Do we really need full-backs?

[ReddaJoppe]

A lot of teams line up in some kind of 4-2-3-1 formation, often where the wingers like to go inside searching for space to create chances for themselves and/or the CF and AMC. I've been thinking about whether a standard back four really is the best way to defend against that.

When the opposition wingers cut inside, only the opposition full-backs provide width and oppose danger in getting crossing in from deep, and do we really need two sets of wide players (wingers and full-backs) to defend against that? Or could we possibly deploy those players in other positions where they might be more useful?

Often, the real danger when playing against a 4-2-3-1 is the creative players (wingers and AMC) finding space and combining nicely with each other (and the CF) between our defense and midfield. With both wingers cutting inside, our usual pair of CMs or DMCs are outnumbered and have problems stopping the opposition from creating chances.

Therefore, I'm thinking about deploying a formation with three DCMs and no full-backs in order to leave no space at all in front of my own defense for the opposition to exploit. Probably some kind of 2-3-3-2 with to CBs, three DMCs, AML, AMC, AMR and two CFs. While that formation would provide a lot of strength centrally, the obvious weakness is that there is a lot of space on the wings for the opposition to cross the ball into the box. This means that the CB-pair need to be very strong in the air in order to defend against those crosses. Also, the wide DMCs should probably try to close down any wide players trying to advance with the ball, just so that it isn't too easy for the opposition to cross the ball into the box.

So, do you think such a formation could work, and would it be an effective defense against the 4-2-3-1 formation?

Do you have any suggestions on how to optimize the formation - e.g. player roles, tactics, opposition instructions?

[kazm]

The opponents strikers will then move into the open channels dragging dc's apart creating a hole between those dc's, the AML/AMR/AMC can then sprint into that hole.

[Lord Rowell]

It's a nice idea but I would worry that the opposition attacking full backs would end up pinning back your AM-R/L, and they are your only wide outlet. In addition I'm not sure the formation is as strong centrally as you suggest. Certainly, you have high numbers at the back (a 3, then a 2) but these players aren't going to be engaged in the battle for possession and you're likely to constantly find yourself outnumbered in midfield as well. This is the criticism of back 3s generally, that it makes one player redundant against single striker formations. Your 3 & 2 at the back makes that problem bigger IMO.

[ReddaJoppe]

It's 2-3-3-2, so 2 CBs and 3 DMs, not the other way around.

[Kelron]

Isn't that the point of the position in general? They're not usually needed to be in a defensive position 100% of the time, so they get forward in support of attacks. Usually what I see happening in my own formations is the wingers moving the ball down the flanks in attack before heading towards, the box, while the full backs/wing backs move up in support, picking up sloppy clearances and passes to play them back into the box.

[DBurns]

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2014/04/10/bayern-munich-3-1-manchester-united-guardiola-uses-his-full-backs-in-midfield-but-bayern-better-with-a-standard-system/

Might be worth reading that link about Pep using Lahm and Alaba in midfield against Man Utd, may not be much help to you as it may not be possible to replicate them playing two positions as such in FM but I'm sure it'll be worth a glance anyway

[deserter]

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2014/04/10/bayern-munich-3-1-manchester-united-guardiola-uses-his-full-backs-in-midfield-but-bayern-better-with-a-standard-system/

Might be worth reading that link about Pep using Lahm and Alaba in midfield against Man Utd, may not be much help to you as it may not be possible to replicate them playing two positions as such in FM but I'm sure it'll be worth a glance anyway

Using them at DM while telling them to mark opponent wingers may just do the trick. Or not.

[deserter]

I think you'd need to drop down all of the AM strata players to Midfield strata. Then you'll have much more secure flanks and your DM's won't get dragged upfield towards the ball when the MC is there to put pressure on the ball. This would make the formation very defending, but that's not necessarily crippling. I have been meaning to toy with triple DM tactics for a while now, but haven't got around to it just yet.

[benallen002]

Just wanted to say that, on a lark, I tried this system in a floundering Liverpool save and it is working a treat!

I went with a wide 4-4-2 diamond, but pinched the FBs up and in to the DM strata for 2-3-2WM-1-2. Still figuring out roles (either A or DM(D)) for the DMs, but everything is pretty solid at the back, even against 4-4-2s

[tejas]

Just wanted to say that, on a lark, I tried this system in a floundering Liverpool save and it is working a treat!

I went with a wide 4-4-2 diamond, but pinched the FBs up and in to the DM strata for 2-3-2WM-1-2. Still figuring out roles (either A or DM(D)) for the DMs, but everything is pretty solid at the back, even against 4-4-2s

Would it be possible for you to upload average positions for the game? Do those wider DMCs get goalside of the opposition wide players?

[benallen002]

Would it be possible for you to upload average positions for the game? Do those wider DMCs get goalside of the opposition wide players?

I'm still monkey-ing around with it a little bit, but it seems either A or DM(D) roles average the same positions: just ahead and outside the CBs (who stay abnormally far apart with this system). Neither role provides much (if anything) going forward. I suppose I could switch them to DM(S) but that almost seems suicidal.

I'll try to remember to post something after I've had more time to tinker.

[tejas]

i've been messing around with a 2-3-2-3 formation in pre-season. I am playing a 3 of DM(s)-HB(D)-DM(S) and feel that the movement from the outer defensive midfielders looks promising. Numbers 2 and 3 are the postion in question.

This is the shape with the ball:

And the shape without:

[JOSEPH!]

That is an eventful 7 minutes Tejas

[THOG]

A fullback does more than just protect the extreme flank areas of the pitch. The defensive line shifts across in accordance with the position of play, especially when forwards look to drift into wide areas, and contracts when defending deep. Wide defenders ensure space is sufficiently covered. In the case of inside forwards, fullbacks do track them, narrow and help the DCs restrict space to cut off their runs. Without a wide defender, a DC will get easily overloaded, even if you were to play three across the back. It's hard enough to defend with four players at the back after all.

In FM, you can get away with not using FBs against certain opponents because the AI doesn't always adapt effectively against unusual formations.

[benallen002]

In FM, you can get away with not using FBs against certain opponents because the AI doesn't always adapt effectively against unusual formations.

Yeah, I gave up on it because it was just too inconsistent. Even with same players and 'Accomplished' familiarity, results would just vary to much for my taste. I chalked it up to the ME not really understanding how to play against it, so when it got it wrong, it was very wrong and when it got right, it was very right.

Perhaps ironically, the formations the FB-less system struggled the most against were those with attacking wide players. It did best against a standard 4-4-2.

EDIT: Having re-read your post about IFs, it makes a little bit more sense. I wasn't watching games, so what was most likely happening is if the wide players were cutting inside, they were going to the outside of the DM and CB and getting in behind that way. Whereas normally they would be forced to work the channel between the CB and FB and that is much more difficult.

[lam]

L/RB + stay narrow (or whatever the instruction is) works nicely with players that cut in.