Assistance Requested: Breaking Down Teams - 4-4-2 Diamond

[Toronto Blizzard]

Hello, FM Community.

I have been using a 4-4-2 diamond throughout a journeyman save, currently in Denmark with Vejle.  I can't claim it hasn't been successful, as I won the Danish Superliga last season, but I am finding it difficult to break down teams that now sit deep.  I would say that I typically face 4-2-3-1s.

I re-worked this tactic early last season based on a lot of excellent advice I found in other posts on this forum, particularly from @Experienced Defender, but from others as well.

The front three have 'close down more' as an instruction and the F9 is set to roam.  I used to have the left WB on attack, but the tactical analysis said he was losing the ball a lot and goals were being conceded from that side.  The AMC used to be an attacking midfielder, but I recently switched him to an AP.

Main issues:

- while I dominate possession and move the ball around well, I don't get a lot of penetrating passes

- AMC is often invisible

- When I set up shop at the top of the opponent's area, players all seem to always have their backs to goal, resulting in mostly back passes or being put under pressure

- Strikers seem to roll the ball to the opposing goalkeeper all too often even when in excellent scoring positions

- The tactical analysis suggests upping the tempo to improve goals to touches ratio in the penalty area - I'm not sure whether people generally listed to that analysis or ignore it.

I don't have a lot of tactical nous, so any suggestions on improvements I can make would be much appreciated!

 

 

 

[Starsurfer]

53 minutes ago, Toronto Blizzard said:

Hello, FM Community.

I have been using a 4-4-2 diamond throughout a journeyman save, currently in Denmark with Vejle.  I can't claim it hasn't been successful, as I won the Danish Superliga last season, but I am finding it difficult to break down teams that now sit deep.  I would say that I typically face 4-2-3-1s.

I re-worked this tactic early last season based on a lot of excellent advice I found in other posts on this forum, particularly from @Experienced Defender, but from others as well.

The front three have 'close down more' as an instruction and the F9 is set to roam.  I used to have the left WB on attack, but the tactical analysis said he was losing the ball a lot and goals were being conceded from that side.  The AMC used to be an attacking midfielder, but I recently switched him to an AP.

Main issues:

- while I dominate possession and move the ball around well, I don't get a lot of penetrating passes

- AMC is often invisible

- When I set up shop at the top of the opponent's area, players all seem to always have their backs to goal, resulting in mostly back passes or being put under pressure

- Strikers seem to roll the ball to the opposing goalkeeper all too often even when in excellent scoring positions

- The tactical analysis suggests upping the tempo to improve goals to touches ratio in the penalty area - I'm not sure whether people generally listed to that analysis or ignore it.

I don't have a lot of tactical nous, so any suggestions on improvements I can make would be much appreciated!

 

By keeping your setup intact as much as possible, I'd begin by trying the following tweaks:

• Remove roam from position on F9
• Implement split block pressing on STCL, STCR, AMC, MCR

Hope this helps. 

[Toronto Blizzard]

6 minutes ago, Starsurfer said:

 

By keeping your setup intact as much as possible, I'd begin by trying the following tweaks:

• Remove roam from position on F9
• Implement split block pressing on STCL, STCR, AMC, MCR

Hope this helps. 

Thank you very much, @Starsurfer!  May I ask the reasoning behind removing the roam and split-block pressing?

[Starsurfer]

1 minute ago, Toronto Blizzard said:

Thank you very much, @Starsurfer!  May I ask the reasoning behind removing the roam and split-block pressing?

By enabling be more expressive, IMHO roam from position on F9 becomes unnecessary.

In this setup, IMHO implementing split block pressing helps to keep the defensive shape better than counter-press, especially on positive mentality. The idea is to have only the front players actively pressing the opponent instead of the whole team.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Toronto Blizzard said:

 

1 hour ago, Toronto Blizzard said:

I don't have a lot of tactical nous, so any suggestions on improvements I can make would be much appreciated!

In my book (speaking specifically about your system):

- the mezzala should be behind the AF and the DLP behind the F9

- if both your strikers are right-footed (my assumption), play the AF on the right and F9 on the left

- don't use 2 playmakers, especially not so close too each other (I would keep the DLP and change the AP into a simple AM on attack duty to add some penetration and attack the space created by the AF pushing the defense)

- also consider switching the LB to either CWB on support or WB on attack, but only if the player is good enough to play either role (if you go with WB on attack duty, remove the underlap left instruction)

- either remove distribution to CBs and FBs or remove the play out of defence (there is no need to use both at the same time)

- be very careful with the counter-press when playing in a narrow formation (because the opposition can use the flanks to beat your counter-press through there)

- be also careful with the Work ball into box instruction (make sure your players are good enough, both technically and mentally/tactically, to execute it properly and with as little defensive risk as possible)

- if you keep using the Work ball into box, you may also consider adding the Be more expressive to offset the potentially negative effects of the WBiB (overcomplication of play in the final third)

Question: What's the reasoning behind "Play for set pieces" in a tactic like this?

[Toronto Blizzard]

23 minutes ago, Starsurfer said:

By enabling be more expressive, IMHO roam from position on F9 becomes unnecessary.

In this setup, IMHO implementing split block pressing helps to keep the defensive shape better than counter-press, especially on positive mentality. The idea is to have only the front players actively pressing the opponent instead of the whole team.

I understand.  I had a split block with the two forwards and the AMC in the original version (I understand that the individual instruction of 'close down more' was how you implemented the split block).  Now you're suggesting add it to the MEZ as well?

[Toronto Blizzard]

1 minute ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

In my book (speaking specifically about your system):

- the mezzala should be behind the AF and the DLP behind the F9

- if both your strikers are right-footed (my assumption), play the AF on the right and F9 on the left

- don't use 2 playmakers, especially not so close too each other (I would keep the DLP and change the AP into a simple AM on attack duty to add some penetration and attack the space created by the AF pushing the defense)

- also consider switching the LB to either CWB on support or WB on attack, but only if the player is good enough to play either role (if you go with WB on attack duty, remove the underlap left instruction)

- either remove distribution to CBs and FBs or remove the play out of defence (there is no need to use both at the same time)

- be very careful with the counter-press when playing in a narrow formation (because the opposition can use the flanks to beat your counter-press through there)

- be also careful with the Work ball into box instruction (make sure your players are good enough, both technically and mentally/tactically, to execute it properly and with as little defensive risk as possible)

- if you keep using the Work ball into box, you may also consider adding the Be more expressive to offset the potentially negative effects of the WBiB (overcomplication of play in the final third)

Question: What's the reasoning behind "Play for set pieces" in a tactic like this?

Thank you, @Experienced Defender.  This is very helpful.  I tried to take your advice from earlier threads to go with as few instructions as possible, but now I see that a few are redundant and could be removed (play out of defence OR distribute to FBs and CBs, no need for both).

I had the AMC as AM attack before, and will switch back.   The strikers are both right-footed (I seem to have almost no left footed players in the squad).

These are my current wingbacks.  At this level, I'm not sure if any of them have the attributes to play CWB.  I had Turner as an attacking WB a couple of seasons ago, but it seemed like he was too much of a defensive liability.  I've used Lindquist as an inverted WB on the left (again on 'support')

I added 'play for set pieces' on the advice of my Assistant Manager, on the account of having some decent set piece takers.  But I can see how this might result in less dynamic movement (holding onto the ball too long in hopes of being fouled).

[Experienced Defender]

6 minutes ago, Toronto Blizzard said:

I added 'play for set pieces' on the advice of my Assistant Manager

Don't pay (too much) attention to the AssMan, because his suggestions can often be misleading. 

 

7 minutes ago, Toronto Blizzard said:

But I can see how this might result in less dynamic movement (holding onto the ball too long in hopes of being fouled)

[Experienced Defender]

8 minutes ago, Toronto Blizzard said:

I've used Lindquist as an inverted WB

As far as I know, IWB as a role is virtually ineffective in narrow systems (according to official description from SI), unless something has changed in FM20 that I've failed to notice. This means that IWB in a narrow formation should actually behave as a standard WB. 

 

12 minutes ago, Toronto Blizzard said:

 

Honestly, with this type of fullbacks, I would think twice before using (any kind of) a narrow formation. None of them looks good enough for the demanding job of a fullback/wing-back in a narrow system. 

[Toronto Blizzard]

8 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

As far as I know, IWB as a role is virtually ineffective in narrow systems (according to official description from SI), unless something has changed in FM20 that I've failed to notice. This means that IWB in a narrow formation should actually behave as a standard WB. 

 

Honestly, with this type of fullbacks, I would think twice before using (any kind of) a narrow formation. None of them looks good enough for the demanding job of a fullback/wing-back in a narrow system. 

Fair enough.  It's seemed to have worked for me, though.  At this time, I have no width in the squad, so I've made my bed and have to lie on it.

I will happily take your suggestions for the placement of the forwards (and other suggestions)!

Edited May 11, 2020 by Toronto Blizzard

[Toronto Blizzard]

58 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

As far as I know, IWB as a role is virtually ineffective in narrow systems (according to official description from SI), unless something has changed in FM20 that I've failed to notice. This means that IWB in a narrow formation should actually behave as a standard WB. 

 

Honestly, with this type of fullbacks, I would think twice before using (any kind of) a narrow formation. None of them looks good enough for the demanding job of a fullback/wing-back in a narrow system. 

Another question: do you think there's any benefit in dropping the AMC to CM (maybe a CM on attack) so that he starts from a deeper position?

[Piperita]

I am currently developing a 442 Diamond as well. 

For reference, this is my setup: SKd—WBa, CDd, CDd, WBau—DLPd—CARs, MEZs—AMa—AFa, DLFs. No TIs, PI: Mezzala runs wide and WBau holds position and takes less risks. 

My concept was to overload the right side with three players in the same quadrant which opens up space for the marauding WBa on the left and the AFa. The AMa is another option as he can shoot from the distance or switch positiins with the DLF who can also let him underlap right into the box. 

This is in my opinion the biggest strength of the Diamond: You can create plenty of movement and/or overloads. What helped me was good ol' pen and paper: Map out the base formation and line out how you want your players to move and pass. 

For your system: You have plenty of defensive solidity with a HBd and a DLP. You already said many opponents are walling themselves in. You could risk a bit more here, be it from a more adventurous wingback or a slightly changed role. 

Another area to look at: Two playmakers, a F9 and to a somewhat lesser extent the Mezzala are all creative roles, two of which explicitly attract the ball and rather pass than shoot. The game should go through the AP but when he has the ball, the F9 drops and MEZ and Wingback are still behind, resulting in either a dangerous pass to a marked man or plenty of backpasses away from the goal. 

[Toronto Blizzard]

54 minutes ago, Piperita said:

I am currently developing a 442 Diamond as well. 

For reference, this is my setup: SKd—WBa, CDd, CDd, WBau—DLPd—CARs, MEZs—AMa—AFa, DLFs. No TIs, PI: Mezzala runs wide and WBau holds position and takes less risks. 

My concept was to overload the right side with three players in the same quadrant which opens up space for the marauding WBa on the left and the AFa. The AMa is another option as he can shoot from the distance or switch positiins with the DLF who can also let him underlap right into the box. 

This is in my opinion the biggest strength of the Diamond: You can create plenty of movement and/or overloads. What helped me was good ol' pen and paper: Map out the base formation and line out how you want your players to move and pass. 

For your system: You have plenty of defensive solidity with a HBd and a DLP. You already said many opponents are walling themselves in. You could risk a bit more here, be it from a more adventurous wingback or a slightly changed role. 

Another area to look at: Two playmakers, a F9 and to a somewhat lesser extent the Mezzala are all creative roles, two of which explicitly attract the ball and rather pass than shoot. The game should go through the AP but when he has the ball, the F9 drops and MEZ and Wingback are still behind, resulting in either a dangerous pass to a marked man or plenty of backpasses away from the goal. 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, @Piperita!  I had something similar before:

-------------AF----------F9---------------

------------------AP(a)--------------------

----------CAR(s)------MEZ(a)----------

-----------------DLP(d)-------------------

WB(a)----CB(d)----CB(d)----WB(s)

------------------SK(d)--------------------

You make a good point about not necessarily needing as much defensive solidity (at least for the bulk of matches - I may still play my original formation against Danish big boys like Kobenhavn and Mitjylland).  Do you have any suggestions about a changed role?  Perhaps back to what I had before (just above, with the DLP at DM)?  I also see you have a DLF vs my F9 - I'm assuming that the DLF holding up the ball more and moving into channels offers more options as a forward than the F9?

[Experienced Defender]

3 hours ago, Toronto Blizzard said:

Another question: do you think there's any benefit in dropping the AMC to CM (maybe a CM on attack) so that he starts from a deeper position?

If you are referring to the 4132 narrow, that can be a good idea. But in that case, the mezzala may need to be changed into something a bit more conservative for the sake of balance. 

[Starsurfer]

12 hours ago, Toronto Blizzard said:

I understand.  I had a split block with the two forwards and the AMC in the original version (I understand that the individual instruction of 'close down more' was how you implemented the split block).  Now you're suggesting add it to the MEZ as well?

For the MEZat, yes. 

[Piperita]

I primarily used a DLFs because it was the supportive role closest to what I had available. I didn't want to use the native TM as i wanted more fluidity and options, a guy with 9 Acceleration and 12 OTB should not play as F9 and Ta or CFs were straight out at this level of play ^^

If I had had both F9 and DLF available, it would have been a struggle for me.

The DLFs's strength are his bulk and simplicity. He can help in pressing and converting set pieces and he plays the comparatively simple passes - either towards the two central converters or back to the MEZ and WB who in turn switch flanks to the wide-open WBa. In my testing save the DLFs had a whole lot of such scenes where he either send one converter (usually the AMa) towards the goal or set up the switching of the flank. Not the flashiest of roles and often dependent on set piece goals for ratings (unless it is a massacre assists sadly give only a little bonus), it is nonetheless an important part in the machinery as he connects well and gets quite a few assists per season.

I would guess(!) that the F9 on the other hand would be too flair-y for his own good. He would get into better positions both offensively and defensively. He'd play more risky passes for the central players and might try some switches of play by himself. But this workload might result in him taking the focus away from the overload and thus the involvement of MEZ and WB. Therefore I'd probably tweak the idea a bit with a F9 -- your setup with MEZa and WBs for example would result in more movement and options for the F9 to pass into.

As for your old tactic: I have little experience with the APa. I'd probably not use in this concept as it draws the attention to the centre which in turn shifts the focus closer to the running ranges of your WBa and AFa. I'd use an aggressive finisher; AMa, SS, maybe an AMs with fitting PPM. If the APa is a star player and a must-play, I'd draw new lines and movement as my go-tos (overload&switch) would not work that well.

[Toronto Blizzard]

 

On 11/05/2020 at 17:50, Experienced Defender said:

If you are referring to the 4132 narrow, that can be a good idea. But in that case, the mezzala may need to be changed into something a bit more conservative for the sake of balance. 

Do you have any suggestions?  Another CM on support?  A BWM?   CAR?

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Toronto Blizzard said:

Do you have any suggestions?  Another CM on support?  A BWM?   CAR?

Please post a screenshot of that particular tactic so that I could see the whole context.