2 DMs > 2 MCs?

I saw in Llama3's "How to make the System work" thread, a post by Cleon that really interested me:

This isn't true at all. The deeper version with DMC's instead of MC'S is a lot more solid due to how the MC's react in a 4231. They neither attack or defend how they actually should due to the ME's limitations. So against stronger opposition you'll often get overrun in midfield. But if you use DMC's you aren't actually as vulnerable due to them actually been able to defend.

Both the normal and deep versions play very differently.

Cleon, could you so kindly explain what the ME limitations are that make 2 MCs not work as well as they should?

What are the pro and cons of each system (2 MC or 2 DMC?)

Is it possible to work around the limitations? Or is it always better to just use 2 DMCs, and give them higher mentality and forward runs so they work like MCs?

I think this would be a very useful information for a lot of people because a lot of people use 2 MCs, and they may not be aware of the problems.

Cheers!

The MC's don't defend as good as DMC's do. They just don't react or track back enough. You have a huge gap between the MC's and the defence so against teams who have a stiker drop deep or use an AMC you'll struggle to over come their dominance in this unprotected space as you don't have defensive cover between the lines. Hence why from a defensive stand point 2 DMC's is much better.

Too many people don't understand how the 4231 actually works. It's probably the most used formation on here as it is IRL. However only a asmall minority understand the roles and how to set it up correctly to be solid and deadly.

I think this is one of the best reads I've seen about the midfield (using MC's) regarding the 4231, you should have a read of it http://pushthemwide.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/4-2-3-1-the-holding-midfielders/

Completely agree with Cleon here.

I use to play a 4-2-3-1 formation with two CM's and noticed how a quality AMC on the opposition would rip me to pieces. I changed to instead play 4-1-2-2-1 (a DM, 2 CM's, AMR/L), and it worked wonders. Also now if I do play a 4-2-3-1 then it is with two DM's.

With the ME as it is now, I would never go back to two CM's in a 4-2-3-1 system.

Agree as well. The MC version will get ripped apart by opposition AMC's or strikers dropping deep.

I recently played Corinthians with the MC version and they use the narrow 4-2-3-1 so there were 3 AMC's that caused havoc in the space between my defense and midfield, beating me 4-1 and every chance they created was because a CB or both got dragged forward to close down one of their AMC's on the ball resulting in loads of space for the striker and other attackers.

I suppose you could try to get away by playing a high pressing game with a high D-Line and decrease the space but it would be at the expense of leaving the space behind your defense.

changed to a 4-1-2-2-1 (as above) ages ago and have never looked back. concede less than 20 goals a season in the league everytime now whereas before i would concede usually a goal a game on average.

only problem is, i miss AMC's and im struggling to find a formation solid enough to play one. i did have great success with a narrow 4-4-2 diamond ages ago (prob '11) and i think it was down in part to having a DMC, conceded very few then aswell iirc.

foofighter23

You could try as I said above; two DM's. One is set to "anchor man" and the other as "deep lying playmaker", and ahead of that use three AM's - AMR, AML, and AMC. If you set your LB and RB to "Wing back - Support", it should give you a good balance between attack and defence.

I think this is one of the best reads I've seen about the midfield (using MC's) regarding the 4231, you should have a read of it http://pushthemwide.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/4-2-3-1-the-holding-midfielders/

That article is awesome!

That article is awesome!

Indeed it is. There are thousands more like that if your on twitter.

You could try as I said above; two DM's. One is set to "anchor man" and the other as "deep lying playmaker", and ahead of that use three AM's - AMR, AML, and AMC. If you set your LB and RB to "Wing back - Support", it should give you a good balance between attack and defence.

This is good advice:thup:

foofighter23

You could try as I said above; two DM's. One is set to "anchor man" and the other as "deep lying playmaker", and ahead of that use three AM's - AMR, AML, and AMC. If you set your LB and RB to "Wing back - Support", it should give you a good balance between attack and defence.

Do you mean 3 AM's in a narrow shape, or one AM and two wingers or inside forwards?

Do you mean 3 AM's in a narrow shape, or one AM and two wingers or inside forwards?

He tells you what to use in the bit you quoted. AM, AMR, AML.

dz47

As Cleon pointed out i did say with an AMR and AML.

Of course how you set them up after that is up to you and the players you have at you disposal. I personally like to go with one "Winger" and one "Inside Forward" as they offer different ways to hurt the opposition.

This is very interesting. I have been pondering a narrow diamond or 4-3-1-2 - but the latter concerned me with the lack of DMC.

I'd really like to trial a top three of AMC and two strikers as another tactic I tried had some lovely combinations. Do you think (with the above in mind) something like this would work:

Sweeper Keeper

2 x Fullback/wingback support (hug touchline and get forward)

2 x CD

1 Anchor DMC

1 DLP (alongside anchor) - can't recall if has to be defend if there - or is support is an option? Not sure what would be better if I had the choice

1 CM (with a strong defence behind, not sure of best role - B2B or BWB to help cover the width, or CM on auto? Pondered AP on attack, but not sure if will get in the way of AMC

1 AMC attack

1 Poacher attack

1 other attack (AF, Treq, CF - not sure what best to compliment)

Narrow pitch to help with lack of width. Not sure of best strategy - passing on mixed so a quick ball can be fired up if needed.

Does anyone with more tactical knowhow (i.e. everyone) think this could work and what roles would you pick?

Cheers

swedishchef_uk

I wouldn't go with one CM as he will be an ineffective part of the team as the oppositions CM's will be all over him.

I believe it could work with three DM's. Set the middle one to "Deep Lying Playmaker - Defend", and i would also give him relatively low Creative Freedom and Short Passing.

Either side of him i would then have a "Defensive Midfielder - Support", and the other to "Deep Lying Playmaker - Support".

Thanks for linking to us Cleon, and thanks andre_costa for the praise!

I certainly agree that the 4-2-3-1 looks suspect when coming up against formations with one, two or even three AMCs - I tend to drop one or both of my MCs back to the DMC position to give us some more solidity. The narrow 4-2-3-1 is especially a pain to play against when you're using MCs in a 4-2-3-1, but I find that in most matches, it's easy to spot the potential threat and make simple changes.

@Tomtuck01

Sounds interesting - wouldn't the gap between DM and AM be too large though? Would the supportive DM's move up enough to score? I'd worry that the quality of the players available might mean they wouldn't be good enough to play a DM role and provide the creative spark.

Then again, I don't tend to make good tactics, so it could be worth a try!

swedishchef_uk

I think it could work well, as the 2 DM's with the "Support" duty will do just that when attacking. Add to the fact you have your Fullbacks set as "Wingbacks - Support", (you could even change that to "Attack"), you will still have four players aiding your three main attacking players.

As whether your players have the sufficient quality, i wouldn't know as i am unware with whom you are playing with and what standard of players you can attract.

@Tomtuck

I might give it a whirl. I'm trying to get a narrow diamond to work (I've fallen out of love for wingers a little in recent times) - but this might be an interesting variation.

I plan to start a 2 team save to test/enjoy different football styles. One will be Aldershot, one will be Joinville (third division Brazilian team). So in terms of quality, anyone with two legs and an idea of what a football is has a chance of making the squad!

Well I wouldn't advise you try this kind of tactic/formation in the lower divisions. Best to keep things simple as the limitations of the players could cost you if you use a formation and tactics that are over complicated.

You could try as I said above; two DM's. One is set to "anchor man" and the other as "deep lying playmaker", and ahead of that use three AM's - AMR, AML, and AMC. If you set your LB and RB to "Wing back - Support", it should give you a good balance between attack and defence.

thx, i tried that once before but with a normal DM and an anchor man but it just didnt work out for some reason. i will give it a go with your suggestion though

dont you think having fullbacks set to attack and giving the 2 DMs high closing down to cover them would work? or would they both go after the same ball all the time and get pulled out of position? i think last time i tried i had 1 high pressing and 1 stand off.

foofighter23

I don't have full backs with too higher closing down as it leaves too much space for the oppositions wingers. With the DM's, I personally don't have the anchor man pressing too much, because as I see it he is there to sit infront of the back four and screen them. The other one can have slightly higher pressing, but nothing too high is required.

Of curse you could just leave there setting on default, and intead change things with the shouts.

I have to say here that if you drop the MC's to DMC positions, the tactic will become very similar to my 4-2-4 tactic - the only difference being that there is more space for the wingers to cut inside in, and the two forward's roles are more distinctly divided between them rather than having both do both the poaching and the linking.

I run strictly classic, though, and especially the roles of the six defenders cannot be replicated using the TC - they would be too defensive-minded (passive) and you might struggle by being overrun in the midfield... precisely what you try to avoid. I, however, -rely- on their midfielders having plenty of space in the middle of the pitch but no passing options, so that my aggressive DMC's can take the ball from them when they hesitate.

The only way (I think) that you can make the DMC's aggressive enough using the TC is if you set the team mentality to Attacking or even Overload, then change the roles and duties of everyone else so that they are as defensive/balanced as possible. In other words, when you move the MC's to DMC you close the gap between the midfield and defense, but you do so with players that are inherently instructed to wait for the opponent to approach - they're there to close space and provide passing options, nothing else. So you would lose a lot of pressure compared to the very attacking 4-2-3-1. What I have done is to make them ball-winning midfield terriers, and so I get the best of both worlds - they inherently deny space, but they do the job the MC's should have done when the team is not in possession of the ball as well.

I think that if you're using the TC strictly, you are better off by pushing up and use stopper DC's, and make the full backs relatively attacking minded but deny them going forward. Set the MC's to defending duties. The main weakness of the 4-2-3-1 tactic is the space left when everyone goes forward. On attacking duties it really becomes a 2-0-8 tactic (as used by the silly AI), and this is something you can fix by leaving four men behind at all times, and employing a very quick and hard-working MC duo. Because of the TC's limitations on the DMC positions, using two of those is only a real option when you defend deep and want to hold on to a lead while countering.

I've been playing forever with Munich using my own 4-2-3-1 ... one DM (Gustavo, typically DM-S, very occasionally AM-D), one CM DLP-S (Schweinsteiger or Kroos). Seem to work like a charm.

WB ---- CB ---- CB ---- WB

------------- DM -------------

--------- DLP -----------------

W --------- AM --------- IF

------------ P/TM ------------

Not a big fan of 4-2-3-1 deep, however I disagree about 4-2-3-1 with 2 Mc's weakness: it could be easily addressed, of course your Mc's should be holding midfielders not creative or attacking. I like to employ a DLP-Bwm partnership, both on defensive duties. A high defensive line could reduce the gap between your defensive and midfield lines as well, improving your defensive solidity.

No need to use 2 dmc's.

Not a big fan of 4-2-3-1 deep, however I disagree about 4-2-3-1 with 2 Mc's weakness: it could be easily addressed, of course your Mc's should be holding midfielders not creative or attacking. I like to employ a DLP-Bwm partnership, both on defensive duties. A high defensive line could reduce the gap between your defensive and midfield lines as well, improving your defensive solidity.

No need to use 2 dmc's.

Same here, except I use two DLP's who are defensively very good and decent at creating (think De Rossi). It won't work in every situation, but most of the time it's defensively very solid.

Not a big fan of 4-2-3-1 deep, however I disagree about 4-2-3-1 with 2 Mc's weakness: it could be easily addressed, of course your Mc's should be holding midfielders not creative or attacking. I like to employ a DLP-Bwm partnership, both on defensive duties. A high defensive line could reduce the gap between your defensive and midfield lines as well, improving your defensive solidity.

No need to use 2 dmc's.

It's a ME issue, you cannot address it

If you think it does then you are looking at the wrong thing completley.

Same here, except I use two DLP's who are defensively very good and decent at creating (think De Rossi). It won't work in every situation, but most of the time it's defensively very solid.

Do you play both DLP's on support? Or one on Support and one on Defend?

Also, what role do you use ahead of them in the AM line?

If you do not mind me asking

Regards

Shiraz

Do you play both DLP's on support? Or one on Support and one on Defend?

Also, what role do you use ahead of them in the AM line?

If you do not mind me asking

Regards

Shiraz

They're both on support, though I've often read that giving them different duties helps keep them out of each other's ways. I usually have a right footer on the right and a left footer on the left, which seems to help in that regard. In front of them is an attacking midfielder with attacking duty, who runs into the space created by a DLF support dropping deep as do two inside forwards on the wings (roles, they're not necessarily opposite footed).

I do feel that I have to add that I haven't been watching the games in full on this save as I'm just trying to go forward as quickly as possible so there may be lots of flaws and things that could be done better or more efficiently.

They're both on support, though I've often read that giving them different duties helps keep them out of each other's ways. I usually have a right footer on the right and a left footer on the left, which seems to help in that regard. In front of them is an attacking midfielder with attacking duty, who runs into the space created by a DLF support dropping deep as do two inside forwards on the wings (roles, they're not necessarily opposite footed).

I do feel that I have to add that I haven't been watching the games in full on this save as I'm just trying to go forward as quickly as possible so there may be lots of flaws and things that could be done better or more efficiently.

Ah okay, that set up seems pretty solid and effective. The IF's are on a Support duty I assume?

I am currently using a BWM-D and CM-S centre midfield pairing with an AP-Attack ahead of them. Have been fiddling around with my set up for a while but this seems to be working.

On topic, I use two MC's with more pressing, a high line and a Sweeper Keeper. And it seems to do well even against teams with an AMC although there are times when my defence just gets opened up very easily but I will keep at it for a while

Ah okay, that set up seems pretty solid and effective. The IF's are on a Support duty I assume?

Nope, they're on attacking duty as it gives then more runs from deep and the rest of the instructions are more neutral.

It's a ME issue, you cannot address it

If you think it does then you are looking at the wrong thing completley.

Not sure what you meant here Cleon, but if we're talking about defensive stability playing with 2 Mc's in a 4231 formation, I think that my settings worked quite well for me.

Solid and deadly, as you said, solid and deadly.

Not sure what you meant here Cleon, but if we're talking about defensive stability playing with 2 Mc's in a 4231 formation, I think that my settings worked quite well for me.

Solid and deadly, as you said, solid and deadly.

MC's do not defend properly and track back and attack as they should. It's a well known ME bug and been a problem for the last 2 years. Especially defensivley they don't do the defensive roles well enough. Sure you might get away with it, but I assure you it doesn't work as intended

MC's do not defend properly and track back and attack as they should. It's a well known ME bug and been a problem for the last 2 years. Especially defensivley they don't do the defensive roles well enough. Sure you might get away with it, but I assure you it doesn't work as intended

Ok then, I see your point now.

Cleon, is the theorem DMC > MC valid for just 4231-type formations, or is it a general issue that the MC-spots don't defend properly at all? Are the AMR/L staying too far up top, exposing the 2MCs? Or are the MCs not defending properly at all, which is worsened by the AMR/L not tracking back?

Does it apply to other formations as well, in particular, how does it relate to 4411 or 433 (flat versions)? Is 4411 solid enough because the MR/L better from a defensive perspective, or will the MCs be too far up top as well? And is 433-flat solid enough because there are three players in MC-zone instead of two, or will they stray too far up the pitch and should we opt for either 3DMC or DMC-2MC for better solidity?

finally got round to starting a new game and went for the 4-2-3-1 with a normal DM/d and a DLP/s but im struggling again . not sure why, im 20 games in and have conceded 18 gls (league) but have had 9 clean sheets. its just the odd game im conceding a few in, 3 v man city away, 4 v sunderland away (bad half time team talk from me tbf) 2 v a few teams.

im not sure if this is just first season new manager syndrome or its a flaw in my tactics?

attacking wise im not too bad except for my strikers arent scoring (carroll and bellamy :/) but my 2 wide men are set to AP and suarez and downing are tearing it up as is adam in the trequarista role, 6 gls 8 asts in 14 (gerrard injured) however ive lost 5 games so far (2 my own fault) 1 unlucky v man u away when they scored a late winner after i dominated 13 shots on target to their 3 :/ with only spurs and man city out playing me away.

ive just used the assigned roles to my defence and dm's but i am playing a very high def line for once and playing offside but most goals are from set pieces as usual (for me) and its not really looked weak playing so high so far. i do have my fullbacks playing attack instead of support though as it always gains good av ratings and when i do play well my defence are getting 7.7 to 8.3 ratings which is the highest ive ever had though i usually ave @7.3-7.5 for my defence in past formations with plenty of 7.6-7.9 ratings per game when keeping a clean sheet.

im just not sure whether to stick it out or whether i should do some tweaking? any help appreciated.

btw i have keita as my DM (ave 6.98) and lucas as my DLP (ave 7.30) ive also just got tiote in but hasnt played yet as i write.

If you are conceding a lot of goals from set-pieces, then look at how many set-pieces you are conceding and why. Is it because players are caught out of position and giving away fouls?

With FB's on attack and a high D-Line, you are bound to concede a fair few goals against fast strikers especially if your CB's are not the fastest.

yeah my one worry was my fullbacks tbh, i'll try give them a support duty, see how it goes.

Why not the best of both worlds? I play with a DMCR (usually on deep lying playmaker defend role, sometimes defensive midfielder role) and a MCL on central midfielder, support. It's solid defensively and there's a clear link between the lines.

foofighter23

You could try as I said above; two DM's. One is set to "anchor man" and the other as "deep lying playmaker", and ahead of that use three AM's - AMR, AML, and AMC. If you set your LB and RB to "Wing back - Support", it should give you a good balance between attack and defence.

Isn't this how Spain play when using an actual striker?

To be fair you can give your MC's a lower mentality than your back 4 and very low closing down thereby according the opposition no space between defense and midfield as I do.

To be fair you can give your MC's a lower mentality than your back 4 and very low closing down thereby according the opposition no space between defense and midfield as I do.

In response to what, the opening post? If so it doesn't fix the issue at all.

Since this thread has been upped I feel compelled to admit that I thought back to my FM10 days and in that iteration of the game I did notice a difference between the effectiveness of DM's and MC's in a 4-2-3-1, but I drew the wrong conclusion and thought that DM's were overpowered.

To avoid making this a useless post I'd like to ask in which formations the central midfielders do not work as intended, Cleon? I saw a post where you said that this didn't apply to the 4-4-2 (or was at least balanced out by the wide midfielders tracking back more), but I'd like to know whether there are other formations that you've tried where you found the problem.

Since this thread has been upped I feel compelled to admit that I thought back to my FM10 days and in that iteration of the game I did notice a difference between the effectiveness of DM's and MC's in a 4-2-3-1, but I drew the wrong conclusion and thought that DM's were overpowered.

To avoid making this a useless post I'd like to ask in which formations the central midfielders do not work as intended, Cleon? I saw a post where you said that this didn't apply to the 4-4-2 (or was at least balanced out by the wide midfielders tracking back more), but I'd like to know whether there are other formations that you've tried where you found the problem.

Any where the 2 MC's are exposed and have to do several jobs at once. If they have a DMC behind them or wingers (ML/MR) next to them, then they should be more solid. But in formations where they have neither, then this will be a massive issue.

Why not the best of both worlds? I play with a DMCR (usually on deep lying playmaker defend role, sometimes defensive midfielder role) and a MCL on central midfielder, support. It's solid defensively and there's a clear link between the lines.

What are your thoughts on this Cleon? I've been interested in using a 41131 like this but should I just stick to the 4231 deep?

What are your thoughts on this Cleon? I've been interested in using a 41131 like this but should I just stick to the 4231 deep?

Try it and see. But IMO the MC is still too stretched and he still doesn't do his job correctly. It's a formation issue, so you cannot fix the problem despite what people keep saying. If they say it fixes it, then they are either looking at the wrong thing or don't pay attention to actual player positions and what they do defensivley. The only solution is 2 DMC's.

we need arrows back like the good old days

On the MCL / DMCR setup: to be fair I have recently played usually with a MR and ML instead of a AMR and a AML, making it a 41311 rather than a 41131. It's more solid this way. But it's not like the 41131 is horrible at defending.

Then again might not be paying enough attention as I play the game on key highlights. I'll look at the conceded goals when I play the 41131 and analyse it to see if the opposition is exploiting the space behind the MC.

Try it and see. But IMO the MC is still too stretched and he still doesn't do his job correctly. It's a formation issue, so you cannot fix the problem despite what people keep saying. If they say it fixes it, then they are either looking at the wrong thing or don't pay attention to actual player positions and what they do defensivley. The only solution is 2 DMC's.

Thanks for the help as always Nah, I won't risk it. I'll stick with the 2 DMC's version as it's looking promising.

I've been playing with an AMC (advanced playmaker support), MCL (deep lying playmaker support), and MCR (center mid. defend). When playing against a team that also employs an AMC, should I drop the advanced playmaker to MCR, and the MCR to a DMC (defensive mid defend or anchor man [which one?]?

Any where the 2 MC's are exposed and have to do several jobs at once. If they have a DMC behind them or wingers (ML/MR) next to them, then they should be more solid. But in formations where they have neither, then this will be a massive issue.

If I interpret this in my own terms, the MC-slots position themselves too far up the pitch, operating more in the area between MC and AMC rather than MC and DMC-area. And that leaves you vulnerable, unless the 2MCs have support.

This support is important, because it helps the 2MCs in their defensive duties and crucially, buys them time to settle back into their more defensive positions. Support can come in different forms, like:

* ML/MR instead of AML / AMR. This will introduce people covering the flanks, so the 2MCs will only have to cover the middle. With less to cover, they will have more time to get into the right places.

* DMC covering. This directly addresses the problem area.

* Extra MC in line (flat 3 in the middle). This allows the MCs to shuffle over to react to danger (reactively following the danger, instead of proactively cutting it out by the DMC or ML / MR) while still allowing for a spare MC "in reserve".

So (depending or role selection) a 442/4411 or to a lesser extent flat 433 are both manageable tradeoffs, while 4231-Denmark or 424 (AMR/AML or even wide forwards) will be extremely vulnerable. 442-Diamond narrow is ok because it has support in the DMC area, while 442-diamond wide is borderline, with DMC and ML / MR providing some defensive cover but vulnerable simply because the center midfield has fewer bodies.

Is this somewhat accurate?

If I interpret this in my own terms, the MC-slots position themselves too far up the pitch, operating more in the area between MC and AMC rather than MC and DMC-area. And that leaves you vulnerable, unless the 2MCs have support.

This support is important, because it helps the 2MCs in their defensive duties and crucially, buys them time to settle back into their more defensive positions. Support can come in different forms, like:

* ML/MR instead of AML / AMR. This will introduce people covering the flanks, so the 2MCs will only have to cover the middle. With less to cover, they will have more time to get into the right places.

* DMC covering. This directly addresses the problem area.

* Extra MC in line (flat 3 in the middle). This allows the MCs to shuffle over to react to danger (reactively following the danger, instead of proactively cutting it out by the DMC or ML / MR) while still allowing for a spare MC "in reserve".

So (depending or role selection) a 442/4411 or to a lesser extent flat 433 are both manageable tradeoffs, while 4231-Denmark or 424 (AMR/AML or even wide forwards) will be extremely vulnerable. 442-Diamond narrow is ok because it has support in the DMC area, while 442-diamond wide is borderline, with DMC and ML / MR providing some defensive cover but vulnerable simply because the center midfield has fewer bodies.

Is this somewhat accurate?

Spot on