Strikers are struggling - need some advice

[craiigman]

My main system is posted here:

I’ve made the following changes:

CM(S) and CM(A), I put roaming on support and channels on attack. The support winger is now an IF(S) on each system.

I have also tried setting both CM’s to AP, everything else the same. Found a lot more attempts to play in the striker/wingers, so I might keep that.

But the biggest issue is my striker. Ratings from 5.9-6.5 last few games, that’s both Dembele and Griffiths. I thought DLF(A) would be best role for this system. But it’s not working.

Had trouble last year with my strikers, seems to have hit again. What are your guys suggestions?

edit: had some better luck before 18.2, but I had only played some friendly games so unsure?

[wixxi]

What style of football are you actually trying to create, and how is the striker going to fit into that? Since your tactic has very generic roles I don't really know what specifically you're trying to create, but I'm assuming from the use of a DLF you want the 2 wingers to be getting behind and scoring?

 

[craiigman]

7 hours ago, wixxi said:

What style of football are you actually trying to create, and how is the striker going to fit into that? Since your tactic has very generic roles I don't really know what specifically you're trying to create, but I'm assuming from the use of a DLF you want the 2 wingers to be getting behind and scoring?

 

I’m trying to build a system that works off the players attributes and PPM’s.

I’m trying to follow @Cleon ‘s posts in his Sheffield United thread and his ABC thread.

I don’t want to play aggressive and I don’t want to play one style of football. I want a balance approach that is unpredictable and can mix it up. 

I find the generic roles give the players a bit more freedom as there aren’t many instructions for the role.

With my striker, he’s currently the only one struggling. Last match I won 2-0, everyone was 7+ but the striker who was 6.5. This has happened the last 3-4 games now.

DLF(A) should both create and score goals. Both my strikers are different, but should easily be able to play the role. I’m finding that he’s either dropping too deep and then not making the ground up to get back into the box, or he gets isolated.

I feel like there’s enough runners to support and enough players able to play in the striker.

At the moment yeah my wingers are scoring the most.

[WhyMe]

I would argue that he isn't getting enough support to play on attack.  Both your wingers are on support so they will mainly stay wide and so often leave him isolated in the middle.  Your CM-a helps but he is the only player getting forward and trying to get into the box and he is doing it from a fairly deep position so it will take time for him to catch up with play on the transition from defence to attack.  I would suggest a support role for the striker but then who will your wingers cross to?  You might need to consider giving one of the wingers an attack duty or making the one on the same side as the CM-s an inside forward to give more crossing options.  My guess is that at the moment you have a very low cross completion % and a lack of targets will be why.

[summatsupeer]

Considering you want a unpredicatable balanced approach, it looks like a very cross heavy system.  Are your forwards good in the air?  If not you might want to add more variety.  If they're quicker and/or have good movement maybe get crosses in earlier before the oppositions defence is back and organized.

[craiigman]

2 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

Considering you want a unpredicatable balanced approach, it looks like a very cross heavy system.  Are your forwards good in the air?  If not you might want to add more variety.  If they're quicker and/or have good movement maybe get crosses in earlier before the oppositions defence is back and organized.

I’ve tried to avoid crossing, I initially set both wing backs to support as it has cross less option. Also all the other roles for the wingers either are cut inside or cross more. I would you WM(S), but feels a bit negative.

I want to avoid more crossing, but I want the wide players to stay high and wide until in final 3rd. I don’t really know how to set this up.

[grimslaa]

Might seem a bit of a daft question but how are you expecting to score? Where do you want your goals to come from and how does your current set up achieve this?

[summatsupeer]

Inside Forwards stay high and wide when transitioning, if they get the ball they'll come inside but its not like a AP who will move into a CM position without the ball.

Maybe try a IF and a Winger so you can see how they compare on the same pitch.

[craiigman]

26 minutes ago, grimslaa said:

Might seem a bit of a daft question but how are you expecting to score? Where do you want your goals to come from and how does your current set up achieve this?

Everywhere. I want goals from wingers, mids, strikers. I want everyone scoring. At the moment my wingers are doing decent, and midfield are chipping in. Striker was scoring, but since patch nothing. Not blaming patch at all, it’s s tactics issue.

8 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

Inside Forwards stay high and wide when transitioning, if they get the ball they'll come inside but its not like a AP who will move into a CM position without the ball.

Maybe try a IF and a Winger so you can see how they compare on the same pitch.

 But it I pick IF, then they are always going to try going inside, especially when their PPM’s are to cut inside. I don’t always want that. I want a mix of inside and go outside when the time is right.

I have 4 wingers, 2 for each wing. Sinclair and Roberts like to cut inside, Forrest goes wide, Hayes has no movement PPM, but is left footed. So 2 wingers, 2 IF. I want a role where the effect will change when the player is changed, but not the actual role.

WM(S) is perfect as it has no PI’s, but it’s too deep.

Like I say this is my way of understanding Cleons posts as previously mentioned.

[grimslaa]

2 hours ago, craiigman said:

Everywhere. I want goals from wingers, mids, strikers. I want everyone scoring. At the moment my wingers are doing decent, and midfield are chipping in. Striker was scoring, but since patch nothing. Not blaming patch at all, it’s s tactics issue.

 But it I pick IF, then they are always going to try going inside, especially when their PPM’s are to cut inside. I don’t always want that. I want a mix of inside and go outside when the time is right.

I have 4 wingers, 2 for each wing. Sinclair and Roberts like to cut inside, Forrest goes wide, Hayes has no movement PPM, but is left footed. So 2 wingers, 2 IF. I want a role where the effect will change when the player is changed, but not the actual role.

WM(S) is perfect as it has no PI’s, but it’s too deep.

Like I say this is my way of understanding Cleons posts as previously mentioned.

So what have you done to rectify this?

You've mentioned that he gets isolated - he will with 2 wingers and only 1 midfield runner. You've mentioned that he is too deep, he will be by definition as a deep-lying forward.

[summatsupeer]

5 hours ago, craiigman said:

Everywhere. I want goals from wingers, mids, strikers. I want everyone scoring. At the moment my wingers are doing decent, and midfield are chipping in. Striker was scoring, but since patch nothing. Not blaming patch at all, it’s s tactics issue.

 But it I pick IF, then they are always going to try going inside, especially when their PPM’s are to cut inside. I don’t always want that. I want a mix of inside and go outside when the time is right.

I have 4 wingers, 2 for each wing. Sinclair and Roberts like to cut inside, Forrest goes wide, Hayes has no movement PPM, but is left footed. So 2 wingers, 2 IF. I want a role where the effect will change when the player is changed, but not the actual role.

WM(S) is perfect as it has no PI’s, but it’s too deep.

Like I say this is my way of understanding Cleons posts as previously mentioned.

Players will play a role differently, but what your asking for is total freedom for the player to do what he wants regardless of the role, the nearest role to that is a Treq who gets tons of creative freedom.  Maybe tell the team to play with More Expression so they can do what they want more often rather than following the role you've given them?

Why is a WM to deep or negative?  If you used a winger role in MR, do you think he will attack differently from one in AMR?  He will defend deeper more often, so then has to get up field when you have the ball, but that is just like when a AMR positioned player has tracked back to help deeper.  In fact, making your wide players start deeper more often could be a good thing for your attack.  Firstly it could draw opposition FB's further up field for the wide player to then get behind.  Secondly you have two wingers running with the ball and firing a cross in to a lone forward as its unlikely the central midfield can catch up to help, which could be why the ST gets poor ratings since he's got too many defenders to deal with on his own so doesn't get many touches of the ball OR he's just not good at converting those kind of chances so is rated low because of his shots to goal ratio.  If the central midfield has caught up then i'd expect the defence to be back and organized which is a low % chance, if the players aren't good at getting on the end of a cross then it will be an even lower % chance. 

If you want to reduce the number of crosses then Work Ball Into Box is an option, the Wingers might pull the ball back to a CM arriving late rather than crossing as often.

[craiigman]

On 21/12/2017 at 15:22, grimslaa said:

So what have you done to rectify this?

You've mentioned that he gets isolated - he will with 2 wingers and only 1 midfield runner. You've mentioned that he is too deep, he will be by definition as a deep-lying forward.

 

22 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

Players will play a role differently, but what your asking for is total freedom for the player to do what he wants regardless of the role, the nearest role to that is a Treq who gets tons of creative freedom.  Maybe tell the team to play with More Expression so they can do what they want more often rather than following the role you've given them?

Why is a WM to deep or negative?  If you used a winger role in MR, do you think he will attack differently from one in AMR?  He will defend deeper more often, so then has to get up field when you have the ball, but that is just like when a AMR positioned player has tracked back to help deeper.  In fact, making your wide players start deeper more often could be a good thing for your attack.  Firstly it could draw opposition FB's further up field for the wide player to then get behind.  Secondly you have two wingers running with the ball and firing a cross in to a lone forward as its unlikely the central midfield can catch up to help, which could be why the ST gets poor ratings since he's got too many defenders to deal with on his own so doesn't get many touches of the ball OR he's just not good at converting those kind of chances so is rated low because of his shots to goal ratio.  If the central midfield has caught up then i'd expect the defence to be back and organized which is a low % chance, if the players aren't good at getting on the end of a cross then it will be an even lower % chance. 

If you want to reduce the number of crosses then Work Ball Into Box is an option, the Wingers might pull the ball back to a CM arriving late rather than crossing as often.

I've taken your feedback on board, and changed to this:

I ended with 41 crosses (3 of those corners), connecting 3 times. Striker scored in a 1-0 win, but made the goal himself.

[summatsupeer]

1 hour ago, craiigman said:

 

I've taken your feedback on board, and changed to this:

I ended with 41 crosses (3 of those corners), connecting 3 times. Striker scored in a 1-0 win, but made the goal himself.

I didn't expect you to do all of the suggestions in one go!  Thats still quite a bit of crossing, was it against a team defending deep and parking the bus?  With a WB-A and W-S I would still expect some crossing but seems quite high with Work Ball Into Box, though Be More Expressive will allow them to deviate from those instructions a little bit more often than normal with Flexible team shape.  As you've got more variety from the roles i'd drop the Be More Expressive unless you like it and trust the players to deviate from your instructions (they need the mentals to do it).

The balance of your team looks okay so I think its just a bit of refinement and making sure you have the right players for each job. 

1. ST

With a CF-A, he really needs to be smart so he moves to the right areas and picks the best option as he's expected to do a lot.  If he vacates the middle, is there anyone moving into his position?  I doubt its the CM-A, he's more likely to make late runs into the box, W-S and CM-S even less likely.  Is this what you see happening on the field?  If so i'd consider a more specific role than the Complete Forward, maybe even a simple Poacher, keeping the ST between the goal posts more often and in scoring position.

2. CM

You have no "creative" role in central midfield but are you using a creative player in there who has traits such as plays through balls so he creates a bit more than a CM-S or CM-A would normally?  If not i'd probably watch those players and consider if a more creative player and/or instruction could help create a different type of chance.

You also look to have 3 players who will do a similar job, CM-S + DM-S will be very similar and the IWB-S will join them.  Do you see them performing a similar job when your attacking?  Maybe having one of them hold a bit deeper will give another passing angle, an option to recycle the ball,  more cover to pick up a loose ball or stop a counter attack etc.  The obvious option is the DM or IWB but it depends if you see what i'm assuming happening on the pitch and what those players are good at.

[Britrock]

You'd be surprised how attacking a WM can be from the ML/MR positions. My ML was my second highest scorer last year on WMa while my MR was my leading assist creator on WMs. I had a FBa at DR for the overlap and a FBs at DL to cover the ML raids forward. There were a high number of times the MR would hold the ball for the DR to overlap as I wanted or hit crosses that the ML would score from at the back post.

My striker is a DLFs and was my highest scorer. He's a great link player, holding the ball up when needed, but there are plenty of occasions when the ball would be played over the top for him to run on to.

All of this was with a serie c side battling relegation btw.

[craiigman]

15 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

I didn't expect you to do all of the suggestions in one go!  Thats still quite a bit of crossing, was it against a team defending deep and parking the bus?  With a WB-A and W-S I would still expect some crossing but seems quite high with Work Ball Into Box, though Be More Expressive will allow them to deviate from those instructions a little bit more often than normal with Flexible team shape.  As you've got more variety from the roles i'd drop the Be More Expressive unless you like it and trust the players to deviate from your instructions (they need the mentals to do it).

The balance of your team looks okay so I think its just a bit of refinement and making sure you have the right players for each job. 

1. ST

With a CF-A, he really needs to be smart so he moves to the right areas and picks the best option as he's expected to do a lot.  If he vacates the middle, is there anyone moving into his position?  I doubt its the CM-A, he's more likely to make late runs into the box, W-S and CM-S even less likely.  Is this what you see happening on the field?  If so i'd consider a more specific role than the Complete Forward, maybe even a simple Poacher, keeping the ST between the goal posts more often and in scoring position.

2. CM

You have no "creative" role in central midfield but are you using a creative player in there who has traits such as plays through balls so he creates a bit more than a CM-S or CM-A would normally?  If not i'd probably watch those players and consider if a more creative player and/or instruction could help create a different type of chance.

You also look to have 3 players who will do a similar job, CM-S + DM-S will be very similar and the IWB-S will join them.  Do you see them performing a similar job when your attacking?  Maybe having one of them hold a bit deeper will give another passing angle, an option to recycle the ball,  more cover to pick up a loose ball or stop a counter attack etc.  The obvious option is the DM or IWB but it depends if you see what i'm assuming happening on the pitch and what those players are good at.

Thanks for helping with this. How would I set the DM/IWB to sit further back? I’ve put hold position on the DM, that be okay?

I’ve gone back to both wing backs being on support and cross less often PI’s. I like the IWB, but yes the DM, IWB, and CM(s) end up on top of each other.

CM(s) has roam, CM(a) has more risky passes now added, but took off move into channels as want him being more central.

Really think poacher be good here? Not get isolated? I am playing vs park the bus teams most weeks though.

[summatsupeer]

Defend duty is the easiest way without manually adding instructions.  Hold position is more "Don't make tuns forward as often" rather than "position deeper" that a defend duty would do because of the lower mentality.  For the areas we are looking its the difference between being closer to the CBs or nearer the box.   A IWB-D positions nearer a DMCR whilst IWB-S is more MCR.

Changes make sense, not sure you need to increase the range of the CM-S zone with roaming but see how it plays on the field.

With a winger and IF I doubt he would be isolated often, especially against park the bus teams.  It's hard to score goals if players aren't in goal scoring positions.  Sometimes you want your forward to move to make space for someone to run into. In your setup I'd say the movement of others is to create space for the forward.  The winger crossing to him. The If running at defenders or threatening runs whilst the CBs are occupied by the forward. The CM-A running from deep and drawing players to him before slipping a pass through or continuing his run between the ST and W that overloads the d-line if he's not tracked.

If you played a 4411 then the AM is in better position to make runs when a ST vacated that area to work a channel or dropping deep etc.  If you had two forwards then one can create space for the other.  If your playing a patient possession style then having him drop to help rotate the ball can help more than staying high and central etc. 

The general balance of a tactic can be good but its the subtleties that are hard to spot but can make the difference.  As your aware the players used can even change these subtleties. Its also why its hard to say "do x and you'll win" as there's so many variables.

[craiigman]

19 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

Defend duty is the easiest way without manually adding instructions.  Hold position is more "Don't make tuns forward as often" rather than "position deeper" that a defend duty would do because of the lower mentality.  For the areas we are looking its the difference between being closer to the CBs or nearer the box.   A IWB-D positions nearer a DMCR whilst IWB-S is more MCR.

Changes make sense, not sure you need to increase the range of the CM-S zone with roaming but see how it plays on the field.

With a winger and IF I doubt he would be isolated often, especially against park the bus teams.  It's hard to score goals if players aren't in goal scoring positions.  Sometimes you want your forward to move to make space for someone to run into. In your setup I'd say the movement of others is to create space for the forward.  The winger crossing to him. The If running at defenders or threatening runs whilst the CBs are occupied by the forward. The CM-A running from deep and drawing players to him before slipping a pass through or continuing his run between the ST and W that overloads the d-line if he's not tracked.

If you played a 4411 then the AM is in better position to make runs when a ST vacated that area to work a channel or dropping deep etc.  If you had two forwards then one can create space for the other.  If your playing a patient possession style then having him drop to help rotate the ball can help more than staying high and central etc. 

The general balance of a tactic can be good but its the subtleties that are hard to spot but can make the difference.  As your aware the players used can even change these subtleties. Its also why its hard to say "do x and you'll win" as there's so many variables.

I’ll try IWB(d) in the next game and see how that goes. 

Also with DM(D) it has close down more, which I don’t really want. But I’ll look at other potential roles. 

[trickyrikki]

18.2 has ruined my tactic and strikers. My 2 strikers scored 23 and 43 premier league goals and then the new patch released and they have been awful. Shooting from obscure ares on the pitch, missing sitter after sitter. I don't get it.

[summatsupeer]

On 24/12/2017 at 11:09, trickyrikki said:

18.2 has ruined my tactic and strikers. My 2 strikers scored 23 and 43 premier league goals and then the new patch released and they have been awful. Shooting from obscure ares on the pitch, missing sitter after sitter. I don't get it.

Are you sure its the patch and not teams adjusting to you and being more cautious if you were doing well?

 

On 23/12/2017 at 11:36, craiigman said:

I’ll try IWB(d) in the next game and see how that goes. 

Also with DM(D) it has close down more, which I don’t really want. But I’ll look at other potential roles. 

Have a look at the player instruction screen and switch between the DM-D and DM-S to see the actual difference between the closing down levels. I don't think there's a big difference due to the duty change.

Obviously I'd recommend just making one change gk the DM or IWB and not both unless you see a reason to on the field.