3 No.10's

[Marc.Foster050]

I have just moved into my 4th Season with Arsenal and have decided that a wide open expansive game has produced a lot of inconsistency so decided to move to a narrow version of a 4-2-3-1 formation. At home i would have two cm but away a bit more protection would mean i would tweak it to 2xdm. Pretty much i would be lining up like this:

-----------------------GK/s----------------------------

RWB/Auto----CB/BPD-------CB/Stopper----LWB/Auto

--------------------CDM/D-----RPM/S

-------------------AM/A--SS/A--AP/S

-------------------------AF/A

I have now got the best back 4 in the league and two very attacking Wing backs who get assists for fun so happy for them to provide the width. My middle pair are very technical and athletic so happy for them to do lots of running and the three behind the front man are all central but i'm quite excited to have three players as good as they are so want to get them all playing and creating for a player who should score for fun with that support. I play a short passing game with play out of defence. Roam from position and a higher tempo (due to high technical attributes) but i am a bit worried that in defence this may cost me against better teams and was wondering if anyone has had any success with this kind of formation in the past. Any tips or tweaks are helpful. My board want me to play attacking football but in a bid not to get too congested i have set it to control.

[swansongs]

Where does the roaming playmaker roam to when he has an advanced playmaker immediately in front of him?

[alinp]

So what's been happening when you play this? If you explain what issues you're having, people may be able to help.

Personally, just at what you've put up, I'd be inclined to flip your side AM's because as it is your RPM and AP will probably try and play in the same space and there'll be a massive gap between your CM(D) and AM(A). Flipping it should resolve these and make it more balanced (IMO).

[Marc.Foster050]

sorry i had put this up incorrectly they are flipped to be on opposite sides. the roaming play maker does well and finds pockets but the AP tends to roam about when i would prefer him to stay central and create for the players around him. I was under the impression a treq would roam about and an AP would stick to the central position. Also the SS and AF tend to just run to the same places and get a bit congested but if i make the 3 behind support the striker gets isolated. Was thinking of changing the striker to CF/S but would that not produce the same problem with one isolated player running passed him?

[alinp]

sorry i had put this up incorrectly they are flipped to be on opposite sides. the roaming play maker does well and finds pockets but the AP tends to roam about when i would prefer him to stay central and create for the players around him. I was under the impression a treq would roam about and an AP would stick to the central position. Also the SS and AF tend to just run to the same places and get a bit congested but if i make the 3 behind support the striker gets isolated. Was thinking of changing the striker to CF/S but would that not produce the same problem with one isolated player running passed him?

Cool... okay, so I don't see why you're playing PooD - it's not necessary as with Control (or higher) mentality, your defenders will tend to pass shorter anyway plus this will have a slight slowing affect on your game, which doesn't appear to be your aim. You could try Attacking mentality which would push your AM's higher if you switch both to Support.

[Overmars]

I would change the RPM to something else. I think your two defensive midfielders should be defensive, especially if you want to give your wingbacks the job of providing attacking positions out wide.

I would also put the AP(s) in the middle, and put two more attacking players on his left and right. That way those attacking players can run into space like pseudo-inside forwards.

[swansongs]

SS-A is suited to outside areas as it Moves Into Channels and Dribbles More iirc

[Marc.Foster050]

ah ok i thought the SS would just stay central and make late runs into the box to support the striker. Makes sense to put him on one side then. Perfect for the player i have in that position really. cheers for that didn't realise that was the role.

I have the player behind set up as a rpm as its Pogba and his stats for being that are awesome. He picks the ball up and just glides to the final third before giving it to one of the 3 gets me out of so much trouble. the two in the middle don't really seem to be a problem its getting the front 4 to gel.

Quick thought on the way the game is set up as well i know how i want my team to defend but i can't translate it to the team instructions. I would prefer if when i don't have the ball at least 2 of the 3 behind the front man get narrow and press the midfield so the two midfielders can concentrate on runs through and picking off passes to the front men but what actually happens is the 4 front men just stay up there and don't bother getting back. Is there a way this can be tackled without physically dropping them deeper. I have tried changing to all support for one game and they just got stranded. Sorry if that makes no sense

[swansongs]

Formation on the tactics screen is Defensive Shape so if you want them to defend differently you're using the wrong formation.

Roles and Duties establish Attacking Shape from those starting positions.

[Marabak]

If you want your AP to hold their position a bit more, an Enganche might be worth a look.

You could try offsetting your SS to one side (as already mentioned) and move the AF slightly towards the other side, which might give them a bit more room (as opposed to be directly in front of each other). That might relieve some of their congestion.

AM(S) might help to do your defensive work, being a bit more willing to track back. Admittedly though, you don't have that much of a defending shape, so that might be a bit of an issue.

To relieve a bit of congestion, you could always move one of your middle three out to one wing, especially if you play them as an AP (where you can dictate to them whether to sit narrower or wider). It might just help to stretch things a little.

[Marc.Foster050]

AM(S) might help to do your defensive work, being a bit more willing to track back. Admittedly though, you don't have that much of a defending shape, so that might be a bit of an issue.

Good idea thank you i will try this. I think you're right though i have committed to playing an attacking style of football so i'm just going to commit to that and try and win the ball high up the pitch. I will most probably concede a few but if i can get the attacking shape to work i should outscore most teams i think.

[thomit]

The 4231 Wide formation is discussed quite thoroughly in this thread.

[Unregistered User]

Some thoughts I have:

- Move the more defensive CM into the DM strata and play him as a defensive midfielder with either defend or support function depending on the opposition.

- Move your AP-S to the AMR position (but leave him on same role and duty). Ozil has been awesome in this position for me, as has Jack Wilshere (who I retrained to AMR).

- I agree with the others about the SS and AF-A but I would also recommend having a CF-A instead of the AF-A.

[Marc.Foster050]

The 4231 Wide formation is discussed quite thoroughly in this thread.

I am not playing with wide men at all though it is a narrow version of that formation. I am playing with 3 players narrow behind the front man and was wondering if people have had success with it and if they had any tips in how to develop it. I read through the 4-2-3-1 thread and there wasn't anything like i'm looking for which is understandable when it is a very different style of play.

[Marc.Foster050]

- Move your AP-S to the AMR position (but leave him on same role and duty). Ozil has been awesome in this position for me, as has Jack Wilshere (who I retrained to AMR).

Have you done this before? did it not make the team unbalanced? I did think to do this but when i play with wide men even as IF they seem to nullify Bellerin at RWB and he is my highest Assister by miles.

[Cleon]

I am not playing with wide men at all though it is a narrow version of that formation. I am playing with 3 players narrow behind the front man and was wondering if people have had success with it and if they had any tips in how to develop it. I read through the 4-2-3-1 thread and there wasn't anything like i'm looking for which is understandable when it is a very different style of play.

It's more or less the same, the principles don't change though.

[Unregistered User]

It didn't make the team unbalanced for me, but I did operate with a more defensive left back and an IF on the left hand side also. Having an AP-S on the right wing means he constantly roams and cuts inside and actually creates space for Bellerin on that side.

[Marc.Foster050]

It's more or less the same, the principles don't change though.

Surely the principles change completely in attack and defence by moving wingers out the equation completely? I certainly have found that i have had to amend the way my team defends because of this change. The full backs act in a different way due to the lack of support in defence and the space in front of them in attack. The 3 men behind the front man have less space to work in but are never far apart giving more room for short intricate passes. It is very rare a player gets the bi-line and gets a cross in with this formation so the strikers role is completely transformed to one in which he has to interchange with the 3 behind and run into channels instead of getting onto the end of crosses or having IF run past him. You have the ability to pack the midfield if needed with the 5 players in the central area instead of the 3 in a triangle with two wide men so i feel that the principles are completely transformed because of this change? These differences to the principles of the formation and many others are the reasons i am struggling to get the right mix.

Sorry that sounded a lot more aggressive than i intended it to I really wasn't trying to sound argumentative. just my viewpoint on why i created it as i'm struggling to get it to work and is quite frustrating as this game can be :-). I did read through the 4-2-3-1 thread but nothing related to any problems i am having so thought it best to create a new one.

[herne79]

Surely the principles change completely in attack and defence by moving wingers out the equation completely? I certainly have found that i have had to amend the way my team defends because of this change. The full backs act in a different way due to the lack of support in defence and the space in front of them in attack. The 3 men behind the front man have less space to work in but are never far apart giving more room for short intricate passes. It is very rare a player gets the bi-line and gets a cross in with this formation so the strikers role is completely transformed to one in which he has to interchange with the 3 behind and run into channels instead of getting onto the end of crosses or having IF run past him. You have the ability to pack the midfield if needed with the 5 players in the central area instead of the 3 in a triangle with two wide men so i feel that the principles are completely transformed because of this change? These differences to the principles of the formation and many others are the reasons i am struggling to get the right mix.

Sorry that sounded a lot more aggressive than i intended it to I really wasn't trying to sound argumentative. just my viewpoint on why i created it as i'm struggling to get it to work and is quite frustrating as this game can be :-). I did read through the 4-2-3-1 thread but nothing related to any problems i am having so thought it best to create a new one.

In the 4231 Wide or Narrow (or more accurately when using players in the AMC/R/L + ST positions of these formations), the principles remain the same because you are relying on the front 4 as your attacking threat.

There is no need to provide runners from deep, overlapping fullbacks or whatever because you already have 4 players positioned high up the pitch to scare the hell out of the opposition. Your other 6 (7) players are there basically to get the ball to them.

That's the principle of the 4231 wide or narrow, at least in FM terms. What you describe above are different strategies to achieve this.

[Marc.Foster050]

In the 4231 Wide or Narrow (or more accurately when using players in the AMC/R/L + ST positions of these formations), the principles remain the same because you are relying on the front 4 as your attacking threat.

There is no need to provide runners from deep, overlapping fullbacks or whatever because you already have 4 players positioned high up the pitch to scare the hell out of the opposition. Your other 6 (7) players are there basically to get the ball to them.

That's the principle of the 4231 wide or narrow, at least in FM terms. What you describe above are different strategies to achieve this.

Thats the point i am making. It does change as the full backs with a narrow formation also provide an attacking threat to provide almost a front 6 at times. Principles of a formation are width and depth of how you attack and defend (well at least when i trained in it they were). Both have been changed just by moving players inside as your team does not have the ability to attack or defend in the same way from the set up they are given.

I am sorry if i have obviously offended a couple of people all i was after was some advice from people who have played with a formation as narrow as i have set up but when i read through the 4-2-3-1 thread there was nothing that was any help as your team is set up differently from the start, different tactics or not.

[herne79]

lol nobody is offended, we're just trying to help .

This is where your confusion lies when you say "Thats the point i am making. It does change as the full backs with a narrow formation also provide an attacking threat to provide almost a front 6 at times."

The point is that in FM terms with a 4231 (wide or narrow) you don't need to do that. Just get the ball to the front 4. You don't need a front 6. That's why the principle of a 4231 wide or narrow is basically the same.

Now, all of this relates to the common FM interpretation of 4231 by using players in the AMC/L/R positions.

However, the more common real life interpretation of 4231 would see players positioned at MC/L/R instead, along with the 2 x MCs moved back to the DMC position. By doing that, everything you describe above is perfectly valid and you'd probably struggle if you weren't thinking in those terms (which you are).

TL;DR - if you stick with 3 players at AMC (or AMC/L/R), don't worry so much about trying to get runners from midfield and down the flanks. Focus on getting the ball to the front 4. OR, change to having players positioned at DMC and MC, and then knock yourself out with all kinds of supporting players.

[Marc.Foster050]

I think that is where my problem lies. Instead of thinking of it as a game I'm trying to over complicate something that you can't put across onto a computer.

In an ideal world what i am trying to produce is a formation that at any given time two central players are supporting the one front man and one holding off in case of counters, dictate play and to help out the middle two if the opposition is playing a 3 man midfield which a lot of them seem to do with AI management. But to give another level to the attack the full backs get forward to offer the width missing that a conventional 4-2-3-1 wide would give you. This requires lots of movement from the supporting 3 and an intelligent front man who know when to attack space and when to get involved with build up play. This all set up by a back two and central midfield pair that as you say are basically there to just get the ball to them.

When i set this system up i did appreciate that due to the attacking nature of the set up i would concede a few but what is actually happening is that all 3 supporting players just bomb forward (even if i set them to support in a standard set up) and all get congested in and around the box which eventually means we lose the ball and then the two cm are exposed all the time as there is no support from the the one player i want to hold off and help out if we lose the ball. the 5 players i rotate in the positions behind are - Ozil, Ox, James, Embolo and Barkly so with the exception of maybe Embolo they all have high attributes for a central role with good positioning, technique and teamwork so i thought with this group i gave myself the best chance to play the brand of football i wanted to.

I really don't want to go back to wide players as i have done that on FM for 5-6 years now and i want this to work mainly out of stubbornness.

[herne79]

Best bet - set up a dummy save in FM Touch and try things out. Why in FM Touch? Because tactics are always at 100% familiarity there, no matter how much tweaking you do.

Mess around with your 3 number 10s at AMC, see if you can get them moving how you like. Try giving both MCs a defend duty as well, along with 2 wingbacks on support (who will move forwards, just in a controlled manner).

Then also have a play with moving both your MCs back to DMC and your 3 number 10s from AMC to MC. Give your striker a support duty and see how you can best get players up in support from midfield and the flanks. Have a look at a more attack minded wingback and energetic runners from midfield. They may not be "number 10s" in the purest sense, but you can always try shaping such player roles by using PIs.

[Sunstrikuuu]

However, the more common real life interpretation of 4231 would see players positioned at MC/L/R instead, along with the 2 x MCs moved back to the DMC position. By doing that, everything you describe above is perfectly valid and you'd probably struggle if you weren't thinking in those terms (which you are).

This is a place where, I think, there's a conflict between the tactics team and the research team. With many teams, the natural positions of wide players don't support playing a 4-5-1 or a deep 4-2-3-1. The positions assigned to the players support standard 4-2-3-1 Wide. One of those two things ought to be, I think, looked at for future.

[swansongs]

This is a place where, I think, there's a conflict between the tactics team and the research team. With many teams, the natural positions of wide players don't support playing a 4-5-1 or a deep 4-2-3-1. The positions assigned to the players support standard 4-2-3-1 Wide. One of those two things ought to be, I think, looked at for future.

It isn't a widespread problem. The players that lack familiarity with the ML/R are those that struggle with the defensive responsibilities. "Natural" ML/R wingers are genuinely rare in the modern game, and managers have to make a choice between letting the players they have roam free upfield at full effectiveness (AML/R), or blunt their instincts in a more restrained role (ML/R) that might make the team better overall.

[THOG]

Thats the point i am making. It does change as the full backs with a narrow formation also provide an attacking threat to provide almost a front 6 at times. Principles of a formation are width and depth of how you attack and defend (well at least when i trained in it they were). Both have been changed just by moving players inside as your team does not have the ability to attack or defend in the same way from the set up they are given.

The principles of play are always the same; a formation just gives you a different starting point for how to apply them. You're already aware of what the issue with a narrow 4231 will be: keeping the midfield balanced to protect against wide threats, so how well it will work depends mainly on how good your DLR are at defending 1v1 and how capable your MCs are at filling in gaps. The weakness is definitely there just as there are limitations to any formation, but how much it hurts you will depend on whether you have players equipped to deal with the problems that it creates. The only way to know for sure is to try it, and if big teams prove too much for it, use a back-up formation that screens your fullbacks.

"Natural" ML/R wingers are genuinely rare in the modern game

I'd say that pure MLR and pure AMLR are both rare. Modern wingers are trained to be more versatile and cover more ground across all phases of play, so while you can make the case for interpreting them as natural AMLR in the sense that their natural tendency would be to stay forward, I don't think many can be interpreted as "pure" AMLR in the sense that they have very little or no familiarity actually playing a role that requires them to consistently track back. Few senior wide players are going to go through a professional academy and reach their mid-20s without frequently being asked to track back into a 44 or 45 block, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to have lots of "pure" AMLR in the db who, for some reason, still need the user to put them through the 6 months of positional training to get them accomplished at MLR. Aggression, Work Rate, Teamwork and Positioning are all there to be rated poorly for players who still don't put much effort into it.

I do think you can make the case that more newgens should generate as pure AMLR at 14/15 years old when they only have a few years of proper training in 11v11 positional play, but that limitation would be corrected for most players as instruction in team defending becomes more rigorous and they train for introduction into the senior team.

[swansongs]

Most AML/Rs I've come across have at least passing familiarity ratings at ML/R, and the ones that don't tend to be converted strikers moved out wide.

Even then, no familiarity in-game doesn't result in the "Ineffectual" performances the language implies. It's just a penalty to one mental attribute, softened by a player's Versatility.

If there's an issue it's in ai selection policies, which rely heavily on familiarity ratings. For players it's little more than a graphical irritation.

[Marc.Foster050]

The principles of play are always the same; a formation just gives you a different starting point for how to apply them. You're already aware of what the issue with a narrow 4231 will be: keeping the midfield balanced to protect against wide threats, so how well it will work depends mainly on how good your DLR are at defending 1v1 and how capable your MCs are at filling in gaps. The weakness is definitely there just as there are limitations to any formation, but how much it hurts you will depend on whether you have players equipped to deal with the problems that it creates. The only way to know for sure is to try it, and if big teams prove too much for it, use a back-up formation that screens your fullbacks.

After playing it last night and trying to tweak it i ended up losing 6-1 away to Utd as they just doubled up on my full backs all day and when i was attacking their two DM just marked my 3 out the game.

Think i just have to accept that its too much of a sacrifice and what i am trying to get my 3 10's to do just isn't translatable to a game yet and will need to just transfer back to a simpler way of playing. Shame as i wanted to play a certain style but it just doesn't work on a computer.