Arteta’s Arsenal recreation

[CKBrahMa]

Il y a 14 heures, julle17 a dit :

Best replication of Arsenal i've seen on here so far, not really anything in terms of roles i disagree with, and i think your reasoning is sound.

 

Wow, thanks ! That’s one hell of a compliment !

I’m going to share some results. I played few games after the West Ham one (who beats 6-1 Man City after). We win every game !

Il y a 14 heures, julle17 a dit :

One question though, and it might not be anything you've tried, but i'm still going to ask.
Have you ever tried replicating the specific way Artetas press is, where on of the wingers tuck in to press a cb, and then the full back would come support that press going on the full back left by the winger?

 

I have to work on that ! 
I think Tifo made and Ok’ish work to explain Arteta’s press system (the one you describe), but I can’t find it. 
 

Now, concerning the recreation of this press system, I have to say that I’m not the best for this.

And, I don’t know (legit don’t know) if FM’s can allow us to recreate it.

I know that we can trigger press when some players gets the ball. However, I don’t know how can we ask a FB to mark the opp. winger only when our winger goes to press…

[The3points]

I have slight disagreement with some of the tactic, here's my version

I think CF is the best representation of Jesus, obviously he hasn't played for a while, but Trossard could fit the mould as well. For me Odegaard's role depends on the game. Some games he makes every single chance and controls the play etc, and in others he is more like a MEZ as you say. Aesthetically I prefer the AP-A as that just makes a more pleasant watch. In terms of Partey, I think he's a metronomic like figure that DLP-D gives, obviously certain traits like "Dictate Tempo" are key for that as well but the role works well universally in my opinion, vs DM-S which depends on player interpretation.

In terms of TIs I think the Much Shorter Passing and Higher Tempo mesh really well for this type of thing because you lose a lot of the risk of high tempo while moving the ball quickly and controlling the play. For width, I agree with you for the most part: but Wide width makes the back 3 move evident and useful on the ball. The Focus Play instruction make the team prefer to move centrally without compromising the width of the wingers as narrow sometimes does (earlier in the thread I experimented with Narrow and Stay Wider PIs)

Edited March 13, 2023 by The3points

[CKBrahMa]

Il y a 1 heure, The3points a dit :

I think CF is the best representation of Jesus, obviously he hasn't played for a while, but Trossard could fit the mould as well. For me Odegaard's role depends on the game. Some games he makes every single chance and controls the play etc, and in others he is more like a MEZ as you say. Aesthetically I prefer the AP-A as that just makes a more pleasant watch. In terms of Partey, I think he's a metronomic like figure that DLP-D gives, obviously certain traits like "Dictate Tempo" are key for that as well but the role works well universally in my opinion, vs DM-S which depends on player interpretation.

I think the « which depends on player interpretation » is the main point here.

By the following answers, my main focus is to emulate the fluidity of IRL football. 
TL;DR : putting a natural X role player in a X role will make him play X role only. Putting the same player in a Y role is going to create fluidity as he will do Y (due to his role) and X (due to his ability and PPM’s).

For the ST

Depending on the player, the role is not going to be played the same. Putting a player with high workrate as a Trequartista will lead to have a Trequartista who is going to defend, while the role states the opposite.

You have to look at player attributes and PPM’s to understand how they will perform in this role.

For the complete forward, I get what you’re saying : G. Jesus or Trossard do all kind of things. Sometimes, G. Jesus acted like a TF-a, sometimes like a F9, or even an AF. However, I never saw Trossard acting like an TF, or even an pure AF.

The role selection helps you to create a tendency. In this role, the player will most likely do X and Y. That’s it. However, to perform the X and Y, this player - due to his attributes and PPM’s - will do it this way.

I picked DLF-s because I wanted my ST to i. Drop deep ii. Be the creative anchor of the attack.

It better suits the DLF or even the TF. My problem with the CF is that it does everything. It will drop deep, it will be a creative anchor. It will also run into space, be more selfish and so on. It will depends on the player’s ability and preferences.

Taking DLF-s helps to focus on the two goals I have for my STC. It doesn’t mean he won’t run behind the defense. It doesn’t mean he will not be selfish.

It only means he’s going to do it less.

For the MC-R

We can have the exact same discussion about Ødegaard : due to his attributes and PPM’s, he is a natural playmaker.

Why putting him only as a playmaker when he can be both a Mezz and an AP ?

Il y a 1 heure, The3points a dit :

 

In terms of TIs I think the Much Shorter Passing and Higher Tempo mesh really well for this type of thing because you lose a lot of the risk of high tempo while moving the ball quickly and controlling the play. For width, I agree with you for the most part: but Wide width makes the back 3 move evident and useful on the ball. The Focus Play instruction make the team prefer to move centrally without compromising the width of the wingers as narrow sometimes does (earlier in the thread I experimented with Narrow and Stay Wider PIs)

TI’s are dangerous.

Putting a TI means you instruct all your players to act this way.

Does Arteta want all of his player to play much shorter passes ? No

Does he want all of his player to quickly moves the ball up the pitch ? No

Does he want all of his player looking to play in the middle ? No.

 

About the « Stay wider » PI, if I’m correct you put it on IW-a. So, it will only ask them to start wider, but the role instruct them to cut inside in a U-shape. So it will congest the middle more.

However, a W-a on his wrong foot will start wide, and either go wide (stretching opposition) or cut inside. So, in one role, you’ll have an IW and a W

(Sorry if it feels harsh, it doesn’t : all good spirit here)

Edited March 13, 2023 by CKBrahMa

[julle17]

To add to the replication one thing that happens now that Trossard plays instead of Nketiah, and also stood out in the first part of the season with Jesus, was how fluid Martinellis role was, and how he often swapped with Jesus and now Trossard, which he didn't with Nketiah.

Could perhaps add the swap position instruction between the striker and left winger

[Mutumba]

25 minutes ago, CKBrahMa said:

I think the « which depends on player interpretation » is the main point here.

 

Do you use PI? Ive only found that you use "run wide" with the BBM. Is that correct?

[JoOSTAR]

2 hours ago, The3points said:

I have slight disagreement with some of the tactic, here's my version

I think CF is the best representation of Jesus, obviously he hasn't played for a while, but Trossard could fit the mould as well. For me Odegaard's role depends on the game. Some games he makes every single chance and controls the play etc, and in others he is more like a MEZ as you say. Aesthetically I prefer the AP-A as that just makes a more pleasant watch. In terms of Partey, I think he's a metronomic like figure that DLP-D gives, obviously certain traits like "Dictate Tempo" are key for that as well but the role works well universally in my opinion, vs DM-S which depends on player interpretation.

In terms of TIs I think the Much Shorter Passing and Higher Tempo mesh really well for this type of thing because you lose a lot of the risk of high tempo while moving the ball quickly and controlling the play. For width, I agree with you for the most part: but Wide width makes the back 3 move evident and useful on the ball. The Focus Play instruction make the team prefer to move centrally without compromising the width of the wingers as narrow sometimes does (earlier in the thread I experimented with Narrow and Stay Wider PIs)

What player instructions do you use in this version?

[CKBrahMa]

il y a 3 minutes, julle17 a dit :

To add to the replication one thing that happens now that Trossard plays instead of Nketiah, and also stood out in the first part of the season with Jesus, was how fluid Martinellis role was, and how he often swapped with Jesus and now Trossard, which he didn't with Nketiah.

Could perhaps add the swap position instruction between the striker and left winger

You are reading my mind ! I was thinking of this yesterday looking at the game.

However, they already do it (as the IF-A will go central; and the DLF does roam).

Maybe is it overkill ?

[CKBrahMa]

Il y a 3 heures, Mutumba a dit :

Do you use PI? Ive only found that you use "run wide" with the BBM. Is that correct?

I also use

- for the IF-a : Roam from position (so he can drop to the space left by the IWB-s) ;

- for the BPD : Dribble more

[fadesany]

2 hours ago, CKBrahMa said:

I also use

- for the IF-a : Roam from position (so he can drop to the space left by the IWB-s) ;

- for the BPD : Dribble more

Do you us opposition instruction for each team or get your assistant to do it. Good work btw

[CKBrahMa]

il y a 27 minutes, fadesany a dit :

Do you us opposition instruction for each team or get your assistant to do it. Good work btw

For the moment, no.

I might work on it later.

However, as we’re a possession-based tactic, we defend with the ball most of the time 

[The3points]

8 hours ago, JoOSTAR said:

What player instructions do you use in this version?

Only stay wider on wingers

9 hours ago, CKBrahMa said:

I think the « which depends on player interpretation » is the main point here.

By the following answers, my main focus is to emulate the fluidity of IRL football. 
TL;DR : putting a natural X role player in a X role will make him play X role only. Putting the same player in a Y role is going to create fluidity as he will do Y (due to his role) and X (due to his ability and PPM’s).

For the ST

Depending on the player, the role is not going to be played the same. Putting a player with high workrate as a Trequartista will lead to have a Trequartista who is going to defend, while the role states the opposite.

You have to look at player attributes and PPM’s to understand how they will perform in this role.

For the complete forward, I get what you’re saying : G. Jesus or Trossard do all kind of things. Sometimes, G. Jesus acted like a TF-a, sometimes like a F9, or even an AF. However, I never saw Trossard acting like an TF, or even an pure AF.

The role selection helps you to create a tendency. In this role, the player will most likely do X and Y. That’s it. However, to perform the X and Y, this player - due to his attributes and PPM’s - will do it this way.

I picked DLF-s because I wanted my ST to i. Drop deep ii. Be the creative anchor of the attack.

It better suits the DLF or even the TF. My problem with the CF is that it does everything. It will drop deep, it will be a creative anchor. It will also run into space, be more selfish and so on. It will depends on the player’s ability and preferences.

Taking DLF-s helps to focus on the two goals I have for my STC. It doesn’t mean he won’t run behind the defense. It doesn’t mean he will not be selfish.

It only means he’s going to do it less.

For the MC-R

We can have the exact same discussion about Ødegaard : due to his attributes and PPM’s, he is a natural playmaker.

Why putting him only as a playmaker when he can be both a Mezz and an AP ?

TI’s are dangerous.

Putting a TI means you instruct all your players to act this way.

Does Arteta want all of his player to play much shorter passes ? No

Does he want all of his player to quickly moves the ball up the pitch ? No

Does he want all of his player looking to play in the middle ? No.

 

About the « Stay wider » PI, if I’m correct you put it on IW-a. So, it will only ask them to start wider, but the role instruct them to cut inside in a U-shape. So it will congest the middle more.

However, a W-a on his wrong foot will start wide, and either go wide (stretching opposition) or cut inside. So, in one role, you’ll have an IW and a W

(Sorry if it feels harsh, it doesn’t : all good spirit here)

You're absolutely fair here in terms of the roles for ST and MCR. The only caveat is I'm not starting with Arsenal (instead I'm playing with Montpellier), I'm not sure of how my team plays and the players in them. I feel that the roles that I picked can be applied universally and achieve very similar styles of play, while potentially some roles in your system could act differently with other teams. I suppose this can be chalked down to differing goals with replication. CF in my experience is one of the only roles that consistently drifts wide in my experience, and with a relatively static striker I'm trying to get him to do such movements.

I do have a slight disagreement with TIs here though, TIs instruct the whole team to do something but are ultimately nullified and sometimes trumped by PIs and PPMs as you mention. My CMs courtesy of being on attack will be risk takers and won't play only very short passes as you suggest. Similarly I feel the Defend duty on the DLP and the behind the screen hardcoding means that the DLP will take their time. I also think that Arteta wants his side to pass the ball frequently back and forth quickly which comes with a high tempo (tempo I don't think measures speed up the pitch, rather speed between passes and other actions). While High Tempo does sometimes result in direct play, Much Shorter is a nullifying effect and while each on its own you could argue don't make up an Arteta side, together they do.

Similar to Focus play through Middle and Wide width. Arteta's Arsenal I believe lead the league (or led the league last season) in terms of central play with something like 25-28%. Focus Play through Middle helps nullify the extreme distances between players on Wide width (again, 2 instructions that are more than the sum of their parts). While players the wide players are wide and demanding the ball, simultaneously a lot of central players are central and the two instructions complement each other. I tried neutral width on positive mentality with the other instructions before but the central play was dead, and even with the DLP-D being a playmaker, he lacked any possession at all. 

Also, no need to apologise for the criticism, I enjoy frank discussions like this on tactics. It's why I made an account 

[The3points]

And on another note, does the swap position instruction still work? It doesn't show up on the popup player instruction screen but only on the player instruction subheading, which I've found to be buggy and a little annoying

[julle17]

18 minutes ago, The3points said:

And on another note, does the swap position instruction still work? It doesn't show up on the popup player instruction screen but only on the player instruction subheading, which I've found to be buggy and a little annoying

It does, i've been using it a bit, can't tell if it improves performance on my tactics, but i just like the player swap, so i use it

[julle17]

15 hours ago, The3points said:

Similar to Focus play through Middle and Wide width. Arteta's Arsenal I believe lead the league (or led the league last season) in terms of central play with something like 25-28%.

I agree with the focus middle aspect.
I might be remembering wrong, but I think Pep somewhat recently said that he prefers his side to play through the middle, even though it's significantly harder, but the rewards are much greater, paraphrasing obviously, but hope you get what I mean. And I think Arteta has the same idea for the most part, shocking I know. 

[CKBrahMa]

Le 13/03/2023 à 23:16, The3points a dit :

I do have a slight disagreement with TIs here though, TIs instruct the whole team to do something but are ultimately nullified and sometimes trumped by PIs and PPMs as you mention.

This is were I think you’re misunderstanding. Nothing can nullify an instruction. The best it can do is mitigate it. Of course, sometimes it mitigates it to a point that it will almost always nullify it.

But that is something you have to work with and use. The « almost always ». This is what brings a lot more of fluidity, less predictability.

In add, if your TI’s state that your team plays much shorter passing, of course a player with « more direct »/« take more risk » PI’s is going to have more direct passes. But, he will be less likely to do it rather than a player with a standard TI.

 

Le 13/03/2023 à 23:16, The3points a dit :

I also think that Arteta wants his side to pass the ball frequently back and forth quickly which comes with a high tempo (tempo I don't think measures speed up the pitch, rather speed between passes and other actions). While High Tempo does sometimes result in direct play, Much Shorter is a nullifying effect and while each on its own you could argue don't make up an Arteta side, together they do.

We have to take a look at how the game defines tempo.

I don’t have the game with me, but here is what I find on this website :

« You would ideally use this tempo if, for instance, you want your team to be more cautious out of possession in their defensive shape, but still retain the freedom to make quick and intricate passing that would get them quickly up the field and into the opposition’s final third. »

While, for Slightly lower tempo :

« While much lower tempo and slightly lower tempo focus on greater control of the game, slightly lower tempo gives the team some freedom when it comes to initiating decisive attacks and making quick passes to players who are in the attacking areas of the pitch.

This makes it possible to use the instruction as the basis for a tiki-taka style of play that still carries a threat in attack, rather than having control of the game for the sake of it. »

Arteta wants to control the game. Even though he doesn’t want the ball for the sake of it, he wants to be the one asking question to the opponent.

I do think you’re confusing « high tempo » and « dribble less » (which results on your player to do a lot more of passes, most of the time with short simple passes).

Le 13/03/2023 à 23:16, The3points a dit :

Similar to Focus play through Middle and Wide width. Arteta's Arsenal I believe lead the league (or led the league last season) in terms of central play with something like 25-28%. Focus Play through Middle helps nullify the extreme distances between players on Wide width (again, 2 instructions that are more than the sum of their parts). While players the wide players are wide and demanding the ball, simultaneously a lot of central players are central and the two instructions complement each other. I tried neutral width on positive mentality with the other instructions before but the central play was dead, and even with the DLP-D being a playmaker, he lacked any possession at all.  

Once again, I have to disagree.
 

Or, to be more precise, I think you’re overkilling it.

With a 433 (with an IWB), you have 5 players in the middle + HS, against 3 outwide (the IF-a or the BBM depending on the build-up ; the FB and the W-a). Not counting the CDs.

Asking them to focus on the middle is asking to create an overload where you already have an overload + to play in this area. So, you end up to either face a wall in the middle or to play out to flanks.

I think the problem you have is that you make it too complicated. Why using two different TI’s when only one is doing what you want with the bonus of adding fluidity ?

[The3points]

37 minutes ago, CKBrahMa said:

We have to take a look at how the game defines tempo.

I don’t have the game with me, but here is what I find on this website :

« You would ideally use this tempo if, for instance, you want your team to be more cautious out of possession in their defensive shape, but still retain the freedom to make quick and intricate passing that would get them quickly up the field and into the opposition’s final third. »

While, for Slightly lower tempo :

« While much lower tempo and slightly lower tempo focus on greater control of the game, slightly lower tempo gives the team some freedom when it comes to initiating decisive attacks and making quick passes to players who are in the attacking areas of the pitch.

This makes it possible to use the instruction as the basis for a tiki-taka style of play that still carries a threat in attack, rather than having control of the game for the sake of it. »

Many different beliefs on what tempo actually does, but here's the in game description: "This will ask the team to go about their business in more urgent fashion than their team mentality allows, moving the ball quickly and decisively, using the intensity of their approach to unsettle the opposition." I interpret that as the pace of the ball movement, not the pace of movement up the pitch. Either way, even if I ask the team to move the ball up the pitch quickly, they will do so with many short passes in quick sucession, and since much shorter passing "Places an emphasis on instructing players to prioritise keeping the ball", they won't move up the pitch with risky decision making. Either way they end up moving the ball quickly side to side.

46 minutes ago, CKBrahMa said:

While, for Slightly lower tempo :

« While much lower tempo and slightly lower tempo focus on greater control of the game, slightly lower tempo gives the team some freedom when it comes to initiating decisive attacks and making quick passes to players who are in the attacking areas of the pitch.

I do agree Slightly lower tempo focusses on control, even with most direct passing Slightly lower tempo will result in you keeping the ball more because you are taking long times in between decisions/actions. However, with both shorter passing and lower tempo, you end up with 2 instructions focused on slow, keep-ball possession play, but with much short passing and higher tempo you have one focused on keep-ball and another focused on quick ball movement. To me this combination makes natural sense: the 2 instructions meet at a happy medium where my team has very high possession but instead of labouring, they move the ball quickly to exploit gaps. This to me feels like tactical fluidity.

57 minutes ago, CKBrahMa said:

Or, to be more precise, I think you’re overkilling it.

With a 433 (with an IWB), you have 5 players in the middle + HS, against 3 outwide (the IF-a or the BBM depending on the build-up ; the FB and the W-a). Not counting the CDs.

Asking them to focus on the middle is asking to create an overload where you already have an overload + to play in this area. So, you end up to either face a wall in the middle or to play out to flanks.

I think the problem you have is that you make it too complicated. Why using two different TI’s when only one is doing what you want with the bonus of adding fluidity ?

See I don't exactly agree with this thinking because the 2 instructions feed off each other, you can't take them apart and criticise them separately : one tells the players to be far apart and stretch the pitch. This instruction is sometimes at the detriment of central play so I used that instruction to control the ball centrally. Same vice versa. Focus Play moves players inside, to the detriment of the width of the wingers, so Wide width provides that. Similar contrast idea to above which makes a happy medium, something where the players ultimately can decide

[The3points]

In addition, I don't really see how one can achieve the width of the wingers in game with the narrowest width possible. The W-A's stay wider and hardcoding will make them stay wide but the confines of the system means that the width is not as wide as possible. And in my head, keeping the IF in the far left zone is a sunken cause. I can get it on 2nd most narrow but most narrow compacts the centre of the pitch way too much and compounded with focus play through centre I just have the feeling that width will be sacrificed at times

[The3points]

On 19/11/2022 at 18:37, The3points said:

 

While Gakpo does seem a little narrow, Smith Rowe keeps the width and we make a really good chance from back to front

Here's the result with fairly narrow and Stay Wider on 2 IWs, who don't stay wide unless the ball's on their side. Instead they just follow the FB. To be a true Arteta (and JDP) side I feel one winger has to be an outlet on the other flank wide.

[CKBrahMa]

Il y a 1 heure, The3points a dit :

Many different beliefs on what tempo actually does, but here's the in game description: "This will ask the team to go about their business in more urgent fashion than their team mentality allows, moving the ball quickly and decisively, using the intensity of their approach to unsettle the opposition." I interpret that as the pace of the ball movement, not the pace of movement up the pitch. Either way, even if I ask the team to move the ball up the pitch quickly, they will do so with many short passes in quick sucession, and since much shorter passing "Places an emphasis on instructing players to prioritise keeping the ball", they won't move up the pitch with risky decision making. Either way they end up moving the ball quickly side to side

It ends up with you asking all your players to quickly move the ball (high-up the pitch but you disagree without any proof) with much shorter passing. In other word, you’re asking your team to disrupt the ennemy team with very short passes. Do you see the problem here ?

Il y a 1 heure, The3points a dit :

However, with both shorter passing and lower tempo, you end up with 2 instructions focused on slow, keep-ball possession play, but with much short passing and higher tempo you have one focused on keep-ball and another focused on quick ball movement. To me this combination makes natural sense: the 2 instructions meet at a happy medium where my team has very high possession but instead of labouring, they move the ball quickly to exploit gaps.

So, to have a medium thing (which means, no TI), you put 2 TI. How is that not overcomplicating things ?

 

Il y a 1 heure, The3points a dit :

See I don't exactly agree with this thinking because the 2 instructions feed off each other, you can't take them apart and criticise them separately : one tells the players to be far apart and stretch the pitch. This instruction is sometimes at the detriment of central play so I used that instruction to control the ball centrally. Same vice versa. Focus Play moves players inside, to the detriment of the width of the wingers, so Wide width provides that. Similar contrast idea to above which makes a happy medium, something where the players ultimately can decide

This answer proves that you don’t think about your team shape when thinking about your TI. 
Why would I ask my team to be wider if there already is 5 of my players stretching the opposition ?

Why would I ask my player to play through the center when most of my team is in the center ? If they want to pass the ball, they have to play it to the center or to go back for another build-up.

What you are doing with this many instruction is forcing your players to a certain way of play.

With my system, if they don’t find space in the middle, my TI’s are ok for them to play another way.

With your system, if they can’t find middle space, you’re asking them to prioritise a risky way in the middle rather than a safe recycle option.

Il y a 1 heure, The3points a dit :

In addition, I don't really see how one can achieve the width of the wingers in game with the narrowest width possible

It is not the narrowest. It is narrow only. (If I’m not wrong, there is a way to have « Narrower » or « More Narrow »).

Furthermore, you’re forgetting that most of my roles are creating space. It has way more impact to move from 30cm in a 100cm space rather than in a 10km space.

Il y a 1 heure, The3points a dit :

The W-A's stay wider and hardcoding will make them stay wide but the confines of the system means that the width is not as wide as possible

The goal to have someone wide is to offer them more space. Having the whole team wider reduces the space the wingers have.

Furthermore, you can have a PPM’s trained if it is not enough for your taste.

Il y a 1 heure, The3points a dit :

And in my head, keeping the IF in the far left zone is a sunken cause

In your head + my IF is my best player so far.

 

il y a une heure, The3points a dit :

Here's the result with fairly narrow and Stay Wider on 2 IWs, who don't stay wide unless the ball's on their side. Instead they just follow the FB. To be a true Arteta (and JDP) side I feel one winger has to be an outlet on the other flank wide.

I don’t get the purpose here. Is that suppose to be your replication ? If so, you do see that none of the build up comes from the middle ? 
That Gakpo is not at a place you should find Saka IRL ?

TL ; DR : I’m not saying that you are wrong. In a way, we are saying the same thing, we just translate it differently.

It really feels like to say one information, you’re using 3 different sentences when only one simple sentences is enough. It is all I’m saying

Edited March 15, 2023 by CKBrahMa

[The3points]

6 hours ago, CKBrahMa said:

It ends up with you asking all your players to quickly move the ball (high-up the pitch but you disagree without any proof) with much shorter passing. In other word, you’re asking your team to disrupt the ennemy team with very short passes. Do you see the problem here ?

I'm confused what you mean by the high up the pitch part and the in game instruction mentions nothing about it.  Most people on the forum accept the quickness of motion rather than the directness of motion

And no I don't really see a problem. Rather than being slow and short, I feel Arsenal move quickly and at pace with short passes as is described. Arsenal are 4th in the league for direct attacks for example.

 

7 hours ago, CKBrahMa said:

Why would I ask my team to be wider if there already is 5 of my players stretching the opposition ?

Which 5 players are stretching the opposition in my tactic. If I went to narrow width they'd be 0. If with IW and stay wider

 

7 hours ago, CKBrahMa said:

With my system, if they don’t find space in the middle, my TI’s are ok for them to play another way.

With your system, if they can’t find middle space, you’re asking them to prioritise a risky way in the middle rather than a safe recycle option.

What's the difference in this respect? Is this about the tempo? I believe your tactic also has focus play through the middle right? I think that in my tactic, I tell them to buildup through the middle, and if they fail, then their teammates have very wide width, and are easy finds. The IWB doesn't exactly sit in the double pivot for example, and instead rests in halfspace.

 

7 hours ago, CKBrahMa said:

Furthermore, you’re forgetting that most of my roles are creating space. It has way more impact to move from 30cm in a 100cm space rather than in a 10km space.

Perhaps we are interpreting Arteta differently then. For me the wingers are the main "space creators" in Arteta's system, by sitting on the touchline. That to me is a non-negotiable of an Arteta system.

 

7 hours ago, CKBrahMa said:

The goal to have someone wide is to offer them more space. Having the whole team wider reduces the space the wingers have.

But for me, this doesn't happen because Focus play mitigates this. The wingers get loads of space and stretch the pitch more than before

The wingers essentially for the opposition into a 7-3-0 and then we rework it so that our central players can overload

7 hours ago, CKBrahMa said:

In your head + my IF is my best player so far.

I'm not debating the effectiveness, I'm debating the tactical use in an Arteta replication where the wingers must stay wide. I'd like to see how wide the wingers are in buildup and to see how they create space.

7 hours ago, CKBrahMa said:

I don’t get the purpose here. Is that suppose to be your replication ? If so, you do see that none of the build up comes from the middle ? 
That Gakpo is not at a place you should find Saka IRL ?

This is from another replication attempt, the tactic of which is posted here: 

And you hit it bang on. So that's why I added wide width and focus play through middle because even with a righty on the right flank and stay wider, Gakpo wasn't keeping width

[The3points]

 

Here look at how we pack thee centre with 8 players and then the wingers hold the touchline, making inside runs to provide depth. 

They have a 4-4-2 packing the middle of the pitch, and wingers ready to move out and press if we move the ball wide. However our winger's position means that the wide man in the 4-4-2 either can leave Mavididi 1v1 with the FB, or Savanier in between the lines with space to then try an pick out a Mavididi run. With Narrow width the IWB would potentially be too central and not make the 3v2 out wide. Since the CM moved over to stop the 3v2 and make 3v3, we then move to exploit the central space where they leave. The AP at 0:24 is free until the striker moves back to stop the 3rd man run. Now the 4-6-0 leaves defensive space to control centrally and we don't rush because of Much Shorter Passing. Then we use Ferri at 0:31 as their CM tries to move across and resume defensive shape. After that Nordin overloads their 2 and makes a ball out to Diangana who has qualitative superiority against their fullback (I bought him for his dribbling ability). This quick movement is a consequence in my eyes of Higher Tempo. Ultimately he doesn't beat his man and finds Ferri, and then darts inside for the return ball. This is why I chose IW vs W and opposite foot winger. Because these runs inside ultimately provide penetration.

At this point we've gotten too narrow, so the FB overlaps on the right. Nordin gets the ball and finds the 2v1 on the far side. Again this quick switch would only be possible with quick ball movement, which is why I picked the Slightly Higher Tempo. If you are too slow in finding the overloads then the defence can adapt, like in some of the times earlier.

We finally make use of the quantitative superiority and Mavididi gets a good shot away but is blocked

Hopefully the video and analysis shows a little reason behind my choice of instructions.

[CKBrahMa]

il y a 36 minutes, The3points a dit :

I'm confused what you mean by the high up the pitch part and the in game instruction mentions nothing about it.  Most people on the forum accept the quickness of motion rather than the directness of motion

We're not going to be together on this, so it is no debate now. Just to finish : it is a nonsense to ask a player to pass the ball slowly. Tempo means the tempo of the build-up, not of the passes.

il y a 36 minutes, The3points a dit :

I feel Arsenal move quickly and at pace with short passes as is described. Arsenal are 4th in the league for direct attacks for example.

It is because the counter. As soon as they get the ball, they counter. Furthermore, they have players like Zinchenko and Odegaard playing long ball.

 

il y a 36 minutes, The3points a dit :

Which 5 players are stretching the opposition in my tactic. If I went to narrow width they'd be 0. If with IW and stay wider

I'm only talking about my replication. Not yours.

 

il y a 36 minutes, The3points a dit :

I believe your tactic also has focus play through the middle right?

It doesn't.

il y a 36 minutes, The3points a dit :

The IWB doesn't exactly sit in the double pivot for example, and instead rests in halfspace.

It is true and a shame tbh.

 

il y a 36 minutes, The3points a dit :

But for me, this doesn't happen because Focus play mitigates this. The wingers get loads of space and stretch the pitch more than before

And you can see in my screenshots that my winger (on the right, not Martinelli) does stay wide, even with narrow width.

One more time : you're using too many instruction while you could simplify it, IMO.

il y a 36 minutes, The3points a dit :

I'm debating the tactical use in an Arteta replication where the wingers must stay wide

One player has to stay wide*. If you take a look at the heatmap I linked, you can see that Saka tends to stay wider, contrary to Martinelli (who can switch with the STC). It is why you can see, IRL, Xhaka or Zinchenko bombing down the wing, something you don't see with Odegaard and Saka.

 

il y a 38 minutes, The3points a dit :

wide width and focus play through middle because even with a righty on the right flank and stay wider, Gakpo wasn't keeping width

Because, during a build-up, an IW will cut inside. If you want someone to stay wide on the wing, it is a Winger you want.

[CKBrahMa]

il y a 10 minutes, The3points a dit :

then the wingers hold the touchline, making inside runs to provide depth

And guess what : a winger-a or an IF-a during the build up also stays wide

il y a 11 minutes, The3points a dit :

With Narrow width the IWB would potentially be too central and not make the 3v2 out wide.

Unfortunately, the IWB is never a true DM and stays wider.

 

il y a 12 minutes, The3points a dit :

Hopefully the video and analysis shows a little reason behind my choice of instructions.

Once again : I'm not saying you're wrong with your reasonning, I'm saying your overcomplicate things.

[The3points]

10 minutes ago, CKBrahMa said:

Tempo means the tempo of the build-up, not of the passes.

Perhaps we're saying the same thing in different terms. Tempo is how long players take to make decisions.

 

13 minutes ago, CKBrahMa said:

And you can see in my screenshots that my winger (on the right, not Martinelli) does stay wide, even with narrow width.

One more time : you're using too many instruction while you could simplify it, IMO.

Average position maps don't 100% represent ingame positions. For example Martinelli could get a lot of tocuhes wide, but stay in buildup quite narrow.

 

10 minutes ago, CKBrahMa said:

And guess what : a winger-a or an IF-a during the build up also stays wide

Does W-A make the inside runs in the channels though? I guess maybe with the right player, but again I have different philosophy about recreations and I want my roles to work for almost every player.

But additionally you can see that the tactic is functional as an Arteta side no? The 4 instructions, Much shorter passing, slightly higher tempo, Wide width and focus play through don't really add up to no TI. Instead they add up to something more in my opinion. Methodical buildup, quick play. Using the extremes of the pitch, but remaining a side based on the midfield and its playmakers. I don't think you could get the same by just maybe having shorter passing and leaving the rest on standard. The wingers wouldn't be as wide and the switches and passes not as quick.

[CARRERA]

Maybe I can add something more general to this ongoing discussion. It’s always helpful to remember, that instructions do always increase or decrease the tendency of certain behaviors. It’s never set to only do or don’t do something. So when talking about width, tempo, passing or whatever always keep in mind where you are coming from (Team Mentality / Roles & Duties).

There was a lot going around about passing directness and tempo and how to combine or use them. Tempo is simply about how quickly decisions are made, while a higher tempo leads to more quickly but inaccurate decisions, a lower tempo leads to slower but more accurate decisions. It has absolutely nothing to do with where to move the ball or how it gets there. However, the intention of the game (football) is most likely, especially on higher mentalities, to move the ball forward. That’s why it may feel like, that tempo affects a more progressive build up, but it doesn’t. It’s just a side effect, that may come with it. But it’s important to understand how certain mechanics work.

Passing directness on the other hand is not particular about the range of a pass, it’s more about the risk of a pass. Shorter passing (instruction) actually asks your players to look for safe passing options to maintain possession which obviously leads to more short (range), sideways and backward passes. The main focus is on keeping the ball and not so much on taking risks and creating chances. More direct passes on the other hand do primarily focus on taking risks and crating opportunities more quickly, at the cost of controlling the game. Those passes can have a longer range as this is obviously more risky, but they also can be quite short in terms of range. The intention is to play forward quickly and creating chances.

One more thing about space and how to create it sufficiently. It’s important to differentiate between width and depth. Both require the dispersal of your players, but in a different way. To create and utilize width, it is not important to actually use the team / player instruction, it’s more important to have players who do actually utilize the space in wide areas. And other players to utilize the channels and central areas. That will allow a team to utilize the whole width of the pitch and being unpredictable by being spread out. Width is important to stretch the opposition horizontally and open up space between the defensive players. 

Depth is important to stretch the opposition vertically and create space between the lines. Depth can be created by having players ahead of the ball who are making runs behind the defensive line (usually attack duties), but depth can also be created by having players behind the ball who are protecting the space and offer safe passing options (usually defend duties). The space that’s created vertically between the lines can be best utilized by player who can link with the players who create depth. 

Utilizing width and depth well, will offer your team a broad variety of vertical / diagonal and safe passing options.

Edited March 15, 2023 by CARRERA

[The3points]

How does width not comprise of the team and player instruction? Width in a positional play sense is only achieved in the final zone out of 5 (that is, beyond the width of the penalty area), and this should then be only achieved by certain instructions. The use of width generally depends on positioning which would then be controlled via instructions, right?

[CARRERA]

5 hours ago, The3points said:

How does width not comprise of the team and player instruction? Width in a positional play sense is only achieved in the final zone out of 5 (that is, beyond the width of the penalty area), and this should then be only achieved by certain instructions. The use of width generally depends on positioning which would then be controlled via instructions, right?

I mean, of course certain roles have certain instructions hardcoded, so in that sense it’s controlled by instructions. But what I wanted to say is, that it’s more important to use roles that create width naturally like wingers or wingbacks do, instead of using the width slider for the same reason. 

[Johnny Ace]

2 hours ago, CARRERA said:

I mean, of course certain roles have certain instructions hardcoded, so in that sense it’s controlled by instructions. But what I wanted to say is, that it’s more important to use roles that create width naturally like wingers or wingbacks do, instead of using the width slider for the same reason. 

100% agree with this

Roles themselves have instructions on wether the role will move infield or look to stay wide 

A team with maximum width plus two Wingbacks will generally be wider than a team with maximum width with two Full Backs, the same at any width setting

Wingbacks the widest, IWBs the narrowest, FBs somewhere inbetween. I feel Fullbacks are often overlooked, as they tuck infield and move wide as they see fit providing a bit of both plus they don't have so many PI's hardcorded so you can do a far bit with them. Then you can factor in the footedness on top and you can create some really interesting play with the humble role  

[CKBrahMa]

I have to agree with both Johny Ace and CARRERA. 
That’s what I was trying to say when I said that you have to think about your shape and roles before thinking about TI’s (and how you can complicate things if you don’t).

Il y a 10 heures, The3points a dit :

Does W-A make the inside runs in the channels though? I guess maybe with the right player, but again I have different philosophy about recreations and I want my roles to work for almost every player.

I think this is where you’re mistaken.

First : yes, a W-a can cut inside (if he has the PPM + on the wrong foot), yes he can make runs into space, if this is what you want.

Then, for the « I want my roles to work for almost every player ». The thing is, it doesn’t work like that. You either pick the player who fits your system or you adapt your system to the player. But you can’t force a player that doesn’t fit in your system to fit in.

Regarding Arteta’s principles, he is more of a system person (like Guardiola). Meaning, he wants his players to fit in the system (he can, of course, adapt it a little, like with Nketiah replacing Jesus).
 

To conclude (because this thread is about a recreation of Arteta’s Arsenal, not « how can we play like Arteta with Montpellier »), I strongly suggest you to read some content from Cleon/View from the touchline.

A final advice (that I tend to embrace in FM) : KISS. Meaning « Keep It Simple Stupid ».

For instance :

Shape : helps to know if I’m bottom heavy or top heavy, and find where my weaknesses are.

Roles : what this player is asked to do (IW = coming in a U-shape)

PI’s : how I want this player to do what he is asked for

PPM’s : how the player likes to play

TI’s : how I want my whole team to play.

Don’t try to add things to mitigate other. This should be a consequence, not a goal.

[The3points]

1 hour ago, CKBrahMa said:

I have to agree with both Johny Ace and CARRERA. 
That’s what I was trying to say when I said that you have to think about your shape and roles before thinking about TI’s (and how you can complicate things if you don’t).

I think this is where you’re mistaken.

First : yes, a W-a can cut inside (if he has the PPM + on the wrong foot), yes he can make runs into space, if this is what you want.

Then, for the « I want my roles to work for almost every player ». The thing is, it doesn’t work like that. You either pick the player who fits your system or you adapt your system to the player. But you can’t force a player that doesn’t fit in your system to fit in.

Regarding Arteta’s principles, he is more of a system person (like Guardiola). Meaning, he wants his players to fit in the system (he can, of course, adapt it a little, like with Nketiah replacing Jesus).
 

To conclude (because this thread is about a recreation of Arteta’s Arsenal, not « how can we play like Arteta with Montpellier »), I strongly suggest you to read some content from Cleon/View from the touchline.

A final advice (that I tend to embrace in FM) : KISS. Meaning « Keep It Simple Stupid ».

For instance :

Shape : helps to know if I’m bottom heavy or top heavy, and find where my weaknesses are.

Roles : what this player is asked to do (IW = coming in a U-shape)

PI’s : how I want this player to do what he is asked for

PPM’s : how the player likes to play

TI’s : how I want my whole team to play.

Don’t try to add things to mitigate other. This should be a consequence, not a goal.

Perhaps I'm overcomplicating, but I just think the whole point of replications is to get everything perfect. The exact role of each player, the movement of ball, the positioning of each player. I believe Saka and Martinelli are IWs due to the mix of their creative talent and dribbling ability and the fact that they move inside often. To compensate for their narrow movement I shift the team's width wider so they can sit on the touchline. So that the rest of the team is not affected too much I add Focus Play through Middle. This gives me the buildup, width, and player replication that I want without compromising any of the believes that I want to come in with. Generally, wingers feel one dimensional, while IWs are more flexible in cutting inside or going down the line. However I will try it and see how it goes.

To me this meticulous thinking has to go into replications. My goal isn't really to create a winning tactic, it's to create a tactic that plays the same as a winning team IRL. If you go even 80% and stop because simplicity and FM reasons, to me its a failure because you haven't done the job. Which is why I was especially critical of the IF, narrow width, etc because this doesn't match Arteta and I can't possibly see how it is matches Arteta in game.

 

1 hour ago, CKBrahMa said:

because this thread is about a recreation of Arteta’s Arsenal, not « how can we play like Arteta with Montpellier »

This thread is about Arteta replications. I posted an Arteta replication, at Montpellier. The goal of the thread is to make a team that plays at Arteta. Whether it's at Arsenal or Arsenal Tula or Brisbane Rovers it doesn't matter. I don't get your point here

[Johnny Ace]

I wouldn't stress it too much @The3points, replicating real football is not easy and open to interpretation for a number of reasons. Mainly, FM doesn't replicate real football 100%, it's impossible and football managers are constantly tweaking and analyzing thing as the game's going on, much more than what we do so it's very difficult to 100% nail it  

[CKBrahMa]

il y a 38 minutes, The3points a dit :

If you go even 80% and stop because simplicity and FM reasons, to me its a failure because you haven't done the job

Thinking you can exactly replicate 100% a tactic done by someone who has been a high-level player, followed years of study/passing exams and who is managing at a top level is delusional.

Futhermore, you’re replicating it in FM. As Johny Ace says, it is nearly impossible to replicate an IRL tactic into FM 100%. 
IMO, the only thing you can do is replicate a pattern.

As it has been said, IRL Football is way more fluid than we can manage in FM. It is why I use the less TI’s I can as I let some freedom to the game (and not so much the players) to have IRL fluidity.

il y a 44 minutes, The3points a dit :

Which is why I was especially critical of the IF, narrow width, etc because this doesn't match Arteta and I can't possibly see how it is matches Arteta in game.

I produce IRL analysis, heatmaps and so on to back my point of view. You did not. You’re just assuming things because you think that how the things are.

il y a 46 minutes, The3points a dit :

This thread is about Arteta replications

1. You can check out the title. It states « Arteta’s Arsenal recreation ». I’m not basing my analysis on the game he managed at Man City against Lyon while Guardiola was suspended.

2. You do realise I’m the one who created this thread ? So I guess I know what I wanted to talk about.

il y a 49 minutes, The3points a dit :

I don't get your point here

My « point » (meaning, my whole thread) is to explain how I tried to replicate Arteta’s Arsenal. You can see in the previous message that I’m open for discussion (even if sometime not being a native English speaker can make me misunderstand).

I am the one not getting your point. You come down here, posting your tactic and imposing your point of view without any valid argument.

You even contradict yourself by saying you want a 100% replication and forcing your player to play only one way (and so, nullifying the IRL fluidity).

At this point, I’m not even sure you saw a full Arsenal game this season, but guessing you just saw highlights and maybe one analysis.

[Johnny Ace]

Just remember, this is for fun @CKBrahMa

[The3points]

 

49 minutes ago, CKBrahMa said:

Thinking you can exactly replicate 100% a tactic done by someone who has been a high-level player, followed years of study/passing exams and who is managing at a top level is delusional.

Futhermore, you’re replicating it in FM. As Johny Ace says, it is nearly impossible to replicate an IRL tactic into FM 100%. 
IMO, the only thing you can do is replicate a pattern.

As it has been said, IRL Football is way more fluid than we can manage in FM. It is why I use the less TI’s I can as I let some freedom to the game (and not so much the players) to have IRL fluidity.

I produce IRL analysis, heatmaps and so on to back my point of view. You did not. You’re just assuming things because you think that how the things are.

1. You can check out the title. It states « Arteta’s Arsenal recreation ». I’m not basing my analysis on the game he managed at Man City against Lyon while Guardiola was suspended.

2. You do realise I’m the one who created this thread ? So I guess I know what I wanted to talk about.

My « point » (meaning, my whole thread) is to explain how I tried to replicate Arteta’s Arsenal. You can see in the previous message that I’m open for discussion (even if sometime not being a native English speaker can make me misunderstand).

I am the one not getting your point. You come down here, posting your tactic and imposing your point of view without any valid argument.

You even contradict yourself by saying you want a 100% replication and forcing your player to play only one way (and so, nullifying the IRL fluidity).

At this point, I’m not even sure you saw a full Arsenal game this season, but guessing you just saw highlights and maybe one analysis.

I feel this is completely out of line and disrespectful. You say I've brought no valid argument but you're the one who said my definition of tempo was ridiculous despite statistical, ingame and moderator evidence.

You get what I mean by 100%. I don't expect exact Arteta training manual stuff, what I want is a 235 with wide wingers quick combination play and accurate player representation.

Furthermore, I've taken the effort to record, compress and analyse a minute out of one of my teams old games for readers to decide whether the tactic is accurate and why I've chosen everything.

I'm sorry I didn't bring a works cited list to an FM forum, but I didn't think I said anything too preposterous l. "The wingers keep wide" really needs a whole article to win you over? When anyone who has seen just highlights and read 1 analysis could tell you that?

I'm replicating his Arsenal, just at a different club. You didn't specify which club to manage at when you posted the OP so I'm truly sorry if I brought the thread off track by managing at a different club.

As for "imposing my point of view" I'm truly sorry that I had a different point of view. I started my response to yours with "You're absolutely fair" and acknowledged that we had different goals. However it's hard to compromise when one side brings 4 sources and the other says the belief is a nonsense.

I mean to the last part, what do you want me to say? You've just made a baseless accusation like you're claiming you don't make

Edit: Here's my source, APA format.

@AdamCooperCoach, A. von A. C. T. (2022, August 4). Arteta's arsenal rebuild. Spielverlagerung.com. Retrieved March 16, 2023, from https://spielverlagerung.com/2022/08/04/artetas-arsenal-rebuild/

Edited March 16, 2023 by The3points