Jump to content

433 2 Wingers


Recommended Posts

A 433 with 2 Wingers, can it work? How would yous set it up especially the ST when using 2 wingers.

I'm Kilmarnock still first season & 8 points clear at the top, but experimenting with a few different tactics.

The tactic I'm talking about is this, a few good results but recently the goals have dried up a bit. I've been working on another tactic in recent games, this though I feel with tweaks or better players could work.

    W(S)      AF       W(A)

 MEZ(A)  DM(D) B2B

FB(A) CB BPD FB(S)

 

Callum Hendry has scored a lot this season, but rarely with this tactic. A few chances he'll get & the CB would often block it. I guess the AF role, without maybe an inside forward on one side or a role change at CM or FB is the issue? 3 runners upfront the wrong setup?

I can post a screenshot tomorrow if it helps. I'll post the other 2 tactics as well at some point.

Edited by toon army 06
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kingjericho said:

Various ways to set it up IMO. For example a narrow formation with a DLF/a up front, he will play close to the wingers, and the winger on the opposite side of the ball will attack the box since they play narrow.

What do you think of how I've set it up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, toon army 06 said:

What do you think of how I've set it up?

In principle I would not use a lone forward as AF but you have to test and see what works better. In my idea the AF is a spearhead who is always ready to make forward runs and attack the box so all other players won't be supplied by him, but instead supply to him.

Also with a DM and a DLP maybe you can be more adventurous and use WBs instead of FBs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kingjericho said:

In principle I would not use a lone forward as AF but you have to test and see what works better. In my idea the AF is a spearhead who is always ready to make forward runs and attack the box so all other players won't be supplied by him, but instead supply to him.

Also with a DM and a DLP maybe you can be more adventurous and use WBs instead of FBs.

The bottom tactic you're talking about then? Wb's on both sides or just the right?

 

Looking at the top tactic & bottom, what would you change the AF to? Or if you kept him which other roles would you change? 

Edited by toon army 06
Link to post
Share on other sites

On paper they look balanced enough, it's really up to you to see how it plays in matches. Check if any specific position is underperforming and if the team is playing like you imagine the tactic would play. If you don't have an idea in your head of what the tactic's supposed to do it's harder to tweak it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From your players' ratings, looks like you're doing well.  Are you creating chances but not converting enough?

A tactic with 2 standard wingers can become predictable.  I like how in you last tactic, you use an IF for variation.  In your first post, it looks like a lot of times, the AF will be the only player in the box.  The 2 tactics with CM(a) fixes this some.  Are you wingers getting the ball enough?  You could try focusing down one or both flanks.  Also, in matches where there is space on the flanks, you could add 'pass into space'.  Also, 'early crosses' can work if they are not taking their crossing opportunities enough or early enough.

FB(a) and W on the same side can see players sometimes competing for the same space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, glengarry224 said:

From your players' ratings, looks like you're doing well.  Are you creating chances but not converting enough?

A tactic with 2 standard wingers can become predictable.  I like how in you last tactic, you use an IF for variation.  In your first post, it looks like a lot of times, the AF will be the only player in the box.  The 2 tactics with CM(a) fixes this some.  Are you wingers getting the ball enough?  You could try focusing down one or both flanks.  Also, in matches where there is space on the flanks, you could add 'pass into space'.  Also, 'early crosses' can work if they are not taking their crossing opportunities enough or early enough.

FB(a) and W on the same side can see players sometimes competing for the same space.

The tactic right at the top with no screenshot? Yea my Strikers seem to score less, getting a lot of shots blocked by the CB. It's my most tested of the 3, with about 15 games probably playing it. The goals have dried up playing it, but creative wise maybe not bad but could be better I guess. The B2B CM won't get in the box? Or does the CM(A) do that more often?

 

The first of those with the CM(A) I've used about 3 times, the one with the DLP I've used once. Which tweaks would you make for all 3? The first one I guess a different Striker role, or just tweaking elsewhere instead? What would you suggest to fix the Winger with FB(A) issue?

Edited by toon army 06
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 31/12/2021 at 08:29, toon army 06 said:

The B2B CM won't get in the box? Or does the CM(A) do that more often?

 

The first of those with the CM(A) I've used about 3 times, the one with the DLP I've used once. Which tweaks would you make for all 3? The first one I guess a different Striker role, or just tweaking elsewhere instead? What would you suggest to fix the Winger with FB(A) issue?

BBM and CM(a) can both help in and around the box.  By the game description, the BBM more often makes late runs into the box but also he has more defensive duties and has to track back and help protect the DL.  CM(a) is more likely to get involved in the final third.  Of course, depending upon the player's abilities and traits. 

I agree with @kingjericho.  The tactics look like they can work, so you just need to see how they perform in matches.

The 2nd of the 3 tactics might work great as a wing overload, in which case you might want to test out focusing play down the left flank but if, I stress if, the FB(a) and W(s) are competing too closely for the same space, you could try a PI like 'sit narrower' on the FB or 'roam' on the W, or switching either the winger or FB to a new role like IW(s) or AP, or FB(s). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, glengarry224 said:

BBM and CM(a) can both help in and around the box.  By the game description, the BBM more often makes late runs into the box but also he has more defensive duties and has to track back and help protect the DL.  CM(a) is more likely to get involved in the final third.  Of course, depending upon the player's abilities and traits. 

I agree with @kingjericho.  The tactics look like they can work, so you just need to see how they perform in matches.

The 2nd of the 3 tactics might work great as a wing overload, in which case you might want to test out focusing play down the left flank but if, I stress if, the FB(a) and W(s) are competing too closely for the same space, you could try a PI like 'sit narrower' on the FB or 'roam' on the W, or switching either the winger or FB to a new role like IW(s) or AP, or FB(s). 

I'll try something like that, I'm in pre season now anyway. Potential for good link up between the FB, Mez & Winger then? I might try narrow on the FB, on attack he'd make up for the Mez roaming more from CM? What about changing width to wide & maybe a higher tempo? What do you think of the first tactic I posted? Also trying the LW as an IF(S)?

 

I was watching RDF's new video last night, it got me thinking about trying a 3 Striker tactic.

Not set anything up yet, but on paper how does this look?

               AF F9 AF

              C   DM(D) MEZ(S)

WB(A) CB(D) BPD(D) WB(S)

Edited by toon army 06
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally if I was using 2 wingers in this formation I’d be looking to structure the team with a Target man style forward, and two number 8s who are focused on getting into the box. Seeing as you have two wingers the full backs can be IWB’s who come inside to support the DM. Attack in a 2-3-5, defend in a 4-1-4-1 :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, bowieinspace said:

Personally if I was using 2 wingers in this formation I’d be looking to structure the team with a Target man style forward, and two number 8s who are focused on getting into the box. Seeing as you have two wingers the full backs can be IWB’s who come inside to support the DM. Attack in a 2-3-5, defend in a 4-1-4-1 :)

I'll try that two 8's like CM(S) & MEZ(S)? You talking about the first tactic I posted? What do you think of what I said in  my post above?

Edited by toon army 06
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest reading the O-zil Benfica Acadamy thread. He talks about using a Pep inspired 4-3-3 with wingers, with 2 midfielders breaking forward as "free 8's". I think from memory it's around page 10, but the whole thread is worth a read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Garrlor said:

I would suggest reading the O-zil Benfica Acadamy thread. He talks about using a Pep inspired 4-3-3 with wingers, with 2 midfielders breaking forward as "free 8's". I think from memory it's around page 10, but the whole thread is worth a read.

I'll check that out thanks, how would the Full Backs line up with that?

I had a look couldn't really find it, do you remember the set up?

Edited by toon army 06
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, toon army 06 said:

I'll try that two 8's like CM(S) & MEZ(S)? You talking about the first tactic I posted? What do you think of what I said in  my post above?

I'd go far more aggressive from the middle to be honest than those roles. My theory is that you only ever need 1 out and out wide player in attack, provided you have players drifting wide to support them. With two 8's who are roaming they can either attack the box or drift wide - personally I love the attacking mezzala role - chances are if the ball is wide with a winger, the mezzala will drift wide to support them, while the mezzala on the other side will push into the box ready to attack the cross. 

With IWB you could have two attacking mezzala's as the number 8s, provided the player behind them is working as more of an anchor and the IWB's are on more conservative roles to support the DM in recycling possession, building from the back and curtailing counter attacks. The CF could be a few different roles depending on how they play, but personally I'd go with an AF as with the two mezzala's you would then effectively have a front 3 in attack, equally you could run with a false 9 if you wanted them to drop off and link up more, creating more openings for the mezzalas (probably depends on the players you have!). Both wingers could be on support as they would just need to stay wide, stretch the opposition and also offer some defensive cover.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, bowieinspace said:

I'd go far more aggressive from the middle to be honest than those roles. My theory is that you only ever need 1 out and out wide player in attack, provided you have players drifting wide to support them. With two 8's who are roaming they can either attack the box or drift wide - personally I love the attacking mezzala role - chances are if the ball is wide with a winger, the mezzala will drift wide to support them, while the mezzala on the other side will push into the box ready to attack the cross. 

With IWB you could have two attacking mezzala's as the number 8s, provided the player behind them is working as more of an anchor and the IWB's are on more conservative roles to support the DM in recycling possession, building from the back and curtailing counter attacks. The CF could be a few different roles depending on how they play, but personally I'd go with an AF as with the two mezzala's you would then effectively have a front 3 in attack, equally you could run with a false 9 if you wanted them to drop off and link up more, creating more openings for the mezzalas (probably depends on the players you have!). Both wingers could be on support as they would just need to stay wide, stretch the opposition and also offer some defensive cover.

 

 

 

Something like this? 

  W(S) AF W/IF(S)   

MEZ(A) DM(D) MEZ/CM(A)

IWB(S) CB(D) BPD(D) IWB(S)

Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, toon army 06 said:

Something like this? 

  W(S) AF W/IF(S)   

MEZ(A) DM(D) MEZ/CM(A)

IWB(S) CB(D) BPD(D) IWB(S)

Yeah although you’d need to experiment with the iwb roles to make sure it was providing the right support, a defensive duty may work better I’ve just not used that role much on the current ME. 
 

I wouldn’t use an IF role in this system as no one will be providing width on that side and theyll be cutting into space you want the mezzala to be utilising. You need the winger role to force their full back wide to make more space for the mezzala and AF to double up on one of the centre backs

Link to post
Share on other sites

IF and Mez are a bad combination, they crowd each other out a lot in the final third. Also watch out for wingers with the cuts in from.... trait when playing a Mez. That's caught me out before, as it can have the same problem, though a winger with that trait generally comes in later than an IF. 

I'll dig out the link for the Benfica thread once I get on my computer in a couple of hours.

 

Ozil talks about using Free 8's here on page 6, normally with IWB's to provide support to the midfield and passing options for the DLP.

Edited by Garrlor
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, bowieinspace said:

Yeah although you’d need to experiment with the iwb roles to make sure it was providing the right support, a defensive duty may work better I’ve just not used that role much on the current ME. 
 

I wouldn’t use an IF role in this system as no one will be providing width on that side and theyll be cutting into space you want the mezzala to be utilising. You need the winger role to force their full back wide to make more space for the mezzala and AF to double up on one of the centre backs

I've set it up for the team to learn, but first I'm trying it with a CM(S) & FB(S) on the right side. I beat St Mirren 2-1, my second league game of the season. Nice link up between the FB, CM & W, also some nice runs by the MEZ(A). I'm predicted to finish 10th, so a lot of work needed interms of establishing the team in the league.

I signed Andy Halliday on a free, a decent rounded player perfect for the left IWB role I feel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Garrlor said:

IF and Mez are a bad combination, they crowd each other out a lot in the final third. Also watch out for wingers with the cuts in from.... trait when playing a Mez. That's caught me out before, as it can have the same problem, though a winger with that trait generally comes in later than an IF. 

I'll dig out the link for the Benfica thread once I get on my computer in a couple of hours.

 

Ozil talks about using Free 8's here on page 6, normally with IWB's to provide support to the midfield and passing options for the DLP.

This one? I'll try something like that out.

 

"Thinking tactics, for a moment. With the national team, I'm using Dantas centrally flanked my two creative midfielders in free roles which creates a 2-3-5 shape in attack and I'm really enjoying it. Wondering if this could be applied at club level.."


LzrIJ3B.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that looks about right. Obviously the DLP(D) can be dropped to the DM strata. I think the key thing for the free 8's were using get further forward and roam from position to encourage them to break into the box.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, toon army 06 said:

This one? I'll try something like that out.

 

"Thinking tactics, for a moment. With the national team, I'm using Dantas centrally flanked my two creative midfielders in free roles which creates a 2-3-5 shape in attack and I'm really enjoying it. Wondering if this could be applied at club level.."


LzrIJ3B.png

 

Also probably worth noting in addition to Garrlor's note above, this system was designed as a possession orientated one. I noticed with your early creations you were looking to be a touch more direct. The TI's on this system are very possession heavy as are the roles (no attacking roles). So unless you have a technically gifted team you'd want to stay away from this combo of team instructions - if you're previewed to finish 11th I think this could be a struggle to implement as per the screenshot. As Garrlor notes, the goal with your 8s is to have them supporting the lone forward in the box, so your wingers have enough targets to aim at if they are staying wide. I also have a feeling that this system was created prior to the mezzala role being added to the game - the CM(S) role has a lot of flexibility for individual PI's so by allowing them to roam and drift wide he is somewhat recreating the mezzala in those specific ways. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bowieinspace said:

Also probably worth noting in addition to Garrlor's note above, this system was designed as a possession orientated one. I noticed with your early creations you were looking to be a touch more direct. The TI's on this system are very possession heavy as are the roles (no attacking roles). So unless you have a technically gifted team you'd want to stay away from this combo of team instructions - if you're previewed to finish 11th I think this could be a struggle to implement as per the screenshot. As Garrlor notes, the goal with your 8s is to have them supporting the lone forward in the box, so your wingers have enough targets to aim at if they are staying wide. I also have a feeling that this system was created prior to the mezzala role being added to the game - the CM(S) role has a lot of flexibility for individual PI's so by allowing them to roam and drift wide he is somewhat recreating the mezzala in those specific ways. 

 

The Mezzalla was in FM18, it has hard coded move into channels and to specifically look for areas around the box. A CM(Su) with move into channels/roam and get further forward doesnt really operate in quite the same way. The best thing about it is that if you think that the role is not doing the thing you want you can add or take away an instruction. Or if your player already has a PPM that makes him do something you want then you can do the same thing, something a Mez struggles with. I don't think FM18 translates all that well into the current game, but the underlying concept of the role is solid.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Garrlor said:

The Mezzalla was in FM18, it has hard coded move into channels and to specifically look for areas around the box. A CM(Su) with move into channels/roam and get further forward doesnt really operate in quite the same way. The best thing about it is that if you think that the role is not doing the thing you want you can add or take away an instruction. Or if your player already has a PPM that makes him do something you want then you can do the same thing, something a Mez struggles with. I don't think FM18 translates all that well into the current game, but the underlying concept of the role is solid.

 

Yeah cool, I’m a big fan of roles that allow flexibility, I use the WM role in a similar way. Will have to consider how I use the mez/cm roles to see what I can get from it. Do you think that the mezz would be more or less impactful in a more direct system than what ozil worked on here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a Mez(A) would get forward a lot quicker than a CM(A) due to the hard coding behind it. It has a tendancy to attack that space between the CM and the full back which is why it needs a winger paired with it for best effect to create that space. Strikers in a direct system either want to hold the ball up for runners or try and get in behind - I would think DLF or TM for hold up and AF or CF(A) to pin the defenders back and try and get onto through balls/crosses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 04/01/2022 at 08:25, Garrlor said:

IF and Mez are a bad combination, they crowd each other out a lot in the final third. Also watch out for wingers with the cuts in from.... trait when playing a Mez. That's caught me out before, as it can have the same problem, though a winger with that trait generally comes in later than an IF. 

It is a fantastic thread by @Ö-zil to the Arsenal! and he is one of the best contributors and FM minds.  I would just like to say though that since FM18 you get to see opposition roles in game and that the AI frequently puts Mezzalas on the same side as both Inverted Wingers and Inside Forwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Trying this just now, because I like a 4231 & I guess it's perfect for 2 out & wingers. What do yous think?

I've thought about changing  the LW to Attack & the AM to Support, I had the Left Back as a WB(s) before.

Looks good on paper or any changes yous would suggest?

tactic 2 wingers.jpg

Edited by toon army 06
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...