Turning dominance into wins

[Bantamtim]

I'm having a fairly major issue tactically at the moment across several saves, where I dominate games (more possession, more chances) but fail to turn this into wins. I'm not 100% sure where this is going wrong.

This is my tactic - I'm with Bradford City, so I've built it around the strengths of the side, which are the wingers and midfield playmakers.

The logic behind this: I have an excellent right winger in Anderson who I want out wide on the right - I've gone for wide midfielder rather than winger because I don't want him just hugging the line. On the left, I have a good left sided midfielder in Morris who can also play inside - he tucks in, allowing Meredith to overlap. Up front I have Del Piero as a false nine, and Billy Clarke behind him - with the False Nine in place, I want a couple of runners from midfield who can get past him and into the box - these should be Clarke and Anderson - and I also have a roaming playmaker to control the game from the middle of the park and provide a creative threat as well.

The defence is fairly standard - defend/cover CB pairing, and Darby as a more orthodox wing back compared to Meredith. Liddle plays as a CM (D) to sit in the midfield and mop things up.

Player instructions are default apart from getting the keeper to pass it short and these three:

However, I keep getting games like this:

I dominate, I don't take my chances and get punished for it. I often seem to end up camped outside the opponent's box but not opening them up, and eventually having a blocked shot as my players struggle to find space in the box.

A couple of questions here:

1) Is there anything within my tactics that I can improve in order to create better chances? The wide roles seem to work nicely, but what about the central ones, specifically up front? I've tried Work Ball Into the Box in Team Instructions, but that reduces the amount of shots I take without actually creating anything better.

2) What can I do with my AMC? He keeps being anonymous (no shots in that game, subbed) and doesn't make the runs beyond Del Piero into the box. I've tried Shadow Striker as well and that hasn't been successful.

[SpartyOn]

I'd consider swapping your central midfield roles. Seems like the WM/S and RPM might share space a bit. Swap them and the CM/D gives you more cover for the attacking wingback, while the RPM would be in position to supply the WM/A.

Are your players rushing shots? Seems like the tempo might be a bit high for a short passing game. Lowering the tempo and/or adding Work Ball into Box might make your players a little more selective in their shooting.

ETA: I see you tried Work Ball into the Box already, missed that the first time. Still, it might work better when coupled with a lower tempo.

[RTHerringbone]

At last! Someone not using a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1! And Del Piero too!

SpartyOn has a point, it's possible that the narrow Morris and Evans might be a bit snug at times. Keep an eye on that and also make sure that the ROM doesn't leave the CM (D) doing too much when he wanders up field to support play. I would also look at the Cover Defender on the side of the WB (A), because that could stretch the gap on that side when the WB (A) advances; it might make sense to switch them, especially given the MC Duty allocation.

I think it's a decent system and you aren't far off from doing OK. How do Bradford rank in the division in terms of quality? What sort of formations do you face?

[Bantamtim]

Cheers for the feedback - I've swapped my midfielders over (they were that way round because one of my potential playmakers is left footed), knocked the tempo down a bit and changed the AM role to Shadow Striker to see what happens. We've won both games since, and this one was particularly dominant:

Sadly, Del Piero hasn't done that well, and with Devante Cole back to fitness and Iliev getting two from the bench he may drop down. He's still making an amazing tutor for Cole though.

We're predicted 5th, and I've improved on that squad - should definitely be pushing for the top two.

[RTHerringbone]

If you've got a good reputation, you're probably finding team standing off you a bit and trying to counter you. That'll tend to give a pattern where you probably have equal or inferior possession, lots of shots (some from range), but seem to be suckered by fewer shots from the AI. Odd though it may sound, you may be better off playing Counter against an inferior side and Standard against equal ranking sides. This is because by sitting back, you'll make the more defensive teams try to step out and play against you. As soon as that happens, you'll get a chance to attack spaces. That Shrewsbury result is a proper spanking

[themightyyak]

If you've got a good reputation, you're probably finding team standing off you a bit and trying to counter you. That'll tend to give a pattern where you probably have equal or inferior possession, lots of shots (some from range), but seem to be suckered by fewer shots from the AI. Odd though it may sound, you may be better off playing Counter against an inferior side and Standard against equal ranking sides. This is because by sitting back, you'll make the more defensive teams try to step out and play against you. As soon as that happens, you'll get a chance to attack spaces. That Shrewsbury result is a proper spanking

This is why the game is so impenetrable. Your advice (which I see the logic in) contradicts directly that of the mentalities as described in game - e.g. Counter being best used in games you expect to be up against it.

[RTHerringbone]

This is why the game is so impenetrable. Your advice (which I see the logic in) contradicts directly that of the mentalities as described in game - e.g. Counter being best used in games you expect to be up against it.

I agree that some sections of the Mentality descriptions should just be removed. I would prefer them just to say (in more elegant prose) "Fast, high, wide" or "Slow, deep, narrow". Really the extent to which you are a favourite or not is irrelevant. FM is now in a better place than ever because counter attacking is now a viable strategy. Lots of the systems posted in here or other sites tend to be wholly predictable: 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1, Control or Attacking. That's always been the case and this is the year that playing that way by default can get punished. That's not to say that those Mentalities and formations aren't viable, but you need to read the context of the match properly.

[luka_zg]

I don't really see the logic behind sitting back when playing inferiour opposition to lure them out. Why would they open up just because you're playing deeper. You are still a bigger and better team and they should be perfectly happy to sit back and wait the game to be played out for a draw.

Secondly, when I wrote in one of the threads how I played counter at Everton with ManUtd I was getting feedback that it's normal I couldn't create anything because Everton also was sitting back. It kind of goes against what you've said here.

Now, I'm playing with PSG and I can only see my team dominate against inferiour teams when playing control and high press with high tempo. Any attempt to play counter mentality with the idea to dominate possession and lure opponents out results in totally ineffective attacking part of the game.

[RTHerringbone]

I don't really see the logic behind sitting back when playing inferiour opposition to lure them out. Why would they open up just because you're playing deeper. You are still a bigger and better team and they should be perfectly happy to sit back and wait the game to be played out for a draw.

Secondly, when I wrote in one of the threads how I played counter at Everton with ManUtd I was getting feedback that it's normal I couldn't create anything because Everton also was sitting back. It kind of goes against what you've said here.

As stated above: "you need to read the context of the match properly." It wasn't a prescriptive statement of "If you do this, this will happen", it was more about offering an alternative approach. Constantly hammering a deep defensive side with wave after wave of attack can force an error, but it produces a brand of football I'm not a fan of.

[Raniel3]

I agree that some sections of the Mentality descriptions should just be removed. I would prefer them just to say (in more elegant prose) "Fast, high, wide" or "Slow, deep, narrow". Really the extent to which you are a favourite or not is irrelevant. FM is now in a better place than ever because counter attacking is now a viable strategy. Lots of the systems posted in here or other sites tend to be wholly predictable: 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1, Control or Attacking. That's always been the case and this is the year that playing that way by default can get punished. That's not to say that those Mentalities and formations aren't viable, but you need to read the context of the match properly.

I don't really see problems with mentalities (except for some descriptions, I would like to see counter and control being replaced by "rather defensive" and "rather offensive" or something like that), especially as this year we see every effect they have. There is nothing wrong with adjusting mentalities to the fact whether you are favorite or not, as long as you understand mentality as "how much risk do we take to score a goal". Unless your team really rushes shots (which happens when you play faster than your team is able to against good defenses), you will score more goals when playing more offensive. However, you will also concede a lot more. I even think the probability of scoring is not increased as much as the probability of conceding is. If you're the far better team, that's okay because your good offense will still outscore them, probably. If both teams are equal, you will actually lower your chances to win, because you give the opponent better odds by taking a risk that it too high for your team's quality. So the strategy of adjusting your mentality to your team's and the opponent's quality is generally a good idea. Of course, in certain situtations the changes that come with the higher mentality can be a weak point themselves (e.g. a too high defensive line against a direct passing team with fast strikers) and lower your odds even further, but as I said, this year you can easily see that and change it accordingly.

That said, I like my matches ending 1-0 or 2-0 instead of 4-2, so I rarely use higher mentalities than standard (the occasional control in matches where I want to secure the win ASAP, so I can sub and rest players for continental matches). Still I don't think it's entirely to say "play more defensive when you're the favorite and more offensive when you're the underdog". Certain changes coming with these mentalities MIGHT actually help, but that highly depends on your players, the opponent, and anyway is better exercised through the team instructions, in my opinion.

[MartinGregory84]

Tim: I have just got Bradford promoted through the playoffs using a similair formation the only change I had was using Evans as a Support DLP and Liddle as Defence Ball Winning Midfielder had a lot more success that way.