Defensive width

[Spart]

Hi everyone. Long time no posting but the new tactical options has spurred me to log back on with a question.

We'll be able to set defensive width in the new tactics module but while being narrow and compact without the ball makes perfect sense why would you ever want a wide defence increasing the gaps between your defenders?

What am I missing?

Thanks!

[bennyj22]

I am only speculating here but one reason could be for those who play 3 at the back. A common complaint with 3 at the back is getting abused on the flanks by fast wingers. Perhaps being allowed to "spread" the defense could help with this.

[HansJoachimM]

Wide defence is great if you want to stop you opponent from crossing the ball. I use it a lot. If you play with a narrow defence the opponents wings and full backs will often times be unmarked when crossing from wide positions.

Edited October 13, 2018 by HansJoachimM

[Spart]

21 hours ago, HansJoachimM said:

Wide defence is great if you want to stop you opponent from crossing the ball. I use it a lot. If you play with a narrow defence the opponents wings and full backs will often times be unmarked when crossing from wide positions.

That sort of makes sense - I was thinking you'd deal with that with individual instructions but it could go hand in hand.

I guess if you instruct a back four to have a lot of defensive width, which will pull the centre-backs apart, you'd have to prepare for that by having a midfielder available with the right role to drop back and pull the gap?

 

[HansJoachimM]

1 hour ago, Spart said:

I guess if you instruct a back four to have a lot of defensive width, which will pull the centre-backs apart, you'd have to prepare for that by having a midfielder available with the right role to drop back and pull the gap?

I play with a DM and two MC's. They prevent the opponents from playing  a lot  through balls.

[Spart]

22 hours ago, HansJoachimM said:

I play with a DM and two MC's. They prevent the opponents from playing  a lot  through balls.

That's not quite the same thing though. You can have coverage of pass lanes and all that but if your two centre-backs are spread apart there will still be too much of a gap through the middle which will need a body (or two) to fill. I think it was against Young Boys earlier this season taht Fellaini and Matic dropped back to cover that space?

[Rashidi]

If you play with a defensive narrow width, you are ceding flanks. you could do this if you have strong central defenders who can win headers. Sometimes you see sides allow other sides to cross the ball, because they are more wary about players who can dribble and cause havoc more centrally.

You would also cede the middle by defending wide, then you are going to be concerned with giving up space to talented players who can dribble with the ball. 

So lets say i play with a DLP and i have strong central defenders, maybe i want to defend narrow, give up the flanks, let my central defenders win the ball so my DLP can launch quick counters

Or if i have a real axeman in the middle, or i am playing with a strong 3 in midfield, perhaps i rather them go through the middle, as this is the path of greatest resistance. 

In both cases its about what you are allowing in terms of passing lanes and movement,

[Spart]

That makes sense. Thanks Rashidi and HansJoachimM!

[AFCBeer]

This is a setting where I think we’ll have to consider the opposition tactics, strengths and weaknesses. 

For example Liverpool play with inside forwards and no real physical presence in their central striker position. Here you’d definitely defend narrow, cede the flanks and encourage them to put crosses in. 

Burnley have the opposite approach. Their wingers are good crosses. Sam Vokes and Chris Wood shouldn’t be able to run onto through balls down the middle but are very dangerous in the air. Here I’d defend my flanks and trust my defenders to deal with the strikers if facing through balls. 

[Spart]

@AFCBeer I think where my uncertainty stems/stemmed from is how it affects the centre-backs, not so much the full-backs. I'd hope to be able to use individual instructions to tell my wider players what I expect them to do in one-on-one situations, whereas a wide defensive shape (this was my first impression) would also force your central defenders to split to cover the full-backs, therefore leaving the middle exposed, and I can't think of any situation where you'd want that as the defending team.

[AFCBeer]

I think it’s likely with a wider defensive width it’s likely DC’s will play wider to ensure even gaps. After all a huge gap between FB and DC is just as vulnerable as between the DC’s. 

It’ll be interesting to see how it works. I’d imagine the positioning, marking, concentration, decisions and speed of your defenders will play an important in how well your defenders manage the space they cede. 

[ale1969]

6 ore fa, Rashidi ha scritto:

If you play with a defensive narrow width, you are ceding flanks. you could do this if you have strong central defenders who can win headers. Sometimes you see sides allow other sides to cross the ball, because they are more wary about players who can dribble and cause havoc more centrally.

You can have narrow defense while keeping attacking wide players marked with your wide players through specific instructions and OI, I used it a lot since even in old FM when you played defensively and deep you had a narrow defense as default.

[Spart]

@AFCBeer For sure! I'm very interesting to see all these little sub-systems will work together now it has been made easier to get at options such as 'defensive width'.

What happens when a side set up for Gegenpressing goes on the defensive in the last 10 mins without changing style? Lots of things I'm going to be interested to see in action.

[Robson 07]

On ‎13‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 13:32, Spart said:

why would you ever want a wide defence increasing the gaps between your defenders?

If you were very narrow in defence and very wide in attack would the transition from one to the other be slower than for example, wide to wide?  Answering a question with a question really as I don't know if it works that way.

[DimitrisLar]

i just experimented in 2 games in a row with wide defensive width. i was facing 2 teams playing 433. one of them was porto away. we won both games. what's more interesting was that my players were much more comfortable. their way of escaping portos high pressure was outstanding and our progression seemed very easy. we were dominated in possesion and i play a possesion based game but away from home it seemed fine (also rarely becoming dangerous so..). 

i feel a little bit of a gravedigger bringing back a topic from 2 years ago but i was searching for defensive width and fel here. i began the season very bad and got hit by fast wingers 4 games in a row. one ended 6-1 against me.