Some advice on my tactics : 442 and 4231

[Andrew Haines]

I regularily browse this forum. Up until this edition I have always played with the 'classic' tactics (sliders etc.) so with it's removal I have had to learn the new system (new is the wrong word as it's been in the game for years now) from scratch. I have to say I was initially skeptical but now I really like how it works.

I have only had limited success with my tactics though, I have always played with a 4-4-2 previously so stuck with trying to put together a 4-4-2. My tactic I have ended up with after months of work has been fairly successful but I can't help but think that the limitations of a 4-4-2 are dooming me to never landing the tactic I want. I am on holiday at the moment and am reading 'Inverting the Pyramid' by Jonathan Wilson which is really getting me thinking about the tactics and so I am formulating plans to try out a 4231 when I get back and see if I can be any more successful with this. I wanted to gauge your opinions on my current tactic to see if you can see where it could be improved and also on my hypothetical tactic which I am just mulling over currently.

My current tactic has mainly been used in the lower leagues, I have had several cracks at a dafuge challenge with it. I can usually within a season be challenging at the top of the table (Skill North) but can't maintain consistency enough to win the league even with a very strong squad (lots of 2nd place finishes though). The tactic is possession based with a deep rigid formation to keep it's shape whilst defending. A lot of games we will dominate possession and win by several goals but seem to be vunerable to counterattacks so lose games that we have dominated by an odd goal on the break. The problematic areas seems to be down my right wing where my rightback is set to attack, he often doesn't get back quickly enough. Also quite often my centrebacks just stand and watch as the striker runs straight through my defence. An annoyance is that my DLP doesn't seem to pick up the ball from the defenders very often, the leftback rarely passes to him and my centrebacks play the ball more directly and so bypass him (maybe I just answered my own question on this one...). Another thing that annoys is that a lot of chances are missed because a player cutting in from a wide position (usually my DR, AP or WL) shoots with their stronger foot straight into the side netting as it is the outside foot.

Don't get me wrong the issues aren't killer, I have taken poor teams to decent league finishes. It just seems that I struggle with a team that should comfortably walk the league.

The formation - bear in mind I am doing this off the top of my head

GK - Goalkeeper (D)

DR - Fullback (A)

CBR - Centreback (stopper)

CBL - Centreback (cover)

DL - Fullback(S)

MR - Wide Midfielder(S)

CMR - Advanced Playmaker(A)

CML - Deep Lying Playmaker (D)

ML - Winger(A)

STR - Poacher (A)

STL - False 9 (whatever this defaults to... is it S)

Team Instructions

Control

Rigid

Retain Possession

Shorter Passing

Stick to Positions

Play Narrower

Drop Deeper

No personal instructions.

The combination of the WMR, AP and DR work really well with the WMR on support the fulcrum between the two players on attack duty. As mentioned I have issues with my DLP but he does link up well with the left winger and False 9. I wouldn't be keen on using a poacher as I prefer the all round game of an AF but he tends to score ludicrous numbers of goals (a goal a game is common) and also tends to get a large number of assists.

My new tactic

I am thinking about a 4231 that will layout as below, hopefully taking some of the qualities of my current formation but being more effective. I always feel I need to have the AP in the 442 to give some attacking impetus to the central midfield but think this takes some of the solidity of the midfield away leaving a lot on the shoulders of the DLP.

GK - Goalkeeper (D)

DR - Fullback (A) - maybe a wingback? not sure how effective this would be and if it would leave me too short at the back.

CBR - Centreback (Cover) - pass shorter

CBL - Centreback (Stopper) - pass shorter

DL - Fullback (S)

MCR - BWM (S)

MCL - DLP (D)

AMR - Inside Forward (S) - I've never used IF's before, does IF(S) cut inside and supply passes/crosses. Hopefully to the Enganche and AF?

AMC - Enganche - I'm flexible on this one. As I go for possession I am tempted by the Enganche but could equally go for a plain AP or a Trequista.

AML - Winger (A) - could be tempted with another IF

ST - AF (A)

Team Instructions

Control

Rigid

Retain Possession

Shorter Passing

Stick to Positions

Play Narrower

Drop Deeper

I am thinking of sticking with a similar playing style, i.e. deep rigid possession. Will this suit the 4231? Do I need more of a fluid formation with a higher line and hassling of opponents?

Thanks in advance for any feedback/suggestions. Reading through this forum everyone seem to be good guys who give advice in the right spirit.

[RTHerringbone]

Well done for braving this section of the forum!

My views are as follows:

The 4-4-2 has balance. I personally dislike Stopper / Cover combinations, but that is personal preference. I like to have my DCs on the same Duty in a back four to maintain the shape of the defensive line, and to cope equally well with 1 or 2 man AI striker formations.

The use of two playmakers centrally will channel play that way, and Play Narrower will further focus play that way. With the split Duties, you may create a gap between the DLP and AP, which teams could exploit in some form.

As for the 4-2-3-1, the MC balance is OK, and that's a key area for that shape. I'm naturally quite conservative and would possibly have complemented the DLP with a CM (S) so I could get a more assertive runner at AMC, but a BWM (S) may suit your needs.

If you have an issue, it could be the relationship between the Enganche and the IF. The IF does indeed Cut Inside when he has the ball, so he may gravitate towards the Enganche who is more mobile than the tooltip suggests, and will be positioning himself to receive the ball in the space when your IF may be heading.

[pmoli12]

If you play with an Engance, lot of move around him will be required. Personally I think with a W/A, a IF/A, an AF/A and an overlapping WB, he will have lot of move but you will probably have to put your DLP on defense duty to cope on break. The Enganche/CMa duo is deadly tho, so if you can you could try, but a BWM on support could do the job with all the attacking player around the Enganche.

[Andrew Haines]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm steering away from the enganche as it sounds like the team will be very reliant on him performing. I prefer to have alterative options in case a single player is tightly marked. What are the alternatives in this position? A trequista strikes me more as a deep forward than a playmaker. Is my only real option an advanced playmaker? With an AP on support would this formation work better, perhaps with the AML as an IF (A) and the AMR as a W (s).

The BWM seems an unpopular option. I find that with a rigid narrow formation sometimes it can be difficult to get the ball from the opposition. Will my shape suffer for the BWM racing after the ball like a labrador?

[pmoli12]

I think your shape will effectively suffer from the BWM chase. If you want to keep your shape maybe a BBM or CM/d, tho the latter is a bit extreme.

A trequatista is an Enganche but with constant roaming and moving. He has the most creative freedom you can give I think. The AP/s will look to drop in the midfield to get the ball and stay in the hole when you are attacking. In attack duty, he will try aswell to split the defence and then get into the box or moving into channels. It really depends of your team. You depend less of an AP/s than an E/a because he has less creative freedom and responsibility. So it's a risk to take I'd say but having a plan B is more than advisable.

[Andrew Haines]

I think I am leaning towards the BBM and employing an enganche but switching for a trequista if he is being bullied by defensive midfielders. Also, I got to thinking that the AML on attack duty being more advanced than the ML might mean he doesn't link up as effectively with the DLP so I'm going to switch the wings so that the AMR is on attack and the AML on support (with the DL on attack and DR on support). I will probably deploy both as wingers but I will have a play around with IFs. This will have the advantage that the CDL will be more exposed by the attacking left back but will have the DLP on defend giving him more protection. I think this should balance quite nicely.

Where does the BBM go when defending. Does he retreat to sit in front of the defence or chase the ball (or other...)? I haven't used one before and I'm curious. I don't really want to go with the CM(A) as the problem I had with my 442 was the lack of defensive support from the AP(A). Also, I am going to ditch the cover and stopper centre-backs, I added this to the 442 to deal with a specific problem with how exposed the right sided CB was. This is all still hypothetical as I won't be able to test anything out until I get home on Sunday but the layout I am favouring now is as below (team instructions as before). I did forget to include in the above list, distribute to defenders as a team instruction.

GK - Goalkeeper (D)

DR - Full back (S)

DC - Centre-back (D) - Pass shorter

DC - Centre-back (D) - Pass shorter

DL - Full back (A)

CMR - BBM (S)

CML - DLP (D)

AMR - Winger (A)

AMC - Enganche (S) - switching to Trequista if marked

AML - Winger (S)

ST - Advanced Forward (A)

[pmoli12]

(Enganche is an attack duty only)

A BBM, doesn't sit behind defense. He is chasing the ball, less than a BWM, otherwise he stays in position and press everybody who is close to him. Since you want to solidify your defense, using a deep wingers is really advisable. They can be as good as IF and co. and since they're positioned deeper on the pitch, they have more running option and they help your FB when defending. This way, you can replace your BBM with a CM/A who is far more effective in attack, deadly with an Enganche, and covered by your DLP/d.

[Andrew Haines]

Well I ended up with the below tactic. The talk about the 4231 got me thinking about my current 442 tactic and how it can be improved. I decided that a BBM would let me balance the flanks with my midfield (switching the support/attack duties of the fullbacks/wingers on each flank). This allowed my attacking fullback to link better with the DLP. I toyed around with different attacking line ups for a few hours yesterday, at one stage playing a trequista in AMCL behind a false 9 in STR, this worked quite well but sometimes felt a little toothless. The tactic I settled on incorporates an AF in place of the F9 to give a little extra edge. I have also relaxed some of the discipline team instructions to free up the creativity a little which was hampering the team when playing as higher standard teams.

I am very happy with the balanced and I played half a season as each of Barca, Leicester and Oxford to give it a test out and was very happy with the results.

One of the plus points has been unexpected, the trequista in AMCL tends to pull the corresponding centreback out of position which leave a gap and the wide midfielder left tends to score a lot of goals with late runs unopposed into the box, particularily when the wingback bombs forward and occupies the fullback. In my test games my wide midfielder has generally been my second top scorer.

tactic