4-1-4-1: Extremely poor offense

[Saris]

In this version I decided to give a 4-1-4-1 a try as I like the defensive stability it provides. However, using the system depicted below, I struggle on offense. On Extended the game has barely any highlights, my team is averaging around 7 or 8 shots per game (3-4 of them longshots and about 2 on target) and the overall quality of chances is extremely poor. We do win quite some games, but often through corners or crosses.

 

What I don't really like about my team's movement are the following things: The W(s) is extremely reluctant to push forward, while the FB(a) behind him basically sits directly on top of him. The left flank is basically dead on offense.
Additionally, my IW(a) is often too wide for my liking, while the WB(s) behind him never utilizes the space he gets if the IW(a) decides to cut inside.

Overall, the build-up of an attack is slow and with only a few players offering proper support, resulting in useless passes into space or forced shots from distance.

Do you guys have any suggestions on how I could have a better attacking game than the current one?

[sporadicsmiles]

This is by no means a bad looking formation, and on the whole I really like the balance of the roles and duties. You have also identified some clear weaknesses in the play, which is the biggest challenge!

Let's consider things one step at a time. The slow build up play is not that surprising, if I am honest. You are quite deep naturally, are a defence heavy formation, and are looking to build from the back. All of these things can make the build up play slow. You also lack a definite playmaker (not that this is a problem in general), who is more likely to try a risky defence splitting pass. The solution? You can try to play with the tempo, the team shape, the mentality or the defensive line.

The build up play down the left. You have to ask yourself what you actually want these players to do. Do you want your winger to bomb down the wing and get crosses in? Then you want him to have an attack duty. Do you want the fullback to provide more width, or act as a supporting option in midfield? You can alter him too. The best thing to do is to play around with some combinations to see which gives you the playing style you want to see.

On the right hand side, you face the same problem. With a defensive anchorman you can in principle try to push forward a little more with both wing backs. I assume you want the WB to provide more width? Then you can try to set him up more attacking, and the IW on support. Or leave them both on attack and observe. A WB(A) may naturally push the IW further inside.

Finally, you have a DLF(S) as your only attacking player. He is not by default going to look to score all that much, but more to bring other players into the attack and help create for them. This may cause issues if there is nobody in the box for your wide players to cross to. Further, it is so easy to see him get isolated in such a formation, and marked out of the game. Again, you need to find the balance between getting him involved, and having him as a goal threat. It depends on the player too. If you have a fast, skillful player who can dribble, you may want to get him the ball early so he can take on the defence before they are set. If you have a strong player with vision, he can do your DLF role you want of him. A tall player who is excellent in the air, you want to get into positions where he can win headers - either in the box or from the goalkeeper. 

[Armistice]

I'm just giving my thought, adding to what sporadicsmiles said, you have no one in the squad besides DLF who will try more risky passes. The anchorman will play simple passes to his team-mates, the BWM will probably try simple passes aswell and unless your CM-A has the Risky Passes PI selected, he won't make those passes either, most likely. Add to that your Standard Mentality which is 50-50 risk appetite and you're pretty dull imo.

[summatsupeer]

Typically in a midfield 3 you'll have a runner, creator and holding player, you have a runner (CM-A) and a holding player (A-D) but the third, the BWM-S isn't a creator and not many BWM have good passing+vision etc.

4141 for me always looks like its meant for counter attacking (doesn't have to be) but since your Playing Out Of Defence, with an Anchorman keeping things simple and the midfielders being mostly runners/dribblers there looks to be a lack of creativity/passing to build attacks.  You don't need a playmaker but if your team is built around fast players you might want to transition the ball quicker to take advantage of those pacey players.  This doesn't mean play a direct/long ball game but getting the ball to the winger / IW / DLF sooner before opponents get back into defensive positions could help.   If you want to be more possession "build from the back" style then I think you want a DLP/HB type DMC who can take a few more risks when he see's the opportunity.  Of course it depends what personnel you have available.

[ajsr1982]

2 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

Typically in a midfield 3 you'll have a runner, creator and holding player, you have a runner (CM-A) and a holding player (A-D) but the third, the BWM-S isn't a creator and not many BWM have good passing+vision etc.

4141 for me always looks like its meant for counter attacking (doesn't have to be) but since your Playing Out Of Defence, with an Anchorman keeping things simple and the midfielders being mostly runners/dribblers there looks to be a lack of creativity/passing to build attacks.  You don't need a playmaker but if your team is built around fast players you might want to transition the ball quicker to take advantage of those pacey players.  This doesn't mean play a direct/long ball game but getting the ball to the winger / IW / DLF sooner before opponents get back into defensive positions could help.   If you want to be more possession "build from the back" style then I think you want a DLP/HB type DMC who can take a few more risks when he see's the opportunity.  Of course it depends what personnel you have available.

 

This is always something I've struggled with in systems such as this one, but it's probably also relevant to the 4-4-2 as well.

In systems such as this, my build up play may revolve around getting it out wide as early as possible for the wingers to carry the ball (great if the opposition over-commit a full back) or drag players towards them before playing the ball inside (good for exploiting a two-man midfield). However, I don't feel like I have the appropriate levers in the tactics creator to do so. My options, as I see it, are:

- Exploit flanks: As I understand it, this merely increases the mentality of wide players, but doesn't do much/anything to focus passes there in transition?

- Clear ball to flanks: Tells defence to hoof it into wide areas. Might work well if I have an AF or a Treq up front, or players in the AML/R positions with an attack duty. The latter sacrifices the low block however.

- Put playmakers on the wings: Will certainly focus passing there, but then I'm restricted by some of the behaviours inherent to playmakers.

I may have some of the above wrong. Any comments welcome.

[Saris]

First of all, thanks for the feedback to all of you so far.

vor 11 Stunden schrieb summatsupeer:

Of course it depends what personnel you have available.

Regarding the players available: My CM(a) would actually be a really good creative player (Passing: 15, Vision: 16), but I'm quite limited regarding the second role in CM, as the players available are mainly the BWM/BBM type. The basic idea behind using Möhwald as a CM(a) and not an AP/DLP was to prevent him from constantly attracting the ball which often lead to the cluttering of my offense in front of the opposition area.

 

vor 11 Stunden schrieb summatsupeer:

If you want to be more possession "build from the back" style then I think you want a DLP/HB type DMC who can take a few more risks when he see's the opportunity.

Interestingly enough, I just decided myself to try out a half-back instead of an anchorman, as my option there has somewhat good passing (14) and vision (12). The general idea behind supplying an Anchor Man was my observation (in another save) that he offered the best passing outlet for my CBs, creating somewhat of a triangle that was quite useful for building up play.

 

vor 11 Stunden schrieb summatsupeer:

4141 for me always looks like its meant for counter attacking (doesn't have to be) but since your Playing Out Of Defence, with an Anchorman keeping things simple and the midfielders being mostly runners/dribblers there looks to be a lack of creativity/passing to build attacks.

Now that's really interesting. I opted to go for the 4-1-4-1 as I read one of Cleon's posts, saying that the ML/MR would be "better" than the AML/AMR, as they would be better positioned on defence without compromising their offensive threat. However, in 2 out 3 saves (1x FM17 and now this one) I couldn't really see the second part. Only my Milan save on FM17 with a Very Fluid mentality achieved to be a constant offensive threat in a 4-1-4-1.

[Cleon]

28 minutes ago, Saris said:

First of all, thanks for the feedback to all of you so far.

Regarding the players available: My CM(a) would actually be a really good creative player (Passing: 15, Vision: 16), but I'm quite limited regarding the second role in CM, as the players available are mainly the BWM/BBM type. The basic idea behind using Möhwald as a CM(a) and not an AP/DLP was to prevent him from constantly attracting the ball which often lead to the cluttering of my offense in front of the opposition area.

 

Interestingly enough, I just decided myself to try out a half-back instead of an anchorman, as my option there has somewhat good passing (14) and vision (12). The general idea behind supplying an Anchor Man was my observation (in another save) that he offered the best passing outlet for my CBs, creating somewhat of a triangle that was quite useful for building up play.

 

Now that's really interesting. I opted to go for the 4-1-4-1 as I read one of Cleon's posts, saying that the ML/MR would be "better" than the AML/AMR, as they would be better positioned on defence without compromising their offensive threat. However, in 2 out 3 saves (1x FM17 and now this one) I couldn't really see the second part. Only my Milan save on FM17 with a Very Fluid mentality achieved to be a constant offensive threat in a 4-1-4-1.

I was talking about a 4231 and not a 4141 no?

Your midfield in the 4141 is too conservative. You play a 4141 that is naturally defensive and has the DMC to cover, yet you choose roles/duties that aren't really attacking orientated. It's a bit of a mess. Why use a conservative formation then play even more conservative with the role/duty selection? You can afford to be more adventurous. It's no wonder you are struggling somewhat. You have no-one really getting forward apart from the CMA, he isn't going to be enough to penetrate the opposition.

You need to think more in terms of what is outlined in this thread, in order to get everyone working as a unit. You need to understand who scores, why and how it all happens. Who supports, who provides, who creates space etc.

 

[Saris]

vor 27 Minuten schrieb Cleon:

I was talking about a 4231 and not a 4141 no?

Alright, got the point. Then I had it mixed up with some German writers who spoke about it. I will definitely go back to the drawing board and think about the roles and duties and see if I can do better.

[denen123]

15 hours ago, Saris said:

In this version I decided to give a 4-1-4-1 a try as I like the defensive stability it provides. However, using the system depicted below, I struggle on offense. On Extended the game has barely any highlights, my team is averaging around 7 or 8 shots per game (3-4 of them longshots and about 2 on target) and the overall quality of chances is extremely poor. We do win quite some games, but often through corners or crosses.

 

What I don't really like about my team's movement are the following things: The W(s) is extremely reluctant to push forward, while the FB(a) behind him basically sits directly on top of him. The left flank is basically dead on offense.
Additionally, my IW(a) is often too wide for my liking, while the WB(s) behind him never utilizes the space he gets if the IW(a) decides to cut inside.

Overall, the build-up of an attack is slow and with only a few players offering proper support, resulting in useless passes into space or forced shots from distance.

Do you guys have any suggestions on how I could have a better attacking game than the current one?

The tactical setup does not seem really bad,and you shouldn't be getting too much stick for it.

Why not add a playmaker in the middle and add an extra attacker(maybe the left winger can be wide MF(a) ). 

Play through the middle(exploit the middle) and build from here.

[Armistice]

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

Your midfield in the 4141 is too conservative. You play a 4141 that is naturally defensive and has the DMC to cover, yet you choose roles/duties that aren't really attacking orientated. It's a bit of a mess. Why use a conservative formation then play even more conservative with the role/duty selection? You can afford to be more adventurous. It's no wonder you are struggling somewhat. You have no-one really getting forward apart from the CMA, he isn't going to be enough to penetrate the opposition.

Isn't the right IW also getting forward a lot?

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, Armistice said:

Isn't the right IW also getting forward a lot?

But where's his supply? it's incredibly limited and mostly coming from the full back.

There's a distinct lack of creativity, and then after that penetrating attacks

[Armistice]

3 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

But where's his supply? it's incredibly limited and mostly coming from the full back.

There's a distinct lack of creativity, and then after that penetrating attacks

I mentioned about lack of creativity in the second post in this thread, but as Cleon said that only CM-A goes forward, I thought an IW-A is not as attacking as I thought it'd be. My post about IW was more of a question rather than an observation.

[Saris]

Okay, I tweaked my tactics based on my own observations and the feedback you gave me. I tried to address the lack of creativity by giving my CM(a) the PI "More risky passes" which should fit his attributes (Passing: 15, Vision: 16) and put the BWM(s) back into a more generalized CM(s)-role (with "Dribble less", as my player is extremely limited in that regard with Dribbling of 8). The Anchor Man turned into a Half Back providing better support in the build-up play from defence.

Additionally, I moved up my left Winger's and my right Wing Back's mentality to attack which so far worked wonders (only one game played so far, though). Due to the WB(a) pushing up further, the IW(a) is tucked in more and contributes much better. The W(a) on the left is also crucial for providing the width that I was lacking beforehand.

What I'm not fully sure about just yet is the role I want to give to my lone striker. After reading Cleon's post about the DLF(s) in his Sheffield system, I decided that this was not the role I wanted to utilize in this setup. I'm still torn between the DLF(a) and the Trequartista, but given that my current striker's attributes better suit the Trequartista, I decided to go with it for the moment.

 

Edit: Okay, another setback. I basically had one good game where I thought I had found a solution and now, two games later, I'm back to the same, tame old ways with more longshots than before...

[gpassosbh]

Hello @Saris, I think this can help you.

 

[Saris]

Okay, so I thought I had found a solution after the first game, but the following three have been pretty abysmal. Admittedly, the first was against a 4-4-2 whilst the others had a denser midfield (4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1DM). I won them, but only through sheer luck on the offensive side. My basic idea behind the tactic was the following:

• Goal-scorers: My striker and the IW(a)
• Space-creators: W(a), WB(a)
• Supporters: CM(a) as the main creator, CM(s) as a link-up player
• How to score goals: Stretching the defense through the WB(a) and the W(a), allowing for spaces to be utilized by my striker and the IW(a) that would allow them to enter the box and get either through balls by the CM(a) or flat crosses (both are midgets) from the wide players. Alternatively, allow for runs from deep from the CM(a) that could rip holes my IW(a) could then utilize.

Sadly, my long shots have been piling up again and I think I have identified three issues that I am facing:

1. My striker: I'm not really satisfied with his role. The idea was to provide some link-up play but also be the one spearheading the attacks. With the trequartista, I have achieved neither. During the build-up, the striker is too far away from the rest of my team, while he is nowhere near the box, when the W(a) would be ready to cross. A DLF(s) is too deep for my liking and while he achieves the supporting task, he is arriving in the box too late. Maybe a DLF(a) could be better here, but I am not too sure. The first tries haven't shown much improvement. But this all could also come down to the lack in support that still exists.
2. My CM(s): The players that I have available for this role all fit into the mold of a defensively oriented midfielder. They either are severely lacking in the passing and dribbling game or are missing the off-the-ball movement/workrate that I would like to see out of that role. Basically, I cannot use them neither as a proper runner nor as a creative player. Hence why I chose the BWM(s) in my first iteration of the tactic. Here I am at a loss based on the players I have available. Finances aren't particularly thrilling and the transfer window is also closed.
3. The IW(a): I am still not too sure about this guy. The W(a) on the other side finally provides the forward runs needed, same goes for the WB(a). Playing my IW on attack sees him not only sitting too far up the pitch for link-up play but also getting into the opposition box too late and still staying too wide in the build-up phase. As a IW(s) he is too timid going forward in my opinion. The reason however could also be the poor off-the-ball movement of the player (11).

And some issues regarding the squad overall:

1. I only have two creative midfielders, the rest consists of players that are naturals in the CB/DM/CM-slots usually lacking the capabilities for a proper supporting role in the CM - at least from my perspective.
2. I am lacking a player that could suit up for the CM-roles that is even half decent at finishing.

Hopefully, this post can clear some things up and hopefully, my idea of how to score goals isn't too stupid 

Edit: Put in some ideas I have regarding my issues under 1. and 2.

[Cleon]

Quote

• Goal-scorers: My striker and the IW(a)

Have you read the role descriptions? How does the IW fit as a regular scorer? I'm not saying he can't score but it's not a role that generally scores frequently. Also the striker role, how does he score if he's moving away from goal?

Quote

• Space-creators: W(a), WB(a)

How do they create space? And if they do create space, what is the use of creating space on the wings, what is this going to achieve? Both are also starting high up the pitch being on attack. I'd say they are more runners that space creators. I don't understand what they are creating space for exactly or how space on the wings is useful. Especially as these players are the players in the side who should be creating, as they are your supply really. Look at the roles you've used for these two players and read what they're supposed to do.

Quote

• Supporters: CM(a) as the main creator, CM(s) as a link-up player

Unless you play a super creative player as the CMA, how exactly is he the main creator? Just because you give someone more risky passing doesn't make them a creator. Just means they'll try more through balls at times, which any player will do already. What specifically makes him your creator?

Also how does the CMS become a link player? Who is he linking up with and then what does he do?

Quote

How to score goals: Stretching the defense through the WB(a) and the W(a), allowing for spaces to be utilized by my striker and the IW(a) that would allow them to enter the box

This doesn't make sense. How does the WB/W create space centrally for the striker and IW to utilise? Your wingers aren't going to occupy the oppositions central players. So exactly how are they create space for the striker to utilise?

Unless of course you mean by crossing. But without anyone making intelligent movement and creating space centrally, then they'll be easy to mark as your 2 wide players will need pin point accuracy to be successful at getting a constant stream of crosses to the striker who will be marked with 2 central defenders.

Quote

either through balls by the CM(a) 

How does he get through balls to the striker if he's marked though? Chances are he just gives the ball away. Someone somewhere has to be creating space for this to be a consistent threat. Your striker is moving away from goal, so how does a through ball help him?

Quote

Alternatively, allow for runs from deep from the CM(a) that could rip holes my IW(a) could then utilize.

How does a player creating space behind the IW help him utilise it? The IWA plays a lot higher up the pitch than the CMA initially, so exactly how can this theory work? Now if the IW was support, I'd maybe see how this might work in the right set up. But not for what you use or describe. If someone is a space creator, they need someone to run into that space. Considering you want the CMA to rip holes, then he needs someone beside him for that to work and not be a lot more advanced than he is. Also the IW isn't really going to cut across from the MR position the MLC position is he . That would be some crazy behaviour. You have your wide players the wrong way around if this is what you want.

Quote

Sadly, my long shots have been piling up again and I think I have identified three issues that I am facing:

This is because none of what you said above makes sense for how you've set up and the roles/duties used. 

Quote

My striker: I'm not really satisfied with his role. The idea was to provide some link-up play but also be the one spearheading the attacks. With the trequartista, I have achieved neither. During the build-up, the striker is too far away from the rest of my team, while he is nowhere near the box, when the W(a) would be ready to cross

This is a prime example of using a role that goes against what you want. If you want to focus on crosses you have to use a role that gets in the box regular or stays in it, so you actually have a target. Using a lone striker who drops deep doesn't make sense when you have no-one else immediately getting into the box. 

Quote

A DLF(s) is too deep for my liking and while he achieves the supporting task, he is arriving in the box too late. Maybe a DLF(a) could be better here, but I am not too sure. The first tries haven't shown much improvement. But this all could also come down to the lack in support that still exists.

Why does the striker have to support attacks though? And who is he supporting exactly? It's not like you really have any bodies going beyond the striker, so I'm confused here. Why not use a proper spearhead that works with a winger like a CF/AF etc? Why not have the other 9 outfield players support the striker. 

Quote

1. The IW(a): I am still not too sure about this guy. The W(a) on the other side finally provides the forward runs needed, same goes for the WB(a). Playing my IW on attack sees him not only sitting too far up the pitch for link-up play but also getting into the opposition box too late and still staying too wide in the build-up phase. As a IW(s) he is too timid going forward in my opinion. The reason however could also be the poor off-the-ball movement of the player (11).

You know something isn't working and you don't know if its the actual role or the player. So why haven't you experimented with maybe a wide midfielder/winger instead? You only speak about IW's, why not explore the other options and see if they're a better fit.

[Saris]

Thanks for the detailed feedback. As you can see based on my rather stupid ideas, I have never delved too deep into tactics in the previous versions. One reason could be that FM15 was my first one and here you could basically be super successful by just dishing out attacking duties and nothing else. I even had direct success with Dortmund on my first save without having any idea what I was doing. Also, I usually watched games only on key highlights before and somehow always created some tactic that worked quite well without exactly knowing why. So you can see that I'm severely lacking on the tactics part which I am now trying to rectify. I am still having a hard time identifying the issues watching a game and linking everything together. But your feedback has given me some more food for thought.

vor 9 Minuten schrieb Cleon:

Have you read the role descriptions? How does the IW fit as a regular scorer? I'm not saying he can't score but it's not a role that generally scores frequently. Also the striker role, how does he score if he's moving away from goal?

What I thought the IW would represent would be the IF just in the ML/MR strata. That's why I thought I could use him as an important goal scorer inside my formation. Now, if I wanted to recreate an IF on ML/MR would it still be the good old modified WM(a) as suggested in previous versions by quite a lot of people?

[summatsupeer]

@Saris remember when people offer advice, they pretty much never take into account other peoples advice, so sticking everything together is often too many changes that unbalances a tactic in a different way.

Now you have a HB dropping into the D-line and 3 of your 4 midfielders on attack leaving only CM-S to link defence and attack.  Have a think about Cleons advice and put something else together.

[Cleon]

14 minutes ago, Saris said:

Thanks for the detailed feedback. As you can see based on my rather stupid ideas, I have never delved too deep into tactics in the previous versions. One reason could be that FM15 was my first one and here you could basically be super successful by just dishing out attacking duties and nothing else. I even had direct success with Dortmund on my first save without having any idea what I was doing. Also, I usually watched games only on key highlights before and somehow always created some tactic that worked quite well without exactly knowing why. So you can see that I'm severely lacking on the tactics part which I am now trying to rectify. I am still having a hard time identifying the issues watching a game and linking everything together. But your feedback has given me some more food for thought.

What I thought the IW would represent would be the IF just in the ML/MR strata. That's why I thought I could use him as an important goal scorer inside my formation. Now, if I wanted to recreate an IF on ML/MR would it still be the good old modified WM(a) as suggested in previous versions by quite a lot of people?

The IW I meant more not a regular scorer in your system. He doesn’t have any support, supply and no one really making movement ahead of him. In the system you use he just seems to be a runner. That’s not his fault, it’s more that the others around him aren’t set up so he can be a scoring threat regular.

[Saris]

vor 11 Minuten schrieb summatsupeer:

@Saris remember when people offer advice, they pretty much never take into account other peoples advice, so sticking everything together is often too many changes that unbalances a tactic in a different way.

Now you have a HB dropping into the D-line and 3 of your 4 midfielders on attack leaving only CM-S to link defence and attack.  Have a think about Cleons advice and put something else together.

I will surely give it a try  Hopefully, I will then finally be able to be a somewhat decent tactics creator myself. I see that there is still a huge amount of things to be learned, but that's also quite intriguing.

[Armistice]

This has to be one of the most complicated games ever.

[Torskus77]

2 minutes ago, Armistice said:

This has to be one of the most complicated games ever.

 

I think to an extent, and I totally include myself in this, some of us over complicate some things that are really simple. Linking 10 outfield players together to mold them in to a unit that can create and score goals, and also defend is a tricky thing to balance out for sure, more recently, because of my own struggles with FM18, I have created really simple tactics, no flashy roles (for now)  Focusing on what is happening, using the rewind button a lot to view highlights again, to see if I can spot issues. Far from an expert, but I have begun to notice a lot more, and whilst I don't always have instant answers, I can make little changes and see if my logic is working.

 

The reality is, the game is pretty easy. I'm not great at it, but I can still take my team from League 1 to the Premiership in 3 seasons max, usually two, when they have never been in the top flight in their history. That's the fun of the game, that keeps us coming back.

[Saris]

So I went back to the drawing board and instead of trying to force a tactic - albeit a stupid one - onto the team, I evaluated my players to see who could be my focal point on offense and who has the potential to be a good provider. I removed the shouts "Offside Trap" and "Prevent Short GK Distribution". The former because after reading the description and looking at my CBs didn't make much sense, the latter because it never really had a visible effect on the way we defended. Being already defensive in the basic setup, I decided to push mentality up to control, adding some more risk to the attacking ways. Additionally, I added "Close Down More" to hassle the opponent a bit more, hoping for some reward that goes alongside the increased risks of it.

Luckily, one of my best wide players came back from injury and thus I shifted from my two left footed to the two right footed players on the wings, but that's not that important.

Looking at my team, I only have two dangerous finishers: Striker Nr. 1 & Nr. 2. Thus, I want to make the striker in the 4-1-4-1 the main goalscorer.

The (really) basic idea behind the new setup is that the striker pushes back the defensive line, leaving space for the IW(a) and the CM(a) to utilize in order to either finish themselves or play the ball back to the striker. When the IW(a) cuts inside an has the ball, he usually attracts the defensive midfielder and a gap in the AMC strata opens up that the CM(a) should take advantage of.

What I like so far is the behavior of my flanks, especially the right side that provides a lot of width and constantly sees the WB(a) overlapping the W(s) if the latter has the ball. Additionally, the combination between the IW(a) and the CM(a) has shown some flashes of promise as both tend to utilize the space opened up either by the forward pushing of the AF(a) or the inward movement of the IW(a). Additionally, the IW(a) has netted some goals from crosses, as the opposing CBs tend to focus on my striker, leaving the IW open for crosses to hit him. I have won four out of four matches, the defense is like the Chinese Wall but the offense is still struggling.

Now here are the things I still don't like:

• Against a formation that utilizes three central midfielders, the forward pushing CM(a) leaves the CM(s) pretty alone when he has the ball, as the DM(d) does not provide any decent lateral support (which is pretty obvious given the PI "Hold position). The consequence is either a risky pass forward or a long ball out to one of the wide players. I am not quite sure how to recitify this, maybe using a DM(s) instead of a DM(d) could offer some more horizontal support for my CM(s) while attacking.
• I still am unable to/inept at providing chances for my striker. For one, the crosses aren't that great, but that is down to the players I have available (Winger and WB both have crossing of 11). But more important is the fact, that aside from crosses I haven't found a way to get my striker into a promising position from where he could be fed with through balls (or maybe it is down to the failure of getting my midfielders into a decent position to play through balls in the first place). I'm pretty sure that this is down to some substantial mistakes on my side and wouldn't mind if someone could point them out.

And as ever, be as critical as you can be. One can only learn from mistakes, right? 

 

[ajsr1982]

I've often played with a similar system to this, and I think you're on the right lines. Patience, and continuing to analyse and tweak based on your observations will get you to where you need to be. Set your expectations at the appropriate level though. There are some here who have spent untold hours working on their systems and they over-achieve easily. That won't happen for the likes of you and me overnight! If you exceed your board's expectations, you're doing well. Also, though others will demonstrate otherwise, getting the attacking side of this system to work is hard, so don't get disheartened if it doesn't all click immediately.

Onto the tactic itself. All I really have to add is that you're using 'Control'. That alters the mentalities of various players depending on role/duty, with a few knock-on effects. The most important one as I see it for your system is that it will move the ball from back to front quickly. Who is up there at that point? An AF who is primarily looking to get in behind the defence. Even if he gets hold of the ball, chances are he's looking to turn and get at the opposition, rather than holding the ball up and playing it back into midfield. Some of that will depend on his attributes of course.

I've had some success playing with an AF in this system before, so you don't necessarily have to change it. You could lower the mentality and/or encourage play through midfield with 'Play Out Of Defence'. You could alter the passing range of individual players with PIs - and don't forget that you need passing options to move the ball forward, or players will just punt it long or get tackled. Anyhow, you need to give your players a chance to get up the pitch to support the forward.

[Saris]

Okay, further testing and further observations. Interestingly, I haven't lost a single point in the league since opening this thread and even kicked out Schalke in the DFB-Pokal.
I checked some in-between-highlights play and found out that the occurence of low possession I have recently witnessed is not based on bad play from my midfield or strikers but rather on the fact that my defenders are clearing the ball long when in danger (or when they think they are without actually being...). I restricted this by putting "Play Out of Defense" back into my TIs which ameliorated it slightly.

Additionally, @ajsr1982 is right when questioning the use of "Control" in combination with the AF. The last games I have often observed many useless long balls to my striker. Either the defense was able to intercept these or he received it but was all alone without support. So I decided to switch back to the "Standard" mentality to reduce this urge of pushing forward as quickly as possible no matter how good the support for my lone striker is.

Also, the change of mentality from a DM(d) to a DM(s) I tested is somewhat of a double-edged sword. The support for my CM(s) indeed was kind of better but I often caught my DM(s) going forward too much, even being around the box, making my defense vulnerable to counter attacks. For now, I switched him back to a DM(d) while thinking about other options. Maybe pushing him up as a CM(d) could be an option but I'm not too sure if I want to go there.

Now, another thing I have to get my head around is the sort of crosses I want to see my players making. My first striker is close to a quick football midget (170cm with 7 jumping reach but 15 acceleration) whilst the other isn't that much better in the air (185cm but with only 11 jumping reach). I am contemplating using either "Low crosses" or "Whipped crosses" as TIs but I also have to keep in mind the lackluster quality of my winger and WB(a) (both have 11 crossing) that has sometimes stopped a great move from ending with a goal or at least a good chance.

[RodentofDoom]

If the players aren't doing what you want with the setup you have look at adding those options, or change the existing instructions you've given them.

 

Train a player trait that enables what you want the player to do

Add an individual instruction to a role/duty

Change a role or duty so that it matches more closely the tactical vision you have

 

the trait is the longer term option, and is harder to undo if it isn't the right choice

the other 2 choices are much easier to implement/undo if things don't work

 

sorry it's just generic advice rather than specific 'how to fix the problem' stuff

but to be fair to you, you've already solved 2/3rds of the problem by identifying some of the problems you're having

and that can be the hardest part to work out.

 

[Saris]

Some more games and I have identified an issue that I am not sure how to fix. When my team builds up its attack, the CM(a) often moves forward, leaving tons of space behind him. The CM(s) on the left that has the ball would be in the perfect position to play a ball to a player there but there is no one. So he usually either plays a wide ball to the winger or tries to thread the needle and play a ball towards the box. Now, if I had someone that could occupy this space, I am sure that the attack could be smoother and leave my team with more options.

The tactic is still the same as in my last screenshot. Does anyone have an idea, which role (maybe for the DM or the W(s)) could better utilize this space? I tried a DM(s) but he usually just runs straight, not using the space in the CMR area properly.

[ajsr1982]

IWB?

[Saris]

Okay, another update but I am still absolutely not happy with the way the team attacks. After watching some games, I am totally unsatisfied with my striker and the way he combines with the rest of the midfield. An AF is way to far ahead of the pack, leading to useless long passes that leave him completely stranded amongst the opposition. That's why I decided to move him down to a DLF(a) with little to no avail. The IW(a) was too wide for too long for my liking and never did that "cutting inside" when not having the ball himself. Hence why he now is a WM(a) with PIs (Cut Inside, Cross Less Often).
When it comes to my main goalscorers, I am extremely limited: Only the striker and my WM(a) (Salli) have finishing above 10, that is why I want to have an attacking duty up front. The other reason is that the striker is definitively not a good provider (Passing of 10), removing the possibility of any role that is more involved in the passing game.

Also, I don't like the behavior of my 2 CMs. The CM(a) usually runs forward too quickly in order to pair up with the striker, leaving my CM(s) all alone and with limited passing options. As a CM(s) or an AP(a) however, he is way too hesitant and doesn't provide any proper forward movement in the center. An IWB(s) didn't really help to fill the gap and just left open the flank for the AI to exploit.

Does anybody have suggestions on how to fix a 4141 with the striker as the main goalscorer? Or should I better switch to another system given the limitations of my squad when it comes to proper goalscorers (I only have 5 players with finishing > 10: 3 strikers and a 2 wingers).

 

[isignedupfornorealreason]

Try a box to box player? See if they move up later than the CM/A ?

 

You'll have to deal with his roaming though, which may be an additional issue.

[RodentofDoom]

A forward doesn't have to be on an attacking duty to score goals, even if he's a lone striker.

With 4 attacking duties it's a very offensively structured formation ... with a team mentality that isn't offensively biased.

 

as far as I've been able to work out the AI appears to assign ~4 attack roles when using the attacking mentality, and ~5 on overload

[steakfaced]

4-1-4-1 is extremely fun but frustrating. I've won a lot with it but sometimes it seems to come down to individual brilliance. I'll have matches where we won 3-0 with 0 CCCs as Napoli or Boca before that.

I like to play around with the wideplayers as play makers versus the standard 4-2-3-1 that teams setup with. Give that a shot maybe? 

[Svenc]

On 29.3.2018 at 21:39, Torskus77 said:

The reality is, the game is pretty easy. I'm not great at it, but I can still take my team from League 1 to the Premiership in 3 seasons max, usually two, when they have never been in the top flight in their history. That's the fun of the game, that keeps us coming back.

I'd actually argue that's part of the problem, as you've summed up my experience with almost anybody I've ever encountered who's argued he had problems. Whilst outside of severe mismanagement there's a limit as to what tactical decisions in isolation should do: Players still generally doing great stuff despite not having the foggiest of what they are doing [the game doesn't cover much, and football fans mostly have a purely emotional attachement to the sports). Even if you happen to enjoy that kind of thing (click continue, make a coffee, come back later and reap the "reward") -- even the most casual games on the market can have a far more rewarding effort-reward-cycle, as there's no way around learning the basics of your Candy Crush. The mechanics may be simple, but unless you click with them, no much sweets, sorry. Additionally, you may roughly understand why you got the sweets, which is fundamentally different to realizing you're really not good at anything but still score highly somehow. In that sense, FM is one of the weirdest games on the market bar none. As long as that's working as a business though...

[FlairRA]

2 hours ago, steakfaced said:

4-1-4-1 is extremely fun but frustrating. I've won a lot with it but sometimes it seems to come down to individual brilliance. I'll have matches where we won 3-0 with 0 CCCs as Napoli or Boca before that.

I like to play around with the wideplayers as play makers versus the standard 4-2-3-1 that teams setup with. Give that a shot maybe? 

I've noticed this to be true, while you can make a 4-1-4-1 that works, sometimes it will come down to individual genius, I tried it with Chelsea. You could always push the 2 wide midfielders up in a IF + Winger combination, this will help you counter attack quickly and is balanced. Also, what does your CM (A) look like? It could be that he doesn't have some PPM's that come in useful, such as Gets Forward Whenever Possible. 

[ajsr1982]

@Saris - The 4-1-4-1 was my go-to formation in FM17, and I had decent success with it when my team was towards the middle/bottom of the pack in terms of ability. However, I've had a lot of trouble with it in FM18, and just haven't been able to get it to work at all (I finished bottom of the Jupiler league by some distance!), and I'm not really any closer to figuring out why.

Incredibly, however, I've had a lot of success with a flat 4-5-1, which is only a short hop from the 4-1-4-1.

I'll post what I used for info. By all means take what you want from it. This got me promoted to the Premier League in two seasons with Fleetwood, which could be luck, but I guess something must be working!

GK/D

FB/S    BPD/D    CD/D    FBS

 

W/A    AP/S    CM/D    BBM/S    IW/S

 

T/A

 

That's on good old Standard/Flexible, with 'Drop Deeper', 'Be More Disciplined' as TIs. I'll add other TIs depending on what I'm facing, such as 'Pass Into Space' if the opposition pushed their FBs up. If I'm playing against a low block, I might be more adventurous with one of my FBs, and I'll change the forward's role depending on who plays.

Note: Against a 4-2-3-1 I play a 4-1-3-2 Wide, with the two wide players cutting inside to create an overload against the opposition '2'.

 

[Saris]

It's not really the 4-1-4-1 but I think its more of a combination of formation and players available. My last screenshot basically shows the formation I used with Leverkusen (except for a CF(s) instead of a DLF(a)) and there it worked wonders. Most goals in the league, league leaders and a great shots-on-target ratio. But I think this comes down to the fact that my main goalscorer there (Julian Brandt as an IW(a)) is just an overall great player.

[z464]

Did you try to use fluid to reduce the distance between your forward and midfield ? 

[Saris]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb z464:

Did you try to use fluid to reduce the distance between your forward and midfield ? 

Yep, didn't help much. I transitioned to a 4411/442 with my limited striker as a Poacher and it works really well so far.