[FM19] Narrow 4231 - Help Needed

[TheJanitor]

Hey everybody. I'm playing Norwich in FM19 (I guess their squad is about the same as in FM20) and I need some help. I'm tempted to play a 4-2-3-1 narrow because I think it fits the players at the club nicely. This is what I have in mind (ignore the roles, these are the tactics default):

Problem is, I'm really not sure on how the set up the team. The numbers in the middle of the pitch suggests a possession-based setup, so this is what I'm working towards. To give the central AMs space, I'm considering playing the striker as Advanced Forward and the two central CMs as CM/d and DLP/s. This will also form a solid base to allow the FBs to be more aggressive in attack.

I'm not sure about how I could set the AMs in a varied, effective way. Buendia is the star of this team and I really like an Advance Playmaker role for him, possibly on attack, to offer close support for the AF. Cantwell is similarly a creative type, but not quite as good yet, and Stiepermann is quite different, decent in the air and has PPMs like Arrives Late In Opponents' Area and Places Shots. I think he could be like a secondary goal-scoring threat after Pukki.

I guess I have a certain idea in mind but I'm not sure on the roles and how not to become one-dimensional (by having similar flanks with Aarons and Buendia on the right and Cantwell and Lewis on the left), so I would love some suggestions on this matter!

Thanks!

[Experienced Defender]

The best way to get some helpful advice is to post a screenshot of the tactic you have in mind and then we can tell you what possibly can be changed/improved. 

48 minutes ago, TheJanitor said:

The numbers in the middle of the pitch suggests a possession-based setup, so this is what I'm working towards

 

48 minutes ago, TheJanitor said:

Buendia is the star of this team and I really like an Advance Playmaker role for him, possibly on attack

Well, if you want a possession tactic, then the attack duty for an AP does not sound like a good idea IMHO. Maybe it could work under certain circumstances, but AP on attack duty is generally more suited to counter-attacking and/or fast attacking styles (as opposed to possession-oriented ones). 

[TheJanitor]

8 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

The best way to get some helpful advice is to post a screenshot of the tactic you have in mind and then we can tell you what possibly can be changed/improved. 

Of course, here:

Default Vertical Tiki-Taka instructions without the underlaps and narrowness.

8 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Well, if you want a possession tactic, then the attack duty for an AP does not sound like a good idea IMHO. Maybe it could work under certain circumstances, but AP on attack duty is generally more suited to counter-attacking and/or fast attacking styles (as opposed to possession-oriented ones). 

I was under the impression that playmaker roles high up the pitch in general might slow down attacks, and are usually more suited for possesion football?

[Experienced Defender]

6 hours ago, TheJanitor said:

I was under the impression that playmaker roles high up the pitch in general might slow down attacks, and are usually more suited for possesion football?

But I was talking specifically about the AP on attack duty (not support). 

 

6 hours ago, TheJanitor said:

Default Vertical Tiki-Taka instructions without the underlaps and narrowness.

I am not sure what to say. I am personally opposed to (most of) preset tactics, because they tend to contain a lot of tactical overkill (especially tiki-takas), which can make me a bit "biased" against them. 

But even if we suppose that the above tactic as such is good, the question still remains whether Norwich as a team - given that it's an underdog in the EPL - can actually put such a tactic into practice in a proper way? Or to put it differently - is a tiki-taka (or any playing style of a similar kind) really suitable for a team like Norwich (in its current state of affairs)? 

At the same time, I don't want to discourage you too much from playing a tiki-taka if that's really what you want. So maybe you should test the tactic first and report back what you observed before further discussion 

 

[TheJanitor]

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

But even if we suppose that the above tactic as such is good, the question still remains whether Norwich as a team - given that it's an underdog in the EPL - can actually put such a tactic into practice in a proper way? Or to put it differently - is a tiki-taka (or any playing style of a similar kind) really suitable for a team like Norwich (in its current state of affairs)? 

This is FM19. Norwich are one of the better sides in the Championship. Aarons and Buendia are probably the best in their positions while the rest of the team is above average.

I would also remove the Focus Play Through The Middle instruction, which is redundant. This should give me an average possession-based setup + counters and high pressing. What do you think about the combination of roles? I know I should probably test it out, but I hadn't had the chance to play today so I would love some feedback.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, TheJanitor said:

This is FM19. Norwich are one of the better sides in the Championship

Ah, sorry then. My bad. I thought you were managing them in the EPL  

 

1 hour ago, TheJanitor said:

I would also remove the Focus Play Through The Middle instruction, which is redundant

Most probably a good idea. Simply because you don't want to force your attacking play through the area which is the most crowded by opposition (considering your reputation in the Championship). 

 

1 hour ago, TheJanitor said:

+ counters

What does removing the Focus play through the middle have to do with counters? I mean, they are not directly associated. 

 

1 hour ago, TheJanitor said:

What do you think about the combination of roles?

Well, AF as a lone striker is likely to struggle for space, as is usually the case in aggressive and attack-minded tactics. But you cannot know until you try it out. 

Two playmakers - DLP and AP - literally one behind the other is a tactical overkill in my book, even in highly possession-oriented systems. Which does not mean it cannot work under certain circumstances though (there have been people on the forum claiming it did work nicely for them). Again, try and see. 

While you removed underlaps from the original preset tactic, such an instruction could be helpful in this particular tactic in order to encourage more attacking support on the part of your fullbacks, given that the formation is narrow (since you intend to play a control/possession-based style of football). 

A combination of short passing + lower tempo + PoD + distribution to CBs + WBiB + Balanced team mentality could well slow down your attacking play a bit too much and thus actually play right into the hands of your defensive opponents, making it even harder for you to break them down (basically another tactical overkill along with the already mentioned 2 PMs). 

Not sure that the Counter team instruction will be helpful in this particular tactic either- taking again into account your team's strength and reputation in the league. Because most opponents are probably not going to leave you enough space for counter-attacks (except when you already have a lead and they are chasing a goal in an attempt to equalize). 

Last but not least, your defensive (out-of-possession) instructions may prove overly aggressive, not just from a defensive perspective but also in terms of space creation in attack.

[TheJanitor]

15 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

What does removing the Focus play through the middle have to do with counters? I mean, they are not directly associated. 

I didn't mean removing the instructions, I meant the set of existing instructions after removing it.

15 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Well, AF as a lone striker is likely to struggle for space, as is usually the case in aggressive and attack-minded tactics. But you cannot know until you try it out. 

While I understand your point, I don't want a role that will drop deep and make the AM area even more crowded. Perhaps a CF/a or even DLF/a would make more sense.

18 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

While you removed underlaps from the original preset tactic, such an instruction could be helpful in this particular tactic in order to encourage more attacking support on the part of your fullbacks, given that the formation is narrow (since you intend to play a control/possession-based style of football). 

I thought underlaps were redundant in wingerless formations? I know they will increase the mentality of the FBs but it could be done by changing their duty.

21 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Last but not least, your defensive (out-of-possession) instructions may prove overly aggressive, not just from a defensive perspective but also in terms of space creation in attack.

You're bang on, I think reducing LoE would be wise. Maybe even defensive line.

[Experienced Defender]

15 minutes ago, TheJanitor said:

While I understand your point, I don't want a role that will drop deep and make the AM area even more crowded. Perhaps a CF/a or even DLF/a would make more sense

For what you want - and given the rest of the setup - PF on attack duty looks like the most logical option IMHO. And btw, it's the most similar to the AF in terms of attacking movement and general style of play. 

DLF on attack might also work, so you can experiment with both PF and DLF to see which option works better for your team (and player playing there). 

As for the CF (on either duty), it usually struggles in top-heavy systems, because the role requires not just a really good player but also as much space as possible for him to operate and express himself. I prefer to use a CF in a 442, 4411, flat 4141 etc. 

21 minutes ago, TheJanitor said:

I thought underlaps were redundant in wingerless formations?

Well, in this case it's not about creating actual underlaps (or overlaps, for that matter) - because they cannot be achieved in a winger-less system anyway -  but increasing the fullbacks' mentality a bit. As you yourself rightly noted: 

 

23 minutes ago, TheJanitor said:

I know they will increase the mentality of the FBs but it could be done by changing their duty

Yes. If you ask me, I would use the attack-duty for one and the underlap/overlap TI for the other as a means of upping their mentality. Keep also in mind that a change of duty has a greater effect on a player's individual mentality than an underlap or overlap (or focus play). 

 

28 minutes ago, TheJanitor said:

You're bang on, I think reducing LoE would be wise. Maybe even defensive line

Rather LOE. Dropping the D-line would only reduce your defensive compactness while doing nothing to help with space creation up front. 

[TheJanitor]

@Experienced Defender thanks. Just tested it out against Plymouth in the cup (L1 team). Won 2-0, but not great in terms of chance creation. Both goals came from set pieces, and we had 5 shots on target, 3 of them from set pieces. We did keep possession well, just not doing too much with it.

Went with a DLF/a instead of AF/a and set the RB to WB/a and added underlap on the left side.

Edited June 15, 2020 by TheJanitor

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, TheJanitor said:

@Experienced Defender thanks. Just tested it out against Plymouth in the cup (L1 team). Won 2-0, but not great in terms of chance creation. Both goals came from set pieces, and we had 5 shots on target, 3 of them from set pieces. We did keep possession well, just not doing too much with it.

Went with a DLF/a instead of AF/a and set the RB to WB/a and added underlap on the left side.

Can you post a screenshot of that particular tactic (after all tweaks you've made to the initial one)? You mention only a couple of role/duty changes (and the underlap TI), but we were discussing more than that, so I don't know which of those potential tweaks you have eventually implemented and which you haven't. 

[TheJanitor]

[Experienced Defender]

3 minutes ago, TheJanitor said:

Well, you are still focusing play through the middle even though you yourself said you were going to drop the instruction. 

But not just that... As I already said in an earlier post, there is a combination of instructions in your tactic that slows play down too much giving the opposition enough time to consolidate defensively and get back into their defensive shell in time. Let me quote myself: 

4 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

A combination of short passing + lower tempo + PoD + distribution to CBs + WBiB + Balanced team mentality could well slow down your attacking play a bit too much and thus actually play right into the hands of your defensive opponents, making it even harder for you to break them down

I also mentioned the overkill of playing 2 playmakers one literally behind the other. But I did not say that you cannot (or should not) use 2 PMs otherwise. For example, I would consider something like this:

DLFat

APsu   AMsu  SS

CMde  DLPsu

FBat   CDde   CDde   WBsu

GK/SKde

(Assuming the AP is right-footed)

I also believe you should up the mentality to Positive, because the Balanced could make it a bit too sterile for a team expected to dominate its matches (or at least most of them). The Positive would add a degree of adventurousness as well as a bit more urgency to your attacking play. 

There are possibly a couple more potential tweaks worth consideration, but it's always wiser to go step by step. 

[TheJanitor]

10 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

I also mentioned the overkill of playing 2 playmakers one literally behind the other. But I did not say that you cannot (or should not) use 2 PMs otherwise. For example, I would consider something like this:

DLFat

APsu   AMsu  SS

CMde  DLPsu

FBat   CDde   CDde   WBsu

GK/SKde

(Assuming the AP is right-footed)

I also believe you should up the mentality to Positive, because the Balanced could make it a bit too sterile for a team expected to dominate its matches (or at least most of them). The Positive would add a degree of adventurousness as well as a bit more urgency to your attacking play. 

There are possibly a couple more potential tweaks worth consideration, but it's always wiser to go step by step. 

Thanks. Tested it out for two games and not getting much improved results. Similar performances, most of the possession, good volume of shots, but mostly from outside the box and not on target.

I think this formation might be more trouble than it worth. I think going for the wide version would be an easier approach (for me).

[Britrock]

Do you have the players to drop the CMs back to DMs? I find it gives more defensive stability, it frees your FBs to be more attacking and it'll give more space to your AMCs. I play with a BWMs and a RPM, but you could have a volante instead of a second playmaker.

[TheJanitor]

1 hour ago, Britrock said:

Do you have the players to drop the CMs back to DMs? I find it gives more defensive stability, it frees your FBs to be more attacking and it'll give more space to your AMCs. I play with a BWMs and a RPM, but you could have a volante instead of a second playmaker.

I'm considering it. Thought about BWM/s and Regista actually. Do you play with or without wingers?

[Experienced Defender]

7 hours ago, TheJanitor said:

I think this formation might be more trouble than it worth. I think going for the wide version would be an easier approach (for me)

Honestly, the narrow 4231 has been one of the most rarely used formations AFAIK. However, I am sure that it can be made to work, provided one has the right personnel (just as with any formation or tactical style btw). 

[Britrock]

9 hours ago, TheJanitor said:

I'm considering it. Thought about BWM/s and Regista actually. Do you play with or without wingers?

I play with AML/R, yeah. They're IF or IW though as my FBs provide the width. Currently I'm playing with AC using this formation and I'm 11 points clear after 27 games, in the final of the Italian Cup and the quarters of the Champions League. You could maybe get something similar by moving the AML inside to a SS and the AMR inside to AMs?