Pros and cons of this tactic

[dracula28]

What are the pros and cons of my tactic? Are there any immediate flaws that you see?

[NotSoSpecialOne]

The main con I see is that the full backs are going to be pushing forward aggressively (WB-Su still gets a fair ways up the pitch on Positive) and I'm not certain a DLP-Su is going to provide enough cover to protect against the counter attack, so you're likely to be pretty vulnerable in that regard.

[RDF Tactics]

yeah i would maybe change the LB to IWB or FB

[dracula28]

I was thinking of using that tactic in home games where I expect to win. And then perhaps go more defensively once I grab a goal or two.

What if I change FB-At and DLP-Su to FB-Su and DLP-De?

[dracula28]

Should maybe tick off Work ball into box?

Edited October 20, 2020 by dracula28

[zabyl]

IFa and MEZa on the same side and same mentality seems to be an overkill to me. Changing CM's positions and roles can be a quick solution. (LCM: BBM, RCM: MEZa and RFB: FBs) 

I know Sassuolo's Berardi is a poacher Winger so he can be an IFa better in this set up. LW Boga to IWs can combine very well with MEZa on the LCM.

DLPs will be a defensive problem against teams which have an extra 3rd attacker to the penalty area. Because both of your FBs are already on a higher mentality so your 2 CBs need defensive help from your DM against such teams.

 

If you don't watch comprehensive highlights then i suggest you to look on finding Clear Cut Chances and Half Chances. Match statistics can be misleading.

[Johnny Ace]

IF(A) & AF(A) isn't a great combo, 

IF(A) & Mezz(A) isn't a great combo

BPD & DLP has two players in close proximately playing risky passes 

FB(A) is bit risky

Distribute to CBs & FBs isn't needed with Play out of defence 

[Experienced Defender]

5 hours ago, dracula28 said:

Are there any immediate flaws that you see?

- IF on the left flank on the same duty as the mezzala behind him (far from optimal in terms of space creation and utilization)

- AF as a lone striker may struggle for space, especially in a rather aggressive tactic like yours (PF on attack duty would be a better choice in that respect IMHO)

- potentially insufficient defensive cover for the attacking FB on the right (BWM on support or carrilero would be a better option than BBM)

- pass into space can lead to needless losses of possession (assuming you are a strong team playing mostly against defensive-minded opposition) 

- ditto for the counter TI in transition (based on the same assumption)

- distribution to CBs and FBs looks like a tactical overkill given that you already use the Play out of defence TI 

[Dfs]

@Experienced Defender could I ask you why using distribute to CBs and FBs with play our of defence is an overkill? I often see this argument brought up. I understand that when you play out of defence Your gk distributes to CBs most of the time anyways so I assume ticking on distribute to CBs and FBs is useless but does (and if yes in which way) it makes the tactic worse?

[Experienced Defender]

59 minutes ago, Dfs said:

could I ask you why using distribute to CBs and FBs with play our of defence is an overkill?

Well, you basically answered your own question: 

 

59 minutes ago, Dfs said:

I understand that when you play out of defence Your gk distributes to CBs most of the time anyways so I assume ticking on distribute to CBs and FBs is useless

 

 

1 hour ago, Dfs said:

but does (and if yes in which way) it makes the tactic worse?

It does not necessarily makes it "worse", but rather complicates things unnecessarily. Unless you have a very clear plan as to why you want the keeper to distribute specifically to someone along with playing out of defence. For example, playing out of defence + distribution to FBs only (but not CBs) makes more sense, because you want to build up from the back but with a bit more focus on the flanks (for whatever reason). 

[dracula28]

Thank you for the input, based on the feedback I have made these changes,

Do you see any flaws in the player roles combinations and the team instructions?

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, dracula28 said:

Do you see any flaws in the player roles combinations and the team instructions?

I personally still see some, but I think you should test the tactic anyway and then see if further tweaks may be needed. Because sometimes a tactic can work even if it has some flaws. 

[Hilly1979]

I think your going to struggle in preventing short GK distribution due to the lack of bodies in advanced positions in this formation.

This instruction works a lot better if you use a top heavy formation.

[dracula28]

Tested the tactic. Played against teams that I should be able to beat. Getting lots of shots, both on and off target, but not creating clear cut chances.

Also my front three are underperforming in every match. They'll generally have 6.4 in rating throughout the match.

Edited October 22, 2020 by dracula28

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, dracula28 said:

Getting lots of shots, both on and off target, but not creating clear cut chances

If you are a strong/top team playing against a (very) defensive underdog, you cannot expect to create a lot of CCCs, simply because there is very little to no space in the opposition box. But you can create some chances that are not officially labelled as CCCs but are still good/decent enough. Keep also in mind that official match statistics can sometimes/often be misleading, including in terms of CCCs (as well as HCs). 

 

2 hours ago, dracula28 said:

Also my front three are underperforming in every match. They'll generally have 6.4 in rating throughout the match

Probably because they do not have sufficient support from their respective fullbacks. Which is the key reason why I said in my previous comment that I still see some flaws in your tactic.

If you used wingers (role) instead of IF/IW, then FBs on support duty would make a lot more sense. But in that case, it would also mean a different style of football and would consequently require a different type of team instructions as well.

Now, your current team instructions point to a possession-oriented style of play. So you just need to tweak slightly your setup of roles and duties so as to make it (more) compatible with the instructions (i.e. style of play). 

Btw, your striker would also make more sense if played on a support duty (considering the rest of the tactic). 

[dracula28]

Why would you play the striker on support and not attack duty?
And does it make more sense to change the fullbacks to play as Wingbacks on support duty?

Btw, Sassuolo is a midtable team in Italy, predicted to finish 10th.
So I don't expect to beat the top teams, but I do expect to be able to outplay and defeat teams that are predicted to finish 15th-20th.

[Experienced Defender]

28 minutes ago, dracula28 said:

Why would you play the striker on support and not attack duty?

Primarily because of your possession-oriented instructions, but also in order to help create space for the attacking IF (AMR). And even if I played him on attack duty, I would play him in a different type of role (such as DLF or TQ, possibly CF as well). 

P.S: You did not tag/quote me, but I logically assumed the question was meant for me, given my previous comment. If not, I apologise  

34 minutes ago, dracula28 said:

And does it make more sense to change the fullbacks to play as Wingbacks on support duty?

In your current setup - absolutely 

The only potentially problematic role in your latest setup might be the BBM. I do not claim it won't work, just hinting at such possibility. 

In case my assumption about the BBM proves correct, alternative roles you should consider are carrilero and BWM on support duty. These 2 roles would make more sense than BBM considering the rest of your setup. But do not make this change immediately. Instead, play with the BBM and see how it works before making any tweaks