Advice for midfielders in 4-1-2-2-1 Vertical tiki taka (Liverpool)

[Sardaukar 1]

I have AF and 2 IF in front.

Also Deep Lying Playmaker in back. Defence has 2 ball playing defenders in middle and 2 wing backs on support role. 

I just don't know what roles to have for 2 MCs in front of DLP. Would it work to have Advance Playmaker (Henderson) in front of DLP?

Or Mezzala and Box to Box Midfielder in front of DLP? Ball winning midfielder (fits for Milner that is good sub)? 

Any Ideas?

[Experienced Defender 1,978]

1 hour ago, Sardaukar said:

I have AF and 2 IF in front

What are the duties of your IFs? Both on support? Or one support and the other attack? Or both on attack? If their duties are different, who is on which side?

 

1 hour ago, Sardaukar said:

Also Deep Lying Playmaker in back

Again, on which duty (defend or support)? 

Also, what style of football do you want to play?

[frukox 100]

11 hours ago, Sardaukar said:

I have AF and 2 IF in front.

Also Deep Lying Playmaker in back. Defence has 2 ball playing defenders in middle and 2 wing backs on support role. 

I just don't know what roles to have for 2 MCs in front of DLP. Would it work to have Advance Playmaker (Henderson) in front of DLP?

Or Mezzala and Box to Box Midfielder in front of DLP? Ball winning midfielder (fits for Milner that is good sub)? 

Any Ideas?

Can you post a screenshot of your tactic? It's just pure speculation without seeing all of the elements in the tactic.

[Sardaukar 1]

12 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

What are the duties of your IFs? Both on support? Or one support and the other attack? Or both on attack? If their duties are different, who is on which side?

 

Again, on which duty (defend or support)? 

Also, what style of football do you want to play?

I am thinking of this:

 

 

[Sardaukar 1]

I want attacking football.

I think attack is OK..maybe..(?)

It's the midfield that I don't know what would be good in this formation.

[Experienced Defender 1,978]

Your team instructions are obviously very much possession-oriented (perhaps even to the point of tactical overkill), but then your setup of roles and duties is very gung-ho and much more suited to fast attacking transitions than possession football.

Which means that there is a huge contradiction between your instructions on one hand, and roles - and especially duties - on the other. 

Not to mention that - regardless of a tactical style - the role combo of your front 3 is likely to cause problems in terms of competition for space due to the similarity in role types (AF paired with 2 attacking IFs is not an optimal partnership in general).

1 hour ago, Sardaukar said:

I want attacking football

There are different types of attacking football. It can be slow, patient and possession-based or more progressive and direct. So which type of attacking football are you referring to? 

 

1 hour ago, Sardaukar said:

I think attack is OK..maybe..(?)

Attack what? Mentality? A player's duty? Or something else? 

[Sardaukar 1]

5 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Your team instructions are obviously very much possession-oriented (perhaps even to the point of tactical overkill), but then your setup of roles and duties is very gung-ho and much more suited to fast attacking transitions than possession football.

Which means that there is a huge contradiction between your instructions on one hand, and roles - and especially duties - on the other. 

Not to mention that - regardless of a tactical style - the role combo of your front 3 is likely to cause problems in terms of competition for space due to the similarity in role types (AF paired with 2 attacking IFs is not an optimal partnership in general).

There are different types of attacking football. It can be slow, patient and possession-based or more progressive and direct. So which type of attacking football are you referring to? 

 

Attack what? Mentality? A player's duty? Or something else? 

I'm not really sure yet what sort of football I want. In FM 2020 I had decently working tactic, maybe I'll copy that. I just like this formation, 4-3-3/4-1-2-2-1.

Hmmm...didn't think of IFs and AF competing of space. Any ideas for better combination? 

Also, not sure about Mezzala, maybe changing it to BBM? Or something else? 

And is there problems having both DLP and AP?

[Experienced Defender 1,978]

55 minutes ago, Sardaukar said:

Hmmm...didn't think of IFs and AF competing of space. Any ideas for better combination? 

In case you want to keep all of them on attack duties, you can:

- switch the striker to CF or DLF or TQ (depending on his attributes)

- or keep the striker as AF but switch both IFs to IWs (or one into IW and the other into a classic winger)

First combo:

TQ/CF/DLFat

IFat                                     IFat

Other combo:

AF

IWat                                    IWat

But neither combination suits a possession style, so you'll probably still need to either adapt team instructions to the gung-ho setup of roles and duties or change the setup of roles and duties in order to adapt it to the current team instructions. 

1 hour ago, Sardaukar said:

Also, not sure about Mezzala, maybe changing it to BBM? Or something else? 

And is there problems having both DLP and AP?

Answers to both questions depend on what you want in terms of playing style. There is no "good" or "bad" role per se, but solely depending on the whole context of your tactic.

For example, if your aim is to play possession football, then I would avoid the AP on attack duty in any case. Simply because the AP, when played on the attack duty, looks for quick transitional passes, which are obviously not possession-friendly.

[Sardaukar 1]

This seems to somehow work decently:

 

[Sardaukar 1]

Made Fabinho DLP-Su and if I have lead, dropping to Positive mentality.

Having decent results, won community shield vs. Arsenal 4-0.

Friendly vs. Napoli 3-3 with most of key players on International duty. 7 teenagers etc. on field...then had to play spare teen GK as IF (Right) because run out of players 10 mins before end and Napoli equalized...

 

ty