Help make my 541/343 more potent

[beverage1982]

Hey all. I've never really played three at the back before but am playing around with a 343 / 541 hybrid based loosely on Villa in real life and Antonio Conte's Chelsea. The idea is that in defence we're solid and it's 541, then going forward it's potent with the trident upfront and overlapping fullbacks. 

What I have is solid enough defensively, but I can't seem to make it have any attacking verve. I know that's partly the system as it offers a limited number of routes to goal, but I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts that might help. My three main areas of concern are:

- Grealish - I just can't seem to get the best out of him, on a previous save I've had him as an AP (a) in a 433 which worked well, but it doesn't seem to be a fit here. 

- Central midfield - I don't know what to go for in terms of roles / duties. I've considered a DLP but wonder if a playmaker would stop the ball movement out wide? 

- Line of engagement / defensive line. Obviously right now I',m set up to defend. If I want to be more progressive should I maybe up the D-line and LOE a notch, thus making us more progressive? But then would that work on balanced with a team like Villa or should I drop to cautious? 

Any help / advice on attacking or defensive aspects would be greatly appreciated. 

 

[Experienced Defender]

14 minutes ago, beverage1982 said:

Grealish - I just can't seem to get the best out of him, on a previous save I've had him as an AP (a) in a 433 which worked well, but it doesn't seem to be a fit here

I personally would play him as AP on attack duty, but would change some other things. For example:

- AMR as a winger on support instead of IF

- standard (default) width instead of narrow

- would not necessarily insist on shorter passing all the time

- ditto for the counter TI (sometimes, rather than all the time)

- would not use tight marking, given the formation

- would consider get stuck in as an option to try and see how it works

 

[beverage1982]

7 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

I personally would play him as AP on attack duty, but would change some other things. For example:

- AMR as a winger on support instead of IF

- standard (default) width instead of narrow

- would not necessarily insist on shorter passing all the time

- ditto for the counter TI (sometimes, rather than all the time)

- would not use tight marking, given the formation

- would consider get stuck in as an option to try and see how it works

 

Wise words. Thanks. What would you say about a midfield set up for this? I've never played a straight two. Can they both be on support or should I have a defensive duty in there?  perhaps even would enable me to open up a wingback to attack duty? 

[Experienced Defender]

7 minutes ago, beverage1982 said:

What would you say about a midfield set up for this? I've never played a straight two

Nothing wrong with your (central) midfield setup per se. 

 

9 minutes ago, beverage1982 said:

Can they both be on support or should I have a defensive duty in there? 

I would also prefer both CMs on support in this particular formation - one more holding/covering, and the other more supporting the attack. Different combinations are possible, depending on what you want to achieve and of course the players you play in these positions (as well as those around them). 

[beverage1982]

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

Nothing wrong with your (central) midfield setup per se. 

 

I would also prefer both CMs on support in this particular formation - one more holding/covering, and the other more supporting the attack. Different combinations are possible, depending on what you want to achieve and of course the players you play in these positions (as well as those around them). 

I assume by going flat 541 I could be more defensively resilient. But then I'd need to look at encouraging players forward more? 

[XuluBak]

Both on support for a pair of CMs. I like DLP & B2B, but depends on players and overall tactic, of course. 

Do you not have McGinn? 

When I've used this formation, I've focused play to the flanks, with a (slightly) wider formation, and more expansive passing (standard?).  That was with a very different side (WBs were the strength of my team) and the ME has changed a fair amount since then, but it still makes sense to me.

[Experienced Defender]

14 hours ago, beverage1982 said:

I assume by going flat 541 I could be more defensively resilient. But then I'd need to look at encouraging players forward more? 

Basically yes.

[JEinchy]

You could consider the following tweaks:

• Give one of the wing-backs an attack duty
• Swap the duties of the IW and IF
• Remove Narrow attacking width

In this particular shape, you need to find numbers in attack. At the moment, you only have three attackers, as both wing-backs will look to support the midfield and pick their moments to get forward. This will make it easier for an opponent to outnumber your offensive line.

This is where the wing-back becomes essential. In this variant of the system, having one of the central midfielders going forward too much can cause defensive issues, so the extra attacking support should come from the flanks. In a Conte system, for example, these guys are responsible for playing high and wide to hold width and stretch teams so there's more space in the centre. 

Above them, only the Pressing Forward is looking to attack the penalty area. The IWa can do this, but their primary purpose is to create for others. I find the IFa to be a more natural fit as a goalscorer, with the IW supporting them. 

Finally, Narrow attacking width might bring your attackers closer together, but unless you're planning on sending in a lot of crosses or trying force things through middle, I wouldn't recommend it. 

[RocheBag]

The thing you have to remember is that you have three central defenders. Prevailing opinion dictates if you don't have a DM, that one CM has to be defensive. This theory assumes a back four, so the idea is the two CBs and the defensive midfielder make a solid three man defense. When you have a back three though you can ignore that logic, so it is safe to have your two central mids be a little more adventurous. 

Combinations like DLP/S and BBM/S can work in a three man backline which I wouldn't try if I had a back four.

So overall you can afford to send a CM forward, because right now you have no one getting forward in the middle at all.