Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Afternoon all,

This is going to be FM21's version of this thread: 

The whole point of this thread is for myself and for others to understand how it's possible to to develop your style of play from a pragmatic approach to a more offensive approach. I'm a naturally pragmatic manager, who prefers solid defending first and foremost and I wanted a club that would start off with a similar feel.

With that in mind, the club I've chosen is Crystal Palace. Now Palace fans won't be happy with me saying this. but I'm looking at a team like Brighton as an example of what I'm trying to achieve here. The contrast in styles between previous manager Chris Hughton and current manager Graham Potter, are clear to see. Under Hughton it was about being hard to beat, yet under Potter they offer much more of an attacking threat whilst being brave on the ball (although their finishing is what's stopping them from moving out of a relegation fight).

Crystal Palace have a mixed squad. A lot of players in the squad are suited to Hodgson's pragmatic set up, but there are sparks of brilliance in the form of Zaha and Eze. With a lot of players due to be out of contract next summer, there's a good opportunity to change the playing style of this club.

Unlike last year's thread, my aim isn't to move from pragmatic approach to possession-focussed one. This year it's to move from a pragmatic approach to a more attacking/pressing one, but to develop better attacks, we are still going to need to be a team that's a lot more comfortable on the ball. Even when we are set up against the bigger teams, or away from home, I'm looking for us to be positive in our counter attacks and that's what I'm going to base my main tactic on with the set of players we have.
 

image.thumb.png.407302a44d3dd7ddb1971ba516e32b1a.png

As you can see I'm really not one for overloading the TI's, it's really not my style. I'll potentially add a couple more in if I see any obvious problems. The 'play out of defence' is my starting point to make the players more comfortable on the ball and I will hammer the technical side of it in our training sessions. To me, Playing out of defence doesn't have to mean you're looking for possession overkill. It's a way of enticing your opponents in and then being able to be direct with passes in the 2nd phase and receive balls in between the lines.

Again having been a pragmatic manager for so long, I'm quite comfortable in tweaking the above to ensure we're solid, but my biggest worry is how to progress this in to making us more of an entertaining/attacking outfit?

This was my first thought:

image.thumb.png.e05f094f1fea4d5fdabf29503b4a5a70.png

My main worry/concerns are how to adapt the 3 man midfield roles. Here I've tried to keep it basic. The CM(A) becomes the AM, the BWM becomes more of a controlling holding player in the CM(D) and the CM(S) is there because I really don't know what else to do with that role?

Pressing wise, I've gone for a HDL, and would then employ a split press in which my 4 attackers will all be asked to press higher. I don't want my Defensive Line or whole team in general pushing too high as I feel I'm just leaving myself open to long balls 24/7. The CM(D) is to help recycle possession and the LB has been changed to a WB as I feel that's more possession-friendly, as I plan to see more of the ball.

I fully appreciate that I may not have players in certain positions yet to help fully achieve my goals in terms of my progressive tactic.

Again I'm looking to be more aggressive, but this is a slow burner, I don't want to jump from my pragmatic style to a steam workshop tactic with 50 TI's all based on ridiculously aggressive pressing. No offence intended to those that download tactics, it's just not my style. I want this to be a realistic save in which there will be some struggle to change the club's mentality over the last few years.

Thanks for reading, I will post updates on my tactical (struggles) and if anyone has any tips on my progressive tactic, I'm all ears!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nick_CB said:

I wonder if you would use an HB instead of Anchor in the first tactic

Your reasoning? Not having a dig, just curious!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutos atrás, Blinklys disse:

Your reasoning? Not having a dig, just curious!

It is a more curious question, I do not know exactly the difference of these two roles, except the fact that HB falls deep among the CB's. Maybe it was interesting in a pragmatic style

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, are there any additional PIs? 

Funnily enough, have been staring at a stripped back uncustom 3-4-3 and wondering how the individual players interpret their roles were one to withhold almost all Team Instructions. 

The second approach will be do negate all TIs and modify PIs accordingly to achieve the desired effect from each individual player. Would the absence of an overriding Team Instruction compromise the team's produce, or can 11 individuals, with complementary player instructions, achieve a synergy greater than that allowed by set TIs?

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

Both tactics look good to me, and I particularly like your decision to start with almost no instructions :thup:

Thanks :thup: I find stripping back instructions the easiest way to build tactics from the start. That way it's easier to add in what you feel is missing, than trying to guess which one of the 50 ti's aren't working.

1 hour ago, Nick_CB said:

I wonder if you would use an HB instead of Anchor in the first tactic

Honestly there was no particular reason for picking Anchor over HB in the first tactic. Would you recommend a HB there instead?

1 hour ago, Guv'nor said:

Interesting, are there any additional PIs? 

Funnily enough, have been staring at a stripped back uncustom 3-4-3 and wondering how the individual players interpret their roles were one to withhold almost all Team Instructions. 

The second approach will be do negate all TIs and modify PIs accordingly to achieve the desired effect from each individual player. Would the absence of an overriding Team Instruction compromise the team's produce, or can 11 individuals, with complementary player instructions, achieve a synergy greater than that allowed by set TIs?

Not in the first tactic. If we're coming up against a big team, I'll probably get the RB to hold position.

In the progressive tactic, I'm asking the LWB to stay wide and i'm asking the 4 attacking players to press more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutos atrás, smplfc123 disse:

Honestly there was no particular reason for picking Anchor over HB in the first tactic. Would you recommend a HB there instead?

 

I'm a fan of this role because it works as a libero, but I wanted to understand your preference for Anchor, is it safer for your approach?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Nick_CB said:

I'm a fan of this role because it works as a libero, but I wanted to understand your preference for Anchor, is it safer for your approach?

I think so yes in terms of just keeping his role simplified in protecting the defence and handing the attacking duties over to the 2 CM's. I could potentially move to a HB though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HB is a good choice when you have both fullbacks in attack-minded roles (not necessarily on attack duty). But otherwise, anchor or standard DM make more sense.

So in the case of the OP's tactic, the anchor (or DM defend) looks like a better option to me.

While HB drops between the CBs in the initial phase of build-up, he tends to push up as the attack progresses and - depending on what happens on the pitch - can sometimes end up deep into the opposition half. The anchor, on the other hand, is the most defense-minded DM role and is primarily focused on protecting the back line.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 horas atrás, Experienced Defender disse:

HB is a good choice when you have both fullbacks in attack-minded roles (not necessarily on attack duty). But otherwise, anchor or standard DM make more sense.

So in the case of the OP's tactic, the anchor (or DM defend) looks like a better option to me.

While HB drops between the CBs in the initial phase of build-up, he tends to push up as the attack progresses and - depending on what happens on the pitch - can sometimes end up deep into the opposition half. The anchor, on the other hand, is the most defense-minded DM role and is primarily focused on protecting the back line.

So wouldn't it be the other way around? If Anchor doesn't push so much, wouldn't it be more useful with 2 FBs that are offensive?

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

So wouldn't it be the other way around? If Anchor doesn't push so much, wouldn't it be more useful with 2 FBs that are offensive?

No, because anchor and HB suit different tactical styles. HB is more suited to attack-minded styles - whether possession-minded or more progressive - which is why you need him to support the attacking play in its advanced stage (if needs be). Because your intention is to dominate matches, so you need more players involved in the attacking phase compared to more defense-minded or balanced styles. Problems can occur if your team is not good enough for such style of play, but that's a different question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/03/2021 at 15:50, smplfc123 said:

Afternoon all,

This is going to be FM21's version of this thread: 

The whole point of this thread is for myself and for others to understand how it's possible to to develop your style of play from a pragmatic approach to a more offensive approach. I'm a naturally pragmatic manager, who prefers solid defending first and foremost and I wanted a club that would start off with a similar feel.

With that in mind, the club I've chosen is Crystal Palace. Now Palace fans won't be happy with me saying this. but I'm looking at a team like Brighton as an example of what I'm trying to achieve here. The contrast in styles between previous manager Chris Hughton and current manager Graham Potter, are clear to see. Under Hughton it was about being hard to beat, yet under Potter they offer much more of an attacking threat whilst being brave on the ball (although their finishing is what's stopping them from moving out of a relegation fight).

Crystal Palace have a mixed squad. A lot of players in the squad are suited to Hodgson's pragmatic set up, but there are sparks of brilliance in the form of Zaha and Eze. With a lot of players due to be out of contract next summer, there's a good opportunity to change the playing style of this club.

Unlike last year's thread, my aim isn't to move from pragmatic approach to possession-focussed one. This year it's to move from a pragmatic approach to a more attacking/pressing one, but to develop better attacks, we are still going to need to be a team that's a lot more comfortable on the ball. Even when we are set up against the bigger teams, or away from home, I'm looking for us to be positive in our counter attacks and that's what I'm going to base my main tactic on with the set of players we have.
 

image.thumb.png.407302a44d3dd7ddb1971ba516e32b1a.png

As you can see I'm really not one for overloading the TI's, it's really not my style. I'll potentially add a couple more in if I see any obvious problems. The 'play out of defence' is my starting point to make the players more comfortable on the ball and I will hammer the technical side of it in our training sessions. To me, Playing out of defence doesn't have to mean you're looking for possession overkill. It's a way of enticing your opponents in and then being able to be direct with passes in the 2nd phase and receive balls in between the lines.

Again having been a pragmatic manager for so long, I'm quite comfortable in tweaking the above to ensure we're solid, but my biggest worry is how to progress this in to making us more of an entertaining/attacking outfit?

This was my first thought:

image.thumb.png.e05f094f1fea4d5fdabf29503b4a5a70.png

My main worry/concerns are how to adapt the 3 man midfield roles. Here I've tried to keep it basic. The CM(A) becomes the AM, the BWM becomes more of a controlling holding player in the CM(D) and the CM(S) is there because I really don't know what else to do with that role?

Pressing wise, I've gone for a HDL, and would then employ a split press in which my 4 attackers will all be asked to press higher. I don't want my Defensive Line or whole team in general pushing too high as I feel I'm just leaving myself open to long balls 24/7. The CM(D) is to help recycle possession and the LB has been changed to a WB as I feel that's more possession-friendly, as I plan to see more of the ball.

I fully appreciate that I may not have players in certain positions yet to help fully achieve my goals in terms of my progressive tactic.

Again I'm looking to be more aggressive, but this is a slow burner, I don't want to jump from my pragmatic style to a steam workshop tactic with 50 TI's all based on ridiculously aggressive pressing. No offence intended to those that download tactics, it's just not my style. I want this to be a realistic save in which there will be some struggle to change the club's mentality over the last few years.

Thanks for reading, I will post updates on my tactical (struggles) and if anyone has any tips on my progressive tactic, I'm all ears!

I look forward to reading and hopefully taking a few ideas for my own saves 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask about the first tactic posted ..

Who do you see providing protection / cover on the left flank ( as the FB is on attacking mentality ) ?  The Anchor or the BWM ?

I always imagined the Anchorman not leaving his center area of the field in front of the defense , and the BWM on Support sometimes wandering away trying to get the ball back. 

Is this working because of the positive mentality and the Higher Defense Line so the " pitch is smaller" in a sense that BWM and/or Anchorman can and will move quickly to cover the left flank ?

Thank you.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, BuzzR said:

Can I ask about the first tactic posted ..

Who do you see providing protection / cover on the left flank ( as the FB is on attacking mentality ) ?  The Anchor or the BWM ?

I always imagined the Anchorman not leaving his center area of the field in front of the defense , and the BWM on Support sometimes wandering away trying to get the ball back. 

Is this working because of the positive mentality and the Higher Defense Line so the " pitch is smaller" in a sense that BWM and/or Anchorman can and will move quickly to cover the left flank ?

Thank you.

 

I think a bit of both really, although I understand what you're saying in terms of where the potential gaps could surface. What would you recommend? A DM?

As for the HDL, hat's only used on the second tactic where i'm aiming to be more attacking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Paul Barton said:

I look forward to reading and hopefully taking a few ideas for my own saves 👍

Unfortunately the first 6 months of the save are going to be a write off as Ward, Cahill, Sakho, Clyne, Tomkins, Riedewald, PVA, Ferguson, Eze, Benteke and Mateta are all out injured, most of whom are yet to even play a competitive game for us, which is hindering us big time and subsequently not producing results that I feel are fair to base my tactical ideas on.  At the moment, I'm just trying to keep my job until Jan when players should be back and I can bring 1 or 2 in and start the progression from there.

In fact with no Eze, I have no real option at CAM, so i'm using a flat 4-1-4-1 at the moment to just try and grind games out.

Edited by smplfc123
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, smplfc123 said:

I think a bit of both really, although I understand what you're saying in terms of where the potential gaps could surface. What would you recommend? A DM?

As for the HDL, hat's only used on the second tactic where i'm aiming to be more attacking.

Oh I'm really far away from recommending anything... I am still learning and trying to understand FM tactics.

I am genuinely interested in this tactical approach, as in my current save I've just took over Hartlepool United in the second season. They are packed with good Central Midfielders and they have a very good Left Winger and I am trying to figure out how to play 433 DM wide .. like your system.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, smplfc123 said:

Unfortunately the first 6 months of the save are going to be a write off as Ward, Cahill, Sakho, Clyne, Tomkins, Riedewald, PVA, Ferguson, Eze, Benteke and Mateta are all out injured

Man I hate when this happens. Completely kills all my drive to even play, and I usually end up just vacationing until most are back from injury. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BuzzR said:

Oh I'm really far away from recommending anything... I am still learning and trying to understand FM tactics.

I am genuinely interested in this tactical approach, as in my current save I've just took over Hartlepool United in the second season. They are packed with good Central Midfielders and they have a very good Left Winger and I am trying to figure out how to play 433 DM wide .. like your system.

 

 

I wasn't meaning to put you on the spot pal, I'm open to ideas. I'm nowhere near being a tactical genius on this game. 

Maybe a CM(S) might be better instead of a BWM so that I can control him with PI's in terms of holding his position and not pressing so much?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Christopher S said:

Man I hate when this happens. Completely kills all my drive to even play, and I usually end up just vacationing until most are back from injury. 

Yep it's a killer. To be fair half of them are already injured at the start of the save, so I expected a rocky start. It's the fact we've picked up another 3/4 or injuries on top that's hurting me. 

I can't pick a settled back line which in turn is leading to us shipping goals for fun so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, smplfc123 said:

Yep it's a killer. To be fair half of them are already injured at the start of the save, so I expected a rocky start. It's the fact we've picked up another 3/4 or injuries on top that's hurting me. 

I can't pick a settled back line which in turn is leading to us shipping goals for fun so far.

I feel you bud. Sometimes, if you either have already invested in talent or at least have something worthwhile playing from your u-23 or u-18 you can sort of spin it into a development side-quest while you wait for your first choices to return. But man, if all you have are washed up rotation players and "prospects" that'll never turn into anything it becomes really dour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Christopher S said:

I feel you bud. Sometimes, if you either have already invested in talent or at least have something worthwhile playing from your u-23 or u-18 you can sort of spin it into a development side-quest while you wait for your first choices to return. But man, if all you have are washed up rotation players and "prospects" that'll never turn into anything it becomes really dour.

I'm really pushing Mitchell as first choice LB (although forced through PVA's injury) so it's good to see a youngster getting game time.

I think the most annoying injury for me is Eze when considering the point of this thread. He's the only one in central midfield with an attacking bone in his body. McCarthy, Milivojevic, McCarthur, Kouyate, Riedewald etc. are all on the defensive side.

Hopefully I can keep picking up points until Jan, where players will return and I can look at bringing in 1 or 2 more attack minded players to help with my tactical progression.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, smplfc123 said:

I'm really pushing Mitchell as first choice LB (although forced through PVA's injury) so it's good to see a youngster getting game time.

I think the most annoying injury for me is Eze when considering the point of this thread. He's the only one in central midfield with an attacking bone in his body. McCarthy, Milivojevic, McCarthur, Kouyate, Riedewald etc. are all on the defensive side.

Hopefully I can keep picking up points until Jan, where players will return and I can look at bringing in 1 or 2 more attack minded players to help with my tactical progression.

Agreed. Are you still inside the transfer window? If so, might be able to get a loan or something?

Also, remember that being "able" to play a position is not a pre-requisite for a player to play there. As long as the player has the right set of attributes he can play there. So if you have any players that have the attributes for an AMC/CMa role, but "can't play" the position, just play them there anyway. They'll be a tad inconsistent, but they'll better than you think. 

Edited by Christopher S
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Christopher S said:

Agreed. Are you still inside the transfer window? If so, might be able to get a loan or something?

No mate i'm in October now and I always start with transfers off anyway, as I feel it forces me to give players a chance I would otherwise write off without trying, Connor Wickham in this instance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, smplfc123 said:

No mate i'm in October now and I always start with transfers off anyway, as I feel it forces me to give players a chance I would otherwise write off without trying, Connor Wickham in this instance.

I added this after you quoted, so re-posting it in case you didn't see it: 

Also, remember that being "able" to play a position is not a pre-requisite for a player to play there. As long as the player has the right set of attributes he can play there. So if you have any players that have the attributes for an AMC/CMa role, but "can't play" the position, just play them there anyway. They'll be a tad inconsistent, but they'll better than you think. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, smplfc123 said:

Maybe a CM(S) might be better instead of a BWM

No (if you ask me). Given the attacking FB on that side, BWM is much better for providing defensive cover than a midfield runner such as CM on support (or BBM, for that matter). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm finding at the moment @Experienced Defender is that in both the original tactics, the wide players are a lot more effective both in defence and attack when playing deeper in a flat midfield position. Their roles are still the same as a IW on the left and W on the right.

In defence, I'm finding the opposition's full backs are easily overlapping and getting to the by-line unchallenged with the wingers higher up.

I do think the reason they have more joy in attack playing deeper is because the quality of the pass to them doesn't have to be as good. When playing higher up, they're closer to the opposition defence and the likes of James McCarthy and James McCarthur aren't exactly drilling passes in to Zaha's feet in tight spaces.

At the moment i'm boring my way to picking up points whilst my squad recovers from injuries, but I think shrewd moves in the transfer market are needed before my progressive style can start to take shape.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, smplfc123 said:

the wide players are a lot more effective both in defence and attack when playing deeper in a flat midfield position. Their roles are still the same as a IW on the left and W on the right

Okay, I don't see anything strange in that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Okay, I don't see anything strange in that. 

Sorry I meant to ask, whilst that's fine for my counter tactic, do you see it being an issue when I try my pressing tactic?

Do you think their starting position will be too far away from their respective opponent (Full Back) etc. or should the press more PI naturally move them further up the pitch when out of possession?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Story So Far

So as mentioned above, injuries have prevented me from really giving my progressive tactic a real shot. I tried it out in the first few weeks, but a lack of defence meant I had to revert to something more solid to ensure I was still in a job by the time my players recovered. Here's how the results have gone:

 

image.thumb.png.092d73c128921a9655c5bce008f521c0.png

Funnily enough the 14 points we've picked up in our 14 games has us sitting in, yes you guessed it, 14th.

It really won't be surprising to hear that Fulham away was the first time I had what I believe to be my first choice back 4 available together and the run of results and lack of goals conceded since shows that.

My pressing 4-2-3-1 paid off in the Carabao Cup away at Southampton, but I naively tried to ride the wave and used it again a few days later away at Sheff Utd and they picked me off for fun. Brighton, who also used a 5 at the back formation, had similar joy. Arsenal scored a 97th minute winner through Xhaka which was a kick in the teeth and James McCarthy got sent off after 4 minutes at home to Liverpool, making an already hard task even harder. Our 2 wins in our last 2 matches have actually come without Zaha in the squad (injured, shock!) and this what we've been using:

image.thumb.png.c2c2a669d8aecdd338c33631455d7d45.png

It's given us a really good platform defensively, it's now all about how I progress this in to a more attacking / pressing tactic? Obviously I'll keep this one for games tougher games, but as per my OP, I want to bring a bit more excitement to Selhurst Park. Do you think this would be a good progression guys?

image.thumb.png.0ed5dca39bae4ff44e2706f13df03143.png

Again, any feedback really is appreciated.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, smplfc123 said:

Sorry I meant to ask, whilst that's fine for my counter tactic, do you see it being an issue when I try my pressing tactic?

Do you think their starting position will be too far away from their respective opponent (Full Back) etc. or should the press more PI naturally move them further up the pitch when out of possession?

Whatever your tactical intention is, you need to adapt the tactic to your players, i.e. their strengths and weaknesses. So it's impossible to give a universal one-size-fits-all answer. 

You can have a perfectly logical and balanced tactic, but if it does not suit the players at your disposal - it can prove a failure anyway. 

Apart from that, a simple answer to your specific question is - of course that a more top-heavy formation is more suited to a tactical style that is pressing-oriented than a bottom-heavy one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Btw, why have you opted for the positive mentality in the 4411 tactic (as opposed to the balanced in the 4141)?

The thinking behind it I suppose is that we're more direct in attack when we win it higher up. 

I've gone balanced in the 4-1-4-1 as I think a positive mentality will encourage more direct passes to a lone striker that has no immediate support. On balanced, it gives the CM (A) and wide players time to get in and around him.

With the CAM already being in and around the ST in the 4-4-1-1, I thought a positive mentality would encourage more-direct passing once the ball has been won back from our higher press in to areas where the top 2 can cause damage.

Again I appreciate it's player dependant and there will be some new signings coming in (although not too many as I'm not a fan of the kind of save where you overhaul your squad every summer for the same 'wonderkids), but how would you suggest progressing the 4-1-4-1 in to a more attacking tactic?

Edited by smplfc123
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smplfc123 said:

The thinking behind it I suppose is that we're more direct in attack when we win it higher up

It's true, but on the other hand the higher mentality also pushes your already high D-line up slightly. Which might be an issue given the team you manage, especially in the formation without a DM (4411). That's why I asked. 

 

1 hour ago, smplfc123 said:

how would you suggest progressing the 4-1-4-1 in to a more attacking tactic?

Depends on what exactly you mean by "more attacking". 

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

It's true, but on the other hand the higher mentality also pushes your already high D-line up slightly. Which might be an issue given the team you manage, especially in the formation without a DM (4411). That's why I asked. 

 

Depends on what exactly you mean by "more attacking". 

Yes that's a good point regarding the lack of DM on positive mentality and I'm already uneasy playing without a DM, it's the pragmatist within me. 

I think attacking may be the wrong word. As per my OP, I'm looking to make Palace a more exciting team to watch and to do that, I want the team to be comfortable in pressing higher and in turn, being more comfortable on the ball once it's been won in higher positions. I want them to be attacking in the sense that when we win the ball back, our first thought isn't to recycle possession for 10 minutes to pad our possession stats. Yes retaining possession might be necessary for the initial phase, but if there's a chance of creating a goal scoring opportunity, I want us to be brave in doing so.

Now I fully appreciate players ability will play a part here, and across the midfield I'm going to need to bring in/develop players with better attributes in such areas as composure, decisions, anticipation, passing, vision etc. the kind of attributes you don't associate with most of Palace's midfield. But my question is tactically, do you think these changes can be made keeping a 4-1-4-1 flat?

My concerns there is that I'm asking the midfield to either press to high from their starting positions, which in turn may leave big gaps. The other option is to push the whole team higher up the pitch, but again the Palace backline isn't suited to that style at all and I'm not looking to completely overhaul the squad.

The other options (4-4-1-1/4-2-3-1) in my head, mean that the forward players on a split press with HLOE, will be high enough to initiate the press whilst the defence hasn't pushed too high and the midfield are still offering them some protection. I think my main worries in a 2 man midfield is what duties to play them on?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smplfc123 said:

But my question is tactically, do you think these changes can be made keeping a 4-1-4-1 flat?

My concerns there is that I'm asking the midfield to either press to high from their starting positions, which in turn may leave big gaps. The other option is to push the whole team higher up the pitch, but again the Palace backline isn't suited to that style at all and I'm not looking to completely overhaul the squad.

The other options (4-4-1-1/4-2-3-1) in my head, mean that the forward players on a split press with HLOE, will be high enough to initiate the press whilst the defence hasn't pushed too high and the midfield are still offering them some protection. I think my main worries in a 2 man midfield is what duties to play them on?

Well, in terms of formation, 433 DM Wide (a.k.a. 4123 wide) is probably the safest choice, because it's less top-heavy than the 4231 while at the same time having more bodies up front than the flat 4141. In that respect, I think your original 433 from the OP offers a good starting point in the sense that it can be developed into a more aggressive tactic over time (i.e. when you strengthen the team). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching with interest as my CPFC save is pretty advanced (from a duration perspective) but tactically still haven’t ‘settled’ on a tactic. 
 

Looking at the your earlier discussion re protecting the flanks, when I played with Luka in the HB role he did a great job of protecting the fullbacks. Not sure if it was the player or the role itself driving that (or a combination of the two) but that might be worth looking at. 
 

 

Edited by Marki
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Marki said:

Watching with interest as my CPFC save is pretty advanced (from a duration perspective) but tactically still haven’t ‘settled’ on a tactic. 
 

Looking at the your earlier discussion re protecting the flanks, when I played with Luka in the HB role he did a great job of protecting the fullbacks. Not sure if it was the player or the role itself driving that (or a combination of the two) but that might be worth looking at. 
 

 

Funnily enough, I switched to using a HB in my 4-1-4-1 and was able to put Luka there thanks to my new addition in CM, and it was our best performance of the season, ending in a 2-0 win over Sheffield Utd.

Talking of January acquisitions, as much as I hate loan deals, my lack of wide/attacking options in the squad and available on the transfer market, youngster Reiss Nelson and Curtis Jones were brought in from Arsenal and Liverpool respectively.

My main focus was bringing in someone with much better mental stats in centre midfield. I didn't want to go from one extreme of someone like James McCarthy to a mercurial midfielder with no strength, so I tried to find someone in between:

image.thumb.png.cfab9499e0a3be06402a97898be1cfd1.png

This £6m signing from Inter Milan certainly has the work rate and physical attributes for my future pressing style, as well as some excellent mental stats that will hopefully help bring a little class to our midfield. He's also adept at playing numerous roles in CM, so I felt it was a no brainer for that fee.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, smplfc123 said:

Funnily enough, I switched to using a HB in my 4-1-4-1 and was able to put Luka there thanks to my new addition in CM, and it was our best performance of the season, ending in a 2-0 win over Sheffield Utd.

Talking of January acquisitions, as much as I hate loan deals, my lack of wide/attacking options in the squad and available on the transfer market, youngster Reiss Nelson and Curtis Jones were brought in from Arsenal and Liverpool respectively.

My main focus was bringing in someone with much better mental stats in centre midfield. I didn't want to go from one extreme of someone like James McCarthy to a mercurial midfielder with no strength, so I tried to find someone in between:

image.thumb.png.cfab9499e0a3be06402a97898be1cfd1.png

This £6m signing from Inter Milan certainly has the work rate and physical attributes for my future pressing style, as well as some excellent mental stats that will hopefully help bring a little class to our midfield. He's also adept at playing numerous roles in CM, so I felt it was a no brainer for that fee.

 

Looks a great signing. You can get 2 years out of him and probably get your money back. Even the wages are sensible. 

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...