Central midfielders too static

[wingwangwong]

I'm running a 4-2-3-1 with 2 CMs.

One is on CM(d) and the other is DLP(d). When my team has the ball, I find that they are too static. My DLP(d) will, when he in in possession of the ball, literally stand in that spot where he received the pass to try and pick out a pass. He ends up taking too much time and the opposition nicks it off him. I tried changing their roles to support (tried one each, and then both) but then there wasn't enough cover during defensive transitions. Actually, I find that defensive cover is STILL slightly inadequate with 2 CMs.

Is there a way to make them more mobile, yet provide a little more defensive stability?

[ajsr1982]

Obvious retort is that if he's taking too long on the ball, then he might not have sufficient passing options. Pause the game a few times and see who can release the ball (easily) to.

[swansongs]

A 4-2-3-1 is a formation without much defensive cover no matter how you set it up. It's a very aggressive attacking shape that few real-life teams use.

Shape on the tactics screen is your defensive shape. For a more dynamic setup try a 4-4-1-1 or a 4-3-3 with more players starting deep, and support or attack duties to make them move forward when in possession.

[wingwangwong]

The AI seems to play 4-2-3-1 and defend just fine, which is why I wondered about defensive cover in that formation. Their wingers cover massive ground to track back, so their shape when defending is really 4-4-1-1. But the formations page doesn't show a change in their formation. Still 4-2-3-1.

I'm trying 4-4-1-1 now and I must say, there is a so much more balance to the side. The wingers start their runs from deeper too, so they've got more time to get to top speed. Some of them are "ineffectual" at M(RL) though.

[swansongs]

Positional familiarity will build pretty quickly with gametime, and only influences the Decisions attribute of the players, anyway.

And if they have high Versatility a lack of familiarity hardly matters at all.

[wingwangwong]

Positional familiarity will build pretty quickly with gametime, and only influences the Decisions attribute of the players, anyway.

Very interesting. Thanks for that tidbit!

I'm still curious how AI teams manage to get any semblance of defensive stability with 4-2-3-1 though :/

Case in point: Chelsea. I'm managing Man United right now. Had a game which I struggled to draw 1-1, both teams 4-2-3-1. I couldn't stop Chelsea's wave after wave of attack, being exposed left, right and centre. But Chelsea were comfortably winning tackles and second balls. Tried an aggressive press in the first half, which didn't work. Then tried a counter strategy in the second half. Patient football, draw them out. They get drawn out, and my DLP lobs a long one to my winger. Winger tries to dribble to the byline, promptly gets tackled by their fullback, and now I'm the one with gaps in defence. They send a long one over to their winger, who tries to dribble to the byline, promptly evades my fullback's tackle, and proceeds to cross to their forward for a shot.

[anorthernboy]

I play 4231.

GK/d

FB/s CD/d CD/d WB/a

CM/d DLP/d

W/a TQ/a IF/s

CF/s

I've scored some truly wonderful goals. I switch the CM/d to a CM/s if I'm dominating the game but creating little chances. If I fly out the blocks and score a couple of goals I switch back to CM/d and pit the WB/a to WB/s.

Also, if your playing highly structured they wont join in the attack. I play attacking fluid.

[Blinklys]

I suspect the AI play support roles on the flanks of at 4-2-3-1. It can be IF (S), AP (S) or W (S). They usually play at least one support role in midfield too, but because they have both AMR/AML on support its not that big of an issue.

In my opinion, most of the time people are beeing too aggressive with this formation, using an attacking mentality with 2 or more AM on attack duty. You end up with having 3-4 players marked in the box, and no movement from deep to attack space.