Underperforming xG, Conceding Through Balls, & Others

[Gbrexiton]

I have a tactical problem...

I am currently doing a youth academy challenge. So last season, it was my first back in Bundesliga 2 after relegation from the Bundesliga. My first half of the season wasn’t great, so I switched formations to the 4141dm wide listed below, and I reached the promotion playoffs (where I lost). I was confident going into the next season, but it has not gone as planned so far...

After 8 matches I have 10 points, 5 goals scored, and 5 conceded. However, my XG for is 10.19, and my XG against is 4.21. I have some screenshots below that could help to diagnose the problem. The screenshots go into last season (from the start of this formation) in order to get more data, because I’m not sure how much you could diagnose with just 5 scored and 5 conceded. The only thing I really find alarming is the amount of through balls conceded. I don’t know what else I should do though, the formation has a DM, and my defense is narrow. Is it my players, or something else? What other screenshots could help to diagnose the problem? What tactical changes should I make, or should I change the formation altogether? I don’t really understand why the formation is not working all of a sudden, given minimal change in my reputation. It seems this formation is good at removing the opposition’s chances at countering.

[Anexxias]

I think the problem could be that - despite having a DM - you're still leaving yourself pretty exposed.

You're playing with an AP(A) and a RPM in the middle, neither of which are going to provide much defensive solidity (the AP is moving forward into the attacking midfield, and the RPM is going wherever he wants). Then, your DLP is on (S) which means he will venture forward more than you'd really want from the 'holding' midfield role. On top of that, you're playing 2 Wing Backs (S) who will both be overlapping as well - basically meaning there will be times when only your 2 CBs are in position to defend.

I'd swap your DLP(S) to DLP(D) or to a DM(D) to provide better cover. You might also want to consider changing one of the AP(A) or RPM, because 3 playmakers in the centre of the pitch is a bit overkill. 2 can work, but I'd argue you might be better off swapping the RPM to a BBM and the AP to something like an CM(S) or MEZ(S).

[Lasson]

31 minutes ago, Anexxias said:

I'd swap your DLP(S) to DLP(D) or to a DM(D) to provide better cover. You might also want to consider changing one of the AP(A) or RPM, because 3 playmakers in the centre of the pitch is a bit overkill. 2 can work, but I'd argue you might be better off swapping the RPM to a BBM and the AP to something like an CM(S) or MEZ(S).

I was thinking along the same lines as you. You have all three offensive players on support and really nobody to make penetrating runs. Who’s going to attack the space behind your DLFs when he drops down? 

[HUNT3R]

As a new team in the league and (I assume) one of the weaker ones, that's incredibly aggressive, don't you think? I'm more looking at those out of possession instructions, but also the formation/tactic as a whole, with so many support duties in midfield and both fullbacks being WB/S. Do you have the player quality for a tactic like that?

Second, I struggle to see how the 3 playmakers in midfield aid your tactic. Why 3 of them? At least 2 of the 3 will be doing a very similar job and it also leaves you with very little penetration from midfield, given that they all mostly want to be on the ball instead of making runs forward to be a goal threat.

The tactic might work if teams give you lots of space, but as soon as that disappears even a little, you're going to struggle. I think you got lucky last season, tbh. It needs a bit of a re-think.

[Lasson]

1 hour ago, HUNT3R said:

As a new team in the league and (I assume) one of the weaker ones

I think you have misread his post. He was relegated from the Bundesliga, so his team should be among the better ones. 

[HUNT3R]

17 minutes ago, Lasson said:

I think you have misread his post. He was relegated from the Bundesliga, so his team should be among the better ones. 

Ah, so I did. The formatting of the post on the dark skin doesn't help. Thanks for pointing that out.

But, ok, if that's the case, then I still have the same issues with the lack of midfield penetration. The tactic essentially wants to attack with 3 players against 4-5 defenders, so just from a pure numbers point of view, it's going to be a struggle.

I mentioned in another thread that defensive issues aren't my strongest area and I usually rely on my own eyes when analysing those issues, so can't comment too much on that. It's far more aggressive than I ever used in FM20, so I don't even have tactical experience to offer. 

On player selection though, if you're (the OP) playing playmakers in those 3 positions, are they defensively capable enough? I'm especially thinking of that DLP at DM. He's going to have to cover a lot of ground.

 

[Gbrexiton]

Thanks for the feedback! I still do have some questions though:

 

1) Is the disparity between my xG scored and goals scored down to my players, my tactic, or just bad luck? 
2) Despite the obvious flaws, especially in midfield, why did the tactic work so well in the second half of last season? Was it luck? We were oftentimes outplaying the opposition, and a lot of our victories were deserved.

 

Anyways, I am thinking of changing the DLPsu to a DMde, and the APat to a CMat, and the IWsu to an IWat. Also, I am thinking of moving up the tempo by 1 or 2 notches. Would these changes make sense?

 

3 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

On player selection though, if you're (the OP) playing playmakers in those 3 positions, are they defensively capable enough? I'm especially thinking of that DLP at DM. He's going to have to cover a lot of ground.

Honestly, I played a lot of playmakers, because my team was filled with them. They all have really high passing/vision/decision, but their defensive abilities are not the best (tackling of my normal 3 playmakers is 9, 15, 5)

[Experienced Defender]

6 hours ago, Gbrexiton said:

I played a lot of playmakers, because my team was filled with them

If a player has good playmaking attributes, it does not mean that you must play him in a PM role. Any player can successfully play at least 2 different roles, and most can play even more. For example, players that are good as either AP or RPM are in most cases also good for the mezzala role. 

 

22 hours ago, Gbrexiton said:

What tactical changes should I make

From the attacking standpoint, you obviously lack penetration. Your only player with attack duty is a playmaker (AP), who is naturally inclined to drop deeper (compared to non-PM roles) in order to make himself as available for passes from teammates as possible.

Your other 2 midfielders are also playmakers, which further increases creation and organization at the expense of penetration. 

Plus, given that all your front 3 are played on support duties, the logical question is who is supposed to benefit from potential risky passes/through balls coming from that "playmakers galore"?

Defense-wise, you use fairly aggressive instructions (higher lines + more urgent pressing + high team mentality + counter-press) and then seem to try to sort of "moderate" that aggression with easy tackling (i.e. stay on feet). But things usually don't work that way. A more effective - plus simpler - way is to simply leave both pressing and tackling on their default settings. 

[Gbrexiton]

57 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

If a player has good playmaking attributes, it does not mean that you must play him in a PM role. Any player can successfully play at least 2 different roles, and most can play even more. For example, players that are good as either AP or RPM are in most cases also good for the mezzala role. 

 

From the attacking standpoint, you obviously lack penetration. Your only player with attack duty is a playmaker (AP), who is naturally inclined to drop deeper (compared to non-PM roles) in order to make himself as available for passes from teammates as possible.

Your other 2 midfielders are also playmakers, which further increases creation and organization at the expense of penetration. 

Plus, given that all your front 3 are played on support duties, the logical question is who is supposed to benefit from potential risky passes/through balls coming from that "playmakers galore"?

Defense-wise, you use fairly aggressive instructions (higher lines + more urgent pressing + high team mentality + counter-press) and then seem to try to sort of "moderate" that aggression with easy tackling (i.e. stay on feet). But things usually don't work that way. A more effective - plus simpler - way is to simply leave both pressing and tackling on their default settings. 

Thanks for the reply. I have a couple of questions though:
1) Is the disparity between my xG scored and goals scored down to my players, my tactic, or just bad luck? 
2) Despite the obvious flaws, especially in midfield, why did the tactic work so well in the second half of last season? Was it luck? We were oftentimes outplaying the opposition, and a lot of our victories were deserved.

 

I am thinking of changing the DLPsu to a DMde, and the APat to a CMat, and the IWsu to an IWat. In instructions, I am thinking of moving up the tempo by 1 or 2 notches. I will go to normal presssing/tackling, and drop both lines down by 1. Would these changes make sense?

[Experienced Defender]

16 minutes ago, Gbrexiton said:

1) Is the disparity between my xG scored and goals scored down to my players, my tactic, or just bad luck? 
2) Despite the obvious flaws, especially in midfield, why did the tactic work so well in the second half of last season? Was it luck?

How am I - or anyone else - supposed to know the answer(s) to questions like these? We neither manage your team/players nor play your save. 

Anyway, your tactic obviously has its weaknesses - which have already been pointed out - so that's the first thing you should look to address.

[Experienced Defender]

20 minutes ago, Gbrexiton said:

I am thinking of changing the DLPsu to a DMde, and the APat to a CMat, and the IWsu to an IWat. In instructions, I am thinking of moving up the tempo by 1 or 2 notches. I will go to normal presssing/tackling, and drop both lines down by 1. Would these changes make sense?

Post a screenshot with that updated tactic, because i have to see the whole context (rather than individual tweaks). 

[HUNT3R]

13 hours ago, Gbrexiton said:

1) Is the disparity between my xG scored and goals scored down to my players, my tactic, or just bad luck? 

No idea. You will need to look into this. Analyse the chances you've had. The tactic definitely doesn't help though.

xG just on its own is meaningless. You could have 20 shots in a match, each with a 0.1 xG and end up with no goals while the opposition could have 2 shots in that same match, each 0.4 xG and score at least 1.

Looking at the xG stats, you'd have 2 xG vs their 0.8 xG so it looks unfair/unlucky if you only look at xG, but in truth, you created poor chances and they didn't. It could be similar for you over the 8 matches.

13 hours ago, Gbrexiton said:

2) Despite the obvious flaws, especially in midfield, why did the tactic work so well in the second half of last season? Was it luck? We were oftentimes outplaying the opposition, and a lot of our victories were deserved.

Again something that only really you can go and analyse. Maybe you had a bit more space to work in. Maybe you got lucky.

For a tactic like that to work, with 3 playmakers in midfield, no midfield penetration and all 3 of your attacking players on Support Duties, the opposition will have had to give you enough space to slowly build, since you don't have anyone forward in transition but also be a little open in the final third so that your front 3 has some space to work in. You said your team wasn't doing well in the first half of the season, so it's possible that teams adjusted and saw more of a chance to beat you. That would mean that they'd be a bit more adventurous and perhaps that's what gave you that space to make the tactic work. Given how limited the tactic is, the success was never going to last.

With you ending in a play off spot, you're now seen as a threat again, so space in that final third is reduced. You may still have your very slow build up, but that's about it.

 

 

[Jervaj]

As it has been said, you have a big lack of penetration. You do play in different zones strecthing the defence but nobody is attacking the are often enoguh. And your 3 playmakers in the middle mostly mean you aren't exploiting their capabilities because play isn't realy been focused through them (as they are sharing the magnet effect) and there is nobody exploiting space to receive the potential rgeat passes from them. 

Just because someone has good passing, vision, anticipation and decisions doesn't mean he has to be a playmaker. The last 2 stats are great in almost all roles and positions, and passing and vision is good to have in many even if a playmaker may be more specialized. Also, nothing stops you from adding some PIs manually to exploit better a player's strengths.

12 hours ago, Gbrexiton said:

Thanks for the reply. I have a couple of questions though:
1) Is the disparity between my xG scored and goals scored down to my players, my tactic, or just bad luck? 

xG is a useful statistic to sum up things, but its also one that can be one that is easily misleading. When you watch the match do you actually feel like you are creating a lot of danger?

Having better or worse finishers can make over or underachieving xG more likely, but the kind of chances you get matters a lot. When there are many low quality chances its much more likely to be a disparity and inconsistency in attack. While if the average quality per chance is decent, or you have a consistent number of high quality chances per match you will not only be much more consistent, you will also be more likely to exceed the xG. Or at least thats my experience so far.

Mind you that sometimes there is danger created by the xG doesnt catch on it because there wasn't a shot for some reason (a 1vs1 where the GK gets the ball for example) yet it a sign that your atacck is working.

Quote

2) Despite the obvious flaws, especially in midfield, why did the tactic work so well in the second half of last season? Was it luck? We were oftentimes outplaying the opposition, and a lot of our victories were deserved.

Could be luck. And the AI does do tactical mistakes too at times, but even then given you got relegated I doubt it was that good. Was it really?

Also, if you really felt the seocnd half was good yet you still got relegated it probably means your first half was terrible. AI teams renew their "view" on other teams twice a year. Between seasons and in the winter break. If your first half of the season was bad you were likely underestimated and considered a minor threat, so they are more likely to play with back ups, less intense while also trying to be more expansive and attacking, making them less desfensively solid. That may have allowed you more space to play through even without forcing it yourself open, and also give your players more time for the patient play you ask them.

To answer it properly though you would have to answer yourself this, what kind of domination you were having? What did your scored goals aand other good chances you created look like?

Quote

 

I am thinking of changing the DLPsu to a DMde, and the APat to a CMat, and the IWsu to an IWat. In instructions, I am thinking of moving up the tempo by 1 or 2 notches. I will go to normal presssing/tackling, and drop both lines down by 1. Would these changes make sense?

They seem to adress some issues. But if you change many things at once you will have a hard time evaluating the different changes and seeing what leads your team to play how you want it. 

The role/duty changes seem good though to both have a more balanced midfield while giving you some penetration. Depending on players attributes an IFat could also be a good idea given your striker role.

I would hold off on changing the TI though, as what you suggest would change a lot the style your team will play. Formation, roles and duties are the core and most important part. In the long run I feel like it would be better if you first see how the new roles and duties play and then find problems (or unintended behaviours) and start tweaking TIs slowly to see if that puts you closer to what you want. Its not neccesarilly the best for short term success but it will allow to understand your tactic better and learn how to get towards your desired style of play more easily.