[Useful hints on roles and duties in 4-2-3-1]

Also, in addition to my many other questions (thanks for taking the time to answer if/when you do), what are your thoughts on making the CM duo asymetric, i.e. one playing from the DM position and the other from the MC position?  For instance DM(d) and CM(su)?

[Useful hints on roles and duties in 4-2-3-1]

56 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Who (and where) mentioned a CM on defend duty? 

"On 27/05/2019 at 12:14, Hyphron said:"

He had a screencapture with a CM on defend.  Your reply was "Plus, you use a very attack-minded role for both fullbacks (CWB) in a top-heavy system with no DM to protect the defense in a more direct manner."

I have been using CMs on Defend to cover down on the CDs as if he were a DM (I don't have any natural DMs on my Wealdstone team atm).  I was not aware there was a substantial difference between the two other than position further up the pitch.  He also had a DLP on support duty, which I also thought was a moderately good cover for the CDs.  My most aggressive MC duo I have used (not now with Wealdstone as I build them up) was a DLP with a B2B (this on FM18 mobile which I cannot specify support, defend or attack individually).

[Useful hints on roles and duties in 4-2-3-1]

On 27/05/2019 at 12:47, Experienced Defender said:

Well, given that you play both the AMC and striker on attack duty, it seems that you actually did not read the thread (guide) carefully 

Of course, there are exceptions to this "rule", but they usually pertain to counter-attacking versions of a 4231, which your tactic clearly is not.

Another obvious problem with your tactic IMO is its one-dimensionality imn terms of roles and duties - your flanks literally mirror each other, with CWBsu and IFsu being used on both sides. This makes it easier for the opposition to defend against you.

When it comes to conceding too much, it's absolutely no wonder considering how disrupted your defensive shape is due to the following instructions:

- extremely urgent pressing

- higher DL

- counter-press

And all this is further compounded by playing on a high-risk mentality (positive). Plus, you use a very attack-minded role for both fullbacks (CWB) in a top-heavy system with no DM to protect the defense in a more direct manner. I would warmly recommend you to read my guide on basic principles of defending.

As for the attacking phase, shorter passing and lower tempo used at the same time create a needless overkill by slowing play down too much (let alone much shorter passing, which you use). 

Besides having the AMC and striker both on attack duty, another potential issue is your selection of their respective roles. A general "rule" is - if the AMC is given a creator role, the striker should be given a runner or scorer role (and vice versa). For example: APsu/PO, or AMat/CFsu, or AMsu/AF, or SS/DLFsu etc... The same principle applies in the counter-attacking versions with both being are on attack duty (e.g. TQ/PO, APat/AF, SS/TQ, AMat/CFat etc.)

The CM Defend is not sufficient to cover down the DM role of protecting the CDs?

[Useful hints on roles and duties in 4-2-3-1]

Thanks for this guide, it has really helped me further develop my tactic. A couple of mistakes I’ve been making that I intend to fix.

Ive always paired Wingbacks to Inside Forwards (to help cover the outside forward third since IFs tend to bracket the CDs in the penalty box).  I see a few people in the thread pairing up a WB to a Winger, but this doesn’t make sense to me because wouldn’t they crowd up in the outside final third?  It seems to make a redundant role that sacrifices defensive structure for what seems little offensive gain.  Am I missing something?

 

Ive also Usually paired Attacking FB/WB with attacking IFs to ensure strong overlap and presence in the outsides of the final third, and defend/support FB/WB when using wingers to prevent redundancy and crowding.  I see in both the OP and many subsequent tactics people are pairing attacking FB/WB with supporting Wingers/IFs.  I get IFs since they hang out in the penalty box, but why would you do that with a Winger (support)?  Wouldn’t they bunch up in the same space with the same roles and duties?

 

last but not least, I’ve usually used 2 IFs with a CF all set to attack.  Why do you recommend against this?  I usually get overlap with the WBs and 3 forwards bracketing 2 CDs.  The only thing that gives me fits is a formation with 3 CDs (5-3-2 is the worst) as it seems to clog up the open lanes I’m the penalty area that the three forwards like to settle into.  Is there a benefit I’m not seeing to pulling one of the IFs out of the attack role?