CybrSlydr Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 So, I've pondered and worked with 3 CB systems before and since I'm starting a new Celta save, their initial roster makes them very suitable for the 4-4-1-1 formation. The thing is, they're an ok team and playing in the LIGA BBVA, I think prioritizing defense to concede as few goals as possible is a wise choice, especially in year one. Now, obviously you're thinking, 'If you want defense, why not do a 4-1-4-1?' Well, it happens that my best player is best as an AMC. So, with defense in mind, I thought of this... I'd use FB(S) on both sides with CD(D) in the middle. My midfield 4 would be a pair of WM(A), possibly WM(S) and a CM pair of DLP(D) and CM(S). I would then use the AMC(S) and a DF(S). Standard Mentality and Fluid/Very Fluid shape (reduce distance between the back line and midfield), TIs would be Retain Possession, Push Higher Up, Low Croseses, Stay On Feet, Prevent Short Distribution. I looked into a 4-5-1 (since your formation on the Tactics screen is how you defend) as that would give me a nice number of MFs, but my AMC player cannot play CM at all. Thoughts? I'm still trying to grasp the whole "tactic creation thing". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
callamity Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 would need to know more but the system you are using is closely linked to my one and my defense is solid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CybrSlydr Posted November 2, 2016 Author Share Posted November 2, 2016 A problem for me is finding good Wide Midfielders. Marc Albrighton could be had for about $21.5m and I picked up Meli to play right midfield (I love that guy...). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CybrSlydr Posted November 2, 2016 Author Share Posted November 2, 2016 What other info should I be considering when developing this tactic? I'm considering changing the midfield pair to a BWM(D) with a DLP(S). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
enigmatic Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 FM16 central defenders play very well as a pair, unlike some older instalments, but the success of your high line is going to depend on whether they have reasonable pace (probably even more so than a back three) 4-4-1-1 is very solid if your players are good enough and your initial mentality setup seems very balanced and sensible. The DLP(D) tends to sit so deep he can look a bit like the holding midfielder in many 4-1-4-1 setups anyway. I like "play out of defence" as a setting, particularly if I've got a DLP and I'm encouraging my defence to push up and play close to my midfield anyway. Personally I like wingers (who defend a lot more in a 4-4-1-1 than a 4-2-3-1) with one on support to be the main crosser and one on attack to arrive on the far post, but I'm pretty sure you can get just as much joy from crosses with WMs . If your AM is Aspas then worth considering playing him as a Trequartista too, since this will give him a lot of creative freedom and encourage the team to feed him the ball and he's not really there to defend anyway. Just be careful with your reloading :-p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CybrSlydr Posted November 2, 2016 Author Share Posted November 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, enigmatic said: FM16 central defenders play very well as a pair, unlike some older instalments, but the success of your high line is going to depend on whether they have reasonable pace (probably even more so than a back three) 4-4-1-1 is very solid if your players are good enough and your initial mentality setup seems very balanced and sensible. The DLP(D) tends to sit so deep he can look a bit like the holding midfielder in many 4-1-4-1 setups anyway. I like "play out of defence" as a setting, particularly if I've got a DLP and I'm encouraging my defence to push up and play close to my midfield anyway. Personally I like wingers (who defend a lot more in a 4-4-1-1 than a 4-2-3-1) with one on support to be the main crosser and one on attack to arrive on the far post, but I'm pretty sure you can get just as much joy from crosses with WMs . If your AM is Aspas then worth considering playing him as a Trequartista too, since this will give him a lot of creative freedom and encourage the team to feed him the ball and he's not really there to defend anyway. Just be careful with your reloading :-p The problem with Aspas is his natural Treq ability is in the Striker strata, not the AM strata. In the AM strata, he's best as a AMC(A). This wouldn't really be a problem moving him to the ST strata, but Guidetti is a really good striker and doesn't play AM at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
enigmatic Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 I wouldn't treat those indicator bars for roles as the be all and end all; they're just a rough approximation based on a small selection of attributes. Vanilla AM is less of a magnet for passes and slightly more disciplined and defensive which may or may not suit your style of play better, but Aspas can certainly dribble, pass, shoot and make good runs which is what you want from your Trequartista in either strata. Preferring him as an AM instead is really more down to whether you want him to contribute to the defence and roam around less, or whether you want your team to attack through your wide players a bit more often and through him a bit less often. Easiest way is to switch between the two periodically and see if on average the team plays better with him in one role than the other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CybrSlydr Posted November 3, 2016 Author Share Posted November 3, 2016 Looks like Aspas is better at Treq in the AM strata than I thought before. So I'm going to make that change. I'm also looking at my RM/LM - I'm thinking a combination of W(S) on the left with Cross More Often and Cross From Deeper with a WM(A) on the right who gets further forward and cuts inside (but does NOT sit narrower - I think that might crowd things a bit) attacking the far post is a sound idea, do you agree? Couple this with Aspas as a Treq in the AMC spot and Guidetti as a CF(S), to me it sounds like that should be a decent attack (BBM and DLP(D) in the CM). Thoughts? EDIT: Just occurred to me, I should probably change the DLP(D) to a CM(D) since we have Aspas as a Treq in the AMC slot - or do I want a DLP(D) back there threading passes up to him or others? Hmm... EDIT 2: I'm also wondering... Since Aspas is in the AM slot, I don't really need my second CM to get too far forward since Aspas will be there for the pass, so a BBM (which automatically has Roam) will leave my CM(D) stranded while if I made them a CM(S), they would stay more in their spot since they do not automatically roam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CybrSlydr Posted November 3, 2016 Author Share Posted November 3, 2016 Well, we just lost our first game against Levante away 2-0. First goal was on a set piece - corner came in and went around the top of the box. Their player struck it and my keeper dove and missed, but a defender headed it off the line... but right back to a Levante player who put it into a gaping net. Second goal was kinda similar - cross came into the box, defender headed it away but right to a Levante player at the top of the box who placed it into the top corner. As you can see, the stats are nearly identical. Their finishing was just better than ours. It also appears a major problem are people still trying to integrate into the squad. Couple this with the fact that even with pre-season training focused upon match tactics we're still only "Competent", and barely so. Most of our impact players had a good game - Aspas had a 7.8, Meli had 7.5 and Wass had a 7.0. Keeper had a good game too. It's important to note that in the first half, I had Bentancur cutting in as a WM(A) and Muller as a W(S). In the second half, I switched them and had Bentancur as the W(S) and Mueller as the WM(A). I think that worked pretty well as the second half was certainly our better half of the two. However, when I look at this it says Guidetti had one overall chance - I'm wondering if that's telling me he's too isolated up top as a CF(S) and should think about making him an F9 or DLP(S)? Without the ball, I think our shape looks good - two clearly defined banks of four, the CM pair are not isolated from each other and the L/RM are where they should be. I also think I can be pretty pleased with the location of our shots - almost all are from inside the box and almost half were on-target. Looking at this, I think having my Winger get farther forward isn't working out from a crossing standpoint. More than half of the crosses attempted were intercepted - to me, that says they're taking too long to get forward and put the crosses in so the defense has time to get into position and get the ball instead of my guys. I think I'm going to remove the "get farther forward" and add "cross from deep" to try and give my attacking players a better chance at the ball. Four half-chances and one Clear Cut isn't too bad - I think I would improve upon this if we had fewer crosses intercepted. I would also say that we were extremely good in the air defensively - 14 key aerial challenges on top of winning 32 and only losing 9. So folks, looking at this, what kind of advice or suggestions do you have - any other game data I didn't provide that would be useful? Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorgvandervloed Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 This might be completely off, but might be something to look at. Starting with your CS (S) and Treq (A); Generally, a playmaker creates play and isn't a goalscorer. A Treq might be a bit different because he is given lots of freedom to do whatever, but its something to look out for. Also, he has roaming activated so he might be everywhere on the pitch except for in the AMC spot. The same goes for the CS; he has roaming activated as well (if I'm not mistaken, I'm at work) so there might be times that none of your front two players will be close to goal! As i see it, at the moment, there is only one player making consistent runs into the box and thats your WM (A) and this might be too little. I havent seen any games so you'll need to be the judge of that, but worth looking at different combinations up front or adding another runner from midfield. Another runner from midfield will probably make your more vulnerable in defense so would probably start with looking at your AMC and forward. Just my two cents:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank27 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Maybe a thought is to use Guidetti as a DLF(A)? One of the weaknesses of using your wingers so defensively is that there's very few players in position to threaten with runs behind the defense. Guidetti might not be the fastest player but as a DLF(A) he'll at least be in a position to run onto through balls which might give your AMC a lot more room to work with (opposition defenders can't just step forward at will anymore) and it would give Guidetti a lot more opportunities to score. Also playing your AMC as an advanced playmaker (S) would make your team more solid defensively because trequartista doesn't contribute to defense. So basically you're just as defensively solid as a 4-4-2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CybrSlydr Posted November 3, 2016 Author Share Posted November 3, 2016 I'll try putting Aspas as an AP(S) to see what that does. Next game after that I'll switch Guidetti and see what happens. Appreciate the input folks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank27 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 I think it's about changing the AMC and ST as a unit. With a TQ and CF(S) you've got two roaming creators and no finishers. With Guidetti as DLF(A) he becomes more of a finisher. Another solution could be keeping him as CF(S) and turning Aspas into an AM(A) to turn him into a finisher. Either way I think an AM(A) or AP(S) is a lot more defensively solid than a TQ(A). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.