Jump to content

Building blocks, but I am missing some pieces


Recommended Posts

I am in my fifth season with Parma, and have been struggling with consistent results, so have changed tactics quite a lot. I decided to use the default gegegnpress settings, but trying to do my own formation to go with them. It has been reasonably successful, but I still feel like something is missing. So, my question is: Which roles would you use for the missing pieces, to achieve success? (Disregard my player types, as I am nearing a transfer window, so will be able to bring in certain types of players)

 

Instuctions: Default gegen (Pass into space, POOD, Ext. high tempo, fairly narrow, Short kicks, dist. to CB, Counter, counter press, Higher DL, Much higher LOE, Ext. urgent, prevent short dist.)

Positive mentality.

 

Roles:

 

GK - SK D

DCR - CD D

DC - CD D

DCL - BPD D

 

WBR - WB A

WBL - WB A

 

DMC - ???

 

MCR - ???

MCL - BWM S

 

STCR - ???

STCL - ???

 

I have used different roles, but nothing really seemed to click 100%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, this lack of consistency could be explained by the TIs. Gegenpress default setting is risky and you need a good team to pull it off without being punished. I suggest removing some of the instructions, if not most, and focus on the roles.

That being said, if you want to stick with it, first big change I would make is change the Dm for an Amc. That way the counterpress would be more effective.

If you make that change you need to have 2 cms that somewhat hold position, so i would play Dlp(s) and a Cm(s). 

For the attacking trio, you have a lot of options, and you should pick it according your players. SS / DLF(S) / AF(A) is a standard combo that works well in most cases, but it certainly isnt the only one, and depending on your players you can have success with something else.

Of course if you want to keep the Dm then disregard this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DM should be a playmaker since you have no AMC

MCR -CM(a) you need a runner from deep to break the opp defensive line

Strikers

AF/P/PF + DLF/F9

You are a very deep team so if the ai plays a DM then it will be more difficult to pass to the forwards so if that happens meet them halfway and play a flat 3 midfield.

Cm(a) Bwm(d) ap(a)

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/09/2021 at 10:07, Fatkidscantjump said:

To be honest, this lack of consistency could be explained by the TIs. Gegenpress default setting is risky and you need a good team to pull it off without being punished. I suggest removing some of the instructions, if not most, and focus on the roles.

That being said, if you want to stick with it, first big change I would make is change the Dm for an Amc. That way the counterpress would be more effective.

If you make that change you need to have 2 cms that somewhat hold position, so i would play Dlp(s) and a Cm(s). 

For the attacking trio, you have a lot of options, and you should pick it according your players. SS / DLF(S) / AF(A) is a standard combo that works well in most cases, but it certainly isnt the only one, and depending on your players you can have success with something else.

Of course if you want to keep the Dm then disregard this.

I started being consistent after changing to gegenpress.

The DM/AM debate I have had with myself, but the DM seems to be important in helping out if my WB's get caught upfield.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that formation, I would look at using the MEZ role -- and maybe even using two of them. Having a DM and three central defenders behind those two central midfielders means you can and should be aggressive with them.

Perhaps: DLP(s) + MEZ(s) + MEZ(a) with opposite support/attack duties for the wingbacks. I might even go CWB if I had a beast on the flank because I do find they make a big difference in how they get into the box themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a disconnect between your formation and tactics. 352 with a DM is one of the most defensive, back-heavy formations, and you're asking them to gegenpress. You don't have the numbers for that to make sense.

Are you more attached to the formation or the tactical identity? How do you want your team to play? How do you envision them scoring goals? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, XuluBak said:

There's a disconnect between your formation and tactics. 352 with a DM is one of the most defensive, back-heavy formations, and you're asking them to gegenpress. You don't have the numbers for that to make sense.

Are you more attached to the formation or the tactical identity? How do you want your team to play? How do you envision them scoring goals? 

I want to play some formation resembling this, but doesn't have to be exactly this. 

I like high pressure football, which I why I made the switch to gegenpress. 

The thinking behind the DMC was, that we would be able to have attacking backs, who could put in crosses and a CM  spraying passes forward 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Mr_Demus said:

I want to play some formation resembling this, but doesn't have to be exactly this.

Ok. Are you more drawn to a narrow formation or 3ATB? 

 

16 hours ago, Mr_Demus said:

I like high pressure football, which I why I made the switch to gegenpress. 

Fair enough, but football is ultimately a numbers game, and you don't have enough numbers forward for it to make sense. Not only are you shorthanded in your pressing, but if you manage to win it back high up the pitch, then you're left either hoping for moments of individual brilliance from your strikers or waitings for bodies to get forward. 

 

16 hours ago, Mr_Demus said:

The thinking behind the DMC was, that we would be able to have attacking backs, who could put in crosses and a CM  spraying passes forward 

Fair enough, but you don't need a DM for your wingbacks to bomb forward like if you're playing 3ATB. It's just overkill. To be clear, I'm not saying you can't employ a DM in a 3ATB formation. Or even that you can't be a progressive team with that formation. It has advantages, especially against strong teams employing a 4231, but it's a square peg-round hole trying to gegenpress from 352DM.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, XuluBak said:

Ok. Are you more drawn to a narrow formation or 3ATB? 

I like the setup with 3 atb, 2 WB's and no wingers. I can move around the midfielders and strikers so they can make up a 1-2-0-1 (as now), 0-3-0-2, 1-3-1-1 etc. Or whatever makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 16/09/2021 at 00:28, Mr_Demus said:

I like the setup with 3 atb, 2 WB's and no wingers. I can move around the midfielders and strikers so they can make up a 1-2-0-1 (as now), 0-3-0-2, 1-3-1-1 etc. Or whatever makes sense.

If you want to press using 3ATB, without wingers, then I'd recommend 3412/3421.  I've found 3412 generally performs better, but think it's best to be open and capable of using either, as situation/matchup dictates. 

To be clear, when I say 3421/3412, I mean that basic formation, however it's actually setup in FM. In other words, with your WBs in the DM or CM strata. I'm not differentiating there. I've had success with and there are advantages to both. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, XuluBak said:

If you want to press using 3ATB, without wingers, then I'd recommend 3412/3421.  I've found 3412 generally performs better, but think it's best to be open and capable of using either, as situation/matchup dictates. 

To be clear, when I say 3421/3412, I mean that basic formation, however it's actually setup in FM. In other words, with your WBs in the DM or CM strata. I'm not differentiating there. I've had success with and there are advantages to both. 

If I understand you correctly, I just need to move my DM to AM to achieve this formation? And perhaps push my WB's to defensive wingers or wide mids? 

And of course change some roles 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr_Demus said:

If I understand you correctly, I just need to move my DM to AM to achieve this formation? And perhaps push my WB's to defensive wingers or wide mids? 

And of course change some roles 

More or less. The specifics would be dependent on players of course. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, XuluBak said:

More or less. The specifics would be dependent on players of course. 

I have been playing around, and come up with something along these lines. Would these work?

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mr_Demus said:

I have been playing around, and come up with something along these lines. Would these work?

I think those midfield setups are too conservative for your desired mentality and playstyle. There are a lot of combinations that would work, depending on players, but a double pivot in front of a back three is very conservative. If you want to use a DLP, that should probably be your most conservative midfielder. 

I don't like a flat back three. Especially not with an aggressive, attacking side. I'd recommend using your middle CB as a "stopper" (w/ offside trap) or "cover" (without). I prefer the latter. But even the former can be useful situationally. 

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...