Two AMC's and a Striker

[jc577]

I'm currently playing as Real Betis, and having gone through their squad I've picked out Lo Celso and Canales as being their two key players, both of which like to play in the #10 position. Now, I've never played this way before, but my thinking was that the striker must be picked in a role that pushes the opposition's defenders back, giving the AM's room to play in whilst latching onto through balls/slipped passes. However, I don't really see this at all. My striker spends most of the time in the channels, and on the odd occasion we get the ball into the AM's, they either pass out wide to the WB's, or take pot shots at goal from the 'golden zone'. To me, my tactic looks fairly well balanced, solid but unspectacular, but we have nothing in the way of creativity. I'm wondering if it's down to my TI's, but I want to play a possession style of football, similar to how Betis playing IRL. Any help/feedback will be greatly appreciated. Cheers 

[summatsupeer]

The CF-A is told to use the channels and roam and not really occupy the oppositions CBs.  Having a CF-A + AM-A with a AP-S is a very attacking and vertical style with two runners and players looking to play risky passes often, doesn't really fit with "possession".

I'd prefer a ST who drops and plays it simple to the AP for the AM-A to make runs past.  With a safe double pivot in midfield and a back 3 there will usually be 5 players behind the ball, plus the AP-S will likely be behind the ball to make 6.  That only leaves the WBs, AMCR and ST to provide movement in front of the ball.  With that many behind the ball i'd probably play lower risk to encourage safer possession passes.  Maybe a 3421 with a flat 4 using DM's could open up more supportive roles+duties rather than holding midfielders in the CM strata.  I'd also maybe look at more freedom from CWB roles to fit the possession style.

[Experienced Defender]

When it comes solely to roles and duties, the only problem I see is the attack duty of your lone striker, so I agree with @summatsupeer on that point (not in the sense that the attacking striker is inherently wrong, just regarding the style of playing you want to achieve). The rest of your setup is pretty good and well-balanced IMO.

What I don't like though are some of your team instructions, in the fist place the extremely aggressive defending (high DL and LOE + extremely urgent pressing). I'd also like to ask you for what reason have you opted to defend narrower and not use the counter-attacks in transition (while at the same time using counter-press)? I don't think it's either wrong or right in itself, just curious to understand your logic.

[mikcheck]

But if he changed the striker to a support duty, wouldn't  the AM(a) the only one trying to make penetrations?

[Experienced Defender]

10 hours ago, mikcheck said:

But if he changed the striker to a support duty, wouldn't  the AM(a) the only one trying to make penetrations?

A striker on support (or even defend) duty will still "make penetrations". For one thing, he's a striker, so he' s not going to stay deep all the time and never get into the box and chase through balls and crosses. Of course, he can work fine with an attack duty as well, but in this particular tactic (and based on what the OP wants to achieve), support role looks more appropriate. Plus, there are roles that generally work better for a lone striker on attack duty, such as PFatt, DLFatt or (my favorite) trequartista.

[mikcheck]

1 hora atrás, Experienced Defender disse:

A striker on support (or even defend) duty will still "make penetrations". For one thing, he's a striker, so he' s not going to stay deep all the time and never get into the box and chase through balls and crosses. Of course, he can work fine with an attack duty as well, but in this particular tactic (and based on what the OP wants to achieve), support role looks more appropriate. Plus, there are roles that generally work better for a lone striker on attack duty, such as PFatt, DLFatt or (my favorite) trequartista.

TQ is more of a support role, even though he is an attack duty, right?

[jc577]

On 14/12/2018 at 14:22, summatsupeer said:

The CF-A is told to use the channels and roam and not really occupy the oppositions CBs.  Having a CF-A + AM-A with a AP-S is a very attacking and vertical style with two runners and players looking to play risky passes often, doesn't really fit with "possession".

I'd prefer a ST who drops and plays it simple to the AP for the AM-A to make runs past.  With a safe double pivot in midfield and a back 3 there will usually be 5 players behind the ball, plus the AP-S will likely be behind the ball to make 6.  That only leaves the WBs, AMCR and ST to provide movement in front of the ball.  With that many behind the ball i'd probably play lower risk to encourage safer possession passes.  Maybe a 3421 with a flat 4 using DM's could open up more supportive roles+duties rather than holding midfielders in the CM strata.  I'd also maybe look at more freedom from CWB roles to fit the possession style.

The majority of striker roles in FM19 are now hardcoded with 'moves into channels' which is quite annoying, but I thought having a support duty striker would crowd the area where the two 10's want to work, although I realise that the current roles/duties of the front three is a bit too forward thinking. I had considered using two DM's (position not role) but considered it too be a bit too defensive... in hindsight, it isn't, as I can use two support duties which should help players be available for recycling possession. I'll have a little play around and see what I can come up with, thanks!

 

21 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

When it comes solely to roles and duties, the only problem I see is the attack duty of your lone striker, so I agree with @summatsupeer on that point (not in the sense that the attacking striker is inherently wrong, just regarding the style of playing you want to achieve). The rest of your setup is pretty good and well-balanced IMO.

What I don't like though are some of your team instructions, in the fist place the extremely aggressive defending (high DL and LOE + extremely urgent pressing). I'd also like to ask you for what reason have you opted to defend narrower and not use the counter-attacks in transition (while at the same time using counter-press)? I don't think it's either wrong or right in itself, just curious to understand your logic.

I wouldn't say the defending settings used is overly aggressive, as I'm playing on a balanced mentality, and using high DL + LOE, not much higher. I may consider dropping LOE so the opposition are enticed to come out a bit more. The reason I've opted to defend narrower is because seen as we have three centre-backs, I don't really mind inviting crosses into the box as we should be able to deal with them. Hold shape is an interesting one, I was reading a thread on Pep's City and one user suggested that hold shape encouraged more patience during build-up, limiting forward runs and bringing players deep, so I thought I'd give it a go. 

[craigd84]

what about setting the striker to either Adv. Forward or Poacher, Poacher would be my choice.

[KiwiG]

I’ve used a 5 212 WB formation with Southampton with great success. I actually started with 5221 but wasn’t getting the goals despite high possession so moved to AP (s) with two up front, AF and a PF on defence.

 

two forward in an attacking 3 just scored more goals, particularly the AF.  

 

I used a libero in the in the centre of two covering/def bpd.  In the middle I use a dlp paired with a btb.

[Experienced Defender]

On 15/12/2018 at 15:14, mikcheck said:

TQ is more of a support role, even though he is an attack duty, right?

Well, I wouldn't call it a support role, given that TQ is virtually free of defensive duties. What probably makes him look like a "support" duty is tendency to drop (occasionally very) deep and be greatly involved in the build-up play.

[Experienced Defender]

On 15/12/2018 at 16:14, jc577 said:

I may consider dropping LOE so the opposition are enticed to come out a bit more

That's exactly what I would propose  And you don't need to drop the LOE too much, just a notch would be enough IMO. 

 

On 15/12/2018 at 16:14, jc577 said:

The reason I've opted to defend narrower is because seen as we have three centre-backs, I don't really mind inviting crosses into the box as we should be able to deal with them

Then I hope you have centre-backs who are good both at jumping and positioning (dealing with crosses) and possess good acceleration and anticipation (given your high d-line). Because you should bear in mind that with both WBs bombing forward (a WB on support is also a pretty much attack-minded role), you are leaving a fair amount of space on the flanks. So if the opposition are fast and technically skillful, they can easily break through your defense by quick interchange of passes coupled with intelligent attacking movement. Maybe standard defensive width would be a safer option, but that's ultimately your choice (as you know your players best).

 

On 15/12/2018 at 16:14, jc577 said:

Hold shape is an interesting one, I was reading a thread on Pep's City and one user suggested that hold shape encouraged more patience during build-up, limiting forward runs and bringing players deep, so I thought I'd give it a go

Well, if you want to emulate that particular style, then okay. Just be aware that you are waiving a potent attacking weapon, especially when the opposition are hard to break down through regular attacks.

[jc577]

On 15/12/2018 at 15:19, craigd84 said:

what about setting the striker to either Adv. Forward or Poacher, Poacher would be my choice.

AF was my first choice, but I don't think it fits with the possession style I'm going for. 

11 hours ago, KiwiG said:

I’ve used a 5 212 WB formation with Southampton with great success. I actually started with 5221 but wasn’t getting the goals despite high possession so moved to AP (s) with two up front, AF and a PF on defence.

 

two forward in an attacking 3 just scored more goals, particularly the AF.  

 

I used a libero in the in the centre of two covering/def bpd.  In the middle I use a dlp paired with a btb.

Sounds good mate, I think a 1-2 split is better in the current ME than a 2-1 split, but that's just me! I'm not really getting possession nor goals atm 

 

5 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Then I hope you have centre-backs who are good both at jumping and positioning (dealing with crosses) and possess good acceleration and anticipation (given your high d-line). Because you should bear in mind that with both WBs bombing forward (a WB on support is also a pretty much attack-minded role), you are leaving a fair amount of space on the flanks. So if the opposition are fast and technically skillful, they can easily break through your defense by quick interchange of passes coupled with intelligent attacking movement. Maybe standard defensive width would be a safer option, but that's ultimately your choice (as you know your players best).

This is really good advice mate, cheers. We haven't been vulnerable defensively, and have actually dealt with crosses pretty well (as you would expect with 3 CB's), but the average JR of my starting CB's is only 14 which is decent, but not good enough. My DMs are very slow too, so defending narrow will give them more work to do to get across, so i've gone back to standard defensive width 

[jc577]

@Experienced Defender Care to have a look at the topic I just posted in the Bugs Forum and tell me what you think? To me, a lot of issues look weird, but you're better tactically at the game then I am, so wouldn't mind a second opinion!

[Experienced Defender]

36 minutes ago, jc577 said:

@Experienced Defender Care to have a look at the topic I just posted in the Bugs Forum and tell me what you think? To me, a lot of issues look weird, but you're better tactically at the game then I am, so wouldn't mind a second opinion!

I've taken a look, but that's more a question for people from SI than me. I can only speculate if that's a bug or the problem has to do with your tactic (or possibly the type of your players). The AM-A dropping too deep might have to do with him looking to find an area of space from which he would be better involved in the build-up phase (which actually is not bad, given that you are playing a short-passing and out-of-defence possession game, plus using the balanced mentality, which tends to avoid any "extremes"). As for DMs, maybe they simply don't have enough tactical intelligence to position themselves better in terms of off-the-ball movement. Really hard to say anything for sure.

[craigd84]

On 16/12/2018 at 21:36, jc577 said:

AF was my first choice, but I don't think it fits with the possession style I'm going for. 

 

Whilst that may be the case, AF and Poacher will just be adding the crucial finishing touch of a possession based move.