CM-D closes down more by default?

Does anyone have a clue why the Central Midfielder - Defend, closes down more by default? Knowing that, the DLP-D is the only true "holding player" in central midfield unless you use PI's to modify the CM-D. Isn't that a bit strange? Or am I just not seeing something here that is obvious?

There are no "true" holding midfielders available for the CM strata, strictly speaking. The two roles available as holding midfielders - the CM/defend and the DLP/defend - both have weak spots as holding mids. The CM/d because of his aggressiveness, the DLP/d because his role could lead him to carry the ball upfield into a position where it would be difficult for him to track back fast enough if the ball changes owners. IE his playmaker role can sometimes take presedence over his holding role. It's a trade-off you'll have to live with. At least they are both better than the only other option for holding mid, the BWM/d. The DLP/support can be regarded as half holding. The CM/d and the DLP/d are dual purpose roles; the CM/d is holding+aggressor, the DLP/d is holding+playmaker.

If you want a true holding role, you want someone in the DM strata being either a Anchor or a Half Back, with a DM/defend or DLP/defend being slightly weaker than these two in their holding duty, but also slightly better than the same roles in the CM strata (CM/d and DLP/d). It's always a trade-off; If you want a player to fulfill 2 or more fundamentaly different tasks, he will be slightly weaker doing any of them than he would in a role where he's having a single purpose. The Anchor and the Half Back are single purpose roles, the DM/defend is holding+aggressor, the DLP/defend is holding+playmaker.

If you want to have the CM/d's holding role take more of a presedence over his aggressor role, then give him close down less instructions. You just need to decide if more of a single purpose role is really what you want, or if you are indeed better served by having a dual purpose role. It's often a necessity; in order to have a central midfield cover all the tasks they are are supposed to, you have to have dual (or triple) purpose roles in there. There are at least 4 "tasks" (arguably 5 or 6) a central midfield needs to carry out, and with a 2 or 3 man central midfield you really can't avoid having dual or triple roles. With the more rare 4 or 5 man central midfield, it's easier to fit in more single-minded roles.

Edited: double post.

I never realised a CM-D had close down more as a default option. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.

I questioned it last year. Still doesn't make sense to me.

A holding player is simply a player who holds his deep position and doesn't roam in the attacking phase. Has nothing to do with closing down imho.

A BWM-D can also be your holding player. Depends on your style.

A holding player is simply a player who holds his deep position and doesn't roam in the attacking phase. Has nothing to do with closing down imho.

A BWM-D can also be your holding player. Depends on your style.

I disagree. What's the point of a holding player if he aggressively closes down, thus leaving himself out of position?

There are no "true" holding midfielders available for the CM strata, strictly speaking. The two roles available as holding midfielders - the CM/defend and the DLP/defend - both have weak spots as holding mids. The CM/d because of his aggressiveness, the DLP/d because his role could lead him to carry the ball upfield into a position where it would be difficult for him to track back fast enough if the ball changes owners. IE his playmaker role can sometimes take presedence over his holding role. It's a trade-off you'll have to live with. At least they are both better than the only other option for holding mid, the BWM/d. The DLP/support can be regarded as half holding. The CM/d and the DLP/d are dual purpose roles; the CM/d is holding+aggressor, the DLP/d is holding+playmaker.

If you want a true holding role, you want someone in the DM strata being either a Anchor or a Half Back, with a DM/defend or DLP/defend being slightly weaker than these two in their holding duty, but also slightly better than the same roles in the CM strata (CM/d and DLP/d). It's always a trade-off; If you want a player to fulfill 2 or more fundamentaly different tasks, he will be slightly weaker doing any of them than he would in a role where he's having a single purpose. The Anchor and the Half Back are single purpose roles, the DM/defend is holding+aggressor, the DLP/defend is holding+playmaker.

If you want to have the CM/d's holding role take more of a presedence over his aggressor role, then give him close down less instructions. You just need to decide if more of a single purpose role is really what you want, or if you are indeed better served by having a dual purpose role. It's often a necessity; in order to have a central midfield cover all the tasks they are are supposed to, you have to have dual (or triple) purpose roles in there. There are at least 4 "tasks" (arguably 5 or 6) a central midfield needs to carry out, and with a 2 or 3 man central midfield you really can't avoid having dual or triple roles. With the more rare 4 or 5 man central midfield, it's easier to fit in more single-minded roles.

Yep, I've found the DLP-D seems the best true holding option in central midfield (with PI to dribble less)

It's frustrating because sometimes you don't want to use a DM, but if you want to keep a solid defense where you don't have a CB stepping out to close down the space ahead, you need the DM. Know what I mean?

I'm currently using a 4-2-3-1 with 2 defend duties in CM, and it's still a little too aggressive. But overall results have been fantastic so I can't complain.

I'm currently using a 4-2-3-1 with 2 defend duties in CM, and it's still a little too aggressive. But overall results have been fantastic so I can't complain.

Then use close down less to get your holding midfielder. Really dont understand what the issue is? Yes, its silly its enabled in the first place, but for human players that shouldnt be a problem?

Then use close down less to get your holding midfielder. Really dont understand what the issue is? Yes, its silly its enabled in the first place, but for human players that shouldnt be a problem?

I agree with this. I think it should be left on the default setting, but there's a big difference between the "Close Down More" PI being active and having the setting maxed out (as is the case with the BWM).

Presumably, the idea behind this is that, once everyone is back in position, you would want your more defensively capable MC being slightly more aggressive about winning the ball (as he would presumably have ample cover behind him).

CM/d (with default settings) do make sense, for the reasons I have already mentioned; You more often than not can not afford to have a single minded holding role in your central midfield. A CM/d is a holding midfielder as much as he does not go forward to help attack, but stays in a deep support position. So, a holding role when his team is in possession, in place to halt or delay a counter attack, or an aggressor/ball winner when out of possession. in established defensive positions. And that's often exactly what is needed. I would put it as holding enough for my purposes. The same is true for a BWM/defend, but that role have the added uncertainty in that he tackles at low odds, adding another risk of him being totally outplayed when the tackle doesn't connect. Which will often be the case.

@bababooey: With a 4231 (wide) I always have one of the CD's be a stopper, for that very reason. I can't afford to have a single minded holding role in that 3 man central midfield (2 CM + AMC); one of the CM's need to be either a holding+aggressor or a holding+playmaker, or it won't add up. I have the same "problem" with my current 4-1-2-3 DM Asymmetric (my take on recreating the Arsenal Invincibles tactics). Only it's not a problem, but a compromise. And because I have a player in the DM slot (DM/defend), I don't have the same need to employ a stopper, but have a CD/defend + CD/cover combo.

In a 41221 it's easier to fit in a dedicated holding mid, because it's easier to delegate the other central midfield tasks between the 2 CM's. It's asking a lot of them, but it's possible. Yet I tend to - prefer to - have my holding mid be a dual role one.

Then use close down less to get your holding midfielder. Really dont understand what the issue is? Yes, its silly its enabled in the first place, but for human players that shouldnt be a problem?

There is no "issue" I just find it a little odd that there are so few options for a holding player in central midfield..

CM/d (with default settings) do make sense, for the reasons I have already mentioned; You more often than not can not afford to have a single minded holding role in your central midfield. A CM/d is a holding midfielder as much as he does not go forward to help attack, but stays in a deep support position. So, a holding role when his team is in possession, in place to halt or delay a counter attack, or an aggressor/ball winner when out of possession. in established defensive positions. And that's often exactly what is needed. I would put it as holding enough for my purposes. The same is true for a BWM/defend, but that role have the added uncertainty in that he tackles at low odds, adding another risk of him being totally outplayed when the tackle doesn't connect. Which will often be the case.

@bababooey: With a 4231 (wide) I always have one of the CD's be a stopper, for that very reason. I can't afford to have a single minded holding role in that 3 man central midfield (2 CM + AMC); one of the CM's need to be either a holding+aggressor or a holding+playmaker, or it won't add up. I have the same "problem" with my current 4-1-2-3 DM Asymmetric (my take on recreating the Arsenal Invincibles tactics). Only it's not a problem, but a compromise. And because I have a player in the DM slot (DM/defend), I don't have the same need to employ a stopper, but have a CD/defend + CD/cover combo.

In a 41221 it's easier to fit in a dedicated holding mid, because it's easier to delegate the other central midfield tasks between the 2 CM's. It's asking a lot of them, but it's possible. Yet I tend to - prefer to - have my holding mid be a dual role one.

Makes sense to me.

How do you find the CD-D / CD-C partnership works out?

I disagree. What's the point of a holding player if he aggressively closes down, thus leaving himself out of position?

The point is that you have an extra player staying back, intercepting moves and making tackles when your attack breaks down. And winning the ball back eventually.

There is nothing wrong with the holding player roles, it's just your thinking that is wrong.

Makes sense to me.

How do you find the CD-D / CD-C partnership works out?

Great. Koscielny/Gabriel to the left is defend, Per/Nkoulou on the right is cover. They have a great partnership. I've had them as stopper/cover combo too, which worked equally fine. The extent to which the defend duty defender will step out to press/tackle oncoming opposition - if neccessary - depends largely on his aggressiveness attribute. So Koscielny will act much like he's on stopper duty anyway (15 agg) - but that's ok. He picks his moments right, most of the time.

There is no "issue" I just find it a little odd that there are so few options for a holding player in central midfield..

I agree with this, I really find it odd that options are so limited for a holding player in the CM strata because as stated on this thread none really "sit" as you would like them too. I play a 4312 and find if I drag a player into the DM strata to make a diamond my two remaining CM's play far too narrow hence my preference to use the three across the middle. Having said that the DLD D does sit deeper than the CM D but ideally I don't really want all play channelled through that player so would prefer him not to be a playmaker. Why you can't have an option for a defensive midfielder in the CM strata is strange because most 442's are/were based on that with one of the two CM's as predominately a holding midfielder.

I hope an extra option is there in FM16 along with my hopes for a "Basic Forward - Jack of all trades but master of none" as all striker roles are very specialist!

Great. Koscielny/Gabriel to the left is defend, Per/Nkoulou on the right is cover. They have a great partnership. I've had them as stopper/cover combo too, which worked equally fine. The extent to which the defend duty defender will step out to press/tackle oncoming opposition - if neccessary - depends largely on his aggressiveness attribute. So Koscielny will act much like he's on stopper duty anyway (15 agg) - but that's ok. He picks his moments right, most of the time.

One more question: Did you struggle using X/C against two striker formations? Or, formations utilizing an AMC/STC combination?

One more question: Did you struggle using X/C against two striker formations? Or, formations utilizing an AMC/STC combination?

No, I can't say I did. I used to struggle a bit when using a stopper/cover combo against two striker formations back with FM 12 or 13 or thereabouts, maybe even earlier ... probably back when there was no collision detection ..., but not with the latest editions of the game. It is now one of the aspects of defending that I find the match engine does rather well. It's not like my central defenders never get tricked out of position, but hey, that's what the opposition attackers are supposed to try to do, and sometimes they succeed. That's life. Where I tend to struggle - defensively - is high balls behind my defense, and Per isn't the quickest defender in the world ... I play a high D-line (Control + push higher), so that happens sometimes, but happens less frequently than it would if I had no CD on cover duty. Again, compromises and trade-offs.

I agree with this, I really find it odd that options are so limited for a holding player in the CM strata because as stated on this thread none really "sit" as you would like them too.

How do you mean options are limited? If you want a player to drop back out of possession and not close down (ie "sit") than use an MC (d) with close down (much) less. If you want him to be a playmaker as well in possession, make him a DLP (d). What other option are you looking for?

There's no point in having two entirely separate roles with the only difference really being a small amount of closing down more or less. Thats what PI are for.

TIs are also going to play a big factor, moreso than PIs really.

In most cases, I'd guess that some are expecting their holding midfielders to defy basic decision-making after pushing a lot of players forward. If your holding mid is the closest player behind the ball, he is going to engage to at least hold up an attacker. If you want your holding mid to remain in a covering position, then you need to keep midfielders ahead of him in more conservative roles so he isn't constantly called upon to delay or pressure the first attacker. I recall Cleon detailing this well in a recent post about players being dragged out of position.

TIs are also going to play a big factor, moreso than PIs really.

In most cases, I'd guess that some are expecting their holding midfielders to defy basic decision-making after pushing a lot of players forward. If your holding mid is the closest player behind the ball, he is going to engage to at least hold up an attacker. If you want your holding mid to remain in a covering position, then you need to keep midfielders ahead of him in more conservative roles so he isn't constantly called upon to delay or pressure the first attacker. I recall Cleon detailing this well in a recent post about players being dragged out of position.

"Defying basic decision making" is what you often see in real life in that situation; a player (DM, CB what have you) will retreat back into his own half instead of closing down the player in possession, removing the risk of being played around and giving the rest of the team time to recover its shape.

You don't need to pressure to defend.

"Defying basic decision making" is what you often see in real life in that situation; a player (DM, CB what have you) will retreat back into his own half instead of closing down the player in possession, removing the risk of being played around and giving the rest of the team time to recover its shape.

You don't need to pressure to defend.

You don't have to pressure, but you do have to delay, positioning yourself to obstruct a free penetrating run and buying time for teammates to recover instead of allowing an attacker to sprint with the ball or pick out a runner unopposed. That's the case even if you're facing an overload.

However, I'm guessing what many people are seeing in the ME are situations where they still have a clear advantage in defence in which case the holding mid would be clear to pressure outright.

In a 2 man central midfield, if the other CM is the one you have to support the attack, or be a creator, or runner, or all of these things (which in many cases it would have to be) - then the CM/defend is exactly what you need as his partner. His default settings are spot on. Without him, you would have none in your central midfield to actively defend, winning the ball back, harass the opposition. He is supposed to do all that untill his partner and his fellow players track back into defensive positions. I'd say that if you make that player a pure holder, like some of you suggest - you would have seriously damaged your midfield's effectiveness, and easy pushover for the opposition. They would be free to run with the ball unopposed through your midfield deep into your own half, have plenty of time to decide what to do next. As HoG said - if you do make him be a pure sitter, you need another central mid be the aggressor, the active defender.

In practice, if you play with a pure sitter, you need at least a 3 man central midfield. There's no way you can delegate all the other midfield tasks to a single CM partner.

You don't have to use a CM-D though. An anchor man with "Close Down Much Less" won't just sit in front of the defence if there's no one near enough to recover and immediately pick up the first attacker. This is because roles and PIs won't override the underlying principles of defence. The only thing that will is attribute/decisions failure.

The exception to this are DCs who have recently been tweaked to be more prone to standing off and retreating even when one should technically act as a delaying stopper. However, this has resulted in defensive tactics being prone to giving away too many shots.

THoG: I just did a quick experiment. I made my DM/defend be an Anchor in my 4123 DM Asymmetric formation. For those of you not familiar with that formation, it has a centrally positioned DM slot, and a CM slot slightly skewed to the right or left, depending on if you playe the left or right version of the formation. And a slot in the AMC position, slightly off to the right or left. So it is a 3 man central midfield, but since the AMC slot is given purely creative/attacking tasks, the 2 others will have to share the rest between them.

The Anchor is good for anything that happens through the middle, allthough he doesn't engage the opposition untill they are fairly deep into my "zone" ... too deep for my liking. Even if he's the only player in position to engage, and basic principles should tell him to engage early. But the most annoying thing is that if the action is going on to one of the sides, the Anchor is very reluctant to engage at all. He really do prefer to sit right in front of the central defense, screening. And since I usually have my wing backs support quite high up the pitch, this leads to serious problems. A more aggressive DM/defend handles both of these scenarios better; he engages earlier, and he engages to the sides much earlier and more effective, covering my wing backs. And in addition, he also takes some of the defending load off of my other CM better when my team has established their defensive positions. I really do feel that if I am to play with an Anchor, I need another man in central midfield. And if I played with a 1 DM + 2 CM formation, I would be fine with having a pure sitter in the shape of an Anchor or a Half Back, provided I could delegate the other midfield tasks efficiently between the other 2 CM's.

So, with a fairly aggressive holding midfielder, does that not lead to that space just in front of the defense being sometimes "unguarded"? Yes. Some times. There are two ways to deal with this. You play a high d-line, minimizing that space, and/or you employ a stopper in central defense. In my case, as I'm playing a rather high d-line, I don't feel I need a stopper, but can make do with a defend/cover combo in central defense. The defend duty defender will act as a stopper when needed anyway.

Edit: By the way; I did not do that experiment just now, I did it a few days ago, And it wasn't that quick either; I gave it a fair chance. The Anchor in question was Lucas Romero, so quite aggressive and with splendid work rate and teamwork stats.

Lot's of quality talk here.

I agree with Thomit on his point about if using a sitter (like say, Anchorman) then you need to have at least a 3 man midfield. Without that you'll find your midfield can't properly carry out its required jobs.

And just another quick point:

People have to recognize the effect that the TI's have on your players' positioning. For example, I recently stopped telling my BVB team to "close down much more" because I came to the conclusion that our pressing was sufficient without that (higher mentality + TI prevent GK distribution). When we've used close down much more, even players who are usually in good positions, end up running around like crazy. Now this is a fairly obvious thing to notice but.. At the same time, it's important to remember there's multiple ways to skin a cat. So like, for instance, maybe you just want your forwards to press hard, while your midfielders are a bit more compact. You can do that. But telling the team to close down much more wouldn't be ideal. And sometimes it's easy to make those mistakes if you're just quickly filling out your tactics.