[FM 21] ADO Den Haag 4-3-3 sudden crisis

[edu-by-a]

Good morning everyone, 

late in FM 21 I started a new score with ADO Den Haag. After successful runs with Royal Antwerp and Nantes/Genoa I felt it was time for something new. I chose The Hague because I recently spent a summer holiday here and because I don't want to deal with registration rules again. Also, I thought it would be a cool challenge to break through the Rotterdam/Amsterdam/Eindhoven bar.

As always, I had problems finding the right tactics at the beginning. First I used the Sampdoria tactic, but I clearly didn't have the players for a DLP/RPM/AP midfield. Around the halfway mark of the season, I thought I now had a good framework. Mainly because of my three key players and the convincing wins. At one point I was even top of the table with a 6-point lead. Suddenly, the crisis started with 7 games without a win. I then made changes to the tactics and still finished third with 3 wins from the last 6 games. However, I want to improve for the new season and hope to find help here. 

Now to my tactics:

I use the SK on defend because I have had bad experiences with all other variants. I have also added "take fewer risks". 

Why do I use a wingback on defend? I thought it is a deeper option for the AP on attack, who can cross from deep, especially when looking for the IF on attack. In addition, I had opted for a left-footer on the half-right (AP), thinking that when he moves from the outside to the inside, it creates nice opportunities for lethal passes. It worked from time to time. Furthermore, I decided on a winger to give my team width. From a tactical point of view, I use a standard defensive line with a standard LOE, because I had the impression that a higher defensive line leaves too much space behind the back four.

I hope this is enough information for you to help me. If you are missing any information, feel free to ask. 

And be nice, it's my first post on the SI forums.

 

Kind Regards,

Edu 

[zabyl]

14 dakika önce, edu-by-a said:

I had opted for a left-footer on the half-right (AP), thinking that when he moves from the outside to the inside, it creates nice opportunities for lethal passes. It worked from time to time.

This idea may create overloads on the left half of the pitch. After this dribbling from left footed APa, would you take into account filling that space he vacated with someone?

Why do you use "throw it long"  with distribution to CB-FB? Is there any reason to use them together?

Is counter-press TI suited to your team's strengths?

 

By the way; why do you use stay on feet? For decreasing risks or another reason?

 

37 dakika önce, edu-by-a said:

I use the SK on defend because I have had bad experiences with all other variants. I have also added "take fewer risks". 

Take fewer risks can force players to do clearances when pressured. 

[edu-by-a]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb zabyl:

This idea may create overloads on the left half of the pitch. After this dribbling from left footed APa, would you take into account filling that space he vacated with someone?

Thought about an IWB instead of an WB but wasn't sure about it. 

 

vor 2 Stunden schrieb zabyl:

Why do you use "throw it long"  with distribution to CB-FB? Is there any reason to use them together?

I usually try everything so that the goalkeeper doesn't knock the ball forward senselessly. That's the reason... not the best I know.

 

vor 2 Stunden schrieb zabyl:

Is counter-press TI suited to your team's strengths?

I am honestly not sure but I have had better results with Counter-Press.

Actually, I would rather play Regroup/Hold-Shape, but it has never worked.

vor 2 Stunden schrieb zabyl:

By the way; why do you use stay on feet? For decreasing risks or another reason?

A penalty against me every game.

 

vor 2 Stunden schrieb zabyl:

Take fewer risks can force players to do clearances when pressured.

I never thought of it that way. I will certainly change that.

 

Thank you!

[De Nile]

3 hours ago, zabyl said:

By the way; why do you use stay on feet? For decreasing risks or another reason?

That's a good question I sometimes feel I need to ask myself. In certain situations my players do tend to give away too many free kicks and usually this cuts down the silly goals that happen against me sometimes if we are loosing too many challenges or my players health are getting low pretty quick it means I need to either take off stay on feet or use get stuck in.

I guess this an evaluation of why TI's like that get used but a bit from my perspective; sometimes you don't need it and you trust your players but then you get a highlight with them on a set piece (excluding corners) and they score and then they get an underserved win. So I get why the op may use it.

Edited September 15, 2021 by De Nile

[zabyl]

1 saat önce, edu-by-a said:

I am honestly not sure but I have had better results with Counter-Press.

Actually, I would rather play Regroup/Hold-Shape, but it has never worked.

Don't use counter-press if you are not sure. Your team can counter-press without it if they decide it is the correct option. That TI increases risks defensively. You can use none or you can use counter-press against weaker sides for an in-game strategy to see its impacts to your team.

[edu-by-a]

vor 11 Minuten schrieb zabyl:

Don't use counter-press if you are not sure. Your team can counter-press without it if they decide it is the correct option. That TI increases risks defensively. You can use none or you can use counter-press against weaker sides for an in-game strategy to see its impacts to your team.

How do I know? It probably depends on attributes like aggression, stamina, bravery, etc., doesn't it?

[Justified]

I think my initial question would be, do you think Den Haag are good enough to play on a positive mentaliyy as it involves more risk? Also I kind of feel like everything is a bit too slow. POoD, Shorter Passing, Lower Tempo seems a bit laboured whilst having roles like APat and DLFat.

[zabyl]

1 saat önce, edu-by-a said:

How do I know? It probably depends on attributes like aggression, stamina, bravery, etc., doesn't it?

Yes but it depends on opposition's strength too. If they are stronger than my team, I would think twice before using it.

[Djecker]

The worst of your 'crisis' was the away losses at big teams (Ajax, PSV). Do you have a more defensive variant of your tactic that you use in those games? A 4-1-4-1 instead of a 4-3-3?

[Pasonen]

Some thoughts.

1) there's enough support in final third for Lower tempo, shorter passes football? Especially on the right side?

2) counter-press and stay on feet?

3) player morale management via team talks and individual interaction?

Watch one or two games 20 minutes on full detail and check how your tactic is doing? especially concerning keeping the ball at final third.

[edu-by-a]

Many thanks for the numerous comments and the help.

Basically, I overestimated my team a bit, at least that is my analysis.

That's why I decided to adjust my tactics. As it is a bit special in Holland with 4 excellent teams and a subsequent performance gap, I have designed two tactics. One tactic for counterattacking when I play against top teams and another tactic when I go into games where I claim to be the favourite. 

The counter-attack tactic aims to constrict spaces and, after winning the ball, to overload the right half-space with the Segundo Volante. This should create spaces for the IFat and the AFat. Alternatively, the APsu can drop deeper and pick up the ball to create chances. 

Spoiler

With the second tactic, I also try to overload the right half-space but try to play a wider game and thus create space for the Wat and the WBat. The tactic is more intended to break through deep defences.

Spoiler

I hope you understand my approach and it makes sense. Let's see if it helps me against the 4-4-2. 

I would be happy if you help me again. I am very grateful for your advice. 

[zabyl]

18 dakika önce, edu-by-a said:

Spoiler

I hope you understand my approach and it makes sense. Let's see if it helps me against the 4-4-2. 

I wouldn't use a defend duty DM against 4-4-2. Because there is no AMC on 4-4-2. If the opposition uses attacker CM on 4-4-2 I would be very happy. Think about potential space that opposition formation can give you. If you use a support DM role, you can have midfield overload directly.

 

Meanwhile left flank roles are so similar. Pay attention to their forward movement on attacking plays.

[edu-by-a]

Already during the first 15 minutes of the game, I made changes. It actually looked pretty confident.

 

 

[13th Man]

Totally up to you, but I’ve had some good success with combining a mez(a) on the winger side. Especially with an RPM moving into space, it can create a great overloads that are still supported, and can leave the backside open for switches too. I haven’t liked a mez of any kind with an IW (they too often occupy the same space) but with an IF it’s worked for me. 

[edu-by-a]

vor 19 Stunden schrieb 13th Man:

Totally up to you, but I’ve had some good success with combining a mez(a) on the winger side. Especially with an RPM moving into space, it can create a great overloads that are still supported, and can leave the backside open for switches too. I haven’t liked a mez of any kind with an IW (they too often occupy the same space) but with an IF it’s worked for me. 

Thank you for your advice, I will take that into account. 
 

For now, I switched to a 4-2-1-3, which gave me wins against Eindhoven and against Zwolle. Let's see how it does against the 4-4-2 with deep opponents.

I'm sure I'll add a classic 4-3-3 to it, if only because you can switch between the two systems fluidly.

 

 

Please feel free to comment, if you spot any major flaws.

Thank you. :-)

[13th Man]

I like the look of that!  Should have interesting movement down the right with the IF ready to take advantage of 1v1s.  I would consider swapping the outside duties (IFa and Ws) but I actually think your current set up might be better for a shorter passing tactic.

[edu-by-a]

Hi guys, it's me again.

After a third place finish in my first year, a fifth place finish in my second year and a seventh place finish in my third, I'm still searching for my footballing identity. Although I was able to win the cup last season, that however  had a lot to do with luck of the draw.

I actually thought I had developed as a Football Manager player - I only started with FM2017 - after winning the Champions League with Antwerp and back-to-back league titles with Nantes and Sampdoria. With Den Haag, however, I'm having a much harder time.

Now I had developed a new tactic, which is attached.

Spoiler

The red circles showing ways in which chances should be created. I thought APsu and MEZat would create chances or create space for DLPsu or the right wing. In the match it turned out that this doesn't work at all because AP/MEZ take the same space. I then tried different things, but it didn't get any better.

I had decided on the combination because I think I have interesting players for it with Essahel and Diomande. In the screenshot Essahel was still in the wrong position, but I had corrected this before the match started. (Screenshots attached)

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

I had also decided to play narrowly, so that Wat would make runs into the box and become a wide striker, so to speak. In the course of the games, however, I switched to wide and IFat. But both options didn't have a nice movement / too little danger.

One problem that also runs through for me is inconsistent full-backs. Inconsistent in that they are very hesitant to cross. Very often they pull back and play "backwards" again. Does the PI "Cross more often" help here?

Thank you very much for your advice. Enclosed are my "key players".

 

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

[Tsuru]

14 horas atrás, edu-by-a disse:

Ok, so let´s start from the front to the back.

You have two players attacking the box - but iMHO the DLF AT does it fairly late (usually when the ball is already on a dangerous goal position) and the Mez AT does it late too (because he has to move himself to the penalty area). If opponents defend on a packed defence and DLF/Mez try to move to dangerous positions to score, will they find the necessary space? When another player is creating this space, ok, but who is doing it on your current system? The AP is moving inside, the DLP-Su is trying to hold his position and the Winger is moving out looking for a dribble and cross. Who is going to generate movement to open space?

Many people like this "False Nine-False Ten" system in which a central attacker drops and a central midfielder/attacking midfielder moves inside to score. I don´t like it, to be sincere. Maybe for bigger teams it can work well, but I like to play with small teams and I only got frustrated using it. 

I also didn´t like your flank setup - the AP on the left maybe need a more aggressive fullback to occupy the flank that he vacates, and on the right you have a very conservative DLP which can isolate your Winger. But to adjust this you would need to change your midfield too.

If you really like I can suggest a set up for your formation, but I think this is very personal so maybe I gave you some ideas to think about.

[zabyl]

21 saat önce, edu-by-a said:

Think about roles/duties teamwise not playerwise. Your plan is isolating RW to make him goalscorer. You use a narrow width to create this pattern. These are good ideas. 

You use an Anchor role. If you don’t want to play high pressing + possession football it is a perfect fit. Let’s say you wanted to create a mixed style of stuff and you preferred an Anchor. Your LB & LW partnership is passive because of LB’s weak attacking intent. Your LB & LCM partnership is weak because LB is passive to combine with LCM. LCM pushes higher before LB gets closer to him vertically. How can this team overload left with passive support from left flank and isolate right flank? 

If I want to create same attacking patterns, I would use a WBs instead of FB. I would also change DLPs to APs to make RCM more active. Plus I would change DLFa to DLFs to overload left and central areas more for isolating RW.

If you use an attack duty CM, giving him more support around increases his impact to attacks.

Edited October 1, 2021 by zabyl

[13th Man]

I personally would go opposite of what you're doing with the CM-wing combos.  Like you said, the Mez(a) and the AP will get in each other's way and the DLP is too deep and far away from the winger to create much.  The WB(s) will also be too far away from your winger.  If you wanted that player isolated to score, you might want to make him a IF(a) so that he attacks the box.  I had a tactic set up like that and he and the forward were usually on a similar amount of goals.

Another idea is to simply flip the combos.  Mez(a) + W(a) is a great combo, and DLP + IF(s) has worked really well for me (instead of the AP, though they work much the same).  I've had a lot of success with this kind of look. The Mez and W combine really well in a direct sort of way while attacking different spaces, and the DLP, WB, and IF are able to combine nicely and create a bit of an overload, especially if  the forward joins in too.

As @Tsuru says, you also do need people attacking the box.  The W(a) will when the ball is on the opposite flank, but there really isn't anyone else doing it - even the DLF will often sit back until the ball is already past him.  I would consider making the forward an AF, PF, or a CF on attack so that he's actually in the box.  With your 'standard' passing game, it doesn't look like you're going for possession as a tactic, and having a forward pressing the defense back will create space for the rest of your players to use and exploit.

Edited October 2, 2021 by 13th Man

[edu-by-a]

The new stadium was completed at the start of the 2024/25 season. I had no influence on the size of the pitch. Now the pitch is wide with a size of 105x85 metres. 

Can I use this for myself in any way? Does it follow that it makes sense to play more. Feels a bit like Camp Nou. 

At the moment I run a 4-3-3 and a 4-2-1-3.

[zabyl]

On 04.10.2021 at 22:25, edu-by-a said:

The new stadium was completed at the start of the 2024/25 season. I had no influence on the size of the pitch. Now the pitch is wide with a size of 105x85 metres. 

Can I use this for myself in any way? Does it follow that it makes sense to play more. Feels a bit like Camp Nou. 

Bad for defensive football, good for attacking football because of more space. If you have a wide pitch, you can bully defensive opposition with wide attacking width options.

[Rashidi]

On the face of it there doesn’t seem to be too much wrong with this system. However lets consider first the combinations to see how they can impact play.

- In defence it has a wingback driven defence that aims to play out from defence. When this happens most attacks will work their way from defence through midfield and finally into attack.

The combinations in defence are a bit unbalanced. On the left flank we have an inside forward surging into attack, behind him he has two roles that will only support these transitions. With the lower tempo, the ability to hold up the ball and transition through the phases will depend on the quality of the squad.

Down the left flank we won’t see much happening because all they will do is bring the ball and then run out of options. There may be an attacking playmaker in the centre, but the only option he has is the IF attacking space and the DLF(A) will play some part in building attacks by running wide occasionally and holding up the ball. Once the attacks have established themselves he may get on the end of goal scoring action.

The use of the AP(A) will see some adventurous runs and passes in that tier but he will need to do a lot on his own, since he doesn’t have any other options. The winger will only support him as a passing option, and behind them the wingback will only join in attacks once the team has established control in the final third.

If this were a world class team it might still struggle, with the fairly narrow width, the tactic will see a lot of wall passes so sideways pass numbers might be high, but it will struggle in terms of penetration.

The CM(S) role is a generic role and how it performs depends on the player in question. The system looks solid defensively, but will struggle to create goals because the combinations don’t lead to any exploitation of space.

A more solid option would have been to turn the AP to a CM(A) to reduce the chance that he becomes the single point in failure. Change the role of the WB(D) to a FB(A) so you can get some attacking options down the right flank. Changing the W to a IW(A) would have given us another option to unlock overloads on the right flank. Down the left flank, playing a WB(S) is fine as it still goes down the flank. And against weaker defences the option to change his duty to attack should be considered.

A simple change in roles gives the formation a bit more creativity down the right and gives us the chance to work overloads naturally. The use of low tempo is fine if the team is very good, otherwise just match the tempo to the team mentality and drop it once you have scored a goal.

The use of play out of defence can be situational. A team will still play the ball out from the back through its defenders with the use of goalkeeper distribution instructions such as roll it out to central defenders. If you don’t use the play out of defence in such a setting, the transitions can be a bit faster. That is something to note against less ambitious sides that may want to settle into a defensive state quickly.

This second tactic is interesting, but it suffers from some overworked combinations to create overloads.  An AP/MEZ combination in attack isn’t bad if its the ONLY creative combination in the park, it needs to be set up right

1. It makes it easier to find players
2. It makes it easier for you to spot points of failure in your tactic

The moment a DLP is added to the mix you have an issue.  The DLP may change the focus of your attacks, but how many options does he have? He can play the ball out to the winger to stretch teams, but that can be done by any other role without risking losing the ball or needing a player with good ability.

Again the DLP here suffers from a unique issue, how many options does he have? He has another AP on the left and a wingback that will only become an option if you camp. Otherwise he goes long. A better option here would be a box to box midfielder.

The very fact that you have anchored your defence with an anchorman provides a big security blanket for your two defenders. Having a FB(S) doesn’t do much, changing the role to a FB(A) or a Wingback gives the attack better options to stretch defences when you are camping with the natural overlaps of the fullback.

This tactic seeks to hit teams on the counter, so the use of multiple playmakers becomes an issue. To make multiple playmakers like that work you need to give the DLP player instructions that tell him  to get rid of the ball quickly so that your counter attacks don’t fizzle out. 

On  the left flank you have an interesting combination that not a lot of people like to play, so much so that some even say is a bad combination. In reality it isn’t, it just needs specific ways to exploit.

The AP/MEZ combination is good because it has the ability to unlock defences, but to play it well you need several things to work well together. You need a mezzala who is a good dribbler with great off the ball and you need an AP who can either drop deep and play diagonal passes or switch play to the other side if needed. Failing which, I almost always pick underlap.

Underlap is an instruction that tells the widest player to hold up the ball and pass it off to someone running inside and beyond him. That is what the Mezzala is doing. And remember the underlap will be perfect as it will encourage the AP(S) to drop just a bit deeper to play those kind of balls over.

Now a look at the defence.

Here again the use of play out of defence for a counter attacking system makes little sense. Instructions like standard passing, mixed width and normal to higher tempo would be preferable since the tactic already has distribute quickly.

There is one inherent issue against sides that press high. When you are using central defenders and an anchor man and you have told your keeper to distribute quickly to your wingbacks, there is always going to be the risk that they will be marked. So the keeper might go long.

Here I would consider several options:

• Use a ball playing defender if such a player is in the team.
• Ensure the Anchor man has comes deep to get the ball so I don’t need to use the option play out of defence.

In terms of strikers you could probably do well with a PF(A) or an AF as well.

[edu-by-a]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Rashidi:

On the face of it there doesn’t seem to be too much wrong with this system. However lets consider first the combinations to see how they can impact play.

- In defence it has a wingback driven defence that aims to play out from defence. When this happens most attacks will work their way from defence through midfield and finally into attack.

The combinations in defence are a bit unbalanced. On the left flank we have an inside forward surging into attack, behind him he has two roles that will only support these transitions. With the lower tempo, the ability to hold up the ball and transition through the phases will depend on the quality of the squad.

Down the left flank we won’t see much happening because all they will do is bring the ball and then run out of options. There may be an attacking playmaker in the centre, but the only option he has is the IF attacking space and the DLF(A) will play some part in building attacks by running wide occasionally and holding up the ball. Once the attacks have established themselves he may get on the end of goal scoring action.

The use of the AP(A) will see some adventurous runs and passes in that tier but he will need to do a lot on his own, since he doesn’t have any other options. The winger will only support him as a passing option, and behind them the wingback will only join in attacks once the team has established control in the final third.

If this were a world class team it might still struggle, with the fairly narrow width, the tactic will see a lot of wall passes so sideways pass numbers might be high, but it will struggle in terms of penetration.

The CM(S) role is a generic role and how it performs depends on the player in question. The system looks solid defensively, but will struggle to create goals because the combinations don’t lead to any exploitation of space.

A more solid option would have been to turn the AP to a CM(A) to reduce the chance that he becomes the single point in failure. Change the role of the WB(D) to a FB(A) so you can get some attacking options down the right flank. Changing the W to a IW(A) would have given us another option to unlock overloads on the right flank. Down the left flank, playing a WB(S) is fine as it still goes down the flank. And against weaker defences the option to change his duty to attack should be considered.

A simple change in roles gives the formation a bit more creativity down the right and gives us the chance to work overloads naturally. The use of low tempo is fine if the team is very good, otherwise just match the tempo to the team mentality and drop it once you have scored a goal.

The use of play out of defence can be situational. A team will still play the ball out from the back through its defenders with the use of goalkeeper distribution instructions such as roll it out to central defenders. If you don’t use the play out of defence in such a setting, the transitions can be a bit faster. That is something to note against less ambitious sides that may want to settle into a defensive state quickly.

This second tactic is interesting, but it suffers from some overworked combinations to create overloads.  An AP/MEZ combination in attack isn’t bad if its the ONLY creative combination in the park, it needs to be set up right

1. It makes it easier to find players
2. It makes it easier for you to spot points of failure in your tactic

The moment a DLP is added to the mix you have an issue.  The DLP may change the focus of your attacks, but how many options does he have? He can play the ball out to the winger to stretch teams, but that can be done by any other role without risking losing the ball or needing a player with good ability.

Again the DLP here suffers from a unique issue, how many options does he have? He has another AP on the left and a wingback that will only become an option if you camp. Otherwise he goes long. A better option here would be a box to box midfielder.

The very fact that you have anchored your defence with an anchorman provides a big security blanket for your two defenders. Having a FB(S) doesn’t do much, changing the role to a FB(A) or a Wingback gives the attack better options to stretch defences when you are camping with the natural overlaps of the fullback.

This tactic seeks to hit teams on the counter, so the use of multiple playmakers becomes an issue. To make multiple playmakers like that work you need to give the DLP player instructions that tell him  to get rid of the ball quickly so that your counter attacks don’t fizzle out. 

On  the left flank you have an interesting combination that not a lot of people like to play, so much so that some even say is a bad combination. In reality it isn’t, it just needs specific ways to exploit.

The AP/MEZ combination is good because it has the ability to unlock defences, but to play it well you need several things to work well together. You need a mezzala who is a good dribbler with great off the ball and you need an AP who can either drop deep and play diagonal passes or switch play to the other side if needed. Failing which, I almost always pick underlap.

Underlap is an instruction that tells the widest player to hold up the ball and pass it off to someone running inside and beyond him. That is what the Mezzala is doing. And remember the underlap will be perfect as it will encourage the AP(S) to drop just a bit deeper to play those kind of balls over.

Now a look at the defence.

Here again the use of play out of defence for a counter attacking system makes little sense. Instructions like standard passing, mixed width and normal to higher tempo would be preferable since the tactic already has distribute quickly.

There is one inherent issue against sides that press high. When you are using central defenders and an anchor man and you have told your keeper to distribute quickly to your wingbacks, there is always going to be the risk that they will be marked. So the keeper might go long.

Here I would consider several options:

• Use a ball playing defender if such a player is in the team.
• Ensure the Anchor man has comes deep to get the ball so I don’t need to use the option play out of defence.

In terms of strikers you could probably do well with a PF(A) or an AF as well.

Thanks @Rashidi and all the others, it helped me to develop my team tactically.

In the meantime, 1 1/2 to 2 seasons have passed and last season I was able to qualify for the Champions League for the first time, leaving both Feyenoord and PSV behind.

Spoiler

 

Financially, I'm also in a good position, which, since I play in Holland, is mainly due to good transfers. 

Spoiler

 

It's currently January 2026 and I'm top of the table and have survived a group of death in the Champions League. At the beginning of the season, I tried a lot of different tactics, but I stuck with the 4-2-1-3 because of the wins against Paris/Inter and because of the stability.

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

The only problem with the 4-2-1-3 is that I don't have a role for Cohen...

Spoiler

Kind Regards,

Edu :-) 

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by edu-by-a
Tagged Rashidi

[Rashidi]

Now that is a nice looking system that can be played on standard or short passing. Short to keep possession, standard or direct for counters, its nice I would just leave him as a CM(A) and let the attributes do teh talking, he's very good at unlocking defences, but there is no need to set that role to an AP.