Difference between 4-2-4 and 4-4-2

[Herolover]

I am playing a 4-2-4 with an AML and AMR. I have been told I should probably drop them back and make a 4-4-2.

 

What is the difference between a AML/AMR and ML/MR?

• To me it seems the only difference would be that the AM's would be more attacking, further up the pitch, and thus less defensive in nature.

Does a 4-4-2 play wider than a 4-2-4?

• This even sounds like a stupid question to me because they should play the same width right? But when I switched the 4-2-4 to the 4-4-2 I swear I was playing much wider. I think this is because with the four in a single line they line up with the ML/MR wider than the AML/AMR. I need to test this though I could have it wrong.

 

 

These questions come from this thread:

 

[Exi]

I'm a fan of 4-4-2, because the formation you see in the tactics screen is generally the shape your team has when defending. 2  blocks of 4 is defensively more solid.

4-2-4 is pretty aggressive but if you are generally up against weaker teams and your players suit the formation better, it's all good.

Not sure if 4-4-2 is wider, but it could well be. Also depends on your roles and TIs ofcourse. Just try both formations in full 90 min matches en see the differences and see if the team plays how you want them to play.

Also have a look at your BWM. He will often leave his position and makes you vunerable through the middle.

Edited January 10, 2021 by Exi

[rtnn]

The formation you see is your defensive formation. So in a 4-4-2 your wide players comes deeper to defend. In a 4-2-4 they'll stay more forward - especially if you have attacking duties there.

A 4-4-2 with attacking inverted wingers and two holding roles in midfield would become a 4-2-4 in attack. 

I play with a kind of 4-2-4/4-2-3-1 hybrid tactic currently and Imo it's key to keep the LOE and DL pretty tight together to compress the spaces that are there due to formation choice. High DL and standard LOE works for me. 

Edited January 10, 2021 by rtnn