Getting 4-3-3 Wide to work

[rootcoors]

Anyone having much luck with a 4-3-3 Wide?

This is my current setup but we don’t seem to score many and concede too often - I think the player roles look good and the instructions make sense, also happy with the players sitting in the roles too but something just isn't right and I can't work it out.

I've tried different variations of the above in terms swapping the roles of the wingers and changing to full backs etc... but I have not really touched the tactical style too much so maybe thats where the issue lies.

Currently this season I've played 19, won 5, drawn 4 and lost 10. Scored 24 goals and conceded 39.

I don’t normally ask for advice but some really would be appreciated.

Edited February 9, 2020 by rootcoors

[Freakiie]

Well two things that stand out immediately to me are the fact that you push higher up, press higher and try to prevent short goalkeeper distribution, which will reduce the space you have available and will make you vulnerable on the counter attack. Seeing how you concede a lot it seems that your team does not have the ability to pull this off.

Second is that you play lower tempo and work ball into box asking your players to be even more patient, so you give your opposition a lot of time to organize their defense, so it's no surprise that you struggle scoring goals when you slow down play that much.

(Oh and a wing back behind a winger seems a tad odd)

I don't know what team you are or how good your players are for your league, so I don't know how most teams will approach you. If you're one of the favorites I'd stop pressuring the opposition so much and lure them out a bit so you have more space when you attack. If you're an underdog slow possession can be a useful defensive tool, but not with your pressing set up and formation in my opinion.

[rootcoors]

Thanks for the reply... all of that is very helpful, and appreciate you taking the time to reply.

Will consider everything you said, as I've gone back to a blank canvas to create something that will hopefully work.

I am playing as Hull, we are in the premier league (2nd season there) but we are definitely expected to fight against relegation rather than try and get into Europe thats for sure.

[Ether_mR]

26 minutes ago, Freakiie said:

(Oh and a wing back behind a winger seems a tad odd)

May I ask you to expand on this? 

[rootcoors]

I went back to basic's and I'm currently spending time considering exactly how I want things to play out in the game etc...

This is how things currently look, but I am still working on it so not ready to play a match just yet - more of an update.

[Piperita]

My first idea would be changing the right Wingback to an IWB(s) for two reasons: 

1) You are playing a patient game but your CMa is inclined to bomb forward once your team gets possession. Meanwhile wingback and winger double the side, leaving the right halfspaces bare which makes it harder to recycle possession.

2) Similarly, when you lose the ball, this open space gives the opponent an easy opening to pass into as the wingback is far right and the midfielder is at the other box. An IWB would be positioned at the endangered zone and make quick long passes harder to pull off. 

An alternative would be changing your right centre-back to a Stopper-duty while teaching your winger to arrive late in the box. This way your winger could situationally turn into an IWs while the wingback provides width or could be the classical winger doubling up the flank. If you want a stronger flank, you could then add an overlap while changing the CMa to MEZs which would strengthen your IFa as focal finisher and keep more possession in the midfield. But on the flipside you'd lose the second big threat and would be more reliant on late cut-ins from the winger and the class of the PF to generate secondary threats.

If you want to continue playing a slower game, I'd also consider changing the PFa into a PFs. Mainly to focus finishing plays towards the more running attacking players from the back/side and to have a player up front who helps in controlling the game until your two scorers are in possession. You could(!) then consider giving this player some offensive PPMs (or combinations) so that this player becomes a dual threat. 

 

 

[Egecann]

You can use ıwb-s on the right to cover cm-a and also it provides numerical advantage in the middle. There is a winger already who stays wide

[Freakiie]

1 hour ago, Ether_mR said:

May I ask you to expand on this? 

The wing back will look to occupy the same space as the winger, so you clump your attacking players together on that side. Of course it can work, but since you have the winger who will play out wide you don't need your back to give you a wide option high up the pitch, so it'd make more sense to have him as fullback to give you an extra option slightly deeper, or perhaps as an IWB to cover the midfield.

[pauso]

Personally, on the right, it would make more sense leaving the winger on support if you want to leave the CM on attack. The fullback on support it's ok, although I'd try an IWB (defend or support). On the left, I would prefer a less aggressive role in midfield if you want an attacking fullback, like a carrilero or a DLP on support. Is there any particular reason for playing with a flat midfield? I'd prefer a player in the DM strata. Also, regarding your instructions, you're already on a positive mentality, an high LOE with more urgent pressing, seems a bit too much for a mid-table team

[rootcoors]

Thank-you for all the replies so far, very helpful and making lots of sense too - giving me plenty of things to consider.

Appreciate it.

[Ether_mR]

12 minutes ago, Freakiie said:

The wing back will look to occupy the same space as the winger, so you clump your attacking players together on that side. Of course it can work, but since you have the winger who will play out wide you don't need your back to give you a wide option high up the pitch, so it'd make more sense to have him as fullback to give you an extra option slightly deeper, or perhaps as an IWB to cover the midfield.

From my own usage, I actually like the interplay from the winger support and wingback support because if the wingback does jump up, the winger support will cover his position. I would absolutely not recommend a winger attack and wingback support though. Just wanted to see where your head was at. 

[themadsheep2001]

Lots of different ways to try and get through this, but two things stand out to me based on my Personal play, I would keep all the original setup, apart from two instructions: Lower Tempo and work ball into box. This gives teams lots of time to reset their defence, especially when combined together. Try your original setup but with changing lower tempo up 2 to slightly higher tempo, and dropping work ball into box. Cross Early is a another way to beat defences before they set. also if they are getting space in front of your defence, pull your MC back to DMC

 

[rootcoors]

Also the reason I wan't to play a flat 3 is partly because the players I have now and those coming through my youth fit much better into that type of formation, and secondly I much prefer the middle man of a midfield 3 to play a DLP role over a DM playing a DLP roll. I know I could change the roles around, but I really like a DLP in between 3 players. He sits back and hits balls here and there, but doesn't sit as far back as a DM.

I like the idea of playing the right centre back as a stopper to counter the CM-A, this makes sense to me when I make the change and look at the team. I am less convinced with changing to an IWB at the right hand side, mostly because my player doesn't fit the role well but also because I do like my LB and RB players to sit out wide rather than come in. Using s a stopper as suggested currently just sits better with me. I'm not fully ruling an IWB out though... but for now I'm not too sure.

Thanks again.

[rootcoors]

This is how things stand after digesting everything everyone has said so far, and thinking about the players I have and their traits too and also how I think I want to play. I do like my flat 3 and I do like the roles on those players. Even though I am not doing great, the way those 3 look on the pitch and play together is potentially one of the only things that did seem to be going well for me.

I have changed certain player roles, and reviewed the team instructions and this is what I have come up with. The concern I have that is standing out to me is a BPD-Defend and a CD-Stopper, I'm not sure if these two together will leave space behind them... I could be over thinking it though.

Appreciate the feedback and more is welcome. Thanks

.

 

[pauso]

I'm not convinced that you need a stopper behind the CMa. On the other side, I still think that your left side could be exposed (in case, potential fix would be a carrilero instead of your BBM). The rest of roles/duties, seems balanced

[rootcoors]

18 minutes ago, pauso said:

I'm not convinced that you need a stopper behind the CMa. On the other side, I still think that your left side could be exposed (in case, potential fix would be a carrilero instead of your BBM). The rest of roles/duties, seems balanced

I think you might be right about the CD-X, just played a couple of games and we are looking better going forward but the two central defenders look a bit all over the place. Im going to change back to a BPD-D and CD-D and now give the IWB a go on the right side, in a support role initially, with a view to changing to defend if that doesn't work out.

The left side in the last two games actually seemed to be okay, the WB got forward and grabbed an assist and the BBM also grabbed a goal and PoM too. The right also seemed okay, but the stopper in the middle two at the back didn't look right. Lets see what the next couple of games bring. Just need to make sure the right is still okay with this change too

 The CM-A had a fantastic game and with the roles around him and new instructions was doing exactly what I wanted of him.

[Ampalaea4]

@rootcoors Have a look at this article 

It explains very well why he chose its role for the formation you are interested. I would suggest to give it a try and tweak from there to your likings

[rootcoors]

32 minutes ago, Ampalaea4 said:

@rootcoors Have a look at this article 

It explains very well why he chose its role for the formation you are interested. I would suggest to give it a try and tweak from there to your likings

Thanks will take a look at that.

[Experienced Defender]

9 hours ago, rootcoors said:

If you play PF on attack as a lone striker, this role tends to work better when paired with a winger on attack than IF on attack. Like this:

PFat

IF/IWsu                                 Wat

Howeverm this tweak would require making some other tweaks. For example:

PFat

IF/IWsu                                   Wat

CAR   DLPde  BBM

Following these tweaks, you could also consider the left back as FB on attack duty. That would encourage natural overlaps on the left flank, with the carrilero serving as defensive cover. Like this:

PFat

IF/IWsu                               Wat

CAR  DLPde  BBM

FBat    BPDde  CDde    WBsu

SKsu

On the right flank, you could possibly encounter some degree of defensive vulnerability due to the lack of covering/holding CM role there. So you can change the RB into a more conservative role. Like this:

PFat

IF/IWsu                             Wat

CAR  DLPde  BBM

FBat   BPDde  CDde    FBsu

There is also an alternative option:

PFat

IF/IWsu                            Wsu

CAR  DLPde  CMat

FBat   BPDde  CDde  IWBsu

Which one would be optimal for you depends on the type(s) and quality of your players. But you now at least have some food for thought. 

When it comes to instructions, there are also things I would change, but I would first need to know what exactly you are looking to achieve in terms of playing style?

[rootcoors]

@Experienced Defender Thank-you for the feedback. I really do want to play with CMat as I like how he makes runs forward etc.. so the last of the options you posted are close to what I am leaning towards at the moment.

Regards playing style, with my attackers and midfielders going forward having some pace I want us to run at the opposition and take the game to them when we have possession, whilst at the same time building this up with shorter passing rather than direct long balls. I do like a possession based tactic, which is why on the first version I was slowing down tempo and taking things slow, but now realise that is exactly why I am not doing well as the team were doing it too often, almost all the time.

As you can see from my latest post (https://community.sigames.com/topic/513710-getting-4-3-3-wide-to-work/?do=findComment&comment=12266359) I went back to scratch and built again, with the roles not looking to dissimilar to what you have talked about in the 3rd variation in your post.

Appreciating all the feedback, its very helpful.

 

[Experienced Defender]

6 hours ago, rootcoors said:

I do like a possession based tactic, which is why on the first version I was slowing down tempo and taking things slow, but now realise that is exactly why I am not doing well as the team were doing it too often, almost all the time

The problem is that you use more instructions that tend to slow the play down than would be necessary - short pass, low tempo, PoD and WBiB - and all these under the Balanced mentality (which makes it even more conservative compared to the Positive, for example). The mentality is a huge factor in FM, which you always need to take into account when creating or tweaking a tactic. Because it affects literally everything. 

So if you want to play a possession-oriented style under the Balanced mentality, then I would suggest you go with the shorter passing and play out of defence, but leave the tempo on the default setting (i.e. standard). 

Of course, you also need to make sure you have the right players for your preferred/desired style. Because otherwise they are likely to struggle even if the tactic itself is "perfect". 

Btw, your defensive (out-of-possession) instructions are potentially risky, so be careful.

[rootcoors]

 

Just wanted to provide an update.

Left hand side is previous 15 fixtures before I embarked on creating this new 4-3-3 (using the 4-3-3 in first post) the right hand side is the last 14 fixtures since I took in everyones advice. As you can see its working really well, the two loses came to the best 2 teams in the league who were sitting in 2nd and 1st at the time, all other games we played really well as you can see from the results, we was actually unlucky not to nick wins in those draws too, all very close games.

  

Here is the formation I have played for last 12 of those 14 games, the first 2 I played with a CD-X and WB-S, changing to a CD-D and IWB-S as per the advice on here and I must say its more often than not worked out as I would have hoped.

 I can't thank everyone enough for the help provided so far, it make me re-think everything and go back to the drawing board with creating a tactic firstly understanding what I wanted and then really thinking about the roles of the players.

We are now exceeding expectations in the league, currently sitting in 10th (was predicted 18th - fight against relegation).

The main thing I need to work on is getting the PFa to score more goals, he only has 3 in those 14 games, which essentially isn't an issue as goals are obvisouly coming from elsewhere - but I think that is where I now need to focus my attention.

Thanks again everyone.

Edited February 10, 2020 by rootcoors

[Experienced Defender]

48 minutes ago, rootcoors said:

Just 3 small tips:

- you may not (necessarily) need higher tempo on the Positive mentality (or any high-risk mentality in general), because on higher mentalities tempo is already higher by default. But if you are pleased with how it works, then stick with it regardless 

- be careful with the "Run at defence" TI, because it asks all your players to dribble (a bit) more (except for the CD, who is hard-coded to dribble less), not just the forwards. So you need to make sure your players are generally capable of executing this instruction properly and safely enough

- counter-press can also be risky if you use it all the time, especially against strong opposition

[rootcoors]

36 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Just 3 small tips:

- you may not (necessarily) need higher tempo on the Positive mentality (or any high-risk mentality in general), because on higher mentalities tempo is already higher by default. But if you are pleased with how it works, then stick with it regardless 

- be careful with the "Run at defence" TI, because it asks all your players to dribble (a bit) more (except for the CD, who is hard-coded to dribble less), not just the forwards. So you need to make sure your players are generally capable of executing this instruction properly and safely enough

- counter-press can also be risky if you use it all the time, especially against strong opposition

Thanks for the reply.

Was aware of the tempo comment, if things didn’t work at first that was the first thing I was going to remove, for now though it seems okay. Fingers crossed it stays that way. 

I didn’t know that about the run at defence, I had assumed it was for the attacking based players. Clearly I was wrong, so thanks for that very helpful.

Valid point on the counter-press, that might be what went wrong against those big teams then. Will note that down, appreciate that.

Thanks

Edited February 10, 2020 by rootcoors

[rootcoors]

Just wanted to give an update on the evolution of this tactic.

Thank's again for all the feedback, and not trying to single anyone out but added thanks to the constant feedback from @Experienced Defender

Watching match highlights, assessing results etc... I was able to see that the RB position was just not working, the IWB-S, was good when we was going forward but was a struggle when then trying to defend - understand some of this will be down to the defender himself, but the positioning just didn't sit right with me.

Also from watching the highlights can see why CM-A was equally not working, although again in attack he was helpful when defending he was too far up the pitch. Its good to remember we are a team expected to avoid relegation, so being solid at the back is always going to be vital.

When losing possession counter-pressing seemed to be again leaving us more exposed, I tried removing it at first which did improve things, but I actually found adding re-group and getting the players to get back and then press made much more sense, especially against bigger teams.

Shorter passing also wasn't working, I needed my faster players to run onto the ball, I have a pacy front 3 and 2 in the middle, so whilst shorter passing did allow us to keep possession, which again can be helpful against bigger teams and is something I do manually change to if I feel the need I decided that playing more direct and passing into space might work better (not fully testing this yet - but initial signs seem okay).

You will see I also removed run at defence.... mainly because whilst we did a lot of running at the defence nothing seemed to come out of it as an end result. Taking it off hasn't really improved that as such, but at least my players take a moment now to think about a pass before just darting off.

Using FB's instead of WB's has mainly come into play as it makes us more solid at the back from what I have seen. The W-A and FB-A provide the most balls forward and forwards the box, with the CAR-S covering the RB area when the FB-A does go forward.

Lastly playing Bowen (arguably my best player) on the left side when he wants to be on the right, he wants to be an IF and he wants to attack, was clearly a move that was not thought out well and going completely against my best players strengths.

I am still playing with the roles and TI's as things evolve, this could just be something that continuously happens over time with match engine changes, player changes... and obviously when playing against other teams.

The overall tactic is now more structured, but again for a team trying to become and established premier league team with the aim currently of consistent mid table finishes this isn't a bad thing - we will win, draw and lose - the idea being that we should be happy enough (as things stand) to finish somewhere between 8th-14th - yes it would be nicer to finisher higher, and obviously the end goal is to eventually be Premier League champions but lets not get ahead of ourselves. We still can't bring in high enough calibre players, but this will change - and as it does the tactic will then evolve I am sure.

Any feedback as always is appreciated - thanks for reading this rather long post.

 

[XuluBak]

I don't know (most of) your players, so any suggestion is dependent on their ability being sufficient. Few random thoughts:

• I'm not a fan of a front three all on attack;
• I prefer a winger on one side and IF/IW/RMD on the other, but only if your players fit;
• If that's Watford's Sarr, then he's probably better suited as an IW on the left;
• If those are your best three, then I'd switch Sarr to IW(s);
• Alternatively, Sarr could be IW(A), with a DLF(s)/F9(s) if you have a capable option there;
• With Bowen as IF(a), might be worth trying your RB as a WB(a) and pushing further forward, you have a CAR(s) on that side to provide cover.

 

[YasoKuul]

I play a similar tactic with balanced mentality. Players and roles as follows:

          PFa

IWs                    Wa

    CMs   BBMs

          DMd

FBa BPDd CDd FBs

          SKd

You could try to put you DLPd in DM strata and adjust the CM players a little bit more conservative for a better structure.

More urgent pressing could be too much for your team, try a split block with advanced five players press more instead.

[rootcoors]

On 03/03/2020 at 02:36, XuluBak said:

I don't know (most of) your players, so any suggestion is dependent on their ability being sufficient. Few random thoughts:

• I'm not a fan of a front three all on attack;
• I prefer a winger on one side and IF/IW/RMD on the other, but only if your players fit;
• If that's Watford's Sarr, then he's probably better suited as an IW on the left;
• If those are your best three, then I'd switch Sarr to IW(s);
• Alternatively, Sarr could be IW(A), with a DLF(s)/F9(s) if you have a capable option there;
• With Bowen as IF(a), might be worth trying your RB as a WB(a) and pushing further forward, you have a CAR(s) on that side to provide cover.

 

This is good and appreciated feedback. Gives me a few ideas to ponder over, which is helpful :-)

[dan_bre_1988]

On 02/03/2020 at 10:33, rootcoors said:

Just wanted to give an update on the evolution of this tactic.

Thank's again for all the feedback, and not trying to single anyone out but added thanks to the constant feedback from @Experienced Defender

Watching match highlights, assessing results etc... I was able to see that the RB position was just not working, the IWB-S, was good when we was going forward but was a struggle when then trying to defend - understand some of this will be down to the defender himself, but the positioning just didn't sit right with me.

Also from watching the highlights can see why CM-A was equally not working, although again in attack he was helpful when defending he was too far up the pitch. Its good to remember we are a team expected to avoid relegation, so being solid at the back is always going to be vital.

When losing possession counter-pressing seemed to be again leaving us more exposed, I tried removing it at first which did improve things, but I actually found adding re-group and getting the players to get back and then press made much more sense, especially against bigger teams.

Shorter passing also wasn't working, I needed my faster players to run onto the ball, I have a pacy front 3 and 2 in the middle, so whilst shorter passing did allow us to keep possession, which again can be helpful against bigger teams and is something I do manually change to if I feel the need I decided that playing more direct and passing into space might work better (not fully testing this yet - but initial signs seem okay).

You will see I also removed run at defence.... mainly because whilst we did a lot of running at the defence nothing seemed to come out of it as an end result. Taking it off hasn't really improved that as such, but at least my players take a moment now to think about a pass before just darting off.

Using FB's instead of WB's has mainly come into play as it makes us more solid at the back from what I have seen. The W-A and FB-A provide the most balls forward and forwards the box, with the CAR-S covering the RB area when the FB-A does go forward.

Lastly playing Bowen (arguably my best player) on the left side when he wants to be on the right, he wants to be an IF and he wants to attack, was clearly a move that was not thought out well and going completely against my best players strengths.

I am still playing with the roles and TI's as things evolve, this could just be something that continuously happens over time with match engine changes, player changes... and obviously when playing against other teams.

The overall tactic is now more structured, but again for a team trying to become and established premier league team with the aim currently of consistent mid table finishes this isn't a bad thing - we will win, draw and lose - the idea being that we should be happy enough (as things stand) to finish somewhere between 8th-14th - yes it would be nicer to finisher higher, and obviously the end goal is to eventually be Premier League champions but lets not get ahead of ourselves. We still can't bring in high enough calibre players, but this will change - and as it does the tactic will then evolve I am sure.

Any feedback as always is appreciated - thanks for reading this rather long post.

 

How have you found your striker? Have you been able to create many good chances for him? I'm in league 1 but same formation (except I play a cm in DM strata) and I struggle creating too much for my St. He scores goals but tends to be through good work from him than the team. 

[rootcoors]

3 hours ago, dan_bre_1988 said:

How have you found your striker? Have you been able to create many good chances for him? I'm in league 1 but same formation (except I play a cm in DM strata) and I struggle creating too much for my St. He scores goals but tends to be through good work from him than the team. 

To be honest I found a lack of goals all found, but continued to use the formation until the end of the season, making notes of things I saw from watching matches and also taking into consideration the feedback that is available on the following screens 'team report, stats' and 'tactics, analysis, match. I found the second one very useful as I could assess a varied combination of the last 5 matches - using this and the notes I made when watching allowed me to address situations and evolve the tactic.

In the break before my currently season started to re-build the tactic based on the information gathered and the below is how it currently looks now, and the run of results so far this season. I have found that having 'shoot on sight' as part of the tactical style really has increased my goal scoring and the ability for my players to find the back of the net as you can see from the results.

Games and Goals

Striker - 12 games, 6 goals, 2 assists

Left Inside Forward - 12 games, 8 goals, 3 assists

Right Inside Forward - 12 games, 7 goals, 8 assists

Edited March 5, 2020 by rootcoors