Attacking system on a 4-2-3-1

[Tsuru]

Hi everyone. I am starting a new save at AFC Bournemouth and decided to play on a simple 4-2-3-1 with no specific tactical style and no starting team/player instructions (although I can add them if necessary). However I have been feeling that during pre-season the team is too "blunt" on attack - we control the matches properly, exchange a lot of passes, shot a lot but few shots are dangerous/on goal.

This is not a specific problem of this save, I think, I faced the same issue before with this same formation. As the team looks good in defence and in general transitions, I think I am not being able to set up a properly attacking pair (or attacking system), so any suggestions would be appreciated.

I noticed that we face problems against "packed" defences, they put everyone in front of the box and we need a right crossing to create a dangerous situation. However the winger/fullbacks almost never got a right cross, so it is very hard to be dangerous. I already tried to accelerate the game using some instructions, but then I have the impression that the team rushes things too much and starts to waste possession.

Our current tactic looks like this:
 

 

Why these roles and duties? We have better RBs than LBs and our best wingers play with the inverted foot (good as Inverted Winger/Inside Foward/Advanced Playmaker). Lerma is a BWM specialist and I have two good TMs upfront, so Winger/Shadow Striker/AP looked a nice combination behind them.

But I am open to any kind of suggestions - I can add TIs, PIs and test other possible roles/duties combinations. I really like the 4-2-3-1 so I would like to stick with it at least for now.

Thank you!

Edited August 11, 2021 by Tsuru

[Johnny Ace]

Bluntness is probably down to the TM(S) / SS(A) combo. Yeah it "works" but you'll get better output with something like AM(S) / AF(A) 

Edited August 11, 2021 by Johnny Ace

[herne79]

34 minutes ago, Tsuru said:

decided to play on a simple 4-2-3-1 with no specific tactical style and no starting team/player instructions (although I can add them if necessary).

Good .

Use TIs / PIs to create a tactical style and/or to address specific issues you may notice during matches.  As you're not playing with any particular style in mind, just keep an eye open during matches and use TI's/PIs if you need to tweak something.  Use sparingly though.

37 minutes ago, Tsuru said:

I think I am not being able to set up a properly attacking pair (or attacking system), so any suggestions would be appreciated.

The only thing I'd suggest at this stage is think about who is attacking the box.  Your TM is dropping off and holding up the ball, on the wings you have a winger (support) staying wide looking to make crosses and an attack duty Advanced Playmaker wanting to make through balls.  That's placing a lot of reliance on your SS to score.

[Tsuru]

27 minutos atrás, Johnny Ace disse:

Bluntness is probably down to the TM(S) / SS(A) combo. Yeah it "works" but you'll get better output with something like AM(S) / AF(A) 

It can be, yes. But for example on a AM (S) / AF (A) pair, wouldn´t the AF be the only one attacking the box and trying to score, the same way the SS is doing now? Then wouldn´t I have to change the inside winger to an Inside Foward on Support, for example?

I used the AF (A) as a single striker in this system for a short period of time, however he sometimes stays too away from the midfield, so the team starts to try long passes to reach him. 

21 minutos atrás, herne79 disse:

Good .

Use TIs / PIs to create a tactical style and/or to address specific issues you may notice during matches.  As you're not playing with any particular style in mind, just keep an eye open during matches and use TI's/PIs if you need to tweak something.  Use sparingly though.

I also tested this and it was very interesting. On a match the team was too "blunt" and I added instructions to speed things up and we won 4-1. On the next match we were winning 2-1 and the opponent was pressing, I asked the team to pass shorter to slow the game and we started to control it again, we did so and won. Sometimes it looks much easier to me than trying to manage a complex tactical system with lots of instructions. I think I found a playstyle I like  

21 minutos atrás, herne79 disse:

The only thing I'd suggest at this stage is think about who is attacking the box.  Your TM is dropping off and holding up the ball, on the wings you have a winger (support) staying wide looking to make crosses and an attack duty Advanced Playmaker wanting to make through balls.  That's placing a lot of reliance on your SS to score.

Ok, so the winger looks good to me - offers some width and speed, avoids the middle which is already too crowded -, the TM also looks ok as our strikers are good at this role, and as we use a more supportive striker upfront, a Shadow Striker looks a good option. So to keep the current setup and attack the box more I would need probably to change the Advanced Playmaker to a more aggresive inside striker, it looks like an Inside Foward on Support is a good option. This way we would have someone trying to make some passes and long distance shots and also attack the box later, going to the middle and opening the flank for the WB-Su. 

Maybe if I would like to avoid too many support roles I could use a FB-At instead of WB-Su on the right.

Or I can keep the AP on the right wing and change the striker to a DLF-At, this way he would hold the ball and attack the box more than a TM-Su.

Do you think these options make sense?

Thank you!

Edited August 11, 2021 by Tsuru

[Johnny Ace]

An Inside Forward (S) sounds ideal in either setup, they can be absolutely lethal if you have the right player. I've toyed with the SS absolutely loads in this FM & an AF(A)/ PF(A) will out perform them in all cases. The FB(A) makes sense too, I always get nervous with WBs & no DM  

An AP(A) can still be a threat in the box, it's not like they'll never shoot, they're just not encouraged to. It's worth having a couple of system variations to mix it up when needed 

Edited August 11, 2021 by Johnny Ace

[Tsuru]

11 minutos atrás, Johnny Ace disse:

An Inside Forward (S) sounds ideal in either setup, they can be absolutely lethal if you have the right player. I've toyed with the SS absolutely loads in this FM & an AF(A)/ PF(A) will out perform them in all cases. The FB(A) makes sense too, I always get nervous with WBs & no DM  

An AP(A) can still be a threat in the box, it's not like they'll never shoot, they're just not encouraged to. It's worth having a couple of system variations to mix it up when needed 

Yes, yes, I see. So you would setup with something like this (either with AM-At, AM-Su, AP-Su or AP-At):
 

[herne79]

58 minutes ago, Tsuru said:

I also tested this and it was very interesting. On a match the team was too "blunt" and I added instructions to speed things up and we won 4-1. On the next match we were winning 2-1 and the opponent was pressing, I asked the team to pass shorter to slow the game and we started to control it again, we did so and won. Sometimes it looks much easier to me than trying to manage a complex tactical system with lots of instructions. I think I found a playstyle I like  

You just won FM .

Seriously though this is exactly what's possible - not everyone likes to play in this manner but as our old friend @Cleon used to say: FM is a simple game, it's only us managers who overcomplicate things.

1 hour ago, Tsuru said:

Ok, so the winger looks good to me - offers some width and speed, avoids the middle which is already too crowded -, the TM also looks ok as our strikers are good at this role, and as we use a more supportive striker upfront, a Shadow Striker looks a good option. So to keep the current setup and attack the box more I would need probably to change the Advanced Playmaker to a more aggresive inside striker, it looks like an Inside Foward on Support is a good option. This way we would have someone trying to make some passes and long distance shots and also attack the box later, going to the middle and opening the flank for the WB-Su. 

Maybe if I would like to avoid too many support roles I could use a FB-At instead of WB-Su on the right.

Or I can keep the AP on the right wing and change the striker to a DLF-At, this way he would hold the ball and attack the box more than a TM-Su.

Do you think these options make sense?

They all sound good.  Time to experiment .  If you don't want to experiment with your actual save, create a copy of it and try things out there, then once happy go back to your actual save and implement the changes.

[Johnny Ace]

35 minutes ago, Tsuru said:

Yes, yes, I see. So you would setup with something like this (either with AM-At, AM-Su, AP-Su or AP-At):

Yes, something like that, my favourites are AP(A) / T(A) but it depends on who you have 

Is that some sort of app you're using?

[Tsuru]

25 minutos atrás, herne79 disse:

They all sound good.  Time to experiment .  If you don't want to experiment with your actual save, create a copy of it and try things out there, then once happy go back to your actual save and implement the changes.

Yes, I will do that and see which option I like the most. If I don´t like any of them I still have a different tactic version which I created based on @Johnny Ace´s suggestions, so I can also try them too. But I will really test the SS/TM pair a little bit more, they did well on the tests I did and I think with another player attacking the box we will be fine.

Thank you!

28 minutos atrás, Johnny Ace disse:

Yes, something like that, my favourites are AP(A) / T(A) but it depends on who you have 

Is that some sort of app you're using?

To be sincere the attacking midfielders I brought are not very brilliant due to the lack of money, they are much more AM like - but maybe they can work also as AP-At. 

The prints are from Rate my Tactic (https://ratemytactic.web.app/), it is an online tactical evaluator for FM. Here I am using it more as a quick tactical example builder  

[mikcheck]

I personally don't like to have both AMC and striker with the same duty

[Tsuru]

10 minutos atrás, mikcheck disse:

I personally don't like to have both AMC and striker with the same duty

Me neither. That´s why I started with Shadow Striker/Target Man on Support, this way they could move and create attacking patterns to open some space. And that´s why I will start with AP/AM-Su/PF-At if I decide to change the attacking pair. 

However in FM 17 I used SS/DLF-At and AM-AT/DLF-At with good success, so it may be also an option if everything else goes wrong.  

[Johnny Ace]

1 hour ago, Tsuru said:

The prints are from Rate my Tactic (https://ratemytactic.web.app/), it is an online tactical evaluator for FM. Here I am using it more as a quick tactical example builder  

Thanks!! Nice!! Looks handy that!!

[Prolix]

4 hours ago, herne79 said:

If you don't want to experiment with your actual save, create a copy of it and try things out there, then once happy go back to your actual save and implement the changes.

Incidentally, how cool would a feature be where you could play out different tactical instructions on the "training pitch" to see their effect? 

[saintrainhard]

I use SS(Attack) with AF(Attack) 

SS with tackle harder and speciafically mark the DM if opponent using 4-3-3 with DM

AF with take more risks, shoot more and dribble more 

[Tsuru]

13 horas atrás, saintrainhard disse:

I use SS(Attack) with AF(Attack) 

SS with tackle harder and speciafically mark the DM if opponent using 4-3-3 with DM

AF with take more risks, shoot more and dribble more 

Thank you for your suggestion! But I prefer a pair with both players on different kinds of roles, for me SS and AF do basically the same although I know it can work.

Yesterday I did a test using @Johnny Ace´s ideas from the AMC topic, that is, CJA-At with a more traditional striker. I chose a PF-At because my strikers are natural Target Men, so I was trying to explore their physical capacity (although in a different way that the TM role does) more than their speed/dribbling (which I see is what the AF does more). And I also changed the RB to a FB-At and the RW to IF-Su.

This was the final result:
 

 

I really liked the way the team played, we were much more dangerous and precise on attack and won 3-1. I am still in doubt about using a BWM-Su or CM-Su, the BWM protects the defence more and kicks more from a long range, the CM offers more support to the front men but defends a little bit less. As Jeferson Lerma is a natural BWM I will probably stick with it, but I will also test more before deciding.

I will keep this for now but any suggestions and ideas will always be appreciated  

Edited August 13, 2021 by Tsuru

[Johnny Ace]

21 minutes ago, Tsuru said:

Yesterday I did a test using @Johnny Ace´s ideas from the AMC topic, that is, CJA-At with a more traditional striker. I chose a PF-At because my strikers are natural Target Men, so I was trying to explore their physical capacity (although in a different way that the TM role does) more than their speed/dribbling (which I see is what the AF does more). And I also changed the RB to a FB-At and the RW to IF-Su.

This was the final result:
I really liked the way the team played, we were much more dangerous and precise on attack and won 3-1. I am still in doubt about using a BWM-Su or CM-Su, the BWM protects the defence more and kicks more from a long range, the CM offers more support to the front men but defends a little bit less. As Jeferson Lerma is a natural BWM I will probably stick with it, but I will also test more before deciding.

I will keep this for now but any suggestions and ideas will always be appreciated  

I did punch that into Rate my Tactic & got the 5 stars, so I did something right 

Makes sense really, it's logical in an FM sense.

The left FB(S) supports play down the right hand side. The right FB(A) has the cover of the CM(D) & can move into the space on the right wing the IF(S) vacates. The CM(S) (or BMW(S) in your case) can move forward  on the inside of the W(S). The W(S) puts in crosses for the PF(A), AP(A) & IF(S). IF(S) gets into the box to support & get on the end of things. AP(A) gets forward from the hole to create & score 

I have it inverted to you though as I find it easier to find right footed players. I have a style of play I like & it fits in well with the formation. Just be sure your CMs are both capable at defending 

I started a save in FM14 last night to try it out. It's works great in FM15, 17, 20 & 21

[Tsuru]

3 horas atrás, Johnny Ace disse:

I did punch that into Rate my Tactic & got the 5 stars, so I did something right 

Makes sense really, it's logical in an FM sense.

The left FB(S) supports play down the right hand side. The right FB(A) has the cover of the CM(D) & can move into the space on the right wing the IF(S) vacates. The CM(S) (or BMW(S) in your case) can move forward  on the inside of the W(S). The W(S) puts in crosses for the PF(A), AP(A) & IF(S). IF(S) gets into the box to support & get on the end of things. AP(A) gets forward from the hole to create & score 

I have it inverted to you though as I find it easier to find right footed players. I have a style of play I like & it fits in well with the formation. Just be sure your CMs are both capable at defending 

I started a save in FM14 last night to try it out. It's works great in FM15, 17, 20 & 21

Yes you did, in general it is very well balanced  And I really think 4-2-3-1 is much easier to design in FM than 4-1-4-1 DM Wide.

The interesting thing about Bournemouth is that I have two left footed and other two right footed wingers. So I can swap the team´s symmetry if necessary due to an injury or even as a match strategy, changing the sides of play completely. It is even more interesting because my main team has its best FB at the right and a not so good one on the left, but on the bench is the complete opposite, so the swapping makes sense.

I will also keep an eye on the defending attributes of the MCs, specially during the next transfer windows.

I am also considering a 4-4-1-1 as a second strategy, specially when we arrive at the Premier League. Did you found necessary to have a different strategy with Birmingham when you got promoted, or the basic 4-2-3-1 was enough?

Edited August 13, 2021 by Tsuru

[Johnny Ace]

1 hour ago, Tsuru said:

I am also considering a 4-4-1-1 as a second strategy, specially when we arrive at the Premier League. Did you found necessary to have a different strategy with Birmingham when you got promoted, or the basic 4-2-3-1 was enough?

I didn't continue the save but I got promoted with Birmingham in FM20 & just kept at it, we got relegated but I went straight back up & stayed up as second time round, I had a much better squad. Just worry about promotion once you get there  

[Celtic_xG]

I really like this thread it's so simple but makes a lot of sense. For my save I have a specific brand of football in mind. I think I could gain a lot from stripping the preset instructions back to basics then tweaking from there. I have 10 games left in the season where I can experiment. 

[Tsuru]

11 horas atrás, Celtic_xG disse:

I really like this thread it's so simple but makes a lot of sense. For my save I have a specific brand of football in mind. I think I could gain a lot from stripping the preset instructions back to basics then tweaking from there. I have 10 games left in the season where I can experiment. 

But do your players have the adequate attributes to play the brand of football you want? On my past saves on FM 21 I "forced" any players to play on a specific style, but this was a total recipe for disaster. I really think the game has being very specific at this: or you choose a tactical style suited for the players you have, or it is best to play without a specific style. Or you can hire players with the necessary attributes and then do the style you want. This was not true on past versions but I really think it is on FM 20/21.

I also think that there is a misconception on the assistant manager´s tactical advices. Sometimes we look at the tactical creator and see him recommending some tactical styles, like Tiki-Taka or Catenaccio, and we think we should follow this strictly. But we can use his recommendation as a "hint" of our team´s adequate playstyle, that is, if he recommends a direct counter attack we can create our own direct counter attack, we don´t need to use the template one. So the assistant can help you finding some playstyle ideas for your team. 

I also did try to discover the playstyle starting with no instructions and adding some, but then the TIs that worked on a game didn´t work on the next one, so I also gave up on this "method". Now I prefer to add the Tis during the match to try to solve specific problems and I don´t keep them from one game to another.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Tsuru

[DarJ]

20 minutes ago, Tsuru said:

I also think that there is a misconception on the assistant manager´s tactical advices

People like to discard them as if they are irrelevant but while I don’t depend on them or actually follow them I pay close attention to what they have to say because they can remind you of something you’ve not thought about or even give you new ideas 

[Tsuru]

5 minutos atrás, DarJ disse:

People like to discard them as if they are irrelevant but while I don’t depend on them or actually follow them I pay close attention to what they have to say because they can remind you of something you’ve not thought about or even give you new ideas 

I think there is an "all or nothing" sense about this, or people follow him strictly or simple discard what he says. There is something in the middle, sometimes there are useful hints on his advices. Same way with the tactical templates - you can choose one he recommends and adapt it as you see fit.

[Tsuru]

Just a quick update...yesterday I was doing another pre-season game and I was thinking about Danjuma. He is one of our best players and he is natural as a IF/IW on the left, and at the same time I don´t have very good left footed Wingers. I could invert the sides and put the Winger on the right, but then I would have to remove Brooks from the team, and he is also one of our best players as our IF-Su on the right.

So I decided to test the team with IW-Su on the left and IF-Su on the right, but using a single TI to avoid our game being "too narrow" on the middle and at the same time avoid using a WB-Su (which would expose us a lot on the flank). I was also unsatisfied with PF-At, he didn´t score, didn´t help the building phase and was not dangerous enough, so after testing a DLF-At and TM-At, I changed the main striker to a simple AF-At.
 

 

The idea here was to use the overlap to have a more adventurous fullback on the left but without too much risk (as it would be with another role or duty). I really liked the results, we won a difficult match against Lask Linz on a beautiful pass exchange: from the right to the middle, from the middle to the IW-Su (which was playing almost like another central midfielder), from the IW-Su to the left FB, which had acres of space. Then the FB crossed to the AF and he scored.

I will keep this for now and keep an eye on the defensive side of the left flank, to see if its necessary to be more cautious in any way. Maybe use again a BWM-Su instead of CM-Su, or PIs on the CM-Su, or even remove the overlap and use a WB-D. I love to have so many options in this system.

[Hovis Dexter]

I’ve found that the combination of an SS and F9 works well with two IWs

[Celtic_xG]

On 17/08/2021 at 10:23, Tsuru said:

But do your players have the adequate attributes to play the brand of football you want? 

This is key isn't it. I think this approach is really good to strip the game back and really work out how different roles and duties work together and also how equipped each player is for a certain position. 

I'm playing as Celtic but coming into the season more than half way through with no preseason and morale non-existent. Tactical familiarity is also very low with my predecessor using a very different style. It's a struggle so far! 

Even so, my players should be able to play this way and they player for player they are better than the opposition in most positions. Now it's about digging in and identifying which tweaks will make us perform better. I've already changed a dlp to a mez as our attack was too static and its so satisfying to identify and then see improvements. 

[Tsuru]

30 minutos atrás, Hovis Dexter disse:

I’ve found that the combination of an SS and F9 works well with two IWs

I would really love to play this way. However for the kind of player I have been looking for, I have been just finding TMs  And my AMCs are much better as AP-At, so for now I think it´s better to use them on a simpler way than to force into something they doesn´t know how to do 

16 minutos atrás, Celtic_xG disse:

This is key isn't it. I think this approach is really good to strip the game back and really work out how different roles and duties work together and also how equipped each player is for a certain position. 

I'm playing as Celtic but coming into the season more than half way through with no preseason and morale non-existent. Tactical familiarity is also very low with my predecessor using a very different style. It's a struggle so far! 

Even so, my players should be able to play this way and they player for player they are better than the opposition in most positions. Now it's about digging in and identifying which tweaks will make us perform better. I've already changed a dlp to a mez as our attack was too static and its so satisfying to identify and then see improvements. 

Yeah. It is very nice to implement a style and see it working on the field. But FM 21 has being very harsh on this - when I forced a style my teams used to play a perfect game, doing exactly what I asked them to do, and on the next match they played badly against a much weaker opponent. Then we used to do good on the next match, worse in the following one...one match like Barcelona, the other one like Ibis 

Good to hear that you are seeing the problems and finding improvements, this is one of best rewards for us as FM managers. And I really think it has been much more easier to do that with few or no TIs/PIs, for myself it is a nightmare to find a problem among so many instructions, roles and duties.