What formation & tactics would you use for these players?

[smeagoltonez]

Hi

I've taken over Colchester United in League 2. The season preview told me that we were expected to battle relegation but since bringing in some free transfers & loan signings, expectations have risen & we're now predicted to finish second (without playing any games).

I wondered how people would get the best out my players including free signing Adrian Barlow. What formation & system would you use? According to my coaches Barlow is one of my best players but I'm struggling to justify using Barlow in the AM position because he has some poor mental attributes. I think he may have a higher CA because he's good with both feet & has good technique. 

My midfielders are generally good passers & my striker is a f9 so I'm thinking that a possessive, attacking game (443 dm) is maybe the best bet?

Pell is a tall, hardworking & strong defensive midfielder so I'm thinking of using him as a halfback to allow my fullbacks to bomb forward (particularly my loan signing Cirkin who is one of my best players).

My centre backs are fairly slow so a high defensive line would be risky but would the halfback mitigate this threat to some extent by marking their strikers when they come deep? But then maybe fast strikers wouldn't come deep anyway?

Below is the formation & roles I'm thinking of using & some screenshots of some of the players:

I'm new to the whole tactics thing & have been trying to do as much reading on here as possible but still need a lot of help!

Thank you!

 

[Experienced Defender]

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to analyze all these player profiles at the moment, so I can only tell you what in my very personal opinion could be potentially problematic in your setup of roles and duties (since you failed to provide the rest of the tactic):

- the left flank looks too risky defensively with both the FB and CM on attack duties, especially considering that you manage a LL team, so I would switch the FB to support (FBsu - CMat - Wsu)

- on the right flank, FB on support may prove a bit too conservative to consistently offer attacking support to his inside-oriented wide partner (IF), so I would change him into WB on support (or automatic duty)

- HB is a good choice for a DM role when you have attack-minded fullback or wing-back roles on both flanks. But given that you don't, I would suggest either the standard DM on defend duty or anchor man instead

Can you post a screenshot with the whole tactic, so that we could see your team instructions (including the mentality) as well?

[jeerinho]

On the flank having the IF/IW, you want someone to attack the space vacated when having the ball. Otherwise, the opposing FB will just follow him infield. Usually it is the FB's job so you want to give the FB on that flank more offensive instruction. Another way is to use MEZ, but advanced roles like MEZ might be too much for LL players.

[smeagoltonez]

1 hour ago, jeerinho said:

On the flank having the IF/IW, you want someone to attack the space vacated when having the ball. Otherwise, the opposing FB will just follow him infield. Usually it is the FB's job so you want to give the FB on that flank more offensive instruction. Another way is to use MEZ, but advanced roles like MEZ might be too much for LL players.

 

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to analyze all these player profiles at the moment, so I can only tell you what in my very personal opinion could be potentially problematic in your setup of roles and duties (since you failed to provide the rest of the tactic):

- the left flank looks too risky defensively with both the FB and CM on attack duties, especially considering that you manage a LL team, so I would switch the FB to support (FBsu - CMat - Wsu)

- on the right flank, FB on support may prove a bit too conservative to consistently offer attacking support to his inside-oriented wide partner (IF), so I would change him into WB on support (or automatic duty)

- HB is a good choice for a DM role when you have attack-minded fullback or wing-back roles on both flanks. But given that you don't, I would suggest either the standard DM on defend duty or anchor man instead

Can you post a screenshot with the whole tactic, so that we could see your team instructions (including the mentality) as well?

Thank you both very much. I thought that would be the case but my left fullback (Cirkin, pictured above) is the better, more attacking fullback & so it felt like a missed opportunity not to take advantage of his attacking prowess. I guess I'll have to compromise. Cirkin does have the PPM of 'gets forward whenever possible' so perhaps making him a FB(a) isn't necessary.

Or perhaps I could make both fullbacks FB(a) & then the halfback would work better as you say. But then that would make my left flank vulnerable. Or is that something I could adjust match by match depending on the strength of the opposition?

I haven't created a tactic yet. I was awaiting to hear feedback on which formation/tactic the key players best lend themselves to & then I'll go from there.

Thanks again for your help!

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, smeagoltonez said:

I thought that would be the case but my left fullback (Cirkin, pictured above) is the better, more attacking fullback & so it felt like a missed opportunity not to take advantage of his attacking prowess. I guess I'll have to compromise

What is the preferred foot of your central midfielders (players playing in MCL and MCR positions)? 

 

1 hour ago, smeagoltonez said:

Or perhaps I could make both fullbacks FB(a) & then the halfback would work better as you say

You don't have to play both fullbacks on attack duties in order for the HB to make sense, but in attack-minded roles, which do not necessarily imply an attack duty. For example, WB on support (or automatic) duty is an attack-minded role even though it's duty is not attacking. So for example, you can play with one FB on attack duty and the other as WB on support. Or both as WBs on support. But whichever combination you opt for in the end, you always need to consider the setup as a whole and make sure that there is enough defensive cover/protection for more attack-minded roles. Of course, the quality and strength of your team is also an important factor to take into account when it comes to the degree of defensive risk you can afford to take. Stronger teams will normally be able to play with less defensive protection than weaker ones, which does not mean that they necessarily should. The point is to get as much reward with as little risk as possible. 

[Experienced Defender]

Just now, Experienced Defender said:

What is the preferred foot of your central midfielders (players playing in MCL and MCR positions)? 

No need to answer because I saw in their player profiles that they are both right-footed. Which is great, because you can now simply just swap the sides of the related roles. Like this:

F9

IFat                                     Wsu

DLPsu   CMat

DMde

WBsu   CDde  CDde    FBsu

 

[smeagoltonez]

2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

What is the preferred foot of your central midfielders (players playing in MCL and MCR positions)? 

 

You don't have to play both fullbacks on attack duties in order for the HB to make sense, but in attack-minded roles, which do not necessarily imply an attack duty. For example, WB on support (or automatic) duty is an attack-minded role even though it's duty is not attacking. So for example, you can play with one FB on attack duty and the other as WB on support. Or both as WBs on support. But whichever combination you opt for in the end, you always need to consider the setup as a whole and make sure that there is enough defensive cover/protection for more attack-minded roles. Of course, the quality and strength of your team is also an important factor to take into account when it comes to the degree of defensive risk you can afford to take. Stronger teams will normally be able to play with less defensive protection than weaker ones, which does not mean that they necessarily should. The point is to get as much reward with as little risk as possible. 

 

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

No need to answer because I saw in their player profiles that they are both right-footed. Which is great, because you can now simply just swap the sides of the related roles. Like this:

F9

IFat                                     Wsu

DLPsu   CMat

DMde

WBsu   CDde  CDde    FBsu

 

Thank you very much for your help and patient explanations!

I suppose my next question is will my team benefit from playing my star signing Barlow (pictured below) in the AM position as an AP at League 2 level? Or should I keep him on the wing & play a DM? It's some of Barlow's dodgy mental attributes that put me off. The potential DM players in my squad are weaker but maybe they are necessary to allow my fullbacks to support my attacks?

Thanks!

 

[Experienced Defender]

8 minutes ago, smeagoltonez said:

I suppose my next question is will my team benefit from playing my star signing Barlow (pictured below) in the AM position as an AP at League 2 level?

If you want to play him in an AM position, that means changing the whole formation (4231 instead of 4123, I guess?). 

[smeagoltonez]

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

If you want to play him in an AM position, that means changing the whole formation (4231 instead of 4123, I guess?). 

Yep, in my (very inexperienced) opinion, for the players that I have at my disposal (attacking wide players & a f9), the viable formations are 433, 4123 & 4231. I just don't know which to choose & am going in circles. I'm trying to find the best formation to get the best out of my key players & I suppose it all depends on whether I play Barlow in the AM position or out wide?

What impact would going with a 4231 have on the player roles discussed above? 

Thanks again for your invaluable help!

 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, smeagoltonez said:

Yep, in my (very inexperienced) opinion, for the players that I have at my disposal (attacking wide players & a f9), the viable formations are 433, 4123 & 4231

Any formation can be viable as long as you set the roles and duties up in the right way, although some formations suit some types of teams better than others. For example, the 4231 is inherently more risky from a defensive perspective than 4123). 

 

1 hour ago, smeagoltonez said:

What impact would going with a 4231 have on the player roles discussed above?

The exact impact cannot be defined. Depends on how you want to play in terms of playing style. 

[smeagoltonez]

3 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Any formation can be viable as long as you set the roles and duties up in the right way, although some formations suit some types of teams better than others. For example, the 4231 is inherently more risky from a defensive perspective than 4123). 

 

The exact impact cannot be defined. Depends on how you want to play in terms of playing style. 

I'm steering towards a slow & patient possession game. My attacking players are generally decent passers with decent off the ball movement. My f9 is small & weak but has good movement & passing. My wingmen prefer to play inverted roles too. My wingbacks would be able to overlap too. What do you think?

Would this mean my 3 attacking players would press up the pitch to get the ball back asap?

And I assume I'd play a higher defensive line? I'm concerned by the fact that my centre backs are slow though. They have good positioning & mental attributes though so maybe this (along with the DM) will adequately compensate for the high defensive line?

Thanks

[Experienced Defender]

41 minutes ago, smeagoltonez said:

I'm steering towards a slow & patient possession game. My attacking players are generally decent passers with decent off the ball movement. My f9 is small & weak but has good movement & passing

If you aim for a slow and patient possession style, then DLF would be a better choice for the striker role than F9. 

 

43 minutes ago, smeagoltonez said:

My wingmen prefer to play inverted roles too. My wingbacks would be able to overlap too. What do you think?

I would have to see the tactic as a whole in order to be able to offer any meaningful thoughts. Although I don't see why would you want to replace your current formation (4123 wide) with the 4231 anyway. Not least because the 4123 is better suited to a slow possession style than 4231 (especially for a LL team). 

 

46 minutes ago, smeagoltonez said:

Would this mean my 3 attacking players would press up the pitch to get the ball back asap?

Where they will start pressing is defined by the line of engagement. Btw, if you switch to 4231, there won't be 3 but 4 attacking (i.e. advanced) players. 

 

48 minutes ago, smeagoltonez said:

And I assume I'd play a higher defensive line? I'm concerned by the fact that my centre backs are slow though

Well, if you want a possession style, a higher D-line would be logical. 

 

49 minutes ago, smeagoltonez said:

They have good positioning & mental attributes though so maybe this (along with the DM) will adequately compensate for the high defensive line?

Yes, good mental attributes (tactical intelligence) as well as the presence of a DM can compensate somewhat for the lack of pace. But I am again confused because you are mentioning a DM, which does not exist in the 4231 (unless you are talking about the deep 4231, with 2 DMs).

[HanziZoloman]

9 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

10 hours ago, smeagoltonez said:

 

If you aim for a slow and patient possession style, then DLF would be a better choice for the striker role than F9. 

Why is that so? Please explain 

[smeagoltonez]

11 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

If you aim for a slow and patient possession style, then DLF would be a better choice for the striker role than F9. 

 

I would have to see the tactic as a whole in order to be able to offer any meaningful thoughts. Although I don't see why would you want to replace your current formation (4123 wide) with the 4231 anyway. Not least because the 4123 is better suited to a slow possession style than 4231 (especially for a LL team). 

 

Where they will start pressing is defined by the line of engagement. Btw, if you switch to 4231, there won't be 3 but 4 attacking (i.e. advanced) players. 

 

Well, if you want a possession style, a higher D-line would be logical. 

 

Yes, good mental attributes (tactical intelligence) as well as the presence of a DM can compensate somewhat for the lack of pace. But I am again confused because you are mentioning a DM, which does not exist in the 4231 (unless you are talking about the deep 4231, with 2 DMs).

Thanks. In that case I think I'll stick with the 4123. That's the formation my instinct was telling me to go with but I wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing a better opportunity with the 4231.

I am also interested to know more about why the DLF would be a better choice that the F9 for a slow and patient possession style.? Is it because the DLF should be able to hold the ball up better?

What style (with the 4123 formation) would the F9 suit?

Thanks very much!

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, HanziZoloman said:

Why is that so? Please explain 

Because DLF is less mobile than F9, not hard-coded to dribble and tends to hold up the ball until deeper players arrive to support the play in the final third. 

[Experienced Defender]

42 minutes ago, smeagoltonez said:

I am also interested to know more about why the DLF would be a better choice that the F9 for a slow and patient possession style.? Is it because the DLF should be able to hold the ball up better?

Yes (among a couple other things): 

 

3 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

2 hours ago, HanziZoloman said:

Why is that so? Please explain 

Because DLF is less mobile than F9, not hard-coded to dribble and tends to hold up the ball until deeper players arrive to support the play in the final third. 

 

 

43 minutes ago, smeagoltonez said:

What style (with the 4123 formation) would the F9 suit?

More progressive styles (such as progressive possession football or fast attacking football or a more fluid counter-attacking style). 

[smeagoltonez]

Ok, it seems that I need to have more of a think about what type of football would be best for my players.

Am I right in thinking that fast attacking football might not be the best style for lower league teams as players would be rushed. Or is that a good thing as they lack mental attributes?

How does progressive possession football compare to possession football?

Is there somewhere where I can read up on the sorts of players/attributes needed for particular styles?

Thanks again!

[HanziZoloman]

6 hours ago, smeagoltonez said:

Ok, it seems that I need to have more of a think about what type of football would be best for my players.

Am I right in thinking that fast attacking football might not be the best style for lower league teams as players would be rushed. Or is that a good thing as they lack mental attributes?

How does progressive possession football compare to possession football?

Is there somewhere where I can read up on the sorts of players/attributes needed for particular styles?

Thanks again!

This one‘s exactly what you’re looking for I believe:

 

[smeagoltonez]

20 minutes ago, HanziZoloman said:

This one‘s exactly what you’re looking for I believe:

 

Thank you, I've read that one before & it was very useful. Any others to recommend?

[smeagoltonez]

I've found this one for anyone who might need it:

 

[glengarry224]

7 hours ago, smeagoltonez said:

Ok, it seems that I need to have more of a think about what type of football would be best for my players.

Am I right in thinking that fast attacking football might not be the best style for lower league teams as players would be rushed. Or is that a good thing as they lack mental attributes?

How does progressive possession football compare to possession football?

Is there somewhere where I can read up on the sorts of players/attributes needed for particular styles?

Thanks again!

For L2, your striker has good Flair, Finishing, Composure and Acceleration.  If you have trouble scoring, you could also play him as a DLF(a).  He'll still come deep to get the ball, and play in teammates, but will look to create more chances for himself.

Possibly, you could train Barlow as a DLF(a), though his composure is v low now.

[smeagoltonez]

26 minutes ago, glengarry224 said:

For L2, your striker has good Flair, Finishing, Composure and Acceleration.  If you have trouble scoring, you could also play him as a DLF(a).  He'll still come deep to get the ball, and play in teammates, but will look to create more chances for himself.

Possibly, you could train Barlow as a DLF(a), though his composure is v low now.

Thank you!