I know what I want, but not how to get there

[camoulton21]

I've read a Spielverlagerung article based on Giampaolo's Empoli team (Team Analysis: Empoli - Spielverlagerung) and would like to replicate what I've learnt into FM. I am struggling to get the structure of team right and would like some help with that.

What I'm looking to do is get the Formation/Player Roles/Player Duties/Player Instructions right. From what I've learned these are the key structural elements from Giampaolo's Empoli:

• The fullbacks have a deep starting position when the team is building-up play and then make forward runs when the ball is safely played into midfield
• The middle MC is a key player for the team as the primary ball progressor
• The wider MCs more laterally to open space to play centrally and also to make an option for the deep fullbacks to pass down the line
• The STCs attack the channels but also make receiving movements to get on the ball - kind of working in tandem

And this a picture of how these type of movements would work in relation to the base formation. Spielverlagurug usually include this kind of image themselves when they make similar articles on other teams. Because they didn't, I made my own. Hopefully it's somewhat similar to what they would have done.

Thanks in Advance!

[Tyburn]

The two outside CM’s look like they should be Mezzala’s. The central CM looks like he should be a DLP(d). I’d play the FB’s with a support role, and at least one of your ST’s as an AF.

Then play around a bit.

 

 

[sporadicsmiles]

9 minutes ago, camoulton21 said:

The fullbacks have a deep starting position when the team is building-up play and then make forward runs when the ball is safely played into midfield

I would try them with some type of support role, for this behaviour. Play around with the exact role to get the behaviour you want.

9 minutes ago, camoulton21 said:

The middle MC is a key player for the team as the primary ball progressor

He looks like he should be a DLP on defend. You can play around with a CM(S) and CM(D) as well, as you can customize them a little more.

10 minutes ago, camoulton21 said:

The wider MCs more laterally to open space to play centrally and also to make an option for the deep fullbacks to pass down the line

Here you seem to want Mezzalas, which have forward movement. You can also try Carrielo (if that is how it is spelt) which will give lateral movement without as much vertical. You can see which works better. Probably a combination, you do not want your tactic too symmetrical, that is the path to being one-dimensional.

11 minutes ago, camoulton21 said:

The STCs attack the channels but also make receiving movements to get on the ball - kind of working in tandem

There are so many pairings you can try here. Experiment with possible combinations and see which does what you want to do most. CF(s) AF(A), for instance, may be a place to start.

I'd also make sure your AMC is getting into the box to take advantage of the space your strikers are trying to create. And keep an eye that you are not being funnelled down the wings too much, which is possible if you play two midfield roles who get wider when in possession.

In terms of that one dimensional thing, I would try to make my flanks be attacked by different players at different times. So perhaps a WB(S) CAR(S) on one side and a FB(S) MEZ(A) on the other. That way you are varying how, where and when you attack the flanks on both sides. And against sides in Serie A you have to be careful for those sides who absolutely pack the centre of the pitch to defend. You are going to need a plan to draw out that mass of players, and going wide with both midfielders may not be that answer.

[camoulton21]

Thanks for the advice guys. I've come up with this so far

Connell probably isn't the best option at Carrilero but my other better option is injured. Despite the role suitability not being great, I'd say that Nygren can play CF because of his natural creativity. I would also like to ask for some help/advice with getting the Mentality and Team Instructions right but I will leave that until I finish messing around with the different role combinations 

[Experienced Defender]

5 hours ago, camoulton21 said:

I don't know if this is a replication of Giampaolo because I am not familiar enough with his style, but the tactic in this screenshot looks pretty decent and absolutely makes sense 

[henryzz]

To me it looks a little vulnerable to players attacking the channels.

[Earnie is God!]

"I know what I want, but not how to get there."

You sound like my ex-wife 

[camoulton21]

On 02/02/2020 at 22:53, Experienced Defender said:

I don't know if this is a replication of Giampaolo because I am not familiar enough with his style, but the tactic in this screenshot looks pretty decent and absolutely makes sense 

That's good to here! I'm going to stick with that tactic like this for awhile and see if everything is working as planned.

 

On 03/02/2020 at 14:29, henryzz said:

To me it looks a little vulnerable to players attacking the channels.

I think that's the biggest weakness of the 4-3-1-2 formation, and probably why it isn't very popular. Because the formation is narrow it naturally depends on the fullbacks a lot and other players to create situational width. The issue is that the fullbacks cannot be given overly aggressive roles because they'd leave the CBs isolated and channels exposed, prime for a counter attack. Usually people use a DM to offset this weakness and allow the fullbacks to get forward freely but the formation doesn't have one. This is why Giampaolo uses more conservative fullbacks than you would imagine, to offer the team greater stability. In real life the fullbacks are meant to alternate when they attack depending on which side the ball is on and build-up play by staying deep in a line of 4. They still overlap and attack, but prefer to do so by making runs from deeper starting positions, as appose to getting to far ahead of the ball. Whilst I'm going to stick with the fullback roles as is, this is probably the part of the tactic I'm most unhappy with as I'm not sure if either fullback role satisfies these requirements.

 

17 hours ago, Earnie is God! said:

"I know what I want, but not how to get there."

You sound like my ex-wife 

I thought if I gave the thread a more punchy title more people would click on it to help me out

[camoulton21]

Hey guys, back again and in need of some more advice with my tactic. The results from the last version of the tactic haven't been great and neither has the football. From watching the games the style of play still doesn't seem quite right and is what I'd like some help with. Like my first post I'll list the key points I want to emulate below. 

• Verticality - especially through the centre where the team usually holds a numerical advantage
• Methodical Build Up - circulate the ball horizontally until passing lanes vertically become available
• Combination play - aided by a short passing style, compact shape to give close options, players willing to move for one another and a pass first mentality
• Vertical and fast counter attacks
• Narrow and Compact shape - strong occupation of the middle and half spaces encourages opposition to play in the wide areas 
• Pressing  - in oppositions half, from opposition goal kicks, and when the ball goes wide (this is probably the most important part as we've struggled to defend crosses)
• AMC screens in front of the midfielder trio, usually tightly marking opposition deepest midfielder

Here's the tactic as I have it atm

Giampaolo's style of play aligns closest to the Vertical Tiki-Taka preset if that helps.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, camoulton21 said:

Looking at the tactic, it does not look bad overall. 

Here are potential tweaks you might want to consider:

- changing the left back into a WB on attack instead of support so that he would provide width in the final third in a more decisive manner, given that there is a carrilero on his side as defensive cover (but do not make this change unless you are confident it will not entail too much defensive risk)

- changing the CF into F9 (preferably) or DLF on support, to encourage him to drop deeper and thus both create more more space for the AM and be more involved in linking up with the midfield (on top of that, CF as a role works better when he has more space in his immediate area, which is another reason why you should consider an F9/DLF instead)

I would also remove all in-transition instructions. Here is why:

- You already use the Play out of defence, so telling the keeper to distribute specifically to CBs is not necessary. Moreover, it can be also risky to limit your GK's options so much, especially when you face an aggressive opposition that presses you high up the pitch. Alternatively, you can even remove the Play out of defence and instead ask the keeper to distribute to both CBs and FBs, which is generally a safer option while still possession-friendly (given that you use shorter passing and not an overly high mentality)

- The same reason basically applies to the "Take short kicks" TI. Let the keeper decide what's the optimal and safest method of distribution in a given situation. Don't limit his options for no apparent reason (especially as you play him in a SK role)

- When it comes to the Counter TI, your players will attempt counter-attacks when an opportunity presents itself even without the Counter instruction turned on, but will not immediately rush into counter-attacks every time they win the ball and thus risk losing possession too early and cheaply. So you don't need to use the Counter TI all the time. Instead, turn it on situationally (for example, you have taken the lead and the opposition are desperately trying to equalize, so you turn on the Counter to try and hopefully take advantage of their more aggressive and risky approach)

Of course, I don't know if the tweaks I have proposed above are in conformity with the Giampaolo's style you want to implement, so it's up to you to decide if you want to apply any of them or not 

[camoulton21]

Thanks for the reply, I not sure if all your suggestions help me to achieve my goal of a Giampaolo style tactic but I do think I've taken a lot from your post.

19 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

- changing the left back into a WB on attack instead of support so that he would provide width in the final third in a more decisive manner, given that there is a carrilero on his side as defensive cover (but do not make this change unless you are confident it will not entail too much defensive risk)

 

This tweak for instance makes sense but would probably have the left back getting forward earlier than what I'd like. I might change the Carrilero role to something more aggressive because of this

19 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

- changing the CF into F9 (preferably) or DLF on support, to encourage him to drop deeper and thus both create more more space for the AM and be more involved in linking up with the midfield (on top of that, CF as a role works better when he has more space in his immediate area, which is another reason why you should consider an F9/DLF instead)

 

I like this idea because the CF support has dribble more as a PI which doesn't always help in a narrow formation as the midfield gets congested leaving little space to dribble in, like you said

20 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

I would also remove all in-transition instructions. Here is why:

 

This is the part where I think I learnt something more clearly. I've heard a lot on the forums that less is more in the Tactics Creator and my posts from earlier have a lot of different ideas to all try and include together which can be confusing. I think Rashidi said that the most important area of the tactics is your LOE/D-Line and Passing Directness, so I've simplified the tactic a little more to basically just these instructions and then I can add what seems necessary from there

I'd like to ask another question as well. Because the formation is narrow I'm struggling currently from defending crosses. The Giampaolo's real life teams defend the central and half spaces primarily but also offset the weakness in the formation by shuffling across aggressively to close down the wide areas. How would I achieve this?

My initial idea was to use Opposition Instructions to specifically press this area of the pitch after reading a post on strikerless (https://strikerless.com/2017/06/20/opposition-instructions-pressing-triggers-and-pressing-traps/). Am I on the right track or is there a better way to go about this?

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, camoulton21 said:

This tweak for instance makes sense but would probably have the left back getting forward earlier than what I'd like. I might change the Carrilero role to something more aggressive because of this

What exactly do you mean by "something more aggressive"? Aggressive in which sense - attacking-wise or defense-wise? Because if you change the FB on attack into WB on attack, then you need a more defensive/conservative type of midfielder to cover for him. I hope you understand what I mean? 

 

2 hours ago, camoulton21 said:

Because the formation is narrow I'm struggling currently from defending crosses. The Giampaolo's real life teams defend the central and half spaces primarily but also offset the weakness in the formation by shuffling across aggressively to close down the wide areas. How would I achieve this?

I can only tell you what is my personal approach, but am not going to claim it's the only one that is valid. When I use a narrow formation, I never set defensive width to narrow - precisely because flanks are inherently more vulnerable, so I want to encourage my players to defend a bit wider in order to help the fullbacks/wing-backs deal with opposition wide players. So I either use wider or standard defensive width, but not narrow. If I believe my defense can deal with crosses successfully, I'll opt for standard width. If not - then wider. And also keep in mind that crosses can also be low, so it's not just about your defenders jumping reach, but also marking, positioning, concentration, strength etc... 

[camoulton21]

32 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

What exactly do you mean by "something more aggressive"? Aggressive in which sense - attacking-wise or defense-wise? Because if you change the FB on attack into WB on attack, then you need a more defensive/conservative type of midfielder to cover for him. I hope you understand what I mean? 

 

I don't quite think I do understand. I'm not going to use an attack duty on my fullbacks because that would encourage them to get forward quite early in the build-up phase which isn't what I want. That's why I was thinking of using a more forward thinking (I can see how me saying "more aggressive" can be confusing) role ahead of my fullbacks as appose to the carrilero role, so that I still have some attacking thrust down that side of the pitch

32 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

I can only tell you what is my personal approach, but am not going to claim it's the only one that is valid. When I use a narrow formation, I never set defensive width to narrow - precisely because flanks are inherently more vulnerable, so I want to encourage my players to defend a bit wider in order to help the fullbacks/wing-backs deal with opposition wide players. So I either use wider or standard defensive width, but not narrow. If I believe my defense can deal with crosses successfully, I'll opt for standard width. If not - then wider. And also keep in mind that crosses can also be low, so it's not just about your defenders jumping reach, but also marking, positioning, concentration, strength etc... 

Noted

Edited February 20, 2020 by camoulton21

[Experienced Defender]

39 minutes ago, camoulton21 said:

I don't quite think I do understand. I'm not going to use an attack duty on my fullbacks because that would encourage them to get forward quite early in the build-up phase which isn't what I want

Well, when you play in a narrow formation, you do need your fullbacks (or wing-backs in 5-man back-line) to be more attack-minded than otherwise, because there are no other wide players to offer width in the later stages of your attacks.

Now, it does not mean that they necessarily have to be played on attack duties - and I personally would not play both of them on attack duty at the same time - because roles such as WB and CWB will get forward often even with support duty. So even if you don't want to give the attack duty to either of your fullbacks, you still need to encourage them to help provide support from wider areas in attack. You can do this through the use of an overlap or focus play down a flank team instruction(s) for example.

[camoulton21]

On 20/02/2020 at 22:51, Experienced Defender said:

Well, when you play in a narrow formation, you do need your fullbacks (or wing-backs in 5-man back-line) to be more attack-minded than otherwise, because there are no other wide players to offer width in the later stages of your attacks.

Now, it does not mean that they necessarily have to be played on attack duties - and I personally would not play both of them on attack duty at the same time - because roles such as WB and CWB will get forward often even with support duty. So even if you don't want to give the attack duty to either of your fullbacks, you still need to encourage them to help provide support from wider areas in attack. You can do this through the use of an overlap or focus play down a flank team instruction(s) for example.

I agree with you, the fullbacks in a narrow formation like 4-3-1-2 are super important for providing width. The dilemma that I have is that Giampaolo (who's ideas I'm trying to implement into FM) likes to keep his fullbacks deep when the team is building up play. They still overlap and attack, but wait until the ball has transitioned into midfield and they can receive a pass in a forwards direction. The picture below probably explains this better than I have. I'm finding it difficult to have my FBs create this chain of 4 when the team is building up play but also giving the team an outlet on the overlap in attack.

 

On 20/02/2020 at 21:33, Experienced Defender said:

I can only tell you what is my personal approach, but am not going to claim it's the only one that is valid. When I use a narrow formation, I never set defensive width to narrow - precisely because flanks are inherently more vulnerable, so I want to encourage my players to defend a bit wider in order to help the fullbacks/wing-backs deal with opposition wide players. So I either use wider or standard defensive width, but not narrow. If I believe my defense can deal with crosses successfully, I'll opt for standard width. If not - then wider. And also keep in mind that crosses can also be low, so it's not just about your defenders jumping reach, but also marking, positioning, concentration, strength etc... 

Going back to what you said here, wouldn't a wider defensive width effect my team shape more as appose to the way we press. Obviously they are interlinked, and a wider shape will allow my players to get the wings quicker, but I don't think that's exactly what I want.

I want the team to keep a compact shape, blocking the middle and half-spaces so the opposition resort to the passing to the wide areas. Then when the ball goes wide the defensive block shifts across to press the ball in this area. Narrow defensive width might be an overkill considering that the formation is narrow so I've left it on standard like you suggested. My problem is that I don't know how to setup my teams pressing instructions so that they close down the wide areas in particular quickly

[Experienced Defender]

3 hours ago, camoulton21 said:

he dilemma that I have is that Giampaolo (who's ideas I'm trying to implement into FM) likes to keep his fullbacks deep when the team is building up play. They still overlap and attack, but wait until the ball has transitioned into midfield and they can receive a pass in a forwards direction

That can be achieved by using the combination of instructions "Play out of defence" and "Distribute to fullbacks". You can of course select distribution to both fullbacks and CBs. 

 

3 hours ago, camoulton21 said:

Going back to what you said here, wouldn't a wider defensive width effect my team shape more as appose to the way we press. Obviously they are interlinked, and a wider shape will allow my players to get the wings quicker, but I don't think that's exactly what I want

Then you can go with standard defensive width. 

 

3 hours ago, camoulton21 said:

I want the team to keep a compact shape, blocking the middle and half-spaces so the opposition resort to the passing to the wide areas. Then when the ball goes wide the defensive block shifts across to press the ball in this area. Narrow defensive width might be an overkill considering that the formation is narrow so I've left it on standard like you suggested

Good. 

 

3 hours ago, camoulton21 said:

My problem is that I don't know how to setup my teams pressing instructions so that they close down the wide areas in particular quickly

You can use opposition instructions - close down always on opposition wide players/positions. Whether you want to apply this OI only to their wingers/wide forwards or all wide opposition players is up to you to decide. 

[rouflaquettes31]

Very interesting conversation and subject! Thnaks for all the answers.

Il y a 21 heures, camoulton21 a dit :

The dilemma that I have is that Giampaolo (who's ideas I'm trying to implement into FM) likes to keep his fullbacks deep when the team is building up play. They still overlap and attack, but wait until the ball has transitioned into midfield and they can receive a pass in a forwards direction.

Maybe you can also look at the tempo of your team.

If you play with a high tempo, your both FB won't have the time to go up the pitch. Otherwise, if you play a low tempo, the FB can participate to build up, and then go higher and make forward runs.

It is how I understand the use of tempo. But it is necessary to try.

[camoulton21]

Cheers @Experienced Defender for all the help

 

5 hours ago, rouflaquettes31 said:

If you play with a high tempo, your both FB won't have the time to go up the pitch. Otherwise, if you play a low tempo, the FB can participate to build up, and then go higher and make forward runs.

 

I'll give this a go. I was originally leaning towards a higher tempo to try and achieve a kind of fast passing, combination style of play utlising the natural triangles and diamonds of the 4-3-1-2 formation but what you're suggested makes sense aswell

[tinkerer]

A very interesting thread! In real life I was a fan of Giampaolo's work until he managed my Milan side. Oh God what a shambolic performances from us earlier this season! I still like his basic idea tho, and actually tried to formulate it with my Brentford side (first season) but encountered many problems you stated. 

 

Anyway I would like to give this another try, especially with the informations this thread gives! 

[camoulton21]

6 hours ago, tinkerer said:

A very interesting thread! In real life I was a fan of Giampaolo's work until he managed my Milan side. Oh God what a shambolic performances from us earlier this season! I still like his basic idea tho, and actually tried to formulate it with my Brentford side (first season) but encountered many problems you stated. 

 

I'm glad you enjoyed reading it! I watched Milan through preseason and up until Giampaolo was sacked just because I really enjoyed his football previously and wanted to see he could implement this at a bigger stage. You're right though some of the leagues performances were pretty lifeless despite looking decent in preseason which was sad to see but I'll still be keen to see where Giampaolo heads to next. 

I'd love to see what your take on his tactics in FM would like if you'd like to continue the thread

[Vladis]

i'm also trying to implement some of Giampaolo ideas. But i'm really struggling with narrow formations, would it be 4-3-1-2 or 5-2-1-2. I'm extremly vulnearable at flanks even with defending wider instruction. Also dissapointed with lack in central play. 

In early versions i was very successful with 4-3-1-2 or 4-1-3-2 but with this ME i don't feel i could achieve style of play that i want. So would love to know if somebody have a success in fm20 with narrow formations.

[opgen22]

Am 13.3.2020 um 13:37 schrieb Vladis:

i'm also trying to implement some of Giampaolo ideas. But i'm really struggling with narrow formations, would it be 4-3-1-2 or 5-2-1-2. I'm extremly vulnearable at flanks even with defending wider instruction. Also dissapointed with lack in central play. 

In early versions i was very successful with 4-3-1-2 or 4-1-3-2 but with this ME i don't feel i could achieve style of play that i want. So would love to know if somebody have a success in fm20 with narrow formations.

same for me, as in my opinion the central play is not really working this year as the playmakers are not really tempted to play dangerous central balls, I feel the only way to have success with a diamond/narrow formation is with attacking fullbacks who are responsible for almost all attacking thread. I can live with being exposed on the flanks (to some extend), but the limitation offensively is really frustrating as there is no way for me to have success with what I'm trying to replicate, with full backs just providing width and making the AM feed my two strikers 

[jckmlscrwly]

On 19/02/2020 at 19:36, camoulton21 said:

Here's the tactic as I have it atm:

Giampaolo's style of play aligns closest to the Vertical Tiki-Taka preset if that helps.

I am also sadly in same boat. Really interested in the formation. Think I understand Giampaolo's principles etc.

The above formation to me looks near enough spot on.

The only way I've got any success (even then not great success) is by moving away from the principles and trying to generate activity down the wings with the wingbacks bombing on. Next to nothing created by my AM - even when he appears open to slot in the AF.

Would be incredibly interested to see anyone who's got success out of playing a Giampaolo/Sarri (at Empoli) style 4-3-1-2.

Edited March 27, 2020 by jckmlscrwly

[camoulton21]

On 13/03/2020 at 12:37, Vladis said:

i'm also trying to implement some of Giampaolo ideas. But i'm really struggling with narrow formations, would it be 4-3-1-2 or 5-2-1-2. I'm extremly vulnearable at flanks even with defending wider instruction. Also dissapointed with lack in central play. 

 

I struggle with a similar issues as well, which is no surprise considering we're both using narrow formations but still annoying because the marking at the back post for crosses is usually pretty awful. Early crosses in particular cause a lot of problems because it exposes this problem the most. The best you can do is, make sure the widest midfielders are good at pressuring out wide (acceleration, stamina, teamwork, work rate) and make sure defenders can handle crosses (anticipation, positioning, concentration, marking).

 

On 13/03/2020 at 12:37, Vladis said:

In early versions i was very successful with 4-3-1-2 or 4-1-3-2 but with this ME i don't feel i could achieve style of play that i want. So would love to know if somebody have a success in fm20 with narrow formations.

4 hours ago, jckmlscrwly said:

Would be incredibly interested to see anyone who's got success out of playing a Giampaolo/Sarri (at Empoli) style 4-3-1-2.

Here's a link to somebodys version. I've spent a lot of time learning about Giampaolo's methods so it doesn't feel very fulfilling to use what someone else has created but it might give some ideas to you guys if you haven't used it before

 

22 hours ago, opgen22 said:

same for me, as in my opinion the central play is not really working this year as the playmakers are not really tempted to play dangerous central balls, I feel the only way to have success with a diamond/narrow formation is with attacking fullbacks who are responsible for almost all attacking thread. I can live with being exposed on the flanks (to some extend), but the limitation offensively is really frustrating as there is no way for me to have success with what I'm trying to replicate, with full backs just providing width and making the AM feed my two strikers 

Try to make sure that your playmaker has an offensive individual mentality (balanced or greater). This makes their passing more offensive and risky so they are more likely to play forwards instead of back or sideways

Edited March 27, 2020 by camoulton21

[zlatanera]

Hey guys, I missed this thread in the initial stages otherwise I might have become more invested as I also tried a Giampaolo recreation. I thought I'd share this thread:

Although the initial tactic from the OP is FM18 its still relevant, and a few of us them worked on replications for FM19. My personal one, which you'll find in there, was arguably too realistic in that much like in real life I made Sampdoria solidly mid-table whereas when I'm playing a video game I want the constant ego boost of winning! 

[camoulton21]

My bad @zlatanera I should have linked that thread as well

[jordan_ye]

Hey! I really like your work. I also spend TONS of time in FM17 trying to recreate Giampaolo's tactics, but given there were no Mezzala or Carrilero in FM17, so I found it difficult to imitate the lateral movement. Here are a few thoughts I have when I study Giampaolo's tactics.

• Compared to WB, I would say FB on support duty or automatic duty might makes more sense. Personally, I add PI like "hold position" and "cross deep" on both sides. TI like "overlap" seems make sense to get the fullback forward in the right time, but I did not try it tho.
• To defend crosses, I use a few PI to recreate the compactness. I ask the full back to close down less, or even much less and set the side cm to close down more to recreate the compactness in the box and half space. Also, I suggest using opposition instructions to help. I set close down always on opposite fullback , so wide cm usually close down sooner than your full back, and it makes full back can hold the team shape better. 
• In Giampaolo's 3 year charge in Samp, he uses different midfielders to play the wide cm position. I would say Barreto is more like a Carrilero while Praet is a Mezzala. Linetty is more like a B2B or mezzala imo. There is also one important thing to take into account, Sarri and Giampaolo like to have their CBs and DLP to form a triangle when building up from the back, which means the DLP would stay ahead of CBs rather dropping between CBs. According to my experience, if you are using DLP-d, he would usually drop deep into the CBs. Also, looking at passing stats in Samp, the deepest midfielder usually is the player make the most pass. And in fm, if you use a defend duty DLP, I find it would make your wide support cms make the most pass instead. (Ps: Maybe Mezzala and Carrilero's wide position in new version would alleviate the situation.) Therefore, i suggest looking at in-game passing stats to see if DLP is underplayed.

[Malkael]

Decided to try my own hand at this after reading the thread, always enjoy a challenge. Still experimenting with different options before settling on possible best combinations, and probably making life a tad bit harder for myself by being in the Canadian Premier League. Frustratingly inconsistent sometimes depending on the opposition formation I am up against, so not sure it will ever be close to "set and forget" and instead I so far have three different versions set up to ensure very high tactical familiarity should we need to adjust our offensive diamond's width and such. When it does click for us in games good luck getting the ball off us with the speed we can pass the ball around the midfield diamond formed by an AP (A), MEZ (S), DLP (D) and MEZ (S). The AI loves a good narrow, low block on the edge of their box though, which is understandable yet frustrating since working around and through pressure is what we thrive on when it flows.

Working the ball wider and creating space for a cross from the Mezzalas in the halfspaces has proved to be one avenue to goal for us so far. Tried out WB (S) and FB (S) and so far have settled with FB (S) since the fullbacks were offering sufficient width while being just that little bit more conservatively positioned during the transitions from our defensive third into the midfield and opposition third. They can get forwards quite well once midfield control is established, but if additional generation of width is needed the Get Further Forward PI works a treat at getting FB (S) to get involved further forwards more often. Outside of set-pieces and counter-attacks, challenging to get the two up top involved in the goalscoring action outside of those crosses into the box due to the aforementioned narrow, low block the AI loves to settle into. Unless the AI tries to apply pressure to us, so far I am having to resort to using the two forwards as occasional lay-off men and decoys for our true goalscoring threat, working our Advanced Playmaker and Mezzalas into pockets of space where they are facing towards goal and able to get some rather spectacular shot offs.

The defensive side of the equation is far more settled currently, most of my experimentation and tinkering has to do with maximizing our offensive potency. Not much use being decently solid at the back if we can't create and convert chances at all, can't expect the defense to keep a clean sheet for 28+ games in a row. I have seen the allure of recreating Giampaolo's 4-3-1-2 in FM though, when it clicks I love it but making it click for us consistently is the challenging part. Tempted to see if PPMs like Plays One-Twos could possibly help further enhance our ability to break the lines and create pockets of space to exploit.

Edited April 4, 2020 by Malkael

[Malkael]

Potentially promising times ahead for my attempt at the Giampaolo 4-3-1-2 as I get closer to settling on the right balance of instructions, roles and duties finally; as our team cohesion and tactical familiarities also near their peaks. With the inconsistencies I run into sometimes though I am definitely going to play a bunch more games before calling anything finalised. I only just found the right balance to still provide width via the fullbacks whilst counteracting my nemesis the narrow 4-3-3; I was worried I'd have to sacrifice myself to playing a 4-1-2-1-2 against it to guard us against being ravaged by the three strikers during transitions. Each different formation brings its own tactical subtleties to get to grips with as a 4-3-1-2, meaning I often can't just "set and forget" roles and duties for games.

The promising thing is that the lads last game started to see and play some rare through-balls down the channel between the fullback and centreback for the strikers to latch onto, when left disengaged by the opposition low block to pick a pass. Even better yet, they created some lovely opportunities centrally where we broke down the narrow, low block with quick movement and silky one-touch passing. Our AP (A) with PIs to 'Get Further Forwards' alternates between being involved in circulating the ball as we probe for openings and becoming a third striker between two up top. Our strikers when they can't get involved in play are very much still helping the team out by pinning back the opposition centrebacks and then typically subtly dragging them wider to create space for the AP (A)'s movement, opposition centrebacks are left with the option to either react to the danger of the AP (A) or let a striker wiggle free.

Pretty settled on a dual attack of Complete Foward (S) for now due to the way they work in tandem, the danger they can still cause going forwards in transitions, and more importantly their useful decoy effect against the low block for the AP (A) and others. As counter as it runs to the usual advice, using exactly the same player role and duty as a strike partnership isn't always a bad thing when it comes to broad roles like CF (S) due to how each different player interprets the role in their own individual way via their attributes and PPMs. I have one player who will interpret it in a more Targetman ("big man") fashion, another who is all action across the pitch, and others who lean more towards putting a Poacher-esque ("little man") spin on the CF (S) role. CF (S) duo using PIs to Get Wider and Move Into Channels at the moment.

Got to give the team some credit, sometimes the players can be one footed to the point of frustration when dealing with the Canadian Premier League but they have the potential to play some slick passing moves when they sync up. And I didn't even get the chance to try giving members of the squad the "Plays One-Twos" PPM yet, so watch this space? Most CanPL players are clean slates in terms of PPMs, so still a lot of potential for optimisation via that route.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Malkael

[jckmlscrwly]

Could you post a screenshot @Malkael of your tactic?

Would be really interesting to see this!

[Malkael]

Tried to boil it down to the bare essentials since TIs vary depending on the Mentality chosen, the opposition formation, and other factors. For example, I rarely have 'Focus Play Through The Middle' and 'Overlap Left\Right' active if using the Defensive mentality. The primary reason? I often use those two TIs to nudge the Deep Lying Playmaker and the Fullbacks' individual mentality up a category. Also, important to note that FPTTM only affects a DLP in the midfield strata if they are on Defend duty.

Often I'll begin games with a positive mindset and look to enforce my game on the opposition, ergo a positive mentality, therefore FPTTM and OL\R are enabled due to affecting player mentality. Similar consideration with choice of width too, a Defensive mentality already plays Fairly Narrow whereas a Positive mentality plays Fairly Wide by default. While the 4-3-1-2 is fairly narrow formation, playing with Mezalla or Carrilero roles will already widen the midfield due to 'Sit Wider'. Therefore, width TI is used as a tool to adjust the horizontal compactness of the midfield diamond's positioning in response to opposition defensive structure. Typically start out Very Narrow or Fairly Narrow and adjust from there when in Positive mentality because, ala Giampaolo, midfield diamonds make for easy connections through the lines and the more compact the diamond the easier and safer the connections are for quick, fluid ball circulation.

Emphasising Much Shorter Passing is pretty self-explanatory for a Canadian Premier League team when you see how wasteful we can be with long passes at times, they'll still hit them when on but don't waste possession quite as often. It also plays a part in tempering our choice of playing at the highest tempo, the motto is to circulate the ball at speed against settled defenses and then go from back to front in a flash once the opportunity opens up. Play Out Of Defence is a situational thing, typically we face low blocks and can play around any forwards pressure but sometimes I disable it if we're getting pressed in a way we struggle to play around. Though, nice little trick for everyone, Distribute To Playmaker can be handy to enable against certain formations when POOD is active, most often the two-man pairings. If our backline and DLP is pressured often no one picks up the AP (A) coming deeper and so the goalkeeper just lobs it over the pressure right into our wide open AP (A).

Offside Trap is pretty self-explanatory I should imagine, and wins us back the ball plenty of times. Defensive line is going to depend on your squad and choice of mentality, typically not having supremely athletic (quick) defenders I err towards sitting deeper to begin with. Due to lacking someone in the Defensive Midfield strata I always drop our line of engagement by at least one notch for greater vertical compactness. Also, easier for me to mark zonally and deny passing lanes through the middle than to try pressing up the field; so the strikers sitting deeper to deny a route into central midfield is usually helpful.

Defensive Width I like to have narrower where possible to help congest the play where ever the ball might be located, and it often helps congest the box for me against crosses from out wide given the CanPL defenders aren't always the best markers. Depending on the opposition formation Opposition Instructions might be employed to encourage players to apply pressure to the opposition wingers and fullbacks as soon as physically possible. One advantage of players often having weak, or no, ability with their non-dominant kicking leg is being able to force players onto their weaker foot and force play inside into our congestion using OIs.

Then there is the more situational TIs like Counter, Play for Set-Pieces, Shoot on Sight, Run at Defence and Pass into Space that see some context sensitive employment during games if I feel we need it. Shoot on Sight I sometimes like to employ for a while against those compact, narrow low blocks to either get the AI to tactically react to us getting shots on goal or encourage the lads to not be afraid to have a shot when we create and exploit pockets of space in-between or behind the lines, because you know the opposition are going to scramble to close it down tight.

That touches on what I would consider the basics, but doesn't even begin to get into how I've begun to change up the player roles during games in response to the opposition. Sometimes I'll drop one or both Mezalla (S) for Box-to-Box Midfielders due to 'Play Wider' making the diamond too wide in such a way that the opposition's defensive structure closes off the Mezalla as an option for the DLP, even on Very Narrow width. Similarly, might drop one or both Mezzala down to Carrilero and\or BBM if our DLP (D) needs help circulating the ball or creating the play since it removes the inclination for the sides of the midfield diamond to be aggressive in their positioning due to 'Get Further Fowards'.

Sometimes dominating the opposition in the final third calls for more careful and deliberate thought about when to take up advanced positions. While other times the DLP is able to dictate the play from deep alone and the diamond's sides are free to be unrestrained in taking up dangerous advanced positions. Leaving things the same and brute forcing it can work too, but I would rather not overly burden our deepest lying midfielder when the turnovers can be mitigated.

I find there to be plenty of nuances to consider if you want to maximise the formation's potential within each game. Set and forget can work out, but you might cop some additional draws or loses in games as a result of just trying to brute force it. Tried doing that against the 4-3-3 Narrow for a while and more often got punished for it than things going my way despite often dominating long periods of those games.

[camoulton21]

Hey, great work @jordan_ye and @Malkael. I'm glad there's other people inspired by Giampaolo, the rhythm and speed of the combinations irl are great to watch at its best at Sampdoria especially.

On 02/04/2020 at 18:16, jordan_ye said:

• In Giampaolo's 3 year charge in Samp, he uses different midfielders to play the wide cm position. I would say Barreto is more like a Carrilero while Praet is a Mezzala. Linetty is more like a B2B or mezzala imo. There is also one important thing to take into account, Sarri and Giampaolo like to have their CBs and DLP to form a triangle when building up from the back, which means the DLP would stay ahead of CBs rather dropping between CBs. According to my experience, if you are using DLP-d, he would usually drop deep into the CBs. Also, looking at passing stats in Samp, the deepest midfielder usually is the player make the most pass. And in fm, if you use a defend duty DLP, I find it would make your wide support cms make the most pass instead. (Ps: Maybe Mezzala and Carrilero's wide position in new version would alleviate the situation.) Therefore, i suggest looking at in-game passing stats to see if DLP is underplayed.

I agree 100% with what you've said here. As I looked deeper into Giampaolo's Samp team I think it became clearer that different players skill-sets were used in different ways. I think that the most important thing for your outside midfielders is that they contribute to both attack and defence, offering some situational width probably comes second. I'm surprised by what you've found with the DLP, mine is normally heavily involved and sits above the CBs forming a triangle. Like makael I use 'focus play through the centre' to bump the DLPs mentality up so that they are more progressive with their passing

On 04/04/2020 at 20:12, Malkael said:

Tried out WB (S) and FB (S) and so far have settled with FB (S) since the fullbacks were offering sufficient width while being just that little bit more conservatively positioned during the transitions from our defensive third into the midfield and opposition third. They can get forwards quite well once midfield control is established, but if additional generation of width is needed the Get Further Forward PI works a treat at getting FB (S) to get involved further forwards more often.

Interesting that you both settled on FB(S) I was convinced it was the right role after reading the in-game description.

The part were it says "he must be prepared to get forward when the team needs extra width" described well the kind of situational overlaps I wanted. When testing it out I was a little disappointed because as I felt as if FB(S) didnt provide enough width in the final 3rd but I'm glad that you both found success with it

Well done with the tactic @Malkaelyour point about needing to make tweaks game to game to make sure the diamond works fluently explains a lot about where I've gone wrong personally. I prefer to make a tactic and leave it and from what you've found that may not be possible, especially for a less common formation like this

Edited April 10, 2020 by camoulton21

[Malkael]

And I'm still learning new things with each and every game, haha. Especially after my latest managerial step in FM20, examined below.

Decided to up the stakes and try this out with the Spanish National Team to see how a vastly more talented group of players would handle things compared to my group of more limited CanPL players. Firstly, let's just say that it really drives home how important ingraining maximum tactical familiarity into the squad is for the 4-3-1-2, it was like going back to square one watching my Spain squad try to get to grips with the formation until the tactical familiarity built up over time with games. For all the vast upgrades in attributes that Spain's top players have it does not mean much at times without that tactical familiarity. The football is far better to watch, and more effective, when the players are highly drilled in all the different components (tempo, width, etc) even with a dream of a squad at your disposal. Really drives home having multiple 4-3-1-2 tactics setup for when you need to adjust anything which will lower tactical familiarity; like tempo changes, width changes, etc. Even Spain can be prone to playing wasteful long passes to no one, needlessly hoofing the ball when better options are available, players not being on the same wave length for switches of play, and other such things when the tactical familiarity is middling.

Admittedly, having Sweden's rather defensively solid 4-4-2 as my first opponent in Euro 2020 qualifiers did not help matters. They've always been challenging to play against even when using formations with more width like the wide 4-3-3, and our games typically result in hard fought low scoring encounters. Sweden are no hacks and have far better tricks up their sleeve than just relying solely on a compact low block and letting us dominate play. A Cautious 4-4-2 with a Pressing Foward on Support often results in the PF (S) marking your DLP (D) during your build up, which can cause some obvious issues when Sweden decides to apply some pressure on the ball carrier if one of your main options for circulation of the ball is now much less of an easy, safe out-ball. Definitely not a match up where leaving things as they are will result in victory more times than a draw or defeat, having replayed those games a few times over just to see how consistent the result would be.

Playing in the big leagues can be a blessing and a curse with how much more prevalent PPMs become, Saul and Koke take shooting from long range whenever they can to an annoying extreme with 'Tries Long Range Shots'. On the flip side, having a more talented and technically secure squad does mean I was able to make adjustment to the passing style (up to 'Shorter') safe in the knowledge that I could trust the players to make good decisions about when to circulate the ball with quick, short passing and when to utilise longer passes to get from back to front or from side to side quickly. Additionally, if you find yourself needing to create some situational width on one or both flanks switching one or both strikers to the role of Poacher allows them the freedom to sometimes drift out to the flank and make themselves available for a pass down the line. Actually the only role I have found with quite that amount of freedom of lateral movement across the pitch, not even a Complete Foward will roam quite that widely across the pitch to exploit space and make themselves available for a pass. Poachers being poachers though, you will have to account for the fact that they'll contribute less defensively due to their propensity to want to sit up with the opposition centrebacks but that does mean you have the potential to spring some lethal counter-attacks.

On the plus side, at least my Spain squad have the smashing of the minnows down fairly well so far after belting the likes of Malta in qualifying. Thought I was going to have to throw everything out and start again from scratch to bring success to Spain using a 4-3-1-2 after the headache the Swedes were giving me. And yet I'm not quite satisfied with this group of Spanish players since despite all their vast improvements in every element of the game they have over my CanPL squads, I have yet to see them hit the heights of incisive one-touch passing that my Pacific FC squad managed during passages of certain games.

Edited April 11, 2020 by Malkael

[camoulton21]

So I'm reigniting this thread after many months spent away from trialling this tactic in FM, still in need of some help. Here's what I've got so far:

I realised that I expected a little too much when I started this topic so went for a simpler version that, as you can imagine is quite similar to other people's Giampaolo replications. I focused the tactic on a few points that I will list below:

• Creating an attacking possession based style based on building through the CBs and DLP
• Pressing from the front

So ideas I could do with some help on:

• AMC and Flanking CMs - The idea here was for the AMC to act as a kind of offensive pivot, bringing the forward running flanking CMs into the game. I gave the AMC the 'hold up ball' PI to try to encourage this. I think that the Mezzala role makes for a good midfielder runner especially because I wanted the CMs to provide some width in attack
• The STCs and AMC - After consulting the Pairs and Combinations guide I decided I wanted to use a Creator-Scorer partnership upfront but wasn't quite sure how this related to front 3s. I want the AMC to act as the creator, playing through balls to two STs ahead of him who act as the scorers.
  • Is it a fair argument to make that Advanced Forwards do not suit a possession style because they tend to look to run in behind often?

Basically, I'm unsure that I've achieved the four aims highlighted with bullet points and once more would like to ask for the communities critiques. Any opinions on how I could achieve my four aims or make a better tactic in general would be greatly appreciated. From watching the games my team seems to struggle in particular to pass the ball through midfield which is worrying considering the possession style

[Experienced Defender]

Test the tactic to see if it works, although I fear you're going to lack penetration. On the other hand, I like the striker combo - DLF and AF absolutely make sense as a strike partnership 

Defense-wise, your midfield could easily prove too shaky with 2 mezzalas, especially as you don't have a DM as an added layer of protection.

[camoulton21]

On 01/08/2020 at 23:19, Experienced Defender said:

Test the tactic to see if it works, although I fear you're going to lack penetration. On the other hand, I like the striker combo - DLF and AF absolutely make sense as a strike partnership 

 

Okay fair enough, testing the tactic is the best way to know what to tweak. I like the DLF/AF strike combo as well. Their respective movement fits perfectly, but I'm just not sure it's what I want. I feel as if the DLF performs a similar job to what I want the AMC to do, making the role a bit redundant. The STs are meant to be passing options ahead of the AMC and sometimes the DLF drops to deep. I don't want to make my FBs anymore attacking so the only place more penetration can come from is midfield or up front. Maybe DLF on attack will be the answer.

 

On 01/08/2020 at 23:19, Experienced Defender said:

Defense-wise, your midfield could easily prove too shaky with 2 mezzalas, especially as you don't have a DM as an added layer of protection.

That's a fair point, mezzalas are probably more adventurous and creative than what I'm looking for. I basically want two hard-working runners that contribute to attack by making forward runs and offering some width by moving wider but also contribute to defence with their pressing particularly out wide.

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, camoulton21 said:

I feel as if the DLF performs a similar job to what I want the AMC to do, making the role a bit redundant

Well, I personally would prefer the AM on attack duty in a setup like yours, both in order to avoid congestion and add penetration. 

 

2 hours ago, camoulton21 said:

The STs are meant to be passing options ahead of the AMC and sometimes the DLF drops to deep. I don't want to make my FBs anymore attacking so the only place more penetration can come from is midfield or up front. Maybe DLF on attack will be the answer

What style of football are you actually looking to play? 

 

2 hours ago, camoulton21 said:

That's a fair point, mezzalas are probably more adventurous and creative than what I'm looking for. I basically want two hard-working runners that contribute to attack by making forward runs and offering some width by moving wider but also contribute to defence with their pressing particularly out wide

Carrilero(s) sounds like a reasonable choice for what you want and the role would fit your system nicely. 

[camoulton21]

53 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Well, I personally would prefer the AM on attack duty in a setup like yours, both in order to avoid congestion and add penetration. 

 

I think your right. After playing a few games with the AM on support the player seems to drop to deep, playing almost on top of the DLP and therefore losing the diamond shape

55 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

What style of football are you actually looking to play? 

 

The tifo video I watched described the style as a combination of incisive attacking, possession football and intelligent pressing. So I guess possession football with some risk

 

58 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Carrilero(s) sounds like a reasonable choice for what you want and the role would fit your system nicely. 

I'm deliberating between carrilero or B2B with 'stay wider' PI. B2B would give more running from deep which is what I think I want

[XuluBak]

Your latest version is similar to what I've employed with Atalanta and (distant) Milan. I think you'll want at least one WB (support striker side, preferably) and one of your CM/CAM on attack. 

[Malkael]

Still chipping away at this every so often, been trying out some different ideas to see how they translate into the match engine and against different tactics. Unfortunately lost this game against a 4-1-4-1 formation 2-1 due to an inspired Kingsley Coman performance at ML as an Inverted Winger on Attack duty, he scored both goals. However, I did salvage something valuable from the experience when we produced some saucy interplay to score this beaut' of a team goal. Cut them open through the right half-space, with our STCR delivering a delicious through ball for the AMC to apply the finishing touch to. Had a couple of other promising highlights of interplay down the right half-space that sprung a player in behind the opposition defense, alas those moves didn't result in a goal though.

So feeling like I might be on to something fruitful with the latest combination of team mentality, team instructions, and player roles and duties I have been experimenting with. Time to see how it does over the full course of a season, rather than just a run of a few games.

[camoulton21]

Great work @Malkael! I'm still keen to see where you can take this, whenever your able to provide an update I'll be more than excited to read it 

[Malkael]

You know, I wish there was a half-way step between Fullback (Defend) and Fullback (Support). The former often gives better security when building up from the back against high pressing teams due to the deeper positioning of the FB (D), perfectly recreating the "four link" talked about in some of the tactical articles, but it lacks the penetration (fowards runs) and width that the FB (S) provides. Wingback (Defend) doesn't really fill that role because whilst it can pair penetration and width with a more defensive mindset it still occupies a higher position on the pitch when playing out from the back than FB (D), so reduced security from the lack of forming that "four link". So trying to recreate how Giampaolo wants his fullbacks to play is definitely a mission in tactical compromises in the end.

Anyhow, after playing a sizeable chunk of games I'm definitely leaning towards wanting to have my players to either already have or be able to learn the 'Plays One-Twos' player trait. Entirely subjective opinion, but it looks like it helps facilitate the sorts of interplay we're looking for through the middle and half-space zones. With how congested the middle can be due to narrow defenses, three-man midfields, and other factors it definitely pays to maximise how well the forwards and midfielders can create lovely bits of interplay between each other. It's a lot of playing the fullbacks into space down the vacant wings and hoping something comes of the crossing opportunities, when up against stubborn low blocks, otherwise. Having the 'Moves Into Channels' PPM on my forwards is also growing on me at the moment with the two roles I'm leaning towards favouring up top, since some roles can't have the 'Move Into Channels' and 'Play Wider' PIs active at the same time.

Might seem like an odd choice up against stubborn low blocks but I'm partial to a Pressing Forward (Defend) or PF (S) currently due to how they'll peel off the defenders and interact with the AMC, MCL and MCR when everyone has 'Plays One-Twos' in their bag of tricks. I actually kind of prefer it if teams want to come out and give us some room in behind their defence, it typically greatly improves our chances of generating those killer central through balls that everyone craves seeing happen in FM20. An effective low block is the literal epitome of us dominating possession and hoping we manage to bag a goal from a cross, set-piece or some miraculous interplay through the middle third of the pitch.

Width is an interesting dilemma that is still puzzling me at times, and honestly I'm (paradoxically?) definitely favouring playing on Very Narrow or Narrow in a lot of games so far since it helps improve our interplay through the middle whilst not really impacting the utilisation or effectiveness of our fullbacks. All the space is out on the wings anyway so narrowing team width doesn't really greatly impact the fullback's use of it, the 'Play Wider' PI keeps them nice and wide if they tuck in too much without it activated. Striking that perfect balance between the midfield roles and overall team's width (team instructions) is still like a dance to me, since any role with 'Play Wider' is typically going to position itself wider than a role without it regardless of the team's width setting.

This has been an interesting long-term tactical challenge. Boy, if it doesn't make me constantly doubt and re-assess my tactics at times though compared to other formations I've used in the past in FM20. If there's one formation that makes me feel like I need to queue up three different variations of the same theme it is this formation.

[camoulton21]

I agree 100% on the fullback dilemna @Malkael. The FBs deep positioning is really important in the build-up play but they do also provide attacking runs (probably more third man runs than overlaps considering a lack of wingers) in the final third. Getting that balance is impossible imo given the current FB roles. They all range between to aggressive in the build-up or not aggressive enough in the final third. 

The 4-3-1-2 is definitely one of the harder formations to make work in the game. It's nowhere near as naturally balanced as other formations and I always get the feeling that the midfield 3 works in an illogical way in the ME, needlessly bunching considering the formation.

I'm super impressed that you've made so much progress, especially looking into the benefits of some PPMs. I simply did not have the no-how or patience to continue testing. Great work buddy

[Malkael]

@camoulton21 Having great with Player Preferred Moves at the moment and seeing how they interact with different roles. Pressing Forwards seem fairly unconstrained in FM match engine by hard-coding, so you can create a nice compact formation with a Pressing Foward (Defend) duo and yet still have them move high up onto the shoulder of the last defender when they have a PPM that encourages them to play on the shoulder of the last defender to attempt to beat any offside trap. Which was an interesting observation and discovery to me, since it seems to let me almost typecast the forwards by what I want them to do defensively first and then let PPMs encourage them to play how I need them to offensively in ways that just a plain (no PPMs) Pressing Forward (Defend) often cannot do. Does mean that the forwards are going to cover a bunch of ground transitioning to and from their offensive and defensive positions, but I certainly can't knock the extra defensive compactness that it allows us achieve.

Shame that the PPMs so far have not had the same effect on making a Fullback (Defend) more willing to make third man runs down the wing though, via 'Gets Forward Often' and similar traits. I appreciate the tactical challenge, so I keep tinkering away at it when I have free time to see how far I can push the formation\tactic in terms of effectiveness in FM20. Hard to stop trying when you start seeing cheeky little dinked balls over the top of those stubborn low block defenses, which could have lead to a beautiful goal to show off if it didn't get ruled out due to an unfortunate and annoying offside flag. (Seriously Dzeko, please stay the right side of the offside line mate. It killed me to see a wonderful goal like that get ruled out)

[anxiousAnarchist]

It looks to me from the Spielverlagerung article that they collapse defensively more like a 4-1-3-2, with a diamond being formed from the DM-CM strata rather than CM-AM strata. I think full backs will also stay nice and deep during build up moreso than wing backs, though I understand the logic in using them.