iiliquidkarma Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Hi guys currently on my second season with united and i'm almost happy with the tactic.I had a decent season last year finished second by 5 points and did average in the champions league and the fa cup. The problem is conceding from crosses particularly from the 4231 formation.The one thing i've tried is setting the 2 wide centre mids to mark opposition fullbacks but I don't know if it makes that much of a difference. any other critique's of the tactic are welcome as well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidPengilley Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 I play a similar formation occasionally and, yes, weakness of this is on the flanks especially when facing teams with 2 wide players of each flank. When your WBs attack, who's covering them? Who's marking the oppositions extra wide man? Or, if your happy to face crosses, who's going to be in the box to suppplent your defenders? Basic 4-4-2 would see the opposition outnumber you on the flanks and match your numbers in the middle. I see you set manual marking on the extra wide man, what did you notice in matches doing that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyro Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 You are conceding from Crosses because of your attacking wing backs. Set them to support or change to FB and I would think you have better cover on the flanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SideLineBiscuit Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 if he does that he will get too little support in the wide areas in attack. happends to me also as I like to play a narrow diamond. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dankrzyz Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 if he does that he will get too little support in the wide areas in attack. happends to me also as I like to play a narrow diamond. An attack mentality player without anyone covering for him can be a recipe for trouble. Even a change to WB(s) might help. The support wingback will still provide some width, providing passes/crosses from wide and offering an "out", even if they don't directly attack the byline. Or you could look to another player to provide that width and get out into wide areas. Perhaps a striker pulling wide or even an outside CM? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjericho Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 I think the defense is overexposed. I don't think the main issue is in the wing backs, though. Since they are the only players to provide width it's acceptable to have them with an attack duty. The issue is who is covering for them? Note that there is no DM in this setup, and there's only one midfielder with a defending duty. And his role is not a primarily defensive one, but a creative one. I would consider some of the following options: - dropping the DLP/d to the DM strata; or - assigning a more defensive role to the DLP/d, possibly a CM/d; (and use the CM/s as a RPM/s possibly) The fact that you play narrower also gives the opposition even more space in the flanks, you might want to consider dropping that TI and see if it affects your game negatively, because it might reduce space in the flanks for the opposition to explore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.