3 attackers

[Liamgannon]

I've noticed whenever people setup 3 attackers they always have the central striker in a deeper role than the two either side. I get the logic for this, essentially without the presence of an AMC, you kinda want the central striker to come deep and link the play, a bit like Firmino for Liverpool IRL. 

Saying all of that, i've actually just created a tactic that goes against that principle. Managing RB Leipzig, i've gone with a gegenpressing 3-4-3 tactic, and i'm fully aware that this tactic doesn't usually consist of 3 at the back, but due to playing three pure strikers, e.g no players on the wing, i opted for three at the back for a little more defensive stability. 

So here is the team for my 3-4-3

GKS (S)

WBR (S)

DC (D)

BPD (C)

DC (D)

WBL (S)

B2B (S)

MEZ (S)

Pressing forward (A)

Advanced forward (A)

Pressing forward (A) 

So as you can see from above, the most advanced of the three forwards is the AF (A). My reason for not choosing a lower mentality striker is that i want my attackers to set the tone for the press. By playing a very high line, naturally my 3 CBs squeeze the space between defense and attack, meaning the attackers do their pressing in a very confined space, which increases the chances of winning the ball back higher up the pitch. 

Question to the forum is, what do you think are the negatives of setting up the attack like this? 

 

[pheelf]

The negatives SHOULD be that you get torn apart game after game playing such a ludicrously attacking tactic with the opposition tearing through your midfield like a knife through butter. Given the way the ME is though and the overwhelming power of reputation to render AI managers impotent when it comes to reacting to opposition tactics, I suspect the result will be that you will score a bucket load of goals every game by brute forcing your way through and suffer very little consequences defensively. 

I'll be curious to see how it works out for you.

All the best

[Liamgannon]

TBH i'm not entirely sure that it is a "ludicrously attacking" tactic as you point out. 

I'll try to post a screen shot later to show all my instructions but there are a few notable tweaks that i made to make the midfield and more specifically, the tactic more stable. 

1. Team is instructed to be narrow and compact without the ball

2. Team is also instructed to re-group once they've lost the ball, keeping structure and making it harder to play through us

3. Wingbacks are asked to play narrower, essentially tucking in to help fill out the middle of the pitch by staying in close proximity with the MCs,  again this keeps us compact. 

4. As stated above in the OP, CBs push forward to squeeze the space, but to counter the ball over the top, the middle CB is on a cover duty. 

5. Team consists of two pressing forwards who aim to continually harass the opposition. You say its too attacking, but the basis of the tactic is based on hard work 

6. Last point, my team has 5 support duties, 3 defensive and 3 attacking. Again, this is fairly balanced in my opinion.  

Edited November 15, 2019 by Liamgannon

[FMunderachiever]

1 hour ago, Liamgannon said:

I've noticed whenever people setup 3 attackers they always have the central striker in a deeper role than the two either side. I get the logic for this, essentially without the presence of an AMC, you kinda want the central striker to come deep and link the play, a bit like Firmino for Liverpool IRL. 

Saying all of that, i've actually just created a tactic that goes against that principle. Managing RB Leipzig, i've gone with a gegenpressing 3-4-3 tactic, and i'm fully aware that this tactic doesn't usually consist of 3 at the back, but due to playing three pure strikers, e.g no players on the wing, i opted for three at the back for a little more defensive stability. 

So here is the team for my 3-4-3

GKS (S)

WBR (S)

DC (D)

BPD (C)

DC (D)

WBL (S)

B2B (S)

MEZ (S)

Pressing forward (A)

Advanced forward (A)

Pressing forward (A) 

So as you can see from above, the most advanced of the three forwards is the AF (A). My reason for not choosing a lower mentality striker is that i want my attackers to set the tone for the press. By playing a very high line, naturally my 3 CBs squeeze the space between defense and attack, meaning the attackers do their pressing in a very confined space, which increases the chances of winning the ball back higher up the pitch. 

Question to the forum is, what do you think are the negatives of setting up the attack like this? 

 

Wont be any negatives. youll probably absolutely paste everyone.

Would a real football team use tactics like that though? no, that's why it turns me off using it in a game. I know itll work in the game to a crazy level and its not realistic.

But then again neither is hitting the bar 4 times a game and your goalkeeper fumbling it over the line for a corner every other game either.

[Liamgannon]

3 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

Wont be any negatives. youll probably absolutely paste everyone.

Would a real football team use tactics like that though? no, that's why it turns me off using it in a game. I know itll work in the game to a crazy level and its not realistic.

But then again neither is hitting the bar 4 times a game and your goalkeeper fumbling it over the line for a corner every other game either.

To be fair, i've only played one competitive game with this tactic, it was away to union Berlin and we won 2-0, all other games have been friendlies and a meaningless cup game against a lower division team. I don't really see why using 3 strikers is cheating or trying to overpower the match engine, teams do play like this IRL, Liverpool being a prime example. This tactic was also borne more out of necessity anyway, i didn't fancy any of RB Leipzig's wingers and as i like Diogo Jota IRL i decided to buy him, whilst also purchasing Erling Haland to see how he plays in the game. 

Plus i never really see the benefit of having wingers/inside forwards when the team i'm managing has WBs, not to say it can't work, i just prefer to keep players in more central positions, i think leads to better passing combinations and its less boring and predictable than going down the wing every time to cross a ball into the mixer. 

[FMunderachiever]

3 minutes ago, Liamgannon said:

To be fair, i've only played one competitive game with this tactic, it was away to union Berlin and we won 2-0, all other games have been friendlies and a meaningless cup game against a lower division team. I don't really see why using 3 strikers is cheating or trying to overpower the match engine, teams do play like this IRL, Liverpool being a prime example. This tactic was also borne more out of necessity anyway, i didn't fancy any of RB Leipzig's wingers and as i like Diogo Jota IRL i decided to buy him, whilst also purchasing Erling Haland to see how he plays in the game. 

Plus i never really see the benefit of having wingers/inside forwards when the team i'm managing has WBs, not to say it can't work, i just prefer to keep players in more central positions, i think leads to better passing combinations and its less boring and predictable than going down the wing every time to cross a ball into the mixer. 

its more the fact that when playing IRL, teams don't tend to use three "attacking" strikers all together, unless its panic stations lump it forward football at the very end of a game.

If it works and its enjoyable by all means use the tactic, its not a dig at all

[Liamgannon]

16 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

its more the fact that when playing IRL, teams don't tend to use three "attacking" strikers all together, unless its panic stations lump it forward football at the very end of a game.

If it works and its enjoyable by all means use the tactic, its not a dig at all

No offence taken  This is an extract from another website about how the pressing forward actually works, couldn't say it better myself so i've chosen to post it verbatim. 

"Due to his exceptional work rate and stamina, the pressing forward will often drop deep into the midfield and help the transition game, even more so than a deep-lying forward or false nine would"

This goes to show that the visual representation of the 3 strikers in my tactic is just purely that, a visual representation. When you look a lot closer under the bonnet of the tactic, the wide strikers actually sit a lot deeper. You would be forgiven for thinking they are wingers if you didn't see the tactic screen.  Saying that, it would be near on impossible to get the winger/IFs to replicate the role of a pressing forward, hence why i go with 3 strikers. 

[FMunderachiever]

3 minutes ago, Liamgannon said:

No offence taken  This is an extract from another website about how the pressing forward actually works, couldn't say it better myself so i've chosen to post it verbatim. 

"Due to his exceptional work rate and stamina, the pressing forward will often drop deep into the midfield and help the transition game, even more so than a deep-lying forward or false nine would"

This goes to show that the visual representation of the 3 strikers in my tactic is just purely that, a visual representation. When you look a lot closer under the bonnet of the tactic, the wide strikers actually sit a lot deeper. You would be forgiven for thinking they are wingers if you didn't see the tactic screen.  Saying that, it would be near on impossible to get the winger/IFs to replicate the role of a pressing forward, hence why i go with 3 strikers. 

Will they drop as deep as this when set to attack? Is the pressing forward on attack not pressing from the front, in the style of a Diego Costa, Jamie Vardy type player?

Is something I should perhaps look at more really

[Liamgannon]

8 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

Will they drop as deep as this when set to attack? Is the pressing forward on attack not pressing from the front, in the style of a Diego Costa, Jamie Vardy type player?

Is something I should perhaps look at more really

you're right, they do tend to lead from the front...but its not too uncommon for my PFs to float around, usually inside the edge of the middle of the pitch, helping to put pressure on, like wolves hunting in packs, someone else then wins the ball and  they counter quickly through the lines. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Liamgannon

[pheelf]

13 minutes ago, Liamgannon said:

TBH I'm not entirely sure that it is a "ludicrously attacking" tactic as you point out. 

I'll try to post a screen shot later to show all my instructions but there are a few notable tweaks that i made to make the midfield and more specifically, the tactic more stable. 

1. Team is instructed to be narrow and compact without the ball

2. Team is also instructed to re-group once they've lost the ball, keeping structure and making it harder to play through us

3. Wing backs are asked to play narrower, essentially tucking in to help fill out the middle of the pitch by staying in close proximity with the MCs,  again this keeps us compact. 

4. As stated above in the OP, CBs push forward to squeeze the space, but to counter the ball over the top, the middle CB is on a cover duty. 

5. Team consists of two pressing forwards who and continually harassing the opposition. You say its too attacking, but the basis of the tactic is based on hard work 

6. Last point, my team has 5 support duties, 3 defensive and 3 attacking. Again, this is fairly balanced in my opinion.  

I'm not having a pop at you btw...just making an observation of the limitations of the ME which struggles to adequately deal with such setups, thought I'd clear that up before I respond.

1. While simultaneously pressing the opposition characterized by the gegenpress? You can't remain narrow and compact when you have players constantly vacating their positions to close opposition players down.

2. Simply instructing them to regroup doesn't mean much if the overall defensive shape is weak. Besides, even if they do manage to recover their defensive shape you are left with a midfield consisting of only 2 players which a competent AI should be capable of overwhelming. The point was that they struggle to do that.

3. If you are referring to the PI which asks players to sit narrower then that is an in possession instruction and has limited impact on what they will do when the opposition has the ball.

4. I made no comment on how you setup your central defenders which in my view is okay.

5. My point was that any manager worth his salt would spot this aggressive pressing straight away and instruct their players to play over the press into the midfield where you are outnumbered. Unfortunately, managers thinking you have the beating of them wouldn't react this way and would stay on the low mentality making their players pass the ball slowly and cautiously and when pressed lump the ball forward leading to a cheap turnover of possession.

6. It may be balanced but the point is that the formation dictates how the team sets up defend. Once the ball bypasses your front 3 then you are basically defending with 7 outfield players, at times when your central midfielders and wingbacks get caught forward you could be left with as few as your 3 central defenders.

You asked the question what are the negatives of using this setup, I responded saying that any negatives that do exist the AI isn't capable of exploiting properly which in other words means there are none. I say the tactic is 'ludicrously attacking' because it has 3 attack duty strikers, no defend duty in midfield, wingbacks playing in the WB positions and a high mentality given by the gegenpress. All of which will result in your team pushing all but your three central defenders forward which is very attacking in view.

[Robson 07]

2 hours ago, Liamgannon said:

i've gone with a gegenpressing 3-4-3 tactic

 

56 minutes ago, Liamgannon said:

Team is also instructed to re-group once they've lost the ball

That's an interesting variation of 'gegenpressing' I must say! 

[Liamgannon]

12 minutes ago, Robson 07 said:

 

That's an interesting variation of 'gegenpressing' I must say! 

hahaha  on the face of it, yes your point does sound very valid, allow me to explain though.

I did have the other option ticked to counter press, but we were conceding a few too many goals for my liking, so now i simply let my front three do all the pressing, whilst the rest of the team are set to a more rigid structure. This is usually what happens, (albeit hard to truly know as its from a small game sample) - they end up clearing the ball away up the filed and possession is won back by me and recycled. I actually think this is more realistic to how teams press IRL anyway, you don't often see the whole team press, it is usually the job of the most attacking players, or refined to a group of 3/4 players depending on where the ball is. 

Pep used to manage Barca with the 12 second rule, e.g if the ball wasn't won back in that time then the team would revert to getting behind the ball to stay compact and hopefully win the ball back as the opposition enters their defensive third. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Liamgannon

[FMunderachiever]

I tend to take the opinion that none of the definitions on the game make any sense whatsoever anyway, watch the matches, add some instructions and go from there.

Even if they totally contradict, or there are too many attacking roles, or the roles should work together, regroup on gegenpress etc.

if it makes the team play well, stuff it, I go with it.

[Robson 07]

Fair enough.

3 strikers has caused the match engine problems at times up and down the years.  It will be interesting to see whether or not the AI finds a way of snuffing out your attacking options and then starts picking you off on the counterattack.  Once it adjusts to your form I think that's what may happen.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Robson 07

[Liamgannon]

17 minutes ago, pheelf said:

I'm not having a pop at you btw...just making an observation of the limitations of the ME which struggles to adequately deal with such setups, thought I'd clear that up before I respond.

1. While simultaneously pressing the opposition characterized by the gegenpress? You can't remain narrow and compact when you have players constantly vacating their positions to close opposition players down.

2. Simply instructing them to regroup doesn't mean much if the overall defensive shape is weak. Besides, even if they do manage to recover their defensive shape you are left with a midfield consisting of only 2 players which a competent AI should be capable of overwhelming. The point was that they struggle to do that.

3. If you are referring to the PI which asks players to sit narrower then that is an in possession instruction and has limited impact on what they will do when the opposition has the ball.

4. I made no comment on how you setup your central defenders which in my view is okay.

5. My point was that any manager worth his salt would spot this aggressive pressing straight away and instruct their players to play over the press into the midfield where you are outnumbered. Unfortunately, managers thinking you have the beating of them wouldn't react this way and would stay on the low mentality making their players pass the ball slowly and cautiously and when pressed lump the ball forward leading to a cheap turnover of possession.

6. It may be balanced but the point is that the formation dictates how the team sets up defend. Once the ball bypasses your front 3 then you are basically defending with 7 outfield players, at times when your central midfielders and wingbacks get caught forward you could be left with as few as your 3 central defenders.

You asked the question what are the negatives of using this setup, I responded saying that any negatives that do exist the AI isn't capable of exploiting properly which in other words means there are none. I say the tactic is 'ludicrously attacking' because it has 3 attack duty strikers, no defend duty in midfield, wingbacks playing in the WB positions and a high mentality given by the gegenpress. All of which will result in your team pushing all but your three central defenders forward which is very attacking in view.

appreciate the feedback. You've provided some interesting points of view, which after all, is what i was hoping to get. 

1. only the front 3 vacate their positions, the rest of the team are on support/defense duties so the hard pressing wired into the tactic doesn't transmit to them as much as say if they were on attacking duties. How i understand it, its like passing, the higher the mentality, the more chances someone will take e.g riskier passes, its the same with pressing, the higher the mentality, the more pressing someone will do.  

2. IMO the defensive shape isn't weak, OK maybe not the strongest, but as i said, I've counter balanced that by squeezing the space and playing narrow. 

3. What i mean about playing WBs in a more narrow position, it means they rarely get isolated and always have an easy pass to make. Often when i would play with them in wide positions i noticed they were losing the ball on the wings and teams would then break on us, i made them sit more narrow with the ball to reduce the chances of them giving the ball away cheaply.  They literally always have someone close to them to pass to. 

4. yeah fair enough 

5. You say that, but why are Liverpool so hard to beat IRL, same with City. Lots of decent managers out there who've all come unstuck against them

6. i'll agree there are times when we are caught out, but i'd argue that is the same for any tactic on FM20 or in real life for that matter. The questions that needs to be asked is by using a certain formation, what are the benefits and negatives of it. If the benefits far outweigh the negatives whilst also providing football that is fun to watch, then as far as i'm concerned, that is all i want to see. But yeah, i do value your opinion so thanks for the replies. 

[FMunderachiever]

9 minutes ago, Liamgannon said:

appreciate the feedback. You've provided some interesting points of view, which after all, is what i was hoping to get. 

1. only the front 3 vacate their positions, the rest of the team are on support/defense duties so the hard pressing wired into the tactic doesn't transmit to them as much as say if they were on attacking duties. How i understand it, its like passing, the higher the mentality, the more chances someone will take e.g riskier passes, its the same with pressing, the higher the mentality, the more pressing someone will do.  

2. IMO the defensive shape isn't weak, OK maybe not the strongest, but as i said, I've counter balanced that by squeezing the space and playing narrow. 

3. What i mean about playing WBs in a more narrow position, it means they rarely get isolated and always have an easy pass to make. Often when i would play with them in wide positions i noticed they were losing the ball on the wings and teams would then break on us, i made them sit more narrow with the ball to reduce the chances of them giving the ball away cheaply.  They literally always have someone close to them to pass to. 

4. yeah fair enough 

5. You say that, but why are Liverpool so hard to beat IRL, same with City. Lots of decent managers out there who've all come unstuck against them

6. i'll agree there are times when we are caught out, but i'd argue that is the same for any tactic on FM20 or in real life for that matter. The questions that needs to be asked is by using a certain formation, what are the benefits and negatives of it. If the benefits far outweigh the negatives whilst also providing football that is fun to watch, then as far as i'm concerned, that is all i want to see. But yeah, i do value your opinion so thanks for the replies. 

Liverpool wouldn't play with just the two central midfielders though in roaming roles. they always set up with a hard working 3 in there, and their front 3 would be more like deep lying forward on Firmino, Raumdeuter on Salah and Mane inside forward/inverted winger I would say

[sporadicsmiles]

Let's just say that if I was to play a team playing like this, I would expect to score 5 goals, at least. It is not a sound tactic that would succeed in the real world. The midfield would be eaten alive. I would flood players in there, and send full backs wide to stress the back 3 as well. I might concede some, but I would be confident of destroying this tactic.

Against the AI, it is hard to tell. In FM18 the AI could not handle three central strikers. It was a flaw in the match engine that people used as an exploit. I do not know if it has been fixed, but if not then you would probably have success.

37 minutes ago, Liamgannon said:

2. IMO the defensive shape isn't weak, OK maybe not the strongest, but as i said, I've counter balanced that by squeezing the space and playing narrow. 

It is definitively weak. A good side would just not bother to play the ball around at the back, which entirely negates the press of the three strikers. It is then very easy to drag this system out of shape, because it is deficient in numbers both centrally and out wide. For example, you could overload a flank, pull the midfield and a defender to the overloaded side, and run players into the gaps left. The AI, sadly, is not advanced enough to do this. Which means you probably would have some success.

I mean, if you are happy with the system, then go for it. If it works for you, it works, and it does not really matter what anyone else thinks.

[lferreira]

You need one holding midfielder imho. Good teams will expose you on the counter and the 4-1-2-3 is going to give you a lot of problems.

[Svenc]

There is another weakness also oft to be found in "illogical" exploits mentioned by @sporadicsmiles.

Shoving numbers Forward, such as this tactic, does not merely Impact defending. It also has an effect on the attacking end of Things. The Opposition only Needs to cover the Ground the attacking Team covers. Therefore, if all Players would sit atop of each other, they would be much easier engaged. Against varioius AI, this can still happen more or less. For instance AI prefering formations that absolutely PACK the middle, and may make it easier to pick up the 3 central Forwards (formatioins with a back Five providing added cover and a couple defensive midfielders in front shielding this).

If the AI Drops this against such a tactic, and drops Deep, the simplistic shot data FM provides may make it look as if you were Right in there. After all, it's pegged back all match, also thanks to the press. And it also concedes attack after attack. However, the amount of set pieces can go up ridiculously (and with it the attempts, which without exploits mostly are easily saved, e.g. headers under pressure from the IDFK or Corner). Add to that shots in very Little time and space in General, as the ball carrier is immediately pushed if the defense has no distance to travel once a pass is played. There simply would be no space gained, no matter how many shots -- and yes, with some exploits you can go up to 60+ shots without scoring ONCE. In particular if the AI never concedes the opening Goal and keeps on sitting Deep. This would not happen with something a bit more Football based.

OT: I'm still not sure why such is supported here, btw (at least without an FAQ). It makes Players scream "broken ME" when it is -- at least in parts -- something else completely. A fully robust ME would bring the amount of shots down though. After all, there is absolutely no Quality space created. E.g. defensive Engagement in General needed be robust enough to stop a good chunk of those poor shots with Little Chance of being a goal from Happening. Both from open Play, how much there was actually still created from such. And from the set piece.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Svenc