[FM21] As always, I fail miserably when i try to play more defensively

[Keyzer Soze]

It seems almost like a curse to me, but every time i try to develop a more defensive tactic, to play against the bigger teams in Europe, i always fails to succeed and always end up loosing the games.... i should say always end up beeing trashed.

My last try was against Real Madrid.

Playing with Benfica, i went to play them in Madrid in my last game of champions league group stage. Both Madrid and me were already qualify for the next round.

I decided to set up my 4123 wide DM, like this:

DLF(a)

IW(s)                                                    W(a)

DLP(s)      BBM(s)

DM(d)

WB(s)        CD(d)         CD(d)        FB(s)

SK(s)

Metality: Positive

Team Instructions: POOD, Hit Early Crosses, Counter, Lower LOE

My initial line up was:

DLF(a): Darwin Nunez

IW(a): Everton Cebolinha

W(a): Rafa

DLP(s): Pizzi

BBM(s): Gérson

DM(d): Weigl

WB(s): Grimaldo

DC(d): Todibo and Otamendi

FB(s): André Almeida

SK(s): Vlachodimos

 

Final Result.... 5-nil to Madrid.

They got 20+ shots on goal, with a xG above 2.4

I got 6 shots on goal, with a xG of 0.66

In my idea, i was thinking that my team would sit deep, compact, and lauch counter attacks, with Rafa ripping the right side with the support of the IW(s) and the late running of my BBM(s).... none of that happen.

We simply watched Madrid playing, getting shot after shot. Never recover a ball,.... never lauch a counter attack.

So, why i'm never able to make a decent counter attack tactic? What am i missing here?

[crusadertsar]

@Keyzer Soze There are some serious contradictions in your tactic. You are both playing out of defence and launching early crosses. Also don't know what your reasoning is for going crossing heavy and then playing with a striker that drops back.

Also a playmaker in midfield is not a good idea if you want quick counters. Maybe use a deep playmaker instead if you still want one in your formation.

I'm sorry but to me it doesn't really look like a counterattack tactic.

Edited February 5, 2021 by crusadertsar

[Keyzer Soze]

@crusadertsar

Thks for the feedback.

So, in your opinion, what changes would you make?

Edited February 5, 2021 by Keyzer Soze

[eXistenZ]

Amateur here, but I would definitly remove play out of defence and the DLP in the centre. Both encourage more build up play and slow the game down once in possesion, and with counters you want the opposite - move the ball upfield quickly

[crusadertsar]

22 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

@crusadertsar

Thks for the feedback.

So, in your opinion, what changes would you make?

I would look to create quick breakouts through the middle. That means putting the central striker as AF or PF(A). On the left IW(S) and W(S) on right. Then a simple combo of Mezzala(A) (or CM (A)) and CM (S) in the middle with Anchor behind them. Then keep fullbacks simple. The left FB on attack to overlap the IW and cross to the AF or Mezzala. The right FB on support or if you have the player IWB(s) to cover for your attacking CM. 

Minimal TI are needed. Balanced mentality with Counters, Standard DL and Lower LOE.

[Keyzer Soze]

15 minutes ago, eXistenZ said:

Amateur here, but I would definitly remove play out of defence and the DLP in the centre. Both encourage more build up play and slow the game down once in possesion, and with counters you want the opposite - move the ball upfield quickly

So, change the DLP for a CM, for example? 

[eXistenZ]

2 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

So, change the DLP for a CM, for example? 

Yes, as @crusadertsarmentioned. It may sound stupidly obvious, but you're not trying to make the play in this match/setup , so a playmaker is not as needed

[Keyzer Soze]

14 minutes ago, crusadertsar said:

I would look to create quick breakouts through the middle. That means putting the central striker as AF or PF(A). On the left IW(S) and W(S) on right. Then a simple combo of Mezzala(A) (or CM (A)) and CM (S) in the middle with Anchor behind them. Then keep fullbacks simple. The left FB on attack to overlap the IW and cross to the AF or Mezzala. The right FB on support or if you have the player IWB(s) to cover for your attacking CM. 

Minimal TI are needed. Balanced mentality with Counters, Standard DL and Lower LOE.

Thks again @crusadertsar

Couple of questions... 

Why the Anchorman instead of the DM(d)? 

Why droping the mentality? Isnt a more attacking mentality better for conter attack? 

In terms of stability in the midfield , wouldn't be better to use the Mezzala on support and then the right winger on attack? 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Keyzer Soze

[crusadertsar]

43 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

Thks again @crusadertsar

Couple of questions... 

Why the Anchorman instead of the DM(d)? 

Why droping the mentality? Isnt a more attacking mentality better for conter attack? 

In termos of stability in the midfield , wouldn't be better to use the Mezzala on support and then the right winger on attack? 

You could but I prefer to have penetration from different strata. So AF upfront and then Mezzala arriving behind. There is very little difference between Anchor and DM (D) but generally i prefer Anchor because it already has all the hardcoded instructions that i look for in the DM role in such a system. 

And if you want to play on a counter you want to make sure that you give enough time for your opposition to advance into your half. On attack mentality your transitions will be too fast as you throw your players forward before the AI gets forward. Also meaning that their defence would be better organized and against a team like Real Madrid there's little chance of breaking their organized defence unless you are another world class team yourself. But then you wouldn't be playing on a counter right 

So what you want to do is to keep mentality low but not too low, or otherwise the opposition will just overrun you. A few attacking roles is all you need. The rest of the team will want to sit back and to invite the opponent deeper. And then once they are mostly commited in your half and their defence is disorganized that is when you want to pounce. For that matter maybe I would even change Anchor to BWM (D) help get back the ball quicker.

In general you want counter-attacking formation to defend deeper with more numbers to tie up the attackers and then have fast runners in transition/midfield and in your attack to take advantage of their holes in defence.

Edited February 5, 2021 by crusadertsar

[NotSoSpecialOne]

Mentality is fine. Positive/Attacking can be very suitable for counter attacking styles.

The one thing that sticks out, and others have mentioned, is the use of playing out of defense. I can't really speak to the quality of your Benfica side vs that of Real Madrid but POOD when you're trying to be defensive and are the worse team in terms of quality, is not only inviting a lot of pressure on your side (potentially getting caught in dangerous positions etc) but also hampering your ability to hit them on the counter.

Another that comes to mind is your choice of striker role/duty. A couple of other roles, for example Advanced Forward, are probably more suited to the style of play you want.

You also need to think about how you create the space that you'll be able to exploit on the counter.

[Experienced Defender]

I don't think the DLP is much of an issue here, especially as he is not on defend duty but support. Of course, you don't have to use a DLP (or any playmaker role) in a counter-minded tactic, which does not mean that you should never do that. The only PM role I would avoid in a counter style is DLP on defend duty. Anyway, if I were to remove the DLP from your setup, my preferred choice for the substitute role would be BWM on support duty (which of course depends on the type of the player as well).

The Play out of defence is potentially a bigger issue IMO, but even that instruction can be used in a counter tactic sometimes (provided your players - defenders and midfielders in the first place - are good enough to confidently build up play from the back. 

So if you notice that the opposition tend to frequently/easily intercept your attacks in the early stage (in your own half), that's a clear sign that you should avoid playing out of defence. 

In terms of roles and duties - apart from the DLP - I would switch the winger's (AMR) duty to support and BBM to CM on attack, in order to get better defensive solidity on the right flank along with more central penetration. 

Another potential tweak worth consideration is changing the LB into FB on attack. Because FB as a role is inherently more defense-minded than WB, despite having a higher duty (attack vs. support). 

When it comes to instructions, early crosses generally suit a counter style. But given that you use a formation with a lone striker, perhaps it's not necessary. 

Now, if you switched the mentality from positive to balanced, that would make having another attack duty up front more viable and consequently lead to early crosses making more sense. For example:

DLFat

IWat                                    Wsu

BWMsu   CMat

DMde

WBsu    CDde  CD/BPDde  FBsu

SKde

And as the mentality is now slightly lower, you may consider upping the tempo or/and passing directness by a notch (to higher or/and more direct respectively).

As always, it's ultimately the question of risk vs. reward.

[Experienced Defender]

Last but not least, if you want to play any defensive style of football - including the counter - make sure that at least 2 of your 3 midfielders have proper defensive attributes. Otherwise, your defense is likely to be under too much pressure and thus eventually be forced to capitulate.

[crusadertsar]

26 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

I don't think the DLP is much of an issue here, especially as he is not on defend duty but support. Of course, you don't have to use a DLP (or any playmaker role) in a counter-minded tactic, which does not mean that you should never do that. The only PM role I would avoid in a counter style is DLP on defend duty. Anyway, if I were to remove the DLP from your setup, my preferred choice for the substitute role would be BWM on support duty (which of course depends on the type of the player as well).

The Play out of defence is potentially a bigger issue IMO, but even that instruction can be used in a counter tactic sometimes (provided your players - defenders and midfielders in the first place - are good enough to confidently build up play from the back. 

So if you notice that the opposition tend to frequently/easily intercept your attacks in the early stage (in your own half), that's a clear sign that you should avoid playing out of defence. 

In terms of roles and duties - apart from the DLP - I would switch the winger's (AMR) duty to support and BBM to CM on attack, in order to get better defensive solidity on the right flank along with more central penetration. 

Another potential tweak worth consideration is changing the LB into FB on attack. Because FB as a role is inherently more defense-minded than WB, despite having a higher duty (attack vs. support). 

When it comes to instructions, early crosses generally suit a counter style. But given that you use a formation with a lone striker, perhaps it's not necessary. 

Now, if you switched the mentality from positive to balanced, that would make having another attack duty up front more viable and consequently lead to early crosses making more sense. For example:

DLFat

IWat                                    Wsu

BWMsu   CMat

DMde

WBsu    CDde  CD/BPDde  FBsu

SKde

And as the mentality is now slightly lower, you may consider upping the tempo or/and passing directness by a notch (to higher or/and more direct respectively).

As always, it's ultimately the question of risk vs. reward.

Why are you using a striker role that holds up the ball (DLF) in a counter formation? Even on attack it will still drop back hold up the ball.

[Keyzer Soze]

33 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

I don't think the DLP is much of an issue here, especially as he is not on defend duty but support. Of course, you don't have to use a DLP (or any playmaker role) in a counter-minded tactic, which does not mean that you should never do that. The only PM role I would avoid in a counter style is DLP on defend duty. Anyway, if I were to remove the DLP from your setup, my preferred choice for the substitute role would be BWM on support duty (which of course depends on the type of the player as well).

The Play out of defence is potentially a bigger issue IMO, but even that instruction can be used in a counter tactic sometimes (provided your players - defenders and midfielders in the first place - are good enough to confidently build up play from the back. 

So if you notice that the opposition tend to frequently/easily intercept your attacks in the early stage (in your own half), that's a clear sign that you should avoid playing out of defence. 

In terms of roles and duties - apart from the DLP - I would switch the winger's (AMR) duty to support and BBM to CM on attack, in order to get better defensive solidity on the right flank along with more central penetration. 

Another potential tweak worth consideration is changing the LB into FB on attack. Because FB as a role is inherently more defense-minded than WB, despite having a higher duty (attack vs. support). 

When it comes to instructions, early crosses generally suit a counter style. But given that you use a formation with a lone striker, perhaps it's not necessary. 

Now, if you switched the mentality from positive to balanced, that would make having another attack duty up front more viable and consequently lead to early crosses making more sense. For example:

DLFat

IWat                                    Wsu

BWMsu   CMat

DMde

WBsu    CDde  CD/BPDde  FBsu

SKde

And as the mentality is now slightly lower, you may consider upping the tempo or/and passing directness by a notch (to higher or/and more direct respectively).

As always, it's ultimately the question of risk vs. reward.

Thks for the repply.

I don't have in my squad a player with the right attributes to play as BWM(s), so that's not a option.

Could it work with a standard CM(s), and if so, should i change the left WB(s) to a FB(s)?

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, crusadertsar said:

Why are you using a striker role that holds up the ball (DLF) in a counter formation? Even on attack it will still drop back hold up the ball

Holding up the ball is not necessarily an issue in a counter tactic. Because holding up the ball for a moment (until teammates arrive in support) is not the same as dwelling on the ball with no obvious purpose. Also remember that here we are talking about a formation with a lone striker.

Plus, the counter instruction means that the striker won't necessarily hold up the ball when a counter-attack is on (i.e. during the attacking transition phase), unless that makes sense in a given situation. 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Keyzer Soze said:

I don't have in my squad a player with the right attributes to play as BWM(s), so that's not a option.

Could it work with a standard CM(s), and if so, should i change the left WB(s) to a FB(s)?

Honestly, if you don't have a suitable player for BWM, I would prefer the DLP over CM on support.

But then again, if you really don't have a player with proper attributes for a BWM in your squad, are you sure that a (pure) counter-attacking tactic is a good idea at all? Because every tactical style requires a certain type of players. 

[Keyzer Soze]

2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Honestly, if you don't have a suitable player for BWM, I would prefer the DLP over CM on support.

But then again, if you really don't have a player with proper attributes for a BWM in your squad, are you sure that a (pure) counter-attacking tactic is a good idea at all? Because every tactical style requires a certain type of players. 

That's a good point.

The players that i have in my Benfica team are much more suited to play a possession style of play.

My main tactic, that i use pretty mucu in every match is this

DLF(a)

IF(s)                                                 IW(s)

DLP(s)        MEZ(a)

DM(d)

WB(a)        CD(d)        CD(d)        WB(s)

SK(s)

Mentality: Positive

Team  Instructions: POOD, Be More Creative, WBIB, Counter Press, Higher LOE

I also set a split block, with the 3 forwards + Mezzala with more pressing.

But i can't go play with this tactic against teams like Real Madrid, because i don't a chance playing so attacking. That's why i need to have a more defensive counter attack tactic.

 

[MadOnion]

How many times have you started a new save?  Whenever you open these kind of threads, your XI is always from the first season.

One thing that is obvious is the fact Madrid is much better than Benfica, so my approach would be to either hit on the break (like you're trying to do) or dominate possession by being super cautious.

As you're trying to play counter-attacking football, and if your fullbacks are being exposed drop your wingers to the MF strata. If I recall both Rafa and Everton aren't the best in terms of work-rate, teamwork and aggression/bravery. Grimaldo is suspect too. So every little helps. Actually having them starting a little deeper will help withdraw their fullbacks a bit.

I recently found the Poacher amazing for these kind of system. He's great since he stays on the shoulder on the last defender. Darwin's pace if perfect for this.

Finally I'd pack the midfield with IWBs since these help with 2nd balls/duels.

Edited February 5, 2021 by MadOnion

[Experienced Defender]

34 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

My main tactic, that i use pretty mucu in every match is this

DLF(a)

IF(s)                                                 IW(s)

DLP(s)        MEZ(a)

DM(d)

WB(a)        CD(d)        CD(d)        WB(s)

SK(s)

Mentality: Positive

Team  Instructions: POOD, Be More Creative, WBIB, Counter Press, Higher LOE

I also set a split block, with the 3 forwards + Mezzala with more pressing.

But i can't go play with this tactic against teams like Real Madrid, because i don't a chance playing so attacking. That's why i need to have a more defensive counter attack tactic

You don't have to change your primary (regular) tactic into a pure counter-attacking tactic (assuming the primary tactic works well in general). Instead, you can make it just slightly more conservative against (much) stronger opposition. For example: remove the counter-press (and perhaps even use the Regroup instead). Remove the split block (or at least reduce it to the lighter version, which would involve only the striker and mezzala). Consider dropping the D-line to standard (given that you play in a well-balanced formation that has a DM, that should not damage your compactness too much). Use distribution to CBs and FBs instead of PoD (less risk in the build-up phase). Use FB on attack instead of WB on attack on the left. Remove the WBiB. And things like that.

You probably won't even need to apply all these tweaks at once.

[Experienced Defender]

And yes - buy a couple of defensively reliable midfielders to solidify that area of the team (as soon as you can). Because without such players, you are likely to struggle against Real and the like, regardless of the tactic. 

[Keyzer Soze]

44 minutes ago, MadOnion said:

How many times have you started a new save?  Whenever you open these kind of threads, your XI is always from the first season.

One thing that is obvious is the fact Madrid is much better than Benfica, so my approach would be to either hit on the break (like you're trying to do) or dominate possession by being super cautious.

As you're trying to play counter-attacking football, and if your fullbacks are being exposed drop your wingers to the MF strata. If I recall both Rafa and Everton aren't the best in terms of work-rate, teamwork and aggression/bravery. Grimaldo is suspect too. So every little helps. Actually having them starting a little deeper will help withdraw their fullbacks a bit.

I recently found the Poacher for these kind of system. He's great since he stays on the shoulder on the last defender. Darwin's pace if perfect for this.

Finally I'd pack the midfield with IWBs since these help with 2nd balls/duels.

Ahahah,

I usually don't get into a long save untill the winter update is released, so untill then i load up several saves to try different tactics and players to buy.

Thanks for the feedback.

[sporadicsmiles]

Just a few comments, since this style is very close to the way I play in general, and I do like to set up a counter attacking style for big games.

1. There is no real issue with a DLP(S) here. It can even be beneficial, since it gives you some kind of variety as well. I never find it good to have a single idea for playing, because if it does not work then you are lost. Besides, he will come up later.

2. What your striker should be doing in a counter attacking formation is entirely dependent on your striker. If he is quick with good anticipation, he should be looking to get onto balls over the top. If he is slower but good at holding the ball up, that is what he should be doing. You cannot shoehorn a role onto a striker here, you have to build the attacking play around what he does best, because if he plays poorly (by not being able to do what you want of him, for example), you will struggle.

3. You do not want to play out of defence in a counter attacking system, at all. But what you may want to do is set up a pressing trap, if the opposition is pressing you hard and high. What I mean there is have your GK set to play the ball to CBs and FBs. They will get the ball, and be pressed. However very often teams overcommit and you can set up a counter attack by playing the ball behind the press. This is where having a playmaker is good, because you want him to be the one who gets the ball when you trigger a counter via a pressing trap, because I assume he will be the best passer on the team. 

4. Set pieces. Set the defensive set pieces up so you can counter off them. I think it was Rashidi who made a lovely thread about this. For defensive corners I will set up with my 3 quickest players outside the box. One player left up top (probably the quickest guy), Two players outside the area, both with good pace and anticipation. This maximises the chance of getting on the ball if it is cleared and then we will usually have a 3v3 at worst to attack. You can try to set similar things up from freekicks, but it is less important IMO since mostly these seem to either be saved, go for a goal kick, or be goals. But I really cannot stress enough how important it is to set up corners with an eye to creating counter attacks. Corners are the time that play is the most broken (in the sense rugby uses the word, not sure it has the same connotations in football? Most players are far from where they should be).

5. If your strikers are faster than the FBs, do not be concerned by telling them to man mark the opposition fullback. They will have the pace to cause problems on counter anyway.

 

[Keyzer Soze]

Hi, again, 

Sorry for giving a bump to this thread, but I've tested a more defensive tactic away against PSG and would like to know your opinion if my win was just luck, or the tactic is logical and I'm on the right path. 

Thks for any input. 

[Experienced Defender]

From a purely defensive standpoint, the optimal level of compactness (DL/LOE distance) coupled with the support duty for both the entire midfield and wide areas is what made you solid in defense and allowed tight marking to work in a formation that is generally not optimally suited to tight marking as a defensive instruction.

On the other hand, a lack of penetration seems to be a problem attacking-wise, although it obviously did not prevent you from winning this particular match (but could prove an issue otherwise).

Also, with such a "fluid" setup with little attacking penetration, early crosses do not look like a logical option to me. 

So these are basically areas you need to pay attention to.

[Keyzer Soze]

Ok, thks @Experienced Defender

Gonna pay attention to those points in the next matches.

A bit confuse regarding the lack of penetration. I understand that, apart from the center forward, all other player in the attacking third and midfield are with a support duty, but the MEZ(s) has make forwards runs hard-coded.

And, If this is a more defesinve/counter attack tactic, do i need more attacking roles? I thought that when a counter attack situation happens, the players kinda "forget" there instructions and duties and just ger forward. Isn't this correct?

Because of that  assume it would be better to leave them with a support duty, to have more defensive stability and support when having the ball, because that would't jeopardize my chances to counter attack.

Regarding the hit early crosses, my two big chances were pretty similar: my right wingback make a long pass from my midfield to the center forward that got clear run to the goal. He score once, on the other ocasion the keeper make a fine save.

Are those deep passes from the right wingback related with the hit early crosses instruction?

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Keyzer Soze said:

I understand that, apart from the center forward, all other player in the attacking third and midfield are with a support duty, but the MEZ(s) has make forwards runs hard-coded

Yes, but PIs cannot compensate for the difference in individual mentalities that different duties produce. A player with support duty + get forward PI does not play and attack in the same way as a player with the attack duty and therefore cannot offer the same level of attacking penetration. 

The question of attacking penetration is not whether it exists (because it always exists to some extent) but whether it's sufficient or not. 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Keyzer Soze said:

And, If this is a more defesinve/counter attack tactic, do i need more attacking roles? I thought that when a counter attack situation happens, the players kinda "forget" there instructions and duties and just ger forward. Isn't this correct?

Because of that  assume it would be better to leave them with a support duty, to have more defensive stability and support when having the ball, because that would't jeopardize my chances to counter attack

You seem to be confusing a counter-attacking style of play with the counter as a transitional team instruction. You can use the counter TI in any style of play as an additional tactical weapon, but that does not automatically make your core style of play "counter-attacking". 

 

1 hour ago, Keyzer Soze said:

Regarding the hit early crosses, my two big chances were pretty similar: my right wingback make a long pass from my midfield to the center forward that got clear run to the goal. He score once, on the other ocasion the keeper make a fine save.

Are those deep passes from the right wingback related with the hit early crosses instruction?

Maybe, but they could also be related with the counter TI (depends on the phase of play in which these situations happened). 

[Keyzer Soze]

21 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

You seem to be confusing a counter-attacking style of play with the counter as a transitional team instruction. You can use the counter TI in any style of play as an additional tactical weapon, but that does not automatically make your core style of play "counter-attacking". 

I understand that, my point was, but i could be wrong, i dont see the logical of using the counter attack TI in a tactic that style is to dominate possession, and put pressure in the opponent high in their midfield, because i don't where, and when, i'm gonna have the space to counter them.

For me, counter attack, implies that the other team must have the ball, i will steal it, and take advantage of them being high in the pitch and out of possession.

that's why i said i dont understand the need to have more attacking duties, to make use of the counter attacking instruction.

[Guv'nor]

Three words. 4-4-2. 

[Tsuru]

24 minutos atrás, Guv'nor disse:

Three words. 4-4-2. 

That looks like the easiest way - the normal 442 or the 4222 (two DMs). I used the 4141 DM Wide on a counter system for a whole season and it always looks like I am "forcing" it to do something it was not designed to. For this reason I am seriously considering a formation change.

[Hezten]

I have found a tactic that works for me that gives me a lot of what I want from a counter-attacking/quick transition standpoint. I use the flat 4141 with an attacking mentality, the idea is that with a conservative/defensive minded formation I can afford more risks going forward and in transitions. I usually have a PF(A) and a CM(A) and a winger(A) as my attack minded players making direct runs. Both the winger and CM start from deeper positions which gives them space to exploit. I'm not sure if it's just luck but my thinking is that with more conservative formations I can use "higher" mentalities. I can send a pic of the tactic if you're interested.

[Freakiie]

On 30/03/2021 at 13:45, Keyzer Soze said:

I understand that, my point was, but i could be wrong, i dont see the logical of using the counter attack TI in a tactic that style is to dominate possession, and put pressure in the opponent high in their midfield, because i don't where, and when, i'm gonna have the space to counter them.

For me, counter attack, implies that the other team must have the ball, i will steal it, and take advantage of them being high in the pitch and out of possession.

that's why i said i dont understand the need to have more attacking duties, to make use of the counter attacking instruction.

Actually, Liverpool was incredibly successful with counter attacking because of their high press. You win the ball in the oppositions side of the field with half their team ahead of the ball? Well, suddenly you already bypassed half the opposition team and you're way closer to the goal than when you'd win the ball on your half.

That aside, regarding the attacking duties. While yes, support duties will also dash forward on a counter attack, there is still a difference in their starting positions and reactions. An attack duty will inherently be further up the pitch (and of course potentially do less defensively as a result, so you can't just turn everyone on attack) and due to their higher mentalities will make far more aggressive runs towards goal right away. On the other hand, a support duty might hold position to help with the build up initially, even if it's a role with forward runs. With only the DLF on attack there's a good chance you only have 1 player that's really ahead of the ball when you win possession and that could hinder your counter attacks quite a bit.

[Experienced Defender]

32 minutes ago, Freakiie said:

While yes, support duties will also dash forward on a counter attack, there is still a difference in their starting positions and reactions. An attack duty will inherently be further up the pitch (and of course potentially do less defensively as a result, so you can't just turn everyone on attack) and due to their higher mentalities will make far more aggressive runs towards goal right away. On the other hand, a support duty might hold position to help with the build up initially, even if it's a role with forward runs. With only the DLF on attack there's a good chance you only have 1 player that's really ahead of the ball when you win possession and that could hinder your counter attacks quite a bit

This