442 diamond - midfield configuration

[HotPizza87]

DM
Half Back - Allows your full backs to go wild, but when he drops into the defensive line, now the space ahead of the defensive line is vacated
BWM(D) - Heavily closes down, including to the flank, causing central holding area to be vacated. Support duty is suicidal here due to lack of hold position PI. Arguably not required to close down heavily because of your numbers in the centre and harder tackling can be achieved through OIs. Would necessitate a second holding midfielder in the CM area.
Anchor Man - Holds Position solidly, but your other midfielders MUST close down the flanks
DM(D) - Can cause same problems as BWM(D) but to a lesser extent.
DLP(D/S) - With 2 centre mids and an AMC ahead, unlikely that a support duty is necessary, and that DM area would be vacated, leaving the defensive line open. Defend duty could be viable. Question is, do you want to build up through the centre and progress through the full backs, or do you want to build up through the full backs and progress through the centre? Which is better for this formation?

MCL/R

Balanced
One will be more attacking than the other. Ideally you're looking for 2 players in the diamond who are defensively minded, and 2 who are focused on attack, and in both cases one is focused more on their objective than the other (eg Anchor Man and DLP(S) would be a good example of that due to the DLP(S) having a hold position PI).

Unbalanced
Both are set to focus more on defending or attacking. For example, double carrilero + anchor man. Or even more extreme, BWM(D) and DLP(D) would be an extremely defensive config. On the attacking side, double mezzala on attack would be the most extreme (and also unlikely to succeed) attacking config.

What do you prefer and why?

AMC
Pure offence
Shadow striker, Trequartista, Enganche
Use this when your DM and CMs are configured mainly for defence. Very good for fast central progressions and numbers in the box. They are unlikely to assist defensively.

Balanced
AP(A/S), AMC(A)
Use this when your CMs are set in a balanced config. They do track back but it's never particularly useful. Maintains that 3rd man penetrating the box to give opposition centre backs and midfield something to think about they don't want to have to.

Defensive
AM(S)/AP(S)
Use when you want your AMC to help out in defence. The opposition defence will have have less problems against you,  so other elements in your config need to compensate offensively somehow, unless you don't need it (eg trying not to concede).

What are your thoughts on how to set up the diamond?

[nully29]

Half back used to be excellent against one striker formations. DM is very good to mark AMC out of the game. 

[Cleon]

 

This is how I play. We build up with the defence and then either they bring the ball forward or pass to the DLP. The DLP recycles possession and is a way of linking the defence to midfield or to play the wing-backs in who are advancing down the wings. This is why he's on a defensive duty not because he leaves the DM area but more so he stays deep and can be the architect pulling all the strings. It means he usually has lots of space between him and the players in front of him. If I was playing a higher line or higher pressing then 100% he would be on a support duty so there wasn't a giant gap. A giant gap/staggered players in the midfield in an aggressive system can see gaps open up which you can't defend and make it easy for the opposition to play through. So in aggressive systems I want the midfield to act as a unit.

The midfield I want every single one of them to offer something different and attack/support different areas. This provides variety and means if the supply to the AP (or any player for that matter) is cut off my game plan doesn't fall flat. I still have other ways of attacking. The Mezzala is the aggressor and often gets in the box. He helps create central overloads, is a goal threat, runner from deep and can support attacks by carrying the ball and playing people in. The box to box midfielder is similar but less aggressive and because he's on a support duty starts way further back. So when we do attack him and the Mez move at different paces meaning we have a staggered attack. Add to this the AP who can retain possession, recycle it and be a creative nightmare in the final third because he has two deep runners from midfield. And has the strikers beyond him too depending on the phase of play.

I want the strikers to work hard. This means a role like Advanced forward doesn't really work because of how I play. Not because the AF is lazy or anything but look at the settings it comes with and you'll see that the PF is a lot more of a 'worker' role. Dropping off, pressing, hassling defenders, being aggressive. A bit like a Jack Russell dog snapping at your legs with out the ball or annoying you when they do have the ball. It disrupts the oppositions defence and makes it hard for them to predict movement. It makes it easier for the midfield to break through the defensive line and assist the strikers.

[Aoyao]

15 小时前, Cleon说:

 

This is how I play. We build up with the defence and then either they bring the ball forward or pass to the DLP. The DLP recycles possession and is a way of linking the defence to midfield or to play the wing-backs in who are advancing down the wings. This is why he's on a defensive duty not because he leaves the DM area but more so he stays deep and can be the architect pulling all the strings. It means he usually has lots of space between him and the players in front of him. If I was playing a higher line or higher pressing then 100% he would be on a support duty so there wasn't a giant gap. A giant gap/staggered players in the midfield in an aggressive system can see gaps open up which you can't defend and make it easy for the opposition to play through. So in aggressive systems I want the midfield to act as a unit.

The midfield I want every single one of them to offer something different and attack/support different areas. This provides variety and means if the supply to the AP (or any player for that matter) is cut off my game plan doesn't fall flat. I still have other ways of attacking. The Mezzala is the aggressor and often gets in the box. He helps create central overloads, is a goal threat, runner from deep and can support attacks by carrying the ball and playing people in. The box to box midfielder is similar but less aggressive and because he's on a support duty starts way further back. So when we do attack him and the Mez move at different paces meaning we have a staggered attack. Add to this the AP who can retain possession, recycle it and be a creative nightmare in the final third because he has two deep runners from midfield. And has the strikers beyond him too depending on the phase of play.

I want the strikers to work hard. This means a role like Advanced forward doesn't really work because of how I play. Not because the AF is lazy or anything but look at the settings it comes with and you'll see that the PF is a lot more of a 'worker' role. Dropping off, pressing, hassling defenders, being aggressive. A bit like a Jack Russell dog snapping at your legs with out the ball or annoying you when they do have the ball. It disrupts the oppositions defence and makes it hard for them to predict movement. It makes it easier for the midfield to break through the defensive line and assist the strikers.

hi，Why you don't ues "pass into space" for your flank?

thx for reply.

Edited November 15, 2021 by Aoyao

[nick1408]

I played a lot with a diamond in FM21; in fact, I even wrote a thread on it - 

Your analysis of the various roles is a good thing to do but you will also need to see how they all operate in a match. Also, think of the actual player that will play the role and how they will operate within it. While I take a different approach to @Cleon the theory is more or less the same - operate as a unit with consideration of the roles around each player.

 

 

 

 

[Cleon]

35 minutes ago, Aoyao said:

hi，Why you don't ues "pass into space" for your flank?

thx for reply.

My players will naturally pass there if the option is on. There is no point adding an instruction that forces the issue even more as that will then detract from how I've set up to play elsewhere. 

[llado01]

hace 17 horas, Cleon dijo:

 

This is how I play. We build up with the defence and then either they bring the ball forward or pass to the DLP. The DLP recycles possession and is a way of linking the defence to midfield or to play the wing-backs in who are advancing down the wings. This is why he's on a defensive duty not because he leaves the DM area but more so he stays deep and can be the architect pulling all the strings. It means he usually has lots of space between him and the players in front of him. If I was playing a higher line or higher pressing then 100% he would be on a support duty so there wasn't a giant gap. A giant gap/staggered players in the midfield in an aggressive system can see gaps open up which you can't defend and make it easy for the opposition to play through. So in aggressive systems I want the midfield to act as a unit.

The midfield I want every single one of them to offer something different and attack/support different areas. This provides variety and means if the supply to the AP (or any player for that matter) is cut off my game plan doesn't fall flat. I still have other ways of attacking. The Mezzala is the aggressor and often gets in the box. He helps create central overloads, is a goal threat, runner from deep and can support attacks by carrying the ball and playing people in. The box to box midfielder is similar but less aggressive and because he's on a support duty starts way further back. So when we do attack him and the Mez move at different paces meaning we have a staggered attack. Add to this the AP who can retain possession, recycle it and be a creative nightmare in the final third because he has two deep runners from midfield. And has the strikers beyond him too depending on the phase of play.

I want the strikers to work hard. This means a role like Advanced forward doesn't really work because of how I play. Not because the AF is lazy or anything but look at the settings it comes with and you'll see that the PF is a lot more of a 'worker' role. Dropping off, pressing, hassling defenders, being aggressive. A bit like a Jack Russell dog snapping at your legs with out the ball or annoying you when they do have the ball. It disrupts the oppositions defence and makes it hard for them to predict movement. It makes it easier for the midfield to break through the defensive line and assist the strikers.

hi @Cleon,

 

a quick quest

 

if the DLF drops to AM space, how do you get that the DLF and the AP do not occupy the same space (because both are in (S) dutty ?

 

thanks

[Cleon]

4 minutes ago, llado01 said:

hi @Cleon,

 

a quick quest

 

if the DLF drops to AM space, how do you get that the DLF and the AP do not occupy the same space (because both are in (S) dutty ?

 

thanks

Because they don’t. They’re both moving at different places and from different areas in different phases of play. What happens is they link up and work in tandem rather than occupy each other’s roles.

[chris31k]

@Cleon : First of all, wonderfull to see you back !!! Surprisingly i use the same 4-4-2 diamond formation as you. As i really don't like the behavior of the IW/IF in FM22 i decided to go for the narrow 4-4-2.

But i've made some changes and i really want your opinion about that.

I've changed the BBM for a Carilero : i found that the BBM is too agressive. I have 3 man up front in charge of the attacking phase, i don't want him to go in the box. Basically, a BBM has an attack duty in possesion and a defend one in defence. IMO it's too much, i'd rather have a supporting player in possession and i like the fact that he will cover the flank, as my WB will be high on the pitch.

I've changed the DLF-S and the PF to 2 AFs : i want the two strikers to be the 2 main options for the Trequarstista, calling for the ball behind the defence, buying some time for him to dribble in the center. I set the PI to stay wider for both of them so they split the defence and can be a nightmare to CD : should i press the Trequartista and let my marked AF go or should i stick to my AF and let the Trequartista do whatever he wants without pressing him ? And i like the fact that they will stay wider without the ball to make calls in the center behind the defence as i have play through the middle TI.

I've changed the Mezzala-A to a support role. With the attacking role, the mezzala have the PI to Take more risks, so i've seen him relentlessly trying to make trough balls over the tops to my AFs. First, it ended up in loose balls 90% of the time, and second it ignored my trequartista which needs to be a part of the attacking phase, otherwise he's useless.

I've changed the WB to support duty. With and attack duty they want to be decisive. Combining that mentality with the play trough the middle and two AF up front, i saw hundreds of through balls from them, played by the touchline, they are too agressive, they rush plays, and they don't have the skills to do so. So i changed their duty and give them the PI to take fewer risks

 

That's the 3 changes i've made, based on what ive seen in matches :

- BBM beeing too agressive in posession

- DLP-S : not in phase with what i want :  giving space, time and killer balls solutions to the trequartista

- Mezzala-A trying too much balls over the top

- WB-A beeing too agressive in their passing, always looking for a decisive through ball

 

I really want your opinion about these changes

Edited December 2, 2021 by chris31k

[Tecmo]

On 01/12/2021 at 13:16, chris31k said:

@Cleon : First of all, wonderfull to see you back !!! Surprisingly i use the same 4-4-2 diamond formation as you. As i really don't like the behavior of the IW/IF in FM22 i decided to go for the narrow 4-4-2.

But i've made some changes and i really want your opinion about that.

I've changed the BBM for a Carilero : i found that the BBM is too agressive. I have 3 man up front in charge of the attacking phase, i don't want him to go in the box. Basically, a BBM has an attack duty in possesion and a defend one in defence. IMO it's too much, i'd rather have a supporting player in possession and i like the fact that he will cover the flank, as my WB will be high on the pitch.

I've changed the DLF-S and the PF to 2 AFs : i want the two strikers to be the 2 main options for the Trequarstista, calling for the ball behind the defence, buying some time for him to dribble in the center. I set the PI to stay wider for both of them so they split the defence and can be a nightmare to CD : should i press the Trequartista and let my marked AF go or should i stick to my AF and let the Trequartista do whatever he wants without pressing him ? And i like the fact that they will stay wider without the ball to make calls in the center behind the defence as i have play through the middle TI.

I've changed the Mezzala-A to a support role. With the attacking role, the mezzala have the PI to Take more risks, so i've seen him relentlessly trying to make trough balls over the tops to my AFs. First, it ended up in loose balls 90% of the time, and second it ignored my trequartista which needs to be a part of the attacking phase, otherwise he's useless.

I've changed the WB to support duty. With and attack duty they want to be decisive. Combining that mentality with the play trough the middle and two AF up front, i saw hundreds of through balls from them, played by the touchline, they are too agressive, they rush plays, and they don't have the skills to do so. So i changed their duty and give them the PI to take fewer risks

 

That's the 3 changes i've made, based on what ive seen in matches :

- BBM beeing too agressive in posession

- DLP-S : not in phase with what i want :  giving space, time and killer balls solutions to the trequartista

- Mezzala-A trying too much balls over the top

- WB-A beeing too agressive in their passing, always looking for a decisive through ball

 

I really want your opinion about these changes

The front three is completely different as well.