Differences between DMC, DLP, RGA and Anchorman in terms of screening of defense

[Bunkerossian]

Yeah...another thread from a noob at FM. But I had to make it, because during my struggles, I seem to have discovered something that seems to have solved my troubles, but I cannot understand why did it do so. My initial tactic used a DM (D) behind a BWM (S) and a BBM. Following my pleas for help, I got the tip to switch the BWM to CM (D). This didn't fix things much. But almost in desperation, I went for an Anchorman role. And it worked! The questions I have is: why would a DM (D) be worse at screening than an Anchorman? How well do the other roles (DLP and RGA in particular), protect the defense?

Also, when could a BWM (D) be used in the DMC slot effectively- that is: what sorts of roles must he have around him to make the team defensively solid?

[Cleon]

An anchorman is a proper screening role. He doesn't close down high up the pitch, he sits in the hole between midfield and defence. Compare this with a defensive midfielder on a defend duty, they close down more, so leave their position a lot earlier. So it's not a proper screen. The defensive midfielder also keeps hold of the ball a lot longer.

So in short;

Anchor - Sits in the hole protecting the defence and isn't really aggressive in his approach.

DMC on defend - Looks to close down people early, which means he leaves his position and keeps hold of the ball longer.

The other two you mention, DLP and regista neither of those are true holders either. Only the anchorman is a true holding player. The other move about looking to dictate play. They still defend but aren't as positionally strict as the anchor.

[Jean-Luc]

Anchor - Sits in the hole protecting the defence and isn't really aggressive in his approach.

DMC on defend - Looks to close down people early, which means he leaves his position and keeps hold of the ball longer.

And if you throw in the BWM on defend, would you say that the main difference is that he closes down even more than more?

[Bunkerossian]

An anchorman is a proper screening role. He doesn't close down high up the pitch, he sits in the hole between midfield and defence. Compare this with a defensive midfielder on a defend duty, they close down more, so leave their position a lot earlier. So it's not a proper screen. The defensive midfielder also keeps hold of the ball a lot longer.

So in short;

Anchor - Sits in the hole protecting the defence and isn't really aggressive in his approach.

DMC on defend - Looks to close down people early, which means he leaves his position and keeps hold of the ball longer.

The other two you mention, DLP and regista neither of those are true holders either. Only the anchorman is a true holding player. The other move about looking to dictate play. They still defend but aren't as positionally strict as the anchor.

Thank you. But I do see people playing various roles at the DMC slot, and enjoying success. How come they do not get destroyed like I was, until I put an Anchorman? I mean, having a RGA can work- as some examples show, and I actually have a player capable of playing that role, but I have no clue how could I ever use this role without sacrificing (hardly fought for) defensive stability. The lesson seems to be: without a screen (anchorman), you're screwed.

[Cleon]

And if you throw in the BWM on defend, would you say that the main difference is that he closes down even more than more?

Yes he's even more aggressive and will look to close down a lot earlier than the other two roles. He will also be more involved in build up play when you win the ball back.

[Cleon]

Thank you. But I do see people playing various roles at the DMC slot, and enjoying success. How come they do not get destroyed like I was, until I put an Anchorman? I mean, having a RGA can work- as some examples show, and I actually have a player capable of playing that role, but I have no clue how could I ever use this role without sacrificing (hardly fought for) defensive stability.

Well you don't focus on the role as such. You focus on using what fits best for what you're creating and how it works. If your fullbacks and midfielders are really aggressive then you'd want someone protecting the back 4 I'd imagine? That's the logical choice. However it doesn't mean it's the only choice and another role can also work. It comes down to how the rest of the team is playing and how it copes. This means how all the roles and duties in your set up all link together. It also comes down to risk vs reward. I'm one of the big threads I did recently I use a DMC on support. This makes me prone to direct balls at times as the player can get caught out of position, yet that's fine for me because his build up play when we have possession is much more important.

[Bunkerossian]

Well you don't focus on the role as such. You focus on using what fits best for what you're creating and how it works. If your fullbacks and midfielders are really aggressive then you'd want someone protecting the back 4 I'd imagine? That's the logical choice. However it doesn't mean it's the only choice and another role can also work. It comes down to how the rest of the team is playing and how it copes. This means how all the roles and duties in your set up all link together. It also comes down to risk vs reward. I'm one of the big threads I did recently I use a DMC on support. This makes me prone to direct balls at times as the player can get caught out of position, yet that's fine for me because his build up play when we have possession is much more important.

I wish to become versatile enough to be able to play with different teams. Especially national teams, where you have no transfers to fix problems. But as it is, I'm baffled by the fact that only the Anchorman gives solid protection to the back four. As I'm a firm believer in the school 'build a team from the back', then it seems I'd be forced to play with an Anchorman forever and with every team?

[Cleon]

I wish to become versatile enough to be able to play with different teams. Especially national teams, where you have no transfers to fix problems. But as it is, I'm baffled by the fact that only the Anchorman gives solid protection to the back four.

Why is it baffling? It's the only true holding player so it makes sense. The others can do a job at holding and protecting but it's not as good as the anchor himself. Yet the others offer things you can't get from an anchor. The descriptions in game are more than enough to give you an idea of what to expect from the player and what he offers. Also maybe an anchorman just suited what you're creating better?

[Bunkerossian]

Why is it baffling? It's the only true holding player so it makes sense. The others can do a job at holding and protecting but it's not as good as the anchor himself. Yet the others offer things you can't get from an anchor. The descriptions in game are more than enough to give you an idea of what to expect from the player and what he offers. Also maybe an anchorman just suited what you're creating better?

Well, I honestly did not think a DM(D) and Anchorman were so much different. I had even wanted to use a DLP(D), to give some creativity to the team, since my midfield is mostly graft, but The Anchorman role just speaks for itself, and my previous ideas I thought were sensible, go down the drain. The tactic is meant for tougher opposition, where a walkover is not expected, or when I'm the underdog. Could you please write an article about different ways to give defensive balance to teams?

[summatsupeer]

Sounds like you have a strong preference on how you want to "protect". Others prefer to give up some of the shielding to provide more pressure. Off the top of my head I can't remember what Player Instructions you can change but maybe you can customize to get more like what you want?

Maybe it suited your player better? Does he have better marking/positioning suited to shielding+tracking runners or is he better at closing down quickly (aggression/physical) and winning the ball (tackling/strength etc)?

[Jean-Luc]

Why is it baffling? It's the only true holding player so it makes sense.

Isn't there also the Half Back as a new role in FM16? If I am not mistaken, that should be the role quite often used by Bundesliga teams in the last years, where a holding midfielder drops between the Central Defenders when not in possession, so that the full backs can roam forward.

[Bunkerossian]

Sounds like you have a strong preference on how you want to "protect". Others prefer to give up some of the shielding to provide more pressure. Off the top of my head I can't remember what Player Instructions you can change but maybe you can customize to get more like what you want?

Maybe it suited your player better? Does he have better marking/positioning suited to shielding+tracking runners or is he better at closing down quickly (aggression/physical) and winning the ball (tackling/strength etc)?

It seems the role itself fixed the situation. I had played Charlie Mulgrew and Oscar Lewicki there, and they are fairly different players. When used with their best roles (DM(D) Mulgrew or BWM (D) for Lewicki), the results would end up being bad. Mulgrew is definitely slower and relies on positioning.

[Shake Appeal]

I wish to become versatile enough to be able to play with different teams. Especially national teams, where you have no transfers to fix problems. But as it is, I'm baffled by the fact that only the Anchorman gives solid protection to the back four. As I'm a firm believer in the school 'build a team from the back', then it seems I'd be forced to play with an Anchorman forever and with every team?

They all give "protection" to the back four just by standing where they are standing: their positioning shapes the movement and passing around them, and depending on their attributes and tendencies, they will provide more or less cover and pressure. But the Anchorman is the only one who doggedly occupies that area and does everything he can to lock it down. He takes few risks and tends to delay the opposition more than confront them. The other defensive midfielder roles are inclined to move around more both in and out of possession, which is more in keeping with modern football; a player whose sole role is to screen the defense is kinda limited in their usefulness, unless you're just trying to contain.

For what it's worth, both the DM(d) and the DLP(d) sit deep and help to consolidate when the ball is lost; they both also tend to stay behind the ball when you're in possession.

But the DM(d) closes down and disrupts more than the Anchorman without the ball. He'll move from his position to cover or pressure if it makes sense, and when he does have the ball, he's more likely to do something interesting with it than the Anchorman. He won't go on a surging run, but he might spray a more daring pass once in a while.

By default, the DLP(d) closes down and disrupts less than the DM(d), so he might be a better "screen" as you're thinking of it. But once he has the ball, he has much more freedom to direct play (and other players on your team will seek him out to do so). He will attempt penetrating passes and otherwise try to offer depth and out balls for the players ahead of him. This is probably what you're looking for, provided you're comfortable with the player in this position having more freedom to dictate play and be adventurous with his passing.

PPMs, attributes and PIs can also be used to create hybrid roles.