How can I improve chance creation in this tactic

[trueblue9877]

My defending is consistently good even with teamx expected to finish 24th/ 23rd in the league and if I use the PIS "get further forward and cross from byline" on the wingers it's  an easy top 6 finish in league Two and League One and one of the better defensive records, without those PIS it doesn't  work at all and will finish in mid table.

When I reach the Championship the tactic just stops working period and actually works better without those PIS  to the point where you will be middle of the pack defensively but not good offensively, but your team competitive in the league and able to stay in whereas with the PIS you will finish 24th every time.

 The tactic completely collapses if you try to use IF (S) as soon as you reach the Championship although I haven't  used the "get further forward " PI on them yet just wondering  how I can change this to create more chances,

Edited July 18, 2021 by trueblue9877

[trueblue9877]

[WhyMe]

I'm not going to tell you what system you should use as I don't know your intended style/what players you have.  However, here is a few things to think about and you can try one or all of them out as you will :-).

The thing that really jumps out to me is the lack of any support for your striker in the box, you have no one making attacking runs, particularly from central areas (the BBM will do a bit but he is a support role for a reason).  Obviously this is helped by using your get further forward instructions, which you can also add to the BBM.

Basically you need to ask yourself who is going to score the goals, who is going to set them up and who is going to provide the cover/recycle option.

Your flanks are one dimensional and the roles you have picked could potentially get in each others way i.e. both are told to get high and wide and get crosses in.  However, who are they crossing to?  You only have the AF in the box consistently.  I would suggest that you add an attack duty at CM (either CM-a or Mez-a depending on the player and what you pick out wide on their flank).

If you want to keep a winger on support on one flank then change the other to an attack duty and consider if you need to swap his role (winger attack can score a lot of goals in the right system with the right players so you might not need to, but worth considering).

You will also need to consider the full-back role behind the attacking wide man, either the CM on that side or the fullback needs to be a bit more conservative to ensure someone is providing defensive cover on that flank.  Same is true on the other flank, there needs to be some balance between wide man, full back and CM, though as you have a DM-d you can take some risk.

Ball playing defenders are intended to play risky sometimes long passes, you have play out of defence on, suggesting you want your CB to play short, consider do you need BPDs at all and both is likely overkill at least.

Last but not least, the AF-a is one of the most attacking striker roles there is and in your formation he can end up isolated, even with better support.  If you see this happening , but still want someone who will attack the box a lot, you can swap his role to CF-a (if you have the player), PF-a or at a push DLF-a (though he will play on the shoulder less than the other two).  Obviously, a support striker is also an option but is completely different to your current role.

Hope this helps.

[Prolix]

This is almost exactly the same tactic from your other thread. And this one too.

So, the feedback is almost exactly the same:

On 08/07/2021 at 16:10, Prolix said:

I can't really tell how you want your team to score goals. The AF is the only player attacking the box and is very isolated. The 2x wingers have only the AF to aim at with their crosses, and they aren't even instructed to aggressively attack the byline (which might at least put them in the vicinity of the striker). As far as I can tell your only routes to goal are 1.) for your BPDs or AP to pass the ball to a forward and hope that they dribble until something happens, or 2.) aggressively pressing and relying on the Counter instruction to get a lot of bodies swarming forward when you force a turnover. Neither of these are reliable/sustainable.

This tactic is certainly very solid and hardworking without the ball. But you need to go back to the drawing board and decide how you want your team to play when they're in the established possession phase.

You've applied the generic grouping of "modern"/counter-pressing TIs but seemingly just thrown in an arbitrary set of roles+duties without much consideration of how they will play together on the pitch.

Edited July 18, 2021 by Prolix

[trueblue9877]

8 minutes ago, Prolix said:

This is almost exactly the same tactic from your other thread. 

So, the feedback is almost exactly the same:

You've applied the generic grouping of "modern"/counter-pressing TIs but seemingly just thrown in an arbitrary set of roles+duties without much consideration of how they will play together on the pitch.

I changed things actually now I'm using two IF (s) with "get further forward" PI so they move closer to the striker and create space out wide by drifting inside  and getting similar results though I also changed the striker to DLF (S) I appreciate you saying the tactic is solid and it does work but I just can't  seem to win against teams in the Championship how would you suggest doing this because I thought using BBM would put another body in the box.

[Prolix]

2 minutes ago, trueblue9877 said:

I changed things actually now I'm using two IF (s) with "get further forward" PI so they move closer to the striker and create space out wide by drifting inside  and getting similar results though I also changed the striker to DLF (S)

Why have you set all your forwards to support duty? I don't mean to say that it's right or wrong, I would just like to know your reasoning behind that decision so my advice can take your vision into consideration!

4 minutes ago, trueblue9877 said:

I thought using BBM would put another body in the box

A BBM will arrive at the box relatively late in attacking moves. CM-a would more aggressively attack the box from midfield if that's something you're looking for. This would also allow the midfielder to link up with the DLF-s you say you're now using.

[trueblue9877]

21 minutes ago, Prolix said:

Why have you set all your forwards to support duty? I don't mean to say that it's right or wrong, I would just like to know your reasoning behind that decision so my advice can take your vision into consideration!

A BBM will arrive at the box relatively late in attacking moves. CM-a would more aggressively attack the box from midfield if that's something you're looking for. This would also allow the midfielder to link up with the DLF-s you say you're now using.

Thanks for the advice I've found your feedback tobe quite helpful actually it's  because  I  heard a while ago that wingers on attack duty Don't  track back as much so I wanted to avoid that especially as it is what my game plan looks to exploit.

[trueblue9877]

25 minutes ago, Prolix said:

Why have you set all your forwards to support duty? I don't mean to say that it's right or wrong, I would just like to know your reasoning behind that decision so my advice can take your vision into consideration!

A BBM will arrive at the box relatively late in attacking moves. CM-a would more aggressively attack the box from midfield if that's something you're looking for. This would also allow the midfielder to link up with the DLF-s you say you're now using.

I started a new league 2 save with Morecambe  a couple of hours ago, I've been in the top 6 the whole season  but am expected to finish 22nd, I changed the BBM to CM (A) for a match and won so I'll see how that goes.

[trueblue9877]

1 hour ago, Prolix said:

This is almost exactly the same tactic from your other thread. And this one too.

So, the feedback is almost exactly the same:

You've applied the generic grouping of "modern"/counter-pressing TIs but seemingly just thrown in an arbitrary set of roles+duties without much consideration of how they will play together on the pitch.

I don't  think so there's  a thought process behind spreading the play and moving the opposition defence to create space in the middle, I have other tactics I use which attack more centrally but not in this screenshot.

[trueblue9877]

19 hours ago, Prolix said:

Why have you set all your forwards to support duty? I don't mean to say that it's right or wrong, I would just like to know your reasoning behind that decision so my advice can take your vision into consideration!

A BBM will arrive at the box relatively late in attacking moves. CM-a would more aggressively attack the box from midfield if that's something you're looking for. This would also allow the midfielder to link up with the DLF-s you say you're now using.

This is what the new tactic looks like btw, thoughts on this?

[trueblue9877]

Which adjustments would you make?

[Keyzer Soze]

Hi,

Have you try the tactic? And if so, are you getting good results?

The best way to avaluate a tactic, it's to try it. If you are getting good results... don't change a thing.

in any case, just a couple of opinions:

1) for a underdog team, your out of possession instructions are very risky. In fact your transition and out of possession instructions are much more suited for a top team. So, keep a eye on your defence.

2) i not a fan of simetric tactics. unless you have some PI's on the IF and CM, you are attacking the same way from both flanks. Changing some roles to have some variation could be a good idea.

But in the end.... results are the key factor, 

[FrazT]

OK, guys- keep it civil please.

[RinusFM]

Would do something like this. Cautious, but attacking. If anyone think this is a bad idea.. hit me

Quote

 

Edited July 20, 2021 by RinusFM

[trueblue9877]

I've been having decent success with this tactic as I have finished comfortably in mid table in Ligue 1 for the past 5 seasons and got out of a Europa League group stage easily topping the group  however, the problem is that I am stuck in mid table so for example I beat Besiktas  and Borussia Monchengladbach 2-0 away convincingly then lost instantly to the 20th team in Ligue 1, there is just no consistency.

 What can I do to change this however I've already tried using a mid block but the defending got worse 

I was wondering which role changes I could make to improve chance creation as it doesn't work when I try using an attacking CM or BBM on the winger's side.

And also can anyone try to explain why this tactic could struggle to create chances or get consistent results?

[trueblue9877]

[Karlo]

You could do with a couple more attacking duties. For example one of your backs and one of your central midfielders. What I would do is the following:

FBsu > FBat
DMde > HBde
(R)CMsu > BBM
(L)CMsu > CMat

Why do you have your sweeper keeper on attack?

Also, I think your out of possession instructions are too aggressive.

[trueblue9877]

1 hour ago, Karlo said:

You could do with a couple more attacking duties. For example one of your backs and one of your central midfielders. What I would do is the following:

FBsu > FBat
DMde > HBde
(R)CMsu > BBM
(L)CMsu > CMat

Why do you have your sweeper keeper on attack?

Also, I think your out of possession instructions are too aggressive.

In which ways would you change the out of possession instructions?

[Karlo]

46 minutes ago, trueblue9877 said:

In which ways would you change the out of possession instructions?

That depends a bit on how you want to play. Your TIs tell me you want to build up from the back, but besides that you're playing with high lines and high pressure. Now it is difficult to say what will work without knowing your intention.

I think with the adjustment of a few roles, the goals will come more. Maybe we can talk about the team instructions after that.

[Chip]

13 hours ago, trueblue9877 said:

Without seeing how the tactic plays in a game, I would straight away say that there’s not enough penetration in the tactic

Only your AF is on attack duty and he will most likely be isolated as well

A couple of quick changes you could try would be changing the AF to a DLF-S, putting the IF on attack duty and one of the CMs on attack duty. A MEZ-S might even work nicely on the W-S side 

 

[trueblue9877]

What role changes do you think I could make to make this tactic stronger defensively?

[Hilly1979]

I would be more concerned about adding more attacking balance 

[trueblue9877]

55 minutes ago, Hilly1979 said:

I would be more concerned about adding more attacking balance 

How so? I wouldn't say there's been much of a problem scoring goals at all, there were less goals scored when I was using AF (A) and TM (A)

[Hilly1979]

Without a single attack duty it looks like it’s lacking penetration, no one attacking the box, but if it’s working.

[soft tofu]

Changing the two fullback roles? WB behind Winger and fullback behind IF. And maybe BWM instead of DM.

[Karlo]

19 minutes ago, Hilly1979 said:

Without a single attack duty it looks like it’s lacking penetration, no one attacking the box, but if it’s working.

 

I already said that to him in this topic, but he just opens a new one? 

[HUMBL3B33]

Assuming that you know what's the difference between a fluid system and structured one. I would assume your team to be fairly dominant in order to use such a system.

You should be playing on a positive or attacking formation depending on the opponent. 

Judging by the roles and duties you have selected i would assume that you're very good at keeping the ball and intelligent in possession. Such as high composure, vission, anticipation and off the ball among others. 

You can make the dm a half back to stretch out the cbs a little and allow the fbs to bomb forward. With that safety you can keep one of the wb on the flank you have an inside forward on an attacking duty. And the other one to be a support one.

The right cm can attack in the space vacated by the winger with either cm on attack or maybe a box to box mid. 

Left cm can stack back and ping balls allow further solidity to the midfield with a cm on def or dlp on support. This will keep the possession fairly rotational and create openings from midfield and fullbacks. 

I would also put dlf on attack rather than support since he'll drop back than a normal af anyway but the attack duty will provide more penetration from central attack and keep the defense pinned (additional pressure from the cm on attack and inside forward on support)

Since it's a highly possession based system I'll make sure to add following team instruction

-shorter passing and high tempo to keep the ball moving.

-work the ball into the box to allow better quality chances for your players.

-since it's predominantly a wide formation with 2 wide attacking mids attacking i would also make sure to play a little narrower and allowing them to come inside the opponent box.

-you can also add dribble less or run at defense judging by your team's ability to dribble and attack. If not sure, leave it untouched.

Note: these are just in possession instructions and roles to make you keep the ball better and create better quality chances.

Which in turn means you'll keep the ball better and allow the rotation of the ball. Which will result in better possession and less time on ball for the opponent. Thus, less chances for opposition to score.

However, being defensively better also considers the off the ball aspect that itself is a system to generate depending on the team's ability to defend.

[trueblue9877]

I've been having some success using this tactic in Ligue 1 with two consecutive second place finishes with a team that usually gets relegated when I use another team however I got completely blown out in the CL Group Stage in the second season and can't seem to get it to work in the VNL South so I was wondering which changes need to be made. http://imgur.com/a/oLyo0Uj

[XaW]

@trueblue9877 - I've merged a few of your recent threads into this one. Please keep further questions regarding this tactic in here from now on.