Midfield Trio - What Is The Best Set Up?

[FMWolf]

I'm currently playing a 4-5-1 that it's working decentish. With some tweaks along the way, it got us to finish 3rd, a bit of an overachievement. Still, I never felt confident enough in the system and a big reason why is it's midfield trio composition. With three players in midfield we have a lot of options for what we hope our midfielders to do. It normally comes down to having one destroyer, one creator and one runner. And I didn't fall to from that. But instead of going with such one dimensional type of players, and due to the players available lacking any real good "runners", I tried to use a destroyer paired with a mix between creator/destroyer and a number 10, which should both create and run (a bit). I've come with two set ups to achieve it*:

Explanation:

• CM-D should cover for the space vacated for both the WB-S and the WM-A;
• CM-A plays centrally, something that I like as it ressembles a number 10 more;
• CM-S should provide passing options for both the winger and the CM-A, aswell as play some balls into space for my W-S run into;
• Not quite happy with the defending in this one: the three seem to have an hard time deciding who goes to pressure and who stays back to hold shape. Maybe defending higher up the pitch would reduce that?

Explanation:

• CM-D should cover the middle of the park, acting almost as an anchor man in front of the defenders;
• CM-A should once again act like a number 10. I feel like that from this position he makes my W-S play poorly;
• CM-S should provide passing options and try and play balls into space for WM-A to run into. At the same time, it should offer some cover to the more attacking righ flank;
• The defending  seems more stable in this one. Offensively it's a bit inconsistent. When it works it goes beautifully, when it doesn't it often ends with us loosing the ball or someone taking a long shot;

 

Feel free to share your ideas and opinions!

 

*Players Intructions in both systems are the same:

• CM-D: Less Risky Passes; Drible Less
• CM-S: Hold Position; Drible Less; More Risky Passes; Shoot Less Often
• CM-A: More Risky Passes; Move Into Channels; Shoot Less Often

 

[jc577]

To be honest, as you said they both have their pros and cons. In your first tactic the team will transition into a 4-2-3-1 basically which is quite cool. One suggestion to maybe improve the defensive side is to ask the CM-A to close down more, so that he's the first line of pressure (excluding the striker) in a central position. Hopefully this has a knock on effect for your other two midfielders to stay back and maintain shape. Another way could be simply asking the two side midfielders to close down less.

[FMWolf]

@jc577 Yeah, setting my CM-A to close down more could help!

Something that is also a bit of concern is flow on the right flank with the CM-D, WM-A and WB-S. I feel like the CM-D may be too deep and the WM-A to far forward, creating a gap that can lead to some wasted passes. Also, my WB-S doesn't seem to get forward quickly enough in order to overlap my WM-A (who is set to sit narrower), resulting in another lack of support for him. Maybe changing to a FB-A can help, but I'm afraid of using 4 attacking duties, as I feel it can be a bit too much.

[FMWolf]

Having played a bit more with the 1st system, the defensive phase is it's biggest weak point. The midfield three really have an hard time deciding who goes for who and while the increased closing down on the CM-A helps when pressing in the opponents half, when we are defending deep we have all sort of problems. I was thinking that in order to keep the CM-A central plus a more defensive solid team, I could go with 2 DM's behind the CM-A: the problems that come to mind are that we get to deep when defending and that it leads to the isolation of the W-S or the WM-A. I've read @Cleon talking about using the deep 4-3-2-1 set up with great sucess, maybe he could shed some light into this?

[josh.hobbs]

I'm using a 41221 formation and my midfield is thus:

CDM - anchor defend

RCM - Advance playmaker support

LCM - BBM

 

its working really well. I've got the team width as balanced, close down sometimes with the centre backs told to close down less. The midfield three seem to close down the ball as a pack. Most often the anchor wins it and quickly gives it to the AP and we're away. 

[jorgvandervloed]

I feel like the main problem would be the disconnect between midfield and attack. All your midfield players need to come from deep to support your striker, who is higher up field due to his attacking duty. 

Can't find anywhere how exactly you want to play either? Everything is connected so without all the information it will be hard to help. 

[FMWolf]

@josh.hobbs Yeah the use of A-D would help to make the defensive phase more solid;

@jorgvandervloed You're right, I've never talked about how I see the whole system play out, so let me try and explain it:

Main Goalscorers:

• Striker: that's why I've gone with an attack duty for my striker, as I want him to be our main goalscoring threat. I'll admit him still not sure what role would suit this better, but I believe that a DLF-A, even though it's on attack, will drop a bit deeper than the other attacking strikers' roles. No PI's;
• WM-A: this guy is supposed to work a bit like a raumdeuter, looking for spaces between the fullback and central defender, acting at times like our 2nd striker. I've instructed him to Play Narrower and Roam From Position;

Main Providers:

• CM-A: like I said in the opening post, I expect this guy to play like a number 10, serving as the link between my midfield and my attack. Why I've put him in the CM strata was to allow him to be deeper when on the defending phase. I've instructed him to Shoot Less Often, More Risky Passes, Move Into Channels and Roam From Position;
• W-S: a straight winger from who I expect width, carrying the ball forward and crosses/assists to the striker or right midfielder (CM-A gets in the end of a few also). This role was also selected based on personnel available, as my best player at the start of this save is a really good left winger. No PI's;

"Not-So Main" () Goalscorers:

• CM-A: even though I want him to mainly supply balls for other to finish, I still expect him to get into the box himself and finish a couple of chances;
• W-S: same as my CM-A. When the ball is on the other side of the pitch he should try and get himself in a good to position to finish a play;

"Not-So Main" Providers:

• CM-S: I want this guy to cover some of the space left vacated from my more advanced players, aswell as being able to assume our main provider role when our opponents are too deep and there isn't space for our CM-A to shine. PI's: Hold Position; Drible Less; More Risky Passes; Shoot Less Often ;
• WB-S: with the right midfielder going narrower, I wanted someone to give width on the right side of the pitch. When the overlap occurs, I expect him to put some crosses in as we would (hopefully) have our striker, right midfielder, CM-A and, at times, my winger in the box. He's instructed to Play Wider and Dribble Less (because he can't dribble);

Honorable mentions:

• CM-D: the guy who holds it all together by covering the holes left behind from his teammates. I expect nothing more than him than just cover space, get get ball and pass it to someone who is close to him. I've instructed him to Dribble Less and Less Risky Passes;
• FB-S: I've a solid left full back from whom I expect nothing more than covering the left flank and occasionally make some forward runs to support our attack;

As a whole, I've not an ideal playing style, meaning I'm not looking for a possession based tactic, or quick counters, or agressive pressing, etc... I want it to achieve a pretty balanced type of football, with a medium block, some closing down and a somewhat slower tempo system so that we don't rush the ball to my striker as it can lead to him being isolated. To try and achieve this I've gone for Standard/Flexible (although this is can change from match to match). The only TI I've gone for is Play Out Of Defense as, again, I want to avoid my defenders hoofing the ball forward when we only have our striker there.

[sherifdinn_]

9 hours ago, josh.hobbs said:

I'm using a 41221 formation and my midfield is thus:

CDM - ar defend

RCM - Advance playmaker support

LCM - BBM

 

its workiell. I've got the team width as balanced, close down sometimes with the centre backs told to close down less. The midfield three seem to close down the ball as a pack. Most often the anchor wins it and quickly gives it to the AP and we're away. 

You know what? This is exactly what I was thinking of a three man midfield. Currently managing Monaco nd felt I needed to form a tactic to switch with my very successful 4-2-3-1 nd thought a 4-3-3 with that midfield combo would be brilliant (joao moutinho,fabinho nd bakayokobakayoko). 

[roggiotis]

in a 4-1-4-1 i use CM-A, CM-S, HB

[FMWolf]

A quick update: in order to achieve what I want, I'm considering more and more going a bit asymmetric. Why?

• It would allow me to have my number 10 placed right behind the striker. With a role that uses a support duty he should still drop back and help the other two midfielders. This would also allow me to keep him either central or slighty moved to the right where most of the offensive movement should be happening;
• Make my destroyer sit in the DM strata, giving us a more defensive stable side (theoretically). Aswell as my number 10, it would giveme  some freedom with his placement, as I could move him to right side in order to better cover my most adventurous right side;
• It wouldn't effect (I think) the way I want my other midfielder to play;

I haven't experimented with this set up yet, when I do, I'll update it again

[FMWolf]

I don't want to be dismissive the people who already gave their opinion here (everything has been taken into account), nor do I feel people have the obligation to read and reply to every thread on here, but it would be awesome to read the opinion of some of the most knowledgeable players around here   @Rashidi @Cleon @herne79 @HUNT3R

[FMWolf]

Tried the asymmetric set up in a few games now and results have been satisfying, but I still have some doubts about the system:

• What would be the best striker role? Like I said, I want him to be our main goalscorer (along our WM-A), but I'm still unsure about what role would give me this aswell as giving me the needed balance for the whole system to work. An attack duty can let him isolated upfront, a support duty may not be agressive enough when attacking the area (I think). To try and give a bit more insight, I'm looking to have an Harry Kane'ish type of striker. Maybe I should be looking at a CF-S/A?
• My number 10 is also something giving me an headache, mainly because of his lack of assists so far. I have him as an AP-S and, like mentioned above, I want him to be one of our main providers, but I don't seem to be getting that out from him. While I'm ok with his movement, I feel like something is just not right;
• With my other midfielder, I've been toying with giving him a BBM-S and it has been working quite nicely with the rest of the system, mainly with our W-S who seems to be having much more support than before;

So, in short, this is what I've so far:

[FMWolf]

I can't seem to be able to achieve consistency with this tactic (and it's variations). It's like something is always missing and I cannot really tell what it is My "number 10" is my other main problem. I just can't get anything out of him. I think he should have enough movement around him to make him able to create some danger, but so far, 17 games and only 2 assists, pretty meh. I'm also considering making my WB-S a FB-A has I feel he doesn't overlap enough as off right now

[Cleon]

1 minute ago, FMWolf said:

I can't seem to be able to achieve consistency with this tactic (and it's variations). It's like something is always missing and I cannot really tell what it is My number is my other main problem. I just can't get anything out of him. I think he should have enough movement around him to make him able to create some danger, but so far, 17 games and only 2 assists, pretty meh. I'm also considering making my WB-S a FB-A has I feel he doesn't overlap enough as off right now

Which number? You didn't actually say.

If you want the WB to overlap the WM consistently then he needs to be attacking really, so he can get beyond him. Also doesn't help that the WM is attacking, means he starts higher so the WB has more space to cover to get forward before he can even begin to overlap.

[FMWolf]

Thanks for the reply @Cleon! Yeah I forgot to add the number there ahah What I meant was that the player that I want acting like our "number 10" (actually number 70 in the last image) isn't really acting like one in the sense that I can't seem to get him to consistently provide assists for the team.

My idea for the right side of the team is that we have our WM-A acting like a Raumdeuter, looking for space between the oppostion centerback and fullback, basically being our secondary goal threat (my striker being the main one). As I still want width to be provided on that side of the pitch, I need my fullback to provide it and with the WB-S I'm feeling like he takes to long really ocuppy the space vacated from my WM-A.

[Cleon]

16 minutes ago, FMWolf said:

Thanks for the reply @Cleon! Yeah I forgot to add the number there ahah What I meant was that the player that I want acting like our "number 10" (actually number 70 in the last image) isn't really acting like one in the sense that I can't seem to get him to consistently provide assists for the team.

My idea for the right side of the team is that we have our WM-A acting like a Raumdeuter, looking for space between the oppostion centerback and fullback, basically being our secondary goal threat (my striker being the main one). As I still want width to be provided on that side of the pitch, I need my fullback to provide it and with the WB-S I'm feeling like he takes to long really ocuppy the space vacated from my WM-A.

Well the number 70 doesn't really have anyone to create for does he? It's a bit hard to consistently get assists for a striker who is often dropping deep off the front rather than attacking the space.

One option you have is drop the AP to MC and push the WM to AMR and use him as a proper Raumdeuter. Not considered doing that?

[FMWolf]

Valid point with the striker. Like mentioned in post #7, I want my striker to be our main goalscoring guy. Now, since I've opened this thread I've tried using:

• P-A: I got the feeling that he was isolated from the rest of the team. As I want my striker to score goals, in theory this could be a very valid role, but I couldn't get it to work. It also doesn't let me had the "Hold Up Ball" PI, which I think could help bringing the rest of the team closer to him;
• AF-A: very similar to the poacher, but it comes with added movement, something that I like, as it can make my striker more available to receive a pass and more unpredictable with his movement, making him harder to mark;
• DLF-A: as this is a role that starts a bit deeper than the previous two (I think), I thought that it could help with the isolation bit. It also comes with the PI "Hold Up Ball". My problem with this role was that it didn't seem agressive enough when attacking the box. I haven't tried this role for a long time tho;
• CF-S: the role selected in that screenshot. It went as you said: it drop deep way too often and it moved away from the box aswell;
• CF-A: the role used in my last few matches. I think that it gives the perfect balance to a lone a striker whose main job is to put the ball on the net. But I'm not a fan of the amount of hardcoded PI that come with and I still feel like he moves away from his position a bit more than I would like him too (which makes sense given that it has "Move Into Channels" and "Roam From Position" hardcoded);

I like the idea of dropping my AP to the MC strata as defensively it could makes more stable, but I fear it would leave my striker isolated (given what I wrote above) :s. Am I wrong? As for moving the WM-A up to the AMR spot and make him a Raumdeuter, there's two questions that I would like to ask you:

1. Will he still drop back when defending?
2. With an attacking fullback behind him, would that leave our right side way to exposed? Or would it be the same it is now?

 

 

[Cleon]

8 minutes ago, FMWolf said:

Valid point with the striker. Like mentioned in post #7, I want my striker to be our main goalscoring guy. Now, since I've opened this thread I've tried using:

• P-A: I got the feeling that he was isolated from the rest of the team. As I want my striker to score goals, in theory this could be a very valid role, but I couldn't get it to work. It also doesn't let me had the "Hold Up Ball" PI, which I think could help bringing the rest of the team closer to him;
• AF-A: very similar to the poacher, but it comes with added movement, something that I like, as it can make my striker more available to receive a pass and more unpredictable with his movement, making him harder to mark;
• DLF-A: as this is a role that starts a bit deeper than the previous two (I think), I thought that it could help with the isolation bit. It also comes with the PI "Hold Up Ball". My problem with this role was that it didn't seem agressive enough when attacking the box. I haven't tried this role for a long time tho;
• CF-S: the role selected in that screenshot. It went as you said: it drop deep way too often and it moved away from the box aswell;
• CF-A: the role used in my last few matches. I think that it gives the perfect balance to a lone a striker whose main job is to put the ball on the net. But I'm not a fan of the amount of hardcoded PI that come with and I still feel like he moves away from his position a bit more than I would like him too (which makes sense given that it has "Move Into Channels" and "Roam From Position" hardcoded);

I like the idea of dropping my AP to the MC strata as defensively it could makes more stable, but I fear it would leave my striker isolated (given what I wrote above) :s. Am I wrong? As for moving the WM-A up to the AMR spot and make him a Raumdeuter, there's two questions that I would like to ask you:

1. Will he still drop back when defending?
2. With an attacking fullback behind him, would that leave our right side way to exposed? Or would it be the same it is now?

 

 

You're striker is only isolated if he isn't getting support. You'd have an attacking wingback, Raumdeuter and a B2B all supporting. And a AP creating for them all. That should be more than enough I'd have thought.

I'd leave the WB support on the left if you made these changes though and have the WB attacking on the left. I don't really understand why he is defensive atm? It's a waste imo for what you are wanting to create.

1. All players still defend, they just all do it from different areas etc. Why not give it a try and see if its something you can live with or not? You use a DMC so you can afford to be more attacking with the midfield roles, if not its a waste using a DM imo.

2. I covered this above, I'd leave it and switch the other WB instead.

Before you make any changes though, there is actually something else you could do. What happens if you change the AP to an attack duty or even use him as a AM attack? Just because someone is a playmaker doesn't guarantee assists and just because someone isn't a playmaker doesn't mean they can't be creative and provide assists............

[FMWolf]

Yeah, provided that we don't just hoof the ball to the striker (and we shouldn't as I have "Play Out Of Defense" and "Lower Tempo"), he shouldn't be isolated.

Interesting suggestion about the fullbacks. Let me just mentioned that I use a FB-S on the left most of the time, the screenshot must have been taken when playing against a superior team and I wanted the extra man back. My thinking behing the selection of both of their roles are:

• On the left, witdth should already be provided by my winger, aswell as making sure that my striker gets enough crosses from that side of the pitch. I never thought about the need of having another player coming forward on that side as wanted to avoid congestion on that flank. As so, I just wanted my LB to cover that side of the pitch when we are attacking, making sure we do not get caught on the counter. My selection of players for that role as also taken this into account and I don't really think any them of them can play WB-A, as they all are pretty defensive minded players;
• On the right, with my wide midfielder coming to inside, I wanted width to be given by my fullback. It should also be him putting in crosses on that side. Not having good dribblers to play there, I wanted a role that still got forward but more with an off the ball type movement, not so much so carrying the ball forward himself. This left me with WB-S and FB-A (as they both have "Gets Further Forward" but not "Dribble More"). I though WB-S would be a good choice given that I have an attack duty in front of him, but it has been so-so. Maybe changing my WM-A to a RMD-A, has an impact in the way my WB-S operates, so I definitely have to try that;

[Cleon]

Quote

Yeah, provided that we don't just hoof the ball to the striker (and we shouldn't as I have "Play Out Of Defense" and "Lower Tempo"), he shouldn't be isolated.

Whether they did this or not its more the roles around him that determine if he will be isolated or not.

Quote

Interesting suggestion about the fullbacks. Let me just mentioned that I use a FB-S on the left most of the time, the screenshot must have been taken when playing against a superior team and I wanted the extra man back. My thinking behing the selection of both of their roles are:

Why so defensive though even against good sides? You still need to play your own game and not be so passive and surrender. If its working for you then great but you can give up too much and be over cautious and I think you might fall into this trap at times based on the screenshots/discussion above.

Quote

On the left, witdth should already be provided by my winger, aswell as making sure that my striker gets enough crosses from that side of the pitch. I never thought about the need of having another player coming forward on that side as wanted to avoid congestion on that flank. As so, I just wanted my LB to cover that side of the pitch when we are attacking, making sure we do not get caught on the counter. My selection of players for that role as also taken this into account and I don't really think any them of them can play WB-A, as they all are pretty defensive minded players

How would the flank be congested? Currently you only have the winger venturing forward and providing crosses regular if the WB is on defensive. But if you normally use a FB on support, why have you never toyed with having the player overlap the winger and creating overloads down the flank? Also its strange how you mentioned this flank could be congested yet over on your right, you was wanting the WB to get forward more. So why on one side did you think it would be congested yet not the other side?

You use a DM he is the cover for counters. If you're going to set the defence up to be defensive for such events then it kind of negates the DM as such and you can actually use him for something more attack minded. Your tactic as a whole is quite passive and with the mentality you use. You can afford to be slightly more adventurous imo without being over cautious for no reason.

Quote

• On the right, with my wide midfielder coming to inside, I wanted width to be given by my fullback. It should also be him putting in crosses on that side. Not having good dribblers to play there, I wanted a role that still got forward but more with an off the ball type movement, not so much so carrying the ball forward himself. This left me with WB-S and FB-A (as they both have "Gets Further Forward" but not "Dribble More"). I though WB-S would be a good choice given that I have an attack duty in front of him, but it has been so-so. Maybe changing my WM-A to a RMD-A, has an impact in the way my WB-S operates, so I definitely have to try that;

If the wingback is making runs and not carrying the ball himself then what is his actual role. Or to be more spoecific what should he be doing? As the space the WM creates would be out wide on the flanks and this wouldn't be really dangerous and would rely on the odd crosses. But then again, who is the player crossing the ball to? You use a striker who drops deep so might not be in the box for a cross and even if he was, who would be in the box supporting?

[FMWolf]

6 minutes ago, Cleon said:

How would the flank be congested? Currently you only have the winger venturing forward and providing crosses regular if the WB is on defensive. But if you normally use a FB on support, why have you never toyed with having the player overlap the winger and creating overloads down the flank? Also its strange how you mentioned this flank could be congested yet over on your right, you was wanting the WB to get forward more. So why on one side did you think it would be congested yet not the other side?

The difference between the flanks and the reason why I think the left one would get congested is that in the right side the right midfielder is going inside, vacating the flank, while on the left side, my winger is going wide, occupying the flank. So, I was/am just afraid that selecting a WB-A on that flank, that has Dribble More + Run Wide With Ball, same as the winger,would just end with both players trying to do the same thing in the same sort of space. And yeah, I'll admit I'm more on the conservative side of things , which is way I don't trust my DM-D to able to cope with both the midfield and the flanks in case of a counter;

 

15 minutes ago, Cleon said:

If the wingback is making runs and not carrying the ball himself then what is his actual role. Or to be more spoecific what should he be doing? As the space the WM creates would be out wide on the flanks and this wouldn't be really dangerous and would rely on the odd crosses. But then again, who is the player crossing the ball to? You use a striker who drops deep so might not be in the box for a cross and even if he was, who would be in the box supporting?

More than run with the ball I expect him to ocuppy the space left by the right midfielder, giving us another option to pass the ball around and to provide crosses. I thought that once the fullback was in a good enough position to cross, the following should have happened:

• My striker should be in the box, that's something that I definitely want (even though I'm still not sure at what role should be better);
• My wide midfielder/raumdeuter should have had enough time to be in the box aswell;
• The winger on the other side should also have had the time to get himself into the box, which happens quite frequently;
• More rarely, my AP and my BBM. Even though when using the AP on the AMC slot, he would do it quite a lot;

 

I've just noticed this:

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

Before you make any changes though, there is actually something else you could do. What happens if you change the AP to an attack duty or even use him as a AM attack? Just because someone is a playmaker doesn't guarantee assists and just because someone isn't a playmaker doesn't mean they can't be creative and provide assists............

Could I drop him to the CM slot and give him the CM-A role and get the same effect?

[Cleon]

2 minutes ago, FMWolf said:

The difference between the flanks and the reason why I think the left one would get congested is that in the right side the right midfielder is going inside, vacating the flank, while on the left side, my winger is going wide, occupying the flank. So, I was/am just afraid that selecting a WB-A on that flank, that has Dribble More + Run Wide With Ball, same as the winger,would just end with both players trying to do the same thing in the same sort of space. And yeah, I'll admit I'm more on the conservative side of things , which is way I don't trust my DM-D to able to cope with both the midfield and the flanks in case of a counter;

 

More than run with the ball I expect him to ocuppy the space left by the right midfielder, giving us another option to pass the ball around and to provide crosses. I thought that once the fullback was in a good enough position to cross, the following should have happened:

• My striker should be in the box, that's something that I definitely want (even though I'm still not sure at what role should be better);
• My wide midfielder/raumdeuter should have had enough time to be in the box aswell;
• The winger on the other side should also have had the time to get himself into the box, which happens quite frequently;
• More rarely, my AP and my BBM. Even though when using the AP on the AMC slot, he would do it quite a lot;

 

I've just noticed this:

Could I drop him to the CM slot and give him the CM-A role and get the same effect?

He'd be coming from deeper areas so it might be harder to get those assist you want regular. But yes he can give similar effect. 

[FMWolf]

Just to facilitate comprehension, here's the new starting point:

@Cleon 

23 minutes ago, Cleon said:

He'd be coming from deeper areas so it might be harder to get those assist you want regular. But yes he can give similar effect. 

Would the Lower Tempo TI help with this? In my mind it should make play a bit slower giving players more time to get in position. In this case, it should allow the CM-A to be in a better position to provide for the RMD and the CF?

[Cleon]

15 minutes ago, FMWolf said:

Just to facilitate comprehension, here's the new starting point:

@Cleon 

Would the Lower Tempo TI help with this? In my mind it should make play a bit slower giving players more time to get in position. In this case, it should allow the CM-A to be in a better position to provide for the RMD and the CF?

Why do you think you need to play slower? You use a mentality that is between everything to begin with. The slower the play, the less likely players will be in space and have time because the opposition can recover their own positions etc. But in your mind you automatically think you need to play slower. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, as it makes giving advice easier if I can put myself in your shoes.

Personally I don't see why you'd want to play slow but that's just my opinion.

[tinoasprilla]

15 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Why do you think you need to play slower? You use a mentality that is between everything to begin with. The slower the play, the less likely players will be in space and have time because the opposition can recover their own positions etc. But in your mind you automatically think you need to play slower. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, as it makes giving advice easier if I can put myself in your shoes.

Personally I don't see why you'd want to play slow but that's just my opinion.

just jumping in on the back of this if i wanted to try and induce counter attack opportunities would lower tempo be an idea try and invite pressure from the opposing team cause obviously once a counter is launched everything will speed up thanks

[Cleon]

1 minute ago, tinoasprilla said:

just jumping in on the back of this if i wanted to try and induce counter attack opportunities would lower tempo be an idea try and invite pressure from the opposing team cause obviously once a counter is launched everything will speed up thanks

It depends really. If you're aiming for counters then you'll be using a lower mentality to begin with and likely be deep. So naturally everything would be slower to start with as you'd be using a lower end mentality. I'd say mentality and the roles you used would be higher up the list than tempo for the style you want. Tempo remember is just how fast the ball is moved. 

[FMWolf]

@Cleon Of course! I'll try and explain it then:

• The main reason I started using the Lower Tempo TI, was to avoid the ball being played to my striker way to fast leaving him alone upfront. And I was noticing that even on Standard mentality that would happen more than I would like to;
• Players take more time with the ball, making us go up the field as a more cohesive unit;
• It should help making my WB-S, W-S and now my CM-A more involved in the final third;
• Since our reputation has gonne up in the last 2 years, most teams just sit back against us. I feel like the slower tempo (should) helps us reset an attacking movement and move the ball around them and not just take long shots or waste our attacks;
• As we have players roaming from position (BBM, RMD, CF) the slower tempo could allow them to get into the best position they can since they've the time to decide what's the best option;

Also, like mentioned above, I've not an ideal playing style, meaning I'm not looking for a possession based tactic, or quick counters, or agressive pressing, etc... I want to achieve a pretty balanced type of football, with a medium block + some closing down. What I know is what I want from my players:

• Striker: score goals. Lots and lots of them if possible . I'm thinking an Harry Kane type of striker. He still does other stuff, but he is mainly there to score. If he leaves his position, my RMD should occupy that space;
• RMD: score goals and provide a closer support to our striker;
• CM-A (the "number 10"): assists. That's what I mainly want from this players. To work the space between our striker and the midfielder, providing passes to both the striker and the RMD. I still want him to fullfil his defensive duties and help us form a trio in the midfield when defending;
• DM-D: cover for the space left vacated by our most forward thinking players;
• W-S: provide the width on the left side, carrying the ball forward and putting crosses into the box;
• WB-S: provide the width on the right side. With our W-s, they should be stretching our opponents on both sides of the pitch, giving us more space centrally for our CM-A to operate;
• BBM: I just want a player capable of doing a bit of everything, helping recylcing possession, winning the ball back, play through balls for my winger to run into, occasionally get into the box, etc.. . To be honest, I think that even a simple CM-S would work here;
• FB-S: cover the left flank of the pitch when we go forward, while also forming a triangle with my winger and BBM in case we need to recycle the ball;
• CD-D: just your standard central defenders. I just don't them to hoof the ball forward;

 

[tinoasprilla]

7 minutes ago, Cleon said:

It depends really. If you're aiming for counters then you'll be using a lower mentality to begin with and likely be deep. So naturally everything would be slower to start with as you'd be using a lower end mentality. I'd say mentality and the roles you used would be higher up the list than tempo for the style you want. Tempo remember is just how fast the ball is moved. 

i was thinking of trying set up a tactic wear i sit deep and just soak up pressure and keep ball for no real reason other then to  draw the opposition out from posistin then a direct ball over or through the deffence and bam im through on goal my initial foughts were something like 

                                           gk

wb s                 cd d           cd d             wb s

                          regista      dm s

                                     b2b

                           ss            ss

                                   cf s 

was thinking attacking mentality after reading lines and diamond it says defense duty passing is much shorter and attacking direct and also transitions quickly i know it has a higher tempo naturally hence the question off lowering it in team instructions? thanks

[Cleon]

2 minutes ago, tinoasprilla said:

i was thinking of trying set up a tactic wear i sit deep and just soak up pressure and keep ball for no real reason other then to  draw the opposition out from posistin then a direct ball over or through the deffence and bam im through on goal my initial foughts were something like 

                                           gk

wb s                 cd d           cd d             wb s

                          regista      dm s

                                     b2b

                           ss            ss

                                   cf s 

was thinking attacking mentality after reading lines and diamond it says defense duty passing is much shorter and attacking direct and also transitions quickly i know it has a higher tempo naturally hence the question off lowering it in team instructions? thanks

For counter attacking you should read this or start a new thread so you don't hijack FMWolf's

https://teaandbusquets.com/the-art-of-counter-attacking-football

[Cleon]

Quote

• The main reason I started using the Lower Tempo TI, was to avoid the ball being played to my striker way to fast leaving him alone upfront. And I was noticing that even on Standard mentality that would happen more than I would like to;
• Players take more time with the ball, making us go up the field as a more cohesive unit;
• It should help making my WB-S, W-S and now my CM-A more involved in the final third;
• Since our reputation has gonne up in the last 2 years, most teams just sit back against us. I feel like the slower tempo (should) helps us reset an attacking movement and move the ball around them and not just take long shots or waste our attacks;
• As we have players roaming from position (BBM, RMD, CF) the slower tempo could allow them to get into the best position they can since they've the time to decide what's the best option;

Remember there are two teams playing though and while that sounds really good on paper, what are the AI doing while you are doing all of this? If teams are sat back against you already and your playing slow, it makes it easier for them to stay as a unit as they can take the time they needed and stay as a defensive unit. It also means they know the ball isn't going to be moved about with any real urgency.

If you noticed your striker was isolated while on standard mentality then his role or the players around him were wrong and not balanced. There's no way he should have been isolated because your play wouldn't have been that fast to begin with.

When you go up the field as a cohesive unit because play is slow, the opposition also move as a cohesive unit and keep shape. Also your WB, W and CM A should already be really involved in the final third. If not why not give the winger or WB an attacking mentality?

If teams are deep against you then the BBM is running into clear space from deep but when he hits the final third play will be congested and nowhere for him to go? The CF dropping off the front doesn't help with this as he'd be congesting it further and moving closer to his marker and away from goal.

Quote

Also, like mentioned above, I've not an ideal playing style, meaning I'm not looking for a possession based tactic, or quick counters, or agressive pressing, etc... I want to achieve a pretty balanced type of football, with a medium block + some closing down. What I know is what I want from my players:

• Striker: score goals. Lots and lots of them if possible . I'm thinking an Harry Kane type of striker. He still does other stuff, but he is mainly there to score. If he leaves his position, my RMD should occupy that space;
• RMD: score goals and provide a closer support to our striker;
• CM-A (the "number 10"): assists. That's what I mainly want from this players. To work the space between our striker and the midfielder, providing passes to both the striker and the RMD. I still want him to fullfil his defensive duties and help us form a trio in the midfield when defending;
• DM-D: cover for the space left vacated by our most forward thinking players;
• W-S: provide the width on the left side, carrying the ball forward and putting crosses into the box;
• WB-S: provide the width on the right side. With our W-s, they should be stretching our opponents on both sides of the pitch, giving us more space centrally for our CM-A to operate;
• BBM: I just want a player capable of doing a bit of everything, helping recylcing possession, winning the ball back, play through balls for my winger to run into, occasionally get into the box, etc.. . To be honest, I think that even a simple CM-S would work here;
• FB-S: cover the left flank of the pitch when we go forward, while also forming a triangle with my winger and BBM in case we need to recycle the ball;
• CD-D: just your standard central defenders. I just don't them to hoof the ball forward;

Two tips that I find really help when you want to create something all round and not be shoehorned to a particular style. The first one is passing, don't limit it for the side i.e play a short passing game as then you are telling the team to play shorter and this can take away from some of the unpredictable types of passing your players might want to take from time to time. And secondly is the pace of the game via tempo, don't restrict it, let the players play a normal game. When they see an opportunity is on let them decide to quicken play up or slow it down if needs.

[FMWolf]

Really, thanks very much @Cleon! The thread was not getting much attention and I was getting a bit lost, but your insight is really giving a lot of things to think about. I'm about to play my first game with the tactic posted above. Of course I've removed "Slower Tempo" . I'll try and get a few screenshots from the game, aswell as taking notes to whats going on. Let's see how it goes

[Cleon]

Just now, FMWolf said:

Really, thanks very much @Cleon! The thread was not getting much attention and I was getting a bit lost, but your insight is really giving a lot of things to think about. I'm about to play my first game with the tactic posted above. Of course I've removed "Slower Tempo" . I'll try and get a few screenshots from the game, aswell as taking notes to whats going on. Let's see how it goes

I saw you tagged me the other day but I've been so busy I didn't want to reply if I couldn't go back and forth with you for a while as that's frustrating for you.

I see you've started the game now but I'd have been tempted to use the shape I initially replied to without lower tempo on and seen how that went before making the other changes. As in all honesty I don't think you have much wrong initially. I only replied and questioned to get you thinking a little bit differently to what you might have previously. And to also show you have many options you can try

[FMWolf]

Yeah, it's totally fine

Actually, as I loaded the save I saw I had stopped in the international break, so I haven't started the game yet. Just to make sure, you're talking about this shape:

Just take the "Lower Tempo" TI and keep everything else the same?

[Cleon]

5 minutes ago, FMWolf said:

Yeah, it's totally fine

Actually, as I loaded the save I saw I had stopped in the international break, so I haven't started the game yet. Just to make sure, you're talking about this shape:

Just take the "Lower Tempo" TI and keep everything else the same?

Yeah and see how it plays. See if you notice more urgency and players moving the ball snappier. This little change could see the AP create more. 

[FMWolf]

Just played the game. Lost 3-0 and we we're very well beaten I'll have to leave for a bit, but I took some screenshots that seemed relevant that I'll post when I come back.

In the meanwhile, I'll leave the pkm of the match here:

Famalicão v Vit. Guimarães.pkm

Here's some screenshots that ilustrate some problems that I saw:

My BBM has the ball:

1. My AP-S, who I want serving my striker and right midfielder, is way to deep in order to do so. Ideally he would be somewhere inside the red box;
2. My WB-S is also too deep. The movement of my WM-A has dragged the opposition fullback inside, leaving a huge space to be exploited. Instead, my WB-S is so deep that he's just maked by the opposition AML;
3. My striker is not really doing what I need to do: occupy the opposition center backs. He sitting in the gap between their LB and LCD, which should the space where the WM-A operates. If was doing on the opposite side, it would be ok, has that would further increase the space for my WM-A to run into. This then leads to;
4. My WM-A should be looking to run to where our striker is. He can't do it because that space is already occupied;

 

My winger has the ball and it's about to cross it:

1. Again my AP is not where I would him to be, being again to deep to really cause the oppositon any problems;
2. My striker is at the edge of the box. He can't attack that from there. He should be inside the box. Even my WM-A(12) is more advanced than him;

 

Another similar situation, but this time we had no one inside the box:

 

Now here's some screenshots of the opposition fullback doing what I want my WB-S to do. He basically won them the game:

• Their AMR has come inside and he's just doing excellently exploiting that space, being lefy completely alone. The player on the ball put a pass to him and he just made a simple cross that lead to a goal;

 

• Again look how far forward he came. And look at the amount of players the AI has in the box, compared to what I had :s Even though is marked by 2 men, he managed to put a cross in that lead to a CCC for the AI;

 

So a couple of problems, one horrible result and a lot of things to look at

[jc577]

I'm no Cleon but i'll add my two cents worth anyway; with a front two of an AP-S and a CF-S i'm not too surprised you're lacking numbers in the box. I could be but because your AP is so deep you're ST isn't getting into the box aggressively due to fear of isolation. The first change i'd make is to give the AP an attack duty and see if that has a knock-on effect on the ST. The second change would be to give the ST an attack duty also. I know it's common to have one support/attack duty in an AMC/ST partnership, but an AP on attack is a sort of hybrid between both as he doesn't have 'Get Further Forward' enabled, so the balance is still there.

[Cleon]

11 hours ago, jc577 said:

I'm no Cleon but i'll add my two cents worth anyway; with a front two of an AP-S and a CF-S i'm not too surprised you're lacking numbers in the box. I could be but because your AP is so deep you're ST isn't getting into the box aggressively due to fear of isolation. The first change i'd make is to give the AP an attack duty and see if that has a knock-on effect on the ST. The second change would be to give the ST an attack duty also. I know it's common to have one support/attack duty in an AMC/ST partnership, but an AP on attack is a sort of hybrid between both as he doesn't have 'Get Further Forward' enabled, so the balance is still there.

Yups I mentioned this myself in one of the earlier posts. It's not surprising that in the screenshots he posted, he has those issues because he's instructed both players to be deep.

Quote

1. My AP-S, who I want serving my striker and right midfielder, is way to deep in order to do so. Ideally he would be somewhere inside the red box;
2. My WB-S is also too deep. The movement of my WM-A has dragged the opposition fullback inside, leaving a huge space to be exploited. Instead, my WB-S is so deep that he's just maked by the opposition AML;

1. If you know he needs to be higher then why are you using a support duty? Give him an attacking duty and he'll occupy these areas you want.

2. I posted about this earlier. The WB is deep and the WM is high, so when space is vacated there's no realistic way of him getting past the WM unless the ball is held up or you change the WB to attacking one. You can't have overlaps and support if the player is too high to begin with, the WB would need to be superman to get get past him on a support duty. Again though, you have the option of an attack duty which will bring them closer. You can always change the WM A to support too.

You have plenty of options to try and can easily fix these issues but first you need to decide if you want to be cautious or you actually want players overlapping and providing the support? Currently you want the player to do one thing then give him a duty which doesn't translate into what you are wanting i.e the support duties and expecting them to get beyond attacking duty players who already play higher up the pitch. I did speak about this in earlier replies though so it shouldn't be a surprise to you that this happened.

Quote

1. My striker is not really doing what I need to do: occupy the opposition center backs. He sitting in the gap between their LB and LCD, which should the space where the WM-A operates. If was doing on the opposite side, it would be ok, has that would further increase the space for my WM-A to run into. This then leads to;
2. My WM-A should be looking to run to where our striker is. He can't do it because that space is already occupied;

Again it comes back to the above. You want the striker to occupy the defenders yet give him a duty that encourages him to drop deeper than his markers. If you want him to occupy the defenders then he needs a duty that pushes him further forward. He can't consistently do both. So which is it, you want him dropping deep or occupying the defenders?

Quote

1. Again my AP is not where I would him to be, being again to deep to really cause the oppositon any problems;
2. My striker is at the edge of the box. He can't attack that from there. He should be inside the box. Even my WM-A(12) is more advanced than him;

An AP is a playmaker above all else.  He's doing what you've instructed him to be, you've told him to be deeper with the duty of support allocated to him. Same for the striker.

You noticing a theme yet? 

The players are taking up the areas you've set them up to take, this is what support roles do, they support from deeper areas.

[FMWolf]

8 minutes ago, Cleon said:

The players are taking up the areas you've set them up to take, this is what support roles do, they support from deeper areas.

20 minutes ago, Cleon said:

I did speak about this in earlier replies though so it shouldn't be a surprise to you that this happened.

Yup, after our discussion yesterday, I was almost certain that would the be case. I just wanted to try the system as it was, only with "Play Slower" TI off. I'll admit that the game went so badly that I didn't even notice any effect from that change I'll try and give feedback to all your questions (sorry if gets a bit boring )

 

12 minutes ago, Cleon said:

1. If you know he needs to be higher then why are you using a support duty? Give him an attacking duty and he'll occupy these areas you want.

In my mind, a support duty on the AMC should do what I want: play behind the striker. I thought that with an attack duty, the players in this position would be to agressive when it comes to attacking the box, and that's not really what I want. The AP-A also comes with the "Dribble More" PI, something I'm not a fan off :S Also, with the support duty I expected this player to help us when it comes to the defensive phase, forming a trio in midfield, giving us extra stability. But I can see that I'm completely off with this one;

 

14 minutes ago, Cleon said:

2. I posted about this earlier. The WB is deep and the WM is high, so when space is vacated there's no realistic way of him getting past the WM unless the ball is held up or you change the WB to attacking one. You can't have overlaps and support if the player is too high to begin with, the WB would need to be superman to get get past him on a support duty. Again though, you have the option of an attack duty which will bring them closer. You can always change the WM A to support too

 

Changing the WM-A couldn't work (I guess) as I want him to act like our 2nd main goalscoring threat, acting like a RMD. I fear the support duty wouldn't be agressive enough to do it. Changing my WB to an attack duty seems like the better solution, even though my overly cautious side of myself is starting to see a completely vacated flank for the opposition to exploit . Even though that could be helped by moving my DMC to the right?;

 

21 minutes ago, Cleon said:

He can't consistently do both. So which is it, you want him dropping deep or occupying the defenders?

Definitely the 2nd one. I understand he should have an attacking duty, but I'll be honest and say I can't really decide what role to give him. Here's a screenshot of his profile:

[Cleon]

Quote

In my mind, a support duty on the AMC should do what I want: play behind the striker. I thought that with an attack duty, the players in this position would be to agressive when it comes to attacking the box, and that's not really what I want. The AP-A also comes with the "Dribble More" PI, something I'm not a fan off :S Also, with the support duty I expected this player to help us when it comes to the defensive phase, forming a trio in midfield, giving us extra stability. But I can see that I'm completely off with this one;

Remember its not just about what position the player, you need to take into account the role you used too. Someone like a shadow striker would be really aggressive but someone like an advanced playmaker not so much because they are a creator mainly. That's not to say they can't/won't score or get into the box. But ultimately its a creative role so will be less aggressive than an attacking role like a SS.

Quote

Changing the WM-A couldn't work (I guess) as I want him to act like our 2nd main goalscoring threat, acting like a RMD. I fear the support duty wouldn't be agressive enough to do it. Changing my WB to an attack duty seems like the better solution, even though my overly cautious side of myself is starting to see a completely vacated flank for the opposition to exploit . Even though that could be helped by moving my DMC to the right?;

On one of my saves my WM - S who is set up to be like an inside forward grabbed 127 goals in 152 games. My point is, the duty and role is relevant for what's happening around him. If you set up a WM to be attacking but he was on a support duty he can still be aggressive.

Quote

Definitely the 2nd one. I understand he should have an attacking duty, but I'll be honest and say I can't really decide what role to give him. Here's a screenshot of his profile:

You're looking at this from the wrong angle and looking at what is best for the individual imo. Think more broadly and based on what you want the others around him to be doing. This then determines which striker roles can/will work as half of them won't fit what you have in mind. So in your case you want the AP to create and the Raum to be the main scoring thread while being supported by a striker who occupies the defenders. This leaves you with AF/CF-A/DLF-A

[FMWolf]

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

You're looking at this from the wrong angle and looking at what is best for the individual imo. Think more broadly and based on what you want the others around him to be doing. This then determines which striker roles can/will work as half of them won't fit what you have in mind. So in your case you want the AP to create and the Raum to be the main scoring thread while being supported by a striker who occupies the defenders. This leaves you with AF/CF-A/DLF-A

Thank you! This really really helps I'll start with the DLF-A, as it has "Hold Up Ball" but no "Dribble More", and see what that brings to the table.

 

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

Remember its not just about what position the player, you need to take into account the role you used too. Someone like a shadow striker would be really aggressive but someone like an advanced playmaker not so much because they are a creator mainly. That's not to say they can't/won't score or get into the box. But ultimately its a creative role so will be less aggressive than an attacking role like a SS.

Ah, okey! Did not know that. Could this be a position where I could play around and maybe try the Enganche then? "A hook that joins midfield and attack and operates behind the strikers (...)" seem like exactly what I want from my AMC.

 

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

On one of my saves my WM - S who is set up to be like an inside forward grabbed 127 goals in 152 games. My point is, the duty and role is relevant for what's happening around him. If you set up a WM to be attacking but he was on a support duty he can still be aggressive.

This is where I'm struggling the most to understand I've set my WM-A to sit narrower and roam from position. As he's on an attack duty, it comes with "Get Further Forward" as default. If I were to change him to a support duty, but give him the "Get Further Forward" PI, what would be the difference in their behaviour? And if I put him in a support duty, would that mean the WB could stay on support or should he be changed to attack nonetheless?

[FMWolf]

I just can't get the asymmetric shape to work, mainly on the defensive side. It leaves a huge gap in midfield, as my DM-D normally tracks the opposition AMC, leaving the right-center completely vacated. This then leads to the opposition MCR just having a field day, as there is no one to bother him since my BBM occupies the left-center space and the wide players don't really cover central space. So, I don't really know what to do. And that sucks, since there's so much advice given by @Cleon, but I still can't achieve what I'm looking for 

[summatsupeer]

I have been lurking reading this, but i've slept a few times since so could you just explain what you are trying to achieve?

Currently i'm not sure why you aren't using a 4141, 4411 or 433 DM Wide?  What does the Async formation provide besides the gap in the defensive formation that you speak of?  Personally I think formations with gaps in the center need higher pressing since sitting in formation would leave a hole anyway.

[Alerion]

Lately I use a lot of tactics with 3 midfielders. LCM BWM/S, CCM DLP/D, RCM CM/S or BBM. This works really well, possession is over the moon and I rarely concede, add this with a back 4 with FB/S and PI to not go as far up the pitch you have a solid defense.

[FMWolf]

@summatsupeer It was a mix of wanting to try something diffent plus achieving some certain things. I'll try and explain it the best I can:

• Wanting to use a striker whose main job is to lead the frontline, I fear that playing without an AMC will just leave isolated upfront, reason why I don't see the 4141 working. On the same note, I really wanted to use someone who would play behind the striker. linking the midfield and attack and provide key passes to both my striker and right midfielder. Which could lead to the 4411 but;
• The 4411 doesn't have anyone in the DMC position, something that I think really helps you achieve a more balanced defense, as it makes your CB's more cautious when leaving their position to press the opposition. In this case, it would also serve as cover for the more attack minded right side of the team, where a WB-A + WM-A could easly leave us exposed to counters if no one is there to cover them;
• The 433 DM Wide comes with the advantage of having two players higher up the pitch who could support my striker quickly, but I'm just afraid the AML/AMR don't track back enough to help us defensively. Other than that, it would have the same problems the 4141 would have;

The asymmetric shape should cover (in my mind of course) this problems, as it would place a player in every position I mentioned above, but clearly isn't working I'll also admit that having just read what I wrote, it seems that maybe I'm being to ambitious?

 

@Alerion It's nice to see you got it to work, but I don't think that set-up would achieve what I'm looking for

[jc577]

Have you considered a 4-4-1-1 with the CM's in the DM slot instead?

[summatsupeer]

2 hours ago, FMWolf said:

@summatsupeer It was a mix of wanting to try something diffent plus achieving some certain things. I'll try and explain it the best I can:

• Wanting to use a striker whose main job is to lead the frontline, I fear that playing without an AMC will just leave isolated upfront, reason why I don't see the 4141 working. On the same note, I really wanted to use someone who would play behind the striker. linking the midfield and attack and provide key passes to both my striker and right midfielder. Which could lead to the 4411 but;
• The 4411 doesn't have anyone in the DMC position, something that I think really helps you achieve a more balanced defense, as it makes your CB's more cautious when leaving their position to press the opposition. In this case, it would also serve as cover for the more attack minded right side of the team, where a WB-A + WM-A could easly leave us exposed to counters if no one is there to cover them;
• The 433 DM Wide comes with the advantage of having two players higher up the pitch who could support my striker quickly, but I'm just afraid the AML/AMR don't track back enough to help us defensively. Other than that, it would have the same problems the 4141 would have;

The asymmetric shape should cover (in my mind of course) this problems, as it would place a player in every position I mentioned above, but clearly isn't working I'll also admit that having just read what I wrote, it seems that maybe I'm being to ambitious?

 

@Alerion It's nice to see you got it to work, but I don't think that set-up would achieve what I'm looking for

Tried to write this way to many times so just going to put the points I want to make, if you need some more explanation just ask.

• Your formation is your defensive positioning.  If you put a player in AMC thats where your telling him to defend.  He might drop and cover if the risk is big enough compared to his mentality and if his attributes enable him to.  The formation will show you where you will naturally limit space or allow space.  The role+duty will then dictate how far they go from there position but don't confuse this with engaging open attackers that can cause a cascading effect.
• If you want the Advanced Playmaker to play higher when you have the ball you have to tell him to take more risks rather than having him be supportive and waiting till its safer.  With a WB-A + WM-A outside of him he's probably going to stay deeper more often due to the risk.  Plus he's a playmaker, he's drawn to the ball to collect it and create something rather than getting in the box for someone else to create for, unless you adjust his focus by changing his duty.
• Your asking too much of your DM.  You want him to stay and shield the CBs.  But then you have WB-A + WM-A on the same flank so he has to cover that with the DCR when you lose possession.  Once the WM-A + WB-A recover there defensive positions, your still lacking a MCR so the DM will have to step up and engage.  Is a DM-D really a "shielding" role?

I'd recommend trying a 4141 and using a more conservative MCR to cover the attacking right flank and providing some depth.

Have the more attacking central mid in MCL with the W-S + FB-S providing cover.  The Winger will stay wider and leave the channels for the MCL.  Having the linking player on the left side could help create space for the ball to be switched to the attacking right flank, with the left flank support players helping transition the ball.

You could try AP-A + CM-S/BWM-S, I might add some PI's but would start plain.

Alternatively if the AP-A dribbles too much or plays too deep too often then i'd try a CM-A with some PI's.  Might change the RCM to a DLP-S to add extra cover or just add the Hold Position PI to the MCR.

Lots of options really, just don't over-complicate things.

Also check the central linking players PPMs, if he has Drops Deep to Collect Ball he's not going to be as advanced as often.

[FMWolf]

@summatsupeer Thanks for the reply! Again, I'll try and explain myself the best I can:

46 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

Your formation is your defensive positioning.  If you put a player in AMC thats where your telling him to defend.  He might drop and cover if the risk is big enough compared to his mentality and if his attributes enable him to.  The formation will show you where you will naturally limit space or allow space.  The role+duty will then dictate how far they go from there position (...)

I get that your formation is your defensive positioning and that the gap in midfield is visible from there, but as I wanted a "number 10" in our team, having an AMC felt like the right choice as I believe this is the position with the most suitable roles for such type of player;

 

51 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

but don't confuse this with engaging open attackers that can cause a cascading effect.

I'm sorry, but english not being my native language, I don't really understand what you meant here :s

 

52 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

If you want the Advanced Playmaker to play higher when you have the ball you have to tell him to take more risks rather than having him be supportive and waiting till its safer.  With a WB-A + WM-A outside of him he's probably going to stay deeper more often due to the risk.  Plus he's a playmaker, he's drawn to the ball to collect it and create something rather than getting in the box for someone else to create for, unless you adjust his focus by changing his duty.

I should have mentioned that from the last discussion with Cleon, I understood that I needed an attack duty for my AMC and I've used one in our last games played;

 

54 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

Your asking too much of your DM.  You want him to stay and shield the CBs.  But then you have WB-A + WM-A on the same flank so he has to cover that with the DCR when you lose possession.  Once the WM-A + WB-A recover there defensive positions, your still lacking a MCR so the DM will have to step up and engage.  Is a DM-D really a "shielding" role?

Yeah, makes total sense. It's way to much work for one player. The reasoning behind the choice of a DM-D was that I think it's a more mobile defensive player (when compared to an anchor man or deep lying playmaker), which should allow him to move to the right side when needed to cover the space left from the WB-A+WM-A;

 

57 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

Have the more attacking central mid in MCL with the W-S + FB-S providing cover.  The Winger will stay wider and leave the channels for the MCL.  Having the linking player on the left side could help create space for the ball to be switched to the attacking right flank, with the left flank support players helping transition the ball.

• In the beginning of this "journey" I've had my MCL set up to work as our main creative force in a flat 4-5-1. I just felt that having him moved to the left was taking away from my WM-A as he had no one close enough to him to provide him the passes into space. It also meant that we couldn't have our "number 10" acting central, something that I think takes a bit away from what I would like. Now, with a 4-1-4-1 he's not as moved to the left as he is in a flat 4-5-1, so maybe that could work better?;
• Having him in the MC position would allow him to be the link between midfield and attack as effectively as an AMC? Or would he's starting position be so deep that my striker would more often than not be isolated?
• @Cleon mentioned that my system is very cautious. Would having a MCR set as BWM-S or CM-S make it even more conservative to the point that it would just be to easy to defend against? Could this be worked around with a mentality/shape change?

 

@jc577 Wouldn't using two DM's make the gap in midfield even bigger?

 

 

[jc577]

@FMWolf It can work as long as both DM's are on support duties so that they step up into midfield (the MC strata) when your team has possession.

[summatsupeer]

Quote

I get that your formation is your defensive positioning and that the gap in midfield is visible from there, but as I wanted a "number 10" in our team, having an AMC felt like the right choice as I believe this is the position with the most suitable roles for such type of player;

Make a choice, atm you want everything.  Do you want him to stay high and closer to the ST or drop and help?  If you want him to help defend he can start from a CM position and add PI's to give him more freedom, letting him get forward and do things like a #10 would.  If you want him to stay forward then maybe there's somewhere else than your CM you could leave space?  Maybe a Async formation with a winger missing? Or go to a 442 Diamond / 541 WB Diamond?  Either that or move the DM to CM.

Yes a DM duo could work, but don't expect them to sit in front of the DCs, they'll both need to cover the CM area, they'll just do it from a deeper starting position which will allow opponents some space to push up compared to a CM pair who will form more of a 4 man line that has to be played through / over.

Quote

I'm sorry, but english not being my native language, I don't really understand what you meant here :s

Think of two lines, the D-line where your defence tries to position and the line of engagement where you'll allow opponents to bring the ball to.  Deeper players typically have a lower line of engagement but if a opponent is completely free with the ball, it doesn't matter if your CB has the lowest possible Closing Down setting, if he's the closest player he will go meet that attacker.  He might not try and win the ball but could just shadow and try and delay, that depends on the player + settings.

Quote

Yeah, makes total sense. It's way to much work for one player. The reasoning behind the choice of a DM-D was that I think it's a more mobile defensive player (when compared to an anchor man or deep lying playmaker), which should allow him to move to the right side when needed to cover the space left from the WB-A+WM-A;

Agreed, it will make him more likely to go close down rather than the DCR but also likely you won't have a screen.

Quote

In the beginning of this "journey" I've had my MCL set up to work as our main creative force in a flat 4-5-1. I just felt that having him moved to the left was taking away from my WM-A as he had no one close enough to him to provide him the passes into space. It also meant that we couldn't have our "number 10" acting central, something that I think takes a bit away from what I would like. Now, with a 4-1-4-1 he's not as moved to the left as he is in a flat 4-5-1, so maybe that could work better?;

We're risking talking about multiple setups here which could get confusing.  Did you allow the MCL to Roam From Position or to play More Direct Passes? What role&duty was at MCR?  What was your team shape? By the sounds of it you want your team to work closely rather than trying to stretch the field.  Was it the players attributes making them not get in a good off the ball position?

Quote

• Having him in the MC position would allow him to be the link between midfield and attack as effectively as an AMC? Or would he's starting position be so deep that my striker would more often than not be isolated?

I'd look at three things:

1. Make sure your encouraging the MC to get forward, the more freedom and risk taking the more he'll get upfield.
2. Your team setup doesn't result in players launching passes.  There might be instances of clearances that your ST might win, but that's not a result of instructions.
3. The right players, make sure the player who has to get forward has the attributes to do so and his traits make sense (if he has them).

Quote

• @Cleon mentioned that my system is very cautious. Would having a MCR set as BWM-S or CM-S make it even more conservative to the point that it would just be to easy to defend against? Could this be worked around with a mentality/shape change?

Assuming we're looking at your last posted tactic image, then yes your right flank is your only "adventurous" part currently with the rest of the team pretty much supporting with 7 support duties, 2 attack and 3 defend.  On Standard + Flexible the support duties won't take big risks, they'll balance the risk+reward.  In my suggestion i've tried to add freedom to the "linking" player, let him roam and use the cover.  You could change Mentality / Shape if you want to adjust every player in the team, but I don't think you've found your player balance yet.

[FMWolf]

@summatsupeer Again, thanks for the reply!

42 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

Make a choice, atm you want everything.  Do you want him to stay high and closer to the ST or drop and help?

Yeah, to be honest when I was thinking about the system, I wanted a player that did both I can see that it is a bit unreal. My main problem with dropping the AMC to the MC strata is that having a striker with an attack duty without a player at the AMC position just leaves him isolated upfront more often than not;

 

46 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

If you want him to stay forward then maybe there's somewhere else than your CM you could leave space?  Maybe a Async formation with a winger missing? Or go to a 442 Diamond / 541 WB Diamond?  Either that or move the DM to CM.

I've thought about using other formations, mainly without the winger, but in this case, dropping the winger it's not really an option as he's our best player and I really want to get the best out of him. And, unfortunately, with 3 for marking, 5 for tackling and 6 for positioning, I fear that playing him as WB is just to much of a liability, even though I think that those formations could make sense. Moving the DM to CM would make us play in 4-4-1-1 and it would be my 1st trying time one, but it could work;

 

53 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

Think of two lines, the D-line where your defence tries to position and the line of engagement where you'll allow opponents to bring the ball to.  Deeper players typically have a lower line of engagement but if a opponent is completely free with the ball, it doesn't matter if your CB has the lowest possible Closing Down setting, if he's the closest player he will go meet that attacker.  He might not try and win the ball but could just shadow and try and delay, that depends on the player + settings.

Got that!

 

53 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

We're risking talking about multiple setups here which could get confusing.  Did you allow the MCL to Roam From Position or to play More Direct Passes? What role&duty was at MCR?  What was your team shape? Was it the players attributes making them not get in a good off the ball position?

I had my MCL set as a CM-A with "More Risky Passes" and "Move Into Channels" but I just felt i was getting an Hamsik-ish sort of player instead of Sneijder-ish one , meaning that he attacked that left-center space quite well, but it never seemed like he created enough for the striker and right midfielder. The MCR was just a MC-S with "Hold Position" and we played with a Flexible team shape. Now that you mention it, their Off The Ball attribute was 12/11 if I remember, not really that good;

 

1 hour ago, summatsupeer said:

By the sounds of it you want your team to work closely rather than trying to stretch the field.

Their should be two players ensuring that we stretch the field: the Winger and the Wingback. Other than that, I'm not really sure;

 

1 hour ago, summatsupeer said:

• Make sure your encouraging the MC to get forward, the more freedom and risk taking the more he'll get upfield.
• Your team setup doesn't result in players launching passes.  There might be instances of clearances that your ST might win, but that's not a result of instructions.
• The right players, make sure the player who has to get forward has the attributes to do so and his traits make sense (if he has them).

I have Play Out Of Defense as the only TI selected. Would that be enough to make the setup less prone to launching the ball forward, or would I have to play with passing range and/or tempo even though I don't have any preference when it comes to it? And I think that our most recent #10 now has the attributes to get forward;

 

Just to try and summarize things a bit, this would be the two systems we would be looking at?