Positional play not working as intended in a 4-4-2

Giving it more thought, it's not just a 442 issue. It's an issue plaguing any formation with 2 strikers. Strikers in the STCL and STCR slots aren't adjusting their positions enough in relation to the roles enough around them.

Here is another 442 example but with an IWB instead of a Libero. The AF should be more central.

442 IWB.pkm

Edited December 13, 2023 by 2calvin

Average positions - 442 vs 4411. Strikers not adjusting their positions vs positional play working as intended

Average positions with ball of a 5-2-2-1 DM. I would expect my AF (#9) to be in-line with #20 and #36 and my DLF(#10) to be a bit wider and deeper.

5122DM.pkm

Very good find, i have years since i have found it, i have made a bug tracker post here but no response, the positional play for 2 AF don't work, they should shift too, also totally agree with you,  they should fix this i mean if CM(a) goes up which he does very well the AF shifts and become a 3 man striker partnership, this bug is a collision also with both CM(a) with 2 strikers i think is a bug just not coded with 2 strikers they don't respond to positional play, AM responds very well for SV(A).

Also the CM(s) should drop to form a double DM in 3-5-2 or maybe cm(D) should do it instead he stays there and makes an assymetrical which is not realistic we should be able to defend in 5-3-2 and attack in 343 impossible in ME, the positional play is mostly for 1 striker and back 4, the back 3 has limitations on rotations of strikers and midfielders they should look this i mean is very easy to see is not some subjective stuff.