Rate my setup

[KCHDD]

Basically I'm not sure if this is going to work out, I did look at some long threads from guys like @Experienced Defender @Djuicer and have been trying to make a tactic I can use as a base for saves later in the future. I did have a short thread with a 4231 previously but I think 433 seems better suited for what I want to do.

So it basically goes like this:

GK -- SK(s)

RB -- WB(s) Stay wider, Cross aim near post

RCB -- CD(d)

LCB -- BPD(d)

LB -- WB(s) Stay wider, Cross aim near post

CDM -- DLP(s)

RCM -- MEZ(a)

LCM -- AP(s)

RW -- IW(s) Cross aim far post

LW -- IF(a) Cross aim far post

ST -- DLF(a)

Mentality: Positive

In Possession -- WBIB, Shorter Passing, Play out of Defence, Low Crosses, Fairly Narrow

In Transition -- Distribute to CBs and FBs, Counter, Counter-press

Out of Possession -- Higher DL, More Urgent Pressing, Prevent short GK Distribution, Offside Trap

 

Can anyone give me some feedback on whether the duties make sense? The main concerns I have are with the striker. I do want the striker to open up space for the wide forwards to get in the box and score which can be done with a DLF or F9 but I don't want to totally reduce him to a supporting role and still want to contribute with goals. I do already have the AP and MEZ behind for some of the creative load. I have seen some instances where AF can work in this formation. I have also read about how using too many in possession TIs could result in tactical overkill, are there any of those I should remove? Also, would it be better to remove counter-press and more urgent pressing and just set my forward players to press harder? Thanks.

 

 

[Experienced Defender]

I'll first have to sketch out your setup in a way I feel to be more convenient. So let's see what we have here:

DLFat

IFat                                         IWsu

APsu    MEZat

DLPsu

WBsu    BPDde  CDde    WBsu

SKsu

What I like:

- the setup of the front 3

- the setup of the right-hand side (half) - IWsu + MEZat + WBsu - provided your team is good enough (in both attacking and defensive terms)

- the setup of the left-hand side (half) - IFat + APsu + WBsu - again provided your team is good enough, because such setup can be risky for teams of average or lower quality and reputation

What I do not like:

- the use of 2 playmakers so close too each other (it can make sense in some kinds of tactic, but not in this one IMHO)

- defensively shaky central midfield - with an AP and a mezzala (especially on attack duty), your attack-minded fullbacks - because WB on support is an attack-minded role - will have insufficient defensive cover when they bomb forward, so you could be easily hit on the counter (especially via flanks, but potentially also through the middle, because neither CM role is defensive-minded enough). 

2 hours ago, KCHDD said:

Mentality: Positive

In Possession -- WBIB, Shorter Passing, Play out of Defence, Low Crosses, Fairly Narrow

Looks okay/decent, except for the narrower width (especially if you are a strong team that is likely to face defensive opposition most of the time). 

 

2 hours ago, KCHDD said:

In Transition -- Distribute to CBs and FBs, Counter, Counter-press

I don't think you need to tell the keeper to distribute specifically to FBs and CBs when you already use the Play out of defence TI (plus shorter passing).

The Counter can lead to needless and premature losses of possession (assuming you are a strong/top team playing mostly against weaker opponents). Remember that counter-attacks will occasionally happen (when there is a good opportunity) even without the counter team instruction. 

2 hours ago, KCHDD said:

Out of Possession -- Higher DL, More Urgent Pressing, Prevent short GK Distribution, Offside Trap

Overly/needlessly aggressive for my liking (I am specifically referring to the more urgent pressing and prevent short GKD TIs).

[KCHDD]

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

What I do not like:

- the use of 2 playmakers so close too each other (it can make sense in some kinds of tactic, but not in this one IMHO)

- defensively shaky central midfield - with an AP and a mezzala (especially on attack duty), your attack-minded fullbacks - because WB on support is an attack-minded role - will have insufficient defensive cover when they bomb forward, so you could be easily hit on the counter (especially via flanks, but potentially also through the middle, because neither CM role is defensive-minded enough). 

I was thinking of 2 solutions to the playmaker problem:

1. Change DLP(s) to DLP(d) or DM(d)

2. Change AP(s) to BBM

Changing the mezzala from attack to support duty is fine with me but my thinking behind the attack duty was to have at least one attack duty not within the front three. I was thinking about using this attack duty as FB(a) but I didn't want such a cross heavy role. Would just 2 attack duty isolate the front 3 from the rest of the team?

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

Overly/needlessly aggressive for my liking (I am specifically referring to the more urgent pressing and prevent short GKD TIs).

For this would I set the pressing to default and set up a split block? For the split block I'm thinking the front 3 plus the mezzala, is that a good idea? Also since too aggressive pressing might not be the best would I have to uncheck counter-press as well? That does pull my players out of shape sometimes.

[Experienced Defender]

56 minutes ago, KCHDD said:

For this would I set the pressing to default and set up a split block? For the split block I'm thinking the front 3 plus the mezzala, is that a good idea?

That's exactly what I would do. Which of course does not mean that you must follow my advice blindly. 

 

57 minutes ago, KCHDD said:

I was thinking of 2 solutions to the playmaker problem:

1. Change DLP(s) to DLP(d) or DM(d)

2. Change AP(s) to BBM

Changing the mezzala from attack to support duty is fine with me but my thinking behind the attack duty was to have at least one attack duty not within the front three. I was thinking about using this attack duty as FB(a) but I didn't want such a cross heavy role. Would just 2 attack duty isolate the front 3 from the rest of the team?

I would not change the mezzala's duty, but would make his CM partner more defensive-minded. Depending on the player, you can choose among DLP on support (provided you don't use a DLP in DM) or carrilero or BWM on support. These 3 roles would make most sense in terms of tactical balance considering the rest of your setup. So basically this:

DLPsu/BWM/su/CAR    MEZat

HB/A/DMde

Both fullbacks would remain WBs on support duty, and you can also consider the Overlap left team instruction (so as to encourage more dynamic interplay on that side by getting the fullback and wide forward closer together). 

[Djuicer]

ED answer is excellent, my only two cents to consider was to look over the GK distribution and the use of two playmakers. I would keep the one you can get closest to a Positive or balanced individual mentality for the possibility to create progressive possession football. 

 

EDIT: Do you really need to take away the freedom of aiming the crosses for the wing-players? As that could be getting the sucess ratio of crosses down? Also making you easier to predict?

Edited August 2, 2020 by Djuicer

[summatsupeer]

My preference in a 4141 DM Wide when you have two of the front 3 on attack is to make sure they have support from CM earlier which typically means no having a playmaker in that strata, due to playmakers moving towards the ball to collect it so even a AP-At could be quite deep during transitions.  As your reducing passing range I think this is extra important to make sure there's a link between the deep players and the forwards who are looking to attack quickly.  You can use a playmaker in a CM position, but then i'd expect my forwards to be more patient as to not isolate themselves and to vary there movement more, especially on higher mentalities.

Rather than a "specialist" role, i'd suggest changing the AP-Su to a CM-Su to keep his positioning higher to link to the IF-At and have the DM a holding role on defend.  This is probably still quite attack minded with two WB-Su but i'd see how it affects how your team plays before making further changes.

[Experienced Defender]

Actually, when I look at your team instructions, I think DLF on support duty (instead of attack) would make more sense.

[Fatkidscantjump]

Il y a 3 heures, summatsupeer a dit :

My preference in a 4141 DM Wide when you have two of the front 3 on attack is to make sure they have support from CM earlier which typically means no having a playmaker in that strata, due to playmakers moving towards the ball to collect it so even a AP-At could be quite deep during transitions.  As your reducing passing range I think this is extra important to make sure there's a link between the deep players and the forwards who are looking to attack quickly.  You can use a playmaker in a CM position, but then i'd expect my forwards to be more patient as to not isolate themselves and to vary there movement more, especially on higher mentalities.

Rather than a "specialist" role, i'd suggest changing the AP-Su to a CM-Su to keep his positioning higher to link to the IF-At and have the DM a holding role on defend.  This is probably still quite attack minded with two WB-Su but i'd see how it affects how your team plays before making further changes.

That's interesting, do you feel like playing a playmaker suited player (with playmaker traits such as Tries killer balls / Dicates tempo etc) as a CM-Su can link up the play better while still providing the creativity needed to sometimes break tough defenses ?

[KCHDD]

8 hours ago, Djuicer said:

EDIT: Do you really need to take away the freedom of aiming the crosses for the wing-players? As that could be getting the sucess ratio of crosses down? Also making you easier to predict?

My thinking was for the full backs to link up with the forwards at the near post while the inside forwards could assist each other with back post runs but I suppose freedom could allow for more unpredictability. The crossing hasn't been that good just like you said when I tested this out so will try this.

Edited August 3, 2020 by KCHDD

[KCHDD]

10 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Both fullbacks would remain WBs on support duty, and you can also consider the Overlap left team instruction (so as to encourage more dynamic interplay on that side by getting the fullback and wide forward closer together). 

Would using the overlap instruction create excessive unnatural overlaps at times? I tried a tactic with overlaps before and the ball always went to the overlapping full back in every single play.

 

10 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

I would not change the mezzala's duty, but would make his CM partner more defensive-minded. Depending on the player, you can choose among DLP on support (provided you don't use a DLP in DM) or carrilero or BWM on support. These 3 roles would make most sense in terms of tactical balance considering the rest of your setup. So basically this:

DLPsu/BWM/su/CAR    MEZat

HB/A/DMde

I would prefer to use a DLP in the CM spot from the roles that you have suggested. Considering that, which DM role would best suit? I know HB acts as a third CB during the buildup which could suit my attacking full backs but not sure what the exact differences are between A and DM.

Edited August 3, 2020 by KCHDD

[Justified]

I don't mind the narrow width so much as you've stretched your WB's to hug the line more. However I would maybe consider a CARsu instead of the AP. Seeing as the IFat cuts in, the WBsu stays wide then he'd fill in a bit in the halfspace and support attacks. You'd also make more space centrally for your DLPsu as both the CAR and MEZ would be wider.

This is all theoretical though, we don't know if your players can handle this type of system.

[summatsupeer]

8 hours ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

That's interesting, do you feel like playing a playmaker suited player (with playmaker traits such as Tries killer balls / Dicates tempo etc) as a CM-Su can link up the play better while still providing the creativity needed to sometimes break tough defenses ?

That can work well, the traits (or PI) will make them take risks but without the deep positioning of the playmaker role.  They won't be focused as much so might not get as many touches, especially if someone else is a playmaker near them but hopefully they're in a more dangerous position so the touches they do get are more effective considering how the rest of the tactic is setup.

[KCHDD]

I did some further searching and am still split on whether to use DM(d) or HB in the DM position. From what I've found anchor man tends to be kind of static which I don't really want which leaves me with these 2. I think the issue is whether I want the DM to drop deep in the buildup to give me a numerical advantage. Would this be beneficial to my setup as both my full backs are attack-minded, or should I stick with the regular DM role? If so, what PIs should I give him?

[herne79]

The best thing you can do is actually play the game and see for yourself if things work.  At the moment this is all theory, supposition and ideas.

For example look at your last post:

1 hour ago, KCHDD said:

I did some further searching and am still split on whether to use DM(d) or HB in the DM position. From what I've found anchor man tends to be kind of static which I don't really want which leaves me with these 2. I think the issue is whether I want the DM to drop deep in the buildup to give me a numerical advantage. Would this be beneficial to my setup as both my full backs are attack-minded, or should I stick with the regular DM role? If so, what PIs should I give him?

You've done some reading (good), decided what you think you need (also good) and then ask what you should do.  What you "should" do is try it and see if it works.  Understand that what may work for one system may not work for another, so see if it does work for your system (or not) and change things then if needed.

Also, don't confuse yourself at this stage with wondering what PIs etc to give.  See if your players broadly behave how you envisage before you go mucking about with the detail.  That's because 1) you may find they behave how you want them to anyway; and b) "instructions" (which aren't really instructions btw - they merely increase or decrease the tendency of players to do something) are really only for creating a certain style of play or addressing specific issues.  It's a very common mistake (we've all done it) to start throwing all kinds of "instructions" at your players because you think they sound what you want rather than because you see a specific need for them.

[Experienced Defender]

9 hours ago, KCHDD said:

Would using the overlap instruction create excessive unnatural overlaps at times? I tried a tactic with overlaps before and the ball always went to the overlapping full back in every single play

First try and see how it works. If you don't like what you observe, just remove the instruction (or use it just as an occasional tweak). 

 

9 hours ago, KCHDD said:

I would prefer to use a DLP in the CM spot from the roles that you have suggested. Considering that, which DM role would best suit? I know HB acts as a third CB during the buildup which could suit my attacking full backs

Given the rest of your setup, HB would be my preferred option as well (but only if the player has the right set of attributes). 

 

9 hours ago, KCHDD said:

but not sure what the exact differences are between A and DM

Anchor is the most defensive-minded and the least adventurous DM role. He is less aggressive in terms of pressing and tackling and most focused on protecting the back-line above everything else. 

[KCHDD]

Ok so from the feedback from you guys the updated setup currently looks like this:

DLFsu

IFat                                         IWsu

DLPsu    MEZat

HB

WBsu    BPDde  CDde    WBsu

SKsu

Positive Mentality

In Possession: WBIB, Shorter Passing, Play out of Defense, Low Crosses, Overlap Left

In Transition: Counter-press

Out of Possession: Higher Defensive Line, Offside Trap, Split Block (Front 3 + MEZ)

Does this look better than the initial one?

[KCHDD]

By the way I still can't shake the idea of a 4231 JUST in a situation where I have no specialist defensive midfielders in my team but hopefully be able to achieve similar things to what I'm doing right now.

DLFsu

IFat                     AMsu                    IWsu

DLPsu       CMde

WBsu    BPDde  CDde    WBsu

SKsu

I have only really changed the midfield three as I want to get a similar result from this setup. I do want to keep DLP as a primary creator. I chose the generic CM role as I can modify it to be more defensive rather than shoehorn a BWM in. As for AM I might set "roam from position" to imitate a mezzala's movement. What do you guys think about this? The TIs should be the same I guess.

[herne79]

1 hour ago, KCHDD said:

Positive Mentality

In Possession: WBIB, Shorter Passing, Play out of Defense, Low Crosses, Overlap Left

In Transition: Counter-press

Out of Possession: Higher Defensive Line, Offside Trap, Split Block (Front 3 + MEZ)

Does this look better than the initial one?

Why?

What have you noticed about how your team plays that makes you think you need to tell your attacking IF to hold the ball up and wait for the support duty wingback to overlap him?

What have you noticed about crosses that makes you want to restrict your players to low crosses?

What have you noticed about your defensive line that leads you to believe you need to push them higher?

And so on and so on.  As I said above:

3 hours ago, herne79 said:

Also, don't confuse yourself at this stage with wondering what PIs etc to give.  See if your players broadly behave how you envisage before you go mucking about with the detail.  That's because 1) you may find they behave how you want them to anyway; and b) "instructions" (which aren't really instructions btw - they merely increase or decrease the tendency of players to do something) are really only for creating a certain style of play or addressing specific issues.  It's a very common mistake (we've all done it) to start throwing all kinds of "instructions" at your players because you think they sound what you want rather than because you see a specific need for them.

 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, KCHDD said:

Ok so from the feedback from you guys the updated setup currently looks like this:

DLFsu

IFat                                         IWsu

DLPsu    MEZat

HB

WBsu    BPDde  CDde    WBsu

SKsu

Positive Mentality

In Possession: WBIB, Shorter Passing, Play out of Defense, Low Crosses, Overlap Left

In Transition: Counter-press

Out of Possession: Higher Defensive Line, Offside Trap, Split Block (Front 3 + MEZ)

Does this look better than the initial one?

For me personally, it does. Although I don't know your players, so my comment can pertain solely to the tactic itself.