Please help with tactical idea

[Stimmau5]

Hi chaps, looking for some tactical help, I had this idea whilst doodling at work recently and before I test it out in my save I was hoping if you could guys could see any major flaws in the system for me?

So my idea was to play a counter attacking system with a TM to hold up the ball for 2 mezzalas and a shadow striker to run off him, we also will focus on early crosses from the wingbacks to the TM to head down for the midfielders or to hold up the ball.

In defence i wanted a block of 4 players to always stay back in case of the opposition countering us.

Please bare in mind I am a complete novice when it comes to tactics so any help would be welcome

Thanks.

[Guerin]

I like the broader ideas here but in this setup I think you're going to get horribly exposed in the wide areas and, ironically, on the counter. In attacking phases you've got too many players getting forward with nobody supplying the bullets and in defence your DMS and CBS are going to get pulled way out of position trying to cover wide areas when wingbacks and mezzalas get caught too far up the pitch. Also, whose getting on the end of the early crosses into the box? It won't be the TM support (who arrives in the box later.) If you don't have two players on the flanks you generally need more than two in the middle so that players can cover the wide areas without leaving the middle exposed. Lots to adjust here. 

Start with the shape. I reckon either 3 center backs so you have a 3-3-2-1-1 shape, or drop the wingbacks back which makes a 4-1-3-1-1 shape might be a better starting point for the style you're trying to build. Carrillelo and BWM are useful for formations with only one wideman on each flank because they defend the flanks and prevent the opponent creating 2 on 1's. Counter strategies need to be defensively sound first and foremost.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Guerin

[XuluBak]

You're unnecessarily heavy on "attack" roles. And some of those roles, directly contradict your TIs (e.g., early crosses and WB(a)). 

Based on what you've got, I'd probably...

Drop your DM into a back three forming a 33211. Get rid off "get stuck in." Turn off early crosses as a TI and apply it as a PI, or a situational TI. WB(a) on one side, WB(s) on the other, then have your CMs have the inverse duty (probably B2B for the support CM). 

[Experienced Defender]

On 01/03/2020 at 12:56, Stimmau5 said:

 

On 01/03/2020 at 12:56, Stimmau5 said:

I had this idea whilst doodling at work recently and before I test it out in my save I was hoping if you could guys could see any major flaws in the system for me?

Putting aside the one-dimensionality of your setup of roles and duties, I would rather play the TM on attack duty and mezzalas on support than the other way around from the perspective of what you want to achieve (counter-attacking football of sorts). 

Overall, it looks as though you are trying to offset a gung-ho attacking play by a low-risk team mentality (cautious) coupled with fairly passive defensive instructions (lower lines of defense and engagement and regrouping).

I personally am not a fan of this type of tactics, but it does not mean that it cannot work (stranger things have happened). Try and see.