jc577

This is actually a very interesting debate, and reminds me of a thread I saw on twitter comparing the differences between Sarri’s Napoli and Pep Man City. Sarri and Napoli are all about quick combinations in order to circulate the ball, which is facilitated by players being close together. Essentially the always attempt to play through the press. Pep’s City differ in build-up; Sane and Sterling in particular keep their width, whilst the rest of the team look to do the same. The reason behind this is to make the pitch as wide as possible, making it difficult for the opposition to press, which often is the case leading to rapid transitions once the press is broken. So in FM terms you could argue: Napoli - Fluid, City - Structured. Obviously this is very simiplistic, but what i’m getting at is you can create lovely passing football on any team shape.

Partially, but I think it's because he drives the team forward with the ball whereas the BBM is more of a runner without it.

Thanks the clears things up

I'm pretty sure i've read somewhere on the forum that to get the best out of wingers they need to be given the ball quickly so that they can cross before the defence gets settled, and shorter passing slows down tempo/decreases directness of attacks.

Is it contradictory to use shorter passing when playing with wingers (the actual role) ?

Conversely it does make sense when playing a flat 4 in midfield to have both CM's contributing to both attack and defence as long as they have the right attributes. Not using a defend duty in CM doesn't equate to your defence being exposed.

@PsylliumAkasha Congrats on your tactic; what im about to say isn't a dig at you, so please don't take it personally @Cleon @Rashidi @herne79 this tactic, and others that I see on the tactics download section of the forum, seem to contradict everything moderators advise when it comes to tactics. For example, all 4 advanced players have attack duties - this is far from balanced, especially when playing on an aggressive mentality such as control & and an aggressive formation in a 4-2-3-1. He's also got a playmaker combination in midfield, when the two in a 4-2-3-1 are meant to be relatively static and hold position. Couple this with the fact that two wingbacks are bombing forward at every opportunity, I fail to see how this tactic can be successful and this is based on analysis of roles and duties alone. Again @PsylliumAkasha this isn't a dig at you, you seem to have created a good tactic which gets results. I'm just trying to understand how things like this work - @Cleon @Rashidi @herne79 i'd like your input on this if possible

@FMWolf It can work as long as both DM's are on support duties so that they step up into midfield (the MC strata) when your team has possession.

Have you considered a 4-4-1-1 with the CM's in the DM slot instead?

I'm no Cleon but i'll add my two cents worth anyway; with a front two of an AP-S and a CF-S i'm not too surprised you're lacking numbers in the box. I could be but because your AP is so deep you're ST isn't getting into the box aggressively due to fear of isolation. The first change i'd make is to give the AP an attack duty and see if that has a knock-on effect on the ST. The second change would be to give the ST an attack duty also. I know it's common to have one support/attack duty in an AMC/ST partnership, but an AP on attack is a sort of hybrid between both as he doesn't have 'Get Further Forward' enabled, so the balance is still there.

I'm a United fan so it pains me to say this but.. really enjoying this thread, good read is your counter tactic the same as the one you posted earlier in the thread?

This is why I get frustrated. I know the reasoning behind both your suggestions, but my thinking is so one-dimensional sometimes. Thanks Rashidi, a lot to think about here. One thing i'll say is that i'm against using the PPM 'comes deep to get ball' in a forward player as I still want him available to attack space if/when the quick transition is on. I'll have a proper go again tonight and think about roles/duties and the players used in the roles.

The only way I can think of to increase support to attacking players is to raise my d-line to normal from slightly deeper so that we're a couple of yards higher up the pitch? I'm stumped.

So it's equally/more important to have fast players in midfield? Seen as my attackers are quick and known if my centre-mids are that pacey, would dropping them down the MR/L positions make sense?

I remember reading that bit about possession in your 'art of possession' thread funnily enough I agree if we're looking to transition the ball quickly there will be many turnovers, but I still think possession numbers below a certain percentage is too low. I realise that this is a high risk way of playing, as it's more dependent on the opposition that other styles of play, however i can't help but feel there must be something i'm doing wrong tactically which means our transitions our failing significantly more than succeeding.