khodder

I was going to mention that maybe the "stop crosses" instruction was asking your wide players to stick close to the oppositions crossing threats. Leading to situations like this one; Seems like a solution has been found though.

Just spitballing here; You're trying to create what looks like a 3-2 in build up; but with the two players in the CM spot on support you might be seeing more of a 3-4 in build up, with no easy access through to the players on the wing. You've also got a player who is going to attract the ball on a defensive role, a player who is going to cycle possession, but not split defenses. I'd perhaps try the playmaker higher up the pitch (RPM or DLP in the CM strata) and ask your CM's to be a touch more aggressive (BBM to CM(A). Given you're very narrow at the bottom, you have to play wingers for mine. Let the people player those spots settle into a W(A) and W(S) role before judging them. Maybe look to see how something like this goes.

Think about it from a logical standpoint. Where are your goals coming from? Looking at this set-up you're expecting the Advanced Forward to score about 70% of your goals, with the CM on Attack chipping in with a few and the inside forward scoring a few. You've got an IF(S) which is generally more of a creative/supply role than a finisher. You've got a W(A) which is also more of a supply role, though in a different manner. If you don't want the push the mentality to a more attacking one, then I'd suggest putting the IF onto Attack and the winger on support. You're then creating an additional goal threat and hopefully not losing too much supply wise. It might also pay to create width on the left. Rather than an IFB on defend, go for a Wingback on Support or attack. If you're married to the 3-2-5 build up the DM to HB and Roaming Playmaker to DLP will keep that build up, otherwise you can roll with a 2-3-5. RPM to DLP might help in both a 325 and 235 buildup.

I mean; This part of this ignores the fact that a 3-1-6 attacking pattern exists. I'd argue that you're more looking for balance in pitch areas. Two or three runners coming from central midfield is an attempt to exploit, but it could also fit within the bounds of 5 runners/5 sitters.

So; The ball hitting the woodwork isn't always recorded as the ball hitting the woodwork unless it hits the woodwork without hitting another player. It seems like SI might be using the OPTA definition of "off target" shots "A shot hitting the frame of the Goal is classified as a Shot Off Target unless the ball subsequently enters the net. A Blocked Shot is not classified as a Shot Off Target." when this should only be used for On Target, Off Target and Blocked Shots.

I'm not exactly sure what you think you're proving here with a series of screenshots The two in game scenarios are in vastly different circumstances, so you can't compare them in any way in terms of the width instructions of either team impacting positioning in or out of possession. The roles and duties, combined with the team mentality are going to lead to different behaviours. I.E a fullback on defend given his mentality is naturally going to be more defensively minded and sit narrower. All I did is speak from my own experiences. Where the team focuses play has depended heavily on my role and duty combinations and not the width of my team. I've seen play heavily focused through the middle despite playing on very wide and I've seen play focused down the flanks despite playing on very narrow. As I said initially, maybe my experiences are isolated. Maybe I'm not right about "under the hood", but I'll continue to use the width instruction the way that I see it drive success for my teams. On related note. If width does directly impact the focus of the play it seems a bit weird that an attacking mentality would inherently focus the flanks more than a defensive mentality.

I've had significantly different results in the positioning of my players when using much wider vs much narrower. I tend to see my ball progression depend more on the distribution of my players roles and the defensive structure of the opposition. I.E I've used play much wider, underlap, and deep runners in the middle quite effectively to create running lanes in the middle of a defence for a CM(A) or a SS(A) to run into, with wide midfielders playing angled through balls to them from almost the touchline. Maybe my experience is very isolated.

It is first and foremost a positioning focus for your players, much like the PI of stay wider or sit narrower. If you play wider and the opposition is giving you the outside then you're going to see more focus down the wings. If you play narrower and the opposition is giving you the outside then a smart team will exploit the wide spaces, a not so smart team will try to battering ram through a wall of defenders.

If you want to role with a 5-2-1-2 you're going to want some attacking wingbacks providing width, a more forward thinking attack duo, and a runner/holder combo in the midfield; AF(A) - CF(S) EG(A) CM(D) - CM(A) WB(A) WB(A) WCB(D), CD(CO), WCD(D) I'd probably start with something like this and see how it develops. The link between your back 3 and the rest of the team is key.

I've achieved an in possession shape similar to this by playing a base 3-3-3-1 formation, AF(A) IW(S) - AP(A) - IW(S) IWB(D/S) - DM(S) IWB(S) WCB(A), CD(co), CD(D) My two IWB's tuck inside with the inverted wingers ahead of them. The WCB(A) overlaps both the IWB and the IW - Depending on how I set the IWB on the left hand side I end up with either a 2-3-5 or 3-2-5 in build up. The downside is that defensively you end up in a 5-2-3 type structure that gets broken down relatively easily by better sides.

Mentality is a modifier of player and team instructions, and can probably be accurately referred to as a risk modifier. I.E - A More attacking mentality is going to lead to a higher tempo, more width, more direct passing, higher defensive lines, a more fluid team shape, more base pressing, a more "attacking" player mentality. Something that can confuse the heck out of people, a winger on attack within a cautious team mentality is likely to have the same or lessor individual mentality than a winger on support within a very attacking team mentality. Basically - Team mentality is a modifer, not a key indicator.

I've toyed with a deeper line, higher line of engagement and the OI's to never press any of the opposing CB's. It had some solid success until the latest ME update which has led to a glut of goals being scored from long balls over my defense despite being set up deeper. It could be something to work with again to see if you can essentially get to a point where you're forcing CB's to lump the ball forwards to aerial contests with an aerially superior defensive unit.

I think you need to simplify the tactic. Remove some of the instruction (Especially the overlaps, which is redundant in this formation) I'd probably revert back to a balanced mentality. Push the team width wider so that the outside attacking midfielders hold a little bit wider in build up. Remove the DLP(D) and replace with a CM(D) (Though I am just anti DLP, I don't want to recycle possession in the defensive third, I want the ball higher up the pitch) Switch from a Complete Forward to an Advanced Forward (less buildup focus, more finishing focus) But overall. Keep it simple.

On the face, maybe all of the space is on the left hand side - your attacking playmaker and deeper playmaker will both be drawing players towards them meaning that the right side is congested and the left side has all the space leading to a lot of your penetration coming through the left hand side of the field.

Agree 100% with this. They get far too involved in the build up and don't really create the kind of combinations you'd want from a strike partnership. They almost function more as an advanced midfielder more than a striker.

Its tough to answer some of these without seeing how it plays, but off the top of my head; The tactic as a whole seems a little disjointed; The playmaker is going to be on the ball deeper and his top progressive passing options will generally be one of the wingbacks or the mezzala, otherwise he's probably recycling through the defensive unit. You're asking your Wingbacks to play high and wide, but then not cross it too often because you want to be patient working the ball into the box, so they're probably getting into solid positions and then just recycling possession. I'd probably look at something along the lines of; Wingbacks on Support - they will still get high and wide to provide the width, but also provide a better passing option in build up. A more advanced playmaker, either in the AMC spot (AP/S) or in the MC spot (AP/A) A more circumspect mezzala so they are more involved in the build-up and less of a finisher type (Mez/S) A more defensive minded and static ball winner/recycler - (CM/D) or (DM/S) A more attack minded and potent strike duo; don't be afraid to role with two AF/A players. They tend to compliment each other well; form a part of the build up by drifting wide while the other holds position in the middle as a goal scoring threat. In a 3-5-2 as shown, I'd probably roll something like this that I have adapted from my diamond formation.

The one possible way I can think of is having a DLP offset to the right on your DM slot. Maybe paired with a Volante in the DM slot to play the role of the CM in the picture. Would be interesting to see if you can get the dropping deep movement from a DLP.

Theoretically it seems to work. You're going to be very direct in the final third which may lead to some frustration, especially with no runners coming from deep centrally. Just throw it into a game and see how it plays out.

I'd say you're leaving yourself very exposed to balls over the top of your defense. Defenders with time and space on the ball and a lot of space in behind will have a chance to hit a striker running through the defensive line. If you feel you have enough speed to cover that it could be worth a try, but its not something I would attempt myself.

They've been going pretty well. They still get forward, especially as they are given a fair few attacking instructions individually. They play differently depending on the players too. Some will look to hit the byline and others get into the area, so I've been able to customise a bit that way. Can drop some screenshots in here later. Still finding that we get really caught out defensively down the wings. So have a couple of ideas to possibly try them with a defend duty and see how that plays out and also possibly funnelling the opposition central so they don't create as much space outside. Haven't loaded up the save in a couple of days though so mostly just ideas there. I'm working through these two formations at the moment trying to figure out which works best for what I want. Toying with the idea of a Box midfield too.

I've taken a liking to trying to get some of the lessor used roles, or role that people call hard to work and mashing them all into a single formation. Currently I'm trying to make a 3-1-4-1-1 working in a formation that includes two defensive wingers, a libero, two wide centrebacks and a target forward. Things are looking promising. That said - so much of the success is going to rely on the quality of the players you put into roles and how well they are suited to deliver the role you ask them to. Something I have noticed is a relatively common theme in this thread.