Three man defense, defensively terrible?

[KlaaZ]

Is it possible to set up a formation with three defenders that performs defensively? I'm currently with FC United in the League 2 and while my offensive play from my formation (see below) is okay, I'm leaking goals like crazy (I'm currently the most conceding squad in the league) and my central defenders continue to underperform. On top of that, my wide players always get caught in their back (no matter what instructions I give them, i.e. specific marking, tight marking,...) resulting in a first time cross between my goalie and my defense which ends in a goal.

I just once again lost 5-1 to Barnet in a game that I was dominating (chancewise) from the start. They scored with a long range shot (their first) after 25, and then followed with four identical goals over both flanks, first time crosses and easy tapins. The thing is, I can't see anything glaringly wrong with my tactic so I have no idea how to fix this and it is really taking all the fun out of the game for me right now.

[HappyStreet]

Yes it it, its not gonna be with using wingers out wide though. Something more defensive like CWB(s) would be preferable. You could try DWs aswell.

[Cougar2010]

What doesn't get mentioned enough is that there are two teams on the pitch.

In the example you gave your formation/tactic is inherently weak against Barnets. They are blatantly attacking a weak area of your formation/tactic and you did nothing to stop them.

[KlaaZ]

What doesn't get mentioned enough is that there are two teams on the pitch.

In the example you gave your formation/tactic is inherently weak against Barnets. They are blatantly attacking a weak area of your formation/tactic and you did nothing to stop them.

Fair point, and I guessed it was an issue. It's the main reason I posted their formation as well. The question is, how would I counter that without throwing around my entire formation?

[Cougar2010]

Fair point, and I guessed it was an issue. It's the main reason I posted their formation as well. The question is, how would I counter that without throwing around my entire formation?

Well over time you should have an idea of what sort of formations you are facing and so be able to plan better but as it stands you have two options:

A) You have an alternate formation which doesn't have the same areas of weakness and is better equipped to cope with teams who attack with high wingers or

B) You find a way to adjust that formation to limit the weakness down the wings.

If it was me I think I would go with A and have an alternate formation leaving that one to deal with the likes of 442, 451, narrow formations etc.

EDIT

I see you have a 532 saved in your OP pic, it would probably have been the better option for that match.

[KlaaZ]

You may be onto something with the wing backs. I had a game against a minnow in the FA Cup which boosted morale a little, and then managed to beat second placed Hartlepool with 2-1. They employed a flat 4-4-2, whilst I dropped my wingers to the wing back position and played them as WB(S)'s with specific marking on the opposing wide midfielders. Started off as the better team, scoring after ten minutes with a direct free kick after missing a few solid chances. Hartepool tried to come back at me in force, winning more second balls and have a few blocked shots and strikes from distance, none on target. They equalised from a ridiculous penalty, but I came out with a win after a great cross and dito goal at the hour mark. Another important change I made was going for retain possession as we were misplacing way too many balls from failed through balls. This game us a whopping 64% possession and made us see out the game quite easily.

Thanks for the advice so far, it's sometimes easier to spot than you think.

[THOG]

A true 3-man defence is an ambitious set-up, and with two STs, you have a formation that is inherently tipping to the attacking end. It can work, but you'll need a team that can control a match and shut down an opponent who starts sending numbers forward. Generally, a 3-man defence tends to benefit from the AI's reluctance to push its flank players forward unless it needs a goal, but if they switch to a more attacking mentality, you're gifting their wingers loads of space that will force your DCs out of position. I'm guessing you're struggling after scoring first?

You might also try pressing higher or using a more aggressive mentality, so you're not getting pushed back into your [precarious] defensive shape so easily. It may seem counterintuitive to tighten up by going more attacking, but with an aggressive formation, dropping back can be far more dangerous than pressing high.

[KlaaZ]

I am indeed seeing a match change when I go one up, yes. it generally translates in the opponent gradually getting more shots, which may in turn be the result of higher wide players. If there's a lot of vertical play from my opponent at that point, it may very well be possible that we just start clearing it, making it easier for the opposing team to recycle possession and keep the pressure on.

I realise that this formation is ambitious, but I can't help myself. I played this myself when I was younger and it is, in my opinion at least, probably the most flexible formation possible if employed properly. Too bad that it's not always that easy to translate into FM (which isn't that odd really because after all it's still a computer game).

We have a manager in Belgium who coaches AA Gent in the Champions League and employs a similar setup. He managed to qualify for the knockout stages, finishing in second place before Lyon and Valencia with a team that cost less than 5 million pounds in total. If it's set up properly, that tactic can create a machine.

[KlaaZ]

Think I narrowed down the problem, and it may not (only be tactical). I just threw away a two goal lead away in the final minutes because my left wing back decided he was needed in the middle and left his flank completely exposed. The following cross resulted in the equaliser. Note that I was playing a narrow diamond formation with only full backs. No two against one on the flanks, but for some reason my wing back still ran to cover a player already covered in the middle. Feels like the same issue pre patch really..

[imabearlol]

I've got a 3-4-1-2 and a 3-1-4-2 working but it requires world class defenders, particularly the middle CD needs to be able to win the vast majority of clearances/balls played over the top to the opposition striker. It works decently well with a possession system that pushes high up the pitch as your back 3 will spread out and cover the width of the pitch well. As long as they can win most of the passes played to the opposition forwards then the extra man in Midfield you gain really lets you dominate the game. If I was to run this system on any team other than a world class one I would use wingbacks instead of wingers in the ML/R slots.

[Overmars]

Another vote for wingbacks instead of wingers. You can adjust the mentality of the wingbacks to suit match conditions, which gives you added flexibility out of the same base shape. Furthermore, most WBs can play in the defender strata too, so you can go into full-on defensive mode with a flat back 5 without having to sub off players.

[Dr. Hook]

I'll contribute a bit here by noting that I have a 5-2-1-2 formation that I use in certain situations and I use the wingback strata for the two wide backs. It works well for me against narrow formations such as the 4-4-2 diamond and the 4-3-3 narrow. Just as Overmars said, the wingbacks will get back defensively better than wingers or even wide midfielders, but they retain the offensive options you want. It is a good idea that they have good stamina and workrate, though, as you are asking a lot of those players

[isignedupfornorealreason]

Just to add, in theory the WB/A will act as an out and out winger in the offensive phase, so you get to retain the attacking width while maintaining a 'trio' at the back. FM recognises it as a 5-3-2, but that doesn't really matter so much, as it is down to you whether you interpret wing backs as defenders or deeper attacking midfield players! I think the modern outlook is that they're midfielders thesedays but anyway...

Oh, and I'm by no means saying you can't have a WB/S instead. If you do go more aggressive down the flanks, it might be worth considering a double pivot to lock down the midfield?

[dankrzyz]

You might also try pressing higher or using a more aggressive mentality, so you're not getting pushed back into your [precarious] defensive shape so easily. It may seem counterintuitive to tighten up by going more attacking, but with an aggressive formation, dropping back can be far more dangerous than pressing high.

+1 to this, speaks to my experience exactly. With pressing, I think you see the back 3 shifting from side to side more, as they should.

[mibsweden]

Try an Anchorman or a Half Back in the defensive midfielder position.

[imabearlol]

Try an Anchorman or a Half Back in the defensive midfielder position.

You should really explain the reason if you suggest something. Myself I would not play with these roles in the DM slot in a 3-1-4-2 as the entire point of the system is to get an extra man higher up the pitch to help dominate the midfield. Otherwise you may as well play a 4-4-2.