[FM19] I think this tactic makes sense but the results are awful - help needed!

[DamianJMcGrath]

I've got a test game running at the moment, just to try and figure out tactics and try and understand things a bit better. I've put a few hand-picked players in the squad so don't pay too much attention to the personnel. It's not a legit properly-played game - it's just my test save to try and see how things work.

I'm using Tottenham, and trying to get this 4-3-2-1 working

I'm trying to have Dier staying back to support the 2 CB's, while the full-backs go forward.

I'm trying to get Aurier to overlap Lamela when he cuts inside.

I was trying to have Sancho providing pace and width to provide a different attack style to Lamela, and while he stays wide, Allan as the BBM can get forward on that side as a passing option. I didn't want the BBM on the same side as the IF in case they came into each other's space.

I thought about having the striker as an Advanced Forward Attack, but felt he might be a bit too isolated, so made him a DLF but on Attack, so he can fashion his own chances, as well as hopefully linking up with Lamela, Allan and Sancho.

Neves is there to act as the guy who sees everything, dictates play, passes to all the other options (i.e., receive simple balls from Dier, and ahead of him, he should have Allan making a forward run, Lamela cutting in, Aurier overlapping, Sancho out wide, Rose would be an out ball as well a bit deeper back, or Kane dropping a bit deeper to get a pass). He should have options.

 

My plan was to play with a high tempo to keep the ball moving, and press teams high. The squad has fast players with good stamina, especially with Son comes in, and so it would be beneficial to win the ball higher up the pitch so the LOE is set a bit higher. The two CB's are naturally ball-playing defenders so I've set it to Play Out of Defence as they have the skills to do it. I thought about setting them as BPD's, but thought that might encourage them to be too ambitious, so I set them to CB's, and their natural skills will make them BPD anyway.

 

I thought it all made some sense. It was a side that had pace and creativity on either wing for different attacks, a midfielder providing some defensive help, a midfielder to link the defence and attack, and a midfielder to make the passes. I thought it made sense to combine counter-pressing with a high tempo to force people into mistakes, etc.

 

However, in the 6 league games so far, it's been a bit poor.

I concede 2 goals per game to the likes of Brighton, Cardiff, Huddersfield, as well as Man City, Man United and Everton.

I won two games 3-2, but lost the other 4. I couldn't even win against Ludrogrets in Europe, getting a 2-2 draw.

The stats don't seem to suggest I'm playing well either - often lose possession by 60/40, always have less shots/target than opposition, and they get a lot more highlights than me. My CB's seem to always play long balls which I can't figure out why! 

 

Can anyone identify obvious problems with the tactic, and instructions? 

As I said, I'm using this save to try and figure things out, and understand what works and what doesn't, and take these lessons into a real save shortly. But my logic seems to have hit a brick wall, so people's advice would be great.

Thanks

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

 

1 hour ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

Can anyone identify obvious problems with the tactic, and instructions?

Due to a lack of time to go into more details at the moment, I can (for now) only offer some quick tips:

- either change Lamela's or Aurier's duty to support

- change the BBM into CM on attack duty

- Rose may remain a FB on support, although I would prefer a WB on support instead (considering the fact that the Spurs are a top team, so you'll need more attacking support in order to break down defensive opposition)

- change the mentality to Positive and drop tempo to default

- remove the Counter TI in transition (as a top team playing mostly against weaker and defensive opposition, the counter instruction is more likely to lead to needless losses of possession than really effective counter-attacks)

There are potentially a couple more tweaks that may be needed, but the above are the most obvious IMHO.

[DamianJMcGrath]

16 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

Due to a lack of time to go into more details at the moment, I can (for now) only offer some quick tips:

- either change Lamela's or Aurier's duty to support

- change the BBM into CM on attack duty

- Rose may remain a FB on support, although I would prefer a WB on support instead (considering the fact that the Spurs are a top team, so you'll need more attacking support in order to break down defensive opposition)

- change the mentality to Positive and drop tempo to default

- remove the Counter TI in transition (as a top team playing mostly against weaker and defensive opposition, the counter instruction is more likely to lead to needless losses of possession than really effective counter-attacks)

There are potentially a couple more tweaks that may be needed, but the above are the most obvious IMHO.

Thank you for your feedback. 

Do you mind if I ask for reasons? 

For example, I had thought that a IF on Attack would be more likely to make runs inside, and the WB Attack would be more likely to run down the wing in a more advanced position, rather than just supporting. 

 

With the BBM, I thought this provided a useful way of bolstering the defence, and supporting the attack, as he would do both. A CM Attack would just do the attack part, wouldn't he? 

Why do you think I should drop tempo? 

Why would Counter in transition lead to a loss of possession? For example, like Liverpool in real life, they press high up the pitch, win the ball, and counter attack quickly. Is that instruction not what I think it is? 

 

Thanks

[summatsupeer]

Its too passive with Balanced mentality and defensive formation 4141 DM.  This is one of the major reasons you'll suffer in possession stats, especially against defensive teams who's DMs will have space and numerical advantage to play keep ball.

The risk taking you do have is all on the right flank with the DLP, IF and WB.  There's not a lot happening on the left flank.

@Experienced Defender advice makes sense but there's an additional point i'd like to make regarding the style I think your after.  You mention a few times about the pace of the team, to take advantage of that I would look for more penetration (dribbling / through balls) before you enter the final third, if the transition is too slow and you push teams deep you lose space for your pace.  Having BWM in DM I think is more for defensive or possession styles where you want to move the ball safely and have more patience plus fluid movement in attack to break defensive sides. Plus if the DLP is in CM and dropping to collect as playmakers do, typically behind the ball, your potentially slowing the attack as a deeper player has to get forward, especially in a 4141 DM Wide where there's no player naturally positioned in AM.  Great for possession systems that work the ball around and let them catch up with play but not so good for teams looking to attack with pace.   Having the playmaker in DM can allow for more direct switches of play with accurate dangerous passes into the final third or just draw opponents midfielders out to create space.  As the MCR now doesn't drop so deep, he should be able to give the now deeper playmaker a forward passing option and also support the forwards earlier in attacks plus defensively if more mobile + aggressive could win it back in dangerous areas or at least force opponents to use it or lose it.

[DamianJMcGrath]

@Experienced Defender and @summatsupeer I made a few changes, based on your feedback.

The initial formation tweak was to this:

It didn't seem to have much impact, I got beat 4-0 at Bournemouth where I only had 2 shots on goal, and then drew 1-1 with West Ham, where they dominated. In one of the games, due to injuries, I had Erikson at AML and Walker-Peters at DR which aren't my preferred players there, but the other game had my first strength team. I tried DLP-S for a bit in games, but couldn't see any difference really.

I thought maybe a DM is too passive, so changed to:

and that didn't fare much better either. Lost 4-2 at Man United, and drew 1-1 with Southampton, but in every game, the opposition had 15-20 shots on goal, and I had about 5.

 

It seems to make sense to me. I read the Pairs and Combinations thing, and in midfield, there's a Def/Sup/Att trio. On the right, there's a Sup/Att duo, and on the left, I was going to make Davies/Rose a WB-Att but was concerned about conceding even more goals!

Can anyone identify what I'm totally missing here!

Edited June 30, 2020 by DamianJMcGrath

[Experienced Defender]

15 hours ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

For example, I had thought that a IF on Attack would be more likely to make runs inside, and the WB Attack would be more likely to run down the wing in a more advanced position, rather than just supporting

IF moves inside regardless of the duty. Using more attack duties does not mean more potent and dangerous attacks. Being sensible and logical is key to creating a successful tactic. 

 

16 hours ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

With the BBM, I thought this provided a useful way of bolstering the defence, and supporting the attack, as he would do both. A CM Attack would just do the attack part, wouldn't he?

You need to view roles in the context of the tactical setup as a whole, not in isolation. In this particular setup, I would prefer CM on attack over BBM. In a different kind of setup, BBM would be a better choice. Optimal balance between attacking penetration, defensive solidity and space creation is what you need to aim for when creating any tactic. 

And no, CM on attack duty will not just do the attacking part (unless the player in question has poor work rate). 

16 hours ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

Why do you think I should drop tempo? 

Because I also suggested upping the mentality by a notch. And the team mentality automatically affects tempo (as well as all other instructions btw). Context matters. 

 

16 hours ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

Why would Counter in transition lead to a loss of possession?

Because you manage a top team that will mostly face defensive opposition unwilling to attack you and thus give you any meaningful space in their half and/or defensive third. The counter instruction encourages players to attempt counter-attacks at any given opportunity (as soon as they win the ball back). But they will occasionally attempt counters even without the instruction, just less frequently and in a more sensible manner (i.e. when a counter-attack can really make sense). 

 

16 hours ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

For example, like Liverpool in real life, they press high up the pitch, win the ball, and counter attack quickly. Is that instruction not what I think it is?

First off, there is some difference between real life and FM, even if (IMHO) FM is by far the best replication of real-life football ever. 

Secondly - and perhaps more important - Liverpool has the right players for such a style of football. Their midfield is probably the most industrious in the world. 

And last but not least, your tactic overall is considerably different from how Liverpool play. If you want to try and replicate real-life Liverpool style under Klopp, that's another pair of shoes). 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

@Experienced Defender and @summatsupeer I made a few changes, based on your feedback.

The initial formation tweak was to this:

It didn't seem to have much impact, I got beat 4-0 at Bournemouth where I only had 2 shots on goal, and then drew 1-1 with West Ham, where they dominated. In one of the games, due to injuries, I had Erikson at AML and Walker-Peters at DR which aren't my preferred players there, but the other game had my first strength team. I tried DLP-S for a bit in games, but couldn't see any difference really.

I thought maybe a DM is too passive, so changed to:

and that didn't fare much better either. Lost 4-2 at Man United, and drew 1-1 with Southampton, but in every game, the opposition had 15-20 shots on goal, and I had about 5.

 

It seems to make sense to me. I read the Pairs and Combinations thing, and in midfield, there's a Def/Sup/Att trio. On the right, there's a Sup/Att duo, and on the left, I was going to make Davies/Rose a WB-Att but was concerned about conceding even more goals!

Can anyone identify what I'm totally missing here!

Tactics are not solely about roles and duties - which are not ideally set up, either - but also instructions. For example, your manner of defending is needlessly too aggressive for my liking, especially as you have compromised your compactness by a greater-than-optimal distance between the DL and LOE (which can particularly be problematic in the top-heavy 4231). 

You first need to decide which exact style of football you want to play and why - taking into account your team's overall strength and reputation as well as the type(s) of players you have at your disposal.

[Experienced Defender]

And yes, changing the tactic so often - and in this case even the formation - is usually not a good idea.

[summatsupeer]

5 hours ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

It didn't seem to have much impact, I got beat 4-0 at Bournemouth where I only had 2 shots on goal, and then drew 1-1 with West Ham, where they dominated. In one of the games, due to injuries, I had Erikson at AML and Walker-Peters at DR which aren't my preferred players there, but the other game had my first strength team. I tried DLP-S for a bit in games, but couldn't see any difference really.

Were those the players you used?  I mean really Gazzaniga, Lamela, Davies, Dier and Walker-Peters wouldn't get into the Bournemouth or West Ham sides so if your having an injury crisis i'd lower your expectations a bit, especially as half of those players don't really fit the role.  Its gone from being a "pacy" attack to pretty slow TBH.  If your starters and backups are so different you'll have issue using one system, but creating multiple systems is harder because you spend less time seeing what is going on and players take longer to become familiar to them.

M-Savic has so many traits to attack he really should be the most attacking player in the midfield.  Alli is a similar player but just not as good as M-Savic so should they be played together? Maybe Alli could be a very attacking BBM/CM-Su but will he just congest the space the front 3 + M-Savic want to use?  Allan would be the best option for the MCR job, possibly as a BBM/CM-Su to give some more freedom than a BWM-Su has.  Dunno who you have available for the DLP-De job, you still got Neves available?

I'd probably of switched tactics if the backup players are that much different to the starters, maybe building a system around Eriksen as a AP out wide with a MEZ-At bombing past him.

5 hours ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

I thought maybe a DM is too passive, so changed to:

and that didn't fare much better either. Lost 4-2 at Man United, and drew 1-1 with Southampton, but in every game, the opposition had 15-20 shots on goal, and I had about 5.

 

It seems to make sense to me. I read the Pairs and Combinations thing, and in midfield, there's a Def/Sup/Att trio. On the right, there's a Sup/Att duo, and on the left, I was going to make Davies/Rose a WB-Att but was concerned about conceding even more goals!

Can anyone identify what I'm totally missing here!

Look past the tactic and at the players.  Even if you take a great tactic that works with one team, if you take it and apply it to another group of players it won't play the same. Changing formation and using nearly all the same roles, duties and instructions is unlikely to fix anything and possible just introduces different issues.

 

First step is to really analyse your squad and what are your best players good at?  If they get injured and the backup is very different, can you shuffle other players around to keep the same style? 

[DamianJMcGrath]

OK, let's go back to basics. Try and learn from scratch. 

Now everyone is back from injuries, my best players are

Lloris

Rose

Alderweireld

Vertonghen

Aurier

Neves (DLP best role) 

Milijovevic or Gueye (BWM best role) 

Allan (BBM best role) 

Son (AML) 

Moura (AMR) 

Kane 

 

Based on those players, I thought a 433 might be best - either a 4123 or 4213 as you can see from my screenshots. If I play with a AMC, that's where Alli and Eriksen would come in. 

 

I wanted to be the team in possession against lesser teams, dominate them, be on the front foot. Like Liverpool. Press them high, win the ball, break quickly, use Son/Moura/Kane to link up and play one of them through. 

If they cant win the ball early, then one of the two combative midfielders would win it (BBM or BWM) and Neves would help distribute it to the front 3. 

If we had the ball from the back, then obviously there's no quick turnaround, so we could maintain possession in the midfield and then look wide to the pace players and the overlaps before crossing to Kane, the opposite winger and the BBM coming forward.

If I was playing a AMC, I could do the wide play as described, but also feed it through the middle and let the creative Eriksen pick some through balls to one of the other 3.

 

Against tough teams, I'd probably stick to the DM rather than AM, and look to soak up pressure before breaking quickly. I doubt I'd dominate those games and be able to keep possession easily, so counter attacking seems sensible. I'd want Neves picking the ball up and looking immediately for the wide players. They can dribble the ball up the pitch and look to play in other players. If we lose it, we've still got at least the BWM and Neves back behind the ball to support the defence. 

 

That was all I had in my head. 

I don't know if it's right. I'm guessing not, since that's what I've tried to do and it hasn't worked. 

 

But if anyone could pick apart my ideas and give me a few pieces of wisdom, that would be awesome

 

[Justified]

Again I feel that you're too bogged down in suitable roles for players. It's a team game so looking at the balance over the whole team is more important then what role is best suitable for one player. 

For me, tactical style is more important then roles. No matter what team, I always play in the same way because I know what pros and cons the style has. After that I build from front to back which might be different from other managers but for me it's how are we going to score because I'm comfortable my playing style/formation will get me stable defence.

If Neves is your best creative outlet then definitely get him in a role that supports the attack and a high enough mentality to do so. I'd want nothing less then Positive as his personal individual mentality. How you achieve that is multiple ways. 

[Experienced Defender]

17 hours ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

Neves (DLP best role) 

Milijovevic or Gueye (BWM best role) 

Allan (BBM best role) 

Two questions in relation to the above quote:

1. "Best role" based on their attributes or the (green) circle of role suitability suggested by the game?

2. Do you know that most (if not even all) players can successfully play more than just one role?