Wingless tactic brainstorm

Hey, I'd like to set up a wingerless tactic in FM15 and would appreciate some help. I usually play with wingers in AM strata (4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1), but I want to try something new and something I haven't done in a long while (since FM11, iirc).

I'm managing HSV and there's a few really good central (Diaz and Holtby) and defensive (Behrami, Kacar) midfielders, and I'm not really happy with my wingers. Those I have can just as well work as offensive wing backs, their defensive game isn't best, but they have decent stamina and workrate, and you frankly can't have everything, right?

So, I'm asking for help with the general shape and player roles. Think of it as a blank slate, as I plan to bring some players to fit the system, so you shouldn't think too much about how to make it work with the starting HSV squad.

I'm thinking something like this

I'm mostly unsure where to position my wingbacks - should they be in LB/RB strata or in WB strata?

Also, my two central midfielders, what would be the best roles for them?

You can't go much wrong with DLF and AF forward partnership, so I think that will work, but how to get the best out of the attacking midfielder in this formation - AM (S/A), Treq, Shadow Striker, AP (S/A)?

Any and all help and ideas appreciated.

A few quick thoughts:

1. One of Rashidi's bigger threads covers a 4-3-1-2, which will be worth considering, because....

2. You'll find that a flat central 3 covers the width of the pitch defensively, far more effectively than a 1-2 in a diamond

3. I don't like your midfield at all. I think you are overcommitting players forwards, which could be risky, especially down your left side

4. Just use the wingbacks at DL/R. They will contribute the same offensively as if at WBL/R, will defend fractionally better, and the timing of their attacking runs will tend to better suit a controlled build up

5. Overall, you need to think about how you want the team to function. Starting with a formation is a good idea as it will tend to have natural pros and cons. You need to work out the path to goal, and the way you want to defend

Okay...

1) Will try to read up on that

2) That might work, although I'd loathe to lose a DM (Behrami) or AM (Van der Vaart)

3) What would be your suggestion. I haven't played much FM since FM13 so I'm not really sure about that. In FM 13 DLP on support tended to not to make forward runs at all, iirc. A CM (D) and BWM (S) maybe, if I go for 3 CB? I rarely used.

4) Ok. That was my initial thought as well.

5) Short passing, play mostly through the middle, slower buildup, marauding wing backs for the width and high pressing.

In earlier FM versions, I favoured tactics with a lot of pressing all over the pitch for all players instead of my defensive triangle, two CB's and a DM. I found that shape very effective defensively as it naturally forces the ball wide, where there is less danger. I'm presuming it is similar in FM15.

I agree with RT, I used a 4-3-1-2 while managing Ingolstadt and I discovered how useful defensively a flat midfield trio can be, my tip would be to have at least one player on defensive duty in that trio, personally I used a BWM -D- in the middle.

Upfront I employed a F9 an advanced forward and a SS in the hole, very effective.

- a CM-D in MC position is better than that DM-S in DMC position, i think. since 4-4-2 diamond narrow has a big issue in wider area, defensively

- the rest have been mentioned above

Ok. Now we have a formation. A flat 3 midfield. Depending on the opposition's strength, I can play with an AMC or DM. Now, to move on to the roles.

Is this too offensive?

Are you familiar with the "4-role midfield" thing?

In theory, it says that you need these 4 players in your midfield: seater, runner, creator and aggressor. Of course, there roles that do 2 things, like the CM(a) which is a runner primarly and and a creator secondaryly.

With 4 players, you can have the 4 roles.

Seater: CM(d)

Aggressor: BWM(s)

Some options for the rest: AP(s), SS(a) or BBM(s), AP(a) or EG or Treq.

If you're gonna have a SS, be careful about creating and isolating the front 3 from the midfielder. I'd recommend having a creator on the AMC strata and a runner on the CM strata.

On both cases, you might need a second striker (your DLF) to have more movement. Maybe a treq or CF(s), depending on his stats.

I quite like the new system, it's similar to one I'm using at Pro Vercelli at the moment. I don't think it is overly aggressive, but in time you might find that the SS is "too much" behind the front two. Just keep an eye on how your attacks build and who is placed where throughout those attacks. It's key to create and use space when attacking, and not to squeeze too many players into one area.

I play a 4132 and after many a tinkering with the roles I find that an AM A defends a lot better than having a SS there, although it might be the reasons that RT mentioned that with a SS there the front three get isolated. I tried being clever an having a DF D on the left and using a SS with the intention that the DF D drops to create space for the SS and defends that area if the SS gets stuck up top but it didn't work as well as was intended.

I also found through much tinkering that a DLP D defends better than a CM D IMO. Not sure why but I think I read somewhere that a CM D has higher closing down by default although I may well be wrong. Tried experimenting with less closing down on the CM D role but still felt the DLP D defended better. What I felt we really needed was almost an anchor man role in the CM slot but there you go.

I've used the same front 3 and liked it. I had my DLF-S Roam From Position and the AF-A Move Into Channels to try to pull defenders out of position for the SS-A.

I had a AP-A to try and use the AM space left by the SS-A, because of this I wasn't so aggressive with my WB roles.

@Sussex Hammer: Your correct from what I remember when we had access to the sliders, DLP-D closes down less than CM-D. They also had a lower mentality so they dropped deeper to collect the ball with higher creative freedom and passing range so they could do more with it even with the lower mentality. I used to think the same as you, but you don't want someone just sitting in the MC position as there's too much space to protect, if you want a Anchor Man then they should be in the DM position closer to the CB's to protect that space.

I ended up trying a lot of variants over the course of 3 seasons with 2 different teams.

I was rather successful with Marseille, won 2 titles ahead of PSG and Monaco. In the second season got Real in the 1/8 in the Champions League and was knocked out (3:1, 0:2). We were the better team, a bit unlucky I'd say.

I was less successful with Napoli, 6th in Serie A, top of the group in CL but we've had some really good luck.

Overall, I'm not impressed. Sure, I've had some success, one could argue that winning two successive L1 titles in France, ahead of PSG is quite a feat, but I wasn't pleased with how it looked. It often ended up cramped and predictable in the final third, and I was relying on CWB's to deliver. If that failed, it was about waiting for a piece of brilliance from my forward trio or stupidity from my opponents.

Fullbacks/wingbacks are indeed the key in this type of formation, but they require tinkering often. Depending on the formation of the opposition, they can be taken out of the game (like when pressed by opposition winger, fullback and CM/DM).

In the end, I couldn't shake the feeling I was purposefully gimping myself. It can work, but I have a feeling that a classic 4-5-1 offers more versatility and unpredictability.

I feel that using attacking FB or WB has is cons and pros, at least from what i see.

The pros is the width that it gives and it can stretch opposition defenders, making them occupied and wider, so more space for other players.

The cons is that sometimes they are needed to recycle possession when there is no other option in that moment, but because they are already too high, the pass it's not possible.

Dont know what you think about it.

Two cents: as for the narrow diamond having troubles covering the flanks, another possible solution instead of pushing up the DM is to set the strikers to man mark the fullbacks when up against a formation with 4 men on the wings (TL;DR stop here - I'm gonna suggest to create a fake 4-3-3 with strikers tracking the fullbacks as if they were wingers and the F9 withdrawn to AM spot).

That way you can play an halfback in DM and very aggressive wingbacks without being overloaded down the flanks, while maintaining a diamond to control the centre of the pitch.

Also the strikers will start their runs once the ball is recovered from a winger's position, and naturally cut inside, which means that in a counter they can go 1-on-1 vs the opposing DCs while having already picked up pace.

The downside is that you're allowing their centre backs plenty of time on ball, so be wary of ball playing defenders, still you can perhaps compensate by playing an aggressive destroyer in the AM spot to act as the first line of defence.

In its last good run, Milan used to play a 4-3-1-2 with a pacy striker starting wide and cutting in (Pato) while the other acted as focal point (Ibra), and behind him an atypical trequartista (Boateng) and a box-to-box midfielder (Nocerino) provided runs from deep and muscle.

Going forward it relied on overloads and lacked width, as the fullbacks would rarely push, but it was still enough to win a Scudetto and lose another on the last match day. Still, it was trash in Europe where the flanks would be constantly overloaded (think the game vs Arsenal in London) as nobody would track the opposition fullbacks (Mourinho was praised here for having Eto'o do just that in the year of the treble).

What I described above makes the trequartista the focal, semi-static point (if you want to go the extra mile and have him harass the DCs you'd need a good all-rounder, think an enganche with tackling abilities) and lets the strikers (and possibly a midfielder, MCa or B2B) run at defence, while the wingbacks provide width knowing that a halfback is helping the centre backs. The fourth man in midfield should be either a "dummy" MCs with reduced runs and hold position, or a static supporting playmaker (not sure if deep or advanced would work better though tbh). When defending, you'd basically do that as if you were playing a 4-3-3/4-5-1 with wingers and withdrawn striker that you started the thread saying you're familiar with.

Ok this post came out longer than I thought, hope there's some food for thought ahahaha

When playing with a diamond, I always liked this setup.

The Ball Winner, and Anchor make it hard to break down, and the somewhat more restrained wingbacks(rather than complete wingbacks) are a tad more solid.

I might have had the two CM's roles swapped, can't remember offhand.

When playing with a diamond, I always liked this setup.

That is almost exactly what I use too except with one wingback (in your diagram the right back) on support, and DLF instead of a Treq and probably a standard AM as I have crap players that I work with. You are right with the Two center backs, the BWM and anchorman it is solid down the middle defensively. Always a risk getting exploited on the flank with this system, but this does minimize what the opponent can do with it

That is almost exactly what I use too except with one wingback (in your diagram the right back) on support, and DLF instead of a Treq and probably a standard AM as I have crap players that I work with. You are right with the Two center backs, the BWM and anchorman it is solid down the middle defensively. Always a risk getting exploited on the flank with this system, but this does minimize what the opponent can do with it

Yeah, if I don't have the player for a Treq. role, I'll have a DLF there. I'm happy enough to cede the flanks when defending, long as my CB's are really good in the air, anything they clear should be mopped up by the BWM or Anchor.