Shadow striker or Defensive forward

[Pendraz]

Any reason to prefer the latter?

I have been wanting to create a classic 4-4-2 that had to be compact defensively, and very direct when going forward, relying on physical strength and speed for counter attacks and for winning headers on crosses and set pieces.

I would like to see everyone contributing defensively, so my AF will be in charge of harassing the opponent back line and goalkeeper when they are in possession, while my defensive forward was supposed to come deep to help pressing their midfield. However, despite putting him on the maximum setting of closing down and with a defensive role, he will barely reach the point of pressuring the opponent DM, if they have some.

If they are using only midfielders, he will stay up along with the AF, without tracking back. That's why I decided to try with a SS. Defensively it works much better, because he comes deeper when in non possession.

Offensively he's so quick to get in the box, that he's probably even more of a striker than a defensive forward is.

So basically, as the title suggest, is there any reason or role to cover for a defensive striker that I am not understanding? I am not saying it couldn't be effective in some setups, I am merely asking if there's something it would be better at than other roles/position, because at the moment I can't think of anything it does that another role wouldn't do better, at least in this ME.

Thoughts?

[Marsupian]

This is one of my biggest gripes with the game at the moment. It's extremely common for defensive two striker systems to have both strikers sit very close to the midfield line and close down deep defenders. In FM they will always go close down central defenders and sacrifice position unless you go into specific man marking which is a very clunky solution. I have tried playing with two defensive forwards on defend and the forward movement when in possession is nearly non-existent and hard to watch. I usually just go with my normal striker setup (usually AF and DLF or CF(a) and DLF) and then tell them to specifically mark the opponents two most defensive midfielders.

There really should be a role for the modern deep striker who sits in front of the defensive unit closing down deep midfielders and then turns into the most advanced striker when in possession. I guess you can try playing two shadow strikers and see if that gets the desired results.

[BallHogging]

Any reason to prefer the latter?

I have been wanting to create a classic 4-4-2 that had to be compact defensively, and very direct when going forward, relying on physical strength and speed for counter attacks and for winning headers on crosses and set pieces.

I would like to see everyone contributing defensively, so my AF will be in charge of harassing the opponent back line and goalkeeper when they are in possession, while my defensive forward was supposed to come deep to help pressing their midfield. However, despite putting him on the maximum setting of closing down and with a defensive role, he will barely reach the point of pressuring the opponent DM, if they have some.

If they are using only midfielders, he will stay up along with the AF, without tracking back. That's why I decided to try with a SS. Defensively it works much better, because he comes deeper when in non possession.

Offensively he's so quick to get in the box, that he's probably even more of a striker than a defensive forward is.

So basically, as the title suggest, is there any reason or role to cover for a defensive striker that I am not understanding? I am not saying it couldn't be effective in some setups, I am merely asking if there's something it would be better at than other roles/position, because at the moment I can't think of anything it does that another role wouldn't do better, at least in this ME.

Thoughts?

I'm pretty much like you with wanting everybody to contribute defensively so have been forever trying to work out both how I could get certain players to defend adequately and also which type of Striker role to go for. It has been a long road! I also think you've nearly cracked it with that comment that the SS is probably more of a striker than the DF is.

As a disclaimer I can say that what you think a role is doing can be completely overwritten by PI's, TI's, mentality, fluidity, opposition I's, Player Preferred Moves, and just good old player attributes etc etc. So a lot of trial and error is needed, and I believe it's best to do that by reloading one game over and over again, as opposed to trying things against multiple opponents, at least in the first instance.

So...

* Shadow Striker is exceptionally greedy due to the dribble more instruction being enforced. So if you need to keep possession at any time during a game anyone with dribble more greyed out is not suitable regardless of what mentality or TI's you choose. Honestly. The SS only seems to pass properly if there is someone as advanced nearby. If not, he wants to do a Messi.

* What I was surprised about with my tactical experiments is that the SS comes back practically as far as an AM. Now whilst this was good for pressuring (without having to force man mark a CM) it was terrible if I had the idea of using the SS as a direct outball/counter.

So what I wanted was someone who would not sit inbetween CB's doing nothing, with perhaps the odd run to the flank, but instead someone who would drop back properly to link the attack without being completely in our half when possession is turned over, because that leads to a punt upfield to no one. Trequartista in the Striker slot may well drop quite deep sometimes to receive a ball but once that ball is given back to a midfielder the T makes a dart back to the opposition defensive line. In a way it's like how to Inside Forward - Attack likes to run himself into a cul-de-sac and then stay there.

So I worked through DLF-S/A, F9, DF-S/D, CF-S, TM-S. Now I usually play with 3 Forwards and have attempted many variations.

* I found the F9 drops deeper and roams a little better than a DLF-S, but due to enforced dribble more is too greedy and direct even if there's an obvious need to help the team up the pitch.

* The DLF-A got isolated at times and really was more concerned with being in a position to score than create.

* The DLF-S dropped deep and worked, but not quite as deep as an F9 meaning less time before he had a defender on his backside and left me feeling I could improve.

* CF-S has dribble more too but doesn't drop as deep as F9, so no point.

* TM-S wasn't too bad in positioning and not being greedy, but it made the team ignore shorter passing options to punt it up to him.

* DF-D/S both sit pretty deep and it feels like their 1st thought really is to stay back to goal and bring others into play. They would then move forward into a goalscoring position based on their off the ball stat, and potentially their PPM's. My current tactic uses a DF and I'm sticking with it.

Defensively when I used 3 Forwards I forced the outer ones to man mark either full backs, or double up on wingers due to my full backs not engaging wingers until they'd gotten a free run up the pitch (man marking for my FB being a complete and utter no no). So 433 became a 451.

Defensively in your 442 you might struggle to get a balanced version of what you want. I suggest trying this:

and TI's something like:

So the DF-D is better at not being greedy and linking up with runners going past him. He will then move up the pitch along with the runners as opposed to making his own run in anticipation. But if you are countering and running at the defence then it's not a problem and would encourage him to run at the defence until he needs to pass.

The SS is better at dropping back to shore up midfield, even if he's not man marking anyone, but he won't be an outball once possession is gained. I actually use AM-A's with dribble less and shoot more instead of an SS.

[loklokno123]

Agree DF-D is better

You can highly customize about PI

Shadow Striker has default PI dribble more is thing i dont like

Or you can try AM(A) with move into channel