Is this too attacking?

[jlawlor91]

To me this is a standard 4-4-2 with two attacking wingers - the most common tactic in football. To FM, it is labelled 4-2-4 creating a doubt in my mind to whether I should use it. Because of this I've tried to avoid 2 up top because of my negative thoughts on it. However, managing my beloved Toon I have both Ba and Cisse who I want to use up front and Ben Arfa and Menez who aren't defensive minded at all on the wings.

How have people got on with this formation? Does it seem feasible for my side?

[lam]

In my opinion it is to attacking.

All the front four are on attack duties, which means they are generally playing more for themselves than for the team.

If it were me, and disregarding current player selection and sides of the field to play on, I'd drop the TM(A) to a TM(S) or DLF(S) and the W(A) for a W(S) for two reasons.

1. Your Poacher will need a dedicated supply and you don't really have anyone supplying this outright. Your WINGER(A) is more interested in getting to the byline to supply Crosses, which might be okay for Cisse but not overly so for a 'typical' winger (though drilled crosses are fun). Your IF(A) is still more interested in getting in on the action himself and even if he was making passes they have to bypass a TM(A). Your TM(A) is only really working for himself too. Changing these two roles means that they are both dedicated to supplying the ball rather than trying to use it themselves.
   
2. You TM(A) is using the space that you have your AP(A) running into. By making your DLF(S) you sit him deep of his strikers role and this 'should' leave space for the IF to run into. There are some subtle but interesting differences between AP(A) and IF(A). Got someone that can cross and you have decent strikers in the box - AP(A). Got someone that can't cross but can dribble and score IF(S).
   

As the season gets going you need to monitor the requirement for attackers from midfield or, more likely, from the FB's. Currently you have no one really linking the team together (so you might need to play direct) but a WB(A) could help you with this. IF you choose to do this, I'd probably put them on the same side as the midfield DLP to ensure that there is someone sitting deep near their starting position as the will either cover it or provide cover to the DC's who move over when he moves up.

You'll just need to monitor the gaps between your W/IF and your FB's. In supporting roles your W/IF should be a little deeper and thus closer to the FB's (depending on style) but you may need to use (A) on your FB's to ensure that the opposition arent playing in your gaps.

Also, I see you opted for FB's over WB's. The major differences are where they will cross from and if they make throughballs or not. If you have FB's that can pass and are fairly creative you ideally want to be using WB's to take advantage of this. IF you do, you can do what I do which is to opt for a hybrid. WB(A) but with crossing from changed to mixed and sometimes RFD set to mixed. This means they dont rush forwards all the time and they dont try and get to hte byline for cross dragging themseves out of position. BUT they do start higher up the pitch.

You will need to monitor this as you will not be playing with a DM so you need to establish how much support your DC's need.

[Stephanie McMahon's Secret Lover]

Depends on the quality of your players.

I also play a 442 with attacking wide men. The front 2 are poachers and the wingers are advanced play-makers with attacking duty.

After 29 games I lead the Championship by 14 points. Mind you, I am Bolton and expected to win it in the 1st season.

[limewire]

According to me it is the best tactic to use for your squad. But in game that is too much offensive as you said. If your squad is way much better than the other teams in the league, your tactic is very logical and effective. If not, your team don't play well. Actually i recommend a plain 4-4-2 system, which is very simple and more useful.

[james_wilko]

No. I've used a similar set up with Newcastle and it worked very well. I'd maybe set the FBs to support, but otherwise it's a good formation.

[Batigol]

I play the same formation, but have one winger and one striker on support. I'm unbeaten for over 50 PL games and score 120-130 goals per season, but you need to be prepared to drop the wingers down into a standard 4-4-2 if you get overrun.

[lam]

I play the same formation, but have one winger and one striker on support. I'm unbeaten for over 50 PL games and score 120-130 goals per season, but you need to be prepared to drop the wingers down into a standard 4-4-2 if you get overrun.

This, after my respose, is the only one that really talks about the tactic. The others refer to the formation. There is a MASSIVE difference.

[jakem016]

Yeah, I think it's too attacking. You definitely want one of your strikers on a support duty because there is a huge gap between your strikers and the cms that isn't being occupied and if you set your cms to move forward more often then it will result in huge gaps in your defense. Ben Afra sill sometimes move into that space, but he won't do it enough unless you're playing a very slow tempo and that seems to against your general strategy. Also, I would switch Cabaye and Tiote (not roles, but I would play Cabaye on the left side and Tiote on the right to have a playmaker on each side of the pitch and create a more balanced attack). I would also suggest making Tiote a CM-D as he will maintain your defensive shape a little better because the BWM will pressure much higher up the pitch. I personally am not a big fan of the formation, but it does seem to be the best formation for your current squad with the exception that you are under-utilizing Corchia and Santon. I would put Menez on a support duty as well for the reasons mentioned in previous replies.

I see that you have developed a 4-3-3 backup and I think that formation (I know that wasn't the question) could also be very very successful with Cabaye playing as a dlp (as dm or in the middle of a flat 3 man midfield), Tiote as a BWM and retraining Menez or Ben Arfa as a cm and playing them as a CM-A or AP-A. Then you could play Ba as a IF-A on the left wing and either Ben Arfa or Menez as a IF-S on the right wing with Cisse up front. This would allow you to play Santon and Corchia in more attacking roles and fully utilize their attacking qualities. In my current Sevilla save I have Corchia and Alex Sandro and I generally play a 4-3-3 with a similar setup and generally play both of them on attack duty (usually Sandro as WB-A and Corchia as FB-A) and this has been extremely successful. It looks like you've assembled a very good squad and you should be reasonably successful regardless of which formation you select -- good luck.

[Althaz]

4 Attack duties is too many, IMO. I think you'll end up with no real control of the midfield (especially with the Control option, Counter or Defend seem better suited). The formation I'm sure would be fine, but you need one of the strikers on support and probably one of the wingers as well. I'm in the 3rd Season Liverpool and probably the best side in the world with what I consider a VERY attacking setup (4-2-3-1 Fluid, Counter) and I have three attacking duties in the forward half of the pitch and one of them is a Treq who will drop a bit deeper and look to play others through the defence. That's a pretty gung-ho setup (with 50 goals scored 12 games in), yours will score less, becaue it has too many attackers and no support fellas.

As a rule of thumb for FM success, you need minimum 1 support role in attack (and one defend in midfield and I think one attack or at least support in defence).

I would switch your Target Man to support and possibly one of your wide players. I would also switch to Attack or Counter and make sure passing isn't too short.

[jlawlor91]

Thanks a lot for your responses, will bear them in mind and change when I get the chance. Could a 4-2-3-1 be more effective? Me wanting to use this formation could just me being greedy to cater for both Cisse and Ba, whom could play on the wing. I seem to have too many players that are too good for the bench attacking wise; Cisse, Ba, Ben Arfa, Gaitan and Menez. Not a bad headache mind.

[Obaaa]

I have the same problem with Newcastle. Getting Ba and Cisse in the same team, both playing up front, makes things hard elsewhere. I know you have Menez but I think a 4312 could work with Newcastle and I may look into testing it, with Cabaye, Anita and Tiote the 3 in midfield and HBA behind the Senegalese pair.

[jakem016]

I think you could be fine if you made some tactical adjustments to this formation, with a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3. As I detailed in my earlier response, I think the 4-3-3 is best suited for your team (although I think a 4-4-2 with a narrow diamond or a 4-3-1-2 could both work very well as both of your fbs can cover the entire wing) because it will be difficult to properly utilize your fbs in your current formation or a 4-2-3-1.

[jlawlor91]

I dropped the 2 wingers playing (Gaitan and Menez) back. Gaitan had orange suitability and Menez had light green, meaning they weren't suited there whatsoever.

I find this ridiculous as they should still be able to play as a L or RM, just not as effectively defensively. They can still get back and attempt to defend, so I don't understand why they are competent at least there. This is one of the most irritating things SI changed in the game IMO.

[furiousuk]

I dropped the 2 wingers playing (Gaitan and Menez) back. Gaitan had orange suitability and Menez had light green, meaning they weren't suited there whatsoever.

I find this ridiculous as they should still be able to play as a L or RM, just not as effectively defensively. They can still get back and attempt to defend, so I don't understand why they are competent at least there. This is one of the most irritating things SI changed in the game IMO.

Not really, some guys, like, for example, Daniel Sturridge have played almost exclusively for their club as an AMR/AML and been employed as a striker-on-the-wing, this, to me at least, makes perfect sense but having Sturridge as a winger in a 442? Doesn't make sense to me.

If you are playing with wingers I don't really see much of an advantage at sticking them at AMR/L in a 442 setup. They attack largely the same from MR/L but are more inclined to do more work defensively, this could lead to them being a bit deeper on the pitch when you want to counter quickly but I think thats outweighed by better formational balance.

I've never been a fan of 2 attacking duties on a pair of strikers when they don't have direct support from an AM (even then I'd probably err away from it although it would depend on other things).

Why not drop them back and use them as wingers with an attack duty? Or modify HBA's role so that he comes inside more and plays more with the ball? To reflect the asymetry this brings I'd drop Cabaye to DLP/Def and Tiote to BWM/Supp (if you really want the BWM) so that Cabaye stays deep to allow room for Ben Arfa with Tiote more in-line with him and Menez (or ML) as a flying very attacking winger. (note: I think if you're going to have a difference in roles you really have to think about your central pairings, my idea above is very much a 'first response', after a bit of thought you might decide you want the opposite).

Similarly, why not reduce Ba's TM's duty to support? Have Cisse as the advanced central point and maybe give him a free role so that he floats around Ba - this makes him a very loose advanced point but Ba would stay more rigid and use his strength to outplay defenders whereas Cisse uses movement.

As noted above though you need to think carefully about how the roles work together. Dropping Ba (probably your main aerial threat) to support on the opposite side to the flying winger might reduce the effectiveness of your winger but dropping him on the same side as Ben Arfa might mean they get in each others way. Tough calls.

[jlawlor91]

I play the same formation, but have one winger and one striker on support. I'm unbeaten for over 50 PL games and score 120-130 goals per season, but you need to be prepared to drop the wingers down into a standard 4-4-2 if you get overrun.

Over 50 games unbeaten?! Who the hell are you managing / whats your team?

I've now got:

1 FB Automatic, 1 Support

DLP Support, BWM Defend

1 Winger Att, 1 Winger Support

DLF Support, Poacher Att

Started the season very well, now losing games even though players are all performing above 6.8 and my assistant is telling me to play more directly (did that) and we are bossing games just the scoreline isn't reflecting it. Surely not the case, 3 games in a row!!!!

Even switched to a 4-5-1 and a 4-2-3-1 on attacking and the main problem is we're not getting enough shots on target. When I change to 4-2-3-1 I have LW Ba as an IF Attack, RW Support and Ben Arfa CAM to IF support.

This however still makes no difference whatsoever. Really don't understand it

[jlawlor91]

Without taking the roles and that I have assigned (since changed the above), is the actual formation 4-4-2 Att/4-2-4 too attacking would you say? Especially away from home?

[PeeKay]

The 4-2-4 above should be your backup tactic for when you need a goal. The question of "too attacking" is irrelvent but what you should be asking is "does it work" and at first glance it probably doesn't due to lack of support roles already mentioned by others.

[zolwik]

It is my most successive tactic for previous FMs, but roles where a bit different. I had more offensive wingbacks, which I suppose won't work in this version, as leaving too much space on the wings is suicidal. One of my strikers had supportive role, and I liked to put deep lying playmaker in DM slot, between BWM and defenders. Haven't tried it in this version though, as I lacked capable players so far.

[jlawlor91]

Not really, some guys, like, for example, Daniel Sturridge have played almost exclusively for their club as an AMR/AML and been employed as a striker-on-the-wing, this, to me at least, makes perfect sense but having Sturridge as a winger in a 442? Doesn't make sense to me.

If you are playing with wingers I don't really see much of an advantage at sticking them at AMR/L in a 442 setup. They attack largely the same from MR/L but are more inclined to do more work defensively, this could lead to them being a bit deeper on the pitch when you want to counter quickly but I think thats outweighed by better formational balance.

I've never been a fan of 2 attacking duties on a pair of strikers when they don't have direct support from an AM (even then I'd probably err away from it although it would depend on other things).

Why not drop them back and use them as wingers with an attack duty? Or modify HBA's role so that he comes inside more and plays more with the ball? To reflect the asymetry this brings I'd drop Cabaye to DLP/Def and Tiote to BWM/Supp (if you really want the BWM) so that Cabaye stays deep to allow room for Ben Arfa with Tiote more in-line with him and Menez (or ML) as a flying very attacking winger. (note: I think if you're going to have a difference in roles you really have to think about your central pairings, my idea above is very much a 'first response', after a bit of thought you might decide you want the opposite).

Similarly, why not reduce Ba's TM's duty to support? Have Cisse as the advanced central point and maybe give him a free role so that he floats around Ba - this makes him a very loose advanced point but Ba would stay more rigid and use his strength to outplay defenders whereas Cisse uses movement.

As noted above though you need to think carefully about how the roles work together. Dropping Ba (probably your main aerial threat) to support on the opposite side to the flying winger might reduce the effectiveness of your winger but dropping him on the same side as Ben Arfa might mean they get in each others way. Tough calls.

Difference is though Sturridge is a wide striker and more of an attacking player so I can understand that. With players such as Gaitan and Menez I would think they'd play as usual just a little deeper on the field. I have a reluctance to play players that aren't at least accomplished as a LM/RM as I don't feel I'll get the best out of them. I find that I want to play 2 up front though which I can't do because I sacrifice a ST to play AM to make up for the wide players being further forward.