jamesh123
-
Posts
29 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by jamesh123
-
-
I haven't got a screenshot to hand at the moment, but am i doing something wrong in installing? Near enough every panel / page i view doesn't fit the screen in full view. Play on 85% zoom, aswell as trying out on other zoom's too but can't seem to figure out why it doesn't fit.
0 -
How would you say these two systems fair with the positional play rotations? I've tried to design two systems for a 2-3 and a 3-2 build up, and it does play out nicely, but is there any roles which could clash when the rotations are triggered?
0 -
Great thread, always look out for your posts as they're very informative and always a good read! Was just wondering what you think of the system I have at the moment? Been trying to get a 4-4-2 going, and with my main goalscorer getting injured I had to tweak a little. CB's both have 9 pace, so a high line for compression with a mid block is out of the equation, and we've not been bad this season, missing out on championship group by 1 point. But found our defending can be pretty passive at times, and attacks our pretty stale 90% of the time. This system is newly tweaked, but wanted to see if there were any glaring errors in it from a set up point of view.
0 -
15 hours ago, Mutumba said:
So just a question for each of you, and ive multi quoted both of you since the question is intertwined.
@ejleal You are using a very high backline, yet you are using a standard GK-d
@jamesh123 You are using a standard D-line, yet you have a SK-AT.
"Should" it not be the other way around?
Having such an aggressive SK-AT for a normal D-line seems a bit superfluous and risky, wheras not having at least SK-S for a very high D-line seems a bit risky?
To be fair, I am just experimenting with it at the moment. But with the mentality being on positive, and using the Step up more TI, I'm trying it out for the keeper to be more closer to the defence as part of the "rest defence". Ideally I'd like him positioned further out from goal to give him a better chance of sweeping up any balls over the top, and also increase the likelihood that he attempts to help out in the build up more efficiently and higher up the pitch than you would expect. So far so good though, he is currently the goalkeeper attempting the most passes per 90, has the most saves per game (probably due to our standard of team), and has 6 clean sheets from 10 without making any errors from being caught out high off his line.
0 -
1
-
3 hours ago, Johnny Ace said:
Yep and yep, right WB(A), right CM(S), right AP(A), If I understand correctly
This is the attributes and traits for my choice of player to play the AP(A) role, and then this is the set up I could try, unless I possibly use a poacher as previously suggested? Or is the AF or another striker role more suited now I've changed the roles of the RW and RB?
1 -
3 hours ago, Johnny Ace said:
I think if you go with the wide Advanced Playmaker there would be no need for the AP in RCM. I'd go for an AP on attack on that right side if your guy's capable, his Traits sounds ideal
Thankyou
I did word that wrong to be fair, had meant to come across for what role CM next to an AP out wide, keep it as the CM (s)? And then use the WB (a) or use it on support instead?
0 -
49 minutes ago, Johnny Ace said:
I prefer the look of your second tactic @Soylent, reason being, you have the Mezzala on the opposite side to the IF(A). A Mezzala and an inverted wide attacker role create a nice overload where you have two players in similar areas of the pitch. This in-turn causes the opposition to have move defenders over to where they are which can free up space in other areas
The first tactic may give your IF(A) extra work to do whilst the second tactic makes things easier for him, plus you have the Wingback to provide width on the left. You could even add a Focus down the right wing here too to try and encourage the overload
But, of course, try them both out see what you think and which you prefer
@jamesh123 I think with the HB and CM on the right, your right Fullback(S) could so easily be a WingBack(A). You have a solid core in your setup, you could ask more from your fullbacks. I'd also check the positions of your IW(A), he may be more interested in getting himself into goal scoring positions than help and support the AF.
Positive already comes with slightly shorter passing so I would leave it on default as @HanziZoloman already mentioned, it might open up the passing choices for your players.
Alternatively, if Lerma is good enough, you could add Take More Risks on him so he looks to makes those passes into space for Solanke or just play him as an Advanced Playmaker(S). I can't remember if I said it here or not, but an Advanced Playmaker in CM isn't as "Advanced" as you may think, it takes up similar positions to a CM(S). I think it's named the Advanced Playmaker to separate it from the Deep Lying Playmaker
I can give that a try for the RB, only left the roles as they were as I wanted to try and create a 3-2 or a 2-3 in the build up, but I think my RB has player traits that suit a WB (A) more so I’ll give that a whirl.
I’ll try that for the passing slider too. I did actually want to try and use an AP on the RW, as my best right winger has dictates tempo as a player trait and the back up has comes deep to get ball trait, so would you change the CM role next to him?
Yeah I flicked through after posting and saw you mention about the advanced playmaker. I’ll check Lewis Cook’s attributes when im home, as Lerma is just a stopgap option there due to a major injury crisis and normally players the DM role
1 -
Apologies for the poor photo, didn’t have chance to get a proper screenshot before work.
Was wondering what changes I could make to help my tactic be a bit more threatening going forward?
Defensively we are solid, getting 0-0 draws against City and Spurs, aswell as keeping 5 clean sheets from 8. But going forward it just doesn’t excite me. I’m seeing possession numbers of 60%+ but the shot on target numbers is quite low to the number of shots we’re having. Short passing was only used to try and help us keep the ball better as we’re a weaker side, but could this be an issue?
0 -
Currently trying to get a 4-2-3-1 DM formation working, but can't seem to get anything to click.. We're either very passive or very clinical, and there is no consistency. Had a little tinker and I wanted to try this out, but is there any glaring holes in the tactic that anyone can point out? Or any role / TI changes that would be good to use with this formation?
Any feedback would be appreciated, as I'm sick of using my old faithful 4-3-3 and this formation suits my squad best
0 -
5 hours ago, xturqz said:
I'm in quite a similar situation as you: almost the exact same setup, defensively sound but was struggling with penetration. One thing that actually helped me was changing the mentality from Positive to Balanced. It allowed my players to drop back a few yards when we are on the ball, without having to alter their roles, duties, or any of my team instructions. One reason why I wasn't scoring was because my IF(a) took up positions that made him marked out of the game. Adding a stay wider instruction coupled with the Balanced mentality made that position able to actually have some room to breathe.
In terms of roles the only other differences between mine and yours is that I have DM(D) instead of halfback, WB(A) on the right, Mez(s) as my MCR and AF up front. The dm, wingback and striker roles are just what suit how I'm playing so I wouldn't necessarily suggest copying, but I think a mezzala could help you more than a BBM. Also do at least experiment swapping the DLP for AP, if you think it hinders you defensively more than it benefits you offensively you can always change back, but you never know the outcome until you try it
- Build out from the back if possible while playing a more direct style
- Be more progressive in possession and look to play forward rather than pass it round the middle of the pitch
From these it sounds like maybe you are focused too much on trying to do this, I know I've fallen for that trap, I was so sick of seeing my entire attack and midfield surrounding the opposition box with a wall of 10 defenders stopping them, so wanted a more progressive style, but focusing too hard on that just made my team take too many risks and it was sloppy. I'm finding the less instructions the better sometimes, in fact my only In Possession instruction is play out of defence
I've been using Balanced all season, which is why I'm trying Positive out now as when I've won, its been 1-0. I've only scored more than one goal when I've lost or drew.
Yeah I like to keep it simple with instructions too, but I've found it hard to get it right to be effective in the final third.
0 -
5 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:
I'll be short and direct:
- perfect balance on the left side due to a combination of IFat + DLPsu + WBsu (inside forward + holding CM + attack-minded/naturally overlapping fullback)
BUT:
- poor balance on the opposite side because of an attacking fullback (FBat) paired with a midfield runner (BBM) instead of a holding or covering role
On the right hand side, would a CM (s) be sufficient enough for a covering role? Only reason I had a BBM was to give me some penetration from the middle of the pitch.
0 -
Hi All, I am kind of in need of some major help in my save. Managing Bristol City, it's the first time I've struggled in a save for quite a while as I sit in 16th after 26 games and I'm on the verge of losing my job. Defensively we have been sound, but we can't hit a barn door to save our lives. I always have ideas for tactics but have no clue how to implement them in game. The things I want from my tactic are :
- Solid defence
- Utilise quick transitions
- Create pressing traps on the pitch
- Build out from the back if possible while playing a more direct style
- Be more progressive in possession and look to play forward rather than pass it round the middle of the pitch.
Some requirements for my tactic, mainly due to personal preference, but also due to the squad at my disposal, Is that I want to make use of an IF (a) on the left with an IW or W (s) on the right. I've attached a rough idea of what I'm trying to achieve role wise below. The instructions are blank while I try and figure out what to do, and I don't want to be too experimental due to my manager rating being an F
Any tips and help will be much appreciated
0 -
57 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:
So you were referring to defensive compactness. In that case, I would switch the AML's duty to support and probably also lower the pressing urgency to default (mostly because you play with a higher D-line). Btw, switching the AML's duty to support should be logically followed by switching the striker's to attack (which was my suggestion in my previous comment anyway).
For which particular reason?
Anyway, if you fear crosses but don't want to defend wide either, simply leave defensive width on default.
If you want to achieve both of these at the same time, then DLF on attack duty looks like the most logical option (as was already suggested btw).
Okay, but why then didn't you opt for distribution to both CBs and FBs (as opposed to FBs only)? That's what my question was actually about (in the context of the narrow width and focus through the middle).
Had a play around with your suggestions, and this is what I settled on for my last game which resulted in a 5-1 win. Making tweaks, I've got a 5-1 win, 2-1 win over a top team in the league, a draw, defeat and another 5-1 win. The two games I struggled in, were against sides that defended in numbers, any tips on how to break down the teams that play with defensive systems and 5 at the back?
0 -
21 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:
So you were referring to defensive compactness. In that case, I would switch the AML's duty to support and probably also lower the pressing urgency to default (mostly because you play with a higher D-line). Btw, switching the AML's duty to support should be logically followed by switching the striker's to attack (which was my suggestion in my previous comment anyway).
For which particular reason?
Anyway, if you fear crosses but don't want to defend wide either, simply leave defensive width on default.
If you want to achieve both of these at the same time, then DLF on attack duty looks like the most logical option (as was already suggested btw).
Okay, but why then didn't you opt for distribution to both CBs and FBs (as opposed to FBs only)? That's what my question was actually about (in the context of the narrow width and focus through the middle).
I'll give it a try with the changes you've suggested. And the fearing crosses isn't so much a doubt on my defenders ability to deal with them, more of just inviting unwanted pressure being put into the box. One of my CB's is 5'11 and needs replacing as soon as I can find a suitable replacement, so he would be the issue with defending narrow I would presume due to his height and dealing with crosses. Am i best playing a Sweeper Keeper on support or defensive If i'm playing a high line?
0 -
7 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:
Can you explain what specifically you mean by "nice and compact"?
In that case, playing the lone striker on attack duty and in a more direct role (as opposed to the currently roaming one) would make more sense IMHO. For example, DLF on attack instead of CF on support.
Btw, instructions such as focus play, attacking width and the like are so-called secondary instructions and as such should rather be used on a situational basis than regularly (not least because their effectiveness can often depend on the opposition and how they play against you).
Was a bit tired when posting it so didn't really explain as much as I should have. By nice and compact, I mean I want us to be compact in the middle, hard working and hard to break down, forcing the opposition outwide and having to try and pump crosses in the box. Although I feel by inviting them to cross the ball into the box could result in problems.
So, as I aim for my striker to be involved in linking the play aswell as scoring, would a DLF be more suited then on attack like you say? Or would aiming for my striker to play like that not be possible with the style of football I want to play?
Ah will take those off and keep them in mind then. And for the distribute to full backs, It was a way for me to try and play out from the back a bit without using the TI and not have my whole midfield drop a little deeper.
0 -
2 minutes ago, YLSFM00 said:
I'm not too good with tactics, but I'll try. If you're looking to play compact and then play with quick transitions, then I'd:
1. Make the High DL standard, LOE lower
2. Remove Offside Trap
3. Add Counter TI
4. Remove Counter Press, leave that option undone. In replacement you can do Distribute Quickly
5. Make the Pressing Urgency default (more urgent doesn't really fit if you want to play compact)
Yeah I forgot to mention I added counter press and upped the urgency for a game to see if It made a difference. But I'll give them a try thanks! Never normally use the counter TI as I didn't want us to just be looking for a direct counter attack as soon as we get the ball back all the time.
0 -
Just wondering if anyone is able to help me out with my tactic. Struggling to have any real impact on the attack, and defensively is hit and miss depending on the opposition. My aims are to be nice and compact, be threatening on the attack with quick transitions, creating overloads / multiple goalscoring opportunities and try to be more direct instead of passing it round for the sake of it. Any help would be much appreciated.
0 -
4 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:
I would not change the LB into FB on support, because that could lead to insufficient wide attacking support for the IF on that flank. Basically, these are role combinations I would consider for that side, assuming the rest of the setup remains unchanged:
Example 1 (moderately risky):
IFat
APsu
WBsu
Example 2 (minimal risk, "perfect" balance):
IFat
DLPsu
WBsu
But given that you already have a DLP in DM, I would then change him into a non-playmaker holding role (DM on defend duty or anchor). Because there is no need to have 2 playmakers so close to each other, especially if you want to play a more direct and faster style of football.
There is no such thing as "best role(s)". There are only good (well-balanced) role partnerships and combinations.
Ah okay thankyou, I'll give it a try
0 -
19 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:
I can give you some tips based on my personal tactical approach (which seems to be helpful for most people here):
- an attack-minded fullback role (CWB) paired with an also attack-minded CM role (mezzala) means your left flank could be overly exposed defensively (and even more so given that both CWB and mezzala are roaming roles as well)
- no need to use a role such as CWB in a non-narrow formation anyway, because CWB is the most effective when he has no wide partner on his flank
- given that both CM roles are roaming runners (BBM and MEZ), such partnership can also have a negative impact on defensive solidity (especially if you are not a top team)
- up front, a partnership of a simple runner/scorer role (PF on attack) and a similar type of wide forward role (IF on attack) is usually not an optimal combo (the easiest tweak would be to change the IF on attack into IW on attack)
If you want to use a split block, then it's advisable to improve your defensive compactness, i.e. bring it to the optimal level. In this particular case, the easiest way to do that is to drop the LOE just one notch (to standard instead of
higher).Get stuck inis also an instruction I would avoid in a tactic like yours, simply because you play with a high D-line (plus under a high team mentality), which means that hard tackling can easily cause trouble for your defense.These are the most pressing issues in your tactic IMHO.
So I i change the left back to a FB on support or attacking, what role would you recommend using in the LCM position? AP maybe? Or could that still leave me a bit to exposed on that side?
Is there any roles you would recommend changing in the midfield? As I could change the DLP to a DM, and switch the MEZ to an AP, but unsure on what the best role would be to use as the RCM unless I use a BBM in that role?
0 -
12 hours ago, frukox said:
Let me give a couple of tips:) Your left side is shaky. IFA doesn't track back reliably, MEZ will roam from position and drifts wide and CWB will also roam from position,dribbles with the ball-it's a really aggressive role. This means there is no reliable cover or backwards passing option on that flank. If you lose the ball there, you are going to be in trouble.
For fast transitions, I'd prefer a playmaker on support or attack rather than a DLPD because he may not be involved in the game as much as you want. He will just attract balls when you build play from your CDs. Then, the ball will just go forward with urgency.
You need more penetration from your midfield. BBM or MEZ will only arrive late in the area unless he has the trait of Gets Forward or Gets Into Opp Area. Your striker lacks proper support from there.
When you press high in the opposition half you'd better change it to Stay on Feet not to get too many cards or not get caught when the opposition manages to play through your press.
More Direct Passing + Higher Tempo may see your team lose possession more often than you'd like so I'd be wary of those instructions because Positive mentality already does that to an extent.
You can also add Hit Early Crosses if you add one more player into the penalty area to catch the opposition defence off guard.
So change the LB to a FB? But unsure if on support or attack. And then to aid with the transitions replace the MEZ with an AP on support and change the DLP to a DM/Anchor? Only had it as DLP to utilise Max Bird as he has decent attributed for that role. How would you suggest adding more penetration from midfield? And take off the higher tempo and keep the direct passing?
0 -
Hi all. I'm currently trying to improve my tactic for my Derby County side and was wondering If anyone could help me out please? My ideal style is to build out from the back but look to play a more of a direct passing style as I would rather us look to play the ball forward rather than tap it about sideways all game. I also have instructions on my attackers and MEZ to press more so I'm not overcommitting on the press by asking everyone to do that job. Many thanks if someone can help.
0
I did word that wrong to be fair, had meant to come across for what role CM next to an AP out wide, keep it as the CM (s)? And then use the WB (a) or use it on support instead?
[FM23/24] - Trying to build a tactic and picking appropriate roles (4-2-3-1)
in Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion
Posted
Ive not finished reading these posts so someone else may have mentioned it before me, but if I remember correctly, due to the new positional play features the IW should naturally stay a bit wider if there is a SV on the same side