TQ role and other playmakers

[KCHDD]

I thought it was conventional wisdom to use 1 playmaker in a team at most but I see a lot of people using a playmaker and a TQ in the same side. Does this lead to the same problems as having AP and DLP in the same team, for example?

Also TQ is a role which doesnt get involved defensively, if I want to press would I be better off using a customised AM?

[CARRERA]

There is nothing wrong about having more then one playmaker in your team. Keep two things in mind tho:

playmakers usually slow down the play as build up is processed through them. So if you are looking for a quick build up play you are properbly doing better without any or less playmaking roles.

the second thing is that playmakers usually won’t go for too many forward runs not even with an attack duty. So if you’re looking for penetration better choose another role. 

 

[LHurlz]

As already mentioned it's probably only a viable strategy in possession-based systems, but 2 playmakers can be very effective and offer variation in your build up rather than the AI only having to worry about 1 ball magnet.

Playing a DLP and an AP out wide in a 4231 can be fun, as can using playmakers at the base and tip of a diamond too.

[Experienced Defender]

More important than how many PM roles you have is how you use them within the system and with what tactical plan in mind. 

[CharlieTZR]

I used a TQ for 3 seasons but as a striker, not as an attacking midfielder and it worked great, become my best player and basically kept me into the first division.

I paired him with Poacher (A), Pressing forward (S/A) and Target man (S) depending on whom I had available ; I tried to use him as an AM TQ behind the main striker but didn't worked as good as a two strikers system (I played 442 and was trying to move to a 4-4-1-1).

Now I am trying to make an AMC Playmaker who ticks all the requirements to play as TQ but despite having the skills, it does not work. My old Striker TQ was natural in striker position, this new guy is natural in AMC / AML but does not work at all as TQ although I try to build the attack around him due to its flair, vision, tech, passing etc., he ticks all the skills.

I never used more than one Playmaker, that was a DLP in midfielder level or sometimes a Regista in DM level but while with the striker worked, with the midfielder not so much (and I am not bothered about the lack of defensive participation)

My guess is that you need a dominant player to play as TQ otherwise he'll struggle with this role.

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by CharlieTZR

[Tsuru]

I still play FM 17 and I use a TQ in the AMC position in a "Fluid Counter" 4-4-1-1 ("Fluid" because I use the same available instructions on the template, but in an older version, plus the Fluid system shape). I play in a very obscure league with low level players (attribute mid between 5 and 9), and the N10 works wonders behind a Poacher, even though my AMC is a natural AP and does not know how to play as a Treq.

Why I decided to use a Treq in this kind of system? Well, my striker is a natural Poacher, the AP AT was very static and the AM AT moved himself a lot, going upfront and leaving the middle too much. I needed something in between and in a moment the 10 looked like the best option.

I truly believe there is no "Tactical Determinism" in Football Manager, everything can work in the right team, league and system, depending on the context and also on the players you have available.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Tsuru

[Louisking1992]

On 18/01/2021 at 11:44, KCHDD said:

I thought it was conventional wisdom to use 1 playmaker in a team at most but I see a lot of people using a playmaker and a TQ in the same side. Does this lead to the same problems as having AP and DLP in the same team, for example?

Also TQ is a role which doesnt get involved defensively, if I want to press would I be better off using a customised AM?

What problems do you speak of when you said about an AP and a DLP playing together in the same tactic?