Necessary instructions for quick-short passing (Discussion)

[Sebas]

Currently trying to achieve a passing scheme similar to Guardiola's Barcelona and Sarri's Napoli. That is, short but quick passing from the back in order to move the defence around, with an attacking oriented approach rather than keeping the ball just for possession.

Im trying to get set on a couple of instructions but i'm very undecided on a couple of them:

This is purely a tactical discussion rather than a squad composition one. Please assume i have the required players to play this kind of passing style.

Mentality: Feels like a more offensive mentality such as Control or even Attacking could be a great canvas to start out, as they by default play with a higher tempo and wider width than the more deffensive mentalities. Most importantly, the individual mentality would be high and more riskier oriented which would help the team have a more proactive approach with the ball rather than being conservative with it. There are lots of possession based tactics around set on more defensive mentalities but it doesn't feel natural to play such a style on conservative mentalities. 

Shape: Really unsure about this one, since more structured shapes would theoretically allow more space in between the lines by stretching mentalities but it comes with a reduction on creative freedom. More fluid shapes are the more intuitive shape to use in this case and in game managers such as Guardiola and Luis Enrique use them but i feel like the reduction of space is a much bigger concern than the limitation of expresivness.

Passing: Obviously short but how short? i kind of feel like shorter passing and keep possession (sorry for the translation, i play in spanish ) might be too much of an overkill? specially for more creative players expected to create chances as it might limit their passing options (with out without PI's to play more risky passes).

Tempo: Higher tempo is probably a must but a quick tempo with an offensive mentality is generally associated with playing quickly and offensively instead of keeping a more controlled approach. As in my question regarding mentality, a lot of possession oriented tactics are set on lower tempo which in tandem with defensive mentalities could result in a very conservative use of the ball.

Width: Another important instruction. More wider approaches will generate more space horizontally but wouldn't that make my players too far away for each other and make short passing more risky since the ball will have to travel more and make interceptions easier? 

Roam from positions: It feels like an obligation to use this PI but i can never quite appreciate the effect of it when i use it on my them. Are there any general obvious patterns that happen when using this instruction? I understand that it will make players move away from their starting position to recieve passes on better angles but i almost never really see much of a difference when i use it or when i don't.

Wanted to know what everybody else's thoughs are on trying to achieve this style. As you all can see, it 's mostly a thing of achieveing the right balance between these instructions but i feel very disoriented regarding these specific instructions.

Feel free to add anything to the discussion even if it's not directly answering my questions. Cheers 

[SD]

After some trial and error, lots of reading around these forums and a couple of matches watched in full, I achieved reasonable success with a short passing, possession tactic build on the 4-2-1-3 DM Wide and 4-2-3-1 DM Wide formations.

Team shape is Flexible. Fluid or higher was too undisciplined for me, as my tactic relies on some key PIs to get the fullbacks to overlap. On the other hand, Structured was too rigid for a tactic based on movement, and also, with my deep formations I wanted a shape that pulled the team closer together, not further apart.

Default mentality is Standard, going up to Control when chasing a goal or vs weaker sides parking the bus. As many others on these forums put it, the names of the team mentalities are misleading, they give the impression of play styles when in fact they are simply degrees of risk taking. So yes, a counter-attacking tactic might work best with a Counter mentality, but you do not necessarily need to use Control to control the game or Attacking to be attack-minded.

As for the tempo, I found you in fact need to lower it. On Standard mentality using the Retain Possession TI should give you a manageable tempo, but on Control I could not reliably keep control of the ball with default tempo setting until late during the season when my team built some match cohesion. High tempo is better suited for direct play styles, where you want to get the ball up front asap, when on the other hand this tactic threatens by means of overlaps and runs from deep. Not only that, but I'd say that too high tempo the number one culprit for all the long shot problems some people have.

Personally, I shortened the pass range combining Retain Possession and Play out of Defence TIs. As I pointed above, I welcomed the lower tempo Retain Possession gave me, and I suspect Play out of Defence may also come with some effects under the good on the way defensive players behave.

I did not touch width myself. Stretching the pitch too much will make it harder both to pass short and to close down a lot.

I do use Push Higher Up when using 4-2-3-1 DM, to close the gap between the AM and the DMs, but otherwise I left it untouched for the default tactic. 

Last, Roam from Positions is key for this style of play. It's hard to put your finger on what it does precisely, I'd describe as affecting player movement less than a Roam PI, just enough to receive a pass or pull an opponent. This, and not high tempo, is what gives the tactic the impression of fluidity and lightning speed combinations.

Hope this helps, mate.

[Gegenklaus]

I wouldn’t go higher tempo if you play on Control or Attack. The tempo is already incredible high. 

When it comes to shape, in my opinion is that the Barca team played closed to each other and was a lot more fluid in their positions. You would at times see both Messi, Iniesta and Xavi drop off and come really deep to support the defenders getting the ball. His Man City seems to operate a lot more rigid when it comes to positions. City is more like a fantastic machine that can crush while the Pep’s Barca was poetry in its purest form - a lot more fluid. He also had different players. 

Sarri is a bit different than Guardiola as he actually wants his players close together. That suggest Fluid for me. 

I myself try to replicate City - cant do it 100 percent, but I use Flexible as it gives a nice balance between the two extremes. I have added Play out defense (shortens the passing on defenders and DM’s) and Retain possesions (further shortens the passing on everyone, reduces tempo a bit and takes off some of the directness that comes with Control mentality). I would like to use Standard as a mentality because the tempo is quite neat. Patient and fast enough - a good mix. But with Control the team aims to push up into oppositions half and force them to defend for 90 minutes - which is the gosl of Guardiola, complete domination. 

[Gegenklaus]

9 minutes ago, SD said:

After some trial and error, lots of reading around these forums and a couple of matches watched in full, I achieved reasonable success with a short passing, possession tactic build on the 4-2-1-3 DM Wide and 4-2-3-1 DM Wide formations.

Team shape is Flexible. Fluid or higher was too undisciplined for me, as my tactic relies on some key PIs to get the fullbacks to overlap. On the other hand, Structured was too rigid for a tactic based on movement, and also, with my deep formations I wanted a shape that pulled the team closer together, not further apart.

Default mentality is Standard, going up to Control when chasing a goal or vs weaker sides parking the bus. As many others on these forums put it, the names of the team mentalities are misleading, they give the impression of play styles when in fact they are simply degrees of risk taking. So yes, a counter-attacking tactic might work best with a Counter mentality, but you do not necessarily need to use Control to control the game or Attacking to be attack-minded.

As for the tempo, I found you in fact need to lower it. On Standard mentality using the Retain Possession TI should give you a manageable tempo, but on Control I could not reliably keep control of the ball with default tempo setting until late during the season when my team built some match cohesion. High tempo is better suited for direct play styles, where you want to get the ball up front asap, when on the other hand this tactic threatens by means of overlaps and runs from deep. Not only that, but I'd say that too high tempo the number one culprit for all the long shot problems some people have.

Personally, I shortened the pass range combining Retain Possession and Play out of Defence TIs. As I pointed above, I welcomed the lower tempo Retain Possession gave me, and I suspect Play out of Defence may also come with some effects under the good on the way defensive players behave.

I did not touch width myself. Stretching the pitch too much will make it harder both to pass short and to close down a lot.

I do use Push Higher Up when using 4-2-3-1 DM, to close the gap between the AM and the DMs, but otherwise I left it untouched for the default tactic. 

Last, Roam from Positions is key for this style of play. It's hard to put your finger on what it does precisely, I'd describe as affecting player movement less than a Roam PI, just enough to receive a pass or pull an opponent. This, and not high tempo, is what gives the tactic the impression of fluidity and lightning speed combinations.

Hope this helps, mate.

Using Standard Mentality, how were your overall duties spread? 

[SD]

4 minutes ago, Gegenklaus said:

Using Standard Mentality, how were your overall duties spread? 

Left WB(S) is in effect closer to A duty, with Run Wide and Cross from Byline PIs. I didn't want to use WB(A) as I want him to overlap off the ball, not dribble with the ball. FB(A) would have given me that plus a higher mentality, but I wanted to use WBs so that the HB works properly.

Right WB only has Run Wide but not Cross from Byline - there's a reasoning behind this, I can go into depth if you're interested.

BBM has Close Down More so that he tries to win the ball high up the pitch and apply pressure to their deeper midfielders.

IF(A) has Close Down More and Mark Tighter to get him to be useful defensively and track back more. The tactic is slow winding, so him sometimes being caught in less than perfect position when possession is regained is not the end of the world.

DLF has Move into Channels. Gives me what I wanted out of the role, DLF(A) did not link up enough, default DLF(S) was not enough of a goal threat.

[Experienced Defender]

10 hours ago, Sebas said:

Currently trying to achieve a passing scheme similar to Guardiola's Barcelona and Sarri's Napoli. That is, short but quick passing from the back in order to move the defence around, with an attacking oriented approach rather than keeping the ball just for possession.

Im trying to get set on a couple of instructions but i'm very undecided on a couple of them:

This is purely a tactical discussion rather than a squad composition one. Please assume i have the required players to play this kind of passing style.

Mentality: Feels like a more offensive mentality such as Control or even Attacking could be a great canvas to start out, as they by default play with a higher tempo and wider width than the more deffensive mentalities. Most importantly, the individual mentality would be high and more riskier oriented which would help the team have a more proactive approach with the ball rather than being conservative with it. There are lots of possession based tactics around set on more defensive mentalities but it doesn't feel natural to play such a style on conservative mentalities. 

Shape: Really unsure about this one, since more structured shapes would theoretically allow more space in between the lines by stretching mentalities but it comes with a reduction on creative freedom. More fluid shapes are the more intuitive shape to use in this case and in game managers such as Guardiola and Luis Enrique use them but i feel like the reduction of space is a much bigger concern than the limitation of expresivness.

Passing: Obviously short but how short? i kind of feel like shorter passing and keep possession (sorry for the translation, i play in spanish ) might be too much of an overkill? specially for more creative players expected to create chances as it might limit their passing options (with out without PI's to play more risky passes).

Tempo: Higher tempo is probably a must but a quick tempo with an offensive mentality is generally associated with playing quickly and offensively instead of keeping a more controlled approach. As in my question regarding mentality, a lot of possession oriented tactics are set on lower tempo which in tandem with defensive mentalities could result in a very conservative use of the ball.

Width: Another important instruction. More wider approaches will generate more space horizontally but wouldn't that make my players too far away for each other and make short passing more risky since the ball will have to travel more and make interceptions easier? 

Roam from positions: It feels like an obligation to use this PI but i can never quite appreciate the effect of it when i use it on my them. Are there any general obvious patterns that happen when using this instruction? I understand that it will make players move away from their starting position to recieve passes on better angles but i almost never really see much of a difference when i use it or when i don't.

Wanted to know what everybody else's thoughs are on trying to achieve this style. As you all can see, it 's mostly a thing of achieveing the right balance between these instructions but i feel very disoriented regarding these specific instructions.

Feel free to add anything to the discussion even if it's not directly answering my questions. Cheers 

Well, if I managed a team with players capable of playing that way, here are some ideas (and I generally agree with most of what you said )

I'd definitely go with Control and Fluid or Very Fluid (switching between them as I see fit). Shorter passing and higher tempo TIs. Given that this type of teams tend to use a playmaker, I would set him to mixed passing and more risky passes. I would not use the "Pass into Space" TI as part of my basic tactic, however I might occasionally employ it at some point during a match, based on careful analysis. I would start with normal width, and depending on what's going on on the pitch, I could decide to adjust it slightly if needed. Play out of defense and WBiB are self-explanatory TIs for this kind of playing style. Crossing would be set to either low or whipped, or simply left to default (i.e. mixed).

D-line would be normal, occasionally slightly deeper. Note that a deeper d-line in more offensive mentalities is still considerably higher than in more defensive ones. Additionally, it should give my players an extra space for passing combinations, especially when the OP are sitting deep against us, so we want to draw them out of positions a bit.

The formation, as well as individual player roles and duties, would depend on the particular team I'm managing at the moment and may vary from game to game. Logically, one of my DCs would most likely be BPD.

[Sebas]

hace 15 horas, Gegenklaus dijo:

I wouldn’t go higher tempo if you play on Control or Attack. The tempo is already incredible high. (1)

When it comes to shape, in my opinion is that the Barca team played closed to each other and was a lot more fluid in their positions. You would at times see both Messi, Iniesta and Xavi drop off and come really deep to support the defenders getting the ball. His Man City seems to operate a lot more rigid when it comes to positions. City is more like a fantastic machine that can crush while the Pep’s Barca was poetry in its purest form - a lot more fluid. He also had different players. (2)

Sarri is a bit different than Guardiola as he actually wants his players close together. That suggest Fluid for me. (3)

I myself try to replicate City - cant do it 100 percent, but I use Flexible as it gives a nice balance between the two extremes. I have added Play out defense (shortens the passing on defenders and DM’s) and Retain possesions (further shortens the passing on everyone, reduces tempo a bit and takes off some of the directness that comes with Control mentality). I would like to use Standard as a mentality because the tempo is quite neat. Patient and fast enough - a good mix. But with Control the team aims to push up into oppositions half and force them to defend for 90 minutes - which is the gosl of Guardiola, complete domination. (4)

1. I agree as i feel like a more medium tempo gives a good balance between moving the ball fast enough to keep opposition defenders moving but not too fast that it would make my team too direct. I wouldn't go into a slower tempo though as i wan't my players circulate the ball quickly and not take too many touches with it before passing. A slower tempo wouldn't be too logical i think.
2. I Agree with this aswell.
3. This could also perhaps suggest using a less wider width? making players closing horizontally to make short passing easier and aid the counter-press once the ball is lost. I'm however a bit worried about it making my team attack too much through the middle as i think i've read that it focuses play down the middle and i'm not sure if that is beneficial considering how most of these kind of teams have more space down the flanks rather than through the middle.
4. A couple of points regarding this paragraph:
   1. Mentality: I actually didn't get it clear which mentality you use . If it is standard then do you not feel that support players become too risk averse? I'm asking because players like Iniesta, Xavi, Thiago, Silva and De Bruyne under Guardiola and also the likes of Jorginho under Sarri are tasked to move the ball forward and find strikers in advanced positions and in result they end up attempting lots of through balls and key passes which i think mentalities below control would inhibit this kind of play?
   2. Passing: I think that short passing is a must be it using any combination of short passing TI's (retain possession, shorter passing of play out of defense). However im worried about it limiting the passing range of the team's creators. I don't feel comfortable instructing people like De Bruyne and Messi to pass it so short all the time (which an offensive mentality with short passing TI's would end up showing the the PI's screen for support and even attacking duty players)
   3. Also no use of roam from positions? any reason behind not using it? as it feels like a must from the threads i've read.

Also thanks for your response 

 

[AFCBeer]

Well I've created a Pep inspired system for an English Championship team, however I strongly believe that if you really want to replicate a system, its as much about attributes, and especially PPM's, rather than specific instructions.

I won't post my actual system, but I will go into the theory of what I think does make a Pep system work.

There is so much debate in the FM community about shape settings. People probably read too much into the 'fluid = compact' and 'structured = stretched' theory. I think you could argue a Pep system relies on both. That's why I think flexible is the way to go. Compact enough to get players involved with most phases of the game, but stretched enough to create a little bit of extra space which excellent passers can exploit. If you don't have excellent passes, then you don't really want to use a Pep system! For similar reasons I use mixed passing. This keeps things simple and gives players the chance to use their intelligence, without having too much freedom (which more fluid systems might give).

The wide play is vital in this sort of system. Width is needed to stretch play and create passing options in the middle. You can either user wingers or wide TI's. Lots of people use Inside Forward or Playmakers in the wide positions. I prefer the winger roles to stretch the defence, but with PPM's to make them cut inside. Its the only way in FM I think you can create the Sane role.

Mentality is another area where there is lots of debate. I find anything above standard makes play too direct. Given my preference for mixed passing, I think Counter gives a more patient probing effect. Counter-Mixed is probably similar to Control-Short in any case in terms of passing length.

The one weakness of possession systems, in FM and real life, can be a lack of penetration. I like to use 'Pass into Space'. By playing on Counter, my approach is already fairly cautious. However, to implement this style, I have to believe I have the players capable of playing a penetrating through pass. I think the lower mentality , combined with mixed passing and having intelligent players who have the vision and ability to play a through ball, will make my side patiently probe when not much is on, but then quickly put a player through when the chance presents itself. Tempo settings could have an impact too.

I've not discussed roles and duties yet. Of course these are vital. Playmaking roles will encourage more passing to feet (to your playmakers) while support duties will encourage recycling possession which again will will result in a shorter passing style. What you can't neglect is having enough attack duties in the final third to not only make runs behind the defence, but also play a more risky pass in the first place.

[Experienced Defender]

8 hours ago, AFCBeer said:

Tempo settings could have an impact too.

Tempo settings do have an impact, not just could 

[Robson 07]

On ‎08‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 01:18, Sebas said:

Width: Another important instruction. More wider approaches will generate more space horizontally but wouldn't that make my players too far away for each other and make short passing more risky since the ball will have to travel more and make interceptions easier? 

I agree with the above quote but how is that any different to structured.  Structured generates space vertically as width does horizontally.  Why would the effects be any different?  It is one of the reasons why structured is not best suited to a slick short passing game.

For that reason I have never understood this thread https://community.sigames.com/topic/362872-the-art-of-possession-football/ which uses Highly Structured.  If that is how possession works then people are on a different plane to me. 

I think things like tempo and mentality reach a point where the team can't sustain it when too high and it becomes too much.

 

 

[Cleon]

52 minutes ago, Robson 07 said:

I agree with the above quote but how is that any different to structured.  Structured generates space vertically as width does horizontally.  Why would the effects be any different?  It is one of the reasons why structured is not best suited to a slick short passing game.

For that reason I have never understood this thread https://community.sigames.com/topic/362872-the-art-of-possession-football/ which uses Highly Structured.  If that is how possession works then people are on a different plane to me. 

I think things like tempo and mentality reach a point where the team can't sustain it when too high and it becomes too much.

 

 

I'm glad I'm on a different plane, as I'm on the one that know how the game works 

 

[Robson 07]

2 minutes ago, Cleon said:

I'm glad I'm on a different plane, as I'm on the one that know how the game works 

haha fair play

[Sebas]

hace 3 horas, Robson 07 dijo:

I agree with the above quote but how is that any different to structured.  Structured generates space vertically as width does horizontally.  Why would the effects be any different?  It is one of the reasons why structured is not best suited to a slick short passing game.

For that reason I have never understood this thread https://community.sigames.com/topic/362872-the-art-of-possession-football/ which uses Highly Structured.  If that is how possession works then people are on a different plane to me. 

I think things like tempo and mentality reach a point where the team can't sustain it when too high and it becomes too much.

 

 

I think that there has to be a balance between having players close together in support in the middle while having wide players stretching the play and pining opposition wide defenders away from the center. I find it difficult to transalte that to FM as my inmediate responde would be to have lots of support duties in the middle including strikers with maybe a winger coming in as an inside-forward on support. Problem with that is that it the low amount of attack duties upfront could maybe inhibit offensive penetration?

Regarding vertical spacing and shape decision i don't that this TI has as much stretching intensity as the width setting, and that duty alocation has a more relevant effect than shape in this matter. As in width, i'm favoring towards a more balanced approach using flexible shape.

[Sebas]

hace 13 horas, AFCBeer dijo:

Well I've created a Pep inspired system for an English Championship team, however I strongly believe that if you really want to replicate a system, its as much about attributes, and especially PPM's, rather than specific instructions.

I won't post my actual system, but I will go into the theory of what I think does make a Pep system work.

There is so much debate in the FM community about shape settings. People probably read too much into the 'fluid = compact' and 'structured = stretched' theory. I think you could argue a Pep system relies on both. That's why I think flexible is the way to go. Compact enough to get players involved with most phases of the game, but stretched enough to create a little bit of extra space which excellent passers can exploit. If you don't have excellent passes, then you don't really want to use a Pep system! For similar reasons I use mixed passing. This keeps things simple and gives players the chance to use their intelligence, without having too much freedom (which more fluid systems might give).

The wide play is vital in this sort of system. Width is needed to stretch play and create passing options in the middle. You can either user wingers or wide TI's. Lots of people use Inside Forward or Playmakers in the wide positions. I prefer the winger roles to stretch the defence, but with PPM's to make them cut inside. Its the only way in FM I think you can create the Sane role.

Mentality is another area where there is lots of debate. I find anything above standard makes play too direct. Given my preference for mixed passing, I think Counter gives a more patient probing effect. Counter-Mixed is probably similar to Control-Short in any case in terms of passing length.

The one weakness of possession systems, in FM and real life, can be a lack of penetration. I like to use 'Pass into Space'. By playing on Counter, my approach is already fairly cautious. However, to implement this style, I have to believe I have the players capable of playing a penetrating through pass. I think the lower mentality , combined with mixed passing and having intelligent players who have the vision and ability to play a through ball, will make my side patiently probe when not much is on, but then quickly put a player through when the chance presents itself. Tempo settings could have an impact too.

I've not discussed roles and duties yet. Of course these are vital. Playmaking roles will encourage more passing to feet (to your playmakers) while support duties will encourage recycling possession which again will will result in a shorter passing style. What you can't neglect is having enough attack duties in the final third to not only make runs behind the defence, but also play a more risky pass in the first place.

Thanks for your response.

Tbf i like your approach in that i don't feel that its necessary to push passing all the way to short to achieve a style such as Guardiola's as i feel a little variety is needed to not become too predicatable in passing. For all of Guardiola's insistence in short passing you can still see his defenders hitting long passes to the wings or directly to the strikers if there's space behind their D-Line. I feel like using a combination of retain possession, play ball out of defence and short passing rules out these kind of passes in some way, specially from deeper areas.

Mentality is really something im puzzled about. I know their names are plastic and misleading but what it does is adjust risk and i don't feel like such systems should in theory be played with lower risk settings. It feels unnatural to me to play in such a proactive approach while limiting the risk my players could take.

 

[sporadicsmiles]

I am currently working on trying develop a tactic based around Pep at the moment that I eventually plan to write up here. So I can try to share a few things that I have learnt.

1. There absolutely has to be a balance between keeping the ball and penetration (and between penetration and keeping the ball). This means I find low tempo, shorter passing, retain possession TIs way too conservative to start with. These are defensive TIs that can be added when closing out a game.

2. Possession is not a stat to worry about. This seems odd when talking about a Guardiola tactic, but I do not care if my possession is only 50%, for example. The pressing in game is not quite real life, so it will be really hard to replicate the actual possession numbers (more on that later). Far more important is the number of passes, and the completion percentage (and who is making them).

3. Stretching the pitch as wide as you can. One of the things that isn't often mentioned about Guardiola's tactics is how much he will stretch the pitch. There is always a wide option, one on each flank, usually. It is easy to focus on the centre and forget the flanks. These are key as they provide an avenue to go direct when the chance arises. 

4. There is more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to pressing. TIs for pressing affect the whole side. This is not really what Pep does, different roles have different duties when pressing. I'd actually avoid the press more TI, and focus on individuals. Also, do not underestimate how useful OIs can be when trying to set up pressing traps. I think it is the only way to do it in the game right now. 

5. The half space is the area of the pitch you should be looking to exploit (between CB and FB). That can be by pass, by a player running through there, by a player moving there to create space.

6. Adapt to the opposition. Another think never to forget about Pep is that he adapts how the side plays against different teams. You should do so too. The roles and duties you use against a team with 2 DMCs will not be the same as the ones you use against a flat 442, for instance. Additionally, the roles and duties you use when you want to really play keep ball, and when you are looking to score are equally not the same. 

In the current tactic I have (I am about to try using it with a different team since it was working perfectly with Barcelona, but they have some amazing players) uses only 5 TIs. The three that I think indispensable are work ball into box, play out of defence and shorter passing. The PI that I think you absolutely need is one for the GK to distribute the ball short to FBs or CBs. I think everything else is pretty much optional.

[Gegenklaus]

3 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

I am currently working on trying develop a tactic based around Pep at the moment that I eventually plan to write up here. So I can try to share a few things that I have learnt.

1. There absolutely has to be a balance between keeping the ball and penetration (and between penetration and keeping the ball). This means I find low tempo, shorter passing, retain possession TIs way too conservative to start with. These are defensive TIs that can be added when closing out a game.

2. Possession is not a stat to worry about. This seems odd when talking about a Guardiola tactic, but I do not care if my possession is only 50%, for example. The pressing in game is not quite real life, so it will be really hard to replicate the actual possession numbers (more on that later). Far more important is the number of passes, and the completion percentage (and who is making them).

3. Stretching the pitch as wide as you can. One of the things that isn't often mentioned about Guardiola's tactics is how much he will stretch the pitch. There is always a wide option, one on each flank, usually. It is easy to focus on the centre and forget the flanks. These are key as they provide an avenue to go direct when the chance arises. 

4. There is more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to pressing. TIs for pressing affect the whole side. This is not really what Pep does, different roles have different duties when pressing. I'd actually avoid the press more TI, and focus on individuals. Also, do not underestimate how useful OIs can be when trying to set up pressing traps. I think it is the only way to do it in the game right now. 

5. The half space is the area of the pitch you should be looking to exploit (between CB and FB). That can be by pass, by a player running through there, by a player moving there to create space.

6. Adapt to the opposition. Another think never to forget about Pep is that he adapts how the side plays against different teams. You should do so too. The roles and duties you use against a team with 2 DMCs will not be the same as the ones you use against a flat 442, for instance. Additionally, the roles and duties you use when you want to really play keep ball, and when you are looking to score are equally not the same. 

In the current tactic I have (I am about to try using it with a different team since it was working perfectly with Barcelona, but they have some amazing players) uses only 5 TIs. The three that I think indispensable are work ball into box, play out of defence and shorter passing. The PI that I think you absolutely need is one for the GK to distribute the ball short to FBs or CBs. I think everything else is pretty much optional.

Really good points, mate. Care to give us some deeper insight to the current system, you are using and how you eventually choose to adapt to the opposition? I'm very intrigued.

[jc577]

39 minutes ago, Gegenklaus said:

Really good points, mate. Care to give us some deeper insight to the current system, you are using and how you eventually choose to adapt to the opposition? I'm very intrigued.

I second this  I’ve recently begun developing a Pep-inspired system; it’s still a work in progress, and I keep tweaking, changing between using shorter passing and retain possession, both on Control mentality. I’ve found that my possession stats are much higher when using retain possession, going from low 50’s to high, even low 60’s. I know Pep hates pointless possession, and I largely think high possession numbers on FM are driven by a high d-line + intense pressing, but I wasn’t comfortable having such low possession numbers. 

[sporadicsmiles]

I am still trying to perfect it at the moment. Currently the attacking play is excellent, but the possession overall is poor. Mostly, it is because I cannot find a nice way to close down teams who have 2 DMCs, as such teams tend to keep the ball in their own half and it is hard to get serious pressure on them without changing things I'd rather not change. I plan to experiment with specific marking and high closing down the next time this happens, to see what I can make happen.

I can elaborate indeed. I am playing a 433 wide (which is perfect for possession), standard and flexible. Standard because control is too direct and counter is too slow. Flexible because my players all have specific jobs, but I want some room to use their brains to do something different. The roles, as I mention, are quite fluid, and usually I adapt in most matches. I really break down formations into where they are strong and weak, and where the space is. I have 3 general categories for this at the moment. There are formations which have 2 DMCs, where I am going to struggle to have space around the box but have deeper space. There are formations which have no DMCs and are weak in midfield (2 CMs), where I can hope to dominate the midfield. There are formations that either have 1 DMC or are generally strong in midfield (any of the "narrow" formations). The key is to decide how I am going to create space to open up chances.

There are two main philosophies I have with this; I can flood the midfield from defence up, or from attack down. It all depends on where I expect the space to be, and what will cause the most problems.

Let's take a standard formation like a 442, or a 4231. I have space between midfield and defence, and I want to have strength in midfield in this region. So I will set my midfield up as IF(A) DLP(S) DM(D) MEZ/CM(A) AP(S) - the MEZ can become a CM because sometimes this player and the AP get way too close to each other. I will couple this to a FB(A) and WB(A) to maintain my width. You can see, I have flooded the midfield high up, and always have 3 midfielders I expect to be available for passing (and perhaps 4 depending on where the MEZ/CM has gotten in the attack). This draws the defence to the middle, and leaves a lot of space on the flanks, where I have players who can be more direct, and I have several players getting in the box. (By the way, 442 is special because you can also do the second option I have).

When I face a formation with 2 DMCs (which seems to be all the time at the moment), there is no point flooding the attacking midfield. There is no space, my players will be crowded, I will struggle to keep the ball. So I keep the same basic formula, but with very different roles. My midfield becomes IF(S) DLP(S) DM(D) MEZ(A) W(A) (and you can switch these roles around as you choose actually), and my full backs are now WB(A) and IWB(S). Now you see I still have 3 people in midfield who should be available for the pass, maintain my width and still have plenty of people getting in the box. 

The duties are also super flexible. If I want to encourage keeping the ball, I will make fullbacks less adventurous so they offer a passing outlet rather than an attacking outlet. The MEZ/CM can be changed to support. The DLP to defend. The IF can move to support too. This would encourage a possession based game with less risks, which I use when I have a game won and want to just see the game out whilst still dominating.  

I prefer to be able to play with the AP, because this allows me to get Messi more involved in the game. Indeed, I have him switching positions with the striker so he can be both a creative force and a goal threat. This is not really related to the possession side of things, but I want him involved in as many aspects of my game as I possibly can.

[sporadicsmiles]

8 minutes ago, jc577 said:

I second this  I’ve recently begun developing a Pep-inspired system; it’s still a work in progress, and I keep tweaking, changing between using shorter passing and retain possession, both on Control mentality. I’ve found that my possession stats are much higher when using retain possession, going from low 50’s to high, even low 60’s. I know Pep hates pointless possession, and I largely think high possession numbers on FM are driven by a high d-line + intense pressing, but I wasn’t comfortable having such low possession numbers. 

This is really the biggest issue I am having. I am very happy with the shape of my side, and the way we create chances. I have Barcelona playing like Barcelona in terms of scores, we are battering everyone. However, the possession stats are not as high as a Guardiola side, and we do not have the most number of passes in the league. Like I said above, I think a lot of this is that I have played a lot of sides who have two DMCs and they just keep the ball in defence doing nothing with it, and I cannot get enough pressure there. I will play around with specific marking next time I play against a team like this to see if I can replicate a little bit the of the pressing. 

The problem I have with having a high D-line is that as good as it makes the pressure, it affects the attacking side of the game. I do not want to compress my midfield too much. I do not think it is possible to properly emulate high pressing in this ME, but I will keep playing around.

[sporadicsmiles]

This is a triple post now, but I was thinking about this in the shower after I posted my replies (I have a wonderful life, apparently). I do wonder if using 2 DMCs with the correct roles, duties, and players supporting them would be an interesting alternative way to produce attacking, passing football. You naturally have players who will keep the ball, especially playing out from the back, so imagine with regular passing you may equally get high possession. Of course, setting up the roles around those DMCs would be absolutely vital. You would need to have enough passing options to get the ball forward. Another thing to ponder.

[Gegenklaus]

3 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

This is a triple post now, but I was thinking about this in the shower after I posted my replies (I have a wonderful life, apparently). I do wonder if using 2 DMCs with the correct roles, duties, and players supporting them would be an interesting alternative way to produce attacking, passing football. You naturally have players who will keep the ball, especially playing out from the back, so imagine with regular passing you may equally get high possession. Of course, setting up the roles around those DMCs would be absolutely vital. You would need to have enough passing options to get the ball forward. Another thing to ponder.

You could draw inspiration from Thomas Tuchel’s 4-2-3-1/4-1-4-1 in beginning of the 2015/2016 season where he used Gundogan and Weigl in a double pivot. Ahead of him they had Auba, the striker stretching vertically, two sort of inside forwards who went between the lines in the half space, and a number 10, Kagawa, who shuffled between the lines and connected with the two pivots. Gundogan would at times push up into midfield if the circumstances was right - opponents sat deep. The two wingbacks became sort of wingers when on the ball and provided the width. 

[sporadicsmiles]

36 minutes ago, Gegenklaus said:

You could draw inspiration from Thomas Tuchel’s 4-2-3-1/4-1-4-1 in beginning of the 2015/2016 season where he used Gundogan and Weigl in a double pivot. Ahead of him they had Auba, the striker stretching vertically, two sort of inside forwards who Weng between the lines in the half space, and a number 10, Kagawa, who shuffled between the lines and connected with the two pivots. Gundogan would at times push up into midfield if the circumstances was right - opponents sat deep. The two wingbacks became sort of wingers when on the ball and provided the width. 

Cheers, I am not terribly aware of Tuchel's tactics other than the basis of how he plays. It sounds a very interesting idea, I will have a read and experiment with some things.

[jc577]

2 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

This is a triple post now, but I was thinking about this in the shower after I posted my replies (I have a wonderful life, apparently). I do wonder if using 2 DMCs with the correct roles, duties, and players supporting them would be an interesting alternative way to produce attacking, passing football. You naturally have players who will keep the ball, especially playing out from the back, so imagine with regular passing you may equally get high possession. Of course, setting up the roles around those DMCs would be absolutely vital. You would need to have enough passing options to get the ball forward. Another thing to ponder.

I had thought about this, maybe using a HB + SV-S combination, but I haven't implemented it for two reasons. Firstly, I've found that when teams press high, my CD's are more prone to passing the ball out to the fullbacks and not play directly through the press. Additionally, is there a real need for two DM's when the opposition decides to sit off you?

[SD]

2 minutes ago, jc577 said:

I had thought about this, maybe using a HB + SV-S combination, but I haven't implemented it for two reasons. Firstly, I've found that when teams press high, my CD's are more prone to passing the ball out to the fullbacks and not play directly through the press. Additionally, is there a real need for two DM's when the opposition decides to sit off you?

2 DMCs is a perfectly valid approach as long as you assign dynamic roles. During the attacking phase a HB+SV combination will get the formation to morph into a 3-4-3, and on the other hand, during the defensive phase your team will defend with a back four and two classic DMs in front of the defence. To make up for having two players with restrained closing down settings, I use either a BBM with Close Down More PI or a SS with Mark Tighter PI.

Another side effect of using DMs is that it that having more players positioned deeper, it will naturally draw out the opposition without changing the D-line or closing down settings.

[sporadicsmiles]

1 hour ago, jc577 said:

I had thought about this, maybe using a HB + SV-S combination, but I haven't implemented it for two reasons. Firstly, I've found that when teams press high, my CD's are more prone to passing the ball out to the fullbacks and not play directly through the press. Additionally, is there a real need for two DM's when the opposition decides to sit off you?

It depends what you have the DMCs doing when you have the ball. I would be thinking of at least one adventurous playmaking role there. Either a regista or a roaming playmaker (assuming that is available for a DMC, I forget). The other role can be more supportive, aping the DM(D) I currently use. You absolutely need to get the forward players int he right roles around this to make it work though. There always needs to be passing options to play the ball out from the back.

The other advantage I can see to this is you could use a very high D line without some of the negative attacking consequence. In particular, with the right roles, the DMCs would be in space but in the opposition half when attacking. This means pressing can be a bit easier. It is all theoretical right now, I will play around later, or at some point this week I think. 

I think the important think to remember here is that I do not want to use the DMCs like the AI does against me, having sterile pointless deep possession of the ball (which is what I often see with the AI). I want to be very proactive. I always feel I can be more adventurous with roles when the default positions are more defensive. In essence, I plan something like a 4231 but with a withdrawn midfield.

[jc577]

19 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

Let's take a standard formation like a 442, or a 4231. I have space between midfield and defence, and I want to have strength in midfield in this region. So I will set my midfield up as IF(A) DLP(S) DM(D) MEZ/CM(A) AP(S) - the (1) MEZ can become a CM because sometimes this player and the AP get way too close to each other. (2) I will couple this to a FB(A) and WB(A) to maintain my width. You can see, I have flooded the midfield high up, and always have 3 midfielders I expect to be available for passing (and perhaps 4 depending on where the MEZ/CM has gotten in the attack). This draws the defence to the middle, and leaves a lot of space on the flanks, where I have players who can be more direct, and I have several players getting in the box. (By the way, 442 is special because you can also do the second option I have).

When I face a formation with 2 DMCs (which seems to be all the time at the moment), there is no point flooding the attacking midfield. There is no space, my players will be crowded, I will struggle to keep the ball. So I keep the same basic formula, but with very different roles. (3) My midfield becomes IF(S) DLP(S) DM(D) MEZ(A) W(A) (and you can switch these roles around as you choose actually), and my full backs are now WB(A) and IWB(S). Now you see I still have 3 people in midfield who should be available for the pass, maintain my width and still have plenty of people getting in the box. 

3

Very interesting approach, sorry I didn't reply yesterday, was nursing a hangover 

1. That's something I've noticed too, although I'm not sure if it's necessarily a bad thing. Players close together means they both have someone they can pass to... what annoys me is when they both occupy the same vertical space, which does happen occasionally. Other times, I've seen the MEZ-A stationed to the right of the half-space, and the AP is a bit more central and deeper; the combination play between these two at times is lovely, and the MEZ becomes a central/half-space winger, putting in low crosses. 

2. Our tactics are actually quite similar, I've just got a DM-S instead of your DM-D so he's a natural recycler of the ball, and a RPM-S instead of the DLP-S, although this is a role I could look to change against more defensive sides (two DM's) as there may not be a need for the RPM to push up. The main difference comes in defence, where I just have two FB's on support. Reason being is that I don't want a huge amount of crosses, nor do I want the team to constantly look for them, but only to be used as an outlet when needed. To be fair it helps that both more full-backs have the 'Gets Forward Whenever Possible' PPM, so they do exactly what I want in terms of being deeper to recycle possession, but still become advanced as a WB-A when consolidated in the opposition's half. 

3. I like that combination of roles and duties a lot. Essentially you're overloading the left flank to free up the W-A and MEZ-A on the other side. How crucial is the IWB? I'm wondering maybe I should use him in one of my variations with a W-S and MEZ-A, but with my DM pushing up, I fear he could crowd the centre. 

[jc577]

57 minutes ago, SD said:

2 DMCs is a perfectly valid approach as long as you assign dynamic roles. During the attacking phase a HB+SV combination will get the formation to morph into a 3-4-3, and on the other hand, during the defensive phase your team will defend with a back four and two classic DMs in front of the defence. To make up for having two players with restrained closing down settings, I use either a BBM with Close Down More PI or a SS with Mark Tighter PI.

Another side effect of using DMs is that it that having more players positioned deeper, it will naturally draw out the opposition without changing the D-line or closing down settings.

3

I like the sound of this  I want to encourage the opposition to press whenever possible, partly because it helps open up defensive teams if they lose their shape, but also due to the fact you more often than not have free players in-between the lines when this happens. 

8 minutes ago, sporadicsmiles said:

It depends what you have the DMCs doing when you have the ball. I would be thinking of at least one adventurous playmaking role there. Either a regista or a roaming playmaker (assuming that is available for a DMC, I forget). The other role can be more supportive, aping the DM(D) I currently use. You absolutely need to get the forward players int he right roles around this to make it work though. There always needs to be passing options to play the ball out from the back.

The other advantage I can see to this is you could use a very high D line without some of the negative attacking consequence. In particular, with the right roles, the DMCs would be in space but in the opposition half when attacking. This means pressing can be a bit easier. It is all theoretical right now, I will play around later, or at some point this week I think. 

I think the important think to remember here is that I do not want to use the DMCs like the AI does against me, having sterile pointless deep possession of the ball (which is what I often see with the AI). I want to be very proactive. I always feel I can be more adventurous with roles when the default positions are more defensive. In essence, I plan something like a 4231 but with a withdrawn midfield.

I'm gonna have to give this a go now! Out of interest, what striker role are you using? Or does it depend on the opposition?

[sporadicsmiles]

2 hours ago, jc577 said:

I'm gonna have to give this a go now! Out of interest, what striker role are you using? Or does it depend on the opposition?

I have mostly used a complete forward for the moment, because he will move around a lot and find space in the channels and drop deeper. Also will hold up the ball and be more attacking, so it fits. So far, it has worked pretty well and I haven't had much reason to change it. 

[Sebas]

Very happy about the quality of discussion going on! Lots of interesting ideas being posted. 

With the feedback being shared around on this thread i've decided to join the party and try experimenting a bit too. I've chosen Chelsea as my team as they have a good base imo to try to work this kind of strategy. I was however lacking a good playmaking centermid as i didn't feel comfortable playing Kante as a pivot as i want a good clean build up from the back and his attributes are not exactly oriented towards this kind of play. With that in mind i bought Steven N'Zonzi from Sevilla to play this role:

He has very good attributes in decisions, composure, vision, concentracion and anticipation along with great technicals to perform a deep playmaker role. I'm however concerned with his PPM's as i feel like Plays Short Simple Passes can limit his passing range and Dwells On Ball might do the same when we attack with space, so i'm instantly trying to have him unlearn them starting first with the second one as i feel it is the most urgent one.

Team Instructions

Control mentality to keep a more risk oriented and proactive approach. Flexible shape as it is the most balanced option between vertical compatness and allowing creative freedom to my players to unlock defenses. 

Shorter Passing and Roam From Positions seem like a must to keep the ball and induce shorter passing without limiting through balls (as i think that retain possession reduces the amount of risky passes). Roam From Positions is there to let my players move around with more freedom to recieve passes in better angles. Play Out Of Defense to keep it short from the back and start build up from my DLP. Lower Tempo and Work Ball Into Box to keep a more patient approach outside the box without pumping up the ball too fast and relying on crosses. Close Down Much More and Much Higher Defensive Line to keep pressure on the opponents half and win the ball as fast as possible to try to increase possession numbers while defending away from my area.

Formation

Pretty straightforward with both wingers stretching the play, a DLP in front of my defense to pick the ball from deep and move it up the field. One attacking fullback to provide support while the other one holds his position (as Azpilicueta has really poor technicals and isn't much of a threat going forward) to be more of a passing outlet. One BWM to do the dirty work in the middle and aid pressing in general coupled with an AP expected to make more risky passes and drop deep to play one-twos with the DLP and the fullbacks. On top a striker in an attack duty to stretch the play forward and pin opposition defenders to make more space vertically.

I have to say this was pretty much made on the spot and i haven't really thought it through  as i've put more emphasis on the TI's this time. The formation is pretty basic in itself as i didn't want to overcomplicate things with PI's as the focus is more on TI's on order to take a more holistic approach. In this sense, formations could change in between matches but the overall philosophy should stay the same if TI's remain unchanged. 

I'll report back once i can free up more time to play more serious games once preseason ends. I would really appreciate any kind of feedback in the meantime.

[Robson 07]

Hi.  I know this is a passing discussion but that tactic is very 451.  4 midfield roles are on support and striker is isolated on an attack role.  The 5th midfielder as deep playmaker may spray passes too kinda bypassing his central midfield colleagues.  Hope it works; hope you get the passing you want, it's just an observation.

[jc577]

Anyone mind taking a look at my system? I feel like it needs some refinement especially in an attacking sense. We score goals, just not lots of them, and most of our attacking play comes from wide areas where I’d prefer to attack centrally. 

[Experienced Defender]

35 minutes ago, jc577 said:

Anyone mind taking a look at my system? I feel like it needs some refinement especially in an attacking sense. We score goals, just not lots of them, and most of our attacking play comes from wide areas where I’d prefer to attack centrally. 

Where can we look at your system? Can you post some screenshots of your formation, tactics and players?

[jc577]

18 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Where can we look at your system? Can you post some screenshots of your formation, tactics and players?

This is my system:

It was initially inspired by watching a vintage Messi performance from 2009 at the Bernabeu, where they won 6-2 and Messi, according to the title of the video, played as a False Nine for the first time. The F9 role wasn't really working, ended up taking too many long-shots and didn't drop as deep as I'd like.

Here's the player used in that role, the other PPM he has is 'Plays One-Twos'. 

Other Key Players:

 

Malcom is just incredible, doubt I'll be able to keep him for much longer, to be honest. Lo Celso and Oliver were meant to be my Silva/De Bruyne or Xavi/Iniesta 

 

[SD]

@Sebas

I'm far from a tactics expert myself, but your tactic may be using too many TIs. I can attest how tempting it is to go down this road when you are first starting out and every TI sounds like something you'd want your team to do. The breakthrough comes when you realize that the TIs are not binary absolutes, like 'do X' vs 'do not do X', but rather tendencies, changes in the frequency of that X.

So then the decision whether to add a TI or not boils down to two questions:

1. Do I want my team to do X more than the default?

2. Is there a less intrusive way I can achieve that desired level of X?

In your particular example, the first candidate for the chopping block is Work Ball into Box. A possession tactic is intrinsically patient, so if your players are misplacing passes or taking too many long shots, it's a sign of more systemic problems such as lack of space, lack of passing options or too high tempo. Often, your players are going for sub-optimal options not because of poor decision-making, but because that long shot or dribble into three defenders was the only option they had to begin with. A possession tactic should not need this TI, and from my personal experience, whenever my team struggled to create quality chances, activating Work Ball into Box never seemed to make things any better.

My second concern is about the extreme closing down/D-line settings, which in combination with the Control will see your team lose any semblance of a defensive shape. Your CBs and DLP will end up with the closing down of a BWM and that will leave large gaps in your defence. It's playing with fire and even if you manage to deny the ball to the opposition for most of the game, your keeper will constantly be one through ball away from a 1v1 with their striker. Instead, you want to achieve the suffocating Klopp pressing you are after by means of PIs and OIs, distributed in a deliberate manner across your players. There are definitely several ways to skin this cat.

Last, I understand that the player roles are still work in progress, but in the current iteration you might struggle in the final third as well. The tactic lacks any threat from deep and even though the Roaming TI will somewhat alleviate that, it still leaves you too reliant on the lone forward to be your goal threat. I can see the point of using one winger, to allow the FB on that side to be more restrained and balance out the attack minded FB on the opposite side, but using two wingers will funnel the ball on the flanks while lacking the bodies inside the box to make use of that. Personally I would switch the left winger to an IF(S). Next, I would switch Fabregas to CMR and assign CM(A) to him - he's not ideal for it, but if you must use a winger you want a creator that can double as a runner. You do not want the IF and the CM(A) on the same side as they are attacking the same area and they would step on each others toes, so the BWM moves over to the left at CML. One common misconception I see a lot and I used to carry myself, is to think of this role as a uni dimensional destroyer, when in fact the signature characteristic of the role is not the hard tackle, but the closing down. So this player will be your second runner/ball winner/cover for the slightly exposed left flank.

Hope I didn't come off as condescending and that it ends up helping you, it's certainly helping me to think of these concepts and articulate my thoughts.

[Experienced Defender]

@jc577 These four guys really have great attributes. If I only had at least one as good a player at my Crystal Palace... 

2 hours ago, jc577 said:

most of our attacking play comes from wide areas where I’d prefer to attack centrally. 

Well, given that you have as many as 5 essentially wide players - 2 FBs, a winger, a left-footed IF on the left and a mezzala (who is a sort of half-winger) - it's no wonder that most of your attacks tend to come out of the flanks. On top of that, the Control mentality you are using is inherently fairly wide, so if you want more central attacking, the first thing you should do is reducing the Width TI. A high-risk mentality such as Control also naturally encourages your wide players (both FBs and wingers) to cross more (unless you switch your FBs to DFBs, which I guess is not an option )

What could be an option however, is to use at least one FB as IWB. An example:

P (or AF)

IF(s)                                             IF(a)

APM(a)     BWM(s)

ACM

IWB(s)     CD(co)    CD(d)     WB(s)

SWK(s)

(if your GK has proper attributes for SWK)

You could also try with Fluid shape.

So, to summarize:

Control / Fluid

TIs: POD, WBiB, Low Crosses, Narrower Width, Prevent GKD. Leave the rest on default. As for d-line, I don't know how good your defenders are, so I cannot give you a meaningful suggestion. So for now, just keep it to Normal (default).

PIs: I think APM has More Risky Passes hard-coded, right?

Tell your 3 forwardmost players to Close Down More (occasionally even much more), but take their stamina into account

P.S: You could try with a RMD on the right wing instead of IF(a) if you have the right player for the role, but bear in mind that RMD will rarely get back to help defensively. 

 

[yonko]

8 hours ago, jc577 said:

This is my system:

It was initially inspired by watching a vintage Messi performance from 2009 at the Bernabeu, where they won 6-2 and Messi, according to the title of the video, played as a False Nine for the first time. The F9 role wasn't really working, ended up taking too many long-shots and didn't drop as deep as I'd like.

Here's the player used in that role, the other PPM he has is 'Plays One-Twos'. 

Malcom is just incredible, doubt I'll be able to keep him for much longer, to be honest. Lo Celso and Oliver were meant to be my Silva/De Bruyne or Xavi/Iniesta 

 

I think pretty much everyone has tried to implement this Barcelona tactic in every edition since FM2010. I have lost count how many threads there have been about it....or Pep at Bayern and City now. Anyway....

About your tactic, I would change couple of roles to start with - Mez to CM-A and Winger to IF-S. This will give you more presence in the center and more options for combinations/penetration through the center. The Mez and Winger are too wide IMO. After you change those two role, you can try using F9 again and it might work better as he has more close supporting players around him making runs. I also think the F9 drops more if you use Fluid shape. You might also want to consider changing the RPM to AP-S - he doesn't dribble that much and he focuses on feeding his teammates with through balls more.

I think it's interesting that you have tried to develop Cook as F9 - the only attribute he lacks is finishing. 

Try changing Retain Possession with Shorter Passing TI - see what effect that has. RP instruction reduces through balls on all players and makes them dwell on the ball more. 

[sporadicsmiles]

15 hours ago, jc577 said:

his is my system:

I agree with others that your attacks are coming from wide because you do not really have a central focal point of anyone really attacking the centre of the pitch. I'll get to that, but first I would like to say what I do like about it. I do like the use of a winger, because Guadiola always plays with one winger (currently, think Sané). The front 3 in general are probably exactly what you want to have for this formation. This is pretty much my standard every time I use the formation. The duty combination in midfield is probably perfect. Especially the DMC. He is going to be advanced enough to be involved in your attacks and act as a pivot.

I am currently developing an idea in my head (which may be completely wrong, but I am toying with the idea) that the more TIs you have, the further towards structured and highly structured you want to be. Fluidity will encourage players to do things on their own a little more, and whilst this can be good, it also can suck. If you have a philosophy, and a lot of TIs to go with that, you probably do not want your players to ignore you too much. I'd be happy for other people to rip into this idea and tell me it is nonsense! I also would not worry about having too many TIs, since here you probably know exactly why you have used them all. A lot of TIs is not inherently bad, it is when you have them added for no logical reason (that you can explain at least).

How are you getting on possession wise? And number of passes/game wise, and completion percentage wise? Plus how many chances per game do you create? These are the key things to explore in a possession tactic. Balancing the possession with the attack is complicated. You want a high pass completion percentage and anywhere around 500-600 passes per game (possession should naturally follow from that), and still create a decent number of chances (I leave it to you to decide how many that will be).

In terms of what I would change, I am not a huge fan of the RPM, because it drifts around a little too much. For my possession tactic (I will post it at some point, promise), I like to have one mobile midfielder and two more static ones. Since I am also using a wide playmaker at the moment, I have the luxury of filling extra space in midfield so I really have 2 roaming and two static players in the central. Still, I usually have a DLP(S) CM(A) combination in the centre (the DMC is perfect). I do not often use the Mezzala at the moment, because I want someone playing off the striker, and I do not really need any strength out wide. In your case, a Mezalla and winger can possibly create some interesting overloads on that side. But the problem is there is no central runner.

Defensively, I like to have at least one attacking fullback (when I have an AP on the wings, I usually have two to maintain the width). This gives an additional passing option for a player in space, and can perhaps encourage the more advanced player to sit narrower (maybe)? I could consider a FB(A) on the left hand side. However, it depends if you are comfortable enough defensively to do that. I concede more goals than I would like down my flanks because they are a tad overaggressive.

Finally, mentality and shape wise. These are the first things I would play around with if  I did not think my ball retention to chances created ratio is particularly good. I did recently find that I apparently can keep the ball a lot better on standard structured than standard flexible, but it seemingly came at the cost of some of the chances I would create and some of the swashbuckling elements of the play I had on standard flexible. I do not have a large sample size so I do not know if this is general yet, but it is useful to know that small changes here can have huge implications for your play.

[Gegenklaus]

32 minutes ago, sporadicsmiles said:

I agree with others that your attacks are coming from wide because you do not really have a central focal point of anyone really attacking the centre of the pitch. I'll get to that, but first I would like to say what I do like about it. I do like the use of a winger, because Guadiola always plays with one winger (currently, think Sané). The front 3 in general are probably exactly what you want to have for this formation. This is pretty much my standard every time I use the formation. The duty combination in midfield is probably perfect. Especially the DMC. He is going to be advanced enough to be involved in your attacks and act as a pivot.

I am currently developing an idea in my head (which may be completely wrong, but I am toying with the idea) that the more TIs you have, the further towards structured and highly structured you want to be. Fluidity will encourage players to do things on their own a little more, and whilst this can be good, it also can suck. If you have a philosophy, and a lot of TIs to go with that, you probably do not want your players to ignore you too much. I'd be happy for other people to rip into this idea and tell me it is nonsense! I also would not worry about having too many TIs, since here you probably know exactly why you have used them all. A lot of TIs is not inherently bad, it is when you have them added for no logical reason (that you can explain at least).

How are you getting on possession wise? And number of passes/game wise, and completion percentage wise? Plus how many chances per game do you create? These are the key things to explore in a possession tactic. Balancing the possession with the attack is complicated. You want a high pass completion percentage and anywhere around 500-600 passes per game (possession should naturally follow from that), and still create a decent number of chances (I leave it to you to decide how many that will be).

In terms of what I would change, I am not a huge fan of the RPM, because it drifts around a little too much. For my possession tactic (I will post it at some point, promise), I like to have one mobile midfielder and two more static ones. Since I am also using a wide playmaker at the moment, I have the luxury of filling extra space in midfield so I really have 2 roaming and two static players in the central. Still, I usually have a DLP(S) CM(A) combination in the centre (the DMC is perfect). I do not often use the Mezzala at the moment, because I want someone playing off the striker, and I do not really need any strength out wide. In your case, a Mezalla and winger can possibly create some interesting overloads on that side. But the problem is there is no central runner.

Defensively, I like to have at least one attacking fullback (when I have an AP on the wings, I usually have two to maintain the width). This gives an additional passing option for a player in space, and can perhaps encourage the more advanced player to sit narrower (maybe)? I could consider a FB(A) on the left hand side. However, it depends if you are comfortable enough defensively to do that. I concede more goals than I would like down my flanks because they are a tad overaggressive.

Finally, mentality and shape wise. These are the first things I would play around with if  I did not think my ball retention to chances created ratio is particularly good. I did recently find that I apparently can keep the ball a lot better on standard structured than standard flexible, but it seemingly came at the cost of some of the chances I would create and some of the swashbuckling elements of the play I had on standard flexible. I do not have a large sample size so I do not know if this is general yet, but it is useful to know that small changes here can have huge implications for your play.

I am looking forward to see what you come up with. 

I currently have great success using Standard Fluid, play out of defence, D-Line, prevent short GK and close Down much more.

I use several different systems depending on how the opponent’s set-up; 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 3-4-3, 3-5-2 and 4-1-3-1-3. So like Guardiola I place my players on the field to achieve a positional advantage. All the systems try to create a similiar shape, 2 wide attackers, 2 attacks through half spaces and 1 central. 5 players cover for them and helps with retaining the ball. I dominate possession in all the matches I played without using any passing TI except Play out of defense. Standard-mentality gives a cool tempo that varies between patience and speed.

I might not hit 500-600 passes average Per game. I am not so interested in that either. I am more interested in dominating the game through constant attacks. We score the most and concede the least in the League. 

[sporadicsmiles]

3 hours ago, Gegenklaus said:

I am looking forward to see what you come up with. 

I currently have great success using Standard Fluid, play out of defence, D-Line, prevent short GK and close Down much more.

I use several different systems depending on how the opponent’s set-up; 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 3-4-3, 3-5-2 and 4-1-3-1-3. So like Guardiola I place my players on the field to achieve a positional advantage. All the systems try to create a similiar shape, 2 wide attackers, 2 attacks through half spaces and 1 central. 5 players cover for them and helps with retaining the ball. I dominate possession in all the matches I played without using any passing TI except Play out of defense. Standard-mentality gives a cool tempo that varies between patience and speed.

I might not hit 500-600 passes average Per game. I am not so interested in that either. I am more interested in dominating the game through constant attacks. We score the most and concede the least in the League. 

I very much like the idea of having a setup for all occasions, it is indeed very Guardiola. I want to learn what I am doing before I make that step though, I think I am perhaps not quite that flexible in my own management.

The aspect of tiki taka I am keen to reproduce is possession as a defensive tactic, hence my aim to hit a lot of passes and have high accuracy. I am quite okay with keeping the ball for long spells, so long as we are still creating enough chances that I am not sterile. At the moment I am scoring goals for fun, but I am Barcelona and I am fairly certain the quality of my attackers compared to the average defender I play against is boosting this somewhat. 

I think both aspects are quite interesting though, I do like the idea of domination by constant attacks and high pressure that you are using. Get a team on the ropes and keep them there. Out of interest, I guess when you face a team with a lot of deeper players, you switch formation to something a bit more top heavy so you can press more effectively? 

[jc577]

Thanks for the advice guys, really appreciate it. Unfortunately, the wheels have fallen off at a time when we really couldn't afford them to: 

We were unlucky against RBL in the first leg, and away at Leicester, but after the third loss, I lost my s*** , called for a team meeting which completely killed morale. Nevertheless, I felt my system needed some refinement before this awful run, it definitely needs it now! 

9 hours ago, yonko said:

About your tactic, I would change couple of roles to start with - Mez to CM-A and Winger to IF-S. This will give you more presence in the center and more options for combinations/penetration through the center. The Mez and Winger are too wide IMO. After you change those two role, you can try using F9 again and it might work better as he has more close supporting players around him making runs. I also think the F9 drops more if you use Fluid shape. You might also want to consider changing the RPM to AP-S - he doesn't dribble that much and he focuses on feeding his teammates with through balls more.

I think it's interesting that you have tried to develop Cook as F9 - the only attribute he lacks is finishing. 

Try changing Retain Possession with Shorter Passing TI - see what effect that has. RP instruction reduces through balls on all players and makes them dwell on the ball more. 

5

Regarding the Mez and Winger, I think I need to find a balance between stretching the pitch horizontally to open up space centrally,  without focusing attacks down the flanks. I want combinations through the centre, but I've found with two IF's coming inside we take an awful lot of longshots... perhaps, in that case, I'd need to use more aggressive full-backs? AP-S is a good shout, suits Oliver a lot more as he doesn't have the stamina or off-the-ball attributes to be constantly moving around. 

Cook is an interesting one, the PPMs that he has/I trained seem perfect for an F9 role, but he hasn't taken to it this season. I'll try Shorter Passing as well, but without Retain Possession early on in, we struggled to achieve more than 53% possession.

[Gegenklaus]

8 minutes ago, sporadicsmiles said:

I very much like the idea of having a setup for all occasions, it is indeed very Guardiola. I want to learn what I am doing before I make that step though, I think I am perhaps not quite that flexible in my own management.

The aspect of tiki taka I am keen to reproduce is possession as a defensive tactic, hence my aim to hit a lot of passes and have high accuracy. I am quite okay with keeping the ball for long spells, so long as we are still creating enough chances that I am not sterile. At the moment I am scoring goals for fun, but I am Barcelona and I am fairly certain the quality of my attackers compared to the average defender I play against is boosting this somewhat. 

I think both aspects are quite interesting though, I do like the idea of domination by constant attacks and high pressure that you are using. Get a team on the ropes and keep them there. Out of interest, I guess when you face a team with a lot of deeper players, you switch formation to something a bit more top heavy so you can press more effectively? 

Good points. Its all an experiment, but I do see a lot of patience when in possession and I think its because of the mentality and play out of TI. We play it out from the back with a lot of patience waiting for an opening. It has actually surprised me a bit. I see a lot of short passes and patient play, even when we are under huge pressure. I think it comes down to the players. They are very technical and intelligent. 

And yes when choosing a formation against the opposition I always first makes sure, we overload the first line, so we can play it out from the back without theoretically any problems. 

Next is to match opponents numbers in midfield - I want +1 - this can be achieved in many ways - using IWB or a striker to come into midfield. 

Next I look at how I can pin the opposition defense. Normally one striker kan be enough to pin the two central defenders - and two strikers when facing a back three, simple math really. 

Then I try to analyze during the game if I answered those three questions right.

so yes, against a 4-1-4-1 I use a 4-2-3-1 to be abe to pin them down and dominate them in their own half.

[jc577]

4 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

I do like the use of a winger, because Guadiola always plays with one winger (currently, think Sané). The front 3 in general are probably exactly what you want to have for this formation. This is pretty much my standard every time I use the formation. The duty combination in midfield is probably perfect. Especially the DMC. He is going to be advanced enough to be involved in your attacks and act as a pivot.

Thanks  I feel like the winger role is one I'm very reluctant to drop, as even though other roles will stretch the pitch during build-up, this is the only role that attempts to keep width in the final third. I'd like his touches to be more in the half-spaces than near the touchline, but it is key for me. And yeah, a support duty DM is a thing of beauty!

4 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

How are you getting on possession wise? And number of passes/game wise, and completion percentage wise? Plus how many chances per game do you create? These are the key things to explore in a possession tactic. Balancing the possession with the attack is complicated. You want a high pass completion percentage and anywhere around 500-600 passes per game (possession should naturally follow from that), and still create a decent number of chances (I leave it to you to decide how many that will be).

Possession-wise we have the highest in the league at 56%, and the best pass completion rate at 86%. Chances created is decent, 137 after 35 games, which is only good enough for 5th best... Stats are only part of the story though, we rarely score more than two goals and we are 19th for cross completion ratio, at a dismal 10%. We just don't have any height in the box, and despite using the low crosses TI, a lot of crosses are at head height, which leads me to thinking, we need to create better crossing opportunities where players can easily deliver low crosses. 

Will definitely have a tinker and try to save my season, thanks for your help.

 

4 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

In terms of what I would change, I am not a huge fan of the RPM, because it drifts around a little too much. For my possession tactic (I will post it at some point, promise), I like to have one mobile midfielder and two more static ones. Since I am also using a wide playmaker at the moment, I have the luxury of filling extra space in midfield so I really have 2 roaming and two static players in the central. Still, I usually have a DLP(S) CM(A) combination in the centre (the DMC is perfect). I do not often use the Mezzala at the moment, because I want someone playing off the striker, and I do not really need any strength out wide. In your case, a Mezalla and winger can possibly create some interesting overloads on that side. But the problem is there is no central runner.

Both you and Yonko have mentioned the RPM, and I wasn't sure what he brought to the tactic myself, to be honest, so will definitely change it. The winger and Mez do combine nicely and create overloads at times, but the lack of central runner is an issue. 

[sporadicsmiles]

1 hour ago, Gegenklaus said:

Good points. Its all an experiment, but I do see a lot of patience when in possession and I think its because of the mentality and play out of TI. We play it out from the back with a lot of patience waiting for an opening. It has actually surprised me a bit. I see a lot of short passes and patient play, even when we are under huge pressure. I think it comes down to the players. They are very technical and intelligent. 

And yes when choosing a formation against the opposition I always first makes sure, we overload the first line, so we can play it out from the back without theoretically any problems. 

Next is to match opponents numbers in midfield - I want +1 - this can be achieved in many ways - using IWB or a striker to come into midfield. 

Next I look at how I can pin the opposition defense. Normally one striker kan be enough to pin the two central defenders - and two strikers when facing a back three, simple math really. 

 Then I try to analyze during the game if I answered those three questions right.

so yes, against a 4-1-4-1 I use a 4-2-3-1 to be abe to pin them down and dominate them in their own half.

Very nice, I like the way you are approaching this a lot, it makes an awful lot of sense to me. I will eventually look to incorporate all of the points you have made here into my own game, particularly when I take the experiment to a smaller team where I cannot only rely on my players to be much better than anyone else.

 

57 minutes ago, jc577 said:

Both you and Yonko have mentioned the RPM, and I wasn't sure what he brought to the tactic myself, to be honest, so will definitely change it. The winger and Mez do combine nicely and create overloads at times, but the lack of central runner is an issue. 

You could always convert the RPM into something of a more central runner. A BBM, for instance. And then play without a playmaker to see what happens. In principle, it should not hurt you too much since you are not really looking to rely on any one player to carve open the defence, but rather on the whole team playing as a cohesive unit to create chances. 

In terms of crosses, I tend to see a lot of low crosses where the player crossing is inside the box. These usually go to the opposite wide player for a tap in, and in my current save we have the best cross completion in the league (despite not having tall players up front). I am not entirely sure why this is the case, mind. I guess it may have something to do with my wingbacks, but it is not something I have tried to analyse in detail.

[sporadicsmiles]

So this is how I am currently set up in general, the formation I used the most at least.

Right now, the AP on the right is specifically to take advantage of having Messi in the side. He is the best player in the game, and I want to have him as involved as much as possible in every phase of my attack. I found playing him only up front limits his involvement, and having him as a winger or inside forward again saw him only really present in the wide channels. He does wonderful things from this position though, although as I noted before it really does not work that well against teams with 2 DMCs.

I also have the following PIs.

SK: play ball to full backs. (helps to build from the back).

FBs: close down much less (I saw a lot of times these players getting out of position and missing tackles, causing me problems).

CBs: close down less. (similarly, I want to not have them charge around and leave space).

CM(A): close down more. (he is often going to be high up the pitch when we lose the ball, so he is in a position to close down).

AP: close down more, mark tighter, sit narrower. (Close down and mark tighter to put pressure on the opposition. Sit narrower to make him even more central, since the width is provided by the WB).

IF: close down more, mark tighter (same as AP).

CF: close down more, mark tighter (same).

I am also using the following OIs.

The idea behind these is to create areas of the pitch where we close down more, and areas where you are more willing to keep a defensive shape. I wanted to try this rather than a generic close down more for the entire team.

I also wanted to show my corner routine, since I think I mentioned it here (I did somewhere recently). This is designed to make counter attacks from corners, and it can be absolutely lethal.

The idea is to have the fastest players left in attacking positions. One on the players outside the box, one left up front. The players then have the option to dribble or pass into space. I really love the way this works.

Results-wise, you can see it has been incredible. We have won every single game thus far, and some of those performances are extremely impressive. However, I do want to again point out that this is Barcelona, this is pretty much what we expect to see.

The players have been similarly wonderful. In particular you can see that I am getting the most from Messi here (he spent some time injured which means he is a little behind some of the others). My front 3 have actually been amazing in general. Vidal, also, had a storming start to the season, scoring a lot of goals in the first few matches. He was originally playing as a Mez(A) but I found he was too often in the same part of the pitch as the AP, so I changed to a CM(A).

Finally, here are the stats. You can see we are currently scoring 15% of our attempts, which is awesome. We are also averaging around 530 passes per match with 88% completion, which is perfect. We are at an average of 56.6% possession in a match. So you can see from this, I have things working more or less how I want them. We dominate possession, have a patient and accurate passing game, and we create a lot of chances (which we are excellent at putting away 70% of our CCCs). 

Next for me is to see what happens when we play against better sides (we really have only had one very tough match thus far). 

[Gegenklaus]

@sporadicsmiles that looks really good and promising. I went through my last ten games with my Dortmund side to see how many passes we actually complete and in every match we are well over 500 and in some over 600, and I am not using shorter passing - only Play out of defense. Our completion rate average 86 % maybe that should be higher but our attacking play is quite good. After 21 games we have scored 69 goals and we put 16 percent of our total shots into the net.

[sporadicsmiles]

8 minutes ago, Gegenklaus said:

@sporadicsmiles that looks really good and promising. I went through my last ten games with my Dortmund side to see how many passes we actually complete and in every match we are well over 500 and in some over 600, and I am not using shorter passing - only Play out of defense. Our completion rate average 86 % maybe that should be higher but our attacking play is quite good. After 21 games we have scored 69 goals and we put 16 percent of our total shots into the net.

Woof! You are doing even better than I am statistically then! Very impressive. I do also find this type of tactic produces some wonderful football to watch as well.

[yonko]

7 hours ago, jc577 said:

Thanks for the advice guys, really appreciate it. Unfortunately, the wheels have fallen off at a time when we really couldn't afford them to: 

We were unlucky against RBL in the first leg, and away at Leicester, but after the third loss, I lost my s*** , called for a team meeting which completely killed morale. Nevertheless, I felt my system needed some refinement before this awful run, it definitely needs it now! 

Regarding the Mez and Winger, I think I need to find a balance between stretching the pitch horizontally to open up space centrally,  without focusing attacks down the flanks. I want combinations through the centre, but I've found with two IF's coming inside we take an awful lot of longshots... perhaps, in that case, I'd need to use more aggressive full-backs? AP-S is a good shout, suits Oliver a lot more as he doesn't have the stamina or off-the-ball attributes to be constantly moving around. 

Cook is an interesting one, the PPMs that he has/I trained seem perfect for an F9 role, but he hasn't taken to it this season. I'll try Shorter Passing as well, but without Retain Possession early on in, we struggled to achieve more than 53% possession.

I think you're thinking too much like IRL and not so much what tools are available in FM or what each of them does. There is some relation of course but not so much.

Don't focus too much on % of possession and such. In FM it's not like IRL anyway. Try to think about what kind of football will please you to see the most. You have to understand what the roles do and how they interact with each other to form combinations. Also, different players will play the roles differently based on their attributes and PPMs/traits.

Taking too many shots is not a problem unless at least 50% of them are on target.

Lastly, I'm not sure how much of impact it has but I have my training set at Tactics for General Training (this focuses on mental attributes training like anticipation, composure, concentration, decisions and teamwork. In addition, my Match Training is set at Teamwork too. I also choose to train individual roles that focus on attribute that are needed for passing/possession style - first touch, passing, technique, anticipation, composure, decisions, off the ball, teamwork, vision - BPD for CBs, CWB for FBs/WBs, HB for DMs, AP for CMs and IFs, Treq for AMs/IFs/STs, F9 for STs. 

A little note I don't necessarily use the roles in my tactics. I just use them for training as they focus on the attributes I deem important for possession/passing playing style. Those are my DNA core attributes.

@sporadicsmiles a Winger in FM and Winger for Guardiola is not so much the same thing, btw. The winger role in FM crosses the ball way too much, unlike a winger for Guardiola. Play someone like Sane, a left footed player, in AML position as IF role and see what happens. It doesn't play like right footed player there does (Sterling for example). On the flip side, play a left footed player at AMR as Winger role and see how differently he plays the role than a traditional right footed player. 

[sporadicsmiles]

5 hours ago, yonko said:

 a Winger in FM and Winger for Guardiola is not so much the same thing, btw. The winger role in FM crosses the ball way too much, unlike a winger for Guardiola. Play someone like Sane, a left footed player, in AML position as IF role and see what happens. It doesn't play like right footed player there does (Sterling for example). On the flip side, play a left footed player at AMR as Winger role and see how differently he plays the role than a traditional right footed player.  

You are right, of course, but within the confines of what is possible in the ME, we have to make do really. The crossing is obviously not ideal, but you can mitigate this a little by having a supporting fullback close by, a midfield passing option inside, and using work ball into box. I think the most important thing (probably for Guardiola and for the tactic in general) is to have a player out wide as a passing option and who can stretch the field and create central space. I actually do not use wingers in the current version of my tactic, but rather attacking fullbacks to provide width and stretch the field. There is still too much crossing, but I do not find it overkill right now. WB(D) is a reasonable alternative, since they will stay wide, but more in the midfield than up front.

[jc577]

14 hours ago, yonko said:

@sporadicsmiles a Winger in FM and Winger for Guardiola is not so much the same thing, btw. The winger role in FM crosses the ball way too much, unlike a winger for Guardiola. Play someone like Sane, a left footed player, in AML position as IF role and see what happens. It doesn't play like right footed player there does (Sterling for example). On the flip side, play a left footed player at AMR as Winger role and see how differently he plays the role than a traditional right footed player. 

Spot on mate. I'm now playing Jordan Ibe as an IF-A on the right (he's right-footed) and he plays like a hybrid inside-forward/winger, running diagonally with the ball into the half-space and attempts to make crosses from there, rather than from the byline. For me personally, the Winger role in FM isn't really capable of playing in a pass + move style system, they're far more focused on running to the byline (and often into cul-de-sacs), and swinging in somewhat aimless crosses. 

These are my two systems for next year. The tactic on the left is more or less the same as the one I posted earlier, with the only difference being the Winger is now an AP, and using an attacking full-back to provide the width. The tactic on the right is meant to play out a bit differently. I think creating overloads in the half-space in order to draw out full-backs works very well in the current ME, so that's what I've attempted to do. The BBM now becomes my central runner, hopefully getting on the end of cutbacks from the Mezzala. 

[yonko]

15 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

You are right, of course, but within the confines of what is possible in the ME, we have to make do really. The crossing is obviously not ideal, but you can mitigate this a little by having a supporting fullback close by, a midfield passing option inside, and using work ball into box. I think the most important thing (probably for Guardiola and for the tactic in general) is to have a player out wide as a passing option and who can stretch the field and create central space. I actually do not use wingers in the current version of my tactic, but rather attacking fullbacks to provide width and stretch the field. There is still too much crossing, but I do not find it overkill right now. WB(D) is a reasonable alternative, since they will stay wide, but more in the midfield than up front.

Those work arounds may work for you, but for me there is still too much crossing with the Winger role in FM for Pep's system replication or using wingers as he does. IF role with strong foot matching the side is the solution for me. Also, another option is the "stay wider" instruction for IF.

5 hours ago, jc577 said:

Spot on mate. I'm now playing Jordan Ibe as an IF-A on the right (he's right-footed) and he plays like a hybrid inside-forward/winger, running diagonally with the ball into the half-space and attempts to make crosses from there, rather than from the byline. For me personally, the Winger role in FM isn't really capable of playing in a pass + move style system, they're far more focused on running to the byline (and often into cul-de-sacs), and swinging in somewhat aimless crosses. 

These are my two systems for next year. The tactic on the left is more or less the same as the one I posted earlier, with the only difference being the Winger is now an AP, and using an attacking full-back to provide the width. The tactic on the right is meant to play out a bit differently. I think creating overloads in the half-space in order to draw out full-backs works very well in the current ME, so that's what I've attempted to do. The BBM now becomes my central runner, hopefully getting on the end of cutbacks from the Mezzala. 

What is your idea with using AP on the wing, especially when you have another in midfield and the F9 is a creator role too? Personally I'm not a fan of it. I like my playmakers centrally. Btw, IF-S is also a creators role, just not a ball magnet like AP or F9 roles.