4-4-2, critique and advice please.

[daveb653]

Ok, here goes. End of the first season, I won the league with Man Utd.

 I didn't score all that many goals and it was using a 4-1-2-3 or 4-2-3-1 for most of the season.

So my aims for this season: 

• Create a tactic that makes my striker the main goal scorer. 
• No 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-2-3 (its all i've played on FM)
• No 3 at the back system, I have good Fullbacks/wingers so I want to use them.

This left me with so version of 4-4-2/4-1-4-1/4-4-1-1. I discarded 4-1-4-1 (for the time being at least) as I have some good AM/ST options coming through.

So............. I went for 4-4-2, kind of inspired by Fergie (I am managing Man Utd after all).

How does this look in terms of balance/roles and instructions?

 

 

I'm unsure about the RPM, I'm thinking maybe he will roam to much and leave me short in an already short midfield? So maybe a dlp(s) or even another cm(s) would be better?

 

The other role I'm unsure of is the F9, will he drop too deep?

What do I expect from this setup? 

• I expect my poacher to be my main scorer, finishing moves off and picking up any sniffs/rebounds bad back passes etc.
• The F9 will still get a fair sure of goals but he should be my foil, he drops and gives defenders decisions to make.
• Main creators will be the RPM and WM, I have him set up as a WP with PI's but with cross more.
• The winger will be more of a goal threat whilst still providing assists (I expect him to score more than the WM but assist less)
• The right Fullback will assist more and overlap more whilst the Left fullback will give passing options rather than bombing down the wing.

Do these roles and instructions complement what I'm trying to acheive? What could be changed/improved (and why) this is my first real self built tactic, I have made other but lent heavily on other tactics and simply adjusted them (very slightly) for my players.

I know I could have used other duties, eg Right fullback on attack, but I've been reading @Ö-zil to the Arsenal! articles (hoping you stay) and Im trying to stay fluid in shape and keep a compact shape to give some nice passing combos and compact defensive shape. Also means individual player mentalities aren't Very attacking, so i used overlap and PI's to (hopefully) acheive some good overlapping play.

[3LionsFM]

Here's my 442 I'm using with a fictional London City steam workshop team with a squad full of wonderkids. Currently in Vanarama League South.

Mentality - Positive

Team Instructions

Wide and Slighly higher tempo (part of mentaliy.)

Higher DL

Distribute to FBs 

Tactics

AF(a) DLF(s)

WM(s) CM(s) CM(d) WM(a)

FB(a) CD(d) CD(d) FB(s) 

GK(d)

I am storming an admittedly easy league with the caveat of having a relatively strong team. 14 games won. 1 draw so far. 

Edited June 4, 2020 by 3LionsFM
better clarity

[Experienced Defender]

8 hours ago, daveb653 said:

 

 

8 hours ago, daveb653 said:

How does this look in terms of balance/roles and instructions?

Honestly, I personally don't like it. But I would nevertheless encourage you to test the tactic first and see if it works or not. Maybe the quality of your players can compensate for tactical imbalance and lack of clarity about the style of play. 

 

8 hours ago, daveb653 said:

So my aims for this season: 

• Create a tactic that makes my striker the main goal scorer. 
• No 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-2-3 (its all i've played on FM)
• No 3 at the back system, I have good Fullbacks/wingers so I want to use them.

This left me with so version of 4-4-2/4-1-4-1/4-4-1-1. I discarded 4-1-4-1 (for the time being at least) as I have some good AM/ST options coming through.

So............. I went for 4-4-2

Have you maybe thought about the wide 442 diamond?

[daveb653]

10 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

Honestly, I personally don't like it. But I would nevertheless encourage you to test the tactic first and see if it works or not. Maybe the quality of your players can compensate for tactical imbalance and lack of clarity about the style of play. 

 

Have you maybe thought about the wide 442 diamond?

@Experienced Defender If possible could you tell me why you don't like it and what you would change? It's made with a rough idea of what i want players to do in each role, but my interpretation of roles maybe some way off.

I considered a couple of other formations, but honestly never a 442 wide diamond as I have an abundance of Central midfield talent (although Pogba has just handed in a transfer request).  The others I considered were 442 with 2 dm, 4141 and 4411. But i discounted each one for varying reasons, again maybe wrongly   

[daveb653]

11 hours ago, 3LionsFM said:

Here's my 442 I'm using with a fictional London City steam workshop team with a squad full of wonderkids. Currently in Vanarama League South.

Mentality - Positive

Team Instructions

Wide and Slighly higher tempo (part of mentaliy.)

Higher DL

Distribute to FBs 

Tactics

AF(a) DLF(s)

WM(s) CM(s) CM(d) WM(a)

FB(a) CD(d) CD(d) FB(s) 

GK(d)

I am storming an admittedly easy league with the caveat of having a relatively strong team. 14 games won. 1 draw so far. 

I almost made exactly the the same roles, (but LW was always a winger) but the guy I want to use as the "second" striker wasn't suited at all to DLF, so had to choose to dropping him into AM slot or making him a treq or F9. My main worry with the CM(d) was he would sit to deep and split my midfield, which may already have its work cut out against common formations. I'm not entirely sure if there's any difference at all other than individual mentality but i made my CM(s) a pseudo defensive duty by adding hold position and less risky play.

 

How do you find the AF? It was a toss up between that and poacher but I wanted my "main" striker to stay central and found in other formations my AF tended to drift out wide alot.

[daveb653]

 

Made a couple of changes after watching a game, felt we gave up to much time on the ball between my mid and defence, now I fear we wont have alot of support for the strikers, also changed a few instructions, how does this look now?

This brought me to another question, if you play with a DM (not the role just a player in the DM  slot) does it push the defence lower or midfield higher or does he just slot right between? 

Just thinking if this current iteration doesn't work I may have to think about 4-1-4-1 or 4-4-1-1. I guess I am a little concerned that my midfield is going to struggle constantly as most team play with 3 in midfield.

Ideally i want to turn this into a long term tactic to build my team on. I still want 4-4-2 (or 4-4-2DM) if its viable but as long as my striker is my main scorer and I can play with a flat 4 in mid field then I dont mind dropping a striker in favour of an AM or DM if it brings better balance.

@Experienced Defender What benefit does wide diamond midfield bring for you to ask if I had tried it?

[just_joe]

It's not too bad. I would:

• P-At --> AF-At (to create more chances)
• CM-De --> CM-Su
• DLP-Su --> DLP-De (to better balance central midfield and link better with the forward line)

Lower line of engagement doesn't really match with your high level of pressing - set it to at least standard. 
Work ball into box also doesn't really match with your attacking style. In actual fact, I'd set shoot on sight to counteract the default player instructions that are set for some of those roles.

Doing that makes it quite a risky tactic in possession however, which would probably mean you start giving the ball away too easily, so then I'd set shorter passing or a lower tempo to help you keep hold of the ball.

Hope that helps!

 

[daveb653]

6 minutes ago, just_joe said:

It's not too bad. I would:

• P-At --> AF-At (to create more chances)
• CM-De --> CM-Su
• DLP-Su --> DLP-De (to better balance central midfield and link better with the forward line)

Lower line of engagement doesn't really match with your high level of pressing - set it to at least standard. 
Work ball into box also doesn't really match with your attacking style. In actual fact, I'd set shoot on sight to counteract the default player instructions that are set for some of those roles.

Doing that makes it quite a risky tactic in possession however, which would probably mean you start giving the ball away too easily, so then I'd set shorter passing or a lower tempo to help you keep hold of the ball.

Hope that helps!

 

Thanks @just_joe  The Lower line is only used to keep the team compact, so I'll move it up and see how it goes.

Why the swap of the defend and support duties? just curious to your reasoning  

[just_joe]

Best of luck! 

Both the CM-de and the DLP-su will hold position (it's a default PI for both). If you have a CM-su and a DLP-de, then the CM-su will push forward and join the attack :-)

[daveb653]

15 minutes ago, just_joe said:

Best of luck! 

Both the CM-de and the DLP-su will hold position (it's a default PI for both). If you have a CM-su and a DLP-de, then the CM-su will push forward and join the attack :-)

Makes sense  Thanks for that hehe

[Experienced Defender]

12 hours ago, daveb653 said:

@Experienced Defender If possible could you tell me why you don't like

Well, I already told you in my first comment: 

22 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Maybe the quality of your players can compensate for tactical imbalance and lack of clarity about the style of play

 

12 hours ago, daveb653 said:

and what you would change?

It depends on the style of play you want to implement. There are some instructions that point to a counter-attacking style - which btw may not really work for a top team like Utd - but then some other elements of your tactic run counter to it. Therefore, you first need to clearly define your style of football and also to know the exact reason why you want to play that particular style. 

[daveb653]

6 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Well, I already told you in my first comment: 

 

It depends on the style of play you want to implement. There are some instructions that point to a counter-attacking style - which btw may not really work for a top team like Utd - but then some other elements of your tactic run counter to it. Therefore, you first need to clearly define your style of football and also to know the exact reason why you want to play that particular style. 

@Experienced Defender I made some changes, mind taking a look, its 3 or 4 posts above this. I'm not looking to play Counter attacking par se, just counter if the opportunity arises. My aim is to be defensively solid, whilst playing fairly direct (not possession for the sake of it)  attacking football. If that makes sense? 

[Experienced Defender]

4 hours ago, daveb653 said:

@Experienced Defender What benefit does wide diamond midfield bring for you to ask if I had tried it?

I did not ask if you had tried it, but whether you perhaps thought about it. My question was in relation to your following statement: 

 

On 04/06/2020 at 14:47, daveb653 said:

So my aims for this season: 

• Create a tactic that makes my striker the main goal scorer. 
• No 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-2-3 (its all i've played on FM)
• No 3 at the back system, I have good Fullbacks/wingers so I want to use them.

This left me with so version of 4-4-2/4-1-4-1/4-4-1-1. I discarded 4-1-4-1 (for the time being at least) as I have some good AM/ST options coming through

I believe that for a top team such as man Utd, the wide diamond version of 442 would make more sense than a standard flat 442, because it can allow you to be more adventurous with your style of play.

[daveb653]

6 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

I did not ask if you had tried it, but whether you perhaps thought about it. My question was in relation to your following statement: 

 

I believe that for a top team such as man Utd, the wide diamond version of 442 would make more sense than a standard flat 442, because it can allow you to be more adventurous with your style of play.

No i hadn't even considered it, I struggle with balancing tactics already so thought keeping it simple would be better  

[Experienced Defender]

6 minutes ago, daveb653 said:

@Experienced Defender I made some changes, mind taking a look, its 3 or 4 posts above this

The left FB looks too conservative to be able to give proper support to his IW, especially with the holding CM on their side. While the other CM is also a holding one (DLP), the attacking support on that flank is much better thanks to the WB on support.   

The more attacking striker would make more sense on the right side in terms of tactical balance, given the rest of the setup. Plus, poacher is a fairly static role, so he'll probably need more support from others than your tactic currently offers. This pertains to both space creation through movement and creative support. 

19 minutes ago, daveb653 said:

I'm not looking to play Counter attacking par se, just counter if the opportunity arises

Why then the lower LOE? If you use a low LOE, it essentially means you want to play defensive football (either counter-attacking or more passive, such as catenaccio or parked bus). 

 

21 minutes ago, daveb653 said:

My aim is to be defensively solid, whilst playing fairly direct (not possession for the sake of it)  attacking football. If that makes sense?

Any style makes sense as long as you have the right type of players for it. The problem is that your tactic does not really look like supporting such a style. 

[daveb653]

9 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

The left FB looks too conservative to be able to give proper support to his IW, especially with the holding CM on their side. While the other CM is also a holding one (DLP), the attacking support on that flank is much better thanks to the WB on support.   

The more attacking striker would make more sense on the right side in terms of tactical balance, given the rest of the setup. Plus, poacher is a fairly static role, so he'll probably need more support from others than your tactic currently offers. This pertains to both space creation through movement and creative support. 

Why then the lower LOE? If you use a low LOE, it essentially means you want to play defensive football (either counter-attacking or more passive, such as catenaccio or parked bus). 

 

Any style makes sense as long as you have the right type of players for it. The problem is that your tactic does not really look like supporting such a style. 

Thanks @Experienced Defender. 

If I explain the reasoning behind each choice could you explain why my choice was wrong and a more appropriate choice?

• The Left Full back was on that role as when I normally create tactics there are vulnerable to counters, so this choice was down to trying to prevent it. The way I read the FB(s) is that they will still overlap just more conservatively, would a FB(a) be better or simply another WB(s) like the opposite side?
• Striker roles can be swapped, the idea behind poacher/F9 combo was a scorer/creator combination with the F9 dropping and giving space for the poacher to explore as the defender would have to follow the f9?? 
• The lower LOE was simple (in my head at least) it was to compress my team and not allow space in between my lines, which i see as being the biggest weakness of 442? in turn it would allow the option of a fast attacking transition against big teams or draw more defensive team out?  I thought by keeping a higher Def Line it would be more attacking in style as I'm looking to play in the oppositions half?
• I didn't mean the style doesn't make sense, just the way I described it  

[daveb653]

So this is my latest iteration, its working ok-ish at the moment, I've just changed the SV from a DLP in CM slot and its better. Also went from attacking to balanced mentality so maybe thats affected it alot to.

 

My issue is when my SV pushes up it leaves me open to a counter, which I thought would happen but I love the SV role and how dynamic it is.

The CM(s) was an experiment and it actually worked better than i thought it would, other than the counter issue. Now the other thing I noticed was my F9 and IW get in each others way, I could change the IW to a straight winger but I like the overlaps on that side its producing. So I thought maybe drop the F9 into a DM position and use a disciplined DM to recycle possession and prevent counters, that would free up the CM to possibly go onto a attack duty? 

[Experienced Defender]

4 hours ago, daveb653 said:

The Left Full back was on that role as when I normally create tactics there are vulnerable to counters, so this choice was down to trying to prevent it. The way I read the FB(s) is that they will still overlap just more conservatively, would a FB(a) be better or simply another WB(s) like the opposite side?

Vulnerability to counters can be about a lot more than just a fullback role (and can be caused by instructions as well, not just roles/duties). But if you have an attacking IW next to a holding CM, then WB on support duty is the most logical choice for the fullback on that flank. I don't know if you have the right players for each role or whether the 442 is an optimal system for your team and the style of football you want to play, so I cannot comment on that. I can only tell you what a good balance of roles and duties look like in any tactic, including its formation as a factor (because 442 has different "rules" than 4231 or 4123  and so on,..). 

 

4 hours ago, daveb653 said:

Striker roles can be swapped, the idea behind poacher/F9 combo was a scorer/creator combination with the F9 dropping and giving space for the poacher to explore as the defender would have to follow the f9?? 

F9 and poacher can be a good striker combo in general, but the whole context matters (your team's reputation and how most opponents will play in relation to that + how other roles and duties are set up and do they provide enough support + the formation you use etc...). Plus. there is no rule that says that an oppo defender will necessarily follow an F9 when he drops deeper. 

 

4 hours ago, daveb653 said:

The lower LOE was simple (in my head at least) it was to compress my team and not allow space in between my lines, which i see as being the biggest weakness of 442?

If you want optimal compacness, DL should be just one notch higher than LOE (e.g. higher DL/standard LOE or standard DL/lower LOE). But the problem with a low LOE when you manage a top team is that defensive opposition - which you are going to face most of the time - will be happy to have so much space in their own half to pass around and waste time by keeping possession for the sake of it before an opportunity for a ball over the top occurs. 

[daveb653]

4 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Vulnerability to counters can be about a lot more than just a fullback role (and can be caused by instructions as well, not just roles/duties). But if you have an attacking IW next to a holding CM, then WB on support duty is the most logical choice for the fullback on that flank. I don't know if you have the right players for each role or whether the 442 is an optimal system for your team and the style of football you want to play, so I cannot comment on that. I can only tell you what a good balance of roles and duties look like in any tactic, including its formation as a factor (because 442 has different "rules" than 4231 or 4123  and so on,..).

Yeah, I'm seeing that now, I think I've been kind of spoilt with formations in the past by picking popular ones that are relatively easy to balance. Plus playing as Man Utd I'm blessed with decent players so mistakes are hidden in some ways.

6 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

F9 and poacher can be a good striker combo in general, but the whole context matters (your team's reputation and how most opponents will play in relation to that + how other roles and duties are set up and do they provide enough support + the formation you use etc...). Plus. there is no rule that says that an oppo defender will necessarily follow an F9 when he drops deeper. 

Yeah it made sense to me, the poacher being fairly single minded in his goalscoring and the F9 being a creative influence. I did have issues though when I was watching games.

I've just recently posted a change(s) I made or propose to make, if they make sense within how I want to play.

 

8 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

If you want optimal compacness, DL should be just one notch higher than LOE (e.g. higher DL/standard LOE or standard DL/lower LOE). But the problem with a low LOE when you manage a top team is that defensive opposition - which you are going to face most of the time - will be happy to have so much space in their own half to pass around and waste time by keeping possession for the sake of it before an opportunity for a ball over the top occurs. 

Ah yeah, I didnt think of it like that, would be just playing out a stale possession game I guess. I have adjusted it, out of possession is one of my weaknesses is though, I really struggle with seeing how instructions play out.

[daveb653]

So, I realised that by changing the formation i was getting away from the 442 I wanted to create, so went back to the original formula, the latest and so far most succesful is this:

 

How does this version look? It seems to play alot more balanced.

RB is back at FB(s) to provide more defensive cover for the SV when he heads forward. SV has been playing fantastic 1 goal 2 assists in 2 games, 7 key passes in the first lague game of the season, I love this role, so dynamic and industrious.

Only real concern now is having to of the same role (even if different duties) but they're also very hardworking and the support one man marks the defensive midfielder to stop attacks forming (if a DM is being used).

 

Couple of minor points, although the strikers have scored alot more (7 in 3 games between them) including a pre season and community shield win, my defence seems to be behaving strangely occasionally (not sure if it was players being dragged out of position) for example at one point my RB was all the way over the other side of the pitch when the ball was just being played across the pitch, no counter, no throw in or anything to disrupt it. Also when defending a free kick in my own box my CD decided he didnt feel like coming back to defend so stayed up by the half way line. Only 2 incidents but just sem very strange and wondering if its possible they're getting confused by any of my instructions? I doubt it so I'll keep an eye on it and hopefully it was just a couple rogue incidents.

[Orikoru]

I've started using this 442 with Roma and it's working well at the moment...

 

(I don't always have shorter passing, that's dependant on opposition. Usually just against better teams I go shorter to keep more possession.)

First game after putting it together we smashed Juve 3-0 (coming off 7 games without a win), and since then we've won 9 more, drawn 1 and lost 1 in all comps. So in 12 games it's 31 scored 4 conceded. 

You've not had one in any of your iterations but I find a box-to-box midfielder does well, probably because there's space in front and behind for him to fill. 

[daveb653]

@Orikoru Do you not find him to aggressive in pushing forwards? i thought he may leave holes in the midfield when hes trying to get in the box? Hence my choice of SV, he acts like a more conservative box to box in my opinion.

Also how do you find IWBS? One of the reasons Ive put defend wider is my Fb's seem to tuck in alot  so attacking wide players were getting way to much time in wide areas.

[Orikoru]

3 hours ago, daveb653 said:

@Orikoru Do you not find him to aggressive in pushing forwards? i thought he may leave holes in the midfield when hes trying to get in the box? Hence my choice of SV, he acts like a more conservative box to box in my opinion.

Also how do you find IWBS? One of the reasons Ive put defend wider is my Fb's seem to tuck in alot  so attacking wide players were getting way to much time in wide areas.

Using IWBs probably helps with your point on the box-to-box, because if we lose the ball the right IWB is often tucked in behind the BBM to potentially win it back. 

They seem to get back into position well enough. You might need wing backs with a good 'positioning' stat for it to work though. If someone's running at us on the counter I'd still rather they have space out wide than space directly through the middle.

[daveb653]

@Orikoru true I guess, it seems to be working quite well just now, so I'm reluctant to change anything. 5 games in so far (including community shield and super cup) 5 wins. Had a brutal start to the Season, had to play Man city twice, community shield (5-2 they had a man sent of) and super cup (3-1). Then first 3 league games Seff Utd away, Liverpool at Home then Arsenal away, happy with the result. Conceeded a couple of sloppy goals, mainly wingers coming in from the back post onto crosses, but really happy with results and performances.

[just_joe]

19 hours ago, daveb653 said:

So, I realised that by changing the formation i was getting away from the 442 I wanted to create, so went back to the original formula, the latest and so far most succesful is this:

 

How does this version look? It seems to play alot more balanced.

RB is back at FB(s) to provide more defensive cover for the SV when he heads forward. SV has been playing fantastic 1 goal 2 assists in 2 games, 7 key passes in the first lague game of the season, I love this role, so dynamic and industrious.

Only real concern now is having to of the same role (even if different duties) but they're also very hardworking and the support one man marks the defensive midfielder to stop attacks forming (if a DM is being used).

 

Couple of minor points, although the strikers have scored alot more (7 in 3 games between them) including a pre season and community shield win, my defence seems to be behaving strangely occasionally (not sure if it was players being dragged out of position) for example at one point my RB was all the way over the other side of the pitch when the ball was just being played across the pitch, no counter, no throw in or anything to disrupt it. Also when defending a free kick in my own box my CD decided he didnt feel like coming back to defend so stayed up by the half way line. Only 2 incidents but just sem very strange and wondering if its possible they're getting confused by any of my instructions? I doubt it so I'll keep an eye on it and hopefully it was just a couple rogue incidents.

It plays a lot more balanced because it is indeed a well-balanced tactic; nice work! I wouldn't worry about the PFs, they have the right mix of instructions to play together perfectly well (as you've discovered),

Issues in defence sound like rogue incidents. The only thing I would say about your instructions is you have a high level of risk both in and out of possession. Shouldn't be too much of a problem as one of the better teams in the league, but if you find that you are losing possession to easily, then remove a few of those in possession instructions and if you are committing a lot of fouls then I would recommend removing/reducing some of those out of possession TIs.

[daveb653]

15 hours ago, just_joe said:

It plays a lot more balanced because it is indeed a well-balanced tactic; nice work! I wouldn't worry about the PFs, they have the right mix of instructions to play together perfectly well (as you've discovered),

Issues in defence sound like rogue incidents. The only thing I would say about your instructions is you have a high level of risk both in and out of possession. Shouldn't be too much of a problem as one of the better teams in the league, but if you find that you are losing possession to easily, then remove a few of those in possession instructions and if you are committing a lot of fouls then I would recommend removing/reducing some of those out of possession TIs.

Thanks @just_joe, fairly happy with it now. the pas into space isn't always used, only when teams press me with a high line. I've also changed to regroup to keep a more rigid shape out of possession, because of that I decided to use stay on feet, the thinking is 2 fold. In transition the player can hold up the counter and allow the team to return into a rigid shape. In turn because of the shape they dont need to tackle hard or dive in they can work hard as a team and win the ball back.

 

only one player has tackle harder added (I know the PFs have it by default) and thats the CM(d) and thats because if the opposition are playing with an AMC hes asked to mark him specifically.