Help with my tactic (4-2-3-1DM Wide)

[camoulton21]

Hi all, I need some help/advice on my tactic. I'm playing a long-term save based around youth development and would like to create a club signature style of play to develop players towards like Ajax or Barcelona

My idea behind the tactic:

• Attacking FBs to provide width and overload the opposition
• A "number 6" and a "number 8" in midfield to aid ball progression
• 3 creative players who combine and interchange positions
• A ST who leads the line, works the channels but also links with the 3 creative players in behind

Basically, the bottom 6 play out/build-up and the front 4 create and score

Based on how I'd like to play what do you think about my tactic

My main issues are:

1. Which ST role to choose. I essentially want a Complete Forward but without the roaming and creative responsibility
2. Getting the 3 creative players to combine. They tend to play as individuals (dribbling and shooting) rather than as a unit
3. The correct roles/duties for the midfield double pivot. Should I keep them in the DM strata or move them into the CM strata?

[Draakon]

What's your idea about build-up? There's a huge gap between defensive block and attacking block of players. All of your creative three have "get further forward" instruction locked to their roles as soon as your team wins possession, so how do you plan to get the ball to them? Does somebody brings the ball up from defence (DMs, WB-s?) - I can't see their PI-s. Or you just blast it forward and hope for the best? In theory you need somebody in central midfield role to link up play or at least an AMC who has instruction (or player trait) to drop deeper to collect ball (for example, APs).

 

So, my answers:

1. What I like about 4-2-3-1 is that several roles work and I'd choose according to your players who are available for the role. You might take into account the opponents as well (especially their defensive line and how much space they leave behind). I have had success with CFa and AFa in this formation. I've seen formations with PFa or DLFa. My main recommendation would be to keep your striker with 'attacking' role. Wanting a CF without roaming and creative responsibility sound like plain nonsense - you virtually say that you want a complete forward who is not a complete forward.

2. That's because all those three roles have 'dribble more' locked in. I wouldn't use trequartista in this formation. Use AMCa, AMCs, APs instead. Also, I would put one of the wide players in 'attacking' role.

3. Keep them into the CM strata - so they cover more space and link up play. Tweak roles - you might use one as BWMd if you're afraid to get under pressure and/or you play against stronger/equal teams. 

 

[Johnny Ace]

31 minutes ago, camoulton21 said:

Which ST role to choose. I essentially want a Complete Forward but without the roaming and creative responsibility

So an AF(A) then?

 

31 minutes ago, camoulton21 said:

Getting the 3 creative players to combine. They tend to play as individuals (dribbling and shooting) rather than as a unit

Not sure what you mean, as in interchanging? Try the Swap Position PI or Be More Expressive, but that'll be the best you get . Try an IW(S) if you want less aggression from them 

 

33 minutes ago, camoulton21 said:

The correct roles/duties for the midfield double pivot. Should I keep them in the DM strata or move them into the CM strata?

It's fine with your Wing Back's, I can't help but feel the LB could be on an Attacking Duty though, he has the DM(D) anchoring and it'll help add a bit of variance to your attacks

[Wavelberry]

I would want a midfield runner as well so would be tempted to stick one of those DMs as a SV(s)

[camoulton21]

On 29/04/2022 at 13:26, Draakon said:

What's your idea about build-up? There's a huge gap between defensive block and attacking block of players. All of your creative three have "get further forward" instruction locked to their roles as soon as your team wins possession, so how do you plan to get the ball to them? Does somebody brings the ball up from defence (DMs, WB-s?) - I can't see their PI-s. Or you just blast it forward and hope for the best? In theory you need somebody in central midfield role to link up play or at least an AMC who has instruction (or player trait) to drop deeper to collect ball (for example, APs).

 

The build-up would be the responsibility of the defensive block of players. The Treq doesn't have "get further forward" instruction so the idea was that in central areas I would have a "number 6", "number 8" and "number 10" so that the ball can be passed through midfield (GK to CB to DM-D to DM-S to Treq). In the wide areas the WBs could dribble or pass forwards to the IFs

 

On 29/04/2022 at 13:26, Draakon said:

1. What I like about 4-2-3-1 is that several roles work and I'd choose according to your players who are available for the role. You might take into account the opponents as well (especially their defensive line and how much space they leave behind). I have had success with CFa and AFa in this formation. I've seen formations with PFa or DLFa. My main recommendation would be to keep your striker with 'attacking' role. Wanting a CF without roaming and creative responsibility sound like plain nonsense - you virtually say that you want a complete forward who is not a complete forward.

 

I'm not sure you understand what I mean. I don't want a Complete Forward because of the roaming and creative instructions, I think have enough of that with the 3 AMs. What I want is a ST that leads the line, works the channels and holds up the ball, similar to a Complete Forward but not the same

 

On 29/04/2022 at 13:26, Draakon said:

2. That's because all those three roles have 'dribble more' locked in. I wouldn't use trequartista in this formation. Use AMCa, AMCs, APs instead. Also, I would put one of the wide players in 'attacking' role.

 

On 29/04/2022 at 13:26, Draakon said:

3. Keep them into the CM strata - so they cover more space and link up play. Tweak roles - you might use one as BWMd if you're afraid to get under pressure and/or you play against stronger/equal teams. 

 

I'll try this out, thank you

[camoulton21]

On 29/04/2022 at 13:34, Johnny Ace said:

Not sure what you mean, as in interchanging? Try the Swap Position PI or Be More Expressive, but that'll be the best you get . Try an IW(S) if you want less aggression from them 

 

I meant giving the players freedom of movement so that they could rotate positions. For instance, I chose the Treq role because in the Pairs and Combinations guide it says that the role sometimes moves wide which would create space for the IFs to dribble into

 

On 29/04/2022 at 13:34, Johnny Ace said:

So an AF(A) then?

 

On 29/04/2022 at 13:34, Johnny Ace said:

It's fine with your Wing Back's, I can't help but feel the LB could be on an Attacking Duty though, he has the DM(D) anchoring and it'll help add a bit of variance to your attacks

I'll give this a go. I wasn't sure if the AF(A) linked play enough or if a WB(A) would be too aggressive but I will try it out

21 hours ago, Wavelberry said:

I would want a midfield runner as well so would be tempted to stick one of those DMs as a SV(s)

I did try a SV(S). Does the role work well with WBs or do you think I need to choose a more conservative role

[Johnny Ace]

20 minutes ago, camoulton21 said:

I'll give this a go. I wasn't sure if the AF(A) linked play enough or if a WB(A) would be too aggressive but I will try it out

AF's aren't so gung-ho as previous editions plus he has plenty of support around him 

21 minutes ago, camoulton21 said:

I did try a SV(S). Does the role work well with WBs or do you think I need to choose a more conservative role

I think personally, you're fine as you are, you have two deep wide runners so your midfield pairing is perfect for that, feel free to try it out though 

[bintang]

Try the DLF on attack duty. Leads the line really well in FM 22

[thehig2]

One of those defensive midfielders needs to be given a role thats more positive.

 

Maybe Ball Winning Midifelder on support, this will cause the player to me push up a look little bit

[Overmars]

Consider adding some asymmetry to the setup. For example, on one side you could have a W, REG, and IWB, while on the other side you could have an IF, AM, and attacking WB. If you want to make your AMC the key playmaker then you could use a SV and AM as your DMs.

I definitely like using the DM strata over the CM strata for this formation -- especially in FM22, where balls over the top frequently catch out defenders and DMs help prevent them.

[mikcheck]

2 horas atrás, Overmars disse:

Consider adding some asymmetry to the setup. For example, on one side you could have a W, REG, and IWB, while on the other side you could have an IF, AM, and attacking WB. If you want to make your AMC the key playmaker then you could use a SV and AM as your DMs.

I definitely like using the DM strata over the CM strata for this formation -- especially in FM22, where balls over the top frequently catch out defenders and DMs help prevent them.

I don't know if it still the same with FM22, but in FM21 the IWB do not operate as such when using a double DM formation. In that scenario he acts more like a WB. 

Btw what do you mean by AM in the DM strata? Anchorman? 

Edited May 4, 2022 by mikcheck

[camoulton21]

Thank you for the advice everyone! I've made a couple of changes, I will explain my thought processes below. I'm playing on FM20

•  I stuck with WB(S) - I could have added a WB(A) on the DLP(D) side but I've found the role to be too aggressive. I still want an overlapping partnership down the wings and I think that a WB(S) still achieves this
• I changed the DM(D) to a DLP(D) - I've found that a DLP is more effective at creating a triangle with the CBs which makes playing out of defence easier
• I've changed the movement patterns in the front 4 - My idea is for the AMC to make forward runs opening up space for the IW(S) to dribble inside into.  I chose a DLF(A) upfront to act as a type of "technical target man" which would create space by giving the team attacking depth as well as a focal point for the 3 AMs to combine with and make supporting runs of
• I'm not really sure about team instructions for this tactic. I know that I want to build possession through the team so I've clicked POOD. I'd like combination plays, passing and movement in attack so I might add WBIB. How do people setup their out of possession instructions in a 4-2-3-1DM formation? Is pressing high too difficult considering having 2 DMs

 

Is this a reasonable FM tactic? I know that people typically recommend using more asymmetrical player roles but I have an idea of what I'd like each player to do and tried to stick with that when I chose the player roles

 

 

[Draakon]

It is a reasonable formation. Personally I'd switch one winger to IFa, at least combined with a positive mentality or in games where you're the favourite or looking for a goal. At first it gives you extra attacking role. Secondly (you might watch how it works with your tactics) IWs tend to cross the ball more than IF. Crossing, on the other hand, works well if you have players at the other end of he cross. IFa could give you an extra player in the box when the cross comes in, but also pay attention who is your striker and AMC (do they have enough aerial ability) and what type of crosses you ask to deliver.

If you continue with two IWs they might cross too often and if you don't have enough players in the box, then these crosses could go to waste. 

[Johnny Ace]

31 minutes ago, camoulton21 said:

Is this a reasonable FM tactic?

That looks fine, only thing is whether that AM(A) is linking the play in the centre, I guess the idea is to get him to overlap the DLF when he drops deep. If your AM's really good at taking advantage of then then great but it's easier to get a wide attacker to make use of that space as the centre is generally heavily defended 

As for the instructions, starting it out with as few as possible will give you a clearer idea of how the tactic plays out from the start from rather than adding a bunch then having to remove them so don;t worry about that   

[camoulton21]

2 hours ago, Draakon said:

If you continue with two IWs they might cross too often and if you don't have enough players in the box, then these crosses could go to waste. 

That's a fair point. There isn't really a pure goalscoring role in the team to attack the box with which could lead to a blunt attack. What I'm hoping for is that between the front 4 they work together to provide enough of a goal threat/penetration but an extra attack duty is definitely a good suggestion

 

1 hour ago, Johnny Ace said:

That looks fine, only thing is whether that AM(A) is linking the play in the centre, I guess the idea is to get him to overlap the DLF when he drops deep. If your AM's really good at taking advantage of then then great but it's easier to get a wide attacker to make use of that space as the centre is generally heavily defended 

 

I wanted the DM(S) to be the player focussing on linking the play in the centre, I'm thinking of a technical player like a Frenkie De Jong. Then I would have an asymmetric midfield with a  "number 6" DLP(D), a "number 8" DM(S) and a "number 10" AM(A)

In the games I've played so far my team have looked a bit congested centrally. The WBs overlapping runs do give a bit of a solution out wide though to get around a narrow defensive block.

I've got "move into channels" on my ST so that they still have some sideways movement to open up the centre for someone else to run into

[Dutchy1983]

How's the DM S working? I'd think with the DLP D next to him he should be a SV to be honest. WBs will not attack too frequently so get him a more positive role. 

[Johnny Ace]

Yeah, I agree, a SV(S) in that case then 

[Wavelberry]

On 18/05/2022 at 14:17, Johnny Ace said:

Yeah, I agree, a SV(S) in that case then 

 

On 29/04/2022 at 16:27, Wavelberry said:

I would want a midfield runner as well so would be tempted to stick one of those DMs as a SV(s)