Understanding How Roles + Duties Impact Average Positions With and Without the Ball

[bababooey]

Something I wish FM did a better job of, is showing you more clearly how the roles and duties you pick on the tactics screen will move in the various phases of play.

Maybe I'm wrong about this. But I feel like sometimes player average positions don't really match our expectations, particularly given the way things look on the tactics screen.

If you're confused, let me give you an example of what I'm talking about below.

What I'm trying to implement is a system that starts out in the very "italian style" 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 that morphs into a 3-2-3-2 in attack.

Teams in real life don't just play the same shape all over the pitch.

For instance, most teams who we see playing in a 4-2-3-1 end up defending in a 4-5-1 or 4-4-2. 

Or, a team who is playing a 4-3-3 ends up attacking in something like a 2-3-2-3.

 

 

 

So this is the basic defensive shape. 3 center backs. 1 DM. 2 CM's. 2 Strikers.

In FM, this formation is called, I believe, 5-3-2 DM WB. But regardless.

This shape is amazingly protective but I want to be able to transform it when we go forward.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the basic attacking phase shape I want to see. This is sort of similar to what Guardiola utilizes at Man City, but he achieves this with wingbacks who tuck inside and cm's who drift into the half spaces, and they only use a lone striker.  My idea is based around keeping a 5 - 5 shape to dominate the middle of the pitch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I'm trying this out on a test save file, where the squad is quite good.  So, if the team struggles to perform, I know that the tactic is (likely) to be badly designed, rather than not having the quality of player required.

Here is the tactic as it appears on the creator screen:

 

 

So this is the base formation that I have from the first image above.

The basic idea is like this....

- the CM-A joins the attack

- the DLP-S and BWM-S end up protecting the middle and forming a double pivot

- The wingbacks provide the width but don't venture too far forward too quickly

- The DLF-S drops into the hole and helps link play to the midfield

- The wide center backs offer close support to the wingbacks

So those are my expectations about how the players will move around in the game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now I'm going to show you the average positions of the starting 11 in a match, and you'll see how far it deviates from the plan we have.

 

 

Look at this mess!  This is where the players end up lol.

So, obviously it's not really what we're looking for.

- the wingbacks are so wide that the center of the pitch is far too open.

- the double pivot in central midfield is a bit narrow, but not too bad.

- the CM-A ended up mostly playing on the right side of his DLF-S teammate, which is exactly not what we want. I was hoping to see him getting beyond the DLF, or going more central

- The DLF didn't drop as deep in possession as we would like to see. Possibly because we're playing with "counter" in transition ticked, and maybe that means we dont build up patiently (enough).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what is the correct way to fix this?

My current thought is that we might need to change the wingbacks to inverted wingbacks. OR maybe they need to be changed to wingbacks on defend, who also sit narrow.

Perhaps the CM-A needs to change to a MEZ-A so that the DLF-S will have more space to drop into.

Maybe the DLP-S in the middle can change to CM-S with "hold position"

Perhaps this system would function better as a "control possession" style, rather than a "counter attack mid block" style of play.

You know like, a slower build up and more focus on keeping our shape rather than being cavalier in attack.

 

Again, this is the shape I'd like to see in the attacking phase:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it naive to think this is possible given the constraints of FM ?

 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by bababooey

[OJ403]

I'd say this isn't beyond the realms of possibility. Maybe a flat three in the centre of midfield, with your BWM and DLP on the sides with the CM-A central. This should both push them wider, thus reducing the gap between the wingbacks the rest of the side, and allow your CM-A to push closer to the DLF without occupying the exact same spaces as often/easily.

I've had success creating shapes from other formations that don't necessarily line up with the final shape to start with on the tactics screen. At the minute I'm using a 4-3-3 (with a DM and AMR/AML, I'm not sure what FM calls it!) that becomes something between 3-box-3 and 2-box-4 with the ball. I've also had a flat 4-4-2 become a diamond on the ball amongst other systems.