451 Set Up

[toon army 06]

I'm just wondering how this looks on paper? Any roles you'd change?

Edited December 29, 2022 by toon army 06

[saware]

On paper it wouldn’t work for me, but the proof is in the pudding.

If I was setting up something similar I’d be looking to change the striker’s role to a supportive one, or at least a DLF-A or CF-A. That way the IF-A & MEZ-S will be closer to support or run past, giving more options further up field.

Speaking of the MEZ-S, the CM-A is quite a high risk partner, especially if you want an adventurous LB. I’d maybe change him to a CM-S to give a bit more cover, & in doing that the LB could change to a Left FB-A.

On the other side of the pitch I’d again want a bit more solidity, therefore I’d change the Right FB-A to a Right WB-D.

Depending on what style of play you’d like I’d also look at the instructions. I tend to play with More Urgent Pressing, & my defensive line one notch higher than the line of engagement. I also select prevent GK distribution, but don’t tend to bother with counter-press or counter as those situations tend to occur naturally for me but it’s maybe worth trying it out & seeing what works best.

In possession I tend to favour a short passing game, with a low tempo as the players work the ball into the box. However, as my time with the game is limited these days, I mainly play as big teams with top players so you might find that doesn’t work so well if you’re in the lower leagues.

[vrig]

Nothing looks "wrong." There's some risky role choices, but you might find that the benefits outweigh those risks.

[toon army 06]

4 hours ago, saware said:

On paper it wouldn’t work for me, but the proof is in the pudding.

If I was setting up something similar I’d be looking to change the striker’s role to a supportive one, or at least a DLF-A or CF-A. That way the IF-A & MEZ-S will be closer to support or run past, giving more options further up field.

Speaking of the MEZ-S, the CM-A is quite a high risk partner, especially if you want an adventurous LB. I’d maybe change him to a CM-S to give a bit more cover, & in doing that the LB could change to a Left FB-A.

On the other side of the pitch I’d again want a bit more solidity, therefore I’d change the Right FB-A to a Right WB-D.

Depending on what style of play you’d like I’d also look at the instructions. I tend to play with More Urgent Pressing, & my defensive line one notch higher than the line of engagement. I also select prevent GK distribution, but don’t tend to bother with counter-press or counter as those situations tend to occur naturally for me but it’s maybe worth trying it out & seeing what works best.

In possession I tend to favour a short passing game, with a low tempo as the players work the ball into the box. However, as my time with the game is limited these days, I mainly play as big teams with top players so you might find that doesn’t work so well if you’re in the lower leagues.

I'll try that thanks, would a WB(s) on the right be ok to?

[saware]

1 hour ago, toon army 06 said:

I'll try that thanks, would a WB(s) on the right be ok to?

I’d try it & see. You may find yourself too open as the MEZ-S won’t offer much cover on the right flank, but if your players are good enough & you’re expected to see a lot of the ball then it may not be an issue. If you’re the favourite & facing packed defences it may help to overload the opposition & move them around as they try to track your runners, creating space for your attacking players to get into dangerous areas.

[toon army 06]

On 30/12/2022 at 14:12, saware said:

I’d try it & see. You may find yourself too open as the MEZ-S won’t offer much cover on the right flank, but if your players are good enough & you’re expected to see a lot of the ball then it may not be an issue. If you’re the favourite & facing packed defences it may help to overload the opposition & move them around as they try to track your runners, creating space for your attacking players to get into dangerous areas.

Working not bad so far, how about this as a 2 striker tactic or would I be better with a back 5?

[toon army 06]

On 30/12/2022 at 14:12, saware said:

I’d try it & see. You may find yourself too open as the MEZ-S won’t offer much cover on the right flank, but if your players are good enough & you’re expected to see a lot of the ball then it may not be an issue. If you’re the favourite & facing packed defences it may help to overload the opposition & move them around as they try to track your runners, creating space for your attacking players to get into dangerous areas.

What about this?

[saware]

22 hours ago, toon army 06 said:

What about this?

I don’t have much experience with narrow formations or 5 at the back… I almost exclusively play with wide forwards. Of the 2 formations you’ve posted I would prefer the 532/353. Personally I like to mix up the WB positions, so I’d try the Left WB as a CWB-S. Also, with 3 CBs I’m not sure you need a DM as a DM, I’d maybe try him as a DLP-D, & then change the AP-S to a BWM-S to give a bit more bite to midfield & cover the Right WB.

As far as instructions go, as I think I mentioned before, I prefer to push the line of engagement up as well as the defensive line. I’d also make pressing more urgent but that’s due to the style of play I like to create.

[toon army 06]

21 hours ago, saware said:

I don’t have much experience with narrow formations or 5 at the back… I almost exclusively play with wide forwards. Of the 2 formations you’ve posted I would prefer the 532/353. Personally I like to mix up the WB positions, so I’d try the Left WB as a CWB-S. Also, with 3 CBs I’m not sure you need a DM as a DM, I’d maybe try him as a DLP-D, & then change the AP-S to a BWM-S to give a bit more bite to midfield & cover the Right WB.

As far as instructions go, as I think I mentioned before, I prefer to push the line of engagement up as well as the defensive line. I’d also make pressing more urgent but that’s due to the style of play I like to create.

How about a BBM instead of a BWM but with tackle harder?

[saware]

58 minutes ago, toon army 06 said:

How about a BBM instead of a BWM but with tackle harder?

Again, I’d try it, especially if you have players more suited to that role. It may help get more support towards the forwards, just be careful it doesn’t expose the right wing. A carrilero may work too, although I have little experience in using one.

[Andros]

going back to your original tactic - I agree with saware on the striker - maybe a DLF Att is better. I also worry about the left as the WB and the Wing might be in the same space.  Maybe change the WB Sup to a FB sup.