What roles would you recommend? Tactical help needed

[el sid]

Trying to make this formation work:

Facing a few problems at the moment

1) The striker seems to drop far too much, I'd rather have him in the shoulder of the last defender and making runs

2) The AMs and CMs seem to get in each others way

The two have led to the team not fashioning too many chances, so the attack is not as satisfactory as I'd like.

Looking for help on what player roles and edits would be most suitable for my 2 CMs, 2 AMs and the lone forward. Here's how I'd like to play them :

CM 1 - Would want one of them to stay further behind and spray passes down to the 2 wingbacks or the more attacking midfielders.

CM 2 - A box-to-box type, helping out both the defense at times and the attack play by providing a late run into the box

AM 1 - The main creative outlet of the team, tries the little through balls to the ST and the other AM, must also go wide at times to leave space in the middle of the pitch

AM 2 - Almost a support striker, sometimes even going beyond the striker, ala van der Vaart at Spurs this season, must also get into the box when crosses are coming in from the wingbacks

ST - Making darting runs across and beyond the last line of the opponents defence, and being at the end of the crosses from wingbacks, of which there will be lots.

Any help would be appreciated

[el sid]

Gentle bump

[wwfan]

You seem to want two creative outlets. Which player do you want the play to go through, the deeper or higher midfielder? Will make the team play very differently.

[el sid]

You seem to want two creative outlets. Which player do you want the play to go through, the deeper or higher midfielder? Will make the team play very differently.

Sorry about not being very clear. The answer to your question is the higher midfielder. The deeper midfielder is more of a ball winning midfielder, but not completely defensive like Makelele, his role would be more like what Mikel does now for Chelsea. Sits back most of the time breaking up attacks and lays it off to the wingbacks when they're in space or to the AMs

[el sid]

Any help on this?

[Bluebeard]

My thoughts below in CAPS....

CM 1 - Would want one of them to stay further behind and spray passes down to the 2 wingbacks or the more attacking midfielders. SOUNDS LIKE A DEEP-LYING PLAYMAKER TO ME - SAY 'SUPPORT'

CM 2 - A box-to-box type, helping out both the defense at times and the attack play by providing a late run into the box NOT SURE THIS IS THE BEST COMBINATION WITH THE FORMER - YOU ALREADY HAVE FOUR CENTRAL PLAYERS AHEAD AND NO-ONE WINNING THE BALL. SUGGEST BALL-WINNING MIDFIELDER 'DEFEND' TO LINK WITH THE DCs AND PERMIT YOUR WINGBACKS TO BE SUPER-ATTACKING

AM 1 - The main creative outlet of the team, tries the little through balls to the ST and the other AM, must also go wide at times to leave space in the middle of the pitch ADVANCED PLAYMAKER 'ATTACK' OR TREQUARTISTA, WITH MAX ROAMING AND CF AND 'MOVES INTO CHANNELS'

AM 2 - Almost a support striker, sometimes even going beyond the striker, ala van der Vaart at Spurs this season, must also get into the box when crosses are coming in from the wingbacks I'VE FOUND ATTACKING MIDFIELDER 'ATTACK' BEST FOR THIS SORT OF PLAYER

ST - Making darting runs across and beyond the last line of the opponents defence, and being at the end of the crosses from wingbacks, of which there will be lots. DEPENDS ON THE PLAYER'S STATS. THE FIRST PART OF YOUR DESCRIPTION SUGGESTS A PLAYER ON ATTACK DUTY BUT THE LATTER PERHAPS MORE LIKE SUPPORT AS YOU NEED TO GIVE THE WBs TIME TO GET UPFIELD TO DELIVER THE CROSS. PERSONALLY I HAVE MY LONE STRIKER ON DEEP-LYING FORWARD 'DEFEND' AND HE LINKS UP WELL WITH THE AMC ON ADVANCED PLAYMAKER 'ATTACK'. IF YOU WANT SOMEONE TO STAY FORWARD THEN I GUESS YOU SHOULD TRY SOMETHING SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. PERHAPS A STRONG, TALL TARGET MAN 'ATTACK' WOULD BE PERFECT FOR YOUR SYSTEM?

[el sid]

Thank you, I'll take those suggestions on board The lone striker is Didier Drogba fwiw

[pandemonium]

Here are my suggesstions in CAPS:

CM 1 - Would want one of them to stay further behind and spray passes down to the 2 wingbacks or the more attacking midfielders. DEEP-LYING PM ON SUPPORT AS BLUEBEARD SUGGESTS

CM 2 - A box-to-box type, helping out both the defense at times and the attack play by providing a late run into the box IF YOU WANT HIM ON SUPPORT I'D THEN REVERT THE CM1 TO DEFEND AND MAKE CM2 A BOX TO BOX PLAYER, OR A CM SUPPORT. DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF PLAYER HERE HOWEVER, BALL WINNING MIDFIELDER MIGHT BE BETTER

AM 1 - The main creative outlet of the team, tries the little through balls to the ST and the other AM, must also go wide at times to leave space in the middle of the pitch SAME AS BLACKBEARD, BUT I ALSO SUGGEST CHANGING HIS RUN FROM DEEP INSTRUCTION TO MIXED, SO AS TO GIVE HIM THE LICENSE TO OCCASIONALLY MOVE INTO THE BOX AND HAVE A SHOT ON GOAL

AM 2 - Almost a support striker, sometimes even going beyond the striker, ala van der Vaart at Spurs this season, must also get into the box when crosses are coming in from the wingbacks INSIDE FORWARD ATTACK MIGHT WORK HERE AS WELL, BUT IF YOU WANT HIM TO ALSO EXPLOIT THE SPACE ON HIS OUTSIDE I'D GIVE HIM "MOVE INTO CHANNELS"

ST - Making darting runs across and beyond the last line of the opponents defence, and being at the end of the crosses from wingbacks, of which there will be lots. IF YOUR STRIKER IS DROGBA THEN I THINK COMPLETE FORWARD IS THE BETTER OPTION. ATTACK IF YOU WANT HIM TO LEAD THE LINE AND STRETCH THE FIELD, OR SUPPORT IF YOU WANT HIM TO BE MORE INVOLVED IN THE BUILD-UP AND COMBINE WITH THE OTHER 2 ATTACKING PLAYERS.

Additionally, you might run into problems breaking down oppositions who plays with a lone forward with this formation, as you have 3 CBs who dont contribute to the attack phase. to counter this, i suggest moving the central defender down to sweeper and giving him attack duty. this will make him move into midfield when you have the ball and help you gain superiority in midfield and retain posession. of course you will need a defender with decent passing, technique, creativity and decisions for this role.

good luck!

[niton]

Not a fan of this tactic, at all, you could be a tactical genius, but they are many more efficient systems that will just beat it.

Problems:

1) The wing-backs, if the opposing team play ML, MR or AML or AMR, your wing-backs have 2 options: give width by bombing down the flank for attacking intent, or stay back by marking the wide players for defensive intent. You're going to lack width and you're going to require super full-backs that are full of stamina, good positioning AND off the ball, pace and acceleration, can you find 3/4 full-backs like this at any level?

2) You don't need a 3 man defense for nearly 50% of matches you play, if you're playing against a 4-4-2, then it MAY work, but against a 4-5-1 or a 4-2-3-1, play the ball to the flanks early on, and then centre it once you get past the 4 midfielders, why play with a 3 man defense when you're only opposing 1 striker? Here's a great article on why a three-man defense just doesn't work that well in the modern age --> http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/24/three-man-defence-in-football-soccer/

3) You have 4 central midfielders; there's going to be huge congestion, no matter what settings you use (Anchor Man, Advanced Playmaker, Box-to-Box midfielder, etc), they're central players who are going to get in each others way.

4) There's going to be a hole "in the zones", which means the striker is going to drop off and almost play like an FC instead of a ST, like a RvP instead of a Owen.

Playing against it would be a dream too; close down the striker, set 2 defensive midfielders to essentially wipe out 4 midfielders, set 2 AM's to push back your wing-backs and use a striker who goes to the channels with a winger who cuts in to beat the 3-2 man attack-defense advantage.

What are you trying to get out of this tactic to make it work? For example I might choose 4-4-2 because I like a nice, simple, heavy-English formation, etc, what's your reason for this?

To make good use of a 3 man defense, I would use a 2-3-2-3 formation, with the defensive midfielder in the 2-"3"-2-3, going very, very deep, creating a 3 man defense for 50% of a match.

[madmufc]

I play a similar system with two CM's with another in front, here is what I'd look at doing.

1- I'd either set the striker to poacher, this should keep him high up the pitch on the last shoulder, or set him as advanced forward with a high mentality and runs from deep sometimes.

2- for the CM's, CM1 you want to sit back set as ball winner then lower the mentality to defensive I'd suggest 3 from normal. I'd also lower his closing down to last of own 1/2 to keep him deeper. CM2 I would set as central midfielder support, raise the mentality to the 1st of attacking. As for the AM's the one you want to be the creative oultlet set as treq, lowering the mentality to the first of attack, I'd also switch his runs from deep to sometimes and have hime roam from position so he will move out of the middle looking for the ball opening up space for your CM to make runs into and your other AM. As for the last AM as Bluebeard said Attacking mid attack.

[el sid]

Not a fan of this tactic, at all, you could be a tactical genius, but they are many more efficient systems that will just beat it.

Problems:

1) The wing-backs, if the opposing team play ML, MR or AML or AMR, your wing-backs have 2 options: give width by bombing down the flank for attacking intent, or stay back by marking the wide players for defensive intent. You're going to lack width and you're going to require super full-backs that are full of stamina, good positioning AND off the ball, pace and acceleration, can you find 3/4 full-backs like this at any level?

Ashley Cole, Yuri Zhirkov for LWB

Jose Bosingwa, Sebastian Corchia, Ramires for RWB

2) You don't need a 3 man defense for nearly 50% of matches you play, if you're playing against a 4-4-2, then it MAY work, but against a 4-5-1 or a 4-2-3-1, play the ball to the flanks early on, and then centre it once you get past the 4 midfielders, why play with a 3 man defense when you're only opposing 1 striker? Here's a great article on why a three-man defense just doesn't work that well in the modern age --> http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/24/three-man-defence-in-football-soccer/

The idea is to make THIS formation work. I know I can win the league easily with Chelsea playing a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1. I'm trying to do something different.

3) You have 4 central midfielders; there's going to be huge congestion, no matter what settings you use (Anchor Man, Advanced Playmaker, Box-to-Box midfielder, etc), they're central players who are going to get in each others way.

Brazil used to play with a similar box midfield

What are you trying to get out of this tactic to make it work? For example I might choose 4-4-2 because I like a nice, simple, heavy-English formation, etc, what's your reason for this?

Again, I want to try something new.

[el sid]

Thank you pandemonium and manmufc, will look into that, specially playing a sweeper. cheers

[madmufc]

No worries, keep us updated on how it goes.

[wwfan]

I'd do this:

MCL: Central Midfielder (Defend)

MCR: Box to Box Midfielder (if he has the attributes) or Central Midfielder (Automatic) if he doesn't

AMCL: TQ or Advanced Playmaker (Support)

AMCR: Attacking Midfielder (Attack)

FCC: Advanced Forward

WBL: Wing Back (Attack)

WBR: Wing Back (Automatic)

This will ensure the WBL goes forward more aggressively to compensate for the left side of midfield sitting deeper.

[Bluebeard]

That's interesting advice re balancing the sides out. That sort of deep understanding is so satisfying to come up with. For instance, in my formation I have stopper and cover at DC - so I play my DMC directly in front of the cover and my MC in line with the stopper. This staggers the line more effectively and balances the players with higher closing down.

May I ask why 'central midfielder - defend' rather than ball-winner in this circumstance? What advantages does the former offer? And which stats would you deem key to determining whether a player would be better off as a vanilla central midfielder rather than a box-to-box player?

[wwfan]

Central Midfielder (Defend) is more likely to hold position than a Ball Winner, who will close down much more aggressively. Given he wants the other player to be more aggressive, he'd be risking opening space in front of the d-line with a Ball Winner.

A Box to Box has to do all things in all strategies. A Central Midfielder (Automatic) will follow tactical instructions (i.e. go forward in aggressive strategies, sit back in defensive ones). True Box to Box players are hard to find as they have to be good at so many things, so I'd be more inclined to use rotation players as Central Midfielders, using the more attacking one at home and the more defensive one away.

[el sid]

Thanks for the input wwfan, appreciate it Additionally, the box to box I would be using is Michael Essien, can't do any better than that tbh

[Bluebeard]

Thanks, I thought it would be related to closing down.

I have Fabregas playing as an advanced playmaker/box-to-box (depending on match situation) at MCL. Would you suggest I play my more defensive midfielder (first choice is De Rossi) as MCR or DMCR and with which role? Currently I play 80% of games with him as 'defensive midfielder - defend' and 20% as 'ball-winning midfielder - defend' if the opposition's not using an AMC and has defensive centre mids. Do you think this would work better with De Rossi closing down less? I appreciate the answer might be 'it depends'....

[SCIAG]

I'd essentially agree with wwfan, though I'd have plumped for "ball winning midfielder- support" in the place of the box to box midfielder. I presume this is supposed to be Essien or similar? I've got great performances, including vital goals, from players in this role. I also feel more comfortable about changing them to "defend" in trickier fixtures.

Thanks, I thought it would be related to closing down.

I have Fabregas playing as an advanced playmaker/box-to-box (depending on match situation) at MCL. Would you suggest I play my more defensive midfielder (first choice is De Rossi) as MCR or DMCR and with which role? Currently I play 80% of games with him as 'defensive midfielder - defend' and 20% as 'ball-winning midfielder - defend' if the opposition's not using an AMC and has defensive centre mids. Do you think this would work better with De Rossi closing down less? I appreciate the answer might be 'it depends'....

Personally, I'd put Fabregas as an advanced playmaker on "support", and De Rossi on "ball winner- defend". That way, Fabregas would advance in attack, with De Rossi surging forward sometimes, and Fabregas would drop off to be a semi-useful player when defending, whilst De Rossi would hassle and tried to actively win the ball. I suspect it might not actually work that well for the team, but IMO it would get the most out of the individuals.

[Bluebeard]

Thanks. I am going with 'central mid - defend' atm as my team is already on 'press more'..... although I can't say I find their pressing to be that amazing. I should try signing a front five player with the right stats according to some, but IRL Barca manage to be perhaps the best team at pressing from the front in the world and I'm not sure that can be recreated in game. Sorry, this is somewhat OT. But it does highlight just how interdependent all the settings are.