Gloucester City 4-3-3 tactic

[Oli987]

Hi everyone, 

 

I'm looking to get some insight on a wide 4-3-3 tactic I've been using in my Gloucester City FM20 save. 

A variant of this tactic worked very well for a while - I won promotion from the National League North - and got off to a great start in the National League - before hitting a bit of a wall about half way through my second season when I started to concede a lot of goals and struggled to score.  I still managed a top-half finish, despite a terrible run of form, by going 4-5-1 with a flat midfield 5, and just trying to tighten up a little. So far in my third season I'm in the top half but struggling for goals, though I have been a little more solid at the back, scoring 6 and conceding 5 in my first 7 games. 

I'm not wedded to any particular style of play, and in fact most of my early success came from playing a short passing game, sometimes with a 4-3-3 and sometimes with a 4-2-3-1, but the broad idea with my current tactic is to use my midfield 3, who have pretty good passing and vision, to release my pacey front three. I do tend to mix up my team instructions a bit and alternate between short and direct passing within games, as well as switching the focus from the flanks to the middle. 

I'm including my current tactic as well as attributes of my midfield and attacking players.

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by Oli987

[Experienced Defender]

Obvious issues:

- poor defensive compactness (distance between D-line & LOE) coupled with aggressive defensive instructions (more urgent press & tight mark) + tight marking and aggressive pressing generally don't go hand in hand

- the (only) holding midfield role (DLP) is situated toward a flank (as opposed to the center) in a midfield with no DM

- in this type of formation (with no DM), having an attack duty in central midfield is always potentially risky; and even if you insist on having one, he should be flanked by a holding midfield role from both sides (whereas your setup has only one)

[Oli987]

48 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Obvious issues:

- poor defensive compactness (distance between D-line & LOE) coupled with aggressive defensive instructions (more urgent press & tight mark) + tight marking and aggressive pressing generally don't go hand in hand

- the (only) holding midfield role (DLP) is situated toward a flank (as opposed to the center) in a midfield with no DM

- in this type of formation (with no DM), having an attack duty in central midfield is always potentially risky; and even if you insist on having one, he should be flanked by a holding midfield role from both sides (whereas your setup has only one)

Thanks for the suggestions. I have been vulnerable to being overloaded at the back from time-to-time, while my attacking players often struggle to find space, so that sounds like a good start. 

Would a more urgent press, combined with a lower LOE and higher D-line and removal of tighter marking be something that would rectify  what you mentioned? The other consideration is my stopper is slow/ageing but still has good physical attributes and tackling, so I wouldn't want to be exposed with a higher D-Line either. 

Edited February 19, 2021 by Oli987

[Experienced Defender]

59 minutes ago, Oli987 said:

while my attacking players often struggle to find space

AF (role) especially tends to struggle for space when played as a lone striker, especially in aggressive tactical styles like yours (high LOE, high pressing urgency and stuff like that). Because it's the most attack-minded striker role and therefore can end up isolated when played without sufficient support. Much more effective when used in counter-attacking and other defensive styles (with lower LOE). 

 

1 hour ago, Oli987 said:

Would a more urgent press, combined with a lower LOE and higher D-line and removal of tighter marking be something that would rectify  what you mentioned?

I would definitely remove the tight marking. As for the DL/LOE combo, optimal compactness is achieved when DL is just one notch higher than LOE (e.g. higher DL/standard LOE or standard DL/lower LOE). When it comes to pressing urgency, I personally prefer to leave it on default (medium) in the vast majority of my tactics, but you can try both more urgent and default to compare and see which one suits your players in an optimal way (because each team is different + instructions work in conjunction with other elements of a tactic).

But the setup of roles and duties is still the most important part. If you fail to set it up in a sensible and balanced way, the tactic is likely to fail regardless of how you set up instructions. 

1 hour ago, Oli987 said:

The other consideration is my stopper is slow/ageing but still has good physical attributes and tackling, so I wouldn't want to be exposed with a higher D-Line either

Why do you use the stopper duty in the first place? Why not simply both CBs on defend duty? Is there any special and well thought-out reason?

[Oli987]

24 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

AF (role) especially tends to struggle for space when played as a lone striker, especially in aggressive tactical styles like yours (high LOE, high pressing urgency and stuff like that). Because it's the most attack-minded striker role and therefore can end up isolated when played without sufficient support. Much more effective when used in counter-attacking and other defensive styles (with lower LOE). 

I lowered the LOE to be more compact for the next game. If I'm going to continue to use high pressing, which I can definitely reduce to standard, too, would it work better potentially if I used something like a PF or TM, or changed one of my wingers to inside forward? I also have 4-4-2 as a secondary tactic.

 

24 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

I would definitely remove the tight marking. As for the DL/LOE combo, optimal compactness is achieved when DL is just one notch higher than LOE (e.g. higher DL/standard LOE or standard DL/lower LOE). When it comes to pressing urgency, I personally prefer to leave it on default (medium) in the vast majority of my tactics, but you can try both more urgent and default to compare and see which one suits your players in an optimal way (because each team is different + instructions work in conjunction with other elements of a tactic).

Makes sense. I left it as more urgent with lower LOE and high DL for the next game before I saw your response. I won 2-0 and looked a lot better but did still give up a few more chances than I'd have liked, so I'll try dropping back my DL a notch too. This is what I currently have after tweaks.

 

 

24 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

But the setup of roles and duties is still the most important part. If you fail to set it up in a sensible and balanced way, the tactic is likely to fail regardless of how you set up instructions. 

Why do you use the stopper duty in the first place? Why not simply both CBs on defend duty? Is there any special and well thought-out reason?

Only because pace doesn't show as an important attribute for stopper and my ageing CB has pace of 5. I prefer defend - defend in ideal circumstances. 

 

 

[Experienced Defender]

12 hours ago, Oli987 said:

This is what I currently have after tweaks

Lower LOE = defensive football. Your other instructions suggest a counter-attacking version of defensive football (direct pass, high tempo, quick distribution, 2 of the 3 forwards with attack duties). 

If that's the style of play you want to implement, then you are probably on the right track. The only role that does not ideally fit such style is DLP on defend duty. Actually, it's primarily about the duty, not the role itself. Because if you want to use a playmaker role in a counter-attack style - which btw is not necessary - then you want a playmaker that will look for quicker transitional passes forward. That's the reason I would prefer the support duty for the DLP, rather than defend.

Now, if I were to put the above observation into the context of your current tactic, this is an example of how I would implement that small tweak:

AF

Wsu                                   Wat

CMde  CMat  DLPsu

FBsu    CDde  CDde    FBde

GK

As you can see, besides switching the DLP's duty to support, I also swapped around the duties of your fullbacks - so the support is now on the left and defend on the right. Although I believe both could be on support, given that each has a holding midfielder in from of him.

[Oli987]

On 20/02/2021 at 04:13, Experienced Defender said:

Lower LOE = defensive football. Your other instructions suggest a counter-attacking version of defensive football (direct pass, high tempo, quick distribution, 2 of the 3 forwards with attack duties). 

If that's the style of play you want to implement, then you are probably on the right track. The only role that does not ideally fit such style is DLP on defend duty. Actually, it's primarily about the duty, not the role itself. Because if you want to use a playmaker role in a counter-attack style - which btw is not necessary - then you want a playmaker that will look for quicker transitional passes forward. That's the reason I would prefer the support duty for the DLP, rather than defend.

Now, if I were to put the above observation into the context of your current tactic, this is an example of how I would implement that small tweak:

AF

Wsu                                   Wat

CMde  CMat  DLPsu

FBsu    CDde  CDde    FBde

GK

As you can see, besides switching the DLP's duty to support, I also swapped around the duties of your fullbacks - so the support is now on the left and defend on the right. Although I believe both could be on support, given that each has a holding midfielder in from of him.

Sounds good, I'll give all that a try and see how things go.

Although the style I'm going for isn't necessarily defensive counter attack I think that style does broadly suit the idea of wanting to quickly get the ball to my front three to allow them to utilise their pace. 

Out of interest if I wanted to create a secondary, slightly more attacking tactic, with the same idea but with the intention to press more and to win the ball back higher up the pitch, then what would be a good starting point beyond a higher D-line/LOE? Or would that be all it would take potentially? 

[Experienced Defender]

10 hours ago, Oli987 said:

Out of interest if I wanted to create a secondary, slightly more attacking tactic, with the same idea but with the intention to press more and to win the ball back higher up the pitch, then what would be a good starting point beyond a higher D-line/LOE? Or would that be all it would take potentially? 

"Slightly more attacking" in which specific sense? Because attack-minded tactics can be possession-minded (to varying degrees) or based on faster transitions. 

Either way, both DL and LOE would need to be moved up a notch - i.e. higher DL/standard LOE along with a split block. You can go with both DL and LOE set to higher and no split block, but that combo would somewhat compromise your defensive compactness given the formation (no DM). 

[Oli987]

On 24/02/2021 at 04:20, Experienced Defender said:

"Slightly more attacking" in which specific sense? Because attack-minded tactics can be possession-minded (to varying degrees) or based on faster transitions. 

Either way, both DL and LOE would need to be moved up a notch - i.e. higher DL/standard LOE along with a split block. You can go with both DL and LOE set to higher and no split block, but that combo would somewhat compromise your defensive compactness given the formation (no DM). 

I think mainly in the sense of faster transition, where I'm still looking for quick transitional forward passes but also aiming to win the ball back higher up the pitch. 

I do have a basic understanding of defensive blocks and how to implement them in the game - I gather I have a low-block right now based on my D-line and LOE? But I don't really understand exactly what a split-block is despite trying to do some research on it! 

 

[Experienced Defender]

55 minutes ago, Oli987 said:

But I don't really understand exactly what a split-block is despite trying to do some research on it!

Split block is when you leave the team pressing urgency on default and then tell your 3-5 most advanced players to close down more in their player instructions. That allows you to put more pressure on the opposition in their half of the pitch while the more defensive part of your team keeps their defensive shape. Which is obviously safer than increasing the pressing urgency for the entire team. 

There is also the softer version of split block, which involves only 2 players (which 2 it will be depends on the formation you use).

Last but not least, a split block should be used with the optimal level of compactness (DL/LOE distance). Because otherwise it can disrupt your defensive shape more than it would be advisable. 

[Oli987]

On 25/02/2021 at 14:06, Experienced Defender said:

Split block is when you leave the team pressing urgency on default and then tell your 3-5 most advanced players to close down more in their player instructions. That allows you to put more pressure on the opposition in their half of the pitch while the more defensive part of your team keeps their defensive shape. Which is obviously safer than increasing the pressing urgency for the entire team. 

There is also the softer version of split block, which involves only 2 players (which 2 it will be depends on the formation you use).

Last but not least, a split block should be used with the optimal level of compactness (DL/LOE distance). Because otherwise it can disrupt your defensive shape more than it would be advisable. 

Thanks, that does sound like kind of what I'm going for actually. 

My one concern with a split block would be opening up more space for opposing fullbacks, which seems to be a perennial problem I have when I'm defending. Would having my wingers close down more potentially make this area worse? 

[Experienced Defender]

12 hours ago, Oli987 said:

My one concern with a split block would be opening up more space for opposing fullbacks, which seems to be a perennial problem I have when I'm defending. Would having my wingers close down more potentially make this area worse?

This depends on more factors than just the split block itself (including your players' overall abilities). Some teams are good enough to be able to play with either a split block or increased pressing urgency for the entire team, but others may struggle (at least against certain opposition). So it varies from situation to situation. 

[Reedy_1988]

On 25/02/2021 at 22:06, Experienced Defender said:

Last but not least, a split block should be used with the optimal level of compactness (DL/LOE distance). Because otherwise it can disrupt your defensive shape more than it would be advisable. 

Running the risk of sounding thick here, what does optimal level of compactness mean? Attempting to set up a split block in a 4231 tactic i have and unsure on how high my d-line & LOE should be that's all.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Reedy_1988 said:

Running the risk of sounding thick here, what does optimal level of compactness mean?

D-line one notch higher than LOE (e.g. higher DL/standard LOE or standard DL/lower LOE etc.). And your team pressing urgency needs to be on default (medium).

[Oli987]

So the changes I made worked pretty well for a while and I managed to get myself up into the playoff places. But the last couple of months my form has really nosedived and I seem to be incapable of either winning or conceding less than two goals per game: 

 

When I first started this thread the issue was that I wasn't scoring many goals or threatening much but was relatively solid at the back. The (primarily defensive) changes seemed good in principle but as you can see they're not currently working! The dramatic dip in form has happened in all of my three seasons, including my promotion season, at a time when I was overachieving predictions. I know it's not the case but it honestly feels like the game feels like I'm performing too well against my expectations and decides that it's time for me to have a bad run of form to balance things out. 

I have been tweaking things a little bit in terms of team instructions to try and arrest the slide but I've tried to stick to the principles discussed in this thread. 

Issues I've noticed: 

• With the lower line of engagement I'm inviting way too much pressure. Despite the compactness teams are able to create a good number of chances against me and will inevitably score at least a couple of them. When I've tried pushing up a bit and playing with a higher line and a more positive mentality the games are very open but I still concede a lot of goals, which accounts for a couple of the high-scoring draws. Ideally I want to play with a higher LOE as I think it was working better for me, but I feel like a higher d-line doesn't work, due to the fact I have relatively slow center backs. 
• I concede a lot of late goals. Multiple games in that screenshot I've drawn from winning positions and lost when I was drawing, often in injury time. 
• My wingers, who are key to the attacking side of my game, never seem to have enough space. Whenever the ball is played to them they immediately seem to have two opposition players closing them down immediately. Yet opposition wide players always seem to have acres of space when the ball is played up to them, especially overlapping fullbacks. 

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated! 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2021 by Oli987

[Guv'nor]

Watch a game in full, reasonable highlight speed to appreciate reactive player movement and in classic 2D, which I feel gives the best schematic representation of a tactic in all phases of play. Make a note of observations that led directly to goasl, chances or aided opposition chance creation. Being of the conjecture that the game is hardwired to reduce the effectiveness of a tactic over time, the onus is on a manager to improve their team and refresh its nuances, reflecting the true to life evolution that occurs in teams. Liverpool bludgeoned their way to a near faultless EPL crown and yet added Thiago who is much the opposite to the archetypal gegenpresser midfielder. Granted the transitional species at Anfield is a Frakenstinian monstrosity, but their final form (a closer glimpse of), likely to be seen next season, will fair much better.

I always go into a career save with a 3-year tactical plan and a rough idea of how the team will evolve over that period and the final form intended. Seldom play beyond 3 seasons, in protest against the built-in sweat shop approach to next gens. By the 3rd season, U19s are awash with 16 year old CM01/02 Cherno Sambas.

Each cycle begins with a chosen shape, balanced mentality, no TIs beyond higher tempo and no PIs. Roles are kept as simple as possible ie. Central Defender, Midfielder, Winger etc etc. Play a good number of friendlies, where necessary, cancel those scheduled for Reserve and Youth teams. These players will be needed to avoid players being overplayed in pre-season. Watch the game in full, make no tactical changes for the first game, only substitutions. Make note of the changes needed and make no more than two tactical tweaks to the base formation at a time. Beyond the first game, consider each 45 minute period a new game. Thus observations made in the first half can lead to tactical tweaks at half-time. Through this process, albeit arduous, I get a better appreciation of tactical translations. Too many changes in one go and it may be hard to see which made what contribution. By the end of the preseason, the approach for the season (phase 1) is complete. In game, the only changes made are variable use of man-marking and alterations to team mentality. Players that fit the system, philosophy, whatever are brought or trained and those that don't, sold. 

The above is to show one and there are many, approaches to tactic creation, the purpose of which is to emphasise the next point. Whilst the advice you're getting may be sound, you have to appreciate the difficulty in trying to correct flaws in a team that has had the flaws built in to it. Presumably you've signed and trained players that/to play a certain way.

With that said and accepting that the wound mightn't be closed only a fresh bandaid, bit of dressing applied and a lollipop, I'll ask the following and pitch my tuppence.

 

Do you have the right players to drop or increase LOE or pressing intensity? Either approach demands certain qualities, physicals if you go full Barnsley and Chiellini (aka intelligence) if you drop deeper. 

Does the DLP have the attributes to make play or is he adding little in this regard and by default, not enough in the defensive phase?

Does the CB stopper have the mental attributes to anticipate the striker's movement off the ball, get into the right position and make the right decision to engage. And when engaging, does he have quality and strength in the tackle, thus justifying why he broke the defensive line?

That the winger is being doubled up implies isolation and a lack of surrounding structure to divide the opposition's attention. What do you see in the positioning of your players when your winger has the ball? Which winger is be tag-teamed, or is it both?

Is the CMAt contributing enough, could there be consideration for moving a more attacking role or mentality to support the winger and switching the central midfielder to more defensive orientation?

In Lone Striker systems (albeit with an SS or AM), I tend to lean the Striker to one side, this I feel brings out more of the Move in Channels instruction. The Adv Forward is a very aggressive role and in this set-up, is likely to be light years away from your midfield. How does this look in-play, is he as isolated as Tom Hanks Cast Away or is he getting support?

Do you need two Advanced Wingers? What are their rates of pass completion, key passes, successful crosses, dribbles? Are they offering anything to the AF?

 

 

[Experienced Defender]

10 hours ago, Oli987 said:

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

You need to post a screenshot of your current tactic first. Because it's hard to offer any thoughts and suggestions without the whole context. 

[Oli987]

So I finally broke out of my losing streak with a 5-0 home win followed by a 1-0 away win! I ended up going back to a more urgent press but kept the lower LOE. I was definitely a little fortunate, especially in the 1-0 win where I was pretty frequently being carved open by my opponent's wing backs in a 5-3-2 formation. 

This is how I set up in both games - the only difference being I went with two IFs in the first. I wouldn't necessarily be playing my BWM regularly as he's a youth team player I was trying out to change things up a little. I'd potentially go with a CAR or CM on support. I've tried to balance out some risks like using regroup in transition, but I'm not sure whether that would potentially cancel out my my urgent instruction. 

 

21 hours ago, Guv'nor said:

Do you have the right players to drop or increase LOE or pressing intensity? Either approach demands certain qualities, physicals if you go full Barnsley and Chiellini (aka intelligence) if you drop deeper. 

Does the DLP have the attributes to make play or is he adding little in this regard and by default, not enough in the defensive phase?

Does the CB stopper have the mental attributes to anticipate the striker's movement off the ball, get into the right position and make the right decision to engage. And when engaging, does he have quality and strength in the tackle, thus justifying why he broke the defensive line?

That the winger is being doubled up implies isolation and a lack of surrounding structure to divide the opposition's attention. What do you see in the positioning of your players when your winger has the ball? Which winger is be tag-teamed, or is it both?

Is the CMAt contributing enough, could there be consideration for moving a more attacking role or mentality to support the winger and switching the central midfielder to more defensive orientation?

In Lone Striker systems (albeit with an SS or AM), I tend to lean the Striker to one side, this I feel brings out more of the Move in Channels instruction. The Adv Forward is a very aggressive role and in this set-up, is likely to be light years away from your midfield. How does this look in-play, is he as isolated as Tom Hanks Cast Away or is he getting support?

Do you need two Advanced Wingers? What are their rates of pass completion, key passes, successful crosses, dribbles? Are they offering anything to the AF?

Thanks  for the feedback! To answer some of those questions as well as I can: 

My wingers and strikers are all pretty physical. Some have better mental attributes than others but I'd say as a unit they're stronger physically.  Midfield is fairly intelligent and defence is a mixture. 

Both players I sometimes utilise in the DLP role do have pretty good passing/vision attributes for this level. Kuhl has 2.07 key passes per 90 minutes but only has one assist in 20 starts. Not all of those starts have been in the DLP role.

No longer playing with a stopper but it was a mixture, probably fine for non-league but not ideal especially as his physical attributes are declining with age. He's no longer a first team regular and I'm going with De-De now. 

Seems to be primarily my right-winger who's being doubled up but I'd have to watch more closely to be sure. 

My CMat is creating 0.49 chances per 90 minutes which is the best of my central midfielders. I do feel like he could contribute more. 

When I have my striker on advanced forward yes he does sometimes look a little too isolated than I'd ideally like to see.  I do often use a PF-A instead now but it depends who's starting. None of my strikers are particularly great in the air. I want to get the ball to my front players in a way that will utilise their pace without too many high long balls being played up to them, which is a balance I'm still searching for. 

Here are those stats for my current wide players: 

Alfa, who I've exclusively played as a winger, has 6 goals and 0 assists. Mensah, has 4 goals a 2 assists and is an interesting player. His attributes suggest he's more suited to being an inside forward, as his finishing and long shots are better than his crossing. Yet he's never really been very successful in that role and has scored a lot of goals until this season - 21 goals and six assists in the previous two years - almost all as a winger. A hallmark of his play in previous seasons has been that when he has room to run he picks the ball up in a wide position but dribbles inside and shoots with his left foot, kind of like he's playing as an IF/IW but on the side of his stronger foot.  I lost count of the number of times in my promotion season that he'd close down the opposition fullback, win the ball, and run half the length of the pitch before running inside and shooting.  I'm not sure why he does this so much, because it contradicts what a winger is supposed to do. But it definitely worked for the first two years and it'd be nice to find a way to harness that again! 

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by Oli987

[Guv'nor]

Would pay close attention to the 1-nil win, why were you being carved open by the wingbacks, were your wide men set to invert? If so, there's no numerical advantage, 3 vs 3 in defence, the wingback can fly forward, knowing its 2 vs 2 in midfield. With two up top, your DM would help out the defence/centre mid and its then Wingback vs Fullback.

Save the game or rewatch the highlights, where were your IFs when the wingbacks were rampaging?

Switching both or one of the IFs to Winger might help when up against wingbacks, especially if decent ball skills. Iit could isolate the CF, so would need some reactive changes in midfield, or a bit of asymmetry. Or you could say, if its not broke, don't fix it. You got the 3 points and that's what you came for (common sense approach). See what happens when next playing vs Wingbacks. 

[Experienced Defender]

4 hours ago, Oli987 said:

 

4 hours ago, Oli987 said:

This is how I set up in both games

 

4 hours ago, Oli987 said:

So I finally broke out of my losing streak with a 5-0 home win followed by a 1-0 away win!

I don't like the tactic at all. But given that it has nonetheless worked for you, my opinion is irrelevant, Therefore, stick with the tactic as long as it works for you.

[Oli987]

7 hours ago, Guv'nor said:

Would pay close attention to the 1-nil win, why were you being carved open by the wingbacks, were your wide men set to invert? If so, there's no numerical advantage, 3 vs 3 in defence, the wingback can fly forward, knowing its 2 vs 2 in midfield. With two up top, your DM would help out the defence/centre mid and its then Wingback vs Fullback.

Save the game or rewatch the highlights, where were your IFs when the wingbacks were rampaging?

Switching both or one of the IFs to Winger might help when up against wingbacks, especially if decent ball skills. Iit could isolate the CF, so would need some reactive changes in midfield, or a bit of asymmetry. Or you could say, if its not broke, don't fix it. You got the 3 points and that's what you came for (common sense approach). See what happens when next playing vs Wingbacks. 

 

Most of the problems actually came from the opponent's left wing back. On that side I had a winger on attack and a CMa. I'd guess tightening up on that side by either switching around my CMs or moving my winger to a support duty would potentially help. 

 

5 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

 

I don't like the tactic at all. But given that it has nonetheless worked for you, my opinion is irrelevant, Therefore, stick with the tactic as long as it works for you.

I'm still interested as to why so I can get some ideas of what to look out for! The main thing I wanted to do was to tighten up a little by adding someone in the DMC position. Some of the team instructions I'd definitely reconsider or at least monitor if there's an aspect of my game that isn't working. 

[Experienced Defender]

22 minutes ago, Oli987 said:

I'm still interested as to why so I can get some ideas of what to look out for!

Okay, you asked for it 

- the left flank/side overly is conservative, whereas the right one is overly attacking = poor overall balance

- you are looking to play defensive football (lower LOE + regroup) with a setup of roles and duties that is neither optimally balanced (see above) nor solid defense-wise (the right flank/side specifically)

- you use more team instructions overall than is necessary for a basic (starting) tactic (e.g. wide attacking width, higher tempo, be more expressive, play for set pieces, more urgent pressing).