Help building my 4-1-2-3

[summatsupeer]

@Keyzer Soze 

who do you expect the IF to assist?  If he plays through the WB its likely he will cross to the CF/W.  CF is the most likely 2nd target but the CM-A and W-S are likely to far on the right to be played through.

Why ask the CF-S to move into channels when the IF will move through the channel on the left and the CM-A will likely be using the right channel with the W-S outside of it?  Why tell the CM-A to try risky passes often and to whom?  You already have IF-S, AP-S, CF-S already looking to play risky passes often and you've added a 4th of the 5 front players yet also expect him to be a main goal scorer?  I think during transition a CM-A is still more of a central midfielder, he won't be the one running behind a high defensive line (unless its a proper counter attack), he's more likely to do that in the attacking phase.  If the CM-A has played a through ball whats chances of him being on the end of a through ball himself?  Plus I think the CF-S is likely the only player who will be in a position to play him through, maybe the AP if he's drifted right, the others are likely to try something different and the left sided players probably have too many bodies in the way unless its an amazing pass.

As far as counter attacks go, i'd just keep your DM back and/or the RB.

Set pieces will obviously depend on the players assuming you've set them up adequately.

edit: ffs pushed enter and it submitted before i'd finished.

[Keyzer Soze]

@summatsupeer

Thank you so much.

It's funny, but after read your precise explanation i can help myself to think what a complete numbskull i was. In fact, many of the choices don't make much sense after your explanation.

Ok, so what if i swap the midfield duo:

 

CF(s)

IF(s)                                        W(s)

CM(a)          AP(s)

DM(s)

WB(a)    CD(d)     CD(d)      FB(s)

SK(d)

Now i have the IF(s) that can assist the CM(a), or the WB(a) when both make their forwards runs, right? In this case i would probably drop the PI to sit the IF narrower, so that the CM(a) have a little more space.

On the right side, i now have the AP(s), that (i assume) can assist for the CM(a) and the W(s), who then can cross. I now could have 3 players in the box: CF(s), CM(a) and IF(s).

And this got me thinking, that perhaps, the WB(a) on the left shouldn't be making so many crosses, so perhaps he now turns into a WB(s). And this could lead to change the right FB(s) to something more offensive to overlapp the W(s) or even a WB(a).

I'll drop the move into channels PI for the CF(s), and also the more risky passes PI for the CM(a).

So, something like this:

CF(s)

IF(s)                                        W(s)

CM(a)          AP(s)

DM(s)

WB(s)    CD(d)     CD(d)      WB(a)

SK(d)

Does this makes more sense? Or am i still completly lost here?

 

Edit:

Got me thinking you saying that... "I think during transition a CM-A is still more of a central midfielder, he won't be the one running behind a high defensive line (unless its a proper counter attack), he's more likely to do that in the attacking phase"... perhaps it unlike that the CM(s) will overlapp the CF(s). Should a use a role that sits deeper (DLF or F9), or change to a attacking role. The thing about an attaking role is that they have the "move into channels" PI by default, something that you said don't make much sense because i already have the occupy by the IF and the CM(a).

 

Edit 2:

Wait... i'm writing as i'm thinking... but now i have the IF and the CM on the same side. So the right channel could be free for the movement of, for example, the DLF(a), right?

[summatsupeer]

@Keyzer Soze haha yeah I think as I type.  You can have "well balanced" tactic due to the duties used but I think its the nuances between roles that make a tactic consistent.

It's been a while since I used a IF-S with a CM-A inside so you'll have to watch and see how they combine.  A IF will stay wider during transitions whilst the CM is narrower but then what happens if the IF dribbles inside or do they make runs in the same area in the final third?

Do you need to change the RB to be (a lot) more attacking just because you (slightly) reduced the LBs attacking?  Could the winger use that space himself or does having the WB-A overlap him offer something extra?

Looks even more open to counter attacks than your previous tactic.

Just making the forward drop deeper doesn't mean the opponents line will be higher.  I'd do one step at a time and see changing the CM sides affects the play before going further.  Why change your forward from support duty to attack duty because you want him to use the right channel?  Your not only changing his lateral movement but his vertical positioning.  Not saying this is wrong but you might need to adjust your expectations for players to make runs past him.  If your liverpool i'd prefer to have the AMR as RMD/IF-A to give an earlier threat and a target for the AP plus less crosses then have a FB/WB-S provide width later in attacks without charging to byline.

[Keyzer Soze]

@summatsupeer

Thks once again.

The thing about the IF(a), on the right, is that everytime i try to play with a IF(a) i often come to conclusion that against teams that defend and sit deep they always get too marked and don't have any real impact in the game. The RMD, i had some good experiences with that role in others saves and tactics, so i'll give it a go.

I understand your point, try to avoid making too many changes at once. Go step by step to evaluate them properly.

CF(s)

Ws)                                    RMD(a)

CM(a)          AP(s)

DM(s)

FB(s)    CD(d)     CD(d)      WB(s)

SK(d)

I'll start with this changes: IF(s) to RMD(a), both backs in support and see how it goes.

[BlairNo.1]

8 hours ago, davehibb said:

@BlairNo.1 Like Keyzer I don't see a whole lot terribly wrong with what you have set up or your thought process. It's very similar to the system I use in my BVB save, that said though, when I tried to plug and play that system into my Liverpool save, it didn't play out anywhere near as well.

I think the best thing to do is to persevere with it, watch some games on comprehensive or full highlights and see how everything comes together, how players interact, where play breaks down and where your system gets exploited by the opposition and adjust it accordingly.

Same goes for your players, do they work in the roles you are playing them? Not judging them by their suitability but by actually seeing how they perform. Are you using Salah on the right for example? I think he might struggle as a W(s) on the right as he's left footed and if memory serves, he doesn't have the cuts inside PPM. Does the W(s) have support in general, given the FB is on defend and the Mez(a) will be pushing forward? Does the W(s) have anyone to aim for in the middle with your striker being a CF who tends to roam around a lot?

My system used an AF(a) who was always in the box, always looking to break the lines and really was the focal point of the attack, with my IF(a) and MEZ(a) as secondary goalscoring threats.

Hope that helps.

If it's any consolation, in my Liverpool save, although I wont the league comfortably, I struggled to create a style I liked and was never happy how my front 3 or 4 worked together.

One other thing to try is maybe going Structured, instead of Fluid. Fluid ups players creative freedom I think and do you really wants the likes of Moreno, Lovren and Hendo overthinking things and trying to be too fancy?

Good to know that it wasn't complete rubbish I was talking then and it made some sense 😂

I did test it for a few months on FMT last night and didn't get the results I was hoping for. 

A couple of things in going to try are alternative roles for the ST and I may give the structured shape a go. Although It reduces creative freedom it also increases space between players which may impact my ability to control a game. Worth trying though  

[BlairNo.1]

8 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

I think you've still got same old issue of everyone pushing forward and wide so lack consistent threat through the middle.

Does the MEZ-A not provide any central support or will he always operate wider? 

What striker role would you be looking at to combat this? I guess the options would be DLF-A, CF-S or DLF-S

[summatsupeer]

@Keyzer Soze haha ok not exactly what I had in mind but looks good so let us know how things go.  It's basically what you had before but RMD-A instead of IF-S and WB is now S instead of A, but then mirrored.  Regarding not having much luck with IF-A, maybe the RMD fit that system or player better?  I run a very similar system and my IF-A is the top scorer with my front 3 all regular goal scorers.

1 hour ago, BlairNo.1 said:

Does the MEZ-A not provide any central support or will he always operate wider? 

What striker role would you be looking at to combat this? I guess the options would be DLF-A, CF-S or DLF-S

Move Into Channels is an instruction to move wider so will be in central areas less, if starting in MCR he's in more of the AMR/STCR area than AMC/ST area.  He may sometimes be more central, but thats not what he's instructed to typically be.

With a IF-A providing earlier runs and MEZ-A providing runs from deeper plus a Winger who will drive forward with the ball and also get in the box in the final third I would be considering CF-S or DLF-S.  I think there's a misconception that you need an attack duty to be a goal scorer but my CF-S is my 2nd highest scorer through a combination of runs behind defences, tapping in pull backs, getting on end of crosses etc.  Whilst he drops deeper and helps build attacks, he will still make runs into the box its just he isn't as focused on that element of play.  He isn't told to Hold Position or to rarely try forward runs, he just doesn't try them or stay as high as often.  I know @Cleon had a great article about making the IF-A a consistent goal scorer and used an attack duty ST to occupy the defenders but I think people overlook that plain old simple AM-S sat in the hole behind them, a CM-S or MEZ won't really sit in the hole.

[BlairNo.1]

4 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

@Keyzer Soze haha ok not exactly what I had in mind but looks good so let us know how things go.  It's basically what you had before but RMD-A instead of IF-S and WB is now S instead of A, but then mirrored.  Regarding not having much luck with IF-A, maybe the RMD fit that system or player better?  I run a very similar system and my IF-A is the top scorer with my front 3 all regular goal scorers.

Move Into Channels is an instruction to move wider so will be in central areas less, if starting in MCR he's in more of the AMR/STCR area than AMC/ST area.  He may sometimes be more central, but thats not what he's instructed to typically be.

With a IF-A providing earlier runs and MEZ-A providing runs from deeper plus a Winger who will drive forward with the ball and also get in the box in the final third I would be considering CF-S or DLF-S.  I think there's a misconception that you need an attack duty to be a goal scorer but my CF-S is my 2nd highest scorer through a combination of runs behind defences, tapping in pull backs, getting on end of crosses etc.  Whilst he drops deeper and helps build attacks, he will still make runs into the box its just he isn't as focused on that element of play.  He isn't told to Hold Position or to rarely try forward runs, he just doesn't try them or stay as high as often.  I know @Cleon had a great article about making the IF-A a consistent goal scorer and used an attack duty ST to occupy the defenders but I think people overlook that plain old simple AM-S sat in the hole behind them, a CM-S or MEZ won't really sit in the hole.

Thanks @summatsupeer. I'm just in the process of testing DLF-A, CF-S and DLF-S to see what the results are like. Upto now the DLF-A seems pretty steady. Once the team have had a good run I'll load a save on the full version and test it more in real time to see how I get on.

I've actually changed my DR to a FB-S also to give the W-S a bit more assistance.

With the shape I'm using would you be looking to play a wider game or more balanced? My thinking behind the play wider was to create bigger gaps between the opposition players but I don't want my players to end up too far apart that they can't play a simple pass.

[RCCook]

After much tinkering, finally got a functioning 4-1-2-3. I'd noticed when looking at the team report, that we were lacking in some of the mental attributes, so thought it might be a good idea to switch team shapes from Flexible to Structured. That, plus switching the flank attackers from an IF-A and W-S to IF-S and W-A, seems to have done the trick. The team is playing much smarter football, and we've won 6 of our last 8, including a 4-2 thumping of Real Madrid in the Copa del Rey!  

[Keyzer Soze]

20 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

I know @Cleon had a great article about making the IF-A a consistent goal scorer and used an attack duty ST to occupy the defenders but I think people overlook that plain old simple AM-S sat in the hole behind them, a CM-S or MEZ won't really sit in the hole.

This is something that i'm curious, and would like to know how to built: a 4123 Wide DM formation that in attack will turn into a 4231 Wide formation.

I always thought that the best way was using the CM(a) so that in attack he would occupy the AMC space.

[summatsupeer]

16 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

This is something that i'm curious, and would like to know how to built: a 4123 Wide DM formation that in attack will turn into a 4231 Wide formation.

I always thought that the best way was using the CM(a) so that in attack he would occupy the AMC space.

CM-A would move into a similar area but he's higher risk and will try more forward runs.

Whatever you do it won't be exactly the same since your in a 1-2 shape instead of 2-1 so each CM will favour 1 side.  A CM-S is probably the nearest but he starts deeper so the movement patterns will be different.  I use a AP-A in MCL currently and whilst he does move around for the majority of moves he doesn't play exactly like he would if he was in AMC even though its the same role+duty.

Its these kind of nuances that can make a tactic more consistent and require analysis.  Taking parts from one system and plugging them into another will have differences.

[vasilli07]

To revisit this formation, I went back to play FM17 on Sat and then use the same set up to play 18 on Sun.

Role - PIs

GK - distribute to CBs

DR - stay wide

DCs

DL(A) - stay wide. run wide with ball

DLP(D)/HB (when playing against 2 or 3 strikers)/DLP(S) when playing against the likes of 2DMs or deep formation

CMR - shoot less often, close down more

CML(A) - roam from position, shoot less often, close down more

IFR(A) - shoot less often, close down much more

IFL - shoot less often, close down much more

DF - shoot less often, move in channels

 

TIs - Flexible, standard, shorter passing, wbib, dribble less

 

The possession is still high for both versions but the attacking third is just not as fluid in FM18. In FM17, Felipe Anderson as the IFR (even with his dreadful shoot from distance PPM) was playing great and was my top creator. In FM18, Salah (better player with better attributes) took that role and is really inconsistent.

 

 

 

 

[YasoKuul]

I created two nice 4-1-2-3 possession based tactics for FM18. The setup for both is:

               DLF(a)
IF(s)                         AP(s)                        
     BBM(s)     AP(s)    
               DM(d)
FB(a) BPD(c) CD(d) WB(s)
               G(d)

The more attacking tactic uses Control + Structured and TI retain possession. The more defensive tactic uses Counter + Structured and TI retain possession, play wider, higher tempo.

[Thengil]

What I like to do is not have my fullbacks on any attack duty as this tells them to always look for the cross. I find that behavior annoying as they imho will waste possession too often by heading towards the byline even when the opposition has two players on them, try to put in a cross that more often than not gets blocked. So, I have my fullbacks on Fullback(Support) which then gives me the option of setting Cross Less Often and Get Further Forward. They will still cross the ball when the opportunity is good, but when it's not they recycle the ball by passing it centrally to a teammate. Much more efficient use of the ball for me.

[bruffell06]

Im struggling myself to get a solid base for a 4-1-2-3. 

My current set up is 

                 DLF (A)

AP (S)                          IF (A)

          Mez (S) Cm (S)

                 Dm (D)

Wb (A) CD (D) CD (D) WB (S)

                    GK (D)

Standard

Flexible

TI's - play out of defense, work into box, close down more and slightly higher.

My IF (Salah) and DLF (Firmino) regularly get low ratings and seem hardly involved. I'm generally happy with how the rest of my team are performing. Coutinho comes narrow with the mez going wide to create space for him and the WB overlapping creates good overloads down that side.  Coutinhl is running at the defense but his options for balls seem rather limited. Perhaps due to Salah's PPM try to beat the offside trap? 

[summatsupeer]

1 hour ago, bruffell06 said:

My IF (Salah) and DLF (Firmino) regularly get low ratings and seem hardly involved. 

This has been discussed already, pretty much the same setup.

Your AP on the left flank will see more of the ball so what's your plan to get the wide forward on the opposite flank a good chance?  Especially when you've given the AP a MEz and WB-A as closer targets.

[bruffell06]

1 hour ago, summatsupeer said:

This has been discussed already, pretty much the same setup.

Your AP on the left flank will see more of the ball so what's your plan to get the wide forward on the opposite flank a good chance?  Especially when you've given the AP a MEz and WB-A as closer targets.

Having wrote it out I can see that a bit better now. So perhaps dropping the forward to a support duty and having having him a little bit deeper offering an option for my AP and in turn creating space for my IF?

[Keyzer Soze]

I've been working in a new version of my 4123... yes... a another version!! 

This time i took a different aproach. Untill now i always try to balance the duties of my advanced players, so that the 4 players from the midfield and attacking midfield would have a Attack-Support-Attack Support pattern, or something in the line. For example, something like this:

W(s)                          IF (a)

CM(a)       AP(s)

This time, i went with a different aproach, trying on one flank more support roles, in a matter that they would contribute more to the build play, and on the other flank more attacking roles, to try to create a overload in the area to take advantage of the built play that is created on the other flank.

So i went with something like this:

DLF(a)

IF(s)                            Raum(a)

AP(s)       CM(a)

DM(d)

WB(a)     CD(d)      CD(d)     FB(s)

SK(d)

The basic idea is that the IF(s) and AP(s), with attacking support of the WB(a), will start the large majority of my attacking play, with the ball drifting more for the left side because of the AP(s) position. Then, with the DLF(a) occupying the opponent central defenders, i will have two players getting in the box, one more central, and the other on the right channel.

Only tested for 3 games, got 3 wins, with both the CM and the Raum scoring 2 goals untill now.