Question about Mezzalla pairing with Raumendauter

[Keyzer Soze]

Hi, 

Have anyone try, with sucess, pair a MEZ with a RAUM?

I'm trying to get my 4123 formation to work, but so far i'm having mixed results in that combo. The team is winning, no complains there, but on and off, my MEZ and RAUM are getting low average rating.

My global setup is this

DLF(a)

IF(s)                                     RAUM(a)

DLP(s)          MEZ(s)

DM(d)

WB(a)      CD(d)       CD(d)        FB(s)

Gk(d)

 

Team Instructions: Play from defence, Be more expressive, higher tempo, distribute to centerbacks, counter, counterpress, higher D-Line, much higher LOE

Mentality: Positive at home and Balnced at away games

Like i said, the team is winning, but both MEZ and RAUM often gets the lowest av. rating in the team. In theory i was thinking that MEZ+RAUM could overload that space between the oponent central defender and left fullback and take advantage of that.

[Experienced Defender]

A mezzala on support duty can work nicely with a RMD, but only if the whole tactic is set up properly (like any tactic btw).

So the first couple of tweaks I would suggest are:

- change the striker's (DLF) duty to support (to create as much space for the RMD as possible)

- drop the LOE to standard (again for the sake of space which RMD especially needs)

- use the combination of shorter passing and standard (default) tempo (to give your players a bit more time to create chances for the RMD, and also for the RMD himself to explore the space)

Depending on the quality of your players, you may also consider changing the RB into WB on support duty, in order to encourage him to provide more support in advanced areas, which can benefit both the RMD and MEZ. In that case, it would be advisable to change the DM into either a HB or anchor. 

If you decide to try these tweaks, report back how it works 

[Keyzer Soze]

@Experienced Defender

Thks for the quick reply.

i've try your sugestions, and got a mixed result.

On one hand the Raum got more envolved in the game. Played 4 games with the tweaks you sugest and he scores 2 goals and 1 assist. So that's positive.

On the other hand, i've conceeded more goals and the team, as a whole, seems to have less control of the game.

I've changed the right full back to a wingback on support, changing the DM(d) to a HB(d) and we start defending worse. Also, because i've drop the LOE to standard, the opponent start putting more long balls into the back of my defence, something that it was rare in my previous setup.

So, in overall i need to look more carefully to my team instructuions. I've liked your suggestion, in particulary the one about the mentality of the DLF and dropping the higher tempo, to get the Raum more space and time, but i think i need to re-think my off the ball instructions to improve my defence.

Just for reference, i'm playing with Benfica, so i have a pretty good team and i'm suppose to dominate the majoraty of my games.

 

[Experienced Defender]

7 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

So, in overall i need to look more carefully to my team instructuions. I've liked your suggestion, in particulary the one about the mentality of the DLF and dropping the higher tempo, to get the Raum more space and time, but i think i need to re-think my off the ball instructions to improve my defence

Okay, you know your team, so only you can figure out what can work for your players or not 

[Keyzer Soze]

Hi @Experienced Defender

So after some more games and changes i've settled my tactic with some big changes, but for now is working very good to my Benfica team.

 

DLF(s)

IF(a)                                      IW(s)

DLP(s)       CM(a)

DM(d)

WB(s)      CD(d)      CD(d)      WB(s)

SK(d)

Mentality: Balanced/Positive

Instructions: Be more expressive, play from defense, distribute do centerbacks, counter, counterpress, higher LOE, higher d-Line

I also set the 3 frontman + CM(a) to press more.

Like i said, this is working very good to my team, and i think in general is a well balanced tactic. 

The thing i would need some help from you is, how i go from this tactic, to a more conservative one that i could use against higher reputation clubs, particulary in the champions league. I would like to keep my overall style of play.

I was thinking something like this:

DLF(a)

                                     

IW(a)     DLP(s)      CM(a)    WM(s)

DM(d)

FB(s)      CD(d)      CD(d)      FB(s)

G(d)

Mentality: counter/balanced

Instructions: play from defense, distribute to centerbacks, counter, standard d-Line, lower LOE

I would give my WM(s) instruction to sit narrower and take more risks.

What do you think? Do you suggest any changes to a counter/more convervative tactic?

 

[Experienced Defender]

46 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

DLF(s)

IF(a)                                      IW(s)

DLP(s)       CM(a)

DM(d)

WB(s)      CD(d)      CD(d)      WB(s)

SK(d)

Mentality: Balanced/Positive

Instructions: Be more expressive, play from defense, distribute do centerbacks, counter, counterpress, higher LOE, higher d-Line

I also set the 3 frontman + CM(a) to press more

 

46 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

this is working very good to my team, and i think in general is a well balanced tactic. 

The thing i would need some help from you is, how i go from this tactic, to a more conservative one that i could use against higher reputation clubs, particulary in the champions league. I would like to keep my overall style of play

When you have a basic (primary) tactic that works well for you, I think your other (i.e. more conservative) tactic should not be too different from the basic one. Just a couple of tweaks and that's it. 

Let's now see how you set that alternative tactic up: 

49 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

DLF(a)

                                     

IW(a)     DLP(s)      CM(a)    WM(s)

DM(d)

FB(s)      CD(d)      CD(d)      FB(s)

G(d)

Mentality: counter/balanced

Instructions: play from defense, distribute to centerbacks, counter, standard d-Line, lower LOE

I would give my WM(s) instruction to sit narrower and take more risks

Well, you did exactly what I advised against. You changed not only the mentality, but also formation. Plus the both fullback's role(s). 

Again, I would avoid such a big difference between the tactics, but you can try and see. If it works, then great!

 

[Keyzer Soze]

4 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

When you have a basic (primary) tactic that works well for you, I think your other (i.e. more conservative) tactic should not be too different from the basic one. Just a couple of tweaks and that's it. 

Let's now see how you set that alternative tactic up: 

Well, you did exactly what I advised against. You changed not only the mentality, but also formation. Plus the both fullback's role(s). 

Again, I would avoid such a big difference between the tactics, but you can try and see. If it works, then great!

 

I see your point. 

So, how would you set the more conservative tactic? Could you guide me in the right direction?

[Experienced Defender]

3 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

I see your point. 

So, how would you set the more conservative tactic? Could you guide me in the right direction?

If this is your successful primary tactic: 

DLF(s)

IF(a)                                      IW(s)

DLP(s)       CM(a)

DM(d)

WB(s)      CD(d)      CD(d)      WB(s)

SK(d)

Then this is how I would tweak it for the more conservative (counter-attacking) version:

DLFat

IFsu                               (I)Wsu

DLPsu  CMat

DMde

FBat     CDde   CDde   FBsu

SKde

Now the instructions and mentality. These are the ones you use in your main tactic: 

1 hour ago, Keyzer Soze said:

Mentality: Balanced/Positive

Instructions: Be more expressive, play from defense, distribute do centerbacks, counter, counterpress, higher LOE, higher d-Line

I also set the 3 frontman + CM(a) to press more

And these would be mine in the more conservative version:

Mentality - Balanced/Positive

in possession - play out of defence (and nothing else until I see what happens on the pitch during the first 10-15 minutes)

In transition - nothing for the first 15 minutes, then possibly the Counter 

Out of possession - standard DL, lower LOE (and get stuck in if I play on the Balanced mentality)

Plus the soft version of split block - only the striker and CM on attack to close down more.

[Keyzer Soze]

@Experienced Defender

Thanks, but i gotta ask, don't you think that tactic is a bit to "attacking" for lets say play against Man City or Barcelona?

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Keyzer Soze said:

Thanks, but i gotta ask, don't you think that tactic is a bit to "attacking" for lets say play against Man City or Barcelona?

Based on what exactly do you think it's "too attacking"? 

[Keyzer Soze]

47 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Based on what exactly do you think it's "too attacking"? 

Mainly 2 things:

- the balanced or positive mentality. I would think more a counter mentality... Balanced at most. 

- the attacking left fullback. I would thing more of a fullback with a support duty, perhaps with the instruction to get forward. 

Appreciate the paciente in replying to this questions,that could be a bit basic.

[Experienced Defender]

44 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

the balanced or positive mentality. I would think more a counter mentality... Balanced at most

I see what you are referring to, but the mentality does not define my playing style nor how defensively solid I am. I did not lower the mentality, but instead I:

- created a combo of standard DL and lower LOE, which improves my compactness when defending, and

- set both wide fwds on support duties, to make sure they are defensively responsible and always tracking back to help with defending the flanks

Which together gives me more defensive stability and solidity than if I would merely drop the mentality without changing these 2 things. And I am telling you this from personal experience. 

50 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

- the attacking left fullback. I would thing more of a fullback with a support duty, perhaps with the instruction to get forward

You need to view it in proper context. First, a FB on attack duty is more defensively responsible than WB on support (due to the nature of these roles). Secondly, I changed the AML's duty from attack into support, and I already have a holding CM (DLPsu) in MCL, which mitigates the risk of the fullback getting forward in defense while also creating an opportunity for occasional natural overlap in attack.

You need to be more cautious against these top teams, but not overly so. Because if you show too much respect for them, they'll eventually punish you.

[Keyzer Soze]

Thanks you very much for the detail explanation!! 

[Keyzer Soze]

This is what puzzles me in FM. 

My tactic that was working really well, simple stops working since the last update. 

I was getting an average 20/25 shots per game, with 3 or 4 ccc. 

And since the update I often get to the end of the games with less than 10 shots and zero ccc. 

@Experienced Defender, did the last ME simply change the logic of football? My Team just seems to unlearn how to play football... 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Keyzer Soze said:

This is what puzzles me in FM. 

My tactic that was working really well, simple stops working since the last update. 

I was getting an average 20/25 shots per game, with 3 or 4 ccc. 

And since the update I often get to the end of the games with less than 10 shots and zero ccc. 

@Experienced Defender, did the last ME simply change the logic of football? My Team just seems to unlearn how to play football... 

Speaking from the perspective of my personal experience, if a tactic is well-balanced and built on solid foundations, no patch/ME update can cause it to stop working. 

[Keyzer Soze]

2 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Speaking from the perspective of my personal experience, if a tactic is well-balanced and built on solid foundations, no patch/ME update can cause it to stop working. 

And I 100% agree with you, and in previous editions of FM my tactics always work without issues even when the ME was updated. 

But, with this update its huge the difference in the behavior of my team. 

And, to be honest, I would be very surprised if you said that my tactic wasn't balanced... 

[Experienced Defender]

26 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

But, with this update its huge the difference in the behavior of my team

I would recommend you watch Rashidi's video on YouTube ("Bust the net" channel) that deals specifically with the last ME update/patch. 

 

28 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

And, to be honest, I would be very surprised if you said that my tactic wasn't balanced

I suppose you are referring to this particular tactic: 

 

On 06/02/2020 at 15:36, Keyzer Soze said:

DLF(s)

IF(a)                                      IW(s)

DLP(s)       CM(a)

DM(d)

WB(s)      CD(d)      CD(d)      WB(s)

SK(d)

Mentality: Balanced/Positive

Instructions: Be more expressive, play from defense, distribute do centerbacks, counter, counterpress, higher LOE, higher d-Line

I also set the 3 frontman + CM(a) to press more

?

[Keyzer Soze]

3 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

I would recommend you watch Rashidi's video on YouTube ("Bust the net" channel) that deals specifically with the last ME update/patch. 

 

I suppose you are referring to this particular tactic: 

 

?

Yes, 

I'm talking about this tactic. 

Thank you, with the tip to watch Rashid's video. 

[Experienced Defender]

17 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

Yes, 

I'm talking about this tactic.

The tactic is fairly well-balanced, but there is still some room for improvement. With just a couple of tweaks, I think it should be okay. 

[Keyzer Soze]

22 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

The tactic is fairly well-balanced, but there is still some room for improvement. With just a couple of tweaks, I think it should be okay. 

And will you be a good sport  and point me in the right direction? 

[Experienced Defender]

22 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

And will you be a good sport  and point me in the right direction? 

Yeah, why not 

For example, when it comes to the setup of roles and duties, I would not use an IF or IW on the same side with the CM on attack. Instead, I would opt for a standard winger. Like this:

                 Wsu

          CMat

Alternatively, I may retain the IW in AMR, but in that case would replace the CM on attack with the mezzala. Like this:

                  IWsu           

         MEZat

So that particular part of your roles/duties setup is the first thing I would look to tweak.

There are a couple of other potential tweaks, but let's go step by step).

                 

[Keyzer Soze]

@Experienced Defender

OK, Thks. 

I prefer to keep the CM(a) in the midfield, so I'll go with the change for the W(s) on the right, simply because I want to keep my right fullback as a wb(s), and with a MEZ(a) it would be a suicide. 

But now, with more crosses coming from the right, do I need more presence in the box? Perhaps changing the DLF(s) to a attacking duty? 

Edit: actually ive changed the right wingback to a Iwb(s) and I like more how we played. 

Edited February 9, 2020 by Keyzer Soze

[Experienced Defender]

6 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

But now, with more crosses coming from the right, do I need more presence in the box? Perhaps changing the DLF(s) to a attacking duty?

You can change the DLF to attack duty, but then you should also change the AML into IF on support. Which would create an ideal opportunity for changing the LB into FB on attack 

Like this:

DLFat

IFsu                                 Wsu

DLPsu   CMat

HB/DMde

FBat    CDde  CDde   (I)WBsu

 

[Keyzer Soze]

42 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

You can change the DLF to attack duty, but then you should also change the AML into IF on support. Which would create an ideal opportunity for changing the LB into FB on attack 

Like this:

DLFat

IFsu                                 Wsu

DLPsu   CMat

HB/DMde

FBat    CDde  CDde   (I)WBsu

 

OK, couple of questions:

a) why not a wb(a) on the left instead of the Fb(a) 

B) what about team instructions, can I keep the same, or because of these tweaks I should change some? (play from defense, be more expressive, distribute to center backs, counter, counter-press, higher LOE) 

[Experienced Defender]

15 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

why not a wb(a) on the left instead of the Fb(a) 

I did not say that you should not use a WB on attack in DL. You can if you want. I opted for FB on attack only because it's a defensively safer role than WB.

But you did not use a WB on attack duty anyway. You played a WB on support originally. 

15 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

what about team instructions, can I keep the same, or because of these tweaks I should change some? (play from defense, be more expressive, distribute to center backs, counter, counter-press, higher LOE)

As far as I remember, you tend to switch the mentality between Positive and Balanced. So tweaks would depend on the mentality you use in a given situation.

You wrote "higher LOE". What about DL? 

[Keyzer Soze]

50 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

I did not say that you should not use a WB on attack in DL. You can if you want. I opted for FB on attack only because it's a defensively safer role than WB.

But you did not use a WB on attack duty anyway. You played a WB on support originally. 

As far as I remember, you tend to switch the mentality between Positive and Balanced. So tweaks would depend on the mentality you use in a given situation.

You wrote "higher LOE". What about DL? 

Yes, i did play with a Wb(s) on the left, but because i had my left IF on a support duty. 

The D-line I leave it in standard. 

The mentality its usually positive for home games and balanced for away games or against stronger opponents. 

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Keyzer Soze

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

The D-line I leave it in standard

Well, with the standard DL and higher LOE, your vertical compactness is not optimal. I don't say that it cannot work, but your players will need to cover more ground when defending, which potentially could be an issue (especially in tougher matches). 

[Keyzer Soze]

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

Well, with the standard DL and higher LOE, your vertical compactness is not optimal. I don't say that it cannot work, but your players will need to cover more ground when defending, which potentially could be an issue (especially in tougher matches). 

So even playing with a split block, in terms of closing down, you recommend that the d-line also be higher? 

And what about the "play from defense" instruction when playing with a forward that is with attack duty? Do you think that could be problematic because with a lower built from the defense he will get isolated easily? 

I ask this, because when using the PFD instruction Ithought it would be preferable to use a forward with a support duty, to get him more involved and less up the field. 

Am I thinking this wrong? Or it can work either way? 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Keyzer Soze

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

So even playing with a split block, in terms of closing down, you recommend that the d-line also be higher? 

Split block is not directly related to d-line (although it is indirectly - via vertical compactness). Actually, it's more associated with LOE. Anyway, here are the principles that I personally follow when it comes to the split block:

- don't use it together with the Prevent short GKD

- don't use it if the level of your vertical compactness is not at least medium (e.g. standard DL/standard LOE; or higher DL/higher LOE)

I tend to use the split block only when my DL is at least one notch higher than LOE (e.g. higher DL/standard LOE; or standard DL/lower LOE), because in these cases I have optimal compactness.

If my DL and LOE are on the same setting - e.g. both on standard or both on higher - I may only use the soft version of split block (with only 2 players involved). Which 2 players these would be - depends on my formation. 

[Experienced Defender]

3 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

And what about the "play from defense" instruction when playing with a forward that is with attack duty? Do you think that could be problematic because with a lower built from the defense he will get isolated easily? 

I ask this, because when using the PFD instruction Ithought it would be preferable to use a forward with a support duty, to get him more involved and less up the field

Play out of defence (PoD) has nothing to do with the duty of your forward(s). It encourages your players - primarily defenders and GK - to build up attacks from the back and with more patience (instead of hoofing the ball forward immediately). It also instructs the midfielders to drop a bit deeper in order to help the defense bring the ball forward in a more smooth fashion. Therefore, the PoD instruction is most useful for possession and/or control-oriented styles of play. But you can use it even in a primarily counter-attacking style if you believe your defenders are good enough to organize the play from the back.

If you want to play in a more direct manner, with the ball getting high up the peach as quickly/early as possible, then you probably don't need the PoD instruction. 

Anyway, it has no direct relation with your striker's duty. The duty of your striker (as well as his role) should depend primarily on other roles and duties behind and around him).

[Keyzer Soze]

@Experienced Defender

So after the tweaks you've suggested i've played a couple of games and make some other tweaks and adjustments in my main tactic, and end up with this:

I've opted, and so far with good results to pair a FB(a) with a IW(a), manly because, playing with Benfica, i tought i could do that because in most of my games i'll be the stronger team. The overlap on the left instruction was chosen to improve the interplay between both players.

On the right, despite having a CM(a), i've opted to choose a IF(s). The idea was having the IF(s) attacking the space between the left CD and the left fullback, while the CM(a) will attack the space between both CD, leaving the left CD with the decision to choose what player to follow. On the same side i'll have a WB(s) to explore the space leave by the cutting inside from the IF(s).

I'll also have the CM(a) with the instrution to roam from position, to give him a little more options to move.

In terms of closing down, i have set a slip block with the 5 top players with the instruction to close more. Because of that i've opted to change the DM(d) that i was using to a A(d), because he will be a more static players (in terms of closing down) protecting more by central space when the DLP(s) and the CM(a) press the opponent.

The mentality varys between the default balanced, but in some games i've played with positive and even attacking mentality.

With this tactic, i've tested so far 4 games in the portuguese league. 3 against weaker teams, having 3 wins and a goal difference of 12-0.

The other game was away against Porto, so perhaps the harder game i'll face in the league. We've drew 1-1, but despite having less shots, we've got more possession, and more CCC and half chances.

For that game, played with a more defensive version of the main tactic.

For this more conservative tactic, i've taken many of your suggestion. In this tactic i've remove the slip block having all the team defendins as a block.

Now, i'm playng the touch version of the game, in a android tablet, so i dont have the option to see the full game, at most i have the compreensive option. So there are some things that it's harder to notice if they have any impact in the game. 

Because of that i have a couple of questions, that i would like that you clarify for me. All related with the first tactic (the more attacking one)

1) I was thinking giving the DLP(s) the instruction to "stay wider", thinking that this could improve the forward runs from my FB(a). Does it make sence?

2) In theory wich role would work better with the CM(a)? the IF(s) or the IW(s)? For some periods in the game i've changed the right IF(s) to a IW(s) but to be honest didn't notice any difference.

3) Like i said before, we are winning, and scoring, but so far my DLF(s) only score 1 goal (in 4 games). Changing him to a CF(s) would make sence, or that would prevent my left IW(a) to scorings so much (7 goals in 4 games). Do you see any befenit from this change)

4) Last, from you experience, do you think that this are two well balanced tactics? Or do you notice any obvious mistakes?

Thanks in advance!

Edited February 12, 2020 by Keyzer Soze

[Experienced Defender]

4 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

I was thinking giving the DLP(s) the instruction to "stay wider", thinking that this could improve the forward runs from my FB(a). Does it make sence?

You can try, but I personally don't think it's necessary. 

 

4 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

In theory wich role would work better with the CM(a)? the IF(s) or the IW(s)? For some periods in the game i've changed the right IF(s) to a IW(s) but to be honest didn't notice any difference

As i said, I prefer pairing a CM on attack with a winger, so cannot tell you how it would work with an IF or IW. Because I haven't tried that particular combo. 

 

5 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

Like i said before, we are winning, and scoring, but so far my DLF(s) only score 1 goal (in 4 games). Changing him to a CF(s) would make sence, or that would prevent my left IW(a) to scorings so much (7 goals in 4 games). Do you see any befenit from this change)

When my tactic works as a whole and my results are good, I really do not care about who will score more or less goals. So I am certainly not the right person to give you advice on that particular subject, sorry 

 

5 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

Last, from you experience, do you think that this are two well balanced tactics? Or do you notice any obvious mistakes?

I definitely prefer the second one. And I think you can understand why, given both our previous discussion in this thread and my overall contribution to the forum. But it's totally irrelevant as long as you have a tactic that works for you 

[Keyzer Soze]

3 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

As i said, I prefer pairing a CM on attack with a winger, so cannot tell you how it would work with an IF or IW. Because I haven't tried that particular combo.

Like you, i've always use the combo CM(a)+W(s), but what seem to notice was a big gap, in transiton, between those two players, in particulary when the CM(a) had the ball.

Plus, i dont think it would benefit much my system, having a player (the winger) putting crosses into the box.

On the other hand, i realise that um some Marches i may lack some attacking width, but for now i've been trying to prevent that by giving the instruction to Stay wider to the inside forward.

Once again, thank you do much for all the help.