Two DM formation, help needed If you could offer it?

[AverageJoe]

Hi guys, I have been playing Fm more lately because of this stupid virus, like the most of us probably, and because of that, I have been losing my hair and patience at times, while I am not an expert at the game, I think that I am okay at it, and because of that I hit the wall sometime so I come here to read about other people problems and sometime post myself, wanting help. I do not want download tactics, I want to have something of my own, with some help of course. So here is my tactic ( i have probably wrote more than I should in my opening):

DLF-a

AP-s

      IW-s                                           IW-s

DM-d            SV-s

     WB-s       CD-d           CD-d       WB-s

SK-d

Mentality: Positive

In Possession: Fairly Narrow, Shorter passing, Overlap left and right, Play out of defence, Work ball into box

In Transition: Counter, Regroup

Out of Possession: Defend wider, Higher D-line, Offside trap

My IWs, Ap and Dlf all have close down more.

And my wingbacks have stay wider ticked.

Also, AP have roam from position and move into channels.

Now my problem is, too many balls over the top and too much long shots.

My TI are not strictly those, I change them in the game if needed.

So what am I asking you guys? Is my tactic well balanced, is it making sense for kinda possesion orientated tactic, are instruction all right, are they too aggresive or too passive. 

I hope you guys can help me. 

Be safe and cheers.

Edited March 23, 2020 by AverageJoe

[afailed10]

I'd use someone more attacking in the right side, depending on the player. Keeping your possession style in mind i'd still look for someone with good offtheball and pace and deploy him as a WM-A. I'd also remove Regroup since i'd want to recover the ball sooner or force mistakes in the opposition. Defensive width, line of engagement i'd start with a balanced approach and change it situationally. If CB's are fast and quick to react i could be more adventurous otherwise i'd leave it on average or lower.

I'd also remove overlap as i don't think you'll need it. Take a look at your Fb's. If they are good at dribbling and off the ball consider a CWB on the DM-D side. You'll want a slower tempo to allow your wingbacks to arrive.

AP-s action zone looks a bit too congested. The DLF, IWs and SV all gather around tha area and will overload it. You'll probably be seeing a lot of the balls played to the WB's but then are they good enough on their own? I'd have the striker more focused on goals along as one of the IW's joining in vertically. PF-A, CF-A, P-A, AF-A, something like that.

Don't think you'll need play out of the defence. Have the GK pass into CB's but that's situationally again. Against 2 strikers pressing you hard you need to observe if the attacking transition is working well. That's one of the keys to make it work! Good luck and keep experimenting.

 

[AverageJoe]

@KyleHyde where should I put Ap? Should i move it in cm spot, or change the role and keep it in am spot. What do you think? 

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, AverageJoe said:

DLF-a

AP-s

      IW-s                                           IW-s

DM-d            SV-s

     WB-s       CD-d           CD-d       WB-s

SK-d

Mentality: Positive

In Possession: Fairly Narrow, Shorter passing, Overlap left and right, Play out of defence, Work ball into box

In Transition: Counter, Regroup

Out of Possession: Defend wider, Higher D-line, Offside trap

My IWs, Ap and Dlf all have close down more.

And my wingbacks have stay wider ticked.

Also, AP have roam from position and move into channels

 

2 hours ago, AverageJoe said:

So what am I asking you guys? Is my tactic well balanced

Your setup of roles and duties is lacking penetration, that's the primary problem. Even your lone striker - as the only player with the attack duty - is played in a role that looks to link up play, even though you have an AP on support behind him, who essentially serves a similar purpose. 

 

2 hours ago, AverageJoe said:

is it making sense for kinda possesion orientated tactic, are instruction all right, are they too aggresive or too passive

First off, the formation itself is not really suited to a possession-oriented style (unless you want to play so-called defensive possession football, which is a different pair of shoes).

Instructions such as regroup and counter also do not make sense in a possession-oriented tactic. While the counter may be used occasionally during a match, the regroup is definitely an anti-possession TI.

2 hours ago, AverageJoe said:

Now my problem is, too many balls over the top

It usually means that defenders are not good enough to play with a higher D-line. There are basically 2 options you can try:

- drop the mentality to Balanced; or

- drop DL to standard instead of higher

A third option is to try with one CB on cover duty (but in that case remove the offside trap). 

2 hours ago, AverageJoe said:

and too much long shots

This is most likely caused by the already mentioned lack of penetration. Plus one-dimensional flanks.

[AverageJoe]

@Experienced Defender, how would you set up this exact formation if it isn't a bother for you? What roles, what style, etc.. 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, AverageJoe said:

@Experienced Defender, how would you set up this exact formation if it isn't a bother for you? What roles, what style, etc.. 

I don't know your players, so it's hard to tell how exactly I would set them up. But assuming that you want some sort of possession-oriented football (despite the formation not being optimal for such a style), I think something like this would make sense:

DLFat

AMsu

WPsu                                 WMsu

DMde   VOLat

FBat     CDde     CDde    WBsu

SKde/su

Note that I opted to have the playmaker on a flank (WP), rather than in the middle. That's because in this particular system, a wide PM is probably in a better position to control the play and organize attacks, as he has more immediate support around him and is operating in an area that is generally less congested than where the AMC operates.

[AverageJoe]

 @Experienced Defender thank you very much

[Experienced Defender]

12 minutes ago, AverageJoe said:

 @Experienced Defender thank you very much

You are welcome, mate