W-M Brazil 1950s emulation with Everton FC

[Majos Trajos]

12 hours ago, Majos Trajos said:

My dad died 10 years ago . I played FM-CM since 2004 and my dad knew that I love this game . So he want to give me some inspiration and introduced me the Brazil 1950's tactic W-M .

I always want to use this tactic in somewhere else and earn success. I searched W-M and found this.I have 2 questions to ask :

1) My dad always said that W at the back M in attack. Is this the case how can I interpret player roles.

2) If this figure is correct am I going to use 2 Half Backs . I believe Anchor Man - Volante or DM(S) - Volante is more appropriate. You also see that there are 2 IFs in central attacking midfield.

What can I do now?

As @zlatanera offered me to open a thread and @Hovis Dexter supported I opened the thread. Lets have a good long discussion. 

I will post to this thread shortly. Then we should talk about player roles.

[Majos Trajos]

This is the very initial tought of W-M. There are no PI and TI at the moment. I really welcome your ideas to build the strongest W-M possible.

So there are differences between original W-M and my version. The reasons are :

1) I use IWBs with attack duty. Altough I like to use WB,there is a need to cover the central areas of the pitch. But I still dont know WB or IWB is appropriate for this tactic.

2) The tactic offers 2 Half Backs. It seems logical as these two drop deeper and acting like a CB , but who will build the play up? Thats why I prefer a VOL - HB partnership. What about VOL- Anchor Man partnership? Do you use this pairing? Share with us

3) There is no such thing like 2AMC with a role of Inside forward. So I changed that bit. 2 AMC with AP(s) will drop the central areas as well as spraying passes to others. I also eager to know your opinion about 2 Trequartistas in AMC. What will happen?

4) Also there is no such thing like putting wingers in line with a lone striker. So I put 3 strikers.

You see that we have 5 players in front. So I want to make them pressing all the way down. With 5 plus players pressing effectively we can get the ball back quickly.So Im open to discuss about PI and TI with you to make this tactic super effective when it comes to pressing.

Shortly I wil post another possible version of W-M and my dad's version (which is basically switched W-M). 

[herne79]

Something to bear in mind is that names of modern roles don't always tie up with the names used for historic roles.

For example, a modern Inside Forward is nothing like an historic Inside Forward.  Today, an IF is a player who starts out wide and cuts inside to run towards the goal.  An historic IF was quite literally a Forward on the Inside - a Forward who starts nearer the centre, as can be seen on your original formation picture.  So I wouldn't get too caught up in the historic role names and trying to apply them to their modern day equivalents.

Further, historically it was all about man to man marking.  Imagine the opposition "W" going up against your defensive "M".  Each player marks their opposite number.  But modern day football, especially in FM18, is all about zonal marking.  Plus trying to apply that kind of wide defensive back 3 against modern day formations could leave you very exposed with large gaps between your single central defender and the two fullbacks.  Something to consider and look out for when you start testing things.

[Majos Trajos]

This is the second version of W-M . The Back 5 is remains the same . I have some questions to ask :

1) As the original tactic contains 2 IFs , What if I use 2 IFs with attack duty or 1 RMD + 1 IF or 2RMDs at the same time? For each options what do you recommend for striker roles?

2) What if I use 1 IF + 1 RMD . Do you prefer 2 Defensive forwards or 1 DF + 1 T ?

This is my dad's W-M. İs regista ok with this formation? What about CB pairing? I would love to see your ideas... 

[Majos Trajos]

3 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Plus trying to apply that kind of wide defensive back 3 against modern day formations could leave you very exposed with large gaps between your single central defender and the two fullbacks.  Something to consider and look out for when you start testing things.

Yeah I know  it will be a gigantic problem , but firstly I want to keep the original shape and throw out a generic tactic to hear from you. So as you said I have just create another version of W-M :

So which setup is more reliable to start with?

[zlatanera]

1) & 2) They're not real inside forwards, you were probably closer with the playmakers from your initial attempt.

In the one below, I think you you'll be very exposed with wing backs on attack and a regista as well - they'll all be more offensively minded, leaving your two CBs on their own.

 I see you've now added another post...still really open I'd say, I don't always abide by the red zones on the analysis screen but in this case they're telling you you'll get hammered down the flanks. I'll make my own mockup and post it in a little bit.

[Thyra13]

For the front 5 why not drop the amc's into MC, , wide men in am spot and one central striker, keeps the W shape, just makes it longer at the tip?

[Majos Trajos]

9 minutes ago, Thyra13 said:

For the front 5 why not drop the amc's into MC, , wide men in am spot and one central striker, keeps the W shape, just makes it longer at the tip?

Ok thanks for the tip. This is the latest situation for the W-M tactic :

 

 

I really like to play wit two MEZs as it was super effective with my Fulham save. But Im open to new ideas as I said before..

[FMunderachiever]

When playing this system, do you play LONGBALL?

[zlatanera]

So just the image is not good to use, especially with the player roles (Except goalkeeper) being completely different in the modern day and I'm sure there's a detailed description of how it all works in "Inverting the Pyramid" but I don't have a copy and don't want to steal it, so I'm using the image you provided combined with this article on Bleacher Report.

"This entails three defenders who keep close to the goalkeeper during defending, and spread out to prevent a long ball counter attack, when the team attacked."

With no wide defenders, the three will naturally spread out somewhat when not under pressure (i.e. when we have the ball), but be narrower when we're under pressure as our wide players (seen further below) will drop back. 

"The so called holding midfielder, or the " Makelele" player (as the media asserts) was a non-entity in this formation. Two central midfielders capable of fast tracking back and forward surges occupied the centre of the park, while two swift wingers with good crossing ability would lie slightly ahead..." 

"The two forwards would be assisted by a playmaker (in the "hole" position) to complete the formation."

"Fitness levels required were extremely high as the formation demanded tracking back at a furious pace when the ball was lost, and since the reliance on long ball was minimal (as most players would be behind trying to win the ball back), rapid passing during an attack was a necessity...Higher technical skill of players, with better ball keeping, clean ball-winning ability, broader vision and accurate passing was mandatory, keeping in mind the extreme fluidity of the formation...More than five creative players were usually required to complete attacks as the role of each position was not restricted as in today's formation."

However, Attacking / Very Fluid is suicide, even if you have a team of very complete players, so I'd probably stick it on Standard and use more PIs to get the passing right. 

So my whole tactic would look like this:

I wouldn't pay much attention to the roles / duties except for the time Segundo Volantes. Also I'm aware that looks more like an "M-M" than a "W-M" but I wouldn't want the wingers in the AM strata with no other wide players and no Carrileros in midfield. I would perhaps change the offence to something like this:

In theory when you're in possession, the wingers getting high up the field (especially if you put them on an attack duty or used the suicidal Attacking / Very Fluid combo, would when seen from above give you the W. If it works on the other hand is a whole other thing. 

[Majos Trajos]

4 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

When playing this system, do you play LONGBALL?

We will play with Romanian side Cluj in a friendly match . Actually I want to save the game on matchday , then trying W-M systems one by one ,

W-M with two wingers system I prefer to play longball , but in more narrower version I would like to keep posession and press high to get the ball back.

[Hovis Dexter]

I've tried to work on this idea so I loaded Olympique Lyonnais  into FM Touch and played through the pre season friendlies a few times. In order to get the front three players in a line I went strikerless. My most successful formation was played standard flexible with no TIs or PIs as follows:

                 SK (D)

FB (S)       CD (D)       FB (S)

         DM (D)        DM( D)

         CM (S)         CM (S)

  AP (S)       SS (A)       AM (S)

With this I won 4, drew 1 and lost 1 of the 6 friendlies.

[Chevie]

Are you set on having the WM as the defensive formation? You could set up something a bit more defensively solid which evolves into the WM when in possession?

For example, using the following 4-1-4-1 formation:

 

                        CF (S)

 

W (A)     MEZ (S)     MEZ (S)     W (A)

                        HB (D)

IWB (S)     CD (D)     CD (D)     IWB (S)

                        GK (D)

 

If all goes as it should in my head, this would end up looking like this while you have the ball:

 

W (A)               CF (S)               W (A)

        MEZ (S)               MEZ (S)

 

        IWB (S)               IWB (S)

CD (D)            HB (D)            CD(D)

                        GK (D)

 

No idea what Mentality, Team Shape and TI's would be useful here and can't test since not near my computer. Some of the individual mentalities might be better off differing to the above too but it's a start.

This could give you what you're looking for while also not being too open at the back?