Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So I tried to do a save with Atletico Madrid. I tried to create a decend tactics. But it didn`t work out, then I decided I will try to create working 4-3-3 tactics with Barcelona, but same result, it was impossible to win. Now I decided that I will try to do a Sevilla save, but again, we are playing horrible. No matter what team I choose, no matter what tactics i create, we always play horrible! This game is just too hard, you need to be an expert to create decend tactics I suppose.. it`s just not fun, i think this will be my last FM!

 

Basicly I`m trying to play with 4-2-3-1 formation, somehow attacking I guess, but it`s not working. First two friendlies we did okay, I thought my tactics work, but next friendlies we struggled. We barely created any chances and we lost the other friendlies. Then we played against OGC Nice. I somehow managed to win 1-0 with basicly only 3 shots against their 16 shots, but next match we lost 1-0 against Levante in the league again. Barely created any chances. I`m tired of this! So I need some help with my tactics, what is wrong with my roles? What could I improve?

 

 

 

 

tactics.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently writing about the 4-2-3-1 but sadly it'll be another week or so yet before its completed. However I'll share this I've wrote which is part of the overall series I'm doing because I feel people get the wrong idea about this shape and think they have to be more attacking to become more attacking. When in reality you can play less attacking and end up being more attacking due to you being top heavy to begin with.

Top Heavy Formations

One of the biggest obstacles people have with top heavy shapes is they don’t know how to firstly create space and movement and secondly don’t know how to use it when they have created it. Unlike deeper formations, it’s easy to have your front four isolated from the rest of the team when using this shape especially on higher mentality structures. When you use attacking duties and high mentalites you push the players even further forward, which isn’t always a good thing. If players are too high how can you create space let alone use it?

Not only that but it also requires the deeper players to supply them the ball constantly because they’ll be too high and attacking to be involved in most build up plays. When this happens it puts a lot of pressure on the full backs and the central midfielders and requires them to work even harder than normal while still carrying out their own duties. Basically you split your team into two different bands rather than a well oiled cohesive unit playing this way. This brings lots of issues, which I’ll be talking about in great depth a little further in the article.

Depending on how the opposition play, top heavy formations can naturally struggle to find space in behind the opposition. Especially if the opposition is sat deep and defending, then it gets harder to break these teams down. All the space that exists naturally is actually in front of the defensive line not behind. This means the role and duties you use here are vital in creating the space. Somehow you have to balance these roles out to offer the kind of movement you need.

Another important factor in this is the team shape you use. On the more fluid end of the scale players will be closer together and this again takes away space compared to the lower end team shapes. So if space is an issue then what kind of team shape you use will be vital. In fact all of the issues I’ve mentioned so far could mean you are restricted to long-shots without creating any real quality chances, at least not consistently.

Don’t worry though, I will be covering all of these issues a little later and discussing how we can stop it from happening and how to fix it, if you currently suffer with any of these issues.

The Central Defensive or Midfield Players

These two players whichever way you utilise them, are vital to how the formation functions as a whole. Many people think when they use a 4-2-3-1 that the two central midfielders need to be aggressive and support attacks so tend to set them up to get further forward. This is great but brings implications. One is that again it asks players to move into already crowded space assuming the opposition is defend deep. Secondly it leaves you exposed when the ball is turned over because the player will have to get back into his defensive position. Considering you only have two players centrally who are expected to cover the entire midfield then it a major issue if one is caught out of position or can’t recover in time.

It leaves you badly exposed and you get run ragged. So ideally because the players for this position need to be workhorses even if you want them to support attacks. It’s a demanding role but often this is overlooked. You shouldn’t need them to go forward and get into the box or be very deep in the final third. That’s not to say they can’t be used like that but I’d have to question why you’d set up like that and wonder what the other four front players were doing? They can support and aid attacks from deeper positions, four players should be more than enough to break down any side or to create that important space and movement. Balance is key to everything and that’s what makes a good tactic into an excellent one, it’s a fine line.

Now we’ve got some of the common issues and mistakes out of the way, it's important we understand how and why the shape we use actually works. You need to understand the basics to know if it's working or not. So what does the 4-2-3-1 offer.

Strengths

The strengths of the formation without a doubt is the flexibility when attacking and that you have three attacking midfielders positioned high up the pitch with a striker. You can make the formation shape into various different shapes with clever use of the roles and duties. In a proper balanced set up the central midfielders provide the needed cover to allow the forward four to be more expressive. It’s also hard for you to be overrun in the midfield area with essentially five players across the midfield.

Another strength is how you utilise the ball. Generally speaking it ulises possession more effectively than a 4-1-2-2-1 which is more focused on retaining possession. So having four players advanced up the pitch allows the ball to be used much quickly. With the two deep central players supporting behind you can distribute the ball more effective due to not having to pass in straight lines and creating lots of different triangular passing options. This is where the 4-2-3-1 excels for me.

Weaknesses

Due to the high positions of the three attacking midfielders, tiredness can be a major factor. In Football Manager terms the issue here might not be tiredness, it might be that those three players don’t track back further enough in their own half. In real life tiredness is a factor because they’re expected to be almost like box to box players, so it’s a lot of physical exertion. This can also make it hard to defend against quick counter attacks depending on how high your players are when the ball is lost. A simple ball over the top or across the midfield can potentially take up to six of your players out in one go, depending on the positioning of the central two players.

Another known on effect of having three attacking midfielders high up the pitch is opposition wingers. They can harass your full backs and create 1v1’s or 2v1’s if you don’t get your own wide players tracking back enough. It’s quite demanding to expect players to be really advanced yet deep in defensive transitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleon's post pretty much nails it. But one of the things I like to do is create a box and a triangle.

By this i mean the box is the two CBs and the CM's. Usually this is a CM/D and DLP/S to create a platform that is stable in attack and defence. The triangle is the two CMs and the AMC. This is to form a triangle of attacking passing in the opposition half. I usually pick an AP/attack or a Shadow striker. Essentially my aim is to create an attacking platform without overworking my midfield defensively, which could lead to holes being exploited

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what i love and hate about Fm.

Saw this post, and immediately fired Fm18 up and wish to make my own  4-2-3-1.

I know i will  fail in making it, even though i have read a lot of Cleon's posts through the years.

 

You both talk about the CD's and the MC's, did Zigaliro not set them up corretly?

I know there can be alot of reasons to why the tactic is failling, but to give you an idea what is going on i my head.

I think one of the reasons could be the wingers and control, are Wingers not more utilized in a counter/attacking tactic and 2 players comming into the box from ther SC or AM posistions, to recieve the crosses?

 

 

 

Edited by Herbie2100
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Herbie2100 said:

This is what i love and hate about Fm.

Saw this post, and immediately fired Fm18 up and wish to make my own  4-2-3-1.

I know i will  fail in making it, even though i have read a lot of Cleon's posts through the years.

 

You both talk about the CD's and the MC's, did Zigaliro not set them up corretly?

I know there can be alot of reasons to why the tactic is failling, but to give you an idea what is going on i my head.

I think one of the reasons could be the wingers and control, are Wingers not more utilized in a counter/attacking tactic and 2 players comming into the box from ther SC or AM posistions, to recieve the crosses?

 

 

 

Thinking about space and control and whats the weakest area of the 4231. Any rudimentary analysis will tell you its midfield. With only 2 in midfield you could end up struggling to control the middle of the pitch. And while its a great system, this needs to be addressed. Its natural ability to overload and overpower does not require you to increase the amount of attacking duties which is a common mistake most people make and what the OP has done. 

You first worry about a tactic being defensively solid, and if you look at his tactic it does appear to sort that out but then the problem begins in his midfield transition phase. Does the attacking duty of the AM cause him to be isolated? I think so. Then you have one W(A) on attack on the right flank who demands a perfect pass to find him all the time, on top of that he needs to get into space to be effective. Can that happen all the time? No. If teams are defensive, he will run into problems - lack of space.

Now take a look at the left side, he has a W(S), nice. That makes him the only real person who can help in transitions to build up from midfield, but wait is that a CM(D) behind him. Now the W(S) is also isolated, this means that the playmaker needs good passing range to find him. The W(S) is the only real outlet to make passes.

So during transitions I expect this tactic to fall apart during the midfield consolidation phase, because you can't really get the front guys involved. 

 

I also did a 4231 video on my youtube channel. Its still relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some very interesting explanations here.

But what about deeper versions, i believe the same principles apply?

And the same goes for deeper and narrow?

Can you please give me your opinion about this version i'd like to use? Not sure about the AMCR, maybe a support duty is better there?

Thank you.

lineup (1).png

Edited by mikcheck
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Then you have one W(A) on attack on the right flank who demands a perfect pass to find him all the time, on top of that he needs to get into space to be effective. Can that happen all the time? No. If teams are defensive, he will run into problems - lack of space.

Now take a look at the left side, he has a W(S), nice. That makes him the only real person who can help in transitions to build up from midfield, but wait is that a CM(D) behind him. Now the W(S) is also isolated, this means that the playmaker needs good passing range to find him. The W(S) is the only real outlet to make passes.

So during transitions I expect this tactic to fall apart during the midfield consolidation phase, because you can't really get the front guys involved.

 

So if he switches the CM/D and the DLP/S he will get more out of the WL/S, but where does that leave the WR/A, how do you utilize him, by changing the AM/A to a AM/S and the FBR/S to A or WB/S?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem lies not in midfield but in attacking midfield, fix that and you fix the whole tactic, for one thing, the AM is not helping by punching forward. If he has traits that encourage more attacking play it gets worse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

The problem lies not in midfield but in attacking midfield, fix that and you fix the whole tactic, for one thing, the AM is not helping by punching forward. If he has traits that encourage more attacking play it gets worse. 

So AM/S or some other supporting role.

But then who is going to be in the box when the wingers cross, maybe the CF/A, the CF could be all over the place and not in the box?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cleon said:

Depending on how the opposition play, top heavy formations can naturally struggle to find space in behind the opposition. Especially if the opposition is sat deep and defending, then it gets harder to break these teams down. All the space that exists naturally is actually in front of the defensive line not behind. This means the role and duties you use here are vital in creating the space. Somehow you have to balance these roles out to offer the kind of movement you need.

Another important factor in this is the team shape you use. On the more fluid end of the scale players will be closer together and this again takes away space compared to the lower end team shapes. So if space is an issue then what kind of team shape you use will be vital. In fact all of the issues I’ve mentioned so far could mean you are restricted to long-shots without creating any real quality chances, at least not consistently.

 

That's a contradiction. Since the space is in front of the opposite defensive line, more fluid shapes would make more sense than structured. Structured will increase the mentalities of all 4 advanced players meaning they won't be as involved in the build up and using the space in front of the opposition defensive line. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NabsKebabs said:

That's a contradiction. Since the space is in front of the opposite defensive line, more fluid shapes would make more sense than structured. Structured will increase the mentalities of all 4 advanced players meaning they won't be as involved in the build up and using the space in front of the opposition defensive line. 

It’s not a contradiction though; if roles & duties are set up correctly, especially the front four, then involvement in build-up shouldn’t be a problem on any team shape. The added benefit with a structured team shape when breaking down defensive sides is that you stretch the pitch vertically, thus creating more space for your players to work in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, NabsKebabs said:

That's a contradiction. Since the space is in front of the opposite defensive line, more fluid shapes would make more sense than structured. Structured will increase the mentalities of all 4 advanced players meaning they won't be as involved in the build up and using the space in front of the opposition defensive line. 

Hmm not necessarily, Structured increases mentalities of duties significantly in that case if you got attacking duties, like a CM-D and a W-A on his side. If you chose more support duties, I don't think the impact is extremely significant. Of course, you should choose to pick these duties more careful in a structured system I think, because too many support duties + Structured could lead to no one make runs in the box.

Edited by Armistice
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NabsKebabs said:

That's a contradiction. Since the space is in front of the opposite defensive line, more fluid shapes would make more sense than structured. Structured will increase the mentalities of all 4 advanced players meaning they won't be as involved in the build up and using the space in front of the opposition defensive line. 

It's not a contradiction at all. You need to remember that more fluid makes you more compact. If the opposition is already deep then its pointless playing closer together your self, you need the space to use yourself, all you do with more fluid is reduce this space and become more compact between your own lines. How involved in the build up they'll be will depends on roles and duties used and who is creating the space for them. On fluid its hard to create the space needed to break sides down. You rely more on luck and hoping the opposition make a mistake rather than having a solid strategy for breaking the side down yourself.

You'll see what I mean when I finish the article and add context and examples. You'll see why its better when I show it on both team shapes and how it differs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NabsKebabs said:

Since the space is in front of the opposite defensive line, more fluid shapes would make more sense than structured.

Not all the time, depends on how deep the AI is defending and what their mentality is. Structured gives me more space to get my players to work the ball in esp if they are better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jc577 said:

@Cleon do you think the 4-2-3-1 is suited to direct/vertical football?

Most systems are suited to all different types of football. I don't see this as being different.

Just now, mikcheck said:

@Cleon can you please give me your advice about the deep narrow 4-2-3-1 i posted above?

I don't mean to sound nasty or rude but why not try it and see? You don't need to get everything validated. Just try, and see what you think in the way it plays etc. Then instead of asking will it work you'll be able to post saying 'this doesn't work this way blah blah' . Then when you post actual issues people will be able to offer better advice and deal with specifics :)

It wasn't only aimed at you and I apologise if you take it the wrong way but I often see people seeking validation for ideas rather than trying them out :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Most systems are suited to all different types of football. I don't see this as being different.

Okay let me phrase the question slightly differently. In your ‘art of counter attacking’ thread you stressed the importance of using ‘bottom-heavy’ formations’ (for various reasons which I won’t go through); so conversely i’m thinking a top-heavy formation is better suited than other formations for direct football.. or is this too simplistic?

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Cleon said:

I don't mean to sound nasty or rude but why not try it and see? You don't need to get everything validated. Just try, and see what you think in the way it plays etc. Then instead of asking will it work you'll be able to post saying 'this doesn't work this way blah blah' . Then when you post actual issues people will be able to offer better advice and deal with specifics :)

It wasn't only aimed at you and I apologise if you take it the wrong way but I often see people seeking validation for ideas rather than trying them out :)

I get it, thanks ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jc577 said:

Okay let me phrase the question slightly differently. In your ‘art of counter attacking’ thread you stressed the importance of using ‘bottom-heavy’ formations’ (for various reasons which I won’t go through); so conversely i’m thinking a top-heavy formation is better suited than other formations for direct football.. or is this too simplistic?

No that's not too simplistic at all,  More people should think like this. What you're saying is another way of play direct football yeah. The quicker you want to move the ball forward the more players you'll need forward to be able to support and utilise this kind of play. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jc577 said:

Okay let me phrase the question slightly differently. In your ‘art of counter attacking’ thread you stressed the importance of using ‘bottom-heavy’ formations’ (for various reasons which I won’t go through); so conversely i’m thinking a top-heavy formation is better suited than other formations for direct football.. or is this too simplistic?

I don't know if people remember my direct styled deep 4231 from FM17, all it did was sit back and hit teams with direct attacks. So it all depends on your application. The same principles will still work in FM18

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

I don't know if people remember my direct styled deep 4231 from FM17, all it did was sit back and hit teams with direct attacks. So it all depends on your application. The same principles will still work in FM18

What episodes in your Glochester City Diaries were you using this direct 4231? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jc577 said:

What episodes in your Glochester City Diaries were you using this direct 4231? 

This was one of the episodes...and then it became this tactic for the majority of the following season

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

This was one of the episodes...and then it became this tactic for the majority of the following season

 

Perfect, thanks Rashidi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having quite a good season so far with Arsenal using 4-2-3-1.

Control/Flexible

TI: play shorter,work ball in to box,be more expressive,prevent gk distribution

Cech -GK/D

Bellerin- WB/A

Mustafi - BPD/D

Koscielny - CD/D

Monreal - FB/S

 

Xhaka - DLP/D

Diawara - CAR/S

 

Walcott - IF/S

Ozil  - AP/S

Sanchez - IF/A

 

Lacazette - DLF/A

 

Sometimes, depending on the game I will change the mentality to standard or counter, use pass into space instruction and change the fullbacks role(more attacking or more defensive) , striker role(TM with Giroud if I go more direct for late goal) or Walcott(switch to winger if I want more width).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Cleon said:

It's not a contradiction at all. You need to remember that more fluid makes you more compact. If the opposition is already deep then its pointless playing closer together your self, you need the space to use yourself, all you do with more fluid is reduce this space and become more compact between your own lines. How involved in the build up they'll be will depends on roles and duties used and who is creating the space for them. On fluid its hard to create the space needed to break sides down. You rely more on luck and hoping the opposition make a mistake rather than having a solid strategy for breaking the side down yourself.

You'll see what I mean when I finish the article and add context and examples. You'll see why its better when I show it on both team shapes and how it differs. 

 

Mind blown on this one, so when I am seeing the whole defensive line of the oppo situated narrowly on the edge of their box and I have two attacking full backs that don't seem to want to be in those wider spaces it is possibly because I am on fluid? Thus I'd be better suited to having a more structured team shape so my players in wider positions stick to this space.

Would this also apply to the 'roam from positions' instruction? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cleonhave you changed  your stance on shape, out of interest, perhaps due to another overhaul? Previously you kept this a bit simpler yourself AFAIK. My logics in that sense would have been different too, in particular as it's slightly (easier) to create overlaps from full backs / wing backs on fluid, or should be, which, if that is one of your keys to unlocking defenses, may be somewhat of benefit. The space in between opposition lines I'd rather create by spreading via having the two CMs on D-duty then, as that stretches opponents all itself. Every time those guys are closed down in their deeper positions, the opposition pushes up. Still, I'd like SI to visualize this in the future better, and also better in-game documentation what THEY specifically want this to be (also in generally football terms, and how it compares to something an actual manager may do, not purely mechanically mentality mumbo jumbo). In particular, as you suggested, there were overhauls as to back in the good old slider days anyway as to certain things. [Slightly OT]. :D They won't give away in public how they code the AI to use it specifically, but that should be a slightly clue (and from long-term experience, it will look completely different to how the more creative tactical players use it anyways) :D

Personally still haven't changed my playing style, or how I utilize it. Still won't change my stance that you don't need it to hugely microtweak it to outperform AI too though.... well tbf I'm still waiting for the FM 18 demo. :p

Edited by Svenc
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Svenc said:

@Cleonhave you changed  your stance on shape, out of interest, perhaps due to another overhaul? Previously you kept this a bit simpler yourself AFAIK. My logics in that sense would have been different too, in particular as it's slightly (easier) to create overlaps from full backs / wing backs on fluid, or should be, which, if that is one of your keys to unlocking defenses, may be somewhat of benefit. The space in between opposition lines I'd rather create by spreading via having the two CMs on D-duty then, as that stretches opponents all itself. Every time those guys are closed down in their deeper positions, the opposition pushes up. Still, I'd like SI to visualize this in the future better, and also better in-game documentation what THEY specifically want this to be (also in generally football terms, and how it compares to something an actual manager may do, not purely mechanically mentality mumbo jumbo). In particular, as you suggested, there were overhauls as to back in the good old slider days anyway as to certain things. [Slightly OT]. :D They won't give away in public how they code the AI to use it specifically, but that should be a slightly clue (and from long-term experience, it will look completely different to how the more creative tactical players use it anyways) :D

Personally still haven't changed my playing style, or how I utilize it. Still won't change my stance that you don't need it to hugely microtweak it to outperform AI too though.... well tbf I'm still waiting for the FM 18 demo. :p

No it’s not changed at all. This article I’m doing will be through the eyes of a user and how they view the game rather than how I view the game. Then I’ll show how thinking differently like I do alters things and actually makes it more simple (at least I hope this will come across). As people have the wrong idea of how I play the game. I don’t set up to beat the game, I set up using logic and real world ideas above all else.

The article is going to be focused on all aspects and show all the angles. So it’ll show examples of how it works in fluid set ups and more structured approach. Actually this will all be tied in to how I use and create the base formation. I could use any base some would require more micromanaging though compared to others. So I want to explain fully why the base I’ll use gives me a good base that requires less attention paid  to it.

I still hold the same views of team shape don’t worry, I’m not converted 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zigaliro said:

Well can someone tell me what I should do to improve the tactics? No matter what I change, we are horrible. We are sitting bottom of the table -_-

For me blueprint for playing 4-2-3-1 goes like this:

  • 2 centre backs (obviously)
  • 2 attacking fullbacks/wingbacks or support duty wingbacks if playing more cautious or possession based game
  • 2 holding midfielders, one of them is a dlp (regardless whether they are in DM or MC slot, I want them to be disciplined)
  • classic playmaker (tq, e) in AMC slot
  • both wide forwards come inside
  • strong and determined striker upfront (cfs, dlfs...)

There are some other variations possible (with playmaker wide for example), but in your system there is no one utilising space ahead of central midfielders, thus your attack seems disjointed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Okay, so I decided I will try again with Barcelona. This is my like 10th attempt to create a working tactics and again no luck. In friendly matches we did good, we were creating good chances and had alot of possession. But in friendly match against top team(Bayern) we played badly, poor chance creation and barely any possession. Then the season started, and we had our first 2 games against Real madrid in Supercopa de espana and.... absolutely horrible again. No matter what I try, we play horrible, Its not enjoyable, I think this will be my last FM -_-

Anyway... this is how my terrible tactics look:

20171110174718_1.thumb.jpg.2b81521bd0013d7ba957d8148858ee73.jpg

 

I have couple of player instructions. I added roam from position To both IFs and central midfielders. I also added more direct passing to Advanced playmaker and stay wider to wing backs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zigaliro said:

Okay, so I decided I will try again with Barcelona. This is my like 10th attempt to create a working tactics and again no luck. In friendly matches we did good, we were creating good chances and had alot of possession. But in friendly match against top team(Bayern) we played badly, poor chance creation and barely any possession. Then the season started, and we had our first 2 games against Real madrid in Supercopa de espana and.... absolutely horrible again. No matter what I try, we play horrible, Its not enjoyable, I think this will be my last FM -_-

Anyway... this is how my terrible tactics look:

20171110174718_1.thumb.jpg.2b81521bd0013d7ba957d8148858ee73.jpg

 

I have couple of player instructions. I added roam from position To both IFs and central midfielders. I also added more direct passing to Advanced playmaker and stay wider to wing backs.

I have found the retain possession shout to be a real problem with creating chances. It tells all your plays to play less risky passes so very few through balls are played. I would remove that TI and see how it goes. If you want more possession, go for shorter passing TI. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NabsKebabs said:

I have found the retain possession shout to be a real problem with creating chances. It tells all your plays to play less risky passes so very few through balls are played. I would remove that TI and see how it goes. If you want more possession, go for shorter passing TI. 

Okay, I will try it for the next match and see how it goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NabsKebabs said:

I have found the retain possession shout to be a real problem with creating chances. It tells all your plays to play less risky passes so very few through balls are played. I would remove that TI and see how it goes. If you want more possession, go for shorter passing TI. 

Well, the next match was against Sevilla. I removed retain possession and added shorter passing. I also set Wing backs to attack mentality. Attacking wise, we did good, we had many chances and in the end we won 3-0, with Sevilla only having 4 shots. But possession was poor, only 54%. I know possession is not important, but I want to have 60%+ possession in matches or I`m just not happy. But... the next match it was against Atletico. I set my wing backs back to support mentality, I also set my mentality to Standard and team shape to Flexible to be more cautious, but nothing worked. We played yet again like against Bayern and Real, absolutely horrible. Barely any chances, and poor possession -_- 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zigaliro said:

Well, the next match was against Sevilla. I removed retain possession and added shorter passing. I also set Wing backs to attack mentality. Attacking wise, we did good, we had many chances and in the end we won 3-0, with Sevilla only having 4 shots. But possession was poor, only 54%. I know possession is not important, but I want to have 60%+ possession in matches or I`m just not happy. But... the next match it was against Atletico. I set my wing backs back to support mentality, I also set my mentality to Standard and team shape to Flexible to be more cautious, but nothing worked. We played yet again like against Bayern and Real, absolutely horrible. Barely any chances, and poor possession -_- 

Why did you mix things up when you clearly did well against Sevilla? You created a lot of chances, barely gave away any and scored three goals and the next game, you change two duties, your menality and your team shape... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KlaaZ said:

Why did you mix things up when you clearly did well against Sevilla? You created a lot of chances, barely gave away any and scored three goals and the next game, you change two duties, your menality and your team shape... 

He did say he wants at least 60% possession or he's not happy and tbh I'm the exact same. I like dominating possession, I see no reason why it can't be achieved and being successful at the same time. Pity I suck at tactics so haven't been able to achieve this but I wouldn't want to use or copy anyone else's as the success then doesn't feel like my own that way.

Edited by Gee_Simpson
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're playing cautiously with too many support duties. You're Barcelona! I would put Messi on attack, because well, he's Messi. Maybe as a Trequartista so that he gets the ball more. And have Alba on attack too. I think those subtle changes would help a lot to add some variety to your attack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why you want 60%+ possession every game, it's useless. I just looked at Man City's possession stats for their last 5 games, and in games against strong opposition - the two games against Napoli and the one V Arsenal, they are around 45%-55% possession. Okay, Burnley and WBA have like 25%, but they are 'weaker' teams that are more likely to sit back.

 

All a possession stat does is tell you who's camped in their own half, and who else can't break them down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im really struggling defensively in wide areas, and on the flip side, most of my penetration is coming from wide areas:

Corners - Scored 7, Conceded 4
Cross - Scored 17, Conceded 15

As soon as the ball goes wide in a defensive or attacking sense, i'm expecting goal. 16 of the goals i've conceded have come from within the 6 yard box, with 22 coming from central 18 yard box. 

At the moment i've attempted to drop the wider players back into a RM/LM midfield starting position in the hope they can provide a bit more support to the full back. I actually feel like when im conceding i should have the situation covered. FB's and CBs seem to be positioned correctly, and often outnumber opposition players, but i get beaten 1v1 very easily (even by poor players) and the cross seems to hit the 1 opposition player in the box. 

I'd really like to CBs to get closer to the FB in wider positions to act as a 2nd defender. Normally id be happily letting a cross come in when we out number them 3v1 or even 4v1, but at the moment im conceding a lot in these situations. Now looking at trying to prevent the crossing situations.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh, we are still playing soo horribly its getting really annoying, Im starting to hate this game!!!  So I changed my tactics to this:

20171111150736_1.thumb.jpg.4b8753dd7f8aec7dc836891ba3d5fcb8.jpg

 

Next match was against Leganes. We actually didn`t play that bad. We won 2-0, could have won by more goals, we were dominating. But two problems. First problem, we had 16 long shots, that`s just not acceptable. Possession was also not acceptable for me. I want 60%+ possession, we only had 56% possession. But I was happy, I thought my tactics are finally working. 

Next match was AS Monaco. I changed F9 to CS(sup) for this match. And the struggles are back... We lost 2-1 this match, we played poorly, had poor possession, and barely any chances. Well....

Then for the third game I made some changes because of how horribly we played against Monaco. I set BBM to CM(atk) and WB on the right to WB(sup) instead of (atk) mentality. We were playing against Las Palmas. They were bottom of the table, so it should be pretty easy win right? Well... we lost 1-0. Dont really want to talk about this match, it was that bad. No matter what I change, nothing is working!! I think i will now just delete this save and start a new one with a different team, I`m so mad!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, zigaliro said:

Ahhh, we are still playing soo horribly its getting really annoying, Im starting to hate this game!!!  So I changed my tactics to this:

20171111150736_1.thumb.jpg.4b8753dd7f8aec7dc836891ba3d5fcb8.jpg

 

Next match was against Leganes. We actually didn`t play that bad. We won 2-0, could have won by more goals, we were dominating. But two problems. First problem, we had 16 long shots, that`s just not acceptable. Possession was also not acceptable for me. I want 60%+ possession, we only had 56% possession. But I was happy, I thought my tactics are finally working. 

Next match was AS Monaco. I changed F9 to CS(sup) for this match. And the struggles are back... We lost 2-1 this match, we played poorly, had poor possession, and barely any chances. Well....

Then for the third game I made some changes because of how horribly we played against Monaco. I set BBM to CM(atk) and WB on the right to WB(sup) instead of (atk) mentality. We were playing against Las Palmas. They were bottom of the table, so it should be pretty easy win right? Well... we lost 1-0. Dont really want to talk about this match, it was that bad. No matter what I change, nothing is working!! I think i will now just delete this save and start a new one with a different team, I`m so mad!!

 

Are you conceding goals on the break? Playing Control/Fluid and pushing higher up TI means your system will be vulnerable to balls over the top. If I'm playing a fluid system, I usually play with default/normal defensive line. You may also need to keep an eye on the flanks when you're playing with wingbacks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the focus on possession, how do you actually want to play? Who's doing what? You've omitted to mention that and unless you actually know your tactical plan then you're bound to struggle.

Also, do you understand how possession is measured in FM? Ask yourself if that actually represents "dominatiin".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
On 01/11/2017 at 03:10, dusziv said:

For me blueprint for playing 4-2-3-1 goes like this:

  • 2 centre backs (obviously)
  • 2 attacking fullbacks/wingbacks or support duty wingbacks if playing more cautious or possession based game
  • 2 holding midfielders, one of them is a dlp (regardless whether they are in DM or MC slot, I want them to be disciplined)
  • classic playmaker (tq, e) in AMC slot
  • both wide forwards come inside
  • strong and determined striker upfront (cfs, dlfs...)

There are some other variations possible (with playmaker wide for example), but in your system there is no one utilising space ahead of central midfielders, thus your attack seems disjointed.

I know this is an old thread, but I must ask, what other holding midfielder do you play? This is where I’ve struggled to figure out what to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arsenal457 said:

what other holding midfielder do you play? This is where I’ve struggled to figure out what to do

I wrote a guideline thread on the 4231 system, which deals specifically with roles and duties. These are examples of (potentially) good CM combos in 4231:

- DLPde / BBM

- DLPde / CAR

- DLPde / CMsu

- DLPsu / CMde

- DLPsu / CAR

- DLPsu / BBM 

- DLPsu / CMsu

- CMde / BBM

- CMde / CAR

- DLPde / CMde (the most conservative combo)

But different CM combos require different setups of other roles and duties. So you cannot just randomly pick one of these and expect that it will automatically work. If you give roles to wrong players and/or fail to set up the whole tactic in the right way - it will fail.

I know you play a 4231 with Arsenal and have Guendouzi and Torreira in the CM positions. Speaking specifically of these 2 guys, I would play Guendouzi as a DLP on defend and Torreira as a BBM or carrilero. But that alone is not going to make your tactic work well if the rest of the setup is wrong. For example, you play Aubameyang as the lone striker in AF role. Have you possibly considered playing him on the left flank instead, with Lacazette as the lone striker as a DLF on support?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arsenal457 said:

I know this is an old thread, but I must ask, what other holding midfielder do you play? This is where I’ve struggled to figure out what to do.

Before fm18 you have CM(s/d) , BWM and DLP . Now you have CAR . 

 

All 4 are holding midfielders 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, z464 said:

Before fm18 you have CM(s/d) , BWM and DLP . Now you have CAR . 

 

All 4 are holding midfielders 

Ok, thanks. I had not long ago started using CAR to some promising success.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

I wrote a guideline thread on the 4231 system, which deals specifically with roles and duties. These are examples of (potentially) good CM combos in 4231:

- DLPde / BBM

- DLPde / CAR

- DLPde / CMsu

- DLPsu / CMde

- DLPsu / CAR

- DLPsu / BBM 

- DLPsu / CMsu

- CMde / BBM

- CMde / CAR

- DLPde / CMde (the most conservative combo)

But different CM combos require different setups of other roles and duties. So you cannot just randomly pick one of these and expect that it will automatically work. If you give roles to wrong players and/or fail to set up the whole tactic in the right way - it will fail.

I know you play a 4231 with Arsenal and have Guendouzi and Torreira in the CM positions. Speaking specifically of these 2 guys, I would play Guendouzi as a DLP on defend and Torreira as a BBM or carrilero. But that alone is not going to make your tactic work well if the rest of the setup is wrong. For example, you play Aubameyang as the lone striker in AF role. Have you possibly considered playing him on the left flank instead, with Lacazette as the lone striker as a DLF on support?

I haven’t considered that, but I no longer have Lacazette. I have Dolberg, Haland, Aubameyang and Geubbels. I also now have Paulinho on the as well as Emile Smith-Row and Iwobi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...