Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

nick1408

Members+
  • Content Count

    2,308
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About nick1408

  • Rank
    Semi Pro

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    www.richmondfc.com.au

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Melbourne Victory

Recent Profile Visitors

6,157 profile views
  1. I look at it more of a sliding scale (From scoring to creating) - IF-At -> IF-Su-----> IW-At -> IW-Su --------------> Ap-At -> AP-Su Wingers are a different kettle of fish altogether as they operate in a different area of the pitch. Trequartistas, raumdeuters and wide target men are all on their own individual scales
  2. Again, I think it's a bit simplistic: IW-Su vs W-Su: Winger has stay wider, inverted winger has no instructions when team has the ball. IW will cut inside with ball, winger will run wide with ball. Both do dribble more. Winger will cross more often, IW has no instructions relating to crossing. On support the IW wants to move in front of CB's and play through balls to the strikers (as an example), the winger wants to stay wide and put in crosses early. IW-At vs W-At: Both players look to get further forward but the winger will also stay wider when the team has the ball. As with the support duties one cuts in while the other stays wider. Again, the IW doesn't have any crossing preferences but cannot be asked to cross from the byline. The winger is a crossing machine and wants to beat his man and whip in a cross (as per the hardcoded instructions), The winger isn't expected to be an excellent passer while it is possible to ask the IW to try more risky passes. The blurb on the attacking options is far more similar in that they are both looking to shoot/pass/cross. The way they operate is what is different. The winger wants to operate from the wide areas while the IW wants to move inside to do his dangerous work there. The winger wants to stretch defences while the IW wants to overload them. To take this back to the original posters question (IW vs IF): The instructions are really similar, but also it isn't just the hardcoded PI's - it's also what you cannot ask them to do (e.g. crossing instructions). The difference I see the IW is less aggressive in wanting to score and is more of a ball player. The IF is designed to operate more like a striker. Mentality is the key here. The reason for Take More Risks (in my opinion) is the attacking mentality and wanting above more else to score rather than bringing players into the match. The IW-At is probably closer to the IF-Su (same mentality and similar instructions) but there are still enough differences in what they are trying to do to make them different roles.
  3. This is a bit too simplistic for me. If it really was just this why introduce the role when you can just set a role to winger and put an opposite footed player into the position?
  4. I started an Everton game just to try this. First game vs Manchester United was a 2-1 loss. I went in like this (Schniderlin and Pickford injured): RB was told to cross aim targetman, AP more direct passes. I'm not sure on Gomes as an AP-su yet but I need players close to DCL that he can lay passes to easily as he isn't a good technical player. Davies scored the goal and ended up as man of the match in a losing side. DCL's stats weren't crash hot but to me this offered a pretty solid template to work with. I can't see DCL scoring a high average rating simply because he will be playing short passes to either the LB or the AP most often. You can see that from his passes completed there was nothing really magical: Passing combination with the GK: Passing combination with the LB: Passing combination with the LCB: Passing combination with the AP. I would have expected more here: And with the striker: His headers won all seemed in pretty good areas and where I would expect them: I'm not going to continue with this save unless this thread really kicks off but I think the WTM-su would be the best option for DCL and it could be a valid focus point.
  5. Here are my thoughts (none are tested but I have played with Everton): 1. Swap roles of Digne and Sidibe. Well, not exactly. Sidibe cannot be a CWB but is more than capable WB-su or WB-at. I’d start him as a WB-su with the PI “Cross to targetman”. Digne is a more than capable all round full back so I’d have him as a FB-su. 2. I would have Richy as a IF rather than IW. He needs to attack the box more to support Kean. 3. Speaking of Kean; your roles don’t give enough penetration to goal. CF-su can be fine as long as the players around him are tasked correctly. It probably start him as a DLF-at and experiment from there. 4. Speaking of penetration and support; the midfield trio looks all wrong. I like a DM on support in the situation you’re in. Morgan is more than capable of playing that role. I’d swap Delph to the other side (along with his role) and drop Siggy for either Davies or Gomes. Then I would swap the role to either BBM or even Mez-at. If WTM has the hardlocked PI of cut inside I might trail the Mez on support. One or both my CMs would have either more direct or more risky passes. The idea being the guy closest to DCL will be the primary receiver who can then give off the killer pass to the striker or switch play to Richy. A BWM can also be pretty attacking but not Delph as a BWM unfortunately. 5. I’d be starting my LOE at much lower and shifting it up if needed. At much higher (and also countering in transition) DCL is around opposition players too early. Let him be one-on-one rather than having a CB also closing him down in transition. 6. Are Keane and Mina quick enough to operate in a higher line of engagement? If not, drop it back to standard. It’ll also give a bit more space to DCL to operate. 7. Back off he pressing for the same reasons as 5. And 6. 8. Tighter marking may help cut off passing options. It’s similar to pressing harder but instead of pressing the ball player you let him have the ball and cut off his options. Check my post history for examples.
  6. I’m using a 4-1-4-1 with Real Sociedad at the moment. Details are in @crusadertsar‘s Bielsa thread if you want some ideas.
  7. Cheers. Actually finished third in the end. Real Madrid dropped a game on the last day and I smashed Eibar thanks again to the wide playmaker. I have lost my CF (Isak) to Man City so it may be an interesting second season.
  8. I thought a bit more about this and the original article said the tactic relied on switches of play from the right to the left. My thoughts led me to experiment with Oyarzabal as a wide playmaker. I started with him on support but quickly moved him up to attack. 75 minutes and 3 goals later I saw that particular game as a success. You can see the difference in stats between IW-Su and WP-At. I'm not sure why the analysis says he only got two goals but as you can see it was definitely three. Tactics now look like this: And I'm fourth in La Liga with three games to go and a five point gap to Real Betis in fifth.
  9. Thanks for the reply. I tend to agree with you for the Bielsa style to keep the defensive line up. I was trying to adjust for my own team. If I can get some better (and quicker) CB's I'll probably move it back up too. Why do you need to drop the offide trap? I've been using it and haven't seen an issue.
  10. @crusadertsar I've been giving your 4-1-4-1 a crack with Real Sociedad. They start with the two players you said were key so I thought it'd be a natural team to start with. My biggest issue was I didn't have a CWB for the left back position and my left wingers were all left footed (your were either right footed or either footed). Initially, the tactic just didn't look right to me but I gave it a go. I couldn't put my finger on what I felt wasn't right but it was a "vibe" I had. As I played with Sociedad I felt I was getting too many balls over the top of my CB's so to me it seemed the defence wasn't quite right. I had a bit of a think and wondered why more urgent closing down was set. I couldn't work it out. I was more interested not in closing down the ball carrier but closing down the options he could pass to. I achieved this by lowering the closing down to Slightly More Urgent (default) and selecting Tighter Marking. I also lowed the defeensive line to try and prevent getting caught too high up and moved the LOE to much lower. I figured that letting the opposition have the ball in their half before tightening the marking would both be of little threat and also let the team as a whole not try and run all over the pitch marking tighter for 90 minutes. Now, some people thing tighter marking means straight man-on-man marking but this isn't strictly true. Here is an example of Tighter Marking vs a 4-4-2 (Getafe, me in green): And vs a 4-1-2-3 (Real Madrid me in lighter blue): In both images it is a kick off from goal so the ultimate timing for tighter marking. Real are playing out from the back but my players are yet to pick them up to cut out passes as the much lower LOE means they don't have to yet (note their full backs are extremely wide and none of my players bothers trying to mark them yet). Vs Getafe the marking is closer but the backs are still all left loose as they don't cause a threat to me in this part of the park. I also asked for passing into space as my attack works better running onto loose balls and quicker tempo as the players seemed to be dwelling on the ball a bit much for my liking. Bet result was the forst 60-odd minutes against Real where I was 3-0 up before my poor tactical decions (or lack thereof) prevented me from closing out the match and finished in a 3-3 draw. If I was smart I would have done something to prevent their main goal threats for the match (Jovic mainly) from finding loose ball too much (most likely change the CWB to a WB-D). The LB is the real weak link. My changes may move away from Bielsa but it is working for my sde.
  11. I've been following this thread and had a bit of a revelation today. My thought process went as follows: Enganche is a really static role that needs movement all around. If this is the case two players in front is a better option than just one The role was pretty much how Riquelme operated. He didn't like to get out of first gear when running but could pull the strings by finding the correct space to be in. Because of the movement around him and the space to play a pass he rarely missed a player It isn't so much about the AMC role but more about the roles around him In the 4-2-3-1 posted above I just see not enough players in front of the AMC to make an enganche dangerous and not enough movement around him to do the same. An enganche doesn't drop deep, doesn't make runs, doesn't really do anything special other than be a really good playmaker (my opinion so very much could be wrong). With all the above being my beliefs on the role I felt a narrow tactic like a 4-4-2 diamond or a 4-3-1-2 would be the most suitable system to employ. I then googled tactics Riquelme played in and while there wasn't a lot of info (more like, not a lot of info I could be bothered reading) I did find that he was used in a 4-3-1-2 at Villarreal and that someone had actually set a tactic up to replicate it. I am currently playing as Western United in the A-League so I thought I had the perfect player to play the role in Alessandro Diamanti. Knowing that trying to press heavily will be let down by one player I figured that by having the 'movers' in midfield doing the hard pressing and to leave the forward three to be in the right space would be best. This means no counter press (as the AMC won't do it anyway). Counter attack is fine. Tighter marking, hard pressing and anything else that asks the whole team to do something defensive as a team is a bit pointless so I asked the two MC's to tackle hard and press hard in an effort to still win the ball back but not rely on the AMC to do much defensively. As the AMC won't be offering anything in defence I see it as pointless asking the strikers to do anything defensively as if they did it can create holes where the AMC is doing not a lot. This rules out a pressing forward for me (I don't want him to be pressing opposition and moving away from the tactical shape). As I want lots of movement I have wingbacks offering width (pointless having IWB's when I have so many players centrally already). I have also gone for a Halfback so when the WB's go forward it still leaves three at the back. As for team instructions I want to create space for the enganche to play in so have asked the team to play extremely wide. I asked for early crosses to try and get the ball to him. Shorter passing due to conversation earlier in this tread (a really poor reason to go for it). Regroupe due to what I said before, counter to try and catch the opposition out of position and lower line of engagement due to my really slow defenders. Half time stats ended like this: I switched Jertec with Pasquali at half time due to his poor rating. I should have dragged him but ended up subbing him at 74 minutes. Armanakas (his replacement) scored the first goal as the mezzala and the F9 scored the second. What I did notice was that Perth Glory set one of their DM's to man-mark Diamanti after half time. This lead to two immediate consequences 1. Diamanti finished with only a 6.7 rating but 2. it also opened up their two DM formation to be exploited by the right-sided players (F9, Mezzala). End match stats: Bit weird to see red after a really good win but I have a feeling my poor analyst's may be to blame. anyway... See the enganche's average position is more or less in line with the CM's. This is due to his lack of movement and the movement of the CM's forward (CM-A and MEZ-S). So, this is only one game but it did give me enough to think moving forward this is a tactic (and role) worth persisting with. I had been playing @yellowforever 4-1-3-2 tactic so this is a natural evolution for my team. I still feel it's important to have the right roles around an enganche as well as the right shape. He will suffer more than a lot of other roles by being crowded so pick the formation carefully.
  12. MacArthur FC in Australia also start with nothing if that’s what your looking for. Western United (also in Australia) start with minimal staff and a full squad of players but it’s those first season in 2019/20
  13. Are you trying any player instructions? My thoughts are you probably don’t need them yet but not really sure. Really interesting read I think.
  14. I had a cup game against Tottenham so thought I'd try the theory out above. Ended up with this formation: DLF(S) IW(S) SS(A) IW(A) DLP(S) CM(D) IWB(D) CD(D) CD(D) FB(S) SK(S) Positive mentality, Shorter passing, Hit early crosses, Run at defence, Overlap right, Extremely wide, Distribute to full backs, Counter, Counter-press, Defend wider, Use offside trap. The two wide AM's were set to swap positions. As Everton my side lined up as follows: Sandro Richarlison Olmo Iwobi Davies Gbamin Coleman Mina Keane Kehrer Virginia As you can see my side isn't full strength (theirs was) but snagged a 4-0 win. They did have two own goals but I did feel the two own goals were forced I felt (defenders in bad positions and under pressure forcing a mistake). One game is a small sample and honestly I'm not sure if I will keep going with it but I liked how the IWB and DLP linked up and also how a big overload was created on the right. Tottenham did have a good presence on my left but it was covered well if they did attack down that side: I didn't really use the middle but I didn't need to. The DLP was best on ground with two chances created, 4 key passes and an assist. Defence was really solid. The striker and SS were a bit impotent but I feel it was the players there rather than those supplying them. If my current tactic starts to falter I might really consider this.
  15. This setup really interests me, especially with the introduction of IW's into the AR/L positions. I think the key would be the rest of the team as well. I think with those front four it would need some really interesting player roles behind them. Something like: DLF(S) IW(S) SS(A) IW(A) DLP(S) CM(D) IWB(D) CD(D) CD(D) FB(S) I'd overlap the right to keep the AMR and DR closer together. Also defend wider. I'd probably set the attack wider, distribute to the full backs and pass into space. Besides that, I'm not sure what I'd do. I haven't had real success with a SS since FM18 when I used it in both a diamond and a 3-5-2
×
×
  • Create New...