Jump to content

ozilthegunner

Members+
  • Posts

    211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ozilthegunner

  1. Af (or PF on attack) with a false nine as the support striker works quite well
  2. This isn't an outright contradiction... it would seem more of a potential compliment... build up direct and at a high tempo. But, if you get to the attacking third and there aren't obvious opportunities, slow and let the rest of the team catch up. Although all those TIs are part of "in possession" they are in different parts of "in possession". Passing/tempo is part of build up, while work ball into box is part of final third. Not saying the passing/tempo stuff doesn't affect final third, only that they aren't wholly overlapping TIs
  3. Lots to unpack here, but just a couple thoughts: 1. BPDs are coded to attempt riskier passes, so they'll cause a decline in possession. You said you use an SK as well. If that is on support, similar issue. 2. You definitely want your FBs in the defensive strata, even if you are going to play them as WBs. Also, if you want them to participate more in build up then an IWB on support would work well. Will move narrow along side the DM to help with buildup and recycling. But will still make the wide run at times. There are lots of options for the midfield makeup, which partly has to do with the wide forwards and what not. So I won't say anything particular about that, but the above should help a bit
  4. I agree with @HUNT3R that you should discuss how you are trying to play, etc. so we know how to think about the formation, roles, and duties. But, just a couple of quick things: What is your mentality? Makes a huge difference to how I think about 'higher tempo', etc. (and, really, everything, but especially a TI like 'higher tempo) I have not played a 4-2-3-1 with 2DMs, but I thought I recall people discussing that HBs don't really behave properly when given a partner. They want to drop between the 2 centerbacks so they can push them wide. That requires (or at least works best) being centrally located. So, I am not sure if it is truly problematic to use a HB as you do, but what are you seeing? All your attack seems to come from the left. A Winger and SV on attack. On the other side it is all support players. Perhaps that is by design? Are you attempting to build up on the right while your W and SV (and DLF to a lesser extent) drive forward, hopefully having lots of space as you suck the opposition to your right? If so, I still think you need a bit more bite on the right. But also you may want to think about players who can exploit that overload properly - the AP will try to hit the crossfield ball, but perhaps you need a player further back as well - the HB or the WB. If either have a PPM to switch ball or attempt risky passes, that'll help. Or you can encourage it via PIs
  5. In many ways my approach is similar to @crusadertsar's but just to give a fuller flavor of getting overloads, etc. with a 4-3-3, in my most recent season with Arsenal we setup like this: ----------DLF(s)---------- IF(a)-----------------W(s) -----DLP(s)-Mez(A)---- ----------HB(d)---------- WB(s)-CD(d)-BPD(d)-IWB(s) Got a lot of overloads on both sides... the DLF(s) would sometimes float to either side, while the Winger, Mez, HB and IWB would all combine on the right and the HB, DLP, and WB would combine on the left (leaving the IF to make runs for the pass, although he'd sometimes also join in the overloading) Potentially relevant is that I always use 'be more expressive' on so I think that gives me more of the roaming, etc. And my players have a lot of good on-field relationships and high levels of teamwork. As a more general suggestion - you shouldn't think merely about "how to get the midfield right" since the midfield needs to interact with the wide players to create overloads. So, 'getting the midfield right' is also about getting the flanks right
  6. By 'outpassed' do you just mean a higher percentage? Or a higher total number? Or something else? Because, as others have already said, if it is just about them having a high completion percentage or a high total number of passes, then who cares? Mostly like those are a lot of sideways/backward passes. But if you really want to do anything about it then a "Much Higher Line of Engagement" combined with "Force opposition inside" can be your friend, depending on your setup. I run it with a 4-3-3 so my front 3/4 (as one of the CMs is often quite advanced) press in such a way as to encourage the opponent to both pass quickly and pass inside where I then have 3-4 (3 midfielders and 1 inverted wingback) ready to win the ball. I'll admit I haven't paid much attention to my opponent's pass completion percentage or number of passes, but I tend to dominate possession and stop them from having any shots (or at least any shots on target). And often I either score, or at least re-establish possession in the attacking third, through interceptions or tackles in advanced or middle of the park areas
  7. Look at the hard-coded PIs attached to the role/duty. Cover folks will be less mobile... so certainly don't want 'roam from position', but 'hold position' is not absolutely necessary (depending on the context). Similarly, roles that 'get further forward' won't provide cover (and will, depending on location, need coverage for this fact) They may not be a perfect way to do it all, but should help out
  8. See my discussion of it in this thread (the 4th and currently last post)... cannot (yet) speak to the overall efficacy, but definitely has improved their personalities
  9. I thought I'd share something I am trying right now to see what others think, etc. So, I'm managing Arsenal and in my 4th season. At the beginning of the season I went through both my U-18s and my U-23s to identify high potential players who needed personality improvements. Basically, anyone lacking a (fairly) professional/determined personality or better. This mostly meant balanced personalities, but it included a 'temperamental' and a 'low determination'... and these were on 4.5 star potential players (so I really want to get them in the right mindset to develop). I took all these players and moved them to my first team, while making them permanently available to their respective squads. I then created 3 mentoring groups and placed these players in them alongside first teamers who could improve their personalities. I am now half-way through the season and have seen pretty significant gains for some of these players, in terms of personality (and determination as a visible attribute). No one has really shifted their 'personality' as it is displayed (i.e., still says 'balanced') but I do get the monthly reports indicating they are more professional, ambitious, determined, etc. so it seems to be improving. So, to some degree, this is doing what I want. However, I am a bit concerned more broadly about this approach: All the players are, obviously, on my first team training schedules, but play games on their respective team's schedules. So, I am concerned both that they may have sub-par schedules (particularly for the 17-year-olds) and that the disconnect between training schedules and game schedule may be causing issues in the long run For the slightly older players (20, 21) I had previously been loaning them out when it became appropriate (basically when they should be playing in a better league than League 2, as reputation-wise, the competition my U-23s play in is equivalent to League 2). Now, I am not loaning them out so long as they don't have a preferred personality. They are playing with the U-23s, but I wonder if they would develop better from the game time, despite the 'balanced' personality or whatever, than they would from this alternative approach I also wonder, although don't care as much perhaps, what this means for the dynamic within my U-18 and U-23 squads. With a bunch of the better players not in the training sessions and all that, does it perhaps negatively effect those that remain? These are typically players I don't think will make it to my first team, although I would like to be able to sell them on, so care a bit about their development (but not that much) We have this general advice that "training is most important" for players up to age 18, while "game time is most important" for players over 18. While that may be 'true', it is much too broad and clearly it matters what sort of training they are doing, what their personality is, etc. and so I am interested in how to balance these different types of considerations (training, game time, personality)
  10. There are some youth team training schedules floating about, although I can't speak to quality. I, too, am very interested in this and the related question of what sort of training setups are preferable for encouraging player development (including in the 1st team, so for young 20s players playing competitive games, which may be different from younger and reserve players)
  11. Seems like a DMd with PPM for short simple passes would help with this. Could you even train him to play with back to goal? Probably wouldn't help even if you could, as I would hope it only really kicks in closer to goal. And then use PIs as necessary to shorten up and reduce risk of passes. This should somewhat fit the idea that the 1 will sometimes turn and make a killer pass... you reduce his preference for it so he really only does it when it is a good bet
  12. Lots of low xG shots will add up but that is a misleading way to think about it. The advice above largely explained your issue - you are too aggressive.. football is a game of space and you are helping your opponent compress it all so you can only take low xG shots
  13. @Experienced Defender is obviously right that the whole tactic matters and not just Ozil's role, but there was a thread started for fm2p and slightly carried on to fm21 that was all about getting thr best of ozil. Should be able to find it a few pages back on this forum. There, he was found effective as a RPM in the midfield strata in a 4411. I played him as an AP in the AmC slot in his final year on my save and he was decent - not great, not worth the money, but fine. I had the idea, which I probably won't attempt, of converting him to a regista. Saw someone else do this with a 35yo Newmar and he went bonkers. Sort of the late Pirlo approach
  14. Right, that is the perhaps counterintuitive implication. But yeah, assuming they are letting you regularly get to the attacking third and you are largely camped there, then go wide and lower the tempo. If you have a lot of possession but in the middle third, that could be a different issue and lowering the tempo could be a poor response (just depends on why you aren't able to progress further)
  15. @04texag (I believe) has suggested altering tempo as a response to opposition pressing. Following one of Guardiola's methods, you want to use individual possession as a means of attracting opposition to open space elsewhere. The best way to do that is to invite the opposition to you so that they arrive just before the pass is made. Too early, less space; too late, tackle. So, anyway, the idea is to watch to see if you are hitting that pressing sweet spot and, if not, alter tempo to get there. Now, importantly, given the fact that tempo is also affected by other TI changes (as mentioned above), strictly speaking altering those other things as a means of achieving the same goal could also work... and may be required since they can produce different 'increments' of change from just changing tempo directly
  16. I think that you could drop the 'higher tempo' and still achieve your goal... the Treq in the AMC slot is a playmaker, and so will attract the ball, meaning you will be moving the ball reasonably quickly up to the front 4. From there, though, you may find you need the lower tempo (not a low tempo, but lower than what you have) to break down a team. With shorter passing, play out of defense, and very narrow (not to mention your distribution TIs) you seem to be going for a possession game. But then higher tempo conflicts with all that. On the other hand, if you did want to play quicker attacking play overall then you should (at least) increase your width... if you are going to tell players to make quicker decisions/passes then you want to make sure there is space for them to pass into. A very narrow formation reduces this possibility - while it may mean players are closer together providing short options, that isn't what your players (being ordered to play a higher tempo) will be looking for. You want them to use the full width of the field to allow for long passes that are more likely to be successful
  17. @Experienced Defender has a thread somewhere about balancing a 4231 (albeit the focus is on the pivot being in the MC strata, but that should not change much) As for what you have... generally an IF(a) and AF(a) will get in each others' way. Usually, if you have an IF then he should be on support if your striker is on attack or vice versa. There are ways to acceptably violate that guideline, but it is an useful rule of thumb. I think a FB(s) could be ok with an IF on support. On attack, though, you probably need the FB further up for support, so WB(s) is preferable. Could do WB(s) either way, though, given the pivot in the DM strata, although the DM on the left is reasonably adventurous
  18. I mean, looks like you are doing well. I wouldn't change anything except perhaps to have a plan B that is a bit more adventurous. Switching the DM to HB, and perhaps changing one FB to WB(s) would be that change. Or putting the DM on support. And what you said about the CMs sounds right - that is what I meant by saying you get some asymmetry just from the players. But then notice you are more reliant on the specific players. Since part of your original question was how reliant your tactic was on specific players, it is worth flagging that. Nothing wrong with being more reliant on the players so long as you have a clear plan for transfers and development What team are you playing with? I like the 4-1-4-1 quite a bit, but it has been too anemic in attack for me
  19. Yes, possibly. Obviously doesn't mean any change will cause the problem, but with the positions/roles/duties being unbalanced and with so many team instructions you cannot really isolate what parts of the tactic are leading to what and so it is hard to predict what effect tactical changes may have This is why, for instance, it is generally recommended to start with no (or very few) team instructions and then slowly add in as needed. You want your positions/roles/duties to be doing most of the "tactical lifting" because they can really only do that if they are in fact well set up and balanced. Team instructions then tweak that base... a system like yours has the TIs doing so much of the lifting
  20. I'm actually curious how much of a role teamwork plays in getting more fluid, small space tactics to work well. My arsenal team is tops in the league in terms of teamwork (something I've been developing to some extent, although I think it was high in the squad from the off). Wondering how best to exploit that
  21. Probably not worth changing anything if you are winning AND you are happy with 0-0 draws. Because there are 2 main issues i see with your team, but both are more offensive issues: 1. Many people prefer tactical asymmetry of some sort in order to have different attacking angles. The perfect symmetry of your tactic is certainly diminished by specific players (ie the 2 CMs, despite being instructed the same, probably don't play exactly the same) but most people build the asymmetry into the tactic. 2. Relatedly, the relative lack of attacking penetration. Really only those 2 wingers are being ordered to penetrate which could be problematic against more defensive teams So, simply looking at your tactic, without knowing your players, I would predict a good number of scoreless draws (or 1-0 losses if you are playing better teams) but sounds like you are cool with that. And so to the extent you are avoiding a lot of those, it probably is your players. But no tactic is player agnostic, so that isn't a problem
  22. Simply changing mentality won't really help. You are using an exploit tactic that is extremely unbalanced. So, when it works it works. But any small changes to it will probably only reassert the fact that it shouldn't work and only does to the extent that a bunch of artificial game conditions are met. Better to work on creating a long term balanced tactic whose effectiveness is rooted in good tactical principles rather than exploiting the match engine. Or... just download a different exploit tactic and try again I suppose
  23. If pulisic has PPMs to cut inside, then you can still give him PIs to stay wider but he will cut in when he is in a good position to do so. In fact, that is how it usually works for Pep. Yes, the wingers should keep the width, but that doesn't mean they don't drive in and attack at all, and especially that they just stay wide once they have the ball. So, point is... invert chilwell to push along mount and have pulisic hold the width. You could even use IW or IF, whichever allows a stay wider PI (one does) to further encourage driving in on the ball while maintaining width when off it
  24. Same issue with Felix in that other thread (although perhaps a solution will appear). But there he needs the striker to play like Messi. For you, if you mostly just want the striker more involved with goals, and aren't trying to replicate a specific system, then why not try Felix as a complete forward (support or attack ,try both) or as a DLF on attack. Those sorts of roles should get him more involved, assuming balance elsewhere (so you may need change there too)
  25. Yeah this was more or less how I had the team setup back then. Sanchez played on attack because when things went well for arsenal he was less involved in buildup. I think the support duty better tracks his behavior when things weren't going as well. The AP on attack was more for fitting the tactic into FM in a successful way. All 4 on support can just get too sterile. As for results: They were very good back then, winning the league and such. I'd assume something similar would still work well but my current 4231 is different, to take account of the players I now have
×
×
  • Create New...