How's my setup/can you see any potential problems - 4-5-1 flat

[permanentquandary]

Not really looking to achieve anything particularly fancy. Be solid and play quick counter attacks with quick short passes where the midfield transitions as a cohesive unit.

Looking for feedback with regards to any potential problems, like penetration.

I think mainly the question regards the roles and duties of the midfield trio. The rest of the players seem to be right. The DLF(S) would ideally be a CF(S) but I'm not too confident in my strikers' abilities for that.

I think my setup there as the screenshot demonstrates is fine, but there might be something I can do better.

I experimented with a number of combinations:

DLP(D) instead of CM(D). I'm basically sold that CM(D) is the only way to go, it's mandatory. This is the sitter.
CM(A) or CM(S) instead of BBM(S). This is the runner.
CM(S)/AP(S) instead of DLP(S) - doesn't hold position though. This is the passer/creator.

I have a feeling a playmaker is not essential. I could go with BWM(S) instead or keep it nice and simple with CM(S). My feeling is that with an MR and ML, those two players are the creators of the team, despite not being assigned the role.

Aside from counters, I am getting a lot of sequences where the wingers/midfield run in behind onto through balls inside the box, which is lovely to see. Unfortunately my team is struggling to finish these chances, and typically miss the target or kick it right at their goalkeeper or post. Not sure there's anything I can do tactically to improve that.

In terms of undesirable things noticed, getting a lot of long shots and my team isn't good at them. Unfortunately there's not much I can do to cut these out. Work ball into box could potentially kill my counter attacking sequences for the sake of possession?

Your thoughts?

[permanentquandary]

FM17 btw, no fancy mezzalas or carrileros here!

[permanentquandary]

Bump?

[dcaine100]

Main thing that jumps out is how isolated your striker is all thou you have wingers and a BBM your striker still looks like he is a bit out on his own.

[vasilli07]

Maybe one wide midfielder as an inverted winger so they can run directly towards the goal and one CM as CM(A) too. Your DLF will drop deep, hopefully drag a defender or two and then play a through ball to one of them.

[summatsupeer]

First have a read of Cleon's counter attacking guide, you can find it through the stickies.  One of the main points is the game will trigger a counter attack if a certain number of your players are in position to do so compared to the opposition.  If you can get your opponents to push IP and commit players forward and you win the ball, your roles, duties, mentality, shape and instructions (everything) is ignored as the players counter attack.  This allows you to set your team up as a plan B, whilst you want to draw opponents out to counter you could setup quite differently.

Having two wingers you are likely to be very wing and cross heavy.  Who is in the box when the ball comes in and how good are they at getting on the end of the cross?  Your two attack duties are your wingers so they're the ones going to take the most risks, is that what you want?

Your CM 3 and FB pair are a bit conservative, you have two deeper players (CM-D +DLP-S) and a BBM-S who starts deeper and then had to get forward. Two FB-S are also conservative, they will provide width later but combined with the three CM it doesn't really make sense with two attacking wingers.

Lots of options, you could change a wingers role to add variety.  You could just change his duty and instead have a central player take more risks.  You could do both and have an attacking FB and CM get forward earlier and take more risks.

Have a think about the route to goal, how is your team going to move out of defensive phases, transition and then create a chance.  You have a general idea which is good but try and see what each player is doing to create that.

[permanentquandary]

On 1/19/2018 at 23:54, dcaine100 said:

Main thing that jumps out is how isolated your striker is all thou you have wingers and a BBM your striker still looks like he is a bit out on his own.

That's probably the largest problem any formation has that doesn't have a second striker or an attacking midfielder. I'm not sure what i can do to improve it beyond what I have done without sacrificing defensive integrity.

[permanentquandary]

21 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

Having two wingers you are likely to be very wing and cross heavy.  Who is in the box when the ball comes in and how good are they at getting on the end of the cross?  Your two attack duties are your wingers so they're the ones going to take the most risks, is that what you want?

I don't know how else I could set my wingers without changing the formation. I can't make my forward have an attack duty because he then becomes too isolated - believe me I've tried many times to make that work and failed every time! I sometimes play with CM(A) on MCR or MCL instead of BBM, with that side's winger changed to a support duty. Unfortunately my players are really struggling to finish chances when they do penetrate in that role, even though I brought in Richie Towell who on paper looks made for it.

Your CM 3 and FB pair are a bit conservative, you have two deeper players (CM-D +DLP-S) and a BBM-S who starts deeper and then had to get forward. Two FB-S are also conservative, they will provide width later but combined with the three CM it doesn't really make sense with two attacking wingers.

I'm thinking you're right in that having two players with hold position roles is not good (DLP+CMD). I used to play with either an AP(S) or CM(S). The CM(S) is probably the best one because he should link everything together but also not necessarily attract the ball from being a playmaker. I don't need a playmaker. I've got two wingers who do great at creating chances on and off the ball.

Lots of options, you could change a wingers role to add variety.  You could just change his duty and instead have a central player take more risks.  You could do both and have an attacking FB and CM get forward earlier and take more risks.

I was under the impression that having too many attack duties is bad, so I normally have only one or two. If I did put an FB on attack I would have to put that flank's winger on support and maybe even change him to a WM(S), which I fear will really blunt my attack. One thing I noticed that works is having a W(S) on one flank and a WM(A) on the other. I used to set up with the W(S) next to a CM(A). And that worked back then but it also stopped working.

Have a think about the route to goal, how is your team going to move out of defensive phases, transition and then create a chance.  You have a general idea which is good but try and see what each player is doing to create that.

In the centre I have 3 distinct roles. A runner, a passer and a sitter/destroyer. I think that makes the most sense for this formation. My creators are the wingers who also score goals.

 

[summatsupeer]

3 hours ago, permanentquandary said:

I don't know how else I could set my wingers without changing the formation. I can't make my forward have an attack duty because he then becomes too isolated - believe me I've tried many times to make that work and failed every time! I sometimes play with CM(A) on MCR or MCL instead of BBM, with that side's winger changed to a support duty. Unfortunately my players are really struggling to finish chances when they do penetrate in that role, even though I brought in Richie Towell who on paper looks made for it.

Just using a IW or WM instead of W will change where he plays and what he tries but it depends what he is good at.

If you definitely want two wingers swinging crosses in then you really need to build around that and make sure there are enough bodies in the box who are good at finishing those type of chances like an old fashioned 442 or 4411.

Without seeing the chances and his current attributes it hard to say why he keeps missing, but if your making good chances that's good.

Quote

I'm thinking you're right in that having two players with hold position roles is not good (DLP+CMD). I used to play with either an AP(S) or CM(S). The CM(S) is probably the best one because he should link everything together but also not necessarily attract the ball from being a playmaker. I don't need a playmaker. I've got two wingers who do great at creating chances on and off the ball.

Makes sense if you lack a playmaker and really want to rely on crossing so much, but as above your lacking support for the ST.

Quote

I was under the impression that having too many attack duties is bad, so I normally have only one or two. If I did put an FB on attack I would have to put that flank's winger on support and maybe even change him to a WM(S), which I fear will really blunt my attack. One thing I noticed that works is having a W(S) on one flank and a WM(A) on the other. I used to set up with the W(S) next to a CM(A). And that worked back then but it also stopped working.

Too many in one area is typically bad but depending on the setup could cause overloads, as long as they're offering different options its good.

Why would a W-S blunt your attack?  Rather than pushing high to run behind he'll look to collect the ball then run with it which can be a easy way to transition the ball rather than putting your eggs in one basket of being able to play passes in behind the opposition defence.

With regards to "Worked then stopped working", how many games are we talking?  Rather than just randomly changing when it "doesn't work" how were the opposition playing that stopped it working?  Did those opponents sit deep with big CBs able to deal with your crosses and didn't push up for you to counter attack?  Did you have a key player having a bad game and affecting the whole team?

Quote

In the centre I have 3 distinct roles. A runner, a passer and a sitter/destroyer. I think that makes the most sense for this formation. My creators are the wingers who also score goals.

Thats too general and looking at parts of the tactic in isolation.  Currently both your wingers will push up high and try and run behind the opposition, if that option isn't on then I think your BBM will have a lot of work to do linking your midfield to front 3 as your "passer" and "sitter/destroyer" are both deeper roles+duties that tend to stay behind the ball as well as two FB-S who won't take risks to get in advance of the ball.

[sporadicsmiles]

451 is super flexible, you can basically make it look like any of the 5 man midfield tactics if you set the roles and duties right. Something for you to have some fun with there maybe; find combinations of roles that give you a 433, a 4231, a 4321, or anything else you can think of. Hell, using an inverted fullback you may even be able to ape some of the 3 at the back formations too!

The isolation of the striker can be an issue, but you just need to have the right player there, the right kind of build up play, and the right roles to support him. Here, if you tend to knock the ball quickly to the striker, then maybe you will struggle and see him isolated. If you can build up more slowly, then you can easily get him involved (but may lose any quick counter attacking). These things are always about playing with combination of different roles and players and seeing what works. 

[permanentquandary]

I made some tweaks which paid off for the following two games. Two convincing wins, two clean sheets. Noticeably lower chance creation but the goals were seemingly coming out of nothing, whereas before there were loads of chances but they weren't being put away. I also changed my striker to my Nigerian loan signing which has helped. The other two were simply failing to score too many clear cut chances. My CM(A) played a blinder last match, scoring a goal and making an assist. He's doing what the BBM wasn't really effectively doing in attack and I'm yet to notice any defensive woes from the change. More penetration, more interaction with the striker.

I tried to take what you said Summatsuper on board for the roles and duties. For example I've gone with a WM(A) and W(S) instead of the two W(A)'s. And you were right, the W(S) still bombs it down the wing, except he's now available to receive passes a lot more. Slight alteration, I instructed him to cross from byline. So he still runs with the ball to the byline to give time for my midfield to come into the box and reduce offside frequency, but he doesn't stand on the shoulder of the full back when he doesn't have the ball. The WM(A) is instructed to dribble more to take advantage of my players' skills in this area, but the role benefits the team by not having a greyed out stay wider or run wide with ball, so the player can come inside more and link with the striker better.

For two and a half seasons I was relying on the default instructions and doing minimal tweaking beyond fiddling with roles and duties. But I am finding that inadequate and I reckon it was costing me points.
A constant theme I noticed was the 10+ long shots a game my players were doing, so I took significant steps to reduce that by telling all of my players to shoot less often. So the last two games after these changes the result was much more possession and the ball was very rarely squandered. Almost every attempt on goal felt like it was worthwhile and struck at the right time. That's what I want to see, because my players are not good at long shots. They have mediocre technique, finishing, strength and long shots. While they did score the odd blinder from range, I feel it wasn't worth it to let them keep trying.

I also changed some other PI's as follows, which personalised the roles to better suit the players and also to help achieve what I think I am looking for in attack. Worthwhile possession, reduced tempo and lots of through balls from the capable players when not countering.

Both full backs are told to shoot less often. In the rare event they are presented with a long shot opportunity, I would much prefer they just passed it to someone else, given their extremely weak shooting ability. You'll notice as well I made one full back have an attack duty on the left flank. Borthwick-Jackson has a crossing ability of 15 that was massively going to waste before. He actually has the best crossing ability in the team. I think I will also tell him to dribble less because his ability for that is only 9. He doesn't have the ability to take it past Championship defenders. The main hope is that he overlaps and gets into a crossing position off the ball rather than takes the ball there himself, and then delivers a quality cross. I noticed in the last two games he was overloading that left hand side. I saw the ML, DL and CM(A) all hovering in the area around the opposition right back when the opposition was sitting on the edge of their 18 and that was bound to be causing their defenders problems.

The striker was previously one-dimensional. They rarely ran with the ball, and did little to create anything for themselves. They were the pivot and not much else. However, that's not bad for Kyle Lafferty. He's a decent target man. Not very quick or agile and he was my top scorer (16) last season doing this job, a target man in a deep lying forward role, without tweaks. But I still wanted him to do something more, and I realised he is not too bad as a defensive forward. But I didn't want to give him that role because I was worried it would sacrifice his decent creativity. So I told him to tackle harder and close down much more. That way he would isolate himself much less from the rest of the pack. I've yet to test it for him. I'm hoping that he harrasses when the opposition has the ball, and if the ball is ever turned over, his harrassment will have freed him from his marker, perhaps making him more available as a passing option.

As for... let's call him Bright the Nigerian, he is only fairly quick (13 and 14 acc and pace) he has very good dribbilng ability (16) and very good flair(16) and it was being wasted. But tactically it was not viable to play him as a DLF(A) or CF(A) which would unlock that ability. So I told him to dribble more. And to be clear he has shoot less often on too, like all the other strikers. I noticed an immediate improvement in his game, and he scored a hat trick the first game and got an assist the next! Before, I wasn't even playing him because he kept getting such low ratings. Let's see if he can stand the test of time.

As mentioned previously the BBM wasn't cutting it. So I've gone with CM(A) who has more direct passes, dribble less, more risky passes and of course, shoot less often.

The DLP was changed to CM(S), personalised for Jackson Irvine to include close down more and tackle harder and mark tighter. Jackson is really quite the all rounder, and he has good strength and height. A BWM(S) but in CM(S) form. I'll be honest that I'm afraid to deploy a BWM(S) and I'm convinced I want my CM(D) to do the defensive work in midfield, so that leaves a need for a passer, so I think it best to stick to CM(S). So no more holding position, but not so aggressive as a BWM(S), and still a distinct passing role rather than a runner. He should link fairly well with the WM(A) and not get into his space.

I'll leave it there and see what you reckon.

[Brian]

I would pick a Complete Forward - Support over Deep Lying Forward any day of the week in a lone striker formation. He will roam and bring you the passing option you need. Also I would place the Deep Lying Playmaker in the middle of your 5-man midfield so he has plenty of options to pass too. Start with the Wingers on attack duty - I find that on Support they start way to deep. 

[permanentquandary]

On 1/21/2018 at 22:46, Rooks said:

I would pick a Complete Forward - Support over Deep Lying Forward any day of the week in a lone striker formation. He will roam and bring you the passing option you need. Also I would place the Deep Lying Playmaker in the middle of your 5-man midfield so he has plenty of options to pass too. Start with the Wingers on attack duty - I find that on Support they start way to deep. 

Your suggestion about Complete Forward changed everything! I changed my strikers in my 442 to two on support duty and they are scoring for fun and getting assists!

Similar results in the 451!

I used to always put a CM(D) in my 442 as well but now I really believe a defend duty is detrimental! As long as you have a hold position role like DLP(S) it works defensively. I've taken this into consideration with my 451 too, so I can use something like CM(A)-DLP(S)-BWM(S)

As you can see from the results, these changes have really sharpened my attacks.