Identity just not working to create clear chances

[Vinay17]

Hi there, this is my first post since I join the community, my english is bad so I need a little of pacience

The main reason of the post is that im struggling to create chances against better and worst opposition, beside that the defensive part of the tactic is working well not conceding much goals right now on the season, however i dont create good quality chances and I win almost all my games by set pieces or penalties or opposition mistake.

I play this two tactics 

On the first one I change mentality to Positive depending the team that I play against or if it is an away or home game

And on the second I change to Defensive for the same reason

 

If you have any advice or tip to give me I will be glad to hear. Thanks

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Vinay17 said:

On the first one I change mentality to Positive depending the team that I play against or if it is an away or home game

Changing the mentality alone does not make you either more solid defensively or more dangerous in attack. On the other hand, the mentality automatically affects all other things. Therefore, when you change the mentality, you usually need to adjust some other instructions, roles and/or duties as well. Especially if your basic tactic is not optimally balanced (and yours are not). 

It's difficult to give you any more specific suggestions without information on the style of football you want to play. 

[Vinay17]

1- My main goal is to be strong at defense, also want to create good chances by keeping the ball, thats why I like fluid counterattack because it allows me to have the control of the game and have more posession, but really struggle when I play against weaker oppositions that park the bus, thats when I change to my second tactic with the LOE, lower tempo, and high DL. It is possible to play fluid counterattack at a positive mentality?

2- What you mean when you say that my tactic is not optimally balanced?

3- This are my last shedule, like a said before we are doing pretty well defensive but struggle to create chances

Edited February 12, 2020 by Vinay17

[Experienced Defender]

52 minutes ago, Vinay17 said:

It is possible to play fluid counterattack at a positive mentality?

It's possible to play any type of counter-attacking football on the positive (or whichever) mentality, not just the fluid one. Moreover, it even tends to work better on a higher mentality because higher mentalities encourage faster attacking transitions.

However, given that you obviously don't have sufficient tactical knowledge and experience, I would advise you to start with the Balanced mentality and work patiently from there. And try to keep the tactic as simple as possible, especially in terms of instructions. 

57 minutes ago, Vinay17 said:

What you mean when you say that my tactic is not optimally balanced?

I am referring primarily to the setup of roles and duties, but also in part to instructions. 

[Vinay17]

Do you have any suggest? 

[Robson 07]

In the balanced mentality tactic, why do you focus play through the middle?

I ask as I generally find this an odd 'shout' at the best of times.  It can be quite limiting.  If I were to find a use for it then it would be to help keep shape in the attacking phase.  Kind of stick to an attacking shape that doesn't get too stretched and converts easily to transition/out of possession. 

I'm less clear why you're using it especially if failing to create clear cut chances.  The most simple diagnosis is you are inhibiting yourself by sticking to centralised play-making.

[Experienced Defender]

16 hours ago, Vinay17 said:

Do you have any suggest?

About roles and duties only or the tactic in general?

[Vinay17]

5 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

About roles and duties only or the tactic in general?

About both, want to hear another opinion about both things

Edited February 13, 2020 by Vinay17

[Vinay17]

21 hours ago, Robson 07 said:

In the balanced mentality tactic, why do you focus play through the middle?

I ask as I generally find this an odd 'shout' at the best of times.  It can be quite limiting.  If I were to find a use for it then it would be to help keep shape in the attacking phase.  Kind of stick to an attacking shape that doesn't get too stretched and converts easily to transition/out of possession. 

I'm less clear why you're using it especially if failing to create clear cut chances.  The most simple diagnosis is you are inhibiting yourself by sticking to centralised play-making.

The unique reason why I play through the middle is because when I do it I score goals xD

Also give my LB and AMR ins. to sit narrower, so i think that if I have more man on the middle thats where I should focus my attack, maybe I am wrong

Edited February 14, 2020 by Vinay17

[Robson 07]

10 minutes ago, Vinay17 said:

The unique reason why I play through the middle is because when I do it I score goals xD

But in your opening post and the reason for this thread you say...

On 12/02/2020 at 17:44, Vinay17 said:

however i don't create good quality chances and I win almost all my games by set pieces or penalties or opposition mistake

 Which is it?  You struggle to create chances or you score goals? 

Let me explain how I see Exploit Middle:-

When you play wide, down the flanks and so forth you stretch the opposition but you also compromise your own shape (losing horizontal compactness) in the attack phase.  This then transfers into transition and out of possession phases as the team has to work hard to regain compactness for defending.  Now when you play down the middle you contain the area you are playing in and players don't get pulled wide as much.  This in turn helps into quickly transitioning into defensive shape but perhaps at the cost of attacking and scoring.   Exploit middle I believe also locks down your fullbacks making them more cautious, less fwd runs.  In summary, I would contend that Exploit Middle is a more defensive minded instruction than an attacking one.  Hence me questioning your use of it if your problem is creating chances.

[Experienced Defender]

3 minutes ago, Vinay17 said:

About both, want to hear another opinion about both things

Well, first off - you don't need such a big difference between your tactics. They may not be overly different merely in terms of roles/duties, but what makes them more different than it's advisable is instructions coupled with the mentality change.

Having mentioned the mentality, you need to know that it does not define your style of play. In other words, you can play different styles of football under the same team mentality. It is roles, duties and instructions that primarily define your tactical/playing style. Mentality is a very important factor though, because it automatically sets the base for all other instructions and hence any mentality change affects the whole tactic even without touching any other instruction or role or duty. 

Now that this has been sorted out, I would advise you to sort of "merge" these 2 tactics into one that would be your basic (primary) tactic. Try to keep it as simple as possible. First try to create a logical and optimally balanced setup of roles and duties following these couple of principles:

- who and how is supposed to create space for those around and/or behind him when we attack

- who and how is supposed to take advantage of that space

- who and how is supposed to provide defensive cover/protection for those bombing forward from deep (i.e. attack-minded fullbacks/wing-backs and midfielders)

When it comes to instructions - use as few as possible (only those that basically define your intended style of football). Or even start with no instructions at all and then add them gradually as you see fit until you get what you want in terms of playing style. And start with the Balanced mentality.

One more specific suggestion - using the BWM role for a holding DM is not the best idea IMHO, simply because the role's aggressive manner of defending means it can leave the defense overly exposed at times instead of providing them with solid and stable cover. 

One more suggestion - do not use too aggressive defensive (out-of-possession) instructions, because that's not going to make you defensively solid. Quite to the contrary - such aggressive manner of defending is much more likely to compromise your defensive shape and stability (especially if you are not a top team). 

[Experienced Defender]

12 minutes ago, Robson 07 said:

In summary, I would contend that Exploit Middle is a more defensive minded instruction than an attacking one

I would strongly agree on this 

I almost never use the Focus through the middle. And even when I do, it's only when I play a fast direct counter-attacking style with 2 attack-duty strikers. But when I am expected to control and dominate the match, I absolutely do not see any point in limiting my play to central areas of the pitch.

[Vinay17]

Well I want to think about the tactic now, Im applying some of the tips that you guys give me 

- Want to be solid on defense

- Want quickly transitions

- Want also to have a good management of the ball in possesion

Let me explain why I think these roles are good for the style I want to play and the function that they play on the tactic

First of the SK: because I need him to be the one that start the possesion, being an option too when my defenders are under pressure

BPD: I need one of my CD to be comfortable with the ball, and be another option to play out from defense, also if he can make a pass through lines to start the a counter or quick transitio

CD (Cover): This one I have to be an option too to play out from the defense but the main thing is to cover the space that my LR is letting by getting further when we are having the ball

FB: I want a support role for him because he have to be an option where the SK, BPD, W, and CM can rely also try to contribute the offensive phase with crosses from deep

WB (Attack): this player main role its to play as a winger by occuping the space that the IF creates for him, also want him to be wide all the time

HB: the Half back its my third central in case we were too high at the pitch, also contributes on keeping the shape when we dont have possesion, I need him to play out from defense and pass simply to the advanced midfielders

AP: this one has to be the creator of football and the player that I rely when having possesion to distribute well and create options and pass through lines that can break the opposition defensive side or to start counterattack

CM (Attack): I want this player to play most likely like an AMC, in transition need to dribble more often

W: Need him to play one on one against the oposittion LR, encouraging him to win the duel and being a threat for a pass or a deadly cross

IF: The same of the Winger but instead of crossing being a threat for a pass, to play one twos with the forward or just simply shooting

DLF (Support) : I want him to hold up balls and try to make the wingers participate on the game, also want him to score goals by finishing crosses

[Kingofcm03]

1 hour ago, Vinay17 said:

Well I want to think about the tactic now, Im applying some of the tips that you guys give me 

- Want to be solid on defense

- Want quickly transitions

- Want also to have a good management of the ball in possesion

Let me explain why I think these roles are good for the style I want to play and the function that they play on the tactic

First of the SK: because I need him to be the one that start the possesion, being an option too when my defenders are under pressure

BPD: I need one of my CD to be comfortable with the ball, and be another option to play out from defense, also if he can make a pass through lines to start the a counter or quick transitio

CD (Cover): This one I have to be an option too to play out from the defense but the main thing is to cover the space that my LR is letting by getting further when we are having the ball

FB: I want a support role for him because he have to be an option where the SK, BPD, W, and CM can rely also try to contribute the offensive phase with crosses from deep

WB (Attack): this player main role its to play as a winger by occuping the space that the IF creates for him, also want him to be wide all the time

HB: the Half back its my third central in case we were too high at the pitch, also contributes on keeping the shape when we dont have possesion, I need him to play out from defense and pass simply to the advanced midfielders

AP: this one has to be the creator of football and the player that I rely when having possesion to distribute well and create options and pass through lines that can break the opposition defensive side or to start counterattack

CM (Attack): I want this player to play most likely like an AMC, in transition need to dribble more often

W: Need him to play one on one against the oposittion LR, encouraging him to win the duel and being a threat for a pass or a deadly cross

IF: The same of the Winger but instead of crossing being a threat for a pass, to play one twos with the forward or just simply shooting

DLF (Support) : I want him to hold up balls and try to make the wingers participate on the game, also want him to score goals by finishing crosses

This looks better than the opening post, however I am still not convinced on that middle 3 players and their roles/duties. The CM-A and AP-S are going to push forward naturally and leave the HB to hold the middle.

Based on your thoughts: HB: the Half back its my third central in case we were too high at the pitch, also contributes on keeping the shape when we dont have possesion, I need him to play out from defense and pass simply to the advanced midfielders

Does a DLP-D not sound better here?

[Vinay17]

3 hours ago, Kingofcm03 said:

This looks better than the opening post, however I am still not convinced on that middle 3 players and their roles/duties. The CM-A and AP-S are going to push forward naturally and leave the HB to hold the middle.

Based on your thoughts: HB: the Half back its my third central in case we were too high at the pitch, also contributes on keeping the shape when we dont have possesion, I need him to play out from defense and pass simply to the advanced midfielders

Does a DLP-D not sound better here?

Maybe, the main problem is te player that I have on that position, Gary Medel (not good at DLP at all)

I am thinking to change the AP(s) to a DLP(s) to get more balanced midfield, or trying to change the IF(s) to an IW(s)? 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Vinay17

[XuluBak]

I don't think "play through the middle" is inherently defensive. I do, however, believe it's counterproductive in a 4141/4231/433, and makes even less sense for a 343/442. Conversely, I'd argue it makes a lot of sense for 352 variants, 442 Diamond, or 4312, and could even be considered a "must" in some of those configuration/setups. That said, your WB/FBs in those setups are absolutely vital to providing legitimate attacking width. 

It's a numbers game. 

Edited February 14, 2020 by XuluBak

[thejay]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb Experienced Defender:

 

One more suggestion - do not use too aggressive defensive (out-of-possession) instructions, because that's not going to make you defensively solid. Quite to the contrary - such aggressive manner of defending is much more likely to compromise your defensive shape and stability (especially if you are not a top team). 

This is not true at all, there is almost no penalty in the match engine on the latest patch playing the most aggressive pressing style possible, the ai cant counter that effectively .

 

In my experience you become less defensibly solid with more reasonable pressing

Edited February 14, 2020 by thejay

[Experienced Defender]

14 hours ago, Vinay17 said:

 

14 hours ago, Vinay17 said:

Want to be solid on defense

Your right flank is problematic in that respect - with a WB on attack duty and an AP on the same side. Could be too risky. 

 

14 hours ago, Vinay17 said:

Want quickly transitions

Keeping in mind what I already said about the defensive risk on the right flank and adding the quick transitions to the equation, tweaking the roles on the right would now make even more sense.

This is what I would go with:

                   IFat

        APsu

                WBsu 

[Robson 07]

3 roles to construct moves but who's scoring the goals?  Said it in my previous post, aren't you looking to create more chances and score more goal from open play?

[Vinay17]

5 hours ago, Robson 07 said:

3 roles to construct moves but who's scoring the goals?  Said it in my previous post, aren't you looking to create more chances and score more goal from open play?

Yes I was thinking to play the DLF with an attack duty maybe, but in case I do this, what change besides his mentality? they just do the same?

[Vinay17]

6 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

Your right flank is problematic in that respect - with a WB on attack duty and an AP on the same side. Could be too risky. 

 

Keeping in mind what I already said about the defensive risk on the right flank and adding the quick transitions to the equation, tweaking the roles on the right would now make even more sense.

This is what I would go with:

                   IFat

        APsu

                WBsu 

Let me try it and tell you the results

[Vinay17]

Well guys after 5 days I have tried to evaluate the pro and the contras of my team , and I merge these two tactics that I have into one final tactic, that have some varieties depending the match

Now, the tactic have been working good having a good solid defense but I have some questions about it and I really apreciate another opinion 

1) How can I handle with teams that park the bus, mostly in games that opposition is weaker against me, how can I break it? You will se that matches against Brescia, Empoli and Udinese I struggle to score goals

2) How can I get the MEZ more involved into playmaking (maybe changing the role, I have tried a RPM but didnt work)

3) I play on Balanced mentality, most of my games, I just change because Im playing against Perugia at Home 

Thats all, I will be glad to hear you guys.

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Vinay17

[Experienced Defender]

11 minutes ago, Vinay17 said:

Your results look really good now, so I would advise against making any (big) changes (unless the tactic suddenly stops working). 

[llama3]

1 hour ago, Vinay17 said:

Well guys after 5 days I have tried to evaluate the pro and the contras of my team , and I merge these two tactics that I have into one final tactic, that have some varieties depending the match

Now, the tactic have been working good having a good solid defense but I have some questions about it and I really apreciate another opinion 

1) How can I handle with teams that park the bus, mostly in games that opposition is weaker against me, how can I break it? You will se that matches against Brescia, Empoli and Udinese I struggle to score goals

2) How can I get the MEZ more involved into playmaking (maybe changing the role, I have tried a RPM but didnt work)

3) I play on Balanced mentality, most of my games, I just change because Im playing against Perugia at Home 

Thats all, I will be glad to hear you guys.

 

Roles and duties look pretty sensible. The Mezzala you could consider making a BBM, CM(a) or RPM - but only if something is missing in your team. A BBM will stay more central than the Mezzala and a touch more cautious. A CM(a) will attack the space from deep a touch more aggressively.

[Vinay17]

10 hours ago, llama3 said:

Roles and duties look pretty sensible. The Mezzala you could consider making a BBM, CM(a) or RPM - but only if something is missing in your team. A BBM will stay more central than the Mezzala and a touch more cautious. A CM(a) will attack the space from deep a touch more aggressively.

What about an AP(s) ? Too much playmaking roles?

[llama3]

On 20/02/2020 at 05:54, Vinay17 said:

What about an AP(s) ? Too much playmaking roles?

I think it would lead to a lack of dynamism in midfield with an AP(s) - he'll play passes, but your HB & DLP already do that.

[DarJ]

I haven't read the suggestions people have made yet but since we're playing with the same shape and I'm doing well I just want to share it

I start on balance mentality and during the game I can take it up to Very attacking. 

Pass into space is situational and in the game against Nantes after going 2 goals down, I removed run at defense and went wide with early crosses and it worked 

 

 

As you can see assists are coming from all over the pitch

I don't know what happened in the Chelsea game, they had 2 pens and 3 goals from long shot. 

The only "problem" I have is that although the striker is the highest goalscorer he doesn't much in build up even when he played on support

Edited February 22, 2020 by DarJ

[Britrock]

On 19/02/2020 at 18:16, Vinay17 said:

Well guys after 5 days I have tried to evaluate the pro and the contras of my team , and I merge these two tactics that I have into one final tactic, that have some varieties depending the match

Now, the tactic have been working good having a good solid defense but I have some questions about it and I really apreciate another opinion 

1) How can I handle with teams that park the bus, mostly in games that opposition is weaker against me, how can I break it? You will se that matches against Brescia, Empoli and Udinese I struggle to score goals

2) How can I get the MEZ more involved into playmaking (maybe changing the role, I have tried a RPM but didnt work)

3) I play on Balanced mentality, most of my games, I just change because Im playing against Perugia at Home 

Thats all, I will be glad to hear you guys.

 

I'm answer to 1), my go to in that situation is to max out the width and turn on be more expressive. That stretches the defence horizontally, causing gaps which can then be exploited by the extra creative freedom. 

[Vinay17]

Sorry to come again with an issue, this is more like a question that I have in my below tactic 

It is too much play making pairing a DLP(S) with a AP(A)?

[Experienced Defender]

9 minutes ago, Vinay17 said:

It is too much play making pairing a DLP(S) with a AP(A)?

A mezzala on attack would make (a lot) more sense than the AP. Especially since a player than can play as an AP on attack can certainly play as a mezzala as well.

[Vinay17]

5 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

A mezzala on attack would make (a lot) more sense than the AP. Especially since a player than can play as an AP on attack can certainly play as a mezzala as well.

But looking at the tactic you think that a mezzala on attack its worth?

Im saying this because I play with an IW and WB

They will be attacking the same space, and doing the same? 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Vinay17

[Experienced Defender]

4 minutes ago, Vinay17 said:

But looking at the tactic you think that a mezzala on attack its worth?

A mezzala on attack duty absolutely makes sense in this setup of roles and duties. I don't know if your players are generally good enough to play that way - including the instructions you gave them - but the setup does suit an attacking mezzala as a role. 

 

5 minutes ago, Vinay17 said:

Im saying this because I play with an IW and WB

So what? Why would an IW and WB be in disagreement with a mezzala? 

 

7 minutes ago, Vinay17 said:

They will be attacking the same space, and doing the same?

No, they won't. The only potential problem is that it might be defensively risky if your players are not good enough. But from the attacking perspective, it makes more sense than AP on attack duty.