Doomed to relegate

[yourih3]

Hi guys,

I'm playing as Auxerre in the season 25/26. Last season I managed to win promotion with a media prediction of 7th. So, one could say that my team has barely the quality to promote from the ligue 2 to ligue 1. After being promoted to the ligue 1 the board give me a transfer budget of, yes, 1M€.... I couldn't create a much better team then the previous season. I'm by far the worst team in the competition. I have already accepted that I will be relegated this season, but will ask you guys if/which flaws my tactic has. Just to learn from it and maybe, in my wildest dreams, avoid direct relegation. 

This is my tactic. Latas (playmaker type) and Thuram (b2b type) are my best players. Accompenied by Adamovic (young, promising defender) and Davide (great AF, which scored 8 goals in 14 app.)

I already changed my LWB to WB-S because most of the goal came from crosses at that area. Also some goals came from shots from just outside my penalty area.

 

I like to hear from you guys!

 

 

[phnompenhandy]

Looks far too timid to me. You're scared to have the ball and don't seem to want to score.

I got promoted to the Premier League and was expected to finish last. I set up a bit like you and quickly realised I was gifting possession to even the poorest opponents. I switched to a Balanced mentality and dished out a few attack duties. Can your DLP go on support (he has 3 defend duties behind him)? Maybe one of your wingbacks and Latas could have attacking duties. I'd either do that or put on counter-attacking.

As my players tend to be weaker and slower than the opposition, I don't tight mark, but I either press urgently or ease up on that instruction and counter-press. I get stuck in as well - show a bit of teeth!

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, yourih3 said:

I have already accepted that I will be relegated this season, but will ask you guys if/which flaws my tactic has

My first question is: why have you opted for the cautious team mentality? Because with an already extremely bottom-heavy formation (5122) + lower LOE, such a low team mentality is likely to make you both overly passive in the defensive phase and too sterile attacking-wise (especially as you have only 1 player on attack duty).

My second question: why narrow attacking width, especially as your formation is already narrow? I am not saying that you should use wide width. But starting with normal/default width and then occasionally making in-match tweaks as you see fit is usually the most rational option when it comes to width.

1 hour ago, yourih3 said:

Latas (playmaker type)

Why then don't you play him in a playmaker role? Given that his position is in the central midfield, I assume that he has suitable attributes to play as a DLP. Or is more of the AP type?

Last but not least, what is your idea in terms of the style of play? The lower LOE means defensive football, but what specific type of defensive football are you looking to play? Counter-attacking or more passive (such as catenaccio for example?

[CARRERA]

I would start off, letting my players become familiar with the tactics and their roles and then see how it plays out. Familiarity is often underestimated, but can have quite some impact on your overall tactical cohesion.

 

[yourih3]

Guys, thank you for the advise!

I adjusted my tactic based on the suggestions you all made. In the two matches that I played I found that the team played much better attack wise. We created much more chances, then we did before the adjustments. Unfortunaly we had to play Lyon (2-0 loss) and Monaco (2-1 loss)... But in the game against Monaco we even got a higher XG then Monaco.  

To answer the question of @Experienced Defender:

21 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

My first question is: why have you opted for the cautious team mentality? Because with an already extremely bottom-heavy formation (5122) + lower LOE, such a low team mentality is likely to make you both overly passive in the defensive phase and too sterile attacking-wise (especially as you have only 1 player on attack duty).

I started the season with a flat midfield three but was giving to much chances away. In order to get me defense more stable I shifted more and more against a very cautious set up of the tactic..

21 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

My second question: why narrow attacking width, especially as your formation is already narrow? I am not saying that you should use wide width. But starting with normal/default width and then occasionally making in-match tweaks as you see fit is usually the most rational option when it comes to width.

To be honest: it was a suggestion the assistant did before the game I took the screenshot. I was really desperate

21 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Last but not least, what is your idea in terms of the style of play? The lower LOE means defensive football, but what specific type of defensive football are you looking to play? Counter-attacking or more passive (such as catenaccio for example?

Before the reactions I would have said a more passive style of defensive football. But after what I've seen in the two matches I played yet, I would say counter-attacking.

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, yourih3 said:

On 25/05/2021 at 21:57, Experienced Defender said:

My first question is: why have you opted for the cautious team mentality? Because with an already extremely bottom-heavy formation (5122) + lower LOE, such a low team mentality is likely to make you both overly passive in the defensive phase and too sterile attacking-wise (especially as you have only 1 player on attack duty).

I started the season with a flat midfield three but was giving to much chances away. In order to get me defense more stable I shifted more and more against a very cautious set up of the tactic

The point is that the cautious (or any defensive) team mentality does not automatically improve defensive solidity or stability. Just as a more attacking mentality does not automatically mean that you'll be more dangerous in attack. That's why I asked that question  

 

2 hours ago, yourih3 said:

To be honest: it was a suggestion the assistant did before the game I took the screenshot. I was really desperate

Do not listen to the assistant when it comes to tactical creation. Instead, use your common sense. You can take a look at his suggestions, but do not follow them unless it really makes sense. It is your tactic, not his. He gives suggestions based on his tactical approach, not yours. 

 

2 hours ago, yourih3 said:

Before the reactions I would have said a more passive style of defensive football. But after what I've seen in the two matches I played yet, I would say counter-attacking

If so, then your setup may need a couple of tweaks. 

 

2 hours ago, yourih3 said:

The left side of the setup looks perfect in terms of balance and space creation through attacking movement - attacking WB + holding DLP + supporting DLF 

But the right side may prove problematic. More specifically, the attacking CM could leave the RWB a bit too exposed, especially as you manage an underdog. If you managed a strong team with better players, that probably would not be too much of a problem. But as an underdog, you need more solidity in defense. Therefore, I would change the RCM's duty into support. That would put him in an optimal position to support both the AF up front and RWB in defense. 

As for the 3 CBs... you have the central one on defend duty and the lateral ones on cover. But I think the opposite would make more sense in your setup.