Narrow or wide ..... which is the way to go?

[Finknottle]

I read somewhere in this forum that in FM'11, the way to go in his years game is wide, direct and with wingers. Coupled with the largest pitch available, this is 'Utopia'. Now, before I really get going in FM'11 with my narrow 4-1-3-2, 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 with shorter passing and the smallest pitch available, which, according to you 'guru's' amongst us, is the way of the truth? Kind regards to all, as usual.

[Finknottle]

This is for the second time of asking. Come on you boffins, at least one of you must have an answer to this query. Do any of you have an opinion?

[Marsupian]

Both work just fine in my experience. It also depends on a lot on your opponent. Just make a tactic that suits your team (or your taste) and adapt to your opponent if necessary. It has to be said tho that crosses are way more deadly than they were in FM10 and you can get destroyed if you can't cope with your opponents wide players.

[Finknottle]

Both work just fine in my experience. It also depends on a lot on your opponent. Just make a tactic that suits your team (or your taste) and adapt to your opponent if necessary. It has to be said tho that crosses are way more deadly than they were in FM10 and you can get destroyed if you can't cope with your opponents wide players.

Marsupian. Thanks for that. I have always gone with these rules of thumb. Long pitch, more direct passing, drop deeper. Short pitch, short passing, push further up. Narrow pitch, play wider but not necessarily down the flanks, depends upon my formation. Wider pitch, play narrower, though not necessarily through the middle, again it depends upon my formation. As I have long favoured a narrow 4-1-3-2 formation, I have usually played through the middle and sometimes mixed. I am thinking that I may now have to work to a 4-5-1 or a deep 4-2-3-1 formation.

[heathxxx]

Not far enough into a save to say for sure really oescus. I've also done my usual thing and started with the lower leagues, so not exactly blessed with the most talented of players to work with either at the moment.

That said though, I'm enjoying using width with good effect so far, but I am alternating between 4-2-3-1 wide and 4-2-3-1 narrow, depending upon how things are going during matches. I've also signed wide players who can play in the central roles too. So for example, my AMR can also play comfortably at AMCR. Also gives me options to switch between using wingers and inside forwards.

I think both narrow and wide options can and will work well in FM11. I believe the main difficulty though for many, is because wide players are actually more dangerous (and more realistically so) in FM11, people might be struggling with ways to contain them defensively, having not being used to having to do so previously.

[Finknottle]

Thanks heathxxx. One thing that I forgot. The size of pitch you /me choose at the start. I have always chosen the smallest possible, that is in my games 110 x 70 yards. This works well with a narrow formation but I 'm not too sure about a wider one. The reverse is true for the largest pitch, I think is 120 x 78 yards or so. As you can't alter your pitch until the next season, the choosing of it's size is paramount. As a matter of interest, heathxxx, is your 4-2-3-1 wide using the two deeper midfielders? I have been thinking of using the narrow 4-2-3-1 formation and moving the two outer attacking midfielders out wide as out and out wingers.

[phnompenhandy]

I think you aren't getting many answers from the 'boffins' because you're asking for a 'one-size-fits-all' solution which contradicts the premis of those boffins. I don't think your idea is any kind of FM 'utopia'; rather, I think the ME in FM10 was a bit flawed re. the effectiveness of wingers, and this has been fixed for FM11.

Like heathxxx I'm managing in the lower leagues. Whenever I go 'wide' my assman tells me that we're missing too many easy passes; therefore, I shout 'play narrower' and it solves the problem. Basically, it depends on your players, the opposition, the weather and all kinds of factors.

[patheticq]

From what Ive noticed narrow is for defensive tactics. In FM10 narrow was the way to go, but in FM11 its the other way if you wanna score since it doesnt really work to attack narrowly now. So if you gonna use narrow thats gonna be for defensive thinking imo.

And wide is for attacking tactics. You will score more but conceede more.

[phnompenhandy]

From what Ive noticed narrow is for defensive tactics. In FM10 narrow was the way to go, but in FM11 its the other way if you wanna score since it doesnt really work to attack narrowly now. So if you gonna use narrow thats gonna be for defensive thinking imo.

And wide is for attacking tactics. You will score more but conceede more.

No, I think that's too simplistic. I have an attacking 4-3-3 formation but play narrow. My 3 midfielders are all central, so my width comes from full-backs who play wide, and more importantly the left and right forwards who play as deep-lying-forwards who tend to use the channels, not touch-line.

[NakS]

For what it worth I adapt my team both to the pitch size, formation, odds and possession stats, maybe I am wrong here, I explain.

Using a narrow formation like a 4312 I tend to drop deeper because I have found I can be easily contained against a high defensive line and high closing down as I lack natural width, so it offers me more space to retain possession a bit at the beginning. Playing wider with a narrow formation as not help a lot without overlapping the fullback, you only have 2 width players, I have found useful to make them a bit attacking to offer some pass variety. I use this kind of formation on a narrow pitch usually and I flood the center and I always close down opponent wide players to reduce crosses.

I go for the following instructions, with let’s say a 4312.

Drop deeper + Exploit the middle (all my players are here) + Overlapping. Sometimes I used play wider, on a very narrow pitch to make sure my fullback use all available width. I also tweak sometimes the width of my forward to move into channel both, to open space for run from my midfielders.

On a very big pitch, sometimes play narrower if they seem to be caught on the counter through the center, and as well to reduce width to make my defense more tight in transition. If I conceded more crosses on the counter I play a bit wider, to make my fullback more close to opponent wingers in transition.

Against another narrow formation, it depends more on match odds, how I am countered or how I am doing regarding attack. Wider + overlap if I am struggling for example. As I don’t have any wide player high on the pitch, I have never tried “exploit the wings” even if I am struggling in the center.

Ok, with a wide formation, 451, 442, any formation with at least one winger. On a narrow pitch I play wider and focus passing on wing as the center is usually flooded with players, especially if odds are in my favour or at home. I usually always exploit the wing as well, as I have number down the wings. If I need more space, I drop deeper as well.

Against a narrow formation, I also play wider to open them up and I push up (when possible according to opponent’s forward pace), sometimes higher closing down as well if they are not good at passing and not quick (staff feedback). If opponent manage to threat me in the center with a narrow formation, I reduce width (especially on a narrow pitch), I am having wide players so it is still good enough regarding attacking threat with my natural width.

So against a 451 or a winger formation, I think it depends more on match odds, how I am attacking and how I am countered. If I am struggling to break defense, I am reducing width of my winger (cut inside) and invert my wingers as well (opposed foot) and go for overlapping.

If match odds are not in my favour, I play narrower because I know they will play wider, so on the counter I can be rewarded.

Oh, another thing is, but it definitely needs confirmation, I always play narrower when raining or snowing, as it seems (maybe it is only me) the pitch is less flooded and muddy at the center. So I always go play narrower. My passing style is mixed / direct.

Well, it is a bit of a wall of text, I hope it is understandable and not too confusing (apologies if it is), English is not my first language. That is how I am using width at the moment andof course, only my opinion.

[Finknottle]

Thanks to you all for your replies, they make intriguing reading. If nothing else, they tell me that playing both narrow and wide can still be used with , hopefully, success. I seem to have more in common with NakS as I tend to have my formation, tactics align themselves with the pitch dimensions and the players at my disposal. Keep your ideas forthcoming.

[wez007]

Great post NakS, im using a narrow diamond on FML. Even though the two beasts are diff games, the fundemantal ME is the same. This gives me an idea how to counter opposition formations vs my narrow

Cheers