The 3-4-1-2 - A Tactical Challenge!

[crouchaldinho]

Two examples of exactly the same situations I was finding in my experiments there Terk.

(Edit - talking about your first post and not the last one, which you posted while I was replying!)

[crouchaldinho]

The example in second post is very frustrating. I take it this was with an attacking strategy and/or wide players?

The problem with the wide players basically just makes them passengers in the game. They don't defend particularly well and they don't attack properly. What's the use of them!

[Terk]

Yeah, as I mostly do when I'm building a new tactic, I've begun with a 'standard' strategy but both the wide midfielders are set as 'attack'. It's all very well relying upon the skills of Gerrard and Torres to make the best of a bad situation against poor opposition in a friendly, but in competitive matches I'm going to need the wide players to make use of that space. Massively frustrating, but I'm not giving up.

[crouchaldinho]

Well, keep us updated. If you come across anything that helps, I'm dying to know!

[Kawee]

Some great screenshots there Terk.

Working on from one of them:

As you can see in the picture below, Despite Liverpool's defense having 1 more player than the opposition's attack, two of our players were outnumbered. Number 7 and number 8 are marking two players. The guy with the ball, if he's any good, can easily play a one-two around the number 7. If he passes it to the number 6, then you know Liverpool's number 8 will close him down because he's the closest and thus leaving the opposition number 10 all the time and space in the world to put in a good cross. Then you have Liverpool's number 6 marking a ghost. He's useless there. For a team of Liverpool's calibre, this is unacceptably poor.

The picture below shows the kind of reactive positioning the Liverpool's defense should be going. Looking at the red arrows, you will see the defensive rotation the Liverpool's players should make in order to make use of all the defenders and mark all the opposition players. Out numbering the attack by one player, there is no excuse for any of the opposition to have a free man. In fact, the two CBs closest to the opposition striker (3 & 2) are key. The two of them should ensure that they have the one striker handled. And if there is a defensive mess up somewhere, one of them, being the spare defender, and react and move in to cover.

As Crouchadinho has said before, the positioning and marking of the players are simply too poor. There is no reaction to the situation whatsoever. They simply fall back to form a back-5 regardless of what else is happening on the pitch!

[Rupal]

Well, it's a pity! As I said earlier, I thought I'd run some games with a 3-5-2 and have a look at the wide players' operation in the hope that it would be possible to get something out of them; I presumed that if a setup worked with a 3-5-2 it ought to work with a 3-4-1-2 as well.

Unfortunately, like other people, I've found that the wide midefielders simply don't do what I want them to do - they act basically rather like inferior wingbacks and I haven't been able to come up with anything to improve the situation.

SI ought to have a look at this problem. A major rethink of the ME might be called for!

[crouchaldinho]

Might be worth posting that exact post over in the bugs thread Kawee. See here - http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/238457-Feedback-on-formations-with-three-at-the-back

It's a shame this challenge thread doesn't seem to be working as I anticipated but then at least if we feedback to SI they can work on the issues.

[karax268]

I'm going to give this a try. I'll use Ajax, Both Emmanuelson and Van der Wiel are perfect for the wide positions.

Note that I havn't tried anything like this yet but wouldn't the Wide midfielder problem be solved if you set them to Winger. Defensively you will be a bit weaker but if you set your wide players to specific man marking that will be minimalised I think.

I'll have to test it out to be sure though.

This is the way I'm planning to set up.

Defense:

Against a two striker team I'll play to CD's and a Sweeper

Against a One striker team I'll play a Libero, and two CD's

Midfield:

Always a Balwining Midfielder and a Deeplying Playmaker and two Wingers on Support. If the other team is much better I'll play them as Wide midfielders.

Attack:

a Teq AM, A DLF on support and a Poacher on attack.

I'll let you know how it turns out

[Terk]

Excellent analysis of those screenies, Kawee As crouchy said, it would be good to put that post in the bugs thread. If an ME could be developed that had the players move dynamically as you show in the second shot, I think I'd wet myself in excitement Out of interest, this

If he passes it to the number 6, then you know Liverpool's number 8 will close him down because he's the closest and thus leaving the opposition number 10 all the time and space in the world to put in a good cross.

Is exactly what happened in that situation. It was simply the poor crossing ability of the opposition #10 which meant that he hit his effort straight into Pepe Reina's arms. Against a better team we'd have been in a lot more trouble.

[Terk]

Lo and behold, an example of the attacking side working a little better. I decided for my final friendly against Genk to experiment with playing a far more attacking player in the wide midfielder role on one side. I chose Milan Jovanovic, who really doesn't have the defensive talents to play that role, but I was only interested in seeing how his more natural attacking instinct would affect the play.

In this shot, we see that right from the off, Jovanovic has got himself into a more attacking position on the field and is offering my trequartista a simple ball out wide to stretch play.

Unsurprisingly, Alex takes him up on the offer of the wide ball, and with Genk's right back now required to come across and close him down, we have a situation where our two strikers can get themselves one-on-one with the Genk centre backs. I had expected, at this point, the Genk #4 (a defensive midfielder) to drop in and help, but he is clearly worried about Alex (#7) making a late forward run as the guy who should be marking Alex (Genk #8) has let our little trequartista get goalside of him.

Alex does make that forward run, meaning that their three defenders are covering three of our attackers. They have no spare man, so any sort of good delivery and we have a real chance. The Genk defenders are all goalside of their Liverpool opponents, but I would expect the Liverpool guys (Vucinic, Kuyt, Alex) to have better movement and anticipation.

Vucinic anticipates the early ball from Jovanovic, moves into the space between his marker and Kuyt's marker and meets the ball at the back post, a simple header to score the goal. Attacking play that I'm really pleased with, the only downside being that Jovanovic can't defend worth a damn and during the course of this game we were often caught out down our left flank when Genk had the ball.

[Terk]

In light of this I'm going to see what effect training my defensively minded wide midfielders (Johnson & Aurelio) with the PPM 'Gets forward whenever possible' has. I shall report back.

[Rupal]

Note that I havn't tried anything like this yet but wouldn't the Wide midfielder problem be solved if you set them to Winger. Defensively you will be a bit weaker but if you set your wide players to specific man marking that will be minimalised I think.

I'll have to test it out to be sure though.

I'd be interested to know if setting to 'winger' works. As far as I can tell, setting to 'defensive winger' unfortunately doesn't, although one would think that it ought to, given the tooltip explanation of that setting in the Tactics Creator.

[mag man]

What happens if you set the mentality to the highest attacking on the sliders?

[karax268]

I'd be interested to know if setting to 'winger' works. As far as I can tell, setting to 'defensive winger' unfortunately doesn't, although one would think that it ought to, given the tooltip explanation of that setting in the Tactics Creator.

I've played one friendly and so far it's the same as described previously on the defensive performance. They still form a back 5. Attacking play is good though.

[Rupal]

What happens if you set the mentality to the highest attacking on the sliders?

I did that - it doesn't work, alas!!

[NakS]

Just to let you know guys, I am experimenting with marking settings as I explained earlier, maybe I am on something with that, I'd report back tonight, my Roma is not fit enough yet to have a proper analysis

[bothered]

I almost got a similar formation working on FM10 but it was almost a 3-3-2-2 rather than a 3-4-1-2.

My midfield 3 were: Ball Winner (S) - C Mid (D) - Adv Playmaker (S)

I'm a big fan of the Ball Winner (S), he wins the ball futher up the pitch and helps in attack, the C Mid holds and looks after the back three whilst the Adv Playmaker keeps everything ticking with a view to moving the ball forward more than a Def Playmaker would. Having those three plus one of my strikers as a Trequartista helped me control the game a lot with the four of them passing around and a Poacher to finish off.

For me, in formations like these you need to get the wide men right because you're often playing again conventional wide players, 2 full backs and 2 wide/wingers. In my formation is was determined to play with AM's - it's a shape i've tried to get right for a number of games and last year was the closest. I found that Defensive Wingers were the best way to go. I haven't had much chance to play FM11 yet but i'll be keeping a look out for this thread.

[MZizzle2]

Well done!

It goes to show that this can still be a good tactic on FM, despite our concerns about the representation of it in the match engine.

Care to share your set-up here?

I'll post my exact tactic later if you would like.

My set up is:

CB: Central Defender

CB: Ball Winning Defender

CB: Central Defender

CM: Box to Box Midfielder (Support)

CM: Ball Winning Midfielder (Defend)

MR: Wide Midfielder (Automatic)

ML: Wide Midfielder (Automatic)

CAM: Trequarista (Attack)

FWD: Deep Lying Forward (Support)

FWD: Complete Forward (Attack)

[NakS]

Well I am back early in the morning with some screenshots only focused on defensive move and totally unpundits thinkings along. Quickly my setup.

Philosophy / Strategy: Rigid / Control

CB: Central Defender / Defend (mentality 9) (marking individual tight)

CCB: Ball Playing Defender / Cover (mentality 13) (RFD sometimes, marking zonal tight)

CB: Central Defender / Defend (mentality 9) (marking individual tight)

CMR: Deep Lying Playmaker / Support (mentality 9)

CML: Ball Winning Midfielder (with creative freedom, passing and instruction same as DLPM) Support (mentality 13)

MR: Defensive Winger / Support (mentality 13) (marking specific individual NON-tight, HUB: no, RWB: Sometimes, TB: Often)

ML: Defensive Winger / Support (mentality 13) (marking specific individual NON-tight, HUB: no, RWB: Sometimes, TB: Often)

CAM: Trequarista / Attack (mentality 13)

FWDR: Complete Forward / Attack (mentality 17)

FWDL: Complete Forward / Support (mentality 13)

Here is a diagram of how I lineup

[NakS]

Shots against a 442. My defensive wingers are supposed to make a specific individual on opponent's wide midfielders, no OIs

Here the ball is coming down my left wing from the number 2 white. Number 8 was close enough to quickly close down the opponent.

Opponent ST 10 is staying central and have to deal with my 3CBs.

Opponent ST 11 is moving into channel down my right wing.

Opponent left midfielder is closely marked by my right DWinger, number 5.

Opponent's FBs have plenty of time and are completely free

I have 2 spare men with my 2 CBs, it can be tricky down my right wing where I "only" have number 3, 5 and 6 against white 3, 7, 8 and 11, so could be 3 vs 4 there

Almost the same situatio even if it is not the following move, I sat deeper and closer to my box.

Again, my 2 DWingers keep watching closely the 2 opponents wide midfielders.

I have 3CBs against 2 ST

My 2 CMs and the CAM are shielding my D-line;

Here you can see another common situation

My 2 CBs are marking the 2 opponent's ST and my spare CBs is between them

My 2 CMs are goalside of opponent's 2CMs and shield the D-Line

My 2 DWingers are marking opponent's wide midfielders

Still, opponent's fullbacks have plenty, plenty, plenty of time on the ball

[NakS]

Shots against Inter 4231n should be the one of the worst team to face with a lone ST, wingers and attacking fullbacks

A quick one here in an unusual situation

Here both 9 & 10 are almost offside against 3 CBs

My 2 DWingers are marking opponent's wide midfielders

Still, opponent's fullbacks have plenty of time on the ball, I have decided to make a specific marking with my ST on opponents FB as they are known to be attacking

The main shot against a 4231.

You have almost 2 vs 3 in the middle, the trequartista does not perform a huge defensive job. So you have 6 players in the middle of the pitch

The hatching circle are specific marking instructions, my 2 DWingers on opponent's AMR and AML and both of my ST on opponent FBs

Spare players are in hexagonal doted shaped, I have 2 CBs and opponent have one CB and one FBs as my ST 9 is somehow locked on the other CBs, means if they switch flank quickly I can be in trouble. Moreover if the free FB decide to overlap or so, I would be in a very unconfortable situation. But when they change wing more smoothly, actually my ST had some time to lock on "his" FB before he overlaps or so.

Well, actually I have both recall inherent weakness of the 3 men defense and show how the use of specific man-marking can be a "half-decent artificial solution" not more. It still need some proximity to be triggererd and the defensive line attraction power is somehow to strong to be fully "counter" with a settings combination.

I have not done all possible combinations of defensive settings, just playing here with defensive winger (closing down 20) with specific marking, I'd guess a higher D-line can help a bit as well, but that's not a convenient solution. Players attributes definitely come into play here, (teamwork, positioning, anticipation, marking, decision among others) as well as PPMs as somebody pointed out previously.

[Rupal]

That's very interesting, NakS.

A curious thing which I noticed last year and which still occurs now with these types of formation (counting a 3-5-2 as a member of the same 'family' so to speak) is a strange comment which one gets in the assman's feedback! He tends to inform me that the forwards are isolated because they are too far away from the midfielders. This comment disappears when one moves one of the CMs into the back line, producing what amounts to a 4-4-2 and does not appear when one uses a 3-2-3-2, even though the only difference between the formations is that the latter uses 2 wingbacks rather than 2 wide midfielders

Now what, if anything, this tells us about the problem I don't know but it is certainly very odd.

I'll have another go fiddling around with settings to see if I can come up with anything else.

[Rupal]

I think I've found something which may enable me to get closer to what I want.

It appears to me that, somehow or other, the ME interprets the wide players' role as being deeper than the manager intends when there are only 3 at the back. Consequently, in a 3-5-2, 3-4-3 or 3-4-1-2, it insists that they are part of the defence and so they take up a wingback/fullback position rather than a midfield one. No amount of fiddling with closing down, marking or mentality appears to be able to overcome this. It occurred to me that the same effect might appear if I put the wide men in as AML and AMR rather than ML and MR. Thinking about the challenge, I tried setting up what the Tactics Creator insists is a 3-3-4. Lo and behold, on the pitch, the wide players now align with the two MCs and, in essence, I am really playing a 3-4-1-2 even though the stupid Tactics Creator/ME doesn't appear to realise this!

I've set the wide men as Defensive Wingers - obviously I will need to have a good look to see if the formation actually works in a practical way (only looked at a friendly so far) but this, unsatisfactory bodge up though it is, does at least appear to put the players where I actually want them to go. It might be worth people's while giving this idea a try.

Edit: The formation in this guise certainly seems to give rise to interesting play; there is a tendency to score a lot of goals and to leak them as well (although maybe that's because my players are very bad!). It's all a bit too exciting for my poor nerves, so I'm going to try toning things down by setting up my 3-5-2 using similar wide player settings (which the TC again insists is a 3-3-4 when it ain't really!!). Will keep people posted.

[JimmyWangYang]

I'll say the same thing I said about last season's 3-5-2 discussion: the Napoli AI is using the 3-4-1-2 to great success! Is there a trick to view exactly what settings the AI uses? Probably not

[Rocka]

Really nice idea there Crouchaldinho!

Since the FM11 demo I´ve been trying to recreate the formation that Marcelo Bielsa used with his Chile side, and to some degree when he was manager at Argentina.

As seen in this thread: http://forum.fmsweden.se/viewtopic.php?t=29398

Beware: the link is in swedish, though the pictures are not

In reality it´s called a 3-3-1-3 and that´s how I put it up in the beginning.

But just like everyone else here I came to the conclusion that the wingbacks would withdraw to deep and form a straight back 5 even when not necessary.

So I tried to capture the formation in a later stage, after the wingbacks have pushed forward, to form a 3-4-3 diamond from the TC.

But even with the wide midfielders set on attack duty, they would fall back to join the 3 central defenders.

The only positive thing so far is that they frequently join the attack, both on the wings and trough the middle, to recreate some really dynamic and fluid attacking moves.

So Yes, this really looks like a not so great thing in the ME (or even a BUG if you like that phrace more).

Still I´ve been using the latter formation to great success since the realease of FM11.

Claimed the Domestic title 3 years in a row and taking my (small) side to the groupstages in Champions League.

The only thing I´d like you to be aware of is that a back 3 ain´t too great against teams who uses only 1 central attacker, as in a 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1.

So against those teams I use a different approach(just like Bielsa irl) and move forward one of the centrebacks to the inner midfield to create something that looks like a 2-3-2-3 to leave 2 defenders to take care of the lone attacker and the rest of the team on more attacking duties.

The 3-4-1-2 is an interesting formation though with 2 attackers up front instead of my lone one. So I´ll try to incorporate this one into my ongiong save to have some more choise up front when needed.

Hope you don´t mind.

[scaffscazz]

id like to have a bash at this, but how do i get my screenshots in my fm2011 screenshot folder into my post please.

[crouchaldinho]

Really nice idea there Crouchaldinho!

Since the FM11 demo I´ve been trying to recreate the formation that Marcelo Bielsa used with his Chile side, and to some degree when he was manager at Argentina.

As seen in this thread: http://forum.fmsweden.se/viewtopic.php?t=29398

Beware: the link is in swedish, though the pictures are not

In reality it´s called a 3-3-1-3 and that´s how I put it up in the beginning.

But just like everyone else here I came to the conclusion that the wingbacks would withdraw to deep and form a straight back 5 even when not necessary.

So I tried to capture the formation in a later stage, after the wingbacks have pushed forward, to form a 3-4-3 diamond from the TC.

But even with the wide midfielders set on attack duty, they would fall back to join the 3 central defenders.

The only positive thing so far is that they frequently join the attack, both on the wings and trough the middle, to recreate some really dynamic and fluid attacking moves.

So Yes, this really looks like a not so great thing in the ME (or even a BUG if you like that phrace more).

Still I´ve been using the latter formation to great success since the realease of FM11.

Claimed the Domestic title 3 years in a row and taking my (small) side to the groupstages in Champions League.

The only thing I´d like you to be aware of is that a back 3 ain´t too great against teams who uses only 1 central attacker, as in a 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1.

So against those teams I use a different approach(just like Bielsa irl) and move forward one of the centrebacks to the inner midfield to create something that looks like a 2-3-2-3 to leave 2 defenders to take care of the lone attacker and the rest of the team on more attacking duties.

The 3-4-1-2 is an interesting formation though with 2 attackers up front instead of my lone one. So I´ll try to incorporate this one into my ongiong save to have some more choise up front when needed.

Hope you don´t mind.

Sounds good to me.

id like to have a bash at this, but how do i get my screenshots in my fm2011 screenshot folder into my post please.

Press Alt-F9 to get a screenshot in FM automatically send to your screenshots folder.

[crouchaldinho]

I think I've found something which may enable me to get closer to what I want.

It appears to me that, somehow or other, the ME interprets the wide players' role as being deeper than the manager intends when there are only 3 at the back. Consequently, in a 3-5-2, 3-4-3 or 3-4-1-2, it insists that they are part of the defence and so they take up a wingback/fullback position rather than a midfield one. No amount of fiddling with closing down, marking or mentality appears to be able to overcome this. It occurred to me that the same effect might appear if I put the wide men in as AML and AMR rather than ML and MR. Thinking about the challenge, I tried setting up what the Tactics Creator insists is a 3-3-4. Lo and behold, on the pitch, the wide players now align with the two MCs and, in essence, I am really playing a 3-4-1-2 even though the stupid Tactics Creator/ME doesn't appear to realise this!

I've set the wide men as Defensive Wingers - obviously I will need to have a good look to see if the formation actually works in a practical way (only looked at a friendly so far) but this, unsatisfactory bodge up though it is, does at least appear to put the players where I actually want them to go. It might be worth people's while giving this idea a try.

Are you going for defensive wingers attack or support Rupal?

I'm just worried about getting the balance right, I guess, if deciding to use AMR and AML. Will they still track back defensively? I still want my wide players to have defensive responsibilities/duties.

I've been thinking of maybe getting around it by using something like this:

GK

DC - DC - DC

DM - DM

AMR - AMC - AML

ST - ST

Essentially, 3-2-3-2. But I believe this would give the 3-4-1-2 shape.

My major concern, however, is the realistic behaviour of the wide players. I still want them to get back and offer defensive support.

As I said to you in the PM I sent, it would be nice to get something like this working on FM11 but I have my concerns that we will have to wait for a match engine fix in a future version.

[Rupal]

Well, I've only had a friendly game or two so I can't be definitive but I have found that they do seem to track back ok when set as defensive wingers on support. Whilst I'm doing a 'pseudo 3-5-2' I imagine that the wide players would operate in much the same way with either formation if set like this.

I think the easiest thing might be for you to try out a quick save for yourself and see if the idea works for you. Nothing like seeing for oneself, after all!

Edit: One thing I should have mentioned is that I've put the team setting on 'fluid'. This is contrary to how I usually set things up but I didn't want a 'rigid' setting to interfere with the 'wingers' contributing defensively.

[shwayne]

It would be nice if the wide players behaved properly in the correct positions, but if you give them the right instructions then I don't see why sticking the wide players in the AM R/L position shouldn't work. I'm tempted to try this myself but am struggling to think of a team who are well suited to it. Few teams have enough CBs to provide adequate cover imho, would probably need to buy some players.

[niton]

3-4-1-2 as a challenge? Not really. It's a decent tactic to try out, something different from 4-4-2 or 4-5-1, but it's nothing extraordinary, mediocre difficulty at best. A 4-6-0, 4-2-4 or something similar would be a real challenge.

[crouchaldinho]

3-4-1-2 as a challenge? Not really. It's a decent tactic to try out, something different from 4-4-2 or 4-5-1, but it's nothing extraordinary, mediocre difficulty at best. A 4-6-0, 4-2-4 or something similar would be a real challenge.

Welcome to the thread Niton. We're talking here about the challenge of using so-called 'outdated' fomations/systems when compared to modern systems (in particular 4-5-1 variations). In this thread, we are having a look at a so-called anachronism - a formation with a back three, which is rarely used in modern football these days when compared to flat back four formations.

Perhaps if you have anything constructive to say, that would be great. Otherwise, you are free to start your own challenge on 4-6-0, 4-2-4 or whatever formation you might like to, in your own thread. For what it's worth, I think you've missed the point.

[comby]

Im using the 3412 formation mainly because i watched mexico use it v england before the world cup im yet to perfect it having same problems as many of you also im using carlise which prob isnt the best team but hey this is a challenge right? Ive got my dc's pressing high with man marking off which stops them dropping too deep. My wide players i use wingers on attack its not perfect but they attack and defend capably with a back 5 only occuring if the opp build slowly. im currently 4th in dec and most of the opp managers praise my football after the so although im still tweaking im getting there!

[Rupal]

Thinking of other possible challenges, I just wonder how a reversion to the 1930s-60s style of 2 fullbacks, 3 halfbacks, and 5 forwards would do? Anybody tried it I wonder?

Getting back to the main subject, after having tried a number of games, although I think that the play LOOKS better setting the wide men up in AML, AMR positions, I'm still not fully satisfied with their contribution as, although they do some token tracking back, they aren't doing as much defensively as I'd like. The system is very vulnerable to a long ball into the space behind the wide midfielders, which results in the MCs or DCs being dragged out of position to try to cover. The result, of course, is that any crosses coming in are very dangerous.

Like Crouchaldinho, I've got an 'orrible feeling that we're going to have to wait for an ME fix, unfortunately.

I'll have one more shot with the MR/ML back rather than AML/AMR - try them as wingers on attack and see what that does.

[scaffscazz]

i can see them in the screenshot folder, but cant get them to appear here, how do i please do that.

[Matt Langdon]

I've just started trying this with Liverpool in my second season. I brought in Vucinic to play the DLF. Neymar is on the left wing. I've made the wide midfielders wingers and they appear to be defending and attacking. First two games I beat Man City away 2-1 and Cardiff at home 3-0. In each game the opposition only had one shot that was not a long shot, which is a pretty nice defensive stat. It does get a bit lonely up front though as I've got the central midfielders as DMs. Might move one into the centre next.

[Falahk]

Have yet to read the full thread (but will do soon), but I have for quite some time been intrested in dabling with something similar to how Napoli play these days or how Roma played under the Capello era, had a try on fm10 aswell but could not come up with a tactic that gave consistant results back then....so im surly in for an other stab

so would using wingbacks be acceptable? or exprimentation with droping a striker back to AMC?

[Da_Funk]

Nak as a real challenge what about using a zonal SW and 2 man DC when against a 2 strikers formation? Or do you lose to much "width" in DF coverage in this way? Mexes is perfect to test a SW defence.

[Rupal]

I've done some further short tests (with a 3-5-2) and have found two reasonable options for me for settings for the wide midfielders.

Option A: Use MR and ML, wingers, mentality slider to highest setting, attack, closing down whole pitch, man marking, no tight marking, no holdup, preferred moves: get forward as often as possible. I've used a fluid setting to avoid possible difficulties over the ME regarding these players as 'defenders'.

Option B: Use AMR and AML, defensive wingers, mentality slider to lowest setting, support, closing down own half, man marking, no tight marking, no holdup, preferred moves: don't get forward too often. Again, used a fluid setting to avoid possible difficulties with the ME regarding these players as 'attackers'.

In either case they seem to do a reasonable job both getting forward and defensively (as far as my rubbish players are capable of doing so!). So you pays your money and takes your choice. The second option looks a bit more like a 3-5-2 on the pitch, though, even though the silly Tactics Creator insists that it's a 3-4-4!

I will now, with some trepidation, try the 'challenge 3-4-1-2' using LLM principles with Lewes. I'll go for the Option B setting for the wide men initially and see how it goes. If it's a complete disaster I'll go to Option A and see if that's any better. Knowing my managerial qualities I'm not expecting much - avoiding relegation if I'm lucky!!

[NakS]

Nak as a real challenge what about using a zonal SW and 2 man DC when against a 2 strikers formation? Or do you lose to much "width" in DF coverage in this way? Mexes is perfect to test a SW defence.

Yeah, the Mexes role is imho one of the most interesting in 3412. Maybe you noticed I have put him at the same mentality as Totti in my setup. The thing is as Los_Culés pointed it out, you can get outnumbered in the middle while facing 3 men in the midfield, against a 442 i agree he should play a classic covering role as you said and your midfield flat 4 + TQ against opponent midfield flat 4. My screenshot number 3 illustrate that. But since I want him to use his passing skills, I have choosen a ball playing defender, with RFD "mixed", 13 mentaly and covering closing down and zonal marking. He did the job pretty well, I'll try to post more screenshots if needed or requested

But against lone striker formation, I was expecting from Mexes to "cover" my CMs rather than my 2 CBs as it is 2 vs 1 at the back, kind of advanced stopper CBs/DMidfielder sweeping/covering behind CMs, I think I should this time, keep the previous setup (high mentality, RFD, TBalls) but with a much higher closing down settings to make sure he is the first to close down opponents RFD and maybe not strict as I still have 2CBs right behind. So I was likely to try a "revert" 3 CBs defences with 2 Covering duty CBs and the central one "tweaked" ball playing stopper Duty CBs.

The point is to make a 1 (BPlaying stopper) -2 (CBs cover) defence instead of a 2 (CBs stopper) -1 (SW covering). My spare guy being behind CBs against 2 STs fornation, in "in front" against lone striker formation.

[NakS]

I've done some further short tests (with a 3-5-2) and have found two reasonable options for me for settings for the wide midfielders.

Option A: Use MR and ML, wingers, mentality slider to highest setting, attack, closing down whole pitch, man marking, no tight marking, no holdup, preferred moves: get forward as often as possible. I've used a fluid setting to avoid possible difficulties over the ME regarding these players as 'defenders'.

I am glad you are coming up with this Rupal , here was mine.

MR: Defensive Winger / Support (mentality 13) (marking specific individual NON-tight, HUB: no, RWB: Sometimes, TB: Often)

ML: Defensive Winger / Support (mentality 13) (marking specific individual NON-tight, HUB: no, RWB: Sometimes, TB: Often)

I have got the same "key settings", no HUB non tight and individual marking settings, I have them pretty careful as they got "get forward whenever possible", so support (RFD mixed) did the job when needed, but I do agree RFD Often would have been helpful in some situations. Regarding closing down, it is much more a habit to choose defensive winger as I do like hardworking guys on the flank. I did not play with mentality settings though, I have choosen "rigid" philosophy, but since I have nobody in the DM slot, mentality speaking, it is more a fluid one as you used I guess (except wide midfielder mentality of course)

Good job and good luck with Lewes!

[Da_Funk]

But against lone striker formation, I was expecting from Mexes to "cover" my CMs rather than my 2 CBs as it is 2 vs 1 at the back, kind of advanced stopper

Ah ok instead my philosophy would be to use a player like this man marking the striker (he has the skill to do it) and let the other 2 CB "free" to zone cover.

I know understand you aim to have a stopper ahead the cb, instead of a sweeper-like formation.

I thought you might have a more 5-3-2-like formation, now I got your objecitve: 2 basics CB and more pressure in the middle of the field.

can you give a value 0-20 to your DF-Line height?

[NakS]

Ah ok instead my philosophy would be to use a player like this man marking the striker (he has the skill to do it) and let the other 2 CB "free" to zone cover.

I know understand you aim to have a stopper ahead the cb, instead of a sweeper-like formation.

I thought you might have a more 5-3-2-like formation, now I got your objecitve: 2 basics CB and more pressure in the middle of the field.

can you give a value 0-20 to your DF-Line height?

Actually, as the lone striker tends to drop deep, even with zonal non tight, he is likely to lock early on the striker from what I have seen, moreover with the highest closing down, he put pressure ASAP on him, as you said he is very capable of doing it, maybe man-marking instead of zonal can make it even better, that's a good point, I will go for man-marking non tight to see what is going on with this setting.

Yeah my aim is to put pressure on the midifield because I am my trequartista to be free when we win the ball back, so he can not man mark or close down heavily. moreover Totti is not that fit with his low stamina for example. With this I counter the ST dropping deep and I end up with 3 players (one CB + 2 CMs) against 4 (deep ST + 2CMs and the regista "pirlo guy"), Usually what I do is using specific man mark on the regista with one of my ST, the other staying high to pin CBs, the trequartista being in the hole as the first clearing outlet. But, you still have heavy troubles with opponents attacking FBs, at the end of the day the geometry of the 3412 make it difficult again 451/433/4231.

I play between Normal and Control, usually it is around 10-11. Put I do use shouts "play higher" or "play deeper" according to match events and opponent formation. A bit higher against lone striker formation, a bit deeper against 2 strikers as Mexes didn't have the same job, same goes for offside trap

[Da_Funk]

Actually, as the lone striker tends to drop deep, even with zonal non tight, he is likely to lock early on the striker from what I have seen, moreover with the highest closing down, he put pressure ASAP on him, as you said he is very capable of doing it, maybe man-marking instead of zonal can make it even better, that's a good point, I will go for man-marking non tight to see what is going on with this setting.

Plus, if Mexes wins the ball he can immediately begin your offense from a very advantage/advanced position on the field, since he's on the deep striker, which is what you want, Mexes between the lines when possible. Of course this is just theory.

[NakS]

Plus, if Mexes wins the ball he can immediately begin your offense from a very advantage/advanced position on the field, since he's on the deep striker, which is what you want, Mexes between the lines when possible. Of course this is just theory.

Exactly, keeping in mind as well I play him as a ball playing defender, so through ball are "often", passing 10, I have to find the good balance of creative freedom to make him still reliable an secure and at the same time spreading play. I'll do some testing tonight and report back on the "Mexes against a lone striker" theory, we have just formulated.

[Da_Funk]

Exactly, keeping in mind as well I play him as a ball playing defender, so through ball are "often", passing 10, I have to find the good balance of creative freedom to make him still reliable an secure and at the same time spreading play. I'll do some testing tonight and report back on the "Mexes against a lone striker" theory, we have just formulated.

while setting different "creative freedom" can you please check if you see a different behaviour in the movement of the player, not only the passes?

[paganizer]

Really nice idea there Crouchaldinho!

Since the FM11 demo I´ve been trying to recreate the formation that Marcelo Bielsa used with his Chile side, and to some degree when he was manager at Argentina.

As seen in this thread: http://forum.fmsweden.se/viewtopic.php?t=29398

Beware: the link is in swedish, though the pictures are not

In reality it´s called a 3-3-1-3 and that´s how I put it up in the beginning.

But just like everyone else here I came to the conclusion that the wingbacks would withdraw to deep and form a straight back 5 even when not necessary.

So I tried to capture the formation in a later stage, after the wingbacks have pushed forward, to form a 3-4-3 diamond from the TC.

But even with the wide midfielders set on attack duty, they would fall back to join the 3 central defenders.

The only positive thing so far is that they frequently join the attack, both on the wings and trough the middle, to recreate some really dynamic and fluid attacking moves.

So Yes, this really looks like a not so great thing in the ME (or even a BUG if you like that phrace more).

Still I´ve been using the latter formation to great success since the realease of FM11.

Claimed the Domestic title 3 years in a row and taking my (small) side to the groupstages in Champions League.

The only thing I´d like you to be aware of is that a back 3 ain´t too great against teams who uses only 1 central attacker, as in a 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1.

So against those teams I use a different approach(just like Bielsa irl) and move forward one of the centrebacks to the inner midfield to create something that looks like a 2-3-2-3 to leave 2 defenders to take care of the lone attacker and the rest of the team on more attacking duties.

The 3-4-1-2 is an interesting formation though with 2 attackers up front instead of my lone one. So I´ll try to incorporate this one into my ongiong save to have some more choise up front when needed.

Hope you don´t mind.

A little off-topic:

Been working on Bielsa tactics aswell and came to same conclusion regarding wide midfielders which end up being far too defensive (like in FM2010). I found that having 2 central midfielders (support/box-to-box) and making them mark wide midfielders, simulates Bielsas wide midfielders much better.

1. They will cover the flanks defensively

2. they will attack more through the middle

This is not possible to simulate in FM if they play wide as they are stuck wide (even with "cut inside").

[Kawee]

It is no surprise playing them as AMR and AML works better offensively. That's why I asked very early in the challenge if I can use them that way. However, there are a couple problems:

1. Crouchadinho made it pretty clear that this would sort of "betray" the spirit of the tactic. It would, after all, not be the 3-4-1-2 that everyone knows. And that really is the whole point of this thread: to recreate this formation as closely to it's RL counterpart as possible.

2. They don't defend very well at all. Against a 4-1-2-1-2 they can get away with it because they can track the fullbacks. However, against a 4-5-1 or a 4-4-2, they would really struggle because being so high up the pitch, there's no way they can track back in time to catch the wingers. Even if they could, they get outnumbered quite easily. The reason any sort of 3-5-2 formation works in real life is because the wide-midfielders or wingbacks take turn push forward and staying behind, unless they're under no threat then both push forward. Such dynamism, I don't think exists in FM yet.

[Rupal]

Quick update. Having started with my 'Option B' setting for the wide midfielders (ie AMR/AML) I rapidly found that with my useless players there was an alarming tendency to ship goals! I've therefore reverted to 'Option A' except that, taking NakS's observations on board I've been more conservative and set them as defensive wingers again. It certainly seems to have been somewhat more solid in the couple of pre-seasons I've tried so far.

[Kawee]

I've been trying to work this out. With micro-management in terms of man marking, I got it working decently well. However, I can't get my middle CB to push up into midfield often enough. I use Roma for this tactic, but I can't get Mexes to push up and join the midfield, even with FWR on often. Anyone got this working?