No Attacking Threat (4-1-2-2-1)

[PinkSpeedos]

I have been struggling with this formation on this FM since the start, but it is something that I A) really would like to use and B) am determined to get right. I find that my defence is usually solid throughout the season but my attack pose almost no threat at all. After getting frustrated and annoyed I read as much as I could about tactics and about this formation as I could and I am currently using this system

Personally I believe that these tactics, player roles and this formation should bring me a decent amount of success but so far my team has really struggled for goals. I realise there are some injured players in the starting line up, this is just to show the players I have been using up until now.

I have read extensively on shouts and tried to apply these as and when needed this has brought some success but I am really keen to get my basic roles and tactics right first.

I really think that if I cant soon get my head around this I am just going to give up, I dont like feeling like I am forced to play a different formation because one simply wont work. There must be a way of getting this team playing.

[max787]

Read this, you're basically using the same system: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/334248-Understanding-Your-Tactic-The-Discussion

[PinkSpeedos]

I read this one and got most of my ideas from it as a basic tactic but it simply doesn't work (for me at least) I would expect with that set up to have my WB's flying past my attacking players offering width and putting the ball in the box but this doesn't happen at all. My team just pose no attacking threat at all.

[RTHerringbone]

I would expect with that set up to have my WB's flying past my attacking players offering width and putting the ball in the box but this doesn't happen at all. My team just pose no attacking threat at all.

That is very odd as I've used attacking wingbacks in my three tactics for FM13. They are intended to be the main source of width and movement for me and they consistently are.

Is the team Fluid in all areas of familiarity with the tactic? Have you just been playing against sides with wide midfielders which has lessened the opportunity for your wingbacks to press forward?

Whilst it is too simple to assume that Cleon's tactic, which was designed with a vision in mind and with Spurs players in mind, will just work with Newcastle, there are similarities between his Baines and Walker and your Debuchy and Santon which should not ordinarily prevent you from seeing attacking movement from those players.

One possibility is your lack of a BPD. If either centre back makes a passable BPD then try it, you are likely to see a more considered build up from the back, which may involve the wingbacks more. Another possibility is that your keeper just belts it forward into midfield and bypasses the wingbacks. When you watch games, who do your central defenders typically pass to, and who does the keeper distribute the ball to?

Wingbacks need space to operate in. If your IFs aren't creating space, they can't move into it.

[Cleon]

I read this one and got most of my ideas from it as a basic tactic but it simply doesn't work (for me at least) I would expect with that set up to have my WB's flying past my attacking players offering width and putting the ball in the box but this doesn't happen at all. My team just pose no attacking threat at all.

How do you expect that to happen when the IF's have an attacking duty? How are the WB's supposed to get ahead of the IF's? Think about it logically. Both sets of players are on attacking duties and one is lower down the pitch than the other. Just how are they supposed to get past and overlap the IF's?

You want support roles on the IF for that to be possible often.

Also Cisse is your main playmaker by default, he isn't good enough. If you are trying to emulate what I did and try and get something different from the Treq role then select someone more capable as the playmaker.

I think you are confused about what you want from the tactic. You say you want width yet the tactic is set up so the Treq creates space in the centre for the the IF's to run into and exploit by dropping off the defence and coming deep. This doesn't suit your vision because you want balls into the box yet have no-one in the box. If that's how you want to play then you need to forget about using a Treq.

I know it comes across as me being highly critical but I'm trying to help you to think about how you want to play. Then think of the roles and what they are doing and see if they match what you want. In this case, they don't

[RTHerringbone]

How do you expect that to happen when the IF's have an attacking duty? How are the WB's supposed to get ahead of the IF's? Think about it logically. Both sets of players are on attacking duties and one is lower down the pitch than the other. Just how are they supposed to get past and overlap the IF's?

I guess the uncertainty could relate to Wide Play?

As far as I remember (at work, as ever), IFs have Wide Play of Cuts Inside, and there is a possibility that people assume that this means the IF will more often than not be in central positions, thus freeing up space for a fullback or wingback.

Documentation about Wide Play is a bit scant, but my understanding is that whilst Wide Play of Cuts Inside will mean a player have a tendency to Cut Inside, they predominantly will still be based on the flank - thus blocking the forward movement of the wingbacks.

Similarly for central players with Moves Into Channels, whilst they will drift out wide they won't do so all the time and so it is remiss to assume that having a player with this setting will mean that they regularly leave space for a player behind to move into.

All of my tactics are based around narrow midfields, which explains why I've had no problems of this type.

[PinkSpeedos]

How do you expect that to happen when the IF's have an attacking duty? How are the WB's supposed to get ahead of the IF's? Think about it logically. Both sets of players are on attacking duties and one is lower down the pitch than the other. Just how are they supposed to get past and overlap the IF's?

You want support roles on the IF for that to be possible often.

Also Cisse is your main playmaker by default, he isn't good enough. If you are trying to emulate what I did and try and get something different from the Treq role then select someone more capable as the playmaker.

I think you are confused about what you want from the tactic. You say you want width yet the tactic is set up so the Treq creates space in the centre for the the IF's to run into and exploit by dropping off the defence and coming deep. This doesn't suit your vision because you want balls into the box yet have no-one in the box. If that's how you want to play then you need to forget about using a Treq.

I know it comes across as me being highly critical but I'm trying to help you to think about how you want to play. Then think of the roles and what they are doing and see if they match what you want. In this case, they don't

I didnt mean it to sound like an insult to your tactic, I have no doubt that your tactic works when used right. What I am saying is for me it just isn't giving me much attacking threat probably due to the things you have said.

What your saying about the IF's makes sense, would you recommend using one winger and one inside forward? And on your screenshots you have WB attack on same side as a IF attack so I think that's where the confusion came from.

Can I keep Cisse as a T but make the LCM or RAM the playmaker? or am I better off using Cisse as a AF/DLF?

[Cleon]

I didnt mean it to sound like an insult to your tactic, I have no doubt that your tactic works when used right. What I am saying is for me it just isn't giving me much attacking threat probably due to the things you have said.

I never took it that way at all

It's just you have set up in terms of roles on the pitch totally opposite to what you are actually trying to achieve. Ask yourself how you want to play. In your case its crosses into the box, so look at the roles and the players and ask yourself who is going to be in the box should you get a cross off? At the minute you might get lucky and get the IF's onto balls across the box now and again. But if you want this to be your main play or even a dimension of your current play then you have to have people who are capable of putting a cross into the box and then make sure you have players in the box who can put the ball away.

What your saying about the IF's makes sense, would you recommend using one winger and one inside forward? And on your screenshots you have WB attack on same side as a IF attack so I think that's where the confusion came from.

I never set out to create something that caused overlaps or balls into the box though. The tactic you are talking about was set up so Bale could be the main goal scorer and all this revolved around the Treq because without him making movement that wouldn't have been possible. The difference is, I knew what I wanted to create and choose the roles to suit, so far you still seem conflicted in what you want to achieve.

Why are you using a treq? What will it offer you overall?

Can I keep Cisse as a T but make the LCM or RAM the playmaker? or am I better off using Cisse as a AF/DLF?

You can make one of the CM's the playmaker yeah

As for the 2nd bit of the sentence, that all depends on what you are actually trying to achieve and create.

[PinkSpeedos]

I like my teams to pass the ball around, keep possession and have the FB/WB get beyond my midfield/AMs in order to stretch the defence and/or put balls into the box. I would also like my IF(s) to chip in with goals.

I will be honest and say I have almost no luck with this FM so far, really struggled with it.

[RTHerringbone]

It seems like you want your wingbacks to be the main assist suppliers in your team?

To do this:

1. Free up space in front of them. Move the IFs into more central roles and consider new roles for them

2. Wingbacks belting forward and crossing balls works well if they have enough bodies in the box to aim for. Make sure the roles of your AM line players create movement into the box to support Cisse

3. Wingbacks pressing forwards puts pressure on your DCs. Ensure that you have sufficient defensive presence in midfield to offset this risk. Either a DM line player, or a defensive duty player in the MC line

Having more central players in midfield will help you achieve the passing and possession you crave, and will free up the space your wingbacks need.

[PinkSpeedos]

One thing I am noticing is that nobody really tries to get into the box or beyond Cisse, so I tried changing my AP to CM (A) so he would burst into the box. In theory my IF(A) should also be getting into the box and Cisse (once he has laid off the ball out wide) should himself get into the box.

I have also noticed that Santon is often cutting inside, even if the AML is set to IF(S). As I understand it WB(A) should look to get beyond the midfield and cross the ball from the byline, he very rarely goes down the line and its even rarer for him to put the ball into the box. Could this be because my teams passing is set to shorter? I am reluctant to mess around with individual instructions, especially until I have got a basic formation and tactic that is wielding some success

[RTHerringbone]

I have also noticed that Santon is often cutting inside, even if the AML is set to IF(S). As I understand it WB(A) should look to get beyond the midfield and cross the ball from the byline, he very rarely goes down the line and its even rarer for him to put the ball into the box. Could this be because my teams passing is set to shorter? I am reluctant to mess around with individual instructions, especially until I have got a basic formation and tactic that is wielding some success

Is the IF still in his way when he cuts inside? If not, does Santon have any PPMs?

I wouldn't touch individual settings and for me, default passing is a far better option than Shorter and it will not lessen your possession, it just gives more options and more variety.

[PinkSpeedos]

His only PPM is run with ball often. I have set him as a FB (S) with an IF(A) infront, I have made Ben Arfa an AP(S) in the AMR and placed the RB as a WB(A). This seemed to bring a bit more balance and saw Santon running inside a lot less often.

Default passing is something I may have to try

[Draigh]

I have also noticed that Santon is often cutting inside, even if the AML is set to IF(S).

Santon is right-footed, so when played on the left his natural movement with the ball will be going inside. Having him hug the touchline will decrease this but when push comes to shove, he'll still go inside.

[PinkSpeedos]

Santon is right-footed, so when played on the left his natural movement with the ball will be going inside. Having him hug the touchline will decrease this but when push comes to shove, he'll still go inside.

Do you know, that is something I just didnt think to check at all, I will probably be better off playing someone else in that position then

[agentvinz]

Cisse isn't suited to treq at all. I would set him as poacher/AF, and set on of the winger to support role, maybe Marveaux as winger support.

Try changing the strategy to control as you would push higher and will be more likely to score rather than depending on the counter attacks.

Another interesting idea is keeping Santon as left WB(A) but set his wideplay to cut inside, and Marveaux infront of him as Winger support.

[Old_Bootlace]

Firstly, I'm a bit of a neophyte at FM but am have having good success with a 4-1-2-2-1 using a different approach.

Below are some questions I'd be asking about this formation. They are not really criticisms just questions as to whether the current instructions match up with your intended approach.

From looking at your General Strategies and Playing Style:

- passing style has already been mentioned. do you want to cross into the box with short passes?

- will having more expressive for creative freedom actually make your players disobey your strategy? Ben Arfa and Cabaye have the brains for it but are the others going to do things with their PPMs that you don't want them to do?

- is drilling crosses what you really want? crossing to the near post?

- you're playing counter so you'll naturally be playing deep and narrow. this means your best chance to score is during transition.

- are Ben Arfa and Marveaux the kind of players who will run directly at the box on the counter or will they try to play the ball around? because you'd be missing your main attacking opportunity if they aren't the head down run at the box kind of players.

- do you have a striker set up who is going to occupy the two central defenders and give space to your IFs?

- since your team is narrow and deep, other than the counter situation, by the time your lads get into the attacking third your opposition will be set in defence. your midfield does not have the numerical advantage to dink their way through the defence head on.

- so you're obviously going to attack from the wings but will the play already be static by the time your WBs get into position to cross?

- will you have enough players in the box to cross to? 4 or 5 would be good.

- is Cisse a monster at heading? he is going to be dealing with a set defence and two defenders on him. Is he going to be able to beat them both in the air?

- if you plan to have him score at the near post like you have set is he quick enough to get into that position before the defence and be able to finish (poacher)? the angles will be narrow and he will probably be a marked man.

- if you like to play possession you're going to be slowing down the play which allows the opposition to set their defence. how do you plan to create space and generate an opening? how do you plan to drag their defence out of position and exploit it?

- if you are too slow in attack, their wide midfielders could mark your wingbacks and their midfielders could occupy the box negating any numerical advantage you might be trying to have by having your IFs cut inside.

- your IFs could be sitting on the opposition defensive line as you make your way up the pitch giving you less passing options when trying to prise an opening in the defence.