Carrilero as a wide man in a 4-2-2-2

[DanishGuy]

My pc isn't currently working, but I have an idea that I'm dying to test. 

This is the setup :

4-2-2-2:
             AF(A)   PF(S)
RMD/IF(A)                    AP(S)
             Car(S)  DP(S)
IWB(D) CD(D) BPD(D) FB(A)

High pressing with possession.
Shorter passing, higher tempo. 
Positive mentality
Focus play right
Overlap right.
Play out from back
Narrow

The idea is to drag the opposition to right, before unleashing the left sided attackers. 

Maybe the PF(s) should be a AMC(s). 

But my big question is the if Carrilero will provide enough width on the left. 

I like the way the iwb(D) provides support when playing out from the back, so doesn't want to change him to a fullback. 

[Experienced Defender]

Putting the AF on the same side with RMD or IF on attack does not look like a good idea to me. The opposite would make a lot more sense. 

55 minutes ago, DanishGuy said:

my big question is the if Carrilero will provide enough width on the left

I fear not. But test it anyway and see. 

 

56 minutes ago, DanishGuy said:

High pressing with possession

What exactly do you mean by that? Which instructions are you using out of possession?

[DanishGuy]

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

What exactly do you mean by that? Which instructions are you using out of possession?

high LOE and very high DL. Offside trap. Extremely Urgent press. Cut off passes from goalkeeper. Force opposition outside.

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

Putting the AF on the same side with RMD or IF on attack does not look like a good idea to me. The opposite would make a lot more sense. 

I agree. My thinking was that i wanted a support duty on the right to enhance the overload made by Focus play on the right. I choose the PF(s) because i was affraid that the F9 or DPF would clash with the AP(s) on the left wing.

I also wanted more than one player attacking the space on the left.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2021 by DanishGuy

[Experienced Defender]

7 minutes ago, DanishGuy said:

high LOE and very high DL. Offside trap. Extremely Urgent press. Cut off passes from goalkeeper. Force opposition outside

Okay, it is extremely aggressive, but you at least have an optimal level of compactness. 

[Guv'nor]

And the team's attacking width is set to narrow...?

How wide are you expecting or wanting a Midfield centre to move given the overriding instruction is for the team to stay compact?

[DanishGuy]

13 minutes ago, Guv'nor said:

And the team's attacking width is set to narrow...?

How wide are you expecting or wanting a Midfield centre to move given the overriding instruction is for the team to stay compact?

Well... Good point. 

My thinking was that the narrow width would ensure that the team was close together for the counterpress if we lose the ball. I can see how that would hinder the movement I want. 

[Piperita]

I played your left side in a 4231 in 19, just more hyper-aggressive with an IWBs. It looked well, even if the high outer flank was often left blank. 

What helped in getting the desired movement was telling the CAR to run wide. Giving the (inner-footed) IWBs some central-play PPM also helps but is not that essential. That way there is a better chance they align properly with the CAR starting wider and providing a wide outlet. 

I agree with previous users that an RMD might be too much behind an AFa in this formation. What could(!) work however is using an IFa with the PI to stay wider and the PPM to get into opposition area. He provides width in buildup but bombs into the box later/with the ball. 

A change in concept would be replacing the CAR with a more defensive role/duty and giving the IWB a S-duty with overlap ticked. This gives a late wide option while the IFa cuts inside. 

[DanishGuy]

2 hours ago, Piperita said:

I played your left side in a 4231 in 19, just more hyper-aggressive with an IWBs. It looked well, even if the high outer flank was often left blank

Interesting. 

I'm contemplating switching to a 4-2-3-1. Thinking the RMD/IF(A) won't clash with the AF, when the striker is back centrally. 

Maybe and AM(S) in the AMC spot. With roam from position and get further forward, to support the AF and also to vacate space for the AP to drift into 

[Experienced Defender]

20 minutes ago, DanishGuy said:

Thinking the RMD/IF(A) won't clash with the AF, when the striker is back centrally

If you want to pair the RMD/ IFon attack with a (lone) striker also on attack duty, then roles that are more creative, roaming and deeper such as DLF, CF or TQ look like a far better choice than a simple runner/scorer like AF/poacher/PF.