Grassroots Tactics: Simplicity.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

Welcome to my first foray into Lower League Management.

Recent threads have focused on using the Tactics Creator in Football Manager to recreate some of the most entertaining & iconic football teams of all time.

1. Johan Cruyff's 3-4-3 Diamond
2. Arrigo Sacchi's 4-4-2
3. Arsene Wenger's Invincibles
4. Brazil's Jogo Bonito style
5. Cult Heroes: Wales at Euro 2016
6. Pep's Barcelona

The latest combined Messi, Iniesta, Neymar, Dybala, Suarez and Dybala into a system that - in my current view - is a culmination of the playing style I have been trying to create and played the best football I have seen.

The beauty - in my opinion - of this style of play is that you give intelligent, technical players the freedom to go out and play, within a framework designed to get the best out of them. But what happens when your squad doesn't have - any, or all of - the intelligence to thrive with such a high level of freedom, the technical ability to play a high-tempo passing game, the fitness to press intensely or the pace to compensate for a high-block defence?

In this thread, we are going to tackle the single most common topic of discussion throughout the entire series.

         Playing simple, attractive, possession-focused football with normal players, not yet at a level capable of playing quick passing football, with freedom and intense pressing.

Wanted to play in a league system where we can ultimately compete at a high level and that I have - at least, some - basic knowledge of, so I chose to start in the lowest playable division in England: Vanarama National League North / South.

The biggest challenge of lower league football - for me, personally - is relating to the club I manage. Having mainly played clubs right at the top of the game, a fan-owned club formed out of frustrations with excesses of top-level football seemed perfect. Hello, Red Rebels.

We will be referring to some of the ideas discussed in Playing Style & Structure so if you have yet to read, I would recommend reading at least the overview.


What are we trying to achieve?

At the outset, the board agreed the following philosophies:

• Play possession football.
• Develop players using the club's own youth system.

Tactical approach:

• Play a positive short-passing, possession-focused game.
  • Not possession for the sake of possession.
  • Triangles & diamonds facilitating a passing game.
  • Build up from the back.
• Solid defensive platform.
• Multi-dimensional attack.
  • Different goal-scoring threats.

Squad Management:

• Build a young squad with potential to improve and stay together for a number of years.
• Focus on core attributes:
  • Technical ability
  • Intelligence
  • Work rate & fitness
• Coach effective Player Traits which fit the overall system.
• Coach players to play in other suitable positions to build complete players and tactical flexibility.

Longer Term:

• Invest profits back into the club, particularly the Academy and Training Facilities.
• Achieve Professional status as quickly as possible.
  • Supplement young squad with more experienced tutors to improve Professionalism and Determination within the squad.
• Maintain focus on youth and positive, attractive football.

Squad Building

As you'd expect at this level, the starting squad left quite a lot to be desired so underwent a major overhaul to give us a platform to build from.

With no experience at this level, my search was fairly minimal but the trial day and free transfer market proved to be a great source of young players with relatively high potential and an upgrade on the existing squad technically.
 

We now have a youthful spine of the squad who have the basic aptitude to play the football we are hoping to play:

• Relatively strong technical ability, intelligence and fitness.
• Relatively high potential to improve as we progress.
• Work rate and stamina not high enough for an intense pressing game.
  • Conversely we don't have strong defensive traits - marking, positioning, anticipation, concentration - to sit deep and keep out quality opponents.

This is illustrated well in the Comparison section of the team report:

Pass and move. The foundation of the type of football we are looking to play.

Coaching on the Training Ground

One of the more enjoyable facets of playing at this level is that - whilst players are unlikely to ever compete at the highest levels - it's satisfying to work with a player and see them improve as a footballer.

Training is focused on building footballers with good all-round ability.

• Aiming for double figures for key technical and mental attributes.
• Improving versatility to play more than one position. Common examples:
  • DC <-> DMC <-> MC
  • MC <-> AMC
  • AMC <-> FC
  • AMR <-> AML
  • DR/L <-> WBR/L <-> MR/L
• Coaching player traits that help within our system:
  • Defenders playing simple passes.
  • Midfielders playing one-twos.
  • Attackers & wide players working on movement patterns.

 

Tactics

Structure

As we have already identified in previous threads - formations are neutral; it is their application that gives then positive of negative qualities (Jonathan Wilson).

Essentially this means that I need to choose a formation which:

• Facilitates our game plan of playing simple, passing football.
• Performs well against opposition formations we are likely to face.
  • Most of the opposing teams at this level line up in a 4-4-2 formation.
• Suits the players we have available.
  • Particularly offering a strong defensive structure, to mitigate defensive weaknesses in the squad.

When you're talking about possession football, my go-to formation is typically some variation of 4-3-3 as a starting point.

The strength of 4-3-3 is the midfield triangle facilitating passing football.

At this level, the challenge - in my opinion - is the striker role.

Boiled down to it's simplest level, football is about scoring more goals than the opposition.

A 4-3-3 gives us a lone striker so you have a tough decision as to whether to set this striker to an Attack role - where his priority will be goalscoring, but is easily isolated - or a Support role - where he will contribute more to build up play but offer less of a goalscoring threat.

At the top level, I am never too concerned. Firstly, high level teams generally have goalscoring threats across the team and a good striker can perform both link-up play and goalscoring.

At this level, only my striker has a finishing attribute in double-figures so I cannot rely on goals coming from elsewhere and - as an underdog - I don't want to be wasting chances. I also don't want him isolated so I'm going to go for a strike-partnership to link up play.

An alternative, which offers both a strike-partnership and facilitates possession football is the Diamond and it's variants - 4-1-3-2 or 4-3-1-2.

I love the simplicity of the diamond formation.

Remember being coached to play it as a kid. The diamond shape creates a lot of triangles so most of the time you'll naturally have a good passing option. When you receive the ball, look to make a pass to the more advanced players in the diamond. If you can't find a player ahead, look to your side then pass inside or backwards and circulate possession.

The diamond is very close to the way I would like to play, but there are two things I would change for my system.

1. The advanced midfielder and withdrawn striker are performing a very similar role so perhaps redundant or could be better used elsewhere.
2. Build-up play.

In my opinion, build-up play is one of the most interesting topics of discussion around tactics.

My most effective build up play has come using the concept of la Salida Lavolpiana - essentially the centre-backs fanning out wide and a midfielder dropping into the space to avoid the opposition pressing and circulate possession effectively.

In Football Manager we have two options to create this effect:

1. Use a DMC with the Half-Back role.
    - The challenge with the Half-Back role is that - due to a glitch in the match engine - our fullbacks must be advanced, else my central defenders won't spread wide.
   
   
    

   The obvious issue with this is that it asks a tremendous amount from your defenders. Not only are they being asked to initiate build-up play with the ball at their feet, they are also being asked to defend as a 2-man defence. My verdict on this would be close to suicide considering a) the quality of players at my disposal and b) the 2v2 created by the opposition 4-4-2.

   Fortunately, a few months ago I was promised by SI that the issue would not go ignored. I'm sure they're hard at work resolving the issue.[/sarcasm]

2. Play a 3-man defence.
    - In addition to aiding build-up play, adding a 3-man defence gives us the benefit of 3v2 in against the opposition attackers and it suits my players.

Starting Formation

Player Instructions

GK: Goalkeeper (Defend): Distribute to Centre Backs, Take Short Kicks
DCR: Central Defender (Defend): N/A
DC: Central Defender (Cover): N/A
DCL: Central Defender (Defend): N/A
WBR: Wing Back (Support): Stay wider, Run with Ball
DMC: Roaming Playmaker (Support): Move Into Channels
WBL: Wing Back (Support): Stay wider, Run with Ball
MCR: Central Midfielder (Support): Move into Channels
MCL: Central Midfielder (Attack): Roam from Position, Move into Channels
FCR: Deep Lying Forward (Support): Roam from Position, Move into Channels
FCL: Poacher (Attack): N/A

Key characteristics:

• Solid 3-man defence creating a 3v2 against opposition attackers.
• Key player - George Thompson - sitting ahead of the defence in a playmaker role, sitting between the lines of an opposition 4-4-2.
• As possession funnels through Thompson the Wing Backs give him wide options and the midfielders give options ahead of him.
• 3v2 in midfield against an opposition 4-4-2. Thompson either has time and space, or is pressed which opens up a team mate.
• Withdrawn striker training to come deep for the ball and link-up to create a diamond and particularly link up with the advancing MC(A) to his left.
• Fluid front 4 with a simple goalscorer spearheading the attack.

Playing Style

This is the moment readers are expecting me to say, "Very Fluid" and go on another rant. Not this time.

We already know that Team Shape determines two things:

• Individual mentality distribution, in relation to Team Mentality.
• Creative Freedom.

High creative freedom creates beautiful football when you take players with technical ability and intelligence and give them the freedom to play.

The issue is that if you look at the key attributes of our squad, particularly intelligence - vision, decision making, anticipation - the majority are actually single figure attributes.

A common reaction to this may be to swing to the other extreme and play a Structured shape, reducing creative freedom to a point where we are essentially giving them an NFL style playbook and minimising free decision making but this simply isn't how I want to play.

When looking at anything with a sliding scale - mentality, tempo, creative freedom etc. - another idea I find beneficial is the concept of 'neutral'. For example, whilst Highly Structured is at the opposite end of the scale, I see that as a swing from one extreme to another whereas I see Flexible as 'neutral' and likely to be the easiest to play.

Team Shape: Flexible.

Starting with a flexible team shape gives us a balance between the way we want to play and the way players are capable of playing, at this moment of time.

Given the young squad and their potential to improve it'll be interesting to experiment, increasing to Fluid and ... dare I say it? ... Very Fluid as their footballing intelligence improves.

Mentality is easily the most influential decision we make when building a tactic as it determines:

• Individual mentalities in correlation with Team Shape
• Tempo
• Width
• Defensive Line
• Closing Down
• Time Wasting

The influence of a flexible team shape is that mentalities are now distributed into two groups

1. Defenders and Defensive Midfielders
2. Attackers and more Attacking Midfielders (includes MC strata)

Now remember that my playmaker is a Roaming Playmaker in the DM strata so he is actually in the lower band of mentalities. It's only a marginal difference but I do need to account for this in team mentality to avoid my playmaker playing with a more conservative mentality.

Mentality: Control

This ensures that our Roaming Playmaker is a neutral mentality, meaning that he will choose the best passing option available without being swayed by a bias towards conservatism or attack. The structure and midfield runners ahead of him should encourage a positive circulation of possession.

Using the Mentality spreadsheet we discussed last time out, we can see that Flexible & Control combination gives us:

• Sensible, conservative defenders.
• Neutral wingbacks and DM playmaker.
• Positively minded midfielders.
• Two threatening attack roles.

My only remaining concern is whether the team has the technical ability to play the higher tempo associated with the Control mentality.

Fortunately this is easily countered using Team Instructions:

• Shorter Passing.
• Play out of Defence.

Both of which lower tempo back to a neutral level and contribute towards our Playing Style:

So there we have it. Our playing style:

• Structure that facilitates build-up play, passing football and a simple goalscoring threat.
• Neutral tempo and creative freedom allowing players to play at a level they're capable of.
• Sensible pro-active pressing game.
• Positive, yet balanced mentality structure.
• Medium/High-ish Defensive block.

Tactical Progression

With a young squad, I will be closely monitoring their development in 3 key areas:

• Technical ability - technique, passing, first touch, two footedness, traits etc.
  • As technical ability improves players will be comfortable playing a quicker tempo and more expansive game.
• Intelligence - vision, decisions, anticipation, concentration etc.
  • Intelligence will dictate when they are ready to be given more creative freedom to make decisions in a more Fluid team shape.
  • Expected to develop over time through increased game-time.
• Work rate & stamina.
  • Determines when we can start pressing more intensely.
  • Most difficult to develop work-rate, may need to use specific intensive training programs.

Playing a more Fluid team shape will have two implications:

• Increased creative freedom to make decisions.
  • Hence the need for intelligence.
• Individual mentalities converge towards the Team Mentality i.e defenders become more expansive and attackers more involved with build up play.

In the event that the second effect causes issues - i.e defenders not ready and making mistakes or strikers stopping scoring due to increased responsibility - we can consider using Standard mentality to help adapt to a more Fluid team shape.

In real football terms this would be allowing players to play with greater freedom but slowing things down a bit to help the transition, before building up to quicker play.

For example, a progression may be:

     Flexible & Control
      -> Fluid & Standard - increased freedom, same mentality structure and slightly slower.
      -> Fluid & Control - pushes up mentality for more expansive play and quicker tempo.
      -> Very Fluid & Standard - increased freedom, same mentality structure and slightly slower.
      -> Very Fluid & Control - pushes up mentality for more expansive play and quicker tempo.

 

In-Game Analysis

Whilst holding our own in an FA Cup tie against a Manchester United featuring the likes of Rooney, Rashford, Lingard, Young and Schweinsteiger at Old Trafford was the closest I have been - in Football Manager 2017 - to throwing on a suit and tie for the match I am going to talk about a more typical match to demonstrate the approach.

Earlier in the FA Cup run, we faced Oxford United which - whilst still not typical - was probably our most impressive performance of the season and was perhaps the highest level which we are currently able to compete.

Oxford United lined up in a 4-4-2 formation which - as we hypothesised earlier - was the most common formation we faced.

Against a 4-4-2 we sacrifice pressure on the opposition full backs in exchange for an extra man in defence, and midfield.
 

Defensive Shape Analysis

Our defensive set up is simple. We don't have the work rate or stamina to press and we don't have the all-round defensive ability to sit deep and withstand pressure so the plan is to use an upper-medium block and a solid defensive structure to force opposition attacks out wide and outnumber them in the centre. 

Average position without the ball reflects our starting formation almost exactly.

The combination of the 4-4-2 naturally attacking the flanks and my own structure naturally forcing attacks onto the flanks makes this a common scenario.

• Wing backs drop deep, creating a 5-3-2 defensive shape.
• Our defenders have a 3v2 advantage against the opposition strikers.
• We also have a 3v2 advantage in central midfield.
  • Midfield trio swings across with the widest midfielder supporting with wing back.
  • Against a 4-4-2 the opposition midfield rarely provides too much threat, typically consisting of one defensive and one support player.
• Strikers make minor contributions defensively, sometimes disrupting opposition build up but generally staying forward offering a counter-attacking threat.

In another similar attack the wingback comes forward to pressure the opposition attacker and we see a natural pendulum effect as the defence take advantage of the extra man in defence and midfield, freeing them to shift across and cover.

• Solid 4-man defence.
• 2v2 against the opposition midfield but only really one runner to track.
• Big flaw in the opposition AI is how regularly the opposition fullbacks fail to get forward to support an attack leaving their team mates totally outnumbered.

 

Build-Up Play Analysis

Looking at the passing combinations shows a good representation of our passing play.

 

• Goalkeeper distributes the ball short to one of the 3 defenders.
• Defenders generally have good passing options ahead of them so there is minimal passing between the defenders.
• Majority of the play goes through the midfield.
  • George Thompson is the heartbeat of the team as playmaker.
• Wing backs provide width.
• Advanced midfielders and strikers create a reasonably fluid attacking unit, linking up well.

Defence Initiating Attacks

Very typical build up play here, the goalkeeper has played a short pass to the left sided centre back.

• Centre backs have spread out wide, rendering the opposition press completely useless.
• Roberts has 3 simple passing options ahead of him or can advance to the halfway line completely unchallenged.
  • As a left-footed player, the easiest pass would be one of the inside options towards central midfield.
• Green circle illustrates the acres of space between the opposition lines for our playmaker.
• Wing backs provide width.
• Advanced midfielders and attackers link to provide a fluid diamond shape, giving options to advance the attack.

George Thompson - Playmaker

Since day one, it's been clear that George Thompson is the stand out player of the squad. Assigning him as the team's playmaker and positioning him between the lines of the opposition formation was a move to give him a platform to play his best football.

In this case Thompson is advancing with the ball, preparing to initiate an attacking move.

• Green circle illustrates the space available to him which - as a Roaming Playmaker moving into the channels - he can take full advantage of.
• 3 simple, advanced passing options ahead of him.
• Alternatively, he can advance with the ball and draw out the opposition midfield and create space for a more advanced player.
• As before - wing backs provide width and advanced midfielders link with the attackers.

Thompson hit 99 successful passes in this game and - as you can see - controlled game from all over the field.

No surprise that he was also the most accurate passer in the league.

The real advantage of this build up is not only that it is controlled, but it is also efficient. The ball does not spend long at the back. Within one or two passes we're into the attacking phase. This is illustrated perfectly in the possession heatmap.

What a perfect platform to build from.

Attacking Play

Taking a quick look at an attack, we can see that:

• Advanced midfielders and forwards combine creating a fluid diamond shape.
• Jowers drops off deep, drawing the defender and creating space for - in this case - Greaves to attack.
• Wing backs provide width and stretch the opposition defence.
• Attacking runs from midfield can create a 3v2 overload against opposition defenders if the holding midfielder fails to track.

When we can't attack centrally, we can threaten from wide.

• Strikers have a 2v2 against the opposition centre backs in the box.
• Attacking runner from midfield.
• Playmaker still in a lot of space to recycle possession should the attack break down.

The Result

Comfortable win. More than held our own against a side who are the best part of 3 leagues ahead of us.

We won the league with relative ease and enjoyed two great cup runs.

Progression

Our primary objective is to achieve professional status which I am hoping to secure around the end of the second season.

Profits from the cup run have already been invested back into the club:

Adapting to playing at a higher level after promotion is always a challenge but we can be optimistic, judging the results against higher-level opponents during the cup run so we extend contracts for almost the entire team and look to supplement the squad with a few attacking options.

 

Whilst players have benefited from a modest progression in ability, they are still lacking the intelligence and technical ability to progress the playing style to the next level.

But I will be looking to developing an alternative structure using a 4-man defence as we start to face more tactically sophisticated opponents, but that's another story for another day..

Thank you & GoFundMe contributions

So far the response to these threads and discussions generated have been absolutely phenomenal so once again I wanted to thank everyone for contributing as I have really enjoyed it.

Wasn't a huge uptake last time but if you'd like to contribute towards the continuation of these articles and the time & effort that goes into them here's the GoFundMe page - Football Manager Tactical Analysis.

I'd like to be 100% clear that these articles are completely free and will always continue to be. Contributions are simply supporting the work that's been done so far, if you've enjoyed them.

As I am sure you can appreciate - whilst I love writing them - a lot of time & effort goes into these.

Hope you've enjoyed reading and find some of this useful. Will be very interested in hearing your solutions to playing quality football at a lower level. Different format this time round so let's see if this generates some interesting discussions! 

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

Reserved.

[kingjericho]

Looks nice!

[Rash-forwards]

Big fan of your previous posts (especially the cruyff 3-4-3), just wondered how your 3 centre backs coped throughout the season? Do you concede many? Thinking about doing a lower league save but normally find it difficult to keep cleen sheets with 3 at the back at the best of times

[VV Bal op de Lat]

Great thread! I'm currently soaking up as much information as I can about possession football from the Guardiola and Cruijff vision. One Thing I find to be really frustrating is the difficulties in really knowing the TC. 

For example: what's the difference between 'move into channels' and 'roam from position'? You use them both on your cm(a), but use only one of them on other players. Why is that? 

I take my hat off for you, Sir. You seem to be capable to insert your vision into the really vague TC and that is something I can't seem to get my head around (vague when it comes to being able to understand and implement what you really want into a fm tactic. It's killing me, but you? You, Sir, seem to have mastered the TC. Amazing work!). 

[Kcinnay]

Very nice work! Although it shouldn't be possible that you manage to have 52% of possession with such a small team against Man Utd.

[yau]

1 hour ago, VV Bal op de Lat said:

For example: what's the difference between 'move into channels' and 'roam from position'? You use them both on your cm(a), but use only one of them on other players. Why is that? 

'move into channel' tells player to move into space between center back and full back. 'Roam from position' allows player to drift out from hes position to all directions 

[Tajerio]

Most teams down in the Conference do tend to play 4-4-2, but every now and then you get a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1--and you must have seen one or two of those in the cups as well.  Did you make any adjustments to the tactic when you weren't facing a 4-4-2?

Cracking read as always, of course.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

9 hours ago, Rash-forwards said:

Big fan of your previous posts (especially the cruyff 3-4-3), just wondered how your 3 centre backs coped throughout the season? Do you concede many? Thinking about doing a lower league save but normally find it difficult to keep cleen sheets with 3 at the back at the best of times

Thank you very much 

Conceded 27 in 42 games. Remember that it's a pretty conservative formation, the 3-3-2 block gives a 3v2 advantage in both defence and midfield and the wingbacks protect the flanks. It's about as solid as I could come up with given the players available.

 

8 hours ago, VV Bal op de Lat said:

Great thread! I'm currently soaking up as much information as I can about possession football from the Guardiola and Cruijff vision. One Thing I find to be really frustrating is the difficulties in really knowing the TC. 

For example: what's the difference between 'move into channels' and 'roam from position'? You use them both on your cm(a), but use only one of them on other players. Why is that? 

I take my hat off for you, Sir. You seem to be capable to insert your vision into the really vague TC and that is something I can't seem to get my head around (vague when it comes to being able to understand and implement what you really want into a fm tactic. It's killing me, but you? You, Sir, seem to have mastered the TC. Amazing work!). 

The movement instructions are no exact science but they're also such a minor instruction, the detail is almost negligible. My advice would be to try not to get hung up on the tiny things and focus on getting the right playing style and structure.

My interpretation is that Move into Channels refers to lateral movement, Get Forward is - obviously - more attacking runs and Roam from Position is pretty much complete freedom.

In this case, I want my MC(S) to get into the channels to open up passing options but generally dominate that midfield space whereas the MC(A) needs to connect the attack and can attack the spaces around the strikers runs etc.

It's generally pretty obvious whether you've got the right balance after 3-4 games.

 

8 hours ago, Kcinnay said:

Very nice work! Although it shouldn't be possible that you manage to have 52% of possession with such a small team against Man Utd.

Debatable. Jose Mourinho is a defensive, direct coach with a preference for counter attacking. Possession is not part of his game plan. He also played a 4-2-3-1 with Rooney as his AMC so essentially 4-2-4 and his midfield 2 were deep and immobile - Schweinsteiger & Felliani (giving youth a chance, as ever) - so we played around them.

The biggest issue for us was handling their transitions when we did lose the ball but overall we represented ourselves very well.

This game was actually the closest I came to changing my playing style as we were both underdogs and playing into their game plan but I didn't want to overcomplicate things.

 

3 hours ago, Tajerio said:

Most teams down in the Conference do tend to play 4-4-2, but every now and then you get a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1--and you must have seen one or two of those in the cups as well.  Did you make any adjustments to the tactic when you weren't facing a 4-4-2?

Cracking read as always, of course.

This season, no. We weren't as effective against 1-man striker forces - primary issue being 3v1 is inefficient leaving overloads elsewhere and wingbacks effectively covering wide strikers - but we didn't face it too many times and actually did get results.

Experimenting in the second season, pushing one defender out into a holding midfielder position.

Pretty minor structural change but it means I have a 2v1 on the opposition forward, 4v3 on the opposition midfield and 2v2 on the centre backs. Plays some lovely football.

I am still taking advantage of the reasonably limited opposition fullbacks not providing enough support in attack.

Working - and currently failing - to implement a more solid pressing system, which I think will be necessary as we progress.

[David Beckham_7]

Your formation, is similar to Julian Nagelsmann's Hoffenheim.

[johnnyyakuza78]

Wow, this thread is so inspirational I'm close to loading up FM16 and starting a new save. Something I haven't done for a very long time. 

I'm really interested in how much actual change you can make to the players via training on the lower levels. Most advice I've seen at LLM revolves around having a huge turnover of players, rather than trying to train any up. Mostly this is due to poor facilities and coaches and part time contracts. 

I also like that you've gone the opposite direction to most people playing LLM and going for possession and a skill based strategy. I tend to also base my tactics on physical attributes when playing LLM because those are easier to come by. Were you not tempted to do that?

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

44 minutes ago, David Beckham_7 said:

Your formation, is similar to Julian Nagelsmann's Hoffenheim.

Yes, I did notice that. Wasn't an intention at the outset but it's actually remarkably similar.
 

 

 

30 minutes ago, johnnyyakuza78 said:

I also like that you've gone the opposite direction to most people playing LLM and going for possession and a skill based strategy. I tend to also base my tactics on physical attributes when playing LLM because those are easier to come by. Were you not tempted to do that?

Thank you very much. Glad you enjoyed 

That was actually the purpose of the thread. The topic of playing quality football with lower level teams came up in every thread and I've always felt that there's no need to start parking buses just because you don't have elite level players.

The topic that really interested me personally was playing a system that facilitated lower level or younger players learning the game and building towards a more fluid possession strategy.

And yes, player development is noticeably more difficult. They're basically developing by game time alone at the moment which means that if they can't get in the team, they're stagnating.

[loklokno123]

Can any devs/ experienced players explain the move into channels instruction? 

Does it mean finding space between full back and center back? 

or it simply means players are more likely to make vertical, lateral movement to find space between defenders and become options rather than stand still?

[noikeee]

I've played this formation often too, after the community tactics challenge thing - also on Control and Pass Shorter. But with Sassuolo, infinitely higher level of players, I preferred Very Fluid.  I also attempted it with Central Español in the Uruguayan 2nd division and Fluid worked alright for them.

I typically found it a better balance to have the CM/A behind the DLF/s rather than behind the poacher (although my initial idea was to have it that way), because he can exploit the space left by the DLF dropping deep. That works quite well. Although, I do have a CWB/A on the most advanced forward's wing too, to avoid him not becoming isolated. So a slightly different balance but something you could explore if necessary even if I suspect you do not want a CWB/A with such limited players! (I'm actually taking something out of your playbook there and adapting #10's to CWB role/position, Coutinho-style ).

Moving the 3rd CB to the DM line against single striker sides, specially very deep defensive teams such as those lining up on flat 4-5-1 or 5-4-1, is something I do often too, but I use a 4-3-1-2 rather than a 4-2-2-2 Brazilian box. It works very well, the 3rd CB is definitely wasted in such scenarios.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

53 minutes ago, loklokno123 said:

Can any devs/ experienced players explain the move into channels instruction? 

Does it mean finding space between full back and center back? 

or it simply means players are more likely to make vertical, lateral movement to find space between defenders and become options rather than stand still?

I'd say you're more likely to get a response setting up a new thread for the topic.

As far as I can see it is a it's moving into the space between opposition central and wide players - I say players rather than fullback/centreback as the instruction is also available in the AM/MC/DM strata.

 

50 minutes ago, noikeee said:

I've played this formation often too, after the community tactics challenge thing - also on Control and Pass Shorter. But with Sassuolo, infinitely higher level of players, I preferred Very Fluid.  I also attempted it with Central Español in the Uruguayan 2nd division and Fluid worked alright for them.

I typically found it a better balance to have the CM/A behind the DLF/s rather than behind the poacher (although my initial idea was to have it that way), because he can exploit the space left by the DLF dropping deep. That works quite well. Although, I do have a CWB/A on the most advanced forward's wing too, to avoid him not becoming isolated. So a slightly different balance but something you could explore if necessary even if I suspect you do not want a CWB/A with such limited players! (I'm actually taking something out of your playbook there and adapting #10's to CWB role/position, Coutinho-style ).

Moving the 3rd CB to the DM line against single striker sides, specially very deep defensive teams such as those lining up on flat 4-5-1 or 5-4-1, is something I do often too, but I use a 4-3-1-2 rather than a 4-2-2-2 Brazilian box. It works very well, the 3rd CB is definitely wasted in such scenarios.

Nice work 

[Kcinnay]

5 hours ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

Debatable. Jose Mourinho is a defensive, direct coach with a preference for counter attacking. Possession is not part of his game plan. He also played a 4-2-3-1 with Rooney as his AMC so essentially 4-2-4 and his midfield 2 were deep and immobile - Schweinsteiger & Felliani (giving youth a chance, as ever) - so we played around them.

The biggest issue for us was handling their transitions when we did lose the ball but overall we represented ourselves very well.

This game was actually the closest I came to changing my playing style as we were both underdogs and playing into their game plan but I didn't want to overcomplicate things.

To be clear: I'm not criticizing you. You had a great game plan. But the difference in technical ability shouldn't make it possible to outpass Man Utd that easy, even though the balance in their formation was weak.

Oh, and to 'defend' RL Mourinho: Man Utd have an average of 56.3% of possession in the Premier League. Only Man City, Tottenham and Liverpool do 'better'. They have more possession than Arsenal and Chelsea. So his playing style has evolved. (Not for the better, in my opinion.) So in game, his Man Utd should easily outpossess a LL team. But that's not something for you to worry about. :-)

[Raffen]

Looks very nice. I've been struggling in the scottish 3rd division for a decade in a youth challenge attempt with Buckie Thistle, and I hope this can help me in the thinking process. I wanted to set up a 5-3-2 formation, since I had most quality in central defence, but I simply could not get it to work at all. This formation is actually in the same lines I was originally thinking, but I had the fullbacks in the defence strata, so maybe that was part of the issues I had. I might have been to conservative re mentality or roles as well though, as I tended to get dominated fairly often.

One issue in Scotland though, and one I'm generally struggling with, teams tend to play top heavy formations (at lesst against me). Mostly 4-3-3 Narrow. And my nemesis 4-2-3-1 Narrow. Do you have any suggestions for countering those formations? Or would you feel confident playing you 5-3-2 formation even when the opposition have 3 attackers versus your 3 central defenders, and 3 v 3 in central midfield?

I've recently switched to a 4-1-3-2 (narrow) formation with control mentality and fluid shape, and things are much better. BUT my team is the worst in the division so I always feel fluid is risky, but it seems to be working better than any other shape for some reason. I'll probably stick with my 4-1-3-2, but it would be nice to develop my 5-3-2 on the side as well, so I'll follow this thread closely.

Sorry for the semi-ramblings. I should learn to think through a post before writing

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

59 minutes ago, Kcinnay said:

To be clear: I'm not criticizing you. You had a great game plan. But the difference in technical ability shouldn't make it possible to outpass Man Utd that easy, even though the balance in their formation was weak.

Oh, and to 'defend' RL Mourinho: Man Utd have an average of 56.3% of possession in the Premier League. Only Man City, Tottenham and Liverpool do 'better'. They have more possession than Arsenal and Chelsea. So his playing style has evolved. (Not for the better, in my opinion.) So in game, his Man Utd should easily outpossess a LL team. But that's not something for you to worry about. :-)

Yes, no worries. I'd got that!

Not sure I agree though. To me, if an opponent selects a disjointed and unbalanced formation and team selection you'll always have a chance no matter how good they are. That's one of the beautiful things about football.

Real life Mourinho is just about the opposite of how I like to see and play football. % possession is not necessarily the problem. It's more the conservatism, lack of goals and lack of opportunity for youth that bother me.. but that's another topic for another day! Put it this way - he's not near top of the list for a tactical recreation!

21 minutes ago, Raffen said:

Looks very nice. I've been struggling in the scottish 3rd division for a decade in a youth challenge attempt with Buckie Thistle, and I hope this can help me in the thinking process. I wanted to set up a 5-3-2 formation, since I had most quality in central defence, but I simply could not get it to work at all. This formation is actually in the same lines I was originally thinking, but I had the fullbacks in the defence strata, so maybe that was part of the issues I had. I might have been to conservative re mentality or roles as well though, as I tended to get dominated fairly often.

One issue in Scotland though, and one I'm generally struggling with, teams tend to play top heavy formations (at lesst against me). Mostly 4-3-3 Narrow. And my nemesis 4-2-3-1 Narrow. Do you have any suggestions for countering those formations? Or would you feel confident playing you 5-3-2 formation even when the opposition have 3 attackers versus your 3 central defenders, and 3 v 3 in central midfield?

I've recently switched to a 4-1-3-2 (narrow) formation with control mentality and fluid shape, and things are much better. BUT my team is the worst in the division so I always feel fluid is risky, but it seems to be working better than any other shape for some reason. I'll probably stick with my 4-1-3-2, but it would be nice to develop my 5-3-2 on the side as well, so I'll follow this thread closely.

Sorry for the semi-ramblings. I should learn to think through a post before writing

Narrow formations are - to me - the most difficult to face.

The way I see it, you've got two options:

1. Take them on like-for-like and try to out play them.
2. Play around them and bypass their attack heavy formations.

Wouldn't like 3v3 against their attackers so I'd go for 4v3 will fullbacks rather than wingbacks.

I'd be tempted to stick my playmakers on the flanks and play a little bit quicker. Against both a 4-3-3 narrow and 4-2-3-1 narrow, one pass to MR/L playmaker can bypasses 3 or 4 opponent players.

I'd actually point you towards the 4-1-4-1 thread to see a more detailed answer.

[forlegaizen]

Great tread as always.

Did you find your strikers isolated due to the control mentalilty ?

I´m curious about the develepoment of your tactics until the final goal which is, total football.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

13 minutes ago, forlegaizen said:

Great tread as always.

Did you find your strikers isolated due to the control mentalilty ?

I´m curious about the develepoment of your tactics until the final goal which is, total football.

No, not at all. What's the logic behind Control mentality making strikers isolated, out of interest?

[Raffen]

1 hour ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

Narrow formations are - to me - the most difficult to face.

The way I see it, you've got two options:

1. Take them on like-for-like and try to out play them.
2. Play around them and bypass their attack heavy formations.

Wouldn't like 3v3 against their attackers so I'd go for 4v3 will fullbacks rather than wingbacks.

I'd be tempted to stick my playmakers on the flanks and play a little bit quicker. Against both a 4-3-3 narrow and 4-2-3-1 narrow, one pass to MR/L playmaker can bypasses 3 or 4 opponent players.

I'd actually point you towards the 4-1-4-1 thread to see a more detailed answer.

Thanks for the tips. I did try something similar to the 4-1-4-1 thread (i.e. WPM), but I still got overwhelmed by the opp attacking line. It's probably mostly down to player quality though. My players aren't very good. To put it in context, this season I have the best pre season league odds I've ever had, and it's 85-1. So the like-for-like is probably not safe. I'm comfortably mid-table, so I guess I'm not doing to badly ^^. I'm still trying to win every match, so the problem is probably my expectations more than anything.

[llama3]

Excellent thread - got me thinking of a few ideas - normally an excellent sign that it's a good thread!

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

1 hour ago, llama3 said:

Excellent thread - got me thinking of a few ideas - normally an excellent sign that it's a good thread!

Thanks very much 

[forlegaizen]

6 hours ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

No, not at all. What's the logic behind Control mentality making strikers isolated, out of interest?

 

My thinking was that in a control mentality, the fowards are positioned in more advanced parts of the pitch and maybe could lead to them being isolated but im guessing that the high defensive line from control helps pushing the midlefield and that leads to a shorter distance between the fowards and midlefield.

I am saying this because i played a 3-5-2 a while ago and faced that problem and my solution was droping the mentality so the players could be more closer.

[tyler16]

Brilliant as always. You've mastered these style of threads.

Interesting you noted the AI deficiency in fullback aggressiveness. I try to ignore these type of issues to maintain immersion but definitely agree with you. 

[aderow]

14 hours ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

 It's more the conservatism, lack of goals and lack of opportunity for youth that bother me.. but that's another topic for another day!

Well you're not wrong

14 hours ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

Narrow formations are - to me - the most difficult to face.

The way I see it, you've got two options:

1. Take them on like-for-like and try to out play them.
2. Play around them and bypass their attack heavy formations.

Wouldn't like 3v3 against their attackers so I'd go for 4v3 will fullbacks rather than wingbacks.

I'd be tempted to stick my playmakers on the flanks and play a little bit quicker. Against both a 4-3-3 narrow and 4-2-3-1 narrow, one pass to MR/L playmaker can bypasses 3 or 4 opponent players.

I'd actually point you towards the 4-1-4-1 thread to see a more detailed answer.

I can attest to this actually. One thing I started doing, against narrow shapes, was changing the my wide mids from attack to support. They'd always be in space, importantly, with time to pick out a runner elsewhere. Learned this the hard way. Narrow shapes had been the bane of my existence for a while. Now I just watch my WMs wreak havoc.

Fullbacks > Wingbacks definitely in this situation too.

[coach vahid]

Hi Ö-zil to the Arsenal!

I would like to know how you use general training for the senior squad and the youth squad.

And what youre looking for HOYD Coach...( tactic attributes or more classic).

Thank you.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

3 hours ago, aderow said:

Well you're not wrong

I can attest to this actually. One thing I started doing, against narrow shapes, was changing the my wide mids from attack to support. They'd always be in space, importantly, with time to pick out a runner elsewhere. Learned this the hard way. Narrow shapes had been the bane of my existence for a while. Now I just watch my WMs wreak havoc.

Fullbacks > Wingbacks definitely in this situation too.

I agree. I find this spreadsheet absolutely invaluable and for a passing game plan find 10-14 a real sweet spot which means that the majority of my players are on support with 3 on Defend and 2 on attack for penetration.

 

2 hours ago, coach vahid said:

Hi Ö-zil to the Arsenal!

I would like to know how you use general training for the senior squad and the youth squad.

And what youre looking for HOYD Coach...( tactic attributes or more classic).

Thank you.

Youth Squad = currently non-existent. My first intake was all zero star current ability and 2-3 star potential. Regardless, I don't have the capacity to tutor or train them but these areas are the focus of all of my investment so far.

On the last patch I had Patrick Andersson as a Director of Football responsible for bringing through youth players as he is Professional, but this time I couldn't get him so I am struggling without.

My plan is to get promotion into the League Two and then invest heavily in building an academy.

My current team seem to have League Two level potential so I am going to have to supplement with higher potential youngsters somehow. More to follow.

[slich]

Great read and also great timing for me. I've been using a similar 5-3-2 with a flat midfield 3 for a bit but was having problems with possession and pass completion dropping against teams willing to sit back against me after a few good seasons and rep increases. I didn't want to change my mentality/structure too much because I really like the balance that Standard - Fluid - higher tempo gave me, and I made the adjustment of dropping one of them to DM which helped somewhat, but I didn't really consider changing PIs to roam and move into channels in my midfield like you did. It's only been a few games I've tried it out but it seems to have opened things up a bit more against weaker sides so I'm really thankful for the thread.

 

I had a question about the RPM role in the DM role when facing one of the narrow formations that you were talking about, the 4-2-3-1. As well as the problem of the lone striker vs the 3 defenders, I was wondering if you move the playmaker role because of the AMC interference if you keep the same formation, or leave it while relying on the playmaker finding open space regardless. What role would you switch the DM to if you did move it, because I noticed the DM - support role, one of the more similar roles without the playmaking part, cannot roam or move into channels to help create space.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

6 minutes ago, slich said:

Great read and also great timing for me. I've been using a similar 5-3-2 with a flat midfield 3 for a bit but was having problems with possession and pass completion dropping against teams willing to sit back against me after a few good seasons and rep increases. I didn't want to change my mentality/structure too much because I really like the balance that Standard - Fluid - higher tempo gave me, and I made the adjustment of dropping one of them to DM which helped somewhat, but I didn't really consider changing PIs to roam and move into channels in my midfield like you did. It's only been a few games I've tried it out but it seems to have opened things up a bit more against weaker sides so I'm really thankful for the thread.

 

I had a question about the RPM role in the DM role when facing one of the narrow formations that you were talking about, the 4-2-3-1. As well as the problem of the lone striker vs the 3 defenders, I was wondering if you move the playmaker role because of the AMC interference if you keep the same formation, or leave it while relying on the playmaker finding open space regardless. What role would you switch the DM to if you did move it, because I noticed the DM - support role, one of the more similar roles without the playmaking part, cannot roam or move into channels to help create space.

Never really needed to move the deep playmaker as he's always found space. AMCs - particularly at this level - are rarely the most industrious of players when it comes to tracking.

Maybe I would against a 4-2-3-1 narrow but I am not sure I have come up against that, yet.

[retrodude09]

10 hours ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

I agree. I find this spreadsheet absolutely invaluable and for a passing game plan find 10-14 a real sweet spot which means that the majority of my players are on support with 3 on Defend and 2 on attack for penetration.

 

O-zil, could you perhaps explain this spreadsheet a little? 

[aderow]

@Ö-zil to the Arsenal! You've gotten me interested in using a RPM or Reg at the DMC spot. I think I might experiment with a DLP-d in one of the CM spots and see if it's actually viable. It'll be interesting if they play off of each other or if they just get in each other's way.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

12 hours ago, retrodude09 said:

 

O-zil, could you perhaps explain this spreadsheet a little? 

Check out the Pep's Barcelona thread for more info 

In simple terms the numbers are a 1-20 mentality rating where mentality refers to how risk averse somebody is. Where 1-9 are differing degrees of conservatism, 10 being neutral and 11-20 being a range of their tendency to attack.

Play around with this and watch some matches, it's pretty visible. In this type of passing - but not passing for the sake of it - system you want most of your players around the 10-12 mark with a couple of defensive players and a couple of attacking players.

Depending on how you'd like to play, this may be different.

 

9 hours ago, aderow said:

@Ö-zil to the Arsenal! You've gotten me interested in using a RPM or Reg at the DMC spot. I think I might experiment with a DLP-d in one of the CM spots and see if it's actually viable. It'll be interesting if they play off of each other or if they just get in each other's way.

DLP(D) is actually a role I have - almost completely - moved away from, in favour of DLP(S).

DLP(D) is too risk averse in almost any system. For example, in an Overload and Flexible system their mentality is only neutral. You have to play more aggressive than that to get more positive passing.

DLP(S) is neutral at Standard & Flexible if in the MC strata or Fluid if in the DMC strata.

Of course for the regista you'd probably want a higher mentality, to take advantage of that attacking passing. This is probably an entire other thread! 

Again, I'd refer you to the spreadsheet above. Very, very interesting.

[harryleechinyeow]

On 03/04/2017 at 16:49, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

The movement instructions are no exact science but they're also such a minor instruction, the detail is almost negligible. My advice would be to try not to get hung up on the tiny things and focus on getting the right playing style and structure.

My interpretation is that Move into Channels refers to lateral movement, Get Forward is - obviously - more attacking runs and Roam from Position is pretty much complete freedom.

In this case, I want my MC(S) to get into the channels to open up passing options but generally dominate that midfield space whereas the MC(A) needs to connect the attack and can attack the spaces around the strikers runs etc.

I've always been curious about this too. Especially for BBMs and RPMs, who have got Roam from Position as default PIs.

Like, doesn't Roam from Position includes Moving into Channels as well?

I can't imagine why a RPM who is already roaming by default needs to be told to move into channels because, from what little understanding i hv, isn't roaming supposed to include that as well?

And how did u decide to stick that PI to him? Wat did u see that was lacking in his movement in-game that prompted you to add Move into Channels? Lack of lateral movement?

If that's the case, wat does Roam from position actually does then?

To be honest i haven't really tried this role in game myself to see the difference, which perhaps i should, but is simply because i just couldn't understand it myself, and couldn't trust it enough to let it be part of any of my tactics in any of my saves.

[aderow]

43 minutes ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

DLP(D) is actually a role I have - almost completely - moved away from, in favour of DLP(S).

DLP(D) is too risk averse in almost any system. For example, in an Overload and Flexible system their mentality is only neutral. You have to play more aggressive than that to get more positive passing.

DLP(S) is neutral at Standard & Flexible if in the MC strata or Fluid if in the DMC strata.

Of course for the regista you'd probably want a higher mentality, to take advantage of that attacking passing. This is probably an entire other thread! 

Again, I'd refer you to the spreadsheet above. Very, very interesting.

Interesting. I've seen it as helpful, the defend duty, given how aggressive my full backs can be at times.

I guess right now just considering the differences between the RP and the Reg (the base roles themselves and not how they can be augmented). I feel like the only real differences are the Reg being a bit more direct than the RP and, if I recall correctly, the Reg having more creative freedom. Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like, at least in the DMC position, the Reg is just an RP with more freedom and more ways to augment via PIs.

So now the question is do I have a player I wanna give that kind of freedom to And that applies to any level of football.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

17 minutes ago, harryleechinyeow said:

I've always been curious about this too. Especially for BBMs and RPMs, who have got Roam from Position as default PIs.

Like, doesn't Roam from Position includes Moving into Channels as well?

I can't imagine why a RPM who is already roaming by default needs to be told to move into channels because, from what little understanding i hv, isn't roaming supposed to include that as well?

And how did u decide to stick that PI to him? Wat did u see that was lacking in his movement in-game that prompted you to add Move into Channels? Lack of lateral movement?

If that's the case, wat does Roam from position actually does then?

To be honest i haven't really tried this role in game myself to see the difference, which perhaps i should, but is simply because i just couldn't understand it myself, and couldn't trust it enough to let it be part of any of my tactics in any of my saves.

As I mentioned above. I am not in a position to give an authoritative answer but I'd say Moves into Channels gives a moderate amount of lateral movement - obviously - into the channels whereas Roam from Position gives a greater degree of movement.

I like Move into Channels in midfield as it opens up good passing lanes without dragging your players out of position.

Watch a few matches and you can quite clearly see a difference, particularly having them next to each other in the same system.

 

8 minutes ago, aderow said:

Interesting. I've seen it as helpful, the defend duty, given how aggressive my full backs can be at times.

I guess right now just considering the differences between the RP and the Reg (the base roles themselves and not how they can be augmented). I feel like the only real differences are the Reg being a bit more direct than the RP and, if I recall correctly, the Reg having more creative freedom. Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like, at least in the DMC position, the Reg is just an RP with more freedom and more ways to augment via PIs.

So now the question is do I have a player I wanna give that kind of freedom to And that applies to any level of football.

My opinion would be that if you want the defensive player, don't make him playmaker. It's negative possession to instruct the team to focus on finding the playmaker who then plays a conservative pass.

Balancing this was why I have moved my fullbacks from Attack > Support.

Regista is a more flexible role - passes a little more directly, has the option to move forward.

With the right player, the Regista could be a very, very interesting role.

[djhagster]

@Ö-zil to the Arsenal! where did you get the spreadsheet from? its got me intrigued!! The numbers on your formation tell me that your CMA and Poacher are 15 and 17 and are on the left side of your formation, and the other midfielders and WBS are 10s and 11s. I assume this is to encourage link up play between the CMA and Poacher? 

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

Yep, precisely.

A user called @GreenTriangle shared the spreadsheet a while ago and I've been using it extensively since.

[djhagster]

It helps to understand how shape influences roles and duties and dispells a few myths around it. Great work on the thread by the way @Ö-zil to the Arsenal!

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

10 minutes ago, djhagster said:

It helps to understand how shape influences roles and duties and dispells a few myths around it. Great work on the thread by the way @Ö-zil to the Arsenal!

Yes, it's fantastic. Dispels quite a few myths indeed and offers a lot of insight into why different roles are challenging to get working.

[Armistice]

38 minutes ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

Yes, it's fantastic. Dispels quite a few myths indeed and offers a lot of insight into why different roles are challenging to get working.

How is that exactly?

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

1 hour ago, nightwalker22 said:

How is that exactly?

Well, perhaps you're playing a Very Fluid / Counter system and wondering why your Complete Forward (Support) isn't scoring. You look at this spreadsheet and you'll see that your in a Very Fluid & Counter system, a Complete Forward (Support) has a mentality of 6 so - in other words - 70-30 in favour of conservatism. Whilst your supporting players in midfield are on 7 so 65-35 in favour of conservatism. You go to the bathroom, look in the mirror and - WHAM - you're Louis van Gaal at Man Utd! 

You then use the spreadsheet to assess your options, but essentially it'll usually come down to:

1. Changing team mentality.
2. Changing player's duties.

[Armistice]

2 hours ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

Well, perhaps you're playing a Very Fluid / Counter system and wondering why your Complete Forward (Support) isn't scoring. You look at this spreadsheet and you'll see that your in a Very Fluid & Counter system, a Complete Forward (Support) has a mentality of 6 so - in other words - 70-30 in favour of conservatism. Whilst your supporting players in midfield are on 7 so 65-35 in favour of conservatism. You go to the bathroom, look in the mirror and - WHAM - you're Louis van Gaal at Man Utd! 

You then use the spreadsheet to assess your options, but essentially it'll usually come down to:

1. Changing team mentality.
2. Changing player's duties.

Very useful info. Thanks mate.

[higgins]

Nice thread, trying to develop attractive football without using first class players is always one of my target in the game.

I've seen that spreadsheet for the first time, it's really useful and it would be great if we could see those numbers in the tactical screen, like we were used to do in the past.

By the way, you can mimic Lasalida Lavolpiana  in FM using a flat back four and a DLP (d) in front of them.

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

7 minutes ago, higgins said:

By the way, you can mimic Lasalida Lavolpiana  in FM using a flat back four and a DLP (d) in front of them.

The centre backs drift wide with a flat back four?

I always get this useless grouped up effect - and see it in the AI as well - when playing a back four:

In comparison, when I push the DR/L up to WBR/L they spread wide nicely:

[higgins]

Uhmm...I can't open the game right now, but of  course I could remember it wrong.

Are you using a DLP on defend duty in that screen?

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

30 minutes ago, higgins said:

Uhmm...I can't open the game right now, but of  course I could remember it wrong.

Are you using a DLP on defend duty in that screen?

That screenshot is of a half-back - which is the role designed for this mechanism - but there would be no inherent difference from a DLP(D) and a HB(D) aside from PIs and the DLP being a playmaker. The above is a case of a built-in match engine mechanism rather than the result of a particular set of instructions.

[VV Bal op de Lat]

I'm also tempted to push my backs op in order to use a halfback. How big would you say is the risk difference in defence when you push your dr/dl into wingback? 

[Ö-zil to the Arsenal!]

8 minutes ago, VV Bal op de Lat said:

I'm also tempted to push my backs op in order to use a halfback. How big would you say is the risk difference in defence when you push your dr/dl into wingback? 

Difficult to define but I'd say big haha.

Personally I'd be reluctant to do it without elite level players. Just imagine Cristiano Ronaldo and Gareth Bale being persistently goal side of your fullbacks whilst being played onside by your centre backs.

I've been whinging at SI over it for years but - despite promising not to ignore - it's so far been brushed under the carpet. Fingers crossed for FM2018!

[aderow]

9 hours ago, Ö-zil to the Arsenal! said:

My opinion would be that if you want the defensive player, don't make him playmaker. It's negative possession to instruct the team to focus on finding the playmaker who then plays a conservative pass.

Balancing this was why I have moved my fullbacks from Attack > Support.

Regista is a more flexible role - passes a little more directly, has the option to move forward.

With the right player, the Regista could be a very, very interesting role.

My opinion differs on playmakers with defensive roles. I don't see my players going out of their way to find the DLP-d when we're in the attacking phase.

I used to be the same way; both my fullbacks would be on attack. Nowadays I've settled on them being WB-s (occasionally FB-s in certain situations).

I spent the better part of yesterday look at how both roles operate on the pitch and I'm finally starting to see a difference. I haven't exactly come to conclusion on which one I prefer, in a given system, but I do think that, given how I like to play, FB-s would probably be the best way to have my FBs play.