Seeking advice on 4213 and 4123

[ThinkZebras]

Hi,

After 6 seasons of progressively climbing the ladder with my team using these formations, I have bought several South American youngsters to improve my team (I suppose my team average was around 120-130 CA but I was beating teams like Tottenham/Real Madrid nonetheless). Now, I bought 10 young players (16-19yo) with immense potential (I'm assuming quite a few of them are 170+ PA, 4 of them are classified now - after a year of having them at club - as wonderkids), however, ever since I started to introduce them to my squad that is getting old (the youngster have quickly outgrown the U19 and B league in the country), my game started to be a show of wasted chances. Is this something they will grow out of (most of them have the Consistency mark, much better stats than my old players, and they have good personalities), or is that just revealing that my tactics were bad and were working because my old crew had already their playing style firmly set, not influenced that much by my "bad" instructions? (it's true that I had to shuffle the instructions every 5-10 matches in order to keep winning)

To provide some background, here are the two tactics I use:

Here I sometimes change the CM duo for DLP(s) and BBM, change the DM to a more defensive role when playing a superior team, also I occasionaly switch my CF to DLF(s) while changing my IF to attack duty. Occasionally I employ the "work ball into box" instruction if I feel they are wasting shots from far away.

This is my second tactic, again, CF sometimes changed to DLF(s) with IF changed to attack. Occasionally I use the Work ball into box and typically I change to "mixed crosses".

My attacking mezzala Gets into opposition area, the supporting mezzala Shoots from Distance (has 17 long shots and 14 technique) and Comes deep for the ball, while wingers Cut inside with the ball and Look for a pass rather than a shot. 

The aim of these is to play a possession based passing game (all my midfielders/forwards have an average of 15+ in passing+technique+vision, a lot of them Play one-twos), the CMs often Dictate tempo and Try long-range passes (I know I have "shorter passing" as TI, but I want them to occasionally surprise the opposition with a forward pass to a running winger/forward).

Now, most of the time, they are wasting chances despite the players up front have 15+ finishing and typically also 15+ technique. However, my games look often like this (selection of 3 out of last 5 games, the other I lost to PSG in CL and we hardly got a kick, the fifth was a 1:0 victory where we scored from penalty - dominating possession, but not getting many shots/chances):

The first one here I won 2:0, the other team didn't have a shot on goal. The second one I won 2:1, the second team had 3 shots total, 1 on goal (a 30m long shot). The third one I drew 2:2.

The second game here looked like this when looking at shots (yes, we've hit the post 6 times!) - they shoot all over the place, it looks rather random to me instead of "shooting to score"...

They are clearly shooting from good positions (centre of the box mostly), but many times miss an open goal. My front 3 (or 4) are always hitting the keeper from the small box while often times my midfielders don't have any problem to score from 30 meters if I allow them to shoot. 

I used to play with an AF instead of CF, but now my striker is not so good as AF, he's best as CF (should I retrain him? He's 19). Is that the reason why all my players are suddenly missing most of their opportunities, or is that because they are young (even though they have the consistent performer sticker)? Note that my AF was NOT they main source of my goals, he used to score no more than 15 per season at most (excluding domestic cups), but so did my AMR/L's and sometimes CMs, with even some of my defenders getting 10 goals (from headers in set-pieces/penalties).

The scoring chances are there (at least I think based on what I'm seeing in highlights and analysis), but they are not converting them. The youngsters have much better stats than my old crew (some of which I've sold for good money, some of which I'm keeping as mentors as they are approaching 35). Also, their match ratings are not poor as I had gotten with my old crew when they wasted a lot of chances - this time all my attacking players have a 6.8 minimum, often 7+ ratings even if they don't score/assist (and the average ratings are 7.1-7.2 even with a 0:0 draw).

An example of what type of chances they are missing (~2 per match against weaker teams and many more not so obvious chances) - the forward here has 15 finishing, 12 technique and 12 composure (not sure what other stats matter), keep in mind that those are crappy goalkeepers (this red team is oscillating between the First and Second league, the First league not even being among the top ten leagues in Europe):

I was thinking whether the ME evaluates my tactic and when it's bad, it doesn't let me score even though we create chances - whether that is its way of "communicating" the quality of my setup to me. I refuse to believe that this is just bad luck if it's consistently this way.

(To also clarify the preference for these two formations - I just find it easiest to find players for these roles - I can find dozens of great AM's in my save, but getting a decent WB or defensive ML/R is a herculean task.)

To clarify, we are still on top this season (in the league at least, not so much in the CL group), but I feel that judging by the way we are dominating each game, the scoreline should look very different.

I know these setups are for a rather attacking football so I am well aware that I will concede from counter-attacks (especially against decent teams), however, I am not. I am conceding from "stupid" goals as they seem, e.g. headers from some 20m (see video) or shots from tight angle directly at my keeper, but instead of catching it, he "stumbles and falls down". Most of the time he doesn't get bad ratings for it and the ME doesn't consider such goals his fault, so it might be just the limited animation, I don't know. If I were conceding from counter-attacks, I'd not be dismayed (that is just my intended setup), but I have no idea how to reduce goals from situations like these. Despite my keeper being regularly acclaimed as the best keeper in my league (or at least used to be in last few seasons before my "shopping spree"), often times I feel he doesn't play football but dodgeball now...

I guess the main reason I am puzzled is that I was able to dominate teams (or defend against better teams) with an inferior team (I was able to win the league undefeated once, last season I had 1 loss), why am I so much worse now that I got better players (2 losses already not even mid-season, quite a number of draws)?

 

[Experienced Defender]

Due to a shortage of time, I'll focus only on the first tactic (4123 wide). And I immediately have a question for you: what's the reasoning behind the defend duty for the DLP in a CM position when the formation employs a DM behind him?

Another question: what's the reasoning behind using two crossing-heavy roles - FB on attack duty and winger - on the same (left) flank? 

Third question: can the WB on defend duty properly support the IF and attacking mezzala in front of him?

What's the point of playing for set pieces in this kind of tactic?

Last but not least - what do you expect to achieve with tight marking paired with extreme pressing and prevent short GKD?

[ThinkZebras]

Thanks for your reply.

21 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

what's the reasoning behind the defend duty for the DLP in a CM position when the formation employs a DM behind him?

The defend duty for the CM is to create a bit of confusion for the (carefully defending) opposing team when paired with the support duty for the DM. Its sole purpose is to make it harder for the other team to decide who to mark.

21 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

what's the reasoning behind using two crossing-heavy roles - FB on attack duty and winger - on the same (left) flank? 

The reasoning was for the winger (whose PPM is to cut inside) to have an option when cutting inside - either a pass right into the center (and create an immediate threat with a scoring opportunity for one of the players there - Striker, IF, MEZ or even the supporting DM), or have an option to send the attacking fullback running on the left flank and allow him to cross (or, even better, pass a short pass back into the corner of the box once the running FBa draws defender(s) with him away from the winger, creating a scoring chance for someone). I guess I should have made him an IW (to get the desired effect of cutting inside), but him being a winger with the Cuts inside move works as well (this decision was affected simply by him having a full green circle in the Winger role but only a yellow half circle in IW role).

21 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

can the WB on defend duty properly support the IF and attacking mezzala in front of him?

I haven't really thought about supporting the IF with the RB when he has a mezzala there, my main thought here was to cover for the two attacking roles on the right flank (IFs and MEZa), so that there is less space for counter-attacks. But I have seen some crosses coming from the WBd in matches, even some assists (probably not as much as i'd have seen with a support/attack duty).

21 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

What's the point of playing for set pieces in this kind of tactic?

Playing for set pieces has been just something that has been working for me beacuse I have some quite decent set piece takers (especially my IF, who has 17 free kicks and 18 corners & technique; now some of my youngsters are beginning to be good at set pieces as well). I'd say at least every 2 matches we (used to) score a goal from either a corner or free kick,

21 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

what do you expect to achieve with tight marking paired with extreme pressing and prevent short GKD?

Pressing and preventing short GKD is to avoid leaving any time/room for my opponents to slowly advance, but force them to pass quickly and hopefully make a mistake (just hoof it to my defenders or get a throw-in). The tight marking is there to prevent conceding goals from set pieces which used to happen to me with positive mentality quite often. If there were an option to force the tight marking only when defending a FK or corner, I'd prefer that.

 

To update, I have watched several matches on full since the post. My players (the new youngsters) do indeed quickly recover possession (due to the intensive pressing), as intended. We created about 5 runs behind the opponent's defense (in the box) every match (by a "creative pass"), but very few of them were ever converted into goals; finishing really seemed to be the biggest problem beacuse the players couldn't beat the GK from the small box line. I have since then tried to change the CF to support and now the goals are rolling - last 2 games (one with 4123, the other 4231) were 4-0 and 3-0. Not sure if that is a coincidence or whether the attack/support duty for my striker has so much of an effect (my previous setup was with an AF and worked well), but I am glad they are scoring again. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by ThinkZebras

[Experienced Defender]

23 hours ago, ThinkZebras said:

The defend duty for the CM is to create a bit of confusion for the (carefully defending) opposing team when paired with the support duty for the DM. Its sole purpose is to make it harder for the other team to decide who to mark

Okay, but I fear it does not work that way. For one, you cannot know if the other team man-marks your players at all, let alone who marks whom. Even if they use the tight marking as a team instruction, it does not mean that they specifically mark any of your players. 

 

23 hours ago, ThinkZebras said:

The reasoning was for the winger (whose PPM is to cut inside) to have an option when cutting inside - either a pass right into the center (and create an immediate threat with a scoring opportunity for one of the players there - Striker, IF, MEZ or even the supporting DM), or have an option to send the attacking fullback running on the left flank and allow him to cross (or, even better, pass a short pass back into the corner of the box once the running FBa draws defender(s) with him away from the winger, creating a scoring chance for someone)

Okay, this makes sense  

 

23 hours ago, ThinkZebras said:

On 08/12/2020 at 02:35, Experienced Defender said:

can the WB on defend duty properly support the IF and attacking mezzala in front of him?

I haven't really thought about supporting the IF with the RB when he has a mezzala there, my main thought here was to cover for the two attacking roles on the right flank (IFs and MEZa), so that there is less space for counter-attacks. But I have seen some crosses coming from the WBd in matches, even some assists (probably not as much as i'd have seen with a support/attack duty).

If you are pleased with how it works, then okay  

 

23 hours ago, ThinkZebras said:

Playing for set pieces has been just something that has been working for me beacuse I have some quite decent set piece takers (especially my IF, who has 17 free kicks and 18 corners & technique; now some of my youngsters are beginning to be good at set pieces as well). I'd say at least every 2 matches we (used to) score a goal from either a corner or free kick

Again okay. 

 

23 hours ago, ThinkZebras said:

The tight marking is there to prevent conceding goals from set pieces which used to happen to me with positive mentality quite often. If there were an option to force the tight marking only when defending a FK or corner, I'd prefer that

This is really interesting. Honestly, I don't know what I would say 

[ThinkZebras]

20 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Okay, but I fear it does not work that way. For one, you cannot know if the other team man-marks your players at all, let alone who marks whom. Even if they use the tight marking as a team instruction, it does not mean that they specifically mark any of your players. 

Of course I cannot know that, but if they do (mark tightly), I am hoping to gain an advantage this way (although it might be just wishful thinking). If they don't, that means I still have one defending player and one supporting player i the midfield (although not in an optimal constellation). I will try to watch a few more matches in full and swap the duties once I have time to assess whether this way it creates more confusion in the opposition defense or my own ranks.

 

To get back to my original post, I was actually hoping to pick your brains (or someone else's who is well-versed in the tactics). Do you think the ME evaluates how "solid" the tactic is in its own terms and therefore prevents my players from scoring even in obviously great positions (or reduces their chances)? Because I had that a lot before I changed the CF to support. My initial thought was that having an attacking striker moves at least one of my players forward, so that I have someone in the box for an eventual cross (the CF has 18 heading and 16 jumping reach) and a few players supporting just outside the box. Now (with the CFs) I have all of my players "camping" a few paces from the box and it seems overcrowded there (creating mostly short passes and often driving them all the way back to the mid-circle, forcing them to begin the attack de novo, yet only now are they able to score goals. I just don't get why weren't they scoring with the CFa and now with CFs they do. Do you have an idea why that is? 

[Experienced Defender]

3 hours ago, ThinkZebras said:

Do you think the ME evaluates how "solid" the tactic is in its own terms and therefore prevents my players from scoring even in obviously great positions (or reduces their chances)?

This is a bit too speculative to be possible to give a proper answer. But I always like to quote a great statement by Herne - "the game rewards logical thinking". So that may actually be the best answer to your question