How do I do this?

[FootballersWith]

So I tweeted Miles about FM14 and the possibility of including separate formations for attacking and defending. Eg. 4-2-3-1 in attack, 4-4-1-1 in defence. He told me that this would not be added to the game as you could already perform that function using player roles. So I ask you all: How?

[sporadicsmiles]

For example, if your base formation is 4-4-1-1, you could set both your wide players to an attacking role, and leave both central midfielders on support or defend. When in possession the wide players will push further up the pitch, creating in effect a 4-2-3-1. When out of possession, they would drop back into the 4-4-1-1. In fact, for most games I prefer to do this than actually use a 4-2-3-1 base formation. It is much more reliable I find.

[FootballersWith]

I too had that thought but then realised that it means you can't set the wide players as inside forwards as it isn't an option at ML and MR. Someone like Theo Walcott is basically another striker playing wide but is required to track back when not in possession.

[Puni]

You can just copy the settings an IF would have to your ML/MR.

[Cougar2010]

As people have said your formation is your defensive setup while the orders/roles you give shape your attacks.

[RocheBag]

Yep, the whole point of a 4-2-3-1 in the game is to have the attackers not waste energy tracking back too much. If you want them tracking back you want a 4-4-1-1

[KevMaaan]

If its properly available via player roles/duties/player individual sliders, why is there no indication of this in-game? Surely this is a VERY important part of the game and theres absolutely nothing there to let you know how to do it, perhaps what the OP and Mbarbaric are saying is that it should be made ALOT easier and more obvious as to what you need to do.

[RocheBag]

If you want your players back further on the pitch, then you place them back further on the pitch. I don't see how it can be made much easier

[KevMaaan]

If you want your players back further on the pitch, then you place them back further on the pitch. I don't see how it can be made much easier

Then you have completely misunderstood. If it was that easy do you not think people would have got it?

The issue is what individual instructions do you give the players you have "moves further back" so they do the correct thing going forward.

[vasilli07]

3 steps.

1) Start with a 4-4-1-1 formation.

2) Increase the 2 wide midfielders mentality to max.

3) If you want to use inside forward, change to wide midfielders to winger(sup) + wide play to cut inside.

That's how I do when I play against stronger teams. My default formation is a 4-2-3-1.

[Cougar2010]

Then you have completely misunderstood. If it was that easy do you not think people would have got it?

Well you would think so but there are still far too many users who fail to understand it.

The bottom line is that its very simple:

A) The formation you pick is your defensive shape

B) Teams in real life don't play different formations during a match

The issue is what individual instructions do you give the players you have "moves further back" so they do the correct thing going forward.

No, thats a different issue and one that I would agree we could be given more options for.

[soccer.joel]

If you play a defensive winger at AML/R then they will attack as a winger and defend as a defensive minded wide midfielder

[Gary_Parker]

If you play a defensive winger at AML/R then they will attack as a winger and defend as a defensive minded wide midfielder

This entirely. I use defensive wingers all the time, either at AM level or M level, they are still the most attacking players I have at times. They do need good work rate and teamwork though I think.

[FootballersWith]

I see what people are saying about player roles but I don't buy it. A 4-2-3-1 was not created so the wide players would do less defending. Bayern play a 4-2-3-1 and their wide players are constantly tracking back. I also don't believe that playing someone as an ML/MR but instructing them to cut inside is the same as an inside forward.

Seems to me that if the formation you set IS your defensive shape and SI have no intention of allowing the user to see a visual representation of both attacking and defensive shapes then the player roles need looking at. AML/AMR and ML/MR should have identical player roles available.

[Gary_Parker]

but what if you want to do what bayern does? have your inside forwards defend as defensive wingers? you simply can not do it with roles effectively.

You could change the individual settings of the player to that of an inside forward with the mentality settings of a defensive winger. I have 0 issues with my players scoring or tracking runners from wide. They don't necessarily need to be named as inside forwards to operate like one.

[RocheBag]

The players can't be everywhere, you need to decide if it's more important to have them track back more, or offer more going forward, exactly like real life

[FootballersWith]

You could change the individual settings of the player to that of an inside forward with the mentality settings of a defensive winger. I have 0 issues with my players scoring or tracking runners from wide. They don't necessarily need to be named as inside forwards to operate like one.

Would it not just be worth making Inside Forward available as option at ML/MR then? Seems odd that it isn't an option. Easily fixed too.

The players can't be everywhere, you need to decide if it's more important to have them track back more, or offer more going forward, exactly like real life

We are not suggesting the players be everywhere. We are acknowledging that there are different phases of play. Players are capable of doing more than one thing, it's just a matter of balance.

[RocheBag]

Yes, so if you want them to track back you put them at ML/MR, if you want them to focus more on attacking then you put them at AML/AMR. Having a separate formation for attacking and defending would allow players to defend as well as a midfielder while not losing anything offensively from a winger which is simply not realistic.

[Kenco]

I see what people are saying about player roles but I don't buy it. A 4-2-3-1 was not created so the wide players would do less defending. Bayern play a 4-2-3-1 and their wide players are constantly tracking back. I also don't believe that playing someone as an ML/MR but instructing them to cut inside is the same as an inside forward.

Seems to me that if the formation you set IS your defensive shape and SI have no intention of allowing the user to see a visual representation of both attacking and defensive shapes then the player roles need looking at. AML/AMR and ML/MR should have identical player roles available.

What you'll find is that Bayern actually play a 4-4-1-1, which becomes a 4-2-3-1 when they attack due to their player roles.

[YKW]

Miles is correct regarding the OPs example, but there are other examples he could have given, to which "you can already do that" isn't a valid response.

What if I want width when attacking but narrowness when defending? I can't do this because of the global width setting.

What if I want to defend with a 4-4-1-1 and attack with a 4-2-3-1 having my wingers from the midfield '4' take up AM positions either side of the initial '1'? I can't do this.

What if I want a back 3 in attack and a back 4 when defending? This requires intelligent LATERAL MOVEMENT from my CDs and WBs which again, is not possible.

The closest I can get to achieving these things is through using (and perhaps exploiting) the marking settings.

So I entirely disagree with Miles on this point, yes you can perform "that" function, but not all functions that you could want, or that are realistic. Hopefully the necessity of being brief on Twitter has lead to his more specific response, but I am a bit disheartened by the "no plans" aspect, but hopefully when FM14 is announced there is news about tactical changes.

As a side note, setting up my formation in their defensive position is now something that I do on a regular basis, and it is a pretty fundamental belief around here. But my question is how am I supposed to come to this conclusion without reading it on here? Perhaps I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure this isn't said anywhere in the game or in the online manual. This is the case with many other fundamental rules that seem to be understood and repeated on here without it ever having been said in the game or manual. For example, not having at least one CM with a defend duty. A decent manual needs to made.

[BiggusD]

If you have one MC set to D and one MC set to S, you should really get a diamond when attacking but you don't.

This could be sorted either automatically by players having marginally different tendencies based on Preferred Positions (a MC/AMC/ML/AML player being "drawn" to the left side of the pitch even though you but him in the right MC slot), or by adding a feature that allows you to define in broad terms the areas which the player is responsible for defensively and which areas he is supposed to attack offensively. This would make anchor and AMC roles more useful and could be handy for the OI feature since it could allow you to order your players to pay special attention the the opposition's stronger left side, for instance - something that is much more realistic than the simplistic quartet we have now. It would be really nice to shed the "weaker foot" OI instruction in favour of a "lead inwards/lead outwards" and "prevent turn/prevent run" duo specifically aimed at wide and central players respectively. I don't understand how turning a player onto his weaker foot when pressing is an option in professional football. As a defender you stand between the attacker and the goal regardless of which foot he is going to shoot with, so if he stands with the back to the goal you stop him from turning around by aggressively closing him down and if he is advancing on goal you back off until he makes a move and if that move is away from goal you lead him there and if it is towards goal into shooting range you tackle. The fact that a player has a stronger foot will make the choice for the defender in most cases.

[Gary_Parker]

What if I want width when attacking but narrowness when defending? I can't do this because of the global width setting.

Surely your player instructions for their attacking movement assists with that, hug touchline, move into channels, cut inside all determines their attacking position on the pitch, regardless of how narrow you are playing when defending?

What if I want to defend with a 4-4-1-1 and attack with a 4-2-3-1 having my wingers from the midfield '4' take up AM positions either side of the initial '1'? I can't do this.

Attack settings vs support settings? Surely again your players will play further forward depending on their role and instructions. Just because the starting position is further down the pitch does not mean its less attacking when you have the ball. I believe having an average position selection in the analysis tab where you can view with/without possession would show this better, but it occurs.

What if I want a back 3 in attack and a back 4 when defending? This requires intelligent LATERAL MOVEMENT from my CDs and WBs which again, is not possible.

The closest I can get to achieving these things is through using (and perhaps exploiting) the marking settings.

This is probably more difficult. I've always wondered about the player intelligence to understand that if one fullback roams forward, the other tucks in etc, same for central midfielders, one attacks, one holds back and vice versa. Maybe this needs a bit of work.

[YKW]

Surely your player instructions for their attacking movement assists with that, hug touchline, move into channels, cut inside all determines their attacking position on the pitch, regardless of how narrow you are playing when defending?

Yes you're right they do assist. I can also focus my passing to help. But assisting isn't doing. Maybe I am one of the best teams and I always play wide, scoring most of my goals from out wide. But perhaps my next match is against my title rivals who score a lot of goals from through balls in the center. Maybe for this match I want to tell my backline to squeeze together more than usual to enhance their offside trap and make less space for through balls. But I don't want the whole team to stand closer together, just the back 4 in defence. How would you set this up? In my opinion it isn't possible.

As an extension to my width issue, wouldn't it make sense to be able to set width specifically for my backline? Or any of the lines on the pitch? This isn't related to attacking and defending positions, but is also a needed addition imo.

Attack settings vs support settings? Surely again your players will play further forward depending on their role and instructions. Just because the starting position is further down the pitch does not mean its less attacking when you have the ball. I believe having an average position selection in the analysis tab where you can view with/without possession would show this better, but it occurs.

Again you are right in what you say, but my example needs lateral movement, not just forward or backward, and not cutting inside. What settings would you apply to an MR or ML in the situation I described in order to have them operate as AMs in an AM three? In my opinion it isn't possible.

It would be simply achieved with separate tactics for attack and defense. It could also be achieved with the separate widths suggestion, where I could have my MR and ML attacking so they move forward, combined with very narrow width in the AM strata.

This is probably more difficult. I've always wondered about the player intelligence to understand that if one fullback roams forward, the other tucks in etc, same for central midfielders, one attacks, one holds back and vice versa. Maybe this needs a bit of work.

AI will always gradually improve, and until it does we need MORE control, not less. I've spent years trying to construct a working and realistic back 3 formation but it is not possible because I have to surrender my control over the positioning of the players to their (non)understanding of what is happening and the fundamentals of a back 3. A team with a perfectly fluid understanding of my 3-5-2 formation still operate it incorrectly. They follow my instructions, but my instructions are incorrect, and they are incorrect because the options I have are incorrect.

It's very confusing.

Either we need futuristic AI with awareness of lateral movement or a greater degree of control over what the players do. To me, this means I should be able to say to them "Stand here and do this in attack" and "stand here and do this in defence."

General concensus dictates that I should set up my players "in their defensive position." Now the thing with a back 3 is that it is unusual to find it operating as a back 3 in defense, when somebody usually fills in to make it a 4. So you could say that it is in fact incorrect to build a tactic that has 3 defenders, and really, all "back 3" tactics should be built from a back 4 with appropriate roles and duties, if indeed it is correct to set up your players "in their defensive position." So why does the game come with pre-set back 3 tactics? Some with no players in the DM line. It's confusing.

To the people who feel that no further distinction is needed between attacking and defending tactics how would you achieve the following?

1. Back 3 formation that works realistically and transitions between a back 3 and back 4.

2. Using a CB as an attacking target man. Arsenal do this a lot with Mertesacker, when playing against teams that aren't attacking or against 10 men. The game against spurs when Adebayor got sent off is a great example of this. With Attacking and defending tactics I could emulate this by moving Mertesacker into an attacking position in my attacking tactics and setting him as target man to head. In my defensive tactics he would still be a CB.

3. Overload a specific area of the pitch. Suppose the left back is very poor, or just looks like he could be about to have 'one of those days.' How would you take advantage of it? Focus your passing? A few times in my FM career playing a 4-4-2 I have moved one of my strikers to the wing position, so I have two wingers on that side. It worked amazingly, but he was useless when the ball was on the other wing. With attacking and defending tactics I would have a whole host of options. Firstly, I could move my striker to that side IN ATTACK only, leaving the full back 2 on 1 by default. If the opposition were marking zonally then I could move some more of the players towards the right of the pitch in my attacking tactics. e.g. MCL - MCR becomes MC - MCR. If the opposition was marking man for man then I might find that moving players in the opposite direction was beneficial to give more chance of my winger having space to challenge the full back.

The possibilities would be great.

[Gary_Parker]

I can see what you're saying for some parts of that, but I think this should be controlled via player instructions/roles rather than setting up a 2 part tactic of defend/attack.

1. I don't see your back 3 issue there, if I'm deploying a back 3, which I do in the Southampton thread, I want it to be 3 at the back, with wingbacks/defensive wingers providing the additional cover. I don't want to make it 4 at the back, otherwise i'd have chosen that formation. If I wanted to have my 4 become a 3 at the back when attacking, i'd use an anchorman/defensive mid to hold a line with the central defenders.

2. The Centre half as a targetman, if i'm understanding this would be for late in the game and/or set pieces? This can already be done with set piece delivery being aimed at best header etc. What Arsenal did with Mertesacker was to push him up as an additional forward late in games to get a goal, leaving him there really. What you're suggesting would always leave him out of position in the transition between your attacking and defending.

3. Set the striker to an Inside Forward in the winger position (I assume in line with the strikers rather than AM) and have him cut inside, or even set your striker on the right (against their left back) to hug touchline so it pulls him out wide. Even set him to man mark the fullback. Which is essentially what a manager would tell a striker to do if there was a weak fullback. Though he'd likely not call it man marking, but the principle is similar.

[FootballersWith]

Yes, so if you want them to track back you put them at ML/MR, if you want them to focus more on attacking then you put them at AML/AMR. Having a separate formation for attacking and defending would allow players to defend as well as a midfielder while not losing anything offensively from a winger which is simply not realistic.

No, it would still rely on attributes. If a player had poor stamina, tackling etc then they wouldn't be as effective.

[FootballersWith]

What you'll find is that Bayern actually play a 4-4-1-1, which becomes a 4-2-3-1 when they attack due to their player roles.

On FM maybe but I'm willing to bet that nobody in the Bayern camp would call it a 4-4-1-1

[FootballersWith]

Yes you're right they do assist. I can also focus my passing to help. But assisting isn't doing. Maybe I am one of the best teams and I always play wide, scoring most of my goals from out wide. But perhaps my next match is against my title rivals who score a lot of goals from through balls in the center. Maybe for this match I want to tell my backline to squeeze together more than usual to enhance their offside trap and make less space for through balls. But I don't want the whole team to stand closer together, just the back 4 in defence. How would you set this up? In my opinion it isn't possible.

As an extension to my width issue, wouldn't it make sense to be able to set width specifically for my backline? Or any of the lines on the pitch? This isn't related to attacking and defending positions, but is also a needed addition imo.

Again you are right in what you say, but my example needs lateral movement, not just forward or backward, and not cutting inside. What settings would you apply to an MR or ML in the situation I described in order to have them operate as AMs in an AM three? In my opinion it isn't possible.

It would be simply achieved with separate tactics for attack and defense. It could also be achieved with the separate widths suggestion, where I could have my MR and ML attacking so they move forward, combined with very narrow width in the AM strata.

AI will always gradually improve, and until it does we need MORE control, not less. I've spent years trying to construct a working and realistic back 3 formation but it is not possible because I have to surrender my control over the positioning of the players to their (non)understanding of what is happening and the fundamentals of a back 3. A team with a perfectly fluid understanding of my 3-5-2 formation still operate it incorrectly. They follow my instructions, but my instructions are incorrect, and they are incorrect because the options I have are incorrect.

It's very confusing.

Either we need futuristic AI with awareness of lateral movement or a greater degree of control over what the players do. To me, this means I should be able to say to them "Stand here and do this in attack" and "stand here and do this in defence."

General concensus dictates that I should set up my players "in their defensive position." Now the thing with a back 3 is that it is unusual to find it operating as a back 3 in defense, when somebody usually fills in to make it a 4. So you could say that it is in fact incorrect to build a tactic that has 3 defenders, and really, all "back 3" tactics should be built from a back 4 with appropriate roles and duties, if indeed it is correct to set up your players "in their defensive position." So why does the game come with pre-set back 3 tactics? Some with no players in the DM line. It's confusing.

To the people who feel that no further distinction is needed between attacking and defending tactics how would you achieve the following?

1. Back 3 formation that works realistically and transitions between a back 3 and back 4.

2. Using a CB as an attacking target man. Arsenal do this a lot with Mertesacker, when playing against teams that aren't attacking or against 10 men. The game against spurs when Adebayor got sent off is a great example of this. With Attacking and defending tactics I could emulate this by moving Mertesacker into an attacking position in my attacking tactics and setting him as target man to head. In my defensive tactics he would still be a CB.

3. Overload a specific area of the pitch. Suppose the left back is very poor, or just looks like he could be about to have 'one of those days.' How would you take advantage of it? Focus your passing? A few times in my FM career playing a 4-4-2 I have moved one of my strikers to the wing position, so I have two wingers on that side. It worked amazingly, but he was useless when the ball was on the other wing. With attacking and defending tactics I would have a whole host of options. Firstly, I could move my striker to that side IN ATTACK only, leaving the full back 2 on 1 by default. If the opposition were marking zonally then I could move some more of the players towards the right of the pitch in my attacking tactics. e.g. MCL - MCR becomes MC - MCR. If the opposition was marking man for man then I might find that moving players in the opposite direction was beneficial to give more chance of my winger having space to challenge the full back.

The possibilities would be great.

This.

All of this.

[RocheBag]

I play with wide midfielders and that get on the end of loads of through balls and score loss of goals

[Kenco]

or are they playing 4231 in attack and 4411 while defending?

anyways, even if it is as you say, you can not instruct your ML to do the same thing as he would do it if he was in AML position. even if you do copy the instructions as ML starts deeper and he can not get on the through ball from AM in time as he would if he was set in AML slot.

4-4-1-1 is the base formation, which becomes 4-2-3-1 via player instructions. Try it for a game and look at your heatmap at the end of the match, the wide midfielders average positions will end up more in line with the AM than the MCs.

As for your second paragraph, you can't have your cake and eat it too! You either want them in the M strata so they can contribute to defence and attack or you place them in the AM strata where they very rarely defend. Perhaps they will start from a slightly deeper position but you can't expect them to contribute defensively and always be available in an attacking position.

Saying that, having them on an attack duty will seem them appear in more advanced positions than you'd think. Try it and see.

There was a thread in the tactics forum I think, somebody did an experiment and found the differences between 4-4-1-1 and 4-2-3-1 to be quite small.

[RocheBag]

4-4-1-1 is the base formation, which becomes 4-2-3-1 via player instructions. Try it for a game and look at your heatmap at the end of the match, the wide midfielders average positions will end up more in line with the AM than the MCs.

As for your second paragraph, you can't have your cake and eat it too! You either want them in the M strata so they can contribute to defence and attack or you place them in the AM strata where they very rarely defend. Perhaps they will start from a slightly deeper position but you can't expect them to contribute defensively and always be available in an attacking position.

Saying that, having them on an attack duty will seem them appear in more advanced positions than you'd think. Try it and see.

There was a thread in the tactics forum I think, somebody did an experiment and found the differences between 4-4-1-1 and 4-2-3-1 to be quite small.

This is exactly right. Like I said before the players can't be everywhere. You either want them to always be available in attacking positions, or you want them to track back and help defensively. Bayern's wingers track back and help, that makes it a 4-4-1-1. Chelsea's wingers do nothing defensively, so to replicate that you would use a 4-2-3-1 and they would be more attack minded.

There is no one in the world that can defend like a wide mid and attack like a winger, no matter how good you are, tracking back all the time will always take a little something out of your attacking prowess. You can't have it both ways.

[Cougar2010]

this is exactley wrong

i do not understand why you keep saying you can't have players everywhere? nobody claims that. what it seems to me is that you fail to aknowledge that football game consists of two phases (three actually, but transition is not part of disucssion).

with ball and without ball

when my team is with ball, in posession, and patiently tries to find an opening in oposition defense, i want my wide players to be in AM position so they can exploit the space between full back and center back, specially when my lone striker gets deep and drags out of position one of the centerbacks.

when i am in defensive phase of game, i want these wide midfielders to drop deeper and occupy position in ML/R slots.

this is not possible anymore since SI took out the with/without ball instructions years before. while i do understand why they did it, i would like they come up with some other system that allows us to set our teams positions with and without ball but that prevents exploiting the ME wibble wobble used to.

and those options are still there, SI removed with/without ball because no player plays in two positions, a player plays in one area of the field and what he does depends on what is happening around him.

The formation you select is your "Without Ball" option along with the appropriate defensive instructions.

Your "With Ball" option/shape comes from the attacking instructions you give your player.

Can the attacking instructions be improved? yes & I think SI are aware of this and I expect we'll see improvements in this area over the next few versions.

As it stands though you need to change your thinking, rather than starting off from an attacking shape you need to start thinking from a base point of your defensive shape.

[RocheBag]

this is exactley wrong

i do not understand why you keep saying you can't have players everywhere? nobody claims that. what it seems to me is that you fail to aknowledge that football game consists of two phases (three actually, but transition is not part of disucssion).

with ball and without ball

when my team is with ball, in posession, and patiently tries to find an opening in oposition defense, i want my wide players to be in AM position so they can exploit the space between full back and center back, specially when my lone striker gets deep and drags out of position one of the centerbacks.

when i am in defensive phase of game, i want these wide midfielders to drop deeper and occupy position in ML/R slots.

this is not possible anymore since SI took out the with/without ball instructions years before. while i do understand why they did it, i would like they come up with some other system that allows us to set our teams positions with and without ball but that prevents exploiting the ME wibble wobble used to.

So you put him as a wide mid with attacking instructions to go where you want him. It's that simple.

[Cougar2010]

SI removed with/without ball because no player plays in two positions,

i think they removed it because it left engine too exposed to exploatation. every team in the world has with and without ball instructions and it is not because their managers want them to play in two places at the same time but because they want them to behave and position themselves differently when they defend and when they attack.

Players behaving differently when they defend and attack is NOT because they play in two positions, its because they have instructions on how to play when they attack and defend - just like you have in FM.

No player in the world runs like a headless chicken from one position to the other depending on who has possession, they play in one general area of the field and try to follow a manager's relevant instructions for attacking and defending.

In FM this is achieved by starting at your base defensive shape/formation and then assigning attacking and defensive instructions.

[themadsheep2001]

so how do i instruct an inside forward to track back the opposing winger as ribery does?

I was just going to post about this. To do it naturally we will need more instructions/better improvements in the ME, but you can also use (for now) specific marking on the opposition winger/fullback, so he tails them back

[Cougar2010]

so how do i instruct an inside forward to track back the opposing winger as ribery does?

You place them in the ML slot and he will track back more.

When Ribery defends how far forward is he? Positioned like a ML or positioned like an AML?

As themadsheep has pointed out you can also use specific man marking in the instructions but tbh if you are playing an AML then they are expected to have much less defensive involvement than midfielders so they can be in a position to attack when your team wins the ball.

[themadsheep2001]

You place them in the ML slot and he will track back more.

When Ribery defends how far forward is he? Positioned like a ML or positioned like an AML?

As themadsheep has pointed out you can also use specific man marking in the instructions but tbh if you are playing an AML then they are expected to have much less defensive involvement than midfielders so they can be in a position to attack when your team wins the ball.

Disagree with the bold if If I'm honest. Ribery isn't an ML, Bayern's base shape is definitely that of a 4-2-3-1 deep with cover/stopper defenders. He and Robben also happen to track back much more than many other AM band players.

When Ribery defends he can be found about 10 yards in front of the full back, that's how far he will track back if needed.

They are AMLs and AMRs who can often be expected to defend right back down to the 18 yard line. Not every AML/R will do this, or even can do this, but we do need more tracking back instructions for those who can.

[BiggusD]

SI removed with/without ball because no player plays in two positions,

i think they removed it because it left engine too exposed to exploatation. every team in the world has with and without ball instructions and it is not because their managers want them to play in two places at the same time but because they want them to behave and position themselves differently when they defend and when they attack.

what you suggest, putting a player in ML slot and giving him attacking instructions expecting he will be in AM slot and to cut inside and finish off the move, is exactely what you are telling me - expecting a player to be at two places at the same time. it just doesn't work like that. i want an attacker who tracks back when on defense, not a wide midfielder who cuts inside on attack.

If you have an AMC as well as your AMRL players, they will be pushed wider, so with some restrictive closing down instructions on your wingers as well as relatively moderate mentalities they will track back. In a 451 tactic they will track back a lot later than the midfielders, though. In order to be attacking threats in the box AMRL players must have attacking mentalities and Run from Deep Often, and then they won't track back. They will be positioned too far up the pitch to be any help defensively other than when the opponents play slow football. Then you might as well play them as strikers on support duties with a third central striker on attacking duty. A single anchor man is evidently supposed to drop down between the central defenders in FM13, so this means he pushes the MC's forward and the DC's backwards, while the full backs push into the WB/MLR positions if your wingers are in the AMRL positions. This makes it awfully easy to pull the defense apart from the flanks since there are giant holes both behind the full backs and between them and the central defenders. You are better off playing two flat lines in defense and midfield, so that they are closer together.

Ï think that an AMC is wasted when you play attacking football pushing up. He is not that good with only a single striker in front of him either, since that single striker is easily marked out of the game especially when you play slow football. In other words, 4231 (both wide and narrow) are the two formations where the AMC is the most useful. Then follows 4312 and 41212. So if you want your AMRL players to be a worthwhile addition compared to the MRL option, use them in support roles in a Standard/Counter 4231. I would avoid 4-4-1-1 (flat 442 is simply better), 4-1-2-2-1 (either too defensive or three-striker 433 is better if the wingers are attacking) and 4-2-4 (difficult to have all four players up front move properly; they are cutting off each other's spaces, making max width and crossing from byline almost necessary).

Well, those are my observations anyway

[RocheBag]

For what it's worth, I just started a Bayern save just to test it. Playing a standard 4-4-1-1, with the wide mids set as Winger - Attack, the only change being wide play set to Cuts Inside. Robben has 2 goals in 3 games, Ribery has 4 in 4, Shaqiri has 1 in 2, and Muller has 1 in 1. The heat maps show basically a 4-2-3-1, and the wide mids track back well past the opponents full backs, often double teaming their wingers.

[FootballersWith]

For what it's worth, I just started a Bayern save just to test it. Playing a standard 4-4-1-1, with the wide mids set as Winger - Attack, the only change being wide play set to Cuts Inside. Robben has 2 goals in 3 games, Ribery has 4 in 4, Shaqiri has 1 in 2, and Muller has 1 in 1. The heat maps show basically a 4-2-3-1, and the wide mids track back well past the opponents full backs, often double teaming their wingers.

Great, there's a work around. Couldn't they just make it an actual option? If you can have a winger set as ML with instruction to cut inside and his heat map shows that he is AML in attack and ML in defence then why not have the option to set him at AML as an inside forward and have a separate option to instruct him to track back when defending? It's the same thing but without having to go through the rigmarole of a work around.

[RocheBag]

As an AML his heat map would be further up the pitch, because his role would be to stay advanced for counter-attacking opportunities. Placing a player in his defensive position instead of his attacking position isn't a workaround, it's how the game works.

[RocheBag]

Yeah that would be the main problem, and it would make it a lot easier if they just had the IF and AP roles available for wide mids as well

[RocheBag]

Well I don't see many AML/AMR who aren't at least fairly comfortable as ML/MR, and the ones that aren't should be fairly easy to train. The guys who are natural strikers who can also pay the wings I'd much rather have those people up the pitch ready to attack, but that's just a matter of opinion I suppose.