Jump to content

Quick Q&A about role/duty combinations


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

but in this particular case, the simplest tweak I would consider is changing the mezzala into CM on attack duty. 

To utilize the space in front and for a better link up with the target man? Or maybe another reason which I'm not seeing? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Le 14/10/2020 à 13:54, Experienced Defender a dit :

Roles and duties in your setup don't look bad overall IMHO. So if you have tactical issues, the best idea is to start your own separate thread and then we can discuss it there in more detail :thup:

Ok then, it might have to do more with the overall tactic than the roles. Thank you!

Le 14/10/2020 à 16:18, Zemahh a dit :

Looks like a well-balanced tactic, but maybe a bit too conservative for Monaco.

I'd suggest two small changes:

  • DLP -> REG; with a BWM in-front, a team that's going to be attacking most of the time probably doesn't need a holding DM. I've had a lot of success with Regista in a similar setup, he was a Key Pass machine. :D
  • DLF-Su -> DLF-At; same instructions, but a higher individual mentality, meaning more adventurous passes and more forward runs (another body for DLP/REG to feed, since currently you only have the IF, and occasionally MEZ, that make forward runs). Dadasov isn't likely to win many headers, so I wouldn't count on overlaps too much.

These are interesting changes, thank you. I'm a bit worried about unbalancing the tactic, having too many attack oriented roles and too few defensive ones. I might try it when facing lower teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes more sense....

DLF(a)

IF(s)                             IW(s)

DLP(s)     MEZ(a)

 

or

 

DLF(a)

IW(s)                             IF(s)

DLP(s)     MEZ(a)

Or is it, pretty much, the same thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

What makes more sense....

DLF(a)

IF(s)                             IW(s)

DLP(s)     MEZ(a)

 

or

 

DLF(a)

IW(s)                             IF(s)

DLP(s)     MEZ(a)

Or is it, pretty much, the same thing?

I personally prefer the 1st one. 

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

I personally prefer the 1st one. 

the IF(s) has a more vertical movement towards the box, right? The IW will drift more inside, it's that the reason?

I ask this because, to be honest, i can see any difference between both when viewing them play.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

the IF(s) has a more vertical movement towards the box, right? The IW will drift more inside, it's that the reason?

The key reason is balance + role interaction - IF is more attack-minded than IW, whereas MEZ is more attack-minded than DLP. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good way to plan on role and duty combinations is to think of one entire flank and then another. So basically you are looking at how you want one flank to play. You consider the roles and duties you need to make that flank operate in the way you want. For example:

Say you want to do an overload down the left flank and you want to exploit the space down the right. A good starting point is to recognise that shape in itself can prove to be a good starting point. A structured system could be more beneficial to a more counter attacking style because of the distribution of duties. Here its important to recognise fluidity in itself is useless, you just want to know its structured and then you want to identify where those duties are. So begin with the duties.

So assuming I am playing a 4123DM, I could decide that the left flank be built for overloads, and I want the system to be largely soak and hit. So how do I begin?

I begin by setting up the defensive line and line of engagement first, because imho these are the most important Tis in the whole game, since they will largely define your style of football. 

Now assume that I want to be more Benitez and less Pardew, then I also want a game of attrition instead of submission. (sorry Pardew fans). My defensive line could be set to higher since I want to be playing more in midfield, I also want my LOE to be standard. Here I am willing to let teams drop in my half before closing them down. That done now i think of role and duty combinations that can help.

Ok so I build on the left and counter down the right.

On the left I could have a WB, he is more aggressive, but I don't want him on attack duty since this duty is going to see him driving to the line too much. I much rather either have a WB(S) or a FB(A). A fullback on attack duty could play the earlier pass down the line and a WB on support could be more aggressive moving along the flanks. To encourage them to pass inside i choose a narrow attacking width for the whole team. 

Beside the WB I opt for a BPD(S), now I have 2 ball keepers, ahead of them I want to have a decent role that is not too defensive like an anchor man but a role that is driven more by attributes. I opt for a simple defensive midfielder or I could go for a halfback who will encourage the wingbacks to push higher. Either one is a good option. One is more conservative and the other is more aggressive and can allow my wingbacks more license, simply by having him there on the pitch.

Now I want to think of a combination down the left flank that can help keep the ball and work the ball. A natural choice would be a playmaking role and to keep that flank more creative I can add an Inverted Winger on support there. Whats interesting will be their duties. 

If I want a really aggressive left flank overlaps could help with their positioning, but the use of the overlap could also reduce the mentality of the IW(S) making him take safer options. This is an interesting side effect of the team instruction. I could double things up with a focus left instruction as well. The combination of the IW, DLP/RPM and WB will be a good solid foundation.  Their traits are going to be very important. Many people ignore traits, I find that this is a mistake.

If I want to work the overloads and exploit the left then, on the left flank I am looking for players to have dictate tempo, tries long range passes and switch ball to other flanks. That has taken care of the left flank.

Now its time to think about how i want to release my attacks. Since i want my attacks to be fast and my transitions to be fast. Then passing should ideally be direct, a higher mentality will help as well. Finally who exploits the right flank? There are two options.

I could go with a really attacking CM(A) plus an IF/RMD combination on the right flank and set my fullback to a support duty.  Now I have a set of roles and duties that have considered how I want to build up play and how i want to counter.

Ok time for strategy.

If I am playing a game where I feel like encouraging the opposition to vacate the right flank, then its actually worth considering playing with defensive width narrow. This will encourage them to attack me down the flanks. If they fail to build up attacks my counters will be down their exposed flanks. Its definitely an option along with other tricks like lowering LOE etc.

I hope this helps people articulate how roles and duties can combine to create a style of play.

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

I begin by setting up the defensive line and line of engagement first, because imho these are the most important Tis in the whole game, since they will largely define your style of football

This :thup:

People often fail to understand how much these 2 instructions - or rather their combination - are important for defining one's tactical style. Because DL and LOE do not only affect the defensive phase of the game but also have a great impact on your attacking play. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Weasek said:

What if both your centre backs are quite slow, then you can't really use a higher line?or would you still use it.

I definitely wouldn't. Try it yourself, you'll see they'll hit you with balls behind your defense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think @Rashidi has well explained how to put a game idea into practice in an intelligent way.

The next step I would take would be to figure out what I want from each player to find the features players should have to make my idea work.

For example, the two full backs will have very different characteristics. On the right I would like a full-back who is defensively solid so he should have excellent values in position and concentration. On the left, maybe I'm looking for someone good at dribbling to jump the man and create a numerical advantage in offensive areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies its not quite roles and duties based. But more about your full tactic in general. 

Over the last few seasons, ive noticed a lot more managers in the premier league are tinkering and changing their tactics to suit that next individual game. I mean swapping between a back 3 or 4, 2 centre backs or 3. Im asking, is it more built into the game now were you can rotate your tactics more often? Can you have 3 tactics were your team can be familiar with a 4231 and a 352 say? 

Being an Arsenal fan, over the last few seasons, including the last season or so with Arsene, Arsenal would change every other game with the back line. Arsenal have been weak defensively so would play with 3 centre backs. At home against a weaker side, Arsenal would play with 2 and move that player further forward. Will FM21 be more adaptable and support more tactical changes more frequently? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CalumF said:

I mean swapping between a back 3 or 4, 2 centre backs or 3. Im asking, is it more built into the game now were you can rotate your tactics more often? Can you have 3 tactics were your team can be familiar with a 4231 and a 352 say?

Why couldn't you? There's three tactical slots you can train at all times. Besides that, even if you were to load a completely different tactic for every match, Tactical Familiarity really doesn't hold enough importance to actively hold you back or work against you (at least not noticeably). As long as the tactic makes sense for your squad and expectations, you should be fine. That said, you do need quite a bit of tactical knowledge to create multiple different systems that make sense, so making constant changes isn't something that's recommended for beginners.

If you want an example, @westy8chimp has a fantastic thread on adapting to opposition on match-by-match basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PINGO4862 said:

the roles that are assigned to me by default when I choose a formation. Is it affirmative to say that they are the perfect roles for training? (I would like you to centralize the training with defense of 3)

I have not really understood your question, but this topic is not about training anyway. Only role and duty combinations in the context of a tactic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@scottybee84 Unfortunately, what you are asking goes beyond the topic of this thread, which is solely about role and duty combinations in the form of quick Q&A - not tactics and/or tactical styles as a whole.

So please start a separate thread in which we can deal specifically with your tactic and tactical ideas :thup:

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

@scottybee84 Unfortunately, what you are asking goes beyond the topic of this thread, which is solely about role and duty combinations in the form of quick Q&A - not tactics and/or tactical styles as a whole.

So please start a separate thread in which we can deal specifically with your tactic and tactical ideas :thup:

No problem 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, 

little help, and feedback, in this roles/duties:

 

PF(a)

IW(s)                      AP(s)                       W(a)

                    MEZ(s)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      DM(d)

WB(a)     CD(d)     BPD(d)     IWB(s)

SK(s)

So this, is pretty much a 4231, where i decided to drop the left center midfilder to the give a little more protection to the WB(a).

I think, but i could be wrong, that the roles/duties are balanced and in theory (or at least in my head) should work very well.

The IW(s) will give the protection for the MEZ(s) forward runs, the left winger will stretch the play, allowing the MEZ to go up.

My biggest doubt, is related with the AP(s). Those it make sense a AP(s) in this tactic? Or should i go for a AM(s).... or any other idea?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/10/2020 at 10:30, Rashidi said:

A good way to plan on role and duty combinations is to think of one entire flank and then another. So basically you are looking at how you want one flank to play. You consider the roles and duties you need to make that flank operate in the way you want. For example:

Say you want to do an overload down the left flank and you want to exploit the space down the right. A good starting point is to recognise that shape in itself can prove to be a good starting point. A structured system could be more beneficial to a more counter attacking style because of the distribution of duties. Here its important to recognise fluidity in itself is useless, you just want to know its structured and then you want to identify where those duties are. So begin with the duties.

So assuming I am playing a 4123DM, I could decide that the left flank be built for overloads, and I want the system to be largely soak and hit. So how do I begin?

I begin by setting up the defensive line and line of engagement first, because imho these are the most important Tis in the whole game, since they will largely define your style of football. 

Now assume that I want to be more Benitez and less Pardew, then I also want a game of attrition instead of submission. (sorry Pardew fans). My defensive line could be set to higher since I want to be playing more in midfield, I also want my LOE to be standard. Here I am willing to let teams drop in my half before closing them down. That done now i think of role and duty combinations that can help.

Ok so I build on the left and counter down the right.

On the left I could have a WB, he is more aggressive, but I don't want him on attack duty since this duty is going to see him driving to the line too much. I much rather either have a WB(S) or a FB(A). A fullback on attack duty could play the earlier pass down the line and a WB on support could be more aggressive moving along the flanks. To encourage them to pass inside i choose a narrow attacking width for the whole team. 

Beside the WB I opt for a BPD(S), now I have 2 ball keepers, ahead of them I want to have a decent role that is not too defensive like an anchor man but a role that is driven more by attributes. I opt for a simple defensive midfielder or I could go for a halfback who will encourage the wingbacks to push higher. Either one is a good option. One is more conservative and the other is more aggressive and can allow my wingbacks more license, simply by having him there on the pitch.

Now I want to think of a combination down the left flank that can help keep the ball and work the ball. A natural choice would be a playmaking role and to keep that flank more creative I can add an Inverted Winger on support there. Whats interesting will be their duties. 

If I want a really aggressive left flank overlaps could help with their positioning, but the use of the overlap could also reduce the mentality of the IW(S) making him take safer options. This is an interesting side effect of the team instruction. I could double things up with a focus left instruction as well. The combination of the IW, DLP/RPM and WB will be a good solid foundation.  Their traits are going to be very important. Many people ignore traits, I find that this is a mistake.

If I want to work the overloads and exploit the left then, on the left flank I am looking for players to have dictate tempo, tries long range passes and switch ball to other flanks. That has taken care of the left flank.

Now its time to think about how i want to release my attacks. Since i want my attacks to be fast and my transitions to be fast. Then passing should ideally be direct, a higher mentality will help as well. Finally who exploits the right flank? There are two options.

I could go with a really attacking CM(A) plus an IF/RMD combination on the right flank and set my fullback to a support duty.  Now I have a set of roles and duties that have considered how I want to build up play and how i want to counter.

Ok time for strategy.

If I am playing a game where I feel like encouraging the opposition to vacate the right flank, then its actually worth considering playing with defensive width narrow. This will encourage them to attack me down the flanks. If they fail to build up attacks my counters will be down their exposed flanks. Its definitely an option along with other tricks like lowering LOE etc.

I hope this helps people articulate how roles and duties can combine to create a style of play.

So this is a superb way of thinking about it (obviously when you look who wrote it), reminds me of a really enjoyable and effective system I had on FM17. It looked like this:

SK(S)

WB(A) - CD(D) - BPD(D) - WB(S)

DLP(S) - CM(D)

RMD(A) - T(A) - IF(S)

CF/F9(S)

What I noticed was that we controlled possession on the left, progression from BPD, CM(D) & WB(S) into the T, IF & F9 who all combined in the "number 10 zone", whereby suddenly the runs made by the MEZ (if he played) and WB(A) offer width and stretch the opponents across, whereby the RMD has moved into the area, whilst the IF, T, F9 begin to move into the area to attack the ball/sit outside the area. We slowly progressed the ball from left to centre, before the penetrating run on the right meant we were good for drilling the ball across the area, or cutbacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@tyro Unfortunately, I had to remove your post because this topic is solely about quick and short questions about (rather basic) role and duty combos & partnerships. What you are asking requires much deeper analysis and therefore cannot be dealt with here.

If you want proper discussion on your question(s), please start a separate thread :thup:

P.S: I can send you a copy of your post so that you don't have to write it all again. Just drop me a PM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello! I would like a quick opinion if this set of roles and duties would suit a counter attacking style.

tactic3da20177437fbec0.png

 

Edited by Experienced Defender
shortened to fit the topic
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Tsuru said:

tactic3da20177437fbec0.png

 

32 minutes ago, Tsuru said:

I would like a quick opinion if this set of roles and duties would suit a counter attacking style

In my opinion, this setup has some flaws, regardless of the style of play. If I were to tweak it specifically for a counter-attacking tactic, here is one possible example of how it could be set up:

DLFat

IFsu                                   Wsu

BWMsu  CMat

Ade

FBat    CDde   CDde    FBsu

In case you want to have FB on support duty on both flanks, then this can be an option:

PFat

Wat                               Wsu

BWMsu  APat

Ade

FBsu    CDde   CDde   FBsu

P.S: If you want more detailed discussion, you'll have to start a separate thread. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutos atrás, Experienced Defender disse:

 

In my opinion, this setup has some flaws, regardless of the style of play. If I were to tweak it specifically for a counter-attacking tactic, here is one possible example of how it could be set up:

DLFat

IFsu                                   Wsu

BWMsu  CMat

Ade

FBat    CDde   CDde    FBsu

In case you want to have FB on support duty on both flanks, then this can be an option:

PFat

Wat                               Wsu

BWMsu  APat

Ade

FBsu    CDde   CDde   FBsu

P.S: If you want more detailed discussion, you'll have to start a separate thread. 

 

Thank you for the inputs, I will work on that and open a separate thread if necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you set up a Strike Partnership that aims to use split strikers (2 STs that attack space in between FB and CB)?

How would you set up a Strike Partnership that aims to use strikers working in tandem (STs coming short or long situationally)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, a5864003 said:

Like F9, I want to make a striker who can come down and connect with other players. F9 has a high frequency of dribbling, so I can't play in conjunction well, so please give me some advice.

A Dlf-s will drop deep like a false 9, but will hold the ball up and not dribble. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/10/2020 at 11:09, Keyzer Soze said:

Thks for the thread @Experienced Defender.

Always been a big fan of using a AP(s) as a wide player in a 4123 wide DM formation. My main doubt is what player should i use in the midfield to best combine with the AP(s).

AF(a)

IF(s)                                    AP(s)

CM(s)       ???

DM(d)

WB(a)       CD(d)      BPD(d)     WB(s)

SK(s)

I've tried the MEZZALA, both with attack and support duty, but he would stay most of the match right in the shoulders of the AP(s). I then try the BBM(s), but he didn't arrive at the box as soon as i would want it. 

My last try was the CM(a), with roam from position instruction. It was the "best" so far....

Any thoughts on this?

 

mezzala with run wide with ball, dribble more

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

I wonder if these option for roles/duties can work fine on the paper?

 

                  CF(a)                                                                    PF(a)

RMD                            AP(s)                          IF(a)                                        AP(s)

 

Thanks.

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

Hi.

I wonder if these option for roles/duties can work fine on the paper?

 

                  CF(a)                                                                    PF(a)

RMD                            AP(s)                          IF(a)                                        AP(s)

 

Thanks.

Which formation is this supposed to be? And how can an IF be in a central position ??? 

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

I want to give this a try and I want to know if is makes sense

Give it a try, but I personally am fairly skeptical. And for any further discussion, you'll have to start a separate thread. 

P.S: I removed the screenshots you posted, because I don't want to allow this thread to go off topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutos atrás, Experienced Defender disse:

Give it a try, but I personally am fairly skeptical. And for any further discussion, you'll have to start a separate thread. 

P.S: I removed the screenshots you posted, because I don't want to allow this thread to go off topic.

Thanks.

Can you just tell me  if you're skeptical about the roles/duties or the formation itself?

Edited by mikcheck
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

Thanks.

Can you just tell me  if you're skeptical about the roles/duties or the formation itself?

Some roles and duties and some instructions. But as I said, we can discuss that only in a separate thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys. Loved reading the thread. I’m loving FM21 so far, but was curious if I could get some tips on my setup.

               PF-a
Ap-s                     IW-a

   MEZ-a          DLP-s 
              HB-d

WB-s CB-d CB-d WB-s
               SW-D

I’ve been having great success so far. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, angelo994 said:

PF-a
Ap-s                     IW-a

   MEZ-a          DLP-s 
              HB-d

WB-s CB-d CB-d WB-s
               SW-D

Very nice setup, I'm not surprised it's been successful :thup:

P.S: I removed the part about your striker from your post because it goes beyond the topic of this thread.

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

Very nice setup, I'm not surprised it's been successful :thup:

P.S: I removed the part about your striker from your post because it goes beyond the topic of this thread.

Well I mention my striker because I wasn’t sure if the pressing forward was the best role to pair with everyone else? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, angelo994 said:

Well I mention my striker because I wasn’t sure if the pressing forward was the best role to pair with everyone else?

There is no such thing in FM as "best role". There are only roles that make more or less sense when paired with other roles. But even then there are no fixed rules. A role combo that works in one kind of tactical setup or system can prove a failure in a different one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Particularly wondering whether the carillero will provide sufficient cover to the wb(a), currently have the carillero as a BBM but find I am giving away a lot of space on the right. 
                          PF(a)

If(a)                 Am(s)           If(s)

                 Dlp(d) Car(s)

wb(s)     bpd(d)     cd(d)      wb(a)

Was also thinking as a more defensive alternate to move the am to cdm as a regista.

Any advice welcomed, cheers  

 

Edited by Experienced Defender
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, danhenthorn said:

Particularly wondering whether the carillero will provide sufficient cover to the wb(a), currently have the carillero as a BBM but find I am giving away a lot of space on the right. 
                          PF(a)

If(a)                 Am(s)           If(s)

                 Dlp(d) Car(s)

wb(s)     bpd(d)     cd(d)      wb(a)

Any advice welcomed, cheers  

 

Yes, a carrilero is definitely a better choice for your MCR than BBM considering the fullback role. However, that same fullback role (WB on attack) may still prove a bit too risky for a system such as 4231. FB on attack would be a more sensible option IMHO. 

Up front, potentially problematic could be the combo of the IF on attack duty and PF also on attack duty. The most elegant way to solve this potential issue is to just change the IF (role) into IW (without changing the duty). 

P.S: I edited out the part of your comment that was beyond the (very limited) topic of this thread. A discussion about a particular tactical style and/or tactic as a whole can take place only in a separate thread (not here).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I definitely have to lock this thread, since too many people have obviously misunderstood the point of it, even though the opening post was very clear in that respect. It once again has turned out that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...