4-4-2 strikers advice

[goalash]

I’m managing Saudi Arabia. I’m a sucker for the old 4-4-2 formations and two striker tactics in general. I tend to not overcomplocate things: the middle defends, the wings attack. 

This is my backline;

 SK(d) / WB(s/a) CD(s) CD (d) WB (s)

I’m using a stopper, because the DMC slot is empty.

IW(s) DLP(s/d) CM(d) IW(a)

Two good IW’s are resposible for bringing the ball forward and either taking a shot, playing it to overlapping WB’s or to the forwards.

And now the hard bit. There’s apparently only one decent Target Man in Saudi Arabia, so when he’s available, I’m going:

P(a) TM(s)

and it works great. When he’s out, however, I’m pretty troubled. There are couple of decent F9’s, Poachers and Adv Forwards, but not a single Deep Lying Forward (apart from Target Men).

As F9’s don’t work in this setup at all, I’m forced to experiment with Treraquistas:

P(a) T(a) > risky and isolates the front line

PF(a/s) T(a) > this works good, but there’s only one Pressing Forward on acceptable level as well.

Also, I’m playing Treq out of position.

Any advice?

Thx

 

 

[Atarin]

Your wingers are cutting in so you don't really want your strikers occupying the central areas. I'd have the strikers hitting the channels and occupying the far posts. AF(a) will do that job, PF(a) will do that job and CF(a) will too. 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, goalash said:

This is my backline;

 SK(d) / WB(s/a) CD(s) CD (d) WB (s)

I’m using a stopper, because the DMC slot is empty.

IW(s) DLP(s/d) CM(d) IW(a)

Two good IW’s are resposible for bringing the ball forward and either taking a shot, playing it to overlapping WB’s or to the forwards.

And now the hard bit. There’s apparently only one decent Target Man in Saudi Arabia, so when he’s available, I’m going:

P(a) TM(s)

So it looks like this:

TMsu   PO

IWat    CMde   DLPsu/de   IWsu

WBsu   CDde   CDst    WBsu/at

SKde

Correct or not?

And what about your team instructions and mentality? 

Quote

There are couple of decent F9’s, Poachers and Adv Forwards, but not a single Deep Lying Forward (apart from Target Men)

How do you decide what roles a player is suited for - do you look at his attributes or the (green) circle of role suitability? 

[goalash]

52 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

So it looks like this:

TMsu   PO

IWat    CMde   DLPsu/de   IWsu

WBsu   CDde   CDst    WBsu/at

SKde

Correct or not?

And what about your team instructions and mentality? 

How do you decide what roles a player is suited for - do you look at his attributes or the (green) circle of role suitability? 

Ad. 1: that’s the shape. Actually, it’s an exact mirror reversal, so we can say that it is.

Ad. 2: Balanced approach, wider offensive positioning, overlap left and right.

Ad. 3: It’s just the attributes. I tend to ignore the green indicator totally.

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, goalash said:

It’s just the attributes. I tend to ignore the green indicator totally

Good  

 

2 hours ago, goalash said:

Balanced approach, wider offensive positioning, overlap left and right

Looks like you are looking to play a sort of wing-play style. Or not?

[goalash]

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

Good  

 

Looks like you are looking to play a sort of wing-play style. Or not?

Sort of. Wing Backs attack the flanks, Wingers cut inside, the middle always defends.

[Experienced Defender]

15 minutes ago, goalash said:

Sort of. Wing Backs attack the flanks, Wingers cut inside, the middle always defends.

In that case, I would suggest switching at least one of your IWs to a standard winger. Preferably the one on the side of the TM. I would also consider changing the poacher into PF on attack duty so as to get some more mobility up front. 

P.S: Be very careful with the Overlap right instruction when you play the RWB on attack duty. 

[goalash]

10 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

In that case, I would suggest switching at least one of your IWs to a standard winger. Preferably the one on the side of the TM. I would also consider changing the poacher into PF on attack duty so as to get some more mobility up front. 

P.S: Be very careful with the Overlap right instruction when you play the RWB on attack duty. 

Thx. However, the main question was about the striker roles. When the Target Man is unavailable, I’m left with couple decent F9’s, couple AF’s, one spare Poacher, but no DLF’s, TM’s... 

[Experienced Defender]

53 minutes ago, goalash said:

Thx. However, the main question was about the striker roles. When the Target Man is unavailable, I’m left with couple decent F9’s, couple AF’s, one spare Poacher, but no DLF’s, TM’s... 

PF on support. But keep in mind that no roles work in isolation. You can have a "perfect" role combination for your 2 strikers, and it may still fail to work if the rest is set up wrong (which is also relative to your style of play, because different styles can suit different role partnerships and combinations). 

[goalash]

13 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

PF on support. But keep in mind that no roles work in isolation. You can have a "perfect" role combination for your 2 strikers, and it may still fail to work if the rest is set up wrong (which is also relative to your style of play, because different styles can suit different role partnerships and combinations). 

Someone above has underlined the need to position the strikers fahrer from the middle, with the IW’s coming cuttingi inside. I totally get that. There is Move Into Channels instruction available for Poacher. Therefore, I should position the Poacher on the IW(at) side, in order to create space for him, no?

If I end up with Poacher/Pressing Forward duo, should both Move Into Channels - with both WM’s kept as IW’s?

Also, one more: what is the practica difference between:

1. “wider” attacking width and “focus play through flanks”

2. Wing Back on attack and “overlap”?

Thx!

 

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, goalash said:

Someone above has underlined the need to position the strikers fahrer from the middle, with the IW’s coming cuttingi inside. I totally get that. There is Move Into Channels instruction available for Poacher. Therefore, I should position the Poacher on the IW(at) side, in order to create space for him, no?

If you use a poacher, then you logically want him to be your main goal-scorer (or at least main goal threat). Therefore, why would you want him to create space for others. Instead, it would make a lot more sense if other created space - and chances - for him. 

 

2 hours ago, goalash said:

If I end up with Poacher/Pressing Forward duo, should both Move Into Channels - with both WM’s kept as IW’s?

You can try and see what happens. But my personal preference would be to have the poacher move into channels and the PF allowed to roam from position. 

 

2 hours ago, goalash said:

Also, one more: what is the practica difference between:

1. “wider” attacking width and “focus play through flanks”

Both instructions encourage greater use of the flanks (i.e. wider areas), but the focus play also increases the individual mentality of the fullback a bit. 

 

2 hours ago, goalash said:

2. Wing Back on attack and “overlap”?

I am not sure I understand this question. WB on attack (or any duty) is a role, whereas the overlap is an instruction. So that's the obvious difference. And the overlap instruction - as well as the underlap - also increases the mentality of the FB/WB (as with the focus play), but also slightly reduces that of the wide midfielder or wide forward (depending which position your formation employs). 

[goalash]

14 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

If you use a poacher, then you logically want him to be your main goal-scorer (or at least main goal threat). Therefore, why would you want him to create space for others. Instead, it would make a lot more sense if other created space - and chances - for him. 

 

You can try and see what happens. But my personal preference would be to have the poacher move into channels and the PF allowed to roam from position. 

 

Both instructions encourage greater use of the flanks (i.e. wider areas), but the focus play also increases the individual mentality of the fullback a bit. 

 

I am not sure I understand this question. WB on attack (or any duty) is a role, whereas the overlap is an instruction. So that's the obvious difference. And the overlap instruction - as well as the underlap - also increases the mentality of the FB/WB (as with the focus play), but also slightly reduces that of the wide midfielder or wide forward (depending which position your formation employs). 

Basically what I meant was: if I am to make my Wing Backs boom up the flanks and provide width, while my Inverted Wingers attack the pocket and my MC’s stay back:

- which of these: wider play / focus play through flanks / overlap / give the WB’s attack duties, would be a good choice in my case;

- which striker roles would fit the system?

I’ve learned a bit so far. For now, my main takeways are, that:

- with IW’s I don’t need the strikers to occupy the middle section,

- a PF, AF and Po with Move Into Channels are in my mind right now,

- Overlap instruction reduces the mentality of my IW’s, so Focus Play might be way better in my case.

I’m considering a second variant with only one IW and a Wide Midfielder on the opposite side, to provide more passing options in the middle and more defensive stability.

A question: do you see Defensive Width more as an instruction related to the risk/reward calculation or to adapting to the opponent? For instance, if I’m playing a narrow opponent wih just a single Wing Back on each flank, should I defend wider to win the ball in the areas where I have an advantage, or the opposite: crowd up the middle, where they are stronger? Or is simply up to players at my disposal?

[Experienced Defender]

6 hours ago, goalash said:

Basically what I meant was: if I am to make my Wing Backs boom up the flanks and provide width, while my Inverted Wingers attack the pocket and my MC’s stay back:

- which of these: wider play / focus play through flanks / overlap / give the WB’s attack duties, would be a good choice in my case

I personally would always prefer creating and utilizing space through a wise choice of roles and role combinations than instructions. Instructions can be used, but rather as a secondary (auxiliary) tool and potential in-match tweaks.

In relation to your questions - and taking into account that you play in the standard flat 442 - my preferred selection of wide roles would be:

- the IW on support paired with a FB on attack or WB on support (both combos create a natural overlap without the need to use the overlap instruction)

- the IW on attack paired with a WB on support 

6 hours ago, goalash said:

which striker roles would fit the system?

A number of striker role partnerships can work, so it really depends on what type of strikers you have. Given that you insist on playing both wide midfielders in the IW role, here are the setups I personally would consider as the most preferable:

 

F9/TQ/DLFsu/CFsu     AF/PFat

IWat        CMde       DLPsu       IWsu

WBsu     CDde    CDde     WBsu

So basically the striker on the side of the attacking IW would be played in a creator type of role that drops deeper or/and roams, whereas the other one - on the side of the supporting IW - has a simple runner/scorer type of role that likes to explore channels. 

6 hours ago, goalash said:

I’m considering a second variant with only one IW and a Wide Midfielder on the opposite side, to provide more passing options in the middle and more defensive stability

That would be my preferred choice. More specifically, an IW on support duty behind the attacking striker and a WM on attack duty behind the supporting (creative) striker. 

 

6 hours ago, goalash said:

A question: do you see Defensive Width more as an instruction related to the risk/reward calculation or to adapting to the opponent? For instance, if I’m playing a narrow opponent wih just a single Wing Back on each flank, should I defend wider to win the ball in the areas where I have an advantage, or the opposite: crowd up the middle, where they are stronger? Or is simply up to players at my disposal?

There are different approaches to defensive width, and none of them is either "right" or "wrong" per se. Rashidi for example likes to use defensive width as an attacking strategy. So if he wants to attack the opposition primarily through the flanks, he plays with narrow defensive width in order to lure them to commit more players on the flanks and thus leave them vulnerable so that he could counter them through there. And vice versa - he plays with wider def width when he wants to counter them through central areas.

My approach is to primarily consider whether my defense is better at dealing with crosses or killer through balls and balls over the top. But I am always taking a lot of other factors into account as well, so it's not that simple. For example, if I use a narrow formation, I never play with narrow defensive width, no matter how good my defenders might be in dealing with crosses. Because my fullbacks/wing-back, as the only wide players in the system, need as much support as possible from the midfield when defending their respective flanks.

But whenever you are not sure what defensive width would be optimal, the best and safest option is to just leave it on default (i.e. standard). 

[goalash]

3 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

I personally would always prefer creating and utilizing space through a wise choice of roles and role combinations than instructions. Instructions can be used, but rather as a secondary (auxiliary) tool and potential in-match tweaks.

In relation to your questions - and taking into account that you play in the standard flat 442 - my preferred selection of wide roles would be:

- the IW on support paired with a FB on attack or WB on support (both combos create a natural overlap without the need to use the overlap instruction)

- the IW on attack paired with a WB on support 

A number of striker role partnerships can work, so it really depends on what type of strikers you have. Given that you insist on playing both wide midfielders in the IW role, here are the setups I personally would consider as the most preferable:

 

F9/TQ/DLFsu/CFsu     AF/PFat

IWat        CMde       DLPsu       IWsu

WBsu     CDde    CDde     WBsu

So basically the striker on the side of the attacking IW would be played in a creator type of role that drops deeper or/and roams, whereas the other one - on the side of the supporting IW - has a simple runner/scorer type of role that likes to explore channels. 

That would be my preferred choice. More specifically, an IW on support duty behind the attacking striker and a WM on attack duty behind the supporting (creative) striker. 

 

There are different approaches to defensive width, and none of them is either "right" or "wrong" per se. Rashidi for example likes to use defensive width as an attacking strategy. So if he wants to attack the opposition primarily through the flanks, he plays with narrow defensive width in order to lure them to commit more players on the flanks and thus leave them vulnerable so that he could counter them through there. And vice versa - he plays with wider def width when he wants to counter them through central areas.

My approach is to primarily consider whether my defense is better at dealing with crosses or killer through balls and balls over the top. But I am always taking a lot of other factors into account as well, so it's not that simple. For example, if I use a narrow formation, I never play with narrow defensive width, no matter how good my defenders might be in dealing with crosses. Because my fullbacks/wing-back, as the only wide players in the system, need as much support as possible from the midfield when defending their respective flanks.

But whenever you are not sure what defensive width would be optimal, the best and safest option is to just leave it on default (i.e. standard). 

Thanks. That’s a lot of knowledge right there.

About the Stopper: when would you use one? I keep picking him due to the flat 4-4-2 formation and no player in the DM slot. Is it even relevant?

[Experienced Defender]

20 minutes ago, goalash said:

About the Stopper: when would you use one? I keep picking him due to the flat 4-4-2 formation and no player in the DM slot. Is it even relevant?

I personally tend to use a stopper only when I play in a 3/5-men back-line without a DM (for example 532 or 5212). In such instances, the stopper is my central CB, whereas the lateral two are on defend duty. But in back-four formations, I either play both CBs on defend duty or 1 on cover and the other on defend. 

However, that's just my personal preference. Generally, there is nothing wrong per se in using a stopper duty in a 442 (or any formation without a DM). 

[Rashidi]

I just want to post these up cos I was doing a stream yesterday and wanted to show people the many different ways a 442 can be made, I think by the end of the stream we had 10 different 442 variations, but i think we could have come up with more. We even created a 442 that transitioned into this

Thats a 442 that doesn't look like a 442, it has 3 strikers, and a diamond defensive midfield. The thing about 442s is that it is the most versatile system in the game.  Your striker combo up front can be any number of options. It depends entirely on what kind of players you have and what you want to do. You can even play with a TQ/TQ strike partnership which is one of the best pivoting attacking combos in the game. A TQ will drop deep occasionally or drift wide, but when one does it, the other attacks the box.

And they also press the keeper.  You could use a PF(A)x2 if you wanted something akin to how MU played in 1999, cos Yorke and Sheringham would frequently press for short periods or cut off passing lines to the midfield. You can also do TM/Poacher with a FB(A)/WM midfield which has the two wide midfielders set up narrow, giving the FB(A) a lot of space. You set up defensively narrow so that you draw teams into attacking your flanks so that you can counter attack them immediately.

I could wax lyrical about playing the 442, but I will leave you to experiment and have fun.

[sejo]

21 minuti fa, Rashidi ha scritto:

Thats a 442 that doesn't look like a 442, it has 3 strikers, and a diamond defensive midfield. The thing about 442s is that it is the most versatile system in the game

How did you manage to get that? I'm trying to do the same, any advice would be appreciated

[goalash]

On 03/10/2020 at 14:45, Rashidi said:

I just want to post these up cos I was doing a stream yesterday and wanted to show people the many different ways a 442 can be made, I think by the end of the stream we had 10 different 442 variations, but i think we could have come up with more. We even created a 442 that transitioned into this

Thats a 442 that doesn't look like a 442, it has 3 strikers, and a diamond defensive midfield. The thing about 442s is that it is the most versatile system in the game.  Your striker combo up front can be any number of options. It depends entirely on what kind of players you have and what you want to do. You can even play with a TQ/TQ strike partnership which is one of the best pivoting attacking combos in the game. A TQ will drop deep occasionally or drift wide, but when one does it, the other attacks the box.

And they also press the keeper.  You could use a PF(A)x2 if you wanted something akin to how MU played in 1999, cos Yorke and Sheringham would frequently press for short periods or cut off passing lines to the midfield. You can also do TM/Poacher with a FB(A)/WM midfield which has the two wide midfielders set up narrow, giving the FB(A) a lot of space. You set up defensively narrow so that you draw teams into attacking your flanks so that you can counter attack them immediately.

I could wax lyrical about playing the 442, but I will leave you to experiment and have fun.

@Rashidi which stream was this? Can you link it, please?