Help required in 442 role set-up

[nidhar.ram]

The idea behind the tactic is the WP, WB and CF will supply the balls to AF and winger on the right arriving at the far post.

The FB will cover for the winger on the right flank and the CM(D) will hold position in the middle to cover for the left flank.

I am unsure about the role for RCM. Will a CM(S) provide enough attacking  and defensive support on the right flank?

In terms of instructions, below is the set-up

Mentality - Positive

Ti's - Play out of defence

 

 

[Prolix]

24 minutes ago, nidhar.ram said:

I am unsure about the role for RCM. Will a CM(S) provide enough attacking  and defensive support on the right flank?

 

Yes.

[coach vahid]

Maybe I will change something... The CF on the left and the AF on the right. 

[Experienced Defender]

31 minutes ago, coach vahid said:

The CF on the left and the AF on the right

Same here + the winger's (RM) duty from attack into support for optimal balance. 

[zabyl]

It seems well balanced. But be careful with the space between defence & midfield. There is no DM in a 4-4-2 who helps to secure that space. I would adjust DL-LOE to relax myself. I'm the conservative kind on giving space.

[nidhar.ram]

Thanks always for the feedback..

My thinking behind having the WP and AF on the left flank was so that the WP will directly feed the AF with through balls + passes from CF.

Can you guys please explain why the AF should be on the right?

[cocoadavid]

In my experience the WP and AF work really well together on the same side of the pitch, I had great successes with multiple teams with similar (altough not the same) tactics -  I won La Liga and Seriea A in my first season with Valencia and Milan, without any signings. I often use a 442 with an Advanced Forward and a WP on the same side of the pitch. The AF pushes forward, leaving space behind him, and the WP can exploit that space really well.

But there is a downside to using a central midfielder on defend duty behing the AF: when your team are out of possession, there can be a huge unoccupied space between your AF and CMde, and the opposition can exploit that, especially if they have a great deep lying playmaker playing there, so I guess switching the AF and CFsu may provide better defensive stability out of possession.
But in possession the CMde is a great cover for your WP and WB.

Overall your tactic looks well balanced.

Here is my tactic that worked really well with Valencia if you are interested, there are also important PIs. This is a basic tactic, sometimes I tweaked with team intructions.
When playing 442, I prefer to use 2 support duty players in central midfield, because I think that is how teams in real life defend in a 442, but that is just my personal preference. In my experience in FM a central midfielder on defend duty defends like a defensive midfielder and is not in line with his other central midfield partner. I wish there was a way to tell my BWM that in possesion he should play like a defend duty midfielder, but out of possession I would want him to play on support duty.

 

 

[zabyl]

35 minutes ago, nidhar.ram said:

Thanks always for the feedback..

My thinking behind having the WP and AF on the left flank was so that the WP will directly feed the AF with through balls + passes from CF.

Can you guys please explain why the AF should be on the right?

With that change WBs-WPa-CFs & CMs-Ws-AFa can combine well and CMs can have more space to operate behind AF.

[zabyl]

11 minutes ago, cocoadavid said:

 

This is a risky one. I won’t complain about left side if it works well.

Only thing i would contribute to this system is; if you don’t use a stay wider PI for RFB, it can create a width issue on the right flank.

[cocoadavid]

6 minutes ago, zabyl said:

This is a risky one. I won’t complain about left side if it works well.

Only thing i would contribute to this system is; if you don’t use a stay wider PI for RFB, it can create a width issue on the right flank.

As I have mentioned, there are several important PIs, including the FB to stay wider.
The list of PIs:
RB - Stay Wider
LB - Stay Wider
BWM - hold position
MC - hold position, more risky passes
WMa - sit narrower, roam from position
TM - pass shorter, mark tighter

It seems riskier than it really is, conceding 26 goals in 38 league matches is a pretty decent defensive record I think. 
In possession it often looks like a trendy 2-3-5.

[Prolix]

I would not swap the forwards:

• the WP-a will move inside to the space between the CM-d and AF-a 
• the WB-s will naturally overlap and look to play balls to the AF-s
• the W-a and CF-s will move in opposite directions, opening space and attacking it from different directions
• the CM-s will provide dynamic support behind the CF-s and W-a in the final third while remaining defensively responsible
• the FB-s will counterbalance the opposite-side wingback and the attacking focus of the winger

If the forwards were inverted:

• no one is attacking space on the left side
• the WP-s and CF-s are competing for space in the same zone of the pitch
• the FB-s seems rather passive on the right ( = 3 support roles + AF on that flank if the winger is changed as well) 

Edited May 12, 2021 by Prolix

[jozza800]

Have to agree with cocoadavid. An AP and AF work really nicely. I'm playing something similar but with higher wingers so 4-2-4 but the shape is very similar.

Having the WP on support rather than attack will see him play more forward passes rather than drive forward with the ball, which I prefer with a pacey forward.

From my experience you might come unstuck against a 3-5-2 variant. I will post in a new thread my own struggles.

 

[zabyl]

57 minutes ago, Prolix said:

no one is attacking space on the left side

Not really. CFs also attacks space but not the same amount of an attack duty striker.

58 minutes ago, Prolix said:

the WP-s and CF-s are competing for space in the same zone of the pitch

Sorry but that is also not true. WPa on the left with CFs in front of him use different areas of the pitch. WPa plays more centrally and CFs roams around vertically & horizontally on the left half of the pitch.

 

1 hour ago, Prolix said:

the FB-s seems rather passive on the right ( = 3 support roles + AF on that flank if the winger is changed as well) 

That is not a bad thing for a 4-4-2. Because there is no DM, a conservative full back with a support duty winger can balance the tactic with one side is attacking with taking higher risks and the other is supporting attacks with lesser risks.

[Prolix]

22 minutes ago, zabyl said:

Not really. CFs also attacks space but not the same amount of an attack duty striker.

my concern is that an AF-a pinning back defenders earlier in the attacking phase (higher mentality, GFF, MIC) opens space for the WP-a to move vertically and laterally, meaning the defenders are caught having to defend in two directions simultaneously, and one axis of that movement is in behind, whereas the movement of a CF-s (towards the left, but also deeper) and WP-a (towards the center) is all in front of the defenders, which imo is easier to defend against

(this is also why I like the combination of CF-s and W-a on the right, creating that attacking movement behind the defensive line... but my assumptions might be flawed)

but you're probably correct that you could use the combination of CF-s, WP-a, and WB-s to overload that side of the pitch while the AF-a and W-s are outlets for a switch of play towards the right. different styles of play? 

[jc577]

1 hour ago, Prolix said:

different styles of play?

I think this is it. Both combinations can work.. i've used an IW-S (with take more risks) on the same side as a Poacher and he scored for fun, but i've also played with a WP-S on the opposite to the AF and he hit some sweet diagonal balls. 

[nidhar.ram]

I guess having WP(A) and AF on the same side and WP(A) and CF(S) on the same side having their own advantages and disadvantages.

The latter will help me overload the left side with WP, CF & WB to unlock the right side with my AF and winger waiting. May be I can use both the approaches so that I don't become predictable game to game.

Another question I have is how I can defend with this set-up? I don't think I can press high, would a middle block work here? If so, how do i set it up?

[Fantasista10]

5 hours ago, nidhar.ram said:

Another question I have is how I can defend with this set-up? I don't think I can press high, would a middle block work here? If so, how do i set it up?

I think that's the beauty of the 4-4-2, you have so many options both with and without the ball. There is no reason why a high press would not work (although a 4-2-4 would be a better pressing shape) but ultimately your players need to be suited to the high press. Again, depending on your players, a mid block could be the best option. 

I'm currently playing a LLM save with Dulwich Hamlet and we easily won the Vanarama South and now sit top of the National League playing a mid block 4-4-2. I played almost exclusively on Positive mentality with Standard DL and Lowe LOE with Narrow Defensive Width, More Urgent Pressing and Get Stuck In to create an aggressive and compact mid-low block. I've now increased the mentality to Attacking for home games but the defensive block remains unchanged, just naturally slightly higher due to the mentality shift. So yes, a mid block can definitely work. 

I took some inspiration from @Rashidi's thread on Lower League Management, and the importance of having good Jumping Reach/Aerial presence to deal with crosses as we give up the flanks in order to be as compact as possible. 

Hope that helps. 

[Experienced Defender]

5 hours ago, nidhar.ram said:

would a middle block work here? If so, how do i set it up?

For an optimally compact mid block - higher D-line & standard LOE (especially for formations with no DM). 

[LHurlz]

On 13/05/2021 at 11:00, Fantasista10 said:

I think that's the beauty of the 4-4-2, you have so many options both with and without the ball. There is no reason why a high press would not work (although a 4-2-4 would be a better pressing shape) but ultimately your players need to be suited to the high press. Again, depending on your players, a mid block could be the best option. 

I'm currently playing a LLM save with Dulwich Hamlet and we easily won the Vanarama South and now sit top of the National League playing a mid block 4-4-2. I played almost exclusively on Positive mentality with Standard DL and Lowe LOE with Narrow Defensive Width, More Urgent Pressing and Get Stuck In to create an aggressive and compact mid-low block. I've now increased the mentality to Attacking for home games but the defensive block remains unchanged, just naturally slightly higher due to the mentality shift. So yes, a mid block can definitely work. 

I took some inspiration from @Rashidi's thread on Lower League Management, and the importance of having good Jumping Reach/Aerial presence to deal with crosses as we give up the flanks in order to be as compact as possible. 

Hope that helps. 

Sounds very similar to the tactic I'm working on with Cork City. Any chance of a peek?

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, LHurlz said:

Sounds very similar to the tactic I'm working on with Cork City. Any chance of a peek?

If you want any feedback on your tactic, you'll have to start your own separate thread. If you want feedback specifically from @Fantasista10, you can tag/mention him there 

This thread is exclusively about the OP's tactic and tactical issues, sorry. 

[Rashidi]

On 12/05/2021 at 22:01, nidhar.ram said:

The idea behind the tactic is the WP, WB and CF will supply the balls to AF and winger on the right arriving at the far post.

The FB will cover for the winger on the right flank and the CM(D) will hold position in the middle to cover for the left flank.

I am unsure about the role for RCM. Will a CM(S) provide enough attacking  and defensive support on the right flank?

In terms of instructions, below is the set-up

Mentality - Positive

Ti's - Play out of defence

 

 

Looks pretty solid, you have a few options the CM(S) could easily play the role well if his traits have get forward whenever possible. Without that you could also play him on an attack duty.

Another option of course would be to consider and BWM(S) it sounds unorthodox, but the BWM could win the ball higher up the pitch for you working well in tandem with the winger. 
 

The options largely depend on the players you have.

[nidhar.ram]

3 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Looks pretty solid, you have a few options the CM(S) could easily play the role well if his traits have get forward whenever possible. Without that you could also play him on an attack duty.

Another option of course would be to consider and BWM(S) it sounds unorthodox, but the BWM could win the ball higher up the pitch for you working well in tandem with the winger. 
 

The options largely depend on the players you have.

Thanks @Rashidifor your feedback.

I have the roles and duties finalized but unable to decide on how to defend. My centre mid's are hardworking but my wide wingers aren't. Backline is relatively quick so I suppose I could defend slightly higher but positive mentality means the DL is already high. I am tempted to go with standard DL & LOE but with urgent missing. Will this work bearing in my mind I am one of the teams expected to push for the title.

Appreciate your feedback.

[A_Sober_Paddy]

On 12/05/2021 at 16:39, zabyl said:

It seems well balanced. But be careful with the space between defence & midfield. There is no DM in a 4-4-2 who helps to secure that space. I would adjust DL-LOE to relax myself. I'm the conservative kind on giving space.

LOE?

[LHurlz]

1 hour ago, A_Sober_Paddy said:

LOE?

Line of engagement.