help with a basic 442

[Kevinbyron25]

could anybody please advise how i could make this tactic a bit more attacking. my plan is to have a vary basic set up and not to complicate things. it have been working well so far apart from playong teams around the bottom of the table who sit back.

thanks 

[nidhar.ram]

There is a natural overlap on the left with FB(A) and WP(S). I don't think you need the TI as it will only bring the mentality of the WP to cautious. Change WP's role to attack and FB(A) to WB(S) and see how that works. you will have the WP having space behind the AF and play  balls to your forwards.

Also CM(D) could be BWM(S) to have the midfield defending in a flat 4 shape.

[Kevinbyron25]

Thanks for the suggestions

[Experienced Defender]

The setup of roles and duties looks okay. A couple of small subtle tweaks could make it even better, but there is nothing glaringly wrong.

However, some of your instructions look (potentially) problematic.

For example, with the partnership of a supporting WP and attacking FB, you don't need to use the Overlap left TI, simply because there already is a natural overlap there by virtue of these roles.

But even more problematic are your defensive TIs. First, tight marking does not suit either your tactical style or 442 as a formation. Instead, the TM instruction makes a lot more sense in a compact low-block applied within bottom-heavy formations (such as flat 4141 for example).

Then, tight marking does not go hand in hand with aggressive pressing either. Because tight marking asks players to move closer to the opposition player who has entered their zone of defensive responsibility in order to try and prevent him from receiving a pass from his teammate. Whereas more urgent pressing intensity tells players to run around and chase the ball so as to put pressure on the opposition and thus confuse them into making a mistake. Therefore, tight marking and aggressive pressing essentially contradict each other. 

Last but not least, using aggressive defensive TIs such as more or extremely urgent pressing or hard tackling (get stuck in) or tight marking - whether separately or together (as in your tactic) - requires a compact defensive block, which means that D-line should ideally be one notch higher than LOE (which is obviously not the case in your tactic).

[Zemahh]

On 17/05/2021 at 19:34, Experienced Defender said:

Then, tight marking does not go hand in hand with aggressive pressing either. Because tight marking asks players to move closer to the opposition player who has entered their zone of defensive responsibility in order to try and prevent him from receiving a pass from his teammate. Whereas more urgent pressing intensity tells players to run around and chase the ball so as to put pressure on the opposition and thus confuse them into making a mistake. Therefore, tight marking and aggressive pressing essentially contradict each other.

This is an interesting take actually, I never thought tight marking straight up contradicts aggressive pressing. Your explanation makes perfect sense though, if a player is instructed to mark someone closely, it makes no sense to also instruct him to potentially press someone else (which means he may no longer be able to mark the player he's primarily responsible for closely, since he might leave his position while pressing another player).

On the other hand, one could also argue that tight marking compliments aggressive pressing, since being close to someone lowers the closing down distance and thus gives player less time on the ball (which comes with a downside of press being easier to beat, since player has less time to recover if turned), but your explanation seems to make more sense in the context of whole team.

I apologize for hijacking OP's thread, just found this very interesting. 

[Experienced Defender]

@Zemahh To be completely clear: nothing prevents you (or anyone) from applying both TM and aggressive pressing together. If you have a really capable team, your players will probably be able to execute such a demanding style of defending (at least against inferior opposition). However, the key question is - do you really need it? In other words, why complicate things that can be simple and take greater risk than necessary 

Another important consideration is - pressing is ball-oriented, whereas tight marking is player-oriented (because you press the player who has the ball but mark a player who does not have the ball).

[CARRERA]

4 hours ago, Zemahh said:

On the other hand, one could also argue that tight marking compliments aggressive pressing,

Pressing and marking are two different defensive tasks that have to be carried out anyway and do neither compliment or contradict each other. 

And here is why: Both pressing and marking are applied at defensive phase at all time. The question is just to wich extend.  pressing intensity will determin how far your players will travel to press the opposition, which can lead to multiple players pressing against the ball at the same time if intensity is increased drastically. And players who are not pressing against the ball will mark their closest enemy player (unless you came up with man marking a specific player). However, it is to be determined how close you actually want them to be marked, which is affected by mentality and TI/PI. The closer an enemy player is marked, the easier it is for your player to chellange him by intercepting the passing lane or go for a tackle. On the other hand, if he fails that, or the other player has physical superiority and the ability to beat your player in a 1 on 1 situation this can be devastating. The Striker for example could just get by your player and move on from there, or your player could follow that striker by leaving his defensive position and therefore leaves up space behind, as he failed to intercept or tackle that player (bad decision making, no physical superiority). So tighter marking is just a very high risk Version of your teams marking style.

And as ED said, before using a tighter marking style (or any other high risk instruction), better check if it’s worth taking those risks.