Struggling to create good chances

[dan_bre_1988]

Hi guys, 

Playing as Portsmouth and although I regularly have plenty of shots on goal, I'm struggling for consistency and clear cut chances in games. Last 2 games have illustrated this perfectly where I beat top of the league Ipswich 6 0 at home but then drew 1 1 away at 2nd from bottom Oxford. Very frustrating!

I've attached my tactic below, any advice appreciated! In terms of PIs, I've kept it quite basic. Got my wide men and one CM set to 'get further forward' 

[Starsurfer]

Try removing 'Work Ball Into Box' and 'Lower Tempo' when facing bottom league teams. Hope this helps. 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Starsurfer

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

The key problem with this tactic IMHO is a lack of tactical identity. It's not clear what a majority of players are supposed to do, why and when. The only idea that appears to be obvious is that you (probably) want the AMR (winger) to deliver crosses for the AML and striker. But everything else is pretty much undefined. 

The setup of roles and duties would make more sense if the right CM was on attack duty, so as to provide more direct and close support to the forwards overall. Otherwise, you are likely going to struggle massively to break down defensive opponents who defend in a deep and compact fashion. 

[biglew90]

I agree with @Experienced Defender there isn’t much of an identity to the tactic. It’s trying to do a bit of everything keep possession but counter in transition but think about the tempo you have set.

i think your left side is good your right side could do with a tweak and you midfield needs a rethink.

On the right both players are on support it’s a bit blunt, you could possibly have an overload on that side like you have on the other side with the wingback just by changing a duty. Especially as you have the wide TI set.
 

The reason I say midfield needs a rethink is all 3 are on support and all 3 are quite static roles. You have a lone front man with no runners to support him in the box. Think about how to get a player to support him but then think about possibly supporting the defence in a transition if you push players forwards.

[dan_bre_1988]

3 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

The key problem with this tactic IMHO is a lack of tactical identity. It's not clear what a majority of players are supposed to do, why and when. The only idea that appears to be obvious is that you (probably) want the AMR (winger) to deliver crosses for the AML and striker. But everything else is pretty much undefined. 

The setup of roles and duties would make more sense if the right CM was on attack duty

 

15 minutes ago, biglew90 said:

I agree with @Experienced Defenderthink your left side is good your right side could do with a tweak and you midfield needs a rethink.

On the right both players are on support it’s a bit blunt, you could possibly have an overload on that side like you have on the other side with the wingback just by changing a duty. Especially as you have the wide TI set.
 

The reason I say midfield needs a rethink is all 3 are on support and all 3 are quite static roles. You have a lone front man with no runners to support him in the box. Think about how to get a player to support him but then think about possibly supporting the defence in a transition if you push players forwards.

Thanks for the replies, guys. 

You're both alluding to the same issue and it is something I've thought about. My problem is thinking too many attack duties would have an adverse affect as it would be too attacking? I may try my winger on an attack duty and IF on support since he will still have the support of a WB to create 2v1s. In terms of midfield, I really don't know how to set up. I don't have a natural holding player which is why I have a DLP to create from deep and dictate play. 

Getting around my worry about too many attack duties is why I have one CM PI set to 'get further forward' so he can support attacks and my striker DLFa as support he comes too deep for my liking and literally gets no chances. Against better teams willing to attack I've used him as a poacher to take advantage of space left in behind. 

In terms of style (although it appears this isn't what's being achieved) is to play a possession style of football with my winger putting in crosses (trait is cut inside so still gets in box) and IF cutting in for shooting/through balls as well as a presence for crosses from RW and then a CM to try get in the box/lurk around too. 

[biglew90]

@dan_bre_1988 it seems like you have an idea of how you want to play. What I would suggest is maybe watching highlights on comprehensive and look at your CM with the Get further forward PI (does he get up the pitch enough or do you need something more aggressive in there movement). See if your wide players are doing what you want them to do?  Look where your attacks break down if they do at all or do you not create enough? You could maybe increase mentality to create more risk. As much as you don't want to get caught out, you need to be aware every tactic has a weakness even the most thought out ones. It's all risk, reward and experimentation. 

For what you want to do with possession a striker on DLF is a really good choice as a lone striker but you need players to go beyond him he's going to hold the ball up and try to bring people in to play but if no one is there he's going to lose the ball, shoot from distance or go backwards. I'd maybe play around with only having either play out of defence or work ball in to box rather than both. I used to always have both of these selected but I've recently removed one as both together seems to lead to meaningless possession. 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

My problem is thinking too many attack duties would have an adverse affect as it would be too attacking?

The distribution of duties is as important as their overall number (if not even more important). 

 

1 hour ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

I don't have a natural holding player

What exactly do you mean by the "natural holding player"? 

 

1 hour ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

Getting around my worry about too many attack duties is why I have one CM PI set to 'get further forward' so he can support attacks

Okay, but the "GFF" PI is not equivalent to attack duty. It does encourage a bit more forward runs from the player, but does not increase his mentality. 

[dan_bre_1988]

10 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

The distribution of duties is as important as their overall number (if not even more important). 

 

What exactly do you mean by the "natural holding player"? 

 

Okay, but the "GFF" PI is not equivalent to attack duty. It does encourage a bit more forward runs from the player, but does not increase his mentality. 

So you think having 3 attack duties would be ok? Or best saved for more defensive teams? 

I didn't describe my mid very well... Usually when I set up with this formation I have an anchor or someone who will literally just sit and screen the back 4 which then gives me more confidence in letting both fbs bomb forward rather than just the one I currently have. I did have DLPd but found he was a bit too defensive and I didn't have much creativity in midfield so by having him on support he sits that bit higher up and has license to have a bit more of an expansive passing range. 

[yolixeya]

52 minutes ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

So you think having 3 attack duties would be ok? Or best saved for more defensive teams? 

Of course it is ok. 3 Aattack duties on a balanced mentality is not that much. And there are no hard and fast rules you have to stick to. When you are facing a weaker side, putting more players on attack duty just means you are taking more risks. If they don't pose much threat then it's fine. And sometimes they will knock you out on a counter but that doesn't mean you did anything wrong. You can't win them all. But from my personal experience, when I am a stronger team and chasing a goal, and a commit more players forward then it's generally advised, I get what I want eventually.

[Experienced Defender]

4 hours ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

So you think having 3 attack duties would be ok?

As long as you distribute them in a sensible manner and keep your overall tactical balance, I don't see why having 3 attack duties would be a problem under the Balanced mentality. 

 

4 hours ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

Usually when I set up with this formation I have an anchor or someone who will literally just sit and screen the back 4 which then gives me more confidence in letting both fbs bomb forward rather than just the one I currently have. I did have DLPd but found he was a bit too defensive and I didn't have much creativity in midfield so by having him on support he sits that bit higher up and has license to have a bit more of an expansive passing range

I don't see an anchor man in your tactic. I personally would rather have an anchor or DM on defend in the DM position, and DLP on support in central midfield. But you use a DLPsu in DM, not the anchor. So I am now confused. 

[dan_bre_1988]

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

As long as you distribute them in a sensible manner and keep your overall tactical balance, I don't see why having 3 attack duties would be a problem under the Balanced mentality. 

 

I don't see an anchor man in your tactic. I personally would rather have an anchor or DM on defend in the DM position, and DLP on support in central midfield. But you use a DLPsu in DM, not the anchor. So I am now confused. 

This is what I meant originally by not having a natural holding player. I only have a couple of guys capable of playing there. One guy is too good not to start but his stats don't suit a pure defensive mid but he has good play making abilities and is 'capable' of doing a job defensively so I tried to squeeze him in as a DLP in DM strata. I've also considered/considering putting a CM on defend and DLP on support with the other CM on attack.

I need to sign someone specifically for that role but window is shut. I'm in March now to be fair so don't need to wait too long (took over half way through the season) 

[Experienced Defender]

36 minutes ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

I've also considered/considering putting a CM on defend and DLP on support with the other CM on attack

You don't need a CM on defend. If you want to have a DLP on support in DM, you can play one CM as a carrilero or BWM on support (on the side of the more attacking fullback) and the other as a CM on attack (or mezzala, if you have a suitable player for the role). 

When it comes to your defensive concerns, I would be much more wary of your more urgent pressing than the lack of a defend duty in your midfield. 

[dan_bre_1988]

2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

You don't need a CM on defend. If you want to have a DLP on support in DM, you can play one CM as a carrilero or BWM on support (on the side of the more attacking fullback) and the other as a CM on attack (or mezzala, if you have a suitable player for the role). 

When it comes to your defensive concerns, I would be much more wary of your more urgent pressing than the lack of a defend duty in your midfield. 

Why's that? Just because of the risk of them being pulled out of position? To be honest it's one of them instructions I've just always used as I absolutely hate conceding goals where someone hasn't been closed down and can easily cross/through ball. 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

Why's that? Just because of the risk of them being pulled out of position? To be honest it's one of them instructions I've just always used as I absolutely hate conceding goals where someone hasn't been closed down and can easily cross/through ball

Okay, you play the way you like. I am just saying that, for me personally, such type of instruction poses a greater defensive risk than having no defend duty in a midfield triangle of the 4123 system. Of course, there is a difference between pressing urgency under different mentalities and different levels of compactness. But that's another story.

[dan_bre_1988]

13 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Okay, you play the way you like. I am just saying that, for me personally, such type of instruction poses a greater defensive risk than having no defend duty in a midfield triangle of the 4123 system. Of course, there is a difference between pressing urgency under different mentalities and different levels of compactness. But that's another story.

No I understand that and appreciate your input! 

Maybe I am being a bit naive. I don't always play FM and I certainly don't profess to be amazing at it! The mentality I always leave as balanced and try to fine tune from there what I want the team to do. I don't understand enough what changing to cautious or attacking for eg actually does. At a guess I'd say it's a general instruction to alter all of the teams width, defensive line, pressing and mentality of all the players. 

[yolixeya]

59 minutes ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

I don't understand enough what changing to cautious or attacking for eg actually does. At a guess I'd say it's a general instruction to alter all of the teams width, defensive line, pressing and mentality of all the players. 

I does all of that and also increases passing directness. It should be shown on tactic UI.

[maxchaplin55]

21 hours ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

No I understand that and appreciate your input! 

Maybe I am being a bit naive. I don't always play FM and I certainly don't profess to be amazing at it! The mentality I always leave as balanced and try to fine tune from there what I want the team to do. I don't understand enough what changing to cautious or attacking for eg actually does. At a guess I'd say it's a general instruction to alter all of the teams width, defensive line, pressing and mentality of all the players. 

From what I gather fella changing the mentality slightly alters your team instructions each time you bump up or down. Which you already stated. HOWEVER it also increases/decreases risk your players take. On a balanced mentality your player may decide not to play a risky defence locking pass or to even make the run out of position into space in the first place. 
 

I am like you and don’t like changing if I don’t know 100% what I’m changing. However I think people like me and you over think things. For myself I am only going to go into games as Positive balanced or cautious. In my opinion you only change to attacking/very attacking if you’re really chasing a goal and defensive if you actually have something to defend. 

[yolixeya]

1 hour ago, maxchaplin55 said:

I am like you and don’t like changing if I don’t know 100% what I’m changing. However I think people like me and you over think things. For myself I am only going to go into games as Positive balanced or cautious. In my opinion you only change to attacking/very attacking if you’re really chasing a goal and defensive if you actually have something to defend. 

For me, it depends on the context. If I am a newly promoted side I will have some games during a season wich I'll start on a defensive mentality, and when I am strongest team in the league I will have many games played on attacking mentality. But mostly I will stick to balanced, cautious and positive like you.

I remember the old CM days when you could just set up tactic and just play every game like that and never adopting. Those days are long gone. Nowdays if you don't adopt based on what you see during a match, you will never win any titles, especially CL.

[maxchaplin55]

4 hours ago, yolixeya said:

when I am strongest team in the league I will have many games played on attacking mentality. But mostly I will stick to balanced, cautious and positive like you.

Interesting, I understand being attacking, to break teams down that you know are going to set up deep, however would you not rather set up on positive to see if you can break them down with less risk? But starting a match on defensive, I wouldn’t normally do this unless I am literally looking to draw. Which is rare.

 

4 hours ago, yolixeya said:

Those days are long gone

Do you think this is a bad thing then? I think it is more realistic to be honest. Plug and play has never seemed like a realistic way to play this game. I don’t think a single team, even your Citys and Barcas set up the exact same way twice in a season. 

[yolixeya]

4 hours ago, maxchaplin55 said:

Interesting, I understand being attacking, to break teams down that you know are going to set up deep, however would you not rather set up on positive to see if you can break them down with less risk? But starting a match on defensive, I wouldn’t normally do this unless I am literally looking to draw. Which is rare.

I go on attacking mentality or I will start at a positive mentality and switch to attacking within first 10 minutes but like I said, I do that when I have already built very strong team and I am dominating most matches and scoring 4 or 5 goals often. I will use defensive mentality when I am complete outsider so even a point is a good but sometimes I even manage to win it. They will have like 15 or 20 and I will have 2 and still win 1:0 with that goal on a counter. But still the stronger team will defeat me most of the times but anytime I can steal some points against top teams, it is good for me. 

5 hours ago, maxchaplin55 said:

Do you think this is a bad thing then? I think it is more realistic to be honest. Plug and play has never seemed like a realistic way to play this game. I don’t think a single team, even your Citys and Barcas set up the exact same way twice in a season. 

I don't think it is a bad thing.  I did not play FM in a long time and when I came back I had a initial disappointment because I was sacked with Real Madrid halfway through a season. At first I didn't even realize how much game has changed and that it is all my fault,  and I just screamed at the screen after every goal I conceded on a counter.  I even tried those plug and play tactics but that never worked well for me. I would get bored very quickly and also didn't know what to change when things weren't going well.  And now when I made the effort to actually learn how to play the game I am enjoying it much more. 

[maxchaplin55]

31 minutes ago, yolixeya said:

And now when I made the effort to actually learn how to play the game I am enjoying it much more. 

Yeah I get frustrated because I would love to have the time to play the game how I want but I don’t, so I go through spurts of half committing, being largely unsuccessful and getting fed up 😂

[dan_bre_1988]

So since the OP, I finished the season. Came 4th and got beat in playoffs by Wigan. 

Played pre season and 2 league games so far. Winning every game except 2nd league game where I lost 1 0 to Colchester. Some issues still remain though in my (changed) tactic.

Taking into consideration the advice above, I decided to set up slightly more attacking for the new season. Now playing the following (still in same shape as above with TIs) 

Gk- defend

FB (R) support

CD defend

CD defend

WB (L) attack

DLP defend

Carrilero (left CM) 

CM attack

Winger (right) attack

IF (left) support 

DLF (s) or pressing forward attack

I'm still struggling to create many CCCs or even half chances. I'm winning a lot of games and having a lot of shots but it's through individual brilliance rather than creating GOOD chances and my striker doesn't really have many chances in either role. Any tips welcome! 

 

[dan_bre_1988]

So I've had a great start to the season, winning 10 games on the bounce Inc pre season. I don't like the lack of chances however. 

My theory of how I want to play:

In possession

Play in a patient manner. Short passing but at a standard tempo (I want to dominate the ball but without just passing it around aimlessly in the middle third) 

I want my DMC to literally just screen the back 4 and allow my WBs to get forward. AMR to stay high and wide ready to receive the ball and get to byline for a cross or dribble inside to create chances. Fb right on support as I want him to get forward and contribute but also have a defensive element to allow my cm to provide a runner from midfield to get past the striker and offer an option. Similarly on the left, I want the CM left to provide defensive cover to allow the AML to drift inside and link up with the striker and my LB left to bomb forward and create 2v1 situations and deliver crosses. My problem is what to do with striker. As with previous games using this system, I am finding it difficult to get him involved enough and creating good chances for him. My current thinking is by having him as a DLFs he won't get isolated by being too far forward but he would (hopefully) drag cbs out of position to allow my cm and IF to get into the vacated space and/or getting into the box for crosses but it doesn't seem to be working that way. 

Out of possession

My cbs aren't blessed with pace so I don't want to defend high up. At the same time, defending in a low block isn't ideal either as I want to be on the ball a lot, not waiting for opposition to lose it so more urgent pressing gives me the chance to press the opposition to try win the ball back without being overly aggressive and gifting space for them to counter in. 

 

 

Does this look sound logically? Is there any changes you guys would make to more accurately reflect the style I'm trying to implement? What role should I give my striker? 

 

(Please excuse the poor quality pictures. I play FM touch for the switch so have to upload pictures taken off my phone! 

Edited February 23, 2020 by dan_bre_1988