Do I have the wrong roles selected? What did I do wrong?

[dang3rouspeach]

I've been banging my head against the wall and reading the forums to try and figure out where my footballing knowledge has let me down. Hoping asking for direct feedback to my situation will help me get to the root of the issue quicker. 

I feel like I've horribly misread roles/descriptions of what they're supposed to do.

My two issues with the screenshot image.

1. My mids clump together and their spacing reminds me of first grade soccer. My AML (have sit narrow PI ticked on) and FB are standing way too close to each other. The irony of this is only that my striker is eternally alone and never has anyone within 20 yards of him to support him. 

2. My team does not attack space with runs. When I watch this, the runs seem obvious? The CM(a) should be looking to run forward/attack space. I have no idea why my AP(s) is deeper than the DM on the left side, the whole point of changing him to AP from CM(s) was to get him 'between opponents midfield and defense'. 

What I'm hoping to correct / how I'm trying to get them to play

Ideally I'd like to play offensive football. I don't care a ton about the possession %, but I don't want to just be hitting hail mary long through balls (if that makes sense). I'm hoping for limited crosses. And if the ball does go to the wings I'm hoping they dribble and take on their defender. Primarily I'm hoping for build up through the central midfield and then once we get to the final third they play someone through. 

I'd like to get one of my center mids running into space (not starting there as an AMC - where they seem to get marked by DM, if they need to be there as AMC to get them into that space I guess I'll go that route). Once they get the ball there I'm hoping they dribble at the defense, as CB or FB steps to defend, they play a pass in behind to either the forward or winger. 

In the final third I feel like it gets too congested around the box and I can't get my AP in space to turn and play someone through. I feel like the forward stands around and the winger/IF stand and get marked. The CM(a) doesn't time his run very effectively and ends up not contributing much as he takes himself out of the play. 

I have been confused over if i I should be playing higher mentality (to encourage the runs I want into the box) or playing on a lower mentality (encourage them to recycle possession until there is a good opportunity to break through). 

Things I've tried vs what I'm trying to achieve with the role

RCM - I've had a mezzala on attack/support, haven't noticed much difference between that and the CM role. Am trying to have this midfielder be my runner who gets open in the box.

LCM - have tried CMs, DLPs, Roaming PM, B2B - ideally this is my creator (high flair, vision, technique, passing), I want him to play somone (anyone really) through from outside the box into the box.

Striker - DLF(s/a), AF, P, CF(s/a) - I swear he touches the ball twice a game in useless positions regardless of what role I have him selected for. He has high off the ball, anticipation, work rate, finishing. Am clueless as to why he has scored 8 goals in 2 years (usually its Mcquire and not Robinson playing there). 

Winger - Have tried both Attack and support - ideally I want them to dribble at the defender and pass to someone else, or have them tap in a cross to score. I personally don't notice a huge difference in how they perform either way. My crossing game is a D- (never have guys in the box, fine I guess for how I'm trying to play). 

IF - Have tried RMD, IF(a/s), Treq - I'm really just looking for the movement from the arrows. RMD has worked okay for that, but I keep getting suckered into trying to make the IF role work since in my head my wingers are higher skill / can dribble (so I think maybe they can contribute more to the build up). 

 

After typing all this out I feel like I'm just in a confused state / don't have a unified or clear cut philosophy.... which might be part of the problem... ha. Sorry for tangents. Thanks in advance for the help/guidance! 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, dang3rouspeach said:

 

1 hour ago, dang3rouspeach said:

Ideally I'd like to play offensive football. I don't care a ton about the possession %, but I don't want to just be hitting hail mary long through balls (if that makes sense). I'm hoping for limited crosses. And if the ball does go to the wings I'm hoping they dribble and take on their defender. Primarily I'm hoping for build up through the central midfield and then once we get to the final third they play someone through

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time at the moment to go deeper into details, so we can discuss it later. Instead, I'll for now just propose a setup based on your 4123 formation and your description of how you want to play. You can try it and see if you notice any meaningful difference.

So here it is:

DLFat/PFat

IFat                                       IFsu

DLPsu       CMat

ACM/HB

WBsu       CDde     CDde     FBsu

SKde/su

Positive mentality - shorter passing, play out of defence, slightly narrower width - counter - standard DL, higher LOE

player instructions - split press (I guess you know what it means?) and RB to sit narrower

Btw, given that you are managing Preston in the EPL, are you sure that playing offensive football is a good idea in general?

[sporadicsmiles]

17 hours ago, dang3rouspeach said:

1. My mids clump together and their spacing reminds me of first grade soccer. My AML (have sit narrow PI ticked on) and FB are standing way too close to each other. The irony of this is only that my striker is eternally alone and never has anyone within 20 yards of him to support him. 

I quite like the positioning of your AML and FB on the left. They are ready to terrorize the right back. Your striker is alone because he is an AF(A). When he has nobody in the AMC slot, he will always tend to be totally isolated.

 

18 hours ago, dang3rouspeach said:

I have no idea why my AP(s) is deeper than the DM on the left side

Does he have the "comes deep to get the ball" PPM? That would explain him being always very deep. Plus the play out of defense is going to encourage your midfield to stick deep to, well, play the ball out of defense. I use a CM(A) in this formation, and he is always making runs into space. Just not immediately after getting the ball and recycling it, and building from the back. Really you want him somewhere in the CM/AM region and bursting into the box when the chance presents itself (get "arrives late in opposition area" for a devastating CM(A)).

I would first try one of two things. Either abandon the playing from defense, or use a forward who will be more involved in play. If you do the former, then you will get the ball towards the AF(A) quicker, and your players will make earlier runs to support him. You will need a player who can hold the ball up. An AF is still not ideal for this. A PF(A) or DLF(A) is better. If you do the latter, then your striker will involve himself in the buildup play and you will see better transitions to attack.

 

[dang3rouspeach]

18 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

You can try it and see if you notice any meaningful difference.

It plays a lot better / closer to what I was looking for. I at least get some passes into the box and the play doesn't grind to a halt out on the wings / have my winger try and slam crosses into the opposing full back. I'm a little confused as to why it plays so differently though - i didn't think the roles were that radically different than what I had in place before. And the TIs weren't super different than some of the combos I've tried previously before coming here for help. At any rate, I'm glad it is looking better. I suspect part of my problem is the quality of player, need the Qatari royal family to bail me out. 

If you ever do have time (please don't feel obligated) and could explain the thinking behind some of the roles / TIs or why they work well together. 

10 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

A PF(A) or DLF(A) is better. If you do the latter, then your striker will involve himself in the buildup play and you will see better transitions to attack.

Have switched to a DLF(a). Which has helped transitions quite a bit. I'm not super familiar with what the PF(a) actually does - since when I read the in game description it made it sound like someone who tries to win the ball back, but then when team has the ball, functions like an AF. I've seen PF recommended for a lot of the tactics that I've browsed through, so I should probably figure out what exactly they do / how they can be used... ha

Thank you both for feedback. Has helped me get going in the right direction after I got horribly off track. 

[Experienced Defender]

28 minutes ago, dang3rouspeach said:

I'm a little confused as to why it plays so differently though - i didn't think the roles were that radically different than what I had in place before. And the TIs weren't super different than some of the combos I've tried previously before coming here for help

Well, that's exactly the point. In many cases, the difference between a bad and good tactic is just a couple of tweaks. The setup of roles and duties is the most important to get right. But before all that, you need to analyze the squad in order to identify its strengths and weaknesses and - based on them - decide what style of play would make most sense. I don't know your team, so my advice could easily have proved wrong. Fortunately, it didn't in this case   

 

37 minutes ago, dang3rouspeach said:

If you ever do have time (please don't feel obligated) and could explain the thinking behind some of the roles / TIs or why they work well together

I certainly will, hopefully tomorrow already 

[LCFCEaves31]

10 hours ago, dang3rouspeach said:

It plays a lot better / closer to what I was looking for. I at least get some passes into the box and the play doesn't grind to a halt out on the wings / have my winger try and slam crosses into the opposing full back. I'm a little confused as to why it plays so differently though - i didn't think the roles were that radically different than what I had in place before. And the TIs weren't super different than some of the combos I've tried previously before coming here for help. At any rate, I'm glad it is looking better. I suspect part of my problem is the quality of player, need the Qatari royal family to bail me out. 

If you ever do have time (please don't feel obligated) and could explain the thinking behind some of the roles / TIs or why they work well together. 

Have switched to a DLF(a). Which has helped transitions quite a bit. I'm not super familiar with what the PF(a) actually does - since when I read the in game description it made it sound like someone who tries to win the ball back, but then when team has the ball, functions like an AF. I've seen PF recommended for a lot of the tactics that I've browsed through, so I should probably figure out what exactly they do / how they can be used... ha

Thank you both for feedback. Has helped me get going in the right direction after I got horribly off track. 

I am a bit like you at the moment with this. Luckily I've had a bit of help as well, but I am not 100% sure what the Pressing Forward does when we do have the ball and are going through transitions. I understand what his role is when we DO NOT have possession... it is made obvious by the description in the tactics screen... Like you, I would guess he acts as an AF or Poacher?

[Experienced Defender]

6 hours ago, LCFCEaves31 said:

I would guess he acts as an AF or Poacher?

In possession, his behavior is most similar to AF.

[Experienced Defender]

18 hours ago, dang3rouspeach said:

If you ever do have time (please don't feel obligated) and could explain the thinking behind some of the roles / TIs or why they work well together

So as I promised, I'll now try to explain through a couple of examples (as I believe concrete examples are the easiest way for people to understand things in football and FM).

Let's begin with partnerships on the flanks. A combo of IW or IF with an attack-minded fullback is a good one because it creates a natural overlap - IF/IW cuts inside and thus leaves space on the flank for the fullback (or wing-back) to take advantage of. NOTE: when I say "attack-minded" fullback/wing-back, I don't refer exclusively to a FB/WB on attack duty, but any FB/WB role that is hard-coded to get further forward - such as WB on support and CWB on either duty.

Examples of naturally overlapping combos:

- IFsu / FBat (my favorite)

- IFsu / WBat

- IFsu / WBsu

- IFsu / CWB

- IFat / FBat

- IFat / WBat (even WBsu will sometimes overlap IF on attack)

All these can be applied to inverted wingers, wide PMs and WMs (when you play in a system like 442, 4141, 4411 or any that utilizes wide midfield instead of wide forward positions).

Then we have flank combos involving wingers (role). If you want to see a lot of crosses, you can use a fullback or wing-back role that is hard-coded to cross often (FB on attack or WB on attack) behind the winger (who is also naturally inclined to cross a lot). 

Cross-heavy combos:

- Wsu / FBat

- Wsu / WBat

- Wat / FBat (of course, you can even go with Wat and WBat, but keep in mind that it can be a very risky combo defense-wise)

Combos including a winger but not too heavily focused on crossing:

- Wsu / FBsu

- Wat / FBsu

- Wat / WBde

- Wat / WBsu

- Wsu / WBde (pretty much conservative though)

- Wat / IWBsu

- Wsu / IWBat

- Wat / IWBde

When it comes to striker combos (when playing with 2 strikers), my approach is - one plays a creator role (DLF, CF, F9, TQ), and the other is runner and/or scorer (PO, AF, PF). Target-man (role) can perform either function, depending on the type of player you use in the role.

Then you have various central midfield combos (in this particular context, central midfield also includes defensive midfield). The most common combinations consist of 1 holder, 1 creator and 1 runner, but there are of course a number of variations.

However, all these combos need to be considered as part of your overall tactical setup (including the formation), and certainly not in isolation. 

There is no fixed rule here, simply because everything depends on the style of football you want to play and quality of your players (are they good enough to put your tactical ideas into practice?).

So if you have any more specific question regarding role/duty combinations (or other tactical settings), feel free to ask 

 

[dang3rouspeach]

Thanks for the examples for the natural overlaps, definitely had more combos on there than I had been using / experimenting with. So that will hopefully open things up for me even further in the future. 

How do you decide DLP vs AP? How do I decide between a playmaker and just a CM(s)? I probably don't have a nuanced enough eye for the changes on the field when watching the games. I've been watching the games on full length, but have a hard time picturing how what I see is different than if I had a different role selected. 

I've noticed that the AP(s) moves a bit around a bit more (even without roam from position marked), while the DLP(s) seems to hold position more. I don't really understand if they are looking to play different types of passes though. 

For this tactic I'm guessing it makes sense to not have AP crowd the space that DLF is dropping into? 

Most of the players I've signed have attributes more suited for AP roles, since I figured they would be pushing up a bit more and sitting behind / supplying the through balls to the forwards - so I guess I'm sort of confused as to why that wasn't how it played out. 

 

[Experienced Defender]

8 hours ago, dang3rouspeach said:

How do you decide DLP vs AP?

Do you mean decide between DLP vs AP as to which of the 2 roles to play in a CM position, or you mean whether to use DLP or AP role for your PM (regardless of position)? Because you can use both roles at the same time - e.g. DLP in DM and AP in attacking midfield. Of course, DLP needs better defensive attributes than AP (and other types of PM, such as RPM, TQ, ENG, REG, WP).

If you have a player whose attributes are good enough for both DLP and AP roles, you need to take into account the rest of your setup. Again, a practical example is the best way to explain this.

Note the difference between this 4123 setup:

XX

IFsu                             XX

DLPsu    XX

XX

FBat/WBat     XX   XX    XX

and this one:

XX

IFat/Wat                          XX

APsu     XX

XX

FBsu       XX      XX        XX

In the 1st example, my LB plays in a more attacking role, so I use a DLP to have better protection on that flank, because DLP is a holding role. In the 2nd example, my FB is more conservative, so I can afford to play with an AP as a more attack-minded type of PM. However, this is not set in stone. With players of high (top) quality, you can normally take a proportionally higher risk than with average or poor ones.

[OWD]

On 10/09/2019 at 19:29, Experienced Defender said:

Examples of naturally overlapping combos:

...

Cross-heavy combos:

...

Combos including a winger but not too heavily focused on crossing:

...

 

This is really good info and really should be made more clear in the game. Also, it could be a mini-guide in this forum section.

 

On 10/09/2019 at 19:29, Experienced Defender said:

When it comes to striker combos (when playing with 2 strikers), my approach is - one plays a creator role (DLF, CF, F9, TQ), and the other is runner and/or scorer (PO, AF, PF). Target-man (role) can perform either function, depending on the type of player you use in the role.

Then you have various central midfield combos (in this particular context, central midfield also includes defensive midfield). The most common combinations consist of 1 holder, 1 creator and 1 runner, but there are of course a number of variations.

 

What about one striker systems? He could be a creator, and the inside forwards could be scorers. Or a winger could be a creator... Has anyone worked out how to categorize it all, like you did with 2 stiker combo?

 

On 14/09/2019 at 13:29, Experienced Defender said:

Note the difference between this 4123 setup:

(...)

In the 1st example, my LB plays in a more attacking role, so I use a DLP to have better protection on that flank, because DLP is a holding role. In the 2nd example, my FB is more conservative, so I can afford to play with an AP as a more attack-minded type of PM. However, this is not set in stone. With players of high (top) quality, you can normally take a proportionally higher risk than with average or poor ones.

 

Great example! I fully agree with your thinking here. And I often feel this kind of balancing is overlooked, at least based on the questions on this forum. Hope more people have seen this.

Edited September 24, 2019 by OWD

[Experienced Defender]

4 minutes ago, OWD said:

What about one striker systems? He could be a creator, and the inside forwards could be scorers. Or a winger could be a creator... Has anyone worked out how to categorize it all, like you did with 2 stiker combo?

There are different types of one-striker systems (4123, 4231, 4411, 541 etc.), and a number of other factors would also need to be taken into account (including what type of player your lone striker is). There is no single recipe. Basically, everything comes down to creating and exploiting space.

[OWD]

Yeah, but there are also different types of two-striker systems, and it is always either a creator-scorer combo, or a tall-fast combo (which it most often the same, I guess). There are probably more possibilities, but I can't really think of any at the moment.