Tactic Help

[Conflictinbanno]

Apologies to the mod's this is going to be in multiple posts as the forum is saying I can't post this as one post regarding too many URL's!

Hi Guys,

I have an idea of a tactic I'd like to do, but I want to make sure I can play it before I even try it and end up over complicating it with player or team instructions.


First of all, I want my team to win the ball back quickly if they can from the more attacking players, but when losing the ball, I'd like to see my defence be ready to get back. In terms of play, I'd like to see my crosses more so coming from my full backs, so if I have AM's in wide positions, then I would need them to be more ready to cut in, I'd like our play to be more based on short passing but not afraid to go long if they see a player in space (I would probably compare that part to Swansea), unlike most teams who use short passing though, I want to play at a higher tempo, move the ball quickly so the transition to attack is quicker. I have always preferred one striker formations in my life but I'm willing to compromise if it suits my tactic better. On all of this basis I assumed I wanted some form of 451 formation. This is what I was thinking first of all probably a flat back four, holding mid, 2 cm's, two am's and a lone striker:

 

[Conflictinbanno]

Goalkeeper (Sweeper Keeper on defend duty) - This was based on I'd like my keeper to be ready to help start quick attacks so a sweeper keeper is more likely to come and collect the ball, but I feel on a defend duty he might restrict himself a little more and not be suicidal. Also was thinking to have distribute to full backs

Centre Backs - Both of these I want to have on a defend duty, I don't want to see these guys leaving their positions unless it is a set piece, so on that basis I'm guessing limited defender role could suit them more?

Full backs - As I want these guys to get forward and cross with the ball, I'm guessing I want them to either be attack minded or support, I'd like them to go forward when we play wide, but when going through the middle, I'd like them to offer a wide option to the CM's and get forward if the opportunity arises. Could the role of wing back suit them more for this as it encourages them to push up while being ready to get back if we lose the ball?

Holding midfielder - I think I only want one holding midfielder, I want this player along with my full backs to be the people my centre backs initially look for, this guy will be the start of my attack from him he can hold on to the ball and give my full backs a chance to start pushing up and look to pass to them or the CM's ahead of him. Once he has released the ball I want him to shield by CB's, almost becoming a third ball playing centre back at times maybe, if the team are coming at him then I want him there guarding and ready to make a block or tackle. As a result of this I'm undecided on the best role for him, could this be the half back role or the anchor man role?

Unfortunately I can't finish posting these as the other sections are saying too many URL's of which I have none or forbidden words :S

 

[WJ]

To your DM question in particular, but in general too: do the role descriptions and PI default settings not explain adequately what the player will do?

 

[Conflictinbanno]

To your DM question in particular, but in general too: do the role descriptions and PI default settings not explain adequately what the player will do?

They do to a certain extent in the description...sorry if it sounds stupid but how do you check the default PI? Will provide some screenshots in a minute

 

[Conflictinbanno]

This is what I've done from a little more reading, but I'm still worried I'm possibly over complicating things. View attachment 265060View attachment 265059

Also I understand Opposition Instructions, but will applying these badly damage the shape I want to keep defensively as I would like to be more disciplined defensively and not see players run out of position.

Also I'm in my second season if this helps so I'm not expecting amazing results straight away.

 

[WJ]

They do to a certain extent in the description...sorry if it sounds stupid but how do you check the default PI? Will provide some screenshots in a minute

Hover your mouse cursor over the greyed out buttons. It'll tell you that it's either unavailable or already active.

 

[WJ]

This is what I've done from a little more reading, but I'm still worried I'm possibly over complicating things. View attachment 858800View attachment 858802

Also I understand Opposition Instructions, but will applying these badly damage the shape I want to keep defensively as I would like to be more disciplined defensively and not see players run out of position.

Also I'm in my second season if this helps so I'm not expecting amazing results straight away.

What's the plan with the tactic? How is it supposed to function?

My worry is a lack of runners ahead of the ball. You only have Carrol. If he has a bad day, not much will happen.

 

[Igneos79]

The way I see it, you want the impossible. You either go agressive if you wish to press, and in that case attack quickly with direct passing, which would require fluidity and either roaming in case of very fluid, or supporting striker in case of fluid and attacking midfield. If you want your midfield and the most advanced wingers to be on support duty, that means asking them to do just what their natural duty is, transition, which looks more like a highly structured defensive or contain style, which should be based on low tempo and short passing with less agressive defending. You can't combine both. Your chosen formation fits a counter, structured style.

 

[Conflictinbanno]

Okay I will try hovering over the grey bars to see that, thanks!

In regards to the tactic this is what I wanted it to be. Sensible defensively but interesting on the attack, I'd like my full backs to provide the crosses so I am expecting them to get forward so had them on attack duty. Centre backs I just want to see them lay off the ball to full backs or anchor man. My deep lying centre mid is there to be the main start to get the ball forward if it isn't from a full back, the reason he is on defend is because I don't want to be too exposed at the back on the counter, so I'm thinking he will be there if the full backs go to forward. The other midfielder in the middle I had as roaming but in the first game I used this at half time I changed him to advanced playmaker on attack, as I found the roaming option he was sitting way too far back. I want the advanced to be my main person to set up goals, so that he feeds the 3 ahead or possibly goes himself if need be. The two wide attackers I had as Inside forward as with my crosses coming from full backs then they can get in the box to increase chances and to cut inside and carve out opportunities themselves. I had them on a support duty as I don't want them to be too attacking when we lose the ball, I'd like them to when needed come back and help the defenders and I was worried if they are on attack, then they'd stay forward. Then the striker I want to be able to score or create for the two wide men or maybe even the advanced playmaker.

In terms of style of play I want them to mix it up, preferably short, but don't ignore the chance to go long if you can. I want them to play at a fast pace and utilise the width from full backs and try to find the inside forwards cutting inside. When losing the ball though I want to see my team organise quickly and get back in position, so I didn't want them to close down more, as I'd only expect the front 3 to press heavily while the rest find their shape again.

 

[Conflictinbanno]

The way I see it, you want the impossible. You either go agressive if you wish to press, and in that case attack quickly with direct passing, which would require fluidity and either roaming in case of very fluid, or supporting striker in case of fluid and attacking midfield. If you want your midfield and the most advanced wingers to be on support duty, that means asking them to do just what their natural duty is, transition, which looks more like a highly structured defensive or contain style, which should be based on low tempo and short passing with less agressive defending. You can't combine both. Your chosen formation fits a counter, structured style.

I understand what you are saying but I would say my style is more of a structured style but I want the attack to press the opposition defence while the midfield and defence get the chance to find the shape again. In regards of the style of play, I'm not looking to keep the ball, I want it to move quickly, that doesn't have to be direct, just look at a team like Marseille for example under Biesla, they like to pass a mix of short and direct but they move it quick all the time and they definitely don't play on the counter. As my above post states a bit more detail of how I want to play. I would like to think it is possible though, just quite a complex formation (it did okay against Man City and they looked organised at the back, my only fault that I saw was the loading the box for crosses.)

 

[WJ]

In regards to the tactic this is what I wanted it to be. Sensible defensively but interesting on the attack, I'd like my full backs to provide the crosses so I am expecting them to get forward so had them on attack duty.

Fair enough. The fullbacks currently will do just that.

Centre backs I just want to see them lay off the ball to full backs or anchor man.

For this, you may want to add Play Out of Defence, if you don't see the passes happening the way you want it to. Otherwise, no problems here.

My deep lying centre mid is there to be the main start to get the ball forward if it isn't from a full back, the reason he is on defend is because I don't want to be too exposed at the back on the counter, so I'm thinking he will be there if the full backs go to forward.

You could set him as a Support Duty. The worry again, is that you're not committing many forward. You also seem to want the Anchor and DLP/D to do the same job as far as starting attacks go. Why not combine them and have a DLP/D at DM? Just a thought to muddy the waters more.

The other midfielder in the middle I had as roaming but in the first game I used this at half time I changed him to advanced playmaker on attack, as I found the roaming option he was sitting way too far back. I want the advanced to be my main person to set up goals, so that he feeds the 3 ahead or possibly goes himself if need be.

Okay, with you here. The problem though, is that on Support duties, the wide players won't be making many runs to be fed. As wingers, they'll receive the ball and either lay it off again or get in a quick cross. Inside Forwards on Support will do almost the same, but with the option of cutting in, rather than going wide. They'll still look to receive the ball at their feet. Attack Duty players (the majority of them) make runs ahead of the ball. Ideally, you need one to support Carrol, so probably an IF/A, if you have one.

Your current setup would make a little more sense had you gone for a counter or defend mentality as on the counter, even the Support duty players will burst into space. If the counter isn't on though, you'll be stuck. The AP will either feed the wide players to feet or seek out Carrol.

The two wide attackers I had as Inside forward as with my crosses coming from full backs then they can get in the box to increase chances and to cut inside and carve out opportunities themselves. I had them on a support duty as I don't want them to be too attacking when we lose the ball, I'd like them to when needed come back and help the defenders and I was worried if they are on attack, then they'd stay forward.

If you need them to come back more, why not go for ML/MR positions? The formation you set is the defensive formation and the roles and especially duties determine attacking shape.

Then the striker I want to be able to score or create for the two wide men or maybe even the advanced playmaker.

This won't happen the way you want it as it is currently. At the moment, the AP/A (or DLP/D) will feed it wide and Carrol will get crosses or the playmakers will pass to his feet and he'll try and dribble through. He may make late runs to be available for through balls. Carrol won't play anyone in, because nobody will keep up with him as he's the only one making constant forward runs ahead of play. The support duty wide men will (in line with their duty) keep up with the ball and be available as support mostly. Runs ahead are made by Attack duty (most of the roles) players. Slight exceptions here are the Enganche, Trequartista and AP/A roles.

In terms of style of play I want them to mix it up, preferably short, but don't ignore the chance to go long if you can. I want them to play at a fast pace and utilise the width from full backs and try to find the inside forwards cutting inside. When losing the ball though I want to see my team organise quickly and get back in position, so I didn't want them to close down more, as I'd only expect the front 3 to press heavily while the rest find their shape again.

I've covered most of this higher up.

If you want the front 3 to press heavily, I assume you've set them via PIs to do that?

 

[WJ]

If you want your midfield and the most advanced wingers to be on support duty, that means asking them to do just what their natural duty is, transition, which looks more like a highly structured defensive or contain style, which should be based on low tempo and short passing with less agressive defending.

I don't know how you make that connection. His structure (flexible) is fine. It'll make more distinction between defend, support and attacking duties, which isn't a problem and he'll have average creative freedom mostly which is also not a problem.

 

[Conflictinbanno]

Ah okay, I didn't realise support roles would cancel out the Inside Forwards pushing in so I'll see how it goes with them set to Attack, I will admit I did find that my Anchor man and DLP were often in the same areas to each other, so I can see what you mean about using the DM as DLP, my only issue now though is what to do with the other midfielder, I would like him to fill the gap between the Advanced Playmaker and the DLP in this sense so I'm not sure of his best role, I want him to help defend without the ball but Id like him to help on attacks, looking at the roles I'm guessing Box to Box or a normal CM role with a support duty. Would this balance it okay?

 

[WJ]

A support duty doesn't cancel out anything. Support duty players keep up with play. Attack duty players (generally) make runs ahead of play and defend duty players stay behind play/the ball.

 

[WJ]

my only issue now though is what to do with the other midfielder, I would like him to fill the gap between the Advanced Playmaker and the DLP in this sense so I'm not sure of his best role, I want him to help defend without the ball but Id like him to help on attacks, looking at the roles I'm guessing Box to Box or a normal CM role with a support duty. Would this balance it okay?

Normally in a 3 man midfield, you should have a Defend/Support/Attack duty split, so either will work.

 

[Conflictinbanno]

Thanks, well I'm going to try a mix of both, considering I rested a lot of players and lost 1-0 to Man Utd in the cup I'm quite happy, also the goal was from a set play so I can't fault them for open play performances so I'm quite happy, we also had a goal disallowed, going to keep the inside forwards on attack duty unless I'm trying to keep the ball and see out a game but overall it looks to have pieced together well as I've played well against considerably better opponents, will let you know how it goes!

 

[Igneos79]

I understand what you are saying but I would say my style is more of a structured style but I want the attack to press the opposition defence while the midfield and defence get the chance to find the shape again. In regards of the style of play, I'm not looking to keep the ball, I want it to move quickly, that doesn't have to be direct, just look at a team like Marseille for example under Biesla, they like to pass a mix of short and direct but they move it quick all the time and they definitely don't play on the counter. As my above post states a bit more detail of how I want to play. I would like to think it is possible though, just quite a complex formation (it did okay against Man City and they looked organised at the back, my only fault that I saw was the loading the box for crosses.)

Well, you can only choose one tempo, be it lower or higher. You can try to force short passing with high tempo, but that will only work with the best teams, the most natural thing to do with high tempo is play direct. Shorter passing, to be executed properly, requires narrower width and lower tempo which is against what you are looking for. If you want pressing, you need to risk more and push higher up, which means more agressive mentality, and since pressing is a collective thing, you should play more fluidly. If you play more fluidly, your player mentalities will be closely connected, so you don't really need a layered formation. You can go with a few banks of two, like 4 defenders and 4 midfielders in a flat line for example. It would be a smart thing to add more players forward, so that you can close down more efficiently. DM is really not needed.

 

[WJ]

Well, you can only choose one tempo, be it lower or higher. You can try to force short passing with high tempo, but that will only work with the best teams, the most natural thing to do with high tempo is play direct. Shorter passing, to be executed properly, requires narrower width and lower tempo which is against what you are looking for. If you want pressing, you need to risk more and push higher up, which means more agressive mentality, and since pressing is a collective thing, you should play more fluidly. If you play more fluidly, your player mentalities will be closely connected, so you don't really need a layered formation. You can go with a few banks of two, like 4 defenders and 4 midfielders in a flat line for example. It would be a smart thing to add more players forward, so that you can close down more efficiently. DM is really not needed.

He has a little higher than normal tempo with mixed passing. No problem.

 

[Igneos79]

He has a little higher than normal tempo with mixed passing. No problem.

I figured he is just setting the baseline, not that this is the end product. Keeping things at the middle is like you need to go to toilet being hungry at the same time...

 

[WJ]

I figured he is just setting the baseline, not that this is the end product. Keeping things at the middle is like you need to go to toilet being hungry at the same time...

There's no problem with keeping things the way they are. There's a reason these are the defaults for a Standard mentality. He'll have average/medium tempo which he's increasing a bit with higher (not high) tempo. The base/default passing for Standard mentality is also mixed everywhere.