Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Basically, I am after some advice on a DC pairing.

I am currently set up with 2x DC, WBL, WBR and a DLP in the DM slot. I have my keeper distributing to centre backs but I am not sure in the best roles for them. 

I am looking to play out of defence with shorter passing. I don't think 2 ball playing defenders would be the best option somehow. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you post a screenshot of the whole tactic, rather than just a few positions/roles? We don't even know which is your formation... whether WBL/R refers to positions or roles (and what duties they have)... DLP is on defend or support duty?

Anyway, you need to post the whole tactic. 

4 hours ago, EnigMattic1 said:

I don't think 2 ball playing defenders would be the best option somehow

Me neither (even without any meaningful knowledge of your tactical setup).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

Can you post a screenshot of the whole tactic, rather than just a few positions/roles? We don't even know which is your formation... whether WBL/R refers to positions or roles (and what duties they have)... DLP is on defend or support duty?

Anyway, you need to post the whole tactic. 

Me neither (even without any meaningful knowledge of your tactical setup).

No idea how to post a screenshot, hope this works....

 

Untitled.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EnigMattic1 said:

No idea how to post a screenshot, hope this works

Yes, it works :thup: 

So let's now see the tactic: 

2 hours ago, EnigMattic1 said:

Untitled.png

The tactic looks contradictory, that's my first impression. Some instructions and roles suggest you want to play some sort of possession-based football, but then some other ones don't really support such style of play.

On top of that, the setup of roles and duties is too one-dimensional for my liking (the flanks are totally identical). 

Then you have 2 playmakers in very close vicinity, which (in most setups) is an overkill - unnecessary even for patient possession styles.

Finally - as you and me already agreed - 2 BPDs make little sense. 

8 hours ago, EnigMattic1 said:

I am looking to play out of defence with shorter passing

Well, that's all the more reason not to play with more than 1 BPD (if any). And btw, SK on attack duty does not go hand in hand with possession football, either. 

If you'd like to know what changes I would make to your tactic, please let me know :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Yes, it works :thup: 

So let's now see the tactic: 

The tactic looks contradictory, that's my first impression. Some instructions and roles suggest you want to play some sort of possession-based football, but then some other ones don't really support such style of play.

On top of that, the setup of roles and duties is too one-dimensional for my liking (the flanks are totally identical). 

Then you have 2 playmakers in very close vicinity, which (in most setups) is an overkill - unnecessary even for patient possession styles.

Finally - as you and me already agreed - 2 BPDs make little sense. 

Well, that's all the more reason not to play with more than 1 BPD (if any). And btw, SK on attack duty does not go hand in hand with possession football, either. 

If you'd like to know what changes I would make to your tactic, please let me know :thup:

Id love to hear how youd alter the tactic!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Yes, it works :thup: 

So let's now see the tactic: 

The tactic looks contradictory, that's my first impression. Some instructions and roles suggest you want to play some sort of possession-based football, but then some other ones don't really support such style of play.

On top of that, the setup of roles and duties is too one-dimensional for my liking (the flanks are totally identical). 

Then you have 2 playmakers in very close vicinity, which (in most setups) is an overkill - unnecessary even for patient possession styles.

Finally - as you and me already agreed - 2 BPDs make little sense. 

Well, that's all the more reason not to play with more than 1 BPD (if any). And btw, SK on attack duty does not go hand in hand with possession football, either. 

If you'd like to know what changes I would make to your tactic, please let me know :thup:

By all means mate, the reason I posted here was for advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brocksolid said:

Id love to hear how youd alter the tactic!

 

3 hours ago, EnigMattic1 said:

By all means mate, the reason I posted here was for advice

Okay mate(s)!

So here is an example of how I would set up roles and duties to make it more balanced and varied at the same time:

A version with the F9:

F9

IWsu                            IFat

DLPsu    MEZsu

WBat          HB        IWBsu

CDde  BPDde

SKsu

A version without F9:

PFat

IWsu                           Wat

DLPsu   MEZsu

WBat         HB         IWBsu

CDde   BPDde

SKsu

Of course, there are a couple more possible options, but basic principles are more or less the same. 

In terms of instructions... first off, keep in mind that the mentality is an extremely important factor. So if you insist on playing under the Attacking one, be very careful with the defensive line - because higher DL on the attacking is not the same as higher DL on lower mentalities. The same goes for all other instructions, but in your tactic it's the defensive line that can be a potential defensive issue. 

Instructions I would immediately remove are: dribble less and hold shape. Unless you have some really strong reason for using them?

Distribution to PM is another one to remove. You are already playing out of defence and the playmaker is a ball-magnet anyway, so there is no need to limit the keeper's options (what if the PM is under pressure when the keeper looks to play the ball to him?)

Wide attacking width is also not necessary - not least because it's already relatively wide on higher mentalities. Start with standard width, because you can easily make it either slightly wider or narrower if needed (watch the match and tweak accordingly as you see fit).

In case you decide to drop the mentality to Positive, other tweaks will probably be needed.

 

 

Edited by Experienced Defender
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

Okay mate(s)!

So here is an example of how I would set up roles and duties to make it more balanced and varied at the same time:

A version with the F9:

F9

IWsu                            IFat

DLPsu    MEZsu

WBat          HB        IWBsu

CDde  BPDde

SKsu

A version without F9:

PFat

IWsu                           Wat

DLPsu   MEZsu

WBat         HB         IWBsu

CDde   BPDde

SKsu

Of course, there are a couple more possible options, but basic principles are more or less the same. 

In terms of instructions... first off, keep in mind that the mentality is an extremely important factor. So if you insist on playing under the Attacking one, be very careful with the defensive line - because higher DL on the attacking is not the same as higher DL on lower mentalities. The same goes for all other instructions, but in your tactic it's the defensive line that can be a potential defensive issue. 

Instructions I would immediately remove are: dribble less and hold shape. Unless you have some really strong reason for using them?

Distribution to PM is another one to remove. You are already playing out of defence and the playmaker is a ball-magnet anyway, so there is no need to limit the keeper's options (what if the PM is under pressure when the keeper looks to play the ball to him?)

Wide attacking width is also not necessary - not least because it's already relatively wide on higher mentalities. Start with standard width, because you can easily make it either slightly wider or narrower if needed (watch the match and tweak accordingly as you see fit).

In case you decide to drop the mentality to Positive, other tweaks will probably be needed.

 

 

OK, so why IWB on the right? If he is cutting inside and the W/IF going forward, won't that leave me short on the right? 

If the player in the HB role has traits 'dictates tempo' and 'comes deep to collect ball', will he act like a playmaker? 

Should I choose to keep the DM as a DLP (just because I am trying to have a Pirlo/Xabi Alonso type player), what would you recommend to partner the Mezzala? 

The other option I was looking at did involve a HB so I can look at that if the DLP doesn't work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, EnigMattic1 said:

why IWB on the right?

To cover the space behind the mezzala and thus provide more support to the midfield in the build-up phase. 

 

9 hours ago, EnigMattic1 said:

If he is cutting inside and the W/IF going forward, won't that leave me short on the right?

Short in what sense - attacking or defensive? 

 

9 hours ago, EnigMattic1 said:

If the player in the HB role has traits 'dictates tempo' and 'comes deep to collect ball', will he act like a playmaker? 

He'll tend to behave in a "playmaker-ish" manner (due to these traits), but without being a ball-magnet. 

 

9 hours ago, EnigMattic1 said:

Should I choose to keep the DM as a DLP (just because I am trying to have a Pirlo/Xabi Alonso type player), what would you recommend to partner the Mezzala?

I don't know which player would play next to the mezzala as his midfield partner, but roles I would prefer in that particular case are carrilero or BWM on support:

CAR/BWMsu   MEZsu

DLPde(su?)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

To cover the space behind the mezzala and thus provide more support to the midfield in the build-up phase. 

 

Short in what sense - attacking or defensive? 

 

He'll tend to behave in a "playmaker-ish" manner (due to these traits), but without being a ball-magnet. 

 

I don't know which player would play next to the mezzala as his midfield partner, but roles I would prefer in that particular case are carrilero or BWM on support:

CAR/BWMsu   MEZsu

DLPde(su?)

 

Short as in nobody on the right. I just can't help but think that, if my IF has cut inside and the IWB is in the middle covering the MEZ, there will be nobody on right wing. I guess I just don't fully understand the newer roles yet. I never used to have this much trouble getting a tactic to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, EnigMattic1 said:

Short as in nobody on the right. I just can't help but think that, if my IF has cut inside and the IWB is in the middle covering the MEZ, there will be nobody on right wing

If that's what you fear, you can play the IWB on defend duty and use the Overlap right TI. But you need to know that roles - as well as instructions btw - are not set in stone in FM. Players do not stay all the time in their nominal positions - they adapt movement according to what happens on the pitch at the moment. Therefore, an IWB will occasionally move to a wider area when he sees feet (even more so with the overlap TI, but also without it). Btw, the mezzala also tends to move wider occasionally, so a combo of IWB, MEZ and IF can work nicely. Provided of course that you have the right player for each role. Of course, if you are not comfortable with the IWB as a role, you can go with a WB on defend instead (also with the overlap TI as an option).

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EnigMattic1 said:

Back to the DC. If I had a ball playing defender, would it make sense to have his partner as a Centre Back (Cover)? That is the one that sits a but further back isn't it? 

Yes, you can use a cover-duty CB as long as you don't use offside trap. But if you want to use offside trap, then both CBs should be on defend duty (regardless of roles).

If you decide to go with a cover/defend combo, the covering one should be more reliable defensively (anticipation, concentration and acceleration in the first place, but other defensive attributes also need to be good). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Yes, you can use a cover-duty CB as long as you don't use offside trap. But if you want to use offside trap, then both CBs should be on defend duty (regardless of roles).

If you decide to go with a cover/defend combo, the covering one should be more reliable defensively (anticipation, concentration and acceleration in the first place, but other defensive attributes also need to be good). 

I don't use offside trap. I will try a CB on cover with a BPD on defend and see how it goes. 

Appreciate the help, thanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...