My bias against AML/R is showing, help needed!

[Xavier Lukhas]

I haven't been a fan of most of the winger roles in the AML/R for a long time... and haven't used them since FM15. On Attack duty they're unavailable to defend, and most of the roles have a clear focus instead of being fairly versatile. As a result, I have been using the WM(A) role ever since FM17 as I skipped FM16; but to be quite honest, it may be hurting my ability to score. Toothless possession, many shots on target, too many aerial crosses my ML/R and ST have little ability to play... Nevermind that the board doesn't even expect me to save the club at the end of the season (even though we got promoted last season by winning the D2 title!). To be fair, I've set up my team with the usual 4-1-4-1 DM I generally use: I'm not a big fan of 2 men midfields especially when laid flat (like in a 4-4-2), but at the same time my wingers most likely cannot be trusted to score unless found in space, as their aerial prowess and finishing are quite poor. I'm in a prison of my own design basically. Doesn't help that I tend to favour right footed players on the right wing and vice-versa so that the players focus a bit more on passing the stupid ball around instead of shooting from stupid angle... although they shoot anyway if I dare give them the Winger role on attack.

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Xavier Lukhas

[Xavier Lukhas]

I've recently tried to use the Winger role but with players having their opposite foot inside the pitch with various duties combinations (W(A) with W(S), IW(A)/W(S), IW(A)/WM(A), etc.) and alternating between FB(S), WB(S) and asking for overlaps... but once they cut inside, their first temptation is to shoot regardless of what's available to them. I really don't know what to do honestly.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Xavier Lukhas

[Djuicer]

4-1-3-2 might work for you? Or are you set on using wide midfield players?

Something like this

PFs-PFa

Car-APa-BBM

DMd

WBa-CDd-BPd-Wbs

SKs

[Experienced Defender]

20 hours ago, Xavier Lukhas said:

I haven't been a fan of most of the winger roles in the AML/R for a long time... and haven't used them since FM15. On Attack duty they're unavailable to defend, and most of the roles have a clear focus instead of being fairly versatile. As a result, I have been using the WM(A) role ever since FM17 as I skipped FM16; but to be quite honest, it may be hurting my ability to score. Toothless possession, many shots on target, too many aerial crosses my ML/R and ST have little ability to play... Nevermind that the board doesn't even expect me to save the club at the end of the season (even though we got promoted last season by winning the D2 title!). To be fair, I've set up my team with the usual 4-1-4-1 DM I generally use: I'm not a big fan of 2 men midfields especially when laid flat (like in a 4-4-2), but at the same time my wingers most likely cannot be trusted to score unless found in space, as their aerial prowess and finishing are quite poor. I'm in a prison of my own design basically. Doesn't help that I tend to favour right footed players on the right wing and vice-versa so that the players focus a bit more on passing the stupid ball around instead of shooting from stupid angle... although they shoot anyway if I dare give them the Winger role on attack.

 

 

3 hours ago, Xavier Lukhas said:

I've recently tried to use the Winger role but with players having their opposite foot inside the pitch with various duties combinations (W(A) with W(S), IW(A)/W(S), IW(A)/WM(A), etc.) and alternating between FB(S), WB(S) and asking for overlaps... but once they cut inside, their first temptation is to shoot regardless of what's available to them. I really don't know what to do honestly.

Okay, but what actually is your question in relation to all that? 

I can only say that neither of your 2 tactics from the screenshots you posted makes much sense to me. Both contain a number of contradictions. 

[Xavier Lukhas]

34 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Okay, but what actually is your question in relation to all that?

Is my bias against the AML/R position preventing me from making progress tactically speaking? I tend to use the WM roles because they're not dead set on doing one thing above all else, but I'm not sure if the other available roles wouldn't be better suited. I'm just biased against them, but I'm not sure that I'm justified in not using them. Obviously how do I improve on that, and if I were to use the AML/R positions, can I get a player on Attack duty to actually come back to defend? Most of the time they somewhat defend by pressing forward, but they struggle to fall back when necessary.

34 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Okay, but what actually is your question in relation to all that?

Go for it. To be honest, it simply started as a modified default Gegenpress. I'm not even currently using that instruction set, I've gone to a clean slate. At least the form of the team isn't suffering.

 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Xavier Lukhas said:

if I were to use the AML/R positions, can I get a player on Attack duty to actually come back to defend? Most of the time they somewhat defend by pressing forward, but they struggle to fall back when necessary

Depends on factors such as the player himself (work rate and teamwork) and the team mentality which affects the player's individual mentality. You can also tell him (via player instruction) to mark the opposition fullback or wing-back (positional marking), that can also help to some degree. 

 

1 hour ago, Xavier Lukhas said:

At least the form of the team isn't suffering

That's the most important.

[Xavier Lukhas]

11 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

That's the most important.

Everyone knows that having good looking tactics is more important than actually having good results. I want to create a system in a 4-1-4-1DM formation because I like to have my wingers naturally come back to defend. I want them to have a pass first mentality, hence the use of WMs instead of wingers or inverted wingers. For that, I need the CMs behind them to be aggressive enough to provide cutback options, as well as a striker role that makes himself available both for creating and finishing moves. So far so good, but the systems I generally create end up being quite sterile with multiple shots on target for no rewards, players being late in taking a decision to move the ball in an opening... and not being that great defensively. So far that's where I'm left at. I have hesitations about the striker duty: Attack duties are move adventurous in the movement off the ball but less smart when they have the ball, Support duties tend to be timid off the ball but try to pass it more often. I think I prefer an Attack duty overall.

 

[Experienced Defender]

6 minutes ago, Xavier Lukhas said:

I want them to have a pass first mentality, hence the use of WMs instead of wingers or inverted wingers

That's okay, I love the WM role (which is unfortunately underestimated by many). 

 

8 minutes ago, Xavier Lukhas said:

I have hesitations about the striker duty: Attack duties are move adventurous in the movement off the ball but less smart when they have the ball, Support duties tend to be timid off the ball but try to pass it more often. I think I prefer an Attack duty overall

I see that you use a CF in this setup, and that's actually a good choice of the striker role in this kind of system, because CF generally works better when he has much space (e.g. 442. 4411 or your flat 4141). But only if you have the right player for this highly demanding role. Because otherwise he is very likely to struggle. 

[Xavier Lukhas]

So I'm bumping this thread, because even though the results are positive, I don't actually know what I'm doing and I'm dissatisfied with the football on display. The formation is what it is, but I've been fumbling around with the roles and duties.

• In terms of attributes, the squad shines by how average they are as players, with few drawbacks but few outstanding qualities.
• The wide players cannot help but shoot from crappy angles; I'm not the only one to complain from it. I'm looking to experiment with Cross More Often.
• Players lose possession with really basic passing mistakes instead of forcing the opposition to actually anticipate or tackle accurately.
• Even as playmakers and regardless of whether I'm playing wide or narrow, the CMs don't seem to have much impact in the final third.
• The team plays better the worse the possession, with more chances and goal scored without actually conceding too many chances. Too bad I don't actually know what I'm doing that makes it happen.
• We struggle more against Positive mentalities than more conservative ones. When facing teams with Positive mentalities, the Possession is more evenly balanced between both sides and my players aren't too great when spending time with the ball in their feet both offensively and defensively.
• Overall the shape is defensively rather solid; we have little possession, but we don't concede many chances. Using Tighter Marking has really helped defensively; otherwise the team was way to passive and content with watching the opposition dance around them, always being late on the challenge.
• My striker(s) are unremarkable at scoring goals despite not being useless with their feet. The overall Anticipation of the strikers is significantly below the league's average, at 10.50 vs 11.83. Finishing is a mere 11.00 vs a 12.54 league average.
• We really need to avoid playing headers to the strikers and wide midfielders. They don't score from these, and they're not going to.
• Seemingly, we have the best Long Shots in the league, with a 11.67 average when including both midfielders and strikers vs. a 9.78 average for the league. Most of our assists are in the farthest central zone of the penalty area, so Long Shots aren't actually used as a weapon by the squad.
• DLP(D) is the best compromise in the DM strata. DM(D) doesn't do much with the ball, and HB makes the team defensively weaker somehow: we just concede more chances either on the break or right in the middle of the pitch with a HB before the defence.
• If instructed properly (Play Short Kicks), my GK doesn't lose much possession and passes the ball to the ML/R. The team tends to hoof the ball when trying to play from the back, even when instructed to Play Out of Defence.
• Overall, it feels like the way the team plays is more dependant of what the opposition does than what I actually tell them to do. It doesn't feel like I have much control over what the team does.

 

Here's the best eleven according to my staff. The captain is Daniel Cetnarski, who plays on either wing.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Xavier Lukhas

[Blünderbossu]

Until recently I felt much the same way. I had some success with a relegation-expected team with AML and AMR because when I was using an attacking role with them I was also using much lower line of engagement and when a support role just lower so they were around to help out a bit in defence and transition.

In more attacking tactics they're prone to get forward too early so that when the ball gets to their zone they end up offside or have pushed up so far the space has gone. Often your striker is on support so if they do get space you can have no one for them to pass to. You also then risk getting countered if you let your centre mids get forward to ping in edge of the area shots because there's no cover on their side. Support roles are often useful and again dropping the line of engagement a bit or even dropping mentality and having some more progressive team or player instructions to compensate will be necessary. 

It's very tricky to get right and it comes much less naturally to me than a 442 so if I'm planning to use something with AML/R even as a secondary tactic I'll do a couple of preseason matches on at least comprehensive highlights to see if players are arriving at the right places at roughly the right time and repeatedly adjust mentality, line of engagement etc based on highlights to try and get everything to "sync" - FM20 seems very "all or nothing" so one small change can make a big difference. 

I remember that with both the flat and advanced versions "play narrower" made it work better as it helped the wide players have more "contact" with the striker. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Blünderbossu

[Spiegel]

Bit confused as to which tactic you're running with as there's a few in the thread. Here's my two cents on the tactic from your last post; 

On 28/06/2020 at 16:13, Xavier Lukhas said:

 

On 28/06/2020 at 16:13, Xavier Lukhas said:

• The wide players cannot help but shoot from crappy angles; I'm not the only one to complain from it. I'm looking to experiment with Cross More Often.
• We really need to avoid playing headers to the strikers and wide midfielders. They don't score from these, and they're not going to.

Agree this is a problem. That said, will a false nine take up the best positions to get on the end of crosses? My understanding is that a False Nine will move away from the goal to take up playmaking positions/pull defenders out of position. I would suggest you have a player that starts deeper, then moves forward. Perhaps a DLF or a CF may serve you better? 

Your striker (assuming it's Djoni?) has good jumping and off the ball - he should win his fair share of headers - is he just taking up the wrong positions to win them? 

On 28/06/2020 at 16:13, Xavier Lukhas said:

• Players lose possession with really basic passing mistakes instead of forcing the opposition to actually anticipate or tackle accurately.
• Even as playmakers and regardless of whether I'm playing wide or narrow, the CMs don't seem to have much impact in the final third.
• DLP(D) is the best compromise in the DM strata. DM(D) doesn't do much with the ball, and HB makes the team defensively weaker somehow: we just concede more chances either on the break or right in the middle of the pitch with a HB before the defence.

Your midfielders are spread quite far apart - a DLP(D) will typically take up fairly static positions close to your centre backs, while your Mezzala's will both typically take up positions in the half-space, and drift wide. You need someone to offer vertical movement to link the two positions. A B2B(S), BWM(S), or even a DLP(S) may aid you here. I would propose you change your DM to another role if you use the DLP though.

I also think its your choice of roles that's the root cause of your issues in the DM strata, and I wouldn't isolate the problem to the DM either. Your two Mezzala's aren't going to offer much defensively, and a Half Back will typically sit close to your centre backs off the ball. The distance between the three is leaving space for your opposition to play in. Changing up the roles as above would help here. 

Who are you using as DM by the way? Using a DLP suggests you want to funnel your possession though them and Mitakovic doesn't look good enough to satisfy that commitment. Simurina would be the better option in my opinion. 

On 28/06/2020 at 16:13, Xavier Lukhas said:

• If instructed properly (Play Short Kicks), my GK doesn't lose much possession and passes the ball to the ML/R. The team tends to hoof the ball when trying to play from the back, even when instructed to Play Out of Defence.

Sweeper Keeper (Attack) is the most aggressive choice of goalkeeper you can make, who will look to play forward passes. A Ball Playing Defender will also look to play aggressive passes if an option presents itself. 

[Xavier Lukhas]

On 01/07/2020 at 23:26, Spiegel said:

Your striker (assuming it's Djoni?) has good jumping and off the ball - he should win his fair share of headers - is he just taking up the wrong positions to win them?

That's already telling when you can't tell if he's a ST from his attributes alone. It's not him; it's that statistically, headers aren't a good way to score in football and the second part is that you need at least to players able to win headers inside the box, and usually it's the other winger; and neither of my wingers are particularly good at Heading, Jumping or movement (Pace+Acceleration+Off the Ball). A lone option in the box is easily picked out by the defenders, who usually aren't worse at Jumping, Heading or Strength, but don't need to aim for a target.

On 01/07/2020 at 23:26, Spiegel said:

Your midfielders are spread quite far apart - a DLP(D) will typically take up fairly static positions close to your centre backs, while your Mezzala's will both typically take up positions in the half-space, and drift wide. You need someone to offer vertical movement to link the two positions. A B2B(S), BWM(S), or even a DLP(S) may aid you here. I would propose you change your DM to another role if you use the DLP though.

I also think its your choice of roles that's the root cause of your issues in the DM strata, and I wouldn't isolate the problem to the DM either. Your two Mezzala's aren't going to offer much defensively, and a Half Back will typically sit close to your centre backs off the ball. The distance between the three is leaving space for your opposition to play in. Changing up the roles as above would help here.

The shape itself hasn't changed, but the roles and duties have. So having two MEZ(S) may have happened in a match, but not necessarily in every match. I don't quite like the combination. Aside from that, usually I prefer DLP(D) since they seem good at tracking back to cut passes since their position is way higher than HB. HB defend by moving forward, and while it shouldn't be a disadvantage, they're also easily dribbled by incoming attackers. There's also that lingering issue with how HBs work in a system without players in the WB strata that has been reported by other users; maybe it has an impact on how well HBs behave in such instances.

As for using BPDs... At first, it war a sacrifice to further the development of my defenders not because they're all able to play as BPDs, but mostly because i want them to show the same qualities. But to be honest, usually only one of my four centre-backs plays as a BPD in matches.

 

On 01/07/2020 at 23:26, Spiegel said:

Who are you using as DM by the way? Using a DLP suggests you want to funnel your possession though them and Mitakovic doesn't look good enough to satisfy that commitment. Simurina would be the better option in my opinion.

That's because this best 11 is the AssMan's opinion; and surely you know how... "valuable" the opinion of the AI is.  I consider Mitakovic a promising DM who makes good progress, but he isn't my starting DM usually. I also ended up loaning out Djoni to make way for a Colombian player I found during the summer break, which obviously made him unhappy. That being said, I don't really consider nor see a DLP(D) as a creative role. I think they play as a DM(D) that's a bit easier on the ball: they have low Mentality due to their defensive duty. If I counted on them to create, I'd use a DLP(S) tasked to Hold Position; even though a DLP(S) plays higher up the pitch regardless.

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Xavier Lukhas

[Xavier Lukhas]

UPDATE: I got so tired of the options on the wings I've eventually threw some Wide Playmakers at it with MEZ(S) to see how they play. I like the interplay between the two roles. I may end up with a WM(A) role with the same instructions as a WP(A) plus Get Further Forward: they wouldn't completely act the same, but they wouldn't be as much of ball magnets and a bit more sustainable overall. I don't know what kind of FB/WB to put behind them with which kind of DM. The tactics if a proof of concept and not definitive, but the symmetry of the system coupled with WB(S) makes the team vulnerable behind the FBs... and HBs still don't do anything special if you don't have players in the WB strata. I haven't been convinced by a partnership with a CM(A), be it CM(A)/MEZ(S), CM(A)/BBM, CM(A)/RPM, or CM(A)/CM(S). So MEZ(S)/MEZ(S) here we go.

I've also sent my main striker Djoni on loan since he wasn't scoring for me. The result? He's killing it at Chievo. While Chievo has  played only 7 official matches and lay at an unimpressive 11th place in the league after six matches and only 7 points and already three losses, Djoni is considered a key player at the club. He has scored 5 goals in 7 official matches including Coppa Italia. The AI seemingly plays him as a lone DLP on top of a 4-2-3-1 Wide, which is nothing but his favourite role according to my AssMan. I've requested a report from my scouts to see what kind of tactics Chievo usually uses to see what's going on. He also has attracted the interest of LA Galaxy, so good on him.

Ah, and he also hates my guts for forcing him out of the club.

Edited July 31, 2020 by Xavier Lukhas

[Xavier Lukhas]

I think (again) that I've found something that works for me and doesn't make me want to break the ankles of my wingers with a baseball bat. I don't know if it's on the back of my players getting better (the defence certainly didn't though), but my players now pass a lot around instead of dribbling into corners and shooting it in the side-netting, or building near the box, or stopping sending those stupid crosses despite being told to hit low ones because a striker and a winger hardly can win headers against two CBs and a GK.

What do you know? The solution to having players stop doing stupid stuff was to completely and utterly lower their Mentality as much as possible. I've put the CBs as BPD only to have them work on the role, but they're actually fairly incompetent at being BPDs. I could've used IW(S) and put the same instructions on, but for some reason it doesn't play as well as WM(S) with a whole stack of instructions on top. I tried WB(S), but they leave acres of space behind them too early in the build-up, and HBs don't seem to do much besides screwing up the CBs.

The only "issue" is that it's harder to put much pressure on teams playing from the back due to the wingers being naturally low in the ML/MR strata and being too far to press the opposition's CBs, allowing them to quit easily recycle possession. They try, but thei start from too deep despite the very high line of engagement and D-line. At least the wingers attempt to support their FB instead of throwing their hands in the air when the ball is behind them and saying "well it's no longer my problem Gaffer".