Is there a massive flaw in my 4-3-3 or am I expecting too much?

[Kain]

Just wrote a ridiculously massive post and lost it all trying to post

In previous versions of FM, I always downloaded a couple of tactics from here and then tweaked them as necessary for my own team. With the tactical options being much clearer/simpler this year, I've decided to try making my own from scratch for the first time.

Regarding the title, I'm suspecting the latter. I'm predicted to finish 9th out of 10, I have by far the lowest salary per annum (aside from the Police side who loan all of their players, so they don't count), yet I'm currently sitting 2nd in the league. I have the third most goals scored and second least conceded in the division, as well as joint fewest defeats.

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/721997070316488793/92CB07B4D8D10225EA36A5A6217F1799C8D5B071/

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/721997070316688502/117D11A8F570313CD5BD9F67978D7991AD5A5E38/

We concede very few goals from set pieces, and so far have only 3 mistakes leading to goals, which makes me think there's something I could do to make my defence much tighter than it currently is.

http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/721997070316869393/D239EF6E37D5C57FFED1796045F1CDA30C18DEE3/

http://cloud-3.steampowered.com/ugc/721997070316943747/05C215C51AA56E36045F3D5E96C790CD1CF8240E/

Here's how my team is currently set up:

http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/721997070317288603/25F920450FD9B275089338BB679638FECEDB81C0/

I play with two attacking wingers and a trequartista spearheading the attack. I know many people use inside forwards with this formation, but due to budget restraints and foreign player rules, the only left sided wingers I have are left-footed or left-footed only and same on the right. As my main striker is relatively good in the air, I thought it best to have them as wingers instead.

My midfield three comprises of an advanced playmaker (attack), ball-winning midfielder (support) and an anchorman(defend). The idea is that for any long balls coming from the defence or keeper, they're always aimed at the striker who can head down to either winger or the advanced playmaker. The AP also offers options to the wingers if they're unable to get their cross in, or to follow up on any loose balls coming the opposition's defence. So far this season, he's contributed 6 goals and 6 assists in 18 games, which isn't such a bad return.

The ball-winning midfielder is a weak link in the side, with my only two choices having a bravery rating of 1 and 3 respectively. They've made an average of 1.93/2.94 tackles per game in that role which seems a bit on the low side, so I've identified this position as an area that could be improved. However, I'm not sure how to improve it. I don't need another playmaker in the side, and fear a box-to-box midfielder would upset the balance of the midfield too.

The anchorman and central defenders are the solid base of the team, with enough aerial prowess and tackling ability to cut out a lot of attacks. My two first choice central defenders, the third choice option and my anchorman all feature in the top 30 interceptions in the league, with the two defenders occupying 2nd and 3rd. My defenders both feature in the top 10 for key headers in the division too, with my star defender having made over 30 more than the player in second place.

My fullbacks/wingbacks are the main difference between my home and away tactics, and I think these are the other positions I need to improve somehow. At home, both are attacking wingbacks and offer support to the wingers. Away, they're both fullbacks with the support duty, with the idea that most of our attacks come from quick counters so it's rarely necessary for them to get too far forward.

Despite the attacking roles, my left side have contributed only 5 assists so far this season, and the right side have 0. The right side is significantly weaker in quality, but again, budget issues mean there isn't much I can do about that. As my right side has 6 for crossing at best, I've considered just having them on support instead of attck, but fear that my right winger wouldn't get any support when attacking.

It's also telling that far more goals have been conceded through the opposition attacking my right side than the left or centre, so it might be worth doing that anyway?

The less said about my keepers, the better. While my first XI are rated at 3.5 stars or higher, my first choice keeper is only 2. His general keeping attributes aren't too bad, but his composure, decisions and positioning are only 5! My backup is slightly higher, but his keeper attributes are much lower and he has only 6 for handling. Again, due to the budget issues and the fact that the league doesn't allow any non-Korean goalkeepers, it's quite hard to improve that without a great newgen keeper, which is unlikely to happen due to the team having no money to invest in youth. I want my tactic to generally be geared towards giving him as little to do as possible. Given that in my last 10 games, he's only made more than 3 saves once, I think it's a good policy.

So, can you offer any advice as to what to do with my ball-winning midfielder and fullbacks? Will making the rightback less attacking than the leftback result in my team becoming lop-sided when going forward, or would that be best considering he doesn't seem to contribute a whole lot anyway? And what would you suggest for improving home/away? As it stands, I have the best home record (on goal difference) but only 4th best away, with a worse goal difference than the other three by 7 goals (13 played).

[bababooey]

Okay so...

lots of attack duties! Let's get rid of some of them.. Try one support one attack out wide (CWB-A) + (W-S) / (WB-S) + (W-A) that would be a huge help.

Next on the list, you've only got one creator in midfield, (i've used that EXACT grouping) so your play really needs to be focused down the flanks. I would say that if your team is strongest down the flanks, then this can work, but perhaps try a DLP-S in central midfield instead of the ball winner?

The T you have as your lone striker is going to be doing a lot of roaming about, offering up nothing defensively, and he will drop deep into some space. I would say this is not what you want in a rigid attacking set up (with strong emphasis down the flanks). You'd be much better off with either an AF, DLF-S, or CF-S. Or even a TM-S.

This is only an analysis of your 4-3-3 but it should be a good start.

[Telemachos]

Why don't you just train-up your wingers to new positions (so play your AMR in AML) as Inside Forwards? The whole basis for the inside forwards is that they cut inside and push into the box. It might take 3-4 games for them to get a grasp of the position, but you won't be leaving your STC stranded.

I would just make your BWM: S into a BxB or a CM: S, (you could even try it as an APM: S but I would still avoid it since it probably roams too much anyway). I would try a CM: S and see how that works for you. If you want them to play more of the field, then go with Box-to-Box.

Your FB are really going to be dependent on your wings to determine their roles. My first inclination is to take them out of attack duties and put them more into supports, especially since you don't have IF up front. CWB/WB work well with the IF and the overlap, which adds the width.

Hope this helps.

[thizaum]

What's the problem with having a T on a Rigid system?

I'm using this formation, also rigid, but with a Poacher up front. So far, so good. But sometimes, if I have to swap him, I try using a TM or a AF, maybe a CF.

I've never though about a T on this formation, maybe a F9 if I had him. But I found it interesting.... As you don't have anybody at AM.

[Steve Odom]

What's the problem with having a T on a Rigid system?

None whatsoever, imo.

[Auqakuh]

Don't see any need to reduce attack duties, at least not higher up the pitch. I play with two attacking wide players regularly plus one single attacking striker and it makes no difference as compared to having say, one winger on support and one inside forward on attack - the effectiveness more depends on the player in the role (IE I might play Player A as an inside forward on support if he's picked, but Player B will be a winger on attack instead, if I want to stretch the play more both vertically and horizontally). The mistake here might be thinking of the striker as being on attack duty - he's a treq, so he's actually BOTH support and attack, varying from move to move and situation to situation. A treq essentially has ALL the creative freedom. Even fairly rubbish strikers can do a great job as a treq, too, if you set up the players around them well.

I'd stick with the treq, too, because it appears to be working fine. There's no issue in terms of attack with his team. The problem is defensive.

Firstly, those wingbacks need to be on support. Both of them. This will give an "outer support" to your formation, two players who can play passes inside from the flankes and provide permanent "outballs" to beleaguered midfielders, without expecting your wide players to come too deep to help out.

You're also playing "attacking", so no covering CBs or stoppers should be in place - your opponents goals, I would suspect, come largely from counter-attacks or moves begun when the ball is won from you in the transitional phase. You want your CBs to be in a "line" because that will make it easier to be defensively coherent. Wingbacks on support also track back a lot more, so they can bomb back and help out so long as your CBs and your DM can hold the line.

With that in mind you might consider pushing your wingbacks up and converting your DM to a halfback, but ymmv on how effective that is - it really depends on your squad.

I personally would switch that BWM to a BBM, though, or possibly even a CM/D and go to a Balanced philosophy. I'd probably go Balanced anyway - you don't really have many instructions, unless you have lots on the players individually, so to my mind there's not a plan to rigidly follow in the first place...

But I differ in my approach to fluidity to what most people around here go with (IE, I don't look at player roles so much - specialism versus individualism isn't how I define fluidity, it's more based on a holistic view of my entire set of team and individual instructions, with roles just being the basic template for each individual role in the system), so you may not want to pay attention to me on that particular point.

[thizaum]

Nice input, Auqakuh.

I agree on many levels.

[Telemachos]

Also for the OP, if you put in front/behind your pictures, it will display them on there instead of being links.

[Kain]

Many thanks for the tips guys. I've decided to go with Auqakuh's suggestion of putting both wingbacks on support. I'll keep the halfback suggestion in mind as my DM does have the attributes for it, but will stick with his anchorman role for now. Both of my centrebacks now have the normal defend duty too. If I don't go with a halfback, do you think it'd be worth trying to play an offside trap more often? If I'm playing with an attacking mentality and mostly being caught by counter attacks then the opposition will probably be more susceptible to being caught out by an offside trap.

For the BWM, I'll alternate between a CM and a BBM depending on who I have there. One of my players clearly doesn't have the physical attributes needed to pull off a BBM role (8 for acceleration, speed and stamina) while the other, who I'd only used in the playmaker role previously, seems a very good fit for it.

I'm going to stick with the rigid system for now as well. It's less for me about specialism vs individualism, and more about their collective decision-making being so poor that I'd rather they didn't think for themselves too often. I'll possibly change it to a more balanced approach if it's looking like we're struggling to break down the opposition though.

And thanks Telemachos. I usually post in the off-topic forum where we're not allowed to post images, so I forgot you could do that here!