Fast transitions and the midfield block

[jc577]

I've read a lot of threads on the forum, including the Lines and Diamonds guide, on how to create a style of play based on fast transitions from defence to attack, however this has left me somewhat confused. Some threads that I've read suggest it's essential to have players in advanced positions when we're without the ball in order to launch a counter, whilst others imply using runners from deep is a great way to create/exploit space further up the pitch - which method is more effective? In addition, is it possible to employ a midfield block when using players in the AMR/L positions, or would a flat 4-5-1/4-1-4-1 be better suited? Thanks 

[Rashidi]

Best advice try both out with your team, cos each team has unique requirements. You can even do a mix of both if your have that kind of a side.

[jc577]

3 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Best advice try both out with your team, cos each team has unique requirements. You can even do a mix of both if your have that kind of a side.

When you say a mix of both, do you mean an asymmetric formation with wide players in both AMRL/MRL slots?  

[MBarbaric]

before you commit to counter attacking strategy, make sure that you will have space to play counter attacks. If you have a dominant side that is expected to challenge for titles, opposition will play rather cautious against you meaning they will sit deep denying you counter attacking opportunities.

[jc577]

36 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

before you commit to counter attacking strategy, make sure that you will have space to play counter attacks. If you have a dominant side that is expected to challenge for titles, opposition will play rather cautious against you meaning they will sit deep denying you counter attacking opportunities.

Fortunately we're not that kind of team.. yet . It's crazy how different the same tactic can play out against different opposition.. definitely need a plan B for when we come up against defensive sides. 

[jc577]

This is the tactic, thoughts?

[felipencntst]

Hey man, I could be getting this wrong as I'm not used to playing counter.

I think you should be going fluid instead of structured. I'm thinking, as your team is more "bottom heavy" than say a 4-2-3-1, going structured won't release the players on the midfield strata quick enough. 

Two other minor points: 1.) I guess you should drop "Play Out of Defense" to make the team go long and quick when countering; 2.) I feel you could drop one attack player, there's too little support. I would go with a midfield more like this (from left to right): WM-S, CM-A, DLP-S, CM-D (and watch if he is not letting the team down offensively), W-A.

However, I still think you should test this formation and see if there's anything wrong with your own eyes.

Now, you could have at least organized the players before screenshoting, no?     

[jc577]

2 hours ago, felipencntst said:

Hey man, I could be getting this wrong as I'm not used to playing counter.

I think you should be going fluid instead of structured. I'm thinking, as your team is more "bottom heavy" than say a 4-2-3-1, going structured won't release the players on the midfield strata quick enough. 

Two other minor points: 1.) I guess you should drop "Play Out of Defense" to make the team go long and quick when countering; 2.) I feel you could drop one attack player, there's too little support. I would go with a midfield more like this (from left to right): WM-S, CM-A, DLP-S, CM-D (and watch if he is not letting the team down offensively), W-A.

However, I still think you should test this formation and see if there's anything wrong with your own eyes.

Now, you could have at least organized the players before screenshoting, no?     

Thanks for the reply dude. I've taken some of your advice on board - going fluid definitely makes much more sense (in my head I was still playing a 4-3-3). This is the new tactic - I've even take time out to organise it this time  I've gone for a WM-A as I think he will be much more of a presence in the box than a W-A, and hopefully chip in with a few goals (also told him to cut inside with ball). How comes you'd have a DLP-S in the centre and the 'holder' to the right? 

[felipencntst]

So, don't leave us hanging, how did it go?  

Another tiny thing about your new tactic: the W-S and the FB should both occupy the same space on the line, that's why I suggested the bombing full back to be behind the WM, which you can config to cut inside and play like an Inside Forward.

[jc577]

We won 4-0 away and then 1-0 at home, both against Crystal Palace. Early days but seems a lot better, although we're still not moving the ball as swiftly as I'd like. 

My thinking was that an overlapping full-back could draw a man out and leave the winger with time and space to cross - this is exactly how we scored our goal against Palace at home but I see what you mean. 

So potentially the tactic could be: WM-A (FB-A), CM-D, DLP-S, CM-A, W-S (FB-S) ? I had thought about this but the right flank looks a bit weak offensively, but our left flank would be very aggressive so could get some joy. What do you think?

I'm also thinking of using a WM-S/CM-A combination on the left - the wide-midfielder comes inside whilst the CM-A acts like a central winger so the effectively swap places in transition, crossing over and confusing the defence. I'm not sure if this is the right style of play for that sort of movement, but just something I'm thinking about.

[felipencntst]

Four-nil counter-attacking? Awesome!

About the balance, that's a hard one. On one hand, I understand and agree that the WM-A is more of a goalscoring threat and putting a bombing full back besides him could be severely imbalanced on defense. On the other hand, you're playing counter, so most of your moves should be finished before the full back even get forward.

What I would do is play a few games, watch on comprehensive, see if what you have now works and fine tune it game to game.