Jump to content

Help with 4-3-3 with no wingers


Recommended Posts

So, hi guys.

In another topic, @Experienced Defender told me to create another topic, so here it is.

imagem.thumb.png.b9a2c503dfd390bfa24134a962914e20.png

First of all, there is my tactic, a 3-4-1-2 inspired by Gasperini.

Where I'm having difficulties is against 4-3-3 with no wingers.

For reference, the heat map is something like this.

imagem.thumb.png.eda66905c3976a6f4a4cd0da611cd263.png


Every time I face a team like this I just lose, doesn't matter the opposing team quality, they'll just create chances like if it's nothing, and it is costing me a lot of points, because I face a few teams that play like this, a few times per year (I would say 5/6 in a 40 games season).

So, I would like help to fight them and have the upper hand.

 

Edited by josel15
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right away I can see there's something wrong with your midfield. Primarily lack of variety, creativity and penetration. Why are you using two exact roles? And why have you set your midfield so conservatively when you are playing with 3 defenders. I don't think that's exactly how Gasperini is playing. He has one of the most dynamic midfields in Series A.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On first blush, that heat map sure looks to be expected based on your tactic:

- positive - high line - counter/counter press - down the wings - those wing backs go up to make an attacking five.

 Then you have a muddle of 5 defensive players waiting behind largely in the centre; even if you think you might get coverage on the flanks via the CARs.

It's hard to make a suggestion that doesn't sound like an identikit rehash of all the rest, but one of those WBs on D to at least maintain what is effectively a back 4 and get some cover down one of the flanks at least and not doubling up on the CARs in MF seem the easiest and most obvious two things to try. For instance LWB D and R MF to something more dynamic - BBM/CM(s)/DLP(s)/Mez/RPM... basically anything not a CAR and that will be an attacking threat to some degree. Just to see if that affects any change. You want to baby-step and understand what's happening, as opposed to changing 5 things at once and not knowing what's doing what.

Of course you could also change some of your tactics/make a whole new one, but sometimes just roles (and/or the players in them) can have an observable impact.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, josel15 said:

Where I'm having difficulties is against 4-3-3 with no wingers

I cannot tell how to solve a problem you have against a particular formation (such as the narrow flat 433 in this case), because my tactics are never based on an opposition formation but strengths and weaknesses of my players. Which means that I might slightly tweak my basic tactic when facing a really strong opponent, but not in relation to their formation.

Therefore, I can only tell you what IMHO is potentially problematic in your tactic as such, regardless of the opposition formation:

1. Your setup of roles and duties suits a counter-attacking style of play, which is very much inconsistent with your aggressive out-of-possession instructions looking to win possession high up the pitch

2. This counter-attacking setup is also inconsistent with your possession-friendly in-possession instruction (short passing and play out of defence)

3. These possession-friendly instructions and wide attacking width do not look as the most logical combination

4. Focusing play through the flanks also does not make much sense relative to the rest of instructions

Btw, your lateral CBs are on stopper duty, whereas the central one is on defend. I think the opposite would make more sense, so that the stopper would sort of compensate for the absent DM. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

I cannot tell how to solve a problem you have against a particular formation (such as the narrow flat 433 in this case), because my tactics are never based on an opposition formation but strengths and weaknesses of my players. Which means that I might slightly tweak my basic tactic when facing a really strong opponent, but not in relation to their formation.

Therefore, I can only tell you what IMHO is potentially problematic in your tactic as such, regardless of the opposition formation:

1. Your setup of roles and duties suits a counter-attacking style of play, which is very much inconsistent with your aggressive out-of-possession instructions looking to win possession high up the pitch

2. This counter-attacking setup is also inconsistent with your possession-friendly in-possession instruction (short passing and play out of defence)

3. These possession-friendly instructions and wide attacking width do not look as the most logical combination

4. Focusing play through the flanks also does not make much sense relative to the rest of instructions

Btw, your lateral CBs are on stopper duty, whereas the central one is on defend. I think the opposite would make more sense, so that the stopper would sort of compensate for the absent DM. 

All of this. I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to achieve with your tactic, but it doesn't seem very representative of how Gasperini's Atalanta play. 

433 narrow (or whatever FM calls it) is extremely weak defensively, but dangerous on the counter. It's vulnerable to overloads, between its backline and middle three, and in the channels. You're using one of the best formations to face it, but it's almost as if your tactics are setup to be counterproductive against it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, XuluBak said:

All of this. I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to achieve with your tactic, but it doesn't seem very representative of how Gasperini's Atalanta play. 

433 narrow (or whatever FM calls it) is extremely weak defensively, but dangerous on the counter. It's vulnerable to overloads, between its backline and middle three, and in the channels. You're using one of the best formations to face it, but it's almost as if your tactics are setup to be counterproductive against it. 

This +

Like for example what's your logic for using that particular selection of roles and duties for your back 3?

Using 2 BPDs are almost always one two many. Even if you have a world class team. Also why would you tell two of them to act as stoppers? Such needlessly risky setup makes no sense to me.

Edited by crusadertsar
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, dazza11 said:

Could you provide more info on how they are beating you? Is it because you can’t score against them or is it Cos they score freely against you? 

They just seem to get all the time in a 1v1 against my central defenders and the wing backs lose all the interest in defending, all the time. If a ball goes to the far post neither the central defender or the wing back tries to stop hi, which leads to a goal.

20 hours ago, crusadertsar said:

Right away I can see there's something wrong with your midfield. Primarily lack of variety, creativity and penetration. Why are you using two exact roles? And why have you set your midfield so conservatively when you are playing with 3 defenders. I don't think that's exactly how Gasperini is playing. He has one of the most dynamic midfields in Series A.

I use two carrilleros, first to shut down the wide areas on defence, and the left carrillero has get further forward instruction to be more ofensive while the right one just sits in his place and it is more defensive

1 hour ago, Djuicer said:

@SixPointer has done some amazing work regarding Gasperinis Atalanta. Check it out for insipration!

 

 

 

50 minutes ago, crusadertsar said:

I second this! An amazing thread. Not just usufull for Gasperini recreators but also anybody trying to develop a narrow attacking tactic.

I based some stuff on that thread @Djuicer and @crusadertsar

But one thing, firstly you said that using two stoppers and two BPD makes no sense and then recommend me a thread with two stoppers and two BPD? 

Anyway, I feel like I need to change the central defender roles aswell, and that's something I'll do.

 

I'll answer the remaining posts tomorrow cause I won't get to a computer for the rest of the day

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with using two BPDs or having your outside CBs on "stopper" in a back three; however, I think you have to consider your tactics and opposition. If you're going against a 433/4231, then having your central CB man mark the striker, with your flanking CBs as stoppers makes sense. Against two striker setups, it makes more sense to have your wide CBs set to defend and man mark the strikers, with your central CB either as cover/stopper, depending on tactics and opposition. Against three, you either gotta man-mark across the board or be more conservative. Personally, with a higher line, I like to have the outside CBs on defend with the central CB on cover or as a Libero. Of course, I sometimes change that up against a formidable central striker. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, XuluBak said:

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with using two BPDs or having your outside CBs on "stopper" in a back three; however, I think you have to consider your tactics and opposition. If you're going against a 433/4231, then having your central CB man mark the striker, with your flanking CBs as stoppers makes sense. Against two striker setups, it makes more sense to have your wide CBs set to defend and man mark the strikers, with your central CB either as cover/stopper, depending on tactics and opposition. Against three, you either gotta man-mark across the board or be more conservative. Personally, with a higher line, I like to have the outside CBs on defend with the central CB on cover or as a Libero. Of course, I sometimes change that up against a formidable central striker. 

Yes, because the tactic in which I based my tactic, the one that @Djuicer and @crusadertsar where commenting on, had two BPD on stopper aswell.

I think that approach against different number of opposing strikers will work well, I will try it! :)

On 13/08/2020 at 18:12, Experienced Defender said:

I cannot tell how to solve a problem you have against a particular formation (such as the narrow flat 433 in this case), because my tactics are never based on an opposition formation but strengths and weaknesses of my players. Which means that I might slightly tweak my basic tactic when facing a really strong opponent, but not in relation to their formation.

Therefore, I can only tell you what IMHO is potentially problematic in your tactic as such, regardless of the opposition formation:

1. Your setup of roles and duties suits a counter-attacking style of play, which is very much inconsistent with your aggressive out-of-possession instructions looking to win possession high up the pitch

2. This counter-attacking setup is also inconsistent with your possession-friendly in-possession instruction (short passing and play out of defence)

3. These possession-friendly instructions and wide attacking width do not look as the most logical combination

4. Focusing play through the flanks also does not make much sense relative to the rest of instructions

Btw, your lateral CBs are on stopper duty, whereas the central one is on defend. I think the opposite would make more sense, so that the stopper would sort of compensate for the absent DM. 

@Experienced Defender, I actually created this tactic (and then went to see what @SixPointer did on his Gasperini tactic) because of a lack of wingers and my wing backs and central mids being the best players on the team!
My forwards aren't the best, neither my defenders are, so I went for something that would be heavy on midfielders. (the three defenders is just because I rather lose on the wings that on central defence)

Regarding the roles and duties, I agree. Usually my goals come more from a counter attacking situation then a pacient possession.

The rest of what you said, I'll mention again the topic that SixPointer created and Djuicer and crusaderstar were commenting on, from what I've seen from Gasperini's Atalanta and the lot of recreations of hist tactics I've seen all over the internet, I think wide + focus play through the wings are musts!

Of course I'll accpet suggestions, tho!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, I don't think Gasperini/Atalanta's tactic is one that's easy, or really even possible, to replicate in the context of FM's match engine. That is partly due to limitations in deploying a back three (can't really mimic Sheffield United either), partly a limitation of fluid positions on the field (certain elements of what Liverpool does are hard to implement for the same reason), and partly Papu Gomez. Sometimes he's a trequartista, somtimes he's a regista, and sometimes I swear Gasperini just tells him to go have fun. Sometimes it's a 3412, sometimes it's a 3421, and sometimes Gasperini pulls a CB for a striker to defend a lead. At that point, I guess they're playing a 22222. :p

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, XuluBak said:

To be fair, I don't think Gasperini/Atalanta's tactic is one that's easy, or really even possible, to replicate in the context of FM's match engine. That is partly due to limitations in deploying a back three (can't really mimic Sheffield United either), partly a limitation of fluid positions on the field (certain elements of what Liverpool does are hard to implement for the same reason), and partly Papu Gomez. Sometimes he's a trequartista, somtimes he's a regista, and sometimes I swear Gasperini just tells him to go have fun. Sometimes it's a 3412, sometimes it's a 3421, and sometimes Gasperini pulls a CB for a striker to defend a lead. At that point, I guess they're playing a 22222. :p

 

I know all that and that Atalanta are really hard to replicate. Mainly as SixPointer said, the movemente of the half CD/half fullback central defenders and the Papu and Ilicic roles.
In a weird way I always think that the Zapata role is a Complete Forward, just when I play him on support he doesn't attack space, but when I play him on attack, my left forward doesn't really link up play.

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...