AP, DLP & DM in midfield

[KeralaBlaster]

Is it a good idea to use Advanced Playmaker (Attack), Deep Lying Playmaker (Support) and Defensive Midfielder (Defend) in a formation?

 

 

[Keyzer Soze]

Have you tested the tactic? How did it go?

[KeralaBlaster]

26 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

Have you tested the tactic? How did it go?

I'm playing FM15 with Blackpool FC. Orlandi plays as the AP, O'Hara as DLP and Cubero as DM. I'm trying to play possession based game.

I've played few games with this tactic. 

Against Reading FC, I created some chances, but didn't finished those, and lost that game 0-1.

I played that game again, changing the shape from structured to flexible. Again team played somewhat same way and won 1-0. But there was a change in average position of players this time...players were close to each other, shape was compact.

Against Derby County, again I played 2-3 times, but lost all 3. I couldn't keep possession (only around 40%). They are scoring goals on the counter.

My team is not good enough compared to other Championship teams...maybe thats why

With this tactic I can't find consistency in results, possession, shots etc

[Cougar2010]

As Keyzer says its always best to try it & see whats happening but my gut feeling is on paper it won't work very well.

You'll have two fairly static creators in midfield who want the ball and need runners around them to provide to.  On top of that you have a F9 up front who is also kinda like a playmaker leaving just the two IFs as runners and they are both attacking the same area of the field.

You lack width with both the fullbacks sitting back somewhat and you also lack runners from a deeper position to attack the space in the final third.

My gut feeling is it might work to a decent level if both fullbacks get forward & attack to give the width/attack the space left by the IFs but that would also leave it quite open defensively.

[KeralaBlaster]

22 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

As Keyzer says its always best to try it & see whats happening but my gut feeling is on paper it won't work very well.

You'll have two fairly static creators in midfield who want the ball and need runners around them to provide to.  On top of that you have a F9 up front who is also kinda like a playmaker leaving just the two IFs as runners and they are both attacking the same area of the field.

You lack width with both the fullbacks sitting back somewhat and you also lack runners from a deeper position to attack the space in the final third.

My gut feeling is it might work to a decent level if both fullbacks get forward & attack to give the width/attack the space left by the IFs but that would also leave it quite open defensively.

So what about using any one of these in midfield:

1. AP (att), BBM (sup), DM (def)

2. CM (att), DLP (sup), DM (def)

[summatsupeer]

There's too many "good" combinations of roles/duties to list them, whats important it the whole tactic fits together.

With both attacking wide players coming inside, having both central midfielders play a bit deeper makes sense so they don't try and run into the same areas.  But when the IF's have come inside who's going to stretch the defence to create space for them with a very static midfield and two FB-S ?

[Cougar2010]

1 minute ago, KeralaBlaster said:

So what about using any one of these in midfield:

1. AP (att), BBM (sup), DM (def)

2. CM (att), DLP (sup), DM (def)

Both of those look fine to me as a midfield trio in isolation, I'm actually using no 2 currently in FM16.

 

I think you also need to look at the bigger picture as well, particularly in the centre.  The two IFs, the runner from midfield & the F9 are all moving towards the same area of the field and I think it will cause a bit of congestion.  You are lacking width in the final third which might not be as much of an issue if you are the lower rep club and the opposition are leaving space but I suspect it will be against more defensive opposition.

[jdreyer]

Have a look at this thread: 

 

[KeralaBlaster]

13 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Both of those look fine to me as a midfield trio in isolation, I'm actually using no 2 currently in FM16.

 

I think you also need to look at the bigger picture as well, particularly in the centre.  The two IFs, the runner from midfield & the F9 are all moving towards the same area of the field and I think it will cause a bit of congestion.  You are lacking width in the final third which might not be as much of an issue if you are the lower rep club and the opposition are leaving space but I suspect it will be against more defensive opposition.

So should I give my 2 wide attacking players Winger role (attack duty)?

Or Winger (attack) - IF (attack) combination? .... to stretch the defense.

And as I am trying to play possession game, using short passes...will it help if my players are close together instead of keeping width?

[KeralaBlaster]

@summatsupeer When I gave attack duty to FBs, fast opponents were scoring goals on the break.

[KeralaBlaster]

8 minutes ago, jdreyer said:

Have a look at this thread: 

 

Thank you. 

[summatsupeer]

23 minutes ago, KeralaBlaster said:

So should I give my 2 wide attacking players Winger role (attack duty)?

Or Winger (attack) - IF (attack) combination? .... to stretch the defense.

And as I am trying to play possession game, using short passes...will it help if my players are close together instead of keeping width?

What do you want them to do?  What are they capable of?  If you have them both provide width, who is going to support the lone forward centrally?

21 minutes ago, KeralaBlaster said:

@summatsupeer When I gave attack duty to FBs, fast opponents were scoring goals on the break.

Did you give it to both?  If you have a single pivot then I would only give one attack duty to a FB and have the other and a more conservative role such as FB-S.  One flank should then be covered by the FB-S allowing the DM/CB to shift over to cover the FB-A as needed, but still having central cover as the FB-S tucks in.

[superdave]

4 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

There's too many "good" combinations of roles/duties to list them, whats important it the whole tactic fits together.

With both attacking wide players coming inside, having both central midfielders play a bit deeper makes sense so they don't try and run into the same areas.  But when the IF's have come inside who's going to stretch the defence to create space for them with a very static midfield and two FB-S ?

 

4 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

I think you also need to look at the bigger picture as well, particularly in the centre.  The two IFs, the runner from midfield & the F9 are all moving towards the same area of the field and I think it will cause a bit of congestion.  You are lacking width in the final third which might not be as much of an issue if you are the lower rep club and the opposition are leaving space but I suspect it will be against more defensive opposition.

To get to the basic question, heck yeah it can work.  Out of frustration over of my lack of improvement, for my current season I changed by CM (S) to a DLP (D) and my crappy Notts County team is 4th.  (I run a 4-2-3-1, in case that matters.  In my tactic, the DLP and the AP are somewhat further apart.)  I saved right before the season in case having two playmakers was a disaster, but the team does a good job of possessing.  My GF is just what it was last season (around 5th in the league) by my GA has gone from 15th to 8th.

As summatsupeer and Cougar note, the front three in the OP's tactic don't work.  To me, this formation is too narrow.  The F9, the IFs and the AP are going to get in each other's way.  I use a CF, an RMD, and a winger (S).  Your 3 central mids aren't the problem, in my opinion, it's the combination of the front 6 as a whole.

[summatsupeer]

46 minutes ago, superdave said:

As summatsupeer and Cougar note, the front three in the OP's tactic don't work.  

I don't have a problem with the front three, I have a problem with the width of the tactic due to the outside roles/duties.

In a recent tactic I used a RMD-A + IF-S so had both wide forwards coming inside, then had a WB-S behind the RMD and a FB-A behind the IF.  To cover for the WB+FB I used either:

• 433 DM Wide with 2 CB, HB + another defend duty in CM.
• 2 CB with a double pivot.
• flat back 3 with the FB pushed up as a WB ( I think I might of used two WB-A), only 2 central midfielders

[superdave]

1 hour ago, summatsupeer said:

I don't have a problem with the front three, I have a problem with the width of the tactic due to the outside roles/duties.

In a recent tactic I used a RMD-A + IF-S so had both wide forwards coming inside, then had a WB-S behind the RMD and a FB-A behind the IF.  

What was your forward?  His is a F9.

[yonko]

16 hours ago, KeralaBlaster said:

Is it a good idea to use Advanced Playmaker (Attack), Deep Lying Playmaker (Support) and Defensive Midfielder (Defend) in a formation?

 

 

Yes and I even use a DLP-defend as my DM. You might wanna consider switching the AMR to support role and have him sit narrower. Then use WB-A as your DR

[KeralaBlaster]

If I change the roles to this, will it work?

[herne79]

1 hour ago, KeralaBlaster said:

If I change the roles to this, will it work?

Nobody can say for certain that it "will" work, so the best thing to do is try it and find out.

I'd probably switch the DLP(s) and CM(a) however, so the the CM(a) can take better advantage of the space created by the winger and not try to run into the same area as the IF is headed for.  Your left flank is very aggressive.

[Bigpapa42]

The roles and duties are a piece of the picture, not the whole thing. Everything else - the other roles and duties, the team shape and mentality, the Team Instructions, and the players you pick - will all have an impact.

I use similar roles in the 3 midfielders in a 4-1-4-1 and it works pretty well. I use a DLP-S, CM-S and DM-D in the DM spot. The CM becomes a CM-A or a B2B at times, and the DM is switched to AM at times as well. It works pretty well, but even just changing the players will alter how it performs. So will the opposition, obviously.

And agree with Herne - the left side is aggressive and moving the DLP to the other CM spot may be a good idea.