Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm really struggling in the first season as West Ham. 
15 games played, 20 points, 16 goals conceded, and only 18 scores. 

The problem is definately offesively, but I really can't understand why. I have the striker going deep, IF cutting in and should be my main goal thread. The right wing a natural overlap. Soucek as CM(s) has the trait "Gets forward whenever possible", hence I've chosen not to give him an attacking duty. He's not really fit for a MEZ-role. 

What I wan't tactically is playing a semi-possession playing style, but taking advantage of possible counter-opportunities. 

Do you see anything fundamentally wrong with the setup?

Thanks in advance. 

image.png.16c66fd9b51b118f660d8f0afd481fae.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

The left flank/side looks good, but on the right the fullback role (FB support) could prove a bit too conservative to properly and consistently support his IF partner, especially in a possession-minded short-passing style. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/02/2021 at 13:06, Experienced Defender said:

The left flank/side looks good, but on the right the fullback role (FB support) could prove a bit too conservative to properly and consistently support his IF partner, especially in a possession-minded short-passing style. 

Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by "properly and consistently support"? What attacking actions or movements does the FB-s specifically not perform? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks alright that but is Bowen really West Ham's best goal threat? 

Not sure about the Positive mentality & high lines either, I'd think at home against WBA it would be fine but not away at Anfield,  do you get a lot of balls over the top? 

Re: The right back, you could afford a WB(S) there with the safety of a DM 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Prolix said:

Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by "properly and consistently support"? What attacking actions or movements does the FB-s specifically not perform? 

For shortpassing possesion your players need to be very close to each other in a compact shape. So I'm pretty sure what he meant is that while the rest of your players (IF and CM Support) proactively move forward during build up on that flank, the fullback will hang back more and try to send early crosses towards strikers. Not exactly ideal. You will need Wingback on support there. Or add see specific PIs on the fullback to make him into a more "forward-thinking" role.

Edited by crusadertsar
Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a similar tactic. Check how many crosses per game or how many headers you are having and its success rate. My Carlisle team has around 52 crosses attempted per match (most of them coming from WB-A and IW-S) and my Karlsruhe team has around 43 (WB-A with an average of 18 per match). If you don't have someone to consistently win headers on IF-A and ST position then you are losing a lot of possession. If you want to keep possession, switch to FB-S, for instance so he doesn't have the cross more often PI. You can give him the get further forward, or switch on the overlap TI

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Prolix said:

Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by "properly and consistently support"? What attacking actions or movements does the FB-s specifically not perform? 

It means that a FB on support will be less willing - compared to WB on support - to consistently get high enough up the pitch to provide attacking width in the final third when the IF or IW drifts inside. Which may not be much of an issue in a more direct style of play, but can be problematic in possession-minded tactics, where smoothness of attacking play in all phases of play matters a lot more. 

A good alternative to WB on support for those who are wary of him bombing forward too early and aggressively is WB on automatic duty, who is attack-minded enough to provide support to IF/IW but still a bit more restrained than WB on support.

Basically, tactical decisions should be based on your intended style of play if you want it to work smoothly. If your players are not good enough for a particular playing style, then better consider a different style that suits them in an optimal way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Johnny Ace said:

Looks alright that but is Bowen really West Ham's best goal threat? 

Not sure about the Positive mentality & high lines either, I'd think at home against WBA it would be fine but not away at Anfield,  do you get a lot of balls over the top? 

Re: The right back, you could afford a WB(S) there with the safety of a DM 

He got the best finishing and composure.. sad but true haha. 
I'm actually okay defensively, so conceding is not my biggest problem. Attacking and scoring goals is however. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my current setup. After struggling first season, I'm now going into 2nd season. A bit change of style, which I think suits my players better tbh. 
Now I need to bring in a better striker - I found that we were actually getting enough good chances, but Antoions low finish and composure did not serve us well. 

 

image.png.fd8641090043dcf27ce2a31e8fae8427.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many algorithms are hardwired into the ME such that it cracks the whimsical codes of custom formations with bang average sides. One would imagine, many! To give yourself the best chance of success, build on the key principles of FM...no less than six players in the central third of the pitch (from a horizontal view i.e DLC/DRC, MLC/MRC...and so on), no less than 3 players making up the default defensive line (ie. player positioning on the 2D view when the opposing GK takes a goal kick, after the ball's gone out of play, width is a must, more so in this edition...direct passing if players lack precision in their passing accuracy (look at pass completion statistics, in addition to technique and vision).

A 4-2-3-1 with the Hammers would be a tough nut to crack given their starting squad and lacks the requisite spoonful of the unconventional, that makes a formation harder for the AI to crack. Not surprised its been a struggle. Had a save with Sheff Weds who, in addition to an arsenal of garbage, much like the Hammers, have a point deficit to help sentence them to the depths of the abyss. Fast realised the players coudn't pass urine let alone slide rules and pinpoint shorties, went a bit more direct, employed the rule of six plus width and finished 6 behind Norwich.

With mi-table sides. often go with a back three/five. Think it would worth thinking outside of the box with the Hammers. Hybridize the things that work and create what the ME isn't expecting, to paraphrase Sun Tzu.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Pay attention to the BBM and IF on the left. That kind of partnership can be problematic attacking-wise, potentially leading to competition for space and influence in the final third. 

Maybe swtiching BBM and DPL? But wouldn't it also cause problems with the IW aswell? A MEZ would be ideal, but I don't have the right players for that role. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Guv'nor said:

How many algorithms are hardwired into the ME such that it cracks the whimsical codes of custom formations with bang average sides. One would imagine, many! To give yourself the best chance of success, build on the key principles of FM...no less than six players in the central third of the pitch (from a horizontal view i.e DLC/DRC, MLC/MRC...and so on), no less than 3 players making up the default defensive line (ie. player positioning on the 2D view when the opposing GK takes a goal kick, after the ball's gone out of play, width is a must, more so in this edition...direct passing if players lack precision in their passing accuracy (look at pass completion statistics, in addition to technique and vision).

A 4-2-3-1 with the Hammers would be a tough nut to crack given their starting squad and lacks the requisite spoonful of the unconventional, that makes a formation harder for the AI to crack. Not surprised its been a struggle. Had a save with Sheff Weds who, in addition to an arsenal of garbage, much like the Hammers, have a point deficit to help sentence them to the depths of the abyss. Fast realised the players coudn't pass urine let alone slide rules and pinpoint shorties, went a bit more direct, employed the rule of six plus width and finished 6 behind Norwich.

With mi-table sides. often go with a back three/five. Think it would worth thinking outside of the box with the Hammers. Hybridize the things that work and create what the ME isn't expecting, to paraphrase Sun Tzu.

But I don't think a 4-3-3 / 4-1-2-2-1 should be impossible to achieve succes with regardless what team you manage. 

Never made a 3/5 at the back before. Might play around with one and see how it goes. 

Edited by fmaddict4ever
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fmaddict4ever said:
23 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Pay attention to the BBM and IF on the left. That kind of partnership can be problematic attacking-wise, potentially leading to competition for space and influence in the final third. 

Maybe swtiching BBM and DPL?

If you mean swapping their positions - BBM in MCR and DLP in MCL - that would definitely be a better option compared to the current setup, at least from the attacking perspective. 

 

3 hours ago, fmaddict4ever said:

But wouldn't it also cause problems with the IW aswell?

Why? What exact kind of problems? 

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...