Help Width and passing style combinations

[d3rgal]

I’ve been trying to figure out what works best in terms of width and passing focus. I’m trying to figure out which of these 2 tends to work better:

Option 1: have width and passing in sync. So, when playing wide, set passing to down the flanks. The idea is to take advantage of space that might be in wide areas vs opponents with narrow formations or packed central def and DM.

Option 2: go opposite. So, say play wide to stretch teams, but then set passing to be central so that central attackers have space to play/pass…etc.

What do people think

[hhooo]

Unfortunately in this game I've found precious few situations where narrow/short isn't just superior to the other options regardless of context. 

 

Typically, narrow just means 'defend better' and short passing just means 'pass better.'

[zaangie]

12 hours ago, hhooo said:

Unfortunately in this game I've found precious few situations where narrow/short isn't just superior to the other options regardless of context. 

 

Typically, narrow just means 'defend better' and short passing just means 'pass better.'

Yeah, I always get better results with narrow and short passing.

[rseven]

For "pass focus", I don't think this works in game. Never change it.

[d3rgal]

Thanks everyone for their feedback.

One small note first: I wasn't considering the type of passing. I was planning to keep it short all the way. My questions were more around passing focus (wide areas or central) and width (wide or narrow).

I do have a follow up question: I'm playing with 3 at the back, 2 WB, 2 central mid and 3 attackers. I'm trying to figure out what works best attacking wise. One option I'm considering is 2 IF along with an AF. The other option, a more narrow one, with an AP/SS and then a P along with a T or CF. What considerations do people use to decide which of the 2 to use? Do you take into account the opponent tactics? E.g. if they're narrow and have more people in centre start with the 2 IFs, or if the centre is more empty, go for the narrower option of AP+P/T/CF? Or do you purely look at what best players of your own you have available and based on that decide one or the other?

[hhooo]

4 minutes ago, d3rgal said:

Thanks everyone for their feedback.

One small note first: I wasn't considering the type of passing. I was planning to keep it short all the way. My questions were more around passing focus (wide areas or central) and width (wide or narrow).

I do have a follow up question: I'm playing with 3 at the back, 2 WB, 2 central mid and 3 attackers. I'm trying to figure out what works best attacking wise. One option I'm considering is 2 IF along with an AF. The other option, a more narrow one, with an AP/SS and then a P along with a T or CF. What considerations do people use to decide which of the 2 to use? Do you take into account the opponent tactics? E.g. if they're narrow and have more people in centre start with the 2 IFs, or if the centre is more empty, go for the narrower option of AP+P/T/CF? Or do you purely look at what best players of your own you have available and based on that decide one or the other?

For pass focus, I agree with the above poster, it doesn't do anything unless your team is so wildly superior to the other team that they're creating lots of space in multiple areas at once. 

 

This year I'm finding plug and play to not be a thing, so I'm shifting my players around mid match. Pulling forwards back to AM, or wide, and moving midfielders around to find space as well.