Increase Chance Creation - 4-1-4-1

[Toronto Blizzard]

Hello Community!

To start, I am still playing FM20.  I have a tactic that's defensively sound and I'm doing well, but I feel like it's not creating enough good scoring changes.  My success is probably due to the efficiency of my players (scoring a decent number of goals that FM doesn't consider clear-cut or half-chances) and my defence.  I've hit a bit of a goal drought in the past couple of matches (and teams tend to play defensive or cautiously against me now).  Do you have any suggestions on how to improve chance creation?

 

 

One thing I'd considered was something that might be more attacking and perhaps give better penetration.  Higher tempo, more attacking CMs, and an IF who would drive to the goal.

 

Any thoughts of assistance from you wise and wonderful people would be much appreciated!!

[glengarry224]

Your second tactic does seem to address the potential issues with your first tactic -- where only the PF and CM(a) are attacking the box.  See how it works! 

Note that many believe that putting a Mez and IF on the same side might not work because off the ball, they often compete for the same space.  It might work, but  something worth looking out for.

A few things, which might be fine, but worth keeping an eye on in some matches:

• on your left flank, a Mez can get lost and with a WB and IF, therefore, especially against better/faster teams, you might have no players to defend counters except your DM, who might be enough if he's really good -- CM(s) or Car are more solid and can link up play but you'll lose penetration;
• if teammates are not looking enough to pass to your LW, consider using 'underlap'; on the left but it won't work if your opponent is packing the central defence;
• against teams which play narrow, they might mark your AP out of the game or just make the box impenetrable, so if you're having trouble building up play, possibly play wider, more direct and/or counter;
• in matches where your players seem to not have teammates close by to pass to, consider lowering the tempo.

Edited August 26, 2021 by glengarry224

[Tsuru]

I always think the "secret" of a good tactic is the distribution of roles/duties. So I would try adjusting them at the first version before changing the TIs:

• If you want to keep a DLP-Su, I would might change the left WB to WB-At. Or you can keep the WB-Su and change the DLP-Su to AP-Su. Either way, the idea here is to try to offer more support on the last third on the left side;
• As @glengarry224pointed out, you only have two men attacking the box right now. I would change the IW-Su to IF-Su, so he can truly act as a second striker and would be a third men trying to score and generate dangerous opportunities;
• On the right side I would change the WB-Su to FB-Su. You have a very aggressive CM-At which does not defend too much and you already have a W-Su, so maybe you don´t need a wingback and can opt for a more conservative fullback.

Just some ideas, you can try and test them as you see fit.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Tsuru

[Johnny Ace]

1st Tactic I'd just change:

• LB to WB(A) you can afford to be more adventurous with you FB's when you have a DM.
• DLP holds position so just change him to to AP(S) as you have a DM, the CM doesn't need to hold position
• IW(S) to IF(S) I just find IF's way more attack minded than IWs
• Not sure a BPD is needed when you have a DM close to him pass to, I just think it's an unnecessary risk having one but isn't a big deal  

2nd tactic

• Right FB to WB
• IF(A) to (S)

You could always play a bit more Narrow to bring your wing players in a bit, I love wingers & playing narrower helps bring them into the area when needed. WB cross to Winger is an effective way to score at the far post 

Less us know how you get on with any changes you make 

 

[Prolix]

10 hours ago, Johnny Ace said:

DLP holds position so just change him to to AP(S) as you have a DM, the CM doesn't need to hold position

this is my go-to adjustment for these kinds of tactics

AP-s is really not an overly aggressive role, especially if the player has the defensive attributes that were considered suitable for being used as a DLP.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Prolix

[Tsuru]

11 horas atrás, Prolix disse:

this is my go-to adjustment for these kinds of tactics

AP-s is really not an overly aggressive role, especially if the player has the defensive attributes that were considered suitable for being used as a DLP.

Just to compliment, I see the DLP-Su more useful on a system without a DM, in which the player normally has to help covering the space ahead the defence and ahead of the midfield at the same time. When there is a DM the space ahead of the defence is already covered so the necessity is to cover the space ahead of the midfield, something the AP-Su does very well 

[Toronto Blizzard]

Thanks to all four of you, @glengarry224, @Tsuru, @Johnny Ace, and @Prolix!   It's encouraging that no one told me to blow the entire thing up and you were all on the same page about the AP replacing the DLP in the first tactic.  To be honest, I often found the DM and the DLP quite close together when we were camped in the opponent's half.  That wasn't always a bad thing because they could make short passes back and forth, draw defenders towards them and then play it out to the flanks, but I'm hoping an AP will advance the play a little more.

Here's the revised first tactic:

 

The winger scores quite a few goals off of crosses from the FB and the IW, but I'm hoping the IF will drive to the goal - the WB will still get those crosses into my winger at the back post.

I think I will run out this first tactic for the time being, but I'm taking your suggestions, @Johnny Ace, for the second.  I'm going to keep it wide for the time being primarily because I face a lot of packed defences and want to use the space that's ceded out wide.

 

I'm primarily using these in an online game and we aren't playing again for another week (my previous tactic tended to do well against the other humans because they like to attack and I can find holes), but I will report back with my findings against the low blocks/parked buses!

[Toronto Blizzard]

On 25/08/2021 at 20:52, glengarry224 said:

Your second tactic does seem to address the potential issues with your first tactic -- where only the PF and CM(a) are attacking the box.  See how it works! 

Note that many believe that putting a Mez and IF on the same side might not work because off the ball, they often compete for the same space.  It might work, but  something worth looking out for.

A few things, which might be fine, but worth keeping an eye on in some matches:

• on your left flank, a Mez can get lost and with a WB and IF, therefore, especially against better/faster teams, you might have no players to defend counters except your DM, who might be enough if he's really good -- CM(s) or Car are more solid and can link up play but you'll lose penetration;
• if teammates are not looking enough to pass to your LW, consider using 'underlap'; on the left but it won't work if your opponent is packing the central defence;
• against teams which play narrow, they might mark your AP out of the game or just make the box impenetrable, so if you're having trouble building up play, possibly play wider, more direct and/or counter;
• in matches where your players seem to not have teammates close by to pass to, consider lowering the tempo.

Do you prefer a Mez with a traditional winger?  I've seen both on these forums - some people say combining a Mez with a player who cuts in (IF or IW) is likelier to create overloads, while others say that it's too crowded and pairing a Mez with a winger lets the Mez operate in space the winger leaves open.

[Britrock]

I'm a huge fan of a roaming playmaker in the 433. They get up and down the field and create loads of chances. I've had players average over 8.0 for half a season before in that role.

[Toronto Blizzard]

2 hours ago, Britrock said:

I'm a huge fan of a roaming playmaker in the 433. They get up and down the field and create loads of chances. I've had players average over 8.0 for half a season before in that role.

Instead of the AP, @Britrock?  I like the idea of a playmaker who can sort of pop up anywhere.  Would I need to change the CM(a) to an (s) or something else to provide more stability?

[YAMS]

I would change the left winger to an attack role as well.

[Britrock]

2 hours ago, Toronto Blizzard said:

Instead of the AP, @Britrock?  I like the idea of a playmaker who can sort of pop up anywhere.  Would I need to change the CM(a) to an (s) or something else to provide more stability?

Yeah, you only ever need one playmaker. In a midfield 3 I aim for one destroyer, one creator and one runner. Your DM is your destroyer, the RPM is the creator then the CMa is the runner. It gives you a balanced midfield then and you're not repeating roles.

[glengarry224]

On 30/08/2021 at 15:39, Toronto Blizzard said:

Do you prefer a Mez with a traditional winger?  I've seen both on these forums - some people say combining a Mez with a player who cuts in (IF or IW) is likelier to create overloads, while others say that it's too crowded and pairing a Mez with a winger lets the Mez operate in space the winger leaves open.

I have used Mez with IW, which can create a nice creative duo but also can crowd the space, but have not used Mezzala with W and don't know the answer.  I think that a lot depends upon your players' ability to read the game and move in relation to each other (ant/dec/otb in particular).  You could probably play Messi,  Kane and De Bruyne together in any combo, even all in roaming roles (T(a)/T(a)/Mez(a)) and they'd do great (not defensively!) and create space for each other, but less able players would run into each other and be helpless.

[YAMS]

A Mez with a winger will work better in the transition phase but possibly not in the final third... & vice versa. It's a toss of a coin this one depending on the players you have to suit the roles. 

[Toronto Blizzard]

On 01/09/2021 at 12:24, YAMS said:

A Mez with a winger will work better in the transition phase but possibly not in the final third... & vice versa. It's a toss of a coin this one depending on the players you have to suit the roles. 

Interesting.  I expect to primarily be on the front foot dominating possession rather than playing a lot in transition, so perhaps it's something to consider for games where I'm not expected to dictate the game.

[YAMS]

43 minutes ago, Toronto Blizzard said:

Interesting.  I expect to primarily be on the front foot dominating possession rather than playing a lot in transition, so perhaps it's something to consider for games where I'm not expected to dictate the game.

If you are dominating possession then you will be needing a full back to join the attacking phase. If it's a WBS/A or FBA then ideally you have the winger inverting to provide room for the full back. With an inverting winger you want a MEZS rather than MEZA... But I would probably have neither unless you are purposely overloading that flank. 

If you're playing more on the counter then you don't really want the full back involved as you need him more to defend so your winger is your width in transition & a MEZS can hold that channel.

You need to take in to account a few things will all roles/tactics. What can I achieve based on my own players' abilities balanced against the strength & weaknesses of the opposition.