Too much thrill in every game in Vanarama National League ?!!

[AshKing15]

I am currently managing Harrogate Town in FM19 in the Vanarama National League. I have tried multiple tactics which includes my own 'Wings Of The Pheonix' tactic which had great results with Barcelona and even with Harrogate in Pre-Season but as soon as the season started, the team stopped scoring goals and the match went like there was no goal in the first half and then in the second half my team scores a goal and then either the opponents score a goal or my team doesn't score any more goal and it is never certain if my team will win the match or not.

Now I know that it can happen in 2 to 3 matches but it has happened in each and every of the 16 games played so far irrespective of the opponent be it the  worst team (York) or the best (Crewe).

After this happened for a couple of matches, I decided to use a downloaded tactic by Total Football Fan (TFF) which was the 'TFF Conqueror' and  still got the same results. I don't know if it some bug or is it my team. 

I must tell you that my team dominates every game as it takes 17 shots on avg. Per match and most of them being on target with my own tactic and even with the downloaded tactic however the strikers just don't seem to be hitting the shots towards goal or something.

 

Any Hints or help will be appreciated. Thanks.

[crusadertsar]

But are you actually losing games? Or just winning by small goal margins. Because otherwise it sounds like normal results to me. In most of my saves I score little or get ties. If you look through other topics on these forums then you will see that in fm19 it is notoriously hard to score goals. It's nothing new. We probably have the new defensive shape to thank for that and AI that knows how to use it.

There are however ways to exploit it via overloads (basically drawing the opposition to one side of the field by using playmaker roles) but results are still not that consistent

[AshKing15]

Yeah mostly the games are either drawn or we lose and that's the reason of my concern as the few games I am winning are also by a single goal margin which doesn't help in having a good goal difference.

Though the last match was very shocking as my team, Harrogate defeated Burton Albion which is in Sky bet league 1 by a goal difference of 7 goals (score was 8-1) in the English FA Cup.

I do agree that the defensive AI has gotten stronger but that should mean that the opponents don't let me make many crosses or take many shots however that is not happening. I told earlier that the team dominates the match but doesn't score much goal.

[Experienced Defender]

Could you post a screenshot of the tactic so that we could see if there are any glaring issues in your setup (bearing also in mind that you are managing a LL team, which is quite different from higher division football)?

[AshKing15]

Here it is. I use this tactic through out the match and only changes I make is switching to Mark Tightly, Get Stuck In and switching low crosses to float crosses.

[>LJ<]

Have a look through the threads stickied at the top of this forum and some of the other threads on here to see what issues other players are having and apply that advice to your own tactics. Somethings that jump out about your system straight way however;

Your tactic is a mirror image of itself and is very predictable

You have a very demanding and aggressive setup which may not be suitable for lower league teams

[sporadicsmiles]

I'm going to guess this is a downloaded tactic (or inspired by one, its the IWB with BBM or CM(A) that give them away this year). It does not have the look of a well balanced and sensible tactic. In particular for a lower league team there are some glaring issues. 

The first being with a very high defensive line, you are going to get shredded by any team with a quick striker. Not helped by the full backs being out of position, and the two central midfielders being out of position. I assume this tactic concedes a bunch of goals, and relies on scoring more. It looks defensively very suspect. 

Another thing here is that your players are probably just not very good. Are you performing higher than expected in the pre season prediction? If so, you are doing fine. 

[duesouth]

There's no question the AI has adjusted to your tactic, thus the change in fortunes - but I think you can have a look at a few things.

In the National League, I'm sure there are a few central defenders who are better on the ball, but 2 BPD is the first thing that stands out - I'm not sure they are going to be Virgil Van Dyke.  As noted above, the high line is high risk.  You also have all 4 of your midfield on support, so there will be space between the back 4 and your midfield.  An AMC might give you issues.  I could see you conceding three types of goals - long ball over the top and a quick striker beating the offside trap; shots from outside the area and as you are on attacking, on the quick counter.

Going forward, I think it's a bit vanilla.  I have tended to find far more success with one inverted winger and one winger.  If you are playing against a team near the bottom who are going to park the bus, then you can even push them both up the field.  Having an inverted winger on attack and a winger on support would be an option.  I would also think about a different pairing in midfield.  Maybe a BWM(d) or something, particularly if the opposition have a DLP who you see is pulling the strings.  If they are route one, you might need someone dropping deeper if their TM is holding up the play and involving others.  I know some have had success with the pair of AF(a), but it will mean both are on the back shoulder of the centre half and you have no one dropping deep to link with the BBM's.

I would also probably dial the overall mentality down a notch - and even to balanced away from home.

One final minor thing is a conflict.  You are set up to counter, but you are asking your keeper to slow the pace down in terms of distribution.

The National League can be tough to get out of with only one automatic promotion, so good luck!

[Experienced Defender]

13 hours ago, AshKing15 said:

Here it is. I use this tactic through out the match and only changes I make is switching to Mark Tightly, Get Stuck In and switching low crosses to float crosses.

Looking at this tactic, all I can say is that I completely agree with everything that @sporadicsmiles and @>LJ< already said. Extremely one-dimensional and extremely risky defense-wise (not to mention using both strikers in the same role and duty, and the most attack-minded one at that).

[FMunderachiever]

12 hours ago, AshKing15 said:

Here it is. I use this tactic through out the match and only changes I make is switching to Mark Tightly, Get Stuck In and switching low crosses to float crosses.

Other than winning, obviously, whats the thinking behind the tactic and these roles?

 

2 BBMS could be caught up field together.

 

2 IWB.... would leave space down your own flanks

 

No one covering the space in front of your back 4

 

Two strikers neither of which come short for the ball

 

 

Just interested as to what the idea was?

[AshKing15]

I think I got what you all are tryin' to say. I think I will just make another tactic of my own (a balanced one as you all suggested) and see what's up. I will be posting another tactic which I made myself and worked well in pre season but not in the league matches and see what can be done to improve the performance.

 

 

[AshKing15]

Here is my own made tactic to any suggestions:

 

[>LJ<]

Your tactic definitely looks a lot better on paper than what you originally had. You do have a lot of team instructions though are you sure they are all necessary and do you know why you have selected each one? The problem when you have a lot of team instructions is that if something is going wrong it's very hard to pinpoint where your issues actually are. For example you have two playmakers in centre mid who are ball magnets and will attract the ball yet your team instructions are to focus play down the left and the right, I'd say this is a contradiction. I'd always encourage someone to start with as few team instructions as possible and then add or subtract them as you watch your team play, its a good way of learning how team instructions actually work. Often I've had tactics with lots of instructions but I'm not entirely sure why it even works.

Also try your tactic out see if it is actually playing how you originally intended it to, I think you're on the right track. You're playing as a lower league team as well so don't forget about the overall quality of your players and whether they are even capable of what you want them to do. 

[FMunderachiever]

1 hour ago, AshKing15 said:

Here is my own made tactic to any suggestions:

 

I think just looking at your tactic and team instructions, i think there are some positive changes that could be made:

1) this is a really top heavy formation but youre using "work ball into box". Id say not necessary. this kind of formation youre playing is built for direct passing/playing the long ball into the target man, so i wouldnt have work ball into box

 

2) Work ball into box and pass ball into space at the same time doesnt make sense really

 

3) Id be a bit concerned with space in between the lines, if choosing a high LOE, but low defensive line, and then using tight marking. id just be concerned there would be lots of space available if the opponent beats your pressing

 

4) is there a need for the big overkill of width? setting width to maximum, focusing play down the wings AND overlaps together is quite extreme

 

 

[AshKing15]

Thanks for the suggestions..

I will try reducing some instructions and editing them a bit and see whats next.

I really appreciate the deep analysis and quick replies from all of you guys.

 

[AshKing15]

I wanted to know what you guys think if I change the tactic from 4-2-4 to 4-1-1-4 that is if I remove one midfielder and switch him to defensive midfielder (Half Back) so that the tactic can become defensively stronger ?

Other tactical change I made as per your suggestions:

Removed Work Ball Into Box.

Removed overlap left and right.

Changed attack width to Wide.

Removed tighter marking.

Added Get Stuck In.

[Experienced Defender]

7 hours ago, >LJ< said:

You do have a lot of team instructions though are you sure they are all necessary and do you know why you have selected each one?

I guess this needlessly too many TIs are a result of using a preset tactic (wing play in this case) as the base for building his own tactic. Most preset tactics contain a lot of overkills, so he probably though they all should be kept. But anyway, this 424 looks considerably better than the previously posted 442 (which was a "disaster" IMHO).

7 hours ago, AshKing15 said:

So what would I do to make this tactic better balanced (assuming that you have suitable players for all roles)?

First, would remove the following TIs.
- work ball into box (on the assumption that in Vanarama league players aren't good enough to be asked to play that way)

- focus play down the left (increases the mentality of the LB who is already on attack duty)

- overlap left (for the exact same reason)

- overlap right (there is no need to have both overlap and focus play on the same side, again because these TIs make the fullback more attack-minded by increasing his mentality)

- wide instead of extremely wide (on high-risk mentalities - such as positive or higher - width is already wider than on lower ones)

- take short kicks (why not let the keeper decide which type of distribution he is most comfortable with?)

- more urgent pressing (can be needlessly risky when playing on a high-risk mentality)

You should also know that lower DL coupled with higher LOE is a defensive no-no (because it reduces your vertical compactness, especially when playing with a formation that is already top-heavy). So you need to improve vertical compactness in order to be more solid defensively. How could you do it? By reducing the distance between DL and LOE. For example:

- standard DL / lower LOE

- higher DL / standard (or lower) LOE (you can also go with much higher DL and higher LOE, but that can make you overly vulnerable to balls over the top for fast opposition forwards)

Having good vertical compactness is also important if you want to use tighter marking, because your players are closer to each other when defending, which makes it safer for them to put more pressure on the opposition trying to win the ball back. However, I would not recommend using tighter marking when playing on a high d-line.

So, with all this considered, here is how I would set up the team instructions:

- higher tempo, (one notch) wider width, focus play down the right, hit early crosses, float crosses (optionally pass into space, but not all the time); btw, more direct passing might also be worth considering, at least occasionally (to encourage faster attacking transitions, given that you have a good number of players up front, including the TM, who can bring up others into play)

- counter, distribute to flanks (optionally counter-press, but only when you are the clear favorite)

- standard d-line, lower LOE, use tighter marking (optionally get stuck in); defensive width depends on whether your defense is generally better at dealing with crosses and other high balls pumped into the box (jumping, marking, positioning, heading, strength, bravery) or ground defense (anticipation, positioning, acceleration, tackling, marking, concentration, composure, decisions...). If you aren't sure about this, leave it on standard (default).

On roles and duties, here is what I would do:

- on the left flank, change the winger into IF (also on support) and WB on attack to FB on attack (to create a natural overlap in attack, with an IF making space on the flank for the attacking FB; and to make it more solid defensively, because FB on attack is a bit more defense-minded than WB on attack, despite being on the same duty). Plus, IF on support can work nicely with AF in terms of potential killer balls.

- AP on attack (MCL) would be changed into a carrilero, and for two reasons: 1. to protect the left flank when the LB bombs forward; 2. having two PMs next to each other is an overkill even in a possession-based tactic (which yours obviously is not).

The rest is okay IMO. So, "my" setup would look like this:

AF      TMsu

IFsu                                             Wat

CAR      DLPde

 

FBat       CDde       CDde        WBsu

GK/SKde(?)

I tried to explain my reasoning behind all these changes (i.e. suggestions), but if you have any additional questions - please let me know 

[Experienced Defender]

3 hours ago, AshKing15 said:

I wanted to know what you guys think if I change the tactic from 4-2-4 to 4-1-1-4 that is if I remove one midfielder and switch him to defensive midfielder (Half Back) so that the tactic can become defensively stronger ?

There are much better ways to improve defensive solidity and stability than simply moving a player from one strata to another. I would not recommend you do that. You may switch to a deep 424 (with 2 DMs), but that would require some other tweaks as well.

[enigmatic]

On 15/05/2019 at 16:52, FMunderachiever said:

Other than winning, obviously, whats the thinking behind the tactic and these roles?

 

2 BBMS could be caught up field together.

 

2 IWB.... would leave space down your own flanks

 

No one covering the space in front of your back 4

 

Two strikers neither of which come short for the ball

 

 

Just interested as to what the idea was?

In the OP's case it's a downloaded tactic (and by other people's accounts usually a well performing one too)

But since I've built similar systems that work very well I'll defend it.

IWBs are extremely good at covering space in front of the back four on the counter, and also better at defending than conventional fullbacks who are overlapping (they run a short distance sideways rather than a long way backwards to deal with the counter attack, and defend in the normal position). You do sacrifice a bit of crossing (I often use one fullback on overlap until I have a lead) but for possession football and defending counters they're not just adequate but actually massively overpowered.

BBMs are quite conservative and backed up by the IWBs (though I use a DLP/BBM or DLP/Mezzala combo instead of two BBMs) so this isn't a formation that gets caught on the counter much. Sometimes swap a striker for a DM when I'm under deep pressure though, because that's where even two IWBs aren't much help.

Two AFs is an OK partnership with the right strikers, though I do sometimes use an F9 for the reason you stated or one or more PF(s) if I want my strikers disrupting them playing out of defence more, and an AM will help the midfield out a lot more (I've used AMs mainly in saves without many strikers though, because two strikers will usually score more goals)

-

FWIW my suggestion to @AshKing15 would be the original formation with the following changes:

Drop the defensive line and line of engagement a notch. Two notches if your centre backs are slow by the standards of the division

If one of the fullbacks is decent (by Conference standards) at crossing then make them a FB(A) and set to overlap on that side. You can always turn the overlap off and/or set the player back to IWBs or IWBd at a later stage if you've got a lead to defend.

Drop mentality to positive and consider slowing tempo down, especially if you're controlling the game but your players are rushing into bad decisions. Consider dropping mentality more after scoring.

Consider "be more expressive". Giving players a bit more freedom to make runs and have the odd pop from distance seems to work even with fairly poor players, and it helps compensate for your shape being a bit rigid. Will result in even lower shot conversion rates, but potentially more goals too. I use it most of the time, although I don't play with players that are quite as bad as yours.

Consider changing the striker roles, perhaps even on a game by game or player by player basis.

Consider bringing on a DM for a striker when you're leading, especially in the last 10 mins when the AI gets very attacking. 4-1-4-1 is a decent tactical setup for harder games anyway.

Expect to take 17 shots to score quite often. Happens IRL to teams with players who are much better at shooting than Harrogate's. And yes, your attacking possession football against set defences will take more chances to score than an opposition team that has loads of space to run into in behind your defenders if one of them makes a mistake or they're just a lot slower.

-

I especially wouldn't push both the wide players forward unless you've got specialists in that role who are uncomfortable at MR/ML, which probably isn't an issue in the Conference. AMRs/AMLs play narrowly more like forwards (even when given the winger role). This can be a good thing if you happen to have an AMR or AML that looks like they'll be good at scoring, but you're sacrificing width for crossing and defensive support to do this and you probably don't want to do that on both sides

 

OK, that was more than I expected to write...

 

[AshKing15]

Okay so Now I have changed the 4-2-4 to a 4-2-4 deep with two defensive midfielder. The player roles are as follows:

1. Two Central defenders. One with a cover duty and another with stopper duty.

2. On the left flank, the D(L) is set to No Nonsense full back and the AM(L) is set to Winger with support duty.

3. On the right flank, the D(R) is a Full back with attack duty and the AM(R) is an Inside Winger with support duty.

4. One of the defensive midfielder is a Segundo Volante with support duty and other is a defensive midfielder with defend duty.

5. One of the striker is a deep lying forward with support duty and other is a Poacher.

6. The goalkeeper is set Goalkeeper (defend).

I have not added much Team Instructions. They are:

1. Attacking width wide.

2. Overlap right.

3. Focus Play Down the Right.

4. Passing is set to standard/shorter

5. Counter.

6. LOE is set to Low.

7. Defensive line is set to Standard.

8. Mark Tightly.

9. Pressing is set to less urgent.

 

[Experienced Defender]

11 hours ago, AshKing15 said:

The player roles are as follows:

1. Two Central defenders. One with a cover duty and another with stopper duty.

2. On the left flank, the D(L) is set to No Nonsense full back and the AM(L) is set to Winger with support duty.

3. On the right flank, the D(R) is a Full back with attack duty and the AM(R) is an Inside Winger with support duty.

4. One of the defensive midfielder is a Segundo Volante with support duty and other is a defensive midfielder with defend duty.

5. One of the striker is a deep lying forward with support duty and other is a Poacher.

6. The goalkeeper is set Goalkeeper (defend).

Which DM is volante, and which one is DMd (in terms of side)? The same question goes for the strikers.

 

11 hours ago, AshKing15 said:

On the right flank, the D(R) is a Full back with attack duty and the AM(R) is an Inside Winger with support duty

2. Overlap right.

3. Focus Play Down the Right.

Not sure why you want to make the right fullback so extremely attacking, but guess you have some really good reason 

 

[AshKing15]

2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Which DM is volante, and which one is DMd (in terms of side)? The same question goes for the strikers.

 

Not sure why you want to make the right fullback so extremely attacking, but guess you have some really good reason 

 

The DM(L) is defensive midfielder defend and DM(R) is Segundo Volante.

The ST(L) is a poacher and ST(R) is Deep Lying Forward.

I have made the full back (right) so attacking because I have a good one as per the standards of Vanarama National League.

 

[Experienced Defender]

30 minutes ago, AshKing15 said:

The DM(L) is defensive midfielder defend and DM(R) is Segundo Volante

So your right side is now even more attacking. I thought you'd put the defend-duty DM to the right side, to get at least some defensive cover there, but I obviously was wrong. Good luck mate, as I fear you'll need it in abundance 

[AshKing15]

Thank you for the blessings but I would appreciate suggestions even more 😑

[Experienced Defender]

11 hours ago, AshKing15 said:

Thank you for the blessings but I would appreciate suggestions even more 😑

Okay, here is what my suggestions would be...

On 18/05/2019 at 03:40, AshKing15 said:

Two Central defenders. One with a cover duty and another with stopper duty.

No need for a stopper-duty CB in a system with a DM (let alone 2 DMs). Stopper makes more sense in systems like 442 or 532. So either both on defend or one cover and the other defend. Just my opinion, of course. 

 

On 18/05/2019 at 03:40, AshKing15 said:

2. On the left flank, the D(L) is set to No Nonsense full back and the AM(L) is set to Winger with support duty.

A NFB (usually) makes more sense when paired with an attack-duty winger in front of him. Especially if the idea is to play a sort of more direct counter-attacking style. Btw, for possession-based football, roles such as NFB and NCB make little to no sense. But based on the rest of your tactic, I would assume you want a counter-attacking style of football, not possession. So NFB/NCB role(s) generally make sense. 

 

On 18/05/2019 at 03:40, AshKing15 said:

1. Two Central defenders. One with a cover duty and another with stopper duty.

2. On the left flank, the D(L) is set to No Nonsense full back and the AM(L) is set to Winger with support duty.

3. On the right flank, the D(R) is a Full back with attack duty and the AM(R) is an Inside Winger with support duty.

4. One of the defensive midfielder is a Segundo Volante with support duty and other is a defensive midfielder with defend duty.

5. One of the striker is a deep lying forward with support duty and other is a Poacher.

6. The goalkeeper is set Goalkeeper (defend).

So your setup looks like this:

PO     DLFsu

Wsu                                            IFsu

 

DMde      VOLsu

NFB          CD?      CD?          FBat

GK

With the following instructions:

Mentality - ??? (very important)

- standard/shorter passing, play wider, overlap right, focus play down the right

- counter

- standard DL, lower LOE, use tighter marking, less urgent pressing

My preference for the setup of roles and duties - based on your setup - would be:

DLFsu      PO

Wat                                        IFsu

 

VOLsu     ACM

NFB       CD     CD/NCB       FBat

GK/SKde/su

And given that this setup is better suited for a counter-attacking style, these would be my basic (starting) team instructions:

Mentality - Balanced

- in possession: slightly more direct passing, higher tempo, hit early crosses, overlap left

Optional instruction(s): play out of defence (to avoid too much relying on speculative passing when in possession apart from the counter-attacking situations), pass into space (if and when I notice the opposition leaves more space behind their lines that could be utilized)

- in transition: counter

Optional instruction: regroup (for more defensive solidity, especially in tougher games)

- out of possession: standard DL, lower LOE, use tighter marking, standard pressing

Optional instruction: get stuck in (if I notice we are too passive when defending)

A tactic like this would serve as my starting point. 

 

[AshKing15]

5 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Okay, here is what my suggestions would be...

No need for a stopper-duty CB in a system with a DM (let alone 2 DMs). Stopper makes more sense in systems like 442 or 532. So either both on defend or one cover and the other defend. Just my opinion, of course. 

 

A NFB (usually) makes more sense when paired with an attack-duty winger in front of him. Especially if the idea is to play a sort of more direct counter-attacking style. Btw, for possession-based football, roles such as NFB and NCB make little to no sense. But based on the rest of your tactic, I would assume you want a counter-attacking style of football, not possession. So NFB/NCB role(s) generally make sense. 

 

So your setup looks like this:

PO     DLFsu

Wsu                                            IFsu

 

DMde      VOLsu

NFB          CD?      CD?          FBat

GK

With the following instructions:

Mentality - ??? (very important)

- standard/shorter passing, play wider, overlap right, focus play down the right

- counter

- standard DL, lower LOE, use tighter marking, less urgent pressing

My preference for the setup of roles and duties - based on your setup - would be:

DLFsu      PO

Wat                                        IFsu

 

VOLsu     ACM

NFB       CD     CD/NCB       FBat

GK/SKde/su

And given that this setup is better suited for a counter-attacking style, these would be my basic (starting) team instructions:

Mentality - Balanced

- in possession: slightly more direct passing, higher tempo, hit early crosses, overlap left

Optional instruction(s): play out of defence (to avoid too much relying on speculative passing when in possession apart from the counter-attacking situations), pass into space (if and when I notice the opposition leaves more space behind their lines that could be utilized)

- in transition: counter

Optional instruction: regroup (for more defensive solidity, especially in tougher games)

- out of possession: standard DL, lower LOE, use tighter marking, standard pressing

Optional instruction: get stuck in (if I notice we are too passive when defending)

A tactic like this would serve as my starting point.

Thank you for the suggestions. I will try out the setup with above changes.

By the way I made a few changes before to make the strategy defensively more reliable which seemed to work during the match against Havant And Waterlooville as we didn't concede any goal and the opponents didn't even get much shots (i had set TI to Regroup) but now we lacked in attack until we scored a goal in 84th minute. Now I was definitely happy but then guess what ?!! The opponents strike back ! I know these things are common in soccer but its definitely irritating to have defended so well through out the match and at last when everything was okay.. (sigh)

[Experienced Defender]

Yeah, that unfortunately happens in football, both real life and FM. But on the other hand, it also happens sometimes that you win a match that you realistically deserved to lose. I had such situations - lose or draw a game we were the absolutely better team by conceding some stupid goal a few minutes before the end, but then as soon as the next match - win in a similar way, even though we deserved to lose.

So the important thing is to learn as much as possible from all sorts of experience, whether good or bad.

[AshKing15]

Yeah thats right.

And probably that ends this thread as well 😁.

Thank you for your continous support. I am grateful to all of you guys. Keep Managing. Keep Helping. 

Cheers.

[viperswhip]

I don't generally put my D on attack, when I try a tactic that has them like that I put them on support instead. It takes a lot out of them so you might need to use two of your subs on D that can cover anywhere. I always have my 2 center d's on cover and have them have some nice pace and acceleration, I don't get nearly as many of those balls over the D resulting in a true 1 on 1 always they are pressured hard by one of my fast, high marking, high tackling D men, at least according to the ME.