Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What Im trying to create is a system where I'm not pressing high up the pitch, I'm almost letting opponents have it in "safe areas" ie centre backs.

But when it gets further up the pitch we win the ball in midfield and either counter or  keep hold of it until we make an incisive through ball for a raumdeuter or poacher/AF, so I need space to pass into.

I'm just struggling a little to do it.

I understand the following applies:

  1. Counter Press aims to win the ball back as soon as its lost.
  2. Regroup aims to retreat back into shape when the ball is lost.
  3. Pressing intensity only applies after the ball passes the LOE.

So, it has brought up a few questions:

  1.  If you have a very high LOE then pressing intensity comes into play as soon as the ball is lost, so does it increase the counter press aggressiveness?
  2. If you have a lower LOE and regroup then your players may be retreating back into position for quite a distance? 
  3. If I apply my press incorrectly I'm going to be easy to play around, but how do the instructions work together?

For me, in my head it would seems a little overkill to have a much higher LOE combined with counter press and overly aggressive pressing. You don't need both counter press AND more urgent pressing as your team will be doing it with either one selected due to your LOE, does this make sense?

In turn this raises more questions:

  • If I use a standard LOE, with regroup and high(er) than standard pressing intensity will it not leave my open to a quick pass between my lines as I regroup, but before I press?
  • If I use a standard LOE, with regroup and low(er) than standard pressing intensity, then as well as the above being possible as I regroup, I'll also be allowing the opposition the majority of possession? Which in turn could lead the opposition into being able to do to me exactly what I want to do to them.

I'm just not really seeing an effective way of creating a stable mid block, other than heavy pressing/counter pressing, which I'm not sure will leave the space I need to try and get some nice through passing?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, daveb653 said:

If you have a very high LOE then pressing intensity comes into play as soon as the ball is lost, so does it increase the counter press aggressiveness?

No, because the counter-press is a different type of instruction. It's a defensive transitional TI, whereas DL, LOE and pressing urgency are out-of-possession TIs. However, they are all affected by your team mentality. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Experienced Defender I nearly Pm'd you with his question as I didn't think it worthy of its own post initially, but then I got writing and thought it was a bit long so decided to post it instead :p 

So how would a regroup instruction work with a much higher LOE and aggressive pressing then? Your kind of asking the players to regroup and press?

My plan is to use a standard LOE and Higher def Line to compress play, I'm worried that standard or less pressing will allow time for teams to pick passes through our back line, whilst to aggressive pressing will be easy to play around? (hence i'm considering regroup for it).

 

How would you set up a mid block?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, daveb653 said:

So how would a regroup instruction work with a much higher LOE and aggressive pressing then? Your kind of asking the players to regroup and press?

When you tell players to regroup, it means they should get back into their defensive shape when they lose possession and then defend from there according to regular defensive instructions. Counter-press is the opposite of regroup - all players except for defenders are instructed to immediate apply pressure on the opposition to try and win possession back as quickly as possible (ideally immediately). However, asking players to do something does not guarantee that they will succeed in achieving that. 

The LOE setting defines how high (or deep) up the pitch you want your players to start pressing the opposition when they are in possession and organizing an attack. 

Pressing urgency - as the name says - determines how aggressively (or passively) your players should close down an opposition player who has the ball when he enters their respective area of defensive responsibility (pressing is ball-oriented as well as tackling, whereas marking is player-oriented). 

But all these instructions are directly affected by the mentality. More urgent pressing under a higher mentality is more aggressive than more urgent pressing under a lower mentality, even if they are nominally displayed as being "identical" in the tactical creator. 

4 hours ago, daveb653 said:

How would you set up a mid block?

Standard LOE coupled with either standard or higher/much higher DL. But that's just one part of defending. Therefore, setting up a mid (or any) block does not guarantee successful defending on its own. If you don't set up everything right, you are going to struggle regardless of what type of defensive block you play with (low, medium or high).

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

When you tell players to regroup, it means they should get back into their defensive shape when they lose possession and then defend from there according to regular defensive instructions. Counter-press is the opposite of regroup - all players except for defenders are instructed to immediate apply pressure on the opposition to try and win possession back as quickly as possible (ideally immediately). However, asking players to do something does not guarantee that they will succeed in achieving that. 

The LOE setting defines how high (or deep) up the pitch you want your players to start pressing the opposition when they are in possession and organizing an attack. 

Pressing urgency - as the name says - determines how aggressively (or passively) your players should close down an opposition player who has the ball when he enters their respective area of defensive responsibility (pressing is ball-oriented as well as tackling, whereas marking is player-oriented). 

But all these instructions are directly affected by the mentality. More urgent pressing under a higher mentality is more aggressive than more urgent pressing under a lower mentality, even if they are nominally displayed as being "identical" in the tactical creator. 

Standard LOE coupled with either standard or higher/much higher DL. But that's just one part of defending. Therefore, setting up a mid (or any) block does not guarantee successful defending on its own. If you don't set up everything right, you are going to struggle regardless of what type of defensive block you play with (low, medium or high).

So I will be playing on a Positive mentality (maybe standard for champions league, but one step at a time hehe). Any thing lower just seems to play a little lethargic for me, plus Im the best team in my league so I think all but 2-3 teams will sit back.

If I set a mid block with standard LOE but higher Def line, add urgent pressing and regroup. This should cause my players to retreat into defensive shape upon losing the ball, then when the ball passes the LOE we hassle and harry them to win it back? Im just worried that by using regroup here I'll be leaving the opposition defenders time to pick a pass over the top, whereas counter press would stop this but leave me out of shape for my heavy mid press?

 

Does that make sense?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@etoxiuqnod In order to get your question answered, you need to start a separate thread, where your tactic or tactical issues will be discussed exclusively. That's why I had to remove your comment from this topic. Please start your own thread and you'll get some advice there :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, daveb653 said:

Im the best team in my league so I think all but 2-3 teams will sit back.

If I set a mid block with standard LOE but higher Def line, add urgent pressing and regroup.

If you are the best team in your league, I guess counter-press would definitely make more sense than regroup (although you don't have to use either). 

 

4 hours ago, daveb653 said:

This should cause my players to retreat into defensive shape upon losing the ball, then when the ball passes the LOE we hassle and harry them to win it back? Im just worried that by using regroup here I'll be leaving the opposition defenders time to pick a pass over the top, whereas counter press would stop this but leave me out of shape for my heavy mid press?

 

Does that make sense?

Sorry, but at this point I would really need to see your tactic (screenshot) as a whole before being able to offer any meaningful answer or advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

If you are the best team in your league, I guess counter-press would definitely make more sense than regroup (although you don't have to use either). 

 

Sorry, but at this point I would really need to see your tactic (screenshot) as a whole before being able to offer any meaningful answer or advice.

I haven't settled on a formation yet, my squad is probably suited to 4-1-2-2-1 formation, or maybe a 5-2-2-1 (with wide players). I could even do a 5-3-2 or 4-2-3-1 at a push although my midfielders are creators rather than holders I feel.

I'm playing as Ajax who I have never managed before, minimal signings as yet, just a couple of younger players.

I'm open to all suggestions but I do like have a DM I've been using anchorman last few tactics, I like the way he prevents counters and doesn't do anything too flashy he's just there, ALL THE TIME, churning out possession passes and curtailing counters, an extremely undervalued role in my opinion.

I also like to try and squeeze an exotic role into my formation, just to keep each save interesting and different, I've done Regista and SV (both with limited success) and this time I'd like to try Raumdeuter. 

20200627165124_1.thumb.jpg.78846d7c47a1c9135157d8d33d10669f.jpg

 

Is my first attempt, I do have another one with 2 CM(s) and right fullback on FB(A) but it wont screenshot for some reason, only added a pass shorter TI as I didnt have a dedicated playmaker so defenders tended to clear it long all the time.

 

If needs be I can say why I chose the roles, see if it helps me undertsand the game better and also it might help people to see what I'm trying to acheive?

Edited by daveb653
last sentence added
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be fair to say that if someone was looking to build a DIRECT passing system, that counter pressing would be essential to this, as a lot of the forward passes are low percentage passes.

So is it logical you would want your players to be trying to aggressively win the second ball if cleared by the opposition defence, or if they recover possession?

 

Also at what point do players STOP counter pressing? how much possession does an opponent have before your own team will get back into a good defensive shape?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes to both, I am testing it currently. Any help and advice would be much appreciated.

Currently thinking of a couple of changes:

  1. The mezz has hardly been in the game at all, so thinking of swapping this to a carr/bwm/cm.
  2. Still unsure of the fullback roles.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, daveb653 said:

Currently thinking of a couple of changes:

  1. The mezz has hardly been in the game at all, so thinking of swapping this to a carr/bwm/cm.
  2. Still unsure of the fullback roles

Well, given that you want to use a RMD, there are actually 3 types of changes I would make to your setup of roles and duties. Two of those do affect the mezzala and fullbacks, whereas the third one is about the striker.

Would you like to know what these tweaks would look like and why? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please, I'm keen to understand better how the roles interact together and why you (and other people) make certain changes.

Also any instructional changes you would make and why if you could, more importantly why you wouldn't use certain ones.

I tend to have an idea of what I want from each tactic I try and create, I just seem to struggle to get it to translate to FM or see it through as I get frustrated and not being able to progress in its evolution.

Some notes about what I've seen so far: My defenders seem to be making alot of individual errors, I appreciate this is more than likely down to the actual players themselves, but I've already conceeded 2 goals (2 games) to individual errors. I'm unsure why these could be happening, as in the player is in a position to make these errors, he basically got pick pocketed twice as the last man. Just individual errors or another reason? He seemed to have at least 2 passing options (plus the ball back to the keeper) but turned and dwelled on the ball uni\til he got caught. So i'm wondering if Ive asked him to do something thats hard to execute for him or just coincidence it was 2 games in a row.

I'm not expecting you to fix that btw just an observation more for myself to keep an eye on :lol: 

 

Edit:

I should also state that whilst I'd like the raumdeuter to stay, the idea is to make 2 people responsible for scoring goals, with one coming from deeper or wider, so I guess for the sake of balance if needs be a SS could be used, or even a free scoring midfielder, just no IF please. :) 

 

Formations I have considered so far or discounted:

5/3 at the back is a no, I don't feel my defenders are good enough, plus quality cover is limited.

4141: genuine option as I think it would alleviate the pressure on my pretty slow defence? would mean losing the Raumdeuter, so who would be my "second scorer"?

4411: genuine option, Would give my an option for my second scorer easily, but would I sacrifice my defensive cover to much?

4411(2DM): Thought about this, but what would be the advantage of this over a 4231DM?

442: Considered it, but felt with me being a top team, alot of opposition will sit deep and pack there own final third which I don't feel 442 would break down easily?

4231: Considered this as a 2 DM version but I know its very difficult to balance, however would give me the options I need with defensive cover, plus means I could make my second scorer in AM slot, probably my prefered formation but I'm worried about struggling with balance even more. 

4123: I chose this as it seems to tick the most boxes, good depth to break down/recycle possession against defensive sides, can still give protection to my defenders and can still include a second scorer.

I did also consider doing a 4141 but pushing the Left mid into AML slot but I just dont like looking at non symmetrical tactics and didnt really see much benefit from the Right Mid being deeper?

Edited by daveb653
added formations.
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, daveb653 said:

Yes please, I'm keen to understand better how the roles interact together and why you (and other people) make certain changes

Okay, so this is what your setup could look like with as few tweaks as possible:

F9

RMD                               IWsu

APsu   MEZat

Ade

WBsu    CD  CD/BPD  (I)WBsu

SKsu

The change of the lone striker's role is directly associated with the use of a RMD. When you use a RMD - who is essentially a "wide poacher" -  you need a striker role that creates space for the RMD to attack, rather than competing for or attacking basically same areas of space. Here I opted for the F9 because I think the role perfectly suits Tadic. But - depending on the player - roles such as TQ and DLF can also be a good choice. TM and PF are also okay as long as they are not on attack duty. I hope you understand the logic behind this.

In the central midfield, I haven't changed any roles, but just swapped their sides and switched the mezzala's duty to attack, so that he would attack the box from a different area and in a different way compared to the RMD, thus giving opposition defenses more to think about. On top of that, the interaction between an attacking mezzala and supporting IW or IF can produce some nice attacking dynamics and also help create an overload on that side. The fullback behind them can be either a WB or IWB on support duty - again, depending on the player and what you want to achieve. Both roles can help recycle possession in the midfield. If you want more width on that flank, go with the WB. If you want someone to occupy space behind the mezzala and more directly interact with the AP during attacking build-ups, then the IWB can do a nice job. Keep in mind however that IWB is a more demanding role than standard WB or FB.

The reason I changed the left fullback into WB on support is both to add more attacking width on that flank given the RMD up front and more decisively help the AP as a wide passing option. 

6 hours ago, daveb653 said:

Also any instructional changes you would make and why

Given that you are the strongest team in your league, I would definitely avoid focusing play through the middle because most of the opposition are likely to play very defensively against you. Therefore, there is no point in attacking them through the very area they will look to congest the most. You don't want to limit your players' attacking options, do you? 

Other instructional changes I would make are also associated with the above. For example, Counter and Pass into space are more likely to lead to needless losses of possession than anything tangible, given that the opposition is not likely to allow you enough space for these to be effective (instead, you can apply these TIs situationally as in-match tweaks if/when you notice that the opponent has become more attack-minded so that you could take advantage of that suddenly created extra space)

Question: did you opt for the Stay on feet TI as a way to sort of try and offset the potential risk of more urgent pressing or for some other reason(s)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Okay, so this is what your setup could look like with as few tweaks as possible:

F9

RMD                               IWsu

APsu   MEZat

Ade

WBsu    CD  CD/BPD  (I)WBsu

SKsu

The change of the lone striker's role is directly associated with the use of a RMD. When you use a RMD - who is essentially a "wide poacher" -  you need a striker role that creates space for the RMD to attack, rather than competing for or attacking basically same areas of space. Here I opted for the F9 because I think the role perfectly suits Tadic. But - depending on the player - roles such as TQ and DLF can also be a good choice. TM and PF are also okay as long as they are not on attack duty. I hope you understand the logic behind this.

In the central midfield, I haven't changed any roles, but just swapped their sides and switched the mezzala's duty to attack, so that he would attack the box from a different area and in a different way compared to the RMD, thus giving opposition defenses more to think about. On top of that, the interaction between an attacking mezzala and supporting IW or IF can produce some nice attacking dynamics and also help create an overload on that side. The fullback behind them can be either a WB or IWB on support duty - again, depending on the player and what you want to achieve. Both roles can help recycle possession in the midfield. If you want more width on that flank, go with the WB. If you want someone to occupy space behind the mezzala and more directly interact with the AP during attacking build-ups, then the IWB can do a nice job. Keep in mind however that IWB is a more demanding role than standard WB or FB.

The reason I changed the left fullback into WB on support is both to add more attacking width on that flank given the RMD up front and more decisively help the AP as a wide passing option. 

Given that you are the strongest team in your league, I would definitely avoid focusing play through the middle because most of the opposition are likely to play very defensively against you. Therefore, there is no point in attacking them through the very area they will look to congest the most. You don't want to limit your players' attacking options, do you? 

Other instructional changes I would make are also associated with the above. For example, Counter and Pass into space are more likely to lead to needless losses of possession than anything tangible, given that the opposition is not likely to allow you enough space for these to be effective (instead, you can apply these TIs situationally as in-match tweaks if/when you notice that the opponent has become more attack-minded so that you could take advantage of that suddenly created extra space)

Question: did you opt for the Stay on feet TI as a way to sort of try and offset the potential risk of more urgent pressing or for some other reason(s)?

Thanks @Experienced Defender it all makes perfect sense, the reason I had the Mezz on the left initially was to account for the fact that the Raumdeuter would be far narrower and further forward so thought the Mezz may have more space to work in there, but the switch makes sense and actually suits my players side preferencse a little better.

The stay on feet is just there because I seemed to be giving alot of fouls away and also to try and encourage players to intercept passes rather than diving into tackles. In hindsight could this have anything to do with my players (especially fullbacks) being beaten easily in wide areas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest how would you set up a 4-4-1-1 (2 Dms) or a 4-2-3-1 DM system? obviously in the 4411 I would have to forego the Raumdeuter, but a shadow striker would be a better bet as a second scorer anyway wouldn't he?

My last attempt at a 4-2-3-1 didn't end to well, hence the question, before trying the raumdeuter (which I'm still undecided on) my 2 favorite roles in FM were SV and SS, so could we get both those (plus my beloved anchorman) effectively into both these formations? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, daveb653 said:

The stay on feet is just there because I seemed to be giving alot of fouls away and also to try and encourage players to intercept passes rather than diving into tackles. In hindsight could this have anything to do with my players (especially fullbacks) being beaten easily in wide areas?

Hard to tell, because I never use either stay on feet or an increased pressing urgency when playing under a higher team mentality (positive or above), so I really don't have any experience with such a combination of defensive TIs. Instead, I prefer the split block. On paper, it could make some sense. But how it actually works - that at least in part has to depend on your players' characteristics. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, daveb653 said:

@Experienced Defender I hardly see any set ups that don't use increased pressing urgency, mind if i ask how you normally do it?

I don't know which particular setups are you referring to? 

If you watch Rashidi's videos, you'll notice that he almost never uses any team pressing other than default. And he is one of the best tacticians and most successful FM players overall. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Experienced Defender Yeah guess so, although to be honest I try not to look too much at other peoples as I just tend to copy them and not actually learn anything :lol:

If you don't mind would you help me pick some roles or suggest alterations for a couple of formations? I can PM if you like? I'm hoping to make 2 very similar systems with minimal changes, just one is more conservative than the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

image.thumb.png.87685d9c6622cf0955c51a98439eec36.png

 

I think a great point highlighted in this thread is that some instructions relate to the "Transition to Defend"  phase while others relate to the "Defending" phase.  "Transition to Defend" is the moment when your team loses the ball and your team is adjusting its mindset from Attack to Defend.  "Defending" is considered after that transition moment has passed and both teams have adjusted to their new situation.

How instructions relate to these different phases is somewhat made clear in how team tactics are divided among three sections. 

It is interesting there isn't a division between "Transition to Attack" and "Transition to Defend" tactical sections.

Coming back to the original point about clarifying the Counter Pressing Transition to Defend phase TI vs. pressing-related  Defending phase TIs/PIs, I've often wondered for how long the transition TI stays in effect.  For example, how long does the team try to apply the counter pressing TI after they lose the ball before players switch over to the Defending phase TIs.

For example, if I had counter pressing enabled, but a much lower line of engagement and less urgent pressing TIs / PIs, my assumption is that upon losing the ball, my team would initially try to press aggressively but at some point, they'd stop and instead retreat to the LoE where they applied pressing only when an opponent with the ball got very close.

How long exactly that period is I don't quite know.

---

A team that regroups as their transition instruction won't immediately press when they lose the ball.  If the team plans to play with a high LOE and aggressive pressing, than it would be a bit strange to not counter press unless you are worried about not covering zones properly before you start pressing.

I think it would be quite normal to regroup if one had a lower LoE and lower defensive line even if you planned to aggressively press once your opponent crossed that lower line.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Columnarius said:

image.thumb.png.87685d9c6622cf0955c51a98439eec36.png

 

I think a great point highlighted in this thread is that some instructions relate to the "Transition to Defend"  phase while others relate to the "Defending" phase.  "Transition to Defend" is the moment when your team loses the ball and your team is adjusting its mindset from Attack to Defend.  "Defending" is considered after that transition moment has passed and both teams have adjusted to their new situation.

How instructions relate to these different phases is somewhat made clear in how team tactics are divided among three sections. 

It is interesting there isn't a division between "Transition to Attack" and "Transition to Defend" tactical sections.

Coming back to the original point about clarifying the Counter Pressing Transition to Defend phase TI vs. pressing-related  Defending phase TIs/PIs, I've often wondered for how long the transition TI stays in effect.  For example, how long does the team try to apply the counter pressing TI after they lose the ball before players switch over to the Defending phase TIs.

For example, if I had counter pressing enabled, but a much lower line of engagement and less urgent pressing TIs / PIs, my assumption is that upon losing the ball, my team would initially try to press aggressively but at some point, they'd stop and instead retreat to the LoE where they applied pressing only when an opponent with the ball got very close.

How long exactly that period is I don't quite know.

---

A team that regroups as their transition instruction won't immediately press when they lose the ball.  If the team plans to play with a high LOE and aggressive pressing, than it would be a bit strange to not counter press unless you are worried about not covering zones properly before you start pressing.

I think it would be quite normal to regroup if one had a lower LoE and lower defensive line even if you planned to aggressively press once your opponent crossed that lower line.

Great post @Columnarius, I actually really like the way the instructions are broken up in game, but as you say its the unknowns that I struggle with. How long will I press before dropping into shape? Or more importantly if I do x and y will z happen?

 

I've actually thought of any other query, if you for example choose to regroup and a pressing intensity that matches your team mentality I.e you don't move the slider, BUT you then ask your front 2,3 or 4 front players to close more aggressively will this split block override the regroup?

 

After writing this I'm not so sure as its pressing related rather than counter-press, however my biggest fear using regroup is it gives the true world class players long enough to find that pass over the top that seems to be dangerous this year.

I think I'm going to experiment and try not using anything in transition and leave pressing as default, see how we behave, then change transition first and adjust pressing after.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, daveb653 said:

If you don't mind would you help me pick some roles or suggest alterations for a couple of formations? 

No problem. Post the setups as you envision them and I'll tell you what (if anything) I would change and why :thup: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, daveb653 said:

I've actually thought of any other query, if you for example choose to regroup and a pressing intensity that matches your team mentality I.e you don't move the slider, BUT you then ask your front 2,3 or 4 front players to close more aggressively will this split block override the regroup?

No, it will not override the regroup. Players will first look to regroup upon losing the ball according to the defensive transitional instruction and then will look to apply out-of-possession TIs and defensive PIs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

No problem. Post the setups as you envision them and I'll tell you what (if anything) I would change and why :thup: 

Thanks so much, I'll take a couple of screenshots and pm shortly.

3 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

No, it will not override the regroup. Players will first look to regroup upon losing the ball according to the defensive transitional instruction and then will look to apply out-of-possession TIs and defensive PIs. 

So would this work fairly well if you want to setup a team to be hard to break down/play through? Assuming roles and other instructions are adequate of course :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - potentially.

 

Here is Athletico Madrid, playing a low Line of Engagement, Narrow Defensive Width, a Low Defensive Line, and somewhat urgent closing down (but very conservative tackling).

Even though they regroup when they lose the ball, they don't give up passes over the top because the team regroups deep enough to dissuade their opponent from playing a long ball quickly.

Because of the low Line of Engagement, they force teams to try to move the ball up the field slowly.  The only reason this is successful is because of how they cut off passing lanes.  If you sat back but left passing lanes wide open, then a technically talented and patient team that was playing with shorter passing would pick you apart.  But if you can compress the space, deny passing lanes, and aggressively close down within the small block of space you are defending (vertically and horizontally), than as you say, you make yourself hard to break down and play through.

So that said, if you setup a tactic with regroup, consider where you want that LoE to kick in and just how aggressive you want closing down on your players (especially your first line of defense that your attackers represent).  The more aggressive the pressing instructions (either due to the TIs or PIs), the sooner the pressing will trigger AFTER they've regrouped relative to the LoE.

Edited by Columnarius
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...