Higher defensive line issues? Lower line of engagement issues?

[Pellegrini's Espresso Bar]

Ok I'm trying recreate an Athetico Madrid type system, a very robust compact type 4-4-2 that is quite defensive.

So the question if you want to create a very compact 4-4-2, which very much do want that... could I make the formation very compact by setting the Line Of Engagement is much lower and the Defensive Line to be high relative to standard? Or should I not use some roles and instead use others? Like us the DLF instead of a complete forward (CF), if the latter will look to play further up the pitch, regardless of the setting that the Line Of Engagement is going off.. when weighing up the pros and cons of forwards, maybe you need a DLF and AF rather than 2 AF's for example.

Can a team be attacking if they have a lower Line Of Engagement and a high defensive line? 

[Experienced Defender]

If you want to play a low-block tactic, you'll achieve an optimal level of compactness by the combo of standard D-line and lower LOE.

Higher DL + lower LOE will be even more compact, but the potential risk is that it can allow the opposition to more easily launch balls over the top of your defense, because you are giving them enough time and space for this kind of long passes. 

However, the DL/LOE combo is just one element of a tactic. so it's important to view it in the context of the tactic as a whole. If your setup of roles and duties is poorly balanced, then the compactness achieved through DL and LOE can easily be compromised.

For more specific details, you'll need to post a screenshot of the tactic. 

[Pellegrini's Espresso Bar]

11 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Quote

 

If you want to play a low-block tactic, you'll achieve an optimal level of compactness by the combo of standard D-line and lower LOE.

Higher DL + lower LOE will be even more compact, but the potential risk is that it can allow the opposition to more easily launch balls over the top of your defense, because you are giving them enough time and space for this kind of long passes. 

However, the DL/LOE combo is just one element of a tactic. so it's important to view it in the context of the tactic as a whole. If your setup of roles and duties is poorly balanced, then the compactness achieved through DL and LOE can easily be compromised.

For more specific details, you'll need to post a screenshot of the tactic. 

 

 

Okay I want to recreate Villarreal's 4-2-2-2 that turned into a 4-4-2 when they lost possession of the ball.

Similar to the way Simeone gets Atletico Madrid operating in a compact, high pressing 4-4-2.

I want both attacking play makers to drift inside for the spaces between their central mids and wingers (when we got the ball)

But then slot into the wide midfielder role within a very compact and hard to break down 4-4-2.

My thinking is the only the way to have the attacking midfielder roaming around the pitch and interchanging with each other and the forwards, is to position them in more advanced positions (LAM and RAM) both are set as Inside forwards on support duty but what I'm thinking is rater than get the team to counter-press - set the whole to drop into a very compact, defensive 4-4-2 shape... once the LOE is triggered start urgently pressing, this why the defensive line is higher and the LOE is much lower - we need tp stay very compact until we win the ball back, then launch a counter attack.... rinse and repeat.

Centre back: Shoot less often, dribble less and hold position

Ball-playing centre back: Take more risks and hold position

Wingback (left and right): Sit narrower, close down more and mark tighter

Ball winning midfielder: Take fewer risks, hold position and mark tighter

Deep lying playmaker: Shoot less often, take more risks and hold position

Inside forward (left and right): Sit narrower, dribble more and cut inside with the ball

Poacher: Dribble less, take fewer risks and get further forward

Complete forward: Stay wider, hold up the ball and dribble more

 

Yes sometimes we will counter-press, say at home against a bottom half team or when looking for a goal against a counter attacking/defensive 4-1-4-1 .. but mostly I'm not going to counter-press regularly -- in my opinion, it leaves to many hole in your system that the opposition can exploit and that can get you in trouble... that's why when we loose possession of the ball, Pedraza and Kubo need to drop the be inline with Coquelin and Iborra.The 4-4-2 needs to be very compact and that means the forwards drop deeper and the backline pushing higher slightly but I'm not sure how the line LOE and DL effect the teams shape and the players positioning... that's why I'm asking. 

EDIT: Here is a link to the thread about the system I'm trying recreate,  

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by Pellegrini's Espresso Bar  

[Experienced Defender]

Unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with Villareal current style, so I can only comment on potential flaws in your tactic, not the replication.

As I essentially pointed out in my previous post, high compactness and optimal compactness are not necessarily the same thing. In the case of your tactic, the compactness is very high, but not optimal (read again my previous post to see why). 

On the other hand, your setup of roles and duties looks very solid from a defensive perspective. Attacking-wise though, it may lack penetration up front, so I would switch the CF's duty to attack. 

I don't see the team mentality and transitional team instructions in the screenshots you posted, so cannot share any thoughts at the moment. 

11 hours ago, Pellegrini's Espresso Bar   said:

I want both attacking play makers to drift inside for the spaces between their central mids and wingers (when we got the ball)

But I don't see any attacking playmaker in your setup, let alone two of them. The only playmaker is your DLP. Who is not an attacking type of PM btw.

[Pellegrini's Espresso Bar]

55 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with Villareal current style, so I can only comment on potential flaws in your tactic, not the replication.

As I essentially pointed out in my previous post, high compactness and optimal compactness are not necessarily the same thing. In the case of your tactic, the compactness is very high, but not optimal (read again my previous post to see why). 

On the other hand, your setup of roles and duties looks very solid from a defensive perspective. Attacking-wise though, it may lack penetration up front, so I would switch the CF's duty to attack. 

I don't see the team mentality and transitional team instructions in the screenshots you posted, so cannot share any thoughts at the moment. 

But I don't see any attacking playmaker in your setup, let alone two of them. The only playmaker is your DLP. Who is not an attacking type of PM btw.

I didn't explain what I meant, by attacking playmakers - it's just in my setup I make sure the highly creative players who drift around are positioned as wide attacking midfielders with the freedom to roam and interchange with the other attacking players - rather than in the traditional number 10 role, see I like players who could be seen as a traditional playmaker (number 10's) but your right tho, the only player maker would be my deep lying midfielder.  Setting them as Advanced playmakers might work but Inside forward instruction are more suited tho, that said I'll look into that possible change tho. EDIT: btw cheers for the advice regarding this.

Edited December 31, 2020 by Pellegrini's Espresso Bar  

[Experienced Defender]

5 hours ago, Pellegrini's Espresso Bar   said:

I didn't explain what I meant, by attacking playmakers - it's just in my setup I make sure the highly creative players who drift around are positioned as wide attacking midfielders with the freedom to roam and interchange with the other attacking players - rather than in the traditional number 10 role, see I like players who could be seen as a traditional playmaker (number 10's) but your right tho, the only player maker would be my deep lying midfielder.  Setting them as Advanced playmakers might work but Inside forward instruction are more suited tho, that said I'll look into that possible change tho. EDIT: btw cheers for the advice regarding this.

Ok, I got it know 

And I don't think you should change your DLP into AP. I like your current setup, precisely because it has very good tactical balance. Changing the DLP into AP could disrupt it, so I would not recommend that anyway.