4-4-2 Diamond

[vobinho555]

Hi all

I've started playing with a 4-4-2 Diamond and doing relatively well (2-1 win away at Spurs, 0-0 at home to Man Utd)

But I fear the latest result, losing 3-2 at home at Wolves might be a sign of things to come. 

Annoyingly, the same mistakes keep happening and I'm not sure how to fix it :

1. My defenders keep dwelling on the ball and the strikers keep taking it from them, sprinting away and scoring - not enough support for the ball carrier maybe?

2. Not enough cover out wide - the diamond makes it a struggle here. What's the best way to give support to the full backs? Wolves destroyed me there as they like to attack out wide

I've attached a screenshot of formation and most instructions, I'll be glad of any help! This year's game is very frustrating so far.

 

 

Not the best with tactics... do criticise it as much as you like!

[Experienced Defender]

3 minutes ago, vobinho555 said:

Not enough cover out wide - the diamond makes it a struggle here. What's the best way to give support to the full backs?

Well, that's the thing with narrow systems. The fullbacks or wing-backs as the only wide players are logically required to provide regular support in attack while at the same time being able to fulfill their defensive duties properly. Your fullback roles is a bit too conservative for a narrow system like the diamond. If you do not have fullbacks who are capable of performing this demanding job, then you better reconsider the whole formation. 

 

8 minutes ago, vobinho555 said:

My defenders keep dwelling on the ball and the strikers keep taking it from them, sprinting away and scoring - not enough support for the ball carrier maybe?

No surprise given that you have an overkill of possession-heavy team instructions. On top of that, you are playing both CBs as BPD, which encourages them to spend more time on the ball. And if they are not good enough with the ball in their feet, the problem only gets bigger. 

Two major issues in your tactic are:

1. The setup of roles and duties is unsuited to the type of formation;

2. An extreme amount of needless team instructions leading to tactical overkill and a total mess 

In short, the tactic needs a complete overhaul. If you don't have an idea what you should do to improve it, I can help you through an example that could give you some food for thought. 

[coach vahid]

Hi...

Diamond is a particular system. You need time for players have great understanding in this system. ( i mean in real life ). SI gave some roles for protect and attack the sides. Have you read this ?

It may help you to pick a role. You have many options.

[vobinho555]

8 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Well, that's the thing with narrow systems. The fullbacks or wing-backs as the only wide players are logically required to provide regular support in attack while at the same time being able to fulfill their defensive duties properly. Your fullback roles is a bit too conservative for a narrow system like the diamond. If you do not have fullbacks who are capable of performing this demanding job, then you better reconsider the whole formation. 

 

No surprise given that you have an overkill of possession-heavy team instructions. On top of that, you are playing both CBs as BPD, which encourages them to spend more time on the ball. And if they are not good enough with the ball in their feet, the problem only gets bigger. 

Two major issues in your tactic are:

1. The setup of roles and duties is unsuited to the type of formation;

2. An extreme amount of needless team instructions leading to tactical overkill and a total mess 

In short, the tactic needs a complete overhaul. If you don't have an idea what you should do to improve it, I can help you through an example that could give you some food for thought. 

Thanks for the input.

My main issue is understanding where it's gone wrong and what to do to fix it. 

I wanted a low tempo possession based tactic, a playmaker in the middle of the park, with a team shape to be able to pass between the lines.

Would love a starting point from which I'm able to work from.

[vobinho555]

53 minutes ago, coach vahid said:

Hi...

Diamond is a particular system. You need time for players have great understanding in this system. ( i mean in real life ). SI gave some roles for protect and attack the sides. Have you read this ?

It may help you to pick a role. You have many options.

Thanks, I'll have a read. Out of my depth with all these roles and duties at the moment! Finding it hard to translate them into a way of playing.

[Experienced Defender]

46 minutes ago, vobinho555 said:

I wanted a low tempo possession based tactic, a playmaker in the middle of the park, with a team shape to be able to pass between the lines.

Would love a starting point from which I'm able to work from

First off, if you want a possession-based tactic, then instructions such as (much) lower LOE, less urgent pressing, stay on feet and regroup do not make any sense at all. On one hand, you created a total overkill of possession-heavy in-possession TIs, while at the same time your out-of-possession TIs are totally anti-possession.

To cut a long story short, I'll give you an example of a possession-oriented tactic using the narrow 442 diamond system (although this formation is not ideal for heavy-possession styles):

DLFsu    POat

AMat

DLPsu      MEZsu

HB

CWBsu    CDde   BPDde   WBsu

SKsu

As you can see, I use only 1 playmaker instead of yours two, because playing possession-oriented football should not mean keeping possession merely for the sake of it.

I also play the fullbacks in more attack-minded roles because of the type of system (as I already explained in my previous post). But even though their roles are now attack-minded, neither of them is played on an attack duty, simply because you want a tactic that is primarily possession-friendly, which means you don't want too many crosses. 

When it comes to instructions, of course you need to adapt them to your intended style of play, but not in the sense of creating tactical overkill. Instead, always try to keep them as simple as possible.

So - assuming you want to play under the Balanced team mentality - how would I set up your team instructions (starting ones, before possible small in-match tweaks)? 

Let's see:

In possession - shorter passing, play out of defence, underlap left and work ball into box (the last one may not even be necessary)

In transition - no instructions

Out of possession - higher D-line, prevent short GKD and offside trap

Do you note how few instructions I am using? 

[vobinho555]

15 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

First off, if you want a possession-based tactic, then instructions such as (much) lower LOE, less urgent pressing, stay on feet and regroup do not make any sense at all. On one hand, you created a total overkill of possession-heavy in-possession TIs, while at the same time your out-of-possession TIs are totally anti-possession.

To cut a long story short, I'll give you an example of a possession-oriented tactic using the narrow 442 diamond system (although this formation is not ideal for heavy-possession styles):

DLFsu    POat

AMat

DLPsu      MEZsu

HB

CWBsu    CDde   BPDde   WBsu

SKsu

As you can see, I use only 1 playmaker instead of yours two, because playing possession-oriented football should not mean keeping possession merely for the sake of it.

I also play the fullbacks in more attack-minded roles because of the type of system (as I already explained in my previous post). But even though their roles are now attack-minded, neither of them is played on an attack duty, simply because you want a tactic that is primarily possession-friendly, which means you don't want too many crosses. 

When it comes to instructions, of course you need to adapt them to your intended style of play, but not in the sense of creating tactical overkill. Instead, always try to keep them as simple as possible.

So - assuming you want to play under the Balanced team mentality - how would I set up your team instructions (starting ones, before possible small in-match tweaks)? 

Let's see:

In possession - shorter passing, play out of defence, underlap left and work ball into box (the last one may not even be necessary)

In transition - no instructions

Out of possession - higher D-line, prevent short GKD and offside trap

Do you note how few instructions I am using? 

Thanks for the great reply!

First of all, my thinking behind low pressing, stay on feet and regroup was so that I wouldn't get picked off by the opposition after a failed pressing strategy. I've found in a lot of saves that I press and the opposition then pick the gaps through my midfield as the pressing wasn't good enough. My thinking was once we did win possession back, then at least we'd stand a better chance of keeping it, but at the same time not leave myself too open to opposition attacks when we don't have the ball.

Your team shape makes a lot of sense. Is there a chance the AM(a) and DLF(s) get in each other's way on the pitch by occupying the same space?

The underlap instruction has always confused me. In this instance would it be the CWB cutting inside and making a run towards goal as opposed to towards the wing?

And yes, not many instructions at all - guessing I made my men very confused on the pitch with everything countering each other!

 

[smithy20]

22 minutes ago, vobinho555 said:

And yes, not many instructions at all - guessing I made my men very confused on the pitch with everything countering each other!

 

 

I still sometimes make this mistake and you'll see it with plug and play/exploit tactics that are around these days. They are just filled with team instructions and it's just painful to look at.

 

[Experienced Defender]

44 minutes ago, vobinho555 said:

my thinking behind low pressing, stay on feet and regroup was so that I wouldn't get picked off by the opposition after a failed pressing strategy. I've found in a lot of saves that I press and the opposition then pick the gaps through my midfield as the pressing wasn't good enough. My thinking was once we did win possession back, then at least we'd stand a better chance of keeping it, but at the same time not leave myself too open to opposition attacks when we don't have the ball

If so, that probably means your players are not good enough for the style of football you want to play. Or maybe they could play that way, but in a different (non-narrow) type of formation. 

 

46 minutes ago, vobinho555 said:

Is there a chance the AM(a) and DLF(s) get in each other's way on the pitch by occupying the same space?

I personally have never had that kind of problem when I used such role combo. They can be close to each other, but there is nothing wrong with that per se. In fact, in can help keep the ball better in the final third. Especially if you want to play in a possession-oriented fashion. 

 

49 minutes ago, vobinho555 said:

The underlap instruction has always confused me. In this instance would it be the CWB cutting inside and making a run towards goal as opposed to towards the wing?

Given that the formation is narrow, an underlap/overlap instruction does not have the same sort of impact as it does in wide systems. In this case, the underlap is primarily added as a way to slightly increase the CWB's mentality and thus encourage him to be as involved in the final-third play as possible. 

 

54 minutes ago, vobinho555 said:

And yes, not many instructions at all - guessing I made my men very confused on the pitch with everything countering each other!

[Experienced Defender]

@Hunter T I had to remove your post. If you want an opinion/help/advice on your tactic, you'll need to start your own separate thread. Please do so and be sure you'll get tactical advice 

Thank you.