As in, it is simply very bland and doesn't seem to create much at times. I've tried to keep things simple, as I'm not too amazing at figuring out the logical roles of things.
This is what I came up with, and my reasoning:
GK/D - Just a simple keeper.
WB/S - CB/D - CB/D - WB/S
So, the defence is a bit on the conservative side, but there's a reason for that, and I'll explain that in the next section.
W/S - CM/D - CM/S - IW/A
This sort of makes sense in my head. The right winger will stay wide and offer a threat on that flank with his crossing. The IW will be a secondary goal threat, cutting inside. The D holds, and the supporting midfielder, well supports. Originally I had the CM/D where the IW was, with the thinking that it would open space up for the IW to cut inside, but then I flip-flopped somewhat, as I felt the CM/D next to the IW/A left too much space in the middle, which led to the IW not being utilised.
So, WB/S - On the right flank the support is just to cover for the IW, I don't want to be too aggressive here and leave too much space open. On the other flank, I didn't pick an attack duty on the basis that I don't really feel it does enough differently from the winger. The WB/S still picks their moments to get forward, but in the past when I've used a full back attack or whatever, they're operating in similar areas and getting in the way, and sometimes that leaves us open to a nice easy counter-attack down the flanks.
So, with two WB/S I also figured they should offer the midfield some support. Possible, I could go for a W/A to offer more of a threat?
Up front:
AM/A
AF/A
I worry that the issue is with one of these two roles. I'm trying to avoid a playmaker, especially in the AM area, as this is an area that is ripe with being shutout by defensive midfielders.
My desire is to play an advanced forward, I've played for years with deeper lying forwards, so I want to have a traditional attacking threat. The intention is for him to get on the end of the crosses from the winger, and work in tandem with the IW as the secondary threat.
The problem I suppose is the AM. Originally, I did what I said I wouldn't, and played a playmaker, but found he was going so deep that he was sitting in the DM/CM area and the CM/S was getting ahead of him (nothing to do with PPMs either), and that was disappointing as I'd rather he was making his presence felt a bit more further up the pitch.
The generic AM role makes sense, but I wonder if attack is perhaps not the right option as it sends him off into the box, something I should be leaving the IW to do. Still, I've played around with the options here, but I'm not getting much traction - I can get games flying by without any highlights happening, and our chances are limited if anything.
In particular, the AF gets horrific ratings, which suggests I may have a supply issue. I'm not too good at watching things back and figuring things out though. @_@
I play on Standard/Flexible with no team instructions by the by, I don't have a specific style so to speak, I want the team to be flexible in their passing and methods. Just, I'm not sure the whole plan is coming together very well.
Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated.
This is what I came up with, and my reasoning:
GK/D - Just a simple keeper.
WB/S - CB/D - CB/D - WB/S
So, the defence is a bit on the conservative side, but there's a reason for that, and I'll explain that in the next section.
W/S - CM/D - CM/S - IW/A
This sort of makes sense in my head. The right winger will stay wide and offer a threat on that flank with his crossing. The IW will be a secondary goal threat, cutting inside. The D holds, and the supporting midfielder, well supports. Originally I had the CM/D where the IW was, with the thinking that it would open space up for the IW to cut inside, but then I flip-flopped somewhat, as I felt the CM/D next to the IW/A left too much space in the middle, which led to the IW not being utilised.
So, WB/S - On the right flank the support is just to cover for the IW, I don't want to be too aggressive here and leave too much space open. On the other flank, I didn't pick an attack duty on the basis that I don't really feel it does enough differently from the winger. The WB/S still picks their moments to get forward, but in the past when I've used a full back attack or whatever, they're operating in similar areas and getting in the way, and sometimes that leaves us open to a nice easy counter-attack down the flanks.
So, with two WB/S I also figured they should offer the midfield some support. Possible, I could go for a W/A to offer more of a threat?
Up front:
AM/A
AF/A
I worry that the issue is with one of these two roles. I'm trying to avoid a playmaker, especially in the AM area, as this is an area that is ripe with being shutout by defensive midfielders.
My desire is to play an advanced forward, I've played for years with deeper lying forwards, so I want to have a traditional attacking threat. The intention is for him to get on the end of the crosses from the winger, and work in tandem with the IW as the secondary threat.
The problem I suppose is the AM. Originally, I did what I said I wouldn't, and played a playmaker, but found he was going so deep that he was sitting in the DM/CM area and the CM/S was getting ahead of him (nothing to do with PPMs either), and that was disappointing as I'd rather he was making his presence felt a bit more further up the pitch.
The generic AM role makes sense, but I wonder if attack is perhaps not the right option as it sends him off into the box, something I should be leaving the IW to do. Still, I've played around with the options here, but I'm not getting much traction - I can get games flying by without any highlights happening, and our chances are limited if anything.
In particular, the AF gets horrific ratings, which suggests I may have a supply issue. I'm not too good at watching things back and figuring things out though. @_@
I play on Standard/Flexible with no team instructions by the by, I don't have a specific style so to speak, I want the team to be flexible in their passing and methods. Just, I'm not sure the whole plan is coming together very well.
Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated.