Help me build a defensively solid 352 which can emulate 4231 triangles in attack?

[guttea]

I started a save wanting to play 4231 with AMC but I found that my team has four strikers and especially a good target man and a good pacy forward. This gave me an idea to play two strikers with an AMC ( or AP)  behind and wingers on the flanks. Basically, the idea is to have the attacking triangles of 4231 when the wingers push up to the AMC line and then have a lot of attacking options: 1) the wingers stay wide and cross to the targetman for a header 2) the wingers stay wide and get to the line then give a cutback to the AMC who's bursting into the box (like the Alba-Messi connection) 3) the targetman holds up the ball, the AP (?) in the AMC position and the wingers interchange passes and get the second pacy striker or the AMC into the box hopefully one on one. But I have a problem with the roles. Here's what it should look like (you can see the triangles of 4231 on the right diagram):

                   TM         DLF (?)                                                              TM          DLF(?)

                        AMC                                                                   W            AMC          W

         W       X            X      W         transforms into                              X           X

                 D       D      D                                                                   D         D        D

 

But I don't know how to make it. Also defensively my idea is that one of the CMs  (X in the diagram) should tuck into the defensive line with one of the CD going wide so that if there's a counter attack, there's a solid back four to meet it and hopefully delay it until the wingers and the second CM track back.

 

One other thing: I want this tactic to control possession, not to be counterattacking. Basically the vertical tiki-taka preset.

Edited September 5, 2021 by guttea

[guttea]

I thought my diagrams were reasonably clear. You know, like there was the WM formation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_(association_football)#WM ? well, this is like an MM formation when in possession.

 

[guttea]

One problem I see with this is there's not enough people in the box. The wingers stay wide, the AMC arrives late, DLF comes deep for the ball so you just have the TM in the box which is probably not enough penetration. Not sure how to fix it: get one of the holding CMs to join the attack or tell one of the wingers to cut inside? could be a problem with creating space. Any other ideas? I'm not wedded to the formation, the requirements are 1) two strikers 2) active AMC 3) wingers. Maybe 4132? But I'm scared for the lonely guy in the middle.

[CARRERA]

A few thoughts on this:

• If you want to have a back three when in possession, the best way to replicate is to either play with 3x CD or 2x CD and a HB in DM Position.
• In either way one of the other midfielders should be a DLP(s) or another role that can provide cover and ist not making too many runs 
• If you play with a static striker like TM up front the other central roles (striker / AM) should be creating mobility by either roaming or moving into channels.
• You should also use mobile wingbacks when playing with any back-three replication
• With central roles and wingbacks being mobile, your wide midfielders should rather be static like wingers or at least starting from wide like inverted wingers
• start out with a balanced or positive mentality and then start to finetune with other instructions

hope that could help a bit

[guttea]

2 minutes ago, CARRERA said:

A few thoughts on this:

• If you want to have a back three when in possession, the best way to replicate is to either play with 3x CD or 2x CD and a HB in DM Position.
• In either way one of the other midfielders should be a DLP(s) or another role that can provide cover and ist not making too many runs 
• If you play with a static striker like TM up front the other central roles (striker / AM) should be creating mobility by either roaming or moving into channels.
• You should also use mobile wingbacks when playing with any back-three replication
• With central roles and wingbacks being mobile, your wide midfielders should rather be static like wingers or at least starting from wide like inverted wingers
• start out with a balanced or positive mentality and then start to finetune with other instructions

hope that could help a bit

thanks, it's helpful, I've already realized myself that I need a DLP for this, I guess this is going to be my only buy in the first window, let's see what I can get with 1.3k wage budget (i'm playing in league two). One thing I'm confused about is what do you mean "wingbacks being mobile, your wide midfielders should rather be static "? I don't have wide midfielders, do you mean two holding CMs (X in the diagram)?

[zabyl]

On 5.09.2021 at 18:56, guttea said:

I thought my diagrams were reasonably clear. You know, like there was the WM formation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_(association_football)#WM ? well, this is like an MM formation when in possession.

 

Guardiola uses similar attacking shapes 3-2-5 / 2-3-5 depending on the opposition’s most advanced player count. You can create this with many formations.

For 3 at the back; Guardiola provides width with his wide forwards to stay wider and giving his double 8 more attacking freedom like playing them as goalscorers who start attacks from a deeper position and arrive the box from the channels. He uses one of his full backs like a playmaker on midfield (can’t adapt this perfectly because of no playmaking FB role) alongside defensive minded cm/dm and the other FB on defence to create a back-3. He uses a lone forward who drops deep and helps the build up, uses channels, roams around to create havoc.

 

Sorry, i was on the mobile phone and i didn't see it like on PC. (your transform tactics were seemed to be intertwined on phone screen) 

Edited September 6, 2021 by zabyl

[CARRERA]

55 minutes ago, guttea said:

One thing I'm confused about is what do you mean "wingbacks being mobile, your wide midfielders should rather be static "? I don't have wide midfielders, do you mean two holding CMs (X in the diagram)?

Sorry, I case you play with wide defenders. If you don’t have any, then obviously not. Static wide midfielders in terms of no one who is sitting centrally like wide playmakers. You want them to provide width because your central players already occupy the channles

[DarJ]

My question is why do you need a TM and DLP at the same time?

they both hold the ball so who is holding it for who? 

my reccomendation is to pick either a DLP or TM then your AM has to be an AM-A or SS then the other striker can be a PF, AF or even P

[Tsuru]

I am not completely sure if you can use a HB when your DM is not on the center but I think you can. So you can start with a 4-2-1-3 formation (two DMs, one MC, two advanced wingers, one striker). One of your DMs will be a HB and retreat to form the back 3 and the other one can move foward to form a pair on the center with the other MC. In this situation your two wingbacks would move fowards to provide width and you would use a AP on one flank (moving to the center and becoming your AMC) and the other one would attack the box more directly (Inside Foward/Raumdetter), creating kind of a two striker pairing with the ball. If you use a more supportive striker the winger that attacks the box could be a goalscorer, if your central ST is a goalscorer the winger could give him some support.

I never tested this and don´t know if it really works, but can be an option to do what you want. And maybe more easier than using a one man flank formation, which I consider harder to build in FM.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Tsuru

[YAMS]

On 05/09/2021 at 17:06, guttea said:

One problem I see with this is there's not enough people in the box. The wingers stay wide, the AMC arrives late, DLF comes deep for the ball so you just have the TM in the box which is probably not enough penetration. Not sure how to fix it: get one of the holding CMs to join the attack or tell one of the wingers to cut inside? could be a problem with creating space. Any other ideas? I'm not wedded to the formation, the requirements are 1) two strikers 2) active AMC 3) wingers. Maybe 4132? But I'm scared for the lonely guy in the middle.

I've played a lot of 3 at the back. It's actually really good fun but you have to get the wing backs/centre mids balance correct. 

Just to check your idea is a MM in attack & a 3-4-1-2 in defence/base structure?

[guttea]

8 hours ago, YAMS said:

I've played a lot of 3 at the back. It's actually really good fun but you have to get the wing backs/centre mids balance correct. 

Just to check your idea is a MM in attack & a 3-4-1-2 in defence/base structure?

yes, that's my idea. one problem I'm facing is that usually 3atb is played with wingbacks while I'm trying to do it with wingers. I put them into a defensive winger role so they should help out on defence but the players complain that the formation may "expose them at the back". So far I played a bunch of friendlies but I can't say it works great: I'm mostly disappointed in the AMC role, he's completely useless, all the danger comes from the wings.

[YAMS]

15 hours ago, guttea said:

yes, that's my idea. one problem I'm facing is that usually 3atb is played with wingbacks while I'm trying to do it with wingers. I put them into a defensive winger role so they should help out on defence but the players complain that the formation may "expose them at the back". So far I played a bunch of friendlies but I can't say it works great: I'm mostly disappointed in the AMC role, he's completely useless, all the danger comes from the wings.

Yep, you've found two of the problems you're going to face here. 

The only way you will make defensive wingers work is to play with a double pivot centre mid pair from the DM strata. If you don't do this then you will let in goal after goal from far post runs. You can defend wider (Force oppo inside) & make your two outside centre halves stay wider in possession, this helps with their lost the ball transition a little to prevent wide counters, but they still won't mark the far post very well. If you play the DM double pivot then you can get a regista/DLPS in there with a BWMS/SVS perhaps. This does work to an extent & If you are under the cosh then making these DM roles defend responsibility helps to cover the channels/wings a little, especially on counter attacks.... However this leaves five players at the back which seems too many. 

As for the number 10... Well they are a hard role to get right. You need movement from them so I would advise an attacking/roaming role. A Treq or AMC with roam from position highlighted perhaps, you could also APA them as well but I prefer the playmaker from deeper personally.   

The other way to play as you have mentioned is with wingbacks. You can get away with WBA's here & play a two or three man centre mid. If you go the former with a number 10 then you only want one runner from the two centre mids, ideally one player would sit a little. If you play 3 centre mids you can get creative in the channels with Mezzala's & Carrilero's. 

The problem with the 3-5-2 is that the wide men become too focal a point and your AMC can be pointless, you've seen this already. I found the 3-5-2 wingbacks almost OP if you have quality & depth at the wingback position. For some reason WBA's were hardly marked on the back post as normal wingers were & they provided far more natural width than any wide mid or att mid winger who constantly played more narrow in the final third under any width. The number of possible goals from the wing back position if on attack duty was far too high. 

The problem with playing wing backs is that in defence there's a line where they would retreat to a back five which left opposition full backs with far too much room to play in. This was why I eventually switched to carrilero's/CMS's playing wider in the midfield three to deal with marauding opposition full backs.