So what is it that makes this tactic so bad?

[Aizo4576]

I'm about 5 or 6 games in to my first season with Milan, and I've picked up a massive 2 points so far. I'm trying to work out where I am going wrong, I don't believe it to be the squad, the fit the roles well and (as far as I am aware) there haven't been massive changes to the line up. This tactic is similar to something I used with great success with Inter last year, however I just cannot get it working now. We're having horribly low possession, do not look dangerous in attack and not getting the results I'd expect.

This is how the tactic looks:

Could people please help explain to me where I could be going wrong with this tactic?

Many thanks

[lewis999]

The first thing that pops straight out at me is you are playing an attacking mentality which already employs a high defensive line, you've pushed that up even further, then added the offside trap on and have closing down on sometimes. Think in real life if you were playing at centre back especially. You're manager is wanting you to push up with your fellow defenders and play the other teams strikers offside, but...... your mates further up the pitch are putting hardly any pressure on the ball which means you're stood at the halfway line like a donut whilst the other teams defenders and midfielders are getting yards of space to pick out Andres Iniesta passes over the top of your defence. All that needs is some runners in behind and you've had it. Especially with CWB's on either side.

If you want to be aggressive, in my opinion you have to go the whole way and pen them in. Sure you will get breached once or twice but that's to be expected.

Another thing i'm looking at is Montolivo as a BWM. Not only will that cause you to have one CM in the middle of the pitch while he seeks out the ball but he's going to be a liability. Bravery 9, strength 11, acceleration and pace 12 and 11 to get to the ball. Even work rate 13 is quite low for a specialist role for a team chasing at least the top 4.

Going forward I would make the AM a support role as you already have 2 strikers and CWB's that will act like wingers. If you do want him on attack though I would make a striker a false 9 or even a trequartista so they drop deep and link up play.

My final thing mate is check PPM's they are always in use but people rarely check them and use them to their full potency.

[summatsupeer]

We're having horribly low possession, do not look dangerous in attack and not getting the results I'd expect.

Why would you expect to have possession? You have an Attacking Mentality and no instructions to lose the ball less and only Slightly Higher D-Line to try to win it back quicker.

Where are your runners to take advantage of the attacking mentality which prioritizes forward play over lateral or backwards play. How often does someone pass back to one of the CBs to recycle play? I would expect very few if ever. Only the AF-A and 2xCWB-A are offering runs, there are no runners from deep. Most of your center is sitting or wanting the ball to feet which is more of a possession setup.

If the tactic was more possession style with more patience and lateral/backwards passes to use your deeper players and give your playmakers time to pull apart the opponents I think it would work better. If you want to stay attacking and quick I would look to increase the number of runners centrally by changing the two CM and AM. I don't know what those players are good at but my personally preference would be:

MCL: DLP-D

MCR: BBM-S or CM-S

After changing these I would see what effect it has and then decide if your AM needs changing. When watching him try to think what a AM-A or SS-A would be doing and if that would offer more.

...check PPM's they are always in use but people rarely check them and use them to their full potency.

This is a very good point, one of the reasons along with different attribute balances of different players that means a tactic that worked well for one team might not work well for another.

[Aizo4576]

Thank you so much for the feedback.

So essentially, if I want to be playing this attacking high line, I need to have closing down on more often?

I was considering changing the CMs to

CM-D BBM-S

But would it be better to have a DLP-D instead of a CM-D?

Potentially changing Honda to AM-A I think could work well. With this set up should I look to be using more direct passing? That's what I think I want to do.

[summatsupeer]

Thank you so much for the feedback.

So essentially, if I want to be playing this attacking high line, I need to have closing down on more often?

I was considering changing the CMs to

CM-D BBM-S

But would it be better to have a DLP-D instead of a CM-D?

Potentially changing Honda to AM-A I think could work well. With this set up should I look to be using more direct passing? That's what I think I want to do.

"Better" depends what you want. Due to being a playmaker the DLP will see more of the ball and has more creative freedom than a CM-D so should make more key passes if he has the options and ability to. A CM-D will close down a bit more to make up for not offering as much with the ball. When watching the game what do you think you need? The more disciplined defensive option who has easy options around him (such as a AP) or more on the ball creativity to get balls to the runners?

Watch the game and just pause it and see what passing options a player has and what they tend to select. If you see a longer pass you'd prefer them to try then use the instruction, there's little point using the instruction if there isn't any longer options. The ball will move forward quickly anyway due to mentality, do you need it to go forward over longer distances? Will it put your 2x CWB-A behind play and unable to catch up?

[lewis999]

Thank you so much for the feedback.

So essentially, if I want to be playing this attacking high line, I need to have closing down on more often?

I was considering changing the CMs to

CM-D BBM-S

But would it be better to have a DLP-D instead of a CM-D?

Potentially changing Honda to AM-A I think could work well. With this set up should I look to be using more direct passing? That's what I think I want to do.

Yes mate I would advise more closing down. If you can't seem to pen them in as much as you would like it might be worth putting your RWB and LWB at RM and LM and make them defensive wingers. Read the description of the DW's it might be what you're looking for.

Obviously it can work having playmakers in an attacking set up but me personally it depends what you want. Do you want to win the ball back and then attack their goal whilst they are disorganised a bit like Liverpool when they had Sterling, Sturridge and Suarez under Brendan Rodgers a few years back or more like Barcelona who win it back very quickly and then keep the ball for minutes on end and tire the other team out looking for openings?

You need to figure out your identity and how you see your team doing it. Who is running in behind, who is coming short, who is covering for this player if he goes there etc etc.

[Overmars]

Some things I would try and test to see if they work:

1. Use more conservative wingbacks (either one or both as WB(s))

2. Push one or both wingbacks back to your back line if your opposition start killing you with crosses

3. Change mentality to control or standard (or use more "runner" roles in your midfield)

4. Use retain possession or shorter passing (only because you seem to want better possession)

I love this formation in theory, but every time I test it on FM, I find its sister formation (4-1-2-1-2 narrow diamond with a halfback) works just a little bit better on both offense and defense.