4123 Contradicting ideas, not sure what to do

[Jessan]

So I created my version of the 4123 but I seem to hit an "issue" with what I want.  Now first off, I have been playing the tactic as is and it is working, we're doing fine however there are a few issues I personally have and I can't seem to fix them since it means contradicting myself.  So first off, I have 2 attack duties on the left flank, which I'm not that big a fan off, and since my fullback on that flank is making overlapping runs and crossing the ball, which is all fine, I do find that we do not have that many people inside the box. 

Now ideally I would change the inside forward on the right to attack and the one on the left to support, that should ensure that the inside forward on the right will try to get on the crosses from the fullback a bit more.  This however creates the issue that we would have the mezalla on attack and an inside forward on attack on the same side and I don't think that is ideal, not too sure on that one but seems logical.  Also we have the inverted wingback on the right there to help out the midfield when the mezalla charges forward. 

Now we can switch the places of mezalla and the dlp but then we would have the mezalla on attack and the fullback on attack on the same side which seems to create a big defensive gap, we can solve that by making the fullback on the left an inverted wingback but then  none of this would matter.  I guess it comes down to is having a mezalla on attack and a fullback on attack on the same side not too great of a risk?

[Experienced Defender]

32 minutes ago, Jessan said:

 

32 minutes ago, Jessan said:

So first off, I have 2 attack duties on the left flank, which I'm not that big a fan off, and since my fullback on that flank is making overlapping runs and crossing the ball, which is all fine, I do find that we do not have that many people inside the box. 

Now ideally I would change the inside forward on the right to attack and the one on the left to support, that should ensure that the inside forward on the right will try to get on the crosses from the fullback a bit more.  This however creates the issue that we would have the mezalla on attack and an inside forward on attack on the same side and I don't think that is ideal, not too sure on that one but seems logical.  Also we have the inverted wingback on the right there to help out the midfield when the mezalla charges forward. 

Now we can switch the places of mezalla and the dlp but then we would have the mezalla on attack and the fullback on attack on the same side which seems to create a big defensive gap, we can solve that by making the fullback on the left an inverted wingback but then  none of this would matter.  I guess it comes down to is having a mezalla on attack and a fullback on attack on the same side not too great of a risk?

Let me try to help you solve your issue:

PFat/DLFat

IFsu                                               IFat

DLPsu       MEZsu

HB

FBat         CDde     BPDde     IWBsu

SKsu

That's what I would do, at least when it comes to the setup of roles and duties. A very small tweak can actually make a pretty big change.

Btw, not sure that you need the Overlap instructions, especially on the left (where you already have a natural overlap). I mean, you can use it if you want, but be aware of the defensive risk involved. In fact, Overlap on the right is more risky defense-wise (because of the mezzala's inherent attack-mindedness), but on the other hand makes more sense attacking-wise (to encourage the IWB to provide more width in the final third).

 

[sporadicsmiles]

10 hours ago, Jessan said:

a big defensive gap

You are playing with a HB, I would not worry overly about leaving defensive gaps. The point of a DMC in formations like this (or rather my interpretation of formations like this) is to provide cover to so you can unleash your FBs a bit more.

[Robson 07]

For a tactic with those team instructions I would look to have more support roles generally.