Jump to content

4-2-3-1 to a 3-2-4-1 positional rotations. AML/AMR to a 10 and FB to CB


Recommended Posts

Hi guys

So as the title suggests I'm looking to create a tactical system where one of my AML or AMR comes inside and operates in the AMC slot (or more accurately AMCL or AMCR according to their side). I've taken inspiration from this article at Spielverlagerung, this image shows the desired movements from a 4-2-3-1 shape

Basic-Kusen-768x1171.thumb.png.10935b1b7a7ebbd79e6f69ac5a4d293b.png

In this system Wendell comes in from LB to play LCB (obviously impossible in FM but I intend to fudge this with a HB/IWB combination), Havertz coming in and Weiser pushing high.

I'm creating all aspects as successfully as I want, except for the Havertz role. My player doesn't come inside consistently enough, meanijg the box midfield fails to form and my attacking full back has insufficient space to attack in - leading to our overall style breaking down.

I'm managing AS Roma who overall suit the style well with intelligent creative players meaning that any wide role is an option baring WTM, which would probably be inappropriate anyway. I've also contemplated using a WP in the ML/MR position, but to get the height up the field an AMR/AMR seems more appropriate as well as suiting my players better as the best ones cannot play the midfield positions. Obviously retraining is an option but all logic in my head points to the AM strata.

So simply, has anyone consistently managed to achieve such movements from a player and, if so, how did you go about this?

 

Edited by OJ403
Title edit
Link to post
Share on other sites


Pick a 4-1-2-3 And Pick a Playmaker out wide like advanced playmaker. He will most likely act as an AMC and then go on from there with your tactic. 

Edited by CARRERA
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CARRERA said:


Pick a 4-1-2-3 And Pick a Playmaker out wide like advanced playmaker. He will most likely act as an AMC and then go on from there with your tactic. 

^this! 

Also add the PI to sit narrow for the Playmaker. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, skyline72 said:

Have you tried using Trequartista there?

As yet no, definitely my next bet

5 hours ago, CARRERA said:


Pick a 4-1-2-3 And Pick a Playmaker out wide like advanced playmaker. He will most likely act as an AMC and then go on from there with your tactic. 

 

3 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

^this! 

Also add the PI to sit narrow for the Playmaker. 

I have tried this, without sit narrower. Will also give this a go cheers

 

The major thing is him sitting just on the outer edge of the half space, not just in side. Ill give these things a go

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not something I've personally tried, but could there any preferred moves that could be useful in achieving this kind of movement?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, OJ403 said:

The major thing is him sitting just on the outer edge of the half space, not just in side. Ill give these things a go

You must also a have a look at your other players. The AI will always pick open spaces as their best option to move into (which obviously is clever). so make sure there is no other player occupying that space you want that player into also make sure there is a player to occupy the space left behind bei your AMLR

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, witticism said:

This is not something I've personally tried, but could there any preferred moves that could be useful in achieving this kind of movement?

I'm thinking potentially cuts in from the relevant flank at a push, but otherwise definitely moves into channels. Is there anything you'd be tempted to add?

3 hours ago, CARRERA said:

You must also a have a look at your other players. The AI will always pick open spaces as their best option to move into (which obviously is clever). so make sure there is no other player occupying that space you want that player into also make sure there is a player to occupy the space left behind bei your AMLR

This is something I've thought of. The relevant full back overlaps high and wide, as per Weiser in the image. Im also using that central midfielder in a more static, supportive role.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, OJ403 said:

I'm thinking potentially cuts in from the relevant flank at a push, but otherwise definitely moves into channels. Is there anything you'd be tempted to add?

Those two would've been my first two ideas but I would be more than tempted to include dribbles through middle of park and comes deep to get ball, if possible.

The first would mean moving inside with the ball, and the second could help with moving him closer to the rest of the midfield ideally too

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, witticism said:

Those two would've been my first two ideas but I would be more than tempted to include dribbles through middle of park and comes deep to get ball, if possible.

The first would mean moving inside with the ball, and the second could help with moving him closer to the rest of the midfield ideally too

The additional two also sound good logically. He moves into the channels and then comes deep before running further inside then centrally to combine all four. Obviously this is very idealistic but they should work nicely.

In all fairness I have a bottomless pit of options at Roma, though Im unsure of their PPMs off the top of my head. Pellegrini and the currently injured Zaniolo are probably the most suited, but Mkhitaryan could also be useful (although the sooner the likes of him and Pedro are off the wage bill in exchange for younger models the better).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • OJ403 changed the title to 4-2-3-1 to a 3-2-4-1 positional rotations. AML/AMR to a 10 and FB to CB

So I've just changed the thread title. Im also having difficulties creating the back 3. I am aware this isn't perfectly doable in FM, but my hopes were an IWB-D and HB could be the best of a bad situation. Neither role does what I'm wanting though, in isolation or combination.

The HB pushes too high, but alternatives such as an anchor or DM don't drop as I'd like. Similarly the IWB-D pushes into the space directly above the CB on their side. My next bet is to try a FB-D with PIs else I fear I may have to go to an asymmetric back 3 system, thus compromising the 4-2-3-1 defense.

In my opinion in order to function the system must have a singular defensive midfielder if using an IWB, although as I type I know see the potential behind a 4-2-3-1 with 2 DMCs and FB-D, potentially a HB on the more aggressive full backs side and a still fairly static role on the "false FB's" side.

I have a new, admittedly spontaneous, idea below:

1697112258_Screenshot_20210404-005829_SamsungInternet.thumb.jpg.85baa47fde987426f6f8c03fe3fc7f01.jpg

I could even use a more aggressive role/duty for the WB-S. Arrows on the players with ?? roles are indicative of what I think would be best but I am unsure. It is possible that the AMC could be made an AMCR to increase the room for the AML but I think it would be best to start with a more sensible and "normal" formation.

A positive mentality is likely and TIs are fairly basic:

Shorter passing. Potentially fairly narrow and/or left overlap.

Some form of distribution TI (POod, short kicks, distribute to FB/CB). Maybe counter and/or counter press.

Higher d-line. Either more urgent pressing or a split block.

That is off the top of my head anyway. I'm curious as to how anyone else would attempt this, or what they think of my thoughts as up til now success and our play style show promise but neither are quite right. Season 1 at Roma is fairly transitional with older players (Dzeko, Mkhitaryan, Pedro, etc) likely to see reduced game time in season 2 and with Zaniolo injured long term - so now is very much the time to tweak to go hard at Serie A in seaosn 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the HB, might consider training him the PPM "stays back at all times". So he doesn't push forward. Not sure if that would work, but something to consider testing for sure.

I see the other DM as a DM(s) or Volante. The central AMC as a Treq or AM(a) with some PIs if you use treq on the left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@OJ403 

Attacking Play

image.png.1a3987af155f0ee602edabb2de03df54.png

 

Build up Play

image.png.0d946b45dfc0db4a92a438d6b2bd63e3.png

 

image.png.3fa697ba59bd2fb9b81dcdcf44d9f368.png

 

didnt spent too much time on the TI's so you might tinker around with that. No PI's, you could try the AMC move inti channels while AML Sit Narrow

 

 

Edited by CARRERA
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 04/04/2021 at 01:32, Fatkidscantjump said:

For the HB, might consider training him the PPM "stays back at all times". So he doesn't push forward. Not sure if that would work, but something to consider testing for sure.

I see the other DM as a DM(s) or Volante. The central AMC as a Treq or AM(a) with some PIs if you use treq on the left.

Very much along my thinking! From a tactical perspective my first thought was a VOL but then I had the concern he may push too far forward and lose the base of the box. 

On 04/04/2021 at 02:44, CARRERA said:

@OJ403 

 

image.png.3fa697ba59bd2fb9b81dcdcf44d9f368.png 

This isn't actually a million miles from what I've been using. Neudecker was set back and central as a HB, Dressel has been used as a DLP-S and CM-S, Lex as an attack duty on occasion off set right. So its very interesting to see such similar ideas.

On 04/04/2021 at 02:44, CARRERA said:

Attacking Play

image.png.1a3987af155f0ee602edabb2de03df54.png

 

Build up Play

image.png.0d946b45dfc0db4a92a438d6b2bd63e3.png

It is a pity you can't make a FB act as CB, in my opinion this is what an IWB-D should do (then S sits in the DM strata and A pushes higher) but this is just the way it is. A HB at DMCL may help tip this balance I'm thinking by acting as a false CBL on occasion. I'd also be tempted to offset the AMC right just to get more of an isosceles triangle as opposed to right angled forming with the ST at the tip then the AMC and AML at the base corners. Potentially as well as an attack duty to the AML just to get him a touch higher.

TIs are also similar to my thinking. I'm mainly intrigued by focus play down the right. Is this more to suit your team, or is there an overarching logic to this?

 

I'm also really enjoying the interaction and involvement here, hopefully we can help eachother form a fully fledged and successful tactic. Cheers to all involved

Edited by OJ403
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OJ403 said:

TIs are also similar to my thinking. I'm mainly intrigued by focus play down the right. Is this more to suit your team, or is there an overarching logic to this?

well, the idea was that on the right flank the team can be quite more direct an transition quickly due to the attacking winger.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CARRERA said:

well, the idea was that on the right flank the team can be quite more direct an transition quickly due to the attacking winger.  

That stands to reason. Definitely something to bare in mind next time I get on

Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be a stupid question, but if you want a full back to act as a third centre back, why are you using a half back? I was always of the impression that a half back will drop between the centre backs and push them out wide, thus creating a back 3?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, EnigMattic1 said:

This may be a stupid question, but if you want a full back to act as a third centre back, why are you using a half back? I was always of the impression that a half back will drop between the centre backs and push them out wide, thus creating a back 3?

Well in FM it physically impossible to get a full back to operate as a third centre back. Much like Wilder's overlapping centre backs for example, it just simply cannot be achieved. Therefore, I hoped the mitigate this by using a half back as well in the thinking that two potential options meant that the third centre back was more likely to be achieved one way or another. Especially when using an IWB, as one player would occupy the holding midfield position and the other the centre back position.

In actual fact thus far (I am yet to test a FB-D as per @CARRERA's post and my comments earlier) the only player I have seen operate as that third centre back is the HB

21 hours ago, OJ403 said:

 

1697112258_Screenshot_20210404-005829_SamsungInternet.thumb.jpg.85baa47fde987426f6f8c03fe3fc7f01.jpg

This is why here I am considering using a HB on the opposite side to my FB-D. Ideally this will mean when we build up through the left the HB can help out and similarly when we go down the right the FB-D will perform a this function.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well i think you kinda have to look at it in a more fluid way. You also have to keep in mind, that the other teams behavior does also impact your players behavior a lot. You can see in that article, that leverkusen basicly does mirror the attacking players. But in FM many Teams are super defensive, so there is no real reason for 3 players to completely stay back and leave a lot of space unexploited. 

 

image.png.da808fd4007fa1da2763b26c4970b413.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, CARRERA said:

 

image.png.da808fd4007fa1da2763b26c4970b413.png

Actually looking at this you raise a very valid point. In fact I've been back through the article and I agree that I am being too rigid, especially considering some of the constraints of the match engine. I'm hoping to get some more game time in later today/tomorrow. In the meantime I will summarise my plans:

• The box midfield. This is key to the build up, as per the above image ideally the two higher players will operate more within the half spaces to create more of a trapezoidal shape in all accuracy.

• Width. Much like a Manchester City replication, it is key that we have two players at all times looking to stretch the pitch to the fullest possible extent. Ideally this will be one wide midfielder/forward and the opposite full back to help layer our attacks. However, in situations where we may need a further option to support or striker this may change to both full backs, or if we need more support in the build up phase it could become both wingers with the full backs helping in this phase. This is an example of greater flexibility.

• Greater runners. This is something I've noticed in watching us play and is entirely the fault of my rigidity. More vertical movement is required.

• Greater fluidity. This has been touched upon already but is still key. At times it may be useful to make our midfield a 3-2 arrangement (with two players staying back not three) instead of a 2-2. This is also true of our overall movement on the pitch. Even when we play in the picture perfect way roles, duties, TIs and PIs must allow for players to take risks as appropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...