Confessions of a Lower League tragic & the Frankenstein 4-1-2-2-1 that developed

[Taipan]

I've always been primary a lower league player who hasn't until very recently bent away from the traditional 4-4-2 lower league tactics where you have big strong men up the back who belt it wide to little fast wingers who cross the ball to the centre where a similar big strong man muscles his way past hopeful smaller men in defence and blasts it the back of the net. In a nutshell that is how I have played the game this past 15 years. The implementation of PPM, hotspots, numerous player/team stats & the 1001 additional bells & whistles to the game since I first discovered it back in 1998 hasn't made me deviate at all. It has been a very successful formula for me and I have always been in a nice comfort zone playing FM. I am not a tactics guru, far from in fact. Simple players in LL need simple tactics. With the release of FM13, and after not purchasing the game since 2009 I wanted a change in direction. I still wanted the challenge of trying to get the best out of very ordinary players who quite gladly play their hearts out for peanuts week in week out. That part is the heart & soul of the game for me, but I wanted to expand my very blinkered LL tactical doctrine.

I added the EEE mod which took me down to the level 8 ladder, loaded up the game and after a couple of rolls of my 20 sided ended up at Paulton in the Southern D1 South West. I looked at two options for my new tactics, a 4-1-2-2-1 or a 4-2-3-1, and with that I read (and re-read) Cleon's "Understanding your Tactic" & "Tactical Systems - Stafford Rangers goes on a trip" by rashid. Both are excellent threads and if you haven't read the threads from the start in a while I strongly suggest you do. It is amazing what you can pick up in the fourth or fifth read while sitting in the loo . In the end I was swung to the 4-1-2-2-1 due to the more defensive nature of the tactic compared to the 4-2-3-1. I've always been of the opinion it is better to win 1-0 than to loose 4-3, plus I'd never really played with a DM before and it sounded cool

So I started with my template going for a Balanced/Counter 4-1-2-2-1 and over a period of game weeks adjusted the tactic to suit my players. This was mid-December in real time, and as the ME changed so did my tactics. I am pretty confident with sliders and such, and have a general knowledge of what tweaks do what, so a tick there, an adjustment here was made as I signed players or tried to counter the new changes in the ME. We were cruising, 2nd in the league with a game in hand, best defensive record, sixth in putting goals into the net. Then the goals dried up. Gone was the IF cutting inside, gone was the Treq putting the ball though gaps. We got to the 18 yard line and then proceeded to pass the ball across the face of goal, trying to find a gap. Pass to the Treq, back to the MC(d), sideways to the MC(a), back to the DM, forward to IF, pass the the Treq, pass the the MC(a), pot shot taken , blocked or wide. We were constantly camped at the opposition end, 60% possession, 18+ shots on goal, usually at best 4 on target. Scoring a goal was a bonus. Where had it all gone wrong? I struggled through the rest of the season ending up getting knocked out in the play-offs

Maybe it was the players? With the new season a number of new players were signed up, but still we had the same problem. Due to the better quality players in season two we were getting by, just. We would edge out 1-0 wins, draw 0-0, but it was totally boring football, and not at all what I had envisaged nor how we had played in the first half of season 1. Come September I had had enough, and went back to where it had all started with a new fresh template 4-1-2-2-1, and compared this to my current tactic. What I saw was really really ugly. My reasoning’s for originally doing the changes were sound at the time in my mind. As the players & ME changed I tweaked the tactic but instead of going back and removing changes, and reassessing as players/ME evolved, I had tried to compensate by doing more & more changes to the tactic. I had created my Frankenstein 4-1-2-2-1. I stripped my tactic bare and then slowly layered changes on one at a time over the next two playing months. I was then able to see clearly what/where I had gone so wrong. Rather simple in retrospect I know, but it is amazing it took me that long to come that conclusion.

The reason why I have posted this? My last game we won 6-0 against the team that was running third. The football we played was magic, and it was exactly what my original vision of the tactic was when I first loaded up the game. So my lesson has been learnt. Yes it is all good and well to do your changes to your tactic, but sometimes you do really need to look back at where it all begun.

[Magraev]

I'd like to know too!

[Brick_Tamland]

yes I would LOVE to hear the full detail of it all

[Taipan]

I'll try and get something posted on the weekend. Just need to find the time

[ruzvelt]

Other teams strated playing defensively against you and your style of play didn't work anymore because it is geard towards exploiting the gaps when the opposition attacks you. This happens all the time - and it usually coincides with fixture pile-up and rotten ptiches in the lower leagues. My way around it was to revert to 442 - if not that then pumping the ball in the box, pressing high, attacking. Usually works. Usually

[Taipan]

Soz for the delay. RL took a twist and haven't had enough free time to think and post.

My Original Logic

I like to play possession football. My feelings are if you hold the ball for 60% of the time, it means your opponent can only score 40% of the time. More time for me to score and less time for them to score. I wanted to make a tactic where I held the ball for 60% of the time.

There is two things that I do “modify” when making any tactic for LL, that being Long Shots and Long Passing. I just find with the average decision stat of player in the lower league is so low they really don't know what a long pass really is. To them, 75% of the time a long pass is just a boot up field in the general direction of the player, and if it just happens to be anywhere near a player, well that is more good luck than good management. The same for long shots. I find that long shots is a too small a percentage instruction. If the shot actually gets near the goal post it is a bonus. For me Direct Passes/Long Shots + poor decisions stats = give away the ball. Lower League players usually are not the most mentally astute, and the decisions stat of a player is something I always take into consideration when signing a new player. As the average decision making stat of the side when I took over the side was four, I didn't hold high hopes of the squad doing what I wanted with the default tactic as it stood. Below is what happened over a period of a season and a half as I assessed and reassessed my Frankenstein, which in the end resulted in players being boxed into a corner and my attack totally blunted

I firstly went on purge to get rid of any long passes/long shots, reduced all defending originated players to the first tick of short passing, and any attacking players to the last tick of short passing. Having eliminated any shouts which would involve passing I then utilised all shouts that would reduce the through ball options for my side. Through balls was another area where I felt the actual good though ball was a low percentage instruction. Pass Into Feet & Play Through Defence became mandatory shouts. This did have the effect keeping possession, but the knock on effect of Play Through Defence meant my AML/AMR/STC no longer running with the ball either. They would get the ball, and stop and look for a pass. Most (later all) players instructions were also then manually overridden to have through-balls to rare. As the players option for through balls was basically eradicated, they turned the ball back to the fullbacks, or sidewards to the MC's, or the STC tracking back. The MC's/STC having the same sort of instruction would then pass it backwards or sidewards, rarely would the football be promoted forward. Great for possession football, terrible for attacking football.

If this wasn't enough I then reduced the Teams CF, even restricting the players options further. As far as a possession football tactic, it was brilliant. I was having as much as 70% of the possession, my defence was rock solid, the best in the league. I just couldn't score goals. We would get to the 18 yard line and just sit there. Passing the ball back and forth, and then maybe , just maybe a gap would open up. But then instead of running through a gap, the player would prop, stop & and take a pot shot. There really was no other option for the player, as I had really killed any sort of other option he had. I had also clipped my wing attacks and the “cutting in” attacks of my IF's became a thing of the past. 18 shots, four on target, 65% possession, loose 1-0/draw 1-1 was a common occurrence

The new tactic

I had totally deviated from the KISS doctrine that are so successfully with LL. I went back to the drawing board and started afresh. The only change I made from the 4-1-2-2-1 template was to passing/long shots. I changed my defence to the first tick of short passing, and for my attacking group I went to one tick into direct. This was a change from my original tact where I went to the last tick of “short”. “Mixed” anything is a command I just do no use due in tactics to the decision stat aspect as mentioned before, but I needed to immediately get away from the ideals of Frankenstein, hence the change of direction for my attacking passing instructions..

Standard Starting Shout No.1 became “Pump Ball Into Box”. The pass part option had gone due to the manual override, but it instructed my players to play thought the middle, a place where I was strong. My strikers would then be running from the deep more often, which is again something I wanted. My wide players would now HUB, which was not exactly something I was happy with, but it was something I would look at and evaluate as the tactic evolved.

Std Staring Shout No.2 was Pass Into Feet. My team was slow both in defence and attack. It did reduce Through balls which till despite what happened with Frankenstein was something I still wanted restricted. Note the word restricted, not eradicate.

Std Starting Shout No.3 was Retain Possession. I wanted a slow tempo to keep possession, and have always loved this shout. Perfect for what I wanted to do

Dependant on the formation I was facing or the situation in the match, shouts like Overlap, Exploit Flank/Middle, Run At/Through Defence have been added to the pot in a game by game sceanrio. I then had the rainy terrible weather of Nov-Feb to contend with. There was some horrible type games during this period, and the chance to experiment with shouts was very limited as I had to adapt to the weather conditions on the pitch. It was also a time when I was blooding a number of U18's due to a compacted match schedule.

As I posted originally 6-1 was the first result with the new template, but it was/is still very much a tactic in flux. There are areas which I still want to experiment with which I did add orgianlly with Frankenstein, being individual zonal marking instructions & individual player instructions for CD & tight/loose marking. They will be added as individual layers as time goes on. I'm still getting the games where I am not happy with the way we played, but at least it is leaps and bounds beyond how were were playing a few months ago in game time.

[ModernLefty]

Taipan, what you have done is fantastic.

But I can't help but bring it up, that despite the 4-1-2-2-1, having a true defensive midfielder, the 4-2-3-1, is the more generically defensive formation, as the 2 are the holders, they are just played usually in FM in the centre midfield roles. As opposed to DM roles.

Also the of the 4-2-3-1 is naturally more defensive as it forces play wide.

I tend to link this alot, but it's a great read and walkthrough of this topic, and the defensive lines found in all these formations: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/265090-Meet-The-System

[Cleon]

Taipan, what you have done is fantastic.

But I can't help but bring it up, that despite the 4-1-2-2-1, having a true defensive midfielder, the 4-2-3-1, is the more generically defensive formation, as the 2 are the holders, they are just played usually in FM in the centre midfield roles. As opposed to DM roles.

Also the of the 4-2-3-1 is naturally more defensive as it forces play wide.

I tend to link this alot, but it's a great read and walkthrough of this topic, and the defensive lines found in all these formations: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/265090-Meet-The-System

If we are talking purely FM terms then the 41221 is far superior to the 4231 (with MC's) from a defensive point of view as the MC's have far to much space to cover and you allow players in behind you when they get stretched. There is no way the 4231 is better at defending unless it actually uses 2 DMC's. The MC's cannot cover the centre and the channels at the same time so they get stretched a lot. Then add to this a team who uses an AMC or a striker dropping off and it'll cause all sorts of problems as the MC's get stretched and run ragged without any protection against the back 4. The space they have to cover is just far to much.

What the 4231 is better at doing is utilising dangerous possession compared to the 41221

[ModernLefty]

I don't want to always have to disagree, I know I'm the noob.

But what I can say is that with the 4-1-2-2-1, that the moment it gets stretched upfield you have a massing surge of attacking players heading at one poor soul who has to cover all the area you are talking about with the 4-2-3-1.

But if the 4-2-3-1 is correctly set up with two solid players there prepared for that scenario, and not sucked up field into the play, you have one to close down the player on the ball and one to cover.

And Yes I agree that the inherent weakness with the 4-2-3-1 is that if the holders are not defensively wary enough they get hammered by a crafty CAM who can find space between them.

P.S. Surely in dropping back into a defensive position, the AM covers centrally, the CM holders cover channels, least that is how my 4-2-3-1 works, I don't see that unless you are using a lazy CAM that they won't offer defensive help.

Though if you are using a Treq, then yeah there is an issue because you might as well be playing a 4-2-2-2.

[Cleon]

But what I can say is that with the 4-1-2-2-1, that the moment it gets stretched upfield you have a massing surge of attacking players heading a one poor soul who has to cover all the area you are talking about with the 4-2-3-1.

How does the 41221 get stretched upfield? The MC's don't go rampaging up front and with attacks. They support both attack and defence if set up correctly, something which can't be achieved without a DMC behind them. That's why the 4231 suffers.

But still, even if what you said was true, surely the same would happen with the 4231 but the difference being you'd have no covering DMC. So it would all be free space, using the logic you used.

But if the 4-2-3-1 is correctly set up with two solid players there prepared for that scenario, and not sucked up field into the play, you have one to close down the player on the ball and one to cover.

It's been an issue with the ME for 3 years now and while FM13 is a step in the right direction it still doesn't do enough. The 4231 is not better defensivley than the 41221, it never has and never will be. The MC's regardless of how you set them up have far to much space to cover in comparison. All it takes is a through ball through the centre, down the channels or a ball over the top and all your midfield is took out of the game and by passed. Meaning you have no cover from midfield. They cannot cover the area good enough and fast enough. If they go wide it leaves the centre open, if they stay central it leaves the wings exposed.

And Yes I agree that the inherent weakness with the 4-2-3-1 is that if the holders are not defensively wary enough they get hammered by a crafty CAM who can find space between them.

Even if they are good enough they still have far too much to do. Just look around the forum to see the issues with the 4231, there are hundreds of threads highlighting the issues.

P.S. Surely in dropping back into defense position, the AM covers centrally, the CM holders cover channels, least that is how my 4-2-3-1 works, I don't see that unless you are using a lazy CAM that they won't offer defensive help.

The AM doesn't drop back enough though even if he is a workhorse. The MC's still have the same space to cover morealess whether he drops back or not. The space that is the issue is the wings and the gap between the MC's and DC's.

No offence but you are either not paying full attention to how the system works or you are been selective with what you are actually seeing happen in a game.

Upload any PKM from any of your games and I'll point out the flaws, it'll be easy to see.

I'm not saying you can't be successful though using that formation. The argument is it is no way better defensively than the 41221.

[ModernLefty]

Cleon genuinely no offense taken, and sadly it's currently uninstalled for Exams. I will however, get back to you at some point on the offer, critique from FM legends doesn't come around often.

Umm, currently mine is set up to press high with a slight pivots so that one Cm drops abit deeper, you get the best of both worlds, a midfield where one of the holders drops into the DM-esque role from CM. That means he is there for those instances, where the midfield is supposedly immediately taken out of the game.

I don't know whether you are talking about on an FM level, but on a real football standpoint the 4-2-3-1 is currently more defensively solid. On FM I suppose with its limitations you can probably argue that the 4-1-2-2-1 is stronger defensively. But as a high pressing team the 4-2-3-1 is better because the CAM will press with cover behind, and the lines of players force the ball wide, with the 4-1-2-2-1 it can be broke down as the channels between the full back and CB cannot, if the midfield two has been broken be both covered at the same time. Which is where the prolific inside forwards of the modern game thrive. The 4-2-3-1 has players there. They both have strengths and weaknesses, neither are perfect.

Interestingly when I get back from exams I was going to merge the 4-1-2-2-1 and the 4-2-3-1 to form a strikerless variant that would offer the best of both, hopefully takes abit of both's defensive strengths and yes I realise that this is essentially Bacelona's formation presently, but I was going to experiment with some different varieties and styles with it.

Gk

RB-CB-CB-LB

DM

CM-CM

RW-AM-LW

P.S. And if the two face up against each other it is a stalemate anyway because the midfield 3s cancel each other out.

You also assume that the DM will perfectly track the AM, which is not always the case.

P.P.S. Why does Del Bosque prefer the 4-2-3-1 to the 4-1-2-2-1, because it allows him to play two holders, surely on a pure numerical sense it is more defensive?

[Cleon]

Umm, currently mine is set up to press high with a slight pivots so that one Cm drops abit deeper, you get the best of both worlds, a midfield where one of the holders drops into the DM-esque role from CM. That means he is there for those instances, where the midfield is supposedly immediately taken out of the game.

It been a ME issue for ages, they don't track back and do the defensive part correctly. So while you think you have the best of both worlds, you actually don't. Look at the stats/heat maps/pkm's etc and you'll see the issue as clear as day.

with the 4-1-2-2-1 it can be broke down as the channels between the full back and CB cannot, if the midfield two has been broken be both covered at the same time. Which is where the prolific inside forwards of the modern game thrive. The 4-2-3-1 has players there. They both have strengths and weaknesses, neither are perfect.

The 41221 has a covering DMC who can cover the space. In fact the issue you described here is the main problem with the 4231. The 41221 can cope a lot better in covering defensive space and has players better positioned to cope with the movement. The 4231 is highly suseptical to quick counter attack movement. This is true both in game and real life. Jonathan Wilson even did a piece about this for the Guardian quite recent I think it was. He highlights the issues perfectly.

P.S. And if the two face up against each other it is a stalemate anyway because the midfield 3s cancel each other out.

This isn't true though is it? all games would be a draw then if they cancelled each other out

You also assume that the DM will perfectly track the AM, which is not always the case.

How did I assume this? I did nothing of the sort.

What the DM offers is protection for the midfield so if they do go out wide to cover space down the channels you have a covering player in the centre who can cope so you aren't totally exposed. Something you lack with the 4231 regardless of how you've set your 2 MC's up. They will get stretched and allow players in behind or out wide by not been able to get into positions to cover fast enough. Regardless of how good the MC's are, these issues will arise.

Did you watch games or just highlights?

[mikcheck]

Cleon so i assume that you'd choose a deep 4-2-3-1 over the 2 MC's version even if you were a great?

[Cleon]

Cleon so i assume that you'd choose a deep 4-2-3-1 over the 2 MC's version even if you were a great?

Without a doubt

[mikcheck]

Nice! Thanks.

[Cleon]

Nice! Thanks.

Np.

Although I'd not use a 4231 of any kind in all honesty

[mikcheck]

hahaha yes i realized that

[ModernLefty]

90% of games I watch fully, the other 10% I don't watch fully I watch the start of (atleast the full first half) and if its really under control (3-0 plus up) I go to highlights, just because then I feel it is job done. Though it has cost me a couple of times, so I'd never recommend it, but I just don't have time to fully watch all. When school/exams are out the way, then I will.

Jonathan Wilson's Guardian article on the flaws of the 4-2-3-1 was about the space that can be exploited behind the agressive wide attacking midfielders, it's not actually his best piece of work, it boils down to the flaws in selecting lazy wingers like Ronaldo to play wide and not tracking back. That is a flaw also inherent in the selection of lazy wingers for a 4-1-2-2-1 or in the selection of any lazy wingers in any formation. It's here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/15/the-question-4231-football-tactics

In pressing high I deal with a CAM's inability to track back.

In the classic 4-2-3-1 to 4-1-2-2-1 battles, the 4-2-3-1 usually comes of a little better, I just didn't want to say it.

Benitez's Liverpool vs. Mourinho's Chelsea in 2007 is a classic example.

And Mourinho's move to the 4-2-3-1 has allowed him to start being successful against the team we always end up talking about, in the Classico's, who play a 4-1-2-2-1.

Mourinho is king of the counter and he wouldn't use the 4-2-3-1 if it couldn't soak up pressure. It does because the channels are protected by the two holding midfielders, it allows you to cover both channels because two players are there. The 4-1-2-2-1 doesn't.

[Cleon]

I'll leave this discussion because we are just going around in circles.

That's not the article I was on about either, if I get the time I'll try and find it.

So to keep this about FM, Post up some PKM's when you can and I'll prove to you that your assumptions are wrong and you have been missing these issues with-in your own system somehow

[Äktsjon Männ]

Mourinho is king of the counter and he wouldn't use the 4-2-3-1 if it couldn't soak up pressure. It does because the channels are protected by the two holding midfielders, it allows you to cover both channels because two players are there. The 4-1-2-2-1 doesn't.

That's the thing, the problem in FM is the distinction between MC and DM. The MC's in a 4231 Denmark are NOT holding players. They play too far up, pick up players too aggressively too high up the pitch and won't cover the space in front of the defense. I don't think many real life teams, if any, play the FM version of 4231 Denmark, the two midfielders in this system play much more like DM's do in FM. That's why you can't really fit real life theory in a discussion about the MC version of 4231.

[Bruce Higham]

To get back on topic....

I believe in the lower leagues a 41221 is a much better option, as it allows you to put a water carrier (or a thug) in that dm slot to give you a bit more protection. I basically use the formation like you have your 442 - quick wingers, strong or quick striker. But the 41221 gives you three battering rams in the middle rather then two. The main difference for me as my squad evolves is that eventually the defensive fullbacks start supporting, or even attacking, and a central midfielder starts attacking, rather then supporting.