Trying to improve the defense on a 4-4-2 direct counter

[Tsuru]

Hi.

I have been working on a direct counter attack 4-4-2 on FM Touch 2020 - I have speedy strikers, good players on the flanks and I am not the best team on the league - and I like the attacking dynamics, the team improved a lot on the table but we are struggling in defense and suffered goals in all matches.

If I set the team to press a lit bit less, as it´s on the image below, we keep the shape more and sometimes open more space for counters. But when we finally score, the other teams throw everything at us, pressing very much and very hard, and I feel we win just by luck, as they create many chances and we don´t defend on a solid way. They always find space on the flanks and also score many goals from long shots. I used some Ti´s to try to improve this - like Regroup - but it didn´t help very much.
 

If I set pressing to the mentality standard we give them less time on the ball - which is something I could expect - but we open less space and it looks like we create worse chances (more kicks on goal but less ones on target).

Maybe there is something I can do related to roles, duties and TI´s to help us being more solid on defense and keep scoring on the counter? Or maybe it´s fair ok the way we are and when I have better players this will improve naturally? I would like to hear opinions about it and I am open to all kinds of suggestions.

Besides trying to balance both sides, I chose some roles and duties based on players´capacities - like João Resende which is an excellent Complete Foward, Sory which is a natural BWM and Miguel Luís which is a natural Deep Lying Playmaker and has been adapting to play on a more defensive duty. 

The only PI´s I am using are on Soro, the WM on Attack, which is being instructed to cut inside and dribble more, to mimic the behaviour of an Inverted Winger but helping more on defense.

Thank you!

Edited November 24, 2020 by Tsuru

[Experienced Defender]

While lower LOE absolutely makes sense for a counter tactic, I fear that your manner of defending is otherwise a bit too passive for such style. 

Regarding the attacking aspect of your tactic, I don't see what exactly is supposed to make it counter-attacking? You don't even use the Counter TI in transition (although it may not be always necessary). 

A couple small tweaks to roles and/or duties should help as well.

[Experienced Defender]

And yes, the defend duty of your DLP is also not the best idea if you want to encourage more counters. If you use a playmaker in a counter-oriented tactic, then you need to encourage more progressive passing from him. 

[Tsuru]

1 hora atrás, Experienced Defender disse:

While lower LOE absolutely makes sense for a counter tactic, I fear that your manner of defending is otherwise a bit too passive for such style. 

Regarding the attacking aspect of your tactic, I don't see what exactly is supposed to make it counter-attacking? You don't even use the Counter TI in transition (although it may not be always necessary). 

A couple small tweaks to roles and/or duties should help as well.

Thank you for the inputs. 

Which small tweaks on roles and duties you might suggest, besides adding the Counter TI?

Maybe moving the mentality up to Attacking and keeping the Lower LOE (and maybe adding less urgent Pressing) could balance the strategy and make us a little less passive?

I was also thinking about a different attacking paír, Pressing Foward Support and Target Man Attack. I have the right players and liked the way they play on a game, turning over a 1-0 defeat into a 2-1 victory. And they also look like more counter oriented.

1 hora atrás, Experienced Defender disse:

And yes, the defend duty of your DLP is also not the best idea if you want to encourage more counters. If you use a playmaker in a counter-oriented tactic, then you need to encourage more progressive passing from him. 

My DLP can also play on Support but he is also good as a Box to Box or Central Midfielder on Support, so no problem if I need to adapt.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Tsuru

[Experienced Defender]

2 minutes ago, Tsuru said:

Which small tweaks on roles and duties you might suggest, besides removing the Lower LOE and maybe adding the Counter TI? 

Who said that you should "remove the lower LOE". Lower LOE is okay, Less urgent pressing is most probably a problem. Therefore I would switch the pressing back to default (medium) and possibly add the Get stuck in. 

In terms of roles and duties, I would consider something like this for example:

PFat   CFat

IWsu   CM/BWMde  DLPsu   WMsu

FBat     CDde     CDde      WBsu

GK(SK?)

And instead of the distribution to FBs, you can tell the keeper to just distribute quickly (without specifying to whom). Early crosses are also an option you may want to consider. 

[Tsuru]

2 minutos atrás, Experienced Defender disse:

Who said that you should "remove the lower LOE". Lower LOE is okay, Less urgent pressing is most probably a problem. Therefore I would switch the pressing back to default (medium) and possibly add the Get stuck in. 

In terms of roles and duties, I would consider something like this for example:

PFat   CFat

IWsu   CM/BWMde  DLPsu   WMsu

FBat     CDde     CDde      WBsu

GK(SK?)

And instead of the distribution to FBs, you can tell the keeper to just distribute quickly (without specifying to whom). Early crosses are also an option you may want to consider. 

Thank you, they look like small tweaks and they make sense. I will test and come back for a feedback.

[facman]

I’m a firm believer that the strengths of the 4-4-2 lie on the flanks and not in the middle of the park, so whenever I’ve set up a tactic like this I’ve gravitated towards a BBM and BWM(D) partnership in the middle, with an inverted winger on the side of the ball winner and a winger next to the BBM. If I have used a playmaker it has been instead of the winger, to keep the ball moving to the flanks.

[lfds89]

Besides tactical tweaks you can make, there's one thing that caught my attention: your wingers have rather low rating on their P/R/D. Might be due to familiarity with the position (possibly they are wingers, not wide midfielders).

Adding to @Experienced Defender's tweaks, I would probably look into changing one of your CDs into BPDs. BPDs risk passes, so they might find one of your attackers instead of playing safer as CDs do. Only do this if you have a defender capable of doing it. 

[Ruskin]

2 hours ago, facman said:

I’m a firm believer that the strengths of the 4-4-2 lie on the flanks and not in the middle of the park, so whenever I’ve set up a tactic like this I’ve gravitated towards a BBM and BWM(D) partnership in the middle, with an inverted winger on the side of the ball winner and a winger next to the BBM. If I have used a playmaker it has been instead of the winger, to keep the ball moving to the flanks.

I am working out the kinks in a 4-4-2 and using a similar midfield.  How do you recommend setting your IW and W in terms of support or attack?  My current tactic is using IW(A) and W(S).

[facman]

25 minutes ago, Ruskin said:

I am working out the kinks in a 4-4-2 and using a similar midfield.  How do you recommend setting your IW and W in terms of support or attack?  My current tactic is using IW(A) and W(S).

Last time I was using 4-4-2 I was the opposite way around: ML was IW(S) to the left of the BWM; and MR was W(A) to the right of the BBM. STCL was an F9 and STCR was an AF.

[Ruskin]

9 minutes ago, facman said:

Last time I was using 4-4-2 I was the opposite way around: ML was IW(S) to the left of the BWM; and MR was W(A) to the right of the BBM. STCL was an F9 and STCR was an AF.

Interesting  set up - much obliged.

[Tsuru]

Thank you @Experienced Defender, @facman and @Ruskinfor your very good insights. This is the formation at the end of the season:
 

On some matches I used the Wide Midfielder on the left, but I think the Winger on Support works better. As we use both strikers on attacking duties, they easily get isolated, and the WM operates lower on the pitch, increasing the distance to the fowards and raising the chances of a wrong pass.

Regarding TIs, I am using Hit Early Crosses, Counter, Distribute Quickly, Lower LOE and Get Stuck In at the Positive mentality. The team is playing well for a lower-mid table team, the press expected us to finish on 14th and the board wanted us not to fight against relegation, and we will probably finish on 8th-10th.

Sometimes is hard to play on the counter because you give the ball to stronger opponents and let them press you, or because a single goal makes everything fall apart. But on the other hand, trying to control the ball against tougher opponents can be also very hard, because their defenses are much better than almost any attacking system I create. At this moment I prefer to stick with the counter and find better players to improve it.

I am currently thinking about changing the formation to a 4-4-1-1. Why? My current best players are an Advanced Foward (which plays very well as a Complete one) and an Attacking Midfielder (natural Shadow Striker), I think with 5 players on the midfield we could avoid less numbers on the middle of the park, and tbh the second striker is not working very well on the 4-4-2, one of them is doing everything almost alone. It´s a different situation from when I decided to use the 4-4-2 and the Shadow Striker was not yet on the team.

If I decide to change the formation, which pair you would suggest for the striker/atttacking midfielder? Maybe Advanced Foward / AM-Attack? Or should I try a less common Advanced Foward / Shadow Striker? 

Another option could be a Treq on the striker position and a Shadow Striker. The Advanced Foward plays well as a Treq and with the team starting the press lower on the pitch, his less agressive pressing maybe would not create us problems.

Do you also think other tweaks on roles and duties would be necessary for this formation change?

Thank you all for your insights and help on this.
 

12 horas atrás, lfds89 disse:

Besides tactical tweaks you can make, there's one thing that caught my attention: your wingers have rather low rating on their P/R/D. Might be due to familiarity with the position (possibly they are wingers, not wide midfielders).

Yes, this is also a problem I will try to solve on a near future. As natural wingers playing lower on the pitch, they play well but finding natural ones for the positions will be necessary.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Tsuru

[Tsuru]

Hi @Experienced Defender, @facman and @Ruskin, and who else is reading this topic. Came back for a feedback and ask for more help.

After much working and testing, my 4-4-2 direct became a 4-1-4-1 DM Wide direct. My advanced flank players are more adequate as Wingers than Wide Midfielders, I think with 5 at the midfield we can avoid being outnumbered, I would like 3 players to launch the counters, and maybe in the future if we need changing the style I think this formation is more versatile than a 4-4-2. 

However the results have not been good and, after two almost perfect winnings doing exactly what I want, the team is strangely behaving. We concede lots of spaces in defence, even with the instructions, and suffer lots of goals from crosses, specially to the far post. Opponents are easily marking and outnumbering our front trio, which looks isolated one from another, and counters are not launching properly. Goals have been scored by the MCs and by the DMC and there have been 8 matches without a winning, so something must be done.

I wouldn´t like just to come back to the 4-4-2 at a first moment, I know it´s not a good idea to change the tactic so much and I would really like to make this work. 

Do you have any ideas that could help here? Thank you so much in advance.

Mentality: Positive.

Instructions: Counter, Regroup, Distribute Quickly, Lower LOE, Get Stuck In. I tested "Defend Narrower", "Tight Marking" and "Hit Early Crosses" but I didn´t like the results. 

The BWM is on Support although it doesn´t show on the print.
 

[Experienced Defender]

If you still want a counter-attacking style, then the 442 was a better choice of formation than 4123 wide (which of course does not mean the latter cannot work). 

Now, the tactic you presented in your last post makes sense overall. However, it's quite possible that just one small and subtle tweak could be needed to make a notable difference. But which tweak that could be is something only you can figure out by watching the matches carefully in order to identify the source of problems.

As important, are you sure that counter-attacking football is really a style that suits your team in terms of your players' strengths and weaknesses as well as the reputation of your team?

Last but not least, even if you have the right personnel, counter-attacking football can hardly work in every single game because sometimes you'll face defensive opposition which will make your strategy ineffective. Which means that you probably need a plan-B tactic for these situations.

[Tsuru]

Em 18/12/2020 em 15:38, Experienced Defender disse:

If you still want a counter-attacking style, then the 442 was a better choice of formation than 4123 wide (which of course does not mean the latter cannot work). 

Now, the tactic you presented in your last post makes sense overall. However, it's quite possible that just one small and subtle tweak could be needed to make a notable difference. But which tweak that could be is something only you can figure out by watching the matches carefully in order to identify the source of problems.

As important, are you sure that counter-attacking football is really a style that suits your team in terms of your players' strengths and weaknesses as well as the reputation of your team?

Last but not least, even if you have the right personnel, counter-attacking football can hardly work in every single game because sometimes you'll face defensive opposition which will make your strategy ineffective. Which means that you probably need a plan-B tactic for these situations.

Thank you for your answer.

We are a mid table team, weak against top teams but not so weak against other ones, and I believe this is one of the hardest situations to decide a style of play, Why? Because we don´t have enough defensive force to absorb pressure all the time - we really don´t, we conceded many times after scoring first - but we also don´t have enough offensive force to play with the ball and pressing opponents.

I think I will try something different, I will ask the assistant for help and see what he recommends as a style of play and formation. Then I will use his advice as a starting point and keep working on the tactic depending on what I see on the pitch.

Thank you once more.

Edited December 23, 2020 by Tsuru

[Experienced Defender]

7 hours ago, Tsuru said:

We are a mid table team, weak against top teams but not so weak against other ones, and I believe this is one of the hardest situations to decide a style of play, Why? Because we don´t have enough defensive force to absorb pressure all the time - we really don´t, we conceded many times after scoring first - but we also don´t have enough offensive force to play with the ball and pressing opponents

A hybrid tactical style looks like the most logical option then.