[Ideas for my 4-4-2]

Overlapping an attacking winger makes no sense to me at all. He will dribble to the byline or arrive at the box to the end of crosses from the other side. How is a support full-back supposed to overlap?

Also, a CM(d) will not find much to do in a system like this. That's a great role for protection against counter-attacks in a 4231 for example, but you play a mid-block 442. Most likely, that player will just be a passenger. I would change that to DLP(d) if you want to stick to POD or BWM(d) if you don't.

[FB attack vs FB Support with overlap instruction]

Also, the FB isn't hardcoded to run wide, even on an attack duty (which is one the reasons I always use full-backs if I have players with good decision-making). The overlap, in most cases, will encourage that.

[Villarreal's 4-2-2-2 | Manuel Pellegrini's Philosophy]

Great write-up on a great team.

Since I've been experimenting with Simeone replications for years, I think I can offer a few thoughts. Simeone is very different stylistically than Pellegrini, but he too employs a shape which is a compact 442 without the ball, but more of a 4222 in possession, with wide players tucking in ahead of the holding midfielders, while witdh is provided by the full-backs. It is unfortunately very hard to replicate in the game. I've found that wide players never quite come inside and play like AMC's during the attacking transition like they often do in real life. One thing I've been trying out is have them play in the middle (like a box midfield) but ask them man-mark the opposite full-back, in order to achieve the two banks of four when defending. Alas, it hasn't been proven very effective, probably because of the deficiencies of man-marking in the game. 

Your shape on that second image looks quite nice, but I would think it is made rather late in the attacking phase. Those wide players are supposed to be more like playmaker-types and not inside forwards and they gotta come inside very early. Have you succeeded with that yet?

The closest I've got is with using a flat 442 with wide midfielders on attack (still defensively responsible) who are told to sit narrow, and playing opposite-footed players in those positions. Overlaps are optional and situational. The results of this can be quite nice: because of playing on the opposite flank, they cut inside naturally, cross less even without being told so and act like quasi-playmakers.

Will post some screenshots if time allows.

[Valeriy Lobanovskyi's Total Football]

@shaneomac Not yet on 21. But I've noticed some improvements on the match engine, espacially the enhanced central play, so I would guess a Lobanovsky system could now work even better.

If you play both strikers on attack in a 442, they WILL be high up the pitch. It will inevitably result in a more direct attack, which actually is how the tactic was designed. They also won't come back too far to defend, we'll have to live with that. They will press though which is absolutely necessary.

I do think you have too many instructions on. No need for much higher LOE, because you'll lose a lot of compactness out of the ball nad also no need for extremely urgent pressing because it will make even your defenders press like crazy. I wouldn't use CWB's on the overlap in a setup that has no DM, like, ever. Prevent short GK distribution kind of takes away from the very essence of the system which is to let them play out of defence but then hit them hard. You can use short passing but, again, this is a direct attack all the way, and as you can see above I prevent mindless hoofing with PI's for the defenders instead. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the WM's are the creative fulcrum of the tactic, and a limited role DW is not really suitable for that.

That's just a few of my suggestions and they are based on a LOT of testing, on FM20 at least. But, it's really up to you test your own system and tweak it gradually. By all means, any tactic inspired by the great Lobanovsky is always a welcome addition to this thread.

[How to Effectively Adjust to the Opposition]

My approach is I like to have a plan for all four phases of the game. Those are: attacking organization, defensive organization, attacking transitions and defensive transitions.

The latter two are more simple, but equally important. More simple because there are far less variables and also generally less need to adjust. Important because transitional play often swings a game's outcome. Defensive transitions is basically where you decide what you want to do when you lose the ball. Do you prioritize winning it back instantly or quickly transitioning back to solid defensive shape where you can force opposition mistakes. Both these approaches have about the same number or positives and negatives. It's up to your personal style and the players at your disposal. Which is why it's counter-productive to constantly alter this setting. If I personally want my team to regroup, then counter-press  is something I very rarely use and only situationally, for example when an opponent doesn't even want to counter-attack, it's only interested in keeping the ball at the back. There's obviously no point in regrouping if the other team gives you all the time in the world to go back to your defensive shape.

Attacking transitions  - similarly - are a principal decision first and foremost. I play a 442, with a TM-P combo up front, with attacking wide midfielders. What do you think I want to do, hold shape? A possession system with three playmakers and a lone striker who's dropping deep? You get the idea. Again, I rarely make changes to my attacking transitions. For example, counters are useless when the opponent won't come out and instead keep 10 men on their half. Then you're better off keeping the ball and build more methodically.

With the remaining two phases, you're determining how your opponent wants to attack you and how you want to attack them. The opposition scout report generally gives us all the answers we need. The way I do this is to avoid overthinking it and instead identify two or three focal points for each phase and adjust my tactic accordingly, obviously within the confines of my base tactic and preferred playing style. Since there are way too many possibilities this time, allow me to illustrate my method via two successive games I played on my new Osasuna save.

We lost the first game of the season 2-0 at Atletico. They're vastly superior, so all I looked for is to restrict them the best we can, which we more or less did. Then the real work began. Next up was a home game against Betis. The scout report told me they played a possession-oriented 4231 with a DLF as the lone striker and a DLP-MEZ combo at CM. In their backline, there was a very slow CD and an IWB for good measure. For our defensive organization, even though my defenders  are not very good and not very fast, I knew we could still afford a high line and an offside trap. Why? The DLF will drop and they want to keep the ball with a million short passes, so balls behind my d-line is not a real threat. A more aggressive line will disrupt their attacking intentions, which is to tiki-taka their way to my goal. Going low and letting them pass around is a surefire disaster. I also made sure to defend narrow and close down their right full-back who's a WB and their LW who's a Winger. Possession sides want to come at you through the middle - take away their width and they're stuck. 

For our attacking organization, I put the focus through the middle, played narrow, put opposite footed players as my WM(a)'s and told them to sit narrow. I played my Poacher on the side of their slow center-back. We went up 4-0 in the first half, and absolutely destroyed them with long balls toward him. Why? They lacked protection through the middle, because the MEZ and the IWB will be out of position and busy running back. Opposite footed WM's have been my favourite plaything since FM20, they play like some box-to-box - inverted winger hybrid. The kept cutting inside and launch bombs into the TM and the P.

In the second half, Betis suddenly started to look more dangerous and the even scored a goal. I went to their formation and noticed that they switched their W and IW to IF and Raumdeuter. I immediately lowered the d-line to standard and ditched the offside trap, which took away from their threat considerably. The match ended 4-1 Osasuna.

Next, we traveled to Valladolid. Again, a 4231, but this time around a Route one style with an AF up front. Which meant standard lines and no offside trap for us. I also noticed that most of their key passes came from their right side where they played a WB-W combo. No chance I defend narrow this game and I also made sure to close down and hard tackle both of them. On the other flank, an IW with low bravery, so I hard tackle him too. Route one teams like to defend low and narrow, so what do I do next? Change back the WM's to their original flank, tell them to stay wide, set focus play to the flanks and go wide.

We concede in the fourth minute. I resist the urge to change my approach and keep watching the game. We contain their right flank all-right, but in possession we still don't stretch them the way I planned. So I add overlaps to both flanks. We scored three goals in the rest of the half.

The second half, they went more attacking, so I removed the overlaps, set my tempo to normal and we killed off the game, even scoring another goal from a corner. 4-1 Osasuna.

This is admittedly a small smaple size and it's impossible to win every game, no matter how thorougly you plan. But this is how I like to play and I believe that with just 2-3 adjustments for both our defensive and attacking organization, we can come up with a successful gameplan for each week. 

[Ancelotti's Xmas Tree - Is it possible?]

I remember that Milan team. Seedorf dropped to link play and Kaka attacked the box (while Inzaghi basically set camp there and barely moved). So I would go SS for Kaka, AM(su) for Seedorf (with move into channels and roam from position ticked).

If you want to go with Mezzala for the Ambrosini role, that will have to be the hardest working mezzala in the world. That guy was one of the most boringly useful players I have ever seen.

looking forward to see what you end up with.

[FM21 - Low Block possible?]

On 29/11/2020 at 16:44, witticism said:

I thought that's what the other poster meant but ultimately it's easier to explain with a gif of that specific UI in action.

Exactly what I meant, thanks for the gif. It does explain it better.

 

On 28/11/2020 at 22:04, Experienced Defender said:

Okay, let's say that you are right. But at the end of the day, how we will call this or that type of defensive block is essentially irrelevant. Because the only thing that really matters is which combo optimally suits your players. Everything else is purely theoretic IMHO. 

Keep also in mind that I intentionally looked to simplify my explanation as much as possible so that it would be easier for less experienced players to understand some basic principles. 

I asked only to make sure what exactly constitutes a low-block in the game. There are a number of active posts about setting up such a system and I'm not certain it's exclusively about how one sets the LOE.

[FM21 - Low Block possible?]

On 20/11/2020 at 23:38, Experienced Defender said:

Any block is defined primarily by the Line of engagement, not by Defensive line. So a low block logically utilizes a lower or much lower LOE.

Are you positive that's the case in the game though? Because whenever you raise your defensive line, the LOE automatically goes higher, too. For instance, a higher d-line with a lower LOE is essentially mid-block when one observes the plaqyers on that image the slider gives you. Like this:

 

 

This means I have five players who will engage in the middle of the pitch. The DM will stay just in front of the defenders. That, in my book, is a mid-block. The eye-test seems to confirm this: using a 433 with those settings results in my players starting their press once the opponent is on our half.

Moreover, I would think that a low-block, by definition, warrants a deep d-line. Defenders staying 30 meters from their goal is no low-block, at least in the classic sense of the word.

[FM21 - Low Block possible?]

16 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Not sure that Simeone uses less urgent pressing (in FM terminology). While he does play with a low block (most of the time), the manner of defending within that low block is relatively aggressive.

Well, yeah, he changes his strategies a lot. I've seen most of Atletico's games this season and I have seen most everything in terms of pressing. The Salzburg game in the CL, for instance, they definitely went with "less urgent" most times.

[FM21 - Low Block possible?]

1 hour ago, kidd_05_u2 said:

In FM it doesn't make sense to go less pressing too often because the ME doesn't punish teams that press a lot as much as it should. But like I said, in certain formations or for weak teams that absolutely need to maintain a solid defensive shape, it can work. You won't see it in the forum because people mostly post tactics that seek to dominate, but I have certainly used tactics that relied on less urgent pressing and had relative success. Usually while managing teams that were relegation candidates, but not exclusively.

In FM21 I'm managing Arsenal and beat Liverpool 1-0 while playing a 5-2-3 with less urgent pressing. Liverpool had more than 20 shots, but mostly from outside the penalty box because they struggled to break through my defense. xG was narrowly in their favor even though I had much fewer shots while playing on the counter. 

It is good to know it can work sometimes. Judging from you careful wording, however, those cases are few and far inbetween. Whereas in real life, even the biggest clubs use it, if not for whole games like Simeone, then for sections of matches at least. Even Liverpool aren't that gung-ho with their pressing like they used to be.

[FM21 - Low Block possible?]

6 hours ago, kidd_05_u2 said:

I believe it makes sense when you are playing certain formations that can be left vulnerable when a defender presses at the wrong time. For example, a flat 4-4-2 can be easily destroyed if your central midfielders break shape and your wide midfielders are not narrow to provide support. I've tried flat 4-4-2 with less pressing and did well. You give the opposition opportunity to get forward so you can get them on the counter, while also maintaining a good shape that is not easy to break. It is not like the players will be completely passive when defending with less pressing.

I think I haven't ever seen a tactic that used less urgent pressing, not to mention much less urgent. Ever. I would guess it's for set-ups that are already top-heavy, with high lines and attacking mentality and some aggressive roles. Then again, experience tells me that more urgent actually works better in those cases too.

[FM21 - Low Block possible?]

15 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Since you can do less pressing individually, the team instruction also needs that option in the slider. There will be times when you can play with less pressing, you may not want your strikers working their socks off with the rest of the team, remaining relatively free for the counter. In that case you may want to remove pressing from them only.  

I meant generally, as a TI.

[FM21 - Low Block possible?]

18 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Generally when you play with a low block, you need to be aggressive within that assigned block

In your opinion, are there any cases when less urgent or much less urgent pressing makes sense? I mean there must be a reason that slider goes both ways.

[Valeriy Lobanovskyi's Total Football]

On 13/08/2020 at 08:30, thewire147 said:

Really enjoying this.

 

On 12/11/2020 at 22:34, howhigh1337 said:

great read, Lobanovskyi was really ahead of his time

Thanks guys. This was the only save I was able to get into on FM20. I haven't tried 21 yet, but some of the feedback seem to suggest that it's a major improvement from the previous installment (a very low bar to clear, but still). I can't wait to implement these principles in the new game.

[FM20 Experiment - Goalkeeper as striker in Liverpool (Inspired by Phil Jones ✕ Paris Saint-Germain)]

12 hours ago, 99 said:

I really can't understand that argument. That means that I can't ever share my achievements unless I play some park-the-bus tactic that I hate to watch IRL? Cause if I play some tiki-taka, or some gegenpress, or basically any tactic with the most common of purposes in football (to attack!) it's like I'm cheating?

It means that gegenpressing works unproportionally better than counter-attacking styles, and that's irrespective of the club, the players, their attributes or the opponent. It also means that, all other things being equal, there is too huge a gap between the results these styles can provide, especially if counter-attacking does suit the club stature and the players better. Considering how overpowered certain settings (maxed out lines and pressing, attacking mentality, a bunch of attack duties) currently are, I do regard these styles borderline cheating, yes. No team in the world is playing like that for every minute of every game, not even Klopp anymore, not the Red Bull teams. Basically, it's chasing a goal in the last 10 minutes, except all the time.

It's just one man's opinion, of course, but the results the OP's getting because of these settings shouldn't happen in a football simulation game with a 25-year history.

[FM20 Experiment - Goalkeeper as striker in Liverpool (Inspired by Phil Jones ✕ Paris Saint-Germain)]

I think it's the gegenpress, once again. Try that with some cautious low-block with counter-attacking, and I bet those GK's will perform like they should, i.e. crap. The only caveat is that you'll lose most of your games instead of winning them - which also shouldn't be happening with the players Liverpool have.

[Gian Piero Gasperini at Atalanta Case Study]

Some of Atalanta's movement against Ajax were simply mesmerising. Your diamonds on the images look really great and I don't think it's possible to get any closer to how they play in real life. Sometime, hopefully in the not too distant future, the game will be able to replicate that level of fluidity, which, by the way, I think clearly is the next big thing in football strategy.

EDIT:

I know you have been trying out just about every possible role combination and I've only been experimenting with Atalanta since watching the game yesterday, but I think the enganche role is perfect for Gomez. It's the one role with the least possible vertical movement of all the AMC roles and the few games I've played with my ideas, I've seen that it moves around horizontally, helping out whichever of the wide diamonds needs it. It's actually awesome when it works.

[A guide to direct long ball, antifootball play - A Dyche's Burnley inspired 4-4-2]

8 hours ago, Tsuru said:

I agree with you, but as engamohd said, I don´t want to play counter attacking - I want to be a direct and fast attacking team. That is, move the ball foward and quickly, using the speed to open spaces and the Targetman´s capacity to score. But maybe this would require roles and duties focused on quick movement and roaming, let´s say, like Box to Box Midfielder, Roaming Playmaker, Ball Winning Midfielder, Regista, Trequartista, wingers that move inside, Shadow Striker and so on. Because it would be necessary not just to move the ball quickly, but the team should also do it to make it harder for the opponents. Otherwise I could fall on the "counter trap", setting direct instructions that would make my team just lump the ball foward instead of moving it on an intelligent way.

But if you want direct football without the hoofing AND not be a purely counter-attacking team, you have to raise your lines. Think about it: it all comes down to where you want to win the ball. If you win it in the opponent's half, then you can be direct without long balls from defence to attack (think Liverpool, Bayern).

Furthermore, in my experience with FM20, more direct passing is actually counter-productive when you want to achieve that style you want (FM21 can't come soon enough). See, this TI is always relative to your general settings, that is, your roles and duties, and, to a slightly lesser extent, team mentality. Which is why it works better if you're a possession-oriented team and want to give your attacks some much needed edge and stretch the opposition defence. More direct passing added to a setup already designed for direct attacks will result in wayward passes and lost possession. 

So, I think you have to choose the appropriate roles and duties first and foremost, because that will generally dictate your attacking style. Basically, you want to accomodate your target man, which can be done in various ways. In any case, you'll need at least three players who can play off him which gives you variety and potency to your attacks. Then, you can select mentality, depending on the level of risk-taking most suited for the coming game. Lastly, LASTLY, tinker with TI's when necessary.

[Is "Lower Defensive Line" a "Lose Now!" button?]

21 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Exploit p'n'p tactics - and I am mentioning them because they match your description  - have always been successful in any iteration of the game, simply because the ME can never be perfect, no matter how good it otherwise is. But there are also numerous examples of people who are successful with normal and sensible tactics that absolutely make sense from the RL football perspective. So it's just a matter of one' personal choice and preference. 

After all, if you are sure that the attacking mentality coupled with maximum pressing and lines of defense and engagement is a simple recipe for success in FM, why are then people whose tactics contain all these elements regularly asking for help and advice here in the tactical forum? 

Most of the times because they don’t get enough possession for their liking, I would say.. 

[Is "Lower Defensive Line" a "Lose Now!" button?]

17 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Well, I love FM so much precisely because it's not "easy" in the way you would like it to be. FM allows people to both learn a lot about real-life football tactics (as well as other elements of the game) and test their tactical knowledge. Provided one is patient enough and willing to learn. 

Therefore, I don't want FM to ever change in this respect. There are already enough mickey-mouse wannabe "football simulations" that are easy, so FM should always remain exactly what it is (as far as I am concerned). 

It is the best football management simulation available, but FM20 is nothing like real-life football. If anything, it is way too easy: you just have to go on an attacking mentality and max out your lines and pressing. People are winning multiple CL titles without ever learning anything about football tactics. Otherwise, what works and what doesn't is completely, utterly random.

Judging from the generally high quality of this series though, here's hoping that this edition was just an aberration.

[Semi Pro Training]

I only do match preparation and set the individual roles training. Having elaborate training regimes at the semi-pro level is borderline useless in my opinion.

[Is "Lower Defensive Line" a "Lose Now!" button?]

In real life, most football managers do not play every game the same way. They adapt their tactics and approach on a week-to-week basis and often in-game as well. Most of us who play FM, we ecpect our tactics to work the same every game and just go with it until it stops working. It is not realistic. Apart from those crazy exploit tactics which work regardless of the opponent, tactics should be tweaked depending on what you're facing in the next game. (Well ,excpet if you're the best team in the world and everybody plays defensive against you, even in the CL). I realize it is a lot of work to put into a computer game and I too am guilty of using exactly the same thing when I don't have the time or energy to tweak constantly.

Sometimes a low block is the way to go. Sometimes you gotta defend high. Other times you play exclusively on the counter. There are a thousand variations of every tactical set-up, and this is where individual instructions and OI's come in.

The biggest problem with this game, in my opinion, that some things just work better than others, and that's irrespective of your players or the opponent you're facing.

You've gotten a bunch of advice above about how big roles and duties are when setting up a low block. I would add team formation to that as well. A low block in an already bottom heavy formation most likely won't work in this game. 

Please note that in real life football, a low defensive line is a must when a team wants to apply a low block. Think about it: a low block means that your won't engage the opponent until it gets to your half. Anything but a low d-line will compromise the block because a high line will naturally push the midfielders higher up to avoid all your team being in the same place. Even the game reflects that in theory: observe the d-line-LOE slider which divides the pitch to three parts - opponent area, middle, your area. To set up a low block, your aim is to have the midfielders in that bottom area, which represents your half of the pitch. Otherwise it is a mid-block by definition. The only way to have your midfielders below that line is to go with a lower defensive line. Now, much better players than me seem to suggest above that a low-block is set up exclusively by the LOE slider. And, I believe therein lies the problem. The game considers  something that otherwise should be a middle block, a low-block. The threshold is differentthan in real football. So, what we who watch a lot of football would generally consider a safe and sound low-block, is the most extreme park the bus set-up ingame.

So, yes, a low d-line coupled with a bottom-heavy or even balanced formation is basically a lose now button in this game. Add a passive defensive style too and there's no point in actually playing the game anymore. That's plainly wrong, though, if you ask me. There is a reason that putting 9 or 10 men behind the ball, populating their area in great numbers, playing relatively risk-free football has been one of the most popular MO's of smaller teams for like 60 years. And the greatest irony of them all is that AI itself uses set-ups like this all the freaking time. To be fair, it doesn't work for it either, most of the times, except for when it comes to possession numbers maybe.

[So, is Koeman's Barcelona just impossible to recreate in FM?]

8 minutes ago, bielsadidnothingwrong said:

As modern football continues on, we’re seeing more and more fluid systems with players taking up roles across the pitch. I can only assume FM’s engineers know this and are working on a new tactic creation tool that will better reflect the way the modern game is played. 

Hope you're right, but two of the more important new features would be 1) different formations shapes and roles for in possession and out of possession phases. while we're at it, add the transitional phases as well.. and 2) if-then scenarios e.g. if de Jong drops back then Alba bombs forward or if the de Jong doesn't drop then Alba stays with d-line or if the left back pushes up then the right back tucks in as a central defender.

Also, we would need different pressing systems, pressing triggers, and so on.

I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[So, is Koeman's Barcelona just impossible to recreate in FM?]

4 hours ago, 04texag said:

I think this is all doable just manual as the coach in the game. I would create two variations of the exact same tactic, with slot one tactic having one side push up with slot two alternating to the other side.

But then you would have to create a third one for the times you don't have the ball. Because the same guy who pushes up in possession stays deeper to cover when defending. It is an entirely different formation on defence.

[So, is Koeman's Barcelona just impossible to recreate in FM?]

It was an impressive display yesterday and it got me thinking: are completely fluid systems like that doable in the game?

Out of possession, they were in a 4141, with Griezmann on the right, Messi up front, Busquets pushing up to press with Coutinho beside him, and de Jong staying deep to cover. So far, so good.

But in possession, they played a 4231, with the front four, bar Fathi, roaming all over the place, all of them creating and attacking the box in equal measures. Griezmann often played centrally, with Messi on the right. Then they switched. Coutinho came deeper or attacked the left half-space. 

De jong and Busquets alternated who's making a forward run and who's staying back. De Jong even joined the defensive line during build up play at times.

Without the ability to choose formations and roles separately in and out of possession (fingers crossed for FM21), is this thing doable? I mean I don't think playing three Trequartistas is a particularly good idea, especially from a  defensive standpoint, but that's what Barcelona were kind of doing in possession. Then the double pivot's movement is another one that seems impossible. De Jong alternated between a regista and a half-back. Busquets usually stayed back, but then he was in the opponent's box for the own goal. Sergi Roberto was a right winger at times and an IWB at others.

Any ideas?