Jump to content

Tactic help


Recommended Posts

I need help with tactics. I have played with Arsenal in the past, and currently with Bayer 04. I line up in a 4231 and want to play around my CAM. Due to who my strikers are I want to do minimal crossing, but I can’t find a way to do that, and most of my goals end up being rebounds of defenders clearing crosses. I also need help picking a striker role. I tend to just personalise them as they are so different and I don’t know what would work best. Though it doesn’t seem to matter what I put, as they score minimal goals.

8D1A3255-1B00-4EE7-9496-FF4900D9A66A.png

75BA68C0-56B4-4C9E-866C-CE6F7DDB29EF.png

E7034CB1-EDEE-45F0-B2D6-0B981950D913.png

BB2F01AF-15E4-41F0-83DB-FDF9F8A72804.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, you need to ease off team instructions, because your tactic looks like a complete mess. You play on a high-risk mentality (positive), use extremely high tempo, want your players to look to pass into space whenever possible and on top of that expect them to work ball into box, as if they are "supermen". Any tactic in order to be successful needs to follow an elementary (football) logic (unless you wanna use some exploit tactic, which is also a legitimate choice).

In any 4231wide system, the 2 CMs are key. You have a BBM who is a roaming role and a BWM on support, who nominally is not roaming, but the levels of pressing the role inherently requires makes him be de facto out of position (dangerously) too often. 

Further, playing both CBs in a BPD role is something I would never recommend, because you will give away a lot of possession cheaply. 

Focus play through the middle increases the mentalities of your CBs (as well as DMs and defend-duty CMs, when you use them). This makes your defense more vulnerable, and then this defensive risk is further compounded by the combination of higher DL and much higher LOE, which compromises the team's vertical compactness, leaving a lot of space for the opposition to exploit between your lines and channels. Another very risky defensive instruction you are using is Get stuck in, because it additionally increases the risks I already mentioned.

It's hard to say by looking at your tactic what style of football you are actually looking to play. It certainly cannot be possession football with extremely high tempo (even if the system is fluid due to the domination of support roles). Nor can it be a counter-attacking style with so aggressive defensive settings. primarily (much) higher LOE.

1 hour ago, Arsenal457 said:

I also need help picking a striker role. I tend to just personalise them as they are so different and I don’t know what would work best. Though it doesn’t seem to matter what I put, as they score minimal goals.

How can we tell you what role(s) would be a good choice for your striker(s) when we don't know them (except Alario, who is in the screenshot). He (Alario) can generally play as a poacher, but can also be employed as a PF on attack (or support, depending on what you exactly want from him). However, the performance of a striker is never affected solely by his role but also by those around him. In your system he seems to be overly isolated, i.e. with very little support, so it's no surprise that he is struggling.

Btw, don't you have a better player than Van de Beek for the AMC position?  Where is Havertz?

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Arsenal457 said:

 

BB2F01AF-15E4-41F0-83DB-FDF9F8A72804.png

 

I think there are a number of issues with this tactic when it comes to getting what you state you want. I think you've gone too heavy with the team instructions and there doesn't appear to be any clear vision of what it is you want to create. Before you even begin building a tactic you need to think about what it is you are trying to create and why. You need to be questioning your choices of TIs and thinking carefully about what you want your players to do on the pitch in all phases of play and more importantly whether they are capable of doing it. Here are some bullet points I think you might want to consider:

- You have no holding midfielder (defend duty) in your midfield which has two very negative consequences for your team both on and off the ball. When you don't have the ball you have no screen for your central defenders which means any opposition fielding an AMC or MC that attacks that space in between your midfield and defensive line is going to have a lot of time and space on the ball. You will really struggle against teams which break quickly as there is nobody hanging back to delay any counter attacks instead the opposition is right into your backline which is very risky.

The second arguably more problematic issue of having no holding midfielder is that when your team has the ball there is going to be no deep option available to recycle possession. This is an often overlooked but critical aspect of attacking play, without a player to recycle the ball you will find it difficult to in a sense 'try again' when it comes to breaking down a defense. You are totally dependent on the initial attack being successful which is a high-risk strategy, a deeper player would give you the opportunity to change the emphasis of the attack. For e.g. Say your AMR runs into a cul-de-sac he would then have the option to play it back into the holding central midfielder who could then play the ball into an area where there is more space. The most important thing when building attacks are having sufficient depth and width as without it how do you pull defenders out of position and create space. You have good natural width but lack depth which you are further compressing by having all your midfielders on support duty.

- You say you don't want crossing to be the main way you supply your lone striker but you have wingbacks and wingers in the tactic whose whole purpose on the pitch is to get into advanced areas and cross the ball. If you don't want this then I would get rid of the wingbacks in favour of fullbacks who provide width but can be made to not cross the ball at every opportunity.

- Personally, I don't like Poachers as lone strikers. The reason for this is that being on an attack duty will see the striker far ahead of play most of the time especially when combined with having all his outfield teammates on the support duty. As a consequence, I feel he needs to have the ability to hold up the ball and wait for support. If I were choosing a striker role I would want one which has the 'Hold Up Ball' PI selected or selectable. You may be having issues seeing him score as the quality of chance you are creating for him is poor. I can well imagine a situation with the ball being played into him early and his only way of scoring is to try and beat at least 2 central defenders and the goalkeeper. This is a low percentage play in my opinion and could go a long way to explaining why he isn't being very productive as he is completely isolated and has to shoulder the burden of doing all the attacking. Lone strikers need to contribute more than just trying to put the ball into the back of the net, as part of a partnership that would be different and a Poacher combined with a supporting striker is far more effective.

-  You have Pass Into Space which increases the riskiness of ALL your players passes. Does Bayer 04 really have the players to pull that off consistently? To make that work you not only need great passers of the ball over the pitch but also players who are great off the ball in order to consistently find space to receive the ball. I would even argue that you need players with a good first touch and vision to make it work which is unlikely to be the case for all of your players. I would seriously consider restricting this freedom to your best passers with PIs and personally wouldn't start with this TI in all games, it is a situational TI which should be used only when it makes sense to do so otherwise you'll find that you just end up constantly giving the ball away.

- The Play Out Of Defence TI doesn't really make much sense here either given that it doesn't really mesh well with the rest of the setup. You want the team to patiently build from the back but have no close support in front of them and are adopting an aggressive mentality while playing Ball Playing Defenders and a Sweeper Keeper (Attack). None of that is conducive to building from the back. Chuck in the Be More Expressive TI and is basically a free-for-all with players allowed to play Hollywood passes with abandon. Again it's low percentage football which isn't going to be effective the majority of the time.

- Why do you want to try and work the ball in the box with a Poacher? Trying to Work the Ball into box implies that you want a patient approach but there is nothing about the tactic which is patient. Poachers thrive on balls played in behind the defensive line for them to run onto. This TI discourages that so again doesn't help.

- You may be struggling to see very much from your AMC as you have the tempo raised ultra high and I'm willing to bet that the majority of the time he is either being bypassed given your TIs which encourage practically everyone to be a playmaker or your attacks conclude before he is in a good position to contribute. Bear in mind that support duty AMCs can drop really deep in the defensive phase so if you win possession it's going to take some time for him to make up the ground and get up the pitch.

- It is superfluous to ask the players to play through the middle, you already have a ball magnet in the AP. Besides, there is very little space there which is compounded if the opposition plays a narrow defensive line and low block. The TI from my view is a conditional one much like the majority of the others you have selected. There has to be a reason why you want to bias your attacks through the central areas and that decision is usually made if you spot something in the match you are playing which indicates it is a viable choice. Selecting it from the start in every game is a bad idea in my view.

- I'm also not understanding the Counter instruction combined with the Regroup instruction in this system. A 4-2-3-1 needs to be able to control possession of the ball as it's not very strong as a defensive shape which the formation hints at (the DM variant is better). It has to attempt to regain the ball as much as possible in advanced areas hence why a Counter-Press would make more sense here. Falling back and allowing the opposition to play the ball in behind your midfield especially one without a defensive shield is almost suicidal.  

I could add more but I think I've given you more than enough to think about and don't want to overload you. If there is one point I'd like you to take from my ramblings it's this, always question why. Why am I using this TI? Why have I given this player this role and duty? Why have I selected this player to play in this position and is he up to the job?

Hopefully what I've written is helpful to you.

All the best

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had a few attempt at making a functional 4231. In the past few games it has been my go-to tactic, but it has been a lot more difficult this year though. I do think I’m on to something though. 

I use Rashford as my striker, and he is very poor in the air, so I wanted to create something that focused on getting the ball through to him, or having him score via cutbacks or short flat crosses. 

I use Rashford as a CFa, but Alario might be better as a DLFa or TMa. He needs to be more involved in build up play. 

I suggest using your AMC as an Attacking Midfielder with an Attack duty. He will stay closer to your forward, and will also be an extra man in the box. Plus, you can customise him even more to make him take more risks with his passing, or perhaps dribble more if possible. 

The IFs on the left should stay in his role. I think the supporting IF works better than the attacking. I see him feeding the striker and be more active in build up play. 

The right winger has been a problem for me this year. I have always used him as a Ws, but I don’t feel as if he’s that effective this year. I do see him getting om the end of crosses more on an attacking duty, so maybe thats the answer. Maybe an adv. Playmaker on support would be beneficial? 

The left CM, should be a standard CMd. You need a holding midfielder and one who can recycle possession. 

The right CM should be the BBM. In my system he finds a lot of space just outside the box where he can go for a shot or perhaps dribble the last couple of yards in to the box. 

I use my right back as a FB-Attack. He’ll se plenty of opportunities to feed your striker and inside forward. Even the the AMC. 

My left back has a WB-s role. 

Your TI’s are a bit much. I’d settle for Positive mentality and counter pressing. 

I use play out of defense too and dribble less, if you want more of a build up play that that focuses more on passing. 

I use a higher LOE and higher D-line and more closing down and tighter marking. I’m thinking about just playing a standard LOE and d-line to create more space to get in behind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pheelf said:

I think there are a number of issues with this tactic when it comes to getting what you state you want. I think you've gone too heavy with the team instructions and there doesn't appear to be any clear vision of what it is you want to create. Before you even begin building a tactic you need to think about what it is you are trying to create and why. You need to be questioning your choices of TIs and thinking carefully about what you want your players to do on the pitch in all phases of play and more importantly whether they are capable of doing it. Here are some bullet points I think you might want to consider:

- You have no holding midfielder (defend duty) in your midfield which has two very negative consequences for your team both on and off the ball. When you don't have the ball you have no screen for your central defenders which means any opposition fielding an AMC or MC that attacks that space in between your midfield and defensive line is going to have a lot of time and space on the ball. You will really struggle against teams which break quickly as there is nobody hanging back to delay any counter attacks instead the opposition is right into your backline which is very risky.

The second arguably more problematic issue of having no holding midfielder is that when your team has the ball there is going to be no deep option available to recycle possession. This is an often overlooked but critical aspect of attacking play, without a player to recycle the ball you will find it difficult to in a sense 'try again' when it comes to breaking down a defense. You are totally dependent on the initial attack being successful which is a high-risk strategy, a deeper player would give you the opportunity to change the emphasis of the attack. For e.g. Say your AMR runs into a cul-de-sac he would then have the option to play it back into the holding central midfielder who could then play the ball into an area where there is more space. The most important thing when building attacks are having sufficient depth and width as without it how do you pull defenders out of position and create space. You have good natural width but lack depth which you are further compressing by having all your midfielders on support duty.

- You say you don't want crossing to be the main way you supply your lone striker but you have wingbacks and wingers in the tactic whose whole purpose on the pitch is to get into advanced areas and cross the ball. If you don't want this then I would get rid of the wingbacks in favour of fullbacks who provide width but can be made to not cross the ball at every opportunity.

- Personally, I don't like Poachers as lone strikers. The reason for this is that being on an attack duty will see the striker far ahead of play most of the time especially when combined with having all his outfield teammates on the support duty. As a consequence, I feel he needs to have the ability to hold up the ball and wait for support. If I were choosing a striker role I would want one which has the 'Hold Up Ball' PI selected or selectable. You may be having issues seeing him score as the quality of chance you are creating for him is poor. I can well imagine a situation with the ball being played into him early and his only way of scoring is to try and beat at least 2 central defenders and the goalkeeper. This is a low percentage play in my opinion and could go a long way to explaining why he isn't being very productive as he is completely isolated and has to shoulder the burden of doing all the attacking. Lone strikers need to contribute more than just trying to put the ball into the back of the net, as part of a partnership that would be different and a Poacher combined with a supporting striker is far more effective.

-  You have Pass Into Space which increases the riskiness of ALL your players passes. Does Bayer 04 really have the players to pull that off consistently? To make that work you not only need great passers of the ball over the pitch but also players who are great off the ball in order to consistently find space to receive the ball. I would even argue that you need players with a good first touch and vision to make it work which is unlikely to be the case for all of your players. I would seriously consider restricting this freedom to your best passers with PIs and personally wouldn't start with this TI in all games, it is a situational TI which should be used only when it makes sense to do so otherwise you'll find that you just end up constantly giving the ball away.

- The Play Out Of Defence TI doesn't really make much sense here either given that it doesn't really mesh well with the rest of the setup. You want the team to patiently build from the back but have no close support in front of them and are adopting an aggressive mentality while playing Ball Playing Defenders and a Sweeper Keeper (Attack). None of that is conducive to building from the back. Chuck in the Be More Expressive TI and is basically a free-for-all with players allowed to play Hollywood passes with abandon. Again it's low percentage football which isn't going to be effective the majority of the time.

- Why do you want to try and work the ball in the box with a Poacher? Trying to Work the Ball into box implies that you want a patient approach but there is nothing about the tactic which is patient. Poachers thrive on balls played in behind the defensive line for them to run onto. This TI discourages that so again doesn't help.

- You may be struggling to see very much from your AMC as you have the tempo raised ultra high and I'm willing to bet that the majority of the time he is either being bypassed given your TIs which encourage practically everyone to be a playmaker or your attacks conclude before he is in a good position to contribute. Bear in mind that support duty AMCs can drop really deep in the defensive phase so if you win possession it's going to take some time for him to make up the ground and get up the pitch.

- It is superfluous to ask the players to play through the middle, you already have a ball magnet in the AP. Besides, there is very little space there which is compounded if the opposition plays a narrow defensive line and low block. The TI from my view is a conditional one much like the majority of the others you have selected. There has to be a reason why you want to bias your attacks through the central areas and that decision is usually made if you spot something in the match you are playing which indicates it is a viable choice. Selecting it from the start in every game is a bad idea in my view.

- I'm also not understanding the Counter instruction combined with the Regroup instruction in this system. A 4-2-3-1 needs to be able to control possession of the ball as it's not very strong as a defensive shape which the formation hints at (the DM variant is better). It has to attempt to regain the ball as much as possible in advanced areas hence why a Counter-Press would make more sense here. Falling back and allowing the opposition to play the ball in behind your midfield especially one without a defensive shield is almost suicidal.  

I could add more but I think I've given you more than enough to think about and don't want to overload you. If there is one point I'd like you to take from my ramblings it's this, always question why. Why am I using this TI? Why have I given this player this role and duty? Why have I selected this player to play in this position and is he up to the job?

Hopefully what I've written is helpful to you.

All the best

I only focus on the Poachers part which is not true . 

E.g. if I want my striker doesn't do too much just simply pass the ball to the players around him , poacher is a very good role . 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

While i do not subscribe to the notion that one cannot effectively play good football using TI's like pass into space, work ball into box, much higher tempo, play out of defence (the list goes on) together, but i do agree that most if not all of them are not requred in your tactic. I, however, cannot say right now which are meant to be used partly because i do not know your players, their stats and their traits. Regardless, getting rid of a few may help. Things like prevent short GK distribution and use offside traps are a must for me though, they just need to go. My reasons are simple:

1. you are using a ball playing defender on cover duty (of which i dont understand the need), this will disrupt your backline as the player on cover will leave the line to cover the channels for his teammate, any striker worth his salt will expose you. 

2. Prevent short Gk distribution, like the description states, needs the forward(s) to press the opposition defence for it to work, your striker, the poacher, is not really designed for that. Furthermore, the instruction in question not only affects the striker but the rest of the team. Observe their positioning, especially during an opposition goal kick, they will not drop back to basic positions but stay near opposition players to help the forwards pressing. As we all know pressing as a unit is the most effective method to force a turn over. But it id also risky, if one player ie the forward does not do his job, the whole thing crumbles.

 

You can use two ball playing defenders for sure, but there has to be a reason for using them, you can use a sweeper keeper but you also have to  have a reason for using one. You can use a defender on cover, heck two defenders on cover but there has to be a need  for that. I dont think your setup justifies using all of them at once. 

I dont want to be too critical here, i also dont want to come of as combative, but i think you need to rework how your team defends. It may not seem important because your problems may be in scoring goals or something like that, but in order to score goals you first need the ball. In order to get the ball your team needs to be set up in a defensive shape that doesn't take away from your attacking prowess and at the same time wins the ball back effectively 90% of the time ( the ten percent is just in case you meet a messi like player who can run you to the ground with pure talent). My personal philosphy is win the ball first then hit them hard. Even if my team is possession based, the ball will inevitably be lost and it must be won effectively so i can have even more of the ball, like a tyrant.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 16/04/2019 at 23:30, Experienced Defender said:

First off, you need to ease off team instructions, because your tactic looks like a complete mess. You play on a high-risk mentality (positive), use extremely high tempo, want your players to look to pass into space whenever possible and on top of that expect them to work ball into box, as if they are "supermen". Any tactic in order to be successful needs to follow an elementary (football) logic (unless you wanna use some exploit tactic, which is also a legitimate choice).

In any 4231wide system, the 2 CMs are key. You have a BBM who is a roaming role and a BWM on support, who nominally is not roaming, but the levels of pressing the role inherently requires makes him be de facto out of position (dangerously) too often. 

Further, playing both CBs in a BPD role is something I would never recommend, because you will give away a lot of possession cheaply. 

Focus play through the middle increases the mentalities of your CBs (as well as DMs and defend-duty CMs, when you use them). This makes your defense more vulnerable, and then this defensive risk is further compounded by the combination of higher DL and much higher LOE, which compromises the team's vertical compactness, leaving a lot of space for the opposition to exploit between your lines and channels. Another very risky defensive instruction you are using is Get stuck in, because it additionally increases the risks I already mentioned.

It's hard to say by looking at your tactic what style of football you are actually looking to play. It certainly cannot be possession football with extremely high tempo (even if the system is fluid due to the domination of support roles). Nor can it be a counter-attacking style with so aggressive defensive settings. primarily (much) higher LOE.

How can we tell you what role(s) would be a good choice for your striker(s) when we don't know them (except Alario, who is in the screenshot). He (Alario) can generally play as a poacher, but can also be employed as a PF on attack (or support, depending on what you exactly want from him). However, the performance of a striker is never affected solely by his role but also by those around him. In your system he seems to be overly isolated, i.e. with very little support, so it's no surprise that he is struggling.

Btw, don't you have a better player than Van de Beek for the AMC position?  Where is Havertz?

Ok, I’ll try fix it up. Van de Beek was on for this game. This isn’t my best XI, just the players for this game. This is why I posted the other screenshots. Volland is a PF as well which is his best role. I do this for all the strikers as I said, I don’t know what’s best. I’m going for a possession type tactic with the ability to counter attack using the pace of my team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 16/04/2019 at 23:31, pheelf said:

I think there are a number of issues with this tactic when it comes to getting what you state you want. I think you've gone too heavy with the team instructions and there doesn't appear to be any clear vision of what it is you want to create. Before you even begin building a tactic you need to think about what it is you are trying to create and why. You need to be questioning your choices of TIs and thinking carefully about what you want your players to do on the pitch in all phases of play and more importantly whether they are capable of doing it. Here are some bullet points I think you might want to consider:

- You have no holding midfielder (defend duty) in your midfield which has two very negative consequences for your team both on and off the ball. When you don't have the ball you have no screen for your central defenders which means any opposition fielding an AMC or MC that attacks that space in between your midfield and defensive line is going to have a lot of time and space on the ball. You will really struggle against teams which break quickly as there is nobody hanging back to delay any counter attacks instead the opposition is right into your backline which is very risky.

The second arguably more problematic issue of having no holding midfielder is that when your team has the ball there is going to be no deep option available to recycle possession. This is an often overlooked but critical aspect of attacking play, without a player to recycle the ball you will find it difficult to in a sense 'try again' when it comes to breaking down a defense. You are totally dependent on the initial attack being successful which is a high-risk strategy, a deeper player would give you the opportunity to change the emphasis of the attack. For e.g. Say your AMR runs into a cul-de-sac he would then have the option to play it back into the holding central midfielder who could then play the ball into an area where there is more space. The most important thing when building attacks are having sufficient depth and width as without it how do you pull defenders out of position and create space. You have good natural width but lack depth which you are further compressing by having all your midfielders on support duty.

- You say you don't want crossing to be the main way you supply your lone striker but you have wingbacks and wingers in the tactic whose whole purpose on the pitch is to get into advanced areas and cross the ball. If you don't want this then I would get rid of the wingbacks in favour of fullbacks who provide width but can be made to not cross the ball at every opportunity.

- Personally, I don't like Poachers as lone strikers. The reason for this is that being on an attack duty will see the striker far ahead of play most of the time especially when combined with having all his outfield teammates on the support duty. As a consequence, I feel he needs to have the ability to hold up the ball and wait for support. If I were choosing a striker role I would want one which has the 'Hold Up Ball' PI selected or selectable. You may be having issues seeing him score as the quality of chance you are creating for him is poor. I can well imagine a situation with the ball being played into him early and his only way of scoring is to try and beat at least 2 central defenders and the goalkeeper. This is a low percentage play in my opinion and could go a long way to explaining why he isn't being very productive as he is completely isolated and has to shoulder the burden of doing all the attacking. Lone strikers need to contribute more than just trying to put the ball into the back of the net, as part of a partnership that would be different and a Poacher combined with a supporting striker is far more effective.

-  You have Pass Into Space which increases the riskiness of ALL your players passes. Does Bayer 04 really have the players to pull that off consistently? To make that work you not only need great passers of the ball over the pitch but also players who are great off the ball in order to consistently find space to receive the ball. I would even argue that you need players with a good first touch and vision to make it work which is unlikely to be the case for all of your players. I would seriously consider restricting this freedom to your best passers with PIs and personally wouldn't start with this TI in all games, it is a situational TI which should be used only when it makes sense to do so otherwise you'll find that you just end up constantly giving the ball away.

- The Play Out Of Defence TI doesn't really make much sense here either given that it doesn't really mesh well with the rest of the setup. You want the team to patiently build from the back but have no close support in front of them and are adopting an aggressive mentality while playing Ball Playing Defenders and a Sweeper Keeper (Attack). None of that is conducive to building from the back. Chuck in the Be More Expressive TI and is basically a free-for-all with players allowed to play Hollywood passes with abandon. Again it's low percentage football which isn't going to be effective the majority of the time.

- Why do you want to try and work the ball in the box with a Poacher? Trying to Work the Ball into box implies that you want a patient approach but there is nothing about the tactic which is patient. Poachers thrive on balls played in behind the defensive line for them to run onto. This TI discourages that so again doesn't help.

- You may be struggling to see very much from your AMC as you have the tempo raised ultra high and I'm willing to bet that the majority of the time he is either being bypassed given your TIs which encourage practically everyone to be a playmaker or your attacks conclude before he is in a good position to contribute. Bear in mind that support duty AMCs can drop really deep in the defensive phase so if you win possession it's going to take some time for him to make up the ground and get up the pitch.

- It is superfluous to ask the players to play through the middle, you already have a ball magnet in the AP. Besides, there is very little space there which is compounded if the opposition plays a narrow defensive line and low block. The TI from my view is a conditional one much like the majority of the others you have selected. There has to be a reason why you want to bias your attacks through the central areas and that decision is usually made if you spot something in the match you are playing which indicates it is a viable choice. Selecting it from the start in every game is a bad idea in my view.

- I'm also not understanding the Counter instruction combined with the Regroup instruction in this system. A 4-2-3-1 needs to be able to control possession of the ball as it's not very strong as a defensive shape which the formation hints at (the DM variant is better). It has to attempt to regain the ball as much as possible in advanced areas hence why a Counter-Press would make more sense here. Falling back and allowing the opposition to play the ball in behind your midfield especially one without a defensive shield is almost suicidal.  

I could add more but I think I've given you more than enough to think about and don't want to overload you. If there is one point I'd like you to take from my ramblings it's this, always question why. Why am I using this TI? Why have I given this player this role and duty? Why have I selected this player to play in this position and is he up to the job?

Hopefully what I've written is helpful to you.

All the best

Alright I will go through each point for this

- Will a BWM on defend work?

- I have set my wingbacks to cross less, would that work? 

- Alario has been way better than Volland. He has scored more goals from a few less games. I will say though they are mostly from crosses. Most of the players on the right are also mainly wingers, and don’t appear to be good IFs. What should I do?

- I had been using pass into space because of my players being so quick. I will get rid of though.

- Play out of defence is gone, but does be more expressive need to go? What are the benefits of being tactically restricting? I’ve never understood it, but could you give me pros and cons of it? Also I thought BPD were pretty much better passers, so I might be wrong. And I thought the SK(a) was just someone that got more involved in play.

-  I can get rid of work into box, but here’s my problem. Half my strikers are poachers, the other half are pressing forwards. I have them on personalised as I don’t know what’s best. I really need help here.

- Alright, what do you recommend? After this post I’ll post my new tactics from what I’ve gotten from this. I’ve only done TIs so far, not roles. I’ll talk more about roles in the post.

- Alright, I’ll turn it off. I had only recently brought it in, and originally hated the idea of playing through the middle. Honestly, it was a last ditch effort to try and stop all the crosses. It got suggested to me on a different page.

- Alright, have changed it. This is something I recently brought in the counter my defence being no good, but I did the wrong thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much all of you that commented advice. I have come up with a new tactic, which I’m willing to listen to more advice. The roles are the next job. Where Bailey is, is by default a winger. My WB have been set to cross less, but it doesn’t seem to work. I’m currently afraid to change this as they are the main assisters and it’s the only way I’m not sacked yet. I need someone to explain what the best striker role is, as I personalise to their best as I’m clueless (half are poachers half are pressing forwards). Same with BPD and SK as I think my definitions are wrong. Also can I get advice on what role is best for the BPD and SK, as there are 3 options for each that I don’t understand completely from what I’ve gathered from this. Majority of my AMR are wingers, and seem pretty poor IFs. Should I still change them to IFs? I have changed the BWM to defend, Will that work? What is the difference between an AP and an AM? They seem very similar, and are they both playmakers? Also, what type of crossing should I use? I don’t want lofted, but I’m unsure between low and whipped. Which one is better for not wanting to cross often? Also, who should I play the ball out to from goalkeeper. It is currently set to CBS but I’ve never known for certain where to make the ball go. 

Thanks again to everyone helping, cannot thank you enough.

9C2DB446-327D-4E6F-8D94-68706786BF5D.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Arsenal457 said:

Van de Beek was on for this game

My mistake, I confused your Donny van de Beek with another Van de Beek. Your VDB is a good player :thup:

 

27 minutes ago, Arsenal457 said:

Volland is a PF as well which is his best role. I do this for all the strikers as I said, I don’t know what’s best

Any player's role need to satisfy two basic conditions:

1. to suit the player's attributes and traits (in case of Volland, he can play as a PF on any duty)

2. to fits logically into the tactic as a whole

29 minutes ago, Arsenal457 said:

I’m going for a possession type tactic with the ability to counter attack using the pace of my team

If you want to play possession-based football, then you should not use instructions like extremely high tempo, pass into space, more direct passing or anything to that effect. Shorter passing and play out of defence (among others) are logical in-possession instructions for possession football. But you also need a proper selection and distribution of roles and duties. And 4231 is a tricky formation, so it's not easy to put it together in an optimal way.

If you want to use counter-attacks when a good opportunity occurs, just select the "Counter" in transition (as you already did). But don't expect to have many opportunities for counter-attacks if most opponents tend to play defensively against you. The possession football you want to play doesn't quite go hand in hand with a counter-attacking style. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

My mistake, I confused your Donny van de Beek with another Van de Beek. Your VDB is a good player :thup:

 

Any player's role need to satisfy two basic conditions:

1. to suit the player's attributes and traits (in case of Volland, he can play as a PF on any duty)

2. to fits logically into the tactic as a whole

If you want to play possession-based football, then you should not use instructions like extremely high tempo, pass into space, more direct passing or anything to that effect. Shorter passing and play out of defence (among others) are logical in-possession instructions for possession football. But you also need a proper selection and distribution of roles and duties. And 4231 is a tricky formation, so it's not easy to put it together in an optimal way.

If you want to use counter-attacks when a good opportunity occurs, just select the "Counter" in transition (as you already did). But don't expect to have many opportunities for counter-attacks if most opponents tend to play defensively against you. The possession football you want to play doesn't quite go hand in hand with a counter-attacking style. 

- All good then

- Is there any chance you could explain the benefit of each striker? I’ve always seen it as CF is the best striker you can get as they can do everything. What ST roles would fit in my squad well?

- I’ll be honest, I used to personalise everything. I don’t do it so much now, but I still select the roles to base my players in that position best, not the roles I want them to complete as I don’t know what is good and what is bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Arsenal457 said:

Thanks again to everyone helping, cannot thank you enough.

9C2DB446-327D-4E6F-8D94-68706786BF5D.png

I would look to avoid using a BWM (on either duty) in a 4231 (unless he's world-class). If you want the combo of Zakaria and Aranguiz, my preferred choice would be Aranguiz as a DLP on defend and Zakaria as a standard CM on support.

Havertz is a good choice for an AP in the AMC position, but Volland could well end up isolated on attack duty, especially in a possession-based tactic. I'd rather play him on support duty and instead give attack duty to one of the wide forwards - more preferably to Bailey on the right.

If you play Vagnoman on the left, he could be an IWB on support. In that case Wesier can be a standard FB on support to give you more defensive stability and better balance overall. Tell him to sit narrower and hold position.

Also, if you want possession football, then don't use BPD role. Play both CBs as standard central defs instead.

Hradetzky is not a good choice for a SK on attack duty. He has poor passing, vision and first touch. Play him as a SK, but on defend. Plus, an attack duty SK does not suit a possession style.

Shorter passing and play out of defence are a better choice than lower tempo, because shorter passing will already reduce tempo a bit, whereas play out of defence instructs your players to be more patient and build from the back.

Remove Get stuck in - it can be very risky when coupled with high DL and LOE. Use tighter marking instead.

All in all, something like this:

PFsu

IFsu       APsu       IFat

DLPde    CMsu

 

IWBsu     CDde    CDco     FBsu

SKde

Positive / shorter passing, play out of defence, be more expressive (optional instructions - overlap left and slightly narrower width) / counter, distribute to CBs and FBs (and be careful with counter-press, especially against strong teams) / higher DL, higher LOE, use tighter marking, prevent short GKD

Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Arsenal457 said:

- Is there any chance you could explain the benefit of each striker? I’ve always seen it as CF is the best striker you can get as they can do everything. What ST roles would fit in my squad well?

Read again what I wrote:

55 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Any player's role need to satisfy two basic conditions:

1. to suit the player's attributes and traits (in case of Volland, he can play as a PF on any duty)

2. to fits logically into the tactic as a whole

It applies to all roles and players, including strikers. There is no "best" role. For some systems and/or tactical styles, the "best" role can be a CF. In another one it may be a poacher. In a third one advanced forward. And so on...

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arsenal457 said:

I need someone to explain what the best striker role is, as I personalise to their best as I’m clueless (half are poachers half are pressing forwards)

Don't follow what the game suggests as the "best" role. The game is sometimes right, but sometimes not. Instead, look at a player's attributes and traits (and in some cases also stronger/weaker foot). And remember - most players are able to play more than one role. For example, a player who can play as a CF will probably be able to play any striker role (or most of them). But which particular role a player should play in your tactic depends on the style of football you want to play and on whether a particular role fits well into the system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Read again what I wrote:

It applies to all roles and players, including strikers. There is no "best" role. For some systems and/or tactical styles, the "best" role can be a CF. In another one it may be a poacher. In a third one advanced forward. And so on...

Ok, got it, I’ll take that into account

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arsenal457 said:

What is the difference between an AP and an AM? They seem very similar, and are they both playmakers?

AM is not a playmaker. That's the (key) difference

Playmakers are "ball-magnets". When you use a playmaker, teammates will basically look to pass the ball to him more often than not. It has both pros and cons (just like everything).

Playmaker roles are:

- DLP

- AP

- RPM

- REG

- TQ

- ENG

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

I would look to avoid using a BWM (on either duty) in a 4231 (unless he's world-class). If you want the combo of Zakaria and Aranguiz, my preferred choice would be Aranguiz as a DLP on defend and Zakaria as a standard CM on support.

Havertz is a good choice for an AP in the AMC position, but Volland could well end up isolated on attack duty, especially in a possession-based tactic. I'd rather play him on support duty and instead give attack duty to one of the wide forwards - more preferably to Bailey on the right.

If you play Vagnoman on the left, he could be an IWB on support. In that case Wesier can be a standard FB on support to give you more defensive stability and better balance overall. Tell him to sit narrower and hold position.

Also, if you want possession football, then don't use BPD role. Play both CBs as standard central defs instead.

Hradetzky is not a good choice for a SK on attack duty. He has poor passing, vision and first touch. Play him as a SK, but on defend. Plus, an attack duty SK does not suit a possession style.

Shorter passing and play out of defence are a better choice than lower tempo, because shorter passing will already reduce tempo a bit, whereas play out of defence instructs your players to be more patient and build from the back.

Remove Get stuck in - it can be very risky when coupled with high DL and LOE. Use tighter marking instead.

All in all, something like this:

PFsu

IFsu       APsu       IFat

DLPde    CMsu

 

IWBsu     CDde    CDco     FBsu

SKde

Positive / shorter passing, play out of defence, be more expressive (optional instructions - overlap left and slightly narrower width) / counter, distribute to CBs and FBs (and be careful with counter-press, especially against strong teams) / higher DL, higher LOE, use tighter marking, prevent short GKD

I’ve been told by so many two playmakers are bad. What does CM even do? I’m lost on that one? What do the BPD do to not fit a possession based system? Could you describe their role to me? Same with SK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arsenal457 said:

what type of crossing should I use?

Depends on the type of players you have in more advanced positions, but also in part on your tactical style. But you can leave it to default (mixed) and let your players pick the best option themselves. Because in different situations a different type of a cross will be optimal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arsenal457 said:

I’ll admit I can make silly mistakes and appear to ask stupid questions, but what is the benefit for ENG being made to hold position?

So he doesn't move about :) Might sound daft but, once again, in certain systems you might want somebody to stand still and pick out the passes for everyone running around him. Think of it as a Pirlo/regista role, ish, but ahead of the midfield instead of behind it. He'll put foot on ball, make sense of whats going on and play short passes where they need to go instead of long ones

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Depends on the type of players you have in more advanced positions, but also in part on your tactical style. But you can leave it to default (mixed) and let your players pick the best option themselves. Because in different situations a different type of a cross will be optimal. 

Ok, will do that now

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Arsenal457 said:

I’ve been told by so many two playmakers are bad

It's neither bad nor good. For possession football it's not bad. For more direct attacking and/or counter-attacking styles - it's bad. You want possession football, right? So you can use two PMs. And these are different types of playmakers playing in different stratas and on different duties - DLP on defend is in CM strata, while AP on support is in AM strata. 

If you don't want two PMs at the same time, you can put Zakaria in the left CM spot and play him as a CM on defend, and Aranguiz as a BBM in MCR:

CMde (Zakaria)     BBM (Aranguiz)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arsenal457 said:

I don’t want lofted, but I’m unsure between low and whipped. Which one is better for not wanting to cross often?

The frequency of crosses (more or less often) has nothing to do with the type of crosses (whipped, low or floated). If you want your players to cross less, you can use the "Work ball into box" instruction. But if your players are lacking available and safe passing options up front, they will still tend to cross more often (or to shoot from distance). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

 So you can use two PMs. And these are different types of playmakers playing in different stratas and on different duties - DLP on defend is in CM strata, while AP on support is in AM strata.

 

What do you mean by Strata?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Experienced Defender Slightly off topic.. Nay. Massively, actually. But that remark about the playmaker roles being ball magnets and wanting the ball/players looking to pass them the ball just popped an idea into me Northern napper. Do you think it'd be possible to create a rugby league line of sideways passes backwards across the pitch for a fullback to lunge forward? Maybe that lad's US Playbook thread covers it actually, thinking on, similar principle.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Arsenal457 said:

What does CM even do? I’m lost on that one?

CM is a simple standard central midfielder. He needs to have decent attributes both defense-wise and attacking-wise, but nothing special or outstanding. And unlike some other roles, a CM is highly customizable role, and can be played on any duty (depending on what your system requires and what type of player you have for the role).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, gavinski33 said:

@Experienced Defender Slightly off topic.. Nay. Massively, actually. But that remark about the playmaker roles being ball magnets and wanting the ball/players looking to pass them the ball just popped an idea into me Northern napper. Do you think it'd be possible to create a rugby league line of sideways passes backwards across the pitch for a fullback to lunge forward? Maybe that lad's US Playbook thread covers it actually, thinking on, similar principle.

 

Honestly, I'm totally unfamiliar with rugby as a sport (the same goes for American football).

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

CM is a simple standard central midfielder. He needs to have decent attributes both defense-wise and attacking-wise, but nothing special or outstanding. And unlike some other roles, a CM is highly customizable role, and can be played on any duty (depending on what your system requires and what type of player you have for the role).

That’s what confuses me. He isn’t special or outstanding. Then how does he play and how is he better than another role if he isn’t special?

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Arsenal457 said:

What do you mean by Strata?

Strata(s) are lines in formation. There are five:

- defenders strata (CBs and FBs)

- defensive midfield (DMs and WBs)

- central midfield (CMs and WMs)

- attacking midfield (AMR/L and AMC)

- forwards (strikers)

So, 4231 has 4 players in defend strata, nobody in DM strata, 2 players in CM, 3 in AM and 1 forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Honestly, I'm totally unfamiliar with rugby as a sport (the same goes for American football).

Ha, fair enough, it's 'Pep' ish quick sideways passes until they get tackled and the ref gives them a free-kick (but backwards) combined with 'Dyche' ish physicality.

Am I going to get sanctioned for 'Dyche'ish?

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

It's neither bad nor good. For possession football it's not bad. For more direct attacking and/or counter-attacking styles - it's bad. You want possession football, right? So you can use two PMs. And these are different types of playmakers playing in different stratas and on different duties - DLP on defend is in CM strata, while AP on support is in AM strata. 

If you don't want two PMs at the same time, you can put Zakaria in the left CM spot and play him as a CM on defend, and Aranguiz as a BBM in MCR:

CMde (Zakaria)     BBM (Aranguiz)

 

I’ve been told that with 2 playmakers, they both won’t play as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Arsenal457 said:

That’s what confuses me. He isn’t special or outstanding. Then how does he play and how is he better than another role if he isn’t special?

Again, there is no "better/worse" or "best" role. It depends on the system and tactical style. You can use the same player in different roles - sometimes he can play as a BBM, sometimes as a DLP, or AP, or RPM, or mezzala, and sometimes as a simple standard CM. Some players can play successfully all or most of these roles, but others cannot. The point is that all elements of tactics are interrelated, so you should not consider them in isolation. Each tactic needs to have balance of roles and duties. I can give you a number of examples how you can set up roles and duties in any formation, but none of these is the "best" choice per se.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Experienced Defender said:

Again, there is no "better/worse" or "best" role. It depends on the system and tactical style. You can use the same player in different roles - sometimes he can play as a BBM, sometimes as a DLP, or AP, or RPM, or mezzala, and sometimes as a simple standard CM. Some players can play successfully all or most of these roles, but others cannot. The point is that all elements of tactics are interrelated, so you should not consider them in isolation. Each tactic needs to have balance of roles and duties. I can give you a number of examples how you can set up roles and duties in any formation, but none of these is the "best" choice per se.

Well how does the CM play different to other roles? Is he just there for a pass?

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Arsenal457 said:

Alright I will go through each point for this

- Will a BWM on defend work?

- I have set my wingbacks to cross less, would that work? 

- Alario has been way better than Volland. He has scored more goals from a few less games. I will say though they are mostly from crosses. Most of the players on the right are also mainly wingers, and don’t appear to be good IFs. What should I do?

- I had been using pass into space because of my players being so quick. I will get rid of though.

- Play out of defence is gone, but does be more expressive need to go? What are the benefits of being tactically restricting? I’ve never understood it, but could you give me pros and cons of it? Also I thought BPD were pretty much better passers, so I might be wrong. And I thought the SK(a) was just someone that got more involved in play.

-  I can get rid of work into box, but here’s my problem. Half my strikers are poachers, the other half are pressing forwards. I have them on personalised as I don’t know what’s best. I really need help here.

- Alright, what do you recommend? After this post I’ll post my new tactics from what I’ve gotten from this. I’ve only done TIs so far, not roles. I’ll talk more about roles in the post.

- Alright, I’ll turn it off. I had only recently brought it in, and originally hated the idea of playing through the middle. Honestly, it was a last ditch effort to try and stop all the crosses. It got suggested to me on a different page.

- Alright, have changed it. This is something I recently brought in the counter my defence being no good, but I did the wrong thing.

I think you are approaching this from the wrong angle with the questions that you are asking.

- Rather than thinking about whether a BWM (Defend) will work you should be asking yourself what do I need from the player in the system I'm constructing. In a 4-2-3-1 it is essential that the 2 midfield roles are more disciplined defensively to add balance to the system and act like the double pivot. If I were playing that formation I wouldn't use the BWM as I wouldn't want him charging out of position when the opposition has the ball given that he is the last line of defence in front of the defensive line. The role also wouldn't be the best choice for a player that I expected to recycle possession from deeper positions. I think a Central Midfielder (Defend) or a Deep Lying Playmaker (Defend) would be more suitable for that job.

- There is a commonly held misconception around here that giving a team instruction X or a player instruction Y guarantees that you see that behaviour from them. The reality is that much like real life football, players will only perform actions that they 'see'. If you want a Wingback to cross less then what is the point of playing a wingback in the first place as you are neutering a significant component of the role. You are naturally going to see crosses given the formation you are playing with 2 players starting in wide positions (The Inside Forward cut inside instruction is an on the ball instruction). That is why I suggested using fullbacks as they can provide the width but also can be made to have a greater tendency to pass inside rather than attempt a cross. Besides, adopting wingbacks in a system without a DM is risky given how much more aggressive wingbacks can be with their forward movements when compared with fullbacks. 

- Much like in midfield there are 3 key duties you need to have fulfilled in a strike partnership. The first is holding, the second is creating and the third is running. Typically, the number 10 holds up the ball and does the creating while the number 9 does the running. As you have 4 players in your AM and ST positions you need to decide the two players you want to be your partnership and how you are going to get the other two to create space for them in order for them to perform their roles most efficiently. The problem you have in your latest tactic is that you have 3 players acting like number 10s (the two IFs and AP) and your PF acting as a number 9. You also need to consider what style of football best suits the striker you wish to use. For e.g. playing a Poacher in a patient possession style is sub-optimal as they thrive on quick transitions and more direct passes so they can take advantage of teams which haven't recovered their defensive shape whereas a False 9 would be a much more suitable role for a possession style. You have to think holistically and select roles which work well within the style of play you are trying to create.

- Pass Into Space is a good instruction to use when the opposition is vacating their defensive shape by pressing hard but if they aren't doing that then it's not a good instruction to use. The speed of your players is largely irrelevant as a reason to choose this instruction, the most important attribute you should be looking at is their Off The Ball. You could be Usain Bolt but if you don't position yourself in the space where the ball is to be played your speed isn't going to help you. 

- There is nothing wrong with the instruction to Play Out Of Defence but in the system that you posted initially, it didn't make sense for the reasons I laid out before. In the second system, you posted it still doesn't make sense. As I said before simply picking an instruction doesn't guarantee you observe that behaviour. The more important questions when deciding to adopt any TI is to what end and how can I adjust the system to best take advantage of this? As for the Be More Expressive TI, I think it's important to think about context. Is the team you are playing with significantly better than all the others in the league which would afford you the luxury of getting away with allowing your players more creative freedom? If the answer is no then I wouldn't use it as a starting TI for every game. You could even make the argument that allowing your players the freedom to do as they please can be counterproductive when trying to break down teams which are parking the bus. When it comes to talking about BPD and Sweeper Keepers the key thing to keep in mind is that ATTRIBUTES are key. If you do have a great passer of the ball as one of your central defenders you don't need to use the BPD role to get that out of him. The main problem with selecting both Sweeper Keepers and BPD is their tendency to want to be the playmakers as both roles want to play more direct passes which don't mesh well with trying to Play Out Of Defence.

-  I'd ignore the recommended roles for now and focus on choosing roles which compliment the style of play you want to adopt rather than trying to mould the tactic around the roles which the game THINKS are best for the player. The information the game provides is correct based on the attribute profile of the players but is misleading in that it has no context so the player has to decipher that for themselves. This is a team sport and as such, I can guarantee that you will get better performances out of a player who is adopting a role which they might not be best suited to but nonetheless fits harmoniously with the rest of the tactic than playing a player in their favoured role which doesn't suit the tactic at all. Just try it and see how it works out.

- What highlight mode do you choose when watching the matches? I get the impression that you are playing the game blindly and making changes not based on concrete information but on speculation. By watching a game in more extensive detail you can more easily spot what is happening with your tactic and begin to see trends. Slap the game on 2D and watch the first half of a game on full (can be a previous game if you don't want to interrupt the save), watch the movement of your players when you have the ball and when you don't, pause during transitions and see whether the players are behaving as you want. If you do this you will quickly improve tactically as you'll be able to make more informed decisions.

- Any TI you pick is just biasing the play in a certain way. The more TIs you adopt the more restricted your players will be if they are expected to follow your instructions to the letter. That is why I'm of the school of thought that less is more when it comes to TIs. If you are having to select a lot of TIs then fundamentally the building blocks (formation, mentality, roles and duties) aren't right as you should be able to get pretty close to your desired style of play without any TIs. Also, bear in mind that introducing a tendency to do one thing reduces the tendency to do another. For e.g. choosing the Play Through The Middle instruction reduces wide play which can reduce your wide players' contribution to attacks which can be damaging especially when facing teams that are defending narrow.

- If your defence is 'no good' then I'd argue that is more of a reason to play a counter press to try and prevent opposition attacks developing into your final third. Much like anything though you should never view things in isolation and try to see the bigger picture. In the first tactic, you posted you have 2 players solely dedicated to defending. That is an enormous amount of burden to place on them and is likely the reason why they struggle to perform well. Add in the fact that you have split the defensive line by adopting a cover and defend duty and I can see why you have issues. Defending and attacking aren't just reserved to defenders and attackers. You could make the argument that your most important defenders are your attackers and your most important attackers are your defenders given that they are usually the first point of contact when it comes to both phases of play and set the tone for how both phases of play are likely to develop.   

I have learnt the only way to really improve at this game is to watch matches and see how your tactics are playing out. In order to succeed you have to be prepared to fail, as long as you learn from it you'll get better. Sorry for another big block of text for you to read.

Best of luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Arsenal457 said:

9C2DB446-327D-4E6F-8D94-68706786BF5D.png

 

The 2nd tactic is an improvement but I would think about the following.

- Low Crosses are only really effective when made from the byline but you don't have anyone in the team driving to the byline to provide that sort of delivery.

- I wouldn't split the defensive line by having one central defender on the cover duty and the other on the defend duty. The concern would be that doing that just creates space in between them which can make them vulnerable. I don't think it's a good idea when combined with a higher defensive line as I think that the cover duty defender will just play everyone onside given his slightly deeper positioning.

- You still don't have a clearly defined number 10, number 9 partnership. All the players you expect to contribute to attacking are all congesting the central areas and wanting to do very similar things. You need more variety in order to disrupt the opposition defensive shape. At the moment it's very predictable.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 18/04/2019 at 22:31, pheelf said:

- You still don't have a clearly defined number 10, number 9 partnership. All the players you expect to contribute to attacking are all congesting the central areas and wanting to do very similar things. You need more variety in order to disrupt the opposition defensive shape. At the moment it's very predictable.  

I don’t get what you mean. How do I make this happen? I want to No. 9 to be the ST, and the 10 to be the CAM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 18/04/2019 at 21:51, pheelf said:

I think you are approaching this from the wrong angle with the questions that you are asking.

- Rather than thinking about whether a BWM (Defend) will work you should be asking yourself what do I need from the player in the system I'm constructing. In a 4-2-3-1 it is essential that the 2 midfield roles are more disciplined defensively to add balance to the system and act like the double pivot. If I were playing that formation I wouldn't use the BWM as I wouldn't want him charging out of position when the opposition has the ball given that he is the last line of defence in front of the defensive line. The role also wouldn't be the best choice for a player that I expected to recycle possession from deeper positions. I think a Central Midfielder (Defend) or a Deep Lying Playmaker (Defend) would be more suitable for that job.

- There is a commonly held misconception around here that giving a team instruction X or a player instruction Y guarantees that you see that behaviour from them. The reality is that much like real life football, players will only perform actions that they 'see'. If you want a Wingback to cross less then what is the point of playing a wingback in the first place as you are neutering a significant component of the role. You are naturally going to see crosses given the formation you are playing with 2 players starting in wide positions (The Inside Forward cut inside instruction is an on the ball instruction). That is why I suggested using fullbacks as they can provide the width but also can be made to have a greater tendency to pass inside rather than attempt a cross. Besides, adopting wingbacks in a system without a DM is risky given how much more aggressive wingbacks can be with their forward movements when compared with fullbacks. 

- Much like in midfield there are 3 key duties you need to have fulfilled in a strike partnership. The first is holding, the second is creating and the third is running. Typically, the number 10 holds up the ball and does the creating while the number 9 does the running. As you have 4 players in your AM and ST positions you need to decide the two players you want to be your partnership and how you are going to get the other two to create space for them in order for them to perform their roles most efficiently. The problem you have in your latest tactic is that you have 3 players acting like number 10s (the two IFs and AP) and your PF acting as a number 9. You also need to consider what style of football best suits the striker you wish to use. For e.g. playing a Poacher in a patient possession style is sub-optimal as they thrive on quick transitions and more direct passes so they can take advantage of teams which haven't recovered their defensive shape whereas a False 9 would be a much more suitable role for a possession style. You have to think holistically and select roles which work well within the style of play you are trying to create.

- Pass Into Space is a good instruction to use when the opposition is vacating their defensive shape by pressing hard but if they aren't doing that then it's not a good instruction to use. The speed of your players is largely irrelevant as a reason to choose this instruction, the most important attribute you should be looking at is their Off The Ball. You could be Usain Bolt but if you don't position yourself in the space where the ball is to be played your speed isn't going to help you. 

- There is nothing wrong with the instruction to Play Out Of Defence but in the system that you posted initially, it didn't make sense for the reasons I laid out before. In the second system, you posted it still doesn't make sense. As I said before simply picking an instruction doesn't guarantee you observe that behaviour. The more important questions when deciding to adopt any TI is to what end and how can I adjust the system to best take advantage of this? As for the Be More Expressive TI, I think it's important to think about context. Is the team you are playing with significantly better than all the others in the league which would afford you the luxury of getting away with allowing your players more creative freedom? If the answer is no then I wouldn't use it as a starting TI for every game. You could even make the argument that allowing your players the freedom to do as they please can be counterproductive when trying to break down teams which are parking the bus. When it comes to talking about BPD and Sweeper Keepers the key thing to keep in mind is that ATTRIBUTES are key. If you do have a great passer of the ball as one of your central defenders you don't need to use the BPD role to get that out of him. The main problem with selecting both Sweeper Keepers and BPD is their tendency to want to be the playmakers as both roles want to play more direct passes which don't mesh well with trying to Play Out Of Defence.

-  I'd ignore the recommended roles for now and focus on choosing roles which compliment the style of play you want to adopt rather than trying to mould the tactic around the roles which the game THINKS are best for the player. The information the game provides is correct based on the attribute profile of the players but is misleading in that it has no context so the player has to decipher that for themselves. This is a team sport and as such, I can guarantee that you will get better performances out of a player who is adopting a role which they might not be best suited to but nonetheless fits harmoniously with the rest of the tactic than playing a player in their favoured role which doesn't suit the tactic at all. Just try it and see how it works out.

- What highlight mode do you choose when watching the matches? I get the impression that you are playing the game blindly and making changes not based on concrete information but on speculation. By watching a game in more extensive detail you can more easily spot what is happening with your tactic and begin to see trends. Slap the game on 2D and watch the first half of a game on full (can be a previous game if you don't want to interrupt the save), watch the movement of your players when you have the ball and when you don't, pause during transitions and see whether the players are behaving as you want. If you do this you will quickly improve tactically as you'll be able to make more informed decisions.

- Any TI you pick is just biasing the play in a certain way. The more TIs you adopt the more restricted your players will be if they are expected to follow your instructions to the letter. That is why I'm of the school of thought that less is more when it comes to TIs. If you are having to select a lot of TIs then fundamentally the building blocks (formation, mentality, roles and duties) aren't right as you should be able to get pretty close to your desired style of play without any TIs. Also, bear in mind that introducing a tendency to do one thing reduces the tendency to do another. For e.g. choosing the Play Through The Middle instruction reduces wide play which can reduce your wide players' contribution to attacks which can be damaging especially when facing teams that are defending narrow.

- If your defence is 'no good' then I'd argue that is more of a reason to play a counter press to try and prevent opposition attacks developing into your final third. Much like anything though you should never view things in isolation and try to see the bigger picture. In the first tactic, you posted you have 2 players solely dedicated to defending. That is an enormous amount of burden to place on them and is likely the reason why they struggle to perform well. Add in the fact that you have split the defensive line by adopting a cover and defend duty and I can see why you have issues. Defending and attacking aren't just reserved to defenders and attackers. You could make the argument that your most important defenders are your attackers and your most important attackers are your defenders given that they are usually the first point of contact when it comes to both phases of play and set the tone for how both phases of play are likely to develop.   

I have learnt the only way to really improve at this game is to watch matches and see how your tactics are playing out. In order to succeed you have to be prepared to fail, as long as you learn from it you'll get better. Sorry for another big block of text for you to read.

Best of luck

Thanks for all this advice, it did help a lot. I would pick roles that work together well, but I’m still learning what does. I don’t completely understand what each role does and how it works differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Arsenal457 said:

EFB33D75-9A01-4AB2-85FD-EC4C1AF239A8.png

Libero can struggle when he has another playmaker in front of him (in this case DLP).

 

34 minutes ago, Arsenal457 said:

02ACE3D2-4A24-4A67-8925-9C71214165E5.png

This system needs to be better balanced because playing with a 3-man back-line without any FBs or WBs is pretty much tricky, especially for someone with insufficient tactical knowledge. I would advice you to start with some more common system (like 4141dm wide) until you get more familiar with how tactics work. This is a bit too adventurous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

This system needs to be better balanced because playing with a 3-man back-line without any FBs or WBs is pretty much tricky, especially for someone with insufficient tactical knowledge. I would advice you to start with some more common system (like 4141dm wide) until you get more familiar with how tactics work. This is a bit too adventurous.

When do I know when I’m ready to try it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Arsenal457 said:

When do I know when I’m ready to try it?

When you begin to feel confident of your understanding of tactics (and the game in general). When exactly that will be depends on how quickly (or slowly) you learn new things (both through your own experience in FM and reading useful threads on the forum).

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/04/2019 at 15:15, Arsenal457 said:

I don’t get what you mean. How do I make this happen? I want to No. 9 to be the ST, and the 10 to be the CAM.

That you have done with the PF(A) who is the #9 and the AP(S) who is the #10 which form your strike partnership. The problem is that IFs are also #10 roles who behave similarly to the AP except they start out wide. I am of the opinion that you don't need as many players operating centrally and you would be better served to have wingers stretching the play over the width of the pitch. That way they are creating space for your central players by pulling defenders out wide. That is however just my personal preference and other methods can work as well.

On 20/04/2019 at 15:17, Arsenal457 said:

Thanks for all this advice, it did help a lot. I would pick roles that work together well, but I’m still learning what does. I don’t completely understand what each role does and how it works differently.

What roles, in particular, are you most struggling with? If you are struggling to figure out what combinations work well together then the Pairs and Combinations resource by llama3 would be a good place to start learning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 23/04/2019 at 22:27, pheelf said:

That you have done with the PF(A) who is the #9 and the AP(S) who is the #10 which form your strike partnership. The problem is that IFs are also #10 roles who behave similarly to the AP except they start out wide. I am of the opinion that you don't need as many players operating centrally and you would be better served to have wingers stretching the play over the width of the pitch. That way they are creating space for your central players by pulling defenders out wide. That is however just my personal preference and other methods can work as well.

I have started a new save and I work with these tactics. I am doing quite well in the league, but my highest scorer is Aubumeyang on 4 while Aguero is on 13. How do I fix this? And where are you suggesting I use the wingers?

On 23/04/2019 at 22:27, pheelf said:

What roles, in particular, are you most struggling with? If you are struggling to figure out what combinations work well together then the Pairs and Combinations resource by llama3 would be a good place to start learning.

Where do I find that?

34FC8FBF-5D2D-4DBC-9DDB-4865390278E7.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Arsenal457 said:

I am doing quite well in the league, but my highest scorer is Aubumeyang on 4 while Aguero is on 13. How do I fix this?

If you are "doing quite well", why would you care how many goals have your best scorer scored and compare him to another team's top scorer? I apologize to @pheelf for "replying" to a post addressed to him, but this actually was not a reply (answer) to @Arsenal457's question, but rather my rhetorical question I couldn't help asking :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...