Need help involving my attackers

[Dougiefresh]

So the title is pretty self-explanatory; how do I get my attacking players (i.e. the TQ and the striker) more involved within the frameworks of this tactic:

For context: The tactic is not working bad at all. But nearly all build up and chance creation are happening on the flanks. The tactic is sort of set up for this to be happening (overlading the left/switching play to RW probably being the main threat) so im not seeking drastic changes as such. Just possible tweaks that would be useful to utilize especially Brooks more.

His attributes are sort of perfect for the Treq role imo, but he rarely ever gets involved in any type of play. I would have expected him to link up better, espcially with the RM. Wilson is a bit more useful, as he strectches opposition defence to make space for LB and LM and often drift wide on the left to create an overload. But he's rarely on the end of crosses and doesnt seem to link up with Brooks whatsoever.

So any advice here would be appreciated.

[GianniM]

If you want to overload the left then it would probably make more sense to switch the Trequartista and the AF. I'd try the Trequartista in the LCF spot on and the AF as the right CF. 

Alternatively (or simultaneously) switch up your two CMs (DLP in LCM and BWM in RCM)

[zabyl]

If you want TRQ to be more involved then he needs more support from players around him.

Behind him a DLPd doesn't help him very well i think. On the right of him there is a Wa who goes wide and high, tends to go on his own mostly. BWMs can help his game. IWs on the left can help but needs more attacking behaviour. AFa is a scorer with dribble PI but he also tends to go on his own mostly.

My tips for getting TRQ more involved are;
 

• TRQ to LCAM position because he needs more support and also both DLP and TRQ are playmakers so there is no need to use them on the same central area. This will liberate DLP's limited quality.
• AFa to RF position with a role like CFa or DLFa.
• DLPd to DLPs to make him more involved in both attack and defence.
   

Those ideas are only for making TRQ more influential in team plays. It can be better/worse with these changes.

Edited October 20, 2020 by zabyl
LAM to LCAM

[Dougiefresh]

Thanks both for the advice, found it really useful.

From how I read both, swapping sides of the Treq and AF would be a sensible starting point. Gotta admit it makes a lot of sense, and it could even improve the overall tactical setup (given the even more significant overload on the left).

My reasoning for having the Treq on the right was 1) I wanted the Treq to linkup with the RM and 2) I was a bit worried of him "colliding" with the IW when playing on the left side. But, as zabyl pointed out, a Wa mostly goes on his own, especially since ive mostly used King there, who is a rather limited player in terms of link up and rely mostly on pace and dribbling (actually tried him on support once and it was a complete disaster).

So there is really not much to sacrifice for me by swapping. I'll give it a couple of games and see how it all hangs together, and then ill maybe also look at the role of the striker. I'm a bit reluctant to use Wilson as a DLF (even if its on attack duty) given his pace and the way it is utilized to stretch defense in a more advanced role, but maybe it works wonders. Changing the Dlp to support could also be useful (but also risky), ill initially try it as a tweak in games where im chasing a lead and/or play against opposition sitting deap.

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Dougiefresh

[Experienced Defender]

3 hours ago, Dougiefresh said:

- Remove the tight marking TI

- swap the sides of your CM roles (DLPde in MCL and BWMsu in MCR)

[Dougiefresh]

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

- Remove the tight marking TI

- swap the sides of your CM roles (DLPde in MCL and BWMsu in MCR)

Interesting; may I ask why I should remove tight marking?

A bit sceptic of swapping CM roles as I only have right footed midfielders and want my most advanced passer to be on his right foot. But I will try it, would be interesting to see what works best of swapping cm roles and am/st side.

Edited October 20, 2020 by Dougiefresh

[Experienced Defender]

22 minutes ago, Dougiefresh said:

Interesting; may I ask why I should remove tight marking?

Because it simply does not go hand in hand with your tactical style, including the formation (442) you are using. 

 

24 minutes ago, Dougiefresh said:

A bit sceptic of swapping CM roles as I only have right footed midfielders and want my most advanced passer to be on his right foot

When you say "most advanced passer", do you mean the most advanced in the sense of being the best passer or in terms of the more advanced position on the pitch? 

Anyway, while footedness of players should be taken into account to some degree, far more important is the interaction between roles and duties within your system. 

[Experienced Defender]

29 minutes ago, Dougiefresh said:

But I will try it, would be interesting to see what works best of swapping cm roles and am/st side

My suggestion pertained solely to the CMs. not AM and/or ST.

[Dougiefresh]

2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Because it simply does not go hand in hand with your tactical style, including the formation (442) you are using. 

If you don't mind me asking, why doesnt it fit this style/formation? Is it primarily a TI that is effective with a lower block? I also guess it may effect my TQs movement negatively, and it does tend to break up my team shape from time to time. Still relatively new to the tactical aspect of the game, so im just genuinely curious.

 

2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

When you say "most advanced passer", do you mean the most advanced in the sense of being the best passer or in terms of the more advanced position on the pitch? 

Anyway, while footedness of players should be taken into account to some degree, far more important is the interaction between roles and duties within your system. 

In the sense of my best passer, yes (and also the most important). But yeah, interaction between roles/duties being more important obviously makes sense.

 

2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

My suggestion pertained solely to the CMs. not AM and/or ST.

Yeah, I know, I was (somewhat poorly articulated) meaning i'll try swapping CM roles and swapping AM/ST (which was another advice i recieved) seperately. Thus, i'd be able to compare and analyse which tweak works best and how it effects the system. 

 

Anyway, thanks for advice!

Edited October 20, 2020 by Dougiefresh

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Dougiefresh said:

If you don't mind me asking, why doesnt it fit this style/formation? Is it primarily a TI that is effective with a lower block?

Yes, lower block and more bottom-heavy formations (e.g. flat 4141). It is primarily suited to defensive styles of football (especially more passive ones), which your tactic certainly is not. 

Btw, I managed Bournemouth in FM19 and it has been one of my favorite FM saves of all times (if not even the most favorite)  

1 hour ago, Dougiefresh said:

Anyway, thanks for advice!

You are welcome