Tactic Development

[GreyedOutMan]

I'm currently playing as Arsenal in preparation for FM21...my idea was to develop and perfect a tactic which would at least give me a good starting point for the new season. I know the engine will be tweaked but my thinking is that if I get it perfected in FM20, it'll at least be a good starting point in FM21.

I've never really developed my own tactics on the more recent FMs, but I want to this time. My question is - is there a guide on the process of doing this? I know there's plenty of analysis available but I'm never quite sure what to look for and how to fix any issues I do see. Does anyone know if there's a useful guide anywhere on here that doesn't do it for you but gives you pointers on how I can do it?

[Experienced Defender]

You may check some of these out and hopefully get some inspiration and ideas 

[GianniM]

and this: 

 

[GreyedOutMan]

Cheers - didn't know Ps&Cs had been updated. I think it mainly suggests that my tactic is already pretty much spot on!

 

Any thoughts? The only thing I cant do specifically (although I think it happens naturally a bit) is to instruct my DM to cover when either wing-back gets forward, which is a clear tactic being used by the current team...

(NB screenshot is of a semi-rotated team, don't worry too much about personnel!)

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by GreyedOutMan

[GreyedOutMan]

NB - in that formation, with Aouar (who I have signed in January), if I play him as an AP instead of MEZ, with a "Support" duty, is this still enough attack duties? That's his best role in the side but I'm wondering if two support and one defend duty in DM/CM is too defensive?

[Experienced Defender]

14 minutes ago, GreyedOutMan said:

Any thoughts?

The left flank looks like asking for trouble defense-wise. Fortunately, just a small tweak can improve things there significantly - switch Tierney's duty from attack to support, That would not just make the left flank more solid defensively but also improve your attacking play in terms of space creation and utilization  

Regarding the attacking trio, IF on attack duty and PF on attack duty is not an optimal combo. It's not to say that it cannot work, just not an "ideal" partnership. So if you want a striker on attack duty together with an IF also on attack, I would recommend a creator type of striker role (DLF, CF or TQ) rather than simple runner/scorer (PF, AF or poacher). 

As for instructions, it's highly recommendable to start with as few as possible - i.e. only those that roughly define your intended style of play - and then make small gradual tweaks if or when needed. Because when you use too many TIs - as you do in this tactic - if/when things go wrong, it is much harder to figure out where the problem potentially lies. 

41 minutes ago, GreyedOutMan said:

with Aouar (who I have signed in January), if I play him as an AP instead of MEZ, with a "Support" duty, is this still enough attack duties?

When it comes to duties, what is "enough" is entirely relative and - like everything else - depends on a number of factors including the style of play you want to implement (as well as how you want to implement it). Besides, distribution of duties within the system is as important (if not even more) as the mere number of them. 

 

45 minutes ago, GreyedOutMan said:

That's his best role

What exactly do you mean by (his) "best role"? What criteria do you use to determine what is one's "best role"?

[GreyedOutMan]

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

The left flank looks like asking for trouble defense-wise. Fortunately, just a small tweak can improve things there significantly - switch Tierney's duty from attack to support, That would not just make the left flank more solid defensively but also improve your attacking play in terms of space creation and utilization  

Regarding the attacking trio, IF on attack duty and PF on attack duty is not an optimal combo. It's not to say that it cannot work, just not an "ideal" partnership. So if you want a striker on attack duty together with an IF also on attack, I would recommend a creator type of striker role (DLF, CF or TQ) rather than simple runner/scorer (PF, AF or poacher). 

As for instructions, it's highly recommendable to start with as few as possible - i.e. only those that roughly define your intended style of play - and then make small gradual tweaks if or when needed. Because when you use too many TIs - as you do in this tactic - if/when things go wrong, it is much harder to figure out where the problem potentially lies. 

When it comes to duties, what is "enough" is entirely relative and - like everything else - depends on a number of factors including the style of play you want to implement (as well as how you want to implement it). Besides, distribution of duties within the system is as important (if not even more) as the mere number of them. 

 

What exactly do you mean by (his) "best role"? What criteria do you use to determine what is one's "best role"?

Just by attributes - his fit being an AP best. Hasn't really got the work rate for the DLP role. He's basically an upgrade on Ozil!

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, GreyedOutMan said:

Just by attributes - his fit being an AP best

Okay, I am glad that you look at attributes (as opposed to the role suitability circle suggested by the game) 

However, keep in mind that every player can properly play more than one role, and some can play quite a few. So when you select roles (and duties) for your players, you first need to think how these roles interact with one another in order to form a functional system. In other words, think how different role combinations create space for one another in the attacking phase of play and how then they can utilize that space as well as who is supposed to help recycle possession when needed.

When it comes to the defensive side of the game, make sure players (roles) that regularly bomb forward are defensively covered by teammates in appropriate positions (areas of the pitch). 

[GreyedOutMan]

Well that's why I asked! Would the tactic above work with an AP(su) instead of the MEZ?

Edited October 28, 2020 by GreyedOutMan

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, GreyedOutMan said:

Would the tactic above work with an AP(su) instead of the MEZ?

Depends on how you would tweak the rest of the setup in order to accommodate the new role. Especially as you are not changing the role only but also duty. 

[GreyedOutMan]

8 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Depends on how you would tweak the rest of the setup in order to accommodate the new role. Especially as you are not changing the role only but also duty. 

At the moment I haven't changed anything else (though I realise I may need to). I was thinking that an AP on support might be as attacking as a Mez on attack...unjustified assumption?

[Experienced Defender]

5 hours ago, GreyedOutMan said:

I was thinking that an AP on support might be as attacking as a Mez on attack...unjustified assumption?

AP on support cannot be as attack-minded as a mezzala on attack, and not just because the AP's individual mentality will be lower than the mezzala's (due to the difference in duties), but also because AP as a role is less attack-minded than mezzala by default. In a similar fashion that WB as a role is more attack-minded than standard FB even if they are played on the same duty. 

Even AP on attack duty will be (slightly) less attack-minded than mezzala on attack. And when I say "attack-minded", I am primarily referring to their relative positioning on the pitch along with willingness to make early forward runs in attacking transitions. 

[Experienced Defender]

Plus, the mezzala is generally a more mobile role than AP in terms of space exploration.

[GreyedOutMan]

On 28/10/2020 at 16:01, Experienced Defender said:

AP on support cannot be as attack-minded as a mezzala on attack, and not just because the AP's individual mentality will be lower than the mezzala's (due to the difference in duties), but also because AP as a role is less attack-minded than mezzala by default. In a similar fashion that WB as a role is more attack-minded than standard FB even if they are played on the same duty. 

Even AP on attack duty will be (slightly) less attack-minded than mezzala on attack. And when I say "attack-minded", I am primarily referring to their relative positioning on the pitch along with willingness to make early forward runs in attacking transitions. 

Huh? I always assumed AP was the most attacking role for the CM position?!

[GianniM]

16 hours ago, GreyedOutMan said:

Huh? I always assumed AP was the most attacking role for the CM position?!

AP will always be a playmaker, therefore coming deeper to collect the ball and initiate attacks. Whereas a mezzala or CMa won't feel the need to direct play as much and therefore are more willing to move forward before receiving the ball.