New positions and tactics?

[daveb653]

Hi all,

 

Been a long time since I posted here, I just "upgraded" from FM16 to FM 19, liking what I've seen so far. However, I have a couple of questions for youe experts. I would like to try and use the new roles in my tactics, mezz/volante and carrilero. Now Ive read about them and understand there roles, kind of, but I just wondered has anyone managed to employ more than one at a time into tactics?

 

Carr and mezz seems to make sense to me but I'm really liking the volante role so far, seem to do a fantastic job for me, But i wondered can you have a mezz/volante midfield (as part of a 3) or would it be to lob sided? would 2 mezz make more sense? i currently run a mix between 2 volant and an anchor in a 4-3-3 or a volant and anchor in a 2 (2 volante seems a bit gungho?)

Not tried carrilero at all so far as I dont think it would provide enough attacking influence (maybe I'm wrong)

 

Also on a side note, the descrition describes mezz sitting in half wide areas, so would this mean if i play a 4-3-3 for example would my front 3 be better as strikers to give the mezz the space out wide, especially on an attacking mentality?

 

Thanks, in advance

 

Dave

[Experienced Defender]

I don't consider myself an "expert", just a decent tactician, but the first advice I would give you is do not use any role (or other tactical setting) just for the sake of using it. If you have a player with the right attributes for, say, a mezzala role, it does not mean he will automatically play well if you use him as a mezzala, because for any role to work, it needs to be fit into the system as a whole. And using too many "fancy" roles at once can lead to a bit of tactical mess.

[daveb653]

Thanks for the input, thats what Im aiming to do, is create a system that will fit these roles as Id like to see how they all operate, either on there own or as part of a partner ship eg volante/anchor. Im just not sure how they would fit together in the systems. Or whether they work well together (think carr/volante or volante/mezz)

[Experienced Defender]

21 hours ago, daveb653 said:

think carr/volante or volante/mezz

I suppose you are talking about an asymmetric formation? Because volante and car/mez play in different lines of a team. I am currently using a volante-anchor combo with Southampton in a bit unusual 3-5-2 system with no fullbacks/wing-backs.

[daveb653]

Yeah I have a similar pair in my 4-4-2 im using and my 4-3-3 has to volante and an anchor.

I was considering replacing one of them with a mez to see what he offers differently. The way i see it, which is more than likely wrong I would use carrilero's in a system without wide players to cover where they would normally be, but  assuming you used 2 to cover both flanks, youd need a fairly disciplined player in the centre/dm slot so you arent left wide open in midfield? similar with the mezzala, except he will be making more forward runs rather than sideways? So a system utilising both would be something along the lines of mezz/dlp(d)/carr?

My other idea/theory would be to use 2 volante on either (s) with mezz or (a) with carrilero. that would then kind of give me false wingers with carrilero's or a cross between AM/IF with mezz? as in they still occupy much more attacking areas than a normal CM but dont sit quite as wide as an IF, however I feel the wings would still be wide open when were defending with a mezz?

 

Hope that all makes sense hehe

[Experienced Defender]

20 minutes ago, daveb653 said:

So a system utilising both would be something along the lines of mezz/dlp(d)/carr?

Yes, that's a nice combination of a central midfield trio, provided other roles and duties are also set up in the right way.

 

22 minutes ago, daveb653 said:

My other idea/theory would be to use 2 volante on either (s) with mezz or (a) with carrilero. that would then kind of give me false wingers with carrilero's or a cross between AM/IF with mezz? as in they still occupy much more attacking areas than a normal CM but dont sit quite as wide as an IF, however I feel the wings would still be wide open when were defending with a mezz?

Not sure I completely understood your idea. Can you write down the setup you have in mind, so that we could analyze it in more detail? For example, my basic setup is this:

Poa     PFs

AMs

IWs                                       WPs

ACM    VOLatt

CDd   CDco   CDd

SKd

So I don't use either full/wing-backs or CMs. Sometimes my volante is on support, sometimes I use different combinations of striker roles (DLFs/AF or even both strikers on support but the AMC on attack and so on).

[daveb653]

well at the moment its something along the lines of:

                        PFa     poa/DLFs

IFs                                                             IFs

                        VOLa    AM

WBs                 BPd    CD                         WBs

                              GKd

 

 

However I Also have a formation that replace one of my attackers with another VOL, I use this one against tougher teams for a bit more stability.

 

Im thinking of experimenting with a 4-2-2-2 formation as well, or a 5-3-2 of somesort, i like the idea of having 2 strikers as not many teams play 2 up top anymore

 

so my 4-2-2-2 would be something along the lines of:

                          POA     PFa

                        CARR  CARR

                        VOLa    VOL/AM

WBs                 BPD     CD                 WBs

 

The idea being WBs porvide width when in possession and attacks come through the middle, whilst OOP CARR provide cover to the flanks and the VOL/ AM provide solid cover in the centre.  Another option would be to replace the CARR with MEZZ but i think id have no midfield cover during a transition phase so would be vulnerable to a counter.

 

I have no idea how I would setup a 5-3-2 with midfield roles to be honest, Im quite liking the Volante role and how it plays, dont want to mess with the team and form so not experimented at all with the other roles really. Would probably be something like MEZ/dlp-d/MEZ, but not sure how isolated that would leave my dlp.

 

Edit: I assume the new PF role is similar to the old def fwd from past FM'S?

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, daveb653 said:

so my 4-2-2-2 would be something along the lines of:

                          POA     PFa

                        CARR  CARR

                        VOLa    VOL/AM

WBs                 BPD     CD                 WBs

Potential/very likely issues you could have with this system:

- playing both strikers on attack duty tends to make them isolated from the rest, especially as you don't have anyone in attacking midfield

- the setup of roles and duties is one-dimensional (both CMs as CARs and both FBs as WB on support, and potentially both DMs as volantes)

2 hours ago, daveb653 said:

I assume the new PF role is similar to the old def fwd from past FM'S?

Yes, it's basically same, and the only difference is that PF can be on attack duty as well, whereas DF only had support and defend.

[daveb653]

Yes,

I see this point about being 1 dimensional, it was just an idea for now at least. Just not sure exactly how defensive/attacking a CARR is, a Volante on attack duty seems to me to operate almost as a defensive minded bbm, eg a kante rather than a pogba (the latter being a normal bbm).

The way i interpret a Carrilero, leaves me a little unispired. I read it like he shuttles across the midfield protecting the flanks and making sure you're solid in the middle, but doesnt give too much either offensively or more defensively (Anchorman or def mid wise) kind of like a Jordan Henderson (sorry Liverpool fans) he does a job but thats about it.

Maybe its impossible to have all 3 in a team. I was just theorising about it.

Ideally I want to get a mezz and volante combo working in some sort of way, not sure how to do it without leaving myself massively unbalanced in some sort of way.

[Experienced Defender]

2 minutes ago, daveb653 said:

Ideally I want to get a mezz and volante combo working in some sort of way, not sure how to do it without leaving myself massively unbalanced in some sort of way.

I would try something along these lines for example:

AFa      PFs

DLPs     MEZa

VOLs     ACM

WBd    CD    CD     WBs

This kind of setup provides  good balance of roles and duties (solid defensive cover and sufficient support in the attacking phase from different areas of the pitch). 

 

[daveb653]

Ok, thanks, thats not to far off what I was thinking really, maybe not the DLP until this evening and I put one in my dm strata and was pleasantly surpried

 

One question though, why 1 WB on (D)? Is that for balance as the VOL is more attacking than the ACM? Just intersted as to why

 

Thanks

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, daveb653 said:

One question though, why 1 WB on (D)? Is that for balance as the VOL is more attacking than the ACM? Just intersted as to why

Yes. But being on defend duty does not mean he will sit back all the time and never be involved in attacking build-ups. It just means he will be more cautious in his approach. And an important difference between a WB and a standard FB roles is that the former's initial positioning is inherently higher than the latter's even when on a lower duty, so his attacking impact is greater. Of course, you can instead use a FB on support if you want him to have a bit higher mentality while still being defensive-minded enough.

[daveb653]

Ah ok, I didnt know about the initial positioning part, i thought the differences were further up the pitch

 

Many thanks for the help, I may give this formation a go in the near future, though I find I have most problems facing a 4-2-3-1 so im not sure less width is gonna help me in that regard