Jump to content

What defensive issues exist with this tactic?


Recommended Posts

3 very attacking minded roles at the top half. AP will go for risky passes and roam. BBM will surge into the penalty box for support. Your wing backs will also run forward leaving your dm isolated to face the opposition counterattack. Also have both BPD will have risky passes leading to less ball retention. They are bound to make mistakes with their passing. You need support in midfield with a more conservative passing players to help retain possession in build up play. Also since all your forwards  plus one midfielder are crammed inside your opponents penalty box and not enough players stretching wide you will have difficulty breaking down opponents that sit deep (low block) unless you change your striker to f9 or dlf su. You just end up overloading their box and are left vulnerable to counterattack especially with your high line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd worry that it is too conservative in attack, especially on Balanced mentality, rather than seeing too many issues with the defence. With respect to the BPD, it really depends on how good they are. If you are sitting deep and passing into space against better opposition, then having BPD can wreak havoc on the opposition, but if you are trying to keep possession two can be over the top.

The AP on a support duty has hidden instructions to sit between the lines and move laterally, playing passes rather than running with the ball, so won't get too far forward to help the attack unless he has particular PIs that get him forward. The IF combination will open up space for overlapping wingbacks, but you don't have any of those as they are on support duties. I would be tempted to change one of the IF duties to attack, and the other to an IW(S), who will still cut inside, but will also cross the ball for the AF and IF(A). That might provide a little more varied forward play for the playmaker to take advantage of.

Defensively in the middle you will have the BBM roaming around closing people down, the DM holding his position and not pressing too much, whilst the AP will be an extra body that can congest the midfield and make it harder for the opposition to play through the middle. I played with a midfield 3 in my FM20 Everton save with that combination successfully (until I changed the BBM to a Mez(S) in the third season). On the flanks your wingbacks will both look to make runs forward, so if you did make the change suggested above, you could change the fullback behind the IF(A) to a FB(S) if you wanted to keep one of your fullbacks from getting too far forward, but personally I wouldn't worry about it too much.

The thing we don't know is how good your team is compared with the rest of the league!

Edited by facman
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is the AF is the focal point of your attacks while those IF(S) really only kick in when you are camping. So you don't have very many options in transition. Personally I would e turn one IF(S) to an attack duty, and begin from there. That way you can have more options. If you find that the AF is always running to issues with space, drop your line of engagement to higher so that your try and win the ball near or just in front of central midfield.

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...