The Bane of my FM Life - Flat Defensive 541/451 - Advice Needed

[TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos]

Coming up against a (usually newly promoted) flat, defensive 451, 541 formation has proven to be the bane of my FM life.

This last game I played typified this. Playing as Southampton, coming into this in fairly decent form, decent morale, playing a newly promoted Nottingham Forest at home, I was expecting a comfortable victory. As soon as I seen the flat 541 alarm bells started ringing! Long story short, they scored in the 92nd minute with their second shot to win 1 nil. After completely dominating for 90 minutes, yet having no CCCs, which is a rarity for me (but somewhat clarifying my struggle against these flat defensive sides)

My tactic is one I've used and tinkered with over the duration of FM19, and one I've had relative success with, with a number of different teams. Designed to be balanced and allow a variety of goals, with the IF(A) and CM(A) the 2 main goal scorers, but with goals usually coming throughout the team. It wasn't my strongest 11 due to a Thursday night Europa League game previous and a couple of injuries, but the team I had out should have been more than capable.

When playing against a bigger team that play more attacking and open, I usually make some changes to take advantage of the space being left in behind. Namely DLF(S) to DLF(A), take away counter press and play out of defence, and employ pass into space. It's a formula that seems to work.

When it comes to facing a 'shut up shop' team my mind goes blank, as theoretically (in my eyes anyway) there is no obvious space to exploit. 

So I'm basically asking for advice on how to deal with these 'bastard' formations, as I've affectionately come to know them!

Thanks in advance 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2019 by TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos

[Experienced Defender]

As I managed the Saints, I know some of these players very well (Gunn. Cedric, Romeu, Hojbjerg, Ward-Prowse and Ings all played for me).

My first suggestion is to swap around Hojbjerg and Ward-Prowse in terms of their roles (although I would prefer Lemina as a CM on attack anyway). Hojbjerg does have very good passing and vision and likes to play killer balls, but his decision-making is very poor, which is why I would avoid playing him as a playmaker (of any sort). Actually, you may not need a PM at all, but if you want to use one - then Ward-Prowse is clearly a better choice.

Then look at your right side. You have both the right CM and FB on attack duties, which leaves the flank pretty much exposed defensively (if you managed a top team, that would probably be a less of an issue owing to the quality of players, but Southampton - with all due respect - is not a top side). Plus - and this also pertains to the right flank - both your fullback (FB on attack) and wide forward (winger) are played in roles that are hard-coded to cross a lot. This is okay if you deliberately want to rely on crosses, but I doubt that's what you want. Or perhaps I am wrong?

Counter-press is another risky instruction for a team like Southampton. In some situations (against much weaker opposition), it may work and be useful, but I am not sure it's a wise idea to use it all the time. 

Work ball into box can overcomplicate things in attack, especially when playing against a packed and disciplined defense (and btw also requires players that are very good both technically and mentally).

 

[reg22]

I've found 'work ball into the box' to be quite difficult when opposition play either a DM or an extra DC

[Guerin]

It is just much harder to create chances against teams that do nothing but defend. Same in real life. The challenge is in pulling the defense apart. I find it helpful to think about it from the opposition's perspective first.

Let's take Forest as an example. 

They want to keep the midfield and the defense very close together while also denying space in behind by sitting deep. The central three are sitting on the toes of the centre backs because they want pack the front of the penalty box and force you to funnel the ball to wide areas- like your right winger- where they can then be confident of dealing with crosses into the box.

In your current setup your left fwd attack is pushing right into their right back making it easy to mark him. Your cmA is actually going to push his opposite number further back and closer to the center back behind him essentially reducing the space between the midfield and defense which gives your DLFs no space to drop into. The only options for your players is to go wide and cross into the box--which could work if you have very tall strong players in the CF and Inside forward attack positions but they will still be outnumbered in there making it a bit of a zero sum game. You're essentially playing into their hands with this set up.

I'd say the key to making some chances is to focus on disrupting their set up by not doing what they want you to do. In simple terms, you need to pull their sitting midfielders further up the pitch and the backline further back creating a little pocket of space in between the lines in front of their penalty box for you to exploit.

If you want to disrupt their setup there's a few ways of going about it without changing your shape, let me know if you want me to go into specifics of exactly what roles and duties I'd adapt in your setup.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Guerin

[TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos]

13 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

My first suggestion is to swap around Hojbjerg and Ward-Prowse in terms of their roles (although I would prefer Lemina as a CM on attack anyway).

Thanks for the reply man, much appreciated. I did tinker with these two for a while, and decided Hojbjerg would be more suited to DLP(S) as although he has 'tries killer balls' and 'shoots from distance' he also has 'comes deep to get ball' as a PPM which doesn't suit my CM(A) role. I prefer to see him bombing forward to grab goals, not coming deep to receive. Ward-Prowse, who doesn't have any PPMs, actually scored a hat trick from that role in a previous game, so I ended up rotating him and Lemina in the CM(A) role (occasionally Armstrong depending on the circumstances)

13 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

You have both the right CM and FB on attack duties

This is my base tactic for similar level/lesser teams (didn't think I'd need to worry against Forest...). If I'm playing a top 6 side say, I will change the FB(A) to (S) which seems to be defensively more sound. I'll generally tinker between Balanced and Cautious mentality as well against bigger sides, so that also helps tighten things up if need be without changing the overall tactic too much.

13 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

This is okay if you deliberately want to rely on crosses, but I doubt that's what you want. Or perhaps I am wrong?

You're actually correct in this, I didn't want to rely on crosses in the creation of this. But I noticed occasionally from watching games, the IF(A) on the opposite flank found himself in a lot of space so I stuck an FB(A) and W(S) to take advantage of this. It doesn't happen too often, but I'm now very happy to see a goal scored from a cross from either full back or winger to the IF(A).

13 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Work ball into box can overcomplicate things in attack, especially when playing against a packed and disciplined defense (and btw also requires players that are very good both technically and mentally).

Having thought about it properly, this will be the first TI to go when I next face a flat back 5. It makes perfect sense, thanks.

7 hours ago, reg22 said:

I've found 'work ball into the box' to be quite difficult when opposition play either a DM or an extra DC

Cheers for the input man, appreciated. Yes, this will definitely go against a similar set up next time, hopefully prove more fruitful!

1 hour ago, Guerin said:

It is just much harder to create chances against teams that do nothing but defend. Same in real life.

Very true mate, I see this far too often watching teams come to play Rangers and 'park the bus'. Very frustrating 

I had a vision of stretching the pitch and having a bigger distance between LOE and defensive line, allowing more space to play in, but they would just become more compact and drop deeper and we'd be back to square one.  Maybe the opposite would be true and playing them at their own game would benefit more, dropping a bit deeper and enticing them onto me to create a bit more space?

1 hour ago, Guerin said:

If you want to disrupt their setup there's a few ways of going about it without changing your shape, let me know if you want me to go into specifics of exactly what roles and duties I'd adapt in your setup.

Yes man, any help would be appreciated 

[Guerin]

1 hour ago, TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos said:

I had a vision of stretching the pitch and having a bigger distance between LOE and defensive line, allowing more space to play in, but they would just become more compact and drop deeper and we'd be back to square one.  Maybe the opposite would be true and playing them at their own game would benefit more, dropping a bit deeper and enticing them onto me to create a bit more space?

Yes man, any help would be appreciated 

Yeah I had a save with the same formation to yours more or less (Half back instead of DM.) And the same problem with super deep defences. 

The way I solved it (sort of) is to get their players moving toward my players rather than my players moving toward theirs. 

 Dropping deep, dropping the tempo and playing out from the back will get you playing patiently in your own half and get the opposition midfield to leave their defensive positions and close you down leaving space behind them. Another way to do it (which I haven't tested myself) would be to play super wide, forcing their players to leave their positions to close off the wide areas creating space in the middle. So maybe just experimenting with the TI's could be the solution you're looking for.

Here's something I had success with that works on the principle of getting their players to move toward yours: 

Switching DLF to Attack duty. Hopefully this has the effect of pushing the backline even deeper and keeping them there. 

Changing your CMa to a BBM or CMs- this will get their midfielders moving toward your players (and out of the defensive block) rather than your players moving toward theirs- you could even change the dm to a support duty so you outnumber them in the middle when they do come forward.

Inside fwd to a support duty. He should operate between the fullback and their wide man now. That means the opposition fullback will start moving toward your inside fwd (and out of the defensive block)

Now with these changes, you're using four players to crank open a space between their midfield and their defensive line- their midfielders are moving toward your midfielders (and further up the pitch) while their defence is getting pushed back by your striker. You have players to exploit that space in the BBM, DLFA (who will occasionally drop deep) and the right winger. 

I'd change the RWs to an advanced playmaker or an inside fwd support. Someone that is going to move into that space you've created in the hole. Once he's there, one of their centre backs is going to have to come out and engage him. Giving your striker a bit of space. Also by having both wide men narrow you create natural overlaps for your fullbacks so you'll still get crosses into the box.

 

When I made these changes for specific games where the opposition sat deep I found I'd create 3 or 4 chances with at least 1 or 2 of them clear cut- didn't always win though but it was better than nothing. I tried to pack my team with creative players in all the forward positions except the striker. Often once you go one up you can revert to your normal style since the opposition will naturally start coming forward---although, I once had a team sitting deep for 90mins despite being 3-nil down 

Of course, having a good set piece routine could do all of this for you. 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Guerin

[sporadicsmiles]

Guerin makes some very useful points here. I especially like the idea of trying to stretch them vertically. This is true frequently when coming up against offensive sides. All the ways you are trying to create space are covered here because they have so many bodies around the box. So you need to get rid of some of those bodies around the box, by drawing their midfield up the pitch to deal with something. One example would be to put the DLP in the DMC slot, have a supporting role alongside him (or a CM(D), something that doesnt get too far forward). Maybe an IWB to really increase central numbers. If the AI does not deal with this, they will never see the ball, so they should commit their midfield a little bit. You can try to draw out the wider midfielders with supporting fullbacks (or fullback if you choose an IWB). Then you can try to run players into that space to stress their defensive front.

It is tricky to break down teams like this. I regularly play a team who plays with a back 3 and 4 players in the DMC/WM strata. packs their defense so tight that I simply have to change up my regular approach.

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos said:

16 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

You have both the right CM and FB on attack duties

This is my base tactic for similar level/lesser teams (didn't think I'd need to worry against Forest...). If I'm playing a top 6 side say, I will change the FB(A) to (S) which seems to be defensively more sound. I'll generally tinker between Balanced and Cautious mentality as well against bigger sides, so that also helps tighten things up if need be without changing the overall tactic too much.

Actually, when you play against weaker sides and are struggling to break them down so you want to add some more penetration, I would rather play both the CM and winger on attack, while keeping the fullback more conservative (either as FB on support, WB on defend or even - my preferred option - IWB on defend). Like this:

XX

XX                              Wat

XX     CMat

XX

XX       XX      XX      IWBde

XX

In which case the Overlap right TI would come into the equation as an option (to encourage more dynamic interplay on the right but without overly compromising defensive solidity).

Though this would require tweaking a couple of other roles/duties. 

[TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos]

8 hours ago, Guerin said:

Dropping deep, dropping the tempo and playing out from the back will get you playing patiently in your own half and get the opposition midfield to leave their defensive positions and close you down leaving space behind them

This was one of the ideas floating around in my.head, but yet to test. Seems a logical solution and one I'll definitely try the next time the problem comes up.

8 hours ago, Guerin said:

Another way to do it (which I haven't tested myself) would be to play super wide, forcing their players to leave their positions to close off the wide areas creating space in the middle.

This was also another idea I had, one I actually tried to implement against Forest. Changed a couple of TIs to play wider and more direct, but as the score suggested without much luck! To be fair I created a few more chances, barely half chances tho never mind CCC!

The rest of your advice regarding drawing opposition players onto my own is solid, and will definitely test it out next time.

7 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

It is tricky to break down teams like this. I regularly play a team who plays with a back 3 and 4 players in the DMC/WM strata. packs their defense so tight that I simply have to change up my regular approach

I feel I'll almost need a complete new tactic at times with the number of changes to specifically deal with these teams. Needs must tho, my approach clearly isn't effective against these sides. Definitely need to tinker a bit.

7 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

while keeping the fullback more conservative (either as FB on support, WB on defend or even - my preferred option - IWB on defend)

Have actually tried this approach with both FB(S) and WB(D) but I've never fully understood the IWB to implement it properly. I may experiment on a new save with a completely new tactic and implement some of the ideas on this thread. I'm sure bigger teams than Southampton will have to deal with these flat defensive sides on a more regular basis.

[tusina]

I seem to find success by changing attacking width depending on opposition. If my wide players find themselves so narrow they never have time to cross or pass before getting closed down i go more wide. If i'm so wide my central players stop finding each other with forward passes i go more narrow. Going wider seems to allow my wide players to go around the low block and cross from byline instead of attempting a deeper cross (getting blocked by the first defender).

[sporadicsmiles]

6 hours ago, TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos said:

I feel I'll almost need a complete new tactic at times with the number of changes to specifically deal with these teams. Needs must tho, my approach clearly isn't effective against these sides. Definitely need to tinker a bit.

Sometimes you do, but that is fine. Being inflexible tactically is not always a good thing. Especially when you know something does not work, using the same thing over and over is rather pointless.

[lferreira]

Going wide and having one of your fullbacks as an IWB-Su can do wonders. 

Try IWB-Su behind a Mezzala-Su and Winger on attack. 

[TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos]

So I got a chance to right some wrongs as I drew Forest at home in the cup. Again they set up with a flat back 5 (albeit a different gaffer this time).  Made a couple of tweaks as advised, and the set up looked like this

The general shape didn't differ too much, but with some minor TI and role changes the idea was to drop a bit deeper, lower the tempo and try the patient approach. This aspect was a success, with far more possession than last time. Although it felt like possession for possessions sake at times, and a bit stale. There was a lack in penetration which resulted in a lot of long shots and no CCCs (although watching the majority of the game we squandered a lot of chances). I really felt I missed the presence of the CM(A) running from midfield. BBM was fine, but just lacked the final third danger. 

Anyway, stats and shots to clarify my thoughts

The main aim was to win, which we did, winning 1 nil after a Hojbjerg worldie. But the reality was I came away pretty disappointed with the stale play. Maybe Forest (or any flat back 5 team) are my bogey team (formation) and I should accept that scraping a 1 nil will suffice.

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos

[Experienced Defender]

27 minutes ago, TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos said:

This tactic looks a bit too conservative for a match in which you are the clear favorite (which I suppose you were against Forest). Both in terms of instructions (including the mentality) and roles/duties.

[TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos]

On 06/10/2019 at 23:06, Experienced Defender said:

This tactic looks a bit too conservative for a match in which you are the clear favorite (which I suppose you were against Forest). Both in terms of instructions (including the mentality) and roles/duties.

Yeah that was actually the intention in all honesty. The previous defeat to Forest was my usual more adventurous tactic, and it didn't work at all. Actually produced very little, and this more conservative approach created more. I tried to implement the patient, deeper approach, dragging their players towards mine (well that was the plan anyway). 

A couple of games previous we actually beat Roma 3-1 away from home I'm the Europa. I'm much more comfortable playing against the bigger teams who leave more space to exploit. These flat back 5 formations can do one!

[Guerin]

1 hour ago, TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos said:

dragging their players towards mine (well that was the plan anyway). 

Did you see this happening in the game? Because that's half the battle. The other half is then finding a way to exploit the space that you've made. I wonder as well, did you make any situations where their defenders got all jumbled up-- like a CB in the DM position, FB in the CB position etc---  or just generally scrambling around. 

 

On 06/10/2019 at 22:35, TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos said:

There was a lack in penetration which resulted in a lot of long shots

DId you use the work ball in the box TI? 

1-nil is still a result but the lack of CCC's is disappointing, but you didn't give them any chances either. Keep the updates coming next time you face one of these flat back 5's. 

Edited October 7, 2019 by Guerin

[TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos]

10 hours ago, Guerin said:

Did you see this happening in the game? Because that's half the battle. The other half is then finding a way to exploit the space that you've made. I wonder as well, did you make any situations where their defenders got all jumbled up-- like a CB in the DM position, FB in the CB position etc---  or just generally scrambling around.

Honestly not as much as I'd hoped for. Even tho they pressed a bit, I was hoping for more of a chasing shadows approach from them but no such luck. They were quite happy to let me pass around. As I said, I felt as tho it was possession for possessions sake at times. 

As for your other question, there were times their CB was drawn out with the full back to my winger, but my BBM wasn't far enough forward to take advantage. I changed that (probably too late) in the game to my original CM(A) but I didn't see much if a difference. Apart from that, I didn't notice and real scrambles or confusion. 

10 hours ago, Guerin said:

DId you use the work ball in the box TI? 

1-nil is still a result but the lack of CCC's is disappointing, but you didn't give them any chances either.

I had it in the previous tactic, but took it out specifically for this game. I was hoping for a more varied attack if they were going to sit very deep. I didn't envisage much space in the box to exploit. Although looking at the shot map, I had a good 3 or 4 chances In and around the 6 yard box, yet still none classed as CCC!

[Guerin]

 

I sometimes feel like I'm creating more chances than is shown in the stats. Like to me, a striker hitting into the side netting from 8 yards out is a clear cut chance, but no register in the stats. I set up quite defensively in my current save, and two things the AI does is work ball in box and run at defence- it can often lead to me giving away penalties. Next time you face it I would try making the DM a half-back and the RW an advanced playmaker support- possibly even toggle the DLFA to a Poacher but use the same TIs maybe with added retain possession. Just having someone drift into the centre of the pitch from wide could be difficult for the opponent to pick up.

If the opponent is going man to man marking, maybe some roles that explore the pitch a bit more could really help drag them about-- like trequartistas, roaming playmakers, Mezellas, False Nines and so on- you could try adding a role like that to your attack during these games to see if you get more joy.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Guerin

[TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos]

21 hours ago, Guerin said:

Next time you face it I would try making the DM a half-back and the RW an advanced playmaker support- possibly even toggle the DLFA to a Poacher but use the same TIs maybe with added retain possession. Just having someone drift into the centre of the pitch from wide could be difficult for the opponent to pick up.

I hadn't thought of the half back role, what's the thinking behind that? My W(s) actually has roam from position, and his position on the heat map was very narrow considering his winger role. Maybe from starting narrow tho, instead of the desired starting wide then coming inside. I'll have a tinker with that. 

 

21 hours ago, Guerin said:

If the opponent is going man to man marking, maybe some roles that explore the pitch a bit more could really help drag them about-- like trequartistas, roaming playmakers, Mezellas, False Nines and so on- you could try adding a role like that to your attack during these games to see if you get more joy

The opponents seemed to be a lot more stand-off-ish than I had expected, hence the changing of BBM to CM(A). Possibly too late in the game tho, as the effect was minimal.

I will tinker with more adventurous roles the next time, I've always adopted a more simplistic role set up, letting the players attributes and PPM determine how they take on that role. E.g. I have Sandro Tonali and Romeu as rotating DM, who both play the role different. One more playmaker, the other more no nonsense. Same with the RW position, I go between a runner/crosser and a drifter/inside forward type. I like the fact i can change the play very easily without having to change too many TI/PI. 

[Guerin]

7 hours ago, TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos said:

I hadn't thought of the half back role, what's the thinking behind that?

Half-backs create a three with your centre backs. It can help with drawing teams out of a low defensive block.

 

7 hours ago, TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos said:

I will tinker with more adventurous roles the next time

I'm the same. I do love a wide trequartista, but I've never quite managed to implement one without creating defensive problems on that flank.

[Br4nco]

21 hours ago, Guerin said:

Half-backs create a three with your centre backs. It can help with drawing teams out of a low defensive block.

This sounds interesting. So much so that i'm really thinking about implementing a half-back in my 4141 tactic. Thank you for the unintended idea mate!