Help in creating a tactic based on a strategy

[torehj]

I need some input on how to create a tactic, and team, based on the strategy of former Norway coach Egil "Drillo" Olsen. I don't want to replicate the tactic he used, but only use his strategical framework.

What kind of tactics would promote this strategy? What kind of TI and PI should I use? What kind of player quality should I have? What kind of player traits would should I look for?

The attacking strategy I want to use is (the first leads to the second, the second leads to the....and so on):

And the defensive strategy is:

 

"Drillo" "quotes":

"If you don't score within 4 moves after winning the ball, you should just give the ball back to the other team."

"The team out of possession is more likely to score than the team in possession."

"Five players in the midfield will win the ball more often in the midfield than four players will."

"Never give the opposition a opportunity to counter on your team."

"Football is a game without the ball."

"Defense is the best attack."

"Passes within the defense is a deadly sin."

 

Thanks

[ajsr1982]

Interesting. I think getting the basics of this together is fairly easy because you have buttons to press that align closely to what you're trying to do. More direct passing, higher tempo, more closing down, higher d-line, etc.

For example, if you choose a default formation and push the 'Control' mentality, it will tick many of your boxes. From there, it's up to you how complicated you want to make it.

Probably more important are the players. Drillo's systems placed a heavy burden on his teams, and used specialists in certain systems (i.e., Wide Target Man). You'll want key attributes in your front six especially. High stats for Teamwork, Work Rate, Stamina and Off The Ball are going to be important. You'll also want strong forwards who can bring others into play, but can trouble the opposition defence when support isn't forthcoming. Think along the lines of Drogba.

Where you will have to rein it in is your defence. If you want to avoid the counter attack, you need to have a relatively unadventurous defence, with your full backs playing lots of crosses from deep positions. The flip side here is that it's going to help to push higher up to aid that closing down.

But let's also be aware that Drillo's philosophy is 25 years old and the game has moved on. Some of it is still relevant, clearly, but there are few teams that play this style of football these days, with possession becoming king. I think part of the reason for his success with Norway was that teams just weren't used to facing that style of play. Football was evolving from a slow-paced 5-3-2 as the default way of playing in the wake of the backpass rule, and Drillo's teams with their relentlessness caught opposition on the hop. One could argue that a modern day equivalent might be the way Klopp likes his teams to play, though there are notable differences.

Only my personal view, but I've found low-possession, direct tactics to be one of the hardest things to get to work in FM, despite the fact that on paper it should work well against the high block systems.

[Farina]

Disagree that control mentality is the go-to setting for Olsen's style. Especially the defensive mentality, but also counter, will naturally encourage your defenders to play direct and avoid risks. I'd then increase closing down TI's to compensate for the low default closing down with these mentalities. Next to more direct passing TIs ofcourse.

I also disagree there aren't many coaches that practice this style anymore. Hodgson, Allardyce, Moyes... Philosophy being king is a bit of stretch. It's closer to the truth to say that there's split between actively seeking possession and actively rejecting possession.

[Marsupian]

I'd try a structured counter mentality with a high line, more closing down and more direct passing. It gets you to win the ball high and it lets you play more direct instead of trying to keep possession. The structured shape keeps defenders back to prevent opposition counters. You will want a good amount of defensive or supporting roles and pick your attacking options carefully so you don't create to many counter opportunities. You also have to control space well as allowing the opponent time to play balls over the top is going to cause trouble for your high defensive line.

Basically it's a good way to spend a lot of time defending but doing it on the opponents half.

[summatsupeer]

For me this screams low risk but with high energy rather than parking the bus. His style sounds more based on transition heavy game, not staying in defensive/attacking phases for long so i'd look for very physical players, Work Rate, Stamina, Strength, & Acceleration who can read the game (Anticipation).  I would normally say Aggression + Bravery could be useful to win the ball back, but he doesn't like fouls so it would need to be balanced with the players ability to tackle so they don't give fouls away.

I don't think he pushes his whole team up, it sounds more like he likes his advanced players to press in the opponents half but maybe not full pitch and committing lots of players into it as he doesn't like being open to counter attacks.  I'd guess he likes to keep 3 or 4 players deep at all times (2xDC, DM + FB?) and leave most of the attacking to the forwards since he likes moves to be over quickly which doesn't give time for deeper players to get forward.

[moolochicken]

On 17/05/2018 at 19:30, torehj said:

Base on these two charts it can be deduced that:

- no turnover in own half is allowed so players in own half need to play long balls. Defensive Centre Backs suits but just setting more direct passing  PI is also fine

- less passes between turnover and goal is required so front players need to take risks. More direct passing is not a must for up-field players because depending on the method of attacking it could be different. Could be shorter passing + more risky pass and still make a fast attack

- won possession on opposition half means that enough number of up-field players in necessary. At least 4+.

 

Without further understanding, I tend to think there are 2 flaws to this thinking:

- more shots =/= more goals. Lots of long shots can still means less goal.

- Few ball losses on one half =/= few shots conceded. A long ball over the top from the opposition half can still be devastating

 

To conquer this, I think the formation should be highly separated  where the defense players sit deep and the attack players press high. Physicality is a must because the up-field players need to win long balls most of the time, so either speed or strength is required.