4-4-2 - Is it my tactics, Players or Both?

[Letissier1980]

Hello,

I am a long time player and to be honest have never got a grasp of the tactical side of this game, no matter how many times I watch the game on full / comprehensive and regardless of monitoring the changes I make.  What I do not understand is how to consistently make changes to adapt to the opposition or to get the best out of my players.  

I always start the game as an unemployed Sunday league manager and try to make changes in either three ways - Mentality, Shouts or roles.  I am currently manager of Tranmere and am using a Standard / Flexible 4 - 4 -2 in League two.

I have a lower than average team for this league and am mid-table at present, but how can I get that extra ounce or two out of my team?  Le me please show you the tactics:

Standard / Flexible   (Low crosses)

GK - GK/D (Distribute to full backs)

DR - FB/S

DCR - CD/D

DCL - CD/D

DL - WB/A

MR - W/A

MCR - CM/S

MCL - CM/D

ML - WM/S

STR - DLF/S

STL - AF/A

What I am trying to achieve:

• Overlap of left side with wingback & wide midfielder
• Right winger crosses into strikers and provides attacking threat by going past DLF with right full back providing defensive cover
• CM/D provides cover for Left Wingback, but not sure if I require it due to opposition midfield having a lot of space in front of my midfield
• Strikers swapping positions to confuse defenders.

Is there something I am missing?  There seems to be a lot of space in front of the midfield and my players crosses from the LB & RW seem to be pretty ineffective.

Any help and advice will be greatly appreciated.

 

[jorgvandervloed]

I would probably switch the striker roles; STL - DLFs and STR - AFa.

You could try to have your WMs cut inside and/or sit narrower, this way your WB will have more space to run into. 

Also, your system will be highly dependable on crosses (Winger and WB) why limited them by wanting them to give low crosses? Why not let them choose based on the situation whatever option they go for.

[borivoje213]

Sounds like bodies aren't getting forward enough and becomes quite static and one dimensional. 

If there is a gap ahead of your midfield to be used then you need someone to start using it.  I agree setting the WMs to cut inside will help, also I'd say try a BBM instead of CMs, it'll basically give him license to bomb forward a bit more.  Even though a BBM is an 's' role it's generally just because - as the name suggests - he's involved in aspects at either end.  He'll actually get into a goal scoring position far more than most other 's' midfield roles.  He'll kind of oscillate with your front men looking to make runs for your DLF, create chances and recycle the ball.  I never used to use them until this version and turns out they can cause absolute havoc, they're quite unpredictable as I regularly see them do pretty much anything you'd expect to see from a CMd  right the way through to an SS.

Alternatively if you lack a suitable player, CMa.  But don't expect as much from him when you lose the ball for obvious reasons.  You'll be relying primarily on that CMd to close down balls cleared into midfield.  I couldn't say for sure without trying it, as I use a 3-man midfield, but in this scenario you could set your DCR to stopper.   This way when an attack breaks down he'll be closer to being in line with your CMd.  Having players as first line of defence like that works really well, as you'll notice a lot of clearances that stay in play end up dropping to your midfield, having people step ahead to clean them up helps retain possession to build forward again and prevent counter-attacks.  But as I said, using that stopper is more of an experiment, it's how I'd imagine it working so I'd try it for a couple of games if I were using a CMa in a line-up like that.

[Letissier1980]

Thank you for your replies.  May I please question your answers with my logic which should help change my understanding of the game.  To be honest I have not learned anything new about the game in 6 odd years.

 

Why would I change the strikers around? I want the DLF to have the AF to pass to on his left or the W on his right. What would changing this add to the system?

I chose low crosses as my strikers are not tall by any means.

What does the BBM add that the CMS doesn't?  The tactics creater  has the only difference as roam from position. Surely this would mean that there is a higher chance that he could be caught out of position due to this instruction. 

Regards

[jorgvandervloed]

@Letissier1980 

It was either changing the forward roles or the midfield roles; its probably better to change the midfield roles... 

At the moment, you have a DLFs dropping deep to support play, a CMs on the same side making runs forward occasionally (running into each other), and a Wa who play further ahead as well. They leave a big gap behind them. 

Same goes for the left side, but probably not as much. The AFa will stay high on the field, while the CMd will stay back more (no runs) you do have the WMs that will make runs occasionally and the WBa that wil get up. So between the AF and CMd there is some space the opponent can use, plus in attack there wont be anyone to pass to.

The BBM and the CMs are very similar roles actually, but the role says it all I guess. Box to Box midfield; someone that continuously runs back and forth, more so than than the CMs. 

I would do something like this:

                   AF (A)   -   DLF (S)

WM (S)   -   BBM (S)   -   CM (D)   -   W (A)

  WB (A)   -   CD (D)   -   CD (D)   -   FB (S)

[Letissier1980]

Thank you.  I have tried making the changes suggesred and have lost both games. That is not a criticism as I was away to superior teams playing a five man midfield. 

The link up did seem better so we will see against a team that is more my level.

If the issues persist, does this mean that it will be down to the players?

[westy8chimp]

On ‎06‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 19:29, Letissier1980 said:

Thank you for your replies.  May I please question your answers with my logic which should help change my understanding of the game.  To be honest I have not learned anything new about the game in 6 odd years.

 

Why would I change the strikers around? I want the DLF to have the AF to pass to on his left or the W on his right. What would changing this add to the system?

I chose low crosses as my strikers are not tall by any means.

What does the BBM add that the CMS doesn't?  The tactics creater  has the only difference as roam from position. Surely this would mean that there is a higher chance that he could be caught out of position due to this instruction. 

Regards

I think one of the SI staff, possibly a MOD, stated that whilst you can replicate the PI of a BBM with a CM (s) there is some under the hood bits going on which still means a BBM is unique. So yes bbm better than cm (s) in your current style... but would be different if you had an AMC in a different tactic etc. for 442, 4141. 352 id always have a BBM.

[borivoje213]

On 06/12/2016 at 20:29, Letissier1980 said:

What does the BBM add that the CMS doesn't?  The tactics creater  has the only difference as roam from position. Surely this would mean that there is a higher chance that he could be caught out of position due to this instruction. 

No it just results in him making more runs off the ball to make himself available.  But the added danger that causes is actually quite decent, especially if is OTB and other related BBM attributes are pretty good.

Sure he's usually higher up the pitch when you lose the ball but the idea is you sit him with a CM who sits deeper so as to provide some cover until he returns to assist defending like any other player set to support mode.  The roaming just gives him licence to be a little more free to get into dangerous areas.  All a BMM is in terms of game logic is a CM/A that gets back to defend more, hence the name.

[Letissier1980]

Thank you.  I have tried making the changes and I can see more cohesion with the players.  Now that am happy with this I have noticed that my some players are getting easily disposed as the other players who are viable options to pass to are marked.  I am also unsure of the defensive line.  If I change this higher does this compress the space between the defence and midfield only or does the gap from midfield to attack shorten as well. I am aware fluidity may come into this as well! I am concerned with many 'hoofed' balls up front from defenders.  It's a curious predicament as sometimes these balls are beneficial. I would rather that the players do try this when the option is definitely 'on'.  

Lastly I am struggling when the opposition are choosing to go attacking.  I have tried various options from going to attacking to defensive, standing off to closing down and trying to hold possession to pass into space and direct and changing players roles & duties but every time the opposition have chance after chance, usually scoring. Any ideas?

[facman]

On my phone and not much time to post so I'll be brief.

1) don't have BBM and WM on same side if you are going to ask your WM to cut inside, instead have the BBM on the same side as the winger (the winger will help clear out space for the runner)

2) check your PPMs. Loads of people post about tactics and never describe the PPMs of the players using the tactic. I have 2 great BBM players in my team, both of whom play the role differently due to their PPMs.

3) remember that changing mentality affects a whole host of things - d-line, tempo, passing etc - as well as risk. You can play very attractive attacking football with a defensive mentality.

[johnnyyakuza78]

On 12/8/2016 at 12:00, Letissier1980 said:

Thank you.  I have tried making the changes suggesred and have lost both games. That is not a criticism as I was away to superior teams playing a five man midfield. 

The link up did seem better so we will see against a team that is more my level.

If the issues persist, does this mean that it will be down to the players?

I think in general you have to be a bit more adaptive to the opposition and play to your strengths rather than try and crowbar a certain style into every situation.

If you are playing against a superior side who have a 5 man midfield then you need to think about how your side is going to counteract that. First thing to think about is your central midfield. If you have a central 2, and you've put one of them on B2B then a lot of times that leaves you with only 1 midfielder keeping shape. Pretty much suicide. In that situation I would change back to a more holding style midfield. I would also change your DLF to a defensive forward or move them back into midfield. Against superior sides its often not wise to have attack duties on fullbacks (depends on other factors of course such as Shape), but personally as a rule I move them to support.

To create the situations you want with the overlap you require you need to space to work in. If there was a counter attack happening then you might get it, but if you are the weaker side then having your fullback racing to overlap is unwise, unless your central midfield is strong enough to cover it. 

So I would look at situations where you are the better side to play with the above tactic you mentioned. If that case a B2B is fine. I like having a WM with sit narrower and then also a fullback on attack to get that overlap happening, because it creates the space for him to run into. 

I also think your tactic is a little easy to defend against because you pretty much have one striker attacking space, one dropping back and then the rest of your players hovering outside the box. 

Maybe another way to do is have your right winger on support, your left WM on attack, but with sit inside and cut inside on, so that he makes runs into the box and supports the strikers. This gives you more bodies in the box.

[YasoKuul]

On 9.12.2016 at 18:44, Letissier1980 said:

Thank you.  I have tried making the changes and I can see more cohesion with the players.  Now that am happy with this I have noticed that my some players are getting easily disposed as the other players who are viable options to pass to are marked.  I am also unsure of the defensive line.  If I change this higher does this compress the space between the defence and midfield only or does the gap from midfield to attack shorten as well. I am aware fluidity may come into this as well! I am concerned with many 'hoofed' balls up front from defenders.  It's a curious predicament as sometimes these balls are beneficial. I would rather that the players do try this when the option is definitely 'on'.  

Lastly I am struggling when the opposition are choosing to go attacking.  I have tried various options from going to attacking to defensive, standing off to closing down and trying to hold possession to pass into space and direct and changing players roles & duties but every time the opposition have chance after chance, usually scoring. Any ideas?

I play with a similar 4-4-1-1 (asymmetric) setup and get good results with a mid-table team. The defensive line is pretty standard and offers good protection and is supported by the CM(d), sometimes like a 4-1-4-1. Four attack-roles look very attacking but the defensive setup allows these roles and act like a 4-2-3-1 or 4-2-4.

Counter + Structured

Team instructions:  Push Higher Up (to move the lines closer together) and Close Down More (being a bit more aggressive)

              DLF(a)

                            T(a)    

WM(a)   CM(s)   CM(d)   W(a) 

FB(s)   CD(d)   CD(d)   FB(s)

                  G(d)

The WM on the left is instructed to Cut Inside, Dribble More and Cross Less Often to act like an IF. Both CD are instructed to Close Down Less to keep position. The left FB is instructed to Get Further Forward to offer a better option on the left side. The G(d) is instructed to Slow Pace Down, Fewer Risky Passes and Throw Out to distribute to the CD or to the flanks.