Questionable formations, massive success

Playing multiplay one of our opponents has "thought up" this inventive "football formation":

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

RB.........CB........CB.........LB

............DMC....DMC...........

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

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

AMR...........AMC...........AML

..................ST.................

After typing "fm 11 best tactic 11.3" into google and seeing a few variations of this (JP Woody high scoring tactic, Mourinho 4231 etc) pop up, I decided to test it to see if I consider it closer to a bug/exploit rather than a genuine football formation.

In 2 glorious years as Italian manager I made:

ZERO tactical changes, not a single substitution, not a single team-talk (half/full/pre game), not one minute of "match preparation", I used "pick team" in every game and my brilliant assistants often incuded Del Piero, Iaquinta and giovinco in the 11. Also I never looked at what type of player suited each role

Apart from winning the Euro literally by pressing continue, we also beat argentina, and germany away in friendlies. Giovinco was player of the tournament in 2012 (followed by ranocchia and cassano), we had 7/11 italians in the team of the tournament.

I also note in searching for FM 11's "best formations" on google, this one by zeroseafantasy comes up with over 50,000 downloads from one site:

.....................St..........................

AML.......................................AMR

ML.............MC.......MC..............MR

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

.............DC.....DC......DC...............

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

The point I want to make is about FM in general, not just two formations.

I have always maintained the tactic creator and pre-set positions are not good for the development of the game. It streamlines the data SI will receive during testing, and it will mean things like the above go relatively un-tested and "unique" ideas can be hyper-successful.

I'd love to go back to the day when I could understand the sliders and we could logically make our own tactics using them. When you didn't "have to make sure the slider setup ensured a player taking long shots is facing the right way when shooting" as wwfan once told me. There used to be a time when attacking mentality just meant attacking mentality, and if you included it with long shots, the player just found ways to take shots and we didn't have to worry about what direction our mentality slider was telling him to face :S. Anyway- bring back a more simple slider system and a decent variety of people's real visions of how they'd like to play football will come back into SI's tests too. Hopefully stuff like the above won't be so outrageously successful in the future.

That zerosea fella is a mad scientist I tell ya

The way I feel about the tactics creator is that it has simplified things for people who had trouble making tactics before it was introduced. Its not like I dont deal with the sliders anymore (I still do use them). I use them to modify the tactics I make with the creator to my liking.

The sliders were really hard to use if you were new to the game. Heck it took me 2 years to develop a half decent tactic in the days before the tactics creator. Some people have the patience and the knowledge to make a successful tactic using the sliders and some people don't.

You can still make classic tactics right? Doesn't that accommodate everyone?

About the formations you posted above. I see nothing wrong with the first one; its something I've seen used for years in FM by AI managers and by people outside of the game. Nothing ridiculous about it.

Now for the second one.....all I can say is that when you set about trying to make a tactic that plays a specific way, sometimes (due to the limitations of the ME) you have to do crazy things to make your vision a reality in the game. Many times I've seen teams play against me with a flat 3-5-2 and the ML and MR play more like Full Backs than Wide Mids.

The second formation is really just a 5-4-1/5-2-3 tactic. The wide midfielders are likely to play just like full-backs. Perhaps setting them as full backs or wing backs didn't bring the right results for the creator.

The first formation is a 4-2-4 tactic and the two midfielders are put in a defensive position because otherwise there would be too much space behind them. The ME isn't good enough at handling central midfielders in FM11.3, so it is better just having defensive and attacking midfielders. As such, those tactics aren't exploiting the ME, they are results of it!

I can see where the OP is coming from and I don't necessarily disagree with him about the somewhat cumbersome nature of tactics in recent FM installements...

However considering Pep Guardiola is winning matches with a 3-men defensive line starring Abidal, Mascherano and Busquets (basically having a 3-1-3-3 without a single natural CB) I can't object too much about the relatively normal formations mentioned in the opening post

Italy are quite a strong team, so it's not much of a surprise that you can win games without much effort. Try it with a rubbish team like San Marino or Wales!

As for the TC, I am a big fan of this and the touchline shouts, as they make logical changes based on real football terms. It is much better than asking your players to play 2 clicks less attacking. As already mentioned though, the classic tactics are still an option if you prefer that way, so there is no harm having both.

Liverpool played that first formation under Rafa Benitez before Alonso left, so I don't see what the problem is with that.

The second is quite weird but could be seen as a modification of the Bielsa 3-3-1-3 system, considering how the ME plays MR/L with a three man defence.

Ok- firstly, I understand formations like Hiddink plays for example, where the players can seem very stuck together on a team sheet because in reality they are just always close and moving.

However, there is a difference between referring to those style of "team-sheets" and defending stuff like the above.

Nobody has ever played:

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

RB.........CB........CB.........LB

............DMC....DMC...........

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

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

AMR...........AMC...........AML

..................ST.................

because it leaves a 30 yard gap in the midfield. This:

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

RB.........CB........CB.........LB

.............MC.....MC............

AMR...........AMC...........AML

..................ST.................

with two defensive style players like Makelele and Vieira is how Domenech's formation for example (with zidane at AMC and a sign post around his neck saying kick me I am the only creative player in the center) would look like that. Nobody has ever played two anchors and a 30 yard hole.

Secondly. The second formation, once again, the closest I can come to sympathising is Hiddinks:

.....................St..........................

...........AMC.............AMC..............

................MC.......MC..................

WBL.......................................WBR

.............DC.....DC......DC...............

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

where the "AMC's" really play quite freely and their movement/lack of a really fixed position is supposed to be the spirit the whole side plays in. The zeroseafantasy thing is just nonsense. No way it should work.

The biggest criticism of these "defences" to these formations is: you say formation X is "like" a 352 by X, or "like" this or that. But the reality is the two DMC's are 10000 times more effective than a normal formation. and this zeroseafantasy would be a lot more effective that that hiddink thing i posted above.

If you say that nobody has ever played that type of 4-2-3-1 then you could also argue that nobody has ever played a flat 4-4-2, because these positions are just a rough estimate of where a player operates. Wide midfielders will generally be a little further forward, one MC might play deeper as a holding midfielder while the other gets forward, but it's still shown as 4-4-2.

A post above mentioned the Liverpool 4-2-3-1 of the Masch/Alonso days, and this is pretty close to your version but nothing is going to be exact.

Like Kenco says no team lines up with formations as rigid as your making out, in post 7 the first formations are pretty much the same thing, just slightly different mentalities, no team lines up with a gap like that in their team.

because it leaves a 30 yard gap in the midfield

It really doesn't unless you specifically engineer it that way. No useful system is rigidly exactly how the players are laid out on the tactics screen. I play the 4-2-3-1 with my Messina side, but when you look at the system when we're lining up awaiting a goal kick or something, it can look like a 2-4-1-3 because of how the instructions and mentalities play out.

anyone who plays it like that, with the 30 yard hole, instead of playing 2 MC's with defensive settings in what is genuinely a football formation, is exploiting the ME.

I sincerely doubt there is anyone playing with the two DMC's on 20/20 attacking and the AMC on 1/20, therefore the 30 yard gap formation lives and prospers.

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

RB.........CB........CB.........LB

............DMC....DMC...........

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

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

AMR...........AMC...........AML

..................ST.................

Man. I designed my own tactic and use this formation as I had 2 class DMC. We were doing very well as a result. Now I feel like I have been cheating the system. FM can suck sometimes.

Then again maybe I shouldn't read the forum then I would not know any better

Seriously though, after reading your post it just diminished my enthusiasm for continuing my save

anyone who plays it like that, with the 30 yard hole, instead of playing 2 MC's with defensive settings in what is genuinely a football formation, is exploiting the ME.

I sincerely doubt there is anyone playing with the two DMC's on 20/20 attacking and the AMC on 1/20, therefore the 30 yard gap formation lives and prospers.

If "central midfielders are completely and utterly useles both for offense and defense" is a hole in the ME, yes then not playing them is exploiting that hole.

It is a problem of the program, not the user. We users only do what makes sense from what we see happening on the pitch. Those who make tactics based on how things -should- work will be in for a hard time. Good luck to you!

anyone who plays it like that, with the 30 yard hole, instead of playing 2 MC's with defensive settings in what is genuinely a football formation, is exploiting the ME.

I sincerely doubt there is anyone playing with the two DMC's on 20/20 attacking and the AMC on 1/20, therefore the 30 yard gap formation lives and prospers.

Absolute rubbish. I've changed ONE slider from the default 4-2-3-1 Deep system on the tactics creator and there is no 30 yard gap in my system.

Seriously though, after reading your post it just diminished my enthusiasm for continuing my save

It's not an exploit, don't feel bad, continue your save

anyone who plays it like that, with the 30 yard hole, instead of playing 2 MC's with defensive settings in what is genuinely a football formation, is exploiting the ME.

I sincerely doubt there is anyone playing with the two DMC's on 20/20 attacking and the AMC on 1/20, therefore the 30 yard gap formation lives and prospers.

Except it doesn't result in a 30 yard gap between attack and defence, that is not how it plays in the game. It might look like that on the tactics screen, but the positions on the pitch end up reducing that gap, without the need to even tweak the players mentalities. So hardly exploiting the match engine. And the formation with the MR/L and the AMR/L, the MR/L act more like advanced wing backs than wide midfielders, providing defensive cover for the AMR/L.

You really need to stop taking the position of the players as they appear in the tactics screen as the shape they will be on the pitch. The tactic screen shows how you've set it up, on the pitch the positions will always end up being different.

This game, so difficult. What I've heard this week:

1. If you create too many 1v1's, Ibrahimovic and Torres will miss a huge amount of them because the ME lacks highlights. When you see your tactic creating a lot of 1 on 1's, it means you have a bad tactic.

2. Seeing as the majority of these 4231 formations use "rigid" and "press often" as their default setting, I'm going to take it as just defending something that wins games. I think this, from BiggusD, is the only view I sympathise with:

"If "central midfielders are completely and utterly useles both for offense and defense" is a hole in the ME, yes then not playing them is exploiting that hole.

It is a problem of the program, not the user. We users only do what makes sense from what we see happening on the pitch. Those who make tactics based on how things -should- work will be in for a hard time. Good luck to you!"

3. If there "is no" 30 yard gap, well, then there ****ing should be one. If you're honest you'd put the players at MC with defensive settings, but the game doesn't respond as well to it as the 30 yard hole formation. My next point would be, UNLESS you have your DMC's on 20/20, your AMC on 1/20, press on "stand off" and something other than "rigid" THEN THERE SHOULD BE A 30 YARD GAP.

This game, so difficult. What I've heard this week:

1. If you create too many 1v1's, Ibrahimovic and Torres will miss a huge amount of them because the ME lacks highlights. When you see your tactic creating a lot of 1 on 1's, it means you have a bad tactic.

2. Seeing as the majority of these 4231 formations use "rigid" and "press often" as their default setting, I'm going to take it as just defending something that wins games. I think this, from BiggusD, is the only view I sympathise with:

3. If there "is no" 30 yard gap, well, then there ****ing should be one.

1. Creating lots of 1v1s may mean that you are playing at too high a tempo causing strikers to rush them, or the tactic is focused on getting ball to striker but they are pressured by defenders when 1v1.

2. They do sound like defensively minded tactics, probably designed to hit on the counter attack. Bit tactically unimaginative, but I imagine it is consistent.

3. There is no 30 yard gap because the players will move into space. Players aren't nailed to a spot on the pitch. I'm playing a tactic with no CMs just WBs and DM and 3 AMCs. I play with a high defensive line so the gap between the lines is reduced, and the AMC naturally plays lower on the pitch than the AMRc and AMLC so there is not much of a gap between the 2 lines.

As I have said above, I agree with you if you have a Hididnk style:

.....................St..........................

...........AMC.............AMC..............

................MC.......MC..................

WBL.......................................WBR

.............DC.....DC......DC..............

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

where everyone s highly mobile, close to each other, moving, passing and moving, drifting wide, free etc.

But most people who play this formation (a) PRESS, pushing the forward 4 further away, and (b) play rigid. There is never a shortage of people to defend something that isn't well done in this tactics engine. I apologise if it's not expressed well, not my first language, however when I see DMC's working AMAZINGLY well (to the point where you don't actually have to watch/touch games, make team talks, subs, match prep), and then when i see ACTUAL formations that people would play if they were honest about what they wanted from a system (ie. NO GAPS, MC's defensively minded like Vieira/Makelele combination i mentioned above) sucking, and then followed by people defending the glitches... well.. i'm not surprised we have a game with similar ME problems in many versions.

What you want, should be represented as two defensively minded MC's. ESPECIALLY IF YOU PLAY A RIGID SETTING WITH PRESSING.

anyone who plays it like that, with the 30 yard hole, instead of playing 2 MC's with defensive settings in what is genuinely a football formation, is exploiting the ME.

I sincerely doubt there is anyone playing with the two DMC's on 20/20 attacking and the AMC on 1/20, therefore the 30 yard gap formation lives and prospers.

Please show some proof that you are exploiting the ME with this formation alone. Winning things with Italy does not count.

But most people who play this formation (a) PRESS, pushing the forward 4 further away, and (b) play rigid. There is never a shortage of people to defend something that isn't well done in this tactics engine. I apologise if it's not expressed well, not my first language, however when I see DMC's working AMAZINGLY well (to the point where you don't actually have to watch/touch games, make team talks, subs, match prep anything, and then when i see ACTUAL formations that people would play if they were honest about what they wanted from a system (ie. NO GAPS, MC's defensively minded like Vieira/Makelele combination i mentioned above) sucking, and then followed by people defending the glitches... well.. i'm not surprised we have a game with similar ME problems in many versions.

My apologies a slight misunderstanding. Yes playing rigid would leave gaps in the middle. Must definitelty be a formation aimed at counter attacking and then defending a lead.

There are certainly some issues with the ME, however I was just trying to explain how unrealistic looking formations could play in a realistic way. Whilst the ME is much improved over the last few years, there are still was to exploit it. Wouldn't say that is down to the TC, the TC allows for the most antural looking football I've seen in FM. The older slider system was certainly very exploitable as well.

A few problems with the system should not be the reason to go back to a more complex for the user system that also in my mind played less realistic football (though obviously the new TC system can at times too though this is always improving).

Kenco- it is not about winning. Any experienced FM player, if he is honest, knows if he has hit on a formation/tactic that is just gold against the ME.

The exploit for me is proven enough by:

- all team talks set to none

- pre-match prep set to none

- no tactical changes whatsoever

- no subs

- didn't look if players were suitable for roles they were set up for

- pressed continue

- European champions, top 3 players in the european championship (giovinco, ranocchia and cassano, 7/11 italians in euro team of the year, 100% win record, argentina germany beaten away. etc etc etc

It would be nice to see some proof of that tbh, not saying you're making it up, but all we have is your word.

yes but your using tactics where all the thinking has already been done for you, these guys put hours and hours into testing so you dont have to do anything but press continue, as you have shown they are very very good at what they do.

Kenco- it is not about winning. Any experienced FM player, if he is honest, knows if he has hit on a formation/tactic that is just gold against the ME.

The exploit for me is proven enough by:

- all team talks set to none

- pre-match prep set to none

- no tactical changes whatsoever

- no subs

- didn't look if players were suitable for roles they were set up for

- pressed continue

- European champions, top 3 players in the european championship (giovinco, ranocchia and cassano, 7/11 italians in euro team of the year, 100% win record, argentina germany beaten away. etc etc etc

That is success, but not massive success. Success is relative to the team you are using, and since you are using one of the best teams then you are expected to do well. If you achieved these results with a nation outside the top 100, then it would be a massive success.

yes but your using tactics where all the thinking has already been done for you, these guys put hours and hours into testing so you dont have to do anything but press continue, as you have shown they are very very good at what they do.

My point wasn't that they are good or bad.

the tactic i used

has two dmcs

3 attacking midfielders

press hard

rigid.

it should have a 30 yard gap, and if it doesn't the tactics module is not accurately expressing what you're asking it for.

and if it does have a 30 yard gap, how can it be winning so easily?

also- to the guy who asked for proof:

well if you are pressing hard there wont be a gap, the two DMC's will be pushing onto the opposition and therefor closing down the gap, there is a reason the person has set it up that way, but what is more important is how deep the defensive line is, if it is pushed up at all then there will be no gap, nothing is as rigid as your making out.

Disagree- there will be a gap, and they will be running into it to close down.

What I don't understand is.... is this seen as a natural formation in England? We actually get the same footage of the EPL with different commentators, and I see a 4231 represented like this sometimes. What I also don't understand is the amount of people that will rush to the defence of something that doesn't make sense. Who here, if they're honest, would prefer two flat MC's in their vision of this formation, with defensive settings?

When I write tactics on a board, a player represented in the space BETWEEN the midfield, and the defence, is an ANCHOR. It is Makelele and he is designed to sit in between midfield and defence and hold up the play. this is NOT how either player plays in Barca's 4231 for example.

There is a huge difference between an Anchor and a flat MC in a 4231. Think of Mourinho's 4321 for chelsea, with makelele, and how Mak played.

Well you don't have to have DMCs set as anchor, there are other roles availlable for them. Thinking of DMCs just as anchors ignores the other roles they can and do play in formations.

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

RB.........CB........CB.........LB

............DMC....DMC...........

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

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

AMR...........AMC...........AML

..................ST.................

Man. I designed my own tactic and use this formation as I had 2 class DMC. We were doing very well as a result. Now I feel like I have been cheating the system. FM can suck sometimes.

Then again maybe I shouldn't read the forum then I would not know any better

Seriously though, after reading your post it just diminished my enthusiasm for continuing my save

Don't worry about what he says, as it is complete nonsense. The 4-2-3-1 deep is a completely standard modern football formation, as anyone who knows an ounce of tactical theory would recognise.

I'd love to go back to the day when I could understand the sliders and we could logically make our own tactics using them. When you didn't "have to make sure the slider setup ensured a player taking long shots is facing the right way when shooting" as wwfan once told me. There used to be a time when attacking mentality just meant attacking mentality, and if you included it with long shots, the player just found ways to take shots and we didn't have to worry about what direction our mentality slider was telling him to face :S. Anyway- bring back a more simple slider system and a decent variety of people's real visions of how they'd like to play football will come back into SI's tests too. Hopefully stuff like the above won't be so outrageously successful in the future.

I'd contend you have never understood the sliders. You have an interpretation of the sliders which is close to 100% wrong. I've explained it to you multiple times and you've never listened to a word I've said. Your example relates to giving a player long shot setting, high mentality and telling him to make forward runs. Obviously, he will pretty much always be in front of play and therefore never in a position to run onto a lay back and hit a shot from range. Forward runs are the problem, not mentality. However, I'm not willing to get into yet another ridiculous argument with you about this.

However, as the person who designed the TC, I categorically state that everything you say about the sliders and the TC is wrong and should not be listened to by anybody who wants to understand how real life and FM tactics work. Your ideas are based on a completely flawed interpretation of the mentality slider and have the potential to massively harm forum knowledge about how things work.

No it is not, it is a formation a geek on a forum came up with. Believe it or not, there is nobody in world football who pioneered the 30 yard gap formation. As always, you are defensive of nonsense and holding back the game.

I would still love to know if you have ever stepped on a football pitch as a competitor or a coach. Personally I've done both and been paid for it. Explain to me again how I have to have scholes on 14.8 mentality and swivelling wildly for him to be able to find room for a valid long shot?

What 30-yard gap? It doesn't exist in real life or in the game. The positions are notational, not absolute!

England used a 4-2-3-1 deep against Bulgaria at the weekend. Two holding midfielders, three attacking midfielders interchanging higher up the pitch and a lone forward.

It just shows your truly EPIC ability to nervously defend your status in this game when you can defend this:

- all team talks set to none

- pre-match prep set to none

- no tactical changes whatsoever

- no subs

- didn't look if players were suitable for roles they were set up for

- pressed continue

- European champions, top 3 players in the european championship (giovinco, ranocchia and cassano, 7/11 italians in euro team of the year, 100% win record, argentina germany beaten away. etc etc etc

I'm not defending anything. I am saying you don't understand how mentality works in the game, hence your interpretation, and the 30-yard gap, is massively wrong.

Unless you are genuinely suggesting that a 4-2-3-1 formation of any kind does not exist in modern football? According to your theory, the only other possible 4-2-3-1 would have a 30-yard gap between the MCs and DCs, would it not? And a 4-4-2 a 30-yard gap between the defence and midfield and midfield and attack, because the positional spaces are EXACTLY the same.

I would like to see if you can represent this with more than just one team. You can't base it on this one experiment. Try with England or Portugal or others as well. If it happens 4 or 5 times out of 6 or 7 tries it would be a far more compelling argument.

According to your theory, the only other possible 4-2-3-1 would have a 30-yard gap between the MCs and DCs, would it not? And a 4-4-2 a 30-yard gap between the defence and midfield and midfield and attack, because the positional spaces are EXACTLY the same.

A very good point that! I was thinking that before about the 30 yard gap. DMC to AMC is the same as MC to ST surely.

The reality is we both agree that no 30 yard gaping central midfield holes exist in reality.

correctly represented, a 4231 should have a higher back line, and two mc's who vary from very defensive to box to box players.

when people say there is the same gap between MC and ST, the reason is that it's in a slightly less central part of the field :S. Nobody in football leaves a huge gap in the midfield, while some leave a huge gap between their striker and central midfielders- see the woes of Andriy Shevchenko and Fernando Torres attempted to link up with Lampard and Ramires :S

the invincible tactic I used was called something like 4231 deep Mourinho. It was rigid, with pressing. about 15 pressing for the DMC's 19 for the forward 4. AMC's have about 17 for mentality, DMC's about 15.

Okay here's some screenshots for my system to (probably not) put this to bed.

• AMC settings
  
• DMCL settings
  
• DMCR settings
  

In this match, my DMCR is number 30, DMCL number 6, and AMC number 8.

• Screenshot 1
  
• Screenshot 2
  
• Screenshot 3
  

The closest thing to a 30 yard gap is in the third screenshot where the DMCL has made a run beyond the AMC to join the attack, but there's still no more than 15 yards between any two of the players.

The continuing trend of football tactics is to find space deeper on the pitch as the increased athleticism of the players leads to the traditional trequartista/enganche player is being phased out of existence and replaced by registas. Modern playmakers tend to be defensively positioned creators, such as Xavi at Barca, Xabi Alonso at Madrid, Pirlo at Milan and, hopefully, Wilshere at Arsenal. They play far closer to the back line than their predecessors simply because it is the only part of the pitch they can find space.

I'd argue that the DMC position is the best notational one for how these players line up, although they all roam forward when the opportunity allows. The MC position would see them being trapped in a congested midfield battle and unable to pull the strings.

The continuing trend of football tactics to find space deeper on the pitch as the increased athleticism of the players means the traditional trequartista/enganche player is being phased out of existence and replaced by registas. Modern playmakers tend to be defensively positioned creators, such as Xavi at Barca, Xabi Alonso at Madrid, Pirlo at Milan and, hopefully, Wilshere at Arsenal. They play far closer to the back line than their predecessors simply because it is the only part of the pitch they can find space.

Right. and the fact #10's thrived in Italy in a time when teams almost exclusively sat 11 players in their own half tells you what? That they need space? There is certainly more space in a hard working but extended 11 than in an average 11 sitting in it's own half.

the reason the trequartista are being "phased out" (i take it you don't watch football outside of england) is because people are playing 4231/433/4321 more, which means sides have to match each other in the midfield or be overwhelmed.

There is certainly more space in a hard working but extended 11 than in an average 11 sitting in it's own half.

It's only your interpretation of the sliders that leads to your theory of an extended 11. It doesn't work like that.

yes. my interpretation of "press 18-19/20 front 4", "rigid", giant hole behind them. I would be surprised if they didn't need telescopes and radio transmitters to communicate.

yes. my interpretation of "press 18-19/20 front 4", giant hole behind them. I would be surprised if they didn't need telescopes and radio transmitters to communicate.

Stop ignoring my post which completely debunks that, please.

Snake- i'm saying, that with high pressing forwards, rigid settings, 2 DMC's, there should be more of a gap than that as that is what you're asking for.

the reason the trequartista are being "phased out" (i take it you don't watch football outside of england) is because people are playing 4231/433/4321 more, which means sides have to match each other in the midfield or be overwhelmed.

I haven't lived in England for circa 18 years. But feel free to make prejudiced judgements.

The reason the TQ is disappearing relates almost completely to the speed and athleticism of the modern game. The formations you are listing have resulted from the recognition that everyone presses and high space is almost non-existent. Consequently, tactics employing deep creators have evolved. This means the midfield battle has become more sophisticated and the key 'shape battle'.

yes. my interpretation of "press 18-19/20 front 4", "rigid", giant hole behind them.

What does that even mean? It has nothing to do with football.

Snake- i'm saying, that with high pressing forwards, rigid settings, 2 DMC's, there should be more of a gap than that as that is what you're asking for.

So you want your forwards to press on to the opposition defenders despite your rigid settings but you expect your DMs to hold station and not press???

You also haven't mentioned OIs at all which need to be included in the discussion.

I haven't lived in England for circa 18 years. But feel free to make prejudiced judgements.

The reason the TQ is disappearing relates almost completely to the speed and athleticism of the modern game. The formations you are listing have resulted from the recognition that everyone presses and high space is almost non-existent. Consequently, tactics employing deep creators have evolved. This means the midfield battle has become more sophisticated and the key 'shape battle'.

Once again, that is complete garbage and shows your ignorance.

England is the epitome of the pressing league right? Did Zola struggle in England? Cantona? Bergkamp? Di Canio? Gudjohnsen? Sheringham? Rooney? These players thrive when players press and demonstrate their "athleticism" and leave their positions. They use their intelligence to do so. The reason you see less of them in England has nothing to do with athleticism, it has to do with the fact so many managers are playing 3 in central midfield that you simply have to meet it with 3 of your own more often than not.

So you want your forwards to press on to the opposition defenders despite your rigid settings but you expect your DMs to hold station and not press???

You also haven't mentioned OIs at all which need to be included in the discussion.

no. What I am saying is that if you instruct your strikers to press more than your DMC's (the tactic I used had, 18-19 pressing front 4), 15ish pressing DMC's.

then that means... a gap

Snake- i'm saying, that with high pressing forwards, rigid settings, 2 DMC's, there should be more of a gap than that as that is what you're asking for.

But the argument was over whether the shape is a valid football system, and clearly it has been proven as much. If you want to push high up the pitch and close down the opposition aggressively you'd push the defensive line higher to keep the team compact. Clearly it would be possible to create this huge gap between the four and six but as clearly demonstrated in my post, with almost default settings it just doesn't happen.