Need a little help with my 3-5-2

I'm currently in March 2021 and have signed two players on big wages (Julian Brandt and Donis Avdijaj) and will need to fit them into my team of stars. I think I can shoehorn them into a 3-5-2 after playing a 4-2-2 narrow diamond and a 4-2-3-1. Currently my team is light on full backs (two stars with no real backup) so 3 at the back makes sense to me. I am super-strong in all areas except full backs (well, they're really good but just don't have support).

Ive decided to go with this shape and currently am operating with the roles below:

The plan is for the DF to be operating in and around the DM line with the WM acting like a IF. I have set him to cut inside, dribble more and more direct passes. The winger and DF also has more direct passes set as well. I can see a gap develop in the middle so I have gone for a regista rather than a roaming playmaker as I feel with an anchor and 3 man defense I have enough blokes back and with a SS and DF there is enough players for a regista to pass to.

I have started with a structured shape but feel it may need to be flexible and I also feel the team is capable of controlling the game so have set the mentality as such.

Team instructions are as follows:

I'm not sure about push higher up but my theory is it will put pressure on teams as well as fill the midfield gap somewhat. As the team is higher up I feel I can afford to tackle harder. As both my wide players are quick and my strikers are all quick I feel I can use pass into space to my advantage.

The questions I have at the moment are:

• Is the setup logical (TI's and PI's)
  
• Is there something glaring that I am missing?
  
• would a roaming playmaker make better use of the middle or is a regista the right choice?
  
• I was thinking a WP on the right instead of the WM. Is this an area I should investigate or would it make me too static?
  
• The shape to me is fairly defensive. Can I change the anchorman to a DM or even a BWM and maintain the defensive pressure?
  

I know this is all fairly broad but the idea is in it's infancy and I feel it can work if setup correctly.

Thanks for the help.

It's a nice formation and not one I have used recently. My questions would be:

1. Are the ML/R going to offer enough defensive cover on the flanks? Do they even need to? It's a juggling act as you have 4 players staying back at all times and good defensive width with a three, so it's probably not critical, but I'd advise watching a couple of games in Full to see what sort of spaces open up when you are on the attack.

2. The front three feels a bit disjointed, because Barkley is not likely to drop deep enough when you are defending to link up to the DMs behind. I'd propose that a better solution would be to have some sort of Support Role or a Treq at AMC in order to overcome this. He could then operate in the DM area that you want the DF to do, and the DF could then become an alternate Role / Duty.

Regarding your questions:

1. Yeah, the TIs make sense. Pass Into Space will increase through balls, which makes sense given the deeper starting positions of the ML/R. Tweaking the front three could make even better use of this. Work Ball Into Box will reduce long shots and crossing, so again I'd suggest that a "better" option at AMC will make more use of these TIs. Pop a creator who contributes defensively in behind a striker pairing and it can only be good, and it can only work with these TIs. Push Higher Up makes absolute sense, as adding DMs naturally depresses the defensive line a bit - though your Mentality will also be pushing it up.

2. I don't think anything glaringly bad stands out - apart from what I mention about the front three - I just can't see how that all hangs together. One thing to be mindful of is that having the WM to behave like an IF risks leaving that right flank exposed if he is on the ball and cutting in. The Anchor and width of the three should help, but it is a potential weak point.

3. I used a deep 4-2-3-1 at some point on FM15 and found the differences between the Regista and RPM to be huge. For me, I prefer a Regista because he advances at a slower rate and is often a safe passing outlet behind play. The RPM can be a bit too cavalier with the speed he moves upfield, which can prevent him from being open. Given that you have three men up front, I don't think the RPM is needed, but just keep an eye on the Regista to make sure he is linking play well enough through the middle.

4. Why are you thinking WP instead of WM? You seem to have a plan with the WM - what would the WP bring that the WM wouldn't? Why do you fear it would be too static?

5. I love the Anchor Role as he is the most conservatively positioned DM Role and that could be beneficial given the formation here. You could change him, but bear in mind his DM partner is mobile. If you have two mobile DMs, you run the risk of having the back three exposed, but then the use of a back three "frees up" a defender compared to a conventional four, so it's all part of the balance. Try with a BWM (D) or DM (D) and see how it does.

Funny you say a treq. I had the thought of making the DF a treq but now you say it having the treq at AM does make more sense. I can then make the DF into a DLF (most likely) or a CF (not so sure). This is something I will definitely try as I see the AM as one of the main scoring options.

I really like BWM's but to me I felt I wanted to fit him into a role it wasn't suited but may have gone too conservatively. I will play with this and report back.

I felt having another creative player wide would help the limited creative forces up front. I thought he would give me some sort of attacking force as well but the WM seems to work better. Add a treq into the equation and I think it will open up scoring chances.

I guess the other concern was trying to get the WM to be a scoring threat I felt the deep player on the same side would cause issues of players trying to use the same space. Then on the other hand I felt the winger wouldn't be as effective trying to cross to the closer striker. It's a balancing act but one I think will end up being the lesser of two evils (chop out the crossing). The other issue I have doing that is then the AF and WM are likely to be pushing into the same space. It's one I really need to watch

With control-mentality and push higher up selected you are reducing the Space for the guys who is supposed to score the goals for you. Both the af-a, ss-a and wm-a will try to get in the Box, but most of the time they will have no Space to run into, since you are trying to pin the opponents back. You can Control the game just fine on lower mentalities aswell.

I felt having another creative player wide would help the limited creative forces up front. I thought he would give me some sort of attacking force as well but the WM seems to work better. Add a treq into the equation and I think it will open up scoring chances.

I guess the other concern was trying to get the WM to be a scoring threat I felt the deep player on the same side would cause issues of players trying to use the same space. Then on the other hand I felt the winger wouldn't be as effective trying to cross to the closer striker. It's a balancing act but one I think will end up being the lesser of two evils (chop out the crossing). The other issue I have doing that is then the AF and WM are likely to be pushing into the same space. It's one I really need to watch

Remember that you don't really need to push the number of goalscoring avenues you have - you have three players high up the pitch who will always be in and around the area when your attacks mature. What I think you need to focus on is the relationship between the Regista, the Winger and the WM with that front trio. You need to make sure that they are offering enough variety of supply and support to that front three.

The inclusion of a Treq would increase the creative Roles you have, but don't forget that you can have players in non-creative Roles who will still pick a pass and create opportunities. As such, changing a WM to a WP wouldn't necessarily have increased creativity. You would probably use the same player in the same Role, and his default instructions will have changed and he'd have gained the playmaker focus, but it won't just make him a more creative player because he's in a new Role as his attributes will remain unchanged. I'm pretty sure you can tailor the WM pretty extensively, to open up his PIs to create a player with creative scope.

Well I have ended up with this as my tactic:

Control and Flexible. It just worked better with control rather than balance. I didn't try anything less but I think counter could work with the right instructions but I can't see counter working with push higher up on.

The player instructions are as follows:

BWM - more direct passes

RGA - More direct passes

WM - Dribble more, More direct passes, Cuts inside

W - More direct passes, more risky passes

F9 - More direct passes

I'm not 100% sure if I want a DLF or a F9 yet but I like the way the F9 operates.

I've managed to score 16 and only concede 2 in seven matches. As the tactic becomes more known by the players it becomes far tighter in defence. Most of the shots coming in are from the center and outside the box so I see this as a good thing. This is where all my defending players are and it's where I can make them take long, speculative shots by packing the box with defenders. The attacks are coming down the wings (right mostly) but this is exactly as expected. MY hope is the BWM closes down the attacking wide player hard with the CB operating as cover if he gets past the BWM.

Overall, there are still some questions but mostly it's all good.

I am no sure you want your WM to cut inside, as he is your only player on the flank, so when he cuts in he will leave whole that side fully exposed.

I am no sure you want your WM to cut inside, as he is your only player on the flank, so when he cuts in he will leave whole that side fully exposed.

My theory is that the BWM will close down hard out wide, letting the CB have time to support him if needed. I do see the concern but I am looking to counter it from the DM line

My theory is that the BWM will close down hard out wide, letting the CB have time to support him if needed. I do see the concern but I am looking to counter it from the DM line

does the bwm do that? if not i would go with defensive wingers if your not playing with full backs

does the bwm do that? if not i would go with defensive wingers if your not playing with full backs

I would, but I don't have the players for it.

I'm intrigued with how a "Play Out Of Defence" would work in this system, as you don't really have many options for your defenders other than your RGA (and the BWM but I don't know how good a playmaker he would be). Does your RGA get marked out of games easily? Do your wide players drop enough to be a passing option from your back three? Does your BWM actually contribute in build up play?

Edit: I've also just noticed that you have PI instructions to Play More Direct Passes for your BWM and RGA, how does this work with the play out of defence TI?

Going to give this a try with Parma, i normally play a 451 but i want to play a 352 yet to get any success as my team dont get out of my own half lol! But i have the players to fit a system similar to this so will experiament and post results

I'm intrigued with how a "Play Out Of Defence" would work in this system, as you don't really have many options for your defenders other than your RGA (and the BWM but I don't know how good a playmaker he would be). Does your RGA get marked out of games easily? Do your wide players drop enough to be a passing option from your back three? Does your BWM actually contribute in build up play?

Edit: I've also just noticed that you have PI instructions to Play More Direct Passes for your BWM and RGA, how does this work with the play out of defence TI?

I haven't seen the RGA marked out of the game too easily as he does have plenty of options around him (wings, BWM and 3 CB's if requited). Playing out of defence - if the DM's are covered the wings are the passing outlet. BWM does contribute because he is told to pass more direct I think. This, by the description is not simply hoof the ball forward but rather pass forward more often than sideways or backwards.

I thought I would come back and show the finished product:

The tactic usually operates opposite but I was really short of players so needed to switch it over.

And the contentious WM role:

I got rid of the 'cut inside' in favour of 'roam from position'. This to me has really let the WM become a lethal position. With the players I have playing there it becomes a bit less predictable in the movement 4 draws and a loss in 15 games (amongst my tweaking) so it has been pretty good I feel.

I forgot to put the TI's in before:

I also put the CB's to close down much less to compensate the TI. I found this allows the closing down of dangerous players far quicker and relegates the CB's to simply cleaning up the mess the BWM and other players let through