Critique my tactic - applying what I've learned

[PatrickReynolds]

I've digested some awesome community content on tactics (Rashidi's YT, Llama3's pairs & combos guide) lately, and am working to apply what I've learned.

Managing Troyes AC and just dropped down from Ligue 1 after being promoted out of Ligue 2 my first season. My team is above average in almost every attribute for L2, and my board wants a high pressing style. So, I've created two versions, a fairly standard high press and a lower line press to try and employ some pressing traps for teams that can break down my high press. 

I have applied two different formations, the 4-1-4-1 DM to fit a star player in the DM, and to sit deeper, and the 4-2-3-1 Wide to get men forward for the high press. 

Any and all critiques welcome! I'm least confident about my CM roles/duties, as I'm overloaded with playmaking type midfielders.

[NotSoSpecialOne]

Disclosure: This is just my personal preference.

In the first tactic I would change:

- One of the wingers to a W(At) instead of W(Su). Then drop the overlap on the side that you've changed. Overlap will slow the play down (and given you're playing at a higher tempo), so having one flank that way will add variety to your attack and a W(At) will more aggressively try to exploit the space out wide.

- Drop Pass Into Space - Given this tactic is set up to press high and aggressively, you're not left with much space to operate in if the press is successful. It could work, I guess, so I would recommend watching a few games and seeing if this ends up being the case or not.

- I would also opt for a IW(Su) + FB(At) on the opposite flank to the W(At) but would hold off on that to see how the above plays out.

In the second tactic I would change:

- The DLP(De) to either a CM(De) or BWM(De) - which ever role is going to be best suited to the player you use there. The idea here is you maintain a defensive presence centrally and the Regista should impact the game more now that he isn't competing with a second playmaker in his area of the patch. Then maybe swap sides with the CM(su) so the CM(De)/BWM(De) can cover the more adventurous right back.

- W(Su) to IW(Su) to help facilitate a natural overlap with the FB(At), as well as cut into the abundant space centrally as the CM(Su) would be on the left instead.

 

[zabyl]

For 4-2-3-1;
"Pass into space" needs runners for empty spaces. 3 Players do this with your tactic: 1 FW and 2 FBs with overlap TI. But your both wide attackers are Ws and if they don't have cut inside player trait then this can give your FBs less space to run and have a pass into space.

APs tries to do rarely but nobody uses left half space effectively. Ws and behind him a CMd. Changing Left Winger into an inside cutting role like IWs / APs or like a more attacking support role; IFs can have better results in team play. IFs has more attacking tendency for a support role and may be advantageous with "pass into space" on that side. 

FBs behind a CMd may be good with overlap TI but I should use him a WBs at least; combined with an inside cutting WF role.

"Distribute the CBs" and "play out of defence" is a good combination and brings CBs and CMs a little back to give a passing option. If opposition doesn't press high then there is no need to bring another 2 players on the flanks which are waiting to hit the opposition on counter or using their wide and high positions to give an advanced passing option to kick several opponent's players out of the game.

You have no deep runner role from central areas. Neither DLPs is a runner nor CMd. APs doesn't run often to empty spaces behind AFa. APa can be a better runner also he is a dribbler. AMa is more better runner than APa and SS is much more better runner than AMa.

"Overlap" TI drops WF's mentality and raises FBs mentality on some points. It shows the effect on player's playing mentality on PI screen. With both wingers on support, overlap TI makes them less aggressive attackers. Changing RW into a Wa can combine well with overlap TI on that side.

I suggest a SK role if your best GK has quality for this.

Edited October 18, 2020 by zabyl
some bold texts

[Experienced Defender]

In the 1st tactic (4231), I personally would:

- change the AP's duty into attack (both to avoid the tactical overkill of using 2 playmakers in close vicinity on the same duty and to provide the lone striker with better/more immediate support )

- change the striker's role into PF on attack (to avoid the lone striker's potential isolation in direct relation to your aggressive manner of defending)

- change the attacking width from wide into either default or even slightly narrower (with wingers on both flanks, there is already enough width)

- remove pass into space (with so aggressive defensive TIs, the space does not seem to be there)

- remove both overlaps left and right (overlaps look like a surplus given the rest of your tactic)

- remove play out of defence (you already have the GK distribution to CBs and FBs + the tactic overall is not possession-based)

Other possible tweaks would depend on what happens after the above ones have been applied. 

[Rashidi]

I tend to agree with everyone here, in your first tactic you could run into serious issues trying to get others up in time. With the higher line of engagement and higher defensive line, they will support midfield, and then it slows down when the AP gets a hold of the ball. Then things get tough for him, since the AF is so far forward. That striking option could get isolated.  

The pass into space won't really work because no one is drawing players away except in the middle. Personally I would change the role of the striker maybe change the role/duty of one of the wider AMs as well.

Overlaps  could help, these issue then would be this:
Since the FB is on support and the W(S) when you apply the overlap the W(S) mentality is reduced even further, so he could end up playing really low risk options into the box, or making these kind of low risk decisions, but your team is also playing on higher tempo. The combination itself could see a lot of lost balls as they struggle to look for options. If you want to use the overlap there effectively for positioning reasons for you just want to make this tactic more aggressive then do it on a flank where you have an aggressive AM that can play on support (IF is one such role).

 

[PatrickReynolds]

Thanks everyone!

7 hours ago, NotSoSpecialOne said:

- I would also opt for a IW(Su) + FB(At) on the opposite flank to the W(At) but would hold off on that to see how the above plays out.

Just so happens in the AMR spot I have two good options from my bench for this. I will definitely try this and see what works better in pre-season. Already changed AML to W(At), as it's the same role and duty he's used to playing in the other formation.

7 hours ago, NotSoSpecialOne said:

Drop Pass Into Space - Given this tactic is set up to press high and aggressively, you're not left with much space to operate in if the press is successful. It could work, I guess, so I would recommend watching a few games and seeing if this ends up being the case or not.

This makes sense. I was worried about the offensive phase of the tactic being too static and teams being able to park the bus. Hopefully changing some of the roles above will give more movement.

 

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

- change the AP's duty into attack (both to avoid the tactical overkill of using 2 playmakers in close vicinity on the same duty and to provide the lone striker with better/more immediate support )

- change the striker's role into PF on attack (to avoid the lone striker's potential isolation in direct relation to your aggressive manner of defending)

With the player I have slotted in the AP right now, I changed it to AM(At) paired with PF(Su). With the other AMC I plan to play here, I might go with AP(At) and PF(At). Would that be too many (At) duties if my AML is also on Attack?

Loading this up for my first preseason game!

[Rashidi]

Its fine the, attack duties are on the side of where the BWM(D) is playing here. I am more inclined to play the DLP(D) and the BWM(S), reason being your right fullback is on attack duty, so if for any reason he isnt around the DLP can drop, and still be dangerous from a deeper area. On the left flank since you have a W(A) a BWM(S) will be able to support him more since he is further forward when you are transitioning to defence or attack.

[PatrickReynolds]

6 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Its fine the, attack duties are on the side of where the BWM(D) is playing here. I am more inclined to play the DLP(D) and the BWM(S), reason being your right fullback is on attack duty, so if for any reason he isnt around the DLP can drop, and still be dangerous from a deeper area. On the left flank since you have a W(A) a BWM(S) will be able to support him more since he is further forward when you are transitioning to defence or attack.

Thanks, good points! And, thank you for all the great content you've put out, it's been very helpful and feeds my appetite to really learn something well! 

[PatrickReynolds]

First two games using the high press 4-2-3-1, went quite well! Small sample size, but a draw in the first game against a good CF Pachuca side, and a 2-0 no doubter over Wigan. 

Now to try the low press against Southampton in the next pre-season game.

[zabyl]

5 hours ago, PatrickReynolds said:

I agree with @Rashidi here.

BWMs can help Wa on the left and when the Wa loses the ball so he helps the pressing. BWMs can give attacking and defensive cover to Winger at the same time, 

On the right flank; FBa-Ws is a natural overlapping partnership. Giving the RCM a deeper creative passing role like DLPd instead of DLPs will make this partnership more dangerous for opposition.

If your front 4 have good dribbling, technique, flair, agility then using "run at defence" TI can give your attackers more space because one of them can dribble to opposition defence and draw defenders on himself to create space. If you want your attackers to be more disciplined on attack and also dribble to make chaos then unticking "be more expressive" and using "run at defence" is the choice. This 2 TI can be used at the same time but it'll have too much risk.

"Run at defence" is powerful against deep defending sides.

[PatrickReynolds]

I had put on "be more expressive" because my DLP is my key creator. But, my AMRL's have better dribbling, so maybe this is better.

With the 4-1-4-1, I'm wondering if I'm sitting too deep and inviting pressure that is not well suited to a pressing style. In the two games I've used the formation, it seems to allow the other team to set up and camp a bit in my own half, easily outnumbering me in midfield and passing around my press. Is the 4-1-4-1 really suited to a high press? I thought it's suited a bit more to a low press, but now I'm not so sure. It may also be the re-group that is giving them time on the ball, or the fact my pressing intensity is one notch below my high press.

Thoughts on other ways I could adapt my high press with the 4-1-4-1, whether that's sitting deeper or not?

[zabyl]

4-1-2-3 is not a top heavy tactic but it's a balanced one.

High pressing is set up with "line of engagement" and "defensive line" and its intensity with pressing intensity. 4-1-2-3 has 5 players to press high with higher D-line & much higher LOE. Also FBs can be added the pressing numbers with playing them on WB positions instead of FB positions. 

Edited October 19, 2020 by zabyl
added ressing intensity

[PatrickReynolds]

Thanks - I think setting up lower lines of engagement with higher pressing intensity is not a great fit with the 4-1-2-3. I will try modifying to press higher up the pitch. This will give me two different formations that press agressively, and I can always tone down the pressing to go more defensive in this formation if I'm being outclassed.

[NotSoSpecialOne]

4 hours ago, PatrickReynolds said:

Thanks - I think setting up lower lines of engagement with higher pressing intensity is not a great fit with the 4-1-2-3. I will try modifying to press higher up the pitch. This will give me two different formations that press agressively, and I can always tone down the pressing to go more defensive in this formation if I'm being outclassed.

It's probably a solid fit actually. In so far as the game is concerned, I feel as if the 4-1-2-3 is best suited to a mid block (whether its aggressive pressing or otherwise).

That's not to say that a high press isn't effective with it either (because it is), you just need to be wary of the pitfalls and plan accordingly. That is to say that, when you face opposition that may require pressing with a front four rather than a front three, you might need to play your 4-2-3-1 instead as it's challenging to get a 4-1-2-3 pressing with a front four reliably and effectively.