retired_janellewood86

Hey there everybody.

Right, there have been a few threads around recently which seem to claim pretty much the same thing. Namely:

Wrong. Well, partly correct. If your club usually plays 4-4-2, odds are you should play that too. You'll have the squad, the coaches and the menatality to make a smooth transition if the players don't have to adapt to a wacky 0-1-5-2-2 system.

However (and this is important) - O'Neil, Fergusson, Curbishley etc. will not play the same 4-4-2 in every situation. The simple answer is that 4-4-2 covers a million different bases.

I'm concentrating on 4-4-2 as it's the most commonly played formation and helps make my point most clearly. There is also a clear reason why 4-4-2 is so versatile. You can play 4-3-1-2, 4-1-3-2, 4-1-2-1-2 and probably a host of symmetric and asymmetric variations on them all. Yet, this is not even the start of it. Once you start adding forward arrows, side arrows and backwards arrows, we've got practically hundreds of different 4-4-2s.

And yet we STILL haven't reached my point. Because all of those different farrowed, barrowed, DMed, AMed, Sweepered and god-knows-what-else variants are all just formations. And they are all, essentially still just a 4-4-2.

When people say on this forum "your tactic needs changing", "you need to change to be consistent", "you need to adapt to each team" etc., they mean just that - change your tactic, not necessarily your formation.

Let me explain further. A flat 4-4-2 where the wingers and fullbacks are told to run forward at every available opportunity and fling crosses on to the head of a target man is one tactic. You'll probably play this with quite a high mentality, maybe with passing focussed to the wings and a tall target man. This is a tactic, and quite a simple and effective one.

But what if the opposition have a 7' 3" centre back marking your target man's every move. What if the oppostion pushes its wingers into the space left by your fullbacks and hits you on the counter? What if your concentration on the wings with a wide formation leaves big holes in the centre of midfield and defence. You have a problem. And you need to change your tactic.

Not your formation. That's pretty sound, pretty standard. A 4-4-2 should be able to square up to another 4-4-2. What you need is to narow the width, maybe play a shorter passing game in the centre of the field. Play it to the feet of the other striker to confuse the defence - possibly even take off your tall target man as he's redundant. There. You've changed your tactic. You are no longer playing an attacking, fast passing game. And yet, you are still playing 4-4-2.

Next time you watch Arsenal, Manchester United, even Woking, look at the formation. It very rarely changes. What does change is the emphasis of attack, of passing, forward runs, tackling, closing down. All teams will change according to circumstance. They will change their tactic. However, they usually only change their formation in the last few minutes if they need to consolodate a result or grab a late goal or two.

So, next time you can't seem to beat a beatable team with the formation that Alex Fergusson plays then think about this - how can I change my tactic to counter what this team are doing to me?

retired_anitarobinson

great post :thup:

the styles of liverpool, arsenal and manchester utd for instance are all very different and all based on a 442

retired_elpata

Nice post, something which the forum needed too imo

retired_janellewood86

Can I add a little appendix?

One criticism that people seem to have about FM07 is the bias towards tactics.

Pretty much the argument goes like this:

This is pretty much the same logic that says the sun orbits the Earth.

Watford were not made good by the digitised Aidey Boothroyd. Well, they were, but this is nothing compared to how bad you made your team.

Imagine your players constitute a total score of 100. And let's, for arguments sake give Watford a score of 70.

Now, Boothroyd's tactics can only make Watford a maximum of 70. No team is greater than the sum of its parts.

But let's say your striker is told to play in a style that doesn't suit him, so he's only 50% effective. That's a few points off your team. Now your wingbacks are pushing too far forward and causing a defensive hole. That's a few more points off. The list can go on...

In the end, your amazing team of 100 has an on the pitch performance of 50. Whereas Watford may play at 65. Watford, the much smaller club are, effectively, better than you due to their exploitation of your tactical weaknesses.

===============================================

It is nigh-on impossible to succeed without good players, and it is incredibly important to get the best players your budget will allow. However, you need to buy the right players and use them properly.

Let us turn back to our 4-4-2 example. And let's make a hypothetical squad.

What if we were to play two class forwards - Rooney and Ronaldinho.

In midfield, I will go for Aaron Lennon on the right, Joe Cole on the left and Scholes and Lampard in the centre.

At the back, Roberto Carlos, Kolo Toure, John Terry and Fabio Canovaro.

Sweet!

But hold on, let's analyse this. Ronaldinho and Rooney up front? Where are the goals going to come from? OK, both get on the score sheet, but both usually play as a linking or creative player. You need a target man or a goal scorer in the van Nistelrooy, Owen, Klose mould, otherwise you will have two very talented men creating chances for - well, nobody.

As for the midfield, where is our strength? Scholes plays best bombing forward, as does Lampard. They offer no protection in the middle. Similarly Cole and Lennon? Pacy and creative, but not exactly the best guys to help out in a tough game against Bolton.

At the back, Carlos is old and not the greatest defensive player in the world. With him and Cole bombing up the left, this leaves the opposition time and space on the right wing. Ditto on the Toure-Lennon partnership.

The only defensive unit in the game is the two centre backs, one of whom is getting on a bit. Everyone else is planning attacks. And the irony is that there isn't a goalscorer to finish them off!

Watford, on the other hand, may have told a player to hold the middle, may realise your weakness and get in behind the wingbacks, play tight to stiffle your creativity.

In short, Watford haven't made themselves good. They've just made you look average.

Try to think when constructing your squad as well as when you construct your tactic - how am I going to play in normal situations? Quick passing game? Hard tackling, high closing down? Which players will I need? If you're conceding goals, do you need to strengthen up in midfield, in defence?

You may not need to change from your 4-4-2. What you may need is a change in focus and a few more players suited to do the job.

retired_janellewood86

Adapting the 4-4-2 mid game

OK. I've talked about the need to adapt, but what does this mean? How do I impliment it.

Well, this is a little (brief) diary of what I did in two friendly games in the warm-up to the 2008/2009 season in Serie C2/B with the charming Foligno.

First off, I play a 4-4-2. It's served me well for 2 years and I've got it to the style I want.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> ^ FC FC ^ | |ML MC MR DMDL DC DC DR</pre>

I play the "rule of two" with the centre backs on mentality "6". All passing at three notches to the left of centre, tempo one notch left of centre. Creative freedom three notches right of centre, closing down three notches left of full. Width two less than "wide" and defensive line two less than "push up". Couter attack and tight marking are on.

The result is a tactic that tends to play a few short passes in midfield between the DM (who tends to be free against a flat 4-4-2 midfield) and the other midfield and defensive players. Then we speed it up, knocking a long ball to the wingers to cross or straight up to the strikers. One is more attacking than the other and also taller. Both have at least 12 pace, the faster one having 16. This means I can get in behind and challenge arially with the defence.

Boring bit over. This tactic will not win me every game. Actually, without changing it I'll be lucky to win any game. But this is my base, my ideal, and it plays football the way I want to play it. But I may be forced to improvise.

OK, so the two friendlies I'm using for my example. I don't have total success, and I could've done things better. It's just a case of how you can respond to pressure to try and get a result.

23rd July 2008 - Nocerina (H)

Division ahead of me, but I'm at home. Let's fire up the old default formation and change it if the need arises.

First 15 minutes - Wow. I'm getting right in there. The DM is in tons of space and picking out the wingers with no problems. My strikers are getting on the end of through balls and my midfield and defence are winning everything. Perhaps should score one of my chances, but this is only a friendly...

31 - right, the AI has responded by coming through the middle. A wake up call when my centre back clears the ball off the line. Need to stop this. I narrow the width by one and push my back line forward two notches to try and squeeze out the passing play in the centre of the field.

Half time - well, they didn't get close to me for the rest of the half. Trouble is, neither did I. My possession stats are good, perhaps it's just a matter of grinding them down. I keep things the same to see how we respond. "Remember, the pressure is off today."

62 - They hit the bar and the goal keeper was helpless. Grabs the rebound. That's a wake up call, time to change it up. I bring on my substitutes and move my wingers into the centre to shore up the midfield. Both have sarrows.

74 - This is boring. No shots from either side. I assume my strikers are isolated and move the side arrows up one so that the side CMs now run to the AML/R positions. Another couple of substitutions, including a pacier winger.

92 - Finally a good chance for us, but we waste it. They immediately counter attack, but my keeper makes a good save.

Full time - Bore draw. Foligno may feel they should have won the game. Possibly. We had more chances, especially in the first quarter of an hour. But frankly, this side didn't want to attack me and I had no answer. Next time I play a side like this I need to be more imaginative in attack. Pleased with my defence though - last season I would have lost a game like this...

27th July 2008 - Legnano (A)
Right. I have no idea how good Legnano are, nor do I know how they play. So, I've used my default 4-4-2 again and will adapt as the major threats become apparent.

8th minute - Legnano play some good, short, passing football around my team and manage to get a reasonable shot off. A wake up call. Need to be tighter to stop them playing around - force them over or around me, not through me. One notch less width, one notch more defensive line.

14th - Ah, crap. My left winger has got himself sent off for a two footed challenge (3rd sending off in 5 games, I might add). I'll fine him later. For now, I need to make a decision. As my shape seems to be holding, I decide to keep a 4-man midfield. I take off my pacy striker and leave on my slightly slower but much taller target man to see if I can sneak a few shots on the counter attack. Leave everything as it is as defensively I'm doing fine.

up to 40 mins - frustrating. The opposition are shooting, but from tame positions. Every counter attack seems to die because my striker just doesn't have any support. It's OK though. I think that defensive soundness is more important at this stage away from home. The striker has had a couple of shots, but from poor positions and no body to get the rebounds.

43 GOAL! Excellent clearance from the centre back to pick out the striker who has lost his marker. Flicks it on to himself, goes one-on-one with the keeper and scores. The height appears to have paid off, and being on his own has meant he can afford to be more greedy. Perhaps against the run of play, but my counter attacks have looked good, and now it's paid off.

With it so close to half time, I decide to keep my shape and tactics the same. Let's see if we can't get another.

45 + 1 GOAL! Height paid off again! With the right winger set to cross often, he charges down a poor clearance, loops a ball over to my striker and he nods it in. 2-0 flatter us, but we've found their weakness - they don't like tall strikers. My gamble appears to have paid off.

Half-time - Well done lads. No changes to tactics needed yet. It's working and we have a cushion. Let's consolidate in the second half by keeping with the winning formula.

55 - not much happening, but we're much lower on possession and getting tired. I make a few substitutions. Keep things the same, though the opposition are getting back into it. Don't want to upset the ballance yet.

69 - my substitute right winger gets injured. I decide to tighten things up. As this team are coming through the middle, I move my wingers to CM with a side arrow to the RM/LM positions. This is my favoured way of shoring up the midfield, and allows me to put a natural MC on the right-hand side of the three CMs. Team instructions remain.

Full time - That killed off the game, save for a couple of long range efforts and a final sending off for the opposition for his second yellow. Sweet! Away win!

I hope this shows people that are overawed by the idea of changing tactics on the hoof that it really doesn't involve lots of analysis of slider settings. The changes I make (slight change in shape, the width and def. line settings) are about all I ever change, yet it keeps the team playing reasonably well. You may find that you make some changes all the time, in which case it may be best to incorportate those into your default tactic (i.e. you play better with a slightly quicker tempo) so you start like that from the kick off. But this is the gradual evolution you should experience anyway as players age/mature/get replaced.

I may post some more games later as examples. Of when it goes horribly wrong/right.