Help Improving a 4231 DM for a mid table club

[SoSolidSnake]

Context: I'm a mid table premier league team (managed to finish 7th last season though), my expectations are to finish top half, but my ambition is to try and secure European football for next season (Champions League would be wonderful as I had to promise two of my best players that we'd make it this season). I'm midway through January and results have been a mixed bag. The formation that produced most of the good results was a strikerless tactic pretty much copied from the strikerless blog, but it doesn't work against everybody and I'd like to improve my own anyway really. 

 

Tactic: Formation wise I'm trying to make it work with a 4231 DM. This is what I have been using (1|2), but it hasn't been that great. I've been trying to fix it and a lot of guides for this formation say that for the double pivot, one player should be more defensive whilst the other is more of a deep lying playmaker type. I'm not really sure my DMs are particularly suited to the DLP role (attributes posted below) as much as a DM or BWM which is why I'm shying away from it, but they could do a job if that's how this would work best.

I'm torn between wanting to play possession football, which is my preferred method of play and is the style that got me to the PL in the first place, or seeing as I have a 6'4 beast of an attacking midfielder (again linked below), whether I should play to his strengths with a more direct game and knock it up long to him. He would hopefully either control it and lay it off, control it and take it himself, or knock it on to a striker or winger using his immense height to win aerial battles ahead of the central defenders. Sort of a withdrawn targetman if you will. But I'm also not sure how best to achieve that; I have been looking at Strikerless's write up on the role, but I don't feel it's working the same for me, which is probably due to the way the rest of the tactic is set up. 

In terms of the flanks, I was thinking I should have an inside forward type role on each wing to compliment attacking fullbacks/wingbacks, but the players I have are more set up to have a winger on one side and an IF on the other, so if it could work like that, that would be preferable and I feel that two different types of approach may help the team, but could also hinder it if not supported properly.

For the striker role, I don't know what is best. I've found that a CF has been the most successful for me in other similar tactics, however I'm not sure this time if he should be an out and out top scoring striker, or more of a supporting player, which could depend on the role of wide men i.e. whether they are IFs

I have been playing with a slightly deeper defensive line, but only because I started out with a normal line, but then we played better and results were better when I was a bit deeper. This time though, I think this would work better with a higher defensive line, putting pressure on opposition players before they get too far forward, and putting the DMs to better use. 

I've stuck with a standard mentality and a flexible team shape as I don't feel I want to be overly attacking or overly defensive, which I thought would suit a mid table team. I find that attacking against a better team rarely ends well, and attacking a worse team just closes up the space as they defend and I struggle to break through. And playing with a defensive mentality I find I struggle to score when using my own tactics, as I obviously fail to balance the attacking side of things.  So standard it is. In terms of team shape, if I'm honest I don't feel confident in making a decision there, I want to be defensively sound and retain the shape which could suggest structured but also to have a bit of creativity and intelligent movement amongst the front 4, which could suggest fluid, so I'm trying to balance the two I guess.

Players: 

• Jorge Pinto - STC
• Nuno Santos - AML
• Juan Iturbe - AMR
• Charles Garnham - AMC
• Nicolas Pawlak - AMC
• Jerome Coste - DM
• Kim Chang-Hoon - DM
• Douglas Santos - DL
• Lopes - DC
• Aleksander Dalseth - DC
• Stanislas Bureau - DR
• Jeroen Zoet - GK

Obviously this isn't an exhaustive list of my players, these are just the ones I'm expecting to be starting (Garnham and Pawlak may rotate or Pawlak may play up front, or he may leave soon if someone bids for him). 

I'm sure there's information you need that I've forgotten, and of course I could be completely misguided in what I'm trying to do, or my understanding of the game (both football and FM ), so feel free to ask for anything more or criticise this! I'm not asking you to make my tactic for me, but any advice would be appreciated as I can't seem to figure out what should theoretically work best, or what will work best in the game. 

[superdave]

I run a 4-2-3-1 most of the time.  Here are my thoughts on your thoughts.

1.  I've found that an advanced playmaker in the AMC slot is generally better than a deep lying playmaker in an MC slot.  If you're a lower level or poor team, and you don't have the right player, you can ALWAYS bring in a loaner who is good.

2.  I had been using an IF/wing combination for my AML and AMR.  Lately I've been using a wing/Raumdeuter combination, and that has been working better.  My midtable team has its Raumdeuter 5th in the league in scoring.  That may be more about personnel than tactics, though.  Early on I experimented with both on IF roles and it just didn't seem to work as well as combining a winger and an IF (or now, Raumdeuter.)  That MIGHT have been due to my instructions for my fullbacks.  If you like what your fullbacks give you, then maybe even 1 winger is unnecessary.

3.  By putting your playmaker at AMC, you free up your MCs for more nuance.  My team is worse on defense than offense, so I've been using 2 defensive minded players in the middle on the road, with a BWM (D usually, sometimes S if we get behind) and a CM (S or D, depending on how much I'm overmatched by the opponent.)  Since I made that tweak, my defense has gotten better without losing anything in the attack.

4.  Your AMC is a weird, weird player.  Have you experimented with him being a shadow striker?

5.  Speaking of your AMC, about 15-20 minutes into my matches, I check my teams stats, and see if any of my front four is winning their headers.  When I play Gedion Zelalem there, he usually does very well in the air.  I then set my GK, whose best attribute is his kicking, to distribute to him.  I don't know if it really helps my team win, but it makes me feel better about myself.

[permanentquandary]

38 minutes ago, superdave said:

I run a 4-2-3-1 most of the time.  Here are my thoughts on your thoughts.

1.  I've found that an advanced playmaker in the AMC slot is generally better than a deep lying playmaker in an MC slot.  If you're a lower level or poor team, and you don't have the right player, you can ALWAYS bring in a loaner who is good.

2.  I had been using an IF/wing combination for my AML and AMR.  Lately I've been using a wing/Raumdeuter combination, and that has been working better.  My midtable team has its Raumdeuter 5th in the league in scoring.  That may be more about personnel than tactics, though.  Early on I experimented with both on IF roles and it just didn't seem to work as well as combining a winger and an IF (or now, Raumdeuter.)  That MIGHT have been due to my instructions for my fullbacks.  If you like what your fullbacks give you, then maybe even 1 winger is unnecessary.

3.  By putting your playmaker at AMC, you free up your MCs for more nuance.  My team is worse on defense than offense, so I've been using 2 defensive minded players in the middle on the road, with a BWM (D usually, sometimes S if we get behind) and a CM (S or D, depending on how much I'm overmatched by the opponent.)  Since I made that tweak, my defense has gotten better without losing anything in the attack.

4.  Your AMC is a weird, weird player.  Have you experimented with him being a shadow striker?

5.  Speaking of your AMC, about 15-20 minutes into my matches, I check my teams stats, and see if any of my front four is winning their headers.  When I play Gedion Zelalem there, he usually does very well in the air.  I then set my GK, whose best attribute is his kicking, to distribute to him.  I don't know if it really helps my team win, but it makes me feel better about myself.

Mate he plays with two DMs which can have some significant effects and the roles you can choose aren't the same as in CM.

[summatsupeer]

The purpose of a double pivot is to allow both fullbacks to attack and provide width, but you have a winger on one of your wings so doesn't really fit together.

I do get the feeling your not sure what style you want to play, asking your team to play faster, wide and dribble more (when you already have a few roles that will dribble) but then asking them to Retain Possession.  With your players stretched from wing to wing are your players able to pass accurately to there feet without being intercepted?  Or able to the pick the right option when playing quickly?

Having an advanced player stay wide allows a more central runner with a more defensive fb covering hence a single pivot 433 DM Wide type of formation.  If both advanced wide players come inside then a double pivot is good so both full FBs can get forward and provide width, but you lose the central runner for a wide player cutting in.

I think the best thing you can do is decide what style you want to play and what movement patterns suit that style.  Try not to look at things too isolated, you need all your roles+duties to fit together well.

[SoSolidSnake]

Seeing as I didn't get a reply for quite a while I actually set up a tactic and have played a couple of games with it now, so my reply is taking that into account. Although the game just crashed on me so I'm actually going to have play both of those again.

1. I used to play an AP, and in fact Garnham is very suited for it, so I could look into it again. However, does your point still stand true given I'm playing with DMs not MCs? And also, my striker seems to keep being isolated on his own, and his dribbling ability isn't good enough to beat players himself (guess I should stop playing him as an AF of CF), would playing the AMC as a playmaker make him more isolated as at the moment he's an AM.

2. A Raumdeuter is an interesting suggestion, I might experiment. Perhaps even IF/RD. What roles were your fullbacks playing? My LB is playing well as a FB(a) but I'm less impressed with the RB who was a WB(s) but for the last half game I made him a FB(s) and that seemed to work better. 

3. I feel I replied to this in point 1.

4. Which one? Garnham? Weird how haha? No I haven't tried him as an SS, I didn't feel he was quick enough. Pawlak seemed much more suited to it despite not being as hard a worker or as aggressive.

5. That's definitely something to look at, I might experiment with it.

Thank you for your reply! 

Now that I've played a couple of games, I have some observations:

As I said, the striker is often isolated, which is probably why I haven't been able to score any goals. I thought the IF would join him and help him out, but he seems to be playing poorly and not really doing anything of note, just drifting around and trying to take on players and gets himself into a position where he just passes it back to the AM or to the RB who's still catching up to him but sitting out wide. 

The LB plays very well as a FB(a), I'm not sure if its a bad thing that he often close to the winger as they seem to link up well, although I think he is forcing the winger inside more, but again I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

I seemed to be fairly defensively sound, I couldn't see any glaringly obvious holes in the defence, and the two goals Utd scored against me were from a penalty, and a great fist time shot from their Ballon D'Or winning, 50 goals a season striker on the edge of the box.

[SoSolidSnake]

10 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

The purpose of a double pivot is to allow both fullbacks to attack and provide width, but you have a winger on one of your wings so doesn't really fit together.

Yeah I was thinking I might change that, but the winger hasn't actually been too bad, he's being forced inside by the left fullback.

12 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

I do get the feeling your not sure what style you want to play

Well you're not wrong there, but I'm leaning more towards possession football now. 

If I was on FM I think my decisions stat would be about 4 

[permanentquandary]

in my 4231 I experimented with W(S) and W(A) this season due to struggling with IF(A) and W(S) last season and i have ot say it's working much better. I use an AMC with an attack duty as well - AM(A). No PI's.

The idea is the DLF(A) and AM(A) get into the central space made available by the wingers who stretch the opposition defence.

Ok so it does help I have Gaitan and Willian

Not sure what effect this has with two DMs tho

[Draktor]

Hey SoSolidSnake,

It isn't 4231 as such but Guido at the Strikerless blog that you mentioned also experimented with a Target Man in an AMC position and named it the Targetanche.

He has a blog post on it. It may help you construct your 4231.

[superdave]

38 minutes ago, SoSolidSnake said:

1. I used to play an AP, and in fact Garnham is very suited for it, so I could look into it again. However, does your point still stand true given I'm playing with DMs not MCs? And also, my striker seems to keep being isolated on his own, and his dribbling ability isn't good enough to beat players himself (guess I should stop playing him as an AF of CF), would playing the AMC as a playmaker make him more isolated as at the moment he's an AM.

I didn't realize they were in the DM layer.  In that case, maybe the AMC would work as a playmaker on support.  It seems on paper that the front four would get isolated a lot.  It seems like your tactic is designed for the fullbacks to provide service to the front four.  In that case, making that player a playmaker would get the ball to him rather than the fullbacks, so it wouldn't work.

 

40 minutes ago, SoSolidSnake said:

2. A Raumdeuter is an interesting suggestion, I might experiment. Perhaps even IF/RD. What roles were your fullbacks playing? My LB is playing well as a FB(a) but I'm less impressed with the RB who was a WB(s) but for the last half game I made him a FB(s) and that seemed to work better. 

In real life, I think in modern soccer, if you want to play with 3 central mids, generally the best way to line up is for one wide attacker to stay wide, and the other to come inside and be a goal scoring threat/second striker/partner to the lone striker.  So I set up my FM team the same way.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that maybe changing an IF to a RD will help you.  But the more important thing, IMO, is to convert 1 of the IFs to a winger.

My RD is highly rated for the role (all but one piece of the pie is green) but his finishing isn't that great...12 or 13.  And he's scoring like mad in the Premiership, where 12 or 13 finishing is below average.  So if you have a player that can play the role well, I recommend you try it.

My FBs are on support, usually.  If I'm facing AML and AMR and I'm not at home against a weak team, I typically put them on D to help my defense.  But remember, I have 2 MCs not 2 DMs.

I would be cautious about setting the one on the side of the RD (or even IF) as a wingback.  Doesn't that role encourage them to come inside and combine with the midfield, rather than bomb down the touchline?  It seems like it might leave the opposition fullback on that side of the field with an easy assignment.