Struggle against 4-4-2

A little background, i'm in my fourth season with bristol city, finished 6th in the PL last season. Last season i mostly used the 4-1-2-2-1 formation, which worked well, but in the summer i bought Gylfi Sigurdsson so i have switched to 4-2-3-1. I've read on here that there are problems with this formation, and whenever i play a team who play 4-4-2 they dominate the midfield - which is very unrealistic. Here is a screen of my tactics:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I seem to do ok against any other formation, this season i've beaten man utd, chelsea and liverpool, but then i'll lose most games when the opposition is using 4-4-2. Any ideas?

I think it's important to tell the readers how you are beaten/how goals are scored against your team. For one thing I don't like to press against 4-4-2 because that's a balanced/free-flowing tactic, many times when you press your dm/cd will over-commit and leave space for your opponent to exploit and an attacking for of 4-4-2 will absolutely be able to exploit that opening... But I really can't say anything else unless there's more detail ^.^

I think it's important to tell the readers how you are beaten/how goals are scored against your team. For one thing I don't like to press against 4-4-2 because that's a balanced/free-flowing tactic, many times when you press your dm/cd will over-commit and leave space for your opponent to exploit and an attacking for of 4-4-2 will absolutely be able to exploit that opening... But I really can't say anything else unless there's more detail ^.^

Most of the goals i concede against 4-4-2 come from them outnumbering my midfield and playing easy through-balls onto the strikers... Any way to fix this without changing my tactics too much?

Most of the goals i concede against 4-4-2 come from them outnumbering my midfield and playing easy through-balls onto the strikers... Any way to fix this without changing my tactics too much?

You could try giving individual man mark instructions to your two wingers so they drop back more.

Overall though your formation is one I don't personally like and doesn't perform all that well within FM. The formation you see on that screen is the defensive setup and virtually no clubs in real life use that formation when defending. I would look to build a new formation - maybe something like 4411 with the wingers on attacking orders. This would give you better defensive shape while your wingers would then push on when you win possession to give you a similar attacking shape as you currently have.

You could try giving individual man mark instructions to your two wingers so they drop back more.

Overall though your formation is one I don't personally like and doesn't perform all that well within FM. The formation you see on that screen is the defensive setup and virtually no clubs in real life use that formation when defending. I would look to build a new formation - maybe something like 4411 with the wingers on attacking orders. This would give you better defensive shape while your wingers would then push on when you win possession to give you a similar attacking shape as you currently have.

I was thinking about using that formation, but i play Bakenga as an inside forward on the left, and he can't play left midfield at all. Do you think that a 4-4-1-1 with 1 DM, 1 CM, 1 RM, 1 LW and an AM would work?

when i'm normally Manchester City i always found a similair thing. however on my current save i am swindon and have been all the way through to 2020 playing 4-4-2 and i have never had a problem playing against 4-4-2 with it. i'm sure there is a way to combat it other than just matching up but i have found this to be the best way so far and i have tried a LOT of formations with city.

I was thinking about using that formation, but i play Bakenga as an inside forward on the left, and he can't play left midfield at all. Do you think that a 4-4-1-1 with 1 DM, 1 CM, 1 RM, 1 LW and an AM would work?

Now your really getting away from a standard formation.

I have seen people use similar formations to that in other versions:

Maybe something like:

4 man defence

DM - to the right of centre

CM - to the left of centre

MR - Attacking winger

AML - Inside forward (Attacking)

AMC - to the right of centre (Treq attack? perhaps)

ST - to the left of centre (complete forward - support)

Now your really getting away from a standard formation.

I have seen people use similar formations to that in other versions:

Maybe something like:

4 man defence

DM - to the right of centre

CM - to the left of centre

MR - Attacking winger

AML - Inside forward (Attacking)

AMC - to the right of centre (Treq attack? perhaps)

ST - to the left of centre (complete forward - support)

Yeah thats what i was thinking, basically the same as my formation atm, but the RW drops back and becomes a RM,do you reckon that would give more solidarity against 4-4-2?

Yeah thats what i was thinking, basically the same as my formation atm, but the RW drops back and becomes a RM,do you reckon that would give more solidarity against 4-4-2?

A little different - switch your DM & CM around + offset your AMC/ST so they aren't central.

I think this would give you more stability - The only real gap would be infront of your DL which the opposition MR would look to exploit. You may also find that your DM sits too deep and doesn't get close enough to pressure the opposition MCs, if this happens I would consider pushing him forward into a MC position. On the flipside doing that could leave a gap in front of your DCs but as long as the opposition don't have an AMC to exploit it you should be ok.

You're struggling because AMR/AML on Attack duty with a fluid "Control" strategy are going to act like strikers. You essentially have a three-man midfield, and if your AMC pushes up (as he often will do), that becomes a two-man midfield. This kind of 4231 is interpreted as a 424 in the match engine.

If you want to keep the general approach while tightening up the midfield, you should switch to a "451 DM" (in FM terms). That means dropping the CM to DM and the advanced playmaker AM to an advanced playmaker CM.

Then, if you are having trouble in the midfield during a match, adjust your wingers' mentality so they act more defensively and drop deeper to help defend.

A little different - switch your DM & CM around + offset your AMC/ST so they aren't central.

I think this would give you more stability - The only real gap would be infront of your DL which the opposition MR would look to exploit. You may also find that your DM sits too deep and doesn't get close enough to pressure the opposition MCs, if this happens I would consider pushing him forward into a MC position. On the flipside doing that could leave a gap in front of your DCs but as long as the opposition don't have an AMC to exploit it you should be ok.

I would of thought that it would be better to keep the DM where he is and adjust the striker and AM position to fill in the gaps. Then the DM can fill in over the left side and offer some cover to the left back. Would that work?

You're struggling because AMR/AML on Attack duty with a fluid "Control" strategy are going to act like strikers. You essentially have a three-man midfield, and if your AMC pushes up (as he often will do), that becomes a two-man midfield. This kind of 4231 is interpreted as a 424 in the match engine.

If you want to keep the general approach while tightening up the midfield, you should switch to a "451 DM" (in FM terms). That means dropping the CM to DM and the advanced playmaker AM to an advanced playmaker CM.

Then, if you are having trouble in the midfield during a match, adjust your wingers' mentality so they act more defensively and drop deeper to help defend.

I see where your coming from, but the problem with this is that it would take away from Gylfi Sigurddson best attributes, imo he is better used in the final third, with his high technical attributes and low teamwork/workrate

Just drop both midfielders to DMC so that you have a 4-2-0-3-1 tactic. This way 442's two central midfielders become tragically irrelevant. This creates acres of space for your most important creative outlet - the AMC - too!

I would of thought that it would be better to keep the DM where he is and adjust the striker and AM position to fill in the gaps. Then the DM can fill in over the left side and offer some cover to the left back. Would that work?

The problem with not swopping the DM/MC over is that you have a large gap on the left hand side between the DL, AML & DMCL. I would be concerned thats a large gap for the opposition to use possession in with no one really putting the opposition MR/MCR under pressure.

I see where your coming from, but the problem with this is that it would take away from Gylfi Sigurddson best attributes, imo he is better used in the final third, with his high technical attributes and low teamwork/workrate

I had Gylfi in my Lazio team on FM11, I used him with a fair bit of success at MC with attacking orders.

Just drop both midfielders to DMC so that you have a 4-2-0-3-1 tactic. This way 442's two central midfielders become tragically irrelevant. This creates acres of space for your most important creative outlet - the AMC - too!

I've mostly got MC's and not DM's in my squad though, including two quality regens who are natural MC and can't play DM at all. Otherwise i would use that formation..

I see where your coming from, but the problem with this is that it would take away from Gylfi Sigurddson best attributes, imo he is better used in the final third, with his high technical attributes and low teamwork/workrate

Well, if your ACM has a low work rate, then you will always have a 2-man midfield if you are using AML/AMR. In that case, you should consider dropping the AML/AMR down to ML/MR with support duty.

Just drop both midfielders to DMC so that you have a 4-2-0-3-1 tactic. This way 442's two central midfielders become tragically irrelevant. This creates acres of space for your most important creative outlet - the AMC - too!

I'm not sure thats the best advice when you yourself have been having problems with that formation and wwfan pointed out the flaws in it in another thread.

I've mostly got MC's and not DM's in my squad though, including two quality regens who are natural MC and can't play DM at all. Otherwise i would use that formation..

Just retrain them. If their attributes are good ones for the new position, you may hardly notice their lack of positional affluency.

I've mostly got MC's and not DM's in my squad though, including two quality regens who are natural MC and can't play DM at all. Otherwise i would use that formation..

Retrain them. Positional familiarity doesn't have that great of an effect on the game except for determining the "cost" of attributes. A player's attribute spread is more important.

EDIT:

I'm not sure thats the best advice when you yourself have been having problems with that formation and wwfan pointed out the flaws in it in another thread.

Biggus doesn't like the 4231 with two CMs because the two CMs leave too much space between the attack and defense. Personally, I think the 42031 is still too vulnerable on the counter and against packed midfields, but it resolves Biggus's main criticism of the 4231 Denmark by using two DMs.

Biggus doesn't like the 4231 with two CMs because the two CMs leave too much space between the attack and defense. Personally, I think the 42031 is still too vulnerable on the counter and against packed midfields, but it resolves Biggus's main criticism of the 4231 Denmark by using two DMs.

Fully agree.

In essence the teams that you consider play a 4231 or 42031 in real life when converted to FM really play a 42301, 40501 or 40411.

I'm not sure thats the best advice when you yourself have been having problems with that formation and wwfan pointed out the flaws in it in another thread.

I don't play that formation, and my 4-2-4 doesn't really have problems. Not sure what you are reffering to? If anything I have pointed out that 4-2-3-1 as played by the AI is a very weak tactic. I got the 4-2-0-3-1 tactic working in FM11, with a playmaker, but I haven't tried it since. It should be inherently better than using MC's because contrary to them, DCM's help out in the defense and there is no need to attack with more than four players quickly. In attacks that last longer, the DMC's will join the attack in the space where they are both passing options and covering space preventing counter-attacks, rather than ruining the space of the forwards and leave a giant gap behind them on top.

In other words, as long as the four guys up front -never- track back and help the defense (this is the case for both 4-2-3-1 and 4-2-4 formations), using two DMC's instead of two MC's is better in absolutely every way imaginable. Consequently, the halfway option used by the OP should theoretically be improved by going fully DMC.

I play a 4231 with both midfielders on the defensive midfield and always have a easy game against the flat 442, what's so flawed about using the midfielders on the DM position?

Fully agree.

In essence the teams that you consider play a 4231 or 42031 in real life when converted to FM really play a 42301, 40501 or 40411.

Absolutely, and I'm working on a database that basically removes the "4231 Denmark" from the game by editing manager formations and changing national tactical profiles. I have already run a few tests where I set teams that use it to play 4411, 451DM or 42211 and it has provided a significantly greater challenge.

I play a 4231 with both midfielders on the defensive midfield and always have a easy game against the flat 442, what's so flawed about using the midfielders on the DM position?

For the most part, nothing. It's the 4231 with CMs that has the obvious balance issues (though with a top level team, you can certainly be successful with it against AI opposition). As Biggus pointed out, using 2 DMs will effectively shut down a 442 in the middle of the pitch.