Jump to content

Help with Trequartista in MOC in 41212 or 4312 and guidelines for Sambenedettese


Recommended Posts

What are the requirements to make the trequartista shines in a formation that is supposed to make him shine naturally (41212 or 4312). I really don't know how to do because everytime I try this role, the player ends with a terrible performance.
For information, I started playing with Sambenedettese (expected to finish 7th in the 3rd Italian division) that is composed of a very good MOC, Ruben Botta. The other stars of the team are Ivan Rossi (very versatile midfielder) and Maxi Lopez (target man).
Sambenedettese is full of good and versatile central midfielders, slow lazy strikers but good at heading, decent central defenders but bad at heading and average full backs. I can't really identify the style that I should play.

Any help with the use of the Trequartista or on how to build my tactic would be very welcomed because I'm very lost.

PS: sorry for my english, I'm not native :)

Botta.PNG

rossi.PNG

lopez.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites

How a player will play does not depend only on his role within your tactic, but on the tactical setup as a whole, including other roles and duties. Therefore, please post a screenshot of your tactic so that we could see if it has any flaws and then offer some advice accordingly :thup:

Btw, if your trequartista is Ruben Botta, keep in mind that his Decisions attribute is too low (8) for that role.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you for your answer.

I didn't post a tactic yet because I barely started the season and I'm not certain of the style I should focus on. I think the players in this team just don't suit any specific style. And in general I just don't understand how to use the trequartista role in the numer 10 position in a narrow formation.

Do you think his Decisions attribute is too low for that role even in the 3rd Italian division? Also, is this attribute more importante for that role than for any other AMC role, such as Advanced Playmaker for example?

Here is the tactic I used for the 1st game of the season.

tactic.PNG

Edited by LSThomat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I played a system like this a few saves back with Lazio. Obviously their skill set is much higher but I found that my Treq (Alberto) really started to shine when I changed my fullbacks to CWB support, I also used a MEZ attack behind him. When ever I use a Treq I'm always trying to stretch the pitch to make space for him to operate and have somebody running past him to offer passing options. 

Also, others may disagree on this but I wouldn't like another creative type player (DLF) trying to play in the same space as my Treq. I think the DLP is okay as they will build from deep but when that ball hits the final third you want your Treq to be the magnet, which is why I like to stretch the play so that he has the space to take up dangerous positions. 

Personally I would first look at getting people running past your Treq to open up space and see how that changes his performances. 

In relation to his attributes you would have to compare how DM's in the devision stand up as that is the position that is most likely to thwart him. If you think his creative attributes outway their positioning/anticipation/marking etc then he'll probably be fine. Technically I prefer Botta as your Treq but I don't like his low workrate, I'm also not keen with 'Plays with back to goal' on Lopez so I'd be tempted to try Rossi.

Like I say this is just the way I would look at. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks wokkie123 for giving your input. I think I agree with you when you say it's better to make space for him to operate and have somebody running past him to offer passing options. But I wonder if it's not a good idea to give him support with players who won't place themselves in spaces but instead hold their positions. If I say that is because it's seems to me the Trequartista is the opposite role of Enganche in the way the Engance hold is position and the Trequartista moved around. Am I mistaken?

For the CWB I could try for one on one side because my fullbacks are quite limited. But what about Wing back attack or support? Did you try?

I'm not fan also of using a DLP with a Trequartista. I did it because it's the best role for Rossi apparently and I'm trying to take the best out of him and Botta together.

I thought the workrate wasn't super important for a Treq? But maybe with a low workrate, the Treq would make less effort to place himself in spaces and would move less?
 

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

tactic.PNG

In terms of roles and duties, your setup looks pretty decent. The only change/tweak I would suggest is changing the LB's role from FB on attack into WB on support (especially as it seems that you want to play possession-based football). 

Where I see potential problems is your team instructions - because you are using a needlessly high number of them + some of them run counter to the tactical style. Specifically, the Regroup TI makes no sense in such an aggressive and possession-minded tactic. 

Your defensive (out-of-possession) Tis are extremely aggressive and hence too risky + some of them do not go hand in hand. For example, tight marking makes no sense in your tactic (both in terms of the playing style and the type of formation).

Forcing opposition outside (a.k.a. narrow defensive width) is not advisable either. Because your formation is already narrow by itself, therefore narrow defending is likely to put too much of a burden on your fullbacks. 

4 hours ago, LSThomat said:

Do you think his Decisions attribute is too low for that role even in the 3rd Italian division?

I don't know if it is too low for the 3rd Italian division, but it definitely is too low compared to Botta's other relevant attributes. 

 

4 hours ago, LSThomat said:

Also, is this attribute more importante for that role than for any other AMC role, such as Advanced Playmaker for example?

Decisions is a very important attribute for any playmaker role (AP, TQ, DLP, REG, WP, ENG, RPM). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had better results during the friendly games with my fullbacks on FB-attack but maybe I should have at least one on WB-support.

With this tactic I was trying to reproduce a very strong and narrow pressing starting when one of the opposition fullbacks received the ball. That's why I didn't want to press too high, narrow, aggressively but with regroup so we apply an organized pressing. Also, my midfielders are good at marking and tackling so I wanted to use that. But I have to admit it doesn't really work as I intended to.

Could you explain why tight marking makes no sense? I'm not sure I understand why.

 What is the best role/position according to you for Botta then? In general, how a player with very good attributes but with low decision should be used?

 

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

Could you explain why tight marking makes no sense?

I'll basically have to repeat an explanation I have already provided in many threads across this forum, although in a lot more detail...

First, marking as a defensive behavior happens throughout the defensive phase of play anyway. Therefore, it does not need to be set to "tight" in order to take place (be performed by players). 

Now, there are 3 types of marking in football:

1. pure zonal marking, which is entirely ball-oriented (each player looks to cover his zone of defensive responsibility and win the ball within that area by intercepting an opposition pass)

2. man-oriented zonal marking (players are still covering their zones looking to win the ball when it gets there, but in this case they are encouraged to get closer to any opposition player who has entered that zone without the ball on the assumption that being close to the opposition player will make it easier to intercept a potential pass to him)

3. pure man-to-man marking, which can be either tight or loose (in which a specific player is instructed to mark/cover a specific opposition player wherever he is)

NOTE: The last strategy is outdated and almost never applied in modern football. There can be an exception when one of your players is asked to specifically man-mark a specific opposition player (usually their playmaker or most dangerous attacker). However, this kind of marking does not always work properly in FM, most likely due to inevitable ME limitations. Anyway, it is much more likely to work when the player asked to man-mark an opposition player is played in a position that matches that of the opponent (e.g. your DMC marking the opposition AMCm or your AMC marking the opposition DMC or your LM marking the opposition RM etc.). 

In FM the team instruction "tight marking" essentially applies to the 2nd option (man-oriented zonal marking).

The most important difference between tight marking on one hand and pressing on the other is that tight marking is player-oriented whereas pressing is ball-oriented. Which is why tight marking and aggressive pressing (such as more or extremely urgent) tend to contradict each other. Because if you want your players to tight-mark opponents, you want each of them to focus on the opposition player who is currently within their defensive zone. And when you at the same time ask the players to press more aggressively, you are encouraging them to move away from the opposition player they are supposed to mark in order to chase the ball that is in the possession of a different opposition player at the moment. 

So this was the explanation on why tight marking and aggressive pressing should not be used together from the perspective of the fundamental logic of defending in football. 

Now let's move to marking in relation to different tactical styles as well as formations...

Any defensive instruction that implies more aggressive behavior is inherently and proportionally more risky than a non-aggressive one. Aggressive defensive instructions are:

- tight marking (as opposed to non-tight, i.e. pure zonal)

- more and extremely urgent pressing (as opposed to standard/default or less urgent)

- hard tackling/get stuck in (as opposed to normal/default or easy tackling/stay on feet)

In order to reduce the risk of aggressive defending, it is advisable to make sure that your level of defensive compactness is high enough. In terms of team instructions, defensive compactness is defined by the distance between your defensive line (DL) and line of engagement (LOE). Optimal compactness is when your DL is one notch higher than LOE (which is the case in your tactic, as you have higher DL paired with standard LOE :thup:).

Another factor is defensive width - narrow defending (force opposition outside) is naturally more compact than wide defending. Here again, your tactic has optimal compactness, so it's okay :thup:

But even if your compactness is optimal in terms of the relevant team instructions, it can still be compromised if your setup of roles and duties is poorly balanced. Fortunately, your tactic has good balance of roles and duties :thup:

Now comes the tricky part that pertains to relation between tight marking and your tactical style as well as the type of formation. 

Given that tight marking (as well as hard tackling/get stuck in) is an aggressive man-oriented defensive instruction, in addition to a good level of defensive compactness overall, it is also important to make sure that defensive risk will not be too high if any of your players misses a tackle or fails to fulfill his marking duty successfully. Logically, when you play with a higher (let alone much higher) D-line and/or in a formation that is not bottom-heavy enough, the risk of poorly executed marking or tackling will of course be higher than in a low/deep compact defensive block applied within a more bottom-heavy formation. For example, if your defender misses a tackle against an opposition forward or fails to intercept a pass aimed at an opposition forward, the latter will not only end up in a 1vs1 situation with your keeper, but your defender who made the mistake will be less likely to recover in time and thus potentially correct his mistake. 

Of course, better and stronger teams can naturally afford to take a greater level of risk - both in attack and defense - than weaker ones. But the key question here is - do you really need to take more risks than is actually necessary? I would say no.

Bottom line: A good/optimal level of defensive compactness is important for any kind of tactical/playing style or formation. But while aggressive pressing as a ball-oriented strategy can be relatively safely used in aggressive and attack-minded styles of play and/or within more top-heavy formations as long as your players are good enough to execute it properly, man-oriented instructions such as tight marking and/or hard tackling can lead to an excessive amount of needless risk, especially if you use all them together (at the same time). Therefore, when you play with a high D-line or/and in a formation that is not bottom-heavy (even if it's not outright top-heavy either), you should look to avoid man-oriented aggressive defensive instructions such as tight marking and/or hard tackling.

P.S: Keep also in mind that the team mentality automatically affects/adjusts all other team instructions, both in attack (in-possession) and defense (out of possession). Therefore, under a higher team mentality, your players will already be more aggressive in the defensive phase of play compared to lower mentalities.

P.S 2: But even if you don't care about the potentially excessive defensive risk produced by the simultaneous use of multiple aggressive instructions, you need to know that the way you defend affects the way you attack (and vice versa), which is yet another reason why tactical elements should never be viewed in isolation. So for example, tight marking may put more pressure on the opposition due to the closeness of your players to the opponents, but that same closeness can have a negative impact on your attacking transitions by making your players less available for a pass in the early stage of transition. Which may not be much of an issue in a more direct, non-possession styles (where the passing style is already more speculative by definition), but is obviously unwelcome in possession-oriented styles.

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

What is the best role/position according to you for Botta then?

There is no such thing as "best role" in FM (as well as real-life football). Because any player can successfully play more than one role, so the "best" one is the one that optimally fits into the tactical system as a whole (i.e interacts well with others within the setup). In that regard, the TQ role in AMC makes sense in your tactic, so there is nothing wrong with playing Botta in that position and role (despite his low decisions rating). His poor decision-making does not mean that he cannot play as a TQ, especially as he has all other relevant attributes for the role. It only means that you cannot expect him to play as a world-class TQ, because the poor decisions will sometimes cause him to make stupid mistakes that a more intelligent player would avoid. 

In case you don't want him as a TQ, the most logical alternative IMHO would be AM on attack duty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/05/2021 at 11:03, LSThomat said:

What is the best role/position according to you for Botta then? In general, how a player with very good attributes but with low decision should be used?

Probably sounds odd, but I would only consider using him as a creative striker in this formation, he is way to slow for the AMC role and don't have the defensive ability to play deeper in midfield 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Experienced Defender for your massive help. I'll keep your long post in my favourites in case I forget because it really makes sense and it has been very useful I think.

Since I applied your advice, I noticed a massive improvement, both in attack and in defence as you can imagine.

Falahk thanks also for your advice. But I don't understand why you say he's way to slow for a AMC? In my opinion, a number 10 doesn't need to be fast if his technical and mental attributes are good.

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

Falahk thanks also for your advice. But I don't understand why you say he's way to slow for a AMC? In my opinion, a number 10 doesn't need to be fast if his technical and mental attributes are good.

One of the main changes that started to take place between 10-15 years ago irl, was the type of player being used in the trequartista role, nowdays it's extremely rare to see a pure playmaker, now it's ether a hardworking guy who is reasonably fast (attributes to look at: pace, acceleration, stamina, workrate, teamwork, strength) or someone who would have played as a winger for an English team (attributes to look at: pace, acceleration, stamina, flair, dribbling, tecnique, of the ball)

Some playtesting on older fm's have also shown this is the way to go 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I just realized my question was totally naive. But it's because I refuse to admit that the pure number 10 role disappeared :D (meaning a slow but very technical player)

Edited by LSThomat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a quick spin-off of the Sambenedettese tactic based on the advice here. I might still change the AF to a poacher because Clarke isn't a very pacey player, and the CAR for an even more defensive role to cover for the CWB. Other than that, Whalley as an AMC is a bit worrying as he's unfamiliar with the position (and even more with the Treq role), but he does have the necessary attributes to play there. Here it is: unknown.png

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...