Is this a viable formation/tactic to use?

I'm asking if this looks ok to you guys as I haven't seen this version of a 4231 on the forums much before. I'm looking to play a possession game and have also set up the WM's to play like Inside Forwards.

Most tactics are viable, all depends on the players at your disposal & how the opposition is setup.

I don't see why not, all looks fairly sensible although I question the use of "highly structured", it *may* make your forward too isolated even in a support role, I also think your team will look extremely dull and robotic with it, at very least consider adding "be more expressive" to add a little more flair.

That's the exact shape I'd use if I was replicating a real life 4231 in FM.

Once into the attacking phase you probably won't be able to tell the difference to the "standard" 4231 Wide as the roles & duties take over.

I like the shape, roles and duties. There's many different styles of possession football which is what your instructions will give, a bit slow for my taste but that's not to say it can't work. Noikeee is correct that Highly Structured will limit creative freedom but you have two playmakers who will have extra creative freedom so I wouldn't dismiss it without trying. They should add some unpredictability with others sticking to there job.

I'm guessing you've done it already but remember to set your GK PI so he doesn't go kicking it long and giving it away.

I've used that shape as a counter attacking formation against stronger opposition playing attacking formations. Seems to do a pretty good job of handling formations with lots of attacking midfielders, though I also tend to use BWM for at least one of the DMs so they don't sit too deep when the ball is there to be won. I guess you achieve the same with the global closing down instruction.

Not sure I'd want a formation that encouraged my team to sit behind the ball that much as my tactical setup if I was expecting to dominate possession though. The setup reminds me a lot of van Gaal's Man Utd...

Yeah I have my GK set to roll it out to my CB's. I'm thinking of either switching to 'Structured' to add a bit more creative freedom to the side or as mentioned, add 'Be More Expressive'. I'm thinking about maybe a 4141/4123 as well though as I know that is a slightly better shape for possession football.

That's the exact shape I'd use if I was replicating a real life 4231 in FM.

Well, to me the player behind the stiker is an AMC even in real life, but I do agree with the rest. In real life the holding mids are clearly DMCs and the wide mids are clearly MR and ML not AMs.

Well, to me the player behind the stiker is an AMC even in real life, but I do agree with the rest. In real life the holding mids are clearly DMCs and the wide mids are clearly MR and ML not AMs.

Remember the shape you see on the overview is your defensive shape, so using a MC makes much more sense in FM because that's how most AMC's play in real life without possession.

I would agree with Cleon that there's more examples of "attacking midfielders" who drop and help with defence rather than staying higher up the field. There's no "right" version.

Let us know how it goes Gee_Simpson, I keep getting inspired to try things but don't have time for everything!

In real life the holding mids are clearly DMCs and the wide mids are clearly MR and ML not AMs.

Let's look at a few of CL recent games where teams play with more cautious aproach. Only game where CMs were clearly used as DMs was Real's awey game vs Wolsburg and that was clearly a mistake and he has stopped playing with that aproach since. From that game on he moved Modric to be the furthest CM with Kross and Casemiro as holding unit which operates much further up than against awey game vs Wolfsburg. Anyone who watched that game and remembers how Real midfield trio played should easily spot the difference. Clearly all 3 players defend in straight line of three in MC strata against City. On the flanks they had typical FM setup with Bala replacing CRs attacking role which meens staying further up when team was defending and Vazquez was tracking back to offer more defensive support. pure 4-3flatMcs-3. On the other hand City's midfield duo quite clearly took advanced positions and pushed up further awey from defense so this setup can't be anywhere near to DMs. Silva, Navas and De Bruyne were all contributing in defense but they start pressing further up and they hold typical 4231 shape defensivly. Classic 42MC31.

In yesterdays game there was one DM on the pitch Xabi Alonso playing behind two MCs. Bayern's wide men don't hold the line with MCs and are positioned further up while defending and that makes Bayern play 4-1-2-2-1 when defending in FM terms. Atletico on contrary defends very deep with 2 clear lines of four and that makes 4-4-2 with two MCs.

Busqets the most typical DM and the person the reason why a HB role was invented in FM, he also plays less and less in that role under Enrique. Instead Barca will line up in flat midfield three and adopt form there if needed.

On the other hand City's midfield duo quite clearly took advanced positions and pushed up further awey from defense so this setup can't be anywhere near to DMs. Silva, Navas and De Bruyne were all contributing in defense but they start pressing further up and they hold typical 4231 shape defensivly. Classic 42MC31.

How were the midfield duo positioned in defense? What is a typical defensive shape for Silva, Navas and De Bruyne?

I would argue that Man City didn't play 4231 but rather 4411 with Silva and Navas in the midfield line along Fernando and Fernandinho, while De Bruyne was more advanced between the midfield and Aguero.

How were the midfield duo positioned in defense? What is a typical defensive shape for Silva, Navas and De Bruyne?

I would argue that Man City didn't play 4231 but rather 4411 with Silva and Navas in the midfield line along Fernando and Fernandinho, while De Bruyne was more advanced between the midfield and Aguero.

To me it was 4231 but I can accept 4411. I think for wide midfield positions it's a little harder to compare to FM. Because both in FM and in real football the AML/R support duty will track back and mark opposition FBs, just like ML/R players. Imo biggest distinction between M and AM strata players in real life is wheater a team presses high or drops deep. On contrary it's quite easy to spot difference between DM and MC and I really don't know where all the DMs are comming from ..

That's the exact shape I'd use if I was replicating a real life 4231 in FM.

Cleon if I could ask you what roles would you give the DMCs. Because you have a player in the CM strata would you still use a more attacking DMC (Regista or RPM) to link play. I plan on using a CM A to help with the transition from midfield to attack

To me it was 4231 but I can accept 4411. I think for wide midfield positions it's a little harder to compare to FM. Because both in FM and in real football the AML/R support duty will track back and mark opposition FBs, just like ML/R players. Imo biggest distinction between M and AM strata players in real life is wheater a team presses high or drops deep. On contrary it's quite easy to spot difference between DM and MC and I really don't know where all the DMs are comming from ..

Even on Support duty, AMs don't track as good as players in MR/L positions.

Cleon if I could ask you what roles would you give the DMCs. Because you have a player in the CM strata would you still use a more attacking DMC (Regista or RPM) to link play. I plan on using a CM A to help with the transition from midfield to attack

It would depend on what I'm creating and the overall style I'm going for. If you're using a CMA then who will bring the ball forward from the back for him to link up play? So you'd probably need a DMC who acted more like an MC when in possession. If not he could be isolated (the CMA) and not link play.

Even on Support duty, AMs don't track as good as players in MR/L positions.

There's been some improvements made to this on FM16 but it's still not ideal. MR/ML track back much better and still attack the same way a player at AML/R will.

Remember the shape you see on the overview is your defensive shape, so using a MC makes much more sense in FM because that's how most AMC's play in real life without possession.

Being someone who has been stubbornly struggling with a 4231 wide with CMs for the better part of 2 fm versions, this is the single most mind opening comment i've seen since i started playing yrs ago. So simple yet i never got it. Thanks Cleon!

It would depend on what I'm creating and the overall style I'm going for. If you're using a CMA then who will bring the ball forward from the back for him to link up play? So you'd probably need a DMC who acted more like an MC when in possession. If not he could be isolated (the CMA) and not link play.

There's been some improvements made to this on FM16 but it's still not ideal. MR/ML track back much better and still attack the same way a player at AML/R will.

So is there actually any benefit to use AML/R instead of ML/MR?

So is there actually any benefit to use AML/R instead of ML/MR?

One benefit that comes to mind is that is easier to find natural AML/R players than ML/MR players. Also, players in the AM strata are better positioned to receive long passes from the back to start quick counter attacks.

One benefit that comes to mind is that is easier to find natural AML/R players than ML/MR players. Also, players in the AM strata are better positioned to receive long passes from the back to start quick counter attacks.

I agree with the first part although that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. As long as the player has the attributes he'll be fine even if he has no rating for the role. But I don't agree necessarily with the bit about counter attacks. More often than not they can too advanced compared to the rest of the side initially so become isolated as other players can't always keep up with them, or get up in support quick enough. In situations like this it wouldn't be a counter attack as such because the deeper players would need a while to catch up with play and get involved.

Cleon and then why SI implemented the 4-2-3-1 formation in the tactics creator if it's not even working like a 4-2-3-1?

I agree with the first part although that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. As long as the player has the attributes he'll be fine even if he has no rating for the role. But I don't agree necessarily with the bit about counter attacks. More often than not they can too advanced compared to the rest of the side initially so become isolated as other players can't always keep up with them, or get up in support quick enough. In situations like this it wouldn't be a counter attack as such because the deeper players would need a while to catch up with play and get involved.

So, is there actually any benefit of using AML/R's then?

So, is there actually any benefit of using AML/R's then?

Yes, but it depends on context and your overall style of play. If you're deliberately playing a counterattacking style, AMLR might end up isolated if you're focused on keeping shape and winning the ball back too deep, particularly since they tend to stay so wide compared to STL/STR, but if you're playing a true attacking style with defenders expected to win the ball back quickly near the halfway line, there may not be much benefit to having the wide mids narrow and drop back into a bank of four. You might even want the space ahead of the fullback exposed to encourage the opposition to funnel the ball forward instead of playing keep-ball near the corner flags. This didn't matter as much in FM15 because defences were so quick to drop deep on any setting, but in FM16, there's more of an upside to playing AMLR if you play an aggressive game.

Yes, but it depends on context and your overall style of play. If you're deliberately playing a counterattacking style, AMLR might end up isolated if you're focused on keeping shape and winning the ball back too deep, particularly since they tend to stay so wide compared to STL/STR, but if you're playing a true attacking style with defenders expected to win the ball back quickly near the halfway line, there may not be much benefit to having the wide mids narrow and drop back into a bank of four. You might even want the space ahead of the fullback exposed to encourage the opposition to funnel the ball forward instead of playing keep-ball near the corner flags. This didn't matter as much in FM15 because defences were so quick to drop deep on any setting, but in FM16, there's more of an upside to playing AMLR if you play an aggressive game.

So is it beneficial to use AMLR in a high press possession system?

I'm interested in how this has worked out for you.

I'm using the same shape with some different roles. I've made my right sided wm more of a winger and in the middle I've got a regista instead of DM (s) and a bbm instead of the rpm. I've got a dlf up front.

The challenge I think is getting the player at mc to link with the forward so he doesn't get isolated.

Originally I had an AP (a) in the mc position but I felt he was a bit too static and didn't really get involved.

I then thought of a more mobile role and experimented with cm (a) and bbm but I preferred the way the bbm played.

The regista plays superbly - always seems open for a pass.

How do you find the rpm?

I'm thinking of other roles for the striker - maybe a false nine. How do you find the complete forward does?

I decided after a FMT test save to scrap it as I couldn't get it to work unfortunately. In particular I couldn't get the midfield to link up with the striker enough. I changed team shape to 'structured' and then 'flexible', then changed my striker to a F9 and the CM to CM (A) but it still wasn't what I wanted really. I like to play a high press possession game but I don't think this version of the 4231 suits that as it is mostly possession in your own half, I couldn't create enough chances against teams who sat in. I might now go with the 4231 wide as I haven't tried that version before and because it could suit what I want. I usually go with the 4231 deep (2 DM's). So I'll probably go with either that (4231 wide) or the 4141/4123 now.

I decided after a FMT test save to scrap it as I couldn't get it to work unfortunately. In particular I couldn't get the midfield to link up with the striker enough. I changed team shape to 'structured' and then 'flexible', then changed my striker to a F9 and the CM to CM (A) but it still wasn't what I wanted really. I like to play a high press possession game but I don't think this version of the 4231 suits that as it is mostly possession in your own half, I couldn't create enough chances against teams who sat in. I might now go with the 4231 wide as I haven't tried that version before and because it could suit what I want. I usually go with the 4231 deep (2 DM's). So I'll probably go with either that (4231 wide) or the 4141/4123 now.

I have also given up on trying to make the 4231 deep or 4231 wide work. I think the 4141 is a good option because you can make it into a 433 or 4231 with the correct roles be duties.

I have also given up on trying to make the 4231 deep or 4231 wide work. I think the 4141 is a good option because you can make it into a 433 or 4231 with the correct roles be duties.

From my couple of days testing the 4141 is my favourite formation. It is very solid indeed.

From my couple of days testing the 4141 is my favourite formation. It is very solid indeed.

I am in the situation. I feel the 4141 is good formation. Do you mind sharing the roles and duties that you are using in your set up.

I'm also having limited success. I decided to give 4231 a go as it's not a formation I usually use.

I have made a slight adjustment to what I posted above and changed my wm r to a wide playmaker.

I've had some good results, I beat Chelsea 3 - 1 but lost 2 - 1 to Derby (who were 19th). In fairness both their goals came from corners, we dominated possession 60 to 40 and had a few chances that should have been taken.

I can't quite decide if it's just the quality of my players or the roles / formation that needs improving. I'm inclined to give it a bit longer!

I like the 4141 - I used a version of that on fm15 that played like a 41221 wide (a bit like the one in Cleon's possession thread).

I like to try different formations - I get bored using the same one all the time!