433 Tactical Advice / Footballing identity

[crisrko]

Hello! As I have progressed through the seasons, I have tried a myriad of tactics, self-made or downloaded from the forums. As I move forward through my save, I have made the switch to a new club, and the resources available at the club, as well as my own desire, have me exploring a new tactic.

Given the club depth and the types of players I have at the team, I have been looking at developing a 4-3-3 tactic, the way I want it to play out.

I haven't tested it really, outside of pre-season and a 1-0 win against Manchester United, but for what it's worth, it was somewhat successful in these, creating chances, although not dominating the game like I would like to.

This is what I envision/want:

DM/Anchor - an entirely defensive midfielder, intercepting and winning the ball, that links the defence and midfield

MCR/RPM - should be the heart of the team, feeding the balls to my attackers.

MCL/BBM - a dynamic player that can support the attack, as well as cover defensively

AML/Winger - a wide, explosive player looking to deliver the ball into the box for the CF/AMR to score

AMR/IF - self explanatory, I assume; cut inside and be a goalscoring threat

ST/CF - main goalscorer and threat; my strikers are decently physical and tall, as well as very quick

So, this is the tactic itself:

 

I want the tactic to befit the stature of the club. I want entertaining, attacking football. I believe possession is important, but I don't want possession for the sake of possession; players should be able to roam and be creative, while capitalising on the possession (if that makes any sense?). At the same time, when we don't have the ball I don't intend to lay back, I intend to press and get back possession.

So, I'm looking for some advice. First of all, based on the few games I've played, it somewhat felt as if the CF was isolated and was not provided enough support. I'd mention I tried it on CF/S initially, but with only one attacking role (W/AT), I felt we lack enough attacking edge. I considered setting the IF on AT, but I felt that would leave me too exposed on the right flank, and it's not like the IF does too much defensive work anyway.

Ultimately, I'm looking for some advice on where to go from here. To me it feels that it's decently balanced, although I am not in any shape or form great at the tactical side of the game. Based on the small testing sample, I don't feel as if I've got that 'attacking edge' yet, although it may be premature.

Thanks.

 

[Marabak]

These are my thoughts, which may be well off the mark, but are what I would personally do with your tactic and my understanding of the game. All of these thoughts come from my own fairly successful 433 with Arsenal/Barca in my current save, but it depends a lot on the players you have as well.

• With a Winger on the Left, the Wingback is a little redundant as they will end up in the same space. Either change the WB to FB or the W to IF. I personally always alternate the two attack/support duties rather than duplicate (e.g. W(A) with FB(S))
• You say that your IF(S) on the right doesn't seem to defend much, so nothing really to lose in changing to IF(A)
• You want to play out from the back but I personally find the BPDs tend to make crazy long passes rather than building from the back, often making a great pass but to an isolated striker who loses the ball before they get support. Maybe try CD but retain the play out from the back TI and see how you like it
• With a player with the right stats, the A could be changed to a DLP which will have several effects. Firstly, I find my CDs are more likely to look to this player as an outball from defence, encouraging playing out from the back, but also it adds a spark of creativity in midfield.
• BBM and RPM are both roaming roles, which is fine with A behind, but if you switch A to a DLP, consider changing the RPM role to something a little more stable (CM(S) are underrated I think, and I often use CM(A) in my formations as well). If you are happy with two playmakers in the middle (I'm not against that myself and often utilise it), then an AP(A) could be an interesting option.
• CF try to do everything in attack, often dropping too deep in the build up for my liking personally, so I typically use a AF or PF up front, and try to get players around them rather than vice versa. Might be worth trying a switch.
• High tempo/Pass into space is great for counterattacks, but I don't feel it is suited to better teams who are expected to dominate games. It can work wonders and open up opposition defences occasionally, but I feel it is more likely to just lose position against teams sitting back and defending.

 

[Experienced Defender]

12 hours ago, crisrko said:

The biggest problem in this tactic IMHO is - your defensive (out-of-possession) instructions. With the higher LOE - plus more urgent pressing, and under a high mentality (Positive) at that - you are not giving enough space up front for your attacking players to exploit. Which btw makes the instructions such as higher tempo and pass into space rather ineffective. On top of that, given how you set up the tactic, I would reasonably assume you are managing a relatively strong team (if not even a top one). If so, then your aggressive defensive TIs are an even bigger issue, because most opponents probably tend to play defensively against you, meaning the space up front is being reduced both by yourself (i.e. your aggressive defensive TIs) and the defensive opponents.

Advice: drop the LOE just a notch (to standard instead of higher) and remove the more urgent pressing (leave it on default). Because that would create more space for your players up front, especially as your other instructions - prevent short GKD and counter-press, coupled with the Positive mentality - already make you sufficiently (optimally) aggressive when you are out of possession. 

Also, don't use the Pass into space TI all the time, but rather situationally. Because it can lead to needless losses of possession, especially when playing against defensive teams that will normally look to deny you as much space as possible. 

Higher tempo is okay, but given that you play on the Positive mentality, I would prefer shorter passing and occasionally use the Be more expressive TI (maybe together with the Work ball into the box, so that these 2 instructions would somewhat offset each other).

Roles and duties don't look too bad (assuming you have good players). There is room for tweaking, but let's go step by step. 

[Experienced Defender]

12 hours ago, crisrko said:

based on the few games I've played, it somewhat felt as if the CF was isolated and was not provided enough support. I'd mention I tried it on CF/S initially, but with only one attacking role (W/AT), I felt we lack enough attacking edge

That's exactly one of the tweaks I had in my mind when I said that there is room for tweaking. CF itself is a nice role, but it does not fit equally well in every system (even if you have a really suitable player). In your current setup, I would rather have him as a DLF on attack. 

[crisrko]

20 hours ago, Marabak said:

These are my thoughts, which may be well off the mark, but are what I would personally do with your tactic and my understanding of the game. All of these thoughts come from my own fairly successful 433 with Arsenal/Barca in my current save, but it depends a lot on the players you have as well.

• With a Winger on the Left, the Wingback is a little redundant as they will end up in the same space. Either change the WB to FB or the W to IF. I personally always alternate the two attack/support duties rather than duplicate (e.g. W(A) with FB(S))
• You say that your IF(S) on the right doesn't seem to defend much, so nothing really to lose in changing to IF(A)
• You want to play out from the back but I personally find the BPDs tend to make crazy long passes rather than building from the back, often making a great pass but to an isolated striker who loses the ball before they get support. Maybe try CD but retain the play out from the back TI and see how you like it
• With a player with the right stats, the A could be changed to a DLP which will have several effects. Firstly, I find my CDs are more likely to look to this player as an outball from defence, encouraging playing out from the back, but also it adds a spark of creativity in midfield.
• BBM and RPM are both roaming roles, which is fine with A behind, but if you switch A to a DLP, consider changing the RPM role to something a little more stable (CM(S) are underrated I think, and I often use CM(A) in my formations as well). If you are happy with two playmakers in the middle (I'm not against that myself and often utilise it), then an AP(A) could be an interesting option.
• CF try to do everything in attack, often dropping too deep in the build up for my liking personally, so I typically use a AF or PF up front, and try to get players around them rather than vice versa. Might be worth trying a switch.
• High tempo/Pass into space is great for counterattacks, but I don't feel it is suited to better teams who are expected to dominate games. It can work wonders and open up opposition defences occasionally, but I feel it is more likely to just lose position against teams sitting back and defending.

 

I see. But given that the Winger is on Attack, won't the wing back be sufficiently pushed up on the field to cover some of the space between himself and the winger? I'm aware that overlaps won't/most likely won't happen, but I thought that by allowing the DL to be on WB/S duty, he'd be pushed up further on the field during the attack, resulting in less a gap between the winger and wingback.

9 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

The biggest problem in this tactic IMHO is - your defensive (out-of-possession) instructions. With the higher LOE - plus more urgent pressing, and under a high mentality (Positive) at that - you are not giving enough space up front for your attacking players to exploit. Which btw makes the instructions such as higher tempo and pass into space rather ineffective. On top of that, given how you set up the tactic, I would reasonably assume you are managing a relatively strong team (if not even a top one). If so, then your aggressive defensive TIs are an even bigger issue, because most opponents probably tend to play defensively against you, meaning the space up front is being reduced both by yourself (i.e. your aggressive defensive TIs) and the defensive opponents.

Advice: drop the LOE just a notch (to standard instead of higher) and remove the more urgent pressing (leave it on default). Because that would create more space for your players up front, especially as your other instructions - prevent short GKD and counter-press, coupled with the Positive mentality - already make you sufficiently (optimally) aggressive when you are out of possession. 

Also, don't use the Pass into space TI all the time, but rather situationally. Because it can lead to needless losses of possession, especially when playing against defensive teams that will normally look to deny you as much space as possible. 

Higher tempo is okay, but given that you play on the Positive mentality, I would prefer shorter passing and occasionally use the Be more expressive TI (maybe together with the Work ball into the box, so that these 2 instructions would somewhat offset each other).

Roles and duties don't look too bad (assuming you have good players). There is room for tweaking, but let's go step by step. 

I see. To be fair, it did seem as if my players are pretty bunched up.

I will be making adjustments and see how it pans out.

In this tactic, would it make more sense for the GK to be a classic GK or a SK? Assuming I won't be pushed up that much, there's not much point to a SK there since I he'd be sending them up high for a counter, correctly? Lest I misunderstand the purpose of a SK.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, crisrko said:

In this tactic, would it make more sense for the GK to be a classic GK or a SK? 

SK would definitely make more sense than standard GK, especially as you play with a higher DL and your keeper is Kepa, who is very well-suited for the SK role (I would play him as SK on support duty). SK is not just about playing counter-attack-ish passes, but also rushing out to sweep up opposition through balls behind your defense. 

1 hour ago, crisrko said:

Assuming I won't be pushed up that much, there's not much point to a SK there since I he'd be sending them up high for a counter, correctly?

If you drop the LOE a bit (as I suggested), then you are actually more likely to see counter-attacks by your team than with the high LOE. After all, counter-attacking tactics (which yours is not) use a lower LOE precisely in order to create more space for potential counter-attacks by drawing the opposition forward.