Compactness/Defending as a unit

[jc577]

I know that achieving compactness is a function of 1.Mentality, 2.Team Shape, 3.Formation and 4. Roles/Duties (not in the particular order), but what team shape is the most effective way of doing this? I want to create an Atletico style 4-4-2 and i'm leaning toward very fluid to reduce the distance between the lines with the added bonus of bringing the strikers back when defending, but this comes with extra creative freedom which I don't want so i'm looking for ways to counter-act this. 

[coach vahid]

Hi 

I dont know how reproduce it maybe you can read the Ozil about team shape. You can try Mckinney 4420 its for me a good replication in the ME with the OI use by ScottyySinclair.

[brad.h]

Like you said you should use very fluid, but perhaps also use the more disciplined team instruction in order to counteract the creative freedom.

Like valid said there's a very good thread on here replicating Someone's 4-4-2. In FM I think it is better to use a 4-4-2-0 so that the strikers contribute more defensively and the team is more of a unit. (Actual strikers don't usually track back beyond the halfway line)

[ajsr1982]

2 hours ago, brad.h said:

Like you said you should use very fluid, but perhaps also use the more disciplined team instruction in order to counteract the creative freedom.

Like valid said there's a very good thread on here replicating Someone's 4-4-2. In FM I think it is better to use a 4-4-2-0 so that the strikers contribute more defensively and the team is more of a unit. (Actual strikers don't usually track back beyond the halfway line)

I think this is a little bit of a red herring. In FM17, strikers with a support duty will absolutely track back and get involved in the defensive side of the game. It depends on the players as well. A high Teamwork attribute is what you're looking for.

Personally, I think defensive compactness comes primarily from formation, role/duties and the right players. I'm not sure you lose too much by altering the Team Shape; this really just means you'll have more players involved in the defensive transition if you choose Very Fluid.

Most importantly you want players with good Teamwork, Work rate, Concentration and Positioning.

It's a highly specialised system (there's a good reason why everyone isn't doing it). I'd advise against trying it without the right type of players. If you're struggling on the players front, I think the 4-1-4-1 is a much better option.

[jc577]

Thanks for the advice guys. @ajsr1982 I think you're right, I don't have the players to play this way. It's been very hit and miss; beat a partially weakened man city side 7-0 in the EFL cup only to then lose 7-0 to Man United away in the following game. Looking for an alternative style but keeping the 4-4-2, ideally with a bit more possession.. any advice?

[Kcinnay]

2 hours ago, ajsr1982 said:

I think this is a little bit of a red herring. In FM17, strikers with a support duty will absolutely track back and get involved in the defensive side of the game. It depends on the players as well. A high Teamwork attribute is what you're looking for.

It's not a red herring. They get involved in the defensive side sometimes, that's true, but unless there's a set-piece or a throw in, they almost never get behind the ball. And yes, in a lot of RL teams, strikers defend behind the ball.

Even a DF(D) or a DF(S) on contain-very fluid doesn't. And if there's a magical solution to make them do that in FM17: please share it. I've been trying to make them do that for months. (And have had to settle for a 4-4-2-0. Not perfect.)

[Scrench]

Making your strikers man mark an opposing midfielder(ideally the one that sits deep) helps a lot. It's not a great solution but it makes the striker contribute a lot more defensively. My team put on a stellar defensive performance when i used this "technique", but i believe it is more useful when you just want to park the bus, as the striker might be too deep to be an outlet for direct vertical passes.

[ajsr1982]

2 hours ago, Kcinnay said:

It's not a red herring. They get involved in the defensive side sometimes, that's true, but unless there's a set-piece or a throw in, they almost never get behind the ball. And yes, in a lot of RL teams, strikers defend behind the ball.

Even a DF(D) or a DF(S) on contain-very fluid doesn't. And if there's a magical solution to make them do that in FM17: please share it. I've been trying to make them do that for months. (And have had to settle for a 4-4-2-0. Not perfect.)

I don't deal in magic. I'll leave you to your 4-4-2-0, given you seem to be so certain about everything.

[ajsr1982]

2 hours ago, jc577 said:

Thanks for the advice guys. @ajsr1982 I think you're right, I don't have the players to play this way. It's been very hit and miss; beat a partially weakened man city side 7-0 in the EFL cup only to then lose 7-0 to Man United away in the following game. Looking for an alternative style but keeping the 4-4-2, ideally with a bit more possession.. any advice?

Personally, I think the 4-4-2 is good for two things.

1. You have good wingers. A (static) playmaker/ball winner combo in central midfield moves the ball out wide quickly in an effort to isolate the opposition full backs and deliver crosses for the two CFs. 

2. You have an excellent target man (or at a stretch, a DLF type). You get the ball up to him quickly, with a poacher type forward looking to feed off him. In the second phase you look for support from midfield.

The sad fact is the 4-4-2 isn't good for possession, generally speaking. Possession comes from creating passing triangles of passing options, and the 4-4-2 is square as a starting point. It's possible, but it needs fantastic movement and players who can transition quickly back into defence. Getting caught out of position in a 4-4-2 can quickly lead to problems. The two-man central midfield means controlling the centre of the pitch through possession will be incredibly difficult, as you'll never outnumber the opposition.

I honestly think the 4-4-2 is possibly the hardest formation to get right in FM. Good luck! 

[Kcinnay]

31 minutes ago, ajsr1982 said:

I don't deal in magic. I'll leave you to your 4-4-2-0, given you seem to be so certain about everything.

Very polite and mature response. Don't be too quick to take offence.

On topic: there are a lot of threads in this forum about strikers not contributing enough defensively. My answer wasn't just based on those topics, but on my own playing hours too. I have used a 4-4-2 a lot, but the gap between strikers and midfield (when out of possession) is always too big. Again: if you found a (non man-marking) solution for that. I'd be glad to read your tactical insights. (Not cynical.) And I wouldn't be the only one, that's for sure. Being able to play with your strikers behind the ball (zonally) is an aspect that should - and probably will - be implemented in the future FM('s).

Apart from that: compactness doesn't seem dependant on your players. Work rate is an important attribute, but a position, a player role and team shape is more important. Extreme example: if you position Mario Balotelli as a limited left back in FM, he'll play in the left back position.

About possession: I almost always had more possession than the opponent with a 4-4-2, even though I played a direct, fast transitioning style with underdog teams. In real life, I agree that a 4-4-2 isn't designed for possession football, but in FM 17, it can be easily done. (Alas, because I'd like to have the Atlético possession figures.)

[jc577]

@Kcinnay What's your 4-4-2 set up like? We can't keep a clean sheet if our life depended on it 

[herne79]

@Kcinnay You mention the Defensive Forward role and how they don't defend behind the ball, even on Contain/Very Fluid.

You may have a misconception of the role's design.  Re-read the in game description, you'll see it talks about pressing opposition central defenders or defensive midfielders.  Nothing to do with defending behind the ball.

Having said that, I think there is an argument to support changing some role functionality to help a striker drop deeper more consistently, although on the flip side not everyone plays like Atl.Madrid.

[ajsr1982]

35 minutes ago, Kcinnay said:

Very polite and mature response. Don't be too quick to take offence.

On topic: there are a lot of threads in this forum about strikers not contributing enough defensively. My answer wasn't just based on those topics, but on my own playing hours too. I have used a 4-4-2 a lot, but the gap between strikers and midfield (when out of possession) is always too big. Again: if you found a (non man-marking) solution for that. I'd be glad to read your tactical insights. (Not cynical.) And I wouldn't be the only one, that's for sure. Being able to play with your strikers behind the ball (zonally) is an aspect that should - and probably will - be implemented in the future FM('s).

Apart from that: compactness doesn't seem dependant on your players. Work rate is an important attribute, but a position, a player role and team shape is more important. Extreme example: if you position Mario Balotelli as a limited left back in FM, he'll play in the left back position.

About possession: I almost always had more possession than the opponent with a 4-4-2, even though I played a direct, fast transitioning style with underdog teams. In real life, I agree that a 4-4-2 isn't designed for possession football, but in FM 17, it can be easily done. (Alas, because I'd like to have the Atlético possession figures.)

On topic... The original conversation talked about strikers 'not tracking back behind the half way line'. Which I think is indeed a red herring. I've seen my CFs move back to press opposition midfielders. Having them defend from behind the ball is a different matter, but let me ask you this: Why do you want them to?

The reason I ask is that it appears to be something that's done to block passing lanes into midfield, but it can only really happen because in real life teams will move the ball back and forth between CBs, FBs, and maybe a DM while probing for an opening. Teams don't behave that way in FM. If you look at how many times your CBs pass the ball to one another, it's very, very low. Maybe this is all a little chicken and egg, and they don't pass to one another because the forwards are high up the pitch. But back to the original question. Is there a purpose to having CFs behind the ball (from a FM17 point of view?), or is it simply to recreate a tactic, and get your CFs to stand where Atletico's CFs stand?

On Balotelli: Of course position and role is important, but to use your own example, if you play Balotelli as a limited left back, it's only a matter of time before he 'forgets' to track that opposition right winger. The wide midfield slots are more important though. They need good work rate to be able to get back into defensive shape and become compact once again as quickly as possible after the attacking phase. All I was saying to @jc577 was that a 4-4-2 isn't necessarily a naturally compact formation, and that if his players are lacking certain attributes, an extra body in midfield might be useful.

On possession: Well done you. 

[Kcinnay]

1 hour ago, herne79 said:

@Kcinnay You mention the Defensive Forward role and how they don't defend behind the ball, even on Contain/Very Fluid.

You may have a misconception of the role's design.  Re-read the in game description, you'll see it talks about pressing opposition central defenders or defensive midfielders.  Nothing to do with defending behind the ball.

Having said that, I think there is an argument to support changing some role functionality to help a striker drop deeper more consistently, although on the flip side not everyone plays like Atl.Madrid.

I'm not stating that that role doesn't function like it's intended to. It does what the game promises. I just used it as an example, because mentality-wise, a DF(D) in a contain-very fluid is the most defensive striker role, and even that striker doesn't get behind the ball most of the time. No criticism. Just an observation.

Not everybody plays like Atlético, that's for sure, but it's not a rarity that strikers get behind the ball either. Juventus does it often, under Marcelino, Villareal did it either, multiple teams do. Not everybody plays like Man City either, but still, the IWB exists in FM. Not everybody has Thomas Muller or Juan Roman Riquelme in his team, but still, the raumdeuter and the enganche are player roles in FM. You get my point. :-)

[Kcinnay]

39 minutes ago, ajsr1982 said:

The reason I ask is that it appears to be something that's done to block passing lanes into midfield, but it can only really happen because in real life teams will move the ball back and forth between CBs, FBs, and maybe a DM while probing for an opening. Teams don't behave that way in FM. If you look at how many times your CBs pass the ball to one another, it's very, very low. Maybe this is all a little chicken and egg, and they don't pass to one another because the forwards are high up the pitch. But back to the original question. Is there a purpose to having CFs behind the ball (from a FM17 point of view?), or is it simply to recreate a tactic, and get your CFs to stand where Atletico's CFs stand?

In this case, I can only speak for myself, but: for me, the purpose of getting strikers behind the ball is to create defensive zonal overloads. I don't like my teams to defend in 1 vs 1 battles. Then it's just a matter of who's the best individual. I want to create 2 vs 1 or 3 vs 1 battles. In the center of the pitch, the two strikers create an extra wall and compensate for the inherent advantage of a 4-4-2 vs a 4-1-2-2-1 or a 4-2-3-1, where it lacks bodies in the center of the pitch. If the ball is on the flanks, the striker nearby can assist the pressing left midfielder, left back and central midfielfder to close in the winger or the fullback of the opponent, whereas the other strikers blocks the passing lane to center back. (That's how I liked it as a football coach in real life.)

In FM 17 terms, an extra reason would be to compensate for the (slight) gap between the CM's and the wide midfielders. Ideally, we would have the option to make the wide midfielders defend (much) narrower, so they can cover for pressing center midfielders (or vice versa). Now, in a 4-4-2, when the strikers are bypassed, the half spaces aren't closed. If a CM leaves his zone and doesn't win the ball, there's a huge central gap. With strikers behind the ball, the CM's can play more of a cover role. For me, the results don't lie. With a 4-4-2-0, I managed to get a clean sheet galore (record: 10 in a row with a relegation favorite), whereas I'm struggling to get consistent clean sheets with a 4-4-2. Not saying that it can't be done, but I find it (much) more difficult.

Hope I made myself clear in a language that's not my forte. :-)

[ajsr1982]

10 minutes ago, Kcinnay said:

In this case, I can only speak for myself, but: for me, the purpose of getting strikers behind the ball is to create defensive zonal overloads. I don't like my teams to defend in 1 vs 1 battles. Then it's just a matter of who's the best individual. I want to create 2 vs 1 or 3 vs 1 battles. In the center of the pitch, the two strikers create an extra wall and compensate for the inherent advantage of a 4-4-2 vs a 4-1-2-2-1 or a 4-2-3-1, where it lacks bodies in the center of the pitch. If the ball is on the flanks, the striker nearby can assist the pressing left midfielder, left back and central midfielfder to close in the winger or the fullback of the opponent, whereas the other strikers blocks the passing lane to center back. (That's how I liked it as a football coach in real life.)

In FM 17 terms, an extra reason would be to compensate for the (slight) gap between the CM's and the wide midfielders. Ideally, we would have the option to make the wide midfielders defend (much) narrower, so they can cover for pressing center midfielders (or vice versa). Now, in a 4-4-2, when the strikers are bypassed, the half spaces aren't closed. If a CM leaves his zone and doesn't win the ball, there's a huge central gap. With strikers behind the ball, the CM's can play more of a cover role. For me, the results don't lie. With a 4-4-2-0, I managed to get a clean sheet galore (record: 10 in a row with a relegation favorite), whereas I'm struggling to get consistent clean sheets with a 4-4-2. Not saying that it can't be done, but I find it (much) more difficult.

Hope I made myself clear in a language that's not my forte. :-)

And how many do you score? What combination of AMs are you using here?

And congratulations on making yourself very clear in another language. Another feather in an ostensibly very feathery cap.

[Kcinnay]

57 minutes ago, ajsr1982 said:

And how many do you score? What combination of AMs are you using here?

And congratulations on making yourself very clear in another language. Another feather in an ostensibly very feathery cap.

More or less 1.5 goals a game. SSa and AMa with get further forward.

I'd love to discuss it more, but that last insult broke it for me. I'm not an FM wizard, far from it, I don't pretend to be, I'm just contributing sometimes. English is not my native tongue, I'm not fluent in it, I need to use google for a lot of words, so it's not easy to explain tactical matters. Added that phrase, in case some things weren't clear or got lost in translation. Nothing more, nothing less. The only feather I want to add to my figuratively bare cap, is that my answer to your diss is way too polite. So if you excuse me, I'm going to leave this thread and for once use the 'ignore user' function.

[herne79]

Sarcasm and personal digs have no place here.  Cut it out.

[jc577]

@herne79 would the combination of a DLP-S and CM-D work in a 4-4-2 or is it too static?

[herne79]

3 hours ago, jc577 said:

@herne79 would the combination of a DLP-S and CM-D work in a 4-4-2 or is it too static?

That's a very open ended type of question.

It could do, but as ever it'll depend on the rest of your team.  In defence it's probably ok (player selection dependant) as you're using two sitter type of players who won't venture too far forward (tactical settings not withstanding).  In attack it may be less so because you're now short of a midfield runner.  That's not necessarily a bad thing as the two wingers should be able to provide attacking support, and could see quite a lot of the ball from the DLP.  But it might lack something from not having a consistent threat from the edge of the box.

Other options to help address this could be an RPM (if you are set on having a playmaker role), a BBM or just a plain old CM(s) with some added PIs.  Again player availability will be important.

I think I've given myself enough caveats and get out clauses there .

[jc577]

49 minutes ago, herne79 said:

That's a very open ended type of question.

It could do, but as ever it'll depend on the rest of your team.  In defence it's probably ok (player selection dependant) as you're using two sitter type of players who won't venture too far forward (tactical settings not withstanding).  In attack it may be less so because you're now short of a midfield runner.  That's not necessarily a bad thing as the two wingers should be able to provide attacking support, and could see quite a lot of the ball from the DLP.  But it might lack something from not having a consistent threat from the edge of the box.

Other options to help address this could be an RPM (if you are set on having a playmaker role), a BBM or just a plain old CM(s) with some added PIs.  Again player availability will be important.

I think I've given myself enough caveats and get out clauses there .

Thanks for the advice, although where I thought I was set on my roles/duties i'm now reconsidering.. so thanks  the idea behind my 4-4-2 is to overload the #10 area or 'Zone 14' whatever you wanna call it, so I have a WP-A drifting in central on the right with an overlapping full-back, and a striker dropping deep on the left (F9). His strike partner is either a CF-A/AF-A/P-A, basically just looking to get on the end of moves and put the ball in net. I've got an attacking left winger cutting inside and moving past the F9 trying to score goals and a supporting full-back behind him. I'm hoping this movement will create a lot passing triangles and generate nice interplay in that #10 area. Perhaps a generic CM-d/CM-s would suffice in midfield? Sorry if this is unclear.. at work so can't post screenshots.

[Kcinnay]

23 hours ago, jc577 said:

@Kcinnay What's your 4-4-2 set up like? We can't keep a clean sheet if our life depended on it 

I hadn't seen your question. I posted the tactic I was referring to a couple of months ago in this (excellent) thread by OhhScottySinclair. You can find it here. I hope it helps!

 

[Jean0987654321]

I agree with the OP. The wingers are waaay too wide on the defensive end in a 442. I basically abandoned playing that shape or a similar shape because of that AND I really can't get my front two to track back. I could try man-marking the CMs but you'll play a completely different kind of game. Every team bar Bielsa/Sampaoli/Chile plays zonal marking not man marking. Hopefully, we can get some new roles and bug fixes in FM18 but we haven't had that in a while, tho...

[Rashidi]

Just popped into this thread and I noticed the and the query about CF and Very fluid, do I thought I'd contribute. Apologies if this has already been answered.

When going for compactness you have assumed correctly that it is the sum of 4 main factors, as far as CF is concerned I would chalk that off as minimal. What would be more important to assure that your side is defending compactly is the mentality and shape with the right number of duties. Here the fewer attack duties you have the better. 

I have shown how compact I can get a side by playing Contain Very fluid. Literally my entire team drops behind the ball. So if this is what you are aiming for you want to avoid structured shapes.

You can also use PIs that tell your wingers to sit narrower. .

[Rashidi]

Thanks to this thread I will probably start a short experiment with a 442 with Torino with similar objectives to create more overloads in specific areas of the pitch

[Armistice]

5 hours ago, Rashidi said:

You can also use PIs that tell your wingers to sit narrower. .

Sorry if I a wrong but I thought Sit Narrower PI affects the specific player only when the team is in possession? 

[jc577]

3 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Thanks to this thread I will probably start a short experiment with a 442 with Torino with similar objectives to create more overloads in specific areas of the pitch

Looking forward to this