Rodpaco

I don't have much experience with the 4-2-3-1 DMs, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But how I'd achieve what you're trying to do is I'd have the left-back on defend duty, to counterbalance the right-back who plays more like a midfielder. That means the left-winger would have a traditional winger role. And it would also free up the left DM to be on support duty. Maybe even the AM as well, who could have an attack duty to provide more options inside the box given the pure wingers sending in crosses from both sides. That way, in the attacking phase you'd have 3 at the back and 3 in the DM/CM area to link up with the front 4 (with the SV eventually making it a front 5). Which looks pretty balanced and cohesive to me.

In terms of roles, a setup that's worked great for me, from the lower leagues all the way up to the highest level, is something like this: GK: Goalkeeper - D RB: Full Back - S RCB: Central Defender - D (or Ball Playing Defender if you have one, but that's rarer in lower leagues) LCB: Central Defender - D LB: Full Back - A RM/AMR: Winger - A RCM: Deep Lying Playmaker - S (I like to have a playmaker, but a standard Central Midfielder should be fine here as well) LCM: Central Midfielder - D LM/AML: Winger - S AMCL: Shadow Striker - A STCR: Deep Lying Forward - S (or Complete Forward if you have one, but again, rarer in lower leagues. Target Man should work fine too with the SS nearby and wingers putting in crosses) You might say this is more of a 4-4-1-1 / 4-2-3-1, but it works very much like a classic 4-4-2. Except that your forwards (I consider the shadow striker to be one) will be much more involved in the build-up and your shadow striker will help defensively. SS + DLF is an amazing pair and them being staggered rather than aligned vertically just ensures that they're not occupying the same spaces, as well as give better options for your wingers to play one-twos with.

Great stuff! The 4-3-3 is my favorite formation, I think it achieves the best balance in terms of providing both midfield control and width. Though I've also had a lot of success with the 4-4-1-1. I'd like to try the 3-4-2-1 too, as it's pretty popular in modern football and I think achieves a nice distribution of players offensively, but I generally feel kinda iffy about 3-at-the-back formations. And, for all its popularity, I can't for the life of me make a 4-2-3-1 work properly. The 4-2-3-1 DM is just too disjointed and splits the team in half. The 4-2-3-1 with CMs I just see as a variant of the 4-4-1-1 where you're pushing your wingers higher up, fine in home games where you're much stronger than the opposition or when you're losing near the end, but I'd never use it in other situations. I'd say both of your formations actually look more like Klopp's 4-3-3 (full-backs providing width, industrious midfield, and wingers tucking in) than Guardiola's. And just glancing at the thread it looks like everyone is playing with either both wingers tucking in (IF/IW/AP), or one pure winger (W) and the other one tucking in. The later is generally my preference as well when playing a 4-3-3, but I'm actually curious if someone's tried a variant with pure wingers on both sides. Something like this: Either a 2-3 (with both FBs tucking in alongside the DM) or a 3-2 at the back (with one FB tucking in alongside the CBs, while the other tucks in higher up alongside the DM). Both wingers on the side of their strong foot, very much like traditional wingers (both with the Winger role). Then you'd have that 5-man frontline which is common in modern football, but with the wingers (rather than the full-backs) providing the width. While the CMs would almost play like inside forwards (in the original sense) and provide more options inside the box to receive the crosses from the wings. Making up for the lack of natural box presence in the 4-3-3 compared to, say, the classic 4-4-2 (where playing with traditional wingers on both sides was much more common due to the striker duo up front). I'm not sure how to make it work, though. As it basically requires having the two CMs on attack duty, which generally isn't ideal. So I'm curious how you'd try setting something like this up. EDIT: I somehow missed @Adonalsium's post! xD Nice job, that's exactly what I was looking for! Don't you have some defensive problems with the two CM's being on attack duty, though?