4141D - any advice ?

[Cassius]

Hi all !

Looking for some advice on my latest tactic. Defensively pretty solid but lacking a bit offensively, with a disappointing right side efficiency.
Team is far from being the best in the league but have hard working and determined players, good teamwork and bravery.

Tactic :

Player Instructions
GK - none
RB - Dribble More (dribbling 14) ; Run Wide with the ball
LB - Cross from deep
CB - Mark Tighter
CB - Mark Tighter ; Stay Wider
DLP - Close Down Less ; Mark Tighter
BBM - Close Down More ; Tackler Harder
BWM - Tackler Harder
LW - none
RMD - Close Down More
P - Close Down More ; Tackler Harder


Areas I feel need tweak :

•  I feel we are missing a bit of impact in the center despite both CM having rather good OTB/Pos/WorkRate/TeamWork combo (Hendrick 14/13/15/15 and Scow 13/13/18/16).
Hendrick is slightly more gifted technically than Scowen hence why I went with this BBM-BWM duo but none is stellar (FirstTouch/Pass/Tech > Hendrick 13/13/14 ; Scow 12/12/12)
Also, against stronger team, they often both go AWOL despite both enjoying big matches and having high determination which annoys me a lot.

• On the right wing, I went with Raumdeuter. The reasonning behing was that Weimann attributes were not good enough to be Winger (Crossing/Technique 12/13) nor IF (Dribbling/FirstTouch 12/13) but has good Physicals (Acc/Agility/Pace 15/16/14) and nice OTB/finishing (15/14). However, he is pretty useless most of the time, missing passes, not finding himself in key areas, not taking chances. Also, I feel like his workrate and team work is wasted as RMD (16/15)

• At right back, I would think Coyle to be good as FB(a) with Dribbling 15 and Crosses 14...but he has been pretty mediocre with low pass/crosses rating and is my leading player in mistakes made.
Maybe I am asking too much of him? Or maybe I should overhaul the whole right side trio roles and duties (WBs/CMs/IFa?)

DNA :
 

Révélation

Team Stats after 6 games :

 

Révélation

And both my last game stats and shots :

Southampton 0-0

Révélation

Brighton 0-0
 

Révélation

As usual, any help is welcomed !!!

Thank you all
 
 

Edited November 2, 2020 by Cassius
typo

[zabyl]

• Poacher and Raumdeuter is not a good combo. I don't suggest a poacher in a lone forward 4-3-3. It isolates him from other players. I recommend a role like CFs/TMs/PFs/DLFa which combines with other attackers if you use a RMD.
• Tactic lacks creativity on central midfield. BBM to a RPMs/APa can solve this issue.
• You need width on the right. Because you use a narrow attacking width and there is nobody providing enough width on the right flank. Adding stay wider PI to FBa or using a WBs role can help.

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by zabyl
added and

[Experienced Defender]

A combo of RMD and poacher is hardly going to work, to begin with.  

[Cassius]

Il y a 2 heures, zabyl a dit :

• Poacher and Raumdeuter is not a good combo. I don't suggest a poacher in a lone forward 4-3-3. It isolates him from other players. I recommend a role like CFs/TMs/PFs/DLFa which combines with other attackers if you use a RMD.
• Tactic lacks creativity on central midfield. BBM to a RPMs/APa can solve this issue.
• You need width on the right. Because you use a narrow attacking width and there is nobody providing enough width on the right flank. Adding stay wider PI to FBa or using a WBs role can help.

 

 

Il y a 1 heure, Experienced Defender a dit :

A combo of RMD and poacher is hardly going to work, to begin with.  

Thank you for the info, read a bit more about the Raumdeuter...indeed needs a more supportive striker role instead.

@zabyl Made some changes accordingly :
- changed the Poacher to a PFs (should work fine with my striker "Plays with back to Goal" trait)

- A bit unsure about the BBM to RP or AP as his decision making and vision aren't great (13 and 12). Would changing him to a CM(a) help instead ?

- Changed te FB(a) to WB(s)+Stay Wider to max it's streaching (already has "Hugs line" trait).
Also changed the BWM(s) to a CM(s) so he may cover better the gap left by RMD&WB when attacking. Does that makes sense ? Thought about CM(d) but my CM has a good Longshot and excellent WorkRate/Stamina which may be wasted if just having him staying at the back.

Also changed the DLP(d) to DLP(s) hoping he will push the to CM a bit further (has the trait "comes deep to get the ball" so I guess he will stay rather cautious anyway)

Looking like this now, going against Tottenham tonight :

Edited November 2, 2020 by Cassius

[Experienced Defender]

44 minutes ago, Cassius said:

Lower LOE + get stuck in suggests you want to play a counter-attacking style (or a defensive-minded style anyway). But if so, then you need a lot more solid setup of roles and duties. 

[Cassius]

il y a 1 minute, Experienced Defender a dit :

Lower LOE + get stuck in suggests you want to play a counter-attacking style (or a defensive-minded style anyway). But if so, then you need a lot more solid setup of roles and duties. 

I don't want to focus too heavily on defense but I want to be solid at the back indeed.
The idea was to have Lower LOE in order to be more compact defensively, get stuck in to avoid a too passive defending.
If there is an opportunity to counter attack I'll take it (hence the "Counter" TI), but a more balanced attack and not giving back the ball to the opposition in a rush is what I would like to go for. That's why I thought shorter passing+Fairly Narrow would help (while having LW and RB give some width). 

What I had in mind was :

- Solid defense. Not getting killed with counter attacks or hammered by way more technical teams. > 4141 DM en LOE
- Balanced attacking, not going over-controlly or TikiTaka but still avoiding to lose the ball to quickly. > shorter passing and getting the player closer together with fairly narrow

For the roles now, I tried to adapt to the players strength and weaknesses :
Striker is slow but big and strong, good finisher (finishing, heading, OTB)
LW is fine creatively (Decision, Vision, Composure) and technically (dribble, technique) but average speed 
RW is not very technical but very quick with great OTB, agility and speed
Both CMs are jack of all trade with strong team mentals (work rate, determination, teamwork)
DLP is slow but technically and mentally very capable, with the right traits too
both FBs are good at dribbling and crossing but average defensively
CBs and GK are solid without being spectacular

From what you said, it looks like the tactic is too defensive ? Could you advice a change in TI or Roles that would be closer to my intended philosophy without sacrificing too much the defensive solidity ?

(last result against Tottenham...good overal but not great for my CMs and RDM again -nor the striker in PF(s) )

Révélation

 

[zabyl]

2 hours ago, Cassius said:

A bit unsure about the BBM to RP or AP as his decision making and vision aren't great (13 and 12). Would changing him to a CM(a) help instead ?

I wrote that because a BWM is not a creative player and maybe you don't want to change his role. With a CMa-CMs partnership; creativity is distributed among them. So it is a more fluid choice according to mine.

You changed LCM to a CMa and Ws to a Wa. This weakens that flank's solidity. I strongly recommend changing one of them to a support role. If i used this tactic, i would have changed Wa to a Ws to give time CMa, PFs, RMD to run into the box when Ws had the ball.

1 hour ago, Cassius said:

LW is fine creatively (Decision, Vision, Composure) and technically (dribble, technique) but average speed

I'll write again, he suits a support role more than an attacking one.

1 hour ago, Cassius said:

From what you said, it looks like the tactic is too defensive ? Could you advice a change in TI or Roles that would be closer to my intended philosophy without sacrificing too much the defensive solidity ?

@Experienced Defender told that you set counter attack based TIs but you don't have enough solidity at the back. Assuming you don't manage a top team, there will be defensive problems if you don't secure defensive solidity. 

[Cassius]

il y a 40 minutes, zabyl a dit :

I wrote that because a BWM is not a creative player and maybe you don't want to change his role. With a CMa-CMs partnership; creativity is distributed among them. So it is a more fluid choice according to mine.

You changed LCM to a CMa and Ws to a Wa. This weakens that flank's solidity. I strongly recommend changing one of them to a support role. If i used this tactic, i would have changed Wa to a Ws to give time CMa, PFs, RMD to run into the box when Ws had the ball.

I'll write again, he suits a support role more than an attacking one.

 

Thanks for the feedback, I got the left Winger back to Support role !

Oddly enough and after yet another disappointing game, I've changed the RDM to a Winger Attack role...and despite being poor at crossing (attribute of 12), his involvement was way better    His trait "cut from wings" may have prevented him from staying too wide. Anyways, I wondering if it would be worth trying him as IF(a) despite his weak 12 at dribbling. Is dribbling really that important for an IF(a) ?

 

Révélation

 

il y a une heure, zabyl a dit :

 

@Experienced Defender told that you set counter attack based TIs but you don't have enough solidity at the back. Assuming you don't manage a top team, there will be defensive problems if you don't secure defensive solidity. 

We are currently 7th but expected to be 20th so yeah, not a top team! However displays against big teams (Tottenhamx2 and Liverpool) did not saw us getting spank hence I thought the tactic was cautious enough. What seems risky in the tactic and what shoud I improve ? (latest tweak below, still wondering what combination would be best on the right side trio)
 

Révélation

Thanks again for the help !

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, Cassius said:

I don't want to focus too heavily on defense but I want to be solid at the back indeed.
The idea was to have Lower LOE in order to be more compact defensively, get stuck in to avoid a too passive defending

You can be compact in defense with a higher DL/standard LOE combo as well, although the Get stuck in can be(come) a bit too risky then. However, defensive compactness is also influenced by roles and especially duties, so that's also something you need to think about. 

[zabyl]

24 minutes ago, Cassius said:

2 natural crossers on the left flank. This increases cross rate on that side. Also with a defend duty fullback; there will be too much space between LB-LW-LCM to exploit.

26 minutes ago, Cassius said:

still wondering what combination would be best on the right side trio

This depends on your RW mostly. You said he has good OTB, agility and speed. He has cutting inside trait. He has good abilities and a supporting trait to be a goal threat if he has enough finishing, composure and decisions. He can be used with a Wa role. There is no necessity to use a RMD role to make a goal scoring WF.

I think; a winger with "cuts inside" trait is a more dangerous man for opposite sides. He is on his favourite foot side and has one defender to overcome. However an IF/IW has 2.

 

[Cassius]

Il y a 15 heures, zabyl a dit :

2 natural crossers on the left flank. This increases cross rate on that side. Also with a defend duty fullback; there will be too much space between LB-LW-LCM to exploit.

This depends on your RW mostly. You said he has good OTB, agility and speed. He has cutting inside trait. He has good abilities and a supporting trait to be a goal threat if he has enough finishing, composure and decisions. He can be used with a Wa role. There is no necessity to use a RMD role to make a goal scoring WF.

I think; a winger with "cuts inside" trait is a more dangerous man for opposite sides. He is on his favourite foot side and has one defender to overcome. However an IF/IW has 2.

 

Makes sense ! However, I wonder :
- Even considering the RW "special" profile, having him as a Winger (A) would still work with a WB(s)/FB(a) behind him ?
- Also, having both wings with Wingers, would it makes more sense to have the PF(s) changed to PF(a) ?
 

[zabyl]

FBa is enough behind an inside cutting Wa.

For the lone forward; I would prefer to change his role to a TMs. But it can work well with PFs also. An attack role (except DLFa) isolates him from other players.

[Cassius]

Following on my latest post, I've tweaked a bit more the tactic (AGAIN), still keeping the RMD role in it. Hopefully I can grab some insight from experts here in the forum to enhance it !

Here is the tactic I've used (with minor tweaks during games) for 25 games :



Player Instructions :
RB - Stay Wider
DM - Tackle Harder ; Mark Tighter
MCL - Tackle Harder
RW & LW - mark opposition fullbacks
CF - Tackle Harder ; take fewer risks


Despite the team not being the best in the league we are pushing above our belts so far. (currently 8th after playing 29, For 48/AG 37)
However, I feel the team lacks some offensive togetherness and is still a bit suspecious defense-wise. 
The team scores almost every game but we struggle to keep a clean sheet.

Here is the goals analysis :




The TM and RMD are the main goal-scorers. Most of the team is doing OK, but I was was expecting much better performances from the DM (good pass, decision & vision) and I am rather disappointed by both my fullbacks not getting more assists (good cross, mentals and pace)  :





I feel I am still missing something here (aside from players of better quality!) to make the tactic work better and to concede less goals.

As usual, any help is welcomed.


  


 

Edited November 8, 2020 by Cassius
typo

[Cassius]

Keeping on with my soliloquy

Some additionnal adjustments.



1) Changed the WB(a) to WB(s). I expect better cover defensively while still taking advantage of my RB crossing, dribbling and work rate. MAYBE FB(A) would be better ? I don't know, profile of the player below
2) BWM(s) got the PI "Stay Wider" added to cover a bit more of the right flank.
3) DLP(d) changed to DLP(s). I am hoping that would raise my DLPs impact on the game (only 9 keys passes between the two of them so far ! ). However, would this compromise defensive cover in front of the defense ? The role having "hold position" I tend to think not really, but I am not sure.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Cassius

[Experienced Defender]

Why don't you simply put the DLP in MCR and then use a standard DM on defend duty to screen the defense. 

Plus, I don't see much point (if any) in the wide attacking width in a tactic like yours. 

[Cassius]

Il y a 3 heures, Experienced Defender a dit :

Why don't you simply put the DLP in MCR and then use a standard DM on defend duty to screen the defense. 

Plus, I don't see much point (if any) in the wide attacking width in a tactic like yours. 

My defensively inclined midfielders are really much more gifted at "press and break play" than "stay put and cover" kind of mids.
They have top work rate/team work while average positionning and heading. So I thought it would be wasting their work rate contribution to have then stuck in DM while at the same time not being amazing at it :



Concerning the wide TI, as my more creative & fast player are on the wings, I thought it would make sense to go Wide, but I may be wrong ? Why do you see it as a bad idea?



 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Cassius

[Experienced Defender]

I am not talking about your individual players' abilities but tactical logic in terms of playing style. You are making tactical decisions in isolation, which is always wrong because it can easily lead to tactical contradiction. Instead, try to look at the tactic as a whole.

[Cal585]

2 hours ago, Cassius said:

My defensively inclined midfielders are really much more gifted at "press and break play" than "stay put and cover" kind of mids.
They shave top work rate/team work while average positionning and heading. So I thought it would be wasting there work rate contribution to have then stuck in DM while at the same time not being amazing at it :
 

They do indeed look like great combative midfielders that are good getting up and down or winning the ball back. But what are you aiming for with your tactic? You can't play everyone in their ideal role all the time. A DLP in the DM strata won't get many key passes. He is looking to receive the ball from the defence and play it through to the midfielders ahead of him or out wide to the fullbacks (I'd assume the wingers are often too far upfield). He is a fulcrum helping your team build from the back. As a DM he's sitting and protecting the middle and won't be creating goals or pulling off amazing passes (not sure off the top of my head what FM defines as a key pass). Moving him into the midfield strata will help move him further up the pitch and playing more proactive passes if that's what you're wanting but as you say, it means sacrificing the attacking talents of one of your ball winners. The workrate won't be "wasted" though, as it's still very useful in a DM that you want actively patrolling and screening the backline.

But as to your specific question of whether a Support duty is sensible, it looks like it makes sense given he's also got a ball-winner helping him. But it also depends on the relative strength of your team and whether you want your DM pushing up to help control the midfield or being more conservative and protecting against the turnover. But it definitely seems a change worth trying at least to get him more involved!

But a couple of other quick points on your midfield:

• Be aware that if you've got your playmaker marking tighter (unless you've changed that), then he might occasionally struggle to make himself available for the ball. Any time you win possession he will be standing on an opponent and then have to work to get free.
• Have you considered trying a Carrilero instead of BWM? I only think of it because both of your players have Dives Into Tackles anyway while the Carrilero will help cover the right side which is what you were wanting with the "stay wider" PI. I don't tend to use them in a formation with wingers, but people seem to swear by them, so seemed worth a mention.

 

As for the Play Wider TI, not sure it's adding a whole heap to your tactic. Your Winger will be wide anyway. I tend to increase my width situationally if I'm in control and looking to stretch a defence that is sitting back. I'd assume looking at your tactic that you might be aiming to get the CM(a) and the Winger to combine a bit down the left and open up some space for the RD to attack into, so you might not want them too far apart so they can link up or support the TM?

But that's just some general thinking looking at what you've got and may be wrong for your tactic. You might try changing the attacking width for a game and finding it does get the players linking up better. Or you may find that your Winger is providing a better outball when wider and dragging the defence away from the RD.

[Cassius]

Thanks @Cal585 for taking time to help, much appreciated.
I've just tried switching the DLP to MCR and BWM to DM as Anc for a couple of games...with poor results.
There is still 9 games to play before end of the season, but I think I will try the DLP(s) at DM + Car at MCR next to see how it goes. Then tries&errors in friendlies before next seasons starts.

Very good suggestion about the "Mark Tighter" on the DLP, I did not think about that and what you said made perfect sense !
Another thing : when you say "The workrate won't be "wasted" though, as it's still very useful in a DM that you want actively patrolling and screening the backline", what kind of role do you have in mind ?

Also, glad you asked this question which allows me to elaborate on my tactical thinking (tactical misunderstanding? ) :

Il y a 1 heure, Cal585 a dit :

 But what are you aiming for with your tactic?

One of my issue with this tactic is that I can't have clear-cut philosophy as I need to adapt to the players I have (smallest budget in PL!) 
When analyzing the squad at the start of the season, I came to conclusion that we didn't have the pace to play counter nor the technical/creativity to play possession. We neither have the mentals to hold a very low block (fullback positioning is OKish only) nor the speed and mentals to hold a good high block consistently. I won't say the squad is horrendous, but honestly weaker in a lot of aspect to most of the league :
 

Révélation

 

What we got though is :

- One quite strong and tall Striker (our TMs, which we care for like the apple of the eye! low training and rest for the lad) an a no technical but agile/quick/good OTB forward (the RMD)
- Very brave and hardworking midfielders (basically all my CMs, DMs players)
- One rather good dead-ball taker (the LW)
- Fine crossers fullbacks

That's how I got to this hybrid tactic, which I felt copped the best with what we had :
- A standard D-line + lower line of engagement + Get stuck in > not so much for counter focus purpose but rather to avoid getting killed with through balls and having our workhorse midfielders to help cover & getting the ball back (=compactness).
- Counter + Distribute to fullback > our offensive creative qualities are on the side (FBs and LW) and we should take advantage of a good counter opportunity as we lack flair and technique to regularly outperform an organized opposition.
- Wide > our crossing/passing/creativishh players are on the flanks.
- TMs & RMD > Slow but strong striker & nimble but untechnical forward.
- A lot of work on set-piecesopportunities

When not counter attacking, what I expect then is to have the FBs or DLP starting the attacks, combining not to fast nor too direct (average passing team) with flanks and/or midfield, then FBs and LW crossing/making throught balls to TMs, CMa or RMD, which may make quick final combination or direcly take their chances. If attack fails > defense and DLP back into position while TMs, LW/RW and CMs try to slow or break the opposition attack.

So...I suppose this is may not make perfect sense and more experienced players would be very critic about it...But please do as I want to get better at the game.
I can get the hold of the game going to very "stereotypical" tactics with the fine budget to get the optimal players for it, and I don't care for p'n'p exploit tactics. But this is a challenge for me to try getting the best out of a "limited" team. FM can be a long learning curve or at least it is for me!



 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Cassius

[Cal585]

Yeah, Anchor Man is not the role I'd be using for your DM! I was thinking more along the lines of what ED suggested, using a bog standard Defensive Midfielder, maybe a BWM if you wanted more coverage for the flanks. My thinking is that you're still playing a DLP ahead of him who has been instructed to hold position already (default PI), you don't need an anchor behind him sitting in that hole. And the anchor man role will mean that you're not using the workrate because he's not moving anywhere. You might also find you're struggling to build up by taking the BWM out as a passing option, as the RMD is probably not going to involve himself much anyway. It's just about where you want your playmaker impacting.

But I'm not sure I'd be rushing to change up the tactic that much because by the sounds of it, you're doing well with a fairly weak team.

Though another question about your midfield. Why are you utilising Get Stuck in and also individually assigning your midfielders to tackle harder? From the sounds of it you're wanting your entire team to aggressively win the ball back but your midfield to take this even a step further than the rest and then you're using players that Dive Into Tackles as well. If it's working for you, that's great, but keep an eye on whether more skilful teams are getting through your 3 man midfield too easily.

13 hours ago, Cassius said:

One of my issue with this tactic is that I can't have clear-cut philosophy as I need to adapt to the players I have (smallest budget in PL!) 
When analyzing the squad at the start of the season, I came to conclusion that we didn't have the pace to play counter nor the technical/creativity to play possession. We neither have the mentals to hold a very low block (fullback positioning is OKish only) nor the speed and mentals to hold a good high block consistently. I won't say the squad is horrendous, but honestly weaker in a lot of aspect to most of the league

I think people (myself included) get too caught up in having to define a particular style like intricate possession or blistering counters. What you're doing is right, identify how to defend to the strengths of your team and work out who and how you're going to score your goals. You've decided that the best way to break down the opposition is to get the ball into wide areas and cross it in to a dominant target man who will distract the defence while your RMD sneaks in or your CMa makes a late run for the knock down. As these seem to be your 2 key attacking players, how do you find they combine? I must confess I haven't used a solo TM or the RMD much so my advice is limited here.

[Cassius]

Hey @Cal585, thanks for the feedback ! Could not play the game again until this week, but I had two days to try out your recommandations.

So, after some trail and error, this is how the team is set tactic-wise :
 

TMs

Ws                               RMD

CMa    DLPs

DMd

FBs       CDd      CDde     WBs

SKde

What I did following your and @Experienced Defender recommandations was :

1) swap the BWM and the DLP position + Change the BWMs to a DMd.
- I found that the DLPs higher up the pitch was way more decisive in his passing while still covering the flank. Also removed the "Mark Tigher" PI which should have helped
- Changing the BWms to a DMd is now of course less involded offensively. However, he is still able to break oppenent attack often while covering the front CBs better than my lightweight DLP use to do.
I feel like this change made me loss 0.5 pts going forward for while gaining 1.5 pts in solidity, so fair trade here !




2) Keep the RB as WBs
I now realise that WBa was indeed too risk taking. I found that Coyle was also not performing at his best as FBa...so in the end, WBs seems to be the right role for him system wise


3) switch to standard/balance or fairly/positive
As you both suggested, Wide indeed did not really help. Now the players are closer and linking up way better !


4) remove get stuck in TI and tackle harder PIs for all players except LW/RW/ST
This massively lowered opposition deadball and yellow cards for us (duh!). But to my surprise didn't have a negative effect on our tackles won and ability to get the ball back, rather the opposite !
Having several players with the "Dives into Tackles" + good tackle and bravery attribute seem to be sufficient in the end to have a proactive ball recovery without going overkill with the TIs PIs.
We still make many fouls indeed (opposition is often way better/technical) but with less yellow cards and now setpieces against us farther from our goalkeeper




In the end, the tactic is working out with more fluidity and more as intended :
- we score more goals, with a good mix of crosses, through balls and set-pieces (Ward Prowse, best 13M£ I've spent on this save)
- the players I meant to be "primary passer" (DLP and Winger) have the highest KeyPass/Assist of the team
- the players I meant to be "primary finisher" (TM and RMD) are by a mile the main scorers of the team 
- assists (for and against) are more spread, which I would interpret as having a more balanced overall tactic


 



I have mainly switched between this two versions of the same system, essentially playing with the LOE/DL as you can see.





So far your suggestions greatly helped. If you see any way to improve the tactic further, I am all ears !

 

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Cassius
Typosss!

[Experienced Defender]

3 minutes ago, Cassius said:

 

3 minutes ago, Cassius said:

So far your suggestions greatly helped. If you see any way to improve the tactic further, I am all ears !

The tactic looks nice now, especially the setup of roles and duties is perfectly balanced 

[Cassius]

il y a 23 minutes, Experienced Defender a dit :

 

The tactic looks nice now, especially the setup of roles and duties is perfectly balanced 

Thanks! Pretty satisfied with it. Would love a tiny bit more impetus but I thinks that is also down to the quality of the players. 

Which of the two versions of the system looks better to you? 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Cassius

[Experienced Defender]

Just now, Cassius said:

Which of the two versions of the system looks better to you? 

Both look okay, nothing wrong in either.

[Cal585]

Glad to hear it's working out well for you! Tactic looks a lot more balanced and you seem to have been able to tweak the areas you identified to improve upon. Not sure you'd be able to gain much more impetus with your current system without just upgrading the players.

[Cassius]

I was wondering last night if a AP (s) instead of a Winger (S) would work better. 

The idea would be to draw more attention on the left to create space for the RMD on the right.

However : 
- I already have a Playmaker in the team
- my left wingers both have a really decent crossing ability, would the role change make them use this tool way less often ?
- would this imply a change in my LB and MCs roles ?

The main two players I use on the left side :




 

[Cassius]

Another thing which is getting difficult halfway through the season : I struggle a lot against decent team using 4-2-3-1 DM. Maybe this needs another topic, if so let me know.

I keep hitting the wall of players. My striker despite (good in the air) is swamped by player, my RMD (good OTB) can hardly find space and the winger and fullbacks (three of them fair crossers) endlessly cross into the box with low conversion rate
And the opponent four guys up top usually ends up scoring against us :
- with a quick counter, if I go higher DL
- with a smooth passing around my box ending in a low cross to their IFs or Striker



Keeping my formation, what would you recommend to unlock these ANNOYING formations ?