Creating movement with a 4-1-4-1

[djpdavey]

I've observed that a lot of tactic threads have answers on the lines of "not enough movement" this is an area of the game I myself struggle with.

I want to know if you think there if enough movement here. I really want to see if I've got the right idea.

My Idea is that the DLF(A) will drag players and the CM(A) will get into the space behind. The WML will cut inside and the FBL(A) will overlap. The RW(A) & LFB(A) will double team the opposing full back. I've left the LCM(S) s as support as to not congest the area with the WML cutting in ahead.

This is a Vanarama South team.

Fluid, Standard.

One TI' = Workball into box.

The only PI is the WML to Cut inside with the ball.

Please ignore the player suitability has haven't swapped the roles around.

Insert existing attachment

[Rashidi]

Tbh not really. The DLF is probably the wrong role unless your team is so good that he can do  lot on his own. Then you have the right side which is very attacking but entirely dependant on the two on the right.

Personally I would use a DF here who doesn’t look forward but back,lays off simple passes to the midfielder by turning his back and playing with his back to goal. Now it becomes a function of off the ball and whether the rest have the workrate. 

Finally because of the W(A) attacking space it may be worth considering a playmaker in the middle to dictate tempo and passing and also to look at switching play. 

[djpdavey]

6 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Tbh not really. The DLF is probably the wrong role unless your team is so good that he can do  lot on his own. Then you have the right side which is very attacking but entirely dependant on the two on the right.

Personally I would use a DF here who doesn’t look forward but back,lays off simple passes to the midfielder by turning his back and playing with his back to goal. Now it becomes a function of off the ball and whether the rest have the workrate. 

Finally because of the W(A) attacking space it may be worth considering a playmaker in the middle to dictate tempo and passing and also to look at switching play. 

Thanks for the reply. Instead of the CM(S)? I presume not instead of the CM(A) who should attack the space behind the forward. @Rashidi

[summatsupeer]

11 hours ago, djpdavey said:

I've observed that a lot of tactic threads have answers on the lines of "not enough movement" this is an area of the game I myself struggle with.

I think i've been saying this a lot recently, but also the opposite.  Basically I look at the formation, roles & duties firstly to see what movement and combinations are being created.  Then I look at the instructions to see if the ball movement fits the movements and the pressing plan fits the formation and how the players move.

With regards to your tactic specifically I agree with Rashidi about the lone forward, he would have to hold up the ball very well and the midfield would have to be very quick with the drive to get forward and help him.  W-A stays wide so the FB-A is unlikely to have space to overlap until the winger tucks inside to be more of goal threat in the final third.  With a CM-A inside of the W-A i'd probably just make him a FB-S who will provide width in final third but can also cover the two attackers more often.  Maybe ask him to Sit Narrower to and if he's good at passing (for level playing at) get him to play risk passes and/or direct to feed the attackers in front of him.

[djpdavey]

Quote

I agree with Rashidi about the lone forward, he would have to hold up the ball very well and the midfield would have to be very quick with the drive to get forward and help him.

Are you talking about the DLF or DF or both roles?

Are there any other recommendations for movement in this formation?

[westy8chimp]

There's some debate that the F9 doesn't drop deep enough... I actually found it was a good role for coming deep and leaving space behind, thatd be one to consider.

I'd also prefer my DM to support -> as you break forward the CM-a W-a DLF-a will push forward, CM-s will be the only player offering the safe pass to recycle possession, WM-s will be wide which is often a risky pass, even on support duty. DM just hovering 10-15 yards behind play could increase your possession, but more importantly keep the ball moving instead of aimless long shots when the CM-a or DLF-a lack options.

[summatsupeer]

47 minutes ago, djpdavey said:

Are you talking about the DLF or DF or both roles? 

Are there any other recommendations for movement in this formation?

Was talking about how your current DLF-A would have to do an exceptional job due to distance between him and teammates. I think a DLF-S would be a good start or DF though he might end up pressuring on his own and tire as the game goes on.

The formation is just the defensive shape, how you want players to move depends how you want to attack.  What your formation will affect is how you pressure, 4141 covers it's deep areas but gives space in front of midfield, hence pressing high is harder since so much space.  Push too high on fluid shapes and you might make it easy for direct balls over you due to lack of pressure on the ball high up the pitch with only a lone forward high. it is hard to play through unless you try to press too much individually and leave gaps.

[djpdavey]

How would you adjust the system when faced with a DM or 2 DM's formation. I assume the  Forward movement would almost be nullified? Would I be completely dependant on my wing movement or is there a change I'd have to make? @summatsupeer @Rashidi @westy8chimp

[westy8chimp]

If you are facing a team with 2DMs they are unlikely to also have 2CMs, so you will dominate the ball in the centre. This is where Rashidis advice of using a playmaker would be even more useful. If they pack the middle, you want a playmaker pinging the ball into wide space.

In that case I'd change my striker to a more progressive role looking to push the opposition D-Line i.e. CF/AF/Poacher

 

[Gegenklaus]

4 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

Was talking about how your current DLF-A would have to do an exceptional job due to distance between him and teammates. I think a DLF-S would be a good start or DF though he might end up pressuring on his own and tire as the game goes on.

The formation is just the defensive shape, how you want players to move depends how you want to attack.  What your formation will affect is how you pressure, 4141 covers it's deep areas but gives space in front of midfield, hence pressing high is harder since so much space.  Push too high on fluid shapes and you might make it easy for direct balls over you due to lack of pressure on the ball high up the pitch with only a lone forward high. it is hard to play through unless you try to press too much individually and leave gaps.

I just want to say that you can press high with a 4-1-4-1. I’ve done it on several saves by either pushing the mentality or D-line. And I’ve done it on fluid shape. I see the midfielders go high into the final third and the team follows and I really like the 4-1-4-1 for high pressing as the whole team is quite compact. You are vulnerable for balls over the top - so you might need the right personel - aka fast defenders/intelligent defenders. 

My point being that everything is relative.

[b101]

Two bits of advice that are great in here, but might have slipped under the radar are:

1) Putting the DM on a simple DM (support) role as @westy8chimp said - he'll already be defensive due to starting position, but offers a great out ball that stops the standard issue where the attack is breaking down and someone just spanks one from long range.

2) You don't need your striker on attack by default. I only tend to do it when there opposition are sitting deep as it then occupies the centre backs. CF (s) is also a very good role when well supported. Gives the player lots of options  

[summatsupeer]

5 hours ago, Gegenklaus said:

I just want to say that you can press high with a 4-1-4-1. I’ve done it on several saves by either pushing the mentality or D-line. And I’ve done it on fluid shape. I see the midfielders go high into the final third and the team follows and I really like the 4-1-4-1 for high pressing as the whole team is quite compact. You are vulnerable for balls over the top - so you might need the right personel - aka fast defenders/intelligent defenders. 

My point being that everything is relative.

I was very careful to avoid saying you can't press in a 4141 since I agree that you can if you have the players, especially in midfield to press and consolidate back to there deeper positions rather than a AML/AMC/AMR would stay in that higher position and save energy until its too risky and he decides to get back and help.

[Gegenklaus]

1 hour ago, summatsupeer said:

I was very careful to avoid saying you can't press in a 4141 since I agree that you can if you have the players, especially in midfield to press and consolidate back to there deeper positions rather than a AML/AMC/AMR would stay in that higher position and save energy until its too risky and he decides to get back and help.

And you are completely right, of course. And your thoughts and advice are also very true.

[djpdavey]

Seeing as this formation is defensive I presume most of you would play on Control/Attacking.

One note, trying this out in preseason friendlies, and the CM(A) role seems to get beyond the forward more often than the AP role. This might be because of my Team Cohesionas  I have had to make a lot of signings for the coming season due to the clubs poor stature.

I will continue training the tactic with the AP in the mean time.

[summatsupeer]

2 hours ago, djpdavey said:

Seeing as this formation is defensive I presume most of you would play on Control/Attacking.

Why is it defensive?

Just because a tactic has cover & shielding shouldn't affect the mentality you use.  The mentality you use should fit your overall plan (attack+defence).

If you use a W-S in MR its just like him in AMR for pretty much all but the defensive phase and transitioning into the attacking since he starts and consolidates deeper.  That doesn't mean you need to make the team more attacking to get him to attack.

2 hours ago, djpdavey said:

One note, trying this out in preseason friendlies, and the CM(A) role seems to get beyond the forward more often than the AP role. This might be because of my Team Cohesionas  I have had to make a lot of signings for the coming season due to the clubs poor stature.

I'm a little confused, are you comparing two roles used in the same tactic or swapping a single role around?

Your using CM-S and AP-? Or AP-? and CM-A?

[djpdavey]

6 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

I'm a little confused, are you comparing two roles used in the same tactic or swapping a single role around?

Your using CM-S and AP-? Or AP-? and CM-A?

I meant changing the AP to a CM-A in game

[Robson 07]

On ‎28‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 22:00, djpdavey said:

Seeing as this formation is defensive I presume most of you would play on Control/Attacking.

Not saying to abandon playing on control nut I'm not sure that I follow the logic of that statement.

Don't think you need an attack fullback behind an attack winger.

Regards the striker I would simply be looking for roles that hold the ball up and wait for support.

I like you having an attacking midfielder.  So if you use that playmaker I have the CMA on centre-left and support playmaker centre-right.

[djpdavey]

8 hours ago, Robson 07 said:

Not saying to abandon playing on control nut I'm not sure that I follow the logic of that statement.

Don't think you need an attack fullback behind an attack winger.

Regards the striker I would simply be looking for roles that hold the ball up and wait for support.

I like you having an attacking midfielder.  So if you use that playmaker I have the CMA on centre-left and support playmaker centre-right.

I found that the FB on the right was not overlapping quickly enough so he's now a WB(A) and the other FB is now a WB on (S/D). I have also found that an F9 is closer to the midfield and roams in better places.

Started changing the DM to DLP depending on if he's closing down too much and vacating his position. The DM/DLP (D) becomes (s) if we have the numbers advantage in the middle. If the Opposition has a DM the F9 becomes a DF(S) or a DLF(S)

One problem that is evident at the moment is that there is space but we don't seem to be able to exploit it. The team need time to catch up with the forward to be able to get near the goal. If I add prevent GK short distr..... the whole team is closer to the goal and this is a little easier but not experimented enough with this to see if the team suffers defensively.

I am also contemplating pushing the CM(A) into a SS role to see if he can get behind the Forward more. Not sure if the WM cutting in is going to close the space he leaves what do you think?

[djpdavey]

I played Spennymoor at home second game of the season who was playing a 4-2-3-1 (2DM) (Strikerless). They had no penetration. I think they had one shot on target from a free kick all else outside the area.

For this one I put both WB's on attack and put the WM's on attack and told them to sit narrower and run inside like IF's and it ended up looking like 3 strikers when they got to the box. Was really funny.

[djpdavey]

Defensively very good so far. 

[Robson 07]

On ‎30‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 08:29, djpdavey said:

The team need time to catch up with the forward to be able to get near the goal.

This why I said you needed a forward role that holds up the ball.  The F9 to mind is nothing more than an auxiliary midfielder.  You have enough in that department and you aren't scoring many.

On ‎30‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 08:29, djpdavey said:

I found that the FB on the right was not overlapping quickly enough so he's now a WB(A) and the other FB is now a WB on (S/D). I have also found that an F9 is closer to the midfield and roams in better places.

Started changing the DM to DLP depending on if he's closing down too much and vacating his position. The DM/DLP (D) becomes (s) if we have the numbers advantage in the middle. If the Opposition has a DM the F9 becomes a DF(S) or a DLF(S)

You've made your fullbacks more aggressive by the sound of it but you don't want your DM to vacate his position and cover them?

 

[djpdavey]

Quote

This why I said you needed a forward role that holds up the ball.  The F9 to mind is nothing more than an auxiliary midfielder.  You have enough in that department and you aren't scoring many.

 Bearing in mind I'm in Vanarama North, the forwards available to this league normally only familiar with DF, DLF, TM & AF roles. I am already playing in F9 do you think more of a CF role?

Quote

You've made your fullbacks more aggressive by the sound of it but you don't want your DM to vacate his position and cover them?

I am trying to stop teams from pulling my CB out but I'm not sure its the DM coverage stopping us getting forward?

[Robson 07]

It's not the most popular role, it may not work, but I would honestly try the target man role.  You should hopefully have players that fit the profile at that level and quite literally I think you want a big strong forward that can hold the ball up until the midfield arrives.

[BMNJohn]

On 03/09/2018 at 19:54, Robson 07 said:

It's not the most popular role, it may not work, but I would honestly try the target man role.  You should hopefully have players that fit the profile at that level and quite literally I think you want a big strong forward that can hold the ball up until the midfield arrives.

I also favour a 4-1-4-1. The problem is that they attracts hoofs. That said, even AFs attract hoofs into space... I usually prefer CF(S), even if FM says the player is completely impotent at that. In my experience, DF doesn't attract as many hoofs as other roles, but obviously it's also a more conservative striker. The option to use a SS instead of an actual striker also is worth considering. It's a tough formation to balance properly... Personally, I've used instructions such as Run at Defence and Roam from Position, which does create space for other players by attracting the opposition to the running player. Too bad the running player tends to want to finish by a shot instead of playing in his other team mates. Playing wider also helps finding space more intelligently than simply Passing Into Space. However, I do not have one cookie-cutting answer despite trying quite a few things; often being frustrated by the quality of play despite getting the results I want... which basically means 1-0 wins and wasting bottle loads of chances. The players aren't good in such divisions after all.

[Experienced Defender]

Given that I don't know your players and what they can or can't do, take the following idea with a degree of reserve. A 4-1-4-1 with the structured shape is what I would try first. Roles & duties could go this way:

DLF(s)

 

WM(s)   BtBM   DLP(s)   (I)W(a)

DM(d)

FB(a)   DC(d)   DC(d)    WB(s)

Of course, variations are always possible.