Assistance understanding formation goals/strengths/weaknesses

[Cummins]

After a promising first two seasons at Chorley, I've hit a road block. The formation I tried to create just flat out didn't work, likely due to how I was playing vs what its good at, time to go back to basics. So I was wondering if someone could help me understanding the strengths and weakness of some basic team shapes and what sort of play style they lend themselves too. I feel I may be trying to put a square peg in a round hole... Below is my thoughts on each, I understand theres no universal way a formation works but I'm talking about what they naturally lend themselves too.

4-4-2 Flat

Strengths

• No excess exposure down the flanks, can double up in attack/defense relatively easy

• Good width with two in each flank

Weaknesses

• Large space between Defence, Midfield and Attack can make transition play difficult

• Only 2CM can be out numbered by a lot of popular formations like 4-5-1/4-1-2-2-1

• Large space between MID/ST can leave strikers isolated at times

• No natural "triangles" for passing/possession

• No DM which can leave the oppossing AMC in a lot of free space

Playstyle

Judging from my thoughts on the above it suggest this type of formation shouldn't concentrate on short passing possession football, aim of the formation is to get the ball to wingers and let them get balls into the box for the big/small or creator/scorer strike partners. Wingers/Full backs being the main attacking threat. This suggests to be the following type of set-up

Shape: Flexible or Fluid - This is to help close the gaps between DEF/MID/ATK as I believe this compacts the team shape?

Mentality: Counter or standard - Explosive counter attacks getting the ball to the wingers seems to be the ideal scenario. Don't really have the men the midfield to play a heavy pressing style of football or possession

TI: Exploit the weakest flank defensive makes sense, direct passing, width to wide in easier games, normal in harder games, perhaps run at defence too but wingers will do this by default so perhaps not needed? Tempo... not sure, probably normal or high to get the ball forward quickly?

What I think this would look like:

GK - Goalkeeper (Defend)

DL - Fullback (Support) - Looking at getting him forward to assist attacks

DR - Fullback (Attack) - Even further forward to assist and perhaps overlap with the winger

DCL/DCR - Limited Defender or Central Defender (Defend)

ML - Winger (Attack) - Stay wide, run at defence, get crosses in.

MR - Winger (Support) - Stay wide, get crosses in, double up with DR.

MCL - Central Mid (Support) or B2B (Support) - Midfielder to get up and down, help out as an option for attacks and put a shift in defensively, on opposite side to DLF as to not "run into each other"

MCR - Central Mid (Defend) - Holding midfielder on the side of the maurading DR.

STL - Advanced Forward or Poacher (Attack) - Main goal scorer for the team

STR - Deep Lying Forward or Target Man (Support) - Creative striker to play in the other ST, probably more likely to get onto crosses too and help to be an outlet/hold up play if wingers aren't pushed up following a counter attack

4-1-4-1

Strengths

• Employs a DM to give a defensive shield for the back line

• Has some in built passing triangles which could allow to build from the back

• No excess exposure down the flanks, can double up in attack/defense relatively easy

• Good width with two in each flank

Weaknesses

• Large space between MID / ST can leave strikers isolated at times

• Attacking options can be limited

Playstyle

Similar to a 4-4-2 in play style, slightly easier to do short passing but still probably not "built" for it. Defensively solid with DM so utilising wide men and a creater/attacker in central midfield, less effective to pump balls in the box though do to the solo front man, likely better to play off him and have a winger and a CM running off him if possible. Could potentially employ a high pressing style with this in midfield as you have the DM to cover if it goes wrong. Fullbacks to offer width, ML/MR potentially to be slightly more central (or atlest one of them)

Shape: Honestly not sure. Fluid would help with attack, structured may help it be even more defensively solid so perhaps Flexible...

Mentality: Counter seems appropiate, win the back back around the DM area, push out with

TI: Passing style will probably be default, tiki taka likely won't work with this but it doesn't need to lump forward at every opportunity so mixed, width as wide in easier games, normal in harder, closing down more often in general, less on DM/DC though via PI?

What I think this would look like:

GK - Goalkeeper (Defend)

DL - Fullback/Wingback (Support) - Support attacks but not veture too far

DR - Fullback/Wingback (Attack) - Support attacks and get past the MR

DCL - Central Defender or Limited (Defend)

DM - Anchor Man (Defend) - Defensive shield, don't want him running all over the show.

ML - Wide Midfielder (Support) - Offer width and passing options, seems fruitless to have a winger here with a solo striker to get on the end of crosses

MR - Wide Midfielder (Support) - PI - stay narrow/run inside/further forward - Act as a poor mans AMR(IF) to support the striker and run off him

MCL - Central Midfielder (Attack) - Attack the opposite side of the DLF as the MR, link up and run off the DLF if possible

MCR - Deep Lying Playmaker (Support) - Someone to sit deeper and perhaps dictate play, pointless having someone more advanced here as he'd fight for space with the inside MR. Could potentially replace with a BWM? Lose creativity but help pressuring opposite possession for better counter?

ST - Deep Lying Forward (Support) - Hold up the ball, play 1-2s with CM(A) and wait for runs from the MC / MR.

4-4-1-1

Strengths

• Good support up front with the AMC / ST link up

• Easy transition from Mid to ST

• Has some in built passing triangles which could allow to build from the back

• No excess exposure down the flanks, can double up in attack/defense relatively easy

• Good width with two in each flank

• Can exploit space vs teams that don't employ a DM

Weaknesses

• Doesn't play a DM so could be opened up by opposing AMC

• Transition from DEF to MID is quiet large, unlikely to be able to build from the back effectively

Playstyle

Attacking focus, has good passing options up front but still lacks when building from the back, probably be more patient with build up. Use the width well as both the AMC/ST can get in on crosses in theory, potentially mix and match a winger and inside forward-esk role. Fullbacks pushing on again to help with attack duty. Central midfielder to be a holding / support I asssume to give a shield for the defence and support to the attack.

Shape: Honestly not sure. Fluid would help with attack, structured may help it be even more defensively solid so perhaps Flexible...

Mentality: Control

TI: Work ball into the box, pass shorter, higher defensive line to close space between defense and attack and allow easier play from the back (perhaps offside trap with this?)

What I think this would look like:

GK - Sweeper Keeper (Support) - Higher defensive line seems like a SK would help

DL - Fullback/Wingback (Support) - Support attack but still complete defensive duties

DR - Fullback/Wingback (Attack) - Overlap midfielder

DC - Central defender / limited defender -

ML - Winger (Support) - Keep width in the squad, get balls into the box

MR - Wide Midfielder (Support) - Again, act as a poor mans AMR(IF)

MCL - Central Midfielder (Support) - Assist with attack

MCR - Central Midfidler (Defend) - Holding mid on the side of the MR cutting in

AMC+ST - Attack Mid (Support) + Advanced Forward (Attack) or Shadow Striker (Attack) + Deep Lying Forward (Support) makes the most sense... Not sure which of these combos would work better though.

Whats everyones thoughts on this, am I missing anything obvious. As said, trying to get my fundamental understanding formations improved so I can create better tactics in the future rather than begging for someone to fix my currently not working tactic...

[Cleon]

I don't have the time for a detailed response but I wanted to pick up on something you mentioned;

4-4-2 Flat

Strengths

• No excess exposure down the flanks, can double up in attack/defense relatively easy

• Good width with two in each flank

Weaknesses

• Large space between Defence, Midfield and Attack can make transition play difficult

• Only 2CM can be out numbered by a lot of popular formations like 4-5-1/4-1-2-2-1

• Large space between MID/ST can leave strikers isolated at times

• No natural "triangles" for passing/possession

• No DM which can leave the oppossing AMC in a lot of free space

The two bolded bits aren't weaknesses because it's not true. If you have issues with these then you've gone the role allocation balance wrong. There is no large space between midfield and strikers unless you use two defensive minded midfielder and 2 attack minded strikers. which no-one in their right mind would use. The midfield and strikers should link up nicely as at least one striker would be dropping off the front and one midfielder would be pushing up. There is no way that your strikers ever get isolated in a 442 unless you screw the roles up that you use.

In fact in the 442 you posted with potential roles, the gaps wouldn't be be there that you claimed are a weakness nor would the isolated strikers.........

[Cummins]

@Cleon - you are probably correct in terms of my old 4-4-2 attempts having the issues and being poorly balanced which gives me a tainted view on them which is a part of the reason for this thread. I want to abolish any false opinions I hold due to my own failings in previous games and what not. I want to be able to look at a team shape for what it is, not what I failed at making it be. Once I have this, it should be much easier for me to logically look at a formation and balance roles and duties around that.

Thats my thinking anyhow.

[Rashidi]

I'm afraid you are looking at numbers and sticking them on the screen in some kind of flat system. When you say a 4411 "doesn't play a DM so can be opened up by an AMC" implies that that is a weakness. If one of your players is playing as a defensive MC then he is on "deep' in the hole a DM would be playing in and this in turn means in attack he is more pushed up and likely to add potency to ball retention.

What I recommend is thinking of where you want a player to be with the ball and without, and then looking for the role to fit. So essentially when you are making a system, how do you want the 442 to play, you could play it like an orthodox 442 and I can play it as a 424, and its just a matter of changing roles. So I would really look at expanding the way you think. If you open yourself up to more interpretations on systems of play you will find that this game is incredibly easy

[mrw072]

It's an interesting thread because I tend to use a 442 a lot as I love to have a couple of wingers in my team. This time I've found that my best striker (attribute wise) just can't score goals, I think he's just one of those players who looks good, but is just not a natural finisher. So I've developed my 442 into a 4411 and I'm having a lot of good results (generally speaking) because my AM is scoring goals. What I've noticed very much is that my team does well when specific players are in it. I think I have 4 or 5 players who relish big matches, so their determination appears to rub off onto the rest of the squad. I realised that when 3 or 4 of them were out of the team and I replaced them with players who looked as though they could perform in the roles I had given them, but ultimately didn't, and my results got worse. So I think as well as the roles you've come up with - which I pretty much agree with. I think you need to take into consideration that some players in your squad will perform better/worse than others, and you may need to tweak those roles depending on the players at your disposal.

[Cummins]

I'm afraid you are looking at numbers and sticking them on the screen in some kind of flat system. When you say a 4411 "doesn't play a DM so can be opened up by an AMC" implies that that is a weakness. If one of your players is playing as a defensive MC then he is on "deep' in the hole a DM would be playing in and this in turn means in attack he is more pushed up and likely to add potency to ball retention.

What I recommend is thinking of where you want a player to be with the ball and without, and then looking for the role to fit. So essentially when you are making a system, how do you want the 442 to play, you could play it like an orthodox 442 and I can play it as a 424, and its just a matter of changing roles. So I would really look at expanding the way you think. If you open yourself up to more interpretations on systems of play you will find that this game is incredibly easy

This is true, I think i'm just trying to get a general idea of formations when in reality, it's probably meaningless. As you said a 442 can become a 4-1-3-2, 4-2-4 and what not with player positioning. One question I will ask then, I'm playing at lower league meaning some of the roles I want just aren't available. I have strikers with reasonable stats as a false nine for example but role suitability is always 1 or 2 bars tops. Does this actually matter? Does it actually effect performance in the role?

Thanks in advance.