description, and the same applies to a Trequartista. 

Would an advanced playmaker in the support role create someone who picks up space and still defends? Would that still infringe on the space the BBM would look to run into?

I suppose I have to be open to the option of also changing the MCL/BBM role to possibly getting more from that position.

- - - - - 

Observed Second Issue - STCR - AMR competing for the same space in possession and attacking.

During build-up play, or immediately after winning possession back it works quite well. But if the inside forward picks up the ball he tends to be running straight at the striker in the PF role. The RB is playing a smart option with another pass out wide to recycle possession/look for a cross but it again becomes two players condensed very tightly with neither one offering all that much unique. Eventually the MCR will arrive in the mix during particularly patient attacks and then its really a case of being too densely packed an area. 

I'm at more of a loss for this one, I tried a False Nine previously but found the position dropped way too much into the DLP's sphere of influence during build up play.

When it comes to this one I'm not really sure what works. I don't have too much in the way of my own thoughts about how I could possibly resolve it.

- - - - -

Underlying questions:

Do I need to perhaps re-think everything from CM forward? Am I over-thinking the issue and condensing players together isn't that big a deal? 

[HUNT3R]

Hmm. What about shifting the balance of it almost completely? Here's what I'm thinking and why:

1 - Swap the two CM roles. DLP on the left to be a bit deeper and control that side when the wingback attacks. It should see your left flank being a bit more defensively stable than it is right now. with the BBM on the right, he can help support the IF. 

2 - Now, the BBM will link with the PF-S and the two of them could either attack the vacant space the striker left or they can leave the space for the IF-A.

3 - On the left wing, I would use an IF-S. He wouldn't be as wide as the Winger so he gets in the way of the wingback and he'd have some space on the inside because the DLP is deeper and the AF is ahead. Lemar, IIRC, is left footed? That means sometimes he'll still go wide onto the favored foot... or if the space is there, do what his role wants him.

Does that make sense? I've disregarded any PPMs as I'm not sure who has what. 

 

[santy001]

I'm still building the side in my own manner at the moment so I don't worry too much about PPM's either at this stage. There are some conflicts that arise but its the next set of players coming through I'm trying to get the role organised for. 

Lemar is left footed and has the PPM to cut inside from both wings so at times he did a lot to undermine the Winger role I had given him but it wasn't causing too many issues.

[zemaniano85]

I am having same issues, when using 2 strikers, the problem is clustering players from the wing. Usually that is not a problem when using lone striker, but with 2 the half spaces are taken from them. So basically, I use a 442, and I make sure my strikers are in the box, no movement required, as I just want them be there. I don't need them making movement for anyone, so a P and TMs. On the Wings I use a Ws on the side of the P and a WMa on the other. They stay wide, and the Ws has the overlap Ti so the FBs will help. Mids I have a APs  P side, and CMs TMs side. I used IW but they never shone, but like this, even using a opposite foot on the Ws role, I have some brilliant play, and he never clash with the P. I used AF but he moves into channels, and none is using his movements. This is my experience but perhaps anyone could have had some success with that

[denen123]

Have you considered two inverted wingbacks(support duty, left side & defend duty right side) while changing the AMR to winger on support or alternatively, IF with stay wider? 

It might be of help if you gave it a go.

[zyfon5]

My suggestion:

1)switch the IF(A) to a trequartista so that he will have a lot of freedom to move around wherever he is needed and to partly combat the lack of numbers in the middle due to the BBM pushing up. The BBM should also switch sides with the dlp so that he can run beyond the PF(S) when he is holding the ball.

2)consider dropping the w(s) to the midfield strata so that you will have options to play a wideman that can sit narrow and provide defensive cover when the WB(a) pushes up. I will consider using the defensive winger or the wide midfielder but I do not have too many experience with these two roles so you will have to experiment with it.

[Djuicer]

Have you considerd swapping AF and PF?

[Experienced Defender]

On 22/05/2020 at 19:04, santy001 said:

My two pennies worth: speaking from a perspective of space creation and utilization, an IF on support duty behind the AF and a winger on attack duty behind the PF would be how I personally would set up the front 4. 

However, that - like anything else tactic-wise - may require some adjustments elsewhere within the setup. 

[santy001]

I don't know if I'm right in this line of thinking or not, but it would then seem like perhaps I would need to change the BBM because the space in which he attacks is more likely to be used. I thought Mezzala but that seems like it would abdicate more defensive responsibilities elsewhere, in a formation that already leaves itself somewhat exposed by the use of an AML/AMR which are inherently less defensively involved positions.

[santy001]

Spent some time making tweaks following some of the suggestions but there were still a few issues I couldn't really resolve. Defensive issues, I kept getting doubled up on the wings anyway, some of the changes I was making up at the top end was exacerbating this further. The BBM becoming a passenger, and not really finding any way to put that position to use on either side of midfield basically boiling it down to a point in space to help recycle possession. 

This has become my default starting line-up now, it gives me the option to swap the BBM & DLP depending upon opposition line-ups without running into the bottlenecks I had before of an IF & PF crowding out the position. I can still push the ML/MR up if its against a narrow formation, but provides greater defensive cover while I get a feel for games. 

[santy001]

Thought I'd share results. I've only used it a couple of times, but I have an alternate formation a bit more in line with @HUNT3R's suggestion with the midfield roles flipped but both wide men play more as IF's then (Wide Midfielder Support on the right, Attack on the left with both being set to cut inside) while switching the IWB's to Wing backs. 

It got me my 2 big scoring games, the 7-1 win and 4-2 wins. 

It's not perfect of course, but I'm hoping it sets a solid foundation in the play-style I like. It tends to do well in possession, but not just for the sake of keeping possession. It's a case of refining personnel choices from here on in I reckon. That, and learning how to defend set pieces. But in time I will find and obtain some of my more desired 6'6"+ monstrosities to keep the box safe.