41212 - Feeding the strikers

[Paulz]

Hey, I've created a new save and I want to use a 4-1-2-1-2 formation, and play a possession focused game. 

My current setup is below but from the few games I've played so far I'm seeing that there is a disconnection between the strikers and the rest of the team and would welcome suggestions in choice of roles and instructions, team familiarity with the tactic is quite low as well still.

• I've actually been playing Felix as a DLF-S rather than DLF-At but was going to try it in the next game.
• The only player instruction I've added is to the BBM to stay wider. 

Thanks for the help!

[dcaine100]

Theres seems to be a lack of movement and width in your midfield, you are using a very narrow formation then added play narrow TI on top.

[Paulz]

Good point on adding the Narrow TI in as well, it may constrict the team a bit too much. In terms of addressing the lack of movement I'd hoped that both Men and BBM would be dynamic enough to provide some width and movement but are there any roles that would be better here. I was thinking as well about whether AM-S is offering enough support?

[Experienced Defender]

I see a number of issues is your tactic, with the following being the most obvious:

- an extremely vulnerable/unprotected left flank (a very attacking WB role paired with an attack-minded roaming runner)

- a very porous central midfield (with 2 roaming runners, one of which - the mezzala - is inherently attack-minded at that)

- too much congestion in the attacking midfield area = shortage of space for the AMC with the supporting duty

- possession overkill in terms of in-possession TIs (even if you want to play possession-based football, it's not necessary to go to extremes) 

- likely isolation of the strikers, as both are played on attack duties (would make sense for fast-transition styles, but not in a possession-minded tactic) 

[Paulz]

I've made some further changes which I will try to see if they make any improvements: 

• Removed narrow width
• Removed focus play
• Tempo now standard
• Pressing intensity now standard, only front 3 with close down more
• BBM changed to CAR
• DLF-A changed to CF-S
• WB-A now WB-S

I was wondering as well whether changing from Mez-S to AP-S would bring any benefits? I generally haven't used the AP role but Saul would be suited to it here.

- 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Paulz

[crusadertsar]

28 minutes ago, Paulz said:

I've made some further changes which I will try to see if they make any improvements: 

• Removed narrow width
• Removed focus play
• Tempo now standard
• Pressing intensity now standard, only front 3 with close down more
• BBM changed to CAR
• DLF-A changed to CF-S
• WB-A now WB-S

I was wondering as well whether changing from Mez-S to AP-S would bring any benefits? I generally haven't used the AP role but Saul would be suited to it here.

- 

Your left side is still exposed. I wouldnt use Mezzala combined with Wingback. At least not in a narrow formation like this. Even with support duty, wingback is a very aggressive role.

Edited March 23, 2021 by crusadertsar

[Paulz]

19 minutes ago, crusadertsar said:

Your left side is still exposed. I wouldnt use Mezzala combined with Wingback. At least not in a narrow formation like this. Even with support duty, wingback is a very aggressive role.

Would changing to a FB-S leave me without sufficient width on the left flank, or it should be ok? My other thought was to change the Mez-S to an AP-S or even CM-S. Saul's PIs look look he  could end up roaming naturally

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Paulz
Adding updated tactic

[Guv'nor]

Have you tasted the pudding or still stirring the custard? Everything is theory till theory finds proof. Hopefully you’re staring at the tactics creator at the start of preseason, if so...perfect. Get a good dollop of fitness building sessions in the training schedule and get the friendlies going. 
 

Watch the highlights in full or comprehensive, make no tactical changes, just substitutions...i.e. give the formation a chance to prove itself. Make a note of its weaknesses, flaws and fix them in prior to the next friendly. 

Give the Mezzala his moment, see what he does with it...if it’s tactical suicide being paired with the WB, then no better proof than seeing your team in the noose and the chair kicked away. 
 

Feedback on the attacking prowess with only one player on Attacking mentality and balanced TI...

[Paulz]

Not had a chance yet today, but hopefully this evening will be able to give it a go with a few more friendlies I've got lined up. 

In terms of other players to change to an attacking mentality I don't see which, apart from the AM I could change there. I will try changing the mentality and see how the teams plays between balanced and positive 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Paulz

[Experienced Defender]

50 minutes ago, Paulz said:

In terms of other players to change to an attacking mentality I don't see which, apart from the AM I could change there

It's exactly the AM whose duty should be switched to attack. Because otherwise you are likely to struggle with penetration up front. 

Btw, I would rather have the AP behind the more attacking striker than the other way round. 

[denen123]

Have you tested this over a run of games.

[Paulz]

3 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

It's exactly the AM whose duty should be switched to attack. Because otherwise you are likely to struggle with penetration up front. 

Btw, I would rather have the AP behind the more attacking striker than the other way round. 

Thanks, making those changes has definitely improved the way the team plays and I also changed from poacher to advanced forward which has seemed to help as well. I'm now seeing the strikers less isolated through having support and the ball being played to them. Still not many games played yet but will keep an eye out for any issues. 

[Domus Clamantium]

I've been using the 442 narrow diamond for a number of years now and it's by far my favourite formation because it allows 4 midfielders to run rings around your typical 3 and 2 man midfield, it plays in between the lines to ensure defence meets attack perfectly and it allows 2 strikers (or almost 3 if you consider how the AMC should play)

My feeling is it's best to use an Anchor Man and AP(A) between the lines. I feel the Anchor Man is non-negotiable, whereas the AP can be a shadow striker, attacking midfielder on attack or trequartista. What you do with the AMC will then affect how you configure the strikers and 2 your central midfielders, but the AMC really must be on attack as a baseline. The only times to switch to support is when you want to keep the ball as a defensive play and close the game out when you are holding on to a result.

Anchor Man is the best because it allows your central midfielders to have freer roles to an extent. If your DM doesn't focus entirely on holding position in front of the defence, he will vacate that area from time to time to close people down or get fancy with the ball and that means your defensive line will be caught out isolated and vulnerable to counter attacks frequently enough for it to be a problem.

If you pick Defensive Midfielder, the player will close down the flanks (see: Close Down More default), which you should instead reserve to your central midfielders. If you pick Regista/Volante, the player will not be defensively reliable at all. If you pick Deep Lying Playmaker it CAN work on Defend, but you then must pick Central Midfielder on support with a hold position PI otherwise you'll have to use two deep lying playmakers unless you put a full back on defend duty, and if you pick Half Back, there's still that worry that when he drops into the defensive line there isn't someone to intercept in the DM space. Therefore Anchor Man is the least risky role and you should not be putting your team at risk when you have so many other options for risk elsewhere.

Since you will be using an attack duty full back and most probably a mezzala, you also need a second holding midfielder, DLP(s) is perfect to link DM and AM. On the flank of the most offensive full back, use DLP(s). Alternatively, don't use an attacking full back and lose attacking threats and make life harder for your strikers, but then you get to use a carrilero or ball winning midfielder on support instead here.

In my experience the attacking full back poses a large threat on the flank that unlocks the attack duty striker on that flank. It forces the opposition full back to either mark him and leave a big gap for your attack duty striker, or he can stay inside and leave the flank wide open which will then transition to a big chance to score from a cross or pull back. If you play the attack duty full back on the support duty striker's side, the attack duty full back will sometimes drop in behind support striker and get a chance on goal or a cross. I find it less effective, but on the other hand, you could try switching to this way during a match if you're having problems getting your attack duty striker scoring.

Hope this helps.

[nick1408]

16 hours ago, Domus Clamantium said:

I've been using the 442 narrow diamond for a number of years now and it's by far my favourite formation because it allows 4 midfielders to run rings around your typical 3 and 2 man midfield, it plays in between the lines to ensure defence meets attack perfectly and it allows 2 strikers (or almost 3 if you consider how the AMC should play)

My feeling is it's best to use an Anchor Man and AP(A) between the lines. I feel the Anchor Man is non-negotiable, whereas the AP can be a shadow striker, attacking midfielder on attack or trequartista. What you do with the AMC will then affect how you configure the strikers and 2 your central midfielders, but the AMC really must be on attack as a baseline. The only times to switch to support is when you want to keep the ball as a defensive play and close the game out when you are holding on to a result.

Anchor Man is the best because it allows your central midfielders to have freer roles to an extent. If your DM doesn't focus entirely on holding position in front of the defence, he will vacate that area from time to time to close people down or get fancy with the ball and that means your defensive line will be caught out isolated and vulnerable to counter attacks frequently enough for it to be a problem.

If you pick Defensive Midfielder, the player will close down the flanks (see: Close Down More default), which you should instead reserve to your central midfielders. If you pick Regista/Volante, the player will not be defensively reliable at all. If you pick Deep Lying Playmaker it CAN work on Defend, but you then must pick Central Midfielder on support with a hold position PI otherwise you'll have to use two deep lying playmakers unless you put a full back on defend duty, and if you pick Half Back, there's still that worry that when he drops into the defensive line there isn't someone to intercept in the DM space. Therefore Anchor Man is the least risky role and you should not be putting your team at risk when you have so many other options for risk elsewhere.

Since you will be using an attack duty full back and most probably a mezzala, you also need a second holding midfielder, DLP(s) is perfect to link DM and AM. On the flank of the most offensive full back, use DLP(s). Alternatively, don't use an attacking full back and lose attacking threats and make life harder for your strikers, but then you get to use a carrilero or ball winning midfielder on support instead here.

In my experience the attacking full back poses a large threat on the flank that unlocks the attack duty striker on that flank. It forces the opposition full back to either mark him and leave a big gap for your attack duty striker, or he can stay inside and leave the flank wide open which will then transition to a big chance to score from a cross or pull back. If you play the attack duty full back on the support duty striker's side, the attack duty full back will sometimes drop in behind support striker and get a chance on goal or a cross. I find it less effective, but on the other hand, you could try switching to this way during a match if you're having problems getting your attack duty striker scoring.

Hope this helps.

Sorry to go off topic - have you ever fleshed out your 4-4-2 diamond? I'd love to see a full write up on it. The above is a great taster though!

[Domus Clamantium]

3 hours ago, nick1408 said:

Sorry to go off topic - have you ever fleshed out your 4-4-2 diamond? I'd love to see a full write up on it. The above is a great taster though!

This is what I'm working with.

There are a fair few alterations possible but my baseline TIs always stay the same unless I want to focus more on possession to hold a lead, in which case I switch to balanced width, lower tempo and add retain possession

Also works on Control mentality.

Alterations possible:
WB(D) -> FB(S)/LFB(D)/FB(D)/WB(S)
-Depending on how much risk you want to take. My default is to play defend here to account for the mezzala who otherwise is responsible for defensive problems, but when I need a goal trailing in a game I'll be more liberal here.

DLP(S) -> CAR(S)/BWM(S)/CM(S) with hold position, or defend duty if you really want to cover for that left back and maybe get faster transitions on account of the defend duty being opposite of the full back and AMC's attack duty, but would typically result in lower possession. You can also add run wide with ball here to drag opposition wide and open space in the box/centre of edge of it.

All told to close down more and tackle harder so they go to the flank - the mezzala told this too.

MEZ(S) -> BWM(S)/CAR(S) done when against tougher opposition and struggling for possession. In all cases, run wide with ball is added.

T(A) - Can be AP(A) which I found works great, bit more of a mixed bag with Shadow Striker and AM(A). If you play Trequartista or Shadow Striker here, play Poacher as your attack striker. If you play AP(A)/AM(A), play AF(A) or CF(A). Idea there is one is moving to channels, one is not. Mezzala and trequartista is a lot of movement which accounts for the A(D) and DLP(S) being stationary/predictable, so there's 2 pass+movers and 2 holders.

No player instructions.

DLF on Fm18 told move into channels but that's default later editions
If you grab someone like Josh Tymon or Aaron Cresswell you'll have a good time at left back in this setup but if you switch the strikers and the 2 midfielders over you can make the DR attack and the DL on defend or support.

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Domus Clamantium

[Robson 07]

On 25/03/2021 at 15:53, Domus Clamantium said:

My feeling is it's best to use an Anchor Man and AP(A) between the lines. I feel the Anchor Man is non-negotiable, whereas the AP can be a shadow striker, attacking midfielder on attack or trequartista. What you do with the AMC will then affect how you configure the strikers and 2 your central midfielders, but the AMC really must be on attack as a baseline. The only times to switch to support is when you want to keep the ball as a defensive play and close the game out when you are holding on to a result.

 

On 25/03/2021 at 15:53, Domus Clamantium said:

Since you will be using an attack duty full back and most probably a mezzala, you also need a second holding midfielder, DLP(s) is perfect to link DM and AM. On the flank of the most offensive full back, use DLP(s). Alternatively, don't use an attacking full back and lose attacking threats and make life harder for your strikers, but then you get to use a carrilero or ball winning midfielder on support instead here.

Some really good advice in the post a couple above, nice work @Domus Clamantium

[nick1408]

7 hours ago, Robson 07 said:

 

Some really good advice in the post a couple above, nice work @Domus Clamantium

 

On 26/03/2021 at 23:05, Domus Clamantium said:

This is what I'm working with.

There are a fair few alterations possible but my baseline TIs always stay the same unless I want to focus more on possession to hold a lead, in which case I switch to balanced width, lower tempo and add retain possession

Also works on Control mentality.

Alterations possible:
WB(D) -> FB(S)/LFB(D)/FB(D)/WB(S)
-Depending on how much risk you want to take. My default is to play defend here to account for the mezzala who otherwise is responsible for defensive problems, but when I need a goal trailing in a game I'll be more liberal here.

DLP(S) -> CAR(S)/BWM(S)/CM(S) with hold position, or defend duty if you really want to cover for that left back and maybe get faster transitions on account of the defend duty being opposite of the full back and AMC's attack duty, but would typically result in lower possession. You can also add run wide with ball here to drag opposition wide and open space in the box/centre of edge of it.

All told to close down more and tackle harder so they go to the flank - the mezzala told this too.

MEZ(S) -> BWM(S)/CAR(S) done when against tougher opposition and struggling for possession. In all cases, run wide with ball is added.

T(A) - Can be AP(A) which I found works great, bit more of a mixed bag with Shadow Striker and AM(A). If you play Trequartista or Shadow Striker here, play Poacher as your attack striker. If you play AP(A)/AM(A), play AF(A) or CF(A). Idea there is one is moving to channels, one is not. Mezzala and trequartista is a lot of movement which accounts for the A(D) and DLP(S) being stationary/predictable, so there's 2 pass+movers and 2 holders.

No player instructions.

DLF on Fm18 told move into channels but that's default later editions
If you grab someone like Josh Tymon or Aaron Cresswell you'll have a good time at left back in this setup but if you switch the strikers and the 2 midfielders over you can make the DR attack and the DL on defend or support.

 

Fleshing it out with the different varieties for positions as per above is brilliant too. Thanks for the effort. I hope it helps out OP.

[Paulz]

Thanks for this! Haven't been on the forum for the past few days but will take this on board and I think make some small changes to my current 41212

[nick1408]

On 31/03/2021 at 09:03, Paulz said:

Thanks for this! Haven't been on the forum for the past few days but will take this on board and I think make some small changes to my current 41212

How'd you end up with this? I'm keen to see how it played out.