4-3-3 / Walking On Thin Ice

[jamesh123]

Hi All, I am kind of in need of some major help in my save. Managing Bristol City, it's the first time I've struggled in a save for quite a while as I sit in 16th after 26 games and I'm on the verge of losing my job. Defensively we have been sound, but we can't hit a barn door to save our lives. I always have ideas for tactics but have no clue how to implement them in game. The things I want from my tactic are :

• Solid defence
• Utilise quick transitions
• Create pressing traps on the pitch
• Build out from the back if possible while playing a more direct style
• Be more progressive in possession and look to play forward rather than pass it round the middle of the pitch.

Some requirements for my tactic, mainly due to personal preference, but also due to the squad at my disposal, Is that I want to make use of an IF (a) on the left with an IW or W (s) on the right. I've attached a rough idea of what I'm trying to achieve role wise below. The instructions are blank while I try and figure out what to do, and I don't want to be too experimental due to my manager rating being an F  

Any tips and help will be much appreciated

[Prolix]

I mentioned this in another 4-3-3 thread recently, but the first thing I would consider is swapping the DLP to an AP on support. The AP shares many characteristics of the DLP but is more focused on playmaking in the final third and taking up positions to hurt the opposition. 

The halfback will drop in with the CBs to build play, and you're using a BPD to provide a more aggressive passing option  from deep. The DLP looking to drop in and dictate play seems redundant to me. The HB will also provide an outlet to recycle possession when you're in the final third, so I don't think using a second holding midfielder is necessary. Get that AP between the lines! 

Then you could consider using a more aggressive RCM to attack the box earlier than the B2B.

Edited May 15, 2021 by Prolix

[CARRERA]

2 hours ago, jamesh123 said:

Utilise quick transitions

 

2 hours ago, jamesh123 said:

while playing a more direct style

Quick transitions are completely fine. However, doing it in a more direct manner (in terms of passing) can be quite challanging in a 4123 formation, as you kinda have to pick your poison wether your striker ends up isolated or has to drop deep. A formation using an AM + ST or using 2x ST is quite more favourable. So at first i would change my formation, or rely on a more balanced passing style.

2 hours ago, jamesh123 said:

Build out from the back if possible

i would remove play out of defense. It can work, but most likely it will slow down your play.

In terms of roles, i would make the DLP a RPM which is a more dynamic playmaker role and therefore make the BBM a simple CM(s). It looks pretty basic, but is properbly the most versatile role in central midfield as he can take over responsibility for most tasks in that area of the pitch. It might be better to play your DLF on support duty, but you can test that out yourself. You can also try using the right FB as a WB on attack, as the FB role even on attack duty is stil quite conservative in terms of forward movement.

[xturqz]

I'm in quite a similar situation as you: almost the exact same setup, defensively sound but was struggling with penetration. One thing that actually helped me was changing the mentality from Positive to Balanced. It allowed my players to drop back a few yards when we are on the ball, without having to alter their roles, duties, or any of my team instructions. One reason why I wasn't scoring was because my IF(a) took up positions that made him marked out of the game. Adding a stay wider instruction coupled with the Balanced mentality made that position able to actually have some room to breathe.

In terms of roles the only other differences between mine and yours is that I have DM(D) instead of halfback, WB(A) on the right, Mez(s) as my MCR and AF up front. The dm, wingback and striker roles are just what suit how I'm playing so I wouldn't necessarily suggest copying, but I think a mezzala could help you more than a BBM. Also do at least experiment swapping the DLP for AP, if you think it hinders you defensively more than it benefits you offensively you can always change back, but you never know the outcome until you try it

 

• Build out from the back if possible while playing a more direct style
• Be more progressive in possession and look to play forward rather than pass it round the middle of the pitch

From these it sounds like maybe you are focused too much on trying to do this, I know I've fallen for that trap, I was so sick of seeing my entire attack and midfield surrounding the opposition box with a wall of 10 defenders stopping them, so wanted a more progressive style, but focusing too hard on that just made my team take too many risks and it was sloppy. I'm finding the less instructions the better sometimes, in fact my only In Possession instruction is play out of defence

Edited May 16, 2021 by xturqz

[Experienced Defender]

I'll be short and direct:

- perfect balance on the left side due to a combination of IFat + DLPsu + WBsu (inside forward + holding CM + attack-minded/naturally overlapping fullback) 

BUT:

- poor balance on the opposite side because of an attacking fullback (FBat) paired with a midfield runner (BBM) instead of a holding or covering role 

[jamesh123]

5 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

I'll be short and direct:

- perfect balance on the left side due to a combination of IFat + DLPsu + WBsu (inside forward + holding CM + attack-minded/naturally overlapping fullback) 

BUT:

- poor balance on the opposite side because of an attacking fullback (FBat) paired with a midfield runner (BBM) instead of a holding or covering role 

On the right hand side, would a CM (s) be sufficient enough for a covering role? Only reason I had a BBM was to give me some penetration from the middle of the pitch.

[jamesh123]

5 hours ago, xturqz said:

I'm in quite a similar situation as you: almost the exact same setup, defensively sound but was struggling with penetration. One thing that actually helped me was changing the mentality from Positive to Balanced. It allowed my players to drop back a few yards when we are on the ball, without having to alter their roles, duties, or any of my team instructions. One reason why I wasn't scoring was because my IF(a) took up positions that made him marked out of the game. Adding a stay wider instruction coupled with the Balanced mentality made that position able to actually have some room to breathe.

In terms of roles the only other differences between mine and yours is that I have DM(D) instead of halfback, WB(A) on the right, Mez(s) as my MCR and AF up front. The dm, wingback and striker roles are just what suit how I'm playing so I wouldn't necessarily suggest copying, but I think a mezzala could help you more than a BBM. Also do at least experiment swapping the DLP for AP, if you think it hinders you defensively more than it benefits you offensively you can always change back, but you never know the outcome until you try it

 

• Build out from the back if possible while playing a more direct style
• Be more progressive in possession and look to play forward rather than pass it round the middle of the pitch

From these it sounds like maybe you are focused too much on trying to do this, I know I've fallen for that trap, I was so sick of seeing my entire attack and midfield surrounding the opposition box with a wall of 10 defenders stopping them, so wanted a more progressive style, but focusing too hard on that just made my team take too many risks and it was sloppy. I'm finding the less instructions the better sometimes, in fact my only In Possession instruction is play out of defence

I've been using Balanced all season, which is why I'm trying Positive out now as when I've won, its been 1-0. I've only scored more than one goal when I've lost or drew. 

 

Yeah I like to keep it simple with instructions too, but I've found it hard to get it right to be effective in the final third.

[Hilly1979]

1 hour ago, jamesh123 said:

On the right hand side, would a CM (s) be sufficient enough for a covering role? Only reason I had a BBM was to give me some penetration from the middle of the pitch.

Maybe add hold position PI, also will depend on his attributes and his ppms

[Experienced Defender]

4 hours ago, jamesh123 said:

On the right hand side, would a CM (s) be sufficient enough for a covering role?

No, because it is also a runner role like BBM. 

 

4 hours ago, jamesh123 said:

Only reason I had a BBM was to give me some penetration from the middle of the pitch

Okay, but then you need to tweak some other roles around him to keep the overall balance. 

I don't know what your intended style of play is (and what type of players you have), but here is an example of how you can achieve central penetration in a balanced way:

DLFat

IFat                                 Wsu

DLPsu     CMat

HB

WBsu     CB      CB      FBsu

Or maybe this (which is slightly less balanced, but still okay):

DLFat

IFat                               IWsu

BBM    DLPsu

HB

WBsu      CB    CB     FBat

As you can see, all I did here is just swapping places of your roles in the central midfield.

[caloides]

If you have the player for it, an IWB on the right side and changing your RCM to a MEZat could work as well I think, or maybe a FBsu with cut inside as I think he doesn't get as adventurous as an IWB.

Something like:

DLFat

IFat                                 IWsu

DLPsu     MEZat

HB

            WBsu     CB      CB      IWBsu/FBsu

 

The IWsu and the MEZat might end up occupying the same positions though, maybe ask the IWsu to stay wider can help.