[FM19] How to create a possession-style 4-3-1-2?

[LolSmokeIt]

4-3-1-2 has always been a formation that has intrigued me. It first really came to my attention in FM2015, where I was coaching Fiorentina in Serie A. We had a strong team, able to destroy teams that had a lapse in concentration, and finished always near the top of the league. I however had one big nemesis: Juventus, The Old Lady. They dominated the league with a narrow 4-3-1-2, choking out opponents and most of the time winning the league. I did achieve SOME wins against them, but I was never convinced it was due to me tactically besting the FM15 version of Allegri.

All the frustrating games against 4-3-1-2 made me hate the formation, but the formation also piqued my interest. I gave it a first go in FM17, and given it a few attempts ever since then, but I never got the formation to work, mostly because I'm used to having wide formations, which 4-3-1-2 in it's basic form is not. After pondering for a second, I've decided to give it another go, thus I've come here for your useful advice.

I would like to build a 4-3-1-2 formation for my CD Tenerife side. I've usually played high tempo, direct football but I would like to combine the 4-3-1-2 with the possession-style of football, to get outside of my comfort zone. This is how I've initially set-up my team:

 

Team instructions I think convey pretty well what I want my team to do: Control the possession with short passes, while players are allowed to run at the defence to provide variety for attacks. When we lose the ball I want us to counter-press, to get the ball back quickly. Pressing Urgency is however at normal, as I dont want my team to give up their positions aggressively, but rather limit opponents options with tighter marking. Short GK distribution is to be snuffed out as a way for us to get more chances to have the ball by forcing their GK to kick it long.

Borja Lasso is the most creative , and thus I would like him to be creative cog of my team. He has PPM I like my main creative outlet to have (Dictates Tempo, Tries Killer Balls Often) and attribute-wise he seems well suited to the AP role. I'm struggling however to pair him with the two forwards. Usually in attacking trio, I would have a DLF(s) as the creative outlet for my team, but Borja Lasso is incapable of playing ST, and I dont have nearly as creative players as him in the ST strata. Is balanced attacking trio possible with AP as the main creator, perhaps with AP(A) paired with DLF(S) and AF(A)? Or am I hopelessly naive with building this formation with AP (or other similar role) in it?

The midfield trio is Mezzala(S), DLP(D)/CM(D) and Carrilero(S). As the tactic is narrow, to my eye Mezzala and Carrilero provide good width that the formation is lacking. I've paired Carrilero with WB(A), since Mezzala is the one getting wide and forward, while Carrilero to my understanding only goes wide. Thus I see WB(A) providing good offensive width on that side. Mezzala is paired with FB(S) to provide cover as Mezzala darts forward. But I'm not sure if perhaps WB(S) could be a better pairing for him. What do you guys think?

So to end it all, here's the summary of the questions I've presented:

 

1. Does the formation look balanced and suited for control possession, with the given roles and team instructions?

2. How should I build my attacking trio, with perhaps Borja Lasso as my creative outlet?

3. Is FB(S) too conservative for Mezzala, or should I perhaps be more bold and perhaps replace it with WB(S)

[Jrddrkly]

I'm not claiming to be an expert nor would I have much faith in my judgement but I would make a couple of changes off the bat. I'd remove the instructions to distribute to full backs and center backs while having play out of defense, seems a bit of overkill to me. I like my goalkeeper to have the option to still kick it long if its an option, secondly I'd swap the WBa to a WBs being the only player up and down the wing I wouldn't personally want him on an attack duty otherwise he may end up too far up the pitch if a move breaks down leaving the flank exposed

 

Another option could be to swap the side of your MEZ and CAR so that you over load the right hand side with the MEZ and DLF leaving space for your AFa to run into on the other side

[XuluBak]

I don't recall using 4312 before this year, but it's become one of my favorites, although, I've only used it with Serie A sides (Atalanta + Tonali/Balotelli and futuristic Milan), so my advice is based on that experience. I admittedly don't know much about your players at Tenerife. That said...

• DLF(s)/AF is a fantastic tandem. That's what I used with Milan and have used it in other two-striker formations with good results. Hard to say anything bad about it. My striker roles with Atalanta were a bit more fluid. Muriel was always an AF, and my leading goal scorer, but the other two were more versatile.
• I anchored both midfields with a DLP(d) in the middle; flanked by some combination of Mez, B2B, CAR (often, two Mez), depending on personnel, matchup, situation, etc.
• Both sides, especially Atalanta, had considerable talent in the #10 spot, and the position would produce some fantastic games, but consistency was a struggle; T(a) was the most productive, overall, and really the only one I've had much success with generally (in FM20, mind you, but don't recall FM19 being different in that regard)
• I treat my FBs in this formation like WBs, expecting them to get up and down the field consistently; with Atalanta, I'd regularly have an attacking WB on the side of a supporting midfielder and vice versa on the other side; with Milan both were WB(a), with a more conservative midfield (still often two supporting Mez)
• As with most of my teams, pacy CBs good with the ball at their feet were a priority
• Defensively: I was a bit more aggressive than your setup, figuring the longer my opposition has the ball, the more likely they are to work an overload to their advantage
  • I got away from "prevent short distribution" with this formation
• Offensive: "it depends." I probably changed these settings, during a match, more with this formation than any other I've used

[LolSmokeIt]

1 hour ago, XuluBak said:

I don't recall using 4312 before this year, but it's become one of my favorites, although, I've only used it with Serie A sides (Atalanta + Tonali/Balotelli and futuristic Milan), so my advice is based on that experience. I admittedly don't know much about your players at Tenerife. That said...

• DLF(s)/AF is a fantastic tandem. That's what I used with Milan and have used it in other two-striker formations with good results. Hard to say anything bad about it. My striker roles with Atalanta were a bit more fluid. Muriel was always an AF, and my leading goal scorer, but the other two were more versatile.
• I anchored both midfields with a DLP(d) in the middle; flanked by some combination of Mez, B2B, CAR (often, two Mez), depending on personnel, matchup, situation, etc.
• Both sides, especially Atalanta, had considerable talent in the #10 spot, and the position would produce some fantastic games, but consistency was a struggle; T(a) was the most productive, overall, and really the only one I've had much success with generally (in FM20, mind you, but don't recall FM19 being different in that regard)
• I treat my FBs in this formation like WBs, expecting them to get up and down the field consistently; with Atalanta, I'd regularly have an attacking WB on the side of a supporting midfielder and vice versa on the other side; with Milan both were WB(a), with a more conservative midfield (still often two supporting Mez)
• As with most of my teams, pacy CBs good with the ball at their feet were a priority
• Defensively: I was a bit more aggressive than your setup, figuring the longer my opposition has the ball, the more likely they are to work an overload to their advantage
  • I got away from "prevent short distribution" with this formation
• Offensive: "it depends." I probably changed these settings, during a match, more with this formation than any other I've used

4-3-1-2 truly is a formation that has a lot of potential, so I see why it has become one of your favourites DLF(S)-AF is a good combination, that offers good movement up top. Having analysed few games I can only remember one time my AP(A) made clear contribution to a goal from open play, where he picked up the ball from my side of the field brought it forward to around the halfway line and made a great direct pass forward to my striker, who eventually scored from the rebound (thus denying Lasso an assist :D).  Thus I might try T(A) instead to get him to move more and perhaps allow him this way to contribute to the game more.

I switched both full backs to WB(s) rather quickly and to my eye they provide width well, so no problems there. Thus I think our flanks play the same way. Only if I could yell my midfielders to spot them when they make their runs...

 

I wonder, did you struggle with long shots aswell? I usually dont tend to use "WBIB" instruction since to me instructing the players to do one thing is counter-productive, but I'm inclined to see how if perhaps the instruction could help with the long shots.

[Overmars]

Two striker formations really aren't great for possession style. You might still dominate possession if your team is really strong, but using two forwards is generally done to drive quicker attacks. If you really want to play a low tempo possession style then I would suggest picking another formation.

The 4-3-1-2 works really well in FM20, in part because high tempo aggressive tactics work really well. You also have the added insurance that two strikers gives you against having one striker's bad form crush you in a game. But inevitably, when attacking with a 4-3-1-2, your midfielders will pass it to your wingbacks, who then become your key facilitators. The formation ends up being as good as your wingbacks are. The other common attack is a long ball to one of the forwards breaking in on goal. One forward playing in the other does happen, but it happens a lot less frequently than long balls and crosses. For that reason, I think using two attack duty forwards ends up being as productive or more as splitting duties does.

[XuluBak]

49 minutes ago, LolSmokeIt said:

I switched both full backs to WB(s) rather quickly and to my eye they provide width well, so no problems there. Thus I think our flanks play the same way. Only if I could yell my midfielders to spot them when they make their runs...

I don't know if it makes a difference, but I tell them to look for the overlap. Figure it can't hurt. There were definitely times I'd get frustrated they weren't picking out one of the WBs sooner, but generally, I'd say the did a pretty good job with it. I think having a centrally located DLP was pretty helpful with that. Tonali was an absolute beast in that role, can only image what he'd do fully developed. 

I think the biggest difference in this formation between WB(a) and WB(s) is how early they get forward. With Milan, my top two for "offsides" were my starting WBs. Their backups were 4-5. 

49 minutes ago, LolSmokeIt said:

I wonder, did you struggle with long shots aswell? I usually dont tend to use "WBIB" instruction since to me instructing the players to do one thing is counter-productive, but I'm inclined to see how if perhaps the instruction could help with the long shots.

What do you mean by 'struggle with long shots?" Taking too many?  I tend to favor WBIB, then remove it if my team is struggling for chances. Looking back, I'm surprised how few goals my Atalanta side scored from outside the box, considering the talent they have in that area, so presumably I kept WBIB on a significant majority of the time. 

 

[XuluBak]

35 minutes ago, Overmars said:

Two striker formations really aren't great for possession style. You might still dominate possession if your team is really strong, but using two forwards is generally done to drive quicker attacks. If you really want to play a low tempo possession style then I would suggest picking another formation.

The 4-3-1-2 works really well in FM20, in part because high tempo aggressive tactics work really well. You also have the added insurance that two strikers gives you against having one striker's bad form crush you in a game. But inevitably, when attacking with a 4-3-1-2, your midfielders will pass it to your wingbacks, who then become your key facilitators. The formation ends up being as good as your wingbacks are. The other common attack is a long ball to one of the forwards breaking in on goal. One forward playing in the other does happen, but it happens a lot less frequently than long balls and crosses. For that reason, I think using two attack duty forwards ends up being as productive or more as splitting duties does.

Respectfully disagree. 2-striker formations can be fantastic on the counter, but that doesn't mean 4312 can't also be very good for possession. It's merely a matter of having the right tactics and personnel.  That wasn't a priority with either of my 4312 teams, but both were near the top of the league in that category, and there were games we absolutely dominated the ball. Is it the best for that? Maybe not, but it's definitely not just a counter attacking formation. 

[wixxi]

7 minutes ago, XuluBak said:

Respectfully disagree. 2-striker formations can be fantastic on the counter, but that doesn't mean 4312 can't also be very good for possession. It's merely a matter of having the right tactics and personnel.  That wasn't a priority with either of my 4312 teams, but both were near the top of the league in that category, and there were games we absolutely dominated the ball. Is it the best for that? Maybe not, but it's definitely not just a counter attacking formation. 

To add to this, Pep has used 2 striker formations a few times in his career to facilitate his positional play methods. The 2 strikers are able to pin a back 4 by playing in the channels and the 10 will typically cause issues for any double pivot midfield, and the formation lends itself to short build up passing due to the diamond in midfield.

Ironically the 4312 is one of the best formations to break down a 442 via positional play, so I would avoid any sweeping comments that suggests 2 striker formations aren't good for a possession style.

[Experienced Defender]

4 hours ago, Overmars said:

The formation ends up being as good as your wingbacks are

This actually sums up the essence of (more or less) any narrow system 

[Spiegel]

Would personally set up a possession based 4-3-1-2 like this.

• SK(S) and BPD(D) offer press relief.
• Playmaker is the deepest player in the diamond, therefore has more runners in front of him and the space to pick them out. The defence duty allows him to form a back three with the two centre backs, releasing the full backs to bomb forward.
• Mezzala offers width from the midfield, linking up with the wing back, and offering some interesting movement with the deep lying forward.
• Box to Box player offers vertical movement. Width on this side comes from the more aggressive full back and the Advanced Forward.
• Shadow Striker is your attacking fulcrum, bombing forward from deep between the two forwards.

To create a more fluid system, I'd be looking to use: 

• 'Attacking' mentality, to reduce the gap between individual mentalities between the two attacking roles and the other players. This would be flattened further by using both 'Look for Overlaps' and 'Exploit the Middle'. I've attached a screenshot from Oliver Jensen's mentality calculator, which shows roughly what that should look like. 
• Would then look to offset the risks an attacking mentality creates by using 'Play out of Defence' and 'Shorter' passing.