Simple crafting of a 4-3-3 DM

[Lasson]

1 hour ago, yorkie87 said:

Could i ask for some criticism of my tactic please mate?

Such as areas i could improve please?

If you want both of your wingers going inside, I would have my fullbacks providing the width meaning FBa, WBs or WBa. With both fullbacks going forward, I would make my defensive midfielder play on a defend duty. I would probably go with DMd or an Anchor. Lastly, with the wingers going inside and the fullbacks going outside, I would be a bit more conservative with my two 8's and go with something like a BBMs instead or the MEZ. 

Edited July 19, 2023 by Lasson

[Toronto Blizzard]

17 hours ago, Johnny Ace said:

That looks great @Toronto Blizzard I can't see any major issues

I can't help but think you could swap over your two wide attacker roles though, the Mezz on the left could be moving into a similar area your IF is wanting to attack which could attract defenders and restrict the space.

If the Treq was on the left, the Treq and Mezz could cause the overload, if the F9 drops into that area it could open up a 1 v 1 for your IF(A) against their fullback. Something to consider and potentially try out anyway  

Depends how you want them to act, in this case, with the F9 and your Treq on the right, I would want a left footed Treq myself. If it was purely to feed the IF, I'd want a right footer. You'll get a feel for it watching the games, you'll have "I wish this guy was right footed" moments when you start to notice the attack patterns       

 

16 hours ago, Justified said:

Key thing to remember when using playmakers, Engange's and Treq's is you need to centralize you thinking around him and create as much movement as possible. I'd be tempted to try a few things to see what gets the best out of him. Johnny's suggestion of swapping the MC's is good. I'd probably try a DMCde and the FB on attack. Reason is you get the FB up to occupy space the IF leaves and the DMCde would help secure defensively. Hopefully this means when your Treq is on the ball he has a runner outside him (WBsu), a striker dropping deep, the Mez making channel runs, a winger running into the space the striker leaves and the FB as a slightly wider option.  That should give him loads of options to chose from.

 

Thanks to both of you, @Johnny Ace and @Justified!

Taking both of your suggestions into consideration (if I've understood/combined them correctly), I get something like this - swapped the two CM so that the MEZ isn't drifting into the IF's space on the left.  Turned the DLP into a DM(d) and made the FB more attacking.

I think I agree that I want a left-footed Treq on the right, so I've kept it as in the original.  I will probably create a mirror version since the other guy I'm likely to play as the Treq is right-footed.

[Bellyfish]

20 hours ago, yorkie87 said:

Could i ask for some criticism of my tactic please mate?

Such as areas i could improve please?

As others have said the FB(s) may not be getting forward on the left but I personally see no issue with that, add stay wider to the IW(a) and he'll make use of the width.

Advanced forward seems odd here, you are pushing high and often. Pressing forward seems a better role if you want an attack minded striker. Also I'd remove counter TI since you have the high press.

You probably need another player attack the box. I imagine right now the IW(s) receives the ball and if he cant make a pass to the striker he'll make backwards pass to midfield, allowing the opponent to get back in numbers. 

Perhaps swap MEZ(S) -> MEZ(A)? Though I'd prefer a CM(A) instead.

Edited July 20, 2023 by Bellyfish

[Captain_T]

I'm a little bit confused, because I read a few times, that the FB(s) is not so much involved in the offense.

Of course, a FB(S) is not doing so much when the team is in posession like a FB(a) or a WB(a or s) but I thought, that because of his support-duty he is ging forward when there is free space?

[Johnny Ace]

12 minutes ago, Captain_T said:

I'm a little bit confused, because I read a few times, that the FB(s) is not so much involved in the offense.

Of course, a FB(S) is not doing so much when the team is in posession like a FB(a) or a WB(a or s) but I thought, that because of his support-duty he is ging forward when there is free space?

Yeah, the FB(S) still will just way less than an Attack duty 

[HanziZoloman]

Hee guys, always coming back to this one. So much good advice.

in my recent youth academy team my best player is a BWM (DM/MC) how would you develop a 433 around that one? 
he is aggressive, a lot of stamina, off the ball and great positioning (12 in Vanarama South). Strong physicals. 
if that were your best player how to build a midfield trio around him? 
 

[Johnny Ace]

1 hour ago, HanziZoloman said:

Hee guys, always coming back to this one. So much good advice.

in my recent youth academy team my best player is a BWM (DM/MC) how would you develop a 433 around that one? 
he is aggressive, a lot of stamina, off the ball and great positioning (12 in Vanarama South). Strong physicals. 
if that were your best player how to build a midfield trio around him? 
 

I like them in the CM position, in the DM slot it's a bit of risk as they can go pressing out of position, in CM I don't mind as the DM is there for cover 

[Johnny Ace]

4-3-3 DM - the wide Advanced Playmaker (which includes the Trequarista) 

For when you're a bit bored of using Inverted Wingers and Inside Forwards  

I like the wide Advanced Playmakers on Attack this year, they're one of the roles with the most movement, you'll find them quite infield at times, helping out the midfield and finding space. Lets have a quick look at their FM profile

 

You'll see, even on Attack, they're not hard coded to Get Further Forward like most wide Attack duty roles. Same with the Trequartista 

So they're not a hugely aggressive wide roles, when compared to an Inside Forward or Inverted Winger on Attack. They're more about creating chances for others but they will find themselves in positions to take a shot at goal. The Trequartista is a little more offensive as they don't have Shoot Less Often hard coded 

I really would recommend World Class players in these roles to see the best from them, they're a lot of fun to watch 

It's a bit boring really and I'll be repeating myself a bit as it follows the other templates

You could easily have both Wingbacks on Attack here and use the DM powerhouse role, the HalfBack instead of the DM but I found having an attacking Wingback on the flank of the Playmaker, the Wingback would often dribble past the playmaker. BPD can be either side, just my best one here was left footed, or you can use both as BPDs or straight up CDs 

As we're using Wingbacks on both flanks, I'll be going conservative in the middle of the field, no Mezzala's or anything interesting, just solid roles to keep the midfield triangle tight and in control of the game. The nature of the number 8's allow the best from the wide attacking roles 

 

Probably my most used trio of midfield roles in FM23, at any level you should have players in your squad that can fit these roles. So simple yet effective

 

Again, these roles aren't set in stone, they just suited to the team I was using, a Pressing Forward on Attack or Poacher could lead the line. A Complete Forward on Attack could be interesting but I like to pair them off with an IF(S/A) due to their roaming 

The IW could be an IF(S) if a bit more oomph is needed from over on the left

Spoiler

 

[HanziZoloman]

I guess you can easily change the roles up front fitting a less capable team and it has a BWM. Thank you! 
 

[Johnny Ace]

3 hours ago, HanziZoloman said:

I guess you can easily change the roles up front fitting a less capable team and it has a BWM. Thank you! 
 

I wouldn't be worrying about wide playmakers and Trequaristas in the YAC just yet 

[HanziZoloman]

Haha sure about that!

my focus was the midfield trio. I guess they are so plain that they’ll fit many roles in front of them.

[Johnny Ace]

4-3-3 DM - The Complete Forward

Bit of fun this one, uses a good variation of roles and is probably best used as a dominant team, you have to have a decent level of team to find yourself a Complete Forward in the first place

This will probably be the last one now, I'm a bit 4-3-3ed out and there's not a lot else to really talk about 

Instead of splitting it up, it's best just to post the lineup as there's a few role combinations and it wouldn't make sense to talk about the backline without seeing the front 3 and midfield

 

When using a "vacating" type striker role this is where I like to combine it with an Inside Forward on Attack, very similar to the DLF(A)/ IF(A) lineup but it's such a great pairing. As the striker role will drop off and roam, I'm perfectly happy for a wide attacker to have goal scoring as his priority. A Trequartista upfront would be a good/ fun option here too

The Complete Forward is exactly that, he will do everything including supply the Inside Forward. A Haaland and Salah partnership here in FM would be amazing   

In midfield we have the Halfback which will help the team play out from the back and with two solid 8's to allow both wingbacks to bomb on

The Complete Wingback has the freedom to roam and will pop up on the inside of the Winger and get himself into the box when he can, an Inverted Wingback on Attack here might be a good shout too  The right Wingback will push high and wide. Both flanks will be difficult for the opposition to defend against  

The TI's have been taken from the Control Possession template and tweaked a little, aimed at winning the ball back quickly and effectively whilst not being wasteful in possession. The roles aren't 100% possession friendly so I'd still call it more of a Gegen attacking style than anything else. It's not something I've used but it's very similar to a setup I had in FM22 at Stuttgart  

[Mutumba]

This is  a great thread, hopefully others will keep sharing their 433 tactis on here for a bit of food for thought.

 

@Johnny Ace Im hoping there will be a new [insert tactical formation here]-thread soon

Edited July 24, 2023 by Mutumba

[Johnny Ace]

3 minutes ago, Mutumba said:

This is  a great thread, hopefully others will share their 433 tactis on here for a bit of food for thought.

Thanks @Mutumba, I hope they do to 

3 minutes ago, Mutumba said:

@Johnny Ace Im hoping there will be a new [insert tactical formation here]-thread soon

I think I've ran out of ideas, I did try coming up with a Pressing Forward on Defend tactic, because it's another underused role, but I couldn't get anything motoring with it so didn't bother  It's pretty fun to use but isn't great in a 4-3-3  

ETA: I've just reread your post (has been one of those days today), maybe for FM24, I'll share a few 4-2-3-1 DMs  

[HanziZoloman]

@Johnny Ace thank you, your work helped me enormously. Just now I am having success again after switching back to a 433 in the YAC. The one with the APa / Ws combo. it’s my favourite till now just one role to give the trio a spice of flair.

If I hadn’t such a good AP I‘d try the one with BWM/ MCs/DMs which looks so plain beautiful. 

[Johnny Ace]

Fantastic @HanziZoloman! Hope the YAC goes well!

[Lemon_Head]

Hey, I've been trying to replicate modern 433 tactics we see from top managers today like Arteta, Klopp etc., and added my own flair to it. I was wondering if you have any suggestions on improvements or opinions. 

Also, I'm playing as Burton Albion so a low-tier club so I don't have the best quality players to make this tactic truly shine some advice on changing it for a lower-league team would be amazing.

 

[Johnny Ace]

That looks too ambitious to me for Burton Albion @Lemon_Head probably even for Arsenal and Liverpool too

For a more detailed answer, your best bet is starting a new thread 

But I can try and give a few pointers:

• the midfield is too much, Mezzala's are really offensive by nature, you could do with at least one of the CMs being a "normal" midfielder to help do the simple stuff 
• both of the left flank roles will invert which gives you very little width
• the left Mezzala will move outward into he channels the left sided players will be moving into, it just looks like it'll be a bit claustrophobic, I like to try and make use of as many channels as possible
• The HB may be operating too deep to effectively link up with your CMs

 A lot of this is covered in this thread,  the one I went through here is pretty similar 

 

Then the TI's are really offensive, I'd trim those down and start off with a handful and work from there 

 

 

[nick1408]

On 24/07/2023 at 05:54, Johnny Ace said:

4-3-3 DM - the wide Advanced Playmaker (which includes the Trequarista) 

For when you're a bit bored of using Inverted Wingers and Inside Forwards  

I like the wide Advanced Playmakers on Attack this year, they're one of the roles with the most movement, you'll find them quite infield at times, helping out the midfield and finding space. Lets have a quick look at their FM profile

 

You'll see, even on Attack, they're not hard coded to Get Further Forward like most wide Attack duty roles. Same with the Trequartista 

So they're not a hugely aggressive wide roles, when compared to an Inside Forward or Inverted Winger on Attack. They're more about creating chances for others but they will find themselves in positions to take a shot at goal. The Trequartista is a little more offensive as they don't have Shoot Less Often hard coded 

I really would recommend World Class players in these roles to see the best from them, they're a lot of fun to watch 

It's a bit boring really and I'll be repeating myself a bit as it follows the other templates

You could easily have both Wingbacks on Attack here and use the DM powerhouse role, the HalfBack instead of the DM but I found having an attacking Wingback on the flank of the Playmaker, the Wingback would often dribble past the playmaker. BPD can be either side, just my best one here was left footed, or you can use both as BPDs or straight up CDs 

As we're using Wingbacks on both flanks, I'll be going conservative in the middle of the field, no Mezzala's or anything interesting, just solid roles to keep the midfield triangle tight and in control of the game. The nature of the number 8's allow the best from the wide attacking roles 

 

Probably my most used trio of midfield roles in FM23, at any level you should have players in your squad that can fit these roles. So simple yet effective

 

Again, these roles aren't set in stone, they just suited to the team I was using, a Pressing Forward on Attack or Poacher could lead the line. A Complete Forward on Attack could be interesting but I like to pair them off with an IF(S/A) due to their roaming 

The IW could be an IF(S) if a bit more oomph is needed from over on the left

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Really quick question on this - is there a reason you used a CM-Su rather than CM-At? is it simply to not get in the IW's way?

 

I m using this tactic (with an IF rather than an IW) with SC Freiburg and it does seem pretty solid. I also don't have an attacking CM so haven't tested that option yet.

[Johnny Ace]

2 minutes ago, nick1408 said:

Really quick question on this - is there a reason you used a CM-Su rather than CM-At? is it simply to not get in the IW's way?

It's more to better protect the midfield and let the Wingbacks do the going forward 

[Lemon_Head]

5 hours ago, Johnny Ace said:

That looks too ambitious to me for Burton Albion @Lemon_Head probably even for Arsenal and Liverpool too

For a more detailed answer, your best bet is starting a new thread 

But I can try and give a few pointers:

• the midfield is too much, Mezzala's are really offensive by nature, you could do with at least one of the CMs being a "normal" midfielder to help do the simple stuff 
• both of the left flank roles will invert which gives you very little width
• the left Mezzala will move outward into he channels the left sided players will be moving into, it just looks like it'll be a bit claustrophobic, I like to try and make use of as many channels as possible
• The HB may be operating too deep to effectively link up with your CMs

 A lot of this is covered in this thread,  the one I went through here is pretty similar 

 

Then the TI's are really offensive, I'd trim those down and start off with a handful and work from there 

 

 

Ok thank you very much sorry I haven't read the whole thread before I posted this but I made a few changes.

I made the left mezzala a BBM midfielder, and the HB a DM (D) or Anchor im still seeing which one is better.

I'm not too sure what to do on the left side because I really want to use my LB as a IWB I might make the IW into a traditional Winger on support.

Will change some TI to make it less offensive although I do like my Gegenpress team. What do you think is the bare mininum for TI in a gegenpress fast counter system?

[Johnny Ace]

1 hour ago, Lemon_Head said:

What do you think is the bare mininum for TI in a gegenpress fast counter system?

Positive, Play out of defense, Higher D-line, More Urgent, Counter. I think the Counter Press might be too much for Burton so use it sparingly 

[Lasson]

My time at Vojvodina has come to an end. Three consecutive league titles and I thought it was time to seek out a new adventure. FC Copenhagen came in after letting go of Kjetil Knutsen, who left to take control of Poland.

This is my setup for my new team. I'm not completely set on everything just yet, and there might be some transfers in the future, which can change things up a bit. First, though, I have to expand my network of scouted players before anything happens in that regard. My strikers (Emil Højlund and Andreas Cornelius) is not fit for an AF role, and because of that I have been forced to alter my 4-3-3 a bit with a support duty up front to create space for the IFa on the right and the CMa on the left.

Do you see anything out of sync in this setup, @Johnny Ace?

 

[Johnny Ace]

That looks fine to me @Lasson

[Mutumba]

55 minutes ago, Lasson said:

My time at Vojvodina has come to an end. Three consecutive league titles and I thought it was time to seek out a new adventure. FC Copenhagen came in after letting go of Kjetil Knutsen, who left to take control of Poland.

This is my setup for my new team. I'm not completely set on everything just yet, and there might be some transfers in the future, which can change things up a bit. First, though, I have to expand my network of scouted players before anything happens in that regard. My strikers (Emil Højlund and Andreas Cornelius) is not fit for an AF role, and because of that I have been forced to alter my 4-3-3 a bit with a support duty up front to create space for the IFa on the right and the CMa on the left.

Do you see anything out of sync in this setup, @Johnny Ace?

 

Im actually using a 433 from one of the tactics posted in here, and Cornelius actually works really well as an AF. Maybe its because FCK is such a dominate team that a lot of the time is spent in the opps half

[HanziZoloman]

My YAC setup looks like this: 

Rhys Platt is leading the Goalscoring stats of the league. It's very simple and works amazing.

[Johnny Ace]

Feed the Poacher and he will score @HanziZoloman!! Brilliant  

[HanziZoloman]

We concede much, any suggestions to make my team harder to break?

My Defense is by far the worst part with young inexperienced players. 
A FBa instead of the WBs (?) or the FBs on FBd (?)

[Johnny Ace]

7 minutes ago, HanziZoloman said:

We concede much, any suggestions to make my team harder to break?

My Defense is by far the worst part with young inexperienced players. 
A FBa instead of the WBs (?) or the FBs on FBd (?)

It could be your silver star centre back 

[HanziZoloman]

Naaaah impossible 

[Soylent]

Hey there, I've been reading this thread and it's been great and it's made me want to go back to my beloved 4-3-3 which for some reason I've struggled with some this year and went for 4-2-3-1 which is still also a favourite of course.
In general, my Striker, LW, midfield trio and my GK are my best players.

There are a few things I'm mostly curious about how you guys feel about it as it's messing with my head some.

1. The front line excists of this basic notion: the left wingers are pretty fast, technical right-footed guys who can score, the right wingers are more left-footed playmaking guys, but probably not playmakers full on, the strikers are both capable of scoring and providing and still posses some pace (faster than Harry Kane for sure)(potentially even able to play complete forward roles, even though they're not world class players though very solid)
2. The midfield have pretty good vision across the board. The guys for RCM and CDM could possible swap with no issues, all right footed and a similar build, though the ones in CDM now possess more defensive upside. The guys I'd use for LCM aren't left food, but they have a good weak foot and prefer playing on that side.
3. The backline has 1 CB that has amazing playmaking skills, much better than the others, purely right footed guy. My 2 best full backs have the trait "go forward whenever possible", their back ups do not. The right sided guy is very creative, the left one is definitely better at dribbling and crossing.

I know this is a lot of info, but just to give an idea of my thought process.

1. So to me it makes sense that keep the front 3 as is, in a sense of goalscoring left winger, goal scoring and/or providing striker and creating right winger.
2. The issues lie more in midfield. Is it better to have the CM(S) or make it a BWM (S) and put it on the LCM space even though these guys would be playing against their foot. Same for the other side, a more advanced/free roaming role, but it would mean playing these guys in a position they prefer not to play, how much might this matter. As for the CDM, currently these players have a bit less creativity than the guys in front, so it felt weird to make it a playmaking role, but I'm unsure how much it matters in a countering team where all the midfield can play a decent ball in.
3. Last issue, the other CBs aren't bad at playmaking, just not as good, so having just the RCB as the BPD makes the most sense. The issue lies with the "gets forward when possible", is the effect different on a FB compared to a WB, will he still stay back more or not care at all?  Since my midfield are stronger than my full backs, it feels odd to use wing backs, but if they behave like this, is it even an option then?
    

Sorry for the giant amount of text, I'm just curious what you guys think about this.

Current Setup:

Potential other setup, but unsure:

[HanziZoloman]

If I understand correctly your main focus on scoring and creating goals is given to the front three. 
I‘d say now you have to think about how to complement those with your triangle in midfield. The left striker is scoring and will attack the box, you‘ll need a player stretching the pitch and a player for cover. You could play a WB and MCs or a MEZ and a FB if you keep it simple. The BWM will roam a lot chasing opponents around in his area which would require an extra cover. On the right you have a creating role cutting inside so again you‘ll need someone to stretch the pitch (WB or MEZ). If you‘re about to use two WB for width then you’ll need cover in the center like an DMd or an Anchor. If you‘ll use a WBs and a FB you could use a Mezzala in MC and a DMs keeping it close together.

In your first setup you could just switch the right FB into a WB.

in your second set up I‘ll switch the right FB into WB and the DLPs into a DMd or DLPd (but with the BPD you won’t need it really).

but: you could also play the IWs as a Ws (left footed on the right) and have a similar effect but with an APa or MEZ by his side which works great. With a DLF up front you could as well play a MEZa or MCa which can make it real hard to defend.

Edited July 26, 2023 by HanziZoloman

[jamesh123]

Apologies for the poor photo, didn’t have chance to get a proper screenshot before work. 

Was wondering what changes I could make to help my tactic be a bit more threatening going forward?

Defensively we are solid, getting 0-0 draws against City and Spurs, aswell as keeping 5 clean sheets from 8. But going forward it just doesn’t excite me. I’m seeing possession numbers of 60%+ but the shot on target numbers is quite low to the number of shots we’re having. Short passing was only used to try and help us keep the ball better as we’re a weaker side, but could this be an issue? 

[HanziZoloman]

If your striker is fast try standard directness in passing with a poacher and pass into space. 

[Johnny Ace]

I prefer the look of your second tactic @Soylent, reason being, you have the Mezzala on the opposite side to the IF(A). A Mezzala and an inverted wide attacker role create a nice overload where you have two players in similar areas of the pitch. This in-turn causes the opposition to have move defenders over to where they are which can free up space in other areas

The first tactic may give your IF(A) extra work to do whilst the second tactic makes things easier for him, plus you have the Wingback to provide width on the left. You could even add a Focus down the right wing here too to try and encourage the overload 

But, of course, try them both out see what you think and which you prefer  

@jamesh123 I think with the HB and CM on the right, your right Fullback(S) could so easily be a WingBack(A). You have a solid core in your setup, you could ask more from your fullbacks. I'd also check the positions of your IW(A), he may be more interested in getting himself into goal scoring positions than help and support the AF. 

Positive already comes with slightly shorter passing so I would leave it on default as @HanziZoloman already mentioned, it might open up the passing choices for your players.

Alternatively, if Lerma is good enough, you could add Take More Risks on him so he looks to makes those passes into space for Solanke or just play him as an Advanced Playmaker(S). I can't remember if I said it here or not, but an Advanced Playmaker in CM isn't as "Advanced" as you may think, it takes up similar positions to a CM(S). I think it's named the Advanced Playmaker to separate it from the Deep Lying Playmaker      

[jamesh123]

49 minutes ago, Johnny Ace said:

I prefer the look of your second tactic @Soylent, reason being, you have the Mezzala on the opposite side to the IF(A). A Mezzala and an inverted wide attacker role create a nice overload where you have two players in similar areas of the pitch. This in-turn causes the opposition to have move defenders over to where they are which can free up space in other areas

The first tactic may give your IF(A) extra work to do whilst the second tactic makes things easier for him, plus you have the Wingback to provide width on the left. You could even add a Focus down the right wing here too to try and encourage the overload 

But, of course, try them both out see what you think and which you prefer  

@jamesh123 I think with the HB and CM on the right, your right Fullback(S) could so easily be a WingBack(A). You have a solid core in your setup, you could ask more from your fullbacks. I'd also check the positions of your IW(A), he may be more interested in getting himself into goal scoring positions than help and support the AF. 

Positive already comes with slightly shorter passing so I would leave it on default as @HanziZoloman already mentioned, it might open up the passing choices for your players.

Alternatively, if Lerma is good enough, you could add Take More Risks on him so he looks to makes those passes into space for Solanke or just play him as an Advanced Playmaker(S). I can't remember if I said it here or not, but an Advanced Playmaker in CM isn't as "Advanced" as you may think, it takes up similar positions to a CM(S). I think it's named the Advanced Playmaker to separate it from the Deep Lying Playmaker      

I can give that a try for the RB, only left the roles as they were as I wanted to try and create a 3-2 or a 2-3 in the build up, but I think my RB has player traits that suit a WB (A) more so I’ll give that a whirl. 
 

I’ll try that for the passing slider too. I did actually want to try and use an AP on the RW, as my best right  winger has dictates tempo as a player trait and the back up has comes deep to get ball trait, so would you change the CM role next to him?

 

Yeah I flicked through after posting and saw you mention about the advanced playmaker. I’ll check Lewis Cook’s attributes when im home, as Lerma is just a stopgap option there due to a major injury crisis and normally players the DM role 

[Johnny Ace]

12 minutes ago, jamesh123 said:

I’ll try that for the passing slider too. I did actually want to try and use an AP on the RW, as my best right  winger has dictates tempo as a player trait and the back up has comes deep to get ball trait, so would you change the CM role next to him?

I think if you go with the wide Advanced Playmaker there would be no need for the AP in RCM. I'd go for an AP on attack on that right side if your guy's capable, his Traits sounds ideal 

[mikcheck]

@Johnny Ace what's your thoughs on using a CWB(s) and a WP(s) on the same flank, protected by a DM(d) or a more cautious role on their side?

Too much roaming?

[Johnny Ace]

7 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

@Johnny Ace what's your thoughs on using a CWB(s) and a WP(s) on the same flank, protected by a DM(d) or a more cautious role on their side?

Too much roaming?

No mate, would have no problem with that, would be a great dynamic pairing  

Do love a CWB but haven't included any here (I don't think ) for the sake of simplicity 

[jamesh123]

3 hours ago, Johnny Ace said:

I think if you go with the wide Advanced Playmaker there would be no need for the AP in RCM. I'd go for an AP on attack on that right side if your guy's capable, his Traits sounds ideal 

Thankyou  I did word that wrong to be fair, had meant to come across for what role CM next to an AP out wide, keep it as the CM (s)? And then use the WB (a) or use it on support instead?

[Soylent]

7 hours ago, HanziZoloman said:

If I understand correctly your main focus on scoring and creating goals is given to the front three. 
I‘d say now you have to think about how to complement those with your triangle in midfield. The left striker is scoring and will attack the box, you‘ll need a player stretching the pitch and a player for cover. You could play a WB and MCs or a MEZ and a FB if you keep it simple. The BWM will roam a lot chasing opponents around in his area which would require an extra cover. On the right you have a creating role cutting inside so again you‘ll need someone to stretch the pitch (WB or MEZ). If you‘re about to use two WB for width then you’ll need cover in the center like an DMd or an Anchor. If you‘ll use a WBs and a FB you could use a Mezzala in MC and a DMs keeping it close together.

In your first setup you could just switch the right FB into a WB.

in your second set up I‘ll switch the right FB into WB and the DLPs into a DMd or DLPd (but with the BPD you won’t need it really).

but: you could also play the IWs as a Ws (left footed on the right) and have a similar effect but with an APa or MEZ by his side which works great. With a DLF up front you could as well play a MEZa or MCa which can make it real hard to defend.

The finishing of my midfielders isn't great, while the finishing if the IF and striker are quite good, creation wise all of midfield is good at it and so is the right winger. So having one of the midfielders go up front feels like a waste of finishing power, which is why I'm very unsure of the DLF  and more thinking of an AF, but then that might not work as well with the IF on the left, I would think.

I guess since both full backs at least have the "get forward whenever possible", it would make more sense to have them as wing backs, though they're not as strong as my midfielders in general.

5 hours ago, Johnny Ace said:

I prefer the look of your second tactic @Soylent, reason being, you have the Mezzala on the opposite side to the IF(A). A Mezzala and an inverted wide attacker role create a nice overload where you have two players in similar areas of the pitch. This in-turn causes the opposition to have move defenders over to where they are which can free up space in other areas

The first tactic may give your IF(A) extra work to do whilst the second tactic makes things easier for him, plus you have the Wingback to provide width on the left. You could even add a Focus down the right wing here too to try and encourage the overload 

But, of course, try them both out see what you think and which you prefer 

So the wrong footedness might not be that big of an issue and the same for my main mezzala prefering to play on the left in a 2 cm midfield? And since I play more of a counter style, you think the DLF is worth it just to have a bit of a better link up with at least the IF on the left? Or is it perhaps better to try CF as the guy mostly playing there is tall, fast, creative and can score. I've been using AF for a while, but wanted to get a bit more out of the IF. I'm also unsure if I should just put the IF on support perhaps and keep the AF.

[Johnny Ace]

32 minutes ago, jamesh123 said:

Thankyou  I did word that wrong to be fair, had meant to come across for what role CM next to an AP out wide, keep it as the CM (s)? And then use the WB (a) or use it on support instead?

Yep and yep, right WB(A),  right CM(S), right AP(A), If I understand correctly 

4 minutes ago, Soylent said:

So the wrong footedness might not be that big of an issue and the same for my main mezzala prefering to play on the left in a 2 cm midfield? And since I play more of a counter style, you think the DLF is worth it just to have a bit of a better link up with at least the IF on the left? Or is it perhaps better to try CF as the guy mostly playing there is tall, fast, creative and can score. I've been using AF for a while, but wanted to get a bit more out of the IF. I'm also unsure if I should just put the IF on support perhaps and keep the AF.

 My answer will always be the Complete Forward  If your guy can play it, use it. It will play well with the IF(A) too

I'd prefer a CF over a DLF for a Counter system anyway, IF(S) and AF(A) is another good Counter option 

I wouldn't worry too much about which side your MEZZ prefers to play on, which is his strongest foot? If he's right footed he'll play a bit like an inside winger, and can swing crosses to the far post for your IF, if he's a lefty he'll move inside and look to thread passes into the IF

[HanziZoloman]

vor 45 Minuten schrieb Soylent:

So having one of the midfielders go up front feels like a waste of finishing power, which is why I'm very unsure of the DLF  and more thinking of an AF, but then that might not work as well with the IF on the left, I would think.

If you check on my tactic I posted above you‘ll see that I have an IFs as well on the left. I‘d say give one of your midfielders a creative role like RPM/ APa or MEZs and let the front three do the scoring. Your central striker could be given a role like PFa AF or P.

@Johnny Ace has already addressed all issues. Especially with a counter attacking shape I’d go for a striker who attacks the space behind opponents defence vigorously. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by HanziZoloman

[Soylent]

34 minutes ago, Johnny Ace said:

 My answer will always be the Complete Forward  If your guy can play it, use it. It will play well with the IF(A) too

I'd prefer a CF over a DLF for a Counter system anyway, IF(S) and AF(A) is another good Counter option 

I wouldn't worry too much about which side your MEZZ prefers to play on, which is his strongest foot? If he's right footed he'll play a bit like an inside winger, and can swing crosses to the far post for your IF, if he's a lefty he'll move inside and look to thread passes into the IF

The Mezzala is right footed, but has a fairly strong left foot. I'm more worried about the BWM playing against his foot, as he's just reasonable with the left. And I'll try the CF and see what gives for now.
What are the thoughts on midfield? Is the DLP worth it if all the other midfielders are very similar in terms of vision and passing or will that just make it too predictable perhaps and a DMs is perhaps better?

5 minutes ago, HanziZoloman said:

If you check on my tactic I posted above you‘ll see that I have an IFs as well on the left. I‘d say give one of your midfielders a creative role like RPM/ APa or MEZs and let the front three do the scoring. Your central striker could be given a role like PFa AF or P.

I'll try a MEZs on the right for now and try a complete forward, but may change after a bit if I feel the forward can't handle it after a while.

[Johnny Ace]

2 minutes ago, Soylent said:

The Mezzala is right footed, but has a fairly strong left foot. I'm more worried about the BWM playing against his foot, as he's just reasonable with the left. And I'll try the CF and see what gives for now.
What are the thoughts on midfield? Is the DLP worth it if all the other midfielders are very similar in terms of vision and passing or will that just make it too predictable perhaps and a DMs is perhaps better?

I think your midfield role and duty choices look good. With the DLP being on Support should be looking at play ahead of him and assess his options upfield, DLPs on Defend can be a little negative with their pass choices (sideways, backwards). Up to you if want a DM instead, play some games and keep an eye how he's performing, check the match stats etc  The BWM footedness shouldn't be a big issue 

[mikcheck]

5 horas atrás, Johnny Ace disse:

No mate, would have no problem with that, would be a great dynamic pairing  

Do love a CWB but haven't included any here (I don't think ) for the sake of simplicity 

Thanks.

The only problem I see is the lack of width, but if you have a capable and smart player playing there (CWB), maybe that wont be a big problem.

And btw, you did include a CWB on attack in your Complete Forward system 

Edited July 26, 2023 by mikcheck

[Lemon_Head]

Ok I've changed up a few things but still am missing the "width" principle. I just don't think I have the right players suited to a "Winger role on support" right now so ill definitely find one next transfer window.

So the basic Idea here is that the IWB on defense slots in nicely next to the DM while the FB(D) stays back to make a back three with the two CB. 

In terms of Width, I decided to add a Carrello to add some width to the left side of the pitch. Its kind of what I've been envisioning but I'm not 100% sure how much width Carrello provides so I'll give this a test and let you guys know

[Johnny Ace]

That backline looks very flat @Lemon_Head, they won't offer a lot in attack but I could be very wrong  Let us know how you get on with it 

And thanks @mikcheck

[jamesh123]

3 hours ago, Johnny Ace said:

Yep and yep, right WB(A),  right CM(S), right AP(A), If I understand correctly 

This is the attributes and traits for my choice of player to play the AP(A) role, and then this is the set up I could try, unless I possibly use a poacher as previously suggested? Or is the AF or another striker role more suited now I've changed the roles of the RW and RB?

[Johnny Ace]

That looks fine @jamesh123