Roles and duties in a 4-2-3-1

[sonnevillejr]

Hi guys, 

I'm currently 2nd in my championship with a top 5 side, but I've got the feeling that I struggle a bit.

I have trouble creating opportunities and I'm not as solid defensively as I wish I was. I win games with only one goal lead and in pain and I don't perform in big matches.

I like to think that most of my roles are well distributed and suit my players, I just don't really know about my duties. Is there a guide about how to set up duties?

And also, my striker, who is supposed to be one of my best player, struggle to score and finish games with 6.5 or less mostly. I've tried 2 roles : AF and PF(a) (considering his attributes and trait) but it doesn't seem to work. Maybe the combination with my AMC is not optimal?

[Experienced Defender]

12 hours ago, NSkywalker said:

I like to think that most of my roles are well distributed and suit my players, I just don't really know about my duties. Is there a guide about how to set up duties?

CMde in MCL and DLPsu in MCR would make more sense and provide better balance. Like this:

CMde   DLPsu

12 hours ago, NSkywalker said:

I have trouble creating opportunities 

Try with normal attacking width instead of narrower. In terms of roles, you can also try with a more creative striker role (e.g. CF on attack or DLF on attack). 

 

12 hours ago, NSkywalker said:

and I'm not as solid defensively as I wish I was

Maybe your players are simply not good enough for that style of play from a defensive perspective.

[facman]

I used to play something very similar in FM20 with pretty good success as Everton. The main differences I had were:

Striker - CF(S); AMC - SS - I tend to favour a striker who can move around in the channels and find themselves space, whilst dragging the defence out of position for the AMC to make runs forward. I've never had any real luck with a lone attacker on Attack duty as I find they get isolated.

Width - Standard - you want your fullbacks to be wide to overlap, and for your IW to start wide and drive towards the middle to stretch the defence and drag opposition players out of position with their movement. Starting from a 'narrow' width reduces the opportunities to do that. You may even want to go even wider if the opposition is packing the middle.

Work Ball Into Box/Shorter Passing/Higher Tempo - Playing with a DLP(S) and CM(D) will make your central midfield tend to hang back to recycle the ball, whilst the front 4 do all of the running and movement, supported by the full backs. I found the first 2 TIs worked together to enable the team to keep hold of the ball better in the final third, whilst the higher tempo gave them a more aggressive attitude to getting the ball up the park.

Defensively, you need to be sure that your back four are capable of holding against quick opponents, particularly on the flanks. The DLP and CM will help in the middle, so I wouldn't force the opposition to the outside where you have limited cover from the inverted wingers. Your centre backs need to be fast or they may get caught on the break.

Edited June 17, 2021 by facman

[PinkSpeedos]

I'm currently playing with an almost identical set up. 

As mentioned above, I have my DLP and CM the other way round. The CM(D) will sit deeper which covers the FB(A) better. I also have my CB on the left side on cover (but I am thinking about trialling this on the right CB slot instead as I've been caught out there a few times rather than on the left). 

The WB(S) is actually a pretty attacking role. I've gone with a FB(S) there who won't commit quite as much and will often play nice through balls to the IW(A).

One thing I'm finding (I don't know if this is the same for you) is that in attack, things can sometimes become very congested in the final third. I've tried with a W(A) on the right side but didn't like how that played out. 

I'm playing this with a focus on possession, so that's where our systems differ, but be interested to see how it plays out in a more counter style.

What I've found is that the central midfield pairing are integral to any success you have. You need to get the right players there. I've gone for players with high teamwork, work rate, anticipation, off the ball, marking and tackling (but obviously an emphasis on passing and vision for the DLP). If you can find two solid players in those positions, it will go a long way to making this a quality tactic. 

[BobbaW]

On 16/06/2021 at 23:54, Experienced Defender said:

CMde in MCL and DLPsu in MCR would make more sense and provide better balance. Like this:

CMde   DLPsu

 

What's the logic behind that? Is that to support the attacking winger?

(as opposed to cover for the winger and wing back, which was my thought process). 

[Experienced Defender]

40 minutes ago, BobbaW said:

What's the logic behind that? Is that to support the attacking winger?

Which "attacking winger"? The OP's tactic has 2 IWs, there is no winger. 

[BobbaW]

The one on attack duty (IW). 

[Experienced Defender]

9 hours ago, BobbaW said:

The one on attack duty (IW). 

Ah, okay  

 

16 hours ago, BobbaW said:

On 17/06/2021 at 00:54, Experienced Defender said:

CMde in MCL and DLPsu in MCR would make more sense and provide better balance. Like this:

CMde   DLPsu

 

What's the logic behind that? Is that to support the attacking winger?

(as opposed to cover for the winger and wing back, which was my thought process). 

CM defend as defensive cover for the attacking FB, and DLP support behind the attacking IW so as to encourage through balls when a good opportunity arises. 

Both CM defend and DLP are holding roles that can cover for more attack-minded teammates (fullbacks in this particular case). But given that CM on defend is more conservative (due to his duty) than DLP on support, I opted for the former to serve as defensive cover for the fullback on attack (because FB attack has a higher individual mentality than WB on support, even though WB on support is no less attack-minded from a purely role-related perspective). 

[BobbaW]

I see. 
 

Thanks