5-2-1-2 High pressure pass and move football

[kjarus1]

Hello all Klopp’s and Guardiola’s out there.

Need some help with the tactic. Basically, I am trying to play with Chelsea a 'High pressure pass and move football' which emphasizes on short/quick passing and a lot of movement (read here in case you don’t know what I am talking about (https://www.guidetofm.com/tactics/pass-and-move/)

I do wonders when playing 5-2-2-1 with 2AMs that are instructed to stay wider and the team’s attacking width wide or 5-2-2-1 with LW and RW instructed to stay narrow with the team’s attacking width also being narrow.

Now, out of excitement I bought Mbappe so have to play 5-2-1-2 and the system doesn’t work as well, especially against bigger teams.

My guess that happens because both strikers wait in the top without being involved too much in the build-up play and that weakens my midfield’s short passing game alongside also having one less player defending (strikers are involved less than AMs or Wingers in defence)

The simple solution would be to play more direct but then that would kill the ideology of ‘pass and move football’ and make us a counter-attacking team which I don’t like. Any ideas or it’s impossible with this formation?

Also, in 5-2-1-2 would you instruct your CMs or STs to stay wider in order to support your WBs? Or None?

Edited November 17, 2021 by kjarus1

[Tsuru]

I have been working on a 5-2-1-2 too and although I am not trying to specifically create a "pass and move" style, it has some elements of it, as I want more ball control etc. So maybe we can exchange some ideas and impressions about this nice formation.

My impressions about your system:

• You use a very high mentality plus Higher Tempo and Pass into Space, your lines and pressing are very high but you are trying to create a "pass and move". Although I fully understand your intent, I think you are putting too much intensity on a style that needs at least a little bit of patience/ball control, and in the way you set up there is a risk that your players will rush things too much. I think you need to tone down/balance this a little bit more: maybe reducing the mentality or adjusting the pressing/lines/passing TIs. This balance is very important and I think you need to find a way of doing it.
• I also think that "Pass into Space", "Extremely High Tempo" and "Extremely Wide" are kind of contradictory for the style you are trying to create. As I said, it is not that it cannot work, I just think these Tis can make the style harder to manage and adjust.
• Rushing things too much can be a defensive problem in FM 21. If you find the right balance, your players will loose less the ball, control it better and concede less opportunities (and this would happen even in a direct style). So I think that when you find your balance, you will improve defensively.
• I did try to create a "quick short passing" style on FM many times but I never felt comfortable with it. I truly believe the game is much more suited in a "8 or 800" way: or you play a lower tempo, short passing style, or you do it more quickly and direct. It is not possible that it cannot be done, it is just that for me it looks very hard to balance and you need to consider this when building/adjusting your system. 

My impressions about the 5-2-1-2 itself:

• I didn´t feel the necessity of using "Stay Wider" PI on the CMs, for example. I use "Wide" TI and it looks fine.
• Regarding the defensive trio, the best option that suited my needs was a simple CD-D/CD-Co/CD-D combination using Defend Wider;
• The midfield pair was hard to balance. My preferred version is a pair of CM-S with PIs: one CM with "Take more Risks" and "Shoot Less Often" (a playmaker) and the other one with "Tackle Harder" and "Hold Position" (a ball winning midfielder), inspired by this approach: https://www.fmrensie.net/2020/08/12/developing-3-4-1-2-tactic-in-fm20/
• I tested different combinations on the wingbacks and the one I like the most is two WB-S with "Stay Wider" PI, plus TIs to underlap/overlap and focus play left/right. The idea is that they move wider and open more space in the middle and take more risks without raising the mentality. I did try a wingback playing "outside" and the other "inside" (as an inverted wingback) but I didn´t like the results.
• The front 3 was one of the hardest parts to manage and I am not fully satisfied. But I have been using an AP-Su with DLF-At and Poacher, using the same PIs that @SixPointerdid at the Gian Piero Gasperini topic, and in general it looks good.

The GPG topic itself is a very good basis for 5-2-1-2 formations, maybe it can give you some ideas:

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Tsuru

[kjarus1]

Hey @Tsuru thanks for the comment, some really great insights. What type of style do you try to achieve when playing this formation? I think that would help me to better understand your intentions and how it differs from my tactic.

 

• Firstly, you are absolutely right that its so hard to implement correctly 'quick short passing' style in FM. However, I think that makes sense because you need to very carefully balance the spacing on the pitch - you need many players close to a ball for that shot pass option as well as space to make runs and produce movements for that quick tempo.
• You are right that my tactic is too aggressive and needs some rebalancing, that's why I get punished against bigger teams - should favor more keeping control of the possession and match (I will try to reduce tempo from extremely high to high and also lowering the LOE and/or the mentality.
• To my understanding (and I might be wrong), since 5-3-1-2 generally is a narrow shape formation where the width only comes from the wingbacks, that's why you need to attack with an extremely wide or at least wide width. Otherwise your attacking shape is like a one vertical line and it easy to defend against that. The opposite could be said when you play with two wingers, since your formation is so wide that you may want then to instruct narrow width in order to bring players closer together for that shorter passing option. Same principle applies to various PIs. I have tested different widths, but extremely wide produced the best results especially against teams that sit deep (maybe change to only wide against bigger opponents? That also should make the team defensively more sound.)
• I had also tested with WB (s) instructed to stay wide and had quite a bit of success. Out of curiosity, why do you have TIs so focused on wing play? In my view, with this formation the numerical superiority you have usually is in the middle so by doing that you kind of nullify it. Also, just by instructing your WBs to stay wide I think you already greatly open up space because their wide players have to stay with your wingback, even if the play is developing on the other side of the pitch.
• For your tactic, if you are trying to play tiki-taka or control possession I think you set it up quite well - you will definitely keep a lot of possession and there will be plenty of creativity, but if you try to play with quick tempo I think you need to be more aggressive and produce more runs in the final third. In my view, the real threat in the opposition's box is only your Poacher with some occasional DLF runs since your midfield/wing backs are staying quite back and your DLF when he gets the ball and looks to bring a player, most of the times, the only option he has is to give the ball back to midfield. If I were you these are things I would try and see what works:

1. Instruct your wing back(s) to attack
2. AP(s) to AP(a)
3. One of the CM(s) to CM(a) with a potential also to instruct 'move into channels'.

 

Will update whether results have improved after the changes.

Edited November 17, 2021 by kjarus1

[Tsuru]

41 minutos atrás, kjarus1 disse:

Hey @Tsuru thanks for the comment, some really great insights. What type of style do you try to achieve when playing this formation? I think that would help me to better understand your intentions and how it differs from my tactic.

 

41 minutos atrás, kjarus1 disse:

For your tactic, if you are trying to play tiki-taka or control possession I think you set it up quite well - you will definitely keep a lot of possession and there will be plenty of creativity, but if you try to play with quick tempo I think you need to be more aggressive and produce more runs in the final third. In my view, the real threat in the opposition's box is only your Poacher with some occasional DLF runs since your midfield/wing backs are staying quite back and your DLF when he gets the ball and looks to bring a player, most of the times, the only option he has is to give the ball back to midfield. If I were you these are things I would try and see what works:

Hi @kjarus1. Well, as I said I like to play LLM, so I am kind of skeptical of "playstyle" sometimes. Of course I know that playstyle is important, but at this moment the club is trying to grow and improve and we don´t have very talented players, so we need to win in the best possible way.

I look at my players and TBH I don´t see any particular style that would suit us, and then my assistant advised that Control Possession could be a good idea. Although I am also skeptical of his suggestions, I changed to a more possession oriented style and the team improved, so I have been following this path, although not using the CP template that FM suggests. So yes, our formation is more oriented to a possession style, although I prefer an "intent possession". That is, control the ball, move it around, not so slow that makes easier for opponents to defend, and not so quicker that we need to think very fast (what we cannot really do). 

I think that our setup with a Balanced mentality will do exactly that I want. 

49 minutos atrás, kjarus1 disse:

I had also tested with WB (s) instructed to stay wide and had quite a bit of success. Out of curiosity, why do you have TIs so focused on wing play? In my view, with this formation the numerical superiority you have usually is in the middle so by doing that you kind of nullify it. Also, just by instructing your WBs to stay wide I think you already greatly open up space because their wide players have to stay with your wingback, even if the play is developing on the other side of the pitch.

You have a nice point here. I added these Tis when I was trying to play "one wingback outside, the other inverted" and I was not playing Wider. They may not be necessary anymore as now I have been using Stay Wider PIs and I also have the Wide TI. I will just keep Stay Wider and Wide, you are correct and they should be enough for opening space on a possession oriented style.

52 minutos atrás, kjarus1 disse:

To my understanding (and I might be wrong), since 5-3-1-2 generally is a narrow shape formation where the width only comes from the wingbacks, that's why you need to attack with an extremely wide or at least wide width. Otherwise your attacking shape is like a one vertical line and it easy to defend against that. The opposite could be said when you play with two wingers, since your formation is so wide that you may want then to instruct narrow width in order to bring players closer together for that shorter passing option. Same principle applies to various PIs. I have tested different widths, but extremely wide produced the best results especially against teams that sit deep (maybe change to only wide against bigger opponents? That also should make the team defensively more sound.)

You see, I have a friend that has been using this formation in Germany with Hertha Berlin, and he thinks the opposite - he concentrated and forced all his game on the middle of the pitch. After he complained that the team was not scoring, I argued with him that he was already narrowing a narrow formation and that he should do the opposite, that is, play wider to open more space. He said he didn´t want to, he wanted to play through the middle...and his patience and stubborn ideas gave him some good success, his Hertha is playing very well, focusing everything on the middle in a narrow formation.

I agree with you, I would never narrow more a system that is already narrow, it is much easier to "open it more" and play wider. But the interesting part is that success can be achieved in many and surprising ways.

Back to your Chelsea, maybe just Wide TI is enough, to avoid players being too far away one from the other and allowing them to circulate the ball more, instead of lumping it too long. As you play on a higher mentality the team will be more wide anyway.

[Louisking1992]

You're currently over doing it with Team instructions imo, you could easily clear half of these and get quality results.

For example, why play extremely wide, extremely high tempo while using the attacking mentality? I'm not saying it cant work, just feel that its too much, especially as you want to play quick & short passing, surely you would rather play narrow, keeping players close to one another meaning the passes will automatically be shorter? 

Much Higher LOE - As mentioned above, your already playing on an attacking mentality so I don't feel the need to play a MUCH higher LOE? I would personally play Standard, this will encourage the opposition to bring the ball out further meaning you will get more space in behind, which looking at your strikers they would thrive on

Higher DL - Not a bad option at all, can be used with a Standard LOE to compress the vertical space between the lines, and because your a quality side with decent CB's you can afford to play a higher DL even when using an attacking mentality.

 

A couple of things I like to use when setting up my side -

• Narrow - players are closer to one another, meaning less risk of losing the ball and if you do lose the ball, the players are then able to counter press and they will be more compact instead of standing miles apart
• When using attacking mentality I prefer to play with Slightly shorter passing/Slightly lower tempo, this creates a fluid passing approach 
• Using more support duties on the player roles - this helps balance the tactic out more and once again keeps the players closer to each other 

 

Hope this helps 

[kjarus1]

1 hour ago, Tsuru said:

 

Hi @kjarus1. Well, as I said I like to play LLM, so I am kind of skeptical of "playstyle" sometimes. Of course I know that playstyle is important, but at this moment the club is trying to grow and improve and we don´t have very talented players, so we need to win in the best possible way.

Ah I see now, last year I played in Spain's third division and had a lot of success with control possession since Spanish players generally are quite technical but yeah, the tempo was slower. Personally, I am not a fan of playing balanced mentality (unless I am playing a team two divisions above me) as felt that being at least positive was always more rewarding, no matter the strength of the opponent in the league.

1 hour ago, Tsuru said:

You see, I have a friend that has been using this formation in Germany with Hertha Berlin, and he thinks the opposite - he concentrated and forced all his game on the middle of the pitch. After he complained that the team was not scoring, I argued with him that he was already narrowing a narrow formation and that he should do the opposite, that is, play wider to open more space. He said he didn´t want to, he wanted to play through the middle...and his patience and stubborn ideas gave him some good success, his Hertha is playing very well, focusing everything on the middle in a narrow formation.

That's exactly my thinking as you understood - maybe for your friend setting attacking width to wide but focusing play through the middle would be an interesting approach. Essentially you still would play through the middle complemented by your numerical superiority in that part of the pitch, but at least you wouldn't attack in a vertical line with players a bit spread out.

1 hour ago, Tsuru said:

Back to your Chelsea, maybe just Wide TI is enough, to avoid players being too far away one from the other and allowing them to circulate the ball more, instead of lumping it too long. As you play on a higher mentality the team will be more wide anyway.

Yeah good idea, I will tone it down a bit.

[kjarus1]

Hey @Louisking1992 , good suggestions and you are right as pointed by @Tsuru also that I need to tone down some of the settings in order bring players closer and control more of the possession. Few points:

• Playing compressed with standard or even low LOE with high DL is a really interesting concept and something that I like, I think that would really open a lot of runs for my forwards. But to implement that I should be playing a more direct style of football or not? Since when the opponents loose the ball, I will want to move it quick to my forwards before they retrieve their DL.
• About the narrowness - as we just discussed with @Tsuru, the reason here for playing wide is because 5-2-1-2 is a narrow formation so we don't want to narrow an already narrow formation and attack with a vertical line basically. Maybe extremely wide is too much, but in our views it should be at least wide to create some space.

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by kjarus1

[Louisking1992]

10 minutes ago, kjarus1 said:

Hey @Louisking1992 , good suggestions and you are right as pointed by @Tsuru also that I need to tone down some of the settings in order bring players closer and control more of the possession. Few points:

• Playing compressed with standard or even low LOE with high DL is a really interesting concept and something that I like, I think that would really open a lot of runs for my forwards. But to implement that I should be playing a more direct style of football or not? Since when the opponents loose the ball, I will want to move it quick to my forwards before they retrieve their DL.
• About the narrowness - as we just discussed with @Tsuru, the reason here for playing wide is because 5-2-1-2 is a narrow formation so we don't want to narrow an already narrow formation and attack with a vertical line basically. Maybe extremely wide is too much, but in our views it should be at least wide to create some space.

 

Not necessarily because you will have play makers and also players with traits who will look to play more direct passes automatically even if your team is  instructed to play shorter so I wouldn't worry about playing more direct to get your strikers through on goal. 

 

Regarding the width - I get that completely thats why I wouldn't play Narrow, I just wouldn't play very wide especially when using attacking mentality as its far more risky, maybe a standard width will still be good? That's what what currently using now in the exact same set up but instead I use Balanced mentality with standard width and it works really well. 

[Tsuru]

17 horas atrás, kjarus1 disse:

That's exactly my thinking as you understood - maybe for your friend setting attacking width to wide but focusing play through the middle would be an interesting approach. Essentially you still would play through the middle complemented by your numerical superiority in that part of the pitch, but at least you wouldn't attack in a vertical line with players a bit spread out.

Or maybe the opposite, that is, set the attacking width to Narrow but ask the WBs to Stay Wider (or Focus Play Left/Right). I don´t know if this is kind of contradictory, but the idea would be concentrate the play on the middle and open more space for the WBs to operate.  This is a good idea for a try on my system.