Help with my 433 DM

[ReadingFan82]

Hello whoever reads this!

I just wanted to know if anyone had any idea on how to improve this tactic that I have been using my Wolves save? I've been using it for a while and came 5th two seasons on the bounce but at the start of the new season have had some had poor results and performances, particularly in the cup and in Europe. It seems like I'm struggling to create goals and decent goal scoring opportunities for my side, and the team seems to be far more leaky at the back than it has been in the past couple of seasons. I seem to concede a lot of goals from players simply running straight through my midfield and slotting a really simple pass through to their striker who completely evades both my centre backs while staying onside to slot the ball past my keeper, as well as goals from just long balls right over the top of my two centre backs through to the opposition striker. I also concede a fair bit from teams coming down the wings and putting balls into the box, with my centre backs seemingly not attempting to challenge the opposition attackers. Any advice on how to improve my tactic would be greatly appreciated  

[Aquaplex]

I would try lowering the tempo, mentality and pressing urgency by a notch to start off with and see how that goes.  Roles look ok, but to me it's more of an possession based setup so maybe even change passing to shorter?    My 2cents.

[DarJ]

The roles look okay to me except from the WB on attack in the right, you really not need him a standard FB on support is enough.

Instruction wise you are already playing on an attacking mentality so the tempo is already high, there is no need to increase it further if anything lowering it a bit will help because with the way you are set up at the moment you don’t give your players time to get into position.

Another thing is the pressing, you’re already on an attacking mentality so you are aggressive there is no need to increase it much further, I’ll lower it by one notch.

[Zemahh]

1 hour ago, ReadingFan82 said:

It seems like I'm struggling to create goals and decent goal scoring opportunities for my side, and the team seems to be far more leaky at the back than it has been in the past couple of seasons.

Defensively, you look quite vulnerable with a DLP (who is still mostly a playmaker, rather than a proper destroyer) being your only cover. He needs to be quite good to be able to cover for AP and MEZ, both of whom don't do much work defensively, and both WBs that push forward constantly. I can imagine that can leave you quite exposed during turnovers, especially if the initial press, which you've maxed out (Counter-Press, Extremely Urgent), fails.

With Attacking mentality, these are your individual mentalities:

V. Attacking

V. Attacking                   Positive

Positive V. Attacking

Balanced

Positive Balanced Balanced V. Attacking

As you can see, a very aggressive setup even without taking any instructions into account (such as as many as 6 players trying risky passes).

I'd try making the following changes:

CFsu

IFat                IWat

APsu MEZsu

HBde

WBsu CDde CDde WBsu

Ran a very similar setup myself with a lot of success.

[ReadingFan82]

2 hours ago, Aquaplex said:

I would try lowering the tempo, mentality and pressing urgency by a notch to start off with and see how that goes.  Roles look ok, but to me it's more of an possession based setup so maybe even change passing to shorter?    My 2cents.

I've lowered the tempo a notch, going to wait and see how that goes before lowering the tempo and changing pass length and other stuff like that. I want to try and keep as much the same and just make little tweaks because this system seems to have worked quite well but it has gone slightly of the boil so I'm just going to see how it goes with minor tweaks here and there every so often and change based on what I see. Thanks for your input!

[ReadingFan82]

1 hour ago, DarJ said:

The roles look okay to me except from the WB on attack in the right, you really not need him a standard FB on support is enough.

Instruction wise you are already playing on an attacking mentality so the tempo is already high, there is no need to increase it further if anything lowering it a bit will help because with the way you are set up at the moment you don’t give your players time to get into position.

Another thing is the pressing, you’re already on an attacking mentality so you are aggressive there is no need to increase it much further, I’ll lower it by one notch.

The wing back did keep getting caught out on the right so lowering him to a support duty would probably be a good idea.

Someone else has also suggested lowering the tempo and lowering the pressing down a tad so both would probably be a good idea. I've lowered the pressing down a notch and will see over the next few games whether or not lowering the tempo a bit could also be helpful. Thanks!

[ReadingFan82]

1 hour ago, Zemahh said:

Defensively, you look quite vulnerable with a DLP (who is still mostly a playmaker, rather than a proper destroyer) being your only cover. He needs to be quite good to be able to cover for AP and MEZ, both of whom don't do much work defensively, and both WBs that push forward constantly. I can imagine that can leave you quite exposed during turnovers, especially if the initial press, which you've maxed out (Counter-Press, Extremely Urgent), fails.

 

I am definitely vulnerable when I lose the ball and can be really easily countered by an opponent as you say. As some others have suggested I have lowered the pressing a notch to as sometimes it did seem as if the high and constant pressing was pulling my players out of position and all over the place so I will see how it goes.

I've changed the roles a little bit as you suggested, the only thing I haven't changed is the BPD's to CD's, as the CB's I have seem to best suit the BPD role, but if you had a good idea on why I should change them I'd be more happy to. The right wing back on attack duty did seem to get caught out a lot on the counter so lowering the duty down a little bit will hopefully remedy this a little, and the inverted winger on the right on support seemed to go missing a lot of the time so having them on attack might see them get into the game a bit more than they have been previously.

Also I was thinking whether or not about changing to a 3 at the back instead of having a 433 with a DM and have more of 523 with 3 CB's, 2 WB's and then pretty much the same midfield and forward roles as I've had before. i haven't give it a go yet but let me know what you think. Thanks for responding!

[Zemahh]

3 hours ago, ReadingFan82 said:

I've changed the roles a little bit as you suggested, the only thing I haven't changed is the BPD's to CD's, as the CB's I have seem to best suit the BPD role, but if you had a good idea on why I should change them I'd be more happy to.

The setup I recommended is more of a possession-oriented one, rather than one that would require CBs to launch defense-splitting passes from the back. CDs keep things simple most of the time, which gives the rest of the team time to move forward into better positions, while BPDs actively seek to play through balls from deep, which can bypass your playmaker and isolate your lone striker if the pass is played too soon. In your case, WBs also need time to get forward and provide width, since both wide forwards are cutting inside.

Personally, I will only use two BPDs in tactics that rely on long balls (eg. counter-attacking 4-4-2), but you're of course free to use them as you see fit. However, you don't necessarily need to use a BPD just because a CB has good First Touch, Passing and Vision. He will still utilize all of those attributes as a CD, but maybe less often or in a less risky manner (assuming he doesn't have traits like Tries Long Range Passes or similar).

[glengarry224]

You also have a higher LOE combined with a standard DL, which creates a very open (i.e. non-compact) central midfield.  With a standard DL, many recommend that you use a lower LOE (two notches down) to create a compact midfield.  The non-compact midfield would be tough defensively even with three CM/DMs who stuck around but also both of your CMs are not defensive, and often will run out of position on attack.  There are going to be many times where your wingbacks and CMs are all upfield, and you will only have the three (CD/CD/DM) back.  Your DM and CBs better be excellent.  Then the midfield and the flanks are wide open for your opponent to transition, and a counter attack can easily spread apart your three defenders and create great running lanes.  Look at what Tottenham did to City last weekend when City's wingbacks kept getting far forwards or cut inside, Fernandinho was the only holding midfielder and City had to play Ake at CB.

If you continue to have defensive problems, consider switching the DM to DM(s) or (d) and the AP to DLP; and on the side of the Mez, switching the fullback to FB(s) or WB(d), or if you keep your LCB on AP, switch the RB to IWB(s).

With a standard DL, I would not use 'offside trap'.  It will only lead to situations where, as you describe, your defenders fail to draw the offsides and the forward makes an unmarked run behind the defense.

Versus a forward who has good ant/otb/acc, you might want to use the OI 'mark tighter' but be aware that that might draw your CBs out of structure, therefore I would not try it in your current formation, which pretty much has only three at the back.

Edited August 17, 2021 by glengarry224

[ReadingFan82]

5 hours ago, Zemahh said:

The setup I recommended is more of a possession-oriented one, rather than one that would require CBs to launch defense-splitting passes from the back. CDs keep things simple most of the time, which gives the rest of the team time to move forward into better positions, while BPDs actively seek to play through balls from deep, which can bypass your playmaker and isolate your lone striker if the pass is played too soon. In your case, WBs also need time to get forward and provide width, since both wide forwards are cutting inside.

Personally, I will only use two BPDs in tactics that rely on long balls (eg. counter-attacking 4-4-2), but you're of course free to use them as you see fit. However, you don't necessarily need to use a BPD just because a CB has good First Touch, Passing and Vision. He will still utilize all of those attributes as a CD, but maybe less often or in a less risky manner (assuming he doesn't have traits like Tries Long Range Passes or similar).

Yeah that makes sense from how you've explained it, I'll give it a little look in my save. Thanks again!

[ReadingFan82]

5 hours ago, glengarry224 said:

You also have a higher LOE combined with a standard DL, which creates a very open (i.e. non-compact) central midfield.  With a standard DL, many recommend that you use a lower LOE (two notches down) to create a compact midfield.  The non-compact midfield would be tough defensively even with three CM/DMs who stuck around but also both of your CMs are not defensive, and often will run out of position on attack.  There are going to be many times where your wingbacks and CMs are all upfield, and you will only have the three (CD/CD/DM) back.  Your DM and CBs better be excellent.  Then the midfield and the flanks are wide open for your opponent to transition, and a counter attack can easily spread apart your three defenders and create great running lanes.  Look at what Tottenham did to City last weekend when City's wingbacks kept getting far forwards or cut inside, Fernandinho was the only holding midfielder and City had to play Ake at CB.

If you continue to have defensive problems, consider switching the DM to DM(s) or (d) and the AP to DLP; and on the side of the Mez, switching the fullback to FB(s) or WB(d), or if you keep your LCB on AP, switch the RB to IWB(s).

With a standard DL, I would not use 'offside trap'.  It will only lead to situations where, as you describe, your defenders fail to draw the offsides and the forward makes an unmarked run behind the defense.

Versus a forward who has good ant/otb/acc, you might want to use the OI 'mark tighter' but be aware that that might draw your CBs out of structure, therefore I would not try it in your current formation, which pretty much has only three at the back.

That makes sense about trying to have a more compact midfield by lowering the line of engagement. I would give it a go but do you have any idea how lowering the line of engagement might impact the higher pressing I have my team set on?

I'll also give not using the offside trap a go, as I have seen with my own eyes how it can backfire quite badly on my team.

Thanks for the advice!

[glengarry224]

18 hours ago, ReadingFan82 said:

That makes sense about trying to have a more compact midfield by lowering the line of engagement. I would give it a go but do you have any idea how lowering the line of engagement might impact the higher pressing I have my team set on?

I'll also give not using the offside trap a go, as I have seen with my own eyes how it can backfire quite badly on my team.

Thanks for the advice!

First, if what you're doing is working, don't listen to idiots like me and change anything!  I'd love to see what more expert players say on this but some thoughts which come to mind:

• a more compact midfield will help with pressing, because that makes it harder for an opponent's backline player, who is being pressed:  for example, with a non-compact midfield, there are more wide-open teammates in the midfield for your opponent's player, who you are pressing, to pass to and also your backline is not in position to intercept and recycle clearances to the midfield;
• if you play a higher LOE and much higher DL, which is the more standard advice for a higher press with a compact midfield, you are much more susceptible to counter attacks, especially if your CBs are slow;
• your ability to make a less compact midfield work -- higher LOE and higher/standard DL -- depends upon your formation and the abilities of your players:  for example, if you have a 4-3-3 DM and your DM is like Kante/Ndidi, and you have a holding CM(d), who has really good Acc/Ant/Comp/Team/Dec/Det, then those two players will allow slower CBs to play further back (also a good IWB can help control against counter-attack threat, which is how Pep's teams often do it, though he usually uses a high DL too);

Edited August 18, 2021 by glengarry224

[ReadingFan82]

3 hours ago, glengarry224 said:

First, if what you're doing is working, don't listen to idiots like me and change anything!  I'd love to see what more expert players say on this but some thoughts which come to mind:

• a more compact midfield will help with pressing, because that makes it harder for an opponent's backline player, who is being pressed:  for example, with a non-compact midfield, there are more wide-open teammates in the midfield for your opponent's player, who you are pressing, to pass to and also your backline is not in position to intercept and recycle clearances to the midfield;
• if you play a higher LOE and much higher DL, which is the more standard advice for a higher press with a compact midfield, you are much more susceptible to counter attacks, especially if your CBs are slow;
• your ability to make a less compact midfield work -- higher LOE and higher/standard DL -- depends upon your formation and the abilities of your players:  for example, if you have a 4-3-3 DM and your DM is like Kante/Ndidi, and you have a holding CM(d), who has really good Acc/Ant/Comp/Team/Dec/Det, then those two players will allow slower CBs to play further back (also a good IWB can help control against counter-attack threat, which is how Pep's teams often do it, though he usually uses a high DL too);

To be honest I'd only really came onto the forums because after so long of the tactic seeming to work really well it had all of a sudden stopped working completely and I wanted to see if anyone else had any idea where things might be going so wrong with my tactic.

I have given making the midfield a bit more compact a go in the past few games, with a higher defensive line playing an offside trap with a standard line of engagement, as well as lowering the pressing from the very highest to the one below. I've also lowered the tempo to just slightly higher as well as have having slightly shorter passing which seems to also be working quite well. My CB's are quite quick I think but I'd have to check, I know one of them is for sure as he can play at RB really well as well as at centre back, where I prefer to use him as he is 6ft 4. My DM is a player called Antov who is probably more capable at being a centre back rather than a midfielder but he seems to do a good job there. I haven't really tinkered around with having a more defensive midfielder in front of the DM quite yet but might give it a go at some point in the future. I also don't really have anyone who is suited to playing as an IWB so I think I'll steer clear of that until I have someone who might be a bit better suited to that role.

Thanks for the advice!

[Tsuru]

An advice to think, not necessarily to change...

Many people think the 4-3-3 DM is a more safe formation, due to the DM. I disagree. I think you can be much more safer or defend much better using a 4-2-3-1, a 4-4-1-1, 4-4-2 or even a 4-3-3 with three men at MC strata.

TBH, I don´t like the 4-3-3 DM Wide. I think for it to work really well you need excellent wingbacks that move up and down the pitch, which makes you basically concede your flanks. If you are a high top team, ok, but when you are not and doesn´t have excellent wingbacks, it can be very hard to make it work well all the time (as it looks like to be the problem here). For you to have an idea, before changing to a 4-2-3-1 I was suffering with through balls even with a DM, which for me makes no sense at all.

The use of the CM-At/Mez-At is another controversy - I see many people using but they simple don´t work for me, they leave acres of space behind and attack very poorly, rarely scoring goals here. But if I don´t use an attack duty at midfield my men upfront are constantly isolated (even with a RPM). This looks to be a kind of "none or nothing" dilemma which I really hate.

So if you really struggle with a 4-3-3 DM, why not try a 4-3-3 "no DM" as an alternative? I did a quick example below based on your original formation, with Balanced mentality and no instructions. So if you like it you can build from there.

I would use a CM-D instead of DLP-D, but as I said I did try to keep the original roles/duties you choose the best way I could.

 

[glengarry224]

3 hours ago, Tsuru said:

An advice to think, not necessarily to change...

Many people think the 4-3-3 DM is a more safe formation, due to the DM. I disagree. I think you can be much more safer or defend much better using a 4-2-3-1, a 4-4-1-1, 4-4-2 or even a 4-3-3 with three men at MC strata.

TBH, I don´t like the 4-3-3 DM Wide. I think for it to work really well you need excellent wingbacks that move up and down the pitch, which makes you basically concede your flanks. If you are a high top team, ok, but when you are not and doesn´t have excellent wingbacks, it can be very hard to make it work well all the time (as it looks like to be the problem here). For you to have an idea, before changing to a 4-2-3-1 I was suffering with through balls even with a DM, which for me makes no sense at all.

The use of the CM-At/Mez-At is another controversy - I see many people using but they simple don´t work for me, they leave acres of space behind and attack very poorly, rarely scoring goals here. But if I don´t use an attack duty at midfield my men upfront are constantly isolated (even with a RPM). This looks to be a kind of "none or nothing" dilemma which I really hate.

So if you really struggle with a 4-3-3 DM, why not try a 4-3-3 "no DM" as an alternative? I did a quick example below based on your original formation, with Balanced mentality and no instructions. So if you like it you can build from there.

I would use a CM-D instead of DLP-D, but as I said I did try to keep the original roles/duties you choose the best way I could.

 

 

Interesting.  I'd argue that you certainly can play without a DM if you have superior players and/or play more defensive roles with your fullbacks, but that a DM is key to a great defense, especially in certain situations.  I've had success playing 4-3-3 2DM and 4-2-3-1 2DM too.  Of course, there are many different, successful ways to play and different tradeoffs for each style.

I agree that 4-3-3DM wide does help/emphasize the wings but I don't think that it's just with great wingbacks.  I think that it helps cover for one dimensional wingbacks (or just plain bad fullbacks).  Unless you are a top club, you often have or can sign wingbacks who can get upfield and put in a pretty good cross or pass, but don't have enough work rate, speed, positioning, etc to track back and cover the flanks, especially against better teams.   When I play against much better teams who bomb their wingbacks forwards, I always look to counter up the flanks, especially if they don't play DMs. 

You could also play a back three, but I prefer a DM, who helps a little more protecting the central midfield and is a little better positioned to recycle the ball on attack.

I think that a DM is always better, but maybe not necessary, defensively and most important versus: 

• teams which have a good AMC
• teams with good inverted wingers, especially with great drib/flair/acc
• teams with fast central midfielders who can run at your central defenders
• when you bomb a wingback forwards

[Tsuru]

15 horas atrás, glengarry224 disse:

Interesting.  I'd argue that you certainly can play without a DM if you have superior players and/or play more defensive roles with your fullbacks, but that a DM is key to a great defense, especially in certain situations.  I've had success playing 4-3-3 2DM and 4-2-3-1 2DM too.  Of course, there are many different, successful ways to play and different tradeoffs for each style.

I agree that 4-3-3DM wide does help/emphasize the wings but I don't think that it's just with great wingbacks.  I think that it helps cover for one dimensional wingbacks (or just plain bad fullbacks).  Unless you are a top club, you often have or can sign wingbacks who can get upfield and put in a pretty good cross or pass, but don't have enough work rate, speed, positioning, etc to track back and cover the flanks, especially against better teams.   When I play against much better teams who bomb their wingbacks forwards, I always look to counter up the flanks, especially if they don't play DMs. 

You could also play a back three, but I prefer a DM, who helps a little more protecting the central midfield and is a little better positioned to recycle the ball on attack.

I think that a DM is always better, but maybe not necessary, defensively and most important versus: 

• teams which have a good AMC
• teams with good inverted wingers, especially with great drib/flair/acc
• teams with fast central midfielders who can run at your central defenders
• when you bomb a wingback forwards

Your point of view is also very interesting.

I agree with you, TBH, for me it would make sense to use a DM to help the defence. In fact I did try it a lot, but I always had poorer results than using no DM and a more conservative fullback in one side (FB-Su) and a more adventurous on the other side (FB-At/WB-Su) covered by a less aggressive midfielder. My greatest teams in FM played in 4-4-1-1, 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-2, even with small teams, and I struggled a lot with the 4-1-4-1 DM Wide and its many variations.

As you see, it makes no sense at all, many people use this formation/system and have good results but I don´t. So for personal experience I prefer to avoid it all costs.

[Justified]

Sometimes users have an easier time setting up certain formations over another. I really don't like 3 at the back formations, could be because I haven't spent time to try and figure out what makes them tick but also I'm just not a fan. Usually when you find a style of play it's easier to set up with certain formations then others that need a re-think.

I personally always find it easier to set up double flat 4 formation then others because I still think two banks of four is the best way to defend (personal opinion) however a diamond midfield is the best to dominate the ball and is my favoured go to. But you need the players to make it work as the pressing is different.

[Johnny Ace]

20 hours ago, Tsuru said:

An advice to think, not necessarily to change...

Many people think the 4-3-3 DM is a more safe formation, due to the DM. I disagree. I think you can be much more safer or defend much better using a 4-2-3-1, a 4-4-1-1, 4-4-2 or even a 4-3-3 with three men at MC strata.

TBH, I don´t like the 4-3-3 DM Wide. I think for it to work really well you need excellent wingbacks that move up and down the pitch, which makes you basically concede your flanks. If you are a high top team, ok, but when you are not and doesn´t have excellent wingbacks, it can be very hard to make it work well all the time (as it looks like to be the problem here). For you to have an idea, before changing to a 4-2-3-1 I was suffering with through balls even with a DM, which for me makes no sense at all.

The use of the CM-At/Mez-At is another controversy - I see many people using but they simple don´t work for me, they leave acres of space behind and attack very poorly, rarely scoring goals here. But if I don´t use an attack duty at midfield my men upfront are constantly isolated (even with a RPM). This looks to be a kind of "none or nothing" dilemma which I really hate.

So if you really struggle with a 4-3-3 DM, why not try a 4-3-3 "no DM" as an alternative? I did a quick example below based on your original formation, with Balanced mentality and no instructions. So if you like it you can build from there.

I would use a CM-D instead of DLP-D, but as I said I did try to keep the original roles/duties you choose the best way I could.

 

Eh? You can't have a Mezz in the middle but a AM(A) works  

Like you say, having a CM(A) up the middle leaves you vulnerable down the centre. I'd always have the D option of the 3 in the centre & the S on the side of the more adventurous fullback 

[Tsuru]

39 minutos atrás, Johnny Ace disse:

Eh? You can't have a Mezz in the middle but a AM(A) works  

Like you say, having a CM(A) up the middle leaves you vulnerable down the centre. I'd always have the D option of the 3 in the centre & the S on the side of the more adventurous fullback 

Yes, you can have a Mez in the middle on a 4-3-3 with no DM - I have never tested, but in theory he would roam around the attack looking for spaces to attack the box, hovering between the two inside fowards and the main striker. Looks very nice to me.

According to RMT, it is much better to use a CM (A)/Mez (A) on the center than on the sides when there is no DM but as I said, it is a matter of trying.

[Johnny Ace]

4 minutes ago, Tsuru said:

Yes, you can have a Mez in the middle on a 4-3-3 with no DM - I have never tested, but in theory he would roam around the attack looking for spaces to attack the box, hovering between the two inside fowards and the main striker. Looks very nice to me.

According to RMT, it is much better to use a CM (A)/Mez (A) on the center than on the sides when there is no DM but as I said, it is a matter of trying.

RMT also says you can have a Carilero in the centre of a 3, you can't 

[Tsuru]

1 minuto atrás, Johnny Ace disse:

RMT also says you can have a Carilero in the centre of a 3, you can't 

This is so strange...I could swear you could use a Carrilero there too.

[Johnny Ace]

Just now, Tsuru said:

This is so strange...I could swear you could use a Carrilero there too.

It's also allows off centre Libero's too which I'm pretty sure you can't do either

I don't have the game open or anything but the Car & Mez are supposed to used off centre 

[glengarry224]

15 hours ago, Tsuru said:

Your point of view is also very interesting.

I agree with you, TBH, for me it would make sense to use a DM to help the defence. In fact I did try it a lot, but I always had poorer results than using no DM and a more conservative fullback in one side (FB-Su) and a more adventurous on the other side (FB-At/WB-Su) covered by a less aggressive midfielder. My greatest teams in FM played in 4-4-1-1, 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-2, even with small teams, and I struggled a lot with the 4-1-4-1 DM Wide and its many variations.

As you see, it makes no sense at all, many people use this formation/system and have good results but I don´t. So for personal experience I prefer to avoid it all costs.

I'm going to give it a try.  I previously would try no-DM formations only where I had superiority, and would often revert to DM with a lead, but it's worth reconsidering.  I also have had trouble making a 4-1-4-1 DM work and would usually only use it when I was protecting a lead, especially against a superior team, or when I was playing for a draw (away against a better team, for example).  It's so hard to transition the gap from the 4-man midfield to a lone striker.

[sporadicsmiles]

On 20/08/2021 at 12:41, Tsuru said:

Yes, you can have a Mez in the middle on a 4-3-3 with no DM

You cannot have a MEZ role for the central midfielder in a flat midfield 3. Nor a CAR. These roles are specifically for midfielders who play next to the flanks. Not sure if that is what you meant, but I thought I would clear it up.

The goals you describe are exactly the goals I would expect to concede in this tactic. Your two CMs will always be quite advanced when you attack, and very out of position for the MEZ. The wing backs will always be high. So there is space on the flanks, and in midfield. This is made worse by an attacking mentality, which makes all these roles just more likely to be higher up the pitch (and raises the D line). Then it is compounded by the fact you have counter press, which means those players out of position will look to press the ball rather than get back into position. So if your counter press fails you are going to be overrun pretty much wherever the opposition attacks. You would need incredibly good CBs and a really good DM with anticipation, positioning and speed to attempt to play like this. It is something I would use when I do not care about conceding because I need a goal. 

So if you want to be more solid defensively, then you need to tone some of this back. Rather than using counter press and setting blanket pressing instructions (which are just gonna draw your players further from position, you defensive shape is "wherever the player happens to be") you can focus on the players you want to stay forward pressing, and let others retreat. Your front 3 plus the MEZ, for instance. Let everyone else get back into position a little bit, and the press buys them time to do so. That should at least give a semblance of defence to this tactic. 

Looking at the attacking side. The right wing is a nice overload. The left wing is creating some space for the AP to operate in, so you should create a decent number of chances. With your settings thought everything might be a bit rushed. Does the CF work nicely in this role? Scores and helps create space for others? Not a role I have tried like this, so I am not that familiar. I'd worry he would get a bit lost in some games (especially against a back 3). 

Are you looking to use the DM to spray passes around for everyone, or just as a deep lying pivot to recycle the ball? If it is the latter, he does not need to be a DLP. Just a standard DM would do it. The problem with a DLP is he attracts the ball, which means he gets it when ideally he does not need to. A DM will act just as a player who can recycle possession, and help changing the ball to the flank. This will make the AP the real focus of your attacking play centrally. Not sure if that is what you are looking for, but it is almost always how I will have the DM in a three man triangle like this.

[Tsuru]

35 minutos atrás, sporadicsmiles disse:

You cannot have a MEZ role for the central midfielder in a flat midfield 3. Nor a CAR. These roles are specifically for midfielders who play next to the flanks. Not sure if that is what you meant, but I thought I would clear it up.

The goals you describe are exactly the goals I would expect to concede in this tactic. Your two CMs will always be quite advanced when you attack, and very out of position for the MEZ. The wing backs will always be high. So there is space on the flanks, and in midfield. This is made worse by an attacking mentality, which makes all these roles just more likely to be higher up the pitch (and raises the D line). Then it is compounded by the fact you have counter press, which means those players out of position will look to press the ball rather than get back into position. So if your counter press fails you are going to be overrun pretty much wherever the opposition attacks. You would need incredibly good CBs and a really good DM with anticipation, positioning and speed to attempt to play like this. It is something I would use when I do not care about conceding because I need a goal. 

So if you want to be more solid defensively, then you need to tone some of this back. Rather than using counter press and setting blanket pressing instructions (which are just gonna draw your players further from position, you defensive shape is "wherever the player happens to be") you can focus on the players you want to stay forward pressing, and let others retreat. Your front 3 plus the MEZ, for instance. Let everyone else get back into position a little bit, and the press buys them time to do so. That should at least give a semblance of defence to this tactic. 

Looking at the attacking side. The right wing is a nice overload. The left wing is creating some space for the AP to operate in, so you should create a decent number of chances. With your settings thought everything might be a bit rushed. Does the CF work nicely in this role? Scores and helps create space for others? Not a role I have tried like this, so I am not that familiar. I'd worry he would get a bit lost in some games (especially against a back 3). 

Are you looking to use the DM to spray passes around for everyone, or just as a deep lying pivot to recycle the ball? If it is the latter, he does not need to be a DLP. Just a standard DM would do it. The problem with a DLP is he attracts the ball, which means he gets it when ideally he does not need to. A DM will act just as a player who can recycle possession, and help changing the ball to the flank. This will make the AP the real focus of your attacking play centrally. Not sure if that is what you are looking for, but it is almost always how I will have the DM in a three man triangle like this.

Hi sporadicsmiles, thank you for your answer and clarification.

In fact I have not been using an attacking mentality, high D line or counter press. All my recent tactics have been the "blank ones" - Balanced mentality, no specific instructions, no TIs, no PIs. I think Tis add a complexity layer that is too much for me too manage and change and I don´t care about a specific playstyle. Normally I have few or no Tis set up until I feel, watching the matches, that they are really necessary. The author of this topic uses them, however.

You see, I love to play with small teams. They are my favourite challenge in FM, let´s say, England 5th division or similar. So I don´t have very good players, I have to work with is available. And I think that kind of team needs to be solid at defence, we don´t have players to compensate any flaws. For example, I did a quick test with Bournemouth at England´s 2nd division and I could play on a riskier 4-2-3-1, because the players´ quality did compensate the hole between the midfield and the defence, we rarely did any bad mistakes. When I came back to the 5th division with that same strategy, I saw a festival of offisdes and through balls on the first match. What is the difference? Player quality.

For me as a FM manager managing a small team, defensive solidity comes first and has to be our starting point. For me, it´s not acceptable to concede our flanks for example because we don´t have the quality to compensate any flaws (which I know will happen with a bigger team, but on a smaller scale), and we don´t have excellent wingbacks to do the flanks as the formation asks. So I tend to opt for other formations which look much more safer for me, like 4-4-2 and 4-4-4-1, and I tend not to use the 4-3-3 as it attacks very well but exposes us a lot. And if we suffer a goal, chances are that we won´t be able to score two more because we lack some tools to do that.

I really don´t like the 4-3-3 DM Wide, but maybe it has to do with the level I use to play, in which other formations look more simple to set up and give us more solidity (as I see they do). Context matters and is everything, I think.