Variations of a 4-2-3-1 - tactical advice required

[UTT]

I'm currently in the midst of a Pentagon challenge where I seek to win the champions league on 5 continents.  I am also trying to be quite flexible with each team that I take charge of rather than simply taking the one tactical approach and shoe-horning it in everywhere.

Anyway, after spending 5 seasons in South Africa, I won the CAF Champions League twice and left to take up the vacant role at River plate.  In South Africa, I utilised a high pressing 4-3-3 as there was a lot of physical ability but a lack of technique.  When I took over at River, I obviously inherited a more technically proficient squad.  Furthermore, I actually have some excellent attacking midfielders and I wanted to utilise them.  I had always liked the balance of a 4-2-3-1 as it allowed for the use of both wide players and a traditional # 10.  My plan was to evolve my previous tactics in light of my better quality squad and to shift to a more possession orientated style of play, but also being one that fit with the board expectations of being attacking and entertaining.  That being said, I am not looking to have possession for possessions sake, I would like to have a sort of progressive style that is more meaningful and positive that the traditional tiki-taka (a more hybrid system, not sure how to describe this overly well).

Knowing that the 4-2-3-1 had a habit of being defensively suspect, I initially went with a variation that employed 2 defensive midfielders:

This did garner me success in that I won the Libertadores, the Cup and the League but this was mainly on the back of a solid defence, a reliance on set pieces and a large slice of luck in winning 4 penalty shootouts.  I know that conventional wisdom will be to not change what isn't broken, but I would like some advice to improve upon this as whilst I am happy with the results, the methods were a bit dull.

The reason for this is that whilst my deep midfielders and my wingers were excellent, the general play going forward was highly lacking.  I could never get a reliable contribution in terms of goals or assists from my AMC or ST and the majority of my wins were as a result of set pieces or long range shots from my AML or my segundo volante.  We never really hit that gear where you could turn the opposition over, and thus I feel that there is actually a lot in terms of setup and style that could be improved.  I was very pleased with the contribution of my DM's and my wide AM's although I did feel that there was a lack of penetration into the box

I would appreciate any kind of wisdom that could be shared about my roles and duties, although I would largely want to keep the same formation as it matches the players and positions in the squad.

I did wonder whether the play was too compressed in the final third of the pitch and whether I would be better suited to a fully deep 4-2-3-1 (with the 3 in the midfield strata).  I also do wonder that I haven't chosen the right combination of roles and duties to make this work properly.

Many thanks in advance to you all.

[Luizinho]

How have your results been so far?

Sounds like you've been pretty successful and there doesn't seem to be anything too out of of balance with your set-up.

Edited May 4, 2020 by Luizinho

[GianniM]

You're counter pressing but with a higher LOE and standard LOD your players will be too far apart, allowing the opposition space between your midfield and defense. Hence opposition goals from long range shots. 

Also you have a FBa, a WBs and a VOL all making runs forward while you already have a top heavy formation which makes for a congested play. I'd change the VOL into a more holding role. 

[UTT]

18 hours ago, Luizinho said:

How have your results been so far?

Sounds like you've been pretty successful and there doesn't seem to be anything too out of of balance with your set-up.

Generally speaking, results have been pretty good - as I said, I managed a clean sweep of the League, Cup and Libertadores.  But it was heavily based on a solid defence and goals from set pieces.  I want to improve this.

2 hours ago, GianniM said:

You're counter pressing but with a higher LOE and standard LOD your players will be too far apart, allowing the opposition space between your midfield and defense. Hence opposition goals from long range shots. 

Also you have a FBa, a WBs and a VOL all making runs forward while you already have a top heavy formation which makes for a congested play. I'd change the VOL into a more holding role. 

Hadn't thought of this.  I'll try bringing the line of defence up and dropping LOE by a notch.

Yeah, I had noticed that it was congested at the top, I'm barely getting anything noticeable contribution wise from whichever striker that I play.

The idea of the players from deep running forward was to help in shuttling the play forward.  I had thought that the FBa will move into the space vacated by the IF, occupying the opposition ful back and allowing the IF to run at the half space.  The WBs was meant to be less aggressive and get into the space vacated by the VOL (albeit not as central as I still wanted to cover the wing) and be a passng option for the DLP

[GianniM]

29 minutes ago, UTT said:

I had thought that the FBa will move into the space vacated by the IF, occupying the opposition ful back and allowing the IF to run at the half space. 

That's a combination I'm using at the moment and it's working great. My FBa recently had a streak of 6 assists in 3 matches, mainly to my Wa on the opposite side. 

I have the IF on support though as to allow the FB to overlap him. The defenders are drawn to the IF which creates space for the FB. 

29 minutes ago, UTT said:

The WBs was meant to be less aggressive and get into the space vacated by the VOL (albeit not as central as I still wanted to cover the wing) 

I haven't used a volante myself so don't know exactly what it does in game, but given what you want the RB to do in that case I'd have opted for a FBs.

But like I said, I'd just change the volante into a more holding role. 

Edited May 5, 2020 by GianniM

[UTT]

16 minutes ago, GianniM said:

That's a combination I'm using at the moment and it's working great. My FBa recently had a streak of 6 assists in 3 matches, mainly to my Wa on the opposite side. 

I have the IF on support though as to allow the FB to overlap him. The defenders are drawn to the IF which creates space for the FB. 

I haven't used a volante myself so don't know exactly what it does in game, but given what you want the RB to do in that case I'd have opted for a FBs.

But like I said, I'd just change the volante into a more holding role. 

I'll try a switch to an IFs and a FBs.

The segundo volante is great, they arrive late at the edge of the box for cutbacks from the IW.  The description in game is a bit vague (like many of them) but its been a good role to have

[GianniM]

2 minutes ago, UTT said:

they arrive late at the edge of the box for cutbacks from the IW. 

Would a Winger not be a better option in that case? He'll stay wider giving the volante more space? 

[UTT]

16 minutes ago, GianniM said:

Would a Winger not be a better option in that case? He'll stay wider giving the volante more space? 

I've given the IW a PI to stay wider.  I don't really have an aerial presence in the box up front and I didn't really think that crosses into the box were a great fit for the team, given the preference for a more possession style to I kept away from the winger role

[scwiffy]

21 hours ago, UTT said:

I'm currently in the midst of a Pentagon challenge where I seek to win the champions league on 5 continents.  I am also trying to be quite flexible with each team that I take charge of rather than simply taking the one tactical approach and shoe-horning it in everywhere.

Anyway, after spending 5 seasons in South Africa, I won the CAF Champions League twice and left to take up the vacant role at River plate.  In South Africa, I utilised a high pressing 4-3-3 as there was a lot of physical ability but a lack of technique.  When I took over at River, I obviously inherited a more technically proficient squad.  Furthermore, I actually have some excellent attacking midfielders and I wanted to utilise them.  I had always liked the balance of a 4-2-3-1 as it allowed for the use of both wide players and a traditional # 10.  My plan was to evolve my previous tactics in light of my better quality squad and to shift to a more possession orientated style of play, but also being one that fit with the board expectations of being attacking and entertaining.  That being said, I am not looking to have possession for possessions sake, I would like to have a sort of progressive style that is more meaningful and positive that the traditional tiki-taka (a more hybrid system, not sure how to describe this overly well).

Knowing that the 4-2-3-1 had a habit of being defensively suspect, I initially went with a variation that employed 2 defensive midfielders:

This did garner me success in that I won the Libertadores, the Cup and the League but this was mainly on the back of a solid defence, a reliance on set pieces and a large slice of luck in winning 4 penalty shootouts.  I know that conventional wisdom will be to not change what isn't broken, but I would like some advice to improve upon this as whilst I am happy with the results, the methods were a bit dull.

The reason for this is that whilst my deep midfielders and my wingers were excellent, the general play going forward was highly lacking.  I could never get a reliable contribution in terms of goals or assists from my AMC or ST and the majority of my wins were as a result of set pieces or long range shots from my AML or my segundo volante.  We never really hit that gear where you could turn the opposition over, and thus I feel that there is actually a lot in terms of setup and style that could be improved.  I was very pleased with the contribution of my DM's and my wide AM's although I did feel that there was a lack of penetration into the box

I would appreciate any kind of wisdom that could be shared about my roles and duties, although I would largely want to keep the same formation as it matches the players and positions in the squad.

I did wonder whether the play was too compressed in the final third of the pitch and whether I would be better suited to a fully deep 4-2-3-1 (with the 3 in the midfield strata).  I also do wonder that I haven't chosen the right combination of roles and duties to make this work properly.

Many thanks in advance to you all.

Sounds like your suffering is similar to mine. I've got some great AFs, IFs and creative AMs on my Sporting save but have really struggled to get them to work in the desired 4231 with the striker spearheading everything (my favorite formation and tactic).  I know people loath it when you blame the ME but I've found this years game much more difficult to get any attacking lone forward the support he needs (I could do this in previous years with 4231 much easier). Counter intuitively I've found AFs or Poachers don't make the desired D-line breaking runs I want either. Most of the AM positions are the same as last year, they drop very deep so you need to get the AM-R/L to heavily support the striker. I've found Wingers in this years game to be pretty blunt and haven't been able to get the other positions narrow enough to the striker. I think this years introduction of the IW has changed some of the other roles or at least made them less effective somehow, like most I have managed to get IW to work. I have found success (in March of first season and only lost 2 games!) but as you have said the roles and ME isn't doing what I want or expect.

 

Anyway back to your tactic. After my experiences I'd change the striker role to a deeper one, maybe a DLF or PF. I'd also switch you fullback mentalities so a FB-S/WB-S on the side of the attacking winger and a FB-A/WB-A on the side of your support winger. Lastly I'd take off Be More Expressive, its not that its a bad team instruction I've just found it muddies the waters when your refining/experimenting with a tactic - your essentially telling them to do whatever they want in the final third and ignore your instructions, meaning your not seeing the positive and negative effects of your tactic. One you've got your tactic swinging the way you want it then maybe you can explore Be More Expressive to see what it does. Other than that I don't see much wrong with your tactic, but I'd maybe experiment with the tempo

Edited May 5, 2020 by scwiffy

[UTT]

24 minutes ago, scwiffy said:

Sounds like your suffering is similar to mine. I've got some great AFs, IFs and creative AMs on my Sporting save but have really struggled to get them to work in the desired 4231 with the striker spearheading everything (my favorite formation and tactic).  I know people loath it when you blame the ME but I've found this years game much more difficult to get any attacking lone forward the support he needs (I could do this in previous years with 4231 much easier). Counter intuitively I've found AFs or Poachers don't make the desired D-line breaking runs I want either. Most of the AM positions are the same as last year, they drop very deep so you need to get the AM-R/L to heavily support the striker. I've found Wingers in this years game to be pretty blunt and haven't been able to get the other positions narrow enough to the striker. I think this years introduction of the IW has changed some of the other roles or at least made them less effective somehow, like most I have managed to get IW to work. I have found success (in March of first season and only lost 2 games!) but as you have said the roles and ME isn't doing what I want or expect.

 

Anyway back to your tactic. After my experiences I'd change the striker role to a deeper one, maybe a DLF or PF. I'd also switch you fullback mentalities so a FB-S/WB-S on the side of the attacking winger and a FB-A/WB-A on the side of your support winger. Lastly I'd take off Be More Expressive, its not that its a bad team instruction I've just found it muddies the waters when your refining/experimenting with a tactic - your essentially telling them to do whatever they want in the final third and ignore your instructions, meaning your not seeing the positive and negative effects of your tactic. One you've got your tactic swinging the way you want it then maybe you can explore Be More Expressive to see what it does. Other than that I don't see much wrong with your tactic, but I'd maybe experiment with the tempo

Glad it isn't just me! I used to find AF brilliant for this system but had no luck this year.  Similarly, I've had little success with the DLF or the PF but am happy to try.  Oddly though the PF in a 4-3-3 high press system was fantastic

I put "be more expressive on" as a way to break teams down - just not scoring enough and I had hoped that would help.

With regards to tempo - are you suggesting trying to shift it up or down?

[scwiffy]

1 hour ago, UTT said:

Glad it isn't just me! I used to find AF brilliant for this system but had no luck this year.  Similarly, I've had little success with the DLF or the PF but am happy to try.  Oddly though the PF in a 4-3-3 high press system was fantastic

I put "be more expressive on" as a way to break teams down - just not scoring enough and I had hoped that would help.

With regards to tempo - are you suggesting trying to shift it up or down?

In my Sporting 4231 the striker is a PF-A and thats the most attacking role I've had success with. I'm going to toy with pulling the mentality back to standard and increasing the tempo, that could work, but I LOVE the extra forward movement positive and attacking mentalities offer. Downside is that I'd need to subsequently increase the mentality of the roles around the striker to ensue he's well supported, as thats something I'm already struggling with I'm not hopeful of the outcome. Pulling the striker into a deeper role could solve all of this (hence my advice to you) but the whole point of my tactic (and the tactics I love to create) are to feed a spearheading striker, this also makes sense due to the type of players I have. I'm sure it can work, I just haven't found a way to do it consistently yet in this years game.

Edited May 5, 2020 by scwiffy

[Experienced Defender]

On 04/05/2020 at 15:28, UTT said:

I can only tell you what I personally see as (potentially) problematic in your tactic:

1. Less-than-optimal compactness due to the combination of standard D-line and higher LOE, which gives the opposition more space to operate through your lines when they have the ball, but also reduces space to your players up front;

2. AF as a lone striker generally tends to struggle for space because it's the most attack-minded of all striker roles, which can especially be a problem in this type of tactic (with high LOE and generally attack-minded);

3. IF on attack duty (AML) makes more sense when the striker is played in the creator type of role. In this particular system, it could be an F9, DLF or trequartista;

4. Speaking of the left flank, having both wide players on attack duty makes that flank proportionally more vulnerable defensively without any apparent reason

[scwiffy]

23 hours ago, scwiffy said:

Sounds like your suffering is similar to mine. I've got some great AFs, IFs and creative AMs on my Sporting save but have really struggled to get them to work in the desired 4231 with the striker spearheading everything (my favorite formation and tactic).  I know people loath it when you blame the ME but I've found this years game much more difficult to get any attacking lone forward the support he needs (I could do this in previous years with 4231 much easier). Counter intuitively I've found AFs or Poachers don't make the desired D-line breaking runs I want either. Most of the AM positions are the same as last year, they drop very deep so you need to get the AM-R/L to heavily support the striker. I've found Wingers in this years game to be pretty blunt and haven't been able to get the other positions narrow enough to the striker. I think this years introduction of the IW has changed some of the other roles or at least made them less effective somehow, like most I have managed to get IW to work. I have found success (in March of first season and only lost 2 games!) but as you have said the roles and ME isn't doing what I want or expect.

 

Anyway back to your tactic. After my experiences I'd change the striker role to a deeper one, maybe a DLF or PF. I'd also switch you fullback mentalities so a FB-S/WB-S on the side of the attacking winger and a FB-A/WB-A on the side of your support winger. Lastly I'd take off Be More Expressive, its not that its a bad team instruction I've just found it muddies the waters when your refining/experimenting with a tactic - your essentially telling them to do whatever they want in the final third and ignore your instructions, meaning your not seeing the positive and negative effects of your tactic. One you've got your tactic swinging the way you want it then maybe you can explore Be More Expressive to see what it does. Other than that I don't see much wrong with your tactic, but I'd maybe experiment with the tempo

Just to add to this, if you swap the FB&WB mentalities then also swap the DLP and VOL so the DLP-d can cover your WB-a's more attacking runs

[UTT]

14 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

I can only tell you what I personally see as (potentially) problematic in your tactic:

1. Less-than-optimal compactness due to the combination of standard D-line and higher LOE, which gives the opposition more space to operate through your lines when they have the ball, but also reduces space to your players up front;

2. AF as a lone striker generally tends to struggle for space because it's the most attack-minded of all striker roles, which can especially be a problem in this type of tactic (with high LOE and generally attack-minded);

3. IF on attack duty (AML) makes more sense when the striker is played in the creator type of role. In this particular system, it could be an F9, DLF or trequartista;

4. Speaking of the left flank, having both wide players on attack duty makes that flank proportionally more vulnerable defensively without any apparent reason

 

So I have swapped my IFa to an IFs - would you still recommend a creator type striker?

 

2 hours ago, scwiffy said:

Just to add to this, if you swap the FB&WB mentalities then also swap the DLP and VOL so the DLP-d can cover your WB-a's more attacking runs

 

Good shout

[Britrock]

I built a deep 4231 in South Africa that has taken me to winning almost everything over the past two years there. I explained where I started from and how I improved upon it in this thread if you want an idea of what I used to help me improve the results I was getting from it

https://community.sigames.com/topic/520527-evolution-of-a-tactic/

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, UTT said:

So I have swapped my IFa to an IFs - would you still recommend a creator type striker?

Not necessarily. But I would still prefer PF on attack over AF anyway. 

Another role tweak I would potentially consider as well is AMR as a winger on attack instead of IW on support (following the change of AML's duty).