Quick Q&A about role/duty combinations

[Experienced Defender]

NOTE: This "special" topic has been created at the request of @Keyzer Soze. The thread is meant to deal with questions on what role combinations and partnerships make more or less sense in terms of how you create, use and defend space in the context of your tactical setup. 

So you can ask if this or that role partnership makes sense or not. And if it does - why it does. Or if it does not - why not?

VERY IMPORTANT: Regardless of what answers you get to your questions, keep in mind that there are no fixed and definite rules in FM. Which means that even if you are told that a certain role combo or partnership is not "ideal", it still does not necessarily mean that it cannot work for your team. And vice versa - a combo/partnership that looks perfectly logical on paper may still fail to work in your tactic due to various factors (e.g. team instructions contradict your setup of roles and duties, or your players are not suitable/good enough for that particular style of play, and so on). 

Last but not least, different tactical styles usually require different types of role combos & partnerships. What suits possession-oriented football styles may not suit a fast-transition ones. So you also need to take that into account. 

MOST IMPORTANT: This thread is by no means an ultimate guide on roles and duties, i.e. their combos and partnerships. Rather, it's supposed to offer just some basic principles on role/duty combos to people with little tactical knowledge and experience who want to learn a bit more about the subject in a quick fashion.

But if you want something that can help you really learn how these pairs and partnerships work in the broader tactical context, then please refer to this awesome guide by our @llama3 who is of course more than welcome to join the discussion here and share his knowledge with us 

Now feel free to ask whatever you'd like to know when it comes to role/duty combos, but please be patient until you get the answer because regular forum threads still have precedence. 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT ARE NOT DIRECTLY AND EXCLUSIVELY ASSOCIATED WITH ROLE/DUTY COMBINATIONS. FOR ADVICE ON YOUR TACTICS AS A WHOLE, YOU MUST START A SEPARATE THREAD IN THIS FORUM, BECAUSE THIS ONE IS ONLY FOR SHORT, SIMPLE AND QUICK ROLE/DUTY-RELATED QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

[glengarry224]

 

[Keyzer Soze]

Thks for the thread @Experienced Defender.

Always been a big fan of using a AP(s) as a wide player in a 4123 wide DM formation. My main doubt is what player should i use in the midfield to best combine with the AP(s).

AF(a)

IF(s)                                    AP(s)

CM(s)       ???

DM(d)

WB(a)       CD(d)      BPD(d)     WB(s)

SK(s)

I've tried the MEZZALA, both with attack and support duty, but he would stay most of the match right in the shoulders of the AP(s). I then try the BBM(s), but he didn't arrive at the box as soon as i would want it. 

My last try was the CM(a), with roam from position instruction. It was the "best" so far....

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Experienced Defender]

16 hours ago, glengarry224 said:

Given that this thread is exclusively about role/duty combinations, I can only tell you if there are potential issues regarding role combos. However, if you want an opinion or advice on the tactic as a whole, you'll have to start a separate thread. 

So speaking in terms of roles/duties only, your setup looks pretty decent. Potential tweaks I would suggest pertain primarily to improving defensive solidity of your setup, considering that we are here dealing with a top-heavy system with no (holding) DM.

So here are the suggestions in relation to the above:

- switch the RB from WB on attack either to FB on attack or WB on support

- switch the LB from IWB on support either to IWB on defend or FB on support or WB on defend

As you can see, both potential tweaks pertain to your fullback roles.

NOTE: I had to edit your post basically removing everything other than the screenshot of your tactic, because - as I already stressed  - this is just about short, quick and simple questions about role combinations and nothing else. 

[Experienced Defender]

5 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

AF(a)

IF(s)                                    AP(s)

CM(s)       ???

DM(d)

WB(a)       CD(d)      BPD(d)     WB(s)

SK(s)

 

5 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

Always been a big fan of using a AP(s) as a wide player in a 4123 wide DM formation. My main doubt is what player should i use in the midfield to best combine with the AP(s)

Okay, if we are talking exclusively about CM roles that can combine well with a wide AP on support - completely ignoring the rest of your setup - then my favorite options would include:

- mezzala on attack

- CM on attack

- carrilero

- BWM on support

[Keyzer Soze]

43 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

Okay, if we are talking exclusively about CM roles that can combine well with a wide AP on support - completely ignoring the rest of your setup - then my favorite options would include:

- mezzala on attack

- CM on attack

- carrilero

- BWM on support

Thks.

Yeah, the opinion was just for the CM role. I know, after testing a couple of games, that the rest of the setup have others issues.

[MadOnion]

I kind of get the point of this thread, and in isolation things may make sense but I'd prefer to encourage people to look at their players instead and what they want them to do.

TL;DR: I think we should spend more time talking about player attributes, PPMs and role suitability in the context of a tactic. Similar to presets but more granular.

All good suggesting a Mezzala or Trequartista or any other exotic role but can the player perform that role? Suggesting between a CM-A vs a BMW-support affects a lot of things.
Why not suggesting a more generic role and take it from?

Take the Mezzala for the example, do people look beyond the role suitability? Does he have enough flair, off-the-ball and vision in comparison to other players in the league? Great if the player has all the desired attributes but will his PPMs negate the purpose of the role?
Granted the Trequartista is a "lazy" role, but what if the player has an aggressive/brave edge to this game? Think Tevez/Rooney vs O-zil for example.

A WB on defend will still move forward if his PPMs say so, specially in a wingerless system.

Although most will be warned (as suggested by the OP), inexperienced FMers will still copy the setup suggested on here but will fail to understand why their team isn't performing as well.

Edited October 1, 2020 by MadOnion

[glengarry224]

4 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

NOTE: I had to edit your post basically removing everything other than the screenshot of your tactic, because - as I already stressed  - this is just about short, quick and simple questions about role combinations and nothing else. 

Thanks for the feedback and sorry about that.  I initially made a very short post asking about the combo of my LB and MCL but thought that there wasn't enough info.

[Fieldsy]

Best combinations for the lone striker and amc position in a 4-2-3-1?

[Experienced Defender]

3 hours ago, Fieldsy said:

Best combinations for the lone striker and amc position in a 4-2-3-1?

Depends on the style of play as well as other roles and duties around them. Taking the players playing those positions into account of course. 

Post your setup or sketch out how you envision it, and then we can discuss if there are any potential issues 

[TheJanitor]

Great idea for a thread!

I want to have 2 tactics, a counter attacking 5122 and a high pressing, possession-based 5212. What do you think about these role combinations?

5122:

GK/d

CB/d    BPD/c    CB/d

WB/d     DLP/d     WB/s

MEZ/a    CAR/s

AF/a    PF/s

Here I'm a bit contemplating about the Mezzala and Advanced Forward.

I think with the Mez moving sideways I might lacking central thrust. Playing him as CM/a or withdrawing the AF to SS/a might fix this but what do you think?

 

5212:

SK/d

CB/d    BPD/c    CB/d

WB/a                    WB/a

DLP/s    CM/d

AM/a

AF/a    CF/s

I could potentially play the CF as CF/a and the AM/a as Trequartista

[Experienced Defender]

4 hours ago, TheJanitor said:

5122:

GK/d

CB/d    BPD/c    CB/d

WB/d     DLP/d     WB/s

MEZ/a    CAR/s

AF/a    PF/s

In this setup I would definitely change the mezzala's duty into support. Everything else looks decent to me, so any further potential tweaks would depend on the style of play you want to achieve with this very bottom-heavy system. 

 

4 hours ago, TheJanitor said:

5212:

SK/d

CB/d    BPD/c    CB/d

WB/a                    WB/a

DLP/s    CM/d

AM/a

AF/a    CF/s

This one looks more tricky in terms of potential tweaks, because there are several possible options to be considered. So I would first like to know what style of football is this tactic supposed to represent?

[TheJanitor]

12 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

This one looks more tricky in terms of potential tweaks, because there are several possible options to be considered. So I would first like to know what style of football is this tactic supposed to represent?

I want to use this as my go-to tactic, playing as one of the better sides in the league and having an overall excellent squad.

Basically, possession based, high pressing tactic. I hope the middle two + back three could keep me solid while the wingbacks and forwards stretch the opposition defense.

[Experienced Defender]

7 hours ago, TheJanitor said:

Basically, possession based, high pressing tactic. I hope the middle two + back three could keep me solid while the wingbacks and forwards stretch the opposition defense

If you want it to be primarily possession-based tactic, then I would definitely advise against playing both wing-backs on attack duty. My preferred setup - with minimal change to yours - would look like this:

CFsu    AF

AMat

DLPsu    CAR

WBat                         (C)WBsu

CDde  BPDde/st  CDde

Because in a possession-oriented tactic, the point is not to have a lot of players rushing forward as soon as possible, but to have most of them supporting one another in the build-up phase (as well as during transitions), keeping the ball for the few waiting to make decisive penetrating runs from different directions and in different areas of the pitch. 

[TheJanitor]

10 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

If you want it to be primarily possession-based tactic, then I would definitely advise against playing both wing-backs on attack duty. My preferred setup - with minimal change to yours - would look like this:

CFsu    AF

AMat

DLPsu    CAR

WBat                         (C)WBsu

CDde  BPDde/st  CDde

Because in a possession-oriented tactic, the point is not to have a lot of players rushing forward as soon as possible, but to have most of them supporting one another in the build-up phase (as well as during transitions), keeping the ball for the few waiting to make decisive penetrating runs from different directions and in different areas of the pitch. 

Cheers. If I'm playing with a high line, wouldn't it be more beneficial to have the central defender as cover?

[Experienced Defender]

1 minute ago, TheJanitor said:

Cheers. If I'm playing with a high line, wouldn't it be more beneficial to have the central defender as cover?

Of course you can. My personal preference was the stopper only because it's a 3-men back-line without a DM, but nothing wrong with the cover duty either. Just avoid using the offside trap, because it can backfire when playing CBs on different duties. 

[Rashidi]

Personally speaking I have never felt that there is such a thing as a “perfect role combination”. It has an inherent danger of thinking certain combinations are ideal when in fact the totality of the formation has to be the goal.

For example I like the TQx2 combination for a strike force in a 442. Some may think this is strange others may find it laughable. I however find that the movement they bring in a system that is under lapping can be brilliant when combined with other roles and duties.

The AP IF combination is another notorious one that has stirred debate in a 4123DM, some feel that they are too close together like the Mez/IF combo.  When the goal is to create a creative fulcrum, they can work together to draw opposition players to them, making the opposite flank vulnerable to attacks by a RMD. 
 

Let’s not forget traits as well, they have the effect of introducing another element because certain traits can modify the behaviour of some roles. 
 

While the idea of thinking of good combinations of roles is helpful, you still need to come up with an overall plan on how you want to play. A counter attacking tactic where you aim to strike with just two players could benefit from a TM(A)\AF combo supported by one W(A), whilst that could be a poor combination for a possession centric camping system.

[Keyzer Soze]

@Rashidi

I completely agree with you, but not all the users that play the game have your level of knowledge.

Speaking for myself, there are so many variables in the match engine that i don't know, that to me, when i start thinking about a tactic, it's important to have some guidelines.

You talk about having TQx2 in a 442 formation, but for you to reach to the conclusion about what gives to your tactic  2 TQ upfront, you but know very well how the TQ will behave, with each other, and with all the other roles in the rest of the tactic, and with all the instructions, and the traits, and how the attributes will work and change the behavior of the roles.

That's a level of understanding the game that many, the large majoraty, to have... well at least i dont have.

So for me, it's important to have some feedback about the basic stuff. simple things like, if i have a MEZ(a) in my right center midfield, what roles and duties are best to use in my right wing? And of course, you will say that anything can work depend on the rest of the formation, and i'm sure it's true. But, for me, i just need a guideline, someone that says... "ok, you are still learning, so go with the basic stuff. anything can work, but for example the IF(s) it will probably be the role that will fit in most case cenarios". That's it.... a guideline.

Don't take this as a rant... just my perspective from someone that don't know much about the game.

[Rashidi]

That's my point, you are trying to simplify something to a guideline. This role works well with that role. Does that imply that no other role works well with it? That's the danger. Oversimplifcation is sometimes a dangerous things because people develop rules off them. As long as they are a simple guideline then fine.

For example. A RPM and a BBM in a 2 man midfield can sometimes be brilliant, but it needs the right kind of players around them. Choose the wrong players and it falls apart.  A triple playmaker midfield in a 4123 is a perfect way to set up a possession centric 4123 because it encourages play to revolve around 3 who can hold the ball up while others get into play (the default tiki taka system in the game is a 3 playmaker system), but you often hear people say that you shouldn't use 3 playmakers. 

So yes, while they can help as simple guidelines, just don't make them a rule, use them as a starting point to think about how they can work optimally together.

[crusadertsar]

@Rashidi Any plans on updating your Book of Roles guide? I found it was an excellent guide to which roles to use

Edited October 6, 2020 by crusadertsar

[Bot Makel]

@RashidiYou are absolutely right, there is no perfect combination. This is because there are so many variables within the game and tactics (player characteristics and teammates around him).

However, giving suggestions explaining why that choice might be right can lead users with little experience to understand the game and then come up with different but reasonable situations on their own.

[Rashidi]

OK here's one why is the TQx2 such a good combination in a 442, because each role has loads of creative freedom and plenty of movement, but neither role will drop deep at the same time. So they behave like a pivot. Ultimately people need to try these roles out themselves in different combinations to make them work for themselves so they can see it.

[crusadertsar]

20 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

OK here's one why is the TQx2 such a good combination in a 442, because each role has loads of creative freedom and plenty of movement, but neither role will drop deep at the same time. So they behave like a pivot. Ultimately people need to try these roles out themselves in different combinations to make them work for themselves so they can see it.

Really fascinating combination that! Something I would love to try with FM21. Would having specific sets of PPMs be essential for such a partnership to work in your opinion? Thanks

[Rashidi]

I might add to the Book of Roles for FM21 and add suitable combinations to use. Now this is only a guideline still need to think if thats a bit too much. There is one role combination I avoid. 

The IWB and the IW on the same flank, simply because they tend to occupy the same halfspace, and this leads to some weird behaviour. The IWB with the W is probably the best, the IWB and the IF isn't bad, because the IF is actually a lot more attacking and while they may occupy the same halfspace, the IF tends to actively attack the box. The IWB and the W combo can also be very effective when the W has cut inside to the box. This can be good when you are intentionally playing for overlaps ONLY. If you are playing with underlaps then it becomes an issue.

Defend Combinations - I did write about these combinations way back in FM13, and many still hold true.

BPD stopper/ CD(Cover)/BPD Stopper is an excellent combination for a back three when the Wingbacks are your only source of attacking width.  The BPD on stopper duty will proactively try and protect the flanks provided you are playing on the correct defensive width. 

Defensive width and attacking width have a habit of affecting how some roles and duties perform. For example:

Wide attacking width and wide defensive width

If you are playing a 4231 and think this is a great strategy to protect the flanks, then you are expecting the risk of play attacking your middle. So if you pop up and use a Mez/DLP combo in midfield, you run the risk of the Mez going missing during a defensive transition, since he has stay wider in his player instructions. Does this mean the carrilero is also a poor choice. Well not as bad as the Mez since he doesn't roam, but the Car is best suited to diamond structures in midfield. If you do opt to use a CAR in a 2 man midfield then you need to be aware of any potential poor positioning or weird behaviour.

Attacking Combos
The final third is about creating space and attacking space.  The best designed tactics actually consider space in their design. So its always a good idea to think of that when you create a tactic. While some may think this is an advanced notion, I believe that the earlier you start to learn about them the easier it makes your life in the long run.

An IW(A) in a deeper midfield like a flat four is actually a very good option, think of Arjen Robben. He was most dangerous arriving from deeper positions, because his skill on the ball and his dribbling made it difficult to take the ball off him. So consider how you can deploy him.

In a flat 4141 for example, you could use an aggressive DM role to protect your backline as you place one IW(A) on one flank, then you think bout the roles that can combine well around him to create the space for him. A role like a BWM(S) would be ideal to give the protection you want beside him and alongside that role closer to the other flank you could have a Mez or a playmaker or even a CM(A) with a WP(S) told to sit narrow. Behind them you could unlock the right flank with a FB(A) duty. Now what you have is a 4141 that could end up playing like a 4123 in attack with the IW(A) arriving late. 

When one is thinking about combinations that are optimum its about how you use them to control and attack space. I plan to do more designing tactics on youtube soon, or release some of the other videos that I have made. The idea is to think out of the box and not be limited by what other people tell you. And the only way to do this is to experiment with roles and duties yourself. 

I do like the idea of the thread, but I just to reiterate there are no "perfect role combos".

[crusadertsar]

1 hour ago, Rashidi said:

I might add to the Book of Roles for FM21 and add suitable combinations to use. Now this is only a guideline still need to think if thats a bit too much. There is one role combination I avoid. 

The IWB and the IW on the same flank, simply because they tend to occupy the same halfspace, and this leads to some weird behaviour. The IWB with the W is probably the best, the IWB and the IF isn't bad, because the IF is actually a lot more attacking and while they may occupy the same halfspace, the IF tends to actively attack the box. The IWB and the W combo can also be very effective when the W has cut inside to the box. This can be good when you are intentionally playing for overlaps ONLY. If you are playing with underlaps then it becomes an issue.

Defend Combinations - I did write about these combinations way back in FM13, and many still hold true.

BPD stopper/ CD(Cover)/BPD Stopper is an excellent combination for a back three when the Wingbacks are your only source of attacking width.  The BPD on stopper duty will proactively try and protect the flanks provided you are playing on the correct defensive width. 

Defensive width and attacking width have a habit of affecting how some roles and duties perform. For example:

Wide attacking width and wide defensive width

If you are playing a 4231 and think this is a great strategy to protect the flanks, then you are expecting the risk of play attacking your middle. So if you pop up and use a Mez/DLP combo in midfield, you run the risk of the Mez going missing during a defensive transition, since he has stay wider in his player instructions. Does this mean the carrilero is also a poor choice. Well not as bad as the Men since he doesn't roam, but the Car is best suited to diamond structures in midfield. If you do opt to use a CAR in a 2 man midfield then you need to be aware of any potential poor positioning or weird behaviour.

Attacking Combos
The final third is about creating space and attacking space.  The best designed tactics actually consider space in their design. So its always a good idea to think of that when you create a tactic. While some may think this is an advanced notion, I believe that the earlier you start to learn about them the easier it makes your life in the long run.

An IW(A) in a deeper midfield like a flat four is actually a very good option, think of Arjen Robben. He was most dangerous arriving from deeper positions, because his skill on the ball and his dribbling made it difficult to take the ball off him. So consider how you can deploy him.

In a flat 4141 for example, you could use an aggressive DM role to protect your backline as you place one IW(A) on one flank, then you think bout the roles that can combine well around him to create the space for him. A role like a BWM(S) would be ideal to give the protection you want beside him and alongside that role closer to the other flank you could have a Mez or a playmaker or even a CM(A) with a WP(S) told to sit narrow. Behind them you could unlock the right flank with a FB(A) duty. Now what you have is a 4141 that could end up playing like a 4123 in attack with the IW(A) arriving late. 

When one is thinking about combinations that are optimum its about how you use them to control and attack space. I plan to do more designing tactics on youtube soon, or release some of the other videos that I have made. The idea is to think out of the box and not be limited by what other people tell you. And the only way to do this is to experiment with roles and duties yourself. 

I do like the idea of the thread, but I just to reiterate there are no "perfect role combos".

Awesome advise! 

So regarding using 3 CB backline with two BPD Stoppers by correct width you mean using defend wider instruction?

Edited October 6, 2020 by crusadertsar

[Rashidi]

Defensive Width is a conscious strategy you choose. When you go either narrow and wide you are specifically giving instructions telling the team which areas of the pitch to defend as a priority. This has the effect of funnelling the opposition attacks down the path of least resistance. When you think like that then you plan.

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, Rashidi said:

but you often hear people say that you shouldn't use 3 playmakers

Unless you know exactly why and how you are using them 

I recently saw your tactic with as many as 4 PMs in the middle - REG, 2 DLPs & AP on attack duty - but the way you use them makes perfect sense in that particular tactic. However, I saw a lot of tactics from less experienced players, who also use 3 or more PMs. but without any logical sense. And then they normally have plenty of issues and cannot understand why their tactic is not working. 

[crusadertsar]

57 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Defensive Width is a conscious strategy you choose. When you go either narrow and wide you are specifically giving instructions telling the team which areas of the pitch to defend as a priority. This has the effect of funnelling the opposition attacks down the path of least resistance. When you think like that then you plan.

Good point. It's all about context of course. Depending on how opposition plays. I just figured if you have both wingbacks bombing up and providing the only width. You would want your BPDs to go wider to cover better.

[TheJanitor]

On 06/10/2020 at 01:48, Experienced Defender said:

If you want it to be primarily possession-based tactic, then I would definitely advise against playing both wing-backs on attack duty. My preferred setup - with minimal change to yours - would look like this:

CFsu    AF

AMat

DLPsu    CAR

WBat                         (C)WBsu

CDde  BPDde/st  CDde

Because in a possession-oriented tactic, the point is not to have a lot of players rushing forward as soon as possible, but to have most of them supporting one another in the build-up phase (as well as during transitions), keeping the ball for the few waiting to make decisive penetrating runs from different directions and in different areas of the pitch. 

Thought I do a little follow up as I played a few games. I'm playing as Inter.

First, the 5212 since I used it the most. This is the setup I went with:

CFsu    AF

AMat

DLPsu    CAR

WBat                         WBsu

CDde  L/su  CDde

A major issue I had was creating chances against weaker teams, as we scored 15 goals in 10 games with previous tactics against mostly weaker sides (I'm excluding matches against Juventus and Lazio). In the 10 games I've been using this tactics we scored 28 goals, so job done. One thing is that we are a good set-pieces team, which works for us, but the wingbacks aren't very good. They still do pretty well so I'm guessing with quality players the tactic would be even better.

I'm using it with a stripped-down version of the Control Possession style. Highly recommend this setup!

The 5122 was only tested twice, away against Manchester City and Roma, and it did what it should - limit the opposition chances. We conceded 3 goals, but 2 were set pieces and the other was a pen. Jury still out but I'm positive about it.

[denen123]

I hate to be that person, but as informative & good intentioned, threads like these are, The truth is they often add a grade to the loop of confusion beginners have while trying to solve issues with the game. "So a Winger on support must play with a FB on support?" "A lone striker in a 433 must avoid isolation by being on support duty?" and many more, are questions that often emerge from oversimplifying the entire gaming process.

I learnt/still learning from excess research, videos & from reading a lot of threads, so i cannot say i haven't picked good things from similar threads. But we can stick with "helping" posters with potential fixes in their individual set-ups & recommending what we think are "solid" matchups for certain tactics or we stop "almighty" formulas all together.

 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, denen123 said:

I hate to be that person, but as informative & good intentioned, threads like these are, The truth is they often add a grade to the loop of confusion beginners have while trying to solve issues with the game. "So a Winger on support must play with a FB on support?" "A lone striker in a 433 must avoid isolation by being on support duty?" and many more, are questions that often emerge from oversimplifying the entire gaming process

I absolutely agree with you, and that's exactly why I warned people in the opening post that they should not take anything as a fixed or definite rule. However, I am fully aware that a lot of people will simply ignore my warning(s) and view this topic as a sort of "ultimate guide", which it definitely is not.

But you know what... the road to hell is paved with good intentions  

[Hilly1979]

I think people need to tread carefully with this thread as you see a lot of advice on roles and duties that could be taken as rules.

A lot of the advice on Here says both wings should be set up differently - no they don’t, you can still have success with identical wings.

You see that you shouldn’t play with more than one playmaker - yes you can with great success.

A lone striker should have a support duty - no he shouldn’t.

As I say I think we need to be careful when advising newcomers as a seemingly set of rules could lead them up the garden path.

[Tibalg]

Hello guys,

First of all, apologies for my english, I'm not native speaker. 

 

 

I'm asking about Roles and combination for :

- the front two : I like the PF(a) - PF(s) combination, but I found that they are on the same line, and the PF(s) doest not come deep enought, creating gap. Also I'm wondering about their position: should I switch them or not (like PF(s) - PF(a) ?

- the mid two : Segundo Volante is clearly my favorite role, I play DM(s) with him "Stay in Position" PI, but might not be the best combo. Same question as before, should I switch their position ?

- the two wingers: a IW(s) on the left, and a WM(a) on the right. I might try other combination such as IW(s) - W(a) or WM(s) with PI Come Inside - W(a). These two will not be switched regarding my team (very good right foot and no real goof left foot)

Anyway, my tactic is not so bad, I'm only asking for better roles/duties and few tweak to be better.

Thanks for your help folks !!

[Experienced Defender]

9 hours ago, Hilly1979 said:

A lot of the advice on Here says both wings should be set up differently ...

You see that you shouldn’t play with more than one playmaker ... 

A lone striker should have a support duty 

Have you seen these tips in this particular thread or you are referring to the tactical forum in general? Because none of them has been mentioned here (at least I haven't). 

 

9 hours ago, Hilly1979 said:

I think people need to tread carefully with this thread as you see a lot of advice on roles and duties that could be taken as rules

Absolutely  

[Experienced Defender]

9 hours ago, Tibalg said:

Hello guys,

First of all, apologies for my english, I'm not native speaker. 

 

 

I'm asking about Roles and combination for :

- the front two : I like the PF(a) - PF(s) combination, but I found that they are on the same line, and the PF(s) doest not come deep enought, creating gap. Also I'm wondering about their position: should I switch them or not (like PF(s) - PF(a) ?

- the mid two : Segundo Volante is clearly my favorite role, I play DM(s) with him "Stay in Position" PI, but might not be the best combo. Same question as before, should I switch their position ?

- the two wingers: a IW(s) on the left, and a WM(a) on the right. I might try other combination such as IW(s) - W(a) or WM(s) with PI Come Inside - W(a). These two will not be switched regarding my team (very good right foot and no real goof left foot)

Anyway, my tactic is not so bad, I'm only asking for better roles/duties and few tweak to be better.

Thanks for your help folks !!

Given that this topic is exclusively about role and duty combinations, I had to remove everything else from your post (including that 2nd tactic, because this is a quick Q&A thread). 

So if you want a discussion on other aspects of your tactic, you'll have to start your own separate thread. 

Now let's see your questions about specific roles: 

9 hours ago, Tibalg said:

- the front two : I like the PF(a) - PF(s) combination, but I found that they are on the same line

What do you mean by "the same line" in this context? 

 

9 hours ago, Tibalg said:

and the PF(s) doest not come deep enought, creating gap

The question here is what do you personally view as "deep enough"? 

You also must seriously take player traits into account, because they greatly affect the behavior of a player. 

9 hours ago, Tibalg said:

Also I'm wondering about their position: should I switch them or not (like PF(s) - PF(a) ?

I don't think so (given the rest of your setup). 

 

9 hours ago, Tibalg said:

- the mid two : Segundo Volante is clearly my favorite role, I play DM(s) with him "Stay in Position" PI, but might not be the best combo

There is no such thing as "best combo" (or "best" whatever) in FM as well as real-life football. What is "good" or "bad" depends entirely on the context of your tactic as a whole.

9 hours ago, Tibalg said:

Same question as before, should I switch their position ?

Rather than swapping the 2 DM sides, I would only change the DM's duty into defend, because I don't see any reason why he should be on support duty in this particular tactic (especially when paired with a role like volante). 

 

9 hours ago, Tibalg said:

- the two wingers: a IW(s) on the left, and a WM(a) on the right

I personally would not swap them - again taking the rest of your setup into account. A WM on attack duty behind the supporting striker and an IW on support behind the attacking striker make perfect sense. So I don't see any reason to change these 2 roles at this point. 

[Hilly1979]

14 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Have you seen these tips in this particular thread or you are referring to the tactical forum in general? Because none of them has been mentioned here (at least I haven't). 

 

Absolutely  

Not on this thread yet...... but happens a lot on this forum in general 

[Fatkidscantjump]

I recently read the guide about the roles composing a 4231 by @Experienced Defender.

In the guide he says both the Striker and Amc shouldnt be on attack duty at the same time. My 4231 looks like this : 

                                        AF

W(s)                               SS                         IF(s)

                      CM(s)                  DLP(d)

 

FB(s)              BPD(d)             CD(d)          WB(s)

 

So after reading the guide I feel like maybe the front four needs some changes. I originally used a CFs as a striker but an AF seemed to improve my results. Im doing okay, finishing 3rd for a team predicted 7th, but it is true that my SS has somewhat disappointing ratings and stats, and he is a great player (Oyarzabal from sociedad). Would an AMC(s) role work better in that scenario, maybe with special PIs ? And in that case should I change IF or W duty to attack ?

Sorry about formating if its wrong, im on mobile atm.

 

Edited October 11, 2020 by Experienced Defender
team instructions removed, not belonging to the topic

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

I recently read the guide about the roles composing a 4231 by @Experienced Defender.

In the guide he says both the Striker and Amc shouldnt be on attack duty at the same time

That "guide" pertained to FM18 and was more about some basic principles than any definite rules that must be followed blindly. Plus, I myself have reviewed some of my earlier tactical views, because I - like anyone - am also learning new things while playing the game and "stealing tricks" from better and more experienced FM players (like Herne or Rashidi, for example). Therefore, take that old 4231 guide with a pinch of salt, even though a lot of its elements still apply (especially those about the CM duo). 

 

2 hours ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

AF

W(s)                               SS                         IF(s)

                      CM(s)                  DLP(d)

 

FB(s)              BPD(d)             CD(d)          WB(s)

To me personally, this setup of roles and duties looks nice and makes sense if you intend to use it in a style of play that is primarily counter-attacking and with defensive solidity as its top priority. But if you want to play a more possession and control-oriented style, then a couple of adjustments will probably be needed. 

[Fatkidscantjump]

7 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

That "guide" pertained to FM18 and was more about some basic principles than any definite rules that must be followed blindly. Plus, I myself have reviewed some of my earlier tactical views, because I - like anyone - am also learning new things while playing the game and "stealing tricks" from better and more experienced FM players (like Herne or Rashidi, for example). Therefore, take that old 4231 guide with a pinch of salt, even though a lot of its elements still apply (especially those about the CM duo). 

 

To me personally, this setup of roles and duties looks nice and makes sense if you intend to use it in a style of play that is primarily counter-attacking and with defensive solidity as its top priority. But if you want to play a more possession and control-oriented style, then a couple of adjustments will probably be needed. 

Right, thats why I wanted more explanation about my specific setup, rather than following your guide blindly and making unnecessary changes.

Let me know if im wrong there at any point, just trying to understand your second point ; 

- Counter attacking rather than posesssion because the bpd / dlp will be able to play through balls to the AF / SS on the counter, and wingers have not a particularly posession friendly role ?

- Defensively solid as a priority because of the wingers having support duties mean they'll track back more to defend, plus dlp with a defend duty instead of support and a fb(s) on the Cm(s) side means the setup of role and duties is overall of low risk ?

Edited October 11, 2020 by Experienced Defender
explained in my reply

[Experienced Defender]

6 hours ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

- Counter attacking rather than posesssion because the bpd / dlp will be able to play through balls to the AF / SS on the counter, and wingers have not a particularly posession friendly role ?

Counter-attacking primarily due to the setup of the front 4 (both wide forwards on support duties so that they would track back and help in defense, whereas both central players in aggressive attack-minded roles looking to attack space quickly) 

 

6 hours ago, Fatkidscantjump said:

- Defensively solid as a priority because of the wingers having support duties mean they'll track back more to defend, plus dlp with a defend duty instead of support and a fb(s) on the Cm(s) side means the setup of role and duties is overall of low risk ?

Yes  

P.S: For other questions you asked, you'll have to start a separate thread, because they go beyond the topic of this one. 

Btw, I had to remove them from your post, precisely because of that. 

[Fatkidscantjump]

Il y a 14 heures, Experienced Defender a dit :

Counter-attacking primarily due to the setup of the front 4 (both wide forwards on support duties so that they would track back and help in defense, whereas both central players in aggressive attack-minded roles looking to attack space quickly) 

 

Yes  

P.S: For other questions you asked, you'll have to start a separate thread, because they go beyond the topic of this one. 

Btw, I had to remove them from your post, precisely because of that. 

No worries, ill bump my 4231 thread I made a few days back, thanks for the answer ! 

[Ultrajet]

Hello, what can you tell me about these roles? In particular in midfield. I have a hard time finding the right combination. The IF(A) and the DLP(S) are more or less the foundations of this formation, so I'm trying to find a good balance for the other roles.

[Experienced Defender]

7 minutes ago, Ultrajet said:

Hello, what can you tell me about these roles? In particular in midfield. I have a hard time finding the right combination. The IF(A) and the DLP(S) are more or less the foundations of this formation, so I'm trying to find a good balance for the other roles.

Roles and duties in your setup don't look bad overall IMHO. So if you have tactical issues, the best idea is to start your own separate thread and then we can discuss it there in more detail 

[Zemahh]

2 hours ago, Ultrajet said:

Hello, what can you tell me about these roles? In particular in midfield.

Looks like a well-balanced tactic, but maybe a bit too conservative for Monaco.

I'd suggest two small changes:

• DLP -> REG; with a BWM in-front, a team that's going to be attacking most of the time probably doesn't need a holding DM. I've had a lot of success with Regista in a similar setup, he was a Key Pass machine. 
• DLF-Su -> DLF-At; same instructions, but a higher individual mentality, meaning more adventurous passes and more forward runs (another body for DLP/REG to feed, since currently you only have the IF, and occasionally MEZ, that make forward runs). Dadasov isn't likely to win many headers, so I wouldn't count on overlaps too much.

[Johnny Ace]

One of the things I see on these boards, is a disregard for PPIs 

In general I mean, people will slap the roles & duties down on a thread & ask for help which yes, is fine but just as a pointer, check the PPIs for every player you have & every player you ever intend to sign.

If you have a FB(S) that "stays back at all times", a DM that "gets forward whenever possible", a winger with "cuts inside from both wings", a BPD that only "plays short passes" or an Advanced Forward that likes to "come deep to collect the ball", they won't play how you want. They're every bit as important as attributes    

You may moves clubs & want to use a previously successful tactic at your new club & just throw your new players into it

This will also apply to those that use plug n' play tactics & copy tactics from YouTubers or those posted on here, PPIs will seriously affect the player's behavior  

[Experienced Defender]

4 hours ago, Johnny Ace said:

One of the things I see on these boards, is a disregard for PPIs 

In general I mean, people will slap the roles & duties down on a thread & ask for help which yes, is fine but just as a pointer, check the PPIs for every player you have & every player you ever intend to sign.

If you have a FB(S) that "stays back at all times", a DM that "gets forward whenever possible", a winger with "cuts inside from both wings", a BPD that only "plays short passes" or an Advanced Forward that likes to "come deep to collect the ball", they won't play how you want. They're every bit as important as attributes    

You may moves clubs & want to use a previously successful tactic at your new club & just throw your new players into it

This will also apply to those that use plug n' play tactics & copy tactics from YouTubers or those posted on here, PPIs will seriously affect the player's behavior  

You are right. But as stated in the opening post, this thread is no ultimate guide by any means. Rather, it's just a rough set of some basic guidelines aimed at helping less experienced players/tacticians. 

And the topic was created at the request of a forum member btw. 

[nugatti]

On 06/10/2020 at 13:24, Rashidi said:

That's my point, you are trying to simplify something to a guideline. This role works well with that role. Does that imply that no other role works well with it? That's the danger. Oversimplifcation is sometimes a dangerous things because people develop rules off them. As long as they are a simple guideline then fine.

For example. A RPM and a BBM in a 2 man midfield can sometimes be brilliant, but it needs the right kind of players around them. Choose the wrong players and it falls apart.  A triple playmaker midfield in a 4123 is a perfect way to set up a possession centric 4123 because it encourages play to revolve around 3 who can hold the ball up while others get into play (the default tiki taka system in the game is a 3 playmaker system), but you often hear people say that you shouldn't use 3 playmakers. 

So yes, while they can help as simple guidelines, just don't make them a rule, use them as a starting point to think about how they can work optimally together.

Some good points here, and I feel this kind of thread could help inexperienced FMers in avoiding certain combinations to make their team perform better. 

As many - including @Experienced Defender have already pointed out, the important thing is the tactic as a whole. So when presented with all player roles & duties I think one can give sound advice on a specific position. Also the stock tactics in the game could be used for reference. They are - after all - made by the people who make the game and know how it works 

Nice thread!

[Continum]

                    TM(s)

 

IF(a)                                  W(s)

 

           AP(s)        MEZ(a)

 

                   DM(d)

 

FB(a)   CD(d)    BPD(d)    FB(s)

 

                    GK(d)

 

How does this setup look?

1. Is it best to use a winger in the AMR spot to make space for the mezzala, or could a inverted winger or a inside forward work as well?
2. Will the advanced playmaker in combination with the full back on attack and inside forward on attack be too adventurous? Will a deep lying playmaker work better in terms of balance? 

[denen123]

8 hours ago, Continum said:

                    TM(s)

 

IF(a)                                  W(s)

 

           AP(s)        MEZ(a)

 

                   DM(d)

 

FB(a)   CD(d)    BPD(d)    FB(s)

 

                    GK(d)

 

How does this setup look?

1. Is it best to use a winger in the AMR spot to make space for the mezzala, or could a inverted winger or a inside forward work as well?
2. Will the advanced playmaker in combination with the full back on attack and inside forward on attack be too adventurous? Will a deep lying playmaker work better in terms of balance? 

Your left side looks weak, defensively. TM(s) can be a good focal point in a lot of tactics, but can be rather difficult in a lot of 433's. 

If you trust your DM, then you can put him on support duty, so he can offer more, moving forward. Your WBL can be a WB(s) or( a WB(a) while keeping if you're willing to change your IF to support duty ). Target man can be any of PF(a)/CF(a)/DLF(a), so he does not get isolated in build up, but still serves as focal point in attack. Depending on the quality of player, the TQ can also be considered.

Edited October 16, 2020 by denen123

[Experienced Defender]

17 hours ago, Continum said:

Will the advanced playmaker in combination with the full back on attack and inside forward on attack be too adventurous? Will a deep lying playmaker work better in terms of balance? 

The answer to both questions is - yes. 

 

17 hours ago, Continum said:

Is it best to use a winger in the AMR spot to make space for the mezzala, or could a inverted winger or a inside forward work as well?

There is no "best" or "worst" in FM, but in this particular case, the simplest tweak I would consider is changing the mezzala into CM on attack duty. 

And then depending on the player, you may also consider the RB as IWB on support (but be careful because IWB is a pretty demanding role).