Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi guys this is my first attempt at a 3 at the back formation and I was wondering if any of you had any suggestions on how to improve this, although it done me well in the league the champions league was disastrous and to be honest luckily won europa. My idea of this is just short passing plays with either intricate through balls to either striker which I have seen and of course crossing with the wingbacks. My pi’s is closing down more for the 2 strikers and midfield trio, now is there anyway to make this solid because I get destroyed by the bigger teams sometimes even team equal where I know I’m only winning due to individual quality I want to make this tactic solid at the back and lethal on the ball, also the WB on defend is actually on support was just experimenting for a game. 

044C6254-4C83-459A-8644-2B4B07C980C9.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Breezybaby1 said:

Hi guys this is my first attempt at a 3 at the back formation and I was wondering if any of you had any suggestions on how to improve this, although it done me well in the league the champions league was disastrous and to be honest luckily won europa. My idea of this is just short passing plays with either intricate through balls to either striker which I have seen and of course crossing with the wingbacks. My pi’s is closing down more for the 2 strikers and midfield trio, now is there anyway to make this solid because I get destroyed by the bigger teams sometimes even team equal where I know I’m only winning due to individual quality I want to make this tactic solid at the back and lethal on the ball, also the WB on defend is actually on support was just experimenting for a game. 

044C6254-4C83-459A-8644-2B4B07C980C9.jpeg

Killing big teams are easier when done through fast and direct plays. Change both strikers and MEZ to attack duty and remove shorter passing, lower tempo, add counter, pass into space and hit early crosses. 

For your normal games, it looks like you want to play a possession game with a bottom heavy system. It needs better support for the forwards from the middle and you can afford to be more aggressive with roles and duties here. 

There is no one benefiting from players moving into channels here. If you want to keep MEZS(should have the trait of get into opp area) then it's better to change your DLFS to PFS. He doesn't move into channels and he still holds up the ball for oncoming players. 

Your DM looks too defensive. He has three players behind him. So changing him to REG (if he is a creative passer) will help him go up to support the attacking play without too many risks. Then, it's better change your LCM to a CAR to cover for the left WB and create more space for the REG behind.

If your WBSs are fast and good at off the ball, decisions, anticipation, work-rate, then you can afford to change them to CWBs.

Lastly, playing an offside trap will compress the space more effectively to implement the mid-block more successfully. Then, the center CD should have a defend duty like the other two in the line.

Team Instructions

Playing with a lower tempo is possible if you are sure your players are able to play through the defence and find the back of the net. If not removing it would be better and still good for a meaningful passing game. 

Playing short passes will reduce your attacking options, especially for the wide players and might make it difficult for your midfield to support your strikers more effectively. If you want to keep it, then being more expressive will help them choose the right kind of pass when they see fit:)

By the way, why not a 4-3-1-2 or 4-3-2-1 as they are better at controlling possession in the midfield?

Edited by frukox
Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern with the mezz(a) is that in this system especially with wingbacks I worry for that side of the flank, when I come up against a team that for examples plays a 4231 or 433 I get battered down there and the reason for the formation was honestly because I’ve never even tried a 3atb formation so I wanted to step out my comfort zone 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Breezybaby1 said:

My concern with the mezz(a) is that in this system especially with wingbacks I worry for that side of the flank, when I come up against a team that for examples plays a 4231 or 433 I get battered down there and the reason for the formation was honestly because I’ve never even tried a 3atb formation so I wanted to step out my comfort zone 

Then, you change him to WBD. There is no shame in this if you have a capable mezzala. However, you need to change LCM to a BBM or RPM to support him better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, frukox said:

Then, you change him to WBD. There is no shame in this if you have a capable mezzala. However, you need to change LCM to a BBM or RPM to support him better.

So I’m guessing in transition the wider cb’s will cover the flanks until wb get back and the dm will drop in with the middle cb? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Breezybaby1 said:

So I’m guessing in transition the wider cb’s will cover the flanks until wb get back and the dm will drop in with the middle cb? 

Yes if they are fast and defensively good.

Edited by frukox
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Breezybaby1 said:

My pi’s is closing down more for the 2 strikers and midfield trio

I don't think you need to ask your midfield trio to close down because it will pull them out of position.

Ideally you want your strikers to press so they can try and delay opposition counter attacks while the other players get into their defensive shape to shut down passing options

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the tactic, it looks as though you are trying to mix possession football (instructions) with catenaccio (formation), which is pretty contradictory and hence does not look like a good idea to me. 

Now, if I only analyze your setup of roles and duties independent of the rest of the tactic, the mezzala on support would make more sense behind the AF than DLF. In this case specifically, that would mean swapping the sides of your strikers' roles, rather than the CMs. 

I would also prefer a slightly different role than CM on support in this particular setup, i.e. one that would: A) allow the related wing-back to bomb forward with less risk, and B) help better with ball-recycling. 

On 31/12/2020 at 06:11, Breezybaby1 said:

My pi’s is closing down more for the 2 strikers and midfield trio

I would advise against using a split block - especially the full split block - in this type of formation (very bottom-heavy, with only 2 players in advanced areas).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...