bennyj22 Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 I'm using a 4141. DLF (s) IF (a) IF (a) BBM (s) BWM (s) WB (s) DLP (de) WB (s) CD (de) CD (de) SK (s) I'm wandering if having a box to box midfielder may be incongruent with the DLF as they may end up occupying the same space. Any thoughts on such a set up? (I'm trying to play vertical tiki taka football). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westy8chimp Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 8 minutes ago, bennyj22 said: I'm wandering if having a box to box midfielder may be incongruent with the DLF as they may end up occupying the same space. People seem obsessed with the idea you cant have players in the same area... Not sure where this has come from. If they are occupying the same space that can be a benefit, causing overload... Or a negative, creating congestion... It's always a choice of pro vs con...and monitoring the partnership. Some players will thrive when working in tight space, some players need a bit more room. Also, players are intelligent (ish) they wont just look at each other dumfounded in the proverbial unstoppable force (player making forward run) meets an immovable object (player dropping deep). They should form an understanding. Attributes and ppm are/should be key [not place to discuss the reality of this ME] In this instance, when using a striker that drops deep the most common link up is to then have a midfield runner or IF running beyond. So yes, bbm is ideal or cm-a or mezzala or if, iw, rmd etc. The question you need to ask... Is a bbm plus 2xIF-a overkill... (one dimensional, congestive) or is it an unstoppable overload creating 4vs3/2 consistently and resulting in good chance creation? Observation will be key. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennyj22 Posted November 17, 2018 Author Share Posted November 17, 2018 42 minutes ago, westy8chimp said: People seem obsessed with the idea you cant have players in the same area... Not sure where this has come from. If they are occupying the same space that can be a benefit, causing overload... Or a negative, creating congestion... It's always a choice of pro vs con...and monitoring the partnership. Some players will thrive when working in tight space, some players need a bit more room. Also, players are intelligent (ish) they wont just look at each other dumfounded in the proverbial unstoppable force (player making forward run) meets an immovable object (player dropping deep). They should form an understanding. Attributes and ppm are/should be key [not place to discuss the reality of this ME] In this instance, when using a striker that drops deep the most common link up is to then have a midfield runner or IF running beyond. So yes, bbm is ideal or cm-a or mezzala or if, iw, rmd etc. The question you need to ask... Is a bbm plus 2xIF-a overkill... (one dimensional, congestive) or is it an unstoppable overload creating 4vs3/2 consistently and resulting in good chance creation? Observation will be key. Are you saying that you would advise against 2 inside forwards in this set-up? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westy8chimp Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 34 minutes ago, bennyj22 said: Are you saying that you would advise against 2 inside forwards in this set-up? No. It could work... The wbs will stretch play wide. It could be easy to defend. You have to see how it goes. Certainly in terms of your player selection in the IF roles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennyj22 Posted November 17, 2018 Author Share Posted November 17, 2018 7 hours ago, westy8chimp said: No. It could work... The wbs will stretch play wide. It could be easy to defend. You have to see how it goes. Certainly in terms of your player selection in the IF roles. Do you mean easy to defend against? I'm thinking of making one IF a winger so as to make it all a little less one dimensional. Also, do you think I'm running a bit of a risk with higher wing backs? I thought positioning them there would aid in tiki taka triangle passes to the front. But would keeping the back four flat still produce a similar effect? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Scouser Tommy Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 I'm using a DLF and a BBM in my current setup and it works fine. Strike has 6 in 11 and BBM has 3 in 12 and 4 assists. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Posted November 18, 2018 Share Posted November 18, 2018 The DLF can easily co-exist with a BBM, if there's anything that would recommend against a BBM are the two IF(A)s. Between them and the DLF you have plenty of goal scoring threat, so you do not need two midfield runners. On the other hand, I think the setup doesn't have enough creative chops - the two IFs are essentially strikers, and while the DLF will be your creator to an extent, most of the times he will look to move into channels to receive the ball and will not drop deep enough to link up with the DLP(D). Personally I would play as BBM the player you were planning to use as BWM, and pair him with a plain old AP(S). Tiki-taka looks to win the ball by pressuring the opposition into an interception not by attacking the ball decisively like Gegen does, and every player has maxed out closing down anyway. This makes a BWM redundant at best, possibly even counterproductive. As a bonus, the AP(S) will make it easier for you to switch the DLP to a HB when up against two forwards formations such as the classic 442. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.