5-1-2-2 help

[Justino]

I'm currently playing as Newcastle.

I play 3 CB's and 2 wing backs, 1 CM as a deep playmaker defend, 2 advanced playmakers attack (CAM) and 2 poachers

I'm rubbish with screenshots but their all good players, ie CB's with heading, Tackling etc of 15

The thing is the ME seems to hate me, and With a team I thought could challenge for the title finished 8th (I was expected to finish mid table)

Any advice

Willing to change my formation my 2 CAM are the crux and best players in my team so they're vital to stay in the first team

[däkkä]

I think your tactic could work really well against a certain type of opposition. A narrow side (think Chelsea's narrow diamond), that employs a really high d-line that your creative midfield trio and two advanced forwards would look to exploit. Whilst being a attacking threat you still have the important spare man at the back. Personally, AMC+two strikers is a royal pain in the arse in FM11. However, using your 5-1-2-2 as a standard tactic, there are a few issues.

First off, you have only two wide players so the opponent gets the control easily. This is further highlighted by your midfield roling. You really need three playmakers? There is a complete lack of an energetic ball-winner that is crucial if you want to succesfully cover the wings. A back five / three always has its problems. It's a lot easier to switch to a back four.

Secondly, I would prefer one striker to drop off a bit and to help your team to open gaps in their defence.

Lastly, it's not always about the tactics. If you have poor morale you'll just make things even worse if you constantly make radical alternations to your tactic.

[Justino]

Thanks mate. I've changed again and I'm playing a 4-3-2-1

With the AMs as CM playmakers and 2 wingers with the one poacher up front

Seems to be working from 14th I'm now 9th. Do you reckon instead of a deep lying playmaker, I should just get a ball winning midfielder in CM with my 2 advanced playmakers?

[däkkä]

You refer to your tactic as 4-3-2-1 which is a bit confusing as it is usually referring to the Christmas tree, a wingerless formation. Anyhoo, it certainly seems an improvement and I assume you see more defensive stability.

If I have understood you correctly, you set your team up in a basic 4-3-3:

goalkeeper & back-four

1x deep-lying playmaker (DMC / MC)

2x advanced playmakers (MC)

2x wingers (AMRL)

1x poacher (FC)

1. Three playmakers is too many and your midfield will contribute too little to other phases of the game besides the transitional phase. Someone defensive, someone supporting, and someone attacking, as a rule of thumb. Below, just an example of how you could set your midfield trio.

defensive midfielder (defend) - plays a simple game, gives stability and cover

advanced playmaker (support) - helps maintain possession and fashions chances

centre midfielder (attack) - provides attacking threat like the playmaker but is also a presence in the box

2. You need someone to exploit the 'pocket'. Your poacher is too concerned with being in the box to finish, your wingers won't help as their staying wide and your midfielders aren't keen enough to make forward runs. Plenty of solutions here:

a) poacher -> any support role (dropping more deep)

b) advanced playmaker -> centre midfield (attack) for example (playing higher up)

c) one or both wingers -> inside forward / advanced playmaker (cutting inside)

[Justino]

Thanks again. I've changed one of my AM(L) to an inside forward and seems to be scoring. Looks like I'll have to sell one of my creative players for a better finisher in midfield. Saying that I might just put my CM on the right wing and play him as an advanced playmaker

[däkkä]

Glad to help.

Inside forward is a good choice and you could try a wide playmaker on the other side too. Although, I prefer to keep the playmaking maestros central because I feel the central positions allow them better passing angles both in quality and in quantity.

And yeah, I think it's good to have players than can fulfill different roles. Having various types of players gives you more tactical options to choose from. So instead of having 3x advanced playmaker you have 1x box-to-box, 1x advanced playmaker, 1x attacking midfielder.

[Marsupian]

You refer to your tactic as 4-3-2-1 which is a bit confusing as it is usually referring to the Christmas tree, a wingerless formation. Anyhoo, it certainly seems an improvement and I assume you see more defensive stability.

If I have understood you correctly, you set your team up in a basic 4-3-3:

goalkeeper & back-four

1x deep-lying playmaker (DMC / MC)

2x advanced playmakers (MC)

2x wingers (AMRL)

1x poacher (FC)

1. Three playmakers is too many and your midfield will contribute too little to other phases of the game besides the transitional phase. Someone defensive, someone supporting, and someone attacking, as a rule of thumb. Below, just an example of how you could set your midfield trio.

defensive midfielder (defend) - plays a simple game, gives stability and cover

advanced playmaker (support) - helps maintain possession and fashions chances

centre midfielder (attack) - provides attacking threat like the playmaker but is also a presence in the box

2. You need someone to exploit the 'pocket'. Your poacher is too concerned with being in the box to finish, your wingers won't help as their staying wide and your midfielders aren't keen enough to make forward runs. Plenty of solutions here:

a) poacher -> any support role (dropping more deep)

b) advanced playmaker -> centre midfield (attack) for example (playing higher up)

c) one or both wingers -> inside forward / advanced playmaker (cutting inside)

I disagree with your opinion that 3 playmakers is too much. I regularly play with two deep lying playmakers and an amc playmaker (you could also just as well label my two wide players and my striker as playmakers as they get similar instructions).

I think the problem is that you have 5 defenders, 1 defensive player that contributes to the offence and 4 attacking players that all play centrally in a box. With my formation I play 4 defenders, 2 all round players that both defend and start plays and 4 attacking players that are spread both wide and deep and have their movement adjusted to each other.

The key problems are:

1. No control over the midfield (you have a lone CM who will likely get minimal support from your AMC's)

2. No or little width in your attack

3. Lack of space for attacking players

4. Due to the lack of cover for your defense in the form of midfielders contributing to the defense it's very easy to pull them out of position and create gaps in your line of 5.

A more balanced formation with 4 attacking players would be something like a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-5-1 (with an attacking mc) or a 4-4-2 (with AMR/L if you don't have traditional wingers). If one of the playmakers and one of the strikers can play on the wings (or both playmakers on the wings and a striker as AMC) that would be a good solution. Another option would be to play a narrow 4-2-3-1 giving you 3 AMC positions.

I think the key to a balanced tactic is players that both control the space in front of the defensive line and contribute to the attacking play from deep. This is why the midfield is so important and why I have two world class all-round midfielders on the MC position (I play a 4-2-3-1) who play as deep lying playmaker. They screen the defense by controlling the space in front of it and they are a threat from deep with great technique and creativity. They are what holds my team together being instrumental in both my defense and offense.

[däkkä]

He already changed his tactic to something more orthodox. But those are true statements you made (ones which I paid little attention to).

My beef with using three playmakers is that it is just unrealistic. Who would play like that in real life? Just the concept of a double pivot on identical instructions sounds weird to me. More often we see a deep-lying playmaker (Alonso, Schweinsteiger) paired up with a defensive midfielder / ball-winner (Busquets, Khedira, L.Bender). Sure, FM is pretty forgiving and even more so if you have the superior team. I bet I could play Mascherano and Busquets as MC advanced playmakers and Iniesta as deep-lying playmaker and still be succesful. Wouldn't make any sense but wouldn't be a complete disaster either.

What if you face a more motivated team of better quality? I know it won't happen with the current AI squad building but what if it did? What if they countered the only thing that your midfield has going for them? You have no plan B when your whole midfield is that one-sided and consists completely of intelligent and technical players that lack the mentality and/or abilities to get into the box and score, be physical, harass your opponent's build-up, mark opponent AMC out of the game etc. Not to mention that your midfield set-up affects your whole team. For example, if your opponent is cautious, defends narrow and deep and doesn't let you counter and looks to counter you instead, you might want to get more players forward whilst having enough defensive cover. A slow, mediocre defending Xavi / Andrea Pirlo isn't the ideal man to cover for an attacking full-back and I would much prefer someone like Antonio Nocerino. Not flashy, not very creative, obviously not as talented but in the given situation the better player. If you're not Barcelona (or virtual equivalent of them), play as you please. If you're Newcastle, you need many types of midfielders because you can't rely on superior skill level!

I have tried a playmaker trio and have had better results with more diverse roles. Maybe it's just me but I think it works better that way.

I think the key to a balanced tactic is players that both control the space in front of the defensive line and contribute to the attacking play from deep.

You can't go wrong with 4-2-3-1 as long as you have the double pivot on few RFD. Fact.

I'm unsure if I understand your sentence correctly (English is a bitch at times ) but do you really think that any good tactic must include deep-lying playmaker? Because to me that's what your essentially saying. Teams go about different ways and I think the only universal here is that you need a player in midfield who is there to "control the space in front of the defensive line" and another who is there to "contribute to the attacking play". The same player doesn't need to fulfill both duties and very few are actually able to. Balanced tactic commits enough players in every phase of the play but it doesn't demand deep-lying playmakers. It's a good way of playing someone with good vision but lacking dribbling, physicality or finishing but not THE WAY to play.

[Marsupian]

He already changed his tactic to something more orthodox. But those are true statements you made (ones which I paid little attention to).

My beef with using three playmakers is that it is just unrealistic. Who would play like that in real life? Just the concept of a double pivot on identical instructions sounds weird to me. More often we see a deep-lying playmaker (Alonso, Schweinsteiger) paired up with a defensive midfielder / ball-winner (Busquets, Khedira, L.Bender). Sure, FM is pretty forgiving and even more so if you have the superior team. I bet I could play Mascherano and Busquets as MC advanced playmakers and Iniesta as deep-lying playmaker and still be succesful. Wouldn't make any sense but wouldn't be a complete disaster either.

What if you face a more motivated team of better quality? I know it won't happen with the current AI squad building but what if it did? What if they countered the only thing that your midfield has going for them? You have no plan B when your whole midfield is that one-sided and consists completely of intelligent and technical players that lack the mentality and/or abilities to get into the box and score, be physical, harass your opponent's build-up, mark opponent AMC out of the game etc. Not to mention that your midfield set-up affects your whole team. For example, if your opponent is cautious, defends narrow and deep and doesn't let you counter and looks to counter you instead, you might want to get more players forward whilst having enough defensive cover. A slow, mediocre defending Xavi / Andrea Pirlo isn't the ideal man to cover for an attacking full-back and I would much prefer someone like Antonio Nocerino. Not flashy, not very creative, obviously not as talented but in the given situation the better player. If you're not Barcelona (or virtual equivalent of them), play as you please. If you're Newcastle, you need many types of midfielders because you can't rely on superior skill level!

I have tried a playmaker trio and have had better results with more diverse roles. Maybe it's just me but I think it works better that way.

You can't go wrong with 4-2-3-1 as long as you have the double pivot on few RFD. Fact.

I'm unsure if I understand your sentence correctly (English is a bitch at times ) but do you really think that any good tactic must include deep-lying playmaker? Because to me that's what your essentially saying. Teams go about different ways and I think the only universal here is that you need a player in midfield who is there to "control the space in front of the defensive line" and another who is there to "contribute to the attacking play". The same player doesn't need to fulfill both duties and very few are actually able to. Balanced tactic commits enough players in every phase of the play but it doesn't demand deep-lying playmakers. It's a good way of playing someone with good vision but lacking dribbling, physicality or finishing but not THE WAY to play.

First off if you give both players the same instructions they will still play differently so if I play a more attacking player and a more defensive player in those slots I will also have a different balance.

Also those two creative and technical players (not overly creative btw, 15 and 16 respectively for my arsenal side) and they actually can bully most players off the pitch with their strength and they are plenty fast.

The thing is that any creative and mentally strong attacking player can play in a playmaker role and do well as it gives freedom to that player to do what he thinks is right. All my attacking players have lots of creative freedom, they all have run with ball sometimes, cross ball sometimes, play through ball sometimes, they all roam, they all have run from deep on sometimes (I change this around tho depending on who plays and against who I am playing). Essentially my front 4 could all be classed as playmaker (they have a similar instruction set to what the TC calls a playmaker) and they all "make plays". Furthermore my two defensive midfielders behind them make plays from deep and have a deep lying playmaker role. Everyone in front of my back 4 is playing like a playmaker and it is working brilliantly.

"I think the key to a balanced tactic is players that both control the space in front of the defensive line and contribute to the attacking play from deep."

I said this a bit too drastically and I agree it is not needed, I guess I meant to say it is a great basis for a balanced strategy but not the only way to create one. I agree having one defensive midfielder and one more attacking midfielder works too and in some situations might be better. Sometimes I play one of the two on RFD sometimes and roaming on if I need an extra man forward which is similar.

Still when I am playing with 6 playmakers and it's working brilliantly I don't think you can ever say that having 3 or more playmakers is a bad thing in all situations. I think having less than 2 or 3 "playmakers" (as in players who can make something happen or players who start plays) is far far worse as your team will be highly one dimensional.

In short I agree that what I said about the DLP double pivot being "key" was a bit too strong, it's not necessary and a lot of teams don't have the players to make it happen. Still playing with 3 playmakers is far from unrealistic or effective. It's actually quite common and very effective. My view of what a playmaker is might be wider than your definition (I would say a player that is given the freedom and/or is encouraged to use his creativity to bring others into play) or maybe a player that plays a similar role or has similar instructions to what the TC classes as a playmaker.

BTW. My tactic is a lot of things but it definitively doesn't lack a plan B. It is actually a very flexible tactic that is really hard to counter. If the opponent closes down my two deep lying playmakers they leave space in the midfield for my attacking midfielders to take advantage off. If they mark out my AMC (which is a typical counter to a 4-2-3-1) I have two DLP's behind him who can start a play from deep and reach my wide AM's and striker. If they crowd the center off the pitch to disable my striker and AMC I have two wide players who have the technical and physical ability to go past their man and to score from an angle (as well as get a cross in). My AMC can also quickly become a second striker by setting his RFD to often making it more similar to a 4-4-2. If the opponent wants to play the hard game I put one of my stronger and more physical strikers up top and my two DLP's and DC's can easily stand their own. This allows me to even play long ball if I have to with a targetman, quick wingers and an amc acting as deep lying forward.