Advice on my 442 With Inverted wingers tactic

[braddockmatt]

Ive Started a new save with Norwich city. For a while now i want to try out a system that uses two inverted wingers cutting in from both flanks when we are in possession of the ball. But without we revert back to two banks of four and be hard to breakdown. I always wanted to try out a tactic that i can use two forwards up top. I always play tactics with one forward and 2 or 3 players supporting him.

In Fm21 though, Im struggling to get the best out of a lone forward, so i wanted to try out a 4-4-2 but with a difference.

In my Norwich save my better players are wide Midfielders (Cantwell & Buendia) Cantwell is perfectly suited to play a inverted winger as he is right footed aswell. Buendia however is Right footed (has a reasonable left foot) but also is a very creative player who does suit playing an inverted winger too. 

SETUP WHEN WE HAVE THE BALL:

DC(r) BPD - I want a Defender who is comfortable on the ball that can take the Ball from the GK and start the move.

DC(L) A Standard Defender, who is ok on the ball but his main job is to Head, Tackle, Mark and is Tall and Physical.

DR/L  This is where I'm unsure if ive set these up right. On the Left i have gone for a WB(s) and on the right FB(a). The Main reason for these is a want a balance on both wings, Ideally as you can see on my TI i want both to overlap my IW's. But the reason for the Duties is that the left back on support is complementing the Attack duty on my left IW. The duty on my Right Back is Attack because the Right IW is on Support. But i want both to go forwards and other width going forwards but i want them back when we lose the ball.

If i have these setup wrong or if you could offer any better support , help would be appreciated.

IW , These are the main players in my team, the players/Roles that i want to build my Tactic around. I want them wide when we are defending making it hard for the opposing side. However when we have the ball i want them to use there dribbling, Pace and creativity to make chances for the Guys up top, or crave out a chance for themselves.

MC This is my Engine room ! The Left Centre Mid i want him to be my Disciplined Hard working/ Ball winner. The reason I've not set him as my BWM, is that I don't want him to roam too much from his position and unbalance the side when defending. I want that two banks of 4 when defending. When he wins the ball i don't want him to run with the ball or anything special with it other than to recycle possession and play it to a team-mate.

The right Centre mid I've set as just a standard Mc (s) . Just an all-round decent Player. I'm looking for a player that can keep the ball and look to play it forward to a more attacking player. I don't want a player that will roam away from his position but be disciplined in his positioning. ( This is another position I'm not sure if I'm better using a playmaker role i.e. (DLP) , so any advice will be appreciated)

SC- This is two roles I'm not sure about. I've set up with a DLF and a AF at the moment but I'm unsure what two roles would suit the way i play. If I'm playing with two inverted wingers, What roles upfront would complement them ? I have Pukki that is comfortable in most roles (coming deep or playing on the shoulder) Then i have Hugill, who is more a Physical presence that can hold up the ball and play in other team mates. so thats why ive opted for the DLF / AF combination. But I'm open to suggestions.

 

This is my first time, ive tried to set up a tactic with a style ive come up with in my head. and im not a natural when it comes to designing and knowing how roles play and interact with other, so if anyone who can help and advise and see where i could improve, that would be great.

Cheers

[Experienced Defender]

I would be primarily concerned about the right flank - an attacking fullback without proper defensive cover. Made even riskier with the overlap instruction. 

And given that your tactic suggests a defensive style of football - due to the lower LOE - this potential defensive risk becomes even more pronounced. 

[braddockmatt]

What if I swap the two centre mids around and had the defensive cm on the right side , helping cover the attacking full back ?

or would you just switch the FB to a support duty ? Or just remove the overlap instruction ? 

The reason for the LOE is I want to suck the team in with my two banks of 4 and try and hit them on the break.

would that work ? 

[Experienced Defender]

22 minutes ago, braddockmatt said:

What if I swap the two centre mids around and had the defensive cm on the right side , helping cover the attacking full back ?

That would solve the potential defensive issue on the right, but would then potentially create one on the left. Because now your left flank would deploy two attack-minded roles - one of which is even on attack duty at that - without proper midfield cover. Unless you change the CM on support into a more conservative role that can protect that flank more effectively. 

 

27 minutes ago, braddockmatt said:

or would you just switch the FB to a support duty ?

No. Or at least not as the preferred option. Because simply switching the FB's duty to support would make him a bit too conservative to consistently provide proper attacking support to his inside-oriented partner (IW), especially in more advanced stages of attack. 

CM on support duty is actually the role that I personally see as the key issue in this setup, especially in relation to the problem of insufficient protection for attack-minded fullbacks behind inside-oriented wide midfielders. 

If your tactic overall leaned more toward a more direct style, then switching the RB to FB on support would be less of an issue. But in that case, it would not use the overlap instructions and some roles/duties should be set up a bit differently.

As I said in my previous post, your low LOE defines your tactic as essentially defensive. So that's also something you need to keep in mind.

[braddockmatt]

9 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Unless you change the CM on support into a more conservative role that can protect that flank more effectively. 

What do you mean by this ? Put him on a defensive duty ? Or completely change his role ? What role is more conservative than a CM ? 
 

9 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

If your tactic overall leaned more toward a more direct style, then switching the RB to FB on support would be less of an issue. But in that case, it would not use the overlap instructions and some roles/duties should be set up a bit differently.

 

So what you are saying is. If I play more direct passing , trying to get the ball forward quicker It should work with having a FB on support and that I remove the overlap instructions? 
 

9 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

As I said in my previous post, your low LOE defines your tactic as essentially defensive. So that's also something you need to keep in mind.

The reason for this was in my head we as a team would be more compact out of possession, so we are less open for teams to play through us . However by having a control mentality I though this would not make us defensive because I thought we would play with higher tempo and take more risks when we are in possession of the ball. 
 

when you read how I want my team to play. How would you set up them up ? Would you not have a low LOE then ? 
would you have players in different roles ? 
 

also what about the forwards ? Any advice how to get the best combination with two forwards ? Or would the two roles I’ve gone for suit the way I want to play ? 
 

cheers again 👍

[Experienced Defender]

8 hours ago, braddockmatt said:

What do you mean by this ? Put him on a defensive duty

No, because you already have one CM on defend. 

 

8 hours ago, braddockmatt said:

Or completely change his role ? 

Yes.  

 

8 hours ago, braddockmatt said:

What role is more conservative than a CM ? 

I was referring to so-called covering and holding roles.

Covering CM roles are BWM on support duty and carrilero.

Holding CM roles are CM on defend, BWM on defend and DLP on either duty. 

 

8 hours ago, braddockmatt said:

So what you are saying is. If I play more direct passing , trying to get the ball forward quicker It should work with having a FB on support and that I remove the overlap instructions? 

Yes, because in that case you willingly accept that your players will have less possession and more of their passes will be misplaced, because you deliberately choose to play a tactical style in which your attacking play may not be particularly smooth. 

If that's what you want, then why not. 

 

8 hours ago, braddockmatt said:

The reason for this was in my head we as a team would be more compact out of possession, so we are less open for teams to play through us

It's true that the lower LOE coupled with standard D-line gives you an optimal level of compactness. But so does the combo of standard LOE and higher D-line as well (because the distance between them remains unchanged).

The difference is that the former means a compact low block (which is defensive football in essence), whereas the latter means a compact mid block. 

Of course, you can decide to "sacrifice" a bit of compactness and set both lines to the same position (e.g. both standard or both higher), especially if you are confident that your players are good enough to defend successfully with a level of compactness that is slightly lower than optimal. 

Keep also in mind that the formation also affects compactness. One with a DM is inherently more compact than one without. And yours (442) falls under the latter category. 

8 hours ago, braddockmatt said:

However by having a control mentality I though this would not make us defensive

The mentality does not define your style of play. A higher team mentality (positive in this particular case) coupled with a lower LOE actually creates an "ideal" base for a counter-attacking tactic (provided, of course, that other elements of the tactic are properly set up). But as you know - counter-attacking football is defensive by nature. 

 

8 hours ago, braddockmatt said:

because I thought we would play with higher tempo and take more risks when we are in possession of the ball

Well, that's precisely what I just explained - i.e. why a higher team mentality in combination with a lower LOE is ideal for a counter-attacking style. Because you defend (relatively) deep, looking to draw the opposition onto yourself, but once you win the ball - the high mentality encourages a faster (counter) attacking transition. That's ultimately why a counter-attacking tactic is generally much easier to set up under a slightly higher team mentality than lower ones. Unlike passive defensive styles, such as parked bus, catenaccio and the like. 

 

8 hours ago, braddockmatt said:

when you read how I want my team to play. How would you set up them up ?

Judging by your earlier comment: 

 

18 hours ago, braddockmatt said:

The reason for the LOE is I want to suck the team in with my two banks of 4 and try and hit them on the break

I would assume you actually do want to play a counter-attacking style, right? 

 

8 hours ago, braddockmatt said:

also what about the forwards ? Any advice how to get the best combination with two forwards ?

Your current combo of DLF and AF is a very good and logical one in general. Of course, your intended style of play - as well as the type(s) of your strikers as players - is what ultimately determines which role partnerships could represent a better choice within the context of that particular playing style. Basically, best striker partnerships usually consist of one creator (CF, DLF, F9 or TQ) and one simple runner role (AF, PF or poacher). Whereas TM can serve either purpose, depending on the rest of your tactical setup.