Setting up an effective 4-2-3-1

[jack95]

Excellent, thanks!

[mibsweden]

I am using a 4-2-4 setup with my Bradford team in 2049. Since I use a DLF-S who drops deep my formation sometimes resembles a 4-2-3-1 so that is why I am posting in this thread, I hope that is ok.

We are without a doubt the best team in the world, but I am wondering about the left Full Back.

I will show you my setup:

AF DLF-S

IF-S W-A

DLP-D AP-S

FB-A CB-D CB-D FB-S

GK-D

I am using Attacking mentality and Fluid philosophy.

I was thinking that my left full back would bomb forward and put in some crosses while my left inner forward cuts inside.

Would it be better to use perhaps a FB-S or WB (S or A) in that position?

My thinking is thet the DLP-D will somewhat cover for the more advanced FB on the left side.

[vasilli07]

WB(S) is a more attacking role than FB(S) as FWR is a notch higher so you have to consider how attacking you want your FB to be, to bomb forward every time or only occasionally.

[howard moon]

I've been struggling to get this formation right. I wonder if anyone could give me some advice.

Playing as Man United, second season. Team set up is as follows, with no manual changes to team or individual instructions.

Strategy: counter, fluid

Passing: default

Pressing: more

Marking: zonal

Creative freedom: high

Roaming: high

Crosses: drilled

My current set-up is

De Gea (GK, defend)

Rafael (WB, attack)

Ferdinand/Evans (ball playing defender, cover)

Vidic/Jones (central defender, stopper)

Evra (WB, support)

Carrick (DLP, defend)

Thiago/Cleverley (AP, attack)

Valencia/Welbeck (Winger, attack)

Kagawa (AP, attack)

Isco/Young (IF, support/Winger, support)

Van Persie (DLP, attack)

The set up on the flanks and CMs is inspired by this thread which works really well in a 4-4-2, and I've tried to adapt it to this formation as this formation suits my squad best.

I've struggled to get the team playing good attacking football. We're solid defensively, but rigid in attack. I want to see crisp, one touch football, cutting through the middle of teams, with Thiago, Kagawa and Isco all linking up to create chances. Valencia and the full backs provide the width. If we win the ball back and it's available, I want us to be devastating on the counter attack. I guess I'm looking for something like Dortmund...

What I've seen is very little good interplay, movement and one touch passing through the middle. Kagawa and Isco in particular don't seem to be getting on the ball in the final third, rather getting most touches of the ball around the half way line (Kagawa) or near the touchline (Isco). Instead the play gets filtered wide, and we end up putting lots of crosses in, with a really low conversion from these. We especially struggle against teams that defend in numbers.

Any advice?

[vasilli07]

You have too many players running with the ball. AP(A) and wingers all have rwb often. You can try using the play through defence shout, this will reduce the rwb on wide players/attacking midfielders(except for winger role) by a notch, that will probably make them pass and go more often.

[drinkmixer84]

The biggest thing that i notice howard is that you have 4 specialist roles (AP, DLP, BPD, etc.) yet your philosophy is fluid (1 or 2 specialist roles) and you specify more Creative Freedom, not to mention 'More Roaming.' So basically no one is listening to your tactic, if you want to keep the same roles I would suggest using a rigid philosophy, Creative Freedom - default, Roaming - default (for now, until you get the tactic successful).

[howard moon]

You have too many players running with the ball. AP(A) and wingers all have rwb often. You can try using the play through defence shout, this will reduce the rwb on wide players/attacking midfielders(except for winger role) by a notch, that will probably make them pass and go more often.

Hadn't thought of this, thanks.

The biggest thing that i notice howard is that you have 4 specialist roles (AP, DLP, BPD, etc.) yet your philosophy is fluid (1 or 2 specialist roles) and you specify more Creative Freedom, not to mention 'More Roaming.' So basically no one is listening to your tactic, if you want to keep the same roles I would suggest using a rigid philosophy, Creative Freedom - default, Roaming - default (for now, until you get the tactic successful).

Thanks both. I wonder whether the issue is the roles I'm using? Perhaps they are not encouraging movement off the ball and short passing. Thinking about it a bit more, I also wonder whether the roles are not encouraging enough attacking runs into central areas for teammates to pick out, and this could be why the play is moving to the flanks rather than through the middle with quick one-twos?

Perhaps I should change roles to something like:

Carrick: DLP, defend

Thiago: CM?, support/attack?

Valencia: Winger, attack

Kagawa: AM, attack/support

Isco: IF, support

Van Persie: DLP, attack

I'm curious about 'specialist roles' though, and I'm not sure I understand why say, a DLP is a specialised role and a DLF or Winger isn't.

[drinkmixer84]

I'd say with all that creative freedom and roaming the players aren't on the same page/space isn't being utilized. I tried to find you the post by wwfan that explained which roles were specialist, which weren't, and which ones could go either way. However if you look at the name of the role there's a pretty easy way to tell if its a specialist or non-specialist role:

Non-Specialist: Role describes the placement on the field (ie: Central Midfielder, Deep Lying Forward, Central Defender, Winger)

Specialist: Role describes what the player does (Deep lying playmaker, Advanced Playmaker, Ball Playing Defender, Anchor Man)

I would use something like this for your changes:

Carrick: DLP-D

Thiago: CM-D

You want your CMs to stay deep and keep the shape that makes the 4-2-3-1 so strong:

CM-----CM

| |

| |

CD-----CD

I think you've got the right idea with the Attacking Mids, but I would personally use Kagawa as an AP-A and then use Van Persie as a CF-S (he'll still score plenty of goals)

edit: My drawing didn't come out perfect once i posted this...the 2nd line of | should match up with the CM and CD to complete the image of a box

[howard moon]

I'd say with all that creative freedom and roaming the players aren't on the same page/space isn't being utilized. I tried to find you the post by wwfan that explained which roles were specialist, which weren't, and which ones could go either way. However if you look at the name of the role there's a pretty easy way to tell if its a specialist or non-specialist role:

Non-Specialist: Role describes the placement on the field (ie: Central Midfielder, Deep Lying Forward, Central Defender, Winger)

Specialist: Role describes what the player does (Deep lying playmaker, Advanced Playmaker, Ball Playing Defender, Anchor Man)

I would use something like this for your changes:

Carrick: DLP-D

Thiago: CM-D

You want your CMs to stay deep and keep the shape that makes the 4-2-3-1 so strong:

CM-----CM

| |

| |

CD-----CD

I think you've got the right idea with the Attacking Mids, but I would personally use Kagawa as an AP-A and then use Van Persie as a CF-S (he'll still score plenty of goals)

edit: My drawing didn't come out perfect once i posted this...the 2nd line of | should match up with the CM and CD to complete the image of a box

Thanks, this is really helpful.

I'm now not sure whether to move my original system (DLP(d), AP(a); W(a), AP(a), IF(s), DLP (a) ) to a rigid style, or to adapt the roles to fit the fluid style (like you suggested).

Confused :confused:

Which is the most likely to lead to the sort of football I am looking for? My initial instinct would be 'fluid' with non-specialist roles, but that may not be the case...

[drinkmixer84]

The biggest misconception is that rigid means ugly football. I found the info I was looking for earlier, here's a link from Cleon's site about specialists and styles:

http://thechalkboarddiaries.com/?p=657

Tell me this, describe in words what type of football you'd like to see, what is the perfect build up and then goal. I'll try to point you in the right direction. Above you have a counter strategy but mention you want attacking football. Keep in mind this is possible in a sense but I want to know exactly.

[howard moon]

The biggest misconception is that rigid means ugly football. I found the info I was looking for earlier, here's a link from Cleon's site about specialists and styles:

http://thechalkboarddiaries.com/?p=657

Tell me this, describe in words what type of football you'd like to see, what is the perfect build up and then goal. I'll try to point you in the right direction. Above you have a counter strategy but mention you want attacking football. Keep in mind this is possible in a sense but I want to know exactly.

It's as above really.

I want the ball fed out from the back into midfield, and for Thiago, Kagawa and Isco in particular to be linking up, playing one-two's, passing and moving the ball and creating chances for themselves and Van Persie. I want the tempo to increase when we get into the attacking third, so we can be patient in possession, but then when the opportunity arises, the ball gets moved for quickly and directly in the final third. Width ought to come from the right winger, stretching the play, and the full backs.

I want us to be devastating on the counter, but I recognise that, as Man United, in most games we'll be up against defensive minded teams, so we need to unlock them.

The nearest I can compare it to would irl would be Dortmund.

I've had a read of the link you posted, and it's interesting, especially as I've not come across such a clear definition of styles before (and I've been a long-time player of FM).

I'll give the rigid style a go and see how I get on. My next game is at home to Wigan, so I would expect to have plenty of possession and therefore opportunities to see if it has an immediate effect.

[howard moon]

So I tried the 'rigid' philosophy, as I said above.

Jones (WB, A)

Ferdinand (BPD, C)

Vidic (CD, Stopper)

Fabio (WB, A)

Carrick (DLP, D)

Thiago (AP, A)

Welbeck (IF, A)

Kagawa (AP, A)

Isco (IF, S)

Van Perise (DLP, S)

Passing default, creative freedom default, more closing down and more roaming. Counter strategy. I used one shout, which was 'play through defence' to reduce player's running with the ball.

Won 4-0 in one of the easiest games I've ever played. Wigan didn't get out of their own half, and we had around 68% possession (Carrick completed 118 passes, way more than I've ever seen before).

Lots of interplay in central areas between the edge of the Wigan box and the half way line, and the play was certainly being moved through the middle a lot more than before.

We didn't actually create a great number of chances in the end. 2 goals came from a set piece, so I definitely haven't cracked it yet - we'll have much harder games, but it's a step in the right direction.

Two things I want to improve.

1. Kagawa saw enough of the ball in deeper areas and was always an option for the other CMs or defender, but still wasn't getting involved around the edge of the box.

2. Isco was receiving the ball in very wide areas, where I'd like him to be a bit closer to Van Persie and Kagawa.

Any ideas?

[drinkmixer84]

Glad you're already starting to see some progress, so the system you want sounds a lot like the one i've been working with since i started fm13 (except in my system, i dont typically use counter attacking). One of the things that really helped my system come to life is i have everyone on my team have the PPM "plays one-twos" except for CBs and anyone who i plan on using as a DM/Anchor.

So to achieve that style i would use this:

Control

Passing:Shorter(default is fine too, maybe once your tactic is a proven success you can change this to shorter)

CF: default

closing down: press more

tackling: default

crossing: default

roaming: More roaming

Counter Attacking: Yes (you will tire quickly, with the pressing, and attempted counter attacks)

1. In my 4-2-3-1 my AMC is set to 'Trequarista' and i have him set as my playmaker (this way he'll always be getting touches and be dangerous in any area). Also if you're worried about your Treq not contributing to defense, you can do what i did and go into player instructions, and set his closing down at 60%-75% and his tackling to normal.

2. I might be wrong on this one but i believe if you change his player instructions from "cut inside" to "move into channels" you would get that effect you're looking for...however I think isco would get better results starting wide (forcing space) and then cutting inside once he gets to the final 3rd. Because if he's up the pitch far enough he should still cut inside off the ball. But try both and see which one you prefer.

[vasilli07]

1. Kagawa saw enough of the ball in deeper areas and was always an option for the other CMs or defender, but still wasn't getting involved around the edge of the box.

Any ideas?

Probably change his role to AM(att). You have RVP dropping deep to the AMC position so you need probably need another player to attack the box.

[howard moon]

So it's one step forward, two steps back.

Next match was at Arsenal, lost 1-0, but that doesn't give any sense as to how bad we were.

Shots: 15 - 3 (two of my shots were in the first minute, so one shot after that, and none were on target)

Possession: 60% - 40%

Passes completed: 80% - 70% (it was as low as 60% in the first half, and only 68% completed in midfield)

Arsenal pressed high up the pitch and we ended up just hoofing the ball out of play continually. Tried to play wider to stretch the play and get the ball down the flanks, tried to retain possession, all to no avail.

Very frustrating.

[drinkmixer84]

Are you playing with a counter strategy still? Because those possession numbers scream counter strategy... If you want to play possession you've got to push higher up, Control strategy will fix that for you.

[howard moon]

Are you playing with a counter strategy still? Because those possession numbers scream counter strategy... If you want to play possession you've got to push higher up, Control strategy will fix that for you.

Yeah, still playing counter. Not too concerned about dominating possession in games like this, what concerned me was how easily we gave it away. We had absolutely no composure on the ball, and I felt that defenders didn't have good options when they had the ball, so we ended up playing long regularly.

I find with control strategy that the team isn't incisive enough, and will turn down the opportunity to play an attacking pass in order to go back to the halfway line.

[vasilli07]

Imo, when you are playing a team away where they are slight favs/or u are the slight favs, you should try changing the duties of your wide players. Being the home team, their fullbacks will be more advantageous, bombing forward at every opportunity so I will try to counter by using my wide players on support duty. This will make them drop abit deeper to help out in defence and also offer more passing options after your team got possession of the ball.

[drinkmixer84]

I've seen a lot of people say the counter strategy isn't the preferred setup for counter attacking. A popular setup is Control strategy with the shout drop deeper. Also if you think Control Strategy doesn't look for the attacking pass nearly enough you could just manually lower time wasting. Which time wasting basically dictates how much or little you want to force the attacking pass.

[KorbenRyan]

Surely counter will just enlarge the gap between the MCs and the DCs? I've always found that to get the 4231 working with MCs rather than DMs you need to play a highish line to stop this. In Howards tactic both FBs have license to bomb on so getting the square pivot at the back is all the more vital.

I'd also want Thiago or whoever else plays there to play a lot more defensive a role than AP-A. A second DLP or a CM-D tend to work well although I know neither role really suits Thiago.

Looking at the front 4 everything seems a bit narrow and all 4 are going to look to operate in the same kind of space. I'd set one of the wide men up as a winger to try and hold some width from the off. I use this in my system with united and even have the wideplay set to hug touchline just to help create that extra space.

My first choice line up in Season 1 is

GK-D De Gea

FB-S Rafael

CD-D Ferdinand

CD-D Vidic

WB-A Evra

DLP-D Carrick

CM-D Fletcher

W-S Valencia

AP-A Kagawa

IF-A Rooney

CF-S Van Persie

I have it slightly offset with Kagawa in the AMRC spot and RVP in the STLC position. I use attacking at home and control away and although I'm not that far in its going well. I'm hoping to evolve into a double DLP combo once I get the right player in to play alongside Carrick.

I'm aiming to setup similar to real life where the 2 cms will tend to sit recycling possession and get the carousel going in front of them with plenty of positions swaps amongst the front 4

[burjennio]

quick query - when you guys line up with the standard 4231 (cm's rather than dm's) do you reduce attacking duties for your wingbacks and central 2 midfielders away from home? I am finding it impossible to get this formation up and running with any real consistency and it is driving me nuts, but I refuse to go back to the 4-1-2-2-1 and concede defeat. Im playing WB(s) on both sides and cm(d) and cm(s) as the two mids.

[vasilli07]

quick query - when you guys line up with the standard 4231 (cm's rather than dm's) do you reduce attacking duties for your wingbacks and central 2 midfielders away from home? I am finding it impossible to get this formation up and running with any real consistency and it is driving me nuts, but I refuse to go back to the 4-1-2-2-1 and concede defeat. Im playing WB(s) on both sides and cm(d) and cm(s) as the two mids.

Depends on your cm role. If you are using 2 DLP(1 sup, def) or 2 cm(def) roles, you should still be able to use 2 wingbacks as both cm will not have move forward that often.

[burjennio]

I had been mixing a DLP on either support or defend with a basic cm defend, but in the last game I went with cm(d) and cm(s) and Catania opened me up on the counter with ease. I am trying to cut down on the specialist roles after reading a few articles on here and since I use a AP(s) and am trying to introduce a Ball Playing Defender due to the gap between defence and midfield I placed them both on the basic CM duty, which considering the talent of both De Rossi and Inler is a huge waste.

[vasilli07]

This is my new possession based 4-2-3-1. Although it's only 8 games into the season, I'm satisfied with my tactic, my team has the most possession in 7 out of 8 games.

My team may not have many shots but we usually make them count when we shoot. As for my defence, they not only managed to stop the opposition from taking many shots. Even if they are allowed to shoot, most of their shots are off target.

This was my best game of the season. Lanus was predicted to be 5th while my team is 3rd. I was expecting a tough game but to my surprise, I only allow them to have 38% possession while only allowing them to have 1 shot.

[vasilli07]

In the game against River Plate, as they got a man sent off and I want to force a goal, I made a mistake by allowing my players to cross more. This caused me to lose the possession battle.

My tactic setup. Most players are on support role so that they hold their position to give the team more passing options.

Shouts I used at the start. I may change the play through defence shout at times to none.

[agentvinz]

So I've come up to the conclusion that the 4-2-3-1 with CMs just can't work well in FM, well it can work if you're top teams but it just don't work with small or mid teams. There's just too much space between on the flank and in front of the CBs, even I've already set my CMs as DLP and CM(D), they just can't drop deep infront of my CBs. Also IRL some teams play with a holding mid and box to box as their pivot to give dynamism to their attack(Dembele and Sandro for Spurs, Toure and Barry for City) but it never work in FM as we'll just get crushed down the mid. I just can't believe how the most used formation IRL can't work in FM13 (in FM12 it can still work, this is why I hate FM13). Now I've change the CMs to DMs and it's more solid, but the problem is it's hard to find a DM with good attacking attributes

[themadsheep2001]

So I've come up to the conclusion that the 4-2-3-1 with CMs just can't work well in FM, well it can work if you're top teams but it just don't work with small or mid teams. There's just too much space between on the flank and in front of the CBs, even I've already set my CMs as DLP and CM(D), they just can't drop deep infront of my CBs. Also IRL some teams play with a holding mid and box to box as their pivot to give dynamism to their attack(Dembele and Sandro for Spurs, Toure and Barry for City) but it never work in FM as we'll just get crushed down the mid. I just can't believe how the most used formation IRL can't work in FM13 (in FM12 it can still work, this is why I hate FM13). Now I've change the CMs to DMs and it's more solid, but the problem is it's hard to find a DM with good attacking attributes

It does work well in game with all sorts of teams, but it does have its weaknesses (as with any other formation all thinks being equal). Most teams arguably dont play 4-2-3-1 with CMs. I find it odd that you hate a game because you cant get something to work in the game, even though it actually does work in the game.

Also more to the point. The centre mids were worse defensively in FM12, not sure how you can argue it worked in FM12 and not in FM13

[howard moon]

I've had it with this game now.

Based on some helpful advice on here, I changed my strategy from counter/fluid to control/rigid, and made some adjustments to the player roles, but nothing is working.

- I still can't score goals and create chances (11 goals in 16 games, 10 of those were in 3 matches)

- I still can't get my AMC involved in the game.

- My team still plays fairly stodgy football, no great amounts of movement off the ball, and attacks breaking down in the final third with alarming regularity.

For my last game, away at West Ham, I went with

Control, rigid

Default pressing, passing, CF

More roaming

Drill crosses

De Gea (GK, defend)

Jones (WB, attack)

Ferdinand (BPD, cover)

Vidic (CB, stopper)

Evra (WB, support)

Carrick (DLP, defend)

Thiago (DLP, support)

Valencia (Winger, support)

Kagawa (Trequarista, attack)

Welbeck (IF, support)

Van Persie (AF, attack)

I drew 0-0. Dominated possession, but no clear cut chances.

There are various problems which I've had no joy in solving

- I've tried Van Persie with various roles, but he's only managed 3 goals in 10 games.

- I've tried Kagawa as AP, AM and TQ. He has no goals or assists and is rarely involved in the play in the attacking third.

- Playing a winger has lead to more crosses, but our cross completion is below 10%, so this seems to be a waste of time.

There are obviously people who are having great success on this game and can understand how to get the match engine to do what they want - I'm obviously not one of those people! :confused:

[themadsheep2001]

You have not got that much differential movement, or overlaps. Attack is stodgy because the balance of roles isnt great

You dont need to understand the match engine, rather understand what it is you are trying to execute. This is my "big game" 4-2-3-1, though the concept works equally well at other levels, simply by adjust for the levels of my squad.

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/356036-Why-is-4231-working-so-terribly-on-FM13?p=8853969&viewfull=1#post8853969

[howard moon]

You have not got that much differential movement, or overlaps. Attack is stodgy because the balance of roles isnt great

You dont need to understand the match engine, rather understand what it is you are trying to execute. This is my "big game" 4-2-3-1, though the concept works equally well at other levels, simply by adjust for the levels of my squad.

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/356036-Why-is-4231-working-so-terribly-on-FM13?p=8853969&viewfull=1#post8853969

My attacking set up is not too dissimilar to that. An inside forward and a winger out wide, an AP (or TQ) in the hole. One attacking full back, one more conservative. And the striker encouraged to drop deeper with a support duty...

[KorbenRyan]

A couple of things stuck out to me Howard.

Van Persie has never worked for me as an AF, think its because of his comes deep ppm. I always use as DLF or CF both support.

Thiago as a DLP doesn't work well for me, his low strength and defensive attributes plus the dlp having hold up ball will result in him getting caught in possession a lot especially in away games where he's likely to get closed down faster

And I'd switch the full backs over so that the more attacking option is overlapping Welbeck cutting in rather than going outside Valencia who is already staying wide.

So basically I'd go CF(S) RVP, switch the IF to attack, swap out Thiago especially in away games and get the left fb bombing on. Probably take off the drill crosses too and if it was me switch Kagawa to AP or AM both attack

[vasilli07]

There are various problems which I've had no joy in solving

- I've tried Van Persie with various roles, but he's only managed 3 goals in 10 games.

- I've tried Kagawa as AP, AM and TQ. He has no goals or assists and is rarely involved in the play in the attacking third.

- Playing a winger has lead to more crosses, but our cross completion is below 10%, so this seems to be a waste of time.

There are obviously people who are having great success on this game and can understand how to get the match engine to do what they want - I'm obviously not one of those people! :confused:

You have 2 players on crossing often. Reduce that as your completion is low, go with a fb role instead. I believe Phil Jones crossing is also quite average, right?

As RVP has comes deep as his ppm, I will suggest using your amc or IF with a role which has rfd on often.

I don't like the idea of a treq in a double pivot midfield. You don't really need a 3rd player to drop too deep.

[howard moon]

You have 2 players on crossing often. Reduce that as your completion is low, go with a fb role instead. I believe Phil Jones crossing is also quite average, right?

As RVP has comes deep as his ppm, I will suggest using your amc or IF with a role which has rfd on often.

I don't like the idea of a treq in a double pivot midfield. You don't really need a 3rd player to drop too deep.

Full backs on attack also have 'often' for crossing. I will try and manually reduce the full back's crossing though.

Currently have (from right to left) Winger (attack), AP (support), IF (attack). That should be plenty of forward runs to get people to run off the back of the centre back, to allow the CMs and AMC enough options for attacking balls in the final third. But we are still playing in front of teams.

A couple of things stuck out to me Howard.

Van Persie has never worked for me as an AF, think its because of his comes deep ppm. I always use as DLF or CF both support.

Thiago as a DLP doesn't work well for me, his low strength and defensive attributes plus the dlp having hold up ball will result in him getting caught in possession a lot especially in away games where he's likely to get closed down faster

And I'd switch the full backs over so that the more attacking option is overlapping Welbeck cutting in rather than going outside Valencia who is already staying wide.

So basically I'd go CF(S) RVP, switch the IF to attack, swap out Thiago especially in away games and get the left fb bombing on. Probably take off the drill crosses too and if it was me switch Kagawa to AP or AM both attack

With Van Persie, playing a support role, aligned with his PPM 'comes deep to get ball' can mean he doesn't get into goalscoring positions enough. Also, I'm trying to create space for the AMC to play in, and Van Persie coming too deep gets in his way, and means there is no through ball on.

Good point about Thiago and holding up the ball. I hadn't realised that DLPs had this option ticked - I've changed him to CM (support) now.

My players do tend to dwell on the ball and get tackled, or run into cul-de-sacs, rather than releasing the ball quickly. My guess is this is happening because they are not getting good passing options. But I'm at a loss as to what else I can do now to try and make this work... :confused:

[KorbenRyan]

RVP will always drop deep though making him a poor choice for an AF, from what you've wrote I take it you're meaning a guy to play on the last defenders shoulder but too stretch play rather than as a straight forward poacher, if so Welbeck is much more suited to that role. I play RVP as complete forward support and he scores plenty so the chances do still come, I make up for it by having my AP and IF on attack moving into the space he vacates though.

I think you're basically in a spot where you either need to change the roles around to fit the personnel or change the personnel to fit the roles. You've got a solid first XI and you've a reasonable enough looking tactic, they just don't fit each other.

[Bluebeard]

Your tactic and team isn't too dissimilar to what I'm doing with Chelsea atm, but I seem to be having some more success so I'll share the differences.

First, I don't think you should play a DC on 'cover' when you don't have any defensive midfielders. Agree that having a stopper is a good idea though.

Second, I actually drop one of the MCs back to DMC unless the opposition look like they're playing quite a deep formation. The stopper would play on the side not covered by the DMC, meaning that the three form a staggered, layered defence. Generally go with DM-defend for this player.

Third, I keep my fullbacks on 'automatic' duty. Like you, one is a wingback, and I find wingback-support is usually enough unless I want to choose attacking mentality for the entire team, in which case he automatically becomes attacking. I generally have the DMC on the same side as the wingback.

Fourth, the more attacking of the two central midfielders should be someone who's more of an all-rounder than Thiago. I also have him but I usually play him at AMC unless I'm using 4-1-2-2-1 for a tricky away game. I usually play Ramires as a B2B or Vidal as CM-automatic (Ramires has poor passing but good pace). It does help if this player gets forwards, but unless you're massive favourite then you need this guy to be capable of tackling and to have some strength and aggression.

Fifth, I find the AMC to be more useful with a support duty as he finds space that way, especially if the opposition have no DMC. This also creates space for your striker. RVP has immense off-the-ball so he'll find it!

Sixth, I find that the striker plays better with a tailored role that fits the system. Advanced forward might leave him isolated and complete forward is maybe asking a little too much of RVP. I'd play him as DLF-support or -attack: experiment as I'm not sure how his PPM will impact his placement on the pitch in practice. My own strikers are Falcao and Neymar and I have Falcao as DLF-support and Neymar as Trequartista, both with their throughballs reduced to 'mixed'. That's because Neymar is excellent at running with the ball but quite weak and lazy, whilst Falcao is more of a 'fox in the box' with great finishing, heading, aggression and off the ball but relatively poor speed and dribbling.

Seventh, don't overlook the defensive winger role, which is like a winger but with extra closing down. Valencia and Rooney might both suit this. Make sure you play at least one of the wide players with attack duty unless you're trying to defend a lead. I usually have IF-support, AP-support, DW-attack as my three AMs. It seems odd to play Hazard with a support duty, but he tends to pick the ball up near the halfway line and then cause havoc by driving towards the penalty box. He gets more of the ball than by playing on the shoulder of the fullback (i.e. by having an attack duty).

My goals are well mixed around the team as the formation creates a lot of space for all of the front four to exploit.

[RTHerringbone]

I've been skimming through this thread again as I'm on the verge of quitting my Southampton job at the end of Season Four to see what offers come in.

For some months now, I've been messing about with a few odd formations, but I'm keen to now revert to either a 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-2-2-1 (in fact, I'll probably use both; the 4-1-2-2-1 in games against sides with a central AM player).

My main reason for steering clear of a 4-2-3-1 to date has been that big gap from DC to MC, and it appears to be an issue for a few posters in here.

Thus far, it seems there are three schools of thought to get round this:

1. Push up the Strategy ladder to move the DC line closer to the midfield

2. Move an MC back to DM, so you have a sort of asymmetric shape

3. Play the "Deep" 4-2-3-1, rather than the MC version

In fairly broad terms, it looks as if the main selection headaches are:

a) Duties for the fullbacks / wingbacks

b) Roles / Duties for the central midfield players (from DM to MC to AM, depending on whether using the Deep shape, or going asymmetric as per point 3. above)

c) Role / Duty of striker

There doesn't seem to be too much variation from a general theme for the AML/R - they more often than not seem to be an IF and a W.

That's my overall summary of this thread, but it leaves a question unanswered for me:

How do people who use the MC version of the 4-2-3-1 get on when playing sides with 1 or more central AMC (Manchester City's narrow 4-2-3-1 is a prime example)?

If I line the formations up in my head, I see three AMCs in the gap between the DC and MC line, which can't be a good idea.

[Draigh]

Whenever I play a 4-2-3-1 with MC's I press. IMO that's necessary because of the formation, if you sit deep and give the opposition time they will find the gap between midfield and attack. So think first about your overall strategy: if you're looking for the attack the MC version fits nicely, if you're looking to sit back the deep variant works best.

When you do decide on a high-pressing game you have to make sure there's enough pressure on the opposition to prevent them from easily playing out of the back to the AMC. If you cut off their passing options they'll rarely set up good counterattacks. You'll still need both MC's on defensive duties though (DLP(d/s) or MC(d) - the BMW is not suited to this formation) to keep that box shape between the DC's and CM's, they will protect the defence whenever the opposition have the ball.

A last note, though, agains the narrow 4-2-3-1 this may still be a bit too much as the 3 AMC's will probably overcrowd the centre, here you may be better off switching to a different formation unless you're confident you will dominate the game.

[Gee_Simpson]

I prefer the 4-2-3-1 deep as it offers more stability in defence and most teams IRL use it (Bayern, Real Madrid etc.) instead of the MC version.

[RTHerringbone]

Thanks - Draigh, it's interesting you mention switching formation as it isn't something that some posters do, or admit to - I'm not sure if there's some perceived weakness in admitting that we change shape to better handle the opposition strengths?

I was using three strikerless shapes, with the differences being where the DM/MC and AM players were positioned - and the shape I used was dictated by that used by the opposition: if they used no AM player, I wouldn't use a DM, if they did - I would.

As such, I reckon I'll use a Deep 4-2-3-1, a "MC" 4-2-3-1, and leave it at that.

[RTHerringbone]

I prefer the 4-2-3-1 deep as it offers more stability in defence and most teams IRL use it (Bayern, Real Madrid etc.) instead of the MC version.

In the same way as the "MC" version demands responsible defensive effort from the MC line, does the Deep version need the DMs to step up, or is it less of an issue?

Presumably, the DMs allow us to push the fullbacks on a bit more, but I assume we also need a bit of forward thrust from DM too?

[Gee_Simpson]

In the same way as the "MC" version demands responsible defensive effort from the MC line, does the Deep version need the DMs to step up, or is it less of an issue?

Presumably, the DMs allow us to push the fullbacks on a bit more, but I assume we also need a bit of forward thrust from DM too?

I like the fact that with the deep version you can either sit back and let teams come at you or you can push up to reduce the space between the DM's and the AMC, the DM's will always be close to the CB's either way unlike the CM version. The 4-2-3-1 deep gives the AMC more room to maneuver also.

I think 1 defensive player who sits back at all times and 1 player who supports the play is beneficial in the deep version, yes, e.g. DLP (D) & DM (S).

[Falahk]

personally I think the answer to defensive short comings of the MC's is a very high line (to reduce the gap) and possession (if you dont give the ball away for extended periods of time during a match you dont have to defend as much)

[KayaZen]

the idea in any tactic in FM to run fairly well is to have 2 players attacking the box.

AM in 4231 I think cant be a Playmaker because is to far up and got only 3 players (AML/AMR/ST) to pass after he gets the ball, this will end in ALOT of bad passes.

you can pick one of your CM to have attack Duty to get your extra player in the box and then set AM as support, or you can have your AM or IF to do it, but 2 in the box will fix this nice tactic. (I see many here send one ST to face 2 DC, it will end in him having a very low score because he will rarely get the ball, one more player in the box free your striker.

I do recommend to have your playmaker come from CM, and if you like slow passing game and your FB to be part of your attack, put each AML/AMR as support.

is very fun tactic if you set it the right way.

[howard moon]

Your tactic and team isn't too dissimilar to what I'm doing with Chelsea atm, but I seem to be having some more success so I'll share the differences.

First, I don't think you should play a DC on 'cover' when you don't have any defensive midfielders. Agree that having a stopper is a good idea though.

Second, I actually drop one of the MCs back to DMC unless the opposition look like they're playing quite a deep formation. The stopper would play on the side not covered by the DMC, meaning that the three form a staggered, layered defence. Generally go with DM-defend for this player.

Third, I keep my fullbacks on 'automatic' duty. Like you, one is a wingback, and I find wingback-support is usually enough unless I want to choose attacking mentality for the entire team, in which case he automatically becomes attacking. I generally have the DMC on the same side as the wingback.

Fourth, the more attacking of the two central midfielders should be someone who's more of an all-rounder than Thiago. I also have him but I usually play him at AMC unless I'm using 4-1-2-2-1 for a tricky away game. I usually play Ramires as a B2B or Vidal as CM-automatic (Ramires has poor passing but good pace). It does help if this player gets forwards, but unless you're massive favourite then you need this guy to be capable of tackling and to have some strength and aggression.

Fifth, I find the AMC to be more useful with a support duty as he finds space that way, especially if the opposition have no DMC. This also creates space for your striker. RVP has immense off-the-ball so he'll find it!

Sixth, I find that the striker plays better with a tailored role that fits the system. Advanced forward might leave him isolated and complete forward is maybe asking a little too much of RVP. I'd play him as DLF-support or -attack: experiment as I'm not sure how his PPM will impact his placement on the pitch in practice. My own strikers are Falcao and Neymar and I have Falcao as DLF-support and Neymar as Trequartista, both with their throughballs reduced to 'mixed'. That's because Neymar is excellent at running with the ball but quite weak and lazy, whilst Falcao is more of a 'fox in the box' with great finishing, heading, aggression and off the ball but relatively poor speed and dribbling.

Seventh, don't overlook the defensive winger role, which is like a winger but with extra closing down. Valencia and Rooney might both suit this. Make sure you play at least one of the wide players with attack duty unless you're trying to defend a lead. I usually have IF-support, AP-support, DW-attack as my three AMs. It seems odd to play Hazard with a support duty, but he tends to pick the ball up near the halfway line and then cause havoc by driving towards the penalty box. He gets more of the ball than by playing on the shoulder of the fullback (i.e. by having an attack duty).

My goals are well mixed around the team as the formation creates a lot of space for all of the front four to exploit.

Thanks, this is really helpful.

I've been playing FM alot this past week as I'm at home recovering from surgery, and I think I've found a breakthrough, with a lot of help from this thread.

Currently playing with a balanced strategy and balanced style, so all of the settings are quite neutral, and more changeable during the game via shouts.

Default passing and pressing

More creative freedom and roaming

Counter attack box ticked

The base is always the same:

GK - Defend

WBR - Support

BPD - Defend

CB - Defend

WBL - Support

DLP - Defend

CM - Support

DLF - Support

It's the AM strata that changes based on my need. Usually there's an IF - Attack and a Winger - Support, with either an AM - Attack or AP - Attack in the middle.

What I've found is that moving the winger back to MR/L and the AMC to the side slightly (the same side as the winger) creates a lot more space for the AMC and IF to play in, and Welbeck, who is the IF is now scoring goals for fun from both sides.

I play Welbeck on the side where I think he can cause most damage moving infield into goalscoring positions, and the winger (usually Valencia or Young) sits deeper on the side where I need more defensive cover.

The passing is more varied and we are passing and moving the ball quickly. It has mean that we are now scoring goals again.

Still not quite satisfied with the number of goals from my ST or the goals and assists from the AMC, but it's certainly moved in the right direction.

[howard moon]

Hope this works...

We now switch between a straight 4-2-3-1 and an asymmetric system:

WBR(s) -- BPD(d) -- CB(d) -- WBL(s)

------------DLP(d) -- CM(s) -- WG(a)

IF(a) --------------------AM(a)

-------------------DLF(s)

[RTHerringbone]

My initial forays into the Deep and "normal" 4-2-3-1 formations are below.

I've not actually had time to play more than two pre-season friendlies yet as I was busy signing AML/R players to fit the system for my Season Five Southampton side.

I'm initially starting with minimal Team Instructions so I can understand how the players play on default in these systems.

The Deep version:

Very simple premise here, and it this is consistent in the "normal" formation too: I want my front four to be interchangeable, so the AML/R swap positions, as do the AMC and ST. Theoretically, the AMC/ST swap will pull and push centreback pairings, and the switching of the AML/R will pull AI fullbacks infield, creating space for the full backs.

The "normal" setup is provisionally like this:

I'll initially start with two IFs, but will also tinker with using one Advanced Playmaker or Winger out wide. If I use an AP, my central AP is likely to become an Attacking AM.

The striker Role is also likely to be fiddled with as I go along, but I'm pleased to at least have a concept that works in my head.

[Bluebeard]

Actually that's not a bad idea, pulling back the winger in some circumstances. I'd probably keep him at AMR/L if the opposition were playing a back three or really on the back foot, but otherwise....

Incidentally, had a really satisfying success against Celtic (playing 3-5-2 with wingers rather than wingbacks) with the 4-2-3-1. I used the shouts 'play wider', 'exploit the flanks', 'get ball forward' and 'cross from deep' and on the team instructions made my passing more direct and crosses floated. As you'd expect, some awesome diagonal balls from DL to AMR and DR to AML to exploit that space. I think a winger meeting a far-post cross is my favourite type of goal in the game!

[Draigh]

Thanks - Draigh, it's interesting you mention switching formation as it isn't something that some posters do, or admit to - I'm not sure if there's some perceived weakness in admitting that we change shape to better handle the opposition strengths?

I think there's two way to look at this: either you're looking to impose your game every time, or you're trying to adapt to counter your opposition's weaknesses and strengths. Both can work or misfire, it's up to personal preference really.

However, it's one of the reasons why I like playing a 4-2-3-1: it allows you a lot more freedom to change things up from match to match, more so IMO than the 4-3-3, that other most common formation. For example: you could easily pull back a winger to the MR/L slot to add defensive stability on that side, or pull your AMC back to have three central midfielders. Or put both CM's in the DM position. Doing this will slightly lower your tactic familiarity but not by a lot (if you don't overdo it) so it's perfect to adapt for those few games when you need, as in the example of the City narrow 4-2-3-1.

[RTHerringbone]

vasilli07 Can you (or anyone else who does the same) please explain to me what the thinking is behind using an Advanced Playmaker out wide?

It interests me, as 90+% of setups in this thread use combinations of Inside Forwards and Wingers. There is the occasional Defensive Winger, but they don't seem widely used in this shape.

[vasilli07]

vasilli07 Can you (or anyone else who does the same) please explain to me what the thinking is behind using an Advanced Playmaker out wide?

It interests me, as 90+% of setups in this thread use combinations of Inside Forwards and Wingers. There is the occasional Defensive Winger, but they don't seem widely used in this shape.

Adv playmaker(att) is generally like a IF(S). With that role, it gives him higher CF(he has 13 for flair but I like him to be more ambitious with his play) and mixed on crossing(don't want to waste his high crossing attribute).