4-3-3: Can you improve my tactic?

[MrYelsrennik]

Can I get some advice on how to improve this tactic please?

 

[wixxi]

Would probably be inclined to change the carrilero to a more aggressive role like CM-A or Mez-A to provide penetration from midfield but it's a bit hard to say without knowing what issues you are facing with the current tactic.

[denen123]

57 minutes ago, MrYelsrennik said:

Can I get some advice on how to improve this tactic please?

 

I think the shape lacks a penetration from the middle and looks very static. On the left flank you're very aggressive in the crossing, with both wide players assuming the same "duty" of taking it wide and crossing. Makes you turn it over, a lot, despite the intention of your Team instructions. Your left flank, on the hand, is less threatening and even though I do understand what you're going for, It is a game. You might have to adapt to certain things. The quality of your team can also permit a more aggressive ST, who still occasionally drops deep. DLF(a), perhaps?

Suggestions: Your RW=W(s), RB=WBde and RCM= Mez(a)/CM(a). This will ensure you have one player that offers early crossing and width option. Penetration is also guaranteed. Turnovers reduced.

Lw= IW(s)/Ap(s), LCM= Car(s)/DLP(s) and LB=WB(a).

ST=DLF(a)

DM=DM(s)

Keeper =Sk(de)

Closing down can be split press(ST, LW,RW, RCM and LCM only) to retain shape during defensive transitions. 

Team instructions can also be cut down.

In possession = play out of defence

In transition= distr. To fullbacks, counterpress.

Out of possesion = Higher defensive line, higher LOE and offside trap.

All suggestions. 

 

[Experienced Defender]

1. Your tactic virtually has no central penetration

2. Defensive instructions are extremely aggressive and needlessly so (even if you don't care about defensive risks, you need to know that it can adversely affect your attacking play as well)

3. When it comes to the central midfield duo, the DLP would make more sense on the side of the IF than the winger in relation to how space in attack is created and utilized (which does not solve the lack of central penetration I mentioned earlier though)

Hopefully these observations will give you some food for thought in terms of what changes you could make to improve the tactic and fix the issues.

[MrYelsrennik]

On 02/03/2021 at 17:51, Experienced Defender said:

 

2. Defensive instructions are extremely aggressive and needlessly so (even if you don't care about defensive risks, you need to know that it can adversely affect your attacking play as well)

 

Thanks for your suggestions, can you explain what you mean by this? How do my defensive instructions effect my attacking?

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, MrYelsrennik said:

can you explain what you mean by this? How do my defensive instructions effect my attacking?

For example, by denying your players, especially forwards, space to potentially take advantage of. When you force the opposition into their defensive shell by being too aggressive, that also means less space for your team in the opposition half and box. 

Keep also in mind that asking your players to do something does not mean they will be able to do that. Aggressive defending is very demanding, so if your players lack the right set(s) of attributes to properly execute the instructions you give them, the opposition can exploit gaps in your defensive structure. 

All these are reasons why I personally prefer intelligent over aggressive defending.

[Guv'nor]

“And if we look to the left, we’ll see the elephant in the room” said the Tour Guide...what a mighty array of world class players...haven’t seen such a fantastic assembly since Reed Richards  got on the humanitarian aid bandwagon. Absolutely fabulous. 

What were your results like prior to the advice given?