Jump to content

Experienced Defender

Members+
  • Posts

    8,479
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Experienced Defender

  1. Which means that you view roles in isolation (as opposed to being part of an interactive system). Any player can play at least 2 different roles, and most can play 3 or even more. Therefore, always look to pick one that fits into the rest of the setup well. However, I don't think that your selection of the PF on attack duty is a problem in and of itself in this particular setup. A bigger problem IMO is your insistence on the asymmetric formation without any good reason. But even if you are keen on using an asymmetric 4231, it would make a lot more sense if you swapped the sides of the striker and AMC. Like this: PFat IFsu AMsu IWat Because that would help avoid the needless congestion caused by players (roles) operating in and/or attacking same spaces and thus obstructing one another.
  2. Yes (among a couple other things): Because DLF is less mobile than F9, not hard-coded to dribble and tends to hold up the ball until deeper players arrive to support the play in the final third. More progressive styles (such as progressive possession football or fast attacking football or a more fluid counter-attacking style).
  3. Because DLF is less mobile than F9, not hard-coded to dribble and tends to hold up the ball until deeper players arrive to support the play in the final third.
  4. Ah, okay What's the logic behind that? Is that to support the attacking winger? (as opposed to cover for the winger and wing back, which was my thought process). CM defend as defensive cover for the attacking FB, and DLP support behind the attacking IW so as to encourage through balls when a good opportunity arises. Both CM defend and DLP are holding roles that can cover for more attack-minded teammates (fullbacks in this particular case). But given that CM on defend is more conservative (due to his duty) than DLP on support, I opted for the former to serve as defensive cover for the fullback on attack (because FB attack has a higher individual mentality than WB on support, even though WB on support is no less attack-minded from a purely role-related perspective).
  5. There is another problem in your case as well: you seem to expect that the quality of (your) players (like Kane, for example) will compensate for tactical deficiencies. It may be possible, but only to a limited degree.
  6. Apart from the fact that wing play as a tactical style is not optimally suited to a team like the Spurs, I don't think you'll see much luck with preset tactics in general, given the amount of tactical overkill they contain.
  7. If you aim for a slow and patient possession style, then DLF would be a better choice for the striker role than F9. I would have to see the tactic as a whole in order to be able to offer any meaningful thoughts. Although I don't see why would you want to replace your current formation (4123 wide) with the 4231 anyway. Not least because the 4123 is better suited to a slow possession style than 4231 (especially for a LL team). Where they will start pressing is defined by the line of engagement. Btw, if you switch to 4231, there won't be 3 but 4 attacking (i.e. advanced) players. Well, if you want a possession style, a higher D-line would be logical. Yes, good mental attributes (tactical intelligence) as well as the presence of a DM can compensate somewhat for the lack of pace. But I am again confused because you are mentioning a DM, which does not exist in the 4231 (unless you are talking about the deep 4231, with 2 DMs).
  8. Any formation can be viable as long as you set the roles and duties up in the right way, although some formations suit some types of teams better than others. For example, the 4231 is inherently more risky from a defensive perspective than 4123). The exact impact cannot be defined. Depends on how you want to play in terms of playing style.
  9. Sorry, but looking at your tactic, it does not look particularly positive. Unless you are referring to the "positive" team mentality? Which btw means little (if anything) without the context of the tactic as a whole (with the setup of roles and duties being the key element of it). I can list all obvious (as well as some less obvious) flaws of your tactic if you want me to.
  10. If you want to play him in an AM position, that means changing the whole formation (4231 instead of 4123, I guess?).
  11. Which "attacking winger"? The OP's tactic has 2 IWs, there is no winger.
  12. If you have problems with a downloaded tactic created by another person, then I would advise you to directly contact the creator of the tactic and ask him for help. Because those plug'n'play tactics are very specific and thus cannot be analyzed in the same way as normal tactics that we discuss here regularly. I hope you understand what I mean
  13. Check out the sports science attribute ratings of your sports scientists. That can also contribute to how often your players get injured. Although when it comes specifically to the recurring injuries, I am not sure if you can get rid of them anyway (because this kind of injuries are player-related).
  14. No need to answer because I saw in their player profiles that they are both right-footed. Which is great, because you can now simply just swap the sides of the related roles. Like this: F9 IFat Wsu DLPsu CMat DMde WBsu CDde CDde FBsu
  15. What is the preferred foot of your central midfielders (players playing in MCL and MCR positions)? You don't have to play both fullbacks on attack duties in order for the HB to make sense, but in attack-minded roles, which do not necessarily imply an attack duty. For example, WB on support (or automatic) duty is an attack-minded role even though it's duty is not attacking. So for example, you can play with one FB on attack duty and the other as WB on support. Or both as WBs on support. But whichever combination you opt for in the end, you always need to consider the setup as a whole and make sure that there is enough defensive cover/protection for more attack-minded roles. Of course, the quality and strength of your team is also an important factor to take into account when it comes to the degree of defensive risk you can afford to take. Stronger teams will normally be able to play with less defensive protection than weaker ones, which does not mean that they necessarily should. The point is to get as much reward with as little risk as possible.
  16. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to analyze all these player profiles at the moment, so I can only tell you what in my very personal opinion could be potentially problematic in your setup of roles and duties (since you failed to provide the rest of the tactic): - the left flank looks too risky defensively with both the FB and CM on attack duties, especially considering that you manage a LL team, so I would switch the FB to support (FBsu - CMat - Wsu) - on the right flank, FB on support may prove a bit too conservative to consistently offer attacking support to his inside-oriented wide partner (IF), so I would change him into WB on support (or automatic duty) - HB is a good choice for a DM role when you have attack-minded fullback or wing-back roles on both flanks. But given that you don't, I would suggest either the standard DM on defend duty or anchor man instead Can you post a screenshot with the whole tactic, so that we could see your team instructions (including the mentality) as well?
  17. Winger's crossing as well as going wide is the main reason why IF/IW is better suited to possession-minded styles compared to winger. Provided you insist on a die-hard possession approach.
  18. Only change the AMR from winger on attack into IF on attack. That's all. Watch matches to see when the WBiB could make sense and when not. Your tactic is not of the plug'n'play kind, so you have to make occasional small tweaks. Looks okay. I would only change the striker into PF on attack (for more direct penetration) Anyway, play and see what happens.
  19. Here are major issues I would like to stress: 1. Your setup of roles and duties does not ideally suit a short-passing style (especially when coupled with work ball into box), mainly due to the winger role in AMR 2. The aforementioned work ball into box TI can overcomplicate attacking play, so I would not insist on using that instruction (except on occasion, i.e. when it clearly makes sense based on your in-match observations) 3. You use aggressive pressing (more urgent) while having lower than optimal compactness
  20. The setup of roles and duties looks decent (generally speaking). However, if you want to play a short-passing style with good consistency, I personally would swap the duties of the striker and AML. Like this: DLFsu IFat That would also help prevent the AML and BBM from obstructing each other on occasion. In terms of defensive solidity, your central midfield could potentially prove problematic, because both CM roles are not just runners but also roaming roles. If you notice problems. you can change the BBM into carrilero or BWM on support duty. Given that you use both short passing and play out of defence, there is no need to instruct the keeper to distribute specifically to CBs and FBs. Instead, let him pick the best/safest option available. Not sure why have you opted for the "Slow pace down" transitional instruction? It is a defense-minded instruction that obviously does not go hand in hand with your overall tactical style. Instructions such as "Be more expressive", attacking width (either wide or narrow) etc. should basically be used situationally (as occasional in-match tweaks), rather than on a regular basis. Because effectiveness of these instructions tends to vary depending on the situation or opposition.
  21. It always depends on the rest of the tactic (i.e. the tactic as a whole).
  22. If so, then you need more support duties (to begin with). But before going deeper into analysis of your tactic, I have to ask: have you tested the tactic? And if you have, how is it working?
  23. He won't play the same way because duties affect more than just a player's individual mentality. A player with the attacking duty will play differently from a player with the defend (or support) duty even if their individual mentality is same. As for the rest of your questions, I think that you are needlessly overcomplicating things. If you are asking all this purely for experimental reasons, then the best answer you can get is by trying all those variations directly in the game and then comparing what you observe on the pitch. Because answers we can offer here will probably be based more on speculation than actual facts. P.S: Do not listen to the assistant's recommendations, because they are based on his tactical preferences and "knowledge", not yours. Instead, use common sense when making tactical decisions.
×
×
  • Create New...