Doubt about attack width

[Gastofm]

I have a lot of doubts about the width in the attack because I don't know if the individual task of a specific player can change the collective width. For example, the attack width is "extremely high" and I frame a specific player as "sit narrower". Does it mean that all but that player will remain opened? And if instead, I individually mark one that "stay wider" is going to leave the field hahaha? I don't understand why those two options exist, if, for example, in the case of setbacks / flaps in the "stay wider" part, it says they will open up to the sideline (ie take advantage of the whole field). What is the point then of putting "extremely broad"?

Edited May 27, 2020 by Gastofm

[Experienced Defender]

You should not take instructions (both team and player) literally. They serve to encourage a certain type of behavior whenever possible, but not in the sense of players following them blindly like robots. 

Plus, every instruction is directly impacted by the team mentality you play on as well as other instructions (including player roles) that you use within the tactic. 

[Gastofm]

24 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

You should not take instructions (both team and player) literally. They serve to encourage a certain type of behavior whenever possible, but not in the sense of players following them blindly like robots. 

Plus, every instruction is directly impacted by the team mentality you play on as well as other instructions (including player roles) that you use within the tactic. 

Oh tell me if I understood correctly. Are you saying that this is a way to encourage the individual player to stay with the band (and not plan to close) based on the collective width? And if for example it is narrow, the individual idea would be to tell them "try to close" to meet the collective width?

Edited May 27, 2020 by Gastofm

[FMunderachiever]

I think if youre telling a wide player to "stay wide" youre essentially saying dont drift inside to receive the ball. stay out wide and receive it there.

If you want to play short passes but you have wide players, they are going to have to come inside a little bit to receive passes, you need the players closer together.

Also if you want to play with such extreme width, im not sure having a low tempo is a good idea. presumably, you want to get the ball forward and out wide quickly, because thats youre attacking outlet. Youre trying to set up wide men to run at defenders 1 v 1 ?

 

 

[Gastofm]

28 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

Creo que si le estás diciendo a un jugador ancho que "se quede ancho", básicamente estás diciendo que no vayas adentro para recibir la pelota. mantente fuera y recíbelo allí.

Si quieres jugar pases cortos pero tienes jugadores anchos, tendrán que entrar un poco para recibir pases, necesitas que los jugadores estén más juntos.

Además, si quieres jugar con un ancho tan extremo, no estoy seguro de tener un tempo bajo es una buena idea. presumiblemente, quieres que la pelota avance y salga rápidamente, porque esa es la salida de ataque. ¿Estás tratando de preparar hombres anchos para correr contra los defensores 1 contra 1?

 

 

I'm trying to capture Guardiola's 4-3-3 taking advantage of the entire playing field, with "inverted wingbacks" and "inverted wingers" to create spaces both on the wing and in the center. Here I played a 4-2-3-1 because I didn't have the right players for 4-3-3, so I used a double pivot and instead of two reverse lanes, I put one in that role and a "Complete Wingback "

For example, I gave Bernardo Silva the individual task of trying to close (in a very high width ") to leave the lane for Joao Cancelo.

 The interesting thing is that the ends cut inwards, which generates a compact team in the center and in case of loss, "counter-press2

 But there are things that I still don't understand, for example, is it the same to tell "Bernardo Silva" to close in an "extremely wide" width instead of "wide", is it going to close more? And of course, I think that based on that Joao Cancelo is going to open based on the collective width, right?

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Gastofm

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Gastofm said:

and not plan to close

Sorry, but I don't understand what do you mean by "not plan to close"? To close whom?

[Gastofm]

6 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Lo siento, pero no entiendo ¿qué quieres decir con "no planeo cerrar"? ¿Para cerrar a quién?

I mean is that you are telling the player to try to stay open and not to be more closed so as not to waste the width of the field, because if he does not select any, the player will close if he wants.

 

But there is another doubt. If I ask a player to open or close, how much will he do? I don't think it's the same thing, telling a player in a "Standard" width to open, as opposed to a "narrow" width.

[Experienced Defender]

2 minutes ago, Gastofm said:

I mean is that you are telling the player to try to stay open and not to be more closed so as not to waste the width of the field, because if he does not select any, the player will close if he wants.

 

But there is another doubt. If I ask a player to open or close, how much will he do? I don't think it's the same thing, telling a player in a "Standard" width to open, as opposed to a "narrow" width.

I really don't understand your version of English, sorry. There is no instruction telling a player to "open" or "close" (except the "Close down", but that one has nothing to do with attacking width). 

[Gastofm]

11 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Realmente no entiendo tu versión de inglés, lo siento. No hay instrucciones que le digan a un jugador que "abra" o "cierre" (excepto el "Cierre", pero ese no tiene nada que ver con el ancho de ataque). 

Excuse me, I used the wrong terms.

I mean, for example, an "Winger" tasked with "Stay Wider" on an attack width "Wide", will it open the same as in a "Standard" or "Narrow" width? 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Gastofm

[warlock]

7 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

There is no instruction telling a player to "open" or "close"

Google Translate issue, I think. For 'open' and 'close' read 'wide(r)' or 'narrow(er)'.

[warlock]

3 minutes ago, Gastofm said:

I mean, for example, an "Winger" tasked with "Stay Wider" on an attack width "Wide", will it open the same as a "Standard" or "Narrow" width?

Wingers generally stay wide, that's their role. If you play on 'attacking' mentality, the whole team plays a little wider but obviously the winger can't play wider than the touchline. If you choose wide or much wider TI you'll open up the horizontal space between players but, again, the winger can't go wider.

If you choose narrow or very narrow width, the winger will generally come a little narrow to receive the ball but still run outside when he has it. And all of these things are 'generally', 'usually' true. They are not absolute instructions that players will follow to the letter.

[themadsheep2001]

6 minutes ago, Gastofm said:

Excuse me, I used the wrong terms.

I mean, for example, an "Winger" tasked with "Stay Wider" on an attack width "Wide", will it open the same as in a "Standard" or "Narrow" width? 

I get you.

If you play width wide, the winger will naturally play a bit wider as you have asked the whole team to spread apart, you can then ask him to stay that much wider still.

If you play narrower and you ask the winger to stay wider, your team will still stay compact, but he will still attempt to stay wider. 

In regards to your example of City, yes, you can replicate that by asking the team to play standard or fairly narrow, and then asking the wide player to stay wider. Bear in mind that when they need to, City have the ability to pass long passed from on side of the pitch to the other to pick out that wide player. So you probably want at least one player with the PPM switches ball to other flank  and/or slightly longer passing set in their instructions (whoever is playing the KDB role)

[themadsheep2001]

7 hours ago, Gastofm said:

I have a lot of doubts about the width in the attack because I don't know if the individual task of a specific player can change the collective width. For example, the attack width is "extremely high" and I frame a specific player as "sit narrower". Does it mean that all but that player will remain opened? And if instead, I individually mark one that "stay wider" is going to leave the field hahaha? I don't understand why those two options exist, if, for example, in the case of setbacks / flaps in the "stay wider" part, it says they will open up to the sideline (ie take advantage of the whole field). What is the point then of putting "extremely broad"?

https://totalfootballanalysis.com/analysis/premier-league-2019-20-leicester-city-v-manchester-city-tactical-analysis-tactics

This might interest you

[Gastofm]

3 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Te entiendo

Si juegas a lo ancho, el extremo naturalmente jugará un poco más, ya que le has pedido a todo el equipo que se separe, entonces puedes pedirle que se mantenga aún más ancho.

Si juegas más estrecho y le pides al extremo que se mantenga más ancho, tu equipo seguirá siendo compacto, pero aún intentará mantenerse más ancho. 

En lo que respecta a su ejemplo de Ciudad, sí, puede replicar eso pidiéndole al equipo que juegue estándar o bastante limitado, y luego pidiéndole al jugador ancho que se mantenga más amplio. Tenga en cuenta que cuando lo necesitan, la Ciudad tiene la capacidad de pasar de largo desde el lado del campo al otro para elegir a ese jugador ancho. Por lo tanto, es probable que desee que al menos un jugador con PPM cambie la pelota a otro flanco y / o un juego de pases un poco más largo en sus instrucciones (quien sea que esté desempeñando el papel KDB)

I watched.
I am playing in an "Extremely Wide" attacking width. Bernardo Silva has the specific task of "Sit Narrower", and Joao Cancelo of "Stay Wider" (he is a "Complete Wingback Support"