Losing Streak - Way to break it

[Conflictinbanno]

Hi All

 

Long time since I have been here. 

To put it bluntly, my team are in a rut, and I'm hoping to get out of this before I lose my job (I hope), annoyingly when the rut started I lost my way and I think I tweaked my tactics to the point where I'm not even sure what I was doing. 

So firstly, here is my past results in December where the rut has escalated 

What worries me most with this is Wolves were close to me and played me off the pitch (20 shots to my 7, although on target was 8 for Wolves and 3 for me)

Sheffield Utd were near the bottom of the table, again I was well outclassed (22 shots and 12 on target to my 9 shots and 1 on target), Burnley also below has 12 shots and 7 on target to my 8 and 2 then my last defeat to bottom placed Southamtpon which was better but still a loss as they had 12 shots to my 15 (5 on target to my 6), but they had 3 CCC to which I had 0. 

From my team report this is what it shows

Things which I imagine aren't helping me are that wwe are weak in terms of passing, vision and agility. I've also not been helped by injuries to some key players at points (Ogbonna/Balbuena/Fredericks/Anderson/Haller) amnd Haller's backup Ajeti is having a torrid time at the moment

So now I'm trying to look to resolve this and have thought maybe I should share my tactic to try to help here to see how I do. 

At the moment this is what I have. 

Mentality I've left on Balanced, mainly because I know it changes multiple things, I vagueley remember a Bust the net YT video where he mentioned it is almost like risk. Seeing as I'm mid table and struggle with Vision and Passing compared to the league makes me think I shouldn't be too risky, so balanced seems fair.

The decision to go with a 433DM formation was a couple of things, I feel firstly I have some very good wide attackers in Bowen, Yarmolenko, Anderson and have other good options in Antonio and Snodgrass. I only really have 2 strikers when both fit, Haller would always be my starter when fit but Ajeti on paper isn't a bad backup, if I can get him playing to his potential. I do worry about not using a 4231 as I feel both Fornals and Lanzini should in theory shine in this position and maybe even Wilshere, but where I'm in a rut I feel like I want to stop conceding first so have opted for a formation with protection in front of the back 4. 

The lower tempo in my head is designed to help with the poor passing and vision to hope my players are more sensible with the ball and don't aimlessly give it back to the opposition, the Counter instruction was to hopefully utilise the pace of the wingers should I win the ball back. Out of possession I have left as it is as I feel I don't need to mess around with the LOE and DL as I have the DM cover and I don't want to push my defence too far up or too deep and cause problems, same with the pressing intensity is there to stop my team pressing and exposing themselves (I could lower this or maybe suggest regroup as an option but I don't know how effective these would be without trying them out I guess. 

Now onto player roles and duties and how I hope it plays out.

Goalkeeper - Just a bog standard keeper, not playing with a high defensive line so feel I shouldn't need a SK and also Fabianski has poor passing, vision and also acceleration so feel a SK would actually be worse

LB - WB(S) - The idea here is for the WB to push up past the AML and provide crosses into the box, have considered this being a WB (A) or adding the TI Cross more often to encourage this behaviour too, although not sure it the OTB stat of 10 on Cresswelll could cause an issue here.

CB's - CD(D) - I don't expect anything fancy here I just want normal defenders, Ogbonna does make me hesitate with his Trait of bring ball out of Defence as it will make him want to dribble the ball out, add that to having 10 as his dribbling stat and I can see this causing some issues, the fact a CD(D) has dribble less as an option my help this aa little bit but I still feel he may do it, unfortunately Balbuena is injured so he is my best option. I do have a nice youngster here with no player traits, but he only has 11 for Bravery and Concentration at the moment so could struggle sometimes, then my other options here could be Sanchez or Rice, Sanchez does have poor decisions and jumpting reach though and I feel Rice is too good to be playing just as a CB

RB - FB(S) - This is to offer something different to the left, I don't want something encouraging him to get further forward as it could leave my CB's alone and vulnerable to counters. 

DM - DM(D) - I was torn on this, I feel Rice would work as a DLP(D) to offer not only protection to the defence but also have the ability to dictace the game a bit could work, but then I have 3 decent playmakers in further attacking positions too and find that having 2 playmakers in one system I always struggled to make work. However an idea for the future I guess.

CML - CAR(S) - My idea here is that this player would work between both boxes and also move out wide now and then when we have the ball, this player is basically a normal CM but will come out as well. My wonder here is that this is on the wrong side but in my head this would cover when Cresswell goes forward although I worry he could clash with Anderson and Cresswell depending where they are positioned so may have to switch this with the other CM, maybe against strong teams this could be maybe look to be a BWM(S). I'm not expecting them to score often at all, but be an option near the area.

CMR - AP(S) - This is my primary creator, I feel like everything we do in attack will start with this player and possibly sometimes end with them. I expect them to be picking out runs from the IF/IW and maybe even the WB (this could encourage me to switch the sides of this role with the CAR(S) again as the more I write this out the more I think I've said why they should be switched, but I could be completely wrong, which wouldn't surprise me. Also I do wonder if this should be an attack duty, but maybe the duty would be dependent on the space in front of him.

AML - IW(S) - This is my position which I think if performing well, will not only be making goals but scoring them too. Anderson has the stats to play this well I feel and the role could easily have been an IF(S) if I wanted more of a goal threat from the position which may be helpful, especially as Anderson has the traits of trying killer balls often, so maybe as an IF he may look to shoot a little more regularly whereas the IWW may encourage less shots from him overall, both roles I feel are similar in how they perform, but I guess IF would look for goal more often when an IW will look to cross/play through ball

AMR - IF(A) - This will be my biggest goal threat I imagine, more so than the striker, both Yarmolenko and Bowen I feel should play this role, they both like to cut inside from the right, They both have good shooting stats finishing and long shots and I basically want them to be cutting inside and getting in the box to shoot with their favoured left foot. 

ST - DLF(S) - This is the position I think I have struggled for my whole life when playing single striker formations. I went for the DLF in the end because I feel this will bring my AMR into play a lot more, the move into channels instruction should encourage them to occupy the space that player leaves too, Ajeti also has okay strength and passing so I'd hope he would be able to find the AMR and set them up or maybe a late run from the AML and also just generally bring the rest of the team into the game. I worry on an attack duty he could end up isolated. I do worry when Haller is back as he has only got 11 for passing, however the rest of his stats I'd hope could work in this role too. 

 

I will add to my posts as I play games and if in the first game I choose to swwap the two CM's and if the AP moves to attack I will let you know, however if anyone looks at this and sees anything worrying (such as TI's potentially causing a problem or not causing any issues for the opposition) then your opinions are welcome. 

 

Thanks,

 

[Experienced Defender]

32 minutes ago, Conflictinbanno said:

This is only the list of weaknesses. What about the strengths? 

 

33 minutes ago, Conflictinbanno said:

What style of football do you want to play and why - that's the key question.

The setup of roles and duties look as though you are trying to play heavily possession-based football, but at the same time you have almost no (meaningful) penetration in attack. 

Instructions-wise, the lower tempo generally goes hand in hand with a possession-oriented style, but is not necessarily needed. However, the counter instruction sort of runs counter to such a style (if that's your tactical objective actually).

Overall, the tactic looks a bit too sterile and without a clear identity. 

[Conflictinbanno]

Strength wise we have good leadership and decision making, also GK's have good communication and handling. 

I think this is where I struggle is my own identity. I think from being a West Ham fan, I'd like to see us play from back to front quite quickly (this would go against the lower tempo I know but I worry playing how I'd like being poor if we have poor passing and vision). 

I think defensively I'd like to be just smart, I'm not trying to play as a team that presses constantly as I don't know if I really have the players for it or the confidence in setting it up. I would much rather be hard to score against. 

I thnk I'd like to win the ball and attack on the break (I guess if I think about this I should be looking at a different tempo? That is higher)

I want to see my front 3 almost work as free flowing as possible where all 3 could score, seeing the left and right AM breaking past the strikers to be fed the ball. i expect the front to be my penetration, just because I don't think I have a B2B or CM(A) type player who could maybe make bursts into the box. I suppose the problem I have of creating chances all stems from like you said my intstructions and identity. 

Maybe the whole problem is that, I don't know my own identity and how to make it. 

Personally I love possession football, but I'd need to press and win the ball back early to make that work, like Spain when they were so dominant and patient. 

Howwever in my head of defence I love how some teams used to just be impossible to score against (Mourinho's first season at Chelsea springs to mind)

 

[Justified]

This must be the 10th thread I've seen in a week where players are playing CAR's in a 4123. Is there are reason why player's keep using this role in a formation with flank players that I am missing?

[retrodude09]

19 minutes ago, Justified said:

This must be the 10th thread I've seen in a week where players are playing CAR's in a 4123. Is there are reason why player's keep using this role in a formation with flank players that I am missing?

Could be to "cover" for the left back who's a WB-S. Maybe? 

[Justified]

4 minutes ago, retrodude09 said:

Could be to "cover" for the left back who's a WB-S. Maybe? 

If he was playing with an IFat on the left I might buy it but there is two non-attacking players on the flank so there is quite a balanced risk there. But in general I don't understand CAR's in formations with wingers, seems like such a waste of a role. In wingerless formations it makes a lot of sense as you need bodies in that half-space supporting.

[Conflictinbanno]

I guess thinking about it as I'm torn between 3 styles, maybe I should make 3 different styles

One where it is a fast back to front counter system

One more possession based (this could be tough to score against too)

One which I see as hard to breakdown. 

@Justified I'll be honest I looked at the CAR because of the idea of a B2B that worked between both boxes rather than getting in them and also to cover the LB runs forward but I guess the Stay Wide just makes it pointless if you aren't playing maybe a formation with no real wide players for example. 

 

So carrying on with this. 

Counter Attack - Firstly I need to invite teams onto me, maybe Balanced or at a push Cautious mentality (as I mentioned in the OP though, I'm not comfortable changing them wwhen I'm not sure of everything they do)

In Possession, maybe pass into space to encourage looking for the gaps to exploit and I could look at passing directness maybe Std or More direct and Tempo Std or Higher (maybe one of these rather than both I would have to mix between the two, although I'd probably choose passing directness first as it encourages moving the ball forward quicker)

In transition counter possibly if I don't see breaks to attack regularly, maybe tell my keeper to distribute quickly and then I can't see much else I'd need to change there (maybe Regroup if I'm not getting back into shape quick enough

Out of possession. Well I need to invite the team onto me, so maybe a slightly deeper DL but I don't know if I'd need much else with this. 

Sticking with the 433 formation then. 

DLF(S) - I guess this role could still work, he will be an outlet for the quick breaks and will hopefully bring the rest of the team into play (alternate option could be a TM(S)

AML - W(S) AMR - IF(A) - My thinking with these two is having two IF or an IW is just going to encourage a lot of my play in the middle even when one is on a support duty, although IW may be okay for the left side

CML(A) & CMR(S)- I may need to think about tweaking this, I'm avoiding playmakers as they might slow the play down which goes against what I want to create. Although I am thinking should one of these roles be CM(A). My thinking at the moment is the CM could be a B2B but I think either could work here. The CM(A) is going to break forward when we get the ball possibly breaking even beyond the DLF if the opportunity arises. The CM(S) I expect to function as a support passer and can pick out the runs of eitherthe CM(A) or the IF(A) just to his left and right or even the DLF if they drop enough. 

DM - this is a role I'll honestly admit I'm struggling with, I'm thinking either a BWM(D) as I don't see them being involved loads with the ball but without it, once they start to attack, I need someone wanting to win it back and potentially start the counter alternatively a DM(D) or A(D) could work here in that they will just stay and protect the defence and close down less erratically. At the moment I have chosen Anchor as I went with LB as WB(S) and Anderson on the left has low conentration and Positioning so fully expect him to be poor defensively so the Anchor should cover the gap I hope.

LB/RB - i guess WB(S) or FB(S), RB may lean towards FB(S) due to the attacking role in front of him.

 

Do these seem a bit better in the identity and play style? I feel writing it down actually helps make you think about it in more detail now.

I will maybe write the other 2 tomorrow as it is quite late for me to start thinking about 2 more tactics haha. Thanks for reading/providing advice though.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Conflictinbanno
Missed information

[FMunderachiever]

ok i might take stick for this but the best way to break a losing streak is to totally throw the shackles off, and absolutely rain balls into the opponents box relentlessly and hassle them non stop on the 2nd ball.

 

Totally overload them at the back, play two up top and two wingers high, absolutely kitchen sink them from the word go.

[Conflictinbanno]

10 hours ago, FMunderachiever said:

ok i might take stick for this but the best way to break a losing streak is to totally throw the shackles off, and absolutely rain balls into the opponents box relentlessly and hassle them non stop on the 2nd ball.

 

Totally overload them at the back, play two up top and two wingers high, absolutely kitchen sink them from the word go.

Personally I want to avoid this. 

Firstly it goes against my OP where I mention I've only really got two strikers of a suitable level in the team (one who has been injured and only just returning) 

Also, I'd rather have a tactic where I know the fundamentals rather than just going all out and hope. I'd like to have a tactic I can continue to use in the future. 

Unfortunately at the moment I am at work so cannot continue with my experiment to make the other 2 visions in my head although it does give me time to try to think about the whole picture with the two, should the counter idea be a reasonable idea. Although very intrigued to @Experienced Defender as I see him as quite knowledgeable on these forums and also other people who may understand what I am suggesting and may understand my thinking behind the counter tactic and if what I've thought has been correctly laid out onto the tactics I created. Although I will add screenshot when I am back home to go with my latest post above before I had to get some sleep 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Conflictinbanno

[Experienced Defender]

14 hours ago, Justified said:

This must be the 10th thread I've seen in a week where players are playing CAR's in a 4123. Is there are reason why player's keep using this role in a formation with flank players that I am missing?

Nothing wrong with a carrilero as such in a 4123. I myself often use the role in this system and it works fine. In FM18 there was a problem with a strange behavior by carrileros when played in non-narrow systems, but as of FM19 it's no problem anymore. 

[Experienced Defender]

15 hours ago, Conflictinbanno said:

I think defensively I'd like to be just smart, I'm not trying to play as a team that presses constantly as I don't know if I really have the players for it or the confidence in setting it up. I would much rather be hard to score against. 

I thnk I'd like to win the ball and attack on the break

This sounds like a typical counter-attacking style. But then you need a fairly different setup of roles and duties than the one you are using at the moment. And a lower line of engagement (coupled with the standard/default defensive line). 

And one more thing when it comes to counter-oriented football - it's nice and I love it (far more than any tiki-taka kind of stuff), but the problem is that it does not work against all types of opposition. So you'll certainly need a plan-B tactic as well. 

15 hours ago, Conflictinbanno said:

(I guess if I think about this I should be looking at a different tempo? That is higher)

Basically yes, but here the mentality plays an important role (along with passing, which also affects tempo). So different mentalities require different tempo/passing settings. 

 

14 hours ago, Conflictinbanno said:

I guess thinking about it as I'm torn between 3 styles, maybe I should make 3 different styles

One where it is a fast back to front counter system

One more possession based (this could be tough to score against too)

One which I see as hard to breakdown

I think the first two would be quite sufficient. Especially as the first one (counter) is inherently meant to be hard to break down already. So the third one would most probably turn out to be redundant and would only overcomplicate the whole thing. 

 

14 hours ago, Conflictinbanno said:

Counter Attack - Firstly I need to invite teams onto me, maybe Balanced or at a push Cautious mentality

The key here is the line of engagement, not the mentality. If you want a counter-attacking style, the Balanced (or even Positive) would make a lot more sense than the cautious. Because you need faster attacking transitions. The mentality (alone) is not what makes you defensively solid and hard to break down. Good (vertical) compactness and balance of roles and duties is what does. 

 

14 hours ago, Conflictinbanno said:

Out of possession. Well I need to invite the team onto me, so maybe a slightly deeper DL but I don't know if I'd need much else with this

Not a deeper DL, but slightly deeper LOE - that's what invites the opposition onto you (unless they refuse to attack you because they are also defensive-minded, but that's another story). As I already said above - standard DL and lower LOE is the optimal combo for a counter-attacking style. Because it helps you invite them onto you while at the same time giving you an optimal level of compactness. 

 

14 hours ago, Conflictinbanno said:

DLF(S) - I guess this role could still work, he will be an outlet for the quick breaks and will hopefully bring the rest of the team into play (alternate option could be a TM(S)

No. If you want a counter-attacking style of football, the striker needs to be on attack duty. In case you play with 2 strikers (e.g. 442), both should be on attack duty (except in some variants of fluid counter-attack). Because you need your most advanced player(s) to attack the space as early as possible once your team has won the ball and started the attacking transition phase. 

 

15 hours ago, Conflictinbanno said:

AML - W(S) AMR - IF(A) - My thinking with these two is having two IF or an IW is just going to encourage a lot of my play in the middle even when one is on a support duty, although IW may be okay for the left side

CML(A) & CMR(S)- I may need to think about tweaking this, I'm avoiding playmakers as they might slow the play down which goes against what I want to create. Although I am thinking should one of these roles be CM(A). My thinking at the moment is the CM could be a B2B but I think either could work here. The CM(A) is going to break forward when we get the ball possibly breaking even beyond the DLF if the opportunity arises. The CM(S) I expect to function as a support passer and can pick out the runs of eitherthe CM(A) or the IF(A) just to his left and right or even the DLF if they drop enough

Different combinations are possible, but you need to look at roles and duties as integral parts of a tactical system as a whole, never in isolation from one another and the rest of the tactic/setup. 

And you can have a playmaker even in a counter-minded tactic, although it's certainly not necessary. But you definitely should not have more than one (although there can be exceptions that prove the rule, but let's not complicate too much at this point). For example, in a 4123 wide (your current formation), an AP on attack duty in a CM position can make a lot of sense in a counter-attacking setup, but only if you have the right player for the role and if you make sure those around him are set up properly and sensibly. 

I can give you an example if you want. 

15 hours ago, Conflictinbanno said:

DM - this is a role I'll honestly admit I'm struggling with, I'm thinking either a BWM(D)

i would definitely avoid a BWM as a lone DM, simply because it's not a real holding role, even when played on defend duty (due to his inherently aggressive manner of defending). Where a BWM as a role would make more sense - and be safer to employ - in your (4123 wide) formation is central midfield area. 

[Experienced Defender]

15 hours ago, retrodude09 said:

Could be to "cover" for the left back who's a WB-S. Maybe?

Yes, a carrilero can be good as a cover for an attacking FB/WB, but sometimes can also be used to help a more conservative fullback in defense when you have an attacking winger on that flank, who may not always get back to do his defensive job properly. 

[Zemahh]

Since others have offered plenty of tactical advice already, I'll throw a few other things in here:

• Morale and team talks

When stuck in a rut, your morale will be low. Adapt your team talks to that—instead of being assertive or aggressive, which works well when morale is high and you want to prevent complacency, try calmly praising your team or telling them they were unlucky, even if performance wasn't up to par. Your goal is to restore their confidence, rather than being brutally honest when they're already low. Try to aim for "looks extremely delighted" reactions.

• Praising training performances and conduct

Comment on players' training performances at least once a month, which can give them a slight boost and improve your relationships. If training ratings are low across the board, improve your schedules (low training ratings indicate poor development or unhappiness).

Praising conduct improves morale a notch, which can make a big difference if you do it for the whole squad.

• Fitness levels

In a losing streak, the very next match should be your main concern. Try scheduling an extra day off, or replace some training sessions with team bonding or sessions that give you a boost in the upcoming back (e.g. Defensive Positioning, Attacking Movement, Teamwork). Those are very light, meaning your players should be more rested. If you have to do that often during the season, your players' long term development may suffer, but such is life when you're desperately looking for a win.

• Squad rotation

Bench players with poor ratings from last 5 matches, even if that means starting a youngster with worse attributes. If someone's consistently playing bad, they're dragging the whole team down with them. Avoid inconsistent players for the same reason.

[Conflictinbanno]

1 minute ago, Zemahh said:

Since others have offered plenty of tactical advice already, I'll throw a few other things in here:

• Morale and team talks

When stuck in a rut, your morale will be low. Adapt your team talks to that—instead of being assertive or aggressive, which works well when morale is high and you want to prevent complacency, try calmly praising your team or telling them they were unlucky, even if performance wasn't up to par. Your goal is to restore their confidence, rather than being brutally honest when they're already low. Try to aim for "looks extremely delighted" reactions.

• Praising training performances and conduct

Comment on players' training performances at least once a month, which can give them a slight boost and improve your relationships. If training ratings are low across the board, improve your schedules (low training ratings indicate poor development or unhappiness).

Praising conduct improves morale a notch, which can make a big difference if you do it for the whole squad.

• Fitness levels

In a losing streak, the very next match should be your main concern. Try scheduling an extra day off, or replace some training sessions with team bonding or sessions that give you a boost in the upcoming back (e.g. Defensive Positioning, Attacking Movement, Teamwork). Those are very light, meaning your players should be more rested. If you have to do that often during the season, your players' long term development may suffer, but such is life when you're desperately looking for a win.

• Squad rotation

Bench players with poor ratings from last 5 matches, even if that means starting a youngster with worse attributes. If someone's consistently playing bad, they're dragging the whole team down with them. Avoid inconsistent players for the same reason.

Thanks @Zemahh some definite points for me to consider, especially in terms of someone performing particularly poorly in the last few games, I've always been to hopeful on their stats. 

@Experienced Defender So taking your points into account. My first thought is to swap to LOE to lower (avoiding the extreme much lower as I don't want to wait unti teams are practically in my box) and upping the defensive line back to standard. This not only invites pressure a little, but I also have my team slightly more compact vertically. Unlike originally where I had opted this the wrong way around. 

Next up to look at the ST role. I feel like I've read somewhere that you can split the striker roles into 2, creator roles and finisher roles. As I need them to use the space I actually looked at the role wrong, a DLF would probably be more suitable for a style of play to bring other players into play more rather that being selfish when the opportunity arises. I guess this leaves me, by looking at all the roles a few choices, AF, the spearhead of attacks who will score and create goals (probably exactly what I want, as it should help bring the others into play when they don't have the selfish opportunity to go for in front of them, also move into channels as a PI that is coded should also help bring my AMR into play and attack the space they leave). Other options would be the Poacher/TM(A)/Pressing Forward(A), not sure the latter would work as it goes against inviting pressure, whereas Poacher may not also try to bring others into play as much, then the TM(A) could be another option but I'd need them to be solid at winning aerial challenges.

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

Different combinations are possible, but you need to look at roles and duties as integral parts of a tactical system as a whole, never in isolation from one another and the rest of the tactic/setup. 

And you can have a playmaker even in a counter-minded tactic, although it's certainly not necessary. But you definitely should not have more than one (although there can be exceptions that prove the rule, but let's not complicate too much at this point). For example, in a 4123 wide (your current formation), an AP on attack duty in a CM position can make a lot of sense in a counter-attacking setup, but only if you have the right player for the role and if you make sure those around him are set up properly and sensibly. 

I can give you an example if you want. 

I would be very intrigued to some examples. Just to see what I could do in my thiking better.

If I was trying to explain my thinking as a whole here it would be the CM(S) would stay a little deeper, spreading balls to the onrushing CM(A) to their left or IF(A) on their right if they were looking shorter, but more direct the winger on the left could be charging forwards or the AF may have found a gap and is looking for a through ball to release them if they could get beyond that defender. They would also have support behind them with the Anchor Man and the FB(S). The CM(A) however I want to see differently if they have the chance to make runs into the box for crosses, however I feel this could make me consider swapping the sides of my CM's here as the left side would cross more often so they would be more readily available on the right side of the two, however part of my worry could be the CM(A) and IF(A) trying to run into the same space for crosses, however if the IF(A) was getting forward in line with the ST then it could actually be fine. 

The IF as I mentioned I see them as one of the main goal threats cutting inside to the area, they have the CM(S) behind supporting them and also the FB supporting them from behind too, I expect them to be making the most attacks into the space too. The more I think about this again the more I may opt for switching these two CM's as I could cause an overload on the right as well and if teams focus here it could open up space for the Winger and could also open up the idea of utilising the idea of using an IW in this combination as they could then if the opposition is focused, have more space to run into. 

The Anchor Man will hold and protect, they will cover the space the WB on the left leaves when they more forward and also have options either side of them with the ball short and long. 

 

Other tactical options could be the CM(A) being an AP(A) as I have players who could perform this role comforably, However I need to remember the AP(A) would perform very differently, maybe this could open up the idea of the IW more as they would be more likely to find that pass and look for it, whereas with the winger I feel the CM(A) is more likely to burst into the area for their crosses.

This is my initial idea 

This could also be the starting line up I opt for. Although Bowen is on the right and Anderson on the left and below I explain why. 

Bowen has a player trait of gets into opposition area which I feel encourages the idea of them being in the area as I suggested, unlike my other option here Yarmolenko who has comes deep to get the ball, making them less likely to attack space in front of them. The CM(A) I have 3 good but different options, stats wise all 3 are great, Fornals has no player traits, Wilshere has one which could work well of gets forward whenever possible which could encourage those running into the box a lot more, Lanzini then has tries killer balls often. All 3 have a slightly different way of playing each role. 

Noble is a good support midfielder for this role, although if I use Wilshere/Lanzini then it could see Fornals move across to this position as he is just as capable, Rice/Soucek are good backups but lack OTF/Passing respectively. Anchor Rice has the perfect attributes for and Soucek is a good option as well.

Antonio up front was actually more player trait again, Ajeti likes to play with his back to goal which discourages the attacking of space (Haller would probably take over from Antonio when fit but I feel both could work well although Antonio's Mental stats worry me slightly compared to Haller's) 

I've tried to not go too crazy with TI's as I think the roles should encourage the scounter style enough as it is with the ones I have selected just to encourage it, I could opt for positive if I don't see the instructions being followed as well or I could also opt for adding the counter TI instead possibly as well. 

 

[Experienced Defender]

3 minutes ago, Conflictinbanno said:

@Experienced Defender So taking your points into account. My first thought is to swap to LOE to lower (avoiding the extreme much lower as I don't want to wait unti teams are practically in my box) and upping the defensive line back to standard. This not only invites pressure a little, but I also have my team slightly more compact vertically

Exactly  

 

4 minutes ago, Conflictinbanno said:

Next up to look at the ST role. I feel like I've read somewhere that you can split the striker roles into 2, creator roles and finisher roles

When you play with 2 strikers, one should be played in a creator type of role and the other as a simple runner or scorer. But your formation employs only 1 striker, so this "rule" applies in a bit different way. 

Creator roles are: CF, TQ, F9 and DLF. Runner/scorer roles are: AF, poacher and PF. Target man is sort of a "special case", as he can be a bit of both, depending on the system around him and the type of player. 

Let's now move directly to your (new) tactic: 

1 hour ago, Conflictinbanno said:

There are a couple of tweaks I would make in this tactic, primarily in terms of roles and duties. 

First off, would avoid having 2 attack duties on the same side - IF and CM on the right - especially in a tactic in which defensive solidity is a must. Besides, in my book a CM on attack duty makes more sense when paired with a standard winger than with an IF or IW, because one attacks centrally and directly (the CM), whereas the other provides width (winger), so that they would not end up competing for space. It's not to say that a CM/IF combo cannot work - I saw it recently in one of Rashidi's tactics - but I personally like to have it as balanced as possible. 

Hopefully, these 2 observations above will help you understand what kind of tweaks you should consider first (although there are potentially a couple more). 

[Conflictinbanno]

 

So I guess looking back I was actually probably better employed with the initial idea I had of having the CM(A) on the left rather than the right whereby I talked myself into making it wrong, although that is just a good option for a learning curve. I imagine if I used the AP(A) role and the left as an IW(S) then it could see me want to possibly look at tweaking the midfield positions to prevent this occupying of the same space as I'd need to watch the role closely to see how it would behave with IW(S) or IF(A) next to it. I think although you mentioned there are potentially a couple more tweaks, although I don't want to confuse myself too much with it, I could look at upping the pressing urgency as the TI suggests this would only be increadsed when within the LOE, so I could see that as a complimentary, once they hit that line, my team tries to fight back for that ball more so and then hit the break. I could also look at my In Possession to be tweaked, maybe be more expressive to open some creativity on the break or changes to my approach play/final third rules. I could always encourage my keeper to find a specific selection of player, this could be situational though and more a game by game option. If I was to look at my player roles that could actually help as before if maybe I'm not doing much when I get the ball I could look at the AP(A) to try and get a foot hold on the ball a little more or maybe the CM(S) being a RPM, again I think they'd be more situational though. A sweeper keeper also could be good for the encouraging counter attacks, maybe on a defend duty to prevent him coming out of his area. I feel like I could end up making it worse if I overthink though haha. @Experienced Defender did you just build this knowledge of tweaks just from playing and understanding (I'll be honest I've watched and read so much to the point where I think I just struggle to take it all in).

I did play one game with the above and forced myself not to tweak during the game and managed to win 4-2, despite going 1-0 down it was a good fighting performance and when we went 3-2 up I think the tactic worked a lot better as Crystal Palace forced their team further forwards. It did struggle initially when they played a flat 451, because I think like us they weren't allowing as much space. The only real concern I had was their RB breaking beyond my LB unmarked, thankfully it only cost us once, but I think it was a smart counter on their half exploiting the gap we had left trying to attack them, but still something I want to keep an eye on as it could mean I need different players in this area or maybe a tweak to the WB(S) role, although I don't want to end up breaking the tactic, 

Hopefully now I need to look into a more possession based team, for maybe an idea to use against teams who just don't want to attack the space I leave with the above formation like Palace seemed to unwillingly do in the opening 20 minutes of that game.

 

This is probably where I will struggle more as I find as much as I love the possession game, despite many others finding it boring, I've just always found it fascinating. 

Setting this up however is one which could be a struggle. However, things I could take from a lot of sides who played it well. They won the ball back quickly when they lost the ball (TI's that suit this would be counter press, prevent short GK distribution, higer line of engagement, higher pressing intensity and potentially a higher line), I wouldn't favour using all of them at once as it would possibly be overkill and I wouldn't favour my players being the best at this, I need to be realistic that they aren't going to be playing like that Spain side. With the ball I think shorter passing was quite a common feature, other instructions could be shown as working the ball into the box or a slower tempo. i think personally the 3 I just mentioned together would probably be overkill as well and force the team to be passive to the point they just end up passing for passing sake. I still want to be a threat, just one that bides its time and attacks when it is best to do so. Other options that could tie into this style, play out of defence/distribute to defenders (feel either of these would encourage to start the build up from the back and patiently go forwards). Another one could be to play with a narrower attacking width. Again i think if passing was set to shorter, then this could in reality encourage play out of defence/narrower attacking width/working ball into the box all in one provided the option is there. 

If I was to look at my player roles, i feel like I want to avoid BPD's as they are going to take more risks with the ball. I think in the full back positions i would need either WB or FB on support again as I'd need the support thereif the team was to be pushing up as a whole and I need to ensure I have the passing options there, should the option for goal been impossible. My midfield trio again need to all compliment into this playing style, this could see me more inclined to use 2 midfielders in the DM area to have a more wide spread and also allow me to mix my roles up, I could look at partnering a a RPM/Regista or eve SV with a BWM/DM, this could also allow me to play the 3 in the AM areas. Roles I'd want to avoid, TQ/Enganche as I feel this would be poor in the pressing game or in the latter possibly be too static, I feel like to play a good possession game, with the ball I want my team willing to move around and either show for the ball or create space for others with their movement. I feel like the AMC/ST positions are a pair I need to get right together and the rest of the team could flow around these. If I was to use a SS or AM (along with an IF as well), then I may favour this more creator role in the striker position as you mentioned before, however if I opt for a playmaker in this AM position then I will need the ST role to provide the penetration. 

I'm not sure if this would be a good idea but if I was to work this out at the moment

 

                PF(S)

AP(S)         SS             IF(A)

 

            DM(D) RPM

WB(S) CD(D) CD(D) WB(S)

              SK (S) 

So my idea between this, as a collective I feel like everyone here will try to contribute in the pressing phases, PF encourages pressing from the front and I've avoided some roles which would neglect the defensive side. The two DM players should hopefully be able to allow my WB's to be a bit more adventurous as well as they have bit more back to assist if we lose the ball when the pressing starts. In theory I'd expect this to be helpful with the 3 behind the striker meaning we have more to press their defensive players with too. Then once they hit the next lines of defence they have the DM and RPM trying to press, although the RPM maypress a little with those further forward to. The SK will then be there to sweep up the loose balls and start our possession phase if it goesa ll the way back to them.

With the ball I see this having a good variety, I've opted for an AP(S) on the left as I feel I want my left and right sides to perform differently,  And it offers someone creative high up the field, whereas the SS and IF will be my driving forces looking to break into the area when the opportunity arises. The PF will then be looking to feed these players when he holds up the ball and searches for their move, or if the opportunity arises to be selfish then they can be, this is why I opted for a support duty rather than defend too, maybe with two up front the defend duty could work. I would have possibly looked at a F9/DLF(S) for this role to drop so that the SS runs beyond but I'm hoping with the ball the PF may try to do this still, but without the ball will start the press against the opposition. 

Then with the wingbacks pushing up to support the team as a unit, along with the RPM deeper to be a good person the ball will recycle through as they will constantly be looking for the next element of penetration. The DM(D) will then be on high alert to the opposition when they get the ball to close down and win the ball back, then they will recycle possession through the AP/RPM either side of them and if they aren't free the WB on the left should be providing another option along with the AMC/ST in front, however this could be where a BWM(S) could work as this does the job I'm describing also, however I might need to be a little more cautious at LB, maybe opting for a FB(S) instead.

Slight concerns with this and I think this is where TI's will come into play. With the ball if I am using 2 DM positioned roles and the 3 AM positioned roles, I may want to bring the team closer vertically, part of this I would hope is encouraged if I choose Shorter Passing/Lower Tempo (currently torn on this, I feel shorter passing is more optimal as a lower tempo will allow teams to regroup a lot easier and if we stick to a standard tempo then maybe the roles when we win the ball back early could really punish the opposition here), another option I could look at is increasing the DL rather than the LOE to bring the team closer out of possession (it could be extreme but I did think Much Higher LOE with a Higher DL could be the one time it would work, although I'm sometimes concerned about using an extreme in most circumstances, however this could be where it makes more sense). If I did go with this option I probably wouldn't want to mess too much with the pressing alongside this, so this could be a balancing game, I could possibly see this as one point where I want to understand changing mentality in a lot more detail as this could help bring the teams vertical compactness down, I could also use the Get Stuck In TI, but again I think this would depend on the factors of all of them, I need to get the right balance of all of these together.

In transition as well, if I saw too many times we gave the ball away I could look at applying hold shape, but this may not be needed, then with my Goalkeeper I should potentially look at them distrbuting it to FB's or maybe Playmaker if it encourages finding the RPM to spring board my attacks. If I'm instructing my keeper to distribut to defenders then I may not need the play out of defence task either. 

 

I feel this tactic idea is very much a work in progress, I still probably need to get my knowledge of the Roles combined with TI's a bit better and learn to make sure they can compliment each other, without pushing them to over the top to hurt me. 

 

[Experienced Defender]

@Conflictinbanno Sorry mate, but as a mod I am really not in a position to read through such long and detailed posts. You haven't sorted out the counter-attacking 4123 tactic yet, and you are already contemplating a completely different tactic, which - on top of that - even employs a different formation (deep 4231). 

Go step by step and try try to be more concise 

[Conflictinbanno]

That's absolutely fine. The only reason I looked at the other tactic was thinking of having two different styles depending on who I was playing. However I guess I can try to utilise that with the one tactic. By keeping the foundations but encouraging slightly different options. 

 

In regards to the counter attack. I think I will watch it play out a couple of games and then try to analyse it and up date then instead of looking at another tactic/formation. I'll try to provide some updates after I've watched a couple of games and maybe explore what I think in my head as well as to make sure I'm not barking up the wrong tree. I had Crystal Palace first who were a team I'd say on a similar level and have Spurs next so could give me a good view on how it performs vs various teams and see if I can spot any issues or even anything that I see is working really well. 

[Experienced Defender]

9 hours ago, Conflictinbanno said:

The only reason I looked at the other tactic was thinking of having two different styles depending on who I was playing

Having a reserve/plan-B/secondary tactic is okay, but that tactic should not differ too much from the main one, including formation-wise. You don't need to change the entire formation in order to create a different tactical style. And even if you do change it, you still need to make sure it's analogous to the first one. The problem here is that you started thinking about that other tactic even before completing the first one (besides my lack of time to read through all that ). 

 

9 hours ago, Conflictinbanno said:

However I guess I can try to utilise that with the one tactic

Actually, that would be an ideal approach - you have one main tactic that is optimally suited to your players' strengths and weaknesses and then you just slightly tweak it as you see fit (depending on the opposition or an in-match situation), but only when it's really necessary (not tweaking for the sake of it). But in that case, that one tactic should probably not be counter-attacking. Rather, it should be more regular, but designed in such a way that it can be made more counter-attacking by just a couple of small tweaks when needed. 

 

9 hours ago, Conflictinbanno said:

In regards to the counter attack. I think I will watch it play out a couple of games and then try to analyse it and up date then instead of looking at another tactic/formation

Okay, that sounds reasonable. But is it the tactic you already posted here or you've made some tweaks in the meantime?

Anyway, report back how it works and post a screenshot of the version you are using at the moment. 

[Chip]

15 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

When you play with 2 strikers, one should be played in a creator type of role and the other as a simple runner or scorer. But your formation employs only 1 striker, so this "rule" applies in a bit different way. 

Creator roles are: CF, TQ, F9 and DLF. Runner/scorer roles are: AF, poacher and PF. Target man is sort of a "special case", as he can be a bit of both, depending on the system around him and the type of player. 

Typically, what would you recommend in lone striker formations? A runner or creator?

I know context matters but I’m just curious about the options

For example would you use an AF-A in a counter attacking system since he is a runner? Or would you leave him to a 2 man partnership?

The creators on attack would obviously suit for a possession based tactic but it’s the counter attack I’m more curious about. If I wanted someone to focus on goals in a counter attack system, for example 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Chip said:

Typically, what would you recommend in lone striker formations? A runner or creator?

Can be either. Like everything else, would depend on both the type of the player and how a particular (type of) role fits in with the rest of the setup. 

 

1 hour ago, Chip said:

For example would you use an AF-A in a counter attacking system since he is a runner?

Well, if I were to use the AF role for a lone striker, I would definitely rather use it in a counter-attacking (or otherwise defensive-minded) system than in a system that is control/possession-oriented. 

 

1 hour ago, Chip said:

The creators on attack would obviously suit for a possession based tactic

Not necessarily. 

 

1 hour ago, Chip said:

but it’s the counter attack I’m more curious about. If I wanted someone to focus on goals in a counter attack system, for example

AF or PF on attack duty would be my preferred choices, generally speaking. A poacher might work, but the problem can be the fact that the role is a bit too simple and static, so would possibly struggle as a lone striker in a counter-oriented system. 

If you have the right player, a trequartista can do a nice job as a lone striker.

[Conflictinbanno]

9 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Having a reserve/plan-B/secondary tactic is okay, but that tactic should not differ too much from the main one, including formation-wise. You don't need to change the entire formation in order to create a different tactical style. And even if you do change it, you still need to make sure it's analogous to the first one. The problem here is that you started thinking about that other tactic even before completing the first one (besides my lack of time to read through all that ). 

Never realised this could be as important as it is but will definitely take that on board, but first of all I will try to focus on the tactic in hand first.

 

9 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Okay, that sounds reasonable. But is it the tactic you already posted here or you've made some tweaks in the meantime?

It is the same tactic although the CM(A) is on the left side of midfield and CM(S) on the right.

 

I think I want to try to understand the changes I could make and why. 

Like options I have thought already is AP if maybe I'm not seeing the creativity when we do have the ball. He could be a vital component into bringing the others into play. I do also wonder the WB/FB or W/IF swapping due to the Winger and WB being on the same side, the IF could benefit from having the WB supporting them more. 

Team Instructions I feel could all be situational as well, for example if I felt the balls forward were being too often given to the opposition I could look at changing the Slighty More Direct with Higher Tempo, however it seemed to happen every single game then it would probably have to be a permanent change. Also I could look at a mentality change to Positive like you mentioned in earlier posts as ideas of ways to encourage the team to perform the instructions more prominently. 

When I can get on I will do a more up to date screenshot and hopefully provide some analysis from the games.

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, Conflictinbanno said:

When I can get on I will do a more up to date screenshot and hopefully provide some analysis from the games

[Conflictinbanno]

Sorry for the delay. Unfortunately life was a bit too busy for me to get back on. 

So firstly the tactic as it is, I will say I think it needs a little work although it has its moments where it performs.

Obviously I can't always stick to the same players with injuries for example. First I'll focus on recent results (I left out the 4-2 win V Palace as I actually used that with the CM's the wrong way round.)

As you can see, it is a mixed bag. 

The 0-0 V Spurs was actually not too bad, they dominated possession which I suspected with 61% and as a result they did have more shots 16 to my 8 and 6 of those were on target whereas we had 3.

The thing that worried me about this was 5 of the 6 shots they had on target they managed to get into the box to have the attempt which for me is a big problem as they were very good positions and not too far from my 6 yard box. For us the nice thing was that all our shots were from inside the area, one being from about 4 yards out within the opening 10 minutes which I feel really should have been a goal. 

The 3-2 V Peterborough was disappointing and was very much a 2nd half of disappointment. We had 14 shots with 6 on target, they had the same on target but only 11 attempts. 

Of our shots on target again all were in the box except for two (1 being a lovely goal from Fornals) and Yarmolenko seemed to be a strong focus of our shots, however they were all saved which was a shame as if one of these had gone in, I feel the game would be different. Again all the shots on target for Peterborough were within the box again bar 2 (1 being the goal which was a free kick, the second was a saved shot just outside). 

The 1-0 win V Newcastle was another good display, but scoring opportunities looks hard to come by and Haller's second half appearance saved the day with a goal in the last minutes. Newcastle again had 8 shots within my box and 6 of these were right in front of my goal around the penalty spot, again this worries me as it seems to be commmon and I feel like this could easily be a downfall for us. 

Arsenal beating us 2-0 again was a tough game to take, they started so much better than us and we really struggled to get a foothold in the game, this was the one game I made a change with the tactic (I changed from Balanced to Positive and turned the slightly more direct passing down as I notiiced that it had this hard coded), which helped in the first half get us some chances, but nothing happened well in the second half where I think Arsenal's quality just ended up shining through. Again however, out of the 12 shots Arsenal had on target only 3 were outside the box which I feel is showing as a problem. 

 

Looking back I think these are my main focus points to stop. Opposition shots in the box, this happens against either stronger or weaker teams it seems, I wonder, because they happen in my area could maybe having the Defensive Width change to Narrow could help as we'd be more compact, I would worry if this opens up more crossing opportunities for the opposition, however the CB's I'd hope could cope along with the DM. I'm not sure if Pressing Intensity could assist with this also as when they hit the LOE we could close down crosses/shots from the edge of the area. The other things I could think are in attack, against weaker or similar opponenets I feel it is a quality of our finishing, this could be based on the quality of my players but I feel they are snatching at their chances, the problem I have is I feel that what might help this would almost contradict the whole counter philosophy, things like Work Ball Into Box or a slightly lower Tempo. Against teams like Arsenal who like to keep the ball moving, I think my issue will be creating chances as they really did limit me, I think when I was on Balanced I had 0 chances, when I changed to Positive mentality I suddenly had a decent moment of 3 quick chances, then another a little later, before it felt like they had figured me out and that was when they punished me. 

Parts I think about with this could be having someone in midfield on a more creative role could be one option especially with those chances against teams that allow me opportunities as they may be able to find the attack in a better position, I just need to make sure this would fit with the whole team and not hamper them. Also if I look at the option of going to Positive as a better mentality I'm not sure if I'd need to look at all of my other Team Instructions.

 

Unfortunately I really feel this is where my weakness with FM comes to its full showing, I am very stuck on where to go as I really struggle when analysing FM games back or making changes on the fly!