Ideas for a 4-2-3-1 midfield

[Tcufrog]

I'd appreciate some help with my midfield roles in this 4-2-3-1.  The two players attached both have great playmaking ability - wondering if a double-pivot would work in such an attacking formation?

I'm also not opposed to a deep 4-2-3-1.  As you can see by my tactic, I'm planning to play a gegenpress/total football hybrid tactic.  Thanks for your input!

[dekzeh]

I personally wouldn't use those two together as the double pivot in a 4-2-3-1. Peeters is complete but not particularly great defensively, amazing as a CM in a 433 but not so much in a 4231, especially with both fullbacks bombing forward, and whilst Stepanyuk has better defensive attributes he also has the 'Gets Into Opposition Box' PPM which would annoy the hell out of me. I think those two would work a lot better on a 433 or if you are set on the 4231 I'd run Peeters as the AM and have someone more defensively oriented playing CM-De/Carrilero alongside Stepanyuk as a DLP-Su.

[Tcufrog]

9 minutes ago, dekzeh said:

I personally wouldn't use those two together as the double pivot in a 4-2-3-1. Peeters is complete but not particularly great defensively, amazing as a CM in a 433 but not so much in a 4231, especially with both fullbacks bombing forward, and whilst Stepanyuk has better defensive attributes he also has the 'Gets Into Opposition Box' PPM which would annoy the hell out of me. I think those two would work a lot better on a 433 or if you are set on the 4231 I'd run Peeters as the AM and have someone more defensively oriented playing CM-De/Carrilero alongside Stepanyuk as a DLP-Su.

Good advice, I appreciate your input.  My 433 midfield looks like this:

RCM - Peeters (AP-S)

LCM - Mezzala-S

DM - Stepanyukc (DLP-D)

[Experienced Defender]

5 hours ago, Tcufrog said:

wondering if a double-pivot would work in such an attacking formation?

Well, a double pivot is actually highly recommended in that (top-heavy) type of formation, especially if you want to play both fullbacks in attack-minded roles (not to be confused with the attack duty). But you use a CM on support, which is neither a holding nor covering role (even if you tell him to hold position via the PI). 

I don't know if you have tested the tactic, but I personally see a number of potential issues (both defensively and attacking-wise). 

[Tcufrog]

4 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Well, a double pivot is actually highly recommended in that (top-heavy) type of formation, especially if you want to play both fullbacks in attack-minded roles (not to be confused with the attack duty). But you use a CM on support, which is neither a holding nor covering role (even if you tell him to hold position via the PI). 

I don't know if you have tested the tactic, but I personally see a number of potential issues (both defensively and attacking-wise). 

I have a few different types of midfielders so I was thinking at the LCM I can play a DLP-D or DM-D and then a CM-S as the RCM.

I don’t have much experience with the CM role but like the tweaks I can make with different plays. For example, with Peeters I’d want him to play a bit riskier but with a more physical, better work rate player I can maybe try to make him into more of a box to box type. 

 

[Experienced Defender]

@04texag i had to remove your question, because this thread is exclusively about the OP's specific tactic. So please start your own separate thread and ask it again there (preferably with more details about your tactic).

Thank you.

[04texag]

Really? This type of thing really discourages participation in discussions.

 

This thread is about the midfielders in a 4231. My question is a continuation of what you mentioned about his roles not being a good double pivot. So I was asking what would be a good example? I guess you're saying I shouldn't have put any additional information that related to my example situation of two types of players that one might want to put into a double pivot.

Pretty disappointed at this.....

 

[Experienced Defender]

16 minutes ago, 04texag said:

Really? This type of thing really discourages participation in discussions.

 

This thread is about the midfielders in a 4231. My question is a continuation of what you mentioned about his roles not being a good double pivot. So I was asking what would be a good example? I guess you're saying I shouldn't have put any additional information that related to my example situation of two types of players that one might want to put into a double pivot.

Pretty disappointed at this.....

 

Disappointed or not, I as a mod have the responsibility to prevent any possibility of a thread being hijacked or derailed. And be sure that I would do the same if someone else asked their tactical questions in a thread that you started about your tactic.

The fact that more people use one same formation (4231 in this case) does not mean that each of them can use any thread about that formation to ask their own questions.

Starting a new topic is very easy, so please do so and you'll get advice there 

[04texag]

His original question was about a double pivot. You said a double pivot would be a good idea, but he did not in fact a double pivot. 

 

I'll plainly ask, what's an example of a double pivot?

I believe this does not warrant an additional thread, as it is directly in relation to his original thread and question. 

[Experienced Defender]

3 minutes ago, 04texag said:

what's an example of a double pivot?

Both holding CMs in a 4231 is called a double pivot. Holding CM roles are: CM on defend duty, BWM on defend duty (although this role is not so literally holding) and DLP on either duty. Other roles include runners and covering midfielders. 

So this time I answered your question, but any further ones will be removed from this thread, because of what I already explained in my earlier comments. 

[Experienced Defender]

@04texag Btw, you did not originally ask what is a double pivot, but "what would be considered good roles in midfield for a double pivot", which is a pretty much different type of question. That's exactly why I told you that such a question requires a separate thread.