Weakness of tactics against a 4-4-2/4-2-3-1?

[Bunkerossian]

Is there anything in the first tactic which would create an inherent weakness to the 4-4-2 formation? The second tactic had issues against 4-2-3-1. The teams using these were amongst the better ones in the league. I always struggle against these teams.

[jc577]

I wouldn’t say any formation has an inherent weakness against another, yes there are things that can be exploited but tweaks can be done to minimise them.

However, with the roles & duties you’ve selected in the first tactic, i’m not surprised you’re struggling against the 442. Both fullbacks get further forward, which is fine, but your midfield isn’t set up to give them adequate cover. The Mezala will wonder about, pushing into the AMC strata, which means you’ll be very vulnerable to counter attacks & fast transitions, which is a strength of the 442 due to the presence of 2 strikers. 

I’d have a read of Cleon’s 4231 guide if you haven’t already. 

[Armistice]

You have an AP, two IFs and a Mezalla sharing the same space.

[summatsupeer]

An opponents defensive formation won't dictate how he attacks, in both tactics you have space on the flanks between the wide players which if exploited could isolate your FBs.  Your also committing too many players forward into similar areas so reducing options due to lack of depth and potentially opening yourself to counter attacks due to lack of cover.

The 4231 has both FB's getting forward, plus the MEZ when you already have two wide forwards (IF-S) and a AMC+ST.  Attack wise I don't think the MEZ adds anything, there's unlikely to be space for his runs when the IF-S + CF-A follow there instructions.  Thats leaving just the CM-D and 2xCBs to cover the width of the field and 442 is strongest on the flanks.

The second has the same potential issue with a single pivot but both FBs get forward.  I'm not sure why you have a AP-A, he's looking to take risks with the ball but his main target is a DLF-A?  Two IF-S also looking to vary there play plus a MEZ-S moving high and into channel but i'd rather than someone staying more central nearer the lone ST and leave channel to the IF-S.

[Bunkerossian]

2 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

An opponents defensive formation won't dictate how he attacks, in both tactics you have space on the flanks between the wide players which if exploited could isolate your FBs.  Your also committing too many players forward into similar areas so reducing options due to lack of depth and potentially opening yourself to counter attacks due to lack of cover.

The 4231 has both FB's getting forward, plus the MEZ when you already have two wide forwards (IF-S) and a AMC+ST.  Attack wise I don't think the MEZ adds anything, there's unlikely to be space for his runs when the IF-S + CF-A follow there instructions.  Thats leaving just the CM-D and 2xCBs to cover the width of the field and 442 is strongest on the flanks.

The second has the same potential issue with a single pivot but both FBs get forward.  I'm not sure why you have a AP-A, he's looking to take risks with the ball but his main target is a DLF-A?  Two IF-S also looking to vary there play plus a MEZ-S moving high and into channel but i'd rather than someone staying more central nearer the lone ST and leave channel to the IF-S.

Regarding the 4-2-3-1- how does a RPM act in defense, compared to a Mezz'ala? The players which I was using for the MEZ role can also do a good job as RPMs.

The 4-1-2-2-1 had a variant initially where the MCL is a CM-At. Due to the fitness levels of some players and the attributes of the ones who were used as rotation, I used an AP-At role. In most games, things went well. Would a CM-At do better against tougher domestic teams?

[herne79]

10 hours ago, Bunkerossian said:

Regarding the 4-2-3-1- how does a RPM act in defense, compared to a Mezz'ala?

In the same manner, unless they have a PI or Trait which tells them to act differently - such as different amounts of pressing or diving into tackles for example.  One may get caught out a bit higher up the pitch than the other when you lose possession, but that's more about transitions than actual defending.

Questions for you - why do want an RPM (or a mezz for that matter) in your 4231?  What does an RPM (or mezz) do?

And - what's key for a 4231?

Spoiler

 

[Bunkerossian]

10 hours ago, herne79 said:

In the same manner, unless they have a PI or Trait which tells them to act differently - such as different amounts of pressing or diving into tackles for example.  One may get caught out a bit higher up the pitch than the other when you lose possession, but that's more about transitions than actual defending.

Questions for you - why do want an RPM (or a mezz for that matter) in your 4231?  What does an RPM (or mezz) do?

And - what's key for a 4231?

  Hide contents

 

To be honest, those 2 roles are the ones that certain high-ranking midfielders play best according to the role suitability feature. I only have 2 midfield destroyers of sorts, and the rest are more creative midfielders. The more creative ones aren't great tacklers, even if they have an engine in them. Against  most teams domestically, there's no issue. Aberdeen (4231) and Rangers(442) trouble me.

[summatsupeer]

The players might be good at those roles but does those roles combine well with the other roles around it in the tactic?

You have a CF, two IF and a AP, thats 4 players looking to create (risky passes often), 3 dribbling often and all 4 will be in or around the box in the final third.  Width comes from your FBs so what do you need the CM pair to do?  Is adding another body into the box or creating going to add much with so many bodies and risks being taken already?  This is why CM-D + DLP-S is one of the most common combinations, creating a double pivot to cover the width of the pitch better than 1 holding player can to cover the FBs better but also getting some creativity rather than having two "destroyers".  Sure against weaker teams the "creative" CM could be a more attacking player but the role should still fit with those around it and against stronger teams in the league or Europe they'll need to help with the defensive side more.

Consider what a DLP-S does compared to a RPM or MEZ?  Not only what they add but what do you lose?

[Bunkerossian]

1 hour ago, summatsupeer said:

The players might be good at those roles but does those roles combine well with the other roles around it in the tactic?

You have a CF, two IF and a AP, thats 4 players looking to create (risky passes often), 3 dribbling often and all 4 will be in or around the box in the final third.  Width comes from your FBs so what do you need the CM pair to do?  Is adding another body into the box or creating going to add much with so many bodies and risks being taken already?  This is why CM-D + DLP-S is one of the most common combinations, creating a double pivot to cover the width of the pitch better than 1 holding player can to cover the FBs better but also getting some creativity rather than having two "destroyers".  Sure against weaker teams the "creative" CM could be a more attacking player but the role should still fit with those around it and against stronger teams in the league or Europe they'll need to help with the defensive side more.

Consider what a DLP-S does compared to a RPM or MEZ?  Not only what they add but what do you lose?

I already use a DLP-D when the main destroyer isn't playing, since the other option is a tall, clever player who can use his physique to do defensive work. His tackling ain't perfect. I only have 1 player with great tackling, in the midfield.

The 4-2-3-1 has a variant, which I should've mentioned, where the right flank goes like this: WB-D and a W-S. It involves different players, and the WB-D was sold, by the time I made the thread. The new player isn't yet as good defensively as that WB-D was, but is much faster.