Adapting to weaker opposition

[KillieDIV]

Hi, 

Can anyone recommend how to adapt my counter attacking tactic when I'm playing at home against weaker opposition? Currently I have the following instructions:

Balanced

Counter

Lower LOE

Tight marking

Narrow/wide defence depending on opponents strengths

And the following roles

DLFa

IFs Ws

DLPs CMa

DMd

WBs CDd CDd IWBs

GKd

Against weaker teams I've been going with the following, but it has turned me into the master of the 0-0 home draw:

Balanced/positive (depending on level of team) 

More expressive

Higher tempo 

Play wider

DLFs

IFa Ws

DLPs CMa

DMd

WBs CDd CDd IWBs

GKd

I'm struggling to break teams down however. I'm going to try replacing the DLPs with an APs but I'm a bit cautious that will leave me a bit too open. I've also toyed with the idea of replacing the CMa with a MEZa, but my CMa is fairly limited and I don't think he'd perform well as a MEZ. Does anyone have any ideas? 

[Experienced Defender]

Okay, so this is your counter-attacking tactic:

DLFat

IFsu                                     Wsu

DLPsu   CMat

DMde

WBsu   CDde  CDde   IWBsu

GKde

Balanced mentality

- nothing

- counter

- lower LOE, tight mark and narrow or wide def width

The setup of roles and duties look okay and make sense for a counter style. IWB on support might be a bit too demanding role if your RB does not have a proper set of attributes, so be careful. 

In terms of instructions, I think the Get stuck in would make more sense than tight marking in this particular tactical setup. 

Changing defensive width relative to the opposition is something I would advise against. If you are not sure which width setting optimally suits your defense, just leave it on default (standard). 

Let's now see your other tactic (against weaker teams):

DLFsu

IFat                                   Wsu

DLPsu   CMat

DMde

WBsu   CDde  CDde    IWBsu

GKde

Balanced/Positive

- be more expressive, higher tempo, wider att width

- nothing

- nothing 

36 minutes ago, KillieDIV said:

I'm struggling to break teams down however. I'm going to try replacing the DLPs with an APs but I'm a bit cautious that will leave me a bit too open

You don't necessarily need to change the AP into DLP. And even if you do, it would require tweaking some other roles.

I think your instructions are a bigger problem in this case than roles/duties (although they could also be tweaked slightly). First, the mentality you play on affects all instructions (along with individual player mentalities). So when you switch from the Balanced to the Positive, it's not just the mentality that has changed.

I'll now give you an example of how you can modify the tactic with minimum tweaks:

DLFat

IFsu                                    Wsu

DLPsu   CMat

DMde

FBat    CDde   CDde    IWBsu

GKde

As you can see, I just slightly tweaked a couple of roles and duties. Now instructions come into play... if you go with the Positive mentality, start only with shorter passing and play out of defence. Then watch the match and see what happens. In some cases you may need to add the Be more expressive. Sometimes you may just need to change the shorter passing into standard. Sometimes you may need to tweak 1 or 2 roles or duties. But based on what you observe, not on a random basis. 

When you play on the Balanced mentality, you should be able to afford a bit more risk than under the Positive. For example:

- play out of defence, standard passing and be more expressive

- nothing

- higher DL, standard LOE (and a split block via PIs)

If you want to use the AP instead of DLP, this could be a setup to think about:

DLFsu

IFat                                    IWsu

APsu  CAR/BWMsu

A/DMde

WBauto   CDde   CDde   FBat

GK/SK

LB/WB auto - hold position PI

Of course, this is not necessarily the exact setup you should use, just an example to give you some food for thought. I don't know your players, so it's impossible to tell you how exactly you should play. Ultimately, it's only you who can figure that out.

 

 

 

[KillieDIV]

32 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

- higher DL, standard LOE (and a split block via PIs)

 

 

Thanks, very informative and I'm looking forward to testing it out. I've seen the split block mentioned a few times in this forum but haven't came across a definition of what exactly it means. Is it merely giving the forward players (in this case the IF, DLF and W) PIs to close down more often? 

[Experienced Defender]

11 hours ago, KillieDIV said:

Is it merely giving the forward players (in this case the IF, DLF and W) PIs to close down more often?

Yes 

[KillieDIV]

I've played about 15 more games or so now and I'm still having a few issues. The first one is continually conceding goals from deep crosses to a player in space behind my full back while playing the counter formation. To try and combat this I've dropped the defensive line to lower, dropped the line of engagement to much lower and set the defensive width to wider. The thought process behind this is that I want to keep the team compact to make us difficult to play through, but I want the full team to drop back slightly to leave less space in behind and I want the full backs to play closer to their wingers. I also thought this may have a negative effect on us going forward so I've set the mentality to positive in the hopes that it will encourage us to take more risks when we recover the ball. I've only played one game with this so far and I won 4-1 away to the team with the worst form in the division, so it might be a bit early to make a judgement.

My 'control' tactic is faring even worse however. I never seem to create any chances while playing with it even when dominating possession, and I'm getting hit on the break far too often. I'm less sure on what to do to alter this one. I'm thinking that I may set the defensive line to standard and the LOE to lower but keep the short passing and play out from the back, which will keep us more solid defensively but I can't see this helping with breaking down the opponents. Another potential solution I'm considering is to drop the wide players back to the wide midfield slots and have them on IWsu and Wsu, and switch the full backs to WBat and FBat to create overloads on the flank. I'd then make the DLP an APat and the CM a BWMsu so the midfield players a bit more positionally but the APat could hopefully bring more creativity further up the pitch. 

To put it more clearly, current control:

Potential control:

Any suggestions are welcome. 

[Experienced Defender]

5 hours ago, KillieDIV said:

This tactic looks good and makes sense  

 

5 hours ago, KillieDIV said:

 

5 hours ago, KillieDIV said:

My 'control' tactic is faring even worse however. I never seem to create any chances while playing with it even when dominating possession, and I'm getting hit on the break far too often

Your defense is probably not good enough to play with a higher DL. Your counter tactic, which you said works well so far, uses lower DL. It's never a good idea to have such a great difference between two tactics when it comes to so important instructions as DL and LOE.  

It's also possible that your team is not good enough to play out of defence. If so, you can remove the PoD TI and instead use the Distribution to CBs and FBs. It's not the same of course, but is at least safer defensively. 

[Starsurfer]

10 hours ago, KillieDIV said:

My 'control' tactic is faring even worse however. I never seem to create any chances while playing with it even when dominating possession, and I'm getting hit on the break far too often. I'm less sure on what to do to alter this one. I'm thinking that I may set the defensive line to standard and the LOE to lower but keep the short passing and play out from the back, which will keep us more solid defensively but I can't see this helping with breaking down the opponents. Another potential solution I'm considering is to drop the wide players back to the wide midfield slots and have them on IWsu and Wsu, and switch the full backs to WBat and FBat to create overloads on the flank. I'd then make the DLP an APat and the CM a BWMsu so the midfield players a bit more positionally but the APat could hopefully bring more creativity further up the pitch. 

To put it more clearly, current control:

 

I'd try the following changes:

- Remove Shorter Passing

- Add Lower LOE

- Change Defensive Line to Standard

- Change IWB role to Support

 

Hope this helps.