Which formation beats 4-4-2 Diamond Standard?

[Sonny Moore]

Hey, I'm having trouble beating a 4-4-2 diamond standard or any 4-4-2 with 2 CMs.

I run a 4-4-2 Diamond Standard but instead of having 2 CM's I dragged those spots out to ML and MR and play with a ML/MR.

I have a pretty versatile squad with a decent amount of depth so I can adjust to most formations, just trying to find which one counters 4-4-2 diamond standard the most, thanks.

[dankrzyz]

I often play the 442-Diamond with MR/ML (instead of with 2 MCs). I always find a good, versatile DMC because he ends up having to cover some defensive duties as well as step up into essentially a MC role. I let him forward run or run with ball more than a purely defensive DMC might. My AMC is shaded a bit more toward playing a support role than a scoring role, too. His mentality is notched down just a bit and his forward runs, too. In short, the DMC and AMC, while playing either back or up, shade a bit toward the style of a MC.

All of that helps with the hole in my centermidfield, which sounds like the problem you've described. In the end, it's something that I just deal with - my opponent's quick play through my midfield, then my defense clamps down and tries to move the ball back up the front fielders. It's easier vs a 442-Diamond Standard, with 2 MCs, because my MR/ML just blow by their midfield up the flanks and the attack is on. Versus a standard 442 is a little tougher.

[Andy Thom]

I normally play a 4-4-2 diamond away from home as it seems to hold it's own against the 4-5-1's and 4-6-0's. It seems to do less well against the 4-3-3's but that could be isolated incidents. The 4-3-3 i really struggeld against was a standard back 4, one DM, 2 CM's, 2 wingers and a lone striker. Their wingers pushed my full backs back, and it was 2 v 2 in the middle of the park with their DM taking care of my AM. For this i'd guess you would be looking for a strong headerer up front and stretch the play wide with plenty of crosses.