Central Mids in a 4-2-3-1?

Just got back into the game after a while away and am playing the Beta, I am trying to set up a 4231 formation as the players in my squad suit this, now I understand that the 2 sitters in central midfield have to be solid and compact, is it best to have 2 DLP(D) or CM(D)? one of my cm's is naturally a BWM but I am a bit concerned he will close down too much and expose my defence, the other is a natural DLP(s), but my AP(A) is in the 10 hole behind my striker, will it effect my shape if I have more than one playmaker? just wondering if anyone has any advice on this subject.

Two DLP's wouldn't make much sense as it'd leave nobody in front of them coming from the ball.

In the higher leagues, I play a DLP (d) with a CM (a)/B2B, with a AM (a) and two W (s) next to him. This seems to suit me fine.

Just got back into the game after a while away and am playing the Beta, I am trying to set up a 4231 formation as the players in my squad suit this, now I understand that the 2 sitters in central midfield have to be solid and compact, is it best to have 2 DLP(D) or CM(D)? one of my cm's is naturally a BWM but I am a bit concerned he will close down too much and expose my defence, the other is a natural DLP(s), but my AP(A) is in the 10 hole behind my striker, will it effect my shape if I have more than one playmaker? just wondering if anyone has any advice on this subject.

My usual is a CM(d) and a DLP on either (d) or (s) (I tend to test both and see which is best for the exact setup I have). But I've done it before with a pair of DLPs and that's been fine. Having multiple playmakers encourages them to play the ball between themselves more, so if you're looking to keep possession in the middle of the part, having a DLP/DLP/AP triangle can be pretty useful, though it will probably mean your other players see less of the ball. If you really want everything to be funneled through a more advanced playmaker, a pair of MC(d)s will give good defensive cover, and, with the right player, can still provide the linkup passing, though I personally prefer to have the deeper playmaker in my teams.

I would be reluctant to play a BWM there for the exact reasons you point out. Don't worry too much about putting a player in his best role, instead make sure that you're playing the role that best suits your team, and that their attributes are good for the role you want - someone who is good at being a BWM will almost certainly be good at being a MC(d), and having him in that role might well be better overall for your team than putting him in a role he is nominally better suited to. Hell, if he's a good passer, he might well also fit into the DLP role. Conversely, a "perfect" DLP can still play well as a MC(d) if you'd rather not have the playmaker effect, especially if you give him a couple of instructions to help him take full advantage of his passing skills.

Unless I was very sure of my defensive solidity, I wouldn't play anything more aggressive than a DLP(s) or maybe a CM(s) in the CM role in that formation though. You've got 4 players who are only going to provide limited cover at best, so you really need a solid platform in the middel of the park to build from. Putting roles like the BBM, let alone a MC(a) is asking for trouble. It can work, particularly if you have exceptional players, but it's gonna be very fragile against a team that can properly take advantage of your weaknesses.

I found that the CM(d) leaves his position to close down too much, in the same a BWM does.

DLP(d) and CM(s) provides a very solid in platform in my view. You can make it more solid by asking the CM(s) to 'hold position'.

I play two CM/Ds in this system. Now, the CM/D comes with 'Close Down More' as a default, but you can tune this down and make him hold his ground.

There was a pretty good thread on this recently. Possibly Cleon's Defensive Arts one, that explained why you need to ensure the '2' in the midfield is flat. Essentially, if it isn't, you get the more defensive one of the pair moving over from his natural position to cover the guy on the support/attack duty, which completely ruins your shape.

The CM(D) can be told to close down less even though he has close down more hard coded.

I play CM(D)-DLP(S)-AM(A) at the top of the triangle. WITH an ADV PM playing in the AML position.

I tend to find having 2 in MC strata leaves me too exposed, with 2 in DM strata being too defensive. I therefore go with a "sitter",DM(Defend) or Anchore man in DM strata, paired with a "runner" DLP (support), CM(support) or Roaming Playmaker(Support) in MC strata. seems to work pretty well, particularly if player in AMC role has "comes deep to get ball" as preferred player move.

Cheers Fella's excellent advice, food for thought, I am still in Pre Season so will tinker until I find the right solidity

one of my cm's is naturally a BWM but I am a bit concerned he will close down too much and expose my defence,

Why always the BWM bashing? If he's a good player he will expose nobody but instead win you a lot of tackles in midfield!

BWM(d) with DLP(s) worked very well for me on FM15...

Why always the BWM bashing? If he's a good player he will expose nobody but instead win you a lot of tackles in midfield!

BWM(d) with DLP(s) worked very well for me on FM15...

A BWM can be a great asset when used right, but they are more prone to leaving space open than other defensive minded roles. That doesn't mean they always run around like a headless chicken or anything, and certainly, the attributes of the player you are using makes a big impact (having high decisions in particular seems key), but the 4231 is particularly reliant on a stable defensive midfield and so is generally more suited to another role. I would never say not to try such a role, but as a starting point, I would consider a MC(d), likely with close down less applied, to be more suited to this particular formation.

I much prefer the BWM in a defensive triangle (1 DM, 2 MCs) if you put the playmaker (DLP or Reg) in the DM slot, and you want a more aggressive defensive minded player in front of them.

I prefer to have 2 generalist CM with on on D and one on S. I tend to find BWM really do open too much space if they miss tackles. Other very good combination is CM-D and DLP-S, if you have AM on S or A. if you have APM in AMC position I would not use DLP as I just don't like the idea of 2 playmakers. I would also leave B2B mostly for formations without AMC.

Support CM provides enough support for back pass if AMC or ST get in congestion, while CM-D provides even more depth for additional passing options and for defensive cover if possession is lost. You gotta keep in mind that CM-D and DMCs are actually quite useful in offensive build up because they provide much more passing options, relief from pressure, and opportunity to switch sides with more chance of keeping possession.

It is not just that when you don't have defensive orientated midfielders in center that you just loose defensive cover, you also loose options in build-up play.

both my MC stay back, one DLP and the other ball winner. my full-backs attack instead to assist midfeld build up. the MC are pretty good at getting balls that are cleared by the opposing team. they also work very well with the DC's to cramp up the opposition strikers and win the ball. it does weaken our final surge for goal lacking slightly in overloading players near or in the opposition box but the two MC's sitting back provides and nice shape overall. attack into box is by AMC and wingers as the full-backs cross late into the opposition area which have at least 3 finishers.

the 4231 is particularly reliant on a stable defensive midfield

I would disagree with that. The advantage of the 4-2-3-1 is exactly that you have a numbers advantage (or parity) in the central midfield, so you can afford more "unstable" or roaming positioning from one or two of them.

And another point - if you find that the gap between your defence and midfield is too large - it only solves part of the problem to field a DM. Your full backs will still be very exposed (as they always are in a 4-2-3-1) and it would generally be better to have your chains closer together - typically via a higher defensive line or a more counter-based mentality.

Another disadvantage of a DM strata player is that they rarely take part in the initial counter-pressure and generally does not suit a high-pressing, counter-attacking team very well.

Hi,

I'm trying to use a 4-2-3-1 also, and I'm having some dificulty. I want to play a slow and possession football, just because I don't have fast players.

My central mid are a CM (D) and a BBM (S), with a AP (S) in the front. I don't like the BWM, they don't respect the tactics in my point of view.

My question is reggarding the Team Instructions, Lower Teampo and Possession fit in the 4-2-3-1? I'm thinking using a standard or control mentallity, with lower tempo, get stuck in, work the ball into box, I will use a fluid or normal mentallity. Any suggestion?

The CM(D) can be told to close down less even though he has close down more hard coded.

I play CM(D)-DLP(S)-AM(A) at the top of the triangle. WITH an ADV PM playing in the AML position.

Sounds like a Chelsea setup

I use the same, CM-D (MC(L) Matic, DLP-S (MC® Fabregas, AM-A (AM© Oscar, AP-A AM(L) Hazard. Then I'm lost, can't really make it work for Willian AM® and Costa ST©

Any advice?

I would disagree with that. The advantage of the 4-2-3-1 is exactly that you have a numbers advantage (or parity) in the central midfield, so you can afford more "unstable" or roaming positioning from one or two of them.

And another point - if you find that the gap between your defence and midfield is too large - it only solves part of the problem to field a DM. Your full backs will still be very exposed (as they always are in a 4-2-3-1) and it would generally be better to have your chains closer together - typically via a higher defensive line or a more counter-based mentality.

Another disadvantage of a DM strata player is that they rarely take part in the initial counter-pressure and generally does not suit a high-pressing, counter-attacking team very well.

I'm trying to create a counter attacking style using 4-2-3-1 (although I'm also considering using 4-4-1-1) and I'm concerned about the defensive line.

Basically, if I have both of my screens in the CM strata, then having a deep defensive line leaves a lot of space for the opposition's AM or DLF.

But, having a higher line seems counterintuative in the sense that I want to draw teams in and invite them to have possession so that I can counter. Any advice on the defensive lines in a counterattacking system??

Worth Noting that CM-D has Close Down more often on and so he actually plays more like a BWM in holding position (or not as the case may be!), if you want a player to sit in front of back 4, you need DLP-D or CM-S.

I'm trying to create a counter attacking style using 4-2-3-1 (although I'm also considering using 4-4-1-1) and I'm concerned about the defensive line.

Basically, if I have both of my screens in the CM strata, then having a deep defensive line leaves a lot of space for the opposition's AM or DLF.

But, having a higher line seems counterintuative in the sense that I want to draw teams in and invite them to have possession so that I can counter. Any advice on the defensive lines in a counterattacking system??

4231 generally has too many players too far forward to trigger many counters. You can't draw teams forward when you've got at least 4 players in their half that they have to deal with.

4141 is much better suited to a counter tactic.

Sounds like a Chelsea setup

I use the same, CM-D (MC(L) Matic, DLP-S (MC® Fabregas, AM-A (AM© Oscar, AP-A AM(L) Hazard. Then I'm lost, can't really make it work for Willian AM® and Costa ST©

Any advice?

If Oscar is really going to be AM-A, he's one scorer already. You may have a second one in William or Costa.

In the first case, William can play as Raumdeuter, with a FB-s behind him. On the other side, you can use a WB-s. Then use Costa as CF-s or TM-s. You midfield duo is fine in this case.

In the second case, I'd use Costa as CF-a or AF, with William as Winger (he's right-only footed, right?), with FB-a behind him. Then switch the sides of your MF duo.

A variant of the 2nd case would be switching Hazard to AP-s and William to W-a, with WB-a and FB-s behind each, respectively. Just remember that AP-a + W-s is not the same thing as AP-s + W-a.

If Oscar is really going to be AM-A, he's one scorer already. You may have a second one in William or Costa.

In the first case, William can play as Raumdeuter, with a FB-s behind him. On the other side, you can use a WB-s. Then use Costa as CF-s or TM-s. You midfield duo is fine in this case.

In the second case, I'd use Costa as CF-a or AF, with William as Winger (he's right-only footed, right?), with FB-a behind him. Then switch the sides of your MF duo.

A variant of the 2nd case would be switching Hazard to AP-s and William to W-a, with WB-a and FB-s behind each, respectively. Just remember that AP-a + W-s is not the same thing as AP-s + W-a.

Cheers

Any tips on team team shape, mentality and team instructions?

For now I play "standard - very fluid...

Cheers

Any tips on team team shape, mentality and team instructions?

For now I play "standard - very fluid...

I would try standard most of the time and control against lesser sides at home. The Premier League is one of the hardest leagues on Europe.

You should be extra careful with the MF duo against teams that use AMC. Eventually I ended up moving mine to the DM strata. But keep in mind that this formation is very flexible. In case you do that, the DLP-s moves to RPM-s or Regista.

With this roles, I'd suggest fluid. I tend to use that "number of specialists" rule of thumb.

And finally, if your striker is not the scorer, I usually consider slowing things down to allow the scorer to close in on the goal (lower tempo, work into box, etc).

It seems impossible to make a 4-2-3-1 in FM16, I get hammered by all teams in EPL with Chelsea (like IRL)

No fun at all

It seems impossible to make a 4-2-3-1 in FM16, I get hammered by all teams in EPL with Chelsea (like IRL)

No fun at all

It gave a lot of people trouble in FM15 as well. I think the main problems are poor midfield roles, and/or poor attacking roles that tend to congest a specific area or channels play through a specific area.

I think it has been said before that a 4-4-1-1 is a more accurate representation of the 4-2-3-1 in the defensive phase in FM. But you can also make a 4-2-3-1 with a 4-5-1 by utilising two defensive minded central midfielders (DLP/D and DLP/S for me, with a CM/A). -And because you can make WM/A act like an Inside Forward, it could be said that a true inside-forward is a bit redundant in some cases.

CM/d coupled with either a DLP/s or a RPM (depending on opposition - meaning that if my team is much better that the opp. and we're expected to seriously dominate, I may start with a RPM. I may switch role for this player during the match too). In front of these I have 2 x IF/s or 1 IF/s + 1 W/s, and a AP/a and a CF/a. An alternative would be a CM/s and DLP/d combo, and I may switch to that during a match too. Very Fluid/Control 4231 Wide.