Tatical help

[AzevedoVCD]

Good afternoon everyone.

 I come to ask for help with my tactic.

 there are games that the team simply does what I want: beautiful football, triangulation in attack.

 but most of the time the players just don't play.

I am training SL Benfica and should dominate in internal competition and that does not happen.

am i doing something wrong? thank you in advance for your help!

[Ether_mR]

When your team is not performing well, does it seem like your team is constantly trying to play in extremely condensed spaces? To me, it seems like a couple of your players will be standing on top of one another in an attack, most notably the IWB-D/DLP-S on the left side, as well as the IF-S and CM-A.. your IWB-D on the left will run up and stand near where the DLP-S will be which will cause congestion and won’t allow you to exploit space left by the defense - 1 pressing player could conceivably apply pressure to two players which makes the defense’s job very easy. Also there is little variance in your attacks do to this, the first and simplest thing would be to swap the two CM roles if you are hellbent on keeping them. Also, you use pass into space but both of your wings want to come inside and your striker likes to sit deep so where is this space that you’re passing into? 

Also, do you give up goals on the counter often? The FB-A and CM-A on the same side is dangerous and is only mitigated by the DM, another reason to flop the CM roles.  In fact, the DM is on support duty so there is a chance you could be countered and only have your 2 CD’s back. Scary thought. 

I hope this helps and thanks for reading.

 

edit - think about it like this.. what would YOU do to defend your tactic? Once you see how your making the defense’s job easy, I think it will make more sense.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by Ether_mR

[Experienced Defender]

19 hours ago, AzevedoVCD said:

We can analyze this tactic from 2 different perspectives - the tactic as such, and taking the team (Benfica) reputation factor into account. 

The first problem is your flanks. The right one is pretty much risky, because you have an attacking fullback and also attacking CM, which means that none is covering defensively for the LB (except in part the DM, but he's not almighty). 

Another potential problem on the right flank is the interplay between the RCM and AMR. If you want a CM on attack, you better pair him with the standard winger. If you want to keep the IF on support in AMR, then change the RCM into a mezzala on attack, but also give the LB a more conservative role/duty, lest you overexpose that side. 

Unlike the right flank, which is too risky, the left one is too sterile and is seriously lacking support in attack. I really don't understand what's your idea with an IWB on defend duty behind a DLP in MCL position. 

If you created such a huge difference between the left and right flanks (sides) of your setup in an attempt to create a sort of "overload", then you did it in a completely wrong way. 

Do you now maybe have some idea about what and how you need to change in your tactic, or you want to hear some more analysis first?

[Experienced Defender]

And yes - the IWB would actually make much more sense on the right flank, whereas the FB on attack duty would be a very good choice on the left (in your current setup).

[AzevedoVCD]

21 hours ago, Ether_mR said:

When your team is not performing well, does it seem like your team is constantly trying to play in extremely condensed spaces? To me, it seems like a couple of your players will be standing on top of one another in an attack, most notably the IWB-D/DLP-S on the left side, as well as the IF-S and CM-A.. your IWB-D on the left will run up and stand near where the DLP-S will be which will cause congestion and won’t allow you to exploit space left by the defense - 1 pressing player could conceivably apply pressure to two players which makes the defense’s job very easy. Also there is little variance in your attacks do to this, the first and simplest thing would be to swap the two CM roles if you are hellbent on keeping them. Also, you use pass into space but both of your wings want to come inside and your striker likes to sit deep so where is this space that you’re passing into? 

Also, do you give up goals on the counter often? The FB-A and CM-A on the same side is dangerous and is only mitigated by the DM, another reason to flop the CM roles.  In fact, the DM is on support duty so there is a chance you could be countered and only have your 2 CD’s back. Scary thought. 

I hope this helps and thanks for reading.

 

edit - think about it like this.. what would YOU do to defend your tactic? Once you see how your making the defense’s job easy, I think it will make more sense.

Thanks for the reply! 

3 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

We can analyze this tactic from 2 different perspectives - the tactic as such, and taking the team (Benfica) reputation factor into account. 

The first problem is your flanks. The right one is pretty much risky, because you have an attacking fullback and also attacking CM, which means that none is covering defensively for the LB (except in part the DM, but he's not almighty). 

Another potential problem on the right flank is the interplay between the RCM and AMR. If you want a CM on attack, you better pair him with the standard winger. If you want to keep the IF on support in AMR, then change the RCM into a mezzala on attack, but also give the LB a more conservative role/duty, lest you overexpose that side. 

Unlike the right flank, which is too risky, the left one is too sterile and is seriously lacking support in attack. I really don't understand what's your idea with an IWB on defend duty behind a DLP in MCL position. 

If you created such a huge difference between the left and right flanks (sides) of your setup in an attempt to create a sort of "overload", then you did it in a completely wrong way. 

Do you now maybe have some idea about what and how you need to change in your tactic, or you want to hear some more analysis first?

If you dont mind, i would like to hear some more analysis!

 

[AzevedoVCD]

I've made some changes and i end up like this. i still have some doubts about the striker role but for now i will continue with the complete forward

[Experienced Defender]

4 hours ago, AzevedoVCD said:

This definitely makes a lot more sense than your first tactic/setup 

You now have a good starting point to tweak from (if and when needed).

[Keyzer Soze]

The pass into space instruction is always a tricky choice, in particulary if you are playing with a bigger team that will face, most of the times, opponents that will defend deep.

With this instructions you are telling all your player to take more risks in terms of passing. Although this could be a good thing, it could leave to your players rushing too much the play and nto recycling possession in the better way.

So, i you advice you to drop that instruction, because you already have some players in your tactic with that instruction by default: IF, DLP, CF.

I would also change the CF(a) to a CF(s) or DLF(a) . You need that your forward bring the others players into play, like the IF, W and the CM(a) that will arrive late in the box. With the attackig duty the CF will play more to himself.

 

[AzevedoVCD]

after some changes my tactic is as in the image.

the internal level is going very well. but in the European games, against manchester city, I was cheered by their side defenders.

 considering that I use the wide defensive width how did they manage to drill through the wings?

[sporadicsmiles]

On 02/02/2020 at 13:21, Experienced Defender said:

The first problem is your flanks. The right one is pretty much risky, because you have an attacking fullback and also attacking CM, which means that none is covering defensively for the LB (except in part the DM, but he's not almighty). 

 

Playing as Benfica in the majority of their league games against weaker opposition, the right flank is fine. I'd trust in the defence against weaker sides, unless they have a player who is extremely fast, or are playing with 2 strikers and the defenders struggle early in the game to contain it. Against stronger opposition I would definitely dial this back. I play attack duties at CM and FB on the same side often when I need to break sides down. Typically I do it with a W(S) on the same side though. The 3 man overload draws defenders naturally, and leaves space. Something you have to monitor, but something you can do. Just to give an alternative opinion on it. 

29 minutes ago, AzevedoVCD said:

This is a bit too lacking in ambition for a Benfica side in my opinion. Only two players with attack duties and you may see a lot of sterile possession. You are also relying a lot on your players beating their defender 1v1 here. Not many overloads or places you are doubling up your players to stress the defence. Playing with an IWB(D) (although see my above comment about that) and a DMC means you can play an attack duty with your other FB quite happily. You have the cover defensively for that. That will help attack the opposition right back, who will have to choose the AML or FB to cover. 

Your DLF(A) could also be quite ineffective in this formation, particularly with play out of defence. He will look to get forward quickly when you win the ball, but the ball is not going to come to him. By the time it does, all the space is gone as the defence converges for the AI. Typically I use a DLF(A) when I am looking to be a bit more direct than normal. Alternatively, you could look to play with a positive mentality, which comes with a bit more directness anyway. 

In terms of losing to Manchester City, I would not sweat it too much. They are a good side, and man for man better than Benfica. I'd expect to lose more than I won against them until I could build my squad to have players perfect for my style. And even then, I would not expect to match them. Defending wider is not always the best way to defend the flanks either. For example if they are overloading a flank, defending wider will leave your FB further from support and more likely to struggle if he gets into a 1v2 position. He has to choose a player, and supporting players can be further away. If I am getting hurt by opposition FBs on the flanks, I will tell my AMR/L to man mark them. Gives me an extra defender and denies that player space. 

[Experienced Defender]

4 hours ago, AzevedoVCD said:

against manchester city, I was cheered by their side defenders.

 considering that I use the wide defensive width how did they manage to drill through the wings?

A potential reason could be the counter-press you are using. City is too good a team to use counter-press against them, so I would assume they took advantage of the space left by your players applying counter-press. You cannot use a totally identical tactic against weak or average teams on one hand, and top ones (like City, LFC, Barca, Real, Bayern etc.) on the other. 

[Experienced Defender]

3 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

Playing as Benfica in the majority of their league games against weaker opposition, the right flank is fine. I'd trust in the defence against weaker sides, unless they have a player who is extremely fast, or are playing with 2 strikers and the defenders struggle early in the game to contain it. Against stronger opposition I would definitely dial this back. I play attack duties at CM and FB on the same side often when I need to break sides down. Typically I do it with a W(S) on the same side though. The 3 man overload draws defenders naturally, and leaves space. Something you have to monitor, but something you can do. Just to give an alternative opinion on it

Yes, I absolutely understand what you are talking about, and it does make sense. If you are confident your players are good enough, of course you can afford to take a certain degree of risk 

My point was of a more general nature (especially as I value defensive stability above everything else, just as my username suggests