2-3-3-2 -thoughts on improvements?

[Jagr]

Hi guys! 

Any thoughts on possible improvements for this tactic?

I find it generely good against most tactics / opponents - quite with high possession and xG. But I still think there are room for adjustments.

Something that looks wrong to your eyes or something that could be improved? 

- Roles that could be switched?
- Settings for 'in possession'?
- Must-have-settings for this tactic?
- Or something that just looks off or counterproductive - let me know! 

Edited January 26 by Jagr

[Johnny Ace]

What issues do you have with it?

[Jagr]

2 hours ago, Johnny Ace said:

What issues do you have with it?

- Carrileros not covering up enough on the flanks
- Sometimes hard to get the push

It generally works fine - but I'm sure there are things to adjust. And it feels something is a bit off but I can't put the finger on it. 
Would be great to get advices about the settings at In possession, in transition & out of possession. 

[Cloud9]

19 minutes ago, Jagr said:

- Carrileros not covering up enough on the flanks
- Sometimes hard to get the push

It generally works fine - but I'm sure there are things to adjust. And it feels something is a bit off but I can't put the finger on it. 
Would be great to get advices about the settings at In possession, in transition & out of possession. 

Lack of penetrating runs forward, especially on the left hand side. MEZ(s) + CAR would be a more balanced approach w/out sacrificing too much structure.

I'd consider reverting to a standard 3-5-2 for your trap inside instruction. Putting your playmaker in the 6 role as a regista on a mid block makes it easier to get the ball to him and provides defensive screening from the two 8's (BWM(s) + MEZ(s) would do the trick). The extra central defender will help you in build up play/defensive structure and the wide centerbacks/wide BPD's offer direct support to the wingbacks (who look a big isolated going forward as is). 

Another option could be to play with a libero and a flat midfield three. That would keep more of your original 2 at 2-3-3-2 (at least in possession) while allowing the midfield 3 to focus on industry + forward runs. 

On a final note: shorter passing can be difficult with a double striker pairing as they can get a bit isolated. I would try leaving the slider in the middle and play around with the PIs. Really like the choice of PF(s) you've got up top to link up the play, but he will benefit from more runs from midfield as well to help him join things up.

Edited January 26 by Cloud9

[Jagr]

23 minutes ago, Cloud9 said:

Lack of penetrating runs forward, especially on the left hand side. MEZ(s) + CAR would be a more balanced approach w/out sacrificing too much structure.

I'd consider reverting to a standard 3-5-2 for your trap inside instruction. Putting your playmaker in the 6 role as a regista on a mid block makes it easier to get the ball to him and provides defensive screening from the two 8's (BWM(s) + MEZ(s) would do the trick). The extra central defender will help you in build up play/defensive structure and the wide centerbacks/wide BPD's offer direct support to the wingbacks (who look a big isolated going forward as is). 

Another option could be to play with a libero and a flat midfield three. That would keep more of your original 2 at 2-3-3-2 (at least in possession) while allowing the midfield 3 to focus on industry + forward runs. 

On a final note: shorter passing can be difficult with a double striker pairing as they can get a bit isolated. I would try leaving the slider in the middle and play around with the PIs. Really like the choice of PF(s) you've got up top to link up the play, but he will benefit from more runs from midfield as well to help him join things up.

Really, thanks. This is exactly what I was looking for. 

Regarding tactic - are you thinking more like this (se attached picture). Be critical. 

[Cloud9]

3 hours ago, Jagr said:

Really, thanks. This is exactly what I was looking for. 

Regarding tactic - are you thinking more like this (se attached picture). Be critical. 

Yes could work! I think from here you will need to do some testing to see how you want the tactic to play. Somethings I would look for in your testing:

• Libero (Defend vs Support). The tactic seems built around this role so I would try out a libero support and see how it plays from there. 
• CWB Support (vs Attack) is still a very attacking role, so that might be a nice change if you're too exposed.
  • If you can get away with it vs slower front lines a higher defensive line can help get CWB/Libero more involved in the game. This will compress your pressing area as well which is always nice on a mid block and doubles down on you playing narrow. You'll need a SK + quick defenders to pull this off, which you usually can do in a back 3 fairly easily. 
  • IWB's could be a fun alternative, although you might look to midfield roles to trigger rotations then. 
• DLP(s) I would prefer to the DLP(d) for his higher positioning/less conservative passing. Since the libero will step up and act as a central ball playing presence the DLP might be a little redundant. 
  • You could look to a CM(s) w/ or w/out hold position instead of the DLP(s) to avoid this. 
  • If you really want a second playmaker, I'd put an AP in the AMC strata and play two CM(s)'s behind him featuring one w/hold position. This would really change the way your tactic plays though and would be much less defensively minded. It might be a good approach when you're looking to take the game to the opposition (high press) and you're looking to make some tactical changes. 
• On the two Central defenders, personally I don't like these roles in a back 3 unless it's the literal central defender of the back 3. WCB(d) might be better suited to your approach + to give a passing option to the wingbacks. With the defend duty they'll be pretty static, but I haven't experimented too much with the libero myself so I would try both and see what works best. 
  • I'd recommend at least using one on the side of the CWB. 
• On build up play, you might look to swap the positioning of PF(s) and AF in your tactic. I think it's currently fine as is, but the MEZ can move into channels which can be a bit redundant with the AF. However that could take away from the combo you have going on with the CWB(a) + PF(s), so another thing to watch for. Another alternative would be to leave the tactic as is and swap out the AF for a poacher who will stay centrally // avoid the channels. Poacher + PF(s) is a really nice combo but AF's are just great for mid blocks in general so again something to play by ear. 
• One of the really nice things about a 3-5-2 is your ability to make impactful role changes throughout the match. Don't feel constricted by the setup you go into matches with and I would strongly recommend flipping roles like the wingback or mez to an attack role if you need a bit more punch or you're looking to exploit specific weaknesses in the opposition. Having 3-4 role squad player's who you can bring in to do specific, different jobs from your starting 11 can make the tactic itself much more dynamic. 

Edited January 26 by Cloud9

[Jagr]

Many many thanks @Cloud9. I will look into this as soon as I'm able to play again. 

Best regards!