How to make up for the lack of midfield runners?

[Bunkerossian]

I am playing as a heavy candidate for relegation, Osasuna. Looking at the squad, I came up with the following tactic.

It has no offensive runner from midfield because I simply do not have anyone good enough for it. The BWM is a typical defensive player who doesn't have the stats to utilize most of his PPM-s (Didier Digard). This tactic was made with the idea to be solid defensively vs. the big La Liga boys, but the first 2 pre-season games ended 0-0 and 2-2, respectively, when I should've been in control, and won.

I have 3 ˝butcher˝ DM-s in the squad, and 3 creative CM-s. Any suggestions?

[lemeuresnew]

without more info it is hard to say. but in general, if the players arent very good i wouldnt expect them to control games just because they are set up in deep positions

if you dont have offensive runners are you just relying on one player up front to win you a game? set pieces? 

[summatsupeer]

I would consider using a forward role that doesn't roam if there is no one looking to step into that position.

If your looking to counter you could try a 4141 so you have another player slightly more advanced.  The fewer roles you have doing forward runs and the fewer players trying through balls the more possession style you become, can you break down teams rather than attacking space quickly?

I'd look at selling someone to improve a couple of positions that will fit your tactic and squad better.  Are there any youths who whilst worse than a starter could fit the tactic better?

[Bunkerossian]

4 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

I would consider using a forward role that doesn't roam if there is no one looking to step into that position.

If your looking to counter you could try a 4141 so you have another player slightly more advanced.  The fewer roles you have doing forward runs and the fewer players trying through balls the more possession style you become, can you break down teams rather than attacking space quickly?

I'd look at selling someone to improve a couple of positions that will fit your tactic and squad better.  Are there any youths who whilst worse than a starter could fit the tactic better?

No youths that would work better than what I have. I cannot leave out the AP/DLP players, because the two I am planning to use are rather decent. My wingers are solid, in particular the ML player. The preferred MR option is a fast, but still developing player. I had thought of 4-1-4-1 initially, but then I realized I have no player that would pair well with my playmaker choices (Roberto Torres or Fran Merida). I actually have money. One of the loaned players was a waste of 26k per week, not a good finisher at all. I was going to buy a second DR (one of the two I have is injured long term). I can find a BBM, but, how would a BBM impact my defensive solidity?

Regarding the possession idea- a team I had tried to play with before is much better suited to that (minus the all-target man attack), but had a host of other issues. If interested, I'll link you in a PM to a thread about that attempt and the issues I had.

This team has a standard GK with poor passing skills, and pretty basic defenders. I do not believe I can pass my way through anyone. Osasuna, IMO, has to attack down the wings. Its strength, compared to that previous team I tried, are the midfield destroyers. Three are present, and two of them are very good for a team that's supposed to be rock bottom at the end of the season.

[Bunkerossian]

20 minutes ago, lemeuresnew said:

without more info it is hard to say. but in general, if the players arent very good i wouldnt expect them to control games just because they are set up in deep positions

if you dont have offensive runners are you just relying on one player up front to win you a game? set pieces? 

Set pieces are one option, yes. Counters down the wings are the other. Individual flash of genius from my creative player is the third.

[summatsupeer]

36 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

No youths that would work better than what I have. I cannot leave out the AP/DLP players, because the two I am planning to use are rather decent. My wingers are solid, in particular the ML player. The preferred MR option is a fast, but still developing player. I had thought of 4-1-4-1 initially, but then I realized I have no player that would pair well with my playmaker choices (Roberto Torres or Fran Merida). I actually have money. One of the loaned players was a waste of 26k per week, not a good finisher at all. I was going to buy a second DR (one of the two I have is injured long term). I can find a BBM, but, how would a BBM impact my defensive solidity?

Regarding the possession idea- a team I had tried to play with before is much better suited to that (minus the all-target man attack), but had a host of other issues. If interested, I'll link you in a PM to a thread about that attempt and the issues I had.

This team has a standard GK with poor passing skills, and pretty basic defenders. I do not believe I can pass my way through anyone. Osasuna, IMO, has to attack down the wings. Its strength, compared to that previous team I tried, are the midfield destroyers. Three are present, and two of them are very good for a team that's supposed to be rock bottom at the end of the season.

Why can a BWM-S be okay for DM but not CM?  I'd look for a physical hard working player whos stronger defensively more than offensively, a BBM/BWM type player if there some in your price range.

Yeah when you have two of 3 midfield roles being heavily defensive and wingers on the flanks its unlikely you'll suit a possession style.  If you still playing that game i'll have a look at your thread and contribute if I can.

Regarding what you have now I would:

1. Get your A-D to cover the WB-S + W-A rather than the FB-S + W-S.   Your left side is a lot more forward thinking than your right side.  With two defensively strong midfielders and a FB-S i'd consider making the RM attack duty to, getting both players bombing forward and maybe getting some back post goals.
2. Drop the run with ball instruction, unless your team is full of fast, agile players who can dribble i'd stick to roles+duties or PI's to get the best players to do it.
3. Pass into space might cause the players weaker at passing to try things they are incapable of, i'd just let them keep it simple and feed the AP who can then take the risks.
4. As mentioned previously i'd look at changing the CF-S, I'm thinking to a DLF. Support is the obvious duty to try first, but depending how many players they commit forward an Attack duty might get him behind the defence and if he can wait for support from the wingers / AP to catch up it could create some chances.

Also don't be afraid of changing mentality or team shape, your getting players deep due to your formation so if left a lot of space a faster + more forward thinking mentality could help you counter attack.

[Bunkerossian]

1 minute ago, summatsupeer said:

Why can a BWM-S be okay for DM but not CM?  I'd look for a physical hard working player whos stronger defensively more than offensively, a BBM/BWM type player if there some in your price range.

Yeah when you have two of 3 midfield roles being heavily defensive and wingers on the flanks its unlikely you'll suit a possession style.  If you still playing that game i'll have a look at your thread and contribute if I can.

Regarding what you have now I would:

1. Get your A-D to cover the WB-S + W-A rather than the FB-S + W-S.   Your left side is a lot more forward thinking than your right side.  With two defensively strong midfielders and a FB-S i'd consider making the RM attack duty to, getting both players bombing forward and maybe getting some back post goals.
2. Drop the run with ball instruction, unless your team is full of fast, agile players who can dribble i'd stick to roles+duties or PI's to get the best players to do it.
3. Pass into space might cause the players weaker at passing to try things they are incapable of, i'd just let them keep it simple and feed the AP who can then take the risks.
4. As mentioned previously i'd look at changing the CF-S, I'm thinking to a DLF. Support is the obvious duty to try first, but depending how many players they commit forward an Attack duty might get him behind the defence and if he can wait for support from the wingers / AP to catch up it could create some chances.

Also don't be afraid of changing mentality or team shape, your getting players deep due to your formation so if left a lot of space a faster + more forward thinking mentality could help you counter attack.

I can play Digard as a CM, but then I run into the issue of him getting into goalscoring chances. And a player like him would squander most. I know from another save.

The reason why the Anchor Man is on the right is that he is Right Only footed. Is it OK to ignore this and reverse his position with the BWM?

[summatsupeer]

18 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I can play Digard as a CM, but then I run into the issue of him getting into goalscoring chances. And a player like him would squander most. I know from another save.

The reason why the Anchor Man is on the right is that he is Right Only footed. Is it OK to ignore this and reverse his position with the BWM?

TBH I rarely look at what foot a player is stronger with for central positions. Could be an oversight on my part but i'd say its less important than having him covering the more attacking flank.

[lemeuresnew]

2 hours ago, Bunkerossian said:

I can play Digard as a CM, but then I run into the issue of him getting into goalscoring chances. And a player like him would squander most. I know from another save.

just tell him to shoot less? to be honest it is better to let him try than have no one trying at all lol. also it gives you some form of outlet to play football a little further forward and try to link with your striker while still working for the team as he will be doing now