Tactical Assistance - 433

[WITW]

Howdy folks,

I've got a very enjoyable lower league game going at the moment, made all the more fun by finally finding a system that seems to work. I'm playing as Gloucester in the Conference North, predicted 17th (board objective was just to be competitive) and currently sitting 5th after 11 games.

Really, I was just looking for a bit of advice from more experienced players to help solidify my tactic and see if my thought process is reasonable.

I went for a 433 (4-1-2-2-1) as it's something I've had success with in the past. I don't have access to my computer just now so I can't post a screenshot, but basic roles and duties are as below.

GK - Goalkeeper, Defend

RB - Full Back, Support

RCB - Central Defender, Support

LCB - Central Defender, Cover

LB - Full Back, Attack

DM - Half Back, Defend

RCM - Central Midfielder, Attack

LCM - Central Midfielder, Support

AMR - Inside Forward, Attack

AML - Inside Forward, Attack

CF - Deep Lying Forward, Support

Team Instructions - Shorter Passing, Push Higher Up, Close Down More.

No specific player instructions.

As you can see, I've left it fairly simple, but here is my reasoning for some of my choices:

Firstly, the central defence is by far my weakest area, so I figured that pressing and trying to win the ball high up the park, would be a better option than sitting back and allowing better teams to attack us, hence my higher line and closing down. The team's passing stats are amongst the worst in the league, so I've chosen to keep it short and simple. I did originally have Work Ball Into Box on, but found we were scoring a fair amount from crosses, so didn't want to discourage that.

My Left Back is by far and away my best player, with a crossing stat of 15, so it seems like a no brainer to have him getting forward as much as possible. my Right Back is solid, but unspectacular going forward so suits a support option. My Half Back drops nicely into a back three when we're attacking, to allow my left back to push on.

Attacking wise, I'm pretty happy with the tactic. We generally have more possesion and chances than our opponents, and the goals are spread nicely amonst our attacking players. We do concede some soft goals though and, whilst my team's lack of ability might play a part, I'm sure there's something I can do about it.

One thing I have noticed is that when we are attacking, and the other team clears the ball, there's a lot of space between my back line and my midfielders, and opposition players tend to pick up the loose ball, setting them on the counter. My inital thought would be to change my CM-S to a DLP-S in the hope that he fills this space, but I don't really have anyone capable of filling that role. Would giving my CM-S an individual instruction of "Hold Position" achieve the same thing, and would it negate the rest of his game?

Apologies for the somewhat lengthy post, but I guess I have 3 main questions.

1. Is my thought process above reasonable? I'm not in the habit of putting a lot of effort into the tactical side of the game, so this is my first real foray into it.

2. Are there any obvious holes/flaws with my system, and could it be improved? (I'm sure it can!).

3. How could the system be changed, whilst retaining the basic shape, to make it a counter attacking/defensive option. I'm conscious that I don't currently have a "Plan B" for playing against the better teams. I haven't needed one thus far, but I'm sure I will going forward.

Any help or thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

[rayr27]

I play quite a similar set-up to this. Same shape with a HB and same roles for front 3. I think you're logic is fairly reasonable. With regards to the gap between D and M, I'd suggest is making your CM(S) a BWM(S). This will help with your press, he'll still get forward but be more inclined to 'get back in' once you lose the ball. If you have a player who can play the role, a BBM rather than the CM(A) might also provide attacking threat with a bit more defensive responsibility,

Also, I tend to have both CBs on a defend duty. They can be pushed quite a way apart when you have a HB and if one is being instructed to play deeper than the other it might cause you problems with balls in behind, which is a risk already with you playing a high line.

Difficult to answer your last point without knowing what mentality you're using at the minute. But if you play 'counter' then ideally you want your CMs to sit behind the ball but have licence to get forward when in possession. The two support roles mentioned above are a good fit for this. Hope that is of some help.

[anorthernboy]

I found changing my Half Back to a Deep Lying Playmaker on a defend duty. He will sit in the hole you mentioned and soak up those long balls which cause you problems. He will always be available whilst in possession although he will sit slightly higher than the Half Back.

[WITW]

I play quite a similar set-up to this. Same shape with a HB and same roles for front 3. I think you're logic is fairly reasonable. With regards to the gap between D and M, I'd suggest is making your CM(S) a BWM(S). This will help with your press, he'll still get forward but be more inclined to 'get back in' once you lose the ball. If you have a player who can play the role, a BBM rather than the CM(A) might also provide attacking threat with a bit more defensive responsibility,

Also, I tend to have both CBs on a defend duty. They can be pushed quite a way apart when you have a HB and if one is being instructed to play deeper than the other it might cause you problems with balls in behind, which is a risk already with you playing a high line.

Difficult to answer your last point without knowing what mentality you're using at the minute. But if you play 'counter' then ideally you want your CMs to sit behind the ball but have licence to get forward when in possession. The two support roles mentioned above are a good fit for this. Hope that is of some help.

Many thanks for the helpful reply. I like your reasoning for the defender's duties and must confess I hadn't considered how a half back would affect their positioning. I had considered a BBM, but don't really have anyone with the ability to do it.

In terms of the BWM, I have always been hesitant to use them ever since I read here that they tend to get pulled out of position a lot. I may give that one a try though and see of it helps fill the space. I'd certainly rather not change to a DLP in the DM position, as I like the way the half back plays in this system.

I'm currently playing with an Attacking mentality, which seems to be working, but this is where I struggle sometimes. I don't really know where to begin with turning this system into a counter attacking one. Would I need to drop my higher line/pressing instructions, or would my team still implement those instructions, but within the confines of an overriding counter strategy? (So, for example, play a "high" line, but not quite as high as with an attacking strategy).

[rayr27]

It depends how you want to play. You are correct in your assertion that moving to a more defensive mentality will cause your d-line to drop and your team to press a little less aggressively. Counter-pressing can be very effective though. I have a counter and a control version of my 4-3-3 and I tend to only apply the 'push up' instruction with the counter one so the line is set in roughly the same place with both.

Conversely. If you want to sit deep and break quickly, you could perhaps use stand off, and tighter marking, perhaps combined with a slightly more direct passing style.