striker role in 4141

[daveb653]

Ok here goes:

I'm doing my usual first save and as usual i'm trying to stay away from AMR/AML, I like the solidity of the wingers being in "normal" mid strata.

I tried a couple of formations i.e 442 and 4411 but didn't get my team playing how I liked. After doing a bit of trial and error I dropped a mid into a HB role (my issue was balancing my midfield with my favorite roles) so it morphed into a 4141. 

I'm happy with how my team are playing and the results we are getting, however I don't seem to get much from my striker (again). Now he did have a nice assist for my RPM to score 2 games ago, bur other than that he hasn't done much.

I've tried Poacher (I realy like the idea of getting a poacher to work) and AF and PF(A). Are these suitable in a 1 striker formation? I want him to push the defenders back and keep some pressure on the backline. 

Im playing an attacking direct passing style of football, which is working how I like (thanks in part to @Rashidi and his low block post)

But I just want a bit more involvement from my striker, my last game he had 8 touches of the ball.

Any help/advice would be much appreciated.

Here is my tactic just now:

 

[Hilly1979]

To me your striker is going to get isolated in that system, I would suggest using a support duty to allow him to drop and link with the midfield.

[ralala]

No Pogba in the team, a sensible man.

I agree with the above post about the striker being isolated. Especially since there are no runners from central midfield. A MEZ or a BBM could help out with that. 

An AF will challenge the channels more than the P, so you might see more of the pushing defenders back and keeping the pressure on the backline you want with this. The P is a static role.

An PF(A) should press even more, but might be just chasing shadows since no other players are pressuring the defence with him.

 

[daveb653]

No pogba, his concentration is too low  

@Hilly1979 I did consider a PF(s) but when we win the ball back we transition pretty quickly and I want the attack duty forward so the opposition defenders always have to think about something. Also He is an out ball as we sit fairly deep so the option is on for a ball over the top to take advantage of greenwood and Martials pace.

@ralala This was my thinking of switching, the AF may not be as laser focused on scoring so may offer channel running etc, the PF would close down the CD's more, where as the Poacher is just looking to put the ball in the net.

 

I just played Huddersfield so not the best gauge but Greenwood got MOTM, scoring twice and getting a freekick assist.

He does occasionally look isolated but the wide players support pretty well and the RPM and CM do a pretty good job of keeping up with play.

 

[ralala]

I completely forgot you can put an Deep Lying Forward on Attack-duty now. Maybe that is the answer, a bit of both worlds?

United doesn't have a player that fits the role though, so might be a period of position training or a transfer to make that role work.

[daveb653]

Yeah, maybe its one I'll give a go. Thanks

 

[ozilthegunner]

Maybe go with a CF-a ... especially if you are playing a dribbler up front. He'll  also move laterally well to help as the out ball, but will push forward if he thinks that is the better way to help the team in the moment

[Experienced Defender]

I am struggling to understand your choice of formation, to begin with. I mean, you are managing a top team. Even if the tactic itself was "perfectly" designed - which it's far from - the mere choice of a bottom-heavy system doesn't really make sense IMHO.

If the idea is to play counter-attacking football taking advantage of the great pace up front, a system with a highly isolated lone striker means opposition defenses should relatively easily deal with him most of the time. Instead, a 442 or 4411 would make a lot more sense for such style of play. 

[frukox]

12 hours ago, daveb653 said:

Ok here goes:

I'm doing my usual first save and as usual i'm trying to stay away from AMR/AML, I like the solidity of the wingers being in "normal" mid strata.

I tried a couple of formations i.e 442 and 4411 but didn't get my team playing how I liked. After doing a bit of trial and error I dropped a mid into a HB role (my issue was balancing my midfield with my favorite roles) so it morphed into a 4141. 

I'm happy with how my team are playing and the results we are getting, however I don't seem to get much from my striker (again). Now he did have a nice assist for my RPM to score 2 games ago, bur other than that he hasn't done much.

I've tried Poacher (I realy like the idea of getting a poacher to work) and AF and PF(A). Are these suitable in a 1 striker formation? I want him to push the defenders back and keep some pressure on the backline. 

Im playing an attacking direct passing style of football, which is working how I like (thanks in part to @Rashidi and his low block post)

But I just want a bit more involvement from my striker, my last game he had 8 touches of the ball.

Any help/advice would be much appreciated.

Here is my tactic just now:

 

Let me give my two cents here. I played with Man City in the past with this formation with a mid block. We were deadly in attack with fast transitions. So it's possible to play a fast attacking style with this. 

Role changes:

WA to WS

CMS to CMA with roaming instruction

Right FB: WBS to FBA

PA to PFA

Now we created an overload on the right flank. Who is going to take advantage of the space created? Your IWA and PFA with late runners in the form of RPM and CMA. 

TI changes:

Remove play wider. On positive mentality your players still tend to prioritise passing to your flanks. 

Remove Counter, Regroup. You are one of the best teams in the league. Let them decide when to blitz or play slower.

Remove lower LOE. You need to put some form of pressure when playing against weaker teams.

Add Hit Early Crosses against deep defences or WBIB against mid or high blocks(add Pass into Space or give it to some of your best creative passers)

Add Focus Down Right Flank and/or Left Flank To create space for IWA and WBS on the other side and/or create some space in the middle for CMs.

[daveb653]

8 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

I am struggling to understand your choice of formation, to begin with. I mean, you are managing a top team. Even if the tactic itself was "perfectly" designed - which it's far from - the mere choice of a bottom-heavy system doesn't really make sense IMHO.

If the idea is to play counter-attacking football taking advantage of the great pace up front, a system with a highly isolated lone striker means opposition defenses should relatively easily deal with him most of the time. Instead, a 442 or 4411 would make a lot more sense for such style of play. 

@Experienced Defender I just really struggled to get the balance of a 4411 right, that's the only reason i dropped to 4141. I struggled to get anyone to "hold position" so to speak when we were in the final third, so i struggled to retain posession and recycle the ball.

 

@frukox I originally had it with a CM(A) but was worried with both my cm's having roam id leave myself open to the counter. Your suggestions are sound, quick question, why the FB(A)?

 

[frukox]

8 minutes ago, daveb653 said:

@Experienced Defender I just really struggled to get the balance of a 4411 right, that's the only reason i dropped to 4141. I struggled to get anyone to "hold position" so to speak when we were in the final third, so i struggled to retain posession and recycle the ball.

 

@frukox I originally had it with a CM(A) but was worried with both my cm's having roam id leave myself open to the counter. Your suggestions are sound, quick question, why the FB(A)?

 

I suggested a WS there so a FBA can bomb down the flank given your tempo, cross early to PFA or IWA or cut back to CMA and RPM and can overlap him at every opportunity to create 2 vs 1 or you can change him to be an IWBS to have another passing option in the middle. Your choice. Btw, you can be a bit more aggressive with defensive formations. So there is little to no risk using two aggressive roles in the middle.

Edited December 27, 2020 by frukox

[Xavier Lukhas]

Il y a 14 heures, daveb653 a dit :

Any help/advice would be much appreciated.

I love the flat 4-1-4-1, but there's a couple of things that could be done. As @Experienced Defender alluded to when he talks of the formation as a bottom heavy one, and due to its nature and how FM treats formations (the formation in your tactical creator is your defensive formation), it's harder to press and counter press early: your players tend to be a bit far from their mark, and a bit late when pressing them. Either you change your formation, or you accept it and dance around it; there are compromises everywhere. Regardless, you need in this formation a striker who can both buy time on the ball for your wingers to move up but also can get himself forward. He really needs to be able to score goals. You also need at least one CM that can be a threat and/or bring the ball up... which ironically is Pogba's speciality and how he was used at Juve.

The options I would consider for the striker is DLP(A) if you really need to link up offence and defence but still need him to run into the box, PF(A) if you really need him to focus on scoring goals but need an extra bit of support (probably Cavani's best role due to his high Work Rate), or CF(A) if you have a striker who really is just that good. For the CM, basically I'd advise an Attack/Support/Defend trio. The only way I'd care about a Support/Support/Defend trio is if one of the support roles is MEZ(S). CM(S) paired with RPM doesn't make much sense in your case when you have few obvious primary and secondary goal scoring options (mostly your ST and your ML respectively).

il y a 32 minutes, daveb653 a dit :

why the FB(A)?

I'm going to answer to "why FB(A) at all"? Had that discussion in another thread here:

WB(S) plays wider, positions itself higher and closes down earlier. FB(A) will go forward a lot more aggressively, be more versatile in his passing choices instead of always going wide, but also track back a lot more and has more positional discipline relative to his defensive partners than WB(S), but he also has to run a lot more so you need a player who at the very least is very fast. I'd say it depends who you have in front of them, if you rely on aggressive overlaps, on crosses, and so on.

That being said, I probably personally wouldn't have a FB(A) behind a W(A); it's not a pair to me that has much synergy. WB(S) or even FB(S) (which I really like and aren't as tame as one could believe) are more interesting options with a W(A); I'd put the more aggressive FB in support of the IW(A) on the left side of the pitch. I wouldn't advise relying on crosses in such a formation though: the ST will be marked, and for the winger on the other side of the pitch that could help... generally wingers aren't too good in the air. I would personally want late crossing options once the team is higher up the pitch, but I wouldn't want to rely on early crosses because you have only one player who is likely to be 1) any good in the air and 2) in the box earlier than everyone else: your striker. The FM21 ME has more possibilities in combinations in the middle of the pitch than the FM20 ME, where it was harder for me to justify this formation instead of a formation with more obvious and dedicated attacking threats.

Edited December 27, 2020 by Xavier Lukhas

[daveb653]

One thing I have noticed is that my 4141 plays alot better on an attacking mentality, is this due to it being bottom heavy and using an attacking mentality "frees " the players up?

One thing I always struggle with is balance within a tactic, so i've used https://www.guidetofm.com/tactics/role-combinations/ To help me get some balance, this is why some of my roles are the way they are.

 

[frukox]

1 hour ago, daveb653 said:

One thing I have noticed is that my 4141 plays alot better on an attacking mentality, is this due to it being bottom heavy and using an attacking mentality "frees " the players up?

One thing I always struggle with is balance within a tactic, so i've used https://www.guidetofm.com/tactics/role-combinations/ To help me get some balance, this is why some of my roles are the way they 

Increasing mentality means increasing risk your players will take in terms of forward runs, dribbling, passing, shooting, where to start closing down, etc. as well as increasing your attacking width, tempo, passing directness, DL/ LOE, pressing urgency, etc. So maybe your team wins the ball around the middle third and breaks down opposition defence by means of swift attacks before they turn into an organized state. This is of course a speculation without seeing the tactic itself.

Edited December 27, 2020 by frukox

[daveb653]

@frukox Yeah thats true, i was just a little surprised by it. I just played city and got beat 2-1, lost the first half 2-0 and got pinned back, so 2nd half i went attacking mentality and played much better winning the half 1-0, limiting citys chances considerably, which suprised me as i though id give up more chances due to me being more gung-ho in my approach.

@Experienced Defender how would you balance out the above tactic?

I basically have 3-4 roles I really like in FM and always try ro incorporate them into a tactic/formation. the roles are SV, SS and now RPM with a poacher as an option (not sure how i see a poacher is how the game see's one though, im thinking simple passing (one-twos, lay offs etc), running onto through passes staying fairly central and being the main source of goals for the team?

SO originally i went 4411 with a deeper cdm as an SV and an offset SS, but really struggled with balance, so i switched the SV to an RPM which somewhat helped but still seemed vulnerable to a pass between my lines even with a cm on defend duty.

[frukox]

54 minutes ago, daveb653 said:

@frukox Yeah thats true, i was just a little surprised by it. I just played city and got beat 2-1, lost the first half 2-0 and got pinned back, so 2nd half i went attacking mentality and played much better winning the half 1-0, limiting citys chances considerably, which suprised me as i though id give up more chances due to me being more gung-ho in my approach.

@Experienced Defender how would you balance out the above tactic?

I basically have 3-4 roles I really like in FM and always try ro incorporate them into a tactic/formation. the roles are SV, SS and now RPM with a poacher as an option (not sure how i see a poacher is how the game see's one though, im thinking simple passing (one-twos, lay offs etc), running onto through passes staying fairly central and being the main source of goals for the team?

SO originally i went 4411 with a deeper cdm as an SV and an offset SS, but really struggled with balance, so i switched the SV to an RPM which somewhat helped but still seemed vulnerable to a pass between my lines even with a cm on defend duty.

What was your system like against the City? 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, daveb653 said:

@Experienced Defender how would you balance out the above tactic?

Using the same formation (flat 4141) or a different one?

[daveb653]

2 hours ago, frukox said:

What was your system like against the City? 

@frukox That exact one from the OP. No changes until half time.

 

2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Using the same formation (flat 4141) or a different one?

@Experienced Defender Either, 4411 was my original tactic and was exactly the same TI wise the only roles that changed were the midfield triangle, Right FB was a FB(s) and striker.

I tried a few combinations but the midfield always seemed a bit dis-jointed and disconnected if that makes sense?

[aliakis9]

In my opinion , wide tactics mean lots of crosses, isolated fowards  and it's almost impossible to use Trequartista or Isolated Poachers effectively

I would use Cavani as Target Man in your squad.

Edited December 27, 2020 by aliakis9

[Experienced Defender]

5 hours ago, daveb653 said:

7 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Using the same formation (flat 4141) or a different one?

@Experienced Defender Either, 4411 was my original tactic

Okay, let's first go with the 4141:

F9

IWat    DLPsu    MEZat    WMsu

HB

WBsu    CDde   BPDde   (I)WBsu

SKde

- Positive

- PoD, shorter passing, run at defence, overlap left, underlap right

- distribute quickly (instructions such as counter or/and counter-press can occasionally be used as tweaks, depending on the situation or opposition)

- higher D-line, higher LOE, offside trap

NOTE: I took into account the team you manage and its reputation as well as the type of players you have at your disposal with their strengths and weaknesses. The idea is to move both the ball and players synchronously toward the final third, so that the lone striker would enjoy as much support as possible once the attacking action is there, but not in an overly slow and patient fashion, because this Utd team is not ideally suited for such a style of play. 

Now the 4411 version (one possible example):

CFat

AMsu

IWsu   CMde  DLPsu   WMat

FBat   CDde  BPDde   WBsu

SKde

Here a couple of instructions would be slightly different - no overlap and underlap & standard LOE instead of higher with a split block involving the striker, AMC and both wide midfielders. 

[daveb653]

9 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Okay, let's first go with the 4141:

F9

IWat    DLPsu    MEZat    WMsu

HB

WBsu    CDde   BPDde   (I)WBsu

SKde

- Positive

- PoD, shorter passing, run at defence, overlap left, underlap right

- distribute quickly (instructions such as counter or/and counter-press can occasionally be used as tweaks, depending on the situation or opposition)

- higher D-line, higher LOE, offside trap

NOTE: I took into account the team you manage and its reputation as well as the type of players you have at your disposal with their strengths and weaknesses. The idea is to move both the ball and players synchronously toward the final third, so that the lone striker would enjoy as much support as possible once the attacking action is there, but not in an overly slow and patient fashion, because this Utd team is not ideally suited for such a style of play. 

Now the 4411 version (one possible example):

CFat

AMsu

IWsu   CMde  DLPsu   WMat

FBat   CDde  BPDde   WBsu

SKde

Here a couple of instructions would be slightly different - no overlap and underlap & standard LOE instead of higher with a split block involving the striker, AMC and both wide midfielders. 

@Experienced Defender Thanks very much for the examples, mind if i ask a couple of questions about role choice?

The IWB on the fist one, if i'm imagining it right they take up a narrow position in the DM stata then on a support duty will still overlap the wm? If you used him on a defend duty he sits in the DM position and is alot more cautious above going forward?

I'm intrigued for the WM and dlp roles, why the choice of those? I it a specific reason or team based?

Initially I chose a dlp but the players I was playing there (Bruno and DVBD) had traits to get forward more and arrive late in the box, so  changed to an RPM as that didnt have the hold position instruction but still states that they track back and cover defensively

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, daveb653 said:

The IWB on the fist one, if i'm imagining it right they take up a narrow position in the DM stata then on a support duty will still overlap the wm? If you used him on a defend duty he sits in the DM position and is alot more cautious above going forward?

I put the (I) into brackets, which means you can use either WB or IWB. IWB is a more demanding role, so you can opt for WB if you fear the player may struggle as an IWB. 

The idea with the IWB is for him to occupy the space left by the mezzala when the latter bombs forward and help the midfield recycle possession. 

The IWB is more likely to underlap the WM than to overlap. WB, on the other hand, should naturally overlap the WM (although player movement is also dictated by what's happening on the pitch in a given situation, so behavior may not be identical during every single attack). 

With defend duty, the IWB will normally be more cautious compared to support, but I don't think that would be necessary in a bottom-heavy system such as 4141, especially for a top team. Plus, there are already 2 holding roles in the midfield - HB and DLP. 

1 hour ago, daveb653 said:

I'm intrigued for the WM and dlp roles, why the choice of those? I it a specific reason or team based?

WM is one of my favorite roles in the game, but unfortunately one of the most underrated by people playing FM. The reason I opted for WM is twofold:

1. the role is more defensively responsible than winger or IW, which makes it more appropriate to play alongside the attacking mezzala

2. the behavior of WM is also notably more flexible than W or IW, including in terms of suitability for possession play

When it comes to the selection of the DLP, I took into account the type of midfielders you have at Utd. Carrilero or BWM on support would also be good options, but I guess players like Pogba, Bruno and Van de Beek are much more suited for the DLP role  

[daveb653]

@Experienced Defender Makes sense, thanks very much.

One more question or request I guess, could you work one of RPM, S or SV into the 4411?

There currently my favorite roles and I'd like to incorporate one in if it was possible, I just really like the way they play in game  Especially RPM, thats my newest favourite lmao

[Experienced Defender]

5 hours ago, daveb653 said:

One more question or request I guess, could you work one of RPM, S or SV into the 4411?

Which role is "S"?

Btw, SV cannot be used in a 4411, because the formation has no DM (assuming that by SV you mean volante).

[daveb653]

@Experienced Defender Sorry, the S was SS shadow striker. Yeah, I know the volante is dm, its a favourite of FM20, I always try and get a favourite into a formation so just wondered if it could be a possibility of dropping one back  

[ozilthegunner]

1 hour ago, daveb653 said:

@Experienced Defender Sorry, the S was SS shadow striker. Yeah, I know the volante is dm, its a favourite of FM20, I always try and get a favourite into a formation so just wondered if it could be a possibility of dropping one back  

If you really wanted to use a SV, you could go to a 4-2-3-1 with the double pivot in the DM strata. I haven't played this way, but I've seen a number of people suggest that formation and all (or almost all of them) include using a SV as the more adventurous of the 2 DMs (somewhat mimicking a Box-to-Box Midfielder in the CM strata I believe)

But, unless you wanted to try to play very defensively (which I doubt and wouldn't recommend) then if you did move those guys back to the DM strata, I'd move the attacking wingers to the AM strata

[daveb653]

@ozilthegunner Yeah I've kind of realised that and seriously considering starting a fresh and going 4-2-3-1, I just like the 4411 for the compactness of the wide midfielders compared to the fullbacks.

[ozilthegunner]

5 minutes ago, daveb653 said:

@ozilthegunner Yeah I've kind of realised that and seriously considering starting a fresh and going 4-2-3-1, I just like the 4411 for the compactness of the wide midfielders compared to the fullbacks.

Well you could still use them in the midfield strata, it will just mean a very bottom heavy formation. But with the right roles and duties and such that doesn't mean it has to be cautious or defensive or whatever. In fact, could allow you to use a higher mentality (like attacking) without some of the negatives that usually come along with such a mentality (or at least with reduced issue)

Or, you could just setup the AML/R roles/duties such that they more closely mimic the compactness you are interested in. Definitely support roles in both cases, probably not an IF at all (I think even an IF(s) has a pretty high mentality). Also, I have found that if you just play wide attackers with high workrate and teamwork (perhaps just one of these is enough, but my players have both so I don't know which is key if either) they track back quite well.

Or, a third alternative, is to push up your defensive line and/or up the mentality of your fullbacks in order to generate the compactness (albeit higher up the field). That seems like a good option given your preferred team

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, daveb653 said:

@Experienced Defender Sorry, the S was SS shadow striker. Yeah, I know the volante is dm, its a favourite of FM20, I always try and get a favourite into a formation so just wondered if it could be a possibility of dropping one back  

So you would like to use a RPM, volante and SS within the same setup? If so, why don't you try a 42DM31? That's a formation that can employ all the 3  

[daveb653]

9 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

So you would like to use a RPM, volante and SS within the same setup? If so, why don't you try a 42DM31? That's a formation that can employ all the 3  

Yeah the more I thought about it, he more it makes sense. I said in a earlier post here, the only reason for the flat 4 was the interaction between my wide players and fullbacks, but I guess i can replicate that with a 4231 with good roles and instructions   

How would you get the RPM and SV in though? If you don't mind could you give me an example?

I've made an experimental one with a standard line as i want a mid block tactic. But I went for a dm and sv combo.

[Experienced Defender]

3 hours ago, daveb653 said:

Yeah the more I thought about it, he more it makes sense. I said in a earlier post here, the only reason for the flat 4 was the interaction between my wide players and fullbacks, but I guess i can replicate that with a 4231 with good roles and instructions   

How would you get the RPM and SV in though? If you don't mind could you give me an example?

Something like this maybe:

CFsu

IWsu           SS           Wsu

 

RPM   VOLat

WBsu   CDde  BPDde  FBsu

The prevalence of support duties is there to compensate for the absence of a holding role in the midfield (since neither RPM nor volante holds position). In other words, a high number of support duties is aimed at having as many players involved in transitions and helping each other as possible. The fact that the system employs 2 DMs also helps to mitigate this potential defensive vulnerability that would otherwise be more of an issue. 

[daveb653]

10 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Something like this maybe:

CFsu

IWsu           SS           Wsu

 

RPM   VOLat

WBsu   CDde  BPDde  FBsu

The prevalence of support duties is there to compensate for the absence of a holding role in the midfield (since neither RPM nor volante holds position). In other words, a high number of support duties is aimed at having as many players involved in transitions and helping each other as possible. The fact that the system employs 2 DMs also helps to mitigate this potential defensive vulnerability that would otherwise be more of an issue. 

Thanks @Experienced Defender the one I made was very similar, the forward was a dlf(s) ad the rpm was a DLP(d). How many games do you leave before you change things, I only played 1 match yesterday but I noticed my SV, SS and DLF all take up very similar positions in attacking phases, so leaves my dlp with not many free passing options and alot of very short 1-2's that get no where other than a backward pass. Of course I'll give this version a go first, see if the same issues occur.  

I don't want to change to many things at once, but I was also caught out once or twice with my SV way up the pitch and really struggling to get back, so i'm thinking his role may be the best to change?

If I go rpm with him I don't want the dlp there to, does a HB operate normally in a double pivot or would I be better just going for a straight up DM? 

Also as a side note my wingers still tracked back as much as I wanted so I think it was just an assumption on my part that they wouldn't

[Experienced Defender]

If you use a DLP defend instead of RPM, then I would change the LWB's duty into attack.

Plus, I don't know what your team instructions are, so please post a screenshot of the tactic.

[daveb653]

On 29/12/2020 at 16:00, Experienced Defender said:

If you use a DLP defend instead of RPM, then I would change the LWB's duty into attack.

Plus, I don't know what your team instructions are, so please post a screenshot of the tactic.

My latest tactic is here, but I think the SV , SS and CF all get in each others way quite a bit. In matches the SV darts forwards whilst the SS is still sitting deeper to get the ball, then the SS sets off on his forward movement and the CF kind of gets in his way. Main concern is SV/SS interaction though.

On a slight sidenote, in the DM position I'm struggling to see any difference in the RPM and Regista from the in-game example, I assume the regista just stays a bit deeper on the attacking phase whilst the RPM has no problems getting into and around the penalty area?

Currently I'm thinking either swap the SV to a straight up DM or HB, alternatively swap the SS for Treq and see how that goes. 

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by daveb653
better screenshot

[Gegenklaus]

On 27/12/2020 at 00:56, Experienced Defender said:

I am struggling to understand your choice of formation, to begin with. I mean, you are managing a top team. Even if the tactic itself was "perfectly" designed - which it's far from - the mere choice of a bottom-heavy system doesn't really make sense IMHO.

If the idea is to play counter-attacking football taking advantage of the great pace up front, a system with a highly isolated lone striker means opposition defenses should relatively easily deal with him most of the time. Instead, a 442 or 4411 would make a lot more sense for such style of play. 

A 4-1-4-1 can be pretty aggressive. Ive used it with Dortmund and won everything in first season with it. So please stop saying a bottom heavy formation is for teams outside the top. It. Is. Not. Duties and mentally makes all formations relative. 

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, daveb653 said:

As I supposed, the instructions you use don't really go hand in hand with roles and duties. Because this setup is not meant for a direct style. If you want to play more directly, then you need a different setup of roles and duties.

Plus, I suggested the winger role in AMR, not IF. 

If you want a tactic to work, then all its elements need to be in harmony. 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Gegenklaus said:

A 4-1-4-1 can be pretty aggressive. Ive used it with Dortmund and won everything in first season with it. So please stop saying a bottom heavy formation is for teams outside the top. It. Is. Not. Duties and mentally makes all formations relative. 

Great. Then you can offer some helpful advice to the OP, rather than arguing with me 

[daveb653]

10 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

As I supposed, the instructions you use don't really go hand in hand with roles and duties. Because this setup is not meant for a direct style. If you want to play more directly, then you need a different setup of roles and duties.

Plus, I suggested the winger role in AMR, not IF. 

If you want a tactic to work, then all its elements need to be in harmony. 

@Experienced Defender I thought i was getting a grasp of it all, but obviously not

What I'm aiming for is:

A nice fast decisive transition that punishes players out of position or not switched on. failing that then i want to be able to keep possession (not just for the sake of it though) whilst always looking for that decisive pass or overload/overlap to create an opportunity.

Out of possession I don want gegen press, I'd rather have my players drop into a hard to break down shape (not necessarily a deep block though) but when the ball crosses my LOE I aggressively press and hit them hard to win it back decisevly. 

The formation doesn't matter too much, although ideally i want a striker to be my main goal scorer (thats what hes paid for after all ) Along with a CM goal scorer, don't know why but I've always had an obsession with a good goal scoring midfielder (hence my use of SV, though the RPM got into he box regularly as well)

My initial thoughts were:

Play on a balanced mentality, that way my players can choose the right pass etc without being told, use dynamic runners (SV, SS) to actively look for counter opportunites and to force passing options/overloads, by drawing the opposition away (or getting space if no opposition tracked them).

Try to have a midfield in the hole between the def and mid to recycle possession and provide cover for counters.

Any help would to acheive this would be very much appreciated.

I'm back at the drawing board as Bayern thumped me 5-0 so obviously there are gaping holes in the tactics I set up. I'm going to start a new save (still with ManUtd) with one settled tactic and blend my players and club around it.

I've looked at the cautious and positive mentalities and both seem suitable for the type of football I want. I guess I could use a couple more aggressive roles in a cautious system to prevent "stale" possession, and more support in a positive mentality to prevent silly turnovers?

 

[Experienced Defender]

5 hours ago, daveb653 said:

What I'm aiming for is:

A nice fast decisive transition that punishes players out of position or not switched on. failing that then i want to be able to keep possession (not just for the sake of it though) whilst always looking for that decisive pass or overload/overlap to create an opportunity.

Out of possession I don want gegen press, I'd rather have my players drop into a hard to break down shape (not necessarily a deep block though) but when the ball crosses my LOE I aggressively press and hit them hard to win it back decisevly. 

The formation doesn't matter too much, although ideally i want a striker to be my main goal scorer (thats what hes paid for after all ) Along with a CM goal scorer, don't know why but I've always had an obsession with a good goal scoring midfielder (hence my use of SV, though the RPM got into he box regularly as well)

Based on what you described and assuming the 42DM31 remains the formation of choice (involving a volante), I would start with something like this:

AF/PFat

IFsu              APat           IWsu

 

DLPsu   VOLsu

WBsu   CDde  CD/BPDde  WBsu

SKde

Positive - PoD, shorter passing, higher tempo, slightly narrower width - counter - higher DL, standard LOE, split block

I cannot guarantee if your striker will be the main scorer though. Both because it depends on a number of different factors and because I personally have never cared about who will score most of my goals as long as the tactic works fine as a whole.

P.S: The tactic proposed above is by no means a plug'n'play. 

[daveb653]

43 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Based on what you described and assuming the 42DM31 remains the formation of choice (involving a volante), I would start with something like this:

AF/PFat

IFsu              APat           IWsu

 

DLPsu   VOLsu

WBsu   CDde  CD/BPDde  WBsu

SKde

Positive - PoD, shorter passing, higher tempo, slightly narrower width - counter - higher DL, standard LOE, split block

I cannot guarantee if your striker will be the main scorer though. Both because it depends on a number of different factors and because I personally have never cared about who will score most of my goals as long as the tactic works fine as a whole.

P.S: The tactic proposed above is by no means a plug'n'play. 

Thanks @Experienced Defender The formation doesn't necessarily need a Volante, I just like the role and what it offers . Again formation isn't even set in stone, I'm open to suggestions for anything at this point as I'm trying understand it all better.

Ok, so looking at the tactic and trying to understand your choice of roles/duties, these are how i see it so please correct me if I'm wrong  

1) WB both on support to provide width without being to gung-ho? As both wide AMs cut in.

2) dlp(s) to provide possession recycling whilst sitting deeper still

3) IF(s) to provide another attacking threat other than the striker?

Why the choice of AP in the AM slot?

[Experienced Defender]

5 hours ago, daveb653 said:

WB both on support to provide width without being to gung-ho? As both wide AMs cut in.

Yes  

 

5 hours ago, daveb653 said:

dlp(s) to provide possession recycling whilst sitting deeper still

Yes + to help organize the play from a deeper area + holding midfield role  

 

5 hours ago, daveb653 said:

IF(s) to provide another attacking threat other than the striker?

Yes, but here their support duties also play an important part from both attacking/possession and defensive perspectives. And only one is IF, the other is IW. 

 

5 hours ago, daveb653 said:

Why the choice of AP in the AM slot?

To encourage faster attacking play in the attacking third and potentially launch a quick counter when you win the ball + attack duty to reduce the potential isolation of the striker + a playmaker role to encourage him to drop deeper and make himself available for a pass from deeper teammates. 

[aritra14]

I've had success with a DLF-S as my lone striker. My main striker is 10G,1A (4 penalty goals) in 11 games (XG - 8) and my secondary is 10G, 3A (1 penalty goal) in 9 games (XG - 5). However, I believe it is because of the individual brilliance of my strikers, rather than my tactics working as intended (I might be wrong). Since we're discussing the 4141 formation, it would mean a lot if someone could have a look at the tactic, and provide feedback.

Aims of the tactic 

In attack - I want the wide players to dribble and carry the ball to the final third. I set them as WM-A with PIs to "cut inside" and "dribble more". They're supposed to co-ordinate with the striker to set themselves up for scoring or assisting. I want my full backs to stretch the pitch, but instead of crossing I want them to pass to their nearest WM-A. If he's not available, they should pass to my CM who would look for the WM-A or my striker.

In defense - I want the wide players to harass the opposition wingers into making rash passes, which would then get intercepted by my defense. My CBs are not amazing in the air, so I am not defending narrow.

In transition - Counter press to win the ball (not extreme pressing), then decide what to do with it. If counter is on, go for it; else recycle possession.

During build-up - Play out of defense, get it to CMs. Let them decide what to do with the ball. If nothing is on, pass back and recycle. Overall, keep possession of the ball and be solid defensively. I'd rather win 1-0 and tie 0-0 than win 4-3 and tie 2-2.

I'm winning with my current tactic, but I'm not sure whether the tactic is driving the results or the players are individually performing well and making the tactic work. 

[ozilthegunner]

35 minutes ago, aritra14 said:

I've had success with a DLF-S as my lone striker. My main striker is 10G,1A (4 penalty goals) in 11 games (XG - 8) and my secondary is 10G, 3A (1 penalty goal) in 9 games (XG - 5). However, I believe it is because of the individual brilliance of my strikers, rather than my tactics working as intended (I might be wrong). Since we're discussing the 4141 formation, it would mean a lot if someone could have a look at the tactic, and provide feedback.

Aims of the tactic 

In attack - I want the wide players to dribble and carry the ball to the final third. I set them as WM-A with PIs to "cut inside" and "dribble more". They're supposed to co-ordinate with the striker to set themselves up for scoring or assisting. I want my full backs to stretch the pitch, but instead of crossing I want them to pass to their nearest WM-A. If he's not available, they should pass to my CM who would look for the WM-A or my striker.

In defense - I want the wide players to harass the opposition wingers into making rash passes, which would then get intercepted by my defense. My CBs are not amazing in the air, so I am not defending narrow.

In transition - Counter press to win the ball (not extreme pressing), then decide what to do with it. If counter is on, go for it; else recycle possession.

During build-up - Play out of defense, get it to CMs. Let them decide what to do with the ball. If nothing is on, pass back and recycle. Overall, keep possession of the ball and be solid defensively. I'd rather win 1-0 and tie 0-0 than win 4-3 and tie 2-2.

I'm winning with my current tactic, but I'm not sure whether the tactic is driving the results or the players are individually performing well and making the tactic work. 

Probably not worth changing anything if you are winning AND you are happy with 0-0 draws. Because there are 2 main issues i see with your team, but both are more offensive issues:

1. Many people prefer tactical asymmetry of some sort in order to have different attacking angles. The perfect symmetry of your tactic is certainly diminished by specific players (ie the 2 CMs, despite being instructed the same, probably don't play exactly the same) but most people build the asymmetry into the tactic. 

2. Relatedly, the relative lack of attacking penetration. Really only those 2 wingers are being ordered to penetrate which could be problematic against more defensive teams

So, simply looking at your tactic, without knowing your players, I would predict a good number of scoreless draws (or 1-0 losses if you are playing better teams) but sounds like you are cool with that. And so to the extent you are avoiding a lot of those, it probably is your players. But no tactic is player agnostic, so that isn't a problem

[aritra14]

43 minutes ago, ozilthegunner said:

Probably not worth changing anything if you are winning AND you are happy with 0-0 draws. Because there are 2 main issues i see with your team, but both are more offensive issues:

1. Many people prefer tactical asymmetry of some sort in order to have different attacking angles. The perfect symmetry of your tactic is certainly diminished by specific players (ie the 2 CMs, despite being instructed the same, probably don't play exactly the same) but most people build the asymmetry into the tactic. 

2. Relatedly, the relative lack of attacking penetration. Really only those 2 wingers are being ordered to penetrate which could be problematic against more defensive teams

So, simply looking at your tactic, without knowing your players, I would predict a good number of scoreless draws (or 1-0 losses if you are playing better teams) but sounds like you are cool with that. And so to the extent you are avoiding a lot of those, it probably is your players. But no tactic is player agnostic, so that isn't a problem

1. The 2 CMs have no PIs. The asymmetry is (don't know if I'm right about this) created via their PPMs - the left one is the more creative type (not necessarily the most gifted dribbler) and the right one is the mover (usually has better dribbling and has either of shoots from distance/tries killer balls often). Both are well-rounded hard-working players. Would you change anything here?

2. This is where I thought the full backs might help. The DM can be changed to a HB-D if the full backs go forward. How would you make that happen?
 

attached is the tactic report from analyst screen.

[ozilthegunner]

21 minutes ago, aritra14 said:

1. The 2 CMs have no PIs. The asymmetry is (don't know if I'm right about this) created via their PPMs - the left one is the more creative type (not necessarily the most gifted dribbler) and the right one is the mover (usually has better dribbling and has either of shoots from distance/tries killer balls often). Both are well-rounded hard-working players. Would you change anything here?

2. This is where I thought the full backs might help. The DM can be changed to a HB-D if the full backs go forward. How would you make that happen?
 

attached is the tactic report from analyst screen.

I mean, looks like you are doing well. I wouldn't change anything except perhaps to have a plan B that is a bit more adventurous. Switching the DM to HB, and perhaps changing one FB to WB(s) would be that change. Or putting the DM on support.

And what you said about the CMs sounds right - that is what I meant by saying you get some asymmetry just from the players. But then notice you are more reliant on the specific players. Since part of your original question was how reliant your tactic was on specific players, it is worth flagging that.

Nothing wrong with being more reliant on the players so long as you have a clear plan for transfers and development

What team are you playing with? I like the 4-1-4-1 quite a bit, but it has been too anemic in attack for me

[aritra14]

14 hours ago, ozilthegunner said:

What team are you playing with? I like the 4-1-4-1 quite a bit, but it has been too anemic in attack for me

It's  Barcelona, with an aim to win the UCL using only home grown players or players recruited based on the DNA I'm looking for. So far we have won the La Liga thrice, Euro Cup once and UCL once in 5 years. Attached is my custom view with the relevant stats.

Edited January 2, 2021 by aritra14