Attacking width

[Morgan Kane]

Which attacking width would you use in general, both for wide and narrow formations? For instance; in a 532 or a 41212 narrow formation, do you advice going wide or narrow?

 

 

[Wolf_pd]

I think this is one for the tactics forum, so I moved it there.

[DarJ]

I'll just go standard and if I see that I can't keep the ball then I'll go narrow. I tend to go wide against defensive teams or when I setup my tactic in a way I want to use the wider players top create chances 

 

[YAMS]

1 hour ago, Morgan Kane said:

Which attacking width would you use in general, both for wide and narrow formations? For instance; in a 532 or a 41212 narrow formation, do you advice going wide or narrow?

 

 

What mentality are you playing for these formations?

[CARRERA]

Attacking width is simply spreading out your players horizontally to make use of the whole pitch. That can be particula helpful against stubborn defenses to make them move. On the other hand the ball needs to travel further which obviously comes at risk. Its rather independed of your formation.

Edited September 9, 2021 by CARRERA

[Morgan Kane]

13 hours ago, YAMS said:

What mentality are you playing for these formations?

It varies, mostly balanced, sometimes positive/defensive depending on opposition and home/away game. Reason I'm asking is I've just changed formation to a 532 and/or 442 narrow diamond, and I am wondering what width is recommended in general for those types of formation

[zabyl]

18 saat önce, Morgan Kane said:

Which attacking width would you use in general, both for wide and narrow formations? For instance; in a 532 or a 41212 narrow formation, do you advice going wide or narrow?

I don't change attacking width with that TI. I use roles or sit narrower/stay wider PI to manage it playerwise. Because changing attacking width affects all players and team's playing style collectively. This is my reason for playing FM like this. 

[Rashidi]

Width affects positioning of your players within your system and it also influences the passing. So if I were to play on wider widths, my players would be further apart and some roles could actually thrive under these circumstances  like wingers. If If I play on the lowest width settings, I see more "wall passes" these are passes that go inside then out again. Whereas on wider settings I see more passes going out seeking players on the wings. Here your passing slider, choice of roles becomes important. 

If in doubt go normal, if you want to keep possession and try and control the game - go short; if the opposition is a man down and you want to stretch a stubborn defence, you can go wide.  

If I play a 5312 I could opt to play on direct, to get the ball up quickly. OR i could set it to short to emphasise keeping the ball and assign direct passing to a few players who have good passing range and decisions. Its entirely up to you. There are no rules in the game you need to follow to get the best out of the game.

[Morgan Kane]

Thanks for the feedback guys, helpful to read others take on the beautiful game

[YAMS]

5 hours ago, Morgan Kane said:

It varies, mostly balanced, sometimes positive/defensive depending on opposition and home/away game. Reason I'm asking is I've just changed formation to a 532 and/or 442 narrow diamond, and I am wondering what width is recommended in general for those types of formation

If you are changing mentality per opponent/fixture then leave width on standard & tweak during the game if you see the need. Narrower width will lead to shorter passing & possibly more possession/control where as going wider will stretch the play a little, obviously. 

4-4-2 narrow diamond your players are naturally positioned closer together so I would venture away from narrower width in general, this formation could actually benefit from being played one notch wider. 5-3-2 is fine on standard width with adjustments during game if needed. 

[Justified]

I haven't really played those formations a lot but I'd probably start with Positive Mentality and just leave the default width. That puts you at Fairly Wide which theoretically sounds good in my head for those formations. I definitely wouldn't do lower then standard that's for sure.