Chance Creation Analysis Help and a Sarriball attempt

[dcayton9]

I’m usually a lurker here, as a tactical enthusiast and maybe-too-serious FM player, but I’m coming here to get help for a tactic I’ve been trying to implement in my save. Essentially, I’m trying to implement something very close to Sarriball, (especially the successful Napoli iteration) emphasizing short passing, a quicker tempo and decisive final third passing. 

 

 

Above is the tactic I’ve used through the first 11 games of the season, and while it’s been moderately successful, as I sit in 7th while I am predicted 9th, many of my chances have come from corners (specifically my 19 Jumping Reach CB at the near post) or opposition mistakes/rebounds. I’m looking for more clear cut chances from open play in order to enjoy the football I’m playing to a greater extent.

 

The attacking intent is to overload the left channel and touchline, with the LW and LCM attacking slightly deeper in the channel and the LB attacking the left flank, each drawing defenders out and creating overloads, while the ST and RW attack the space behind. The RCM serves as a link to cover space on the right flank and support play and the DLP acts as a safer version of a regista, dictating play from deep. The RB is intended to sit further back and act as an outlet, as well as assist in playing out from the back. On paper, I feel this tactic is solid, yet in practice I can rarely produce the kinds of goals I’m looking to produce, even against weaker sides in the Europa Conference League. My player quality is decent as well, given my 9th place prediction, so even though I drop to a more fluid counter type tactic against stronger sides, I have the ability to produce quick attacking football against comparable or worse sides but I can’t figure it out. I’ve tried a bit of tempo and passing distance modification and it doesn’t seem to change much, but any help is appreciated!

Edited May 31, 2021 by dcayton9
title change

[glengarry224]

That's not bad at all.  You are above your predicted finish and your players are likely still learning your system.  A few things I notice:

You only have two players on attack duty and neither penetrates the box without the ball.  IW(a) does not attack the box without the ball.  IW generally stays out wide, then cuts into the defense after receiving the ball.  IW is more a creative role than IF is.  IF, especially IF(a), attacks the box without the ball.  When you are choosing roles, look at the animation which FM21 supplies with each role.  It will show you the general idea of where a player moves without the ball, where he generally is planned to get the ball and what he will do after he is in possession.

DLF drops deep (moves into channels) and also does not attack the box without the ball.  Imagine that, when out of possession, a DLF is more like an AMC (#10), especially as play builds up (of course, players are not rigid, and he'll move into the box if the action presses forwards).  DLF(a) will look to fashion more scoring chances for himself than DLF(s) will, but DLF(a) will still drop deep, when out of possession.

The player you have attacking the box without the ball is your LW.  Also, IF does not move into channels.

IF and Mez might compete for the same space.  If you want a more creative role for LW, try AP, T, WTM or IW.

If they are capable, consider putting one of your CMs on attack.

[Zemahh]

22 minutes ago, dcayton9 said:

The attacking intent is to overload the left channel and touchline, with the LW and LCM attacking slightly deeper in the channel and the LB attacking the left flank, each drawing defenders out and creating overloads, while the ST and RW attack the space behind.

I don't think IF is a very good role for creating overloads. He tends to cut inside early and either dribble or look for a through ball/shot himself, so he likely won't be very good at holding up play and drawing defenders out wide. His individual mentality is also higher than that of other wide forwards (Positive + IFsu = Very Attacking), which makes it more a goalscorer than a creator.

Other than that, I can spot a few issues in terms of overall balance and defensive solidity:

• No defensive cover on left flank (IFsu rarely tracking back, MEZsu roaming and making regular forward runs and WBsu bombing down the flank)
• Poor defensive cover centrally (all three CM roles operating on Positive individual mentality, meaning no one's primarily focused on shielding defence)
• Lack of width on right flank (IWat cutting inside, FBsu not providing width aggressively enough)

With two inside-cutting wide forwards, you sort of depend on your WBs to provide width. As such, at least one of your central midfield roles should be covering for them.

[Experienced Defender]

For the style of football you are looking to implement, you need:

- a fullback role on the right flank that will more consistently support the attacks and provide width in the final third (WB support instead of FB support)

- the mezzala on attack duty (instead of support), and for 2 reasons: 1) to improve central penetration; 2) because the mezzala and IF/IW usually don't work well together when played on the same duty

- given that you insist on short-passing play, I would switch the lone striker's duty to support

That would (basically) be it when it comes to roles and duties. 

When it comes to instructions, where I see an obvious issue is out of possession. Primarily because of tight marking, which makes no sense in an attack-minded style you want to play. So I would suggest you remove the instruction.

I would also remove the get stuck in, even though it definitely makes more sense than tight marking. If you want to be more aggressive in the defensive phase of play while playing that kind of football, higher pressing urgency - or a split block as the safer alternative - makes a lot more sense than both get stuck in and (especially) tight marking.

[dcayton9]

3 hours ago, glengarry224 said:

The player you have attacking the box without the ball is your LW.  Also, IF does not move into channels.

IF and Mez might compete for the same space.  If you want a more creative role for LW, try AP, T, WTM or IW.

I swapped the IF (su) for IW (su) and the creation I want is more what i'm looking for! Might try out the AP or T later as they might have an even greater effect on the creation from that flank.

2 hours ago, Zemahh said:

 

• No defensive cover on left flank (IFsu rarely tracking back, MEZsu roaming and making regular forward runs and WBsu bombing down the flank)
• Poor defensive cover centrally (all three CM roles operating on Positive individual mentality, meaning no one's primarily focused on shielding defence)
• Lack of width on right flank (IWat cutting inside, FBsu not providing width aggressively enough)

 

Switching the DLP to defend for that holding role and relying on Killer Balls and Dictates Tempo to get the more dynamic playmaker from deep, but you're right, I need a role to cover (don't want to pull a Pep from Saturday)

 

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

When it comes to instructions, where I see an obvious issue is out of possession. Primarily because of tight marking, which makes no sense in an attack-minded style you want to play. So I would suggest you remove the instruction.

I would also remove the get stuck in, even though it definitely makes more sense than tight marking. If you want to be more aggressive in the defensive phase of play while playing that kind of football, higher pressing urgency - or a split block as the safer alternative - makes a lot more sense than both get stuck in and (especially) tight marking.

I only was using tight marking because I was looking for more of a space-oriented press to block passing options compared to a press based on ball location, but I do want an aggressive block looking to win the ball back so I'm adding higher pressing urgency along with preventing short distribution. My CBs have good pace and jumping reach allowing me to win back possession on long kicks and build from the back

As of now, I have this as my tactic, with the IF (at) looking to attack the space created by the overload and the dropping off striker, the RB providing more width, as well as the Mez (at) looking to overload the CBs and make some 1-2s or switch runs into goal-scoring situations. My only question is that if the DLP on defend is adequate defensive cover for both the flanks and the center? If not, then how I can provide cover otherwise and still get the attacking intent i'm looking for.

[Experienced Defender]

23 minutes ago, dcayton9 said:

My only question is that if the DLP on defend is adequate defensive cover for both the flanks and the center?

If the player playing there has proper defense-related attributes, he should be able to protect the back line as long as he is played on defend duty. Of course, these things are always relative, because you can never rely on a single player to do the entire job, either in defense or attack. But your tactical setup is well-balanced overall assuming you manage a (relatively) strong team. For an average or weaker team however, it could prove a bit too ambitious. 

[glengarry224]

53 minutes ago, dcayton9 said:

I swapped the IF (su) for IW (su) and the creation I want is more what i'm looking for! Might try out the AP or T later as they might have an even greater effect on the creation from that flank.

Switching the DLP to defend for that holding role and relying on Killer Balls and Dictates Tempo to get the more dynamic playmaker from deep, but you're right, I need a role to cover (don't want to pull a Pep from Saturday)

 

I only was using tight marking because I was looking for more of a space-oriented press to block passing options compared to a press based on ball location, but I do want an aggressive block looking to win the ball back so I'm adding higher pressing urgency along with preventing short distribution. My CBs have good pace and jumping reach allowing me to win back possession on long kicks and build from the back

As of now, I have this as my tactic, with the IF (at) looking to attack the space created by the overload and the dropping off striker, the RB providing more width, as well as the Mez (at) looking to overload the CBs and make some 1-2s or switch runs into goal-scoring situations. My only question is that if the DLP on defend is adequate defensive cover for both the flanks and the center? If not, then how I can provide cover otherwise and still get the attacking intent i'm looking for.

Nice.  One thing to look out for:  both your LB and RB are on aggressive roles.  The right flank is very aggressive with IF(a) and WB(s), and the left flank gets no cover from Mez(a).  The DLP(d) will help cover, and sometimes the CM(s), but with this formation and roles, there definitely will be times where your opponent takes possession and you only have three men back, and playing a higher defensive line.  Imagine an opponent midfielder, countering in possession, with the ball in the middle third (or some other countering possession), two opposition wingers bombing forward, and 1-2 strikers/AMCs attacking.  At best, you will have three one-on-ones, and you could get burned.  That could be fine if you have suitable CDs/DM/SK.

Against superior opposition -- you were predicted to finish 9th, but I don't know the relative abilities of your CD/CD/DM/SK -- this might cause trouble.  Also, look at your opponent's formations, style and strengths.  Just be on the lookout for it and, when necessary, maybe cut the RB back to FB(s) or WB(d), or some other changes.