I'm in my 5th season with Forest, currently 4th in the Premier League. The tactic works well against stronger opposition but I do see my team's body language often being "frustrated" and I wonder whether this is on account of the "rigid" style and "control" strategy meaning that wing backs aren't getting forward. I've attached a screenshot that seems to show this. The heatmap on the left is from a 6-0 win against LOSC in the Euro Cup, the heatmap on the right is a narrow 1-0 away win against Man U. Both wing backs hardly got forward during the Man U game.
View attachment 283842
The only thing I'm really having trouble with at present is teams hitting me on the break with fast strikers but in fairness, you mentioned that in your OP. I don't think that man marking helps this.
It's a really tough call whether to do a separate tactic or not. I'd say no, because I think the tactic is good as it is but I really do think this tactic only works if you have the right types of players in the right places and a lot of people are really going to struggle to find the right player for the Trequartista role. Have you tried a different role here at all? Advanced Playmaker for instance?
thank you for the feedback mate!
i see what you mean. i initially implemented the rigid style so that my wing-backs weren't caught out up the pitch too much on the break, and because i dont use an anchorman who is very helpfull defensively and in terms of transition in most tactics. i will try a balanced or fluid approach tonight and see how it works.
in theory, if you have a fluid strategy where most players attack and defend, implemented with a balanced and cohesive marking and closing down system, your team will never lose its shape and always move up and down the pitch as a "block". i've tried this, but havent found the right balance.
i must say that although i went for the rigid strategy to be more solid defensively, i've found that when the team attacks, only the two CB's are left behind to cover and hold potential counter-attacks until the WB's or CM's backtrack. Obviously the team concedes in some of these situations. Although it didnt replicate what i originally wanted it to in terms of the tactic, it seemed to work better than most things i tried, so i left it be.
I also agree with you in terms of the man marking. It is either very effective, rendering CB's to have 8.5 rating with 0 assists and 0 goals or completely hopeless, especially for full-backs who should be marking their wing man and end up marking the foward in the area, leaving the second post open for crosses. Most of the goals i conceed are through this sort of mistake or set pieces. If i manage to find the right balance in terms of closing down, i will definately be changng to zonal marking.
in terms of the trequartista role, no i havent tried anything different because it seemed to work quite well for me, but as i'm going to be playing around with the other notions of the tactic, i can try that out too.
have you tweaked anything in the tactic to better suit your team or have you left it as it is?