Pros and cons 3-4-3 and 3-4-2-1

[Sunwell]

Hi guys.

 

Im considering starting my first FM 2022 game and i want to use a new formation that i havnt played with before. 

Im considering playing a 3-4-3 formation or a 3-4-2-1 but im not sure what to pick before i go into which playstyle and tactic i want to play.

Since i dont have any exp with either formations i would like to ask you guys what you think are the pros and cons of both formations? And maybe which playstyle fits what. 

Thanks in advance. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Sunwell

[Tsuru]

What do you mean by a 3-4-2-1? I am still playing FM 21 and I have been using a Control Possession style as suggested by my assistant manager, and he said we would play nice on a formation with 3 CBs, two advanced WBs, a "box" with two CMs and two AMs, and a single striker. I call this formation a 3-4-2-1 (or "Box 3-4-2-1") and I have been liking it a lot, it has a good defensive balance, offers nice options on attack and it can be solid with just a few adjustments.

If you like I can share with you the roles/duties I have been using and the adjustments I made, if we are talking about the same 3-4-2-1/3-4-3 

[crusadertsar]

It's weird but to me 3-4-2-1 is actually the formation that Conte used to win Premiere League with Chelsea. Basically three in the back with two advanced wingbacks and two central midfielders. And two inserted wingers coming inside while wingbacks bomb forward. Saw AI using that formation the other day and was really hard to play against all that wingplay. Scary formation. Was actually thinking of giving it a try.

Edited November 9, 2021 by crusadertsar

[Djeon36]

Just wondering lets say I want to run a 3-4-2-1 but have two wingers instead of CAMs. Is there a possibility I could use Wingers like CAM even though they're in the RW and LW position? I was thinking like a IF but use sit narrower PI on both of them?

[Tsuru]

7 minutos atrás, Djeon36 disse:

Just wondering lets say I want to run a 3-4-2-1 but have two wingers instead of CAMs. Is there a possibility I could use Wingers like CAM even though they're in the RW and LW position? I was thinking like a IF but use sit narrower PI on both of them?

You can try a IF or IW with Sit Narrower, or maybe use a pair of Advanced Playmakers on the flanks. I never used an AP-Su on a flank and an AP-At on the other, but there is another topic here in which the manager is using this option and he is very happy with it.

Of course it would need some adjustments, because the JdP strategy has an Anchorman behind a pair of Mezzalas, so the APs on the flanks make sense. Using three at the back it would be probably necessary to have a first midfielder which behaves between an Anchorman and a Mez-S, and another one that behaves more like a Mez-At, but without leaving the flank too exposed. Maybe a Mez-At with a WB-D or something like that.
 

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Tsuru

[Sunwell]

Thanks for the reply but im not looking into player roles or general tactics. 3-4-3 from what i understand is with two wingers and a forward. 3-4-2-1 is with two players in the AM position instead of playing on the wings. 

im asking what pros and cons there is with these formations. 

3 hours ago, Tsuru said:

What do you mean by a 3-4-2-1? I am still playing FM 21 and I have been using a Control Possession style as suggested by my assistant manager, and he said we would play nice on a formation with 3 CBs, two advanced WBs, a "box" with two CMs and two AMs, and a single striker. I call this formation a 3-4-2-1 (or "Box 3-4-2-1") and I have been liking it a lot, it has a good defensive balance, offers nice options on attack and it can be solid with just a few adjustments.

If you like I can share with you the roles/duties I have been using and the adjustments I made, if we are talking about the same 3-4-2-1/3-4-3 

 

[Tsuru]

34 minutos atrás, Sunwell disse:

im asking what pros and cons there is with these formations. 

There can be many. But generally speaking, 3-4-3 will offer you a double wide men pair in each flank and 3-4-2-1 is a "narrow system", in which your wingbacks will be the only source of width.

With a double wide men system, you will have more options on the flanks: you can use both wingers moving inside and the wingbacks outside, you can move the wingers outside and the wingbacks inside, you can mix these options, you can retreat the striker to the "AM" hole and create a diagonal movement from one or two wingers into the box, or you can use a striker upfield pressing the line and opening more space behind him. But this flexibility has a con: your two central midfielders will have a lot of work as they will have to cover the space ahead your DL and near the opponents´ DL, and you will have to coordinate this very well otherwise they can isolate the front 3, get in the front 3´s way or isolate your back 3. I believe that the two midfielders in a 3-4-3 need to be as good as they would if you would be playing on a traditional 4-2-3-1 with no DMs. 

With a single flank men system on a 3-4-2-1, it looks to me there is a lot less burden on the CMs because now you have two AMs ahead of them. This way you can use a more traditional holding midfielder to help the defence on the starting of the ball movement through the middle. With this extra security you can leave your other CM and the two AMs more free to occupy the space near the opponent´s DL and move themselves to help the single striker. However now the burden will be with your wingbacks, as they will have to do almost everything on the flanks: defend, support, help on the attack phase and offer some width.

Some people could say that the 3-4-3 is more suited for a hybrid system (like a Fluid Counter Attack) and the 3-4-2-1 is good for a possession-based style, but I think this is something very relative. The "dual wide men"/"single wide men" looks to me the main difference that will define the pros and cons of each one of them.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Tsuru

[ralala]

My current 3-4-3, since I wanted to try the new WCB role :   

     DLF(S)  AF(A) DLF(S)

WM(S) BBM(S) BWM(S) WM(S)

     WCB(D) CD(C) WCB(D)

Here is a free formation for a possession-based 343 creating diamonds for passing throughout the team. The amount of support-roles and lack of specialist roles makes it free, and thus makes the lines closer togheter. This works well for both passing and pressing.

The WM role is key, since they are the only widemen and would need to help out in both attack and defence. E.g making them wingers instead will leave too much room for the opposing wide players.

Play out of defence, Work ball into box works well with this.

Counter press, High lines along with press less for the covering CD.

Optional if you want some difference in movement on the flanks:

You could try a WCB(S) on the right, and put the BWM as a (D) duty.  Then use an IW(S) from the right with the right-sided DLF(S) set as "stay wider". Asymetric movement but a little soft on the defensive side perhaps, on that side.