MUFC 3-4-1-2 formation LA Galaxy 0 Man Utd 7

Trying to figure out the best way to create the Man U 3-4-1-2 that Van Gahl debuted last night. the way I see it is this:

-- -- GK -- --

CD CD CD

WB WB

CM CM

AMC

ST ST

What stumps me is the following:

1) Roles of the CMs. I see both on support, one as ball winning and other as a DLP. Should one be on defensive duty?

2) Should the AMC be on support or attack duty?

3) Not sure on shouts for this. Seems like this tactic would thrive on fast passes and the wingbacks bombing down the sides.

Ideas anyone?

I've been looking at this myself!

1. One should be on Defend - you have a lot of space back to defence to cover

2. Depends what you want him to do. I've not seen the match, but saw some stills which showed the front three all pressing quite hard in a line. With that limited knowledge, I'd use an Attack Duty - maybe an AM on Attack or SS

3. Again, having not seen the game, it's hard to comment. Exploit The Flanks could be a decent idea as a starting point

I'll do some testing tonight and see what I can come up with, but it all seems a bit vague (from my perspective) having not seen the game.

Yeah I am having the same issue. Read about it on Bleacher Report (they did a nice feature on it which got me interested). Thinking of trying it with my Arsenal squad.

I've watched a 30 minute set of highlights now (YouTube is your friend!), and have the following observations. These will be pretty disorganised, because I'm literally pausing the video and typing!

1. The wing backs pressed like Hell when out of possession when the ball was on their side of the pitch. When it wasn't, they assumed a deeper position which sort of of created a back four. Whenever Valencia cut inside with the ball, the bench seemed pretty annoyed - the wing back role was to provide width and not much else, it seems!

2. When in possession, the wing backs were very high - in the mould of a FM14 CWB

3. The front two both worked the channels and the AMC attacked any space created. It's a tricky one to call as the movement of the front three was so dynamic. Sometimes it looked like a flat three with one dropping deep in the manner of a False Nine when out of possession. Overall, it's very fluid at that end of the pitch

4. The deeper midfielder was Fletcher (in the first half), with Herrera more mobile and prepared to support attacks

5. The front players pressed fairly high

6. The defence only ever really formed a flat back five when a defensive transition was very established. I feel like it may be more appropriate to replicate that in FM terms with wing backs in the wing back rather than full back positions. Certainly, when at a restart of facing a goal kick, the back five was not flat. *However* on occasions it was a flat 5 (81:36 as an example), so hard to call!

7. Wing backs at wing back rather than full back also suits the behaviour of the back three. They split very wide when in possession, and the wing backs were in front of them. If you use a flat back five, the central three will not fan across the pitch like the Man U defence did against LA Galaxy

8. There's a lot of interplay - fluid movement with players advancing to press, and others dropping to cover

9. Signs that the outer DCs were FM equivalent of Stoppers, with the central guy generally behind.

So, given the comments above, I came up with this:

It's caveated based on the fact that I didn't see the whole game, so it's hard to judge passing style and things like that based on snippets of actions before goals were scored.

As a result, the TIs are just based on my personal preferences - I don't want long shots, and I do want to move the ball around quickly.

I've chosen a Standard Mentality to retain a neutral passing mixed (based on the fact I couldn't judge passing style from clips). I've gone for Fluid to mimic the nature of what I saw in the clips.

In addition to the Team stuff in the image, I've applied these PIs:

Both wing backs Close Down More and Run Wide With Ball. Without Close DOwn More, I didn't achieve the pressing effort that I saw in the clips. Without Run Wide With Ball, we lacked a bit of width, and this ensured that we wouldn't have prompted the mutterings on the bench when Valencia cut inside. Note that I did start with CWBs, but didn't consider their movement to match what I saw on YouTube. There was a degree of conservatism to their play, and they essentially served as wide men whose purpose was to move up and down the flank supporting the ball carrier centrally.

CM (D) Close Down Less. Whilst I want Pressing effort out wide and up front, I want to retain shape centrally.

So, the DLP (S) has the same instruction. However, when all the ball, I noticed Herrera in particular seeking space and moving forward. For these reasons, I've selected a Support Duty, and encouraged him to Roam From Position.

Shadow Striker was a tricky Role to call (I've tried a PI laden Enganche and Attacking Midfielder too). The SS is asked to Play More Risky Passes in a playmaker Role, and his general movement seems to better suit the deeper lying forward I saw in the clips of the game.

The CF (S) is on Support for FM purposes - I want him to come a bit deeper when we don't have the ball - I wouldn't get that at all if he was on Attack (as he was originally).

I mentioned the width of the front two, so the CF is asked to Move Into Channels, and I've also asked him to Roam From Position in an attempt to generate some interplay in the front three.

The AF just Moves Into Channels to create that width. All of the front three Clown Down More by default.

I'd be interested to hear any opinions on this, and see some other peoples' interpretations of this style of play.

IMO this is the best analysis I've heard of the game so far. I agree with all of this. Spot on.

As a MUFC fan, last night was incredible. The difference from Moyes to Van Gaal is astounding.

That looks great except for a few small things possibly.

1) Should the WB be CWBs here? Seems like that would encourage them to move up faster. Also make them attacking? Or does this give up too much space behind?

2) Why is one of the CDs a ball playing defender? What does that add?

3) I think Shadow Striker would work well here as you have it. Makes sense for the role that the AM would have in this case

4) Moving into channels seems smart, would give the AM room to blast forward on the attack.

Looking forward to using this as one of my tactics. Should be a fun adventure at least!

1. I used CWBs originally, but they got too far forward, too early. When I watched highlights of the game, whilst it's true that the wing backs did advance, they were not as aggressive as CWBs in FM - in my opinion.

2. The outer DCs are BPDs. This is partially personal preference, but is also in line with my comment about outer Stoppers. In FM, I don't really like Stoppers, so instead elected to use outer defenders who have a bit more creative freedom and tend to carry the ball further than a bog standard DC.

3. From the limited tests I've done, the SS seems the closest match to what I saw.

4. Yes - that's the plan. I'm starting to regreat giving the CF Roams From Position as well, as it detracts from his lateral movement by throwing some vertical movement into the mix as well. Likely to remove it.

For context, I'm using this set up with Man U, albeit it 2026. Latest result with the set up in the image was this

We were down to 10 men from 76 mins as I'd used all my subs and had an injury. City's formation is visible (note that my #29 went off injured, so is missing from the formation widget), but they reverted to that when our man was sent off and used a 4-4-1-1 until then. Their man in the hole didn't cause any issues due to the positioning of the CM (D), in conjunction with the back three. Their goal was an annoying lofted fluke from the byline which drifted over the keeper - and only when we had 10 men.

Even in 2026, City are a major force and are 2nd in the league - 17 points behind me

I knew someone would want to have a go at this

It finally gives me a reason to go 3 at the back

Agree with almost all of RT's post at #5, however. I'm going to look at CM AP-Support and AMC AP-Attack for Herrera and Mata respectively. Mata was frequently picking up the ball very deep.

With the greatest of respect to the many Man U fans, is it right to re-create a formation based on 90mins of a fairly meaningless friendly...........?

If there is one thing Van Gaal is, its adaptive. he already talked about using this because he has so many strikers. But he is willing to spend 100million on players, so its reasonably to assume that this might not be his final formation?

There is a good reason that 3 at the back hasnt been a sucess in the EPL for a number of years (Rodgers tried it last year, and Arsenal showed him why it doesnt work). I dont see that he will play that way beyond the friendlies...........

With the greatest of respect to the many Man U fans, is it right to re-create a formation based on 90mins of a fairly meaningless friendly...........?

If there is one thing Van Gaal is, its adaptive. he already talked about using this because he has so many strikers. But he is willing to spend 100million on players, so its reasonably to assume that this might not be his final formation?

There is a good reason that 3 at the back hasnt been a sucess in the EPL for a number of years (Rodgers tried it last year, and Arsenal showed him why it doesnt work). I dont see that he will play that way beyond the friendlies...........

He's already said, thats how he wants to play, with the other formation being a 4-3-3. They've specifically been training towards it. He's not then going to throw it out if it works.

i am pretty sure he said they have only spent 2 training sessions on that formation. He already said the sqaud isnt balanced, and he has too many Number 10's so it seems quite clear that he will change it before the season starts .

RTHerringbone, have you tried with two CFs upfront? I tried with the support duty moving into channels, and they're really creating some nice widt upfront.

I think the point is that it gives us another new formation to try out. Not even sure it will work but I'm going to try it along with my 4-2-3-1 I'm playing already to give some variety.

i am pretty sure he said they have only spent 2 training sessions on that formation. He already said the sqaud isnt balanced, and he has too many Number 10's so it seems quite clear that he will change it before the season starts .

They've not been with him long at all. You might want to look at his quotes as a whole. It's quite clear he wants United to play this way, with 4-3-3 being the alternative. Not going to take this off topic, you might well go look for his words yourself.

I think the point is that it gives us another new formation to try out. Not even sure it will work but I'm going to try it along with my 4-2-3-1 I'm playing already to give some variety.

Interested to see it with Van Persie, as he will play differently to Welbeck

IMO this is the best analysis I've heard of the game so far. I agree with all of this. Spot on.

As a MUFC fan, last night was incredible. The difference from Moyes to Van Gaal is astounding.

What's the world coming to when people get excited by friendlies and make snap judgements like this

I actually think LvG sets his teams out to be rigid because everyone is assigned a tasked and they must stick to it, he's one of the most rigid managers around imo. In FM terms he's not really a fluid manager at all.

This gives you a brief overview of the game tactically http://mufclatest.com/tactical-analysis-la-galaxy-0-7-manchester-united/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tactical-analysis-la-galaxy-0-7-manchester-united

After watching Netherlands at the World Cup and reading ZonalMarking's article about them, I came up with this tactic. I haven't watched any of the highlights from the friendly, but from what I'e read it seems like he's setting Man Utd up in a similar fashion.

In terms of FM, this has been my favorite tactic I've created myself. The front 3 have produced some simply breathtaking passing combinations for goals. I didn't use any PI's, just the TI's you can see in the screenshot.

Based on some of RT's observations from what he watched, having Hassle Opponents has led to some easy goals from the front 3 pressing hard and causing a defensive mistake. The WB's only rarely cut inside, most of the time they provide width, and an easy outball if the center of the pitch gets congested and the play needs to be recycled.

3. The front two both worked the channels and the AMC attacked any space created. It's a tricky one to call as the movement of the front three was so dynamic. Sometimes it looked like a flat three with one dropping deep in the manner of a False Nine when out of possession.

In my version, the AP/a also does a very good job of this, and has, in some instances, actually been the 2nd leading goal scorer only behind the AF. I've noticed the AF pushing high, as expected, and the CF/s drifts wider, creating triangles out wide with the DLP and RWB, while the AP pushes forward, all happening frequently, and leading to some pretty easy goals for the AP.

While I haven't seen the match, I will add to the praise for the AP(a) in a 2ST/1AMC trio. I've found that SS and AMC(a) tend to start a bit too far forward, the support roles are too creative and not aggressive enough, while the Treq wanders too far (not tried an EG yet). The AP(a) on the other hand seems to fit perfectly. He'll drop a bit deeper to collect the ball, but then turn and attack the defense once he's got it. Against a back 4, this often leads to either one of the CBs having to step out to cover him, thus leaving one of the strikers unmarked and the AP(a) playing the through ball, or the CBs stick with the strikers, leaving space for the AP(a) to run into the area himself.

RTHerringbone, have you tried with two CFs upfront? I tried with the support duty moving into channels, and they're really creating some nice widt upfront.

Not in this system, but have done so before. I quite like the AF (A) / CF (S) pairing, but nothing is set in stone yet.

What's the world coming to when people get excited by friendlies and make snap judgements like this

I actually think LvG sets his teams out to be rigid because everyone is assigned a tasked and they must stick to it, he's one of the most rigid managers around imo. In FM terms he's not really a fluid manager at all.

This gives you a brief overview of the game tactically http://mufclatest.com/tactical-analysis-la-galaxy-0-7-manchester-united/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tactical-analysis-la-galaxy-0-7-manchester-united

The World Cup is over - I need stuff like this to motivate me!

I know that you have a far more extensive knowledge of van Gaal's approach than I, so your comments re Fluidity are very relevant for me.

I took a lazy approach of setting Fluid Fluidity, and considering your comments, I think I might re-evaluate that tonight. Instead, what I'm likely to do is experiment with Rigid, ask the STs to Move Into Channels still, and dabble with the SS as an AP (A).

This is where the terminology of the game and interpreting a real life match is not as cut and dried as it might seem. Even the article you link refers to the Fluidity of the play at times, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the team as a whole was Fluid. More so that there was interplay between players (like between the front three, or the playmaker at MC and the AMC). All of that "Fluidity" can be achieved through Roles and Duties and Player Instructions in a Rigid FM Fluidity.

Agree with almost all of RT's post at #5, however. I'm going to look at CM AP-Support and AMC AP-Attack for Herrera and Mata respectively. Mata was frequently picking up the ball very deep.

This is something I'm interested in too, especially given what I've just said to Cleon above about a change in Fluidity and Roles.

The AP Attack I definitely will be trying. The AP Support at MC I'm less sure about. I've set a DLP (S) to Roam More, and he is moving up field, though arguably not as often as Herrera seemed to when linking with Mata in the first half. I pondered using an AP (S) to get the extra forward thrust, but I worry that this would compromise our defensive stability at MC, which is key with just two MCs.

The World Cup is over - I need stuff like this to motivate me!

I know that you have a far more extensive knowledge of van Gaal's approach than I, so your comments re Fluidity are very relevant for me.

I took a lazy approach of setting Fluid Fluidity, and considering your comments, I think I might re-evaluate that tonight. Instead, what I'm likely to do is experiment with Rigid, ask the STs to Move Into Channels still, and dabble with the SS as an AP (A).

This is where the terminology of the game and interpreting a real life match is not as cut and dried as it might seem. Even the article you link refers to the Fluidity of the play at times, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the team as a whole was Fluid. More so that there was interplay between players (like between the front three, or the playmaker at MC and the AMC). All of that "Fluidity" can be achieved through Roles and Duties and Player Instructions in a Rigid FM Fluidity.

Agreed. Fluidity in FM is pointless in its current form for the exact reasons you mention. The fluidity when talking real life tends to come from roles and the interplay between the team in FM not so much.

Agreed. Fluidity in FM is pointless in its current form for the exact reasons you mention. The fluidity when talking real life tends to come from roles and the interplay between the team in FM not so much.

Just to elaborate on something on Twitter (without the 140 character limit!):

It was mentioned that Fluid Fluidity seems to more simply create "unit" style play where the team attacks as one and defends as one - it tightens the space between the lines in many regards.

You've stated that van Gaal has a clear expectation of what each player brings to a Role, and each player needs to contribute those exact requirements in order for the team as a whole to function. You've started that the "unit" play of Fluid is perfectly achievable in Rigid, given the right set up of Roles / Duties / TIs etc.

Given the comments above re the set up of the midfield trio (MCs and AMC), it's that area which I believe is most critical to get set right to keep the lines tight. With that in mind, I think that a CM (D), DLP (S) and AP (A) combination would operate better than a CM (D), AP (S) and SS (A) or CM (D), AP (S) and AP (A) combination.

In your view, would you essentially just Push Higher Up in a Standard Mentality to further gain that tightness between the lines?

I'm actually on my way to York so its hard to have a discussion atm outside of Twitter. I'll respond properly tonight when I'm back but I just posted this on twitter;

I guess depending the roles you used too would be brought more inline with Fluid. Like RT for example, 2 BPD in his back line so already his back line isn't tight and disjointed. The same in midfield with the DLP/CM due to the duties, they'd be split. Unfront is his most solid line as all 3 will play inline at times. So being fluid will make all of the players closer. In a rigid set up normal defenders and a double DLP combo would give tighter lines for example.

I actually think a DLP defend and a CM S would be better as the DLP on support tends to roam slightly more but you'd benefit from him being more rigid imo and feeding the ball to the wide players and CM rather than having the CM do that role.

I would use just a standard mentality with push higher up yeah it makes more sense then change it based on whats happening in game.

I actually think a DLP defend and a CM S would be better as the DLP on support tends to roam slightly more but you'd benefit from him being more rigid imo and feeding the ball to the wide players and CM rather than having the CM do that role.

This is a really good point - my thinking was skewed by the way I think Herrera and Fletcher play in real life.

I'm really interested in this thread. I'm playing as United now, and having missed out on my main attacking transfer target, I'm not sure I can play my preferred 4-4-1-1 system, as I don't necessarily have the right players for it, and I don't want to buy a player just for the sake of it - so I'd been toying with the idea of adopting this sort of formation for the past few days. Seeing LVG use it with United in real life, and this particular thread, has given me something to think about, as I've never used a back 3 in 14 years of playing CM/FM, and I wouldn't know how to set up a balanced formation.

In my 4-1-4-1 I've tended to use DLP (d), CM/BBM (s) and AP (a), so it looks like a similar set up could translate into this formation.

What is nice about this particular shape is that one or two simple changes can alter the formation to either a 3-1-4-2 or even a 4-3-1-2 without necessarily having to change personnel (especially if you were to use Fletcher or Carrick as a centre back - you could simply move them forward to a DM or a CM)

A few observations...

1. I think that it is really important the two wide CBs be DR/C and DL/C and have their stronger foot on each side(aka jones and smalling on the right, and perhaps vermaelan on the left.) As RT mentioned briefly, when the ball is on one side, the defence becomes a back four, with the WB closing down aggressively when the ball is on his side. Thus, I would want my wide DCs to be pretty adept at CB and fullback, as well as be quick and intelligent enough to occupy the space vacated by the WB. Not too sure this can be replicated entirely in the game.

2. I think the problem with a back 3 at big clubs is that when teams park the bus, you have 3 defenders who will have possession of the ball(against a lone striker) but not much skill to do anything creatively with it. This could result in a lot of sideways passes between the three of them. Thus, BPDs are essential to carry the ball up and make forward runs, perhaps even bypassing the midfield to draw a defender to them so as to free up teammates. Therefore, I think the personnel for the back 3 is very important and would need defenders with specific skills, and that may be why LVG is rumoured to be after players like hummels, vermaelan and blind.

3. To counter point 2, I would actually replace the CMd with a B2B role. This is just my preference for a more reckless and aggressive style of football, with the front 7 closing down more and essentially leaving the back 3 to deal with the opposing striker(s) and runners from deep.

4. Herrera actually played "better" in the second half and got 2 assists while he was playing in the hole in front of the 2 CMs whereas he got 3/4 hockey assists(the pass before the assist) in the midfield role. Both times I think he played as an AP, just that the mentality was different, with one being support in the first half and attack in the second.

After watching Netherlands at the World Cup and reading ZonalMarking's article about them, I came up with this tactic. I haven't watched any of the highlights from the friendly, but from what I'e read it seems like he's setting Man Utd up in a similar fashion.

In terms of FM, this has been my favorite tactic I've created myself. The front 3 have produced some simply breathtaking passing combinations for goals. I didn't use any PI's, just the TI's you can see in the screenshot.

Based on some of RT's observations from what he watched, having Hassle Opponents has led to some easy goals from the front 3 pressing hard and causing a defensive mistake. The WB's only rarely cut inside, most of the time they provide width, and an easy outball if the center of the pitch gets congested and the play needs to be recycled.

In my version, the AP/a also does a very good job of this, and has, in some instances, actually been the 2nd leading goal scorer only behind the AF. I've noticed the AF pushing high, as expected, and the CF/s drifts wider, creating triangles out wide with the DLP and RWB, while the AP pushes forward, all happening frequently, and leading to some pretty easy goals for the AP.

At the world cup they weren't exactly CWB. they often formed a back 5 so I would put them in the full back area but maybe as WB -A or S.

I saw RT's post on Twitter about the formation and have been speaking to him over the course of yesterday. With a bit of his help i came up with this formation and roles.

I went through a few different roles including a Triquartista behind the 2 attackers and defensive wingers which weren't performing how i wanted them to so settled for wingbacks for now.

The heat map shows like this:

The highlight so far was a 9-0 thrashing of Leicester with Mata in the AP (a) role knocking in 5 goals and getting a 10 rating, he seems to be making runs into the box and getting on the end of crosses from the wingbacks. All his goals came from within the box.

There will probably be some changes, i'd like to experiment with the complete wingbacks after reading this thread. If anyone has any advice or questions i'll be happy to answer them, but i'm not going to be around much today and tomorrow.

My set up is very similar,

SK (S)

BPD(D)

CD(D)

BPD(D)

WB(S)

WB(S)

DLP(D)

CM(S)

AP(A)

DF(S)

AF(A)

love the combo between the AP, AF and DF

I'm definitely thinking that we need more threads along these lines when the season kicks off.

It continues the good work that The Hand of God's World Cup thread did, and the analysis that Cleon's SI Sports Centre threads encourage.

I'm convinced that if more people spend time watching and analysing real matches, and then detail their thought processes behind translating that into FM, then the community can only benefit and the knowledge base will grow.

I'm definitely thinking that we need more threads along these lines when the season kicks off.

It continues the good work that The Hand of God's World Cup thread did, and the analysis that Cleon's SI Sports Centre threads encourage.

I'm convinced that if more people spend time watching and analysing real matches, and then detail their thought processes behind translating that into FM, then the community can only benefit and the knowledge base will grow.

What if I told you that every prematch formation graphic you've ever seen... was wrong.

What if I told you that every prematch formation graphic you've ever seen... was wrong.

Ooooh - mysterious! Care to elaborate?

Ooooh - mysterious! Care to elaborate?

We're through the looking glass now, RTH. Prepare for a world where 4-4-2 never went away...

We're through the looking glass now, RTH. Prepare for a world where 4-4-2 never went away...

But what about a world where the 4-4-2 didn't exist?! Maybe the W-M never went away

There will probably be some changes, i'd like to experiment with the complete wingbacks after reading this thread. If anyone has any advice or questions i'll be happy to answer them, but i'm not going to be around much today and tomorrow.

What are the PIs if you use any?

Spireheart - I hadn't really seen your set up, as images get blocked by my firewall at work.

A few questions:

1. Do you have any issues with Wing Backs on attack? Either getting too high, too early so they get too far ahead of the ball carrier to offer him a pass?

2. Do you see any defensive issues as a result of them being too far up field, or do they get back in position quickly enough, or do the DCs have the AI attack covered anyway?

3. Any issues with Hassle Opponents? I elected to get my Pressing through the Roles I used up front, and PIs on the wing backs.

4. With Control, the defence will tend to pass shorter anyway. What do you feel Play Out Of Defence adds to the system?

5. How is it getting on against bigger teams?

We're through the looking glass now, RTH. Prepare for a world where 4-4-2 never went away...

It seems to me 4-2-3-1 Denmark is really just 4-4-1-1(which Alex Ferguson adored, but alot of people thought he played 4-4-2) and 4-1DM-2-3-1 is really just 4-1-4-1(which alot of people use to criticise as being 4-5-1 and way too negative, we can all remember the "should be playing 2 up front" moans, right? right? ).

I forget where I was now, or the point, that looks like a friendly rabbit...

RT,

1: Not that i have noticed so far, they've always been where they need to be to receive the ball and as you can see, a large majority of assists have come from either side:

2: When i played Arsenal at home i conceded 1 which looks like it could have been Rafael pressing too much leaving a gap as you can see here:

This gave Chamberlain a free run down the left and brought Evans in to press but by then it was too late and he put in a cross for Giroud to get on the end of

3: Would you say this could be what happened above? If so it could be something i need to have a look at

4: That is something i have thought of, but i do tend to change the philosophy occasionally which i am still working on

5 So far so good the two bigger sides i've played so far have been Arsenal at home and Liverpool away :

@Spireheart - single widemen formations, like yours, are susceptible to combination wide play like here as it is basically 2 v 1 down the flank. I think you don't even have a DMC who might have tried to help out, but that is not too ideal a solution either in my opinion. Mitigating this will be difficult, because if you ask your fullback not to engage so aggressively the opposition fullback then he can hit early crosses!! Central defenders who dominate in the air will be a big plus. You could also consider using a flat central midfield 3 to cover the flanks a little better. Decisions, decisions.

Spireheart - I agree with what peleJunior says. The goal Giroud scored is an acceptable one - it's just good play from Arsenal.

Arguably, if you had no Hassle and no Closing Down PIs for Rafael, it wouldn't have happened, but what's to say that Hassle ordinarily hasn't stopped you conceding goals in other scenarios.

If you want to test it, just remove the PI, and see how you get on. You can then look to add the Close Down More PI to individual players (where applicable) to control your pressing.

Another possibilty to prevent the wing overload from happening, is to give the two forwards the instruction to heavily press the opponents fullback on their side. In one of the more defensive games Holland played, i believe Robben and Van Persie were doing so against a back four leaving Sneijder free to either help pressing in midfield and let the opponent centre backs free (when they were not comfortable on the ball) or to press these two centre backs when needed.

I saw RT's post on Twitter about the formation and have been speaking to him over the course of yesterday. With a bit of his help i came up with this formation and roles.

I went through a few different roles including a Triquartista behind the 2 attackers and defensive wingers which weren't performing how i wanted them to so settled for wingbacks for now.

The heat map shows like this:

The highlight so far was a 9-0 thrashing of Leicester with Mata in the AP (a) role knocking in 5 goals and getting a 10 rating, he seems to be making runs into the box and getting on the end of crosses from the wingbacks. All his goals came from within the box.

There will probably be some changes, i'd like to experiment with the complete wingbacks after reading this thread. If anyone has any advice or questions i'll be happy to answer them, but i'm not going to be around much today and tomorrow.

Hi! I used your tactic in first game, lost 1-0, but that was the match engine talking, their only shot against my 34 shots 11 on target! My question is do you have any players instructions? I really like how the tactic plays

Hi! I used your tactic in first game, lost 1-0, but that was the match engine talking, their only shot against my 34 shots 11 on target! My question is do you have any players instructions? I really like how the tactic plays

Which players did you pick for this formation?

Which players did you pick for this formation?

De Gea

Caulker, Jones, Mangala

Rafael Shaw

Fletcher, Vidal

Januzaj

Rooney, Mata

Hmmm, don't really care for creating a formation based on the match (it was one match and a friendly at that) but the idea of an LvG-style formation interests me.

I haven't seen the United match but did they play similarly at all to the way the Dutch did? I would be surprised if they did...

Anyway, this is an interesting thread. I'm posting simply because there's talk of the Dutch playing a 4312 at the WC - that is not what I saw. I saw a 532 with two WBs, 3 CBs, a DM and 2 CMs. de Jong was consistently deeper than both Sneijder and Wijnaldum and he was definitely functioning in a deeper role. I'm also not sure it is possible to recreate Robben's role in the side, which was a striker who drifted out wide (similar to how Suarez and Sturridge did for Liverpool last season).

Spireheart - I agree with what peleJunior says. The goal Giroud scored is an acceptable one - it's just good play from Arsenal.

Arguably, if you had no Hassle and no Closing Down PIs for Rafael, it wouldn't have happened, but what's to say that Hassle ordinarily hasn't stopped you conceding goals in other scenarios.

If you want to test it, just remove the PI, and see how you get on. You can then look to add the Close Down More PI to individual players (where applicable) to control your pressing.

I actually think that the goal should have been prevented. I think I've already explained in my earlier post(#26), but in essence I think defensively with this formation, Rafael should have pressed the fullback(monreal), and the rightmost CB(aka smalling or whoever), should have gone over to a normal RB spot and marked oxlade-chamberlain. This would mean that there would be a back four, with shaw taking up a LB position and the other two DCs in the centre. Again, don't think this can be replicated in FM exactly.

I think a perfect 3 DC combination would be:

DC(L): A vermaelan/vertonghen type who is decent with the ball and can play both DC and LB but is better at DC of course. Left footed is a must

DC: This can vary, with either a strong, solid rock of a CB type(like a terry or vidic), a ball playing type(hummels, pique or dare I say Luiz?), or someone who is tall but perhaps not the quickest(mertersacker). Ultmately, I think that they must definitely be strong in the air.

DC®: Similar to the DC(L), could be a smalling or jones type of player

LVG has already stated that the personnel must fit the system and I don't think you can just chuck any 3 CBs there and expect to be strong defensively.

I actually think that the goal should have been prevented. I think I've already explained in my earlier post(#26), but in essence I think defensively with this formation, Rafael should have pressed the fullback(monreal), and the rightmost CB(aka smalling or whoever), should have gone over to a normal RB spot and marked oxlade-chamberlain. This would mean that there would be a back four, with shaw taking up a LB position and the other two DCs in the centre. Again, don't think this can be replicated in FM exactly.

I agree in real life terms, and think Phil Jones was quoted as saying something along these lines, albeit in a slightly different context.

It doesn't really work like this in FM because the way pressing happens is a bit simplistic and focuses on pressing the ball carrier, but not on the consequences of moving a player(s) out of position to engage with him.

A couple of options are you could stand off, which could allow him too much time and space, or you could man mark the wide men with wing backs, but that would affect the wing backs movement too much for my liking.

Agreed. Fluidity in FM is pointless in its current form for the exact reasons you mention. The fluidity when talking real life tends to come from roles and the interplay between the team in FM not so much.

I've always kind of looked at the terminology used in FM for "Mentality" and "Fluidity" as for-lack-of-a-better word. "Control" isn't a perfect word to describe that setup, so I don't really get too hung up on what the real definition of the word is. The tactic I've used for most of this version of FM uses the Counter mentality but I spend most of the game with the ball in the opponents' half.

As for this tactic, there were a few teams at the World Cup who employed it with success. Off the top of my head I know Mexico and Costa Rica used variations of the 5-3-2. United did very well the other night but let's be honest, they're a lot better than the Galaxy and LA was obviously not interested in competing. They were playing guys out of position all over the field.

This is a formation I used for most of FM13 and a lot of FM14. Unfortunately I couldn't get any defensive stability with three at the back and no DMC, although I've started using it again and the results have been quite promising. It tends to dominate possession and the interplay between the two strikers and the AMC can be quite brilliant.

The problem I am running into however is, even though I dominate games and create a lot of chances, the 2-3 chances the AI creates tend to be very good ones. Theoretically I'd like the two outside DCs to be on cover duty, so one can push out to a winger who gets goal side of the wingback and the other two can deal with a cross, but I find even when I set players to 'cover' they still push up too far. I can also struggle against teams that play an AMC as if my DLP doesn't get back quickly enough, it can pull the back three out of position.

Still creating more than enough to win games however. If I am trying to close out a game, often I'll drop the AMC to DMC, and then change the DLP to an AP. This at least seems to limit space and keep the back three coherent with each other.

Having become somewhat obsessed in recent weeks with making my full backs the success story in my teams it is about time i moved away from a back 4 to a back 3 and joining Austrian club First Vienna FC 1894 has given me the ideal chance to do that.

Most of my recent tactics start with a back four, two CWB(a) with a DMC being the Halfback. From the moment i got FM14 i have played a HB, it is always the first thing i put in place and work around it. This has spread to having the CWB's run the show and a recent season in Scottish League Two with Berwick saw my left back end up top scorer for me and top assister. It is worth noting that he didn't take penalties either. He was the 3rd or 4th top scorer in the league and a clear winner for Player of the Season. This has just upped my insistence to make the full backs the cream of the crop.

So after many months i have dropped the back four and trying out this-

I am not set on each role yet as i have not been totally impressed with some forward links nor what to do with the WB positions. The AMC switches between Tarq and AM whilst i experimented with SS for a few matches.

I use a few PI, mainly CWB to stay wider, GK to distribute out to a CWB and the forward line have more ability to roam depending on the formation we come up against.

Taking over this little Austrian side we were predicted to finish 9th out of ten and started the season on minus 3 points.

According to the comparison of other sides we have one of the best goalkeepers and defenders in the league, another reason for moving from four at the back. The strong defense showed early doors, plenty of clean sheets even with a 42 year old at the centre of defence. I have made just the one signing to the side that i inherited but something is working.

If not for the 3 point deduction we would be top, the two defeats to the current leaders has not helped either! We have a small squad of average players, paying out £505k p/a in wages compared to the leaders £1.8m.

In terms of those players a majority of my goals come from my AF(a) Zellhofer (16 in 21 games) while the assists are spread out (CWB left, Tarq and F9 with 16 between them). The DLP(d) has the best Pass Completion in the league at 89% and both my CWB feature high in the Ave Tackles per game.