Lacking punch in attack

[nidhar.ram]

To all tactical experts, I need some help to figure out why my tactic with Atletico Madrid is lacking progressive play and any meaningful chances.

Below is my tactic.  When Luis Suarez is fit, he plays as a CF(s, Saul as DLP(s) and Koke as CM(d).

I have played friendlies and three league matches, I have won almost all of them but goals are coming mainly from long shots or set-pieces.

[SpecialOne Miko]

Im no expert, but I know  the first questions will be:

-How do you want to play?

-Who do you want to be the main scorer?

-What can you see not working in play?

[dazza11]

I actually think your set up looks pretty solid and don’t see a lot to change.

I would tinker with upping your tempo to at least standard or higher and try adding counter on - both will speed up your attacking play as by the sounds of it you are lacking scoring from open play which could be because you are giving time for the opposition to regroup. 
Also with an aging Costa up front, suggest taking off low crosses, he’s slowing down but still good in the air. 
When playing against smaller teams or chasing you could change the dlp to a D and have either cmA or bbm to get some more movement from your midfield as currently both are quite static 

 

[nidhar.ram]

2 hours ago, SpecialOne Miko said:

Im no expert, but I know  the first questions will be:

-How do you want to play?

-Who do you want to be the main scorer?

-What can you see not working in play?

I want to play positive football and play to my player's strength.

Felix & Suarez are my desired goal scorers.. but Carrasco has been banging in some goals mainly from solo dribbles.

Defense is solid and able to win the ball back fairly quickly.. In attack, we are lacking link-up play and very wing heavy   

[nidhar.ram]

2 hours ago, dazza11 said:

I actually think your set up looks pretty solid and don’t see a lot to change.

I would tinker with upping your tempo to at least standard or higher and try adding counter on - both will speed up your attacking play as by the sounds of it you are lacking scoring from open play which could be because you are giving time for the opposition to regroup. 
Also with an aging Costa up front, suggest taking off low crosses, he’s slowing down but still good in the air. 
When playing against smaller teams or chasing you could change the dlp to a D and have either cmA or bbm to get some more movement from your midfield as currently both are quite static 

 

I will try few matches with default tempo and see how it goes.. thanks for your input

[ozilthegunner]

I don't think it is surprising that Carrasco is getting on the scoring sheet... he has the most attack-minded role/duty of the bunch (along with Felix, I suppose, although that will partly depend on PIs). That also explains why you are so wing heavy, and presumably down the right? Your team is told to get the ball to the RCM (because he is a DLP) and then he is going to look for passes, and the most available one will be the RB or the RW in many cases.

If you want more link-up play, then you want your individual players to have a lower mentality... I am pretty sure your IF is 'very attacking' with a positive mentality. Probably the AMa as well. This is going to tell them to get going forward as quick as possible, rather than look to link-up. It'll also tell them that, when they receive the ball, they should be looking to score quickly rather than be more patient and pass and probe.

On the other hand, going with more support duties (or otherwise reducing the mentalities of some of these players) can lead to impotence in attack, too, as none may take enough of a risk or drive forward enough. That can largely be handled through both PIs and PPMs. You can (for instance) put someone like Carrasco in as an IF(s) or (even better for link-up) IW(s) but then give him PIs that encourage more risk in various ways (more dribbling, more direct passing, roaming, get further forward, etc.) or, if he has PPMs like 'gets further forward', 'tries killer balls', etc. then that'll also compensate.

So, given all this, what I may recommend is changing up Carrasco to have him be more involved in build-up. A support duty for sure, probably more like IW than IF, but you could try both. I may leave the AM on attack, although perhaps make that support as well (you can still tell him to 'get further forward' if desired). Then, try (some of) the following with Team Instructions:

• Work Ball into Box - makes your team more patient and willing to link up... will likely result in fewer shots, but they'll be higher quality and you can see some really great short-range play at times
• Increase attacking width - start with just 'wide', but think about 'extra wide' (or whatever it is called) if need be. The idea here is to give your players more space to stretch the defense horizontally in order to find those gaps to play through balls, etc. while you are patiently probing
• Be more creative - I have found that in games where we have possession and probe a lot but don't find our way through, if I tell the players to be more creative, we become a bit better... I am still unsure about this as a standard TI, but certainly a good situational one
• Shorter passing - I would probably do this instead of lowering tempo directly (if you shorten up passing completely, it will lower the tempo some). The shorter passing directly encourages more link-up and so should encourage your players to show for ball more and in closer areas (assuming other instructions aren't telling them otherwise, like playing an IF(a)). Just lowering tempo doesn't do that, it just tells players to think a bit more about the passing, but for all that they could still blast it in the end, which you are trying to avoid

[Experienced Defender]

6 hours ago, nidhar.ram said:

Change the right back into WB on support (instead of FB) so that the IF could have proper and sufficient support from his fullback. Or change the IF into winger. 

 

6 hours ago, nidhar.ram said:

When Luis Suarez is fit, he plays as a CF(s

Why then don't you use Diego Costa as a CF as well?

[nidhar.ram]

4 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Change the right back into WB on support (instead of FB) so that the IF could have proper and sufficient support from his fullback. Or change the IF into winger. 

 

Why then don't you use Diego Costa as a CF as well?

Mainly due to his below average playmaking skills.

I am thinking IF(s) instead of IF(a).. Would that make sense?

[Johnny Ace]

I'm thinking your central midfield pairing is a bit tame to be honest, you could do with one of them looking to get further forward to support & they're both quite static roles 

[Experienced Defender]

4 hours ago, nidhar.ram said:

I am thinking IF(s) instead of IF(a).. Would that make sense?

You'll still need WB on support instead of FB on support. 

[RVL76]

24 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

You'll still need WB on support instead of FB on support. 

Is this an absolute then? If you have an Inside Forward you need to pair him (on that side) with a Wing Back?  

[Domus Clamantium]

11 minutes ago, RVL76 said:

Is this an absolute then? If you have an Inside Forward you need to pair him (on that side) with a Wing Back?  

I don't think that's true. A full back on support can get forward either if he has a PPM or if you give him the instruction (yes, you can give support duties Get Further Forward PIs). They can still help the attack but they don't close down or leave their position as aggressively as a wingback, and they play a more simple passing game and leave the running with the ball to others.

IMO an FB(S) is just fine and provides defensive stability on the right hand side. But if the player doesn't get forward, try telling him to do so, or at least "Stay Wider". FWIW I would consider also telling them to cross less often because you want them to cut the ball back or play inside to the IF(A), PF(S) or DLP(S) rather than cross into a box that isn't populated with your players due to the AML and STC being on support duties.

Add:
Get Further Forward
Stay Wider
Cross Less Often

 Keep FB(S) as is.

Edited November 23, 2020 by Domus Clamantium

[Experienced Defender]

9 minutes ago, RVL76 said:

Is this an absolute then?

No, nothing is an absolute. In this case, it's actually a question of how smooth you want your attacking play to be. But of course, you can play the game in whatever way you want. Experiment with different combos and decide which one you like the most 

 

11 minutes ago, RVL76 said:

If you have an Inside Forward you need to pair him (on that side) with a Wing Back? 

The reason for this is that IF is an inside-oriented role and therefore needs a fullback/wing-back role behind himself that would naturally overlap him and thus provide a wide passing option, especially in advanced stages of an attack. 

FB on support may do that on occasion - depending in part on the player himself - but not as consistently as the WB on support (or FB on attack duty as well).