Preparing for Europe (4231 / 4141)

[Fatkidscantjump]

Hello,

Started a save in Spain with Real Sociedad and i've ended up using this for the first season :

I'm playing with a split block, shorter passing / fairly narrow cause I like this type of short plays, Be More Expressive because I want to achieve some kind of fluid attacking football, also the W and IF and the SS / AF are swapping positions. SS has also roam for position PI.

I was initially playing with an Attacking mentality, with a Complete Forward (s) and the Inside Forward as an Attack duty.
It was doing good until february where we had a huge bad streak :

Quite concerning so I made some changes : went to Positive mentality, changed the CF to AF(a) and the Inside Forward to support.

After the changes we had a superb run until the end of the season. It felt like the AF pushing up more than the CF(s) gave more space to the SS and the IW(s) behind him. Lots of 1-0 wins, but for example, on the 1-0 win vs Alaves I had 3 CCC and 4 half chances so it could've been a lot more.

We were predicted 7th and finished 3rd so the tactic is working but obviously i'm guessing there is things to refine.
Also since we're now in Champions League I wanted to play another more direct and maybe more defensively balanced tactic to help getting results away vs big teams for example.

So I came up with this

Wing players deeper for more defensive safety, and a DM(d) instead of an AMC. Idea would be for the AP to feed the runners, don't really wanna hit Counter so I already have increased the passing directness and got Pass into space / Hit early crosses.

And instead of the split block, just a general more urgent pressing as a block, and get stuck in to win the ball back. Standard LOE / defensive line to get more space on the break.

Anything you could point out in both of the tactics that would make them function better would be immensely appreciated. Haven't tested the second one yet, first one feels okay but of course perfectible.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

Roles and duties look okay. A small tweak I would suggest is standard passing instead of shorter, because the setup of roles and duties is not optimally suited for a possession-first type of style. 

 

1 hour ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

I'm playing with a split block

The split block would be more effective - and safer - if you either upped the D-line to much higher or dropped the LOE to standard. Because any defensive instructions that involve more aggression than default usually require better (vertical) compactness in order to be optimally effective. 

 

1 hour ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

 

1 hour ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

since we're now in Champions League I wanted to play another more direct and maybe more defensively balanced tactic to help getting results away vs big teams for example

If the formation in your main tactic is the 4231, then I would not make such a huge change formation-wise in your secondary tactic (from top-heavy to bottom-heavy). Instead, I would go with a formation that is more analogous to the 4231, just less top-heavy, such as 4141dm wide (a.k.a. 4123 wide) or 4411 (a.k.a. the "poor man's 4231", as Rashidi calls it). 

If you think that a bottom-heavy formation - like flat 4141 in this case - will automatically make you defensively solid, then you are very much in the wrong. In fact, your primary 4231 tactic looks a lot more solid and balanced than this bottom-heavy 4141. 

[Fatkidscantjump]

Gotcha, removed shorter passing and  I chose to drop LOE to standard, a much higher defensive line feels risky considering my back four have mediocre pace, or since they have good mentals I'd have to play offside trap which I generally dislike (not saying it's not effective, just a personal preference).

As for the second formation, feels like a 4411 would be a wise choice, my main fear is being overhelmed on the wings if I stick with a formation with AMR/L. Not really sure about how to set it up though, should I go for similar roles / duties / instructions as the main tactic but a bit less risky maybe ?

Thanks for the reply !

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

As for the second formation, feels like a 4411 would be a wise choice, my main fear is being overhelmed on the wings if I stick with a formation with AMR/L. Not really sure about how to set it up though, should I go for similar roles / duties / instructions as the main tactic but a bit less risky maybe ?

Basically, it should not be too different from your main 4231 tactic/setup. So if this is your 4231: 

 

3 hours ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

Then your secondary 4411 tactic for tougher games could be set up like this for example:

AF/PFat

SS

Wsu      CMsu   DLPde    IWsu

FBsu    CDde    CDde    WBsu

SKsu/de

So the setup of roles and duties is essentially unchanged. 

In terms of instructions, you can:

- remove the Play out of defence and counter-press;

- add the Counter in transition (not necessary though)

- soften the split block by using 2 instead of 4 players (this 2 could be the striker and CM on support)

- higher DL/standard LOE combo and no other defensive TIs for a start (you can tweak later if needed)

And you may potentially drop the mentality just a notch (from positive to balanced), but even that may not be necessary.

So that's what I would start with. Then watch and tweak as you see fit. 

[Fatkidscantjump]

Il y a 2 heures, Experienced Defender a dit :

Basically, it should not be too different from your main 4231 tactic/setup. So if this is your 4231: 

 

Then your secondary 4411 tactic for tougher games could be set up like this for example:

AF/PFat

SS

Wsu      CMsu   DLPde    IWsu

FBsu    CDde    CDde    WBsu

SKsu/de

So the setup of roles and duties is essentially unchanged. 

In terms of instructions, you can:

- remove the Play out of defence and counter-press;

- add the Counter in transition (not necessary though)

- soften the split block by using 2 instead of 4 players (this 2 could be the striker and CM on support)

- higher DL/standard LOE combo and no other defensive TIs for a start (you can tweak later if needed)

And you may potentially drop the mentality just a notch (from positive to balanced), but even that may not be necessary.

So that's what I would start with. Then watch and tweak as you see fit. 

Cheers, I was working on something similar after your first post but I went with an AMC as AP(s) and the central midfielders as CM(s) and CM(d) but your version seems better.

As for the main tactic, small tweaks you suggested seems to have worked improve it, i'm 4 games in, 3 convincing wins (3-0 / 3-0 / 3-1) against mid table teams and a 0-0 draw at home against Barca, that I could've won if my players could finish (3 CCC). I'll setup the 4411 but i'll keep using the 4231 for now in big games and see how it fares.

Thanks for the help !

Edited September 29, 2020 by Fatkidscantjump

[Fatkidscantjump]

Posting again after our convo on the roles & duties topic with @Experienced Defender 

The setuo shown above is a decent setup for a counter attacking / direct type of 4231 so now i'm trying to elaborate one more suited for posession and control.

Im actually kinda struggling to come up with something because i still lack tactical knowledge, and I feel like posession with intent is somewhat hard to figure out.

I cannot access the game until next week so this is just theory in my head, keep that in mind.

Setup would be to overload one side pf the pitch for a switch play to the other side, while still having other options to draw out defense.

                                  F9(s)

AP(s)                          Treq                        Rmd

                   Cm(s)                     DLP(d)

 

FB(s)        CD                          CD            WB(s)

 

Idea is : overload on the left flank with AP, F9, CM and FB. Dlp staying back so he can receive a ball free to switch the play to the RMD, supported by the wingback and the treq.

I chose treq for the amc because i feel like he would be in a crowded space so I want him to roam free and take advantage of the f9 movement. Really unsure about that tbh.

TIs would be shorter passing, focus play down left, maybe overlap left ? 

PI more direct passing for dlp(d) ?

Really unsure about all that tbh. Any pointers appreciated.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

Setup would be to overload one side pf the pitch for a switch play to the other side, while still having other options to draw out defense.

                                  F9(s)

AP(s)                          Treq                        Rmd

                   Cm(s)                     DLP(d)

 

FB(s)        CD                          CD            WB(s)

 

Idea is : overload on the left flank with AP, F9, CM and FB. Dlp staying back so he can receive a ball free to switch the play to the RMD, supported by the wingback and the treq.

I chose treq for the amc because i feel like he would be in a crowded space so I want him to roam free and take advantage of the f9 movement. Really unsure about that tbh.

Really unsure about all that tbh. Any pointers appreciated

The idea of overloading one side so as to free up the opposite one is generally very good, but in addition to setting up roles and duties correctly, you also need to make sure your players are able to keep possession under pressure long enough before switching play. 

Anyway, here are subtle tweaks I would make to your setup with reference to your overload intention:

DLFsu

APsu        TQ         RMD

CMde   DLPsu

FBat    CD      CD    WBsu

Even though I personally don't like using too many PM roles, in this particular case it can make sense. 

1 hour ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

TIs would be shorter passing, focus play down left, maybe overlap left ? 

PI more direct passing for dlp(d) ?

What about the mentality and other instructions (out-of-possession and transition)?

Btw, if you want to use a RMD, a 4141dm wide looks like a more suitable formation than 4231, but try it anyway 

[Fatkidscantjump]

Il y a 5 heures, Experienced Defender a dit :

The idea of overloading one side so as to free up the opposite one is generally very good, but in addition to setting up roles and duties correctly, you also need to make sure your players are able to keep possession under pressure long enough before switching play. 

Anyway, here are subtle tweaks I would make to your setup with reference to your overload intention:

DLFsu

APsu        TQ         RMD

CMde   DLPsu

FBat    CD      CD    WBsu

Even though I personally don't like using too many PM roles, in this particular case it can make sense. 

What about the mentality and other instructions (out-of-possession and transition)?

Btw, if you want to use a RMD, a 4141dm wide looks like a more suitable formation than 4231, but try it anyway 

Thanks for the reply, if you dont mind ill break your suggested changes 1 by 1 to see if I understand correctly the thought process behind it.

- DLF(s) rather as F9 : my guess is DLF will hold up the ball more and dribble less than the f9 and it fits the purpose of the setup better.

- DLP(s) instead of defend duty : will encourage the dlp to make more risky passes rather than cycling posession laterally or backwards, which is more likely to produce the switch play im looking for.

- Cm(d) instead of s, well since dlp has increased mentality cm has to hold position and provide defensive cover on the pair. Also enables left fullback more.

- Fb(a) instead of (s) : enabled by the left cm def duty, he provides an actual threat from the overload side, attacking space the ap(s) will naturally vacate by being more central. Which means either opposition responds to the overload or the fb will find himself free to cross.

Im still unsure about Rmd and Treq roles, mainly because I feel like the formatiob suits a gegenpress high pressure type of pressing, and im not sure Treq and RMD are the best roles for that. Hence why I struggle coming to terms with out of posession / transition instructions. Wondering if an IF(a) or even IW(a) instead of the rmd would make more sense, and maybe even keeping the SS from the first setup instead of a treq.

I apologize if im being too lengthy, but since i cant access the game atm all I have left is rambling on forums

 

[Experienced Defender]

43 minutes ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

- DLF(s) rather as F9 : my guess is DLF will hold up the ball more and dribble less than the f9 and it fits the purpose of the setup better

Correct (especially as you already have a TQ that tends to dribble more)  

 

44 minutes ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

DLP(s) instead of defend duty : will encourage the dlp to make more risky passes rather than cycling posession laterally or backwards, which is more likely to produce the switch play im looking for

Correct (plus the contextual switch of the CM's duty from support to defend)  

 

47 minutes ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

Cm(d) instead of s, well since dlp has increased mentality cm has to hold position and provide defensive cover on the pair. Also enables left fullback more

Again correct (with a bit more emphasis on the latter than the former)  

 

48 minutes ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

Fb(a) instead of (s) : enabled by the left cm def duty, he provides an actual threat from the overload side, attacking space the ap(s) will naturally vacate by being more central. Which means either opposition responds to the overload or the fb will find himself free to cross

Absolutely  (btw, WB on support is an alternative option in case you want a role that is less eager to cross the ball while also providing sufficient attacking support) 

 

50 minutes ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

Im still unsure about Rmd and Treq roles, mainly because I feel like the formatiob suits a gegenpress high pressure type of pressing, and im not sure Treq and RMD are the best roles for that

If you want a high-pressing style (especially gegen-press as the most extreme variant), then roles such as TQ and RMD are probably not the best idea (especially when used at the same time), although the issue can be somewhat mitigated if the players have good work rate (plus some aggression, bravery, teamwork and determination). 

 

54 minutes ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

Wondering if an IF(a) or even IW(a) instead of the rmd would make more sense

IF on attack instead of the RMD would make the most sense (assuming all else remaining the same). 

 

55 minutes ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

and maybe even keeping the SS from the first setup instead of a treq

Changing the TQ into SS would probably require a couple more tweaks elsewhere and would also mean a different style of play. So depends on what you ultimately want to achieve with your tactic. 

[Fatkidscantjump]

Alright, so I guess my final setup, before adjustments according to what I see in game, so final theorical setup, would be ;

 

                               DLF(s)

AP(s)                          T                           IF(a)

                    CM(d)                 DLP(s)

 

FB(a)               CD                  CD              WB(s)

Mentality : Standard for now

Shorter passing 

Focus play down the left

Play out of defence // GK give ball to CDs/FB

Counter press

Higher LOE // Much Higher DL (unsure about that, I guess in standard mentality its not too risky maybe)

Maybe Offside trap would have to check my defenders mentals to be sure.

Split block for the front four or More urgent pressing.

Again this is all speculative. I should probably stop overthinking this and test it out in the game whenever i'll be able too.

Thanks again for your time, much appreciated.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

DLF(s)

AP(s)                          T                           IF(a)

                    CM(d)                 DLP(s)

 

FB(a)               CD                  CD              WB(s)

The setup looks good to me  

 

1 hour ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

Mentality : Standard for now

Shorter passing 

Focus play down the left

Play out of defence // GK give ball to CDs/FB

Not sure about focus on the left. I understand your logic behind using it (to encourage overloads on that side as much as possible), but the problem with focusing play in general is that it can needlessly limit your attacking options. Which can especially be a problem if you manage a strong team that mostly faces defensive opposition. So even if you want to use the focus left TI, use it occasionally as an in-match tweak (rather than a regular part of your tactic).

When you play out of defence, then specific distribution to CBs and/or FBs is basically unnecessary, because the keeper is already encouraged to distribute to his defenders, especially as you also use shorter passing. 

1 hour ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

Higher LOE // Much Higher DL (unsure about that, I guess in standard mentality its not too risky maybe)

It really depends on your players and which particular setting suits them optimally, so you'll have to experiment a bit and figure out by yourself. If you notice that your defense is seriously struggling to deal with balls over the top, then it means your D-line is too high. 

Anyway, the compactness is good (the LOE one notch lower than DL)  

1 hour ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

Split block for the front four or More urgent pressing

I personally would always prefer the split block, but that's ultimately a matter of one's personal preference. As with the DL/LOE combo, experiment with both and see what works better for your team. 

 

1 hour ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

Again this is all speculative. I should probably stop overthinking this and test it out in the game whenever i'll be able too

Definitely so