DM vs CM 'Strata'

[Manutd1999]

Quite a few midfield roles (e.g. DLP, BWM, RPM) can be played in either the defensive midfield or central midfield 'strata'. Simple question, what are the main aspects I should be thinking about when deciding between the two?

For example, I am developing a 3-4-3 system with a box midfield, similar in some respects to what Tuchel has used with Chelsea. Roles and duties are not too important at this stage (just for illustration), but the midfield 'box' would look something like this:

 SS(a) - - -    AM(s)

DLP(d) - - - BWM(s)

Essentially the two deeper midfielders could be in either strata.

• Playing them in the DM strata is appealing in order to create more space, but perhaps this is just a visual illusion in the tactics screen more than anything else?
• If they were in the central midfield strata, could TI's be used to encourage them to drop deeper during the build-up? (e.g. play out of defence). Maybe this is a good compromise?
• Conversely, what are the best methods to 'encourage' defensive midfielders to contributed in the final third ('get forward' PI perhaps)?

 

[Gdansk]

1) I believe it's somewhat of an illusion on the screen, I'd just go a little bit more conservative with the roles/duties in CM than in DM. But I've played this formation with Chelsea before but against weaker teams it was a total gamechanger putting them into CM, was having way more offensive threats that way.

2) Yes you can use those but a DLP/D should be good enough if you want that, you have to remember already have 3CBS so don't force too many guys back.

3) I don't know for sure if you can give it to a VOL but a VOL or DM/S with get further forward is your best bet if you want a DM helping around the box.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Gdansk

[Experienced Defender]

42 minutes ago, Manutd1999 said:

SS(a) - - -    AM(s)

DLP(d) - - - BWM(s)

I'd like to see the whole tactic, because nothing works in isolation.

[Manutd1999]

Well, it is still a work in progress but something like this:

 

The wide midfielders would have different PIs, with the left-sided acting as a more attacking winger and the right-sided more defensive/static.

 

 

[NotSoSpecialOne]

It's not an illusion. All things being equal, the same role will operate from deeper positions in the DM strata than it would in the CM strata.

[phnompenhandy]

1 hour ago, NotSoSpecialOne said:

It's not an illusion. All things being equal, the same role will operate from deeper positions in the DM strata than it would in the CM strata.

Right. The formations show the starting positions and where they fall back to without the ball. A good way of checking would be to compare the heatmaps of a tactic with a DLPd in central midfield and defensive midfield, for instance.

[Experienced Defender]

14 hours ago, Manutd1999 said:

Why the "Dribble less" TI? What's the reasoning/logic behind your choice of that particular instruction? 

In terms of roles and duties, I would only either switch the DLP's duty to support or swap the positions of the DLP and BWM.

Defense-wise, vertical compactness may prove an issue, so keep an eye on that aspect of play.

14 hours ago, Manutd1999 said:

The wide midfielders would have different PIs, with the left-sided acting as a more attacking winger and the right-sided more defensive/static

The opposite would make more sense IMHO.

[Manutd1999]

For the TIs, I haven't finalised them but "dribble less" was intended to encourage a 'pass first' mentality without resorting to using shorter passing or lower tempo. Similarly, 'low crosses' is to encourage cut-backs instead of aimless crosses. 

Quote

In terms of roles and duties, I would only either switch the DLP's duty to support or swap the positions of the DLP and BWM.

Is there not a risk that a DLP(s) - - BWM(s) pairing could lack defensive cover? Although maybe with 3x centre-backs it's less of an issue....

Quote

Defense-wise, vertical compactness may prove an issue, so keep an eye on that aspect of play

Agreed, if I switch to a DLP(s) I may try dropping the LoE back to standard. 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Manutd1999 said:

if I switch to a DLP(s) I may try dropping the LoE back to standard

You can (should) drop the LOE to standard regardless of the DLP's duty. 

 

1 hour ago, Manutd1999 said:

Is there not a risk that a DLP(s) - - BWM(s) pairing could lack defensive cover?

Not necessarily, because you have 3 CBs (as opposed to 2), none of which is a libero. 

 

1 hour ago, Manutd1999 said:

Although maybe with 3x centre-backs it's less of an issue

Exactly 

[Manutd1999]

Thanks for the advice

Re the original question, do think it makes much difference whether the midfielders are in the DM or CM strata?

[glengarry224]

5 hours ago, Manutd1999 said:

Thanks for the advice

Re the original question, do think it makes much difference whether the midfielders are in the DM or CM strata?

Yes.  The positioning is not just in defense.  For example, DLP(d)&(s) and BWM(d) are all hard-coded to 'hold position' when your team has the ball.

[The #9.5]

This is in interesting topic. My approach to FM is always to relate it as much as possible to real-life football tactics, strategies and general football common sense. From that perspective I've always viewed the DM strata as the #6 position and the CM strata as the #8 position (note: I mean position here, not role). 

In a typical 4-3-3 you have 1xDM and 2xCMs and from a real-life football language this means 1x#6 and 2x#8. Hence the talk of a single pivot formation (same goes for the 3-1-4-2, for example). Similarly, in a typical 4-2-3-1 we talk about 2xDMs and 1xAM, hence the talk of two sixes/double six/double pivot and a #10 (there's a less common 4-2-1-3 variant which sees 2x#6s + a #8 but it's really rare; still it's interesting to note that Mourinho's Spurs often resembled this variant when Ndombele was ahead of the double pivot; Mancini's Man City also used this variant with Yaya Toure as a roaming #8 ahead of the Barry-De Jong double pivot). 

Where it gets interesting is that position and role and sometimes the same but in other times they're different. For example, the typical #6 is the more cultured DM role (which in FM is either DLP/d or half-back depending on how you want to build-up from the back; with the DLP/d we talk about a proper single pivot, while with a HB role we talk more about a back 3, hence the need to see the CBs fan out wider while the HB drops in between). 

However, there are other #6s who are far more different. For example, the Italian interpretation of the deep-lying playmaker - ie the Regista - or the South American interpretation of the all-action #6 - i.e. the Segundo Volante (which is closer to the European interpretation of the #8; with the only difference is that it's part of a double pivot).

So when we talk about DM or CM strata and potential benefits/drawbacks from a FM perspective, we need to consider basically the whole outlook of our tactics, including the structure in both defence and attack. 

For example, in a typical 4-2-3-1 there are certain, more commonly used, variants:

1) the double six + #10 scenario: where you have two ball-winners, with possibly one of them a bit more willing to step out and join the midfield zone and a creative #10 (this was the initial application of the 4-2-3-1, from the start of the 2000s with Rafa Benitez' Valencia a typical example of this with the Albelda-Baraja double pivot behind Aimar); 

2) you push the creative #10 deeper as a DLP/s alongside one ball-winner, freeing the #10 to play a more attacking role (i.e. the False 10), which is suitable especially if you have creative wide men aiming to cut infield and create instead of either (or both) being secondary attackers. A typical example was Rafa Benitez' Liverpool with the Mascherano-Alonso double pivot behind Gerrard as the 10. 

Of course, modern tactics allowed for increased number of combinations which produced some interesting combos in the 4-2-3-1. For example, Mourinho's Real Madrid saw a creative holder (Alonso) alongside a more destructive runner (Khedira) behind what I call a 'ten-and-a-half' player in Ozil. Again, Mourinho's 14/15 Chelsea saw a proper holding midfielder (Matic) alongside a really creative and mobile partner (Fabregas) with the #10 being the sort of destructive/balancing player you'd usually see at #8. 

From FM perspective, DM vs CM strata is all about what type of formation and roles you'd like to use and how they combine from a defensive (how you cover/deny space) and attacking (how you create and exploit space).

That certain roles can be used at both DM and CM position/strata is because some roles can be used in both a typical 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 formation (among other formations). Take for example the DLP/s role. It's a typical role of the, let's called it that way, modern 4-2-3-1. Once the old school creative #10 started to die out, they were pushed wider or deeper. The DLP/s role is for those who moved deeper (at #6 position) but played a more patient style and were a bit more static.

But in a 4-3-3 you can still have a DLP/s role but from a #8 position. Think about Xavi at Guardiola's Barca, Kroos at Real M (under Zidane) or what Locatelli did last night for Italy. This is often a role that is used when the DM/#6 is the type who either: a) often drops in between the CBs, so you need one of the #8s to come a bit deeper too to link the play; or b) you have a technically limited DM/pure ball-winner who you can't trust to help with the initial build-up phase, so you need one of the 8s to drop in and compensate (that is if you're set on playing out from the back of course). 

In relation to the OP's query about a 3-4-2-1 formation (like Tuchel's Chelsea), I'd say it's 2x#6 (but different roles) and 2x#10 (again with slightly different roles). So from FM's perspective it's having 2x players at DM strata and 2x players at AM strata.

I'd say no real-life formation uses 3-4-2-1 or 4-2-3-1 with 2x players in both CM and AM strata. It's just not a defensively viable way to structure your side. On this front, I'd ideally prefer SI to have made this clearer and kind of 'forbid' using certain formation and/or roles in certain positions. Like you can't use a Segundo Volante role in a single pivot formation (as the whole point of this role is to use as part of a double pivot) or that you can't use a Regista at CM (again, as the whole point of this role is to have a really creative #6 to give some spark of the otherwise very defensive and deep-lying Italian formations of older eras; basically the reverse Trequartista). I'd argue such a move would've spared plenty of people plenty of headaches when constructing their tactics. 

[Manutd1999]

Awesome post  I'm not sure FM works exactly like this in reality but it's a good idea. Also, droppping the deeper midfielders back to DM allows me to use one of my favourite roles, the Segundo-Volante. So maybe something like this?

--------------------DLF(a)

------------SS(a) ------- AM(s)

WM(s)------------------------------- WM(s)

------------SV(s) ------- DLP(d)

------BPD(d) - -- CD(d) --- BPD(d)

 

[Oluf]

4 hours ago, Manutd1999 said:

Awesome post  I'm not sure FM works exactly like this in reality but it's a good idea. Also, droppping the deeper midfielders back to DM allows me to use one of my favourite roles, the Segundo-Volante. So maybe something like this?

--------------------DLF(a)

------------SS(a) ------- AM(s)

WM(s)------------------------------- WM(s)

------------SV(s) ------- DLP(d)

------BPD(d) - -- CD(d) --- BPD(d)

 

Maybe put the DLP on support duty, if not the DLP and CB's may occupy the same spaces.

Edited June 13, 2021 by Oluf