Which are your favourite Tactics Creator formations on FM11?

[crouchaldinho]

I did this poll last year for FM10 and thought we needed a new one for FM11!

You can see the old polls here:

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/227481-Favourite-Tactics-Creator-Formations-FM10

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/227479-Favourite-Tactics-Creator-Formations-FM10

This poll will just be looking at the favourite choices from the default tactics creator formations. I'm also going to allow multiple voting so that you can vote for all of your favourite formations to use in FM11 rather than just picking one.

As for the options, the poll is restricted to 10 options, so I have had to be creative with the categories. Every tactics creator formation should be represented in one of the options though. If you pick an option with a family of formations (which is most of them!) then please feel free to state in the thread which option you were going for.

I'll also be running this same poll on the GD for those people who don't really use the tactics forum. I'm interested to see what the results will be.

So, which are your favourite tactics creator formations?

[Barkers]

ive got an issue where i feel too vunerable if i dont play a dmc so i end up with 4-1-2-1-2 or a 4-5-1 depending on the playing squad.

[Fabio MVP]

None of those!

4-4-2 with AMR & AML ftw!

[crouchaldinho]

The reason 4-4-2 with AMR and AML isn't one of the options is because it isn't a Tactics Creator default formation (I'm pretty sure that's the case anyway).

[heathxxx]

To quote my answer in the duplicate thread in GD...

"Attacking" 4-4-2 where I push the wide midfielders to AML and AMR, as mentioned by a couple of others so far.

Of those you listed though, I voted Narrow Formations (4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 [three STs version] or 4-2-2-2), for the narrow 4-2-3-1 with AMCL, AMC & AMCR. I use that a lot when playing as Spanish teams.

[heathxxx]

Interesting that so far, nobody has voted for Five at the back (5-3-2/5-4-1).

[crouchaldinho]

The narrow formations are looking quite popular so far. Interesting, as I thought most people were seeming to favour formations with wide players on FM11.

[fdawsoniv]

I favor the narrow for one simple reason: straight cash, homey. The flat 4-3-3 with 3 STs can be kept up in good quality with a smaller squad than one with wingers. And not only are there fewer positions to buy players for, but there is less variety in positions that need cover, and besides this, good wide players are expensive and fragile (and they often only play one side). By my calculation, I have saved three players off my senior squad size.

There are tactical considerations as well. The compact formation gives a bit of a boost to my defense, so I'm actually able to be a bit more expressive in attack than I otherwise would be with my current squad. I cannot be frustrated by pitch changes as I'm most comfortable with the smallest pitch. But I can turn this around by always laying the smallest pitch possible for my own ground. The compact formation also makes it easier to play a controlled, shorter style passing game even if you don't have top notch players. And the strength in numbers of the strike force makes having superstar players with a bunch of flair and creativity (which don't come cheap) rather unnecessary. Solid, hard working players will do the job nicely.

[jaycar]

Although atm I'm playing a 4-2-3-1 with Cm's, I voted the mourinho 4-3-3...again...I just dont trust the 4-4-2, the lack of numbers in the centre makes my nerves bad...

[shwayne]

I like the 4-2-3-1, largely because I like having an attacking midfielder and two wingers, and this alongside a creative forward and a deep-lying playmaker type player produces some very good football if you set it up correctly imo.

That said, I'm happy to use a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 if those systems suit the players more. I would use 4-3-3/4-5-1 but I can never get these working how I like (the in game defult 4-5-1 especially). I don't like formations without width in midfield/attack and can ner get the back three formations that do feature wide midfield players working as I'd like.

[Bruce Higham]

I'd like to get a three at the back working, especially for the predominant nature of most opponents two strikers, where the formation should be effective, however I find that the match engine is skewed against it, especially with the wide players not on the pitch where I would expect to see them, harassing the wingers etc. So it's the 4231 usually for me.

[NakS]

442 Diamond variation and 4231 Asymmetric for me.

I often tend to use at least one very offensive wingback to provide width on one side paired with an inside forward at AM cutting inside, one DM to shield defense a bit, the playmaker is in CM spot, usually a deep lying playmaker niot to fill the space for the inside forward to cut into. One AMC is offset on one side and paired with the lone ST. On the opposite flank I use one fullback and a wide mid, these two are full of stamina, workrate, quickness, the wide mid is usually more of a winger than a inside forward, he provides width as well. The midfield trio is something like destroyer-passer-creator".

If I am narrow like 4312 or 41212 with 2 CM, I use 2 very offensive wingbacks at the same time to provide width but, my midfield trio is much more conservative, usually a defensive midifielder/defend, a very intelligent (positionning, concentration, decision, anticipation) with 2 shuttlers in CM spot, hard working, mobile and tireless players to protect the fullback in defense and link a bit with the attacking trio. I like te trequartista attack AMC + complete forward support + poacher attack trio as it provides run, shoot, free flowing moves, goal threat right in front of the opponent defense.

[crouchaldinho]

The 4-5-1/4-3-3 is very popular. Kind of surprised.

Interesting to see that in the version of this on GD, 4-4-2 is top, but here the 4-5-1/4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 deep/asymmetric are more popular.

Perhaps more likely to experiment if you're in the tactics forum!

[telV7]

4-2-3-1 Asymmetric is my favourite. I think it covers the pitch well and produces really good movement.

As a side note, I think the 4-4-1-1 is the most difficult formation to produce good consistent football/results

[crouchaldinho]

As a side note, I think the 4-4-1-1 is the most difficult formation to produce good consistent football/results

What makes you say that?

[telV7]

What makes you say that?

Well, and please understand it is solely my opinion. I have tried numerous 4-4-1-1 tactics from downloading them,making my own, amalgamations all to try and get something akin to a Moyes 4-4-1-1. This all playing with Everton (possibly not the right team), none of which really produced consistent results.

The AMC vs playing "in the hole" to my thinking are two different roles, and with a 4-4-1-1 it is very much about the two up front.

In thinking about it now probably the only thing I haven't tried is a 4-4-2 and trying to get a deep striker that way.

But then I am just playing a 4-4-2 that acts as 4-4-1-1 as opposed to a 4-4-1-1 playing as a 4-4-1-1. I understand it is probably a case of semantics but I was aiming for a 4-4-1-1 straight out of the box if you take my meaning.

Anyway, that is my somewhat nonsensical explanation.

cheers

[WickedNeko]

I like to use 4-1-3-2. Left and Right defenders as wing backs, two ball playing defenders, a defensive midfielder who steps into the midfield proper, two ball-winning midfielders on the left and right of the three-man central midfield to help cover the wing backs, a central box-to-box midfielder, and two defensive forwards chasing down the opposition backline. Everyone's got to put in a shift, no luxury fancy dans.

Nice in theory, but does it hell tire out my BSS team...

[crouchaldinho]

4-4-2 all the way for me at the moment.

[mojojojo101]

Personally my favorite formation atm is the 4-2-1-3 (2 DM's 1 MC ). I really like how flexible it is depending on how you deploy your 3 CM's. I have used at Bayern, Wigan and Karlshruhe all to some decent success just by altering playing mentallity and the roles of the 3 central players.

[Mike_Cardinal]

Is it not a bit too defensive?

[leagle]

Tried 433 for the first time in years, always a 442 man. Never go back, it is so good feels like cheating !!

[crewe_york]

Usually go for a no nonsense 4-4-2 but have created a solid 4-2-3-1 using loads of pressing all up the pitch. I tried starting out with a 4-4-2 but it seemed like more of a challenge setting up a tactic from scratch with a completely new formation from anything I've previously tried and so far the results have been impressive!