can someone be succesfull with a simple 4-4-2...

..or do you have to tweak, tweak, tweak...

I like 4-4-2, and I have basically 2 versions of it, one attacking, one defending, to keep it simple, you know. I don't want to spend hours tweaking my tactics for god's sake. I'd rather stick to 2 or 3 tactics, and choose one of them at the start of each match, depending on the opponents strength, and maybe switch from one to another depending on the score.

Here is the problem. I'm managing Leeds, and in my 3rd season now most of my players, by looking at their attributes, you can say they are the best in League 1. They look so good hat if they would be managed by AI, they would destroy this division. However I am currently a mid-table team.

The surprising thing is, that my reserve team and U18 teams are playing with the same tactic, simple 4-4-2, but managed by my ass.man., that means they are managed by AI. Both teams are just killing any opponent they face. My U18 team scores 3.6 goals/game on the average. And my reserve team is also leading their league easily. Moreover, whoever I send from my first team to the reserve team, that player plays spectacular in the reserve team. I take him back, and he can't play.

Can anybody tell me what is happening here? Why is simple 4-4-2 a good tactic when applied by AI, and not when I apply it myself?

Even premiership teams are trying to transfer 4-5 of my players, which is a sign that they are really good, and I'm not biased.

What am I doing wrong here?

..or do you have to tweak, tweak, tweak...

I like 4-4-2, and I have basically 2 versions of it, one attacking, one defending, to keep it simple, you know. I don't want to spend hours tweaking my tactics for god's sake. I'd rather stick to 2 or 3 tactics, and choose one of them at the start of each match, depending on the opponents strength, and maybe switch from one to another depending on the score.

Here is the problem. I'm managing Leeds, and in my 3rd season now most of my players, by looking at their attributes, you can say they are the best in League 1. They look so good hat if they would be managed by AI, they would destroy this division. However I am currently a mid-table team.

The surprising thing is, that my reserve team and U18 teams are playing with the same tactic, simple 4-4-2, but managed by my ass.man., that means they are managed by AI. Both teams are just killing any opponent they face. My U18 team scores 3.6 goals/game on the average. And my reserve team is also leading their league easily. Moreover, whoever I send from my first team to the reserve team, that player plays spectacular in the reserve team. I take him back, and he can't play.

Can anybody tell me what is happening here? Why is simple 4-4-2 a good tactic when applied by AI, and not when I apply it myself?

Even premiership teams are trying to transfer 4-5 of my players, which is a sign that they are really good, and I'm not biased.

What am I doing wrong here?

4-5-1 is the way forward, get a bad boy target man and quick winger/forwards.

4-4-2 is old hat...

it can be done, but it has become super frustrating like most of this damn game.

I'm actually going to disagree, and say that 4-4-2 cannot be done.

In the old CM games, I tried to copy 4-4-2 exactly as how they're running it, to no avail. Now in FM, I can't even get my default tactic to work.

Well I use 4-1-3-2 and I've just finished 4th in my second season with Newcastle. I reach the semis of the UEFA cup as well. I have a strong holding midfielder and one of my forwards is my target man, 19 yr old Andy Carroll and he is a monster. The next Alan Shearer. He's got about 20 assists for Owen which are all knock down headers.

I use 4-2-3-1 but when i'm playing lesser oppostion I go for a very attacking and tweaked 4-4-2.

Unfotunately it is my belief that we have to play to beat the AI and to the best of our players ability and trying to play like we would if we were RL managers rarely works. Even with the big teams.

I feel you have to have a very specific idea as to how you want your 4-4-2 to play.

I have great success in the lower divisions by having a Sheringham-esque player drop deep. Or having a big lumbering target man. You do need to completely adapt to those different kinds of mentality at 4-4-2 because 4-4-2 isn't flexible now

The 4-4-2 Fiora Tactic is a very good tactic if you want to stick with 4-4-2.

if the oppostion is playing 442 aswell you will have a good game, if they are laying any other they wil rip you apart, i think 451 is the way a lot of teasm are starting to play now.

I came 4th with Everton with a pretty basic 4-4-2 with very little tweaking. Main reason was I felt it suited my squad best rather than one upfront.

Previous versions of CM I used to play I never had two up, always 4-3-3 on the original amiga games (which guaranteed victory) or 4-3-2-1 on the latter CM games which always worked for me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DiscoStu94:

The 4-4-2 Fiora Tactic is a very good tactic if you want to stick with 4-4-2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "formation" settings are good, but you will need to adapt the team and player instructions to suit your players.

The use of arrows in the Fiora2 based tactics is the key to covering multiple areas of the pitch. Subtle use of specific man marking helps counter threatening AI formations, whilst offensively you can exploit space well.

I've not got it to work well for me - I now play 3-2-4-1

I currently use a 4-2-3-1 at the minute.

I've just been hired by Liverpool after winning the championship with 'Boro.

I don't want to use 4-2-3-1, i want to use 4-4-2, I love 4-4-2, it's my language, I've managed a couple of youth teams IRL and ALWAYS used 4-4-2, I used 4-4-2 on any game on any format with success, this is thefirst time I've ever strayed from 4-4-2, I don't understand any other formation but 4-4-2 just doesn't seem to work on FM, mores the pity.

I stick with 4-4-2, with my two wide midfielders in an attacking position and it never fails me. Occasionally, when I want more of an attackting play, I will put one of my center midfielders in more of an attackting role aswell.

This incarnation is actually the first that I HAVE used 4-4-2 on.

All the others, I've used 3-1-4-2 (2005), 4-1-2-1-2 (2006) and 4-2-3-1 (2007)

Read the thread by Rashidi1 on the Tactics and Training forum about setting up a 442. I followed the guidelines from there and now that formation is working fine for me.

mine is a bog standard 442. not over successful but doing bad either.

Fairly standard 4-4-2 here and I'm dominating the league.

I've always done very well with a 4-4-2. Moved into a 4-3-3 / 4-5-1 type formation recently, but that's more because i wanted to try a different style of football rather than a critisism of 4-4-2.

Mines a completely standard 442 and I'm unbeaten in 107 matches.

Who are you managing ?

Depends what you mean by success. Down in the depths of Serie C2 I played 4-4-2 for a while with reasonable success (playoff victory). However I've sinced moved to a 4-5-1 but the dream is to get a nice 5-3-2 formation sorted!

i use a bog standard 442 and tweak slightly.

Im using the attacking version of the 4-4-2 formation. It won me the treble in the first season with arsenal.

http://www.fm-britain.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=7309

^^ Won everything with a tweaked version of that flat 442

I play a pretty successful 4-1-2-1-2, but I play a 4-4-2 every once in a while to change things up.

I’m a stickler for the 4-4-2 but having so bad a run of results I’m going to revert to 4-2-3-1. I play formations that are real world when you really have to edge it against the Ai even if in real world it would never work.

For example my fairly standard 4-4-2 with a lot of work regarding bringing in class players and even re-building after losing class in my case to Barca just is never good enough. It’s set up fine but the usual impassable keeper and my realistic tactic are holding me back.

One of the lads plays this in our Clan game, Don’t know if its his or downloaded we don’t really bother about that aspect if that’s what you want to do But his Squad is poor but amazing results after this was adopted. Granted I’d rather play with my realistic formations but I feel if I went down this route of playing a not really a football but what beats the Ai tactic I’d probably run away with the title…….

http://static.digitalvault.bt.com/static/sav112/large/4...6/qdcnlz-large-0.JPG

How on earth does this work?

What I'd really like to know though, which is what the OP touched upon, is:- WHAT DOES THE AI DO TO GET THESE FORMATIONS TO WORK SO WELL? What team and player instructions do AI managers use? Until someone can properly answer this question then I'll still have my sneaking suspicion that it just cheats...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sad Git:

What I'd really like to know though, which is what the OP touched upon, is:- WHAT DOES THE AI DO TO GET THESE FORMATIONS TO WORK SO WELL? What team and player instructions do AI managers use? Until someone can properly answer this question then I'll still have my sneaking suspicion that it just cheats... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exacly. I'd love to see what specific player instructions the AI managers use. We both play with same formation, but somehow my MC's never help their defense, theirs do. Somehow my premiership class DC's (I'm in League 1 with Leeds, and I know they are premership class because 10 premiership teams are after them now) always fail to control the opponents 2 strikers (strikers with crappy attributes, compared to my DC's). They are running circles around them.

When my DC's try tighter marking and tackle the opponents forwards, they get beaten, and I concede a goal. If they defend deep, and just try to contain, the opponent strikers just shoot a piledriver from the outside of box, it goes in. No way to stop them, unless I play with 1 or 2 anchormen.

You see, this is what is bothering me about the engine. The players are almost like the players in foosball. If you don't use DMC's, your MC's just watch your DC's struggle, and never go back to help them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bleventozturk:

You see, this is what is bothering me about the engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah it’s the fact that my world class team in Valencia beat Liverpool in the CL, great match with nothing to cringe about! But then in the next league game against the worst team in the division all twenty five shot on goal with I think it was fifteen on target fail to score!

It not the fact I got a draw it’s the fact that my forwards had six point blank shots saved in about two minutes of play all hitting the GK….I knew nothing was ever going in…..Its not like the rule this can happen, its happening at alarming rates and don’t get me on its your tactic that is the answer to all it seems.

Most frustrating Match engine ever, its cold no feel to it, no consistency its like a mad dice roll every game with win loose or draw on it….you used to loose for a reason!

The problem with 4-4-2 is that it only uses "3" out of the "6" playing zones.

.............GK............

DR......DC.......DC......DL (1)

...........................

MR.....ML........MC......ML (2)

...........................

......ST.........ST........ (3)

The more successful tactics seem to utilize at least 5 of the six zones. This is one reason why I feel the 4-4-2 is at an immediate disadvantage.

That's right I think, Alurny. Probably it's the same reason why we see less and less bog standard 4-4-2s in top level football.

On the other hand, playing in lower leagues 4-4-2 has an advantage: it's so simple even the dumbest players can learn it

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by emgergo:

That's right I think, Alurny. Probably it's the same reason why we see less and less bog standard 4-4-2s in top level football.

On the other hand, playing in lower leagues 4-4-2 has an advantage: it's so simple even the dumbest players can learn it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, that is why you will see 4-4-2 further down the pyramid as a more common formation due to its ease of use.

If we think about tactics in real life, and who plays what, then you will notice 3 out of the top 4 clubs mostly play formations which are not 4-4-2.

The current trends are based on 2 "teams" of 5. Usually a flat back four, who rarely venture forward, and a defensive midfielder (who breaks up/links play) are part of team "1".

The attacking team varies from club to club. Chelsea play two "box to box" midfielders, two very wide players, and one powerful striker. Arsenal adopt a more narrow set of 5, usually with the wide players more withdrawn and a man "in the hole".

Across Europe, AC Milan have played in sever ways, with two players in the hole and one striker, or two strikers with one in the hole.

Modern football is based on more versatile players and roles, which in 4-4-2, can limit creativity and effect.

If you want to have a look at the Fundamental Football Manager - Making that basic 442 thread in the Ta & T forum, you will see that it can be done, though it does need a good deal of patience to get it right.

Also, I was reading recently, that managers and tactical theorists are looking at trying a 4-6-0 formation. Not exactly sure how it would work, but that is the future

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Alurny:

The problem with 4-4-2 is that it only uses "3" out of the "6" playing zones.

.............GK............

DR......DC.......DC......DL (1)

...........................

MR.....ML........MC......ML (2)

...........................

......ST.........ST........ (3)

The more successful tactics seem to utilize at least 5 of the six zones. This is one reason why I feel the 4-4-2 is at an immediate disadvantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are rught Alurny, but it still shouldn't be like foosball. In this match engine, your MC completely ignores an opponent player once he is passed him. Just stays in his default position, and watch when his two DC teammates try to handle the situation. It's like there is a rule which says he can't go further back than a designated position. You know, he is there, and the opponent attacking midfielder is passed him, but only by 3-4 meters, so he is still closer to that player compared to the DC's, but he refuses to cahse him back.

This is ridiculous.

Well, thanks everybody, for your contribution to the thread, but I just gave up on 4-4-2, after playing against my reserve team and got my ass kicked.

This really shows me that the match engine treats AI teams and human controlled teams differently. Both my teams and my reserve team (controlled by ass.man.) played with same tactic, but somehow my reserve midfielders all of a sudden became great in covering both defense and offense, whereas my M C's just can't do any of it properly. They look like they are stuck like foosball players, and my reserve M C's are running around the whole game, up and down, up and down, killing me.

Now I switched to 4-1-3-2, and things improved immediately. I start with 4-1-3-2, and if I am up towards the end of the game, I switch to a more defensive 4-1-3-2, or replace one striker with another midfielder, and go to 4-1-4-1.

But now nobody can convince me any more that the game engine behaves same to AI and to humans. It just doesn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bleventozturk:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Alurny:

The problem with 4-4-2 is that it only uses "3" out of the "6" playing zones.

.............GK............

DR......DC.......DC......DL (1)

...........................

MR.....ML........MC......ML (2)

...........................

......ST.........ST........ (3)

The more successful tactics seem to utilize at least 5 of the six zones. This is one reason why I feel the 4-4-2 is at an immediate disadvantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are rught Alurny, but it still shouldn't be like foosball. In this match engine, your MC completely ignores an opponent player once he is passed him. Just stays in his default position, and watch when his two DC teammates try to handle the situation. It's like there is a rule which says he can't go further back than a designated position. You know, he is there, and the opponent attacking midfielder is passed him, but only by 3-4 meters, so he is still closer to that player compared to the DC's, but he refuses to cahse him back.

This is ridiculous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree it shouldn't be like this, trust me, I hate it, as 4-4-2 is the only tactic I like to play. It does seem that using only three zones makes the players more "rigid" or "static".

It really is a shame as 4-4-2 is a fundamental of football, and you know something is wrong when a 3-5-2 is working better than it

In the current match engine I cant see a way round it, the game seems to favor compact midfielders, and tactics which use several "zones".

My current set up is like this:

............Gk.............

........................... (empty zone)

DR......DC.......DC......DL (2)

............DM............. (3)

.......MC........MC........ (4)

...........AMC............. (5)

......FC...........FC...... (6)

Playing around with mentalities, I have really struggled to make a 4-4-2 work, the players seem "further" away, there are less options to pass to, and players get easily caught in possession. I think the 4-4-2 is possible, but it would take a lot of patience and testing to make it work.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Alurny:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bleventozturk:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Alurny:

The problem with 4-4-2 is that it only uses "3" out of the "6" playing zones.

.............GK............

DR......DC.......DC......DL (1)

...........................

MR.....ML........MC......ML (2)

...........................

......ST.........ST........ (3)

The more successful tactics seem to utilize at least 5 of the six zones. This is one reason why I feel the 4-4-2 is at an immediate disadvantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are rught Alurny, but it still shouldn't be like foosball. In this match engine, your MC completely ignores an opponent player once he is passed him. Just stays in his default position, and watch when his two DC teammates try to handle the situation. It's like there is a rule which says he can't go further back than a designated position. You know, he is there, and the opponent attacking midfielder is passed him, but only by 3-4 meters, so he is still closer to that player compared to the DC's, but he refuses to cahse him back.

This is ridiculous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree it shouldn't be like this, trust me, I hate it, as 4-4-2 is the only tactic I like to play. It does seem that using only three zones makes the players more "rigid" or "static".

It really is a shame as 4-4-2 is a fundamental of football, and you know something is wrong when a 3-5-2 is working better than it

In the current match engine I cant see a way round it, the game seems to favor compact midfielders, and tactics which use several "zones".

My current set up is like this:

............Gk.............

........................... (empty zone)

DR......DC.......DC......DL (2)

............DM............. (3)

.......MC........MC........ (4)

...........AMC............. (5)

......FC...........FC...... (6)

Playing around with mentalities, I have really struggled to make a 4-4-2 work, the players seem "further" away, there are less options to pass to, and players get easily caught in possession. I think the 4-4-2 is possible, but it would take a lot of patience and testing to make it work.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spot on observations, buddy. SI really has to work on the game engine so that it won't favor the use of more zones.

Depending on the league and the situation, I work with three different formations that have brought mostly success as I've played this game.

4-3-1-2

This is my bread and butter. I always make sure I have a free role attacking midfielder who can click with the rest of the team. He is basically a second striker and it usually the first to pounce on a loose ball in the box.

5-3-1-1

This is my drop back, grind out, counter-attacking tactic. This clogs up the wings and forces teams to shoot from outside the box. This also lets me long ball it. It has gotten me some amazing wins against upper division teams in cup competition.

3-4-2-1

My experimental tactic but it is something that comes in handy when I want to put pressure on the opposing defenders. I was able to use this with Notts County and a quality striker who was able to always draw fouls and penalties. Basically, having the point man just dally on the ball and filling up the opposing penalty box. Lower league only unless you got quality defending.

I just looked at every team in England (in the game I mean), and 9 out of 10 teams play with a basic 4-4-2, the one I was trying to play. So, it works for them. I see it when it works for them when I play against them, because like I said before, their midfielders are oll over the place. Mine behave like foosball players. Give them (+/-)15-20m from the middle of the pitch, and they never leave that "designated" area.

SI, why does game engine treats human controlled teams differently then the computer controlled teams?

You guys know what: Even in my most favorite CM game so far (it was CM2001/02 I guess, it is the one of the latest versions before they switched to 2D engine), 4-4-2 never worked. I remember playing with my friends from highschool online, and we'd all start with regular 4-4-2, and we all had to switch to a new tactic where we had to use an anchorman, or a AM C.

SI should definitely concentrate also on this area in the next game. It is really annoying.

I have succeeded for about half a season with a standard 4-4-2 just by tweaking attacking and defensive options with Rotherham however I feel that arrows are the way to go, they are hugely effective.

I have 2 tactics. 1 for playing at home and 1 for playing away.

Home: 4-4-2

Away: 4-2-3-1 (lone striker)

Both work well but still yet to win the league with Liverpool!

I always start with a 4-4-2 diamond. You have either someone who tracks back and makes it a 5-3-2 when not in possession or someone who aqcts as a first line of defence (depending on the player), and you have someone to advance attack in the hole.

This also means usually you have two players playing in relatively open space if the opposition have a flat 4 in the midfield.

Also it makes it easier to change tactics when you see a problem - 4-1-2-2-1 if you need a midfielder and a more central striker for example.

i have used 4-4-2 since 2007. i never change it but i do use players that have high fitness. this is because i use a attacking mentality with counter attacking clicked. with deep defenders. even if i am man u player against west brom. i have only tried it with the big clubs. i.e chelsea, man u, arsenal. but it works and i havnt lost in 52 games