ozilthegunner
-
Posts
211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by ozilthegunner
-
-
1 hour ago, made_in_turkey4 said:
Respond to all:
I just don't find it realistic that a rpm or ap s will never enter the box in wich situation it might be, even if they have the right ppm to do so (because i tried).
i think this is something SI should evaluate, hopefully.
I previously suggested an AP(a) would likely get in the box. Just want to confirm that my AP(a) (playing the Midfield strata) does get in the box quite a bit. Generally, only midfielders on 'attack' duty are going to get in the box, no matter their role, so if you really want this just use an AP(a) and you can add a PI like 'roam from position' if you want him to move about more like a RPM
0 -
I just wanted to state my appreciation for this @04texag - I really like the '4-3-3' but am often disappointed with the way it defends when we are fully out of possession (does well in the initial press in the attacking third of course). Also, I was finding myself perhaps overloading the front too much, and so like the wide midfielders starting deep.
I did want to mention a couple of differences with my version, and ask perhaps why you made some of the choices you made:
- I set my defensive line as 'higher' and (in game) have sometimes reduced the line of engagement to standard. The DL being higher I found really important for setting the block a bit higher. Otherwise we were effectively defending right outside our box (or in it). the Line of Engagement I am less sure about, but did it in at least one game to get more dominance in midfield by constricting the overall space
- I so far have left my striker as a DLF(a), but was tempted toward something like a Pressing Forward on support to try to dominate midfield a bit more. And then the PF could even be dropped to defend if the opponent has a DM, so the PF will just stick to him (perhaps with an instruction to mark as well)
- Relatedly: I have had issues with most striker roles being too static when we are trying to clear the ball from our box. The Complete Forward has worked, leading to the player to moving laterally to pick up the ball, but others seem to keep them too central. I want the striker to be mostly central when we are in possession (that is obviously part of positional play) so don't really like the CF in possession. I am wondering if perhaps a pressing forward may be the best of both worlds, as he'll move about more out of possession (I think/hope?) but then is supposed to behave like an 'Advanced Forward' in possession, which keeps him reasonably central (channels, but that is ok). I saw you mentioned you were going to play around with the striker role yourself, so wondering if you've learned anything new just yet
1 -
47 minutes ago, gunnerfan said:
My Celta Vigo team is currently in 1st, 9 points clear with 6 to play, and we've already clinched a spot in the Champion's League next season. I've done a lot of tweaking with the JDP tactic, and have been fortunate to get here with a roster that is promising but not yet "there" and not at all deep (except MCs and CDs). I'm going to need a solid defensive set for CL, and would love to use the 4-1-4-1, but I have NO flank midfielders (only AMs). Also, I can only count on about $10 million for my transfer budget, so I probably won't be able to buy any (or at least none that I would want to rely on). I'm thinking of a 4-1-2-3 as an alternative, which would at least give me the marking protection at the back similar to the 4-1-4-1. But is there any way to get the wing AMs to track back on defense?
Why not just play the AM wing players in the midfield strata? Assuming they have the attributes to play there, that matters a lot more than whether they are familiar with the specific PRD.
And if you start either at the end of your current season or at least in pre-season, you should have some time to help players gain familiarity. Maybe not great, but some.
I say this because I had been playing with a 4-3-3 but having trouble both due to defensive issues and (more so) lack of attack which I attributed to packing too many players in too advanced of positions. So, I have recently switched to a 4-1-4-1 very similar to the one discussed here (and even more similar now after picking up on some of the recommendations). But my starting wide midfielders had no familiarity with the midfield strata. I played them there anyway (and started training them appropriately too to speed up development) and it is working well enough. I am pretty sure some of the mistakes I see (errant passes for instance) are due to lack of familiarity (although could be with the tactic more broadly as we just started the season and I was tweaking a bit throughout the preseason), but it isn't a big deal. Although, I suppose I should say that my first league game ended just 1-0 off of a free-kick goal near the end of the game, which was not promising, but our xG was like 2 so I will (for now) chock things up to it being early and such
0 -
So everyone has been repeating the same obvious point - playmakers rarely (if ever) enter the box. This is especially true of the deep-lying playmaker and the roaming playmaker. Additionally, as everyone is also noting - you can have a player with playmaking abilities play a non-playmaking role (like CM(a)) and accomplish all you want.
The only other thing I'll mention is that an AP(a) will certainly wind up in the box on occasion. Again, not their main deal since you cannot really playmake from inside the box, but the AP(a) is probably the only playmaker role that will get into the box somewhat regularly. So, use that if you really want a playmaker role to get in the box0 -
51 minutes ago, made_in_turkey4 said:
Thanks for your repy.
I also thought of a Central midfielder with get further forward, but then he makes more off the ball runs forward rather then organizing the midfield, not?
I really think FM should make an PI like "get in to box" wich should make this available, because i think a CM doens't play like an AP or RPM. Players will not "focus play" on cm's like they do on RPM's, and the fact that the RPM never get into the box,
i find very disappointing.Yes about more 'off the ball' runs with 'get further forward', but you can temper that too with making the duty a support duty, which will encourage being involved in build-up. I left out the idea that you could put 'get further forward' on an RPM as well (I think)
But it sounds to me like you want something that really makes no sense... a playmaker is not expected to get in the box, since they'd have no space to manage play there. Typically, you link a playmaker role with a runner role, and it is the runner role that is more likely to get into the box. This vaguely reminds me of a discussion on these forums some 3-4 years ago where someone wanted something similar to what you are asking (a playmaker who does non-playmaker things)
However, you keep talking about 'organizing the midfield' and seemingly assuming that only playmaker roles do that. But that just isn't true. Basically any 'support' or 'defend' duty in midfield will help with organizing the midfield. A CM(s) certainly will.
I also think you should be focusing more on PPMs... that is basically the main way to get a player to play a role in an unusual way - pair the role with PPMs that make it play different
1 -
You are right that an RPM will generally not get into the box. If you are looking for playmaker (or playmaker-like) roles that still get into the box, I think you have a few options:
- Advanced Playmaker (support or attack) with the "Get further forward" PI added
- CM (support or attack) and then add various PIs to encourage more playmaking if you'd like. If 'support', then perhaps add 'get further forward' PI as well
- Mezzala (support or attack)... either has 'get further forward' baked in, so they will definitely get in the box. On attack, though, probably not enough involvement in build-up for what you are looking for
- Focus on getting players with the right PPMs... PPMs like "arrives in box late" or "gets into opposition area" (less so for that one, since I think they'll tend to sit outside the box) will lead to the midfielder getting into the box at least some times, somewhat regardless of the role
The other, more general, thing to keep in mind is the interaction of team mentality and player mentality. You haven't specified your mentality, but that can make a difference to players regardless of specific roles/duties assigned
0 -
I'm still toying with best application of these myself, but a couple of the ideas I have picked up on:
- Both underlap/overlap will reduce the mentality of the winger on the relevant side while increasing the mentality of the fullback. So, one reason to use either one is just to get the mentality effect. That can be helpful, for instance, if you want your team to build up a bit slower and get more people involved in the attack
- Overlap will tend to push the winger inside, while underlap will have the opposite effect. So, one reason to choose one or the other is to get that effect on the winger
- Underlap can provide a useful means of generating an overload. I think the typical example is something like a Mezzala, an inverted winger, and a fullback/wingback all on the same side. Underlap would encourage the inverted winger (or whatever role he has) to look inside where he will find both the fullback AND the mezzala
0 -
1 hour ago, sporadicsmiles said:
The DMC in a 433 is a wonderful pivot you can use to recycle the ball when you are attacking. I always use him in such a manner, and he is actually one of the critical players in my team. I usually try to get a great all round guy in here, who can do defensive and creative duties. Then if you want more defensive cover, change the role of right FB to be less adventurous (I choose this one as the MC on that side has attack duty so cover here is more important. a DM(S) will do this. Provide a solid basis for attack, and a shield in defence.
You will want one of the FBs to get forward, otherwise you will have little width. You can either choose the left to balance the MEZ, or the right, to create an overload with the MEZ.
The potential problem is that they are both attacking the goal and nobody is creating the space for them. So if you come up against a deep defence, you could struggle to break them down. A PF(S) and IF(A) is definitely good. PF(A) and IF(A) is what I would use if I was trying to be direct.
Great, thanks! I have seen the DM be great for me with his passing, especially when I play a better passer there. The problem, right now, is that none of the guys I have in the spot are particularly great passers (although not bad) but they are decent defenders. Although, they are all better passers than my fullbacks, so there's that.
I seem to recall someone discussing perhaps setting the team to 'look for underlap' on the same side as an attacking mez in order to get an overload with the Mez, FB, and winger on that side... I suppose I could try to do that (Bellerin is definitely the better attacking fullback, although not by much, but when I had him as an IWB(s) before he would make some awesome inside runs to break down the D)
And I'll play around with the PF/IF situation... I suppose if I put the IF on support, then I could ask the FB on that side to get more involved in attack...
0 -
Finally got a chance to implement some of the recommendations. It was right at the end of our first season - 4 games to go and champions league qualification on the line. Had to play Man U, Liverpool, Sheffield, and Chelsea with the first 3 all being away games and with Man U, Liverpool, and Chelsea all being above me in the table.
Drew Man U (last minute corner rescued a point for me), lost 1-0 to Liverpool (after spanking them 5-1 at home earlier in the season with the attacking 4-3-3), lost 4-2 or some weirdness to Sheffield (they dominated us...), and then beat Chelsea 4-1 (with 4 different goal scorers from 4 different positions) on decision day to leap above them into 4th, securing Champions League and sending both Chelsea and Everton into Europa. So, I suppose, on the whole, things worked out, but just barely obviously.
Now as I move into a new season I want to hopefully solidify the tactics before the season starts (unlike last season) and I brought in a couple of players in the positions I think I was weakest (left-sided forward and a creative/attacking midfielder). With that in mind, what I have right now as far as the tactic goes is this:
I switched the left winger from Raum to IF(a) - I went for Raum originally because it seemed better for someone like Aubamayang who has great off the ball movement and anticipation but poor passing and dribbling. However, other than one game, no one ever did well as a Raum (in that one game, I believe it was Reiss Nelson who scored 2). But the IF(a) is more involved generally and seems to score more goals overall. Also, I brought in Fekir (since Depay signed a new deal with Lyon at the last minute!) who I plan to have as first choice in that spot. He is left footed, which was off putting, but I think it just gives me a chance to have the Mez and ST shine more and be fed by a much more well-rounded IF.
I finished the season with the striker as a CF(a) [so no change] but other than Lacazette, my available strikers aren't all that fit for the CF role and even Laca isn't amazing at it. So, I'd like to try to get the Pressing Forward working again - I really enjoyed it on FM20. So that is why that is selected here now.
As far as team instructions goes - I have now pulled basically everything back (didn't do that at the tail end of the season, just here in the offseason). I'm on balanced mentality with only play out of defense selected in possession. No transition or out of possession TIs currently selected. Based on that, I have a couple of observations and questions:
1. I'm a bit unconvinced about the DM as a Half-back. I switched him to a DM(d) in at least a couple of those final games because he just seemed too deep overall. I know he is supposed to sort of sit between the centerbacks to split them in order to cover more for the fullbacks, but it made build-up play problematic if we were getting pressed. Also, I am not sure I really want the fullbacks to get so advanced (see issue with those roles below). Keeping in mind that my existing choices for the DM position are Lucas Torreira, Thomas Partey, and Mo ElNeny (and, I suppose, potentially Guendouzi, but I see him as more advanced I think), I am trying to figure out how to get the best out of that position. ElNeny was great as a DM(d), Partey was poor everywhere I used him, and I didn't have Torreira or Guendouzi (they were on loan) but in FM20 both were surprisingly great. So, what to do with this role?
2. Relatedly, I am unconvinced about the fullbacks being WB(s). The relevant players are decent in attack, so that is not the issue. Rather, I don't really like our style of play with them getting forward - just ends up being wide crosses. I think I would generally prefer that we build-up much more in the midfield (so perhaps the DM change is relevant here) with the fullbacks providing support in build-up and only getting really involved with the attack if we've been camped for awhile (if at all)
3. PF-a and IF-a. Could this pairing work out? I know an IF(a) and an AF(a) combo is not preferred, and the pressing forward is supposed to act like the advanced forward at times. But I think I've seen plenty of others do this combination.
4. Final question is about the AP(s). I switched him to the left, which I think made sense as a way of feeding the left attacker. And, if I am switching to a PF(a) in the striker role, I imagine I need the midfielder to get more advanced into the '#10' area to connect with the attack (since neither the striker nor the IF will be dropping to connect). However, I was also wondering whether I may not be better served with him as a DLP(s), sitting even deeper to provide more space for the IF. I experimented with both in those final 4 games, but given the nature of the games and my lack of players (lots of injuries) I am not sure I learned anything to make a decision. So, I am curious in your thoughts
0 -
A few other threads (including my own) have popped up just recently all with a focus on a 4-3-3 and largely the same preferred playing style. So, there is some good stuff in the other threads you may find valuable.
As far as your specific CM/Winger problem: Does your winger have the PPM to cut inside from the right? (or either flank) Are you giving him PIs to do so? Perhaps your CWB on the right is encouraging it a bit (so he has space). But, regardless, something is causing your winger to not keep his width.
As an alternative, especially if the player does have a PPM to cut in, or you do actually desire that, is to switch the CM(a) to a MEZ(a) and the W(s) to an IW(s). I had already been playing with an IW(s) on my right side, and was encouraged to swap my CMs so that the Mez was on the same side (and on attack rather than support). I haven't got a full chance to test it out yet, but with the MEZ being told to 'stay wide' and the IW coming inside, there should be less issue of them being on each other
I also think you could do with an attack duty in your front 3... should help with penetration which is probably part of your problem. If you leave the right sided CM on attack, I'd put either the center striker on attack (I have found a CF(a) works quite well in this general setup) or the left-sided inverted winger (or both). I realize you have the CWB on attack on the left, which you may need to change, but I think you definitely want more oomph somewhere in the front 3.
0 -
I'm also trying to develop a similar tactic, also with Arsenal (although my team is the real one - I disabled the first window) and I also ran into some similar problems as you (over time, though, I was destroying teams like Chelsea and Liverpool for a short bit before becoming impotent)
I think, in general, you just have way too many instructions and packing way too many people near the box. Also, I found the 'play through the middle', while sometimes producing some great Wenger-esque goals, often led to no shots as we just packed everyone so centrally and there was no space.
I would suggest maybe 'starting again', at least in terms of TIs. Just something like the following to begin:
Balanced mentality with higher tempo. Play out of back (or distribute to CBs/FBs if you prefer) and just a higher d-line (but leave LOE at standard)
As for the advice I received and translating it into what you have... definitely no WB(a) on the right with the attack duty for Auba. Perhaps a MEZ(a) on the left CM and AP(s) on the right CM (it was suggested to me to do AP(s) on the left, with a raum/IF(a) ahead and a Mez(a) on the right with an IW(s) ahead... so bit different from yours, but trying to translate the ideas)
I also haven't tried the F9 in FM21, but in FM20 I found that while he was involved in build-up in great ways, he basically never scored. Not sure if you want him to, but if so I have had great luck with Laca as a complete forward (both support and attack). But, again, I played with Auba (or Nelson) on the left as either a Raum or IF(a) and Pepe or Saka on the right as an IW(s) [Pepe being my top player in terms of assists and second in goals behind Laca]
0 -
11 hours ago, Herolover said:
Simple question. Given a week how much match prep should you be training? It i the only thing that directly effects that match. Currently I try to do 2-3 sessions before every match. This means that in weeks where I have 2 matches I am only doing match prep.
What are the forums thoughts?
First - love to see another Sporting KC fan!
As for the actual question - I try to do at least 2 match prep sessions before every game. Always 'teamwork' and then either 'defensive positioning' or 'attacking movement', depending on the opposition. If I have more time, I'll do more (especially with more evenly matched or better teams) and sometimes include 'attacking corners'.
This does mean for me, too, that some weeks have basically nothing but match training. But, as I recall someone else mentioning when advocating this same sort of approach, that is often the complaint of real managers - not enough time for real training, only preparing for matches.
But I am interested in what sort of long-term effect this might have on player development
0 -
11 hours ago, NotSoSpecialOne said:
Tempo can manifest itself that way, but not necessarily. You're ultimately telling your players to spend less time on the ball before moving it on to another. If your players have poor decision making, anticipation and off the ball (as an example), then yes, playing at a higher tempo can result in more direct or longer passes. Same again if your formation, roles and duties are not set up in a way that properly takes advantage of it. What you're describing doesn't have to be true of tempo at all (although the higher you go, the harder it will be avoid these things) and is very possibly a knock on effect of your chosen mentality (mentality = risk taking. risk taking = opting for lower percentage passes more often).
Standard tempo is perfectly fine when playing tiki taka or possession system in general if you have the players of required quality to do it. If not, then yeah, a lower tempo will be preferred for keeping possession.
Fair enough, thanks for that. I didn't mean to imply there was a constant direct connection such that any changes in tempo necessarily affect passing, but rather there is a connection in general that can, at least sometimes, show up - particularly at extremes (much shorter/longer passing, much lower/higher tempo)
I do appreciate the link you drew between mentality and tempo and how that can explain the passing distance issue. I had typically been thinking of mentality as more immediately related to tempo (albeit in different ways in different parts of the field) rather than as about risk-taking with passes (even though I know mentality affects risk taking). Helps to see various ways to link these 3 things - mentality, tempo, passing range - to achieve various ends
0 -
17 minutes ago, frukox said:
I think the problem is you can't find the space your attackers need. Now they may be deep in the final third and the space could be at a premium because you are trying to play a slow possession football, which I call defensive possession football. So you need to create some question marks for the opposition defence to answer when you camp around their defensive third. When they defend in a high line, you could find the space behind more easily but you have to create your own pockets of space for your creators and attackers to operate well. So I would personally try to overload the flanks and create some depth for my team to find some space in front of their defensive line and get the second balls to recycle possession for another attack and keeping the pressure on them.
You are not too far off as you say. You plan to occupy CBs with your CFA and you also pin their right FB with RMD. So now you created some depth. Who is going to utilize this space? A CMA will try to get into penalty area and be a distraction for their DM or DMs. What about your right flank? Pairing an IWS with a FBA will create a nice overload there. Now your FBA and IWS has at least three targets in the area with two players waiting outside the penalty area for cut-backs and recycling possession. Those could be a RPMs(suitable for high-tempo tactics) and a CMD in CM strata to defend space a bit closer to the penalty area thus increasing our chances of getting the second balls. What about our left full back? It could be a WBS to help RMD on the left flank and be a passing outlet when the ball is at your right flank with a quick switch of play.
How about your instructions? I would remove overlap right(I proposed a FBA there-you would have a natural overload there), shorter passing and lower tempo. Then I would add pass into space, hit early crosses, higher tempo to create for our CFA and RMD quickly during the attacking phase. We need to use other tools such as out-of possession instructions. It defines our style of play. You didn't mention them. Anyway, I would opt for a medium-block for it to work. It would create some space behind their defensive line. So it would be ideal for my attackers. So I would use Higher DL(I need my full-backs up early in the transition to attack) Defend Narrower(to create a trap on the flanks) and Offside Trap(to compress space further-higher lines need intelligent and fast defenders) and OI their fullbacks(close down) and instruct our full-backs to close down more. If you believe your team is generally good at tackling, consider adding Get Stuck In(for quicker turnovers and transitions in the middle third). When it comes to your in-transition instructions, you didn't mention them, either. There I would add Distribute to Full-backs( the easiest way to reach your flanks quicker-remember we plan fast transitions)
So visually it would look like this:
CF(A)
RMD IW(S) (instruct him to stay wider)(play killer balls, switch to other flank)
CM(D) CM(A) (roam from position, trait: get into opposition area/gets forward whenever possible)
RPM(dictate tempo, play killer balls, switch ball to other flank,arrive late into box)
WB(S) CD(D) BPD(D) FB(A).
Here a well-rounded CMD is better for possession purposes. So playmaking traits would be golden.
Thanks for this. It seems to me at least some of what you are suggesting will just lead to a different play style entirely... hitting crosses early and higher tempo both seem to encourage a very quick attacking play. And your general suggestion of focusing play down the flanks also changes things up (although I am not necessarily opposed to that depending on what it looks like).
But is your idea that these sort of instructions (specifically things like early crosses) will allow for my team to sometimes decide to move up quickly to feed (for instance) the striker but that the instructions won't stop the team from also taking things more slowly and developing play in the final third?
I am also interested in your suggestion of the RPM in the DM slot. I like playing with an RPM, although I typically have done it in the CM slot with a DM behind (in the DM role). Any concerns about defensive solidity? I suppose the CMd helps...
I do have 2 players (Partey and Guendouzi) who could be pretty good in a DM RPM slot (at least on FM20 Guendouzi was a great RPM... he is still on loan in my FM21 save so haven't used him yet). That would allow me to move a player like Torreira or ElNeny up in the CMd.
One final question: Any particular reason you put the BPD on the right rather than the left? I only ask because I have been playing him on the left, as that is where my best BPD lines up.
So, I guess this is what I'll say: I'm interested in what this will look like, but skeptical it'll be a refinement of what I am doing rather than just a straight up different approach (which may be interesting in its own right)
And, more generally, thanks for the explanations... even if I don't use all the ideas, I can incorporate the reasoning a bit more
0 -
I'm not the best judge, since I am trying to get advice for my own 4-3-3 tactic with a similar approach, but just looking at the role/duty combinations and the mentality/TIs this looks like exactly the sort of thing you are trying to do. I would wonder, depending on who you are playing with and the league you are in, whether you may have issues scoring as a result of being too ponderous.
The only other thing I'll mention is the DM(d). Attacking/possession approach may encourage you to go with something like a DM(s) instead, so he has a higher overall mentality. I, myself, had been flipping back and forth as I found a DM(s) was more involved, but sometimes he was too advanced and I thought it was clogging up the middle and making it harder on us. However, he would occasionally rocket one in from like 30 yds out, so there was that. As a DM(d) he sat a bit deeper which opened up space a bit for the MCs to operate, but there would sometimes be too large of a gap between the DM and the MCs
0 -
27 minutes ago, Luizinho said:
Where have you read this?
Well, you can see it... set passing range to 'much shorter' and it'll change the tempo to something like 'slightly lower' without you touching it at all. But plenty of others say it on all sorts of tactical discussions.
The relationship between the two (along with how Work Ball into Box effectively says to slow the tempo in the final third) is what often leads to people sort of 'over-cooking' their tactics by dropping everything and turning on WBIB. So, often the advice is to pull back a bit
More generally, 'tempo' is just about how quickly your team looks to move the ball forward and attempt to get it in the goal... so a higher tempo means 'move it forward more quickly' which can often translate into 'pass it longer'
0 -
46 minutes ago, dw2193 said:
for a player like Jesus I would yes.
Can I ask why you say this? I don't care about Jesus in particular (although why you think it works for him may provide some general info) but I have found that the DLF is too static, particularly when we are defending deep. The only roles I have been able to use to get the ST to actually move across the field to receive an outball are the false nine and the complete forward. Obviously that is a different problem from not scoring, so perhaps the DLF is a better option up front (why would be my question) but something perhaps to consider
0 -
1 hour ago, vogado86 said:
Thanks for the help, i'm gonna make the suggest change on the right flank.
What to you think to remove the RPM and put the BBM?
I personally really like the RPM as a role (even though I am currently not using one). In your case, though, you have a DLP in the DM slot, so a second playmaker, especially so close to each other, could slow you down more than you like. Some people like the dynamic that happens in that situation, some don't. Certainly, a BBM would make it more likely most action came through your DLP than may be the case with the RPM.
However, an RPM is certainly going to be more involved with the build-up and passing than a BBM, overall. And so, if you are going tiki-taka, perhaps the RPM is better
0 -
12 hours ago, Vinay17 said:
I have recently have a good result with the combo Mez(A) + W(S), and realize that everything was because during the build up everybody play in their space, stay wider as a hard code PI for the W plays a crucial role here, as indeed the W dont make the same use of the half space, but assuming that you want to play an IW with a Mezzala I would recommend this:
- Having both on different duties, for example, Mez(A) + IW(S)
- Stay wider for your IW as a PI, because you mezzala will be already playing on the half space, and your IW will receive the ball wider, and then will drive into the half space... This combined with few traits can give you a deadly combo on the wing, for example, your Mez(A) has gets into oppositions area + IW(S) has hugs line, if the opposition is tight marking or pressing your IW your mezzala will constantly running into the gap that their fullback is leaving, leading to a 1vs1 situation with oppostion CB
Yeah, I really don't want to use a winger, but I did put the 'stay wide' PI on the IW(s) to try to maintain some space there. It also happens to fit with Pepe's PPM to 'run wide with the ball' (while putting him as an IW, along with his left footedness, encourages him to move inside to balance things out)
Haven't yet had an opportunity to test out these changes fully, but will report back when I do. Thanks for the help
One general question - what are peoples' thoughts on the Inverted Wingback role? In both FM20 and 21 I have really liked the sort of movement I get from my RB as an IWB(s) (with overlap right on) - dynamic in a way I couldn't get with a CWB (despite thinking that should do it) and him moving inside early in build-up really helps with ball retention and such. However, I wonder if he is just clogging things up in the end, especially as my players in that position (especially Bellerin) have the PPM to get further forward. He scores a few goals from late runs, which is great, but perhaps he is too advanced too often... and, of course, it means we have no width once the IW moves in
0 -
4 minutes ago, Karlo said:
With a few tweaks I think you can accomplish what you're after.
DMsu > HBde
CMat > MEZat
IFsu > IWsu
IWat > IFat
There you have a nicely balanced tactic that would fit the Man City squad perfectly.Just ran the tactic through RateMyTactic with these changes - no TIs and balanced mentality - and it received a '5-star rating'. Setting the CF to attack didn't alter that (I mention that because I found moving my CF to attack rather than support helped him be much more involved in goals).
However, setting the mentality to 'positive' OR setting the passing to 'shorter' started to break things down. Lower tempo, work ball into box, and play out of defense all were fine.
RateMyTactic is by no means the end-all-be-all, but it does support @Karlo's claim that the tactic is well balanced with the suggested changes
One issue I have is that when I've played a HB(d) in the past, he just seems woefully uninvolved in play... but haven't tried one on FM21 and many moons ago I did find the role valuable
1 -
8 minutes ago, dcu4life said:
It looks pretty good to me. Agree with the previous commenter's point about the right fullback. The other thing that sticks out to me is the lower tempo instruction. The tactic might work great as is, but tiki-taka is very high tempo with quick passes, so if you're looking to recreate a tiki-taka style realistically I think the appropriate instruction is higher tempo or much higher tempo.
Tempo affects passing range (and vice versa), so a higher tempo will lead to more long range passes, which is the opposite of tiki-taka. It is true that at least some of the passing is supposed to be quick, to suck in defenders before moving the ball on, but for the most part the team needs to be patient and so lower tempo is generally preferable for this style. If the aim is much more about pure possession, then lower mentality is better. And then you have the option, in game, to raise the tempo if your players aren't making progress
0 -
I'm trying to build a similar tactic (but not with City) and the best I've stumbled upon for the midfield pairing is an Advanced Playmaker and a Mezzala. I think of the AP as the "David Silva" #8 (more static, short passing interplay, etc.) and the Mez as the "de Bruyne" #8 (more dynamic, more running and moving into unusual spaces for a mid).
I initially had it as an AP(a) and Mez(s), as that would put both quite advanced. It worked quite well for a bit (including possession and goal domination against Chelsea and Liverpool in back to back games, with the actual Arsenal squad), but then became all possession no bite.
So now I have switched to the LCM being an AP(s) [and I have a raum in the AML slot, although not sure if that'll stay, but I hope the idea is the AP will leave space for the raum and feed him regularly] and the RCM to a Mez(a), pairing up with an IW(s) and my fullback (currently an IWB(s) but, again, not sure it'll stay)
I don't have enough information about the effectiveness of the change just yet, but wanted to mention the options. The other thing I'll mention is that I was playing on an attacking mentality, albeit with much shorter (sometimes just shorter) passing, and often had 60-70% possession. I think we ended up crowding the box too much, though
0 -
One potential problem I see is the WBs on the right. With the Winger on support ahead and the Mez(a), you may only need something like a FB(s) to provide support and then he'd provide better defensive cover. I normally think about a WBs behind either a Winger on attack (since he'll get to the byline) or behind someone cutting in (like the combo you have on the left)
0 -
18 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:
Okay, what would you say about one (pretty small) tweak - a simple swap of sides and duties of the mezzala and AP - MEZ on attack in MCR (behind the IW) and AP on support in MCL (behind the RMD)?
May look "trivial" at first glance, but could actually prove crucial.
Not optimal IMHO, but let's first sort out roles and duties.
Great, thanks. I had toyed with that a bit, but didn't give it much of an opportunity. I'll run it longer. My original thought is I wanted both CMs to get quite involved in the attack (so Mez on support had 'get further forward' and I had put it on the APa but then removed it) and so thought the APs would be too deep. But since I have been trying to move them both back a bit to increase space, this help.
One worry I have, though, is whether the Mez would collide with the IW... but I had that worry with the APa as well, whatever
0
Foward role in 433?
in Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion
Posted
Yeah, I think if you are going to go with the 2 attack duties on the flanks, then a False Nine is probably your best bet... those wingers need space to get into and no one else in your front 3 is going to help in the build-up.
But, if you switched one to support then a few options open up: