My 4-4-1-1 under construction

[Coolcup]

Hi

I am playing a 4-4-1-1 style tactic as follows:

GK (d), WBL (d), WBR (s), CD (d), CD (d), RGA (s), DM (s), WML (a), WMR (s), TQ (a) in the AM slot, CF (s)

Very fluid, control.

Team instructions:

Retain possession, shorter passing, play out of defence, work ball into box, whipped crosses, push higher up, higher tempo.

I am in the early days and still tweaking the tactic but this is what I've landed on so far. I have two questions:

1. Any glaring errors or thoughts on the approach so far? Any thoughts on any changes I can make for the better?

2. Is it more productive to play the AMC and the ST offset (ie AMC in the AMCL slot and ST on the right hand side) or play them directly behind each other?

Many thanks

[OrientTillIDie]

In my opinion, retain possession and higher tempo sort of contradict each other. It's much harder to keep the ball if you're trying to move it faster and get it forward quicker.

Also, a trequartista and complete forward up top means both will be floating about looking for space. They'll potentially get in each other's way and also will leave you with no striker up front.

[Coolcup]

In my opinion, retain possession and higher tempo sort of contradict each other. It's much harder to keep the ball if you're trying to move it faster and get it forward quicker.

Also, a trequartista and complete forward up top means both will be floating about looking for space. They'll potentially get in each other's way and also will leave you with no striker up front.

Thanks for the suggestion. Agree on the conflict re retain possession and higher tempo. I found I needed retain possession to avoid the front two creative players from trying wasteful passes all the time. This made my team play a lot slower as it also affects the tempo instruction so I pushed this higher to offset for the rest of the team. Does that make any sense?

Interesting point on the treq and complete forward. Perhaps I need my striker to be more static positionally, like a DLF?

[OrientTillIDie]

Yeah I get what you mean. It's tough to find the right balance.

With regards to the striker, it's a tough one when you want to play a trequartista. I'd almost be tempted to play a defensive forward because the trequartista will not do any work. I rarely use the trequartista because it's so hard to fit around other roles and severely limits the striker role you can use.

[cyoung17]

Disagree on both counts. You can absolutely have retain possession and a higher tempo. It will naturally affect your overall possession stat because the game measures possession on time between turnovers as opposed to percentage of completed passes. Therefore if you play a low tempo then this will increase the stat because players take more time on the ball. Even with a higher tempo, retain possession will still reduce passing distances, lowers tempo to a degree despite you offsetting that and minimises risky passes which is what you say you are trying to achieve.

There is also nothing to say that a T and CF combo can't work. The T will be very mobile but the CF doesn't drop as deep and can lead the line very successfully. You just have to watch how they behave in match but there is nothing on paper to suggest that they can't work together.

[OrientTillIDie]

Disagree on both counts. You can absolutely have retain possession and a higher tempo. It will naturally affect your overall possession stat because the game measures possession on time between turnovers as opposed to percentage of completed passes. Therefore if you play a low tempo then this will increase the stat because players take more time on the ball. Even with a higher tempo, retain possession will still reduce passing distances, lowers tempo to a degree despite you offsetting that and minimises risky passes which is what you say you are trying to achieve.

There is also nothing to say that a T and CF combo can't work. The T will be very mobile but the CF doesn't drop as deep and can lead the line very successfully. You just have to watch how they behave in match but there is nothing on paper to suggest that they can't work together.

Fair point. In my experience, they were the issues I faced and when I changed away from them I had much more success

[ozilthegunner]

Yeah so I don't have much input on the Treq/CF issue.

But as for the 2 TIs (retain possession/high tempo). The supposed issue is that IF you are trying to play a high possession game, THEN 'high tempo' will be a problem for you. The assumption is that if you are using 'retain possession' you are using it to play a high possession game, and thus someone will suggest you have conflicting TIs.

BUT, I think that is too quick and your explanation of why you have both indicates that. You are not using 'retain possession' to play an overall high possession game (or at least that isn't why you said you added it) but rather to reduce a particular issue you saw (wasteful passing in the front).

And then you note that in adding 'retain possession' you thought your team as a whole slowed down too much so you compensated. So long as that didn't TOTALLY undo your reason for having 'retain possession' then I think what you did sounds spot on - you paid attention to what was going on, made smart use of a TI to make things work better and then checked again to see how things turned out.

so anyway, the point really being that 'retain possession' as a TI does not necessarily mean 'I want to play a high possession game' and the general objection to higher tempos is that they make maintaining possession difficult. So there could be a conflict, but need not (depending on why you are actually using the TI).

One question I think you should ask yourself is where you expect your goals to come from? The team seems to be a bit heavy on creators while light on finishers. Maybe as you have played that hasn't been the case, but that is just one issue that sticks out at me a bit.

[Coolcup]

Yeah so I don't have much input on the Treq/CF issue.

But as for the 2 TIs (retain possession/high tempo). The supposed issue is that IF you are trying to play a high possession game, THEN 'high tempo' will be a problem for you. The assumption is that if you are using 'retain possession' you are using it to play a high possession game, and thus someone will suggest you have conflicting TIs.

BUT, I think that is too quick and your explanation of why you have both indicates that. You are not using 'retain possession' to play an overall high possession game (or at least that isn't why you said you added it) but rather to reduce a particular issue you saw (wasteful passing in the front).

And then you note that in adding 'retain possession' you thought your team as a whole slowed down too much so you compensated. So long as that didn't TOTALLY undo your reason for having 'retain possession' then I think what you did sounds spot on - you paid attention to what was going on, made smart use of a TI to make things work better and then checked again to see how things turned out.

so anyway, the point really being that 'retain possession' as a TI does not necessarily mean 'I want to play a high possession game' and the general objection to higher tempos is that they make maintaining possession difficult. So there could be a conflict, but need not (depending on why you are actually using the TI).

One question I think you should ask yourself is where you expect your goals to come from? The team seems to be a bit heavy on creators while light on finishers. Maybe as you have played that hasn't been the case, but that is just one issue that sticks out at me a bit.

Thanks for understanding the tempo / retain possession combination. What you are saying is precisely correct.

On your last point, it is a good question. I went for more support duties as I have the overall tactic on control so figured I didn't want the mentalities of the players being too stretched towards attack. I felt the default control setting would have them set fairly high anyway. The goals are meant to come from the WML (A): he has cut inside, get further forward, roam from position, sit narrower selected and the CF (S). On the latter, I originally had him set as a CF (A) but I felt when looking at ProZone, he was too far apart from the rest of the team in terms of his average position. Would you go for a different ST / AMC combination?

[mrw072]

Hi

I am playing a 4-4-1-1 style tactic as follows:

GK (d), WBL (d), WBR (s), CD (d), CD (d), RGA (s), DM (s), WML (a), WMR (s), TQ (a) in the AM slot, CF (s)

Very fluid, control.

Team instructions:

Retain possession, shorter passing, play out of defence, work ball into box, whipped crosses, push higher up, higher tempo.

I am in the early days and still tweaking the tactic but this is what I've landed on so far. I have two questions:

1. Any glaring errors or thoughts on the approach so far? Any thoughts on any changes I can make for the better?

2. Is it more productive to play the AMC and the ST offset (ie AMC in the AMCL slot and ST on the right hand side) or play them directly behind each other?

Many thanks

Looking at your formation the one thing that worries me a bit is why you have wing backs behind a couple of wide midfielders? My worry there is if they would just get in the way of each other. Personally I wouldn't play wing-backs behind any other wide players because I don't really see the point. So I would be tempted to use full backs in place of the wing backs.

[ozilthegunner]

Looking at your formation the one thing that worries me a bit is why you have wing backs behind a couple of wide midfielders? My worry there is if they would just get in the way of each other. Personally I wouldn't play wing-backs behind any other wide players because I don't really see the point. So I would be tempted to use full backs in place of the wing backs.

When you say this, do you imagine he has the wingbacks in the wingback slot or just the role of wingback assigned to his fullbacks?

I read it as he has two players in the fullback slots, but they are assigned wingback roles. That seems much less problematic to me then actually placing them in the wingback slots (i.e., the DM strata I think? Wherever they go if you have a defensive 3... I never play that way so I may just be confused).

The wingback roles (if not on defend) do default to 'get further forward', which you may think leads to them getting in the way of the wide midfielders, but I believe he has the wide midfielders cutting in (or at least one of them..)

But now, after saying all that I am confused:

The fullback/wingback on the left is on a defend duty, so he will hold position. His wide partner is on an attack duty and has 'get further forward' as well as 'cut inside' enabled. This seems problematic insofar as you may lose any width on that side in attack because the fullback won't be high enough up the pitch and the wide midfielder will be nearer the center of the pitch (but maybe it doesn't play out that way?)

On the other side, the fullback/wingback is on support duty, so will default to 'get further forward' in attack. His partner is on support, but I don't know what PIs you gave him. But this seems like its possible they could get in each other's way. It also seems less necessary to have that wingback on support assuming the wide mid doesn't have orders to get inside - because otherwise he will be providing the width.

I think your idea overall was to not throw everything forward on either side (so you compensated for the WML with the WB(d) but left both right sided players on middle duties). But you also want to think about how the players will position relative to each other and consider passing options, width and whether they are getting in each other's way.

But I do think the only way to figure all this out is to play it out. If it has been working the way you imagine then so be it.

[Coolcup]

When you say this, do you imagine he has the wingbacks in the wingback slot or just the role of wingback assigned to his fullbacks?

Both are in the fullback position but have wingback duties.

The fullback/wingback on the left is on a defend duty, so he will hold position. His wide partner is on an attack duty and has 'get further forward' as well as 'cut inside' enabled. This seems problematic insofar as you may lose any width on that side in attack because the fullback won't be high enough up the pitch and the wide midfielder will be nearer the center of the pitch (but maybe it doesn't play out that way?)

My thinking was that given the wide midfielder was on an attack duty and would be playing further forward, the guy behind him should be more defensive to cover if he loses the ball, hence the defend duty. I set him as a wingback as I thought this would still encourage him to get forward and wide when safe to do so, as opposed to a fullback on defend who might just stay back at all times. Does this logic sound right?

On the other side, the fullback/wingback is on support duty, so will default to 'get further forward' in attack. His partner is on support, but I don't know what PIs you gave him. But this seems like its possible they could get in each other's way. It also seems less necessary to have that wingback on support assuming the wide mid doesn't have orders to get inside - because otherwise he will be providing the width.

The wide mid on support has cut inside and cross more often as well as get further forward (albeit I toggle that on and off). Therefore I wanted a wingback who could provide width as this player cut inside. I chose a support duty as I thought the wide midfielder was not as attack minded being on a support duty, so could encourage the wingback to be a bit more adventurous too. Similar to the other side of the pitch - the idea being that I either play two support duties together or if I have an attack duty, the other should be a defend to cover so that I don't have two players high up the pitch out of position. Maybe I am being a bit too conservative?

I think your idea overall was to not throw everything forward on either side (so you compensated for the WML with the WB(d) but left both right sided players on middle duties).

That's spot on.

I just want to get a bit more attacking thrust out of the tactic while retaining its defensive solidity. I have tried pushing the DMs to a CM position but the defensive solidity just disappears.