3421 DM

[Guest]

I've been trying to create 3421 and I have certain issues.

This is the formation:

                      CF (su)

                 SS (a)  AP(su)

CWB(a)  DM(su)  BWM(d) WB(su)

       BPD(co) DC(d) DC(d)

                GK-SW (su)

 

The problem is, of course, attacking play - I don't have enough bodies up front, or more precisely, I don't have them early enough.

 

I’ve tried with Control + highly structured and

play narrower + push higher TIs.

The logic with control mentality and h. structured shape was it would make all players take more risk, those with attack duty would be extremely attacking oriented (I experimented with WB(a) on the right flank to make him more attacking bcs of this).

 

I've tried with Standard + Fluid (play narrower) to make the team more compact but that didn't quite work , either.

 

I'm aware that most results will be 0-0, 1-0, 1-1, but I want to see better football. Now I'm getting some good goals with my forward passing into space to the shadow striker.

 

I'd like to get CWB(a) more involved, shadow striker more upfield , and my back 3 close to the half line to lead the game.

 

So does anyone have advice how to ‘move’ the whole team upfield and make it a bit more dangerous?

[CamillePunk]

Maybe tell the DM(S) to Get Further Forward to link up better with the SS, or if you have a creative player, change it to RPM? 

[Tyballs]

Lower the tempo to give the deeper positioned players time to join the attacks. Maybee set it to Standard mentelity to lowwwr risk to avoid more direct passes. 

[Guest]

I did instruct the DM(S) to Get Further Forward and I did lower tempo, among other things.

I tried Standard + highly structured but that didn't work, we did not create chances.

Roles & duties are now:

                      CF (su)

                AP(su)    SS (a)

CWB(a)  BWM(d) DM(su)  WB(su)

       BPD(co) DC(d) DC(d)

                     SK (a)

 

I'm using Control + highly structured: lower tempo, shorter passing, much higher d. line, play narrower, prevent short GK distribution.

Adding dribble more + move into channels to the AP(su) had a massive impact - it made him link better with the CWB(a), bringing him into play and developing play on the left which was previously neglected.. 

[Bielsa_ite]

It's hard to say without a bit more information. Control mentality and push higher up is already very aggressive. I doubt PPMs are to blame, maybe in or or two if they like to stay deep especially in those roles that you're trying to push higher. What is also worth noting could be how players in the DM zone automatically push your defence deeper. Again, I'd have thought your overall instructions would more than negate this.

 

Any screenshots of your attacking play where you think your team is too deep?

 

What level of team are you playing with and are you getting forced backwards by the opposition rather than your play?

 

I find it interesting how your front three and high wingbacks aren't deemed attacking enough. In a very similar system of mine (check the thread) that may be something that I need to look out for but I can't say I have had any problems as of yet - but it is early days still.

[Guest]

Hi, thanks for the reply.

Nobody likes to stay deep - in fact, BWM(de) has the "gets further forward" PPM.
DM(su) has "runs with ball often" PPM and is instructed to "get further forward".
RWB has the "gets into opposition area" PPM.

The problem is they are too deep initially, when I win the ball. I've changed BWM(de) to BWM(su) due to Cleon's comments regarding 4231 deep, but that didn't help the attack - it caused a huge gap between defensive line (despite the very high D-line TI) and DM stratum later when my attack develops. That caused defensive vulnerability despite using 3 players at the back....  
I've experimented with moving DM strata players higher, like you have them in your system, but it was to unstable defensively. Plus I like runners from deep..

Yes, regarding my DM strata players pushing defence deeper - that was the reason why I had started with "play higher" TI from the beginning, but I've quickly noticed I can push it all the way up with no bad consequences (I assume that's due to highly structured + using the DM strata - on fluid shape, I couldn't go higher than Standard mentality).

I'm managing Leeds in Championship, I've just began the save so it's the first season. 

I am dominating games, I play on extensive and 4/5 highlights (or even more) are in my favour, showing my team attacking..
I'm relatively vulnerable on flanks, especially as most opposition teams play the doubled flank 442, often with overlapping fullbacks. I use show onto foot instructions to deal with it, but the best cure is me attacking the opposition - which, as I've said - happens more often than not.   

The problem is seeing my team playing exactly how i want. I've stated I've wanted attacking wingbacks - I now have them (see my previous post, the RWB now does cut back passes to the onrushing DM(su) to shoot at goal, the LWB now often gets into goal scoring position and has scored a few goals already)...

The problems to resolve:
1. get DM(su) further forward earlier
2, get SS(a) and Cf(su) in goal scoring positions earlier 
2. get SS(a) go beyond CF(su) always, especially when the attack lasts for some time
 

Issues 2 and 3 are big:
2. those 2 players get into goal scoring opportunities, but later, when the opposition is already consolidated so they're surrounded with opposition players when taking shots.
3. SS(a) will more often than not behave as an attacking midfielder(which he is) than a striker.. When the attack develops after some time, my CF(su), SS(a) and DM(su) are positioned in a small space at the edge of the box and I feel we lack penetration. I can't use forward with attack duty since he'd be too isolated almost always. The other option is to make SS(a) go beyond him.

I feel I have to find a player with desired PPMs (gets further forward and gets into opposition area) + high off the ball and decisions attributes to play the SS role..  Regarding CF(su) , I think I need similar PPMs and attributes + strength and balance too...

These issues are in the core of the formation I've decided to use.. but that's why it's so interesting to use it