wez007 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Ive been tinkering around with my tactics so much of late i think I've ended up chasing my own tail too much and I've got a bit dizzy! Ive managed to take my Wolves team to the top of the prem with playing some fairly negative tactics that somehow got us over the line. The season after was pretty brutal and I kind of took my eye off the ball and got bored of the tactics i was using quite quickly. Ive been trying to create a certain style of play but Im finding it hard to explain, to combat that ive put together the attached mindjet that helps me vision what i need to achieve in a simplistic view. At the moment this is in the testing phase but im hoping someone can give me some pointers in the right direction (any settings here that are completely contradicting themselves: If someone cant be bothered to look at the attached but still wondering what im trying to achieve... How do i want to play? Contain, be solid Hold position until OP in our half Press hard Lightening quick breaks Pacey and Direct Break, like a coiled spring from defence to attack Defenders Defend, Attackers Attack One out and out winger -Hug Touchline -PPM - Runs Down Line Inside Forward -PPM - Cuts Inside DM Destroyer "the wall" -Strong -Recycles ball, quick pass off -PPM - plays simple balls Creative CM -Dictates Tempo -Gets forward but not to gung ho, want to sit back and pull strings -Attacking or Deep Lying PM?? All round CM -Gets Forward -PPM - Into OP area -Gets forward Often -Possibly a BBM -Part of the attacking 4 with the winger, IF and ST Explosive Striker -Plays off shoulders of DF -Always looking to make runs behind -Pacey runs at def -High Attacking mentality? -Low CF? -Adv Forward? Team Settings Counter Direct Passing Pressing Aggressive Rigid Zonal? Formation 4141 442 41221 Best for my style if i want a IF and WG with a DM 433 451 Shouts Clear Ball to flanks Pass into Space Exploit Flanks Run at Defence Must Have Player Stats High Stamina Teamwork Pace Passing Decisions OTB My holy grail is to create what I like to call the "Clam Approach"... so you push this thing down as hard as you can and it gets to a point where it springs open at twice the force thats been created on you. Draws the fish in then gobbles them up like tiny pond life Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTHerringbone Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 It will be difficult to play a Counter Mentality, and aim to Press at the same time. The whole point of the Counter Mentality is to sit deep, absorb pressure, and then launch the rapier like attacks you seek. Conversely, Pressing is better suited to a higher line, so you aim to regain possession ASAP high up the pitch. Sitting deep on the Counter, and then asking all your players to Close Down More, or the team as a whole to Hassle Opponents, is a bit of a contradiction. You could strike a balance by asking specific individuals higher up the pitch to Close Down More (many Role / Duty combinations have it set by default). Overall, I reckon the Counter Mentality better suits your general vision. You might then "firm up" the way in which they defend by using PIs to Mark Tighter and / or Tackle Harder? In terms of Roles, it feels like you are in 4-1-2-2-1 territory from your descriptions, which would lead me to be inclined to use a more "involved" link man up front, rather than a guy who plays on the shoulder and looks to get in behind. EDIT - One more thing. In terms of Team Instructions, there is a risk that the combination of Clear Ball To Flanks and Exploit The Flanks will result in your MCs being bypassed to an extent. Clear To Flanks will result in focused distribution to the wings, as will Exploit The Flanks. Exploit will also encourage CMs to hold the ball, which may take the edge off a mobile MC who is encouraged to get forward. That gap centrally from MC to ST in a 4-1-2-2-1 is a key one to bridge, so you need to keep an eye on the Exploit The Flanks TI, to make sure it isn't stifling vertical movement in central areas. EDIT 2 - Run at Defence is another TI which maybe doesn't suit the vision. It is quicker to pass the ball than dribble with it. This TI will see your Attack Duty AMCs to run with the ball, rather than pass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wez007 Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 It will be difficult to play a Counter Mentality, and aim to Press at the same time.The whole point of the Counter Mentality is to sit deep, absorb pressure, and then launch the rapier like attacks you seek. Conversely, Pressing is better suited to a higher line, so you aim to regain possession ASAP high up the pitch. Sitting deep on the Counter, and then asking players to Close Down More, or the team as a whole to Hassle Opponents, is a bit of a contradiction. You could strike a balance by asking specific individuals higher up the pitch to Close Down More (many Role / Duty combinations have it set by default). Overall, I reckon the Counter Mentality better suits your general vision. You might then "firm up" the way in which they defend by using PIs to Mark Tighter and / or Tackle Harder? In terms of Roles, it feels like you are in 4-1-2-2-1 territory from your descriptions, which would lead me to be inclined to use a more "involved" link man up front, rather than a guy who plays on the shoulder and looks to get in behind. Cheers for the reply RT, the contradictions focus is what I was looking for in particular. Ive tried to stand off more but for some reason I just seem to invite pressure all the time. My ST is a perfect Complete Forward (according to the atts anyway) so will sit him as a CF Support role is probably a better idea? Who is best suited to tackling more aggressively, I guess the aim is to keep solid and keep my shape so wouldnt want defenders and holding dm's to go diving in? Have the attacking players close down more with harder tackles possibly? Is the counter I seek more of a rigid approach where defenders will defend and attackers will attack? Thanks again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTHerringbone Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 My ST is a perfect Complete Forward (according to the atts anyway) so will sit him as a CF Support role is probably a better idea? Who is best suited to tackling more aggressively, I guess the aim is to keep solid and keep my shape so wouldnt want defenders and holding dm's to go diving in? Have the attacking players close down more with harder tackles possibly? Is the counter I seek more of a rigid approach where defenders will defend and attackers will attack? Thanks again No worries - I added a couple of late edits to that post about TIs too. I use a 4-1-2-2-1 and have a CF (S) up front. Brilliant link man who offers so much all round contribution. I've experimented with a few Roles up front, and that one for me works best in my system. With regard to Pressing, yes - it makes more sense in my head to retain shape at the back by not closing down there, and by getting your striker, AML/R and perhaps one MC to Close Down More. My system differs from yours, because I am operating a high line with Hassle Opponents. However, I reel in the Closing Down by instructing my full backs to Close Down Less, and by using Cover Defenders. Generally, I have all players Marking Tighter and Tackling Harder. Defenders defending and attackers attacking can lead to some severely disjointed movement from front to back. The Counter Mentality will alleviate that a bit, but I would recommend giving some thought to your Duty allocation. Certainly the gap between the DL/R and AML/R slots will look to be filled by some sort of movement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wez007 Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 Hmm food for thought there. Ive always struggled to get that gap between the FB and wider mids sorted. I wonder if i play a flat three with the two wider moving into channels whilst the centre mc drops back? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTHerringbone Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Hmm food for thought there. Ive always struggled to get that gap between the FB and wider mids sorted. I wonder if i play a flat three with the two wider moving into channels whilst the centre mc drops back? Two options (of the many available!): 1. Use players at ML/R instead of AML/R. They will help more defensively, and contribute just as much offensively. You can modify Wide Midfield Roles very easily to become more like an IF. 2. I'm currently doing something which doesn't fit with the conventional guides, but works nonetheless. I'm using two Complete Wing Backs behind two IFs on Support. The IFs, on a balanced Fluidity, still contribute a bit defensively, whilst the overlapping CWBs do a job defensively and eradicate that gap on the flanks. When using 2 CWBs, I heartily recommend a good, static DM Role to help out defensively Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleon Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Two options (of the many available!):1. Use players at ML/R instead of AML/R. They will help more defensively, and contribute just as much offensively. You can modify Wide Midfield Roles very easily to become more like an IF. 2. I'm currently doing something which doesn't fit with the conventional guides, but works nonetheless. I'm using two Complete Wing Backs behind two IFs on Support. The IFs, on a balanced Fluidity, still contribute a bit defensively, whilst the overlapping CWBs do a job defensively and eradicate that gap on the flanks. When using 2 CWBs, I heartily recommend a good, static DM Role to help out defensively I'm also breaking the rules so to speak by having 4 attacking players down the wings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTHerringbone Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 I'm also breaking the rules so to speak by having 4 attacking players down the wings. Really? Braver than me Do you need defensive cover down the flanks, or is the sheer weight of your attacking threat enough to mean that the AI just don't attack you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleon Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Really? Braver than me Do you need defensive cover down the flanks, or is the sheer weight of your attacking threat enough to mean that the AI just don't attack you? My reasoning and logic is I want to press high and as a unit. If I had the defence on support or 1 attack and 1 support then I'd create a gap between my FB's and IF's. Now I play in a league that utilises a lot of MR/L or AML/R's so that would be the space they play in. So in my head it makes sense to either drop the AM's to support which isn't ideal and takes away from what I'm trying to create. So the alternative was to push the FB's higher up by allowing them to be attacking and reduce the space. It now means my fullbacks can deal with the threat easier. So while they are attack minded I've actually made them be the defensive cover by default and don't need to worry too much about having an extra player deal with the thread. I might get caught out every now and again but no more than if I was deeper or played what's deemed the normal way. My logic is its more forgiving being caught out high up the pitch compared to deeper positions Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTHerringbone Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 My logic is its more forgiving being caught out high up the pitch compared to deeper positions Nice. And it's that sort of rational thinking which proves that the "guides" do merely remain "guides". The stickied "guides" give a good, logical framework to begin with, but people needn't be afraid of stepping away from those frameworks to create something "different". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wez007 Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 Ive always played the high press, squeeze them out game as (Imo) its always had a better fit to the way the ME works. RT, how do you fit the IF into a ML/MR role, would he not be running into the space from the MC? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleon Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Ive always played the high press, squeeze them out game as (Imo) its always had a better fit to the way the ME works.RT, how do you fit the IF into a ML/MR role, would he not be running into the space from the MC? Set widemidfielder role, play narrower, gets further forward, cuts inside and bingo its the IF role Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wez007 Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 Cheers Cleon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTHerringbone Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 RT, how do you fit the IF into a ML/MR role, would he not be running into the space from the MC? Depends on the shape you're using, but, as an example, in a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 (the ML/R equivalent of a 4-2-3-1), you could play him on the same side as the more defensive MC. In a 4-1-4-1 (the ML/R equivalent of a 4-1-2-2-1), where both MCs are more mobile, I would just use him on the same side as the Support Duty MC, and give him an Attack Duty. Essentially, just place him based on the movement you expect from his nearest MC player. EDIT - and as far as specific settings go - what Cleon said Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wez007 Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 Just played first game and wasnt really convincing though i scraped through 1-0 Looks really narrow in the centre! Having really a hard time getting two of my best players to play well. I thought they would be immense as a winger and a CF in a quick countering game but seems not so far Has run down right wing but rarely does! I want him to be uber winger beating players and whipping ball in on counter Getting rating of like avg 6.5...very poor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wez007 Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 My team comparison page if it helps give any guidance as to whether i can pull this off: General Def Mid Att Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTHerringbone Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 That is astonishingly narrow - is this a 4-1-2-2-1? Are the wide players swapping? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wez007 Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 no lol... its the skinniest of skinny hey Guessing the play narrow, counter and ml cutting in doesnt help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTHerringbone Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 no lol... its the skinniest of skinny hey Guessing the play narrow, counter and ml cutting in doesnt help. On the face of it, Play Narrower and wanting to get the most out of a Winger are contradictory instructions / intents. Play Narrower squeezes width, but also channels play through the middle. You were potentially starving service of the ball to one of the men you want to be a focal point of the team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lam Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Not sure how different this match engine is to the previous ones, but I used to close the gap between AML/R and WBL/R by using (A) on the WB's and (S) on the wingers. The balanced philosophy allowed mentality shifts based on duties. Thus an (A) duty would see your players move up the field a little and an (S) would see them sit deeper if they were previosly on an (A). This was a nice trick to bring AML/Rs into the game if they were to far up the field along with lower offside shouts. It was easy enough to keep previous instructions if you didn't want them perfoming a different role but just wanted them higher/deeper. LAM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wez007 Posted May 7, 2014 Author Share Posted May 7, 2014 Ok so im going off the theory as having one Att duty in def but trying to think the best pick, LB or RB. The ML is a inside fwd type of role cutting in (att duty) and the MR is a Winger hugging touchline (support duty). Would it make more sense to have the LB as attacking to fill the space the LW cutting in creates? Add width to that side? Or better to have the RB attack behind the supporting RW? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTHerringbone Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 The natural space is on the left in that system, so it would be easier to create overlaps on that side. On the right, there's a risk that the winger (who will play wide) would obstruct the more attacking man behind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wez007 Posted May 7, 2014 Author Share Posted May 7, 2014 Thanks again RT One more quick one... you see the RW in the above pics, i thought he would be great MR, every att is great EXCEPT FLAIR (not sure how i missed it so badly!). How important is Flair to the winger, im guessing its part of his ability to beat a man? If he is 25 is to too late to put him on a seriously high training crash course on Flair? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTHerringbone Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 I just look at Flair as the potential to do something spontaneous and "unusual", including a little jink or trick to beat his man. If all other core attributes are fine, you shouldn't be affected too much. What would be far worse, is signing a winger to retrain as a Complete Wing Back, in spite of him having 7's for Positioning and Marking. Now that would be silly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.