Tactical consistency versus adapting to circumstances

[Bunkerossian]

What is the correct balance between sticking to a set of roles in a formation, and adapting to things like player condition, opposition formation and such? I am ashamed to admit that my formations have a lot of changes in roles, with every new match. For example, a Regista slot is turned into a DLP, DM (D) or even an Anchor Man, depending on the fittest player available, and the opposition setup. How could I achieve more consistency, without shoving square pegs into round holes?

[louis7]

I believe it is imperative to make changes in roles and duties depending on players available and the opposition but at the same time, consider your team's holistic approach. Say you're playing away and want to go counterattacking. I wouldn't use a BWM anywhere in midfield as I would want to remain compact. But if I were forced to use one, I would balance it with an anchor man or a CM-d. Then, you also need a creator as someone needs to play the long pass. I would use a regista or a DLP-s but not an AP-s as he tends to stay in the hole and not deeper. So basically, in my opinion the key is balance towards your overall approach to the specific needs of the game.

[tmpnd]

Well it's not that big of a deal IMO really, sometimes it's worth switching roles like DLP/Reg, B2B/BWM, RPM/AP, FB/CWB. Some roles are just more aggressive than other and yes that can make a difference in the nature of your playstyle to better suit your needs.

[gunnerfan]

I find that I often tweak roles based on who is playing a given position. I sometimes also adjust a player's role (or even position) in a match based on what I'm seeing on the pitch. I generally play a 4-4-2 these days, and I often find myself tweaking one of the strikers if I feel he's not dropping deep enough into the midfield and passes are getting cut out too frequently. I usually start him out as a CFs playing alongside an AFa - the two players work really well together; but sometimes I move him back to an AM in an asymmetrical 4-4-1-1 and use him as a TQ - with thanks to herne79 for the suggestion. I also sometimes change my left winger to a WM and give him PIs to cut inside and shoot less (his finishing is only 7) if I find he's getting isolated out on the wing. I also play with the settings on my FBs, either to coax them to move up more to support the wide mids or to hunker down and defend if my opponent is really pressing. I also don't hesitate to change rolls when I make substitutions.

You really have to watch what's happening in the match.

[OrientTillIDie]

I seem to have stumbled across a system that works without having to tweak it much. So far I've only lost 8 league games in one and a half seasons without changing any TIs or PIs. The only thing I might change is one of my striker roles depending on who is available.

[swansongs]

I never change roles based on the player, as the roles operate together as part of a tactical plan. Change one cog and the machine breaks. The initial plan is constructed based on the players I have at my disposal, but I won't change a WB-A to a LFB-D just because I only have a more limited player available due to injuries/suspensions etc. He'll have to work for the team as best he can, getting forward and providing width.

Roles only change if the plan doesn't work.

[SkillfulSpence]

I never change roles based on the player, as the roles operate together as part of a tactical plan. Change one cog and the machine breaks. The initial plan is constructed based on the players I have at my disposal, but I won't change a WB-A to a LFB-D just because I only have a more limited player available due to injuries/suspensions etc. He'll have to work for the team as best he can, getting forward and providing width.

Roles only change if the plan doesn't work.

Completely agree with this... But to extend this point, it depends on the structured or fluid approach that you play. If structured it would have a bigger effect to change a player role than if you played fluidly.

Players are more strict to their roles in structured, so their overall role is quite valuable and not as easily replaced by someone unless they do infact suit that role.