Matching player strengths/weaknesses to a tactic?

[davierich]

Hello I am looking for advice in how to go about creating a tactic to fit to players attributes in terms of strengths and weaknesses. I feel like I can identify the strengths and weaknesses of my players and in my head have some sort of plan of how I can play to make the most of them, but often fail to put those ideas into good effect. For example if I have a trio of midfielders who are all talented passers, do I utilise a short passing game knowing they can all move it around nicely or go more direct as I know they have the passing ability to hit accurate passes a longer distance. I have attached my key players and a tactic with some thoughts below:

CB's: Nice partnership here with the pacey Godfrey who is a nice ball player and has bags of pace, alongside the dominant Diop who is strong in the air. Both have solid positioning, concentration, anticipation. Looks like a nice stopper/cover partnership?

FB's:  Both solid not spectacular defensively, both solid not spectacular going forward. Pacey enough and good stamina. could be always willing to support attacks from wide. Both good pace and alongside the cb's who aren't slow leads to playing a high  line?

Centre mid trio - Rice - Good composure, anticipation, concentration. Can spot danger. Solid work rate and also a solid enough passer and worker.

                             - Lo Celso - Creative force of the team, outstanding creator/passer good dicating play trying killer balls which he has in PPM. Great movement off ball and flair and ok dribbling. Also has dictate tempo and come deep to get ball PPM's. Want him to be on the ball as much as possible. Work rate and teamwork also solid so will do his fair share defensively?

                             - Longstaff - the legs of the midfield - solid mentals with a high super workrate and good stamina. Will run all day. Not super techincally but a solid passer with good vision.

Overall the midfield are all very good passers of the ball with good vision and first touches. All are willing to work hard too. I often struggle how does this lead me to want them to play? Should I be using short quick passing as they can move it at pace, relying on their strong first touch? Or do i go more direct hoping they can see those balls over the top with their strong passing and vision? Do I want the team pressing to be high considering the strong work rate in the enginge room or use PI's on these players because as you will see my attackers aren't the best defensively...

Attackers: Pedro Lucas - star player. Pacey outstanding dribbler. Plays more like an IF than W due to cut inside PPM. Not bad goalscoring attributes so is a goal threat. Passing not great and equally so his work rate and teamwork leads me to believe he's not going to do a lot defensively. Needs to be my main source of goals. Winger-Attack role??

                   Macias -  Good finisher can take chances. Likes running with the ball despite avg dribbling. Solid movement off ball and good decision maker with solid anticpation and passing. Would make a  good DLF. ow teamwork and work rate. The left winger would also play as an IW-S I have a few who are all similar. Again around the 11 mark for work rate and teamwork. Does this mean a high press high LOE kind of system would be obsolete with players who aren't willing to work hard from the top and put the opposition under pressure?

So I have attached a skeleton tactic. Looking at my players then the way I want to score goals is through my right winger and striker. I want him to run at defences with his pace and dribbling ability either shooting or crossing. The striker(Macias) I want to link play from midfield to attack whilst still proving a goal threat with his solid finishing ability. The left winger as an IW to allow for the maruading left back to overlap.

In midfield then Rice and Lo Celso as Playmakers in each strata. Rice to combine with the BPD and again upto Lo Celso who can than pick a pass ahead of him. I have the ability to play the ball out from th back through Godfrey and Rice hence that instruction. Longstaff would be a CM-D providing cover.

I have gone with counter as I want to use the pace on the wings to attack any space thats left when we win the ball back. Have gone with regroup as if we lose the ball high I'm not convinced that my attackers will work hard enough to win the ball back early doors. Could I add distribute quickly here so the Keeper can get it out, preferably to my right winger who can run at opposition before they are set?

Finally I've gone with the stopper cover combo in central defence utilising the strenghts of each defender. A high line to consideirng the pace we have back there, but a lower line of engagement so that there is some space in behind if we are able to win the ball and counter.

To sum up then, I think I can identify the strenghts of my key players, but am unsure on how to play to them. Any input is appreciated.

Edit - Match one. Beaten handily away to Everton 2-0. Gave up  14 shots. With a whopping 4 CCC's. Conceded from a cross which wasn't cleared and smashed home from close range and a ball over the top defender chasing back conceded a penalty trying to catch up. Managed only 8 shots myself creating 9 CCC's. Did win the possession battle however...

Edited May 10, 2020 by davierich
Updating match one

[Experienced Defender]

18 hours ago, davierich said:

Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to read the whole post and go through the players' screenshots, but I did take a look at your tactic and it does not look promising IMHO, regardless of the style of football you are looking to play. In fact, it's impossible to figure out what your style of play is intended to be, because there a number of contradictions in the tactic. 

[davierich]

Truth be told I'm not sure how I want to play. As I alluded to in the post, I'm not entirely sure what attributes lend themselves to different styles of football. As I mentioned -  does good passing and vision lend itself to playing direct football as the players are more capable of pulling of passers over a further distance? If my forwards have poor work rate and teamwork, does this mean a high press wouldn't be optimal?

I guess with the tactic I laid out there, I wanted to build from the back through the BPD, DLP and AP - with the pace of the W-At and finishing ability of the DLF being the primary goalscoring threat. Counter was ticked to utilise the pace for any breaks, and a lower LOE to make sure their was pace for the winger to exploit withi his pace and dribbling?

[Overmars]

Quick thoughts:

• CM(d) ahead of a DLP(d) makes very little sense. I would be more adventurous with the CM(d) and use a role that can get up and support your sole striker. A BBM(s) or even a CM(a) would make sense.
• Low line of engagement with high defensive line can expose you to balls over the top because you are giving your opponents time and space to pick out those passes.
• Your winger isn't going to have much to aim at when crossing. Someone else getting into the box would be nice. An attack duty central midfielder and/or an inside forward can help a lot.
• If you have a winger ahead of him then you can use an inverted wingback role on your right fullback since you no longer need the width. You could also use an ordinary defensive fullback, which would enable you to be more aggressive with your midfield trio.

[enigmatic]

Longstaff is hard working and likes to get forward where he's got enough finishing ability and vision to be useful, not sure why you'd instruct him to sit back and defend when you've got Rice behind him and only Macias and occasionally the far side winger is making runs into the penalty area. You have to take advantage of your other players strengths and weaknesses too: you've got Rice and two good centre backs to protect against the counter attack and Lo Celso will track back too, you don't need another player sitting back as well. 

[Experienced Defender]

@davierich I've just analyzed your players from the screenshots and I think I have a pretty clear idea of how you should play. However, there are only 9 players in the screenshots, so I am curious about the keeper and the missing one among the front 3 (whoever he is). I can reasonably assume that Longstaff and Lo Celso are CMs with RIce behind them in the DM position. But Lucas and Macias can both play either up front or on the flanks, so I don't know how you use them and who is their 3rd partner?

[davierich]

17 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

@davierich I've just analyzed your players from the screenshots and I think I have a pretty clear idea of how you should play. However, there are only 9 players in the screenshots, so I am curious about the keeper and the missing one among the front 3 (whoever he is). I can reasonably assume that Longstaff and Lo Celso are CMs with RIce behind them in the DM position. But Lucas and Macias can both play either up front or on the flanks, so I don't know how you use them and who is their 3rd partner?

Sorry yes. Macias up top and pedro wide. My keeper is a standard sweeper keeper solid enough with ball at feet. And I use this guy attached on the left flank even though he's not natural. 

[Experienced Defender]

2 minutes ago, davierich said:

Sorry yes. Macias up top and pedro wide. My keeper is a standard sweeper keeper solid enough with ball at feet. And I use this guy attached on the left flank even though he's not natural. 

Okay, would you like me to tell you what my basic starting tactic would be with these players? 

[davierich]

Sure a 4-1-2-2-1? Rice at DM with Lo Celso and Longstaff in CM statas. Lucas RW, Vignato LW. Macias CF. 

[Experienced Defender]

Just now, davierich said:

Sure a 4-1-2-2-1? Rice at DM with Lo Celso and Longstaff in CM statas. Lucas RW, Vignato LW. Macias CF

Yes. But roles, duties and instructions matter as well. Good players mean little (if anything) without the right tactical system. 

[davierich]

Ok. In my head i want to move the ball at pace from the back through the midfield and prefarably to the right wing.

SK-SU

WB-D    CD-St   BPD-Co    WB-Su

                         DLP-D

           AP-Su                      BBM-Su

W-At                                                    Iw-Su

                          DLF-AT

Play Out Defence, shorter pasing, quicker tempo

Counter. Distribute quickly

Higher D Line.

[Experienced Defender]

14 hours ago, davierich said:

In my head i want to move the ball at pace from the back

If you want to "move the ball at pace", why on earth would you want to have 2 playmakers? Which, on top of that, are located so close to each other. You may not need more than 1 PM even if you want to play patient possession football, let alone faster styles. 

 

14 hours ago, davierich said:

SK-SU

WB-D    CD-St   BPD-Co    WB-Su

                         DLP-D

           AP-Su                      BBM-Su

W-At                                                    Iw-Su

                          DLF-AT

Even apart from the 2-playmakers issue, I fear you are going to struggle with this setup of roles and duties. It's not extremely bad though, so a couple of tweaks should be enough to improve it considerably. 

Btw, you essentially do not need a CB on stopper duty in a system with a DM. The covering one is okay, but the other should be on defend (IMHO). 

14 hours ago, davierich said:

Play Out Defence, shorter pasing, quicker tempo

Counter. Distribute quickly

Higher D Line

Which mentality?

[davierich]

Ok I hear you so playmakers are deemed good fits for teams looking at patient build up play slower tempos looking to unlock defences? So the CD-St isn't needed as the space in front of the back four is being covered by the DMC?. Menatlity would be positive, I guess.

How would you go about setting the team up, given their attributes?

[Experienced Defender]

3 hours ago, davierich said:

so playmakers are deemed good fits for teams looking at patient build up play slower tempos looking to unlock defences?

Depends on the type of playmaker(s) and how you use them within a tactic. But basically yes - in possession-based styles having a playmaker is advisable. In non-possession styles, you may or may not use a PM. 

But the problem in your tactic is that you are using two of them, and too close too each other at that. There are systems in which even that can make sense, but that's another story, so I would rather focus on your tactic and your team here. 

3 hours ago, davierich said:

So the CD-St isn't needed as the space in front of the back four is being covered by the DMC?

Yes. Which does not necessarily mean that you should use a stopper duty whenever you don't have a DM. 

 

3 hours ago, davierich said:

How would you go about setting the team up, given their attributes?

Looking at your players' attributes (but also their player traits and preferred foot), this would be my starting setup of roles and duties:

DLFat

IFsu                                 Wsu

DLPsu    CMat

DMde

FBat    CDde   BPDde   FBsu

SKde/su

This is a very simple 4123 setup that gives you a nice balance between defensive solidity and attacking penetration in a multidimensional way. 

The next step is choosing the right player for each role and see if some of them may need to be given a player instruction or two. So here is what I would go with:

GK - haven't seen his profile, so I have to rely on your statement about him as a "standard SK"

DL/FBat - Tierney

DR/FBsu - Tavares - sit narrower

DCL/CDde - Diop

DCR/BPDde - Godfrey - dribble less

DM/DMde - Rice

MCL/DLPsu - Lo Celso

MCR/CMat - Longstaff - close down more

AML/IFsu - Vignato (or Lucas) - sit narrower

AMR/Wsu - Lucas (or Vignato)

STC/DLFat - Macias - close down more

Team instructions would be based on both your players' attributes and the setup of roles and duties. I would (as always) start with as few as possible and look to keep them simple:

In possession - shorter passing, be more expressive and work ball into box

In transition - distribute to CBs and FBs

Out of possession - higher D-line (and possibly offside trap)

The only thing I (deliberately) haven't mentioned is the team mentality. Because the tactic is simple and well-balanced enough that you should be able to comfortably switch between the Balanced and Positive as you see fit. Which means that you need to watch matches (preferably in the comprehensive mode) so that you could sense when to pick one or the other. Of course, it's generally "safer" to start a match on the Balanced and then up to the positive if needed. 

P.S: In case you want to test this particular tactic, you need to know that it's not a plug'n'play by any means, so small occasional (fine-tuning) tweaks would almost certainly be needed. But you at least have a good starting point to build upon.

If you have any questions in relation to any aspect of the above tactic, please let me know