Robson 07

quite right.

I think the OP raises a good question. We'd perhaps all learn a lot more by analysing things like presets than changing each other's lineups so that an inverted WB always lines up behind a MEZ.

A weakness of any team with three central defenders is likely to be speed. They will be happy with the ball in front of them, slow-play and dealing with crosses. Instead try to feature an attack that spaces them out (width), is up tempo and runs at the defence.

Essentially I think that is correct. Put another way - the more you dominate an opponent the more you should back off with roles and duties to create space for yourself otherwise play will over congest. Like wise if the your opponent does come on to you then you should get space in behind to attack. Good objective but harder to respond to. Limiting the opposition to inferior space depends on what you see that space to be. Assuming by example you mean the middle that could mean a defence that is not beaten by a simple ball over the top or could mean you spatially controlling the middle better with a formation that is midfield heavy and does not deviate from position offensively or defensively. Patient attacks and counter attacks may also illicit two different responses on the forum. Some see possession as a positive mentality controlled by TI's whereas other view it as a naturally less risky mentality e.g. cautious. Conversely some people view counterattacking as an attack mentality with a low line defence, other as a cautious mentality with aggressive TI's. So more than one type of answer available to each scenario. Thus a tricky question which you'll do well to see answered definitively on these boards.

Unload the high-middle of the field. Defensively and offensively you are pushing the opposition back deep into the middle. You are compacting their defence for them. Play with width as it will create better spacing and look to have people cut into the box from outside or make a central run arriving later into the box, this is harder for defences to pick up than say static striker. If you insist yo want to play attacking with a static striker may sure he's good aerially and play to that. As indicated it will be hard to pass & move your way in with such overcrowding the way you've set it.

Yes @godzilu I'd give your last post 2 upvotes if I could. Nice and simple thread, easy to follow, good points well made. Tick.

Not sure the question was a general one but many ways to play this game. Putting things in a nice neat pigeon hole is something we all like to do but many ways to achieve various things, By way of example, @herne79 did a thread called Attacking + Possession which aimed to throw that particular mentality and style together, perhaps quite different to your point. You both could be right by design.

@Rashidi you may have inadvertently agreed with Enzo's post which mentioned 'individual' (not team) mentality. I might be wrong but I don't think roles with a support duty reach attacking or very attacking individual mentality levels.

@DiStru_ take care that you are not making adjustments away from what you're looking to achieve. Changed Defensive to Counter because we simply weren't creating anything and I saw a few needless clearances that made me think the risk taking was too low Ok Changed right WBs to CWBs in an attempt to create more chances Complete wingbacks 'roam from position'. This might be useful at the other end of the scale but not a defensive approach. Changed DMd to DMs to encourage more risk taking (should still be fairly conservative on Counter team mentality) The support version comes without hard coded PI's. You might want this player to 'hold position'. Support has also changed this players mentality and possibly his and even the team's creative freedom. Is that your intention? Changed PFs to DLFa to encourage more forward runs, while he should still be involved in some build-up play (Hold Up Ball PI locked in) Similar to the DM, from a support duty to attack one has changed this players mentality and possibly his and even the team's creative freedom. Is that your intention? Added Be More Expressive because we were struggling to find passing options under pressure (hopefully players will be roaming around more/making themselves available for the ball) Expression is another name for creative freedom. It is unlikely you want too much of this in a Defensive system. Added Much Higher Defensive Line + Higher LoE after West Brom, where we scored two goals shortly after I made that change (still shouldn't be extremely high due to Counter team mentality and we have 2 covering CBs) The defensive line does links heavily with whatever mentality you have chosen. Defender attributes, specifically pace and positioning, will allow for some level of line adjustment but a much higher line is starting to unlink it from the mentality. You might be allowing the opposition room to counter attack you now. Do your players have the ability to read and cover that? One more thing. I notice you are distributing to CBs. I think I understand why but if they get caught in possession, then bang, problems.

That sounds correct. More means the players move further away from position to press. The press should look more sustained and aggressive. Conversely with less intensity players more inclined to stay zonally positioned and only engage in pressing an opposition player when in closer proximity. I would describe that as the immediacy after losing possession. Maybe this is only a thin line if you have a much higher line of engagement i.e. more obvious to see its affect with a lower LOE. Like others I guess I haven't specifically looked at this, I'm not a tester, but the above is just my logic on how it may work.

@mc22 its hard to comment on a tactic like that from a previous version. I did open the link and immediately noted he was using 5 attack roles which, I dunno, maybe he was able to mitigate that somehow with how team shape used to work or something. Personally if I'm playing on 'Defend' I would not have my fullbacks attacking like that as they'll end up making too many forward runs, leaving vulnerabilities in behind and they'll get tired quickly with the runs + tracking back into position. I've been following this thread fairly well these past couple of days and I know there is some very good "do's" and "don'ts" already contained in here. Try making a sort common sense version, fairly conservative roles, some people holding position, no more than a couple of attack duties, a little bit of slower play / ball retention & good set pieces. See how that goes?

That just looks like an ineffective long ball system to me. Defenders will punt to safety or vaguely towards a targetman who is not adequately supported. The gap from central midfield to striker is alarming as it looks like you are trying to play with six central defenders. The forwards will help little defensively and your wide midfielders are hardly going to protect you. So six defenders just kicking it long and holding out for 90 mins? You can't just sit back like that, you'll be swamped, fatigued, drawn out of position and overran in no time. Maybe people get hung up on that Inter Milan performance a few years ago under Jose against Barcelona. Personally I don't see that as a blueprint to follow, at all. You don't have to dominate possession by any means but why would you just kick and hope?

I think attacking styles are more common, thus more successful. Also reckon defensive (mentality) tactics are tough to set up. You can try your theory @mc22 but I don't think one setup, without tweaks, simply works across different mentalities and that by adjusting the DL + LOE to somehow compensate will work. Give it a try though by all means but I don't know how to direct you down that road. I think if you want to play attacking that's one tactic. To play a defensive way is another approach.

No. The game doesn't work in a way that one lineup of roles and duties can work for one style and also flex across different team mentalities and shifting out-of-possession lines. Sorry, I'd like to dress that up better but basically that won't work. Sorry.