Striker role in a 433 DM Wide

[Beuthen]

I have 2 Inside Forwards on the wing in which one is on attacking duty, the other on support, the tactical style is basically a team capable of Counter attacking and also of dominant attacking football.

Malen is my first XI striker, what should the role be?

[frukox]

A CFA, T or DLFA or even forwards like AFA, PFA if it's a direct style to quickly overload a stretched defence caught high up the pitch. It depends on your tactic indeed. 

[Falahk]

IMO don't look like a good striker for the formation you use, would play him out wide 

That being said, it's a bit hard to judge without seeing the whole tactic and what type of players you have in your team

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Beuthen said:

I have 2 Inside Forwards on the wing in which one is on attacking duty, the other on support, the tactical style is basically a team capable of Counter attacking and also of dominant attacking football.

Malen is my first XI striker, what should the role be?

You need to post the whole tactic (roles, duties and instructions including the mentality). Because 2-3 roles in isolation mean nothing. The whole context matters. Without that, any potential "advice" will be pure speculation, rather than really useful.

[Dotsworthy]

2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

You need to post the whole tactic (roles, duties and instructions including the mentality). Because 2-3 roles in isolation mean nothing. The whole context matters. Without that, any potential "advice" will be pure speculation, rather than really useful.

Yep. For example, if your inside towards are supported by overlapping wing backs, a DLF of PF on support may help to give you five players across the width of the pitch.

If you've got an attacking player in the CM role determined to get in the box, you might want to use an advanced forward to pin the defence down. With the supporting Inside Forward on the same side as your attacking cm.

[Beuthen]

49 minutes ago, Dotsworthy said:

Yep. For example, if your inside towards are supported by overlapping wing backs, a DLF of PF on support may help to give you five players across the width of the pitch.

If you've got an attacking player in the CM role determined to get in the box, you might want to use an advanced forward to pin the defence down. With the supporting Inside Forward on the same side as your attacking cm.

 

3 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

You need to post the whole tactic (roles, duties and instructions including the mentality). Because 2-3 roles in isolation mean nothing. The whole context matters. Without that, any potential "advice" will be pure speculation, rather than really useful.

In the midfield i have 1 BBM SU, Mezzala AT, DLP DE

Defence: 2 WB SU, 2 CD DE

Mentality: Positiv

Fairly Wide, Focus play left and right, more expressive, more direct passing, higher tempo,

Transition: Counter Press, Counter, Distrubute quickly, Distrubute to Flanks, Take Long Kicks

Out of Possession: Standard LOE, Higher line of Defence, Get Stuck In, Slightly More Urgent, Standard Defensive Width

 

[kingjericho]

With that setup I'd go for a support role (DLF, PF, CF) to link play with all the team mates bombing forward (WBs, BBM, MEZ, and the IFs)

[Falahk]

Have a look at Andrea Petagna's attributes, you need a striker in a similar mold to him 

You could literally play Malen in every role there is and it would still not work, since he don't have the attributes to play striker in your system 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Beuthen said:

In the midfield i have 1 BBM SU, Mezzala AT, DLP DE

Defence: 2 WB SU, 2 CD DE

Regarding the BBM and MEZ, which one is on the side of the supporting IF and which one with the attacking IF? That's very important. 

 

1 hour ago, Beuthen said:

Mentality: Positiv

Fairly Wide, Focus play left and right, more expressive, more direct passing, higher tempo

More direct passing and higher tempo under the Positive mentality may cause your attacks to be a bit too gung-ho, especially when the Be more expressive is also applied (but even without the BME). 

Anyway, such instructions suggest to me that the striker's duty would make more sense as attack than support. Regarding the role, I would avoid roles such as AF, poacher or PF on attack, because you have an IF with attack duty, which can lead to competition for space due to similarity in role types (unless you switch the IF on attack to IW on attack or winger). In case you want to keep the IF on attack duty, then my options for the striker would be CFatt, DLFatt or TQ. 

1 hour ago, Beuthen said:

Out of Possession: Standard LOE, Higher line of Defence, Get Stuck In, Slightly More Urgent

Be careful with aggressive instructions such as more (or extremely) urgent pressing and get stuck in when playing on a high D-line, especially under a high-risk team mentality (Positive or above). Of course, the better players you have, the more risk you can afford to take, but still... 

NOTE: In case you didn't know - because a lot of people don't - the team mentality automatically affects/adjusts all other instructions (both in and out of possession), whether or not it's displayed in the tactical creator screen. For example, short passing under Balanced is different from short passing under Positive (let alone attacking). The same goes for tempo, width, creative freedom and freedom of movement as well as defensive instructions (lines of defense and pressing/tackling intensity). Always take that into account when creating a tactic. 

[Beuthen]

11 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Regarding the BBM and MEZ, which one is on the side of the supporting IF and which one with the attacking IF? That's very important. 

MEZ is on the side of the SU IF, BBM on the side of AT IT

11 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

 

11 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

More direct passing and higher tempo under the Positive mentality may cause your attacks to be a bit too gung-ho, especially when the Be more expressive is also applied (but even without the BME). 

Anyway, such instructions suggest to me that the striker's duty would make more sense as attack than support. Regarding the role, I would avoid roles such as AF, poacher or PF on attack, because you have an IF with attack duty, which can lead to competition for space due to similarity in role types (unless you switch the IF on attack to IW on attack or winger). In case you want to keep the IF on attack duty, then my options for the striker would be CFatt, DLFatt or TQ.

Thanks

11 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Be careful with aggressive instructions such as more (or extremely) urgent pressing and get stuck in when playing on a high D-line, especially under a high-risk team mentality (Positive or above). Of course, the better players you have, the more risk you can afford to take, but still... 

NOTE: In case you didn't know - because a lot of people don't - the team mentality automatically affects/adjusts all other instructions (both in and out of possession), whether or not it's displayed in the tactical creator screen. For example, short passing under Balanced is different from short passing under Positive (let alone attacking). The same goes for tempo, width, creative freedom and freedom of movement as well as defensive instructions (lines of defense and pressing/tackling intensity). Always take that into account when creating a tactic. 

Hm, okay

[Experienced Defender]

15 minutes ago, Beuthen said:

MEZ is on the side of the SU IF, BBM on the side of AT IT

Okay, that makes sense (assuming the mezzala's duty is attack)