Multiple playmakers?

[FJW]

Hey,  Just a really quick simple question really.

What is the general rule on using more than one playmaker in your team?

[LHurlz]

It can be viable in a possession based system if you have players of sufficient quality, it's just advisable to keep them away from each other.  E.g. at the base and tip of a diamond, one at MCL and another at AMR in a 4231, etc.

[NotSoSpecialOne]

I'm not a fan of having more than one playmaker operating in the same area of the pitch (although situationally I might entertain a DLP-AP partnership in a 4-1-2-3 as they play differently). If I'm using two playmakers in the side, they'll be operating in different areas of the pitch (see @LHurlzpost above for examples!).

If I'm using a regista in a tactic though, I'll never use a second playmaker. That's not to say it couldn't work, just my personal opinion that the regista is the sort of player that I want pulling all the strings and sharing playmaking duties lessens his impact.

[SteinkelssonFM]

Very much of the school of thought that you shouldn't use two playmakers who operate on the same horizontal or vertical line...have used a DLP and a AP in a 4-3-3 DM wide formation before and that worked well. I made the DLP have the comes deep to get the ball trait and the AP looking to try more killer balls if memory serves me right! 

[zZzZzZzZzZzZzZz]

Yes, as others have said it can work just fine if the playmakers are in different tiers. 

4-3-3 with a DLP in the DM slot and an AP in the row ahead is the one I have the most experience with over the years, but I have also had success with two playmakers in a 4-2-3-1 where I had the AP in the AMC slot and a DLP as one of the deeper midfielders. 

It's definitely something that you can play around with, there's no hard rule that you can only have one or two, I can easily picture set-ups with three or four playmakers that could work, you just get a different kind of football than if you only had one. 

[The #9.5]

Interesting topic. I tend to first classify the different type of playmakers. 

1) Passers/recyclers: DLP/d, DLP/s and to an extend AP/s (as with his support duty, he won't be so much of a risk-taker and will wait for more of a clear-cut opportunity to thread  a through ball). All of them tend to stay behind play and dictate the play, directing the play to the final 3rd. 

2) Creators: AP/a, TQ, Regista and EG - all those are looking to actively 'force the issue' and create chances in the final 3rd. 

3) RPM - I tend to view him as a 'transitional' player instead of a traditional playmaker per se as unlikely other playmakers, he is all about roaming and dribbling, not so much passing. Not sure he is best suited to a more patient attacking style as he is too direct with his approach. But he's perfect if you look for someone to lead the charge on the break in a more aggressive counter-attacking styles based on quick pressing and direct attacking. 

Now, depending on what style of play I'm looking for I tend to use the different playmakers differently.

The first group of playmakers (and especially the DLP/s) I tend to use alone only if I'm looking for someone to hold his position in spray passes down the channels in a deep formation aiming to play on the break (4-1-4-1, 4-4-1-1, 3-1-4-2 to name a few). In a patient attacking style looking to boss the play and pin the opposition I don't think any of these playmakers alone would be enough.

This is because I think neither of them will provide the required creativity on the ball to actively create chances. Perhaps if I surround them with roles that have free roles and/or increased personal creative freedom in a more fluid approach (i.e. someone who don't have a single attacking spearhead but counts on a few attacking players to contribute equally) I might use AP/s. But in such styles of play I tend to look for another proper creator (i.e. AP/a). 

If I'm to use a half-back in a patient attacking style of play (be it in a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1), I always look to partner him with a DLP/s, as when the HB drops in between the CBs, the DLP/s will look to plug the gap and connect the side in our half. Then I'll always look to have a creator role like AP/a either next to the DLP/s (in a 4-3-3) or ahead/wide of him (in a 4-2-3-1). Another approach I often use is to have a DLP/d at the base with either AP/s and CM/A/Mezz ahead of him (Italy's Euro Approach) or DLP/d at the base with AP/a as the chief creator (be it at CM or  AM strata) and a shuttler in between them (CM/s or BBM if I want a bit more mobility). 

I think the two playmaker roles that need to be used alone - i.e. as the only playmaker role in the side - is the Italian traditional playmakers: TQ and Reg. They're very specific playmakers in that they are given both max movement and creative freedom to influence proceedings as they see fit. So it makes sense to build the whole side around them (as Italians teams used to do back in the days, during the 90s and early 2000s). In addition, they need certain tactical balance to give them the platform to do so in that they need to have space around them but also enough defensive cover to fully let them do their own thing. Think about Pirlo (Regista) at Milan and Juve or earlier periods with Del Piero (or even earlier Baggio) at Juve, Locatelli at Bologna etc, all playing as proper TQ. 

The South American version of - the ENG - is also a role you look to use alone but in a more methodical and patient style of play as the ENG is immobile role. Think about Riquelme, Veron back in his earlier Argentina days or basically any other Brazil/Argentina #10 up to the period of the mid-2000s. 

It's interesting how in modern football - i.e. mid-2000s onwards - the first to die out was the ENG as the football become much quicker and such a role/players simply couldn't keep up with the game, especially in the congested final 3rd. They had to either move deeper (as Veron and to a less extend Redondo managed to do) or simply disappear. 

Then the Italian traditional playmakers slowly but surely gone down the same path as building the whole side around one 'free role' was too easy to nullify. More so when inverted wingers started to become the trend and become quasi-playmakers (or half creators/half attackers) so the TQ had less space to operate and do his magic. Or when teams started to press more from the front, so Reg had less chance to influence the play from deep on his own.

Modern football is all about cooperation and blurring the roles of all outfield players in each phase (not to mention that we now talk about 4 phases - defensive, att transition, attacking, def transition - and each of them doesn't exist on its own as phases started to be blurred too). So you need more players taking part in both the build-up, chance creation and finishing periods.

Think about Pep's Barca and Tuchel's Dortmund as teams using different type of ball-players in a more fluid and modern-looking approach. Both would often combine HB, DLP/s and AP/a in FM terms, instead of having one overriding typical playmaker doing it all on his own. Modern football doesn't allow for that anymore. More so when more and more players can do several things instead of having specialist roles as back in the days. 

Per's Barca will go in the history as one of the all time great sides but if we looked solely on play and not trophies, Tuchel's BVB should be talked much more highly too. Personally I enjoyed them equally as Pep's Barca (and at times even more as Tuchel managed to combine that possession with a bit more bite both in terms of attacking transitions and pressing); especially during the 15/16 season.  For him the central zone was properly central to everything so in all his formations during the period (4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 and the 3-4-2-1) he would use a central ball-playing trident: Weigl as the HB dropping deep and taking charge of the early build-up phase, Gundogan as the DLP/s connecting the side and dropping deep if opponents were pressing and Kagawa as the AP/a looking to receive the ball between the lines and look for ways to fashion out chances as a proper creator. Add to this Hummels from CB and Mkhitaryan/Reus dropping from the attacking line and they had all 5 vertical lines covered with ball-players which 15-20 years ago could easily be termed as the chief playmaker on his own. 

The trick was not only they had the other 5 players all able to influence the play in the final 3rd and get into goal-scoring positions, but at least 2 of these 5 ball-players will do so too. It was a properly fluid approach with Tuchel reaching that tactical pinnacle of having at any given time enough recyclers, creators and attackers. Doing so with the old-school playmakers roles wouldn't be possible. Which is why we talk about modern football being more fluid etc. It's the blurring of roles and the fact more and more players assume different roles at any given moment. 

In FM terms, the only way to achieve this is to have more than 1 playmaker role (with a HB, DLP/s and AP/a trio being lost a must to use) but also have players with very specific skill-set and PPMs to allow for that blurring of their roles (to make the playmakers able attackers and the attackers able playmakers). In older FM version, we could further help achieve that type of football selecting Fluid or Very Fluid Team Shape, something the newer versions don't allow (which is why I'm mostly using FM17 and FM18 If I'm looking to recreate certain style of play; but that's another topic).

[denen123]

There's no hard rule. 

I use a Dlpde and an Apsu on the left flank of my tactic (4231). Coupled with a CWBatt on that flank and automatically, I keep the ball well and It forces my left flank to be the primary direction of attack. 

[paracoolo]

On 11/07/2021 at 07:26, The #9.5 said:

Interesting topic. I tend to first classify the different type of playmakers. 

1) Passers/recyclers: DLP/d, DLP/s and to an extend AP/s (as with his support duty, he won't be so much of a risk-taker and will wait for more of a clear-cut opportunity to thread  a through ball). All of them tend to stay behind play and dictate the play, directing the play to the final 3rd. 

2) Creators: AP/a, TQ, Regista and EG - all those are looking to actively 'force the issue' and create chances in the final 3rd. 

3) RPM - I tend to view him as a 'transitional' player instead of a traditional playmaker per se as unlikely other playmakers, he is all about roaming and dribbling, not so much passing. Not sure he is best suited to a more patient attacking style as he is too direct with his approach. But he's perfect if you look for someone to lead the charge on the break in a more aggressive counter-attacking styles based on quick pressing and direct attacking. 

Now, depending on what style of play I'm looking for I tend to use the different playmakers differently.

The first group of playmakers (and especially the DLP/s) I tend to use alone only if I'm looking for someone to hold his position in spray passes down the channels in a deep formation aiming to play on the break (4-1-4-1, 4-4-1-1, 3-1-4-2 to name a few). In a patient attacking style looking to boss the play and pin the opposition I don't think any of these playmakers alone would be enough.

This is because I think neither of them will provide the required creativity on the ball to actively create chances. Perhaps if I surround them with roles that have free roles and/or increased personal creative freedom in a more fluid approach (i.e. someone who don't have a single attacking spearhead but counts on a few attacking players to contribute equally) I might use AP/s. But in such styles of play I tend to look for another proper creator (i.e. AP/a). 

If I'm to use a half-back in a patient attacking style of play (be it in a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1), I always look to partner him with a DLP/s, as when the HB drops in between the CBs, the DLP/s will look to plug the gap and connect the side in our half. Then I'll always look to have a creator role like AP/a either next to the DLP/s (in a 4-3-3) or ahead/wide of him (in a 4-2-3-1). Another approach I often use is to have a DLP/d at the base with either AP/s and CM/A/Mezz ahead of him (Italy's Euro Approach) or DLP/d at the base with AP/a as the chief creator (be it at CM or  AM strata) and a shuttler in between them (CM/s or BBM if I want a bit more mobility). 

I think the two playmaker roles that need to be used alone - i.e. as the only playmaker role in the side - is the Italian traditional playmakers: TQ and Reg. They're very specific playmakers in that they are given both max movement and creative freedom to influence proceedings as they see fit. So it makes sense to build the whole side around them (as Italians teams used to do back in the days, during the 90s and early 2000s). In addition, they need certain tactical balance to give them the platform to do so in that they need to have space around them but also enough defensive cover to fully let them do their own thing. Think about Pirlo (Regista) at Milan and Juve or earlier periods with Del Piero (or even earlier Baggio) at Juve, Locatelli at Bologna etc, all playing as proper TQ. 

The South American version of - the ENG - is also a role you look to use alone but in a more methodical and patient style of play as the ENG is immobile role. Think about Riquelme, Veron back in his earlier Argentina days or basically any other Brazil/Argentina #10 up to the period of the mid-2000s. 

It's interesting how in modern football - i.e. mid-2000s onwards - the first to die out was the ENG as the football become much quicker and such a role/players simply couldn't keep up with the game, especially in the congested final 3rd. They had to either move deeper (as Veron and to a less extend Redondo managed to do) or simply disappear. 

Then the Italian traditional playmakers slowly but surely gone down the same path as building the whole side around one 'free role' was too easy to nullify. More so when inverted wingers started to become the trend and become quasi-playmakers (or half creators/half attackers) so the TQ had less space to operate and do his magic. Or when teams started to press more from the front, so Reg had less chance to influence the play from deep on his own.

Modern football is all about cooperation and blurring the roles of all outfield players in each phase (not to mention that we now talk about 4 phases - defensive, att transition, attacking, def transition - and each of them doesn't exist on its own as phases started to be blurred too). So you need more players taking part in both the build-up, chance creation and finishing periods.

Think about Pep's Barca and Tuchel's Dortmund as teams using different type of ball-players in a more fluid and modern-looking approach. Both would often combine HB, DLP/s and AP/a in FM terms, instead of having one overriding typical playmaker doing it all on his own. Modern football doesn't allow for that anymore. More so when more and more players can do several things instead of having specialist roles as back in the days. 

Per's Barca will go in the history as one of the all time great sides but if we looked solely on play and not trophies, Tuchel's BVB should be talked much more highly too. Personally I enjoyed them equally as Pep's Barca (and at times even more as Tuchel managed to combine that possession with a bit more bite both in terms of attacking transitions and pressing); especially during the 15/16 season.  For him the central zone was properly central to everything so in all his formations during the period (4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 and the 3-4-2-1) he would use a central ball-playing trident: Weigl as the HB dropping deep and taking charge of the early build-up phase, Gundogan as the DLP/s connecting the side and dropping deep if opponents were pressing and Kagawa as the AP/a looking to receive the ball between the lines and look for ways to fashion out chances as a proper creator. Add to this Hummels from CB and Mkhitaryan/Reus dropping from the attacking line and they had all 5 vertical lines covered with ball-players which 15-20 years ago could easily be termed as the chief playmaker on his own. 

The trick was not only they had the other 5 players all able to influence the play in the final 3rd and get into goal-scoring positions, but at least 2 of these 5 ball-players will do so too. It was a properly fluid approach with Tuchel reaching that tactical pinnacle of having at any given time enough recyclers, creators and attackers. Doing so with the old-school playmakers roles wouldn't be possible. Which is why we talk about modern football being more fluid etc. It's the blurring of roles and the fact more and more players assume different roles at any given moment. 

In FM terms, the only way to achieve this is to have more than 1 playmaker role (with a HB, DLP/s and AP/a trio being lost a must to use) but also have players with very specific skill-set and PPMs to allow for that blurring of their roles (to make the playmakers able attackers and the attackers able playmakers). In older FM version, we could further help achieve that type of football selecting Fluid or Very Fluid Team Shape, something the newer versions don't allow (which is why I'm mostly using FM17 and FM18 If I'm looking to recreate certain style of play; but that's another topic).

Real-life example of a Trequartista that fails to create as much rn is Messi in PSG. He does his roaming but if the ball doesnt go through him he is inexistent. 

[bielsadidnothingwrong]

it’s all about managing risk. two playmakers both taking more risks with the ball can be bad under some circumstances while others it will be fine. DLP-D in the midfield with an AP further up on the wing is good because the defensive duty of the DLP reduces their overall risk taking, meaning the team still look to them as a playmaker but they won’t gamble away possession from deep, that’s left up to the AP.