Help needed on FM24

[Silecchia10]

Hi, was wondering if you can help me where i am going wrong on fm i have set up a tactic that i always dominate teams with possession but always concede goals and lose a lot of games and dont really know where it is im going wrong. 

I play a custom Gegenpress i want them pressing high up the pitch but it seems that the only 1 that is pressing is my PF.

I want the team as a whole to press ideally but i tend to concede silly goals like crosses along the floor where its like sometimes the opposition is scoring into an empty net or my defence are in no mans land.

I play a 4 3 2 1

My formation roles are as follows

                     GK (SK

FB(Supp     BPD   BPD        FB (Supp)

                         

                    DLP (Def)

          BBM (Supp)   BWM (Supp)

 

IF (Supp)                          IF (Supp)

 

                          PF

 

My instructions roughly are

In possession: 

Narrow width, short passing, high tempo, focus play through the middle, underlap left, underlap right,

In transition,

Counter press, counter, GK to distribute quickly to full backs and centre backs, 

Out of possession:

Defensive High line, High line for attackers, trigger press more often, pressing trap is trap inside.

 

Now im MK Dons in league 2 and have a good squad for that league just dont understand why im struggling so much any help will be greatly appreciated. 

 

I want to press high up the pitch win the ball back as soon as i lose it and play nice football not asking for much haha any help would be greatly appreciated. 

 

Thanks 

 

 

 

 

 

[gunner86]

Probably better off asking in the tactics forum to be honest, but a couple of quick thoughts:

Theres not a lot of variety in your roles and duties. Only your 2 CMs have different roles.

For your defenders, you have 2 BPDs, which essentially leaves you with 2 “goers”, you may be better off with one CD and one BPD, so you have a stayer and a goer.

You also have a lot of Support duties, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I would be looking at switching it up and have one player set to Attack on each side (I.e. one FB(a) behind an IF(s) and on the other wing a FB(s) with and IF(a)). Again, it’s possibly worth looking at adding a little more role variety here and utilising with a WB or IWB role on one side, and an IW instead of an IF on one side. You need to consider here how you want to prioritise your attacking routes, well as where you need defensive cover, and what the strengths of the players in your team lend themselves too.

Finally, pay attention to individual instructions, as well as traits, if you have a CB pushing out, is the FB there to tuck in and cover. For a long time I didn’t use IIs as I felt they were too granular and didn’t really impact anything, but they can make a big difference.

[Silecchia10]

Thank you for coming back to me will look at tweaking a little so do i not have enough cover defensively do you think as a lot of the players are pushing up? 

[gunner86]

Yeah. From what your tactic describes your centre backs are leaving space in behind, and neither your DM or FBs are really designed to cover, and while you can potentially mitigate that by just plain outscoring the opposition, your not set up to attack either enough, or with enough variety to do that consistently.

[Silecchia10]

Ok so from what your saying again how how comes they arent attacking enough given they i have put them as IF to help the striker is it because they are on support duties ? 

[XaW]

@Silecchia10 - I'll move this to the tactics forum and remove your other thread, since you have gotten a reply here.

[gunner86]

6 hours ago, Silecchia10 said:

Ok so from what your saying again how how comes they arent attacking enough given they i have put them as IF to help the striker is it because they are on support duties ? 

On Support, their function is primarily to create, they’ll also play a little deeper. At the moment your only player looking to score is your CF, if he’s marked out of the game you’re not giving yourself other options.

[crusadertsar]

29 minutes ago, gunner86 said:

On Support, their function is primarily to create, they’ll also play a little deeper. At the moment your only player looking to score is your CF, if he’s marked out of the game you’re not giving yourself other options.

@Silecchia10 Not true at all. Even on support IF is a very aggressive attacking role. Just study their individual mentality, it tells everything. They are not hardcoded to create more or to magically turn into playmakers. Look at the individual instructions too to see how they change between Attack and Support duty. The only real difference is in slightly deeper positioning (which is actually hardcoded). IF (s) will work very very well with CF(s) or even DlF(s), False Nine. If you want a true advanced creator/support role then you need to use IW or Winger.

In my current very effective 4-2-3-1, I am using IF(s) DlF(a) AM(a) W(s) quartet and they are working very well with IF being my 2nd source of goals after striker. But then you will need a very, exceptional wide attacker to actually outscore the central striker in this year's ME.

Edited June 18 by crusadertsar

[gunner86]

16 hours ago, crusadertsar said:

@Silecchia10 Not true at all. Even on support IF is a very aggressive attacking role. Just study their individual mentality, it tells everything. They are not hardcoded to create more or to magically turn into playmakers. Look at the individual instructions too to see how they change between Attack and Support duty. The only real difference is in slightly deeper positioning (which is actually hardcoded). IF (s) will work very very well with CF(s) or even DlF(s), False Nine. If you want a true advanced creator/support role then you need to use IW or Winger.

In my current very effective 4-2-3-1, I am using IF(s) DlF(a) AM(a) W(s) quartet and they are working very well with IF being my 2nd source of goals after striker. But then you will need a very, exceptional wide attacker to actually outscore the central striker in this year's ME.

My point was, in Support, they’re not really there to attract the ball, so without having one on Attack the primary focus of attacks will still be the ST. Speaking more generally, in my experience, you need a variety of duties in each strata to be more effective.

I myself am playing a 4-3-3 similar to the OP, with an IF(a) on the left and either a IW or W(s) (dependant on footedness) on the right. Without having someone in the CAM role, I find that far more effective than having both sides on support.

[crusadertsar]

3 minutes ago, gunner86 said:

My point was, in Support, they’re not really there to attract the ball, so without having one on Attack the primary focus of attacks will still be the ST. Speaking more generally, in my experience, you need a variety of duties in each strata to be more effective.

I myself am playing a 4-3-3 similar to the OP, with an IF(a) on the left and either a IW or W(s) (dependant on footedness) on the right. Without having someone in the CAM role, I find that far more effective than having both sides on support.

And I am saying again that you don't need attack duty for IF for it to attack. If anything for tactics where you want to keep some possession IF(s) will be preferable because he will play closer, more in tandem with the rest of attacking unit. All you have to do is watch a match or two in full to see that IF(s) is sufficiently attacking role, and has added benefit of being more available for passes from other players. 

[gunner86]

43 minutes ago, crusadertsar said:

And I am saying again that you don't need attack duty for IF for it to attack. If anything for tactics where you want to keep some possession IF(s) will be preferable because he will play closer, more in tandem with the rest of attacking unit. All you have to do is watch a match or two in full to see that IF(s) is sufficiently attacking role, and has added benefit of being more available for passes from other players. 

At no point have I set that it’s needed. I just advised what I would do and provided my opinion on why I find it works better. How roles function also depends on the other roles around it.

The OP is looking for high tempo counter attacking football, so he’s not really looking to retain possession, so while two IF(s) works, it’s not how I would do it.

[Cloud9]

10 hours ago, crusadertsar said:

If anything for tactics where you want to keep some possession IF(s) will be preferable because he will play closer, more in tandem with the rest of attacking unit. 

I agree on this, roles on support are a great way to keep the attack moving together. 

I’ve been utilizing that with a Mez(S) as my primary creator in possession (as the attack role charges off on their own a bit more) but I think that is strong advice for when to look to an IF(s) over an IF(a) as well.

I’d then give the extra license to create via traits and PIs.

Edited June 19 by Cloud9

[Cloud9]

14 hours ago, gunner86 said:

My point was, in Support, they’re not really there to attract the ball, so without having one on Attack the primary focus of attacks will still be the ST. Speaking more generally, in my experience, you need a variety of duties in each strata to be more effective.

I myself am playing a 4-3-3 similar to the OP, with an IF(a) on the left and either a IW or W(s) (dependant on footedness) on the right. Without having someone in the CAM role, I find that far more effective than having both sides on support.

All fair points! I just would add...I wouldn't feel overly pressured to utilize attack roles, especially when playing high up the pitch. I find them especially useful when playing on lower line as I can instruct certain roles to attack the space when we win the ball back (very useful on players in the attacking unit w/pace + limited mentals). The rule of thumb of around 3 attack roles per tactic is a strong metric for avoiding pitfalls when first putting together a setup  Here I've used several expansive roles to ensure we have adequate goal threat in the final third.

I have been experimenting for successful setups with "Play out of Defence" (which I have struggled with this FM and have stepped out of my usual defensive shape to attempt) w/Bournemouth and have been looking to variations of this setup w/no attack roles...The lack of playmaker + liberal use of support roles has been important to these points.

If I introduced attack roles, for example on the IF, I would see him run more directly at goal which would lead to my buildup play frequently being cut short. I've found myself prioritizing strong mentals for such attempts (over a more individualistic, athletic player told to charge forward on his own in an attack role). 

Just thought I'd add my two cents on the topic  

For @Silecchia10, if you can address the width issue in your tactic you should start to see results improve. With a double FB(s) you could ask them to both run wide with the ball...but I would consider a double WB(d) with your 3 forwards up top. 

Edited June 20 by Cloud9

[Overmars]

On 18/06/2024 at 05:06, Silecchia10 said:

I want to press high up the pitch win the ball back as soon as i lose it and play nice football not asking for much haha any help would be greatly appreciated. 

I share you frustration. That 4-3-3 works well in FM, but it isn't the most aggressive for pressing purposes. The lone striker is inadequate to disrupt those annoying AI teams who just want to pass between the CDs and DMs all game long. If you are eager to disrupt that sort of thing then a formation change can help. Some formations that I find better in this regard are:

1. 4-2-4 (2 ST + 1 AML + 1 AMR)
2. 4-2-2-2 (2 ST + 2 AMC)
3. 4-2-3-1 Narrow (1 ST + 3 AMC)
4. 4-3-1-2 Narrow (2 ST + 1 AMC)
5. 4-2-3-1 (1 ST + 1 AML + 1 AMC + 1 AMR)
6. Any of the crazy 3 ST formations (ex. 4-3-3 Narrow), but I don't like using those because they feel a bit cheat-y.

I find these work better because they overload the central areas, forcing opponents to move the ball wide or give it away. That might not always be a good thing, though, considering you can get countered down the flanks fairly quickly. Nevertheless, if you are desperate to push the intensity and press your opponent then get another man forward in your formation. Adding "tackle harder" in player instructions and "Get stuck in" in team instructions will also make your players more combative and can lead to turnovers (and plenty of fouls/cards).