[FM23] Is This Tactic too Attacking, or is it not Working for Another Reason?

[OspreyJ]

So, a couple years ago, I posted a tactic I was trying and people rightly pointed out that it was kind of terrible. I hadn't really given any thought to the roles I gave players, and I was attempting to play a high-intensity tactic in with players that simply couldn't handle that kind of play.

Well, this year, I actually really tried to come up with a good, fun tactic that would score me goals. I would never try this tactic against a team that's better than me. This is meant to annihilate teams that I should be beating. It worked for a couple games, but then the lowest team in the league (a team my scouts assured me I should be able to defeat with my eyes closed) smashed me 4-0 when I was at home, and I almost lost to another low-level team, but I was saved by luck, a good goalie, and quick thinking whereby I abandoned this tactic and tried a more possession based one.

--

I'm going to explain to you now why I've chosen the roles and positions I have, because I don't want you to just tell me what would be a better way to play this sort of soccer, I want to be able to understand your criticism to the extent that I can make improvements even to other tactics. Basically, I want to improve my tactical thinking, so I am telling you my current thoughts.

--

I set up my defenders as regular old center-backs with the defend duty. They defend and not much else. I felt this was important because the rest of the tactic is so high up the field I was vulnerable to counterattacks.

I used wing-backs because I love defensive players that can get forward and actually pose a threat on the wings, but I set them on a defend duty because I didn't want to be super vulnerable down the flanks. After all, I do have attacking wingers. My wing-backs main goal should be defend, but I also don't want them afraid of getting forward (which is why I made them wingbacks)

I have two central midfielders. I made one a Box2Box midfielder because I wanted him to act almost as a shuttle between defense and offence. I also added a deep-lying playmaker, to fill in the hole left by not playing a CDM (more on that later), but also to get the ball from a defensive position to an offensive one.

I have two attacking wingers. I want them to basically cover off the wings so that the opposition can not even start an attack down there; and I want them to take the ball from my wing-backs to the central striker or the CAM. I will admit that this is one position I don't really know what to do with. I didn't really want to make them inverted wingers or whatever because I didn't want my team to be vulnerable on the wings if the other team breaks on a counter.

My CAM is an interesting one. I initially played the same formation but with a CDM rather than a CAM. What happened in that instance was my striker was too isolated. He was never involved in plays. Initially I tried to fix this by making my wingers cut in (Inverted Winger or Inside Forward), but that didn't really work. So instead I made a CAM with the role of Enganche, which FM tells me means, he's a creator. This is exactly what I needed and it worked well for a couple games.

Finally, my striker. I made him an advanced forward, but this is another decision I didn't put much thought into. I just wanted him to really get up there and, as FM puts it, 'spearhead' the attack. I didn't want a poacher because I was afraid that he would just never get involved if that was the case.

--

This is what this tactic looks like when it works, I think, unless there's a problem here I'm missing

This is what this tactic looks like when it doesn't work. My team looks so disconnected, my CBs are not lining up, and I'm sure there are other problems.

--

My instructions are pretty sparse, this may be a problem. The main comment I got last time was that I overloaded the players w/ instructions and didn't make their roles well, but maybe I went too far in the opposite direction. One idea I do have is maybe I should tell the players to distribute to the wings, If I'm going to be playing wingers and wing-backs. But I'm afraid that if I do that, they will never go down the middle, which would also be annoying. Another idea I had is maybe I don't need those wingers at all and the wing-backs can do all that, allowing me to instead have a back three and maybe two strikers. My problem with this is I am afraid that will leave me too open to countering on the wings.

 

Thanks in advance for your help. I hope I can learn something.

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by OspreyJ
added more info

[burnum]

When looking at your tactics I see several reasons why you might run into some problems:

• DLP and Enganche are both "static" roles, meaning they don't do a lot of running. Imagine Xabi Alonso and Riquelme playing on the same team. Most teams can carry one static player but I think 2 of them might be too much for the team to overcome. Nobody aside from the BBM will provide any movement in the central areas.
• Your setup on the wings leads to your wingbacks and wingers occupying the same space on the pitch a lot. Look at your passing map: in the first one 10 and 2 both in similar positions on the left wing, 79 and 11 do the same on the right. In your second passing map number 19 and 24 are literally in the same position. 1 defender could easily cover both of them at the same time. There's nobody in the half-spaces (especially on the side of the DLP).
• In the buildup you'll get into trouble if opponents press your defenders. If 2 opposing strikers press your 2 central defenders in the buildup phase, where do you want the ball to go? The wingbacks are probably too far forward to provide an outlet. If they can't pass it to the DLP or BBM you're in trouble.
• Your TIs are a bit contradicting to me: the combination of high tempo and direct passing will lead to a lot of long balls from your defenders. The combination of high press and high defensive means you're mostly playing inside the opponent's half. There simply won't be enough space for all the long balls to be played into.

 

Potential changes I'd make to your tactics:

1. Drop the wingbacks back to the DL/DR position. You can switch them to WB-su and they'll still get forward a lot but dropping them to DL/DR (as opposed to WBL/WBR) will help a lot when defending.
2. I'd also switch the DLP to defend duty to cover the middle a bit better, as you don't have anyone in the DMC position. This will also help in the buildup play, as he moves closer to the centrebacks, offering a more natural outlet.
3. Switch the Enganche to a more mobile role. You mentioned you want a "creator", so I'd turn him into an Attacking Midfielder on support duty. The AM role is a good mixture of both worlds - creating and movement.
4. I would also turn the winger on the left side into a role that plays a bit more central. You have nobody in the left half-space, making it easy for the opposing fullback to focus on your left winger. On the right side you have the BBM making forward runs into the right half-space, so you should be fine there.

[OspreyJ]

1 hour ago, burnum said:

Your TIs are a bit contradicting to me: the combination of high tempo and direct passing will lead to a lot of long balls from your defenders.

Direct passing means long balls? That's the opposite of what I want! (This is why I put the instruction as 'Work Ball into Box')

1 hour ago, burnum said:

DLP and Enganche are both "static" roles, meaning they don't do a lot of running. Imagine Xabi Alonso and Riquelme playing on the same team. Most teams can carry one static player but I think 2 of them might be too much for the team to overcome. Nobody aside from the BBM will provide any movement in the central areas.

Ok thank you, this makes a lot of sense, although I never watched Riquelme play, because he was playing for Villareal when I was born

--

Also, because I want to know how to do this myself, how did you know that those roles are static? Is it said somewhere in FM? Or is it something you learned from listening to how commentators describe players like Xabi Alonso?

1 hour ago, burnum said:

I would also turn the winger on the left side into a role that plays a bit more central. You have nobody in the left half-space, making it easy for the opposing fullback to focus on your left winger. On the right side you have the BBM making forward runs into the right half-space, so you should be fine there.

This is the one thing I don't understand. Does the Box2Box Midfielder drift wide by nature, or is it just a less static role?

--

Thank you so much!

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by OspreyJ

[burnum]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb OspreyJ:

Direct passing means long balls? That's the opposite of what I want! (This is why I put the instruction as 'Work Ball into Box')

Ok thank you, this makes a lot of sense, although I never watched Riquelme play, because he was playing for Villareal when I was born

This is the one thing I don't understand. Does the Box2Box Midfielder drift wide by nature, or is it just a less static role?

--

Thank you so much!

 

It's basically "shorter" vs "direct" passing. Direct is longer and quicker, more route one style, while shorter is more possession style.

The BBM is already lined up in slightly to the right in your tactics (technically in the MCR spot). He's instructed to "roam from position" but for a BBM that means he goes up and down a lot. Think of the BBM more of a north/south roamer while a Carrilero is more of an east/west roamer (imagine looking at a map) and a Mezzala is more of a diagonal roamer. So, yes, the BBM will occasionally attack the half space on his side of the pitch (right, in this case).

[Andros]

The first thing I notice is the gap between the Cms and the Cbs.  Even in the passing map when things are working well there is a gap there, I would consider plugging that gap up a bit.  A DLP often has a person next to them that has defensive responsibility, so the BBM might disappear up field (see your 2nd passing map) leaving the gap.  So I would reassess the BBM role.  When the striker got isolated, did you ever try a CM Attack?  Or change the striker to a support role?

[OspreyJ]

17 hours ago, Andros said:

Or change the striker to a support role?

I did try this, didn't really work

17 hours ago, Andros said:

did you ever try a CM Attack?

No. That's another good idea

[aderow]

A DLP and an EG is an intriguing combo. I too would suggest a CM on attack so you have a direct runner from midfield.

[Andros]

Wait, i don't mean a CM Attack in a 4231, I mean in a 433.  i would guess a CM Attack in a 4231 would have similar problems to a BBM.  I would think more about something like:

 

Here the striker in a support role might work better with the CM Attack.    If you want to keep the AF then an AM will help bridge that gap, but the 2 in CM need to be more defensive to not leave a gap with the CB (like in your pass maps).  EG: