Asymmetrical 31222 - Creating chances

[vindapop]

Im a firm believer that you need to adapt your tactic to whatever your players strengths are and Im really bored of 442, 352, 433 etc.

I like to try out different things, and more often than not it leads to an asymmetrical formation like below. Normally I start the season well then suddenly Ill struggle.

Im not new to these forums, I like to think I know enough to at least be moderately successful. In this version of FM I just cannot catch a break!

I like to play attacking football but at the moment, Im really finding it hard to create chances. Good players for the league in each position but Im finding my midfield get 'stuck' with the ball, even with my AM as an AP(a or s). Can anyone see any obvious changes I can make?

[allyc31]

You selected attacking which is already quick and direct but then you've also selected those instructions I the team instructions.

I would drop both those.

I'd then decide what players you want to be your playmaker(s) and give him/them More Direct Passing

Maybe change your CM S to a DLP D to stop him wondering forward and taking away space from your Treq?

This last one is a personal choice; I'd change the treq to an advance playmaker attack. Only because I can never get a treq working the way I like. If you do I'd change your left wing to Def Wing Support. He'll still chip in with goals and, again, give your adv playmaker more space.

I'm by no means an expert btw.

[vindapop]

Thank you for your reply, having more direct passing and higher tempo with attacking does actually now seem really stupid!

I wouldnt say my Treq is struggling, however sometimes he is caught too far up the pitch, leaving my CMs with little passing options.

Also, my left winger is probably my best player and with his best role by far being IF and my WB bombing up the outside, I would really want a Def winger. I am however not adverse to changing the AM to a different role.

Also, Im finding that even though my AF has 'Move into Channels', he isnt EVER moving out to stretch the play.

[allyc31]

Like i said, i don't like the treq; they just don't work hard enough and, for me, can easily be taken out of the game by a good dm.

I would give your Advanced Playmaker More Direct passing and teach him Killer Balls pm.

As a test, you could also give him the instruction to run wide with ball in an effort to utilize that space you have on the right?

I'm not saying that will work.

Just an idea.

[vindapop]

I will definitely try changing my AM to a AP(A) with your suggestions.

Also thinking about changing my IF to support duty if he'll have more space created my the moving AM?

[19MiRkO91]

Well, I wouldn't use a Treq behind a TM-S. There's really nobody in the box to attack the space but your IF (your AF still comes deep sometimes, just like your TM) and you have a really low cover.

[vindapop]

I did actually have him on Attack but my link-up play suffered, partly because my moving Treq left a hole inbetween the opposition def and mid.

If I change my AM to a AP(A), will that be enough to have him run past the TM(s) and be a scoring threat?

[allyc31]

It is for me buddy.

[19MiRkO91]

The AP sits between midfielders and opposition's defensive line.

FM 14 explanation of the role:"With an attack duty, the AP will look to run at the defensive line from deeper positions, aiming to craft out crossing or through balls opportunities as he moves into the final third." So, no, he can't do that.

I suggest you to try a SS, if you want that kind of job.

Also, I agree on the Treq. I am trying to make a 3-5-2 work and if there's something I have understood is that everybody needs to play. This means, everybody needs to press, everybody needs to be involved in a compact system. So, I wouldn't use a Treq who is a bit lazy on that. Moreover, like I said, the TM-S will be in the same area as your Treq.

I would try different roles, but I am no tactical genius, so you might as well not listen to me.

[tennisball]

Personally I would have the WB on the right hand side with no winger, and the FB behind the IF, as the the WB creates width better than the FB.

[RTHerringbone]

Also, Im finding that even though my AF has 'Move into Channels', he isnt EVER moving out to stretch the play.

This is an easy mistake to make, and is one I made myself.

Move Into Channels is more about finding pockets of space between a DC and DL (as an example).

If you want wider lateral movement, then Roam From Position could be the option for you to look at.

[19MiRkO91]

Personally I would have the WB on the right hand side with no winger, and the FB behind the IF, as the the WB creates width better than the FB.

Then, his IF might enjoy the opposition's defensive line being more stretched, as he'll have space.

[RTHerringbone]

The AP sits between midfielders and opposition's defensive line.

FM 14 explanation of the role:"With an attack duty, the AP will look to run at the defensive line from deeper positions, aiming to craft out crossing or through balls opportunities as he moves into the final third." So, no, he can't do that.

I suggest you to try a SS, if you want that kind of job.

I agree with this.

Most consistently effective way for me to get a runner from the AM line into the box is either a SS or Attacking Midfielder on Attack.

[vindapop]

Thanks for the advice guys

@tennisball/19MiRkO91 - Your probably right. With my LWB being an excellent attacker, the vision I had was that he would exploit the space being created by the IF cutting inside. However this doesnt happen enough and I do see them running into each other.

19MiRkO91/RTHerringbone - I will give this a try. My only worry is that there would be little link-up between midfield and attack, with the TM not dropping off enough and the AM being too high up. As I said at the start of the thread, my CMs seem to run out of options and end up going back.

My other idea was to go with a TM(a) and AF(a) and have a AP(s) with Roam from Position, giving the CMs something to work with. If I did that, then Im torn what to duty to have my IF on. Would attack mean to many bodies in the box or would support mean them challenging for the same position on the field. I could move my AM to more of a AMCR slot?

I apologise if this is a little complicated, Ill try post some more screenies when I get back from work!

[allyc31]

The AP sits between midfielders and opposition's defensive line.

FM 14 explanation of the role:"With an attack duty, the AP will look to run at the defensive line from deeper positions, aiming to craft out crossing or through balls opportunities as he moves into the final third." So, no, he can't do that.

I suggest you to try a SS, if you want that kind of job.

Also, I agree on the Treq. I am trying to make a 3-5-2 work and if there's something I have understood is that everybody needs to play. This means, everybody needs to press, everybody needs to be involved in a compact system. So, I wouldn't use a Treq who is a bit lazy on that. Moreover, like I said, the TM-S will be in the same area as your Treq.

I would try different roles, but I am no tactical genius, so you might as well not listen to me.

I've had a lot of success with having a APA break ahead of my holding front man and attack the space so i wouldn't say that he can't do that.

Though, i will happily concede that if that's all you want attacking midfielder to do then a SS is a much better idea.

[vindapop]

Okay, having taken your advice, this is what I ended up with. First result..

3-1 WIN

Then 2-0. Then 1-1.

Im not playing THAT well but from being a game away from the sack, Im just happy to be getting some positive results.

I have Push Higher Up to make up for the lack of cover my CB's will get, I may push them even higher depending on subsequent matches. Im also undecided on on the Regista, Ive had had success with one in the past and I like the idea of an aggressive DLP. I may change him to a DM(D) against better teams or effective opposition AMC's. The AP(a) actually has scored 3 times by attacking from deep, but still sits deep enough to connect the midfield to the attack.