Bournemouth Tactical Replication

[Oakland Stomper]

This is my first attempt at a tactical replication for FM2019, so please bear with my rookie errors. For full disclosure, it is also a very early WIP. 

As the title indicates, I'm trying to replicate this season's Bournemouth team, the good one which breaks at high pace and not the one that tends to crumble defensively. As I'm half a world away, and have a job, my opportunities to watch full matches has been limited, so hopefully there are people in the FM community who can contribute to this tactic.

I do believe that they begin in a standard 4-4-2, though I considered going with a 4-2-2-2 (DM). I wanted to flexible mentality because it does seem that only the two forwards and two wide midfielders do the attacking with the rest either supporting or defending. Per my understanding, this spilts the team accordingly. 

Roles: 

Forwards are rarely close together and appear to split as needed with King being more likely to drop deep, turn and run with the ball. 

Midfielders seem to be adjusted based on the opponent though Fraser on the left and Lerma in the middle are constants. I think that I have Lerma's role right, but was torn on whether Fraser is a WM or an IW. While he does tend to cut inside due to being right-footed, this isn't always the case, so I felt like the WM with roaming would be best. Brooks is also always present, but his position often changes. For this tactic I placed him right mid. While the attached tactic has him as a wide playmaker, it could also be argued that he's IW. That being said, he nearly always begins his movement from near the touchline. 

Defenders are seem to be pretty standard. The wides get forward in support but not with great abandon. On occasion one of the centrals will join in for a shot as Steve Cook did v Brighton, but this can't be replicated in FM19 so I can't try to replicate that. Goalkeepers are bog standard with an emphasis on BOG as they are both League One level at this point in their careers. 

Anyway, have at it. I am fully open to input and opinions. 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2019 by Oakland Stomper

[Experienced Defender]

I like how B'mouth play, and I'm glad someone here wants to replicate their style in FM 

However, I would appreciate a lot if you could post a screenshot of the tactic, rather than the FMF file. Then we could discuss the tactic in more detail.

[Oakland Stomper]

Thanks for the response.

I've added a screenshot. It isn't great, but certainly better than the previous attachment. 

[ericstpeter]

Great replication. Plays well.

[Experienced Defender]

I agree that one of the strikers plays as an F9, but not so sure the other one is a DLF on attack. Rather an AF or poacher?

Interesting to me is that you picked Gosling rather than Lewis Cook in a CM position. Anyway, I would opt for a DLPde/BWMsu combo in the central midfield.

I would also play Fraser as a WM on attack, but Brooks is more an IW on support than a WP IMO.

On mentality, I would go for Balanced (for the most part). I think B'mouth's defensive stability is achieved more through vertical compactness than a low mentality, meaning I would also opt for lower LOE but standard DL. Or lower DL and much lower LOE.

In transition instructions are good IMO 

In possession, not sure only about the "Run at defence" and "Be more disciplined". I think Howe does not tend to restrict the creativity of his more attack-minded players, while "running at defence" is achieved through roles that are hard-coded to dribble more and run with the ball, rather than via the team instruction. But maybe I'm wrong, so take this suggestion with a pinch of salt.

The rest looks okay 

[Oakland Stomper]

6 hours ago, ericstpeter said:

Great replication. Plays well.

Thanks! Great to hear. I'm just started with it this weekend as time allows. 

[Oakland Stomper]

6 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

I agree that one of the strikers plays as an F9, but not so sure the other one is a DLF on attack. Rather an AF or poacher?

Interesting to me is that you picked Gosling rather than Lewis Cook in a CM position. Anyway, I would opt for a DLPde/BWMsu combo in the central midfield.

I would also play Fraser as a WM on attack, but Brooks is more an IW on support than a WP IMO.

On mentality, I would go for Balanced (for the most part). I think B'mouth's defensive stability is achieved more through vertical compactness than a low mentality, meaning I would also opt for lower LOE but standard DL. Or lower DL and much lower LOE.

In transition instructions are good IMO 

In possession, not sure only about the "Run at defence" and "Be more disciplined". I think Howe does not tend to restrict the creativity of his more attack-minded players, while "running at defence" is achieved through roles that are hard-coded to dribble more and run with the ball, rather than via the team instruction. But maybe I'm wrong, so take this suggestion with a pinch of salt.

The rest looks okay 

- King generally seems to be the F9, though his attributes don't fit the role. You're likely right on the other (Wilson) role. I was considering going with CF so that he would hold up the ball when the situation dictates. Wilson seems well suited to that role. AF or Poacher would seem to make him a little too one-dimensional. 

- I chose Gosling because per Whoscored, he's started more matches in the CM position than Cook. I also think that he fits what Howe wants a bit better at this stage. My concern with any kind of playmaker in midfield is that he would attract the ball a bit too much and hence would slow the attacks. You would know better on this that I do though. 

- Agreed on Fraser and Brooks. Both start wide, but Fraser's movement is varied, though always forward, while Brooks always cuts inside. 

- Agreed on Bournemouth generally being more Balanced than Cautious. On the lower mentality they seem to play more of a 4-2-2-1-1. That's how they flummoxed Chelsea. 

- Based on what I've read, I think that you're right about "Run at Defense." All of the primary attackers have in hard wired as you stated and none of the other positions due so IRL. Same for "Be More Disciplined." I'm going to drop both and post the update soon. 

-OS

[AFCBeer]

Well as someone who has watched 95% of Bournemouth’s live matches home away over the past 4 years I’m probably better placed than most to comment! I’ll try to describe how we are supposed to play rather than the utter tactical nonsense Eddie Howe has been producing in the last few months...

The basic shape I’d describe is a 4-4-1-1 with 2 DM’s. The idea is to sit deep and hit teams on the counter. Not sure if this would be the strongest XI in FM, but it would be IRL

                         Begovic GK(d)

Smith FB(a) Cook CB(d) Aké CB(d) Daniels FB(s)

                    Cook DLP(s) Lerma BWM(s)

Brooks WM(s).                                    Fraser IW(a)

                                King SS

                              Wilson AF(a)

I’d agree with a balanced mentality with a slightly lower defensive line. Tempo and pressing are about average really. We do appear narrow in attack, but this is mainly due to Brooks and Fraser’s roles rather than the actual shape of the team. In fact I’d argue the initial focus of our approach play was down both flanks. 

The main penetration is through the individual pace and dribbling ability of Brooks, King and Fraser. It’s certainly not a team instruction to dribble more, it’s individual instructions for these players. 

The difference between Brooks and Fraser is that Brooks starts from a narrow position and roams. He’ll also look for a through ball and rarely try a cross. Fraser on the other hand is like a traditional winger who stays wide early in the attack. He’ll then cut inside as he reaches the final third. He is a right footer who plays on the left, but since his crossing off his weaker foot is among the best in the PL, I feel the Inverted Winger role suits him perfectly in FM as he’ll definitely put in a cross from either foot if he can. 

[Experienced Defender]

16 hours ago, Oakland Stomper said:

- King generally seems to be the F9, though his attributes don't fit the role. You're likely right on the other (Wilson) role. I was considering going with CF so that he would hold up the ball when the situation dictates. Wilson seems well suited to that role. AF or Poacher would seem to make him a little too one-dimensional.

AF and PO are different. PO is a bit one-dimensional in the sense that he tends to play in a very simple manner (look to score whenever possible; when not, play a simple pass to the nearest teammate). AF is a combination of goal threat and creator, and is certainly more mobile than poacher. But here you need to look the context, rather than how an individual role behaves. Two-striker systems are different from single ones. Playing a poacher or AF as a lone striker is different than playing him paired with another role (such as F9 in this case).

 

16 hours ago, Oakland Stomper said:

My concern with any kind of playmaker in midfield is that he would attract the ball a bit too much and hence would slow the attacks. You would know better on this that I do though

While playmakers are ball-magnets, it does not mean other players will always pass the ball exclusively to them. In this particular case, a DLP on defend duty serves primarily as someone whom defenders would pass the ball to in the initial phase of attacks, so he can then distribute it further to anyone who looks like the best option at the moment. But when the attack reaches the final third, players will not pass it back to the DLP just because he is a "ball-magnet" (unless there is no better option in a given situation).

[AFCBeer]

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

While playmakers are ball-magnets, it does not mean other players will always pass the ball exclusively to them. In this particular case, a DLP on defend duty serves primarily as someone whom defenders would pass the ball to in the initial phase of attacks, so he can then distribute it further to anyone who looks like the best option at the moment. But when the attack reaches the final third, players will not pass it back to the DLP just because he is a "ball-magnet" (unless there is no better option in a given situation).

Just to emphasise this point as it’s important in the context of FM and how counter attacking teams play IRL. 

A counter attack might only represent 10% of a team’s total attacks. These typically occur automatically* when the AI over commits and leaves space behind. This is why attributes are so important. A side like Bournemouth are going to be so much more effective at the counter than most sides due to the pace of the attacking players. 

When the counter isn’t on, which is most of the time, counter attacking teams will look to transition into an attack just like almost any other side. A DLP could form an important part of that, especially if the attributes suit the player in question. 

* In FM19 the automatic counters function slightly differently. We do now have a specific TI to encourage this. Nonetheless the fundamental principles haven’t changed. The more you set up to draw the AI onto you and leave space behind, the more effective the counter will be. 

[Oakland Stomper]

18 hours ago, AFCBeer said:

Well as someone who has watched 95% of Bournemouth’s live matches home away over the past 4 years I’m probably better placed than most to comment! I’ll try to describe how we are supposed to play rather than the utter tactical nonsense Eddie Howe has been producing in the last few months...

The basic shape I’d describe is a 4-4-1-1 with 2 DM’s. The idea is to sit deep and hit teams on the counter. Not sure if this would be the strongest XI in FM, but it would be IRL

                         Begovic GK(d)

Smith FB(a) Cook CB(d) Aké CB(d) Daniels FB(s)

                    Cook DLP(s) Lerma BWM(s)

Brooks WM(s).                                    Fraser IW(a)

                                King SS

                              Wilson AF(a)

I’d agree with a balanced mentality with a slightly lower defensive line. Tempo and pressing are about average really. We do appear narrow in attack, but this is mainly due to Brooks and Fraser’s roles rather than the actual shape of the team. In fact I’d argue the initial focus of our approach play was down both flanks. 

The main penetration is through the individual pace and dribbling ability of Brooks, King and Fraser. It’s certainly not a team instruction to dribble more, it’s individual instructions for these players. 

The difference between Brooks and Fraser is that Brooks starts from a narrow position and roams. He’ll also look for a through ball and rarely try a cross. Fraser on the other hand is like a traditional winger who stays wide early in the attack. He’ll then cut inside as he reaches the final third. He is a right footer who plays on the left, but since his crossing off his weaker foot is among the best in the PL, I feel the Inverted Winger role suits him perfectly in FM as he’ll definitely put in a cross from either foot if he can. 

Thanks for your input. 

My concern with the Shadow Striker are the changes which have been made how he behaves in FM19 (ie: reduced penetration). That's why I went with the F9 as King strength is at making runs from deep both with and without the ball. I would have considered going with a Pressing Forward, but they tend to be more static in attack from what I have heard. Whatever role King is in, he biases to the right with Wilson to the left.

I understand that the counterattack in FM19 is different than it has been in the past, but I also think that Bournemouth try to be quite quick with the ball in the final third under any circumstance. 

One observation which I have made is that while attacks generally narrow in the final third, they begin wide in the middle third with balls played to Fraser, Brooks or one of the forwards dropping into a half space. I know that you said that Brooks sits narrower, but I don't think that I'd agree with that asI've seen him hug the touchline and once he gets the ball dribble directly across and into the open space as neither central midfielder seems in a hurry to get there. So IW(s) seems right for him. For me, Fraser goes down the touchline too often to be an IW, so I'll stick with WM(a) there. 

Yes, I can see where Cook would in fact be a DLP. Per Football365, that's why he starts less often than Gosling, who is mores of tackler/runner (I'm being kind here), and less of a passer. 

Based upon the feedback that I have gotten, the only two remaining in possession instructions are "work the ball into the box" and "slightly higher tempo." I am tempted to add "Play Wider" but I'm going to leave it as is for now. 

A question that I have is regarding the Transition instructions. Should I keep "Distribute Quickly?" I'm not sure if this is accurate. 

Edited April 21, 2019 by Oakland Stomper

[Oakland Stomper]

6 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

AF and PO are different. PO is a bit one-dimensional in the sense that he tends to play in a very simple manner (look to score whenever possible; when not, play a simple pass to the nearest teammate). AF is a combination of goal threat and creator, and is certainly more mobile than poacher. But here you need to look the context, rather than how an individual role behaves. Two-striker systems are different from single ones. Playing a poacher or AF as a lone striker is different than playing him paired with another role (such as F9 in this case).

 

While playmakers are ball-magnets, it does not mean other players will always pass the ball exclusively to them. In this particular case, a DLP on defend duty serves primarily as someone whom defenders would pass the ball to in the initial phase of attacks, so he can then distribute it further to anyone who looks like the best option at the moment. But when the attack reaches the final third, players will not pass it back to the DLP just because he is a "ball-magnet" (unless there is no better option in a given situation).

Thanks once again. 

The issue of the player maker was addressed in my previous response. 

I think that AF is the way to with Wilson based upon what both of you are saying. Mobility is really the key to his game and he often stays to the left half space looking for the ball. 

I will post an update of the tactic shortly. 

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, Oakland Stomper said:

I think that AF is the way to with Wilson based upon what both of you are saying. Mobility is really the key to his game and he often stays to the left half space looking for the ball

I've just analyzed both Wilson and KIng, and based on that - I would actually play Wilson as an F9 while King would be an AF (in my setup, not necessarily in yours). Because Wilson is a lot more creative and intelligent, whereas King is extremely fast but with pretty poor vision (he could therefore play as a poacher as well, but I would rather opt for an AF to utilize his mobility and decent technical skills).

[Oakland Stomper]

18 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

I've just analyzed both Wilson and KIng, and based on that - I would actually play Wilson as an F9 while King would be an AF (in my setup, not necessarily in yours). Because Wilson is a lot more creative and intelligent, whereas King is extremely fast but with pretty poor vision (he could therefore play as a poacher as well, but I would rather opt for an AF to utilize his mobility and decent technical skills).

I made a similar point earlier in the thread regarding King. This might line-up a bit with AFC's interpretation as he may well be better suited to being a SS. 

My motivation for starting this discussion wasn't purely to replicate Bournemouth. I also wanted to create a framework for fast paced counterattacking style that wasn't purely reliant on direct passing. Thanks to you and AFC I think that we've gotten almost all of the way there for both. 

-OS 

[Experienced Defender]

36 minutes ago, Oakland Stomper said:

My motivation for starting this discussion wasn't purely to replicate Bournemouth. I also wanted to create a framework for fast paced counterattacking style that wasn't purely reliant on direct passing

If you want to play specifically a counter-attacking style (as your primary way of playing), you can even go with both strikers on attack duty (but with different types of roles). 

Btw, earlier today I was thinking exactly about how I would set up a tactic for B'mouth in a 442 system (not necessarily as a replication, but rather based on players' strengths and weaknesses). Here is what my primary setup would look like for an average game (one where I am neither a clear favorite nor a complete underdog):

F9      AF

 

WMat      BWMsu    DLPde       IWsu

 

FBsu       CDco      CDde         FBat

SKsu

Balanced / shorter passing, higher tempo, work ball into box, underlap left / counter / standard DL, lower LOE, use tighter marking

Player instructions: all 4 midfielders - mark tighter; both strikers - close down more; F9 - roam from position; IWsu - take more risks; WMat - cross more often, stay wider, cut inside

My preferred starting 11 in this setup (from left to right)

Begovic

Daniels, Ake, S. Cook, Smith (Clyne)

Fraser, Lerma, L. Cook, Brooks

Wilson, King

An alternative option would be Cook as a DLPsu in MCL and Lerma as a BWMde in MCR.

[Oakland Stomper]

On 22/04/2019 at 10:16, Experienced Defender said:

If you want to play specifically a counter-attacking style (as your primary way of playing), you can even go with both strikers on attack duty (but with different types of roles). 

Btw, earlier today I was thinking exactly about how I would set up a tactic for B'mouth in a 442 system (not necessarily as a replication, but rather based on players' strengths and weaknesses). Here is what my primary setup would look like for an average game (one where I am neither a clear favorite nor a complete underdog):

F9      AF

 

WMat      BWMsu    DLPde       IWsu

 

FBsu       CDco      CDde         FBat

SKsu

Balanced / shorter passing, higher tempo, work ball into box, underlap left / counter / standard DL, lower LOE, use tighter marking

Player instructions: all 4 midfielders - mark tighter; both strikers - close down more; F9 - roam from position; IWsu - take more risks; WMat - cross more often, stay wider, cut inside

My preferred starting 11 in this setup (from left to right)

Begovic

Daniels, Ake, S. Cook, Smith (Clyne)

Fraser, Lerma, L. Cook, Brooks

Wilson, King

An alternative option would be Cook as a DLPsu in MCL and Lerma as a BWMde in MCR.

I think that we might be correcting some of the "tactical nonsense" to which AFC referred to. 

I'm going to keep tinkering with the concepts discussed in two parallel leagues and see how it goes. 

- OS 

[AFCB08]

The OP states that Look has not played as much as Gosling, that would be because of a torn ACL and being out for most of the season. If fit, he would be one first names on teamsheet

[Oakland Stomper]

5 hours ago, AFCB08 said:

The OP states that Look has not played as much as Gosling, that would be because of a torn ACL and being out for most of the season. If fit, he would be one first names on teamsheet

Thanks for the input. I was not only basing the use of Gosling on his greater number of starts, but more so on what is written in this article. 

https://www.football365.com/news/tactics-teaching-and-talent-bournemouths-transformation

[AFCB08]

21 hours ago, Oakland Stomper said:

Thanks for the input. I was not only basing the use of Gosling on his greater number of starts, but more so on what is written in this article. 

https://www.football365.com/news/tactics-teaching-and-talent-bournemouths-transformation

Fair enough but no matter what is written, I would always pick Lewis Cook, Gosling does a job but to me Cook is a better player both IRL and FM.  Good luck with my Cherries. 

[Djeon36]

Hey guys since Eddie Howe might become the new Newcastle manager, what tactic do you guys think he would employ and if we can make it in FM21/22?