Looking for a little assistance with a 3-4-1-2...

[Becanes]

I'm trying to play a possession based attack.  Things are just not working out like I would like.  We are losing to teams that I don't think we should lose to.  I'm just not seeing players combine well particularly in the final third.  The CWB on the left side is also switched to a WB(s).  Any thoughts on how I can be more effective in the final third?  Thanks in advance.

[Experienced Defender]

3 minutes ago, Becanes said:

I'm trying to play a possession based attack

What's the idea with lower LOE then? Because possession football requires more aggressive defending in order to win the ball back from opposition as soon as possible. Of course, more aggressive does not mean extremely aggressive, but lower LOE definitely does not go hand in hand with a possession-based style.

As for roles and duties, I would say you need some more penetration from deep. There are different ways to achieve that. Which one would be the "best" depends on the type and characteristics of your players. In you system, one WB could be on attack duty, which would logically require a more conservative CM on his side as defensive cover. But there are also other possible combinations, so I can give you some examples if you want.

[Becanes]

1 minute ago, Experienced Defender said:

What's the idea with lower LOE then? Because possession football requires more aggressive defending in order to win the ball back from opposition as soon as possible. Of course, more aggressive does not mean extremely aggressive, but lower LOE definitely does not go hand in hand with a possession-based style.

As for roles and duties, I would say you need some more penetration from deep. There are different ways to achieve that. Which one would be the "best" depends on the type and characteristics of your players. In you system, one WB could be on attack duty, which would logically require a more conservative CM on his side as defensive cover. But there are also other possible combinations, so I can give you some examples if you want.

I guess with the LOE I was trying to give myself another avenue of attack with countering and a ball over the top to the AF.  Also, I change that sometimes.  I think the match I used that in was against a team in the 16th or 17th place so I was trying to draw them out.  So examples would be great.  I've tried changing the AP(s) to a CM(A) but it didn't seem like it helped much in the final third with my team.  I've also has the WB on the left a WB(a) but then he launches crosses all day.  I know I have 2 men upfront but I don't really want to see cross after cross.  Is that counter intuitive?

[Guest]

3 at the back on FM19? Good luck

[denen123]

I personally, like the 3-4-1-2 shape(Your shape, above looks beautiful) and I agree with everything @Experienced Defender said, above. I also understand @Cadoni 's skepticism with employing the shape. You shouldn't be too discouraged. But you must know that the width is a weakness of your shape. Also, But to employ such a shape, you must consider the attributes of your WB's especially their stamina, positioning, stamina, dribbling, crossing, pace & acceleration attributes, as they'll be bombing up & down, acting as both primary & secondary sources of width. If(especially Positioning) is low then I'd expect that in counter attacking situations, you'd get easily ripped apart by opposition wingers or Fullbacks or 2 v 1 situations out wide(if your opponents are really mean). Also, maybe the AM role mitigates this, but maybe the deep runner can combine on the DLfsu section rather than at the right hand side? What are your PI's?

You also said you wanted a possession based tactic. LOE? Tighter marking can be avoided, too. You can increase the urgency of the closing down, however. Exploit the middle to increase the risk, there. 'Distribute to Fullbacks' is a bit risky to me. Your Fullbacks should be allowed time and space to push forward in the build up. Maybe, take it off? Pass to space, might also help. Question will be by how much? You can also test a DM - DM combo in DMde & Vol(su/at). There's so much much you can test, but it depends, really, on your teams quality and how it adapts to your tactic. Keybis to keep testing, till you get your fix/desired play. Hope you understand my Statements. Good luck in your save👍🏿.

 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Becanes said:

I guess with the LOE I was trying to give myself another avenue of attack with countering and a ball over the top to the AF.  Also, I change that sometimes.  I think the match I used that in was against a team in the 16th or 17th place so I was trying to draw them out.  So examples would be great.  I've tried changing the AP(s) to a CM(A) but it didn't seem like it helped much in the final third with my team.  I've also has the WB on the left a WB(a) but then he launches crosses all day.  I know I have 2 men upfront but I don't really want to see cross after cross.  Is that counter intuitive?

Well, you yourself have chosen a system with WBs as the only wide players, so more crossing is something you should have expected, unless you want your WBs to play more conservatively and contribute less to the attacking phase. In that case, you can create a more counter-attacking (rather than possession-based) tactic that would rely on tight and stable defense and fast transitions that look to utilize the speed of your forwards (provided they have a good amount of speed). In that case. the lower LOE would make a lot more sense. But tempo would need to be higher, width could be slightly narrower, early crosses also would be a logical option, and you may occasionally use passing into space as well. And even both strikers could be on attack duty, but with different types of roles (one in a creator role, the other in a scorer/runner role).

[Becanes]

So I made some adjustments based on your guys advise.  See below.  It worked out just ok.  I didn't dominate possession but I think I had 8 shots on target and Wolves had 0.  We were a little unlucky to not score really.  Match ended 0-0.

As far as PI's.

AF and DLF(s) have close down more.

AM(s) has take more risks and get further forware

CM(a) has take more risks

WB(a) has take fewer risks and sit narrow

WB(s) has take fewer risks, cross less often and stay wider.

 

[z464]

32 minutes ago, Becanes said:

So I made some adjustments based on your guys advise.  See below.  It worked out just ok.  I didn't dominate possession but I think I had 8 shots on target and Wolves had 0.  We were a little unlucky to not score really.  Match ended 0-0.

As far as PI's.

AF and DLF(s) have close down more.

AM(s) has take more risks and get further forware

CM(a) has take more risks

WB(a) has take fewer risks and sit narrow

WB(s) has take fewer risks, cross less often and stay wider.

 

 

 

I don't see you could hold the ball very well and win the possession according to the role you have .

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Becanes said:

So I made some adjustments based on your guys advise.  See below

 

1 hour ago, Becanes said:

I don't know whose particular advice (suggestions) you followed regarding these adjustments. I just know that this tactic has nothing to do with the suggestions I gave. 

[Becanes]

9 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

As for roles and duties, I would say you need some more penetration from deep. There are different ways to achieve that. Which one would be the "best" depends on the type and characteristics of your players. In you system, one WB could be on attack duty, which would logically require a more conservative CM on his side as defensive cover. But there are also other possible combinations, so I can give you some examples if you want.

You said the above so I made a couple of adjustments according to that.  Then I also took some advice from denen123.

[NabsKebabs]

Why are you regrouping and countering in transition? That's the opposite of possession. 

[Rashidi]

This is from your own image. It has one theme. Your ability to control play in the middle which also happens to be your most vulnerable area is suspect. Address that and you should do better. As you can see from the image. You allow goals mainly in your own box, you fail to control your own defensive third frequently losing possession there, and most of the entries the opposition make are through the middle. This raises several questions.

Are your defenders too deep, are they waiting too long? Wouldn't you better served playing a bit higher up and wouldn't you be better off making the middle a bit more compact? Are your two central midfielders not doing anything defensively?

[denen123]

8 hours ago, Becanes said:

You said the above so I made a couple of adjustments according to that.  Then I also took some advice from denen123.

Okay. 

Liked the post cause you, at least, took some advice. Still, how well is your build up? Do your Central Midfielders contribute to bringing it(ball) from out of defence. As @Rashidi said above, & I quote, 'You fail to control your own defensive third----', maybe you can make your CMd more involved in build up? Maybe change the role to something that both sits in front of the defence and also brings ball out, rather than having your defence keep making mistakes? How about you increase the closing down, to retrieve lost balls. You're getting there, don't worry. Keep taking the positive advice, positive conversations & build your tactic. 

[Experienced Defender]

11 hours ago, Becanes said:

20 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

As for roles and duties, I would say you need some more penetration from deep. There are different ways to achieve that. Which one would be the "best" depends on the type and characteristics of your players. In you system, one WB could be on attack duty, which would logically require a more conservative CM on his side as defensive cover. But there are also other possible combinations, so I can give you some examples if you want.

You said the above so I made a couple of adjustments according to that.  Then I also took some advice from denen123

There is no point in taking pieces from different people's suggestions and then incorporating them into a tactic. You can follow all suggestions from one person if you see it's all logical and consistent, and no single suggestion from another person if that makes little or no sense to how you want to play. We all have different approaches to the game, so not all suggestions will suit your team and/or tactic, especially if you apply different types of suggestions at the same time.

[Becanes]

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

There is no point in taking pieces from different people's suggestions and then incorporating them into a tactic. You can follow all suggestions from one person if you see it's all logical and consistent, and no single suggestion from another person if that makes little or no sense to how you want to play. We all have different approaches to the game, so not all suggestions will suit your team and/or tactic, especially if you apply different types of suggestions at the same time.

I took bits and pieces from both of you because I thought those would fit into my style.  I agreed with you that I should have more penetration from deep so I used your idea for that.

[Becanes]

8 hours ago, Rashidi said:

This is from your own image. It has one theme. Your ability to control play in the middle which also happens to be your most vulnerable area is suspect. Address that and you should do better. As you can see from the image. You allow goals mainly in your own box, you fail to control your own defensive third frequently losing possession there, and most of the entries the opposition make are through the middle. This raises several questions.

Are your defenders too deep, are they waiting too long? Wouldn't you better served playing a bit higher up and wouldn't you be better off making the middle a bit more compact? Are your two central midfielders not doing anything defensively?

I will focus on this.