retired_kilo

The thread title tells you what my opinion is, but I'd like to know what wiser FM managers think.

I play with AM R and L, and overlapping fullbacks, and with width above six or seven I give up possession and watch the opposition create chance after chance. When I lower width to six or seven, or even lower, I watch my team attack down the wings, my fullbacks support the attack and score goals, and my team can dominate games. What does width do, then, if my team attacks on the wings even when width is near 0? Why, and in what situations (or formations), would I want to increase width?

retired_thehpsleb

Width = how wide your players position themself when you have the ball.
Set width on 20 you can see FB's and wings almost hug the line when you attack.

retired_mfpconnect

Reducing width to 10 when playing down flanks will give your wingers more space to move into
(and the other way around, playing thru middle)

My defenition of width= How much of the actuall pitchwidth the players use when positioning in attacks.When playing wide in a narrow pitch the distance between, lets say the wingers, will be "the same" as playing medium width in a meduim wide pitch.

retired_thehpsleb

Look at my FB's(44 and 18) position when I set width on 20:

And when I use width 1 :


Huge difference right
Its a 4-3-1-2 formation btw.

retired_sach

When playing with wide width do you change Tempo and Passing from you narrow setup ?

The wider you go generally speaking you should increase passing to "direct" and increase tempo.
Having said that, I do agree that in my experience narrow width does increase possession and ironically my wingers are far more involved in the game as well.

retired_kilo

Thanks, I see the difference now.

I play with short passing and slow tempo, and I focus passing down both flanks. When I play a wide formation, I have 40% (or less) of possession and don't create many chances. When I play a narrow formation, I almost always have the majority of the possession and create more chances in all but a few games.

What I still don't understand is the advantage of playing with a lot of width. From Joor's visual aids, it looks like that "wide" defense is just begging to give up goals. Like SPDtrip, when I close my formation, my wingers remain very involved in my attacks. So what is the advantage of a wide formation? Why would I want to concede possession and play a direct, up-tempo game if my defense would be so open?

retired_thehpsleb

Recife it doesnt matter if you have 20 or 1 width when you defend. it only effect your attacking position ..just as you can see in my pic.

retired_p3p51

I'd like to know a bit more about width as well. Seems that you have a higher chance of loosing the ball and the opponent can launch a greater number of counter attacks against you.

Joor, I understand that it may not matter when you defend but the fact that you're at 20 width, you are spread out so wide that it will take longer for your team to go defensive which may be very costly.

retired_e_fores

To the OP:

If you have your width on so wide with short passing/slow tempo/passing down the flanks the likelyhood is that your wide players are too far away from your central ones too make a "short" pass to, so they dally on the ball in midfield (slow tempo) and loose it. With the width narrower, your wide players can be found and hence come into effect (I assume you set the passing down the flanks because you have good wide players).

You are right however, having lots of width does open up your defence to through balls and dribblers. When you loose possession your team does automatically tighten up, however the greater width you have in possession, the longer it will take for your players to tighten up and get into good defensive positions.

Hence having lots of width is risky, however, if you have lots of width, then when in possession on the attack your players will have more space to manouvre and you will be more threatening.

Note that passing and tempo are not totally linked to width. For example, if you played like you (the OP) do with the passing set short(ish), tempo slow, and focus passing mixed, and a wide width then if you were aiming to control a game, your wide players would see a little less of the ball, but when they did, they would have more space and could be very effective - however you would be more open defensively. Conversely, if you have a fast tempo, direct game, with narrow width (and focus passing mixed again), then your wide players would see a lot of the ball, but have less space, however you would be more solid defensively. This sort of tactic would suit a counter-attacking game, with strong defense and your fast wingers seeing a lot of the ball such that they could work their magic. If your opponents were coming on to you a lot, then your wingers (and fast strikers) could still have space despite a narrow width as supposedly the opponent would be short of defensive cover.

This is all theory and what makes sense to me, and I try to apply it in my tactics (though the complexity of various other aspects of tactics can confuse me and make me forget the fundamentals such as these mentioned - I'm liable to going up my own backside tactically). If people disagree correct me.

retired_kilo

I see the effect on your attacking position -- not on your defending position. As Dirty_ACE points out, if your central defenders are so far away from each other then it will take them a second or two to get into better position. Width doesn't, in my experience and in that of SPDtrip, help the attack. So what is the advantage of using a high setting for width?