Setting out to understand/analyze a tactic and tweak it to improve it (from a non-expert)

[ViG1980]

I had started another thread about how people analyze performances from their team and then take that analysis and tweak their tactic accordingly. I am particularly bad at it so starting this thread now that we are in pre-season to start with a tactic, watch games and tweak as necessary and report back with findings.

Everyone should feel free to give me their POV on what I am doing - it will be much appreciated to me and hopefully lots of others.

I am Man Utd

[ViG1980]

So here is how the formation and duties looked out of the gate:

I think it looks fairly well balanced. I know the 4-1-2-2-1 is not great defensively and I have wingback which doesn't help but I don't think the 3 kids are overly aggressive. I am set up to play a short passing game with a slower tempo but the front 3 put pressure on the opposition.

Below are a few situational screenshots from within the game when we had the ball and we did not.

In the above image we do not have the ball and appear to be well situated in the midfield, giving the opposition little room.

Another instance of not having the ball and also seem to be in good shape defensively. When they are attacking in our third there are, however, times when they got in behind the 2 central mids though.

Lastly, here we have the ball. The DLP seems super deep and offers nothing at this stage and I don't particularly like the options available to Herrera. The BBM has shot up and the only real options are the RMD or RWB.

We won 3-1 and the stats were in our favor but there were a few insights here. Although we had lots of shots, a low percentage were on target. We also created no clear cut chances which is a bit worrying against a low-level opposition. Lastly, they actually had more chances than I would have liked.

Below we see the heat map (lots of changes in the 2nd half with youngsters) but the heat map is not impressive. Little of the heat map is in their box at all which I would expect against a lesser team. The shape itself of the players I am ok with it - forms a pretty decent path for link up between the lines.

With the low number of shots on target, i took a look at the shots. There are quite a few from outside the box but there still seem to be plenty from close enough. Leads to me think that either our finishing is awful or by the time those chances came about it was a bit of a scramble in the box. It did appear a little like the latter from watching the game. The bigger worry though was the lack of clear cut chances for me.

I see a lot of people on the boards looking at interceptions and, in particular, seeing how high up the pitch they are. In this case, most of the interceptions are deep in my half and by the defenders. Should I be pushing up more, should I have different roles for the one of the kids, more closing down to create pressure on the ball carrier? No idea...

Hopefully the above paints a good picture of the game. We didn't really dominate at all and actually gave up some chances to the opposition. This game was away from home and against a weaker team - should I still be opting to bring one of the wingers back to the midfield or make the WBs FBs?

I might simply turn down the "be more expressive" TI because we have a pretty attacking formation already and control mentality and fluid team shape - seems a lot of creative and attacking intent in there with a little less thought to really dictating the game.

I won't be playing the game until later on so would love any input as to a couple of changes to make. I think I will turn off be more expressive and put the Fluid shape to Flexible. For now I might leave the FBs as they are but willing to listen to thoughts.

[OrientTillIDie]

If you don't want your BBM bombing forward and not giving your other CM an option then don't have him on BBM. His job is to go from box to box so his natural instinct will be to attack the area; that's what you've told him to do after all. Also, your Deep Lying Playmaker is exactly where you've told him to be; Deep and defensive. I don't think Mata would work well as a Raumdeuter as he doesn't really have the required skills. He's a creator who ends up in the box to score as well so an Inside Forward Support or Attack role would suit him better. A Raumdeuter is basically a wide striker (think Thomas Mueller at Bayern); poaching from the wing. Does that make you think of Mata? If you want wing backs marauding forwards then I wouldn't use a DLP because his first instinct isn't to cover the flanks. A half back or anchor man would do much more defensive work and cover before making themselves an option.

[tyro]

So here is how the formation and duties looked out of the gate:

I think it looks fairly well balanced. I know the 4-1-2-2-1 is not great defensively and I have wingback which doesn't help but I don't think the 3 kids are overly aggressive. I am set up to play a short passing game with a slower tempo but the front 3 put pressure on the opposition.

Below are a few situational screenshots from within the game when we had the ball and we did not.

In the above image we do not have the ball and appear to be well situated in the midfield, giving the opposition little room.

Another instance of not having the ball and also seem to be in good shape defensively. When they are attacking in our third there are, however, times when they got in behind the 2 central mids though.

Lastly, here we have the ball. The DLP seems super deep and offers nothing at this stage and I don't particularly like the options available to Herrera. The BBM has shot up and the only real options are the RMD or RWB.

We won 3-1 and the stats were in our favor but there were a few insights here. Although we had lots of shots, a low percentage were on target. We also created no clear cut chances which is a bit worrying against a low-level opposition. Lastly, they actually had more chances than I would have liked.

Below we see the heat map (lots of changes in the 2nd half with youngsters) but the heat map is not impressive. Little of the heat map is in their box at all which I would expect against a lesser team. The shape itself of the players I am ok with it - forms a pretty decent path for link up between the lines.

With the low number of shots on target, i took a look at the shots. There are quite a few from outside the box but there still seem to be plenty from close enough. Leads to me think that either our finishing is awful or by the time those chances came about it was a bit of a scramble in the box. It did appear a little like the latter from watching the game. The bigger worry though was the lack of clear cut chances for me.

I see a lot of people on the boards looking at interceptions and, in particular, seeing how high up the pitch they are. In this case, most of the interceptions are deep in my half and by the defenders. Should I be pushing up more, should I have different roles for the one of the kids, more closing down to create pressure on the ball carrier? No idea...

Hopefully the above paints a good picture of the game. We didn't really dominate at all and actually gave up some chances to the opposition. This game was away from home and against a weaker team - should I still be opting to bring one of the wingers back to the midfield or make the WBs FBs?

I might simply turn down the "be more expressive" TI because we have a pretty attacking formation already and control mentality and fluid team shape - seems a lot of creative and attacking intent in there with a little less thought to really dictating the game.

I won't be playing the game until later on so would love any input as to a couple of changes to make. I think I will turn off be more expressive and put the Fluid shape to Flexible. For now I might leave the FBs as they are but willing to listen to thoughts.

I am no expert, but I am just looking at it from the point of view as if it was my team and I am trying to make it work:

1. First thing I noticed, 9 team instructions. Personally, I become uneasy with 5+. I like to keep it simple and I feel too many instructions make you lose control, unless you know what you are doing. If you know what they'll do, great. If not, maybe remove some and tweak your tactic from there? For my FM16 tactics I usually choose my mentality and shape and then add maybe 1 or 2 instructions to see how it plays out. I then add more later if need be.

2. I always look at my stats. This was a friendly against a much weaker team. But, you can see you had a lot of shots and not many quality ones. A lot of blocked shots. Many from far out. Clearly they are sitting deep and defending.

3. Screenshot 4 when you have the ball, it seems their back line is very narrow. And you are playing narrow and through the middle. And you have two wide players cutting inside. It seems difficult to break through that with such a set up.

4. Screenshot 3 when they have the ball, there is a lot of space on your right wing. The RMD is advanced and your WBS is sitting back. Their guy on their left flank would have a lot of space.

What would I have done (which might be completely wrong)?

I would have switched over to a counter mentality to sit back more and draw them out. I might have either played narrow and exploit the flanks or played wider to allow for more movement and hopefully holes in their defense. I would probably have changed the roles on the right side. Maybe make the WBS more attacking and see how that works.

[Pompeyboyz]

I think your decision to play IF and RMD with an exploit the middle is counter productive. It would be far better to utilise the wide players more with maybe getting rid of the exploit middle and add look for overlap.

For the shots, if you want more on target, add the work ball into box as the team should take less long shots and look for more clear cut chances closer to goal

[ViG1980]

Thanks everyone. Time for game 2. Going to simplify the TI so that I start from a more simple base.

[ViG1980]

As I said, I simplified everything (against my theory to make minor changes each game) and that's alright- consider this a reset, plenty of games left.

This is the formation and roles. It is a little more solid and I only have 2 TIs - shorter passing and prevent short GK distribution.

They seemed to be playing very very narrow which would probably want me to play wider but I don't want to change anything in games and only make changes between games so I am not doing anything.

Below shows an example of when we had the ball. Not much support in this situation for going forward. Make me think I should have one of my kids push more but I already have my CM with Att duty. I will show a screenshot right after this which shows an opposite situation so I am not even sure what to do about it

And here it is. My CM has moved right up to the same level as the forwards. This was not the only time this happened. Ideally I would love to have him drop into the space but that would mean making an advanced playmaker - not sure what would work very well with a DLP next to him and would certainly not provide much grit with the 2 mids. Might leave the DM exposed a lot.

Although I can see a situation in the below screenshot where we could get a little exposed if he passed it to the bottom mid (not the full back), defensive shape seems to be quite good. They had very few chances and switching the LWB to a FB seems to help a lot.

Stats-wise, it was a similar story going forward to last game. A lot of shots but few on target. Thinking about putting the TI of work ball into box but I have never loved that because you get no crosses. Thoughts on this one? Defensively, we looked a lot more solid - they had no shots at all in the first half.

Very strange heat map - we had a ton of the ball down the left. That is the side with the WB (the other side is a FB). I still don't like the look of this at all - too much of the positioning in my own half and very little between the half way line and their box. How do you get this pushed up (especially against weaker teams)? Should I push the defensive line up? I Also looked and Shaw who was the LWB was dribbling a lot.

Average positions seems fine - I am not sure if I can take anything away from this?

Interceptions are all in my own half. There were quite a few on that left hand side again and the heat map showed a lot there - clearly not a coincidence but I am not sure what to really take away from it. It's not my WB making the interceptions, it is the mids.

Finally, the missed shots. As you saw from the stats, the ratio of shots on target was pretty poor but a lot of the shots were from inside the box and not all from range. Bad day at the office for the players? I think in this case, the answer might be yes. Not sure I want to tinker with work ball into the box just yet. 4 of those missed shots were headers.

Overall a similar game to the first but much better defensively. I do think the quality of the shots were better this time around so I don't think I will touch that. We had 4 CCC and 5 half chances. At this point, I do think that I could make a TI change and it would make a difference but nothing here really seems to tell me what that change needs to be to make that difference.

[Pompeyboyz]

Have a look at my thread in the downloads section and see what I do. I use the work ball into box and still get plenty of crosses from my WB.

[ViG1980]

Ok so I made a couple of very small tweaks for the next game and followed Pompeyboyz advice.

2 minor changes. Work ball into box and allowed my CM(A) to roam from position hoping it would add a little movement in the middle. This was the last of the tour out in Asia before moving to a tour of the USA and then a little tournament. The games get harder and harder here - the tournament, for example features Barca so it should really start to test things.

Below is the tactic and lineups with the above changes I mentioned, really not much to see. Not sure how much Martial is enjoying a DLF role but Rooney needs a rest after the Euros and his stats seem to apply he is pretty good there. I find that my DLF does not score many goals at all though even when it is Rooney:

Perfect example of Martial coming so deep that there is nothing in front of him. Maybe a complete forward role would better suit the way I am playing. The other thing I noticed here is that the DM and DLP are really far behind the ball. This was a bit of a counter attack so it makes some sense but what it means is that we can only score goals with a slow build up - bit one dimensional.

What I noticed from the below is how close together my mids get sometimes. Don't think I am too worried but the DLP and CM are often on top of each other when we start to attack before the CM gets further forward. The rest looks good, plenty of outlets down the side.

Overall, more shots on target and better quality shots. Seems like the work ball into box worked quite well in that respect.

Here is the one thing I still cannot figure out. The heat map is a little all over the show although we did have a more advanced average position (closer to their box) than in the prior games. I think the roam from position PI worked well for my CM(A). Still a lot of wing play comes from the left hand side (the more attacking side from a WB perspective).

Interceptions are still from deep inside my own half. Would love to get this a little higher up the pitch. I am thinking pushing the defensive line up will push everyone up a notch and allow us to get the ball back higher up the pitch. On the other hand, it is more risky defensively but I have got a cover CB which should help in that respect. Alternatively, I could try tighter marking - not sure which will help the most.

I won't post the shot chart but the shots were almost all from inside the box and we created 5 CCC and 3HCs. Next match, I think I am just going to push the line up a notch to see if we can get those interceptions up further. Not sure I need to change anything else just yet from what I can see.

[Pompeyboyz]

Interesting looking at the heat map. Shows that the right side IF is coming in to attack while the left is providing options. I have never favoured the style you and others creates with alternating support and attack between the FB and IF. It feels disjointed and I think shows.

[ViG1980]

I am playing the next game against Chicago. One notch above in terms of quality and it is a very different story obviously. We are not playing particularly well.

If you make the formation more balanced, would you put the IFs on support or attack? And then what about the FBs? (don't forget one is currently a WB and the a FB too).

[Pompeyboyz]

Try playing with 2 FB on support and the 2 IF on Attack with the overlap TI on.

[Pedroig]

Pompey, I'm confused how that would work together, if the FB's are on Support will they not "dally" instead of pressing up before the IF's make their move to the interior? Not seeing where the overlap would actually occur...

[ViG1980]

I took Pompey's advice just for the hell of it although agree with Pedroig it felt a little like there would be gaping holes between the FB and IF.

For the most part that is what happened. The 2 IFs were pretty far forward, plenty of room for the FBs to exploit on the overlap. I do feel like it squeezed the middle a lot as there were essentially just 2 wide players. Couple of screenshots below.

Defensively, you can see the gaps when they had the ball too. However, their FBs never seem to push hard so we were never exposed. I wonder if that will change depending on the team's tactics. Their FBs were not WBs and so they didn't push as hard.

We finished with 20 shots, 8 on target but only 2 clear cut chances. Not the greatest. The heat map was definitely more balanced and closer to their box. I don't yet know if pushing the defensive line up made any difference. Certainly the interceptions have not been pushed further up the field.

The biggest change was the area of the key passes. The combination of the more balanced formation with both IFs on attack meant there was a pretty even distribution of key passes around the box - left, right and center.

I am still seeing my DLF drop off really far back and not getting into many scoring chances. My CM(A) is also not really getting into those holes. There are 2 things I would like to try. Put the FBs on attached and the IFs on support - would help defensively but going forward I would have less so might have to convert the DLF into a CF and attack duty. The other option would be to make my CM(A) a BBM or an advanced playmaker. The BBM seems like it would most likely work next to a DLF but the advanced playmaker might just sit nicely behind the front man. the BBM may also be counterproductive as he will just bomb forward and be in the box next to the DLF and the 2 IFs which doesn't solve anything.

I think I will try the DLP and advanced playmaker combo. Never seen any tactics with that so let's see...

[Pompeyboyz]

The reason went support on the fullbacks was to not expose yourself defensively which happened but the overlaps obviously weren't working as well as you hope. I don't feel playing the fullback attacking will be ideal unless you feel that you can cover your ass sufficiently in defence.

I am having the same issue with my sole striker though. I initially started with a F9 on support but I am trying an attacking DLF to see if it will help with better goal chances.

[jeid2000]

I'd be wary about just sticking things on for the sake of it. For example (taken from Lines & Diamonds)

Look for Overlap encourages wide midfielders and wide forwards to focus on offering deep support

with wide defenders encouraged to offer more mobility. The more advanced wide players are

instructed to stay deep, hold up the ball and offer support to fullbacks or wingbacks who will be

looking to overlap quickly with frequent forward runs. This encourages early overlap patterns down

the flanks which can be useful when you are struggling to get the ball behind an aggressive fullback.

Although in your example, they seem to be doing the opposite. That said, I'm not overly sure what phase of play they are in.

If you really want your full back to be more aggressive and step into those massive spaces between your wide midfielders and wide defenders, why not use wing backs? Wing backs are naturally more aggressive in nature. Make one attacking, this one will be quite aggressive, and make the other a support role. He'll likely only get (as far) forward when the opportunity arises.

I think your original midfield trio had the best balance. Your deep player was your holding player and creative player. Your BBM was your runner who'll also offer defensive support and offer late runs into the box. Your CM/A will offer a creative influence (if you choose for him to do so) further up the pitch and link play with your centre forward as well as running from deep.

In your second midfield, it's like a double pivot with your DLP/S and A/D as the DLP holds his position pretty well while being creative.

I would look at balancing your midfield a little better. Think of it as a flat 4 (from the MC strata to the AM strata) and you currently have your roles setup like this.

Support-Support-Attack-Attack

Why not try

Support-Attack-Support-Attack

Which may offer you better options in attacking phases.

I personally don't think a F9 is the striker role you want to be using. If you think about it, a F9 is a creative player as is an IF/S. That pretty much leaves the IF/A as your main attacking threat in the final third. Once you get into the season, you'd be more likely to see that with a lack of goals. You should really be putting 5-6 goals past these types of teams in pre-seaosn and you're just getting over the line.

Think about how you want to play and what you want your tactic to do as at present, you're just clicking buttons for the sake of it which will lead to further frustration. The guides at the top of this forum have lots of excellent information that will help you

Good luck.

[OrientTillIDie]

I'm confused as to why you would choose shorter passing and prevent short GK distribution. Surely if you want to keep the ball, you want to play from the back?

[jeid2000]

I'm confused as to why you would choose shorter passing and prevent short GK distribution. Surely if you want to keep the ball, you want to play from the back?

Prevent short GK distribution stops the opposition playing the ball short to their defenders.

[OLLMEISTER1]

I'm confused as to why you would choose shorter passing and prevent short GK distribution. Surely if you want to keep the ball, you want to play from the back?

Prevent short GK distribution is to harry and press the opposition GK into launching the ball long instead of allowing them to play out from the back and retain possession on the game.

[Pompeyboyz]

Your choice to play a F9 in this tactic is probably not helping. Yes, a F9 is worthwhile when playing a single SC but for it to best work, you really need an AM that will provide more of an attacking threat. So ideally you should have a Shadow Striker or Trequartista behind, possibly even an Enganche

[Cleon]

Your choice to play a F9 in this tactic is probably not helping. Yes, a F9 is worthwhile when playing a single SC but for it to best work, you really need an AM that will provide more of an attacking threat. So ideally you should have a Shadow Striker or Trequartista behind, possibly even an Enganche

Really? I'm surprised by this comment because for me the F9 is a perfect choice for playing with two IF's in this system. He drops deep and can link the IF's and still lead the line. I actually don't believe an F9 works that well with a AMC behind. A Treq/DLF/ are all better options than an F9 if there is a player behind who is attack minded because the F9 still leads the line, which isn't a good idea if the AMC is going to be the one doing that.

[Pompeyboyz]

Really? I'm surprised by this comment because for me the F9 is a perfect choice for playing with two IF's in this system. He drops deep and can link the IF's and still lead the line. I actually don't believe an F9 works that well with a AMC behind. A Treq/DLF/ are all better options than an F9 if there is a player behind who is attack minded because the F9 still leads the line, which isn't a good idea if the AMC is going to be the one doing that.

My tactic runs with an F9 alone with a SS and AP in the AMC positions behind and it works wonders. I use attacking WB though with no IF or other AML/R

[Cleon]

My tactic runs with an F9 alone with a SS and AP in the AMC positions behind and it works wonders. I use attacking WB though with no IF or other AML/R

I didn't say it didn't work or couldn't I said there was better options. Still though, you ignored the important part of the post which was addressing you telling the OP his choice of F9 was not helpful when it is.

[Pompeyboyz]

I didn't say it didn't work or couldn't I said there was better options. Still though, you ignored the important part of the post which was addressing you telling the OP his choice of F9 was not helpful when it is.

I am not disagreeing about the F9 - IF combo working, but my thought process was based upon looking at his heat maps which were showing 1 IF not coming in to provide the attacking threat that I get from the F9 - SS combo.

[jeid2000]

I didn't say it didn't work or couldn't I said there was better options. Still though, you ignored the important part of the post which was addressing you telling the OP his choice of F9 was not helpful when it is.

Would the F9 not work better if both inside forwards had attacking duties?

[Cleon]

Would the F9 not work better if both inside forwards had attacking duties?

It depends really. As he plays control strategy the players are quite high up the pitch to begin with. Giving them an attack duty makes then more advanced. That's not always a good thing and can make them disjointed from the players behind. It also gives them less space to work in. Myself I prefer my IF's in deeper positions to take advantage of space and have more time. It also means they can run from deeper positions and this alone can create and open up space. If someone is high up the pitch the liklihood is they can't really create space consistently.

[Pompeyboyz]

Would the F9 not work better if both inside forwards had attacking duties?

It could work better with that set up.

The role of the F9 is not really as a goalscoring threat but as a creative force that will drop deep to either pull defenders with him and create space for the other attacking threats, or to create space for himself if not followed and have time on the ball to create chances.

By having the IF's set for attacking, they should provide the attacking threat that the F9 can put in or occupy the defence so the F9 has greater time on the ball.

With the support role, the IF will not attack directly at the defence and so not provide as much support towards the F9 as the attacking If would.

With the current setup you have, with the F9 dropping deep and only 1 IF on attack duty, you are almost telegraphing where your attack will come from, where as a double attack IF gives 2 options to help break the defence more.

[ViG1980]

This is good reading.

I went with something that was a tweak and what I have been working on rather than a complete revamp. I do like the more balanced formation vs. the one IF on S and one on A (and vice versa for WBs). I do see a lot of that with the formations people post here but I cannot get it to work well. To Pompey's point, I end up with one channel of attach and nothing else - that could be to do with my DLF too I suppose.

Nonetheless, I decided to put both WBs on A and put both IFs on S and change the DLF to a CF and put him on A.

Below is the setup. Ignore the instructions on the pitch overview and look at the screenshot below it for the final TIs. The plan here was to keep a solid foundation that would not get us exposed. I had the WBs on attack with look for overlap and put the IFs on support. That way there would be plenty of players making late runs or looking for the ball just outside the box but the WBs would provide additional support. I put the CM(A) to a BBM role that would help both the attack and defence. I kept the TIs to a minimum - I was contemplating whipped vs mixed crossing but not a big deal for now. I also like that we do counter quite well so not touching the build up TIs for now.

The BBM seemed good on paper but I found that it caused a few problems in terms of build up. The below is an example of what was happening - we were very flat. I am sure you will point to the fact that all the wide players have the same mentality for each line (both IFs the same and both WBs the same).

We seem fine defensively with a really solid block. Yes, it was at home against Aberdeen (my tournament against the big guns was cancelled so I am playing a few smaller teams unfortunately).

Stats wise we had 55% possession and 21 shots with 9 on target. They had 5 with 2 on target. We won 2-0 thanks to 2 goals from Rooney - so the CF (A) seems to be preferable to him as he had only scored one all pre-season (I do swap out the entire team at half time or around 60 mins). Still, I think that going forward, although it looks pretty good when you watch, we are not creating enough CCCs - only 1 in this game which is a worry against a smaller team. I think that is needs to be an area of focus and not entirely sure what will do it although I have a few ideas. Some analysis first.

Probably the worst heat map so far with absolutely nothing through in the middle in the offensive third. NOTHING! I want to blame the BBM here but he really did help defensively and looking at his individual heat map he is everywhere and sprayed a lot of passes around but almost none of them went forward.

Looking at key passes, they all came from the wings of course.

So this leads me to think about how I can get some more attacking pay out of the central mids without damaging the defensive shape that seems to be really good. I have a couple of thoughts. One is to simply make the BBM a CM(A). The other is to put the WBs on S and then shift the whole central midfield to a DLP, a BBM and a CM(A). Then I would move the IFs to A and the CF to S.

I like the latter but it is a lot of changes in one shot. I also haven't played with the TIs that much - simply adding to play through the middle and build thing up more slowly might help. That way the BBM is not being passed over as look to transition into attack - right now I have a mixed temp with short passing FYI...

Any thoughts on the above?

[jeid2000]

What sort of style are you actually trying to achieve? At no point do you mention that in the thread (that I can see) so you're just blindly making changes at the moment. Have an idea of what you want your team to do.

[ViG1980]

Good point.

I want to play attacking football and shorter passing. But I don't want it to completely paralyze the team to the point of that being the only thing they do. Not the greatest answer, I know but that is what I have been thinking. Maybe that is part of the problem you might say - I don't have a super defined strategy in mind outside of what I just said.

[ViG1980]

I don't think I am blindly making changes though on the whole. I am watching the game and the stats and trying to get the balance right of solid defence and strong going forward - if you look at my last post that is what I did. The defensive block was solid but going forward was not great, despite the result.

[jeid2000]

Sorry, blindly was probably a bad choice of words. What I'm saying is, if you don't have an idea of a style, you're going to struggle to get your team playing in a certain way. Think about how you want all parts of your team to function. Watching lots of the game is a big part of peoples problems, so you're doing that right and at least seeing what your changes are doing. I always draw my formations out and have an idea of what I want them to be doing by drawing arrows etc. It helps me visualise it and then I can at least see if they're doing what I think they should when I'm watching the games back