The #9.5

@Ghost77 The 2nd version of your 4-4-2 is what I'd call the typical mid-2000s British 4-4-2 (with the exception of the WP role as back then teams typically paired a flair winger with more of a WM type on the other flank). Think about Ferguson's Man Utd as the best and most successful example of this: Giggs as the winger, Beckham (later Park) as the WM, Scholes as the B2B type of CM (before he aged and become more of a DLP), the Yorke-Cole pair (with the older Sheringham being a proper DLF/s) etc. I enjoyed that type of 4-4-2 but I much prefer the more modern 4-4-2 interpretation: which is more of a 4-2-2-2 with narrow/creative wingers and two attacking FWs split laterally and not vertically. Obviously, we can talk about the best examples of this being Pellegrini's Villarreal, then his Man City version, Simeone's Atleti (though they were way more direct in comparison), Conceicaio's Porto etc What I like about the modern 4-4-2 is that it creates better pressing shape (which is why the older version of 4-4-2 vanished) as the teams generally morphs into more of 2-4-4 with both FWs being high and wide-ish into the channels means they could easily press (instead of one of them being deeper and centrally). In addition it accommodated the rise of attacking FBs and #10s who had to drop deeper/wider. Lately I've been playing exactly this type of more direct/pressing 4-4-2 with Porto in FM23 as their squad is very suited to this type of style (no surprise as they've been playing it under Concencaio for the past few years).

Yes, I've eventually added the 'underlaps' instructions to prevent the wingers going forward too soon and be detached from the full-backs. I just wanted to underline the importance of the AM/FW being the central piece of the system. Tried the instruction and I liked the effect of it, so I've kept it.

@Duracellio Later in the thread I showed what system I've eventually ended up with to prevent this issue - DLF/s + SS/a. Almost always gives you a 4-6-0ish formation (or 2-2-6 in attack).

A few things from me: 1) as others have said, DLP/s and AP/s are redundant - they mostly operate in similar zones and in a not possession-heavy system, there's no need for both. Plus, Maddison is much more all-rounded/all-action type of #10, so limiting him as a AP/s role is a waste of his skills. 2) The 4-2-3-1 is notoriously more direct formation, perfectly suited to quicker transitions and direct attacks. Your initial set up had mostly the roles and team instructions for this. However, with a direct attacking forward (PF/a is much more closer to AF/a than any of the dropping roles (like DLF/a and CF/a), so he needs space. But then you asked your team to press high and push up on the position, limiting the space Daka and Barnes would like to operate. 3) In contrast, your 2nd set up is now now even more direct with both Maddison and Dana looking to sprint in behind but then you have still asked them to push up on the opposition and press them high. In addition, you dropped the mentality to Balanced which is more suited to a possession-friendly system. All in all, there's contrasting tactics from you. You have to decide what want and how to achieve, balancing all things (team instructions and players' roles) together. Leicester are ideally suited for an aggressive mid-block, counter-attacking tactics given the profile of their attackers. They have the midfielders to play a more possession-based system but lack a technical/linking type of FW. An example of how this can be achieved:

Nothing major - just roaming and go forward on the IW and from time to time more killer balls for the FBs.

Yes, I did get what I wanted in the Bayern M demo save. I switched saves now but will use this approach again with Dortmund (once Reus is back fit to play the Shadow Striker role).

Getting there (the first is v a 4-3-3 opponent, the second is v a 3-4-2-1 one):

I've now played half a dozen games with the above 4-2-1-3 setup and while things are generally going well, I'm not happy with how the AM and FW move. The main issue is that, while both are sometimes dropping deep and closer to each as a double #10s, this doesn't always happen (which is my idea). There's been some situations when the FW is pushing forward while the AM is dropping deeper, which even further increases the gap between the two. All of this is to be expected given their duties but initially I thought the DLF will drop deep and pull wide more often even with attack-duty. I'm now going to try a SS/a and DLF/s (or TF/s when Choupo-Moting plays) pair to see if the two players can be closer together and in deeper areas far more often (in a bid to create the 2-4-4 shape). I'd expect this to be the case as the selected now roles indicate both should be initially dropping in the early build-up and midfield progression phase; then both should look to get forward and combine with the rest on the run. Which is exactly how I'd like to see the team build-up and attacking in such a 2-4-4/2-6-0 formation. Will play some games and report back how my idea plays out in the match engine.

It'll be harder to create a proper 'box' from a 4-3-3 structure as this formation could create diamonds. If this works for you, you can do the Barca way with Gavi coming infield from LW to create a diamond midfield. Sometimes it'll naturally form more of a box structure when the DLP drops deeper and the AP levels with the Mezz. If you want to further flatten the diamond and create even closer to a box unit, you can drop the DLP to defend duty and the AP to support duty. But neither of these variants will be as 'box-y' as the 4-2-1-3. And here's the pass map from my recent Super Cup clash with RBL:

As a long time fan of the 4-2-3-1 (ever since Rafa Benítez's Valencia days), I've always took interest in how to make that shape (which is naturally inclined to offer direct and/or counter-attacking threat) more possession-friendly (if not heavy per se). In recent years and since ten Haag last couple of seasons at Ajax, I've been interested in the so called 4-2-1-3 modification of the 4-2-3-1 formation. The 4-2-1-3 (with the #10 more of an advanced #8 than a proper old-school playmaker or false 10 in the mould of Gerrard or Dele Alli), managers have been able to create either a 2-3-5, 3-2-5 or 3-1-6 build-up and attacking shapes. Recently, De Zerbi took this further and made his 2-4-4 look more like a very flexible 2-2-4-0 attacking shape. I've started a Bayern M career recently and plan to use the following 4-2-3-1 that is really more of a 4-2-1-3 that aims to create all the modern possession-friendly attacking shapes. At Bayern, my plan is to have it being even more flexible given the split double pivot and flanks roles: - the RB has 'sit narrower' while the IW has 'stay wider' to emphasise on any potential temporary back 3 build-up with the Volante given freedom and space to bomb forward and level with the #10 - Mane will often drop in and form a double #10s in possession, allowing space for the #10 or the wingers to get in behind - very typical for De Zerbi's teams - before heading into the box himself - Muller's role is very flexible - he will often be deep during build-up but then head in and around the box in the final 3rd (moves into channels, get further forward further helps that) - on the left I have more typical overlap with Gnabry being another goal-scoring option in an IF/s role. - my main alternative (except for swapping flanks when I need to rest Davies and use the RB as the more attacking) is to use Mane as a shadow striker behind either Muller (as DLF/s) or Choupo-Moting (as TF/s). I plan to use this against back 3 formations.

The current era is definitely dominated by the 2-3-5/3-2-5 and 3-1-6 attacking shapes. But previously, we had 2-4-3-1/2-4-4 (the default attacking shape of the mid 2010s 4-2-3-1) and the 3-4-3 (the default attacking shape of the Dutch 4-3-3, the one with a false 9 and twin inside forwards). 3-4-3 Could be created from a 3-diamond-3 formation too (the one with which Van Gaal's Ajax won the CL in '95). Then there were the typical Italian shape of 3-4-1-2 (created from the so favoured during the 90s and early 00s rigid 3-4-1-2 and the a bit more fluid 4-diamond-2). Conte's Juve 3-1-4-2 often attacked in a 3-3-4 shape too from which his Chelsea's 3-2-5 originated.