Am I being too tactically ambitious?

[Zeonflux]

Just after some general advice from those who are much better tactically at this game than myself.

Basically I want to create a 442/424 tactic where my strikers are my main goal threat but my IF’s play an almost hybrid role of being IF/wingers.

now in the current ME is that a possibility that I could get my strikers on 40+ goals a season with the IF getting 15-20 goals and 15+ assists?

[FMunderachiever]

Who would provide all the service for 4 goalscorers though?

[Zeonflux]

Well i was hoping to have the full backs / Wing backs and the Inside forwards be my main creative areas but i want the inside forwards to also score and assist 

[summatsupeer]

Not sure what your asking exactly.

If you expect both strikers to be on 40+ goals and both IF on 15-20 that's 110-120 goals between 4 positions which would be amazing. If playing 40 games a season both forwards need a goal a game plus each IF 0.5 goals a game, so at least 3 goals a game on average for 4 players.

Now if you mean the forwards scoring 40+ combined and the IFs scoring 15-20 combined?  That's 60 goals between 4 players, if say 40 games each thats 1.5 goals a game on average between those 4 so can be easily achieved with right players and system.

[Zeonflux]

27 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

Not sure what your asking exactly.

If you expect both strikers to be on 40+ goals and both IF on 15-20 that's 110-120 goals between 4 positions which would be amazing. If playing 40 games a season both forwards need a goal a game plus each IF 0.5 goals a game, so at least 3 goals a game on average for 4 players.

Now if you mean the forwards scoring 40+ combined and the IFs scoring 15-20 combined?  That's 60 goals between 4 players, if say 40 games each thats 1.5 goals a game on average between those 4 so can be easily achieved with right players and system.

The second, I want my strikers to be my main threat but I don’t want the IFs to be too blunt when it comes to being a goal threat

[summatsupeer]

I think main issue is having both ST being a goal threat without a lack of movement and options.

My initial thought is a P/DLF/AF-At + TREQ-At combo.  Having a support duty forward would mean you have to be very careful what others are doing around him so he still has time + space to get into goal scoring positions after dropping deep.

[Zeonflux]

Could I use a CF-At with a Treq-At?

i has those as a strike partnership on fm17 for a tactic I half built (used a downloaded one as the base then changed to how I wanted) and they were outstanding 

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, Zeonflux said:

Could I use a CF-At with a Treq-At?

You can try, but I generally tend to avoid having both strikers in roles that are of a similar type in the sense that both CF and TQ are creative roles and both are set (hard-coded) to roam and move into channels. It can work though in certain types of tactics, but you need to set up the rest of the system in the right way, which may prove a bit too tricky.

[Zeonflux]

Well I’ve got a basic formation in mind it just more of trying to find out if it’s possible to get the style of play that I want to work.

GK-D

FB-A, CB-D, CB-D, FB-S

CM-S, CM-A

W-S, IF-A

CF-S, P-A

[Experienced Defender]

37 minutes ago, Zeonflux said:

GK-D

FB-A, CB-D, CB-D, FB-S

CM-S, CM-A

W-S, IF-A

CF-S, P-A

So your setup actually looks like this:

PO     CFsu

IFat                                          Wsu

CMat     CMsu

 

FBsu      CDde     CDde      FBat

GK

Right?

[Zeonflux]

That’s it I’ve chosen an IF on one side and a winger on the other so I can see which of the 2 roles I can get closer to how I want them to play

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, Zeonflux said:

That’s it I’ve chosen an IF on one side and a winger on the other so I can see which of the 2 roles I can get closer to how I want them to play

Having different roles - or at least different duties - on the flanks is a good thing (especially up front), because it prevents a tactic from being one-dimensional, so keep it up. What I personally don't like is how you set up some of the other roles (and partnerships). 

What can potentially be a problem defense-wise is that you have no holding role in the central midfield, especially as 424 is a very top-heavy system.

[Zeonflux]

What would you suggest as a CM partnership? I want something that’s going to provide cover but also help in attack, not necessarily driving into the box to score but a decent role to help recycle the ball if needed.

i have thought about a BBM on the wingers side but not sure want to put on the inside forwards side

[sporadicsmiles]

1 hour ago, Zeonflux said:

What would you suggest as a CM partnership? I want something that’s going to provide cover but also help in attack, not necessarily driving into the box to score but a decent role to help recycle the ball if needed. 

i have thought about a BBM on the wingers side but not sure want to put on the inside forwards side

I would suggest two quite static roles in the center. If you use a CM(A), he is going to bomb forward and leave you with one central midfielder. With an attacking fullback, you will be extremely vulnerable to counter attacks. Perhaps an AP(S) or DLP(S) to spray passes from an advanced position and a CM(S) or CM(D) to act as a more holding player or pivot? Put the more defense minded player on the side with the attacking fullback.

[herne79]

23 hours ago, Zeonflux said:

Basically I want to create a 442/424 tactic where my strikers are my main goal threat but my IF’s play an almost hybrid role of being IF/wingers.

I wrote about almost exactly that here.  I'm not saying to copy it, but it may give you some ideas.  My strikers and "inside forward/winger hybrid" scored for fun, with my second striker actually in the AMCR position.

[Zeonflux]

2 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

I would suggest two quite static roles in the center. If you use a CM(A), he is going to bomb forward and leave you with one central midfielder. With an attacking fullback, you will be extremely vulnerable to counter attacks. Perhaps an AP(S) or DLP(S) to spray passes from an advanced position and a CM(S) or CM(D) to act as a more holding player or pivot? Put the more defense minded player on the side with the attacking fullback.

I’m trying to decide if I should steer clear of any form of Playmaker roles as I know they can be a bit of a ball magnet and although they can be used to ping the balls to the wide players as well as the forwards, I don’t want to end up in a situation where they lose the ball and I end up in the wrong end of a counter attack.

2 hours ago, herne79 said:

I wrote about almost exactly that here.  I'm not saying to copy it, but it may give you some ideas.  My strikers and "inside forward/winger hybrid" scored for fun, with my second striker actually in the AMCR position.

Ah Cheers Herne I hadn’t seen that post of your before but I shall definitely look through it and hopefully I’ll be able to use your ideas to get this tactic working how I want

[Zeonflux]

@herne79 having looked at what I can of your thread (got 2 little ones tearing around the house). I’m gonna try changing to a flat 442 with wide midfielders on either side.

ill then change the PIs if either position to have the left side play as an IF but without the hardcoded instructions and more defensive nature due to it being in the cm strata and then same for the winger on the right

[Experienced Defender]

5 hours ago, Zeonflux said:

What would you suggest as a CM partnership?

I like what @sporadicsmiles suggested to you: 

3 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

I would suggest two quite static roles in the center. If you use a CM(A), he is going to bomb forward and leave you with one central midfielder. With an attacking fullback, you will be extremely vulnerable to counter attacks. Perhaps an AP(S) or DLP(S) to spray passes from an advanced position and a CM(S) or CM(D) to act as a more holding player or pivot? Put the more defense minded player on the side with the attacking fullback.

It's a good and nicely balanced option  

 

5 hours ago, Zeonflux said:

I want something that’s going to provide cover but also help in attack, not necessarily driving into the box to score but a decent role to help recycle the ball if needed.

i have thought about a BBM on the wingers side but not sure want to put on the inside forwards side

If I played a BBM, I would also prefer him on the winger's side, with a more conservative fullback (preferably IWB on defend) as defensive cover behind. 

To cut a long story short, this is one possible example of how I could set up roles and duties in a 424 with a BBM as one of my CMs:

PO       F9

IFsu                                         Wat

DLPde    BBM

 

FBat     CDde    CDde     IWBde

And then team and player instructions, as well as mentality (which affects everything), would depend on a number of factors.

 

[argenmik]

25 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

I like what @sporadicsmiles suggested to you: 

It's a good and nicely balanced option  

 

If I played a BBM, I would also prefer him on the winger's side, with a more conservative fullback (preferably IWB on defend) as defensive cover behind. 

 To cut a long story short, this is one possible example of how I could set up roles and duties in a 424 with a BBM as one of my CMs:

 PO       F9

IFsu                                         Wat

DLPde    BBM

 

FBat     CDde    CDde     IWBde

And then team and player instructions, as well as mentality (which affects everything), would depend on a number of factors.

 

you love an IWB

[Zeonflux]

39 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

I like what @sporadicsmiles suggested to you: 

It's a good and nicely balanced option  

 

If I played a BBM, I would also prefer him on the winger's side, with a more conservative fullback (preferably IWB on defend) as defensive cover behind. 

To cut a long story short, this is one possible example of how I could set up roles and duties in a 424 with a BBM as one of my CMs:

PO       F9

IFsu                                         Wat

DLPde    BBM

 

FBat     CDde    CDde     IWBde

And then team and player instructions, as well as mentality (which affects everything), would depend on a number of factors.

 

Well I’m gonna use something from Herne’s thread and go for a flat midfield 4 and using PIs make them an inside forward and winger respectively.

also with a BBM, winger and IWB all on that side wouldn’t the space in the final third on the right flank get rather congested? Especially with the F9 drifting into those areas?

[herne79]

52 minutes ago, Zeonflux said:

@herne79 having looked at what I can of your thread (got 2 little ones tearing around the house). I’m gonna try changing to a flat 442 with wide midfielders on either side.

ill then change the PIs if either position to have the left side play as an IF but without the hardcoded instructions and more defensive nature due to it being in the cm strata and then same for the winger on the right

Keep an eye on player Traits as well - a wide player who has the Cuts Inside trait (for example) can give you some nice options.

[Zeonflux]

4 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Keep an eye on player Traits as well - a wide player who has the Cuts Inside trait (for example) can give you some nice options.

I’m playing as Man Utd but I’ve set rules for that save that I can’t buy any players only use ones that come through my academy.

on the left I have Martial, Chong and possibly Angel Gomes and on the right I’m gonna be using Lingard, Andreas and Gomes.

so PI wise I should be sorted for choices

[Experienced Defender]

3 minutes ago, Zeonflux said:

with a BBM, winger and IWB all on that side wouldn’t the space in the final third on the right flank get rather congested? Especially with the F9 drifting into those areas?

If by "congested space" you mean a few players operating relatively close to each other in the final third, I don't see anything wrong with that. Each of them is there for a reason, and each contributes in a different way. I do want the BBM and F9 to work together, with the IWB offering both defensive protection and an option for recycling possession and the winger providing width and delivering crosses and/or cut-back passes from as high up the pitch as possible. On the assumption that all these roles are played by suitable players that can do what they are asked to.

In case I want to be a bit more adventurous, I could even go with a mezzala on support instead of the BBM.

[Zeonflux]

This is where I struggle when making tactics.

i want players available for easy passes when I need to recycle possession without going for long passes that may get intercepted so having them close together is a good thing but I don’t want them to be all occupying the same space and there for there’s not space to actually attack or it’s too congested in terms of having the BBM, W, F9 and IWB all near each other means that there could also be 4 or so defenders in the same area as well