Thoughts?

[Red Horizon]

I'm expecting to be predicted to finish mid table next season so I'm looking to play a system where I can move from balanced to positive and balanced to cautious without much problems and also get the best out of the players I have available. 

I can't get on FM till later in the week but just wanted to ask if anyone can see any flaws in going with this formation? 

Alternatives I have are changing the CM-S to a deep lying playmaker and changing the wing back support to wing back attack but two attack duties on that flank may be too much? 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, BusbyFergieJose said:

Not sure if short passing would be a good idea in this particular setup of roles and (especially) duties, given that the latter is more suitable for counter-attacking than possession football. Unless you raise tempo to higher to encourage faster attacking transitions.

 

1 hour ago, BusbyFergieJose said:

Alternatives I have are changing the CM-S to a deep lying playmaker and changing the wing back support to wing back attack but two attack duties on that flank may be too much? 

Changing the left CM(sup) to a DLP(sup) can be a good idea, but - as you yourself correctly observed - both WB and IF on attack duty on the same flank can create defensive issues, especially if you are not a top team and if there is none in DM (as is the case in your tactic). Rather than setting the left WB to attack duty, you can add the Overlap left TI. That will make the WB a bit more attack-minded and closer in support to the IF, but without overly exposing the flank.

As for the front three, if you play the lone striker in AF role, a winger on attack and IF on support is a better combo for wide forwards IMO than the opposite. Like this for example:

AF

IFsu                                     Wat

DLPsu   CDde   CMat

 

WBsu    CDde     CDde      FBde

In this case though, the Overlap right would make more sense than one on the left. And you may even consider changing the RB from FBde to IWBde (provided you have the right player for the role). So basically, the idea with this setup would be to keep the ball on the left side where you have 3 support duties including the DLP looking to create an overload before switching play to the opposite side for the attacking winger and CM. If you opt to try this approach, changing the striker from AF to DLF on attack may be worth considering, so that he would be more involved in build-up play while still being primarily attack-minded.

In defense, I personally would prefer tighter marking to more urgent pressing as a clearly safer option. You may also consider the Get stuck in as an optional/occasional instruction, but be wary of conceding free kicks and getting too many yellow/red cards (especially if your midfield is not the best in terms of defensive abilities).

[Red Horizon]

thank you, so you believe this will be the best way to setup?

will we be ok with men in the box when the W(A) gets into a position to cross?

also do you not feel the CM(a) and W(A) both on attack duties is too much? or will the cm-d and fb-d compensate for this?

anyone else got any thoughts?

 

 

[Keyzer Soze]

23 minutes ago, BusbyFergieJose said:

thank you, so you believe this will be the best way to setup?

will we be ok with men in the box when the W(A) gets into a position to cross?

also do you not feel the CM(a) and W(A) both on attack duties is too much? or will the cm-d and fb-d compensate for this?

anyone else got any thoughts?

 

 

When the W(a) hit the cross, you will have 2 or 3 players in the box: DLF(a) and iF(s) for sure, and depending on the player you use, the CM(a) will be your third man. It's quite good.

I don't think you'll have too much problems on your right side. the CM(d) + FB(d) will give the proper cover. In fact, in some games i would change the FB(d) to a IWB(d) or even a IWB(s) to give you that extra man in the midfield. Could be handy against more defensive sides.

With this last version, you cleary have a left side that will built up the play, and a right side that will score most of your goals. I wouldn't be surprise if your W(a) would be your top scorer, so choose wise the player to use there (Little tip, someone with get into opponent box trait is a must).

I would drop the TI to overlap on the left side, because you already have a natural overlap with the roles and duties you have chosen: WB(s)+IF(s). Don't forget that the WB(s) have the instruction to get forward by default. With the instruction to overlap you are telling your IF to hold position more, and you need him in the box.

i would also drop tight marking instruction. Unless you have a team with good players with defensive attributes, i think it's very risky telling your whole team to mark tight. You can easily be thorn apart against teams with fast and with good off the ball players... like pretty much all the top teams.

Last but not least.... why did you lower the line of engagement? Because of the counter attack instruction?

[Red Horizon]

34 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

When the W(a) hit the cross, you will have 2 or 3 players in the box: DLF(a) and iF(s) for sure, and depending on the player you use, the CM(a) will be your third man. It's quite good.

I don't think you'll have too much problems on your right side. the CM(d) + FB(d) will give the proper cover. In fact, in some games i would change the FB(d) to a IWB(d) or even a IWB(s) to give you that extra man in the midfield. Could be handy against more defensive sides.

With this last version, you cleary have a left side that will built up the play, and a right side that will score most of your goals. I wouldn't be surprise if your W(a) would be your top scorer, so choose wise the player to use there (Little tip, someone with get into opponent box trait is a must).

I would drop the TI to overlap on the left side, because you already have a natural overlap with the roles and duties you have chosen: WB(s)+IF(s). Don't forget that the WB(s) have the instruction to get forward by default. With the instruction to overlap you are telling your IF to hold position more, and you need him in the box.

i would also drop tight marking instruction. Unless you have a team with good players with defensive attributes, i think it's very risky telling your whole team to mark tight. You can easily be thorn apart against teams with fast and with good off the ball players... like pretty much all the top teams.

Last but not least.... why did you lower the line of engagement? Because of the counter attack instruction?

Yes I think it was, would you put it on standard? My defenders aren't very fast so I won't be putting my def line any higher. 

 

Do you think I could change mentality with this formation when I go ahead/behind or should I be sticking to balanced mentality? 

[Keyzer Soze]

6 minutes ago, BusbyFergieJose said:

Yes I think it was, would you put it on standard? My defenders aren't very fast so I won't be putting my def line any higher. 

 

Do you think I could change mentality with this formation when I go ahead/behind or should I be sticking to balanced mentality? 

Lowering the line of engagement, could be a good idea if you have fast players upfront. Your team will start defending deep in the field, and it will be more compact. You'll let your opponent get higher in the pitch before starting to press them.

You could change your mentality with any tactic, but you ust realize the impact that that change will have in your team and player instructions.

For example, you already are telling your team to pass more directly, by increasing the mentality this will be even more increased.

In my current tactic (4123 wide DM), i also start the games with a balanced mentality. I set my team to play with higher tempo so everytime i change my mentality to attack i also drop the tempo to standard and add the instruction to work ball into the box. If i don't do that, and with the roles/duties i have in my tactic, i'll end up with long shots galore that will leave to nothing.

I never lower my mentality below balanced. If i think i need to defend, i prefer to change the players roles or duties or other team instructions. Lower mentality change too much the pass length in particulary in the defence and i don't like the way the team just can't keep the ball.

Out of curiosity... you are managing Sporting in Portugal? If that the case, you should play to win the league... not finishing mid table. 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, BusbyFergieJose said:

also do you not feel the CM(a) and W(A) both on attack duties is too much? or will the cm-d and fb-d compensate for this?

FB on defend is there exactly for that reason - to provide defensive cover on the right flank. As I said in my previous reply, you can add the Overlap right to help achieve some more interplay on that side. Overlap left can remain as well, but is not necessary. Depends on what exactly would you want to achieve in terms of playing style. 

 

1 hour ago, BusbyFergieJose said:

will we be ok with men in the box when the W(A) gets into a position to cross?

Yeah, there should be a decent number of players, both in the box (to try to receive the cross) and around it to recycle the ball if it's cleared by an opposition defender. Given that your setup is rather counter-attacking, the opposition defense may not always be able to get back in time to consolidate, which is good of course (except when you play against weaker teams that will look to defend). In that regard, you may increase tempo by one notch (to higher), so as to encourage faster attacking transitions. Btw, since you play on Balanced mentality, narrow width may not be necessary.

When playing against stronger teams, you may consider adding the "Regroup" TI, to further solidify your defense (especially in away games).

Overall, the tactic looks like a decent starting point, which means it's basically okay, but will likely need certain tweaks here and there, depending on the situation and/or opposition.

[Red Horizon]

7 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

Lowering the line of engagement, could be a good idea if you have fast players upfront. Your team will start defending deep in the field, and it will be more compact. You'll let your opponent get higher in the pitch before starting to press them.

You could change your mentality with any tactic, but you ust realize the impact that that change will have in your team and player instructions.

For example, you already are telling your team to pass more directly, by increasing the mentality this will be even more increased.

In my current tactic (4123 wide DM), i also start the games with a balanced mentality. I set my team to play with higher tempo so everytime i change my mentality to attack i also drop the tempo to standard and add the instruction to work ball into the box. If i don't do that, and with the roles/duties i have in my tactic, i'll end up with long shots galore that will leave to nothing.

I never lower my mentality below balanced. If i think i need to defend, i prefer to change the players roles or duties or other team instructions. Lower mentality change too much the pass length in particulary in the defence and i don't like the way the team just can't keep the ball.

Out of curiosity... you are managing Sporting in Portugal? If that the case, you should play to win the league... not finishing mid table. 

No sorry its been a while since I've changed that, I've just been relegated to the Conference South. 

[Red Horizon]

If i change mentality to attacking (get rid of direct passing) (keep with narrow or very narrow) have much lower line of engagment and lower defensive line. 

Wouldn't that match up better with my roles and duties and counter attacking football? 

It's confusing when both pre sets that play counter are on cautious. 

[Experienced Defender]

42 minutes ago, BusbyFergieJose said:

It's confusing when both pre sets that play counter are on cautious

Forget about presets, as they can be misleading sometimes. You can play counter-attacking football on both lower and higher mentalities (or Balanced, of course), the question is what exact counter-attacking style you want to implement and whether your players have what it takes to play in a certain way. 

 

45 minutes ago, BusbyFergieJose said:

If i change mentality to attacking (get rid of direct passing) (keep with narrow or very narrow) have much lower line of engagment and lower defensive line. 

Wouldn't that match up better with my roles and duties and counter attacking football?

Not necessarily. Everything depends on what your players - all of them, not just attackers or defenders - are capable of and what they aren't. Lower DL and much lower LOE can invite too much pressure from the opposition, so you will need very good defensive players (not only nominal defenders), with good positioning, concentration, marking, jumping, heading, decisions and composure in the first place, in order for them to be able to handle such amount of pressure (plus, you will invite a lot of opposition long shots, some of which may well end up in the back of the net, especially when you play without a DM).

Counter-attacking football on Balanced mentality is a quite good starting point. Then you can experiment by making slight tweaks here and there to see how your players will behave, but make them gradually, not too many at once. And never ignore the defensive aspect of the tactic.