4-2-3-1 Formation

[zychan1]

Yes, the idea is not to allow the trequartista to be the conductor of team play anymore, but rather the regista.

I know playing one wingback and inside forward on one flank a la Barcelona works well, but for me it leaves gaps to exploit down that flank and I'm not too comfortable with how the centre backs need to shift to cover for the wingback. How a wingback could work though would be by playing a defensive winger in front of him, much like how Kuyt and Johnson operate for Liverpool. Either gets deep into the opposition area while the other hangs back at the midway line. This seems a waste for the winger position though, and given how difficult it is to find such a good wingback (you need a Maicon or Dani Alves, Glen Johnson isn't nearly top class), I'd prefer to stick to a good winger/inside forward and a solid fullback who can cross.

I'm much happier with wingers playing in their most comfortable side rather than depending on which foot they are and what kind of role you want to him to play. A good manager will always be able to get what he wants from his players across but of course, there are limitations to the ME translating tactics to actual play. For example, Cristiano Ronaldo during his time at MU starts nominally on the right but depending on the situation, either gets down the flank to put in a cross or dribbles into the box to shoot. Him being right-footed doesn't seem to hamper his ability to get goals while also contributing to team play. He's a prime example of how I would like my AML/R to play and function, which is why Messi is not on the list as he almost exclusively cuts in from the right. See also Ribery on the left flank for Bayern Munich, or Robben also on the left when he used to play for Real Madrid. I think Angel di Maria, who's a left-footed left winger but with PPE cuts inside might be able to function that way more realistically in game, though I've not play tested that. Anybody has any experience with him?

I'll need to try out some of these tactics for myself to see what happens, but given that this is the exam period, it might be some time before I get back to you guys about the results. Will see what I can do.

[SPDtrip]

I think a lot of what you have said is good stuff there zychan1.

I tend to operate with the following:

- Standard back four, with one fullback on a wingback role.

- Deep-lying playmaker alongside an anchorman or a defensive midfielder (depending on the qualities of the player).

- I often use a winger and an inside forward, again depending on the players, and this gives variation in attack.

- Up front, it depends upon the qualities of the two players. I try to have an all rounder striker if possible. Complete forward support has worked really well with an attacking midfielder attack behind him. Sometimes, with a less all round striker, I have used an advanced forward attack with an attacking midfielder support behind him. I always alternate the duties (support/attack or attack/support).

I play the formation the same way but I have a question. With the Deep-Lying playmaker I've noticed that he stays very much left center or right center (depending on LCM or RCM position) when attacking. This has the effect of limiting his passing to predominantly one side and therefore his overall effectiveness.

Is there a way or a set of instructions to get him to move to a more central position when the team has possession so as to have him spray his passes right and left with equal measure ?

[zychan1]

I play the formation the same way but I have a question. With the Deep-Lying playmaker I've noticed that he stays very much left center or right center (depending on LCM or RCM position) when attacking. This has the effect of limiting his passing to predominantly one side and therefore his overall effectiveness.

Is there a way or a set of instructions to get him to move to a more central position when the team has possession so as to have him spray his passes right and left with equal measure ?

Have you tried giving him a free role? In theory giving him license to roam+more creative freedom but no forward runs should do the trick, though I'm not sure. Anybody tried this? Or you could just test and try it out. Usually though you'd play him with his favoured foot in the center, i.e. right footers at LCM and vice versa.

Also having him pass longer might also help in his distribution.

[SPDtrip]

Have you tried giving him a free role? In theory giving him license to roam+more creative freedom but no forward runs should do the trick, though I'm not sure. Anybody tried this? Or you could just test and try it out. Usually though you'd play him with his favoured foot in the center, i.e. right footers at LCM and vice versa.

Also having him pass longer might also help in his distribution.

I'll try these things out and see what happens, thanks. If anyone else has any ideas I'b be glad to try them out as well.

[zychan1]

Much appreciated SPDtrip. Could you try out an entire tactic as well? Assuming you can get a suitable team,

GK: Sweeper Keeper (def)

DCs: Defender (def)

LB/RB: FB (sup), with RWB, get forward, through balls, crossing all mixed. Crossing from deep

RDM: Anchorman (def)

LDM: Deep-lying playmaker (sup), passing on one notch less than long, more creative freedom, free role but FWD, RWB rarely, through balls and crossing often, longshots mixed, cross from deep. Possibly someone with PPM controls tempo.

AMR/AML: Inside forward (atk) with runs into channels, crossing from mixed, crossing, long shots through ball on mixed. RWB and FWD often. Possibly AMR with favoured right foot but with PPM cutting in, ditto for AML.

AMC: Attacking midfielder (atk) FWD, RWB often, short passing, probably close to the last one or two notches. longshot, throughball crossing mixed.

FC: Complete forward (sup)

Team settings all on default, set LDM as playmaker. with counter attack ticked. Let me know how it goes. Would suggest you start a new game with Real Madrid, get di Maria to play AML, Ronaldo AMR, Kaka AMC and Higuain FC. Other positions should be self explanatory. Thanks

[SFraser]

I thought the Champions League Final last night was a classic example of the potency of an AMC used at the right time, in the right place, with the right tactical support. It was testament to how poor Bayern are defensively and how astute Mourinho was tactically that the final move "and through to Eto'o!!!" was never employed as Snjeider pretty much single handedly destroyed Bayern on the counter sitting neatly between Pandev and Milito in attack.

Something I have been noticing alot recently is the fundamental importance of understanding the tactical flexibility of the three man midfield. All of the issues of the impotant AMC, the defensively weak Regista, the inability to defend against one form of a midfield and attack another form of a midfield, are all caused by the refusal/failure to adapt your own three man midfield to the opponent in even the most basic of fashions. The European Cup this season has been full of examples of this, good, bad and ugly.

Mourinho's destruction of both Barcelona and Bayern was almost hilariously simple. Likewise how Manchester United took apart Milan and then tore into Bayern in the second leg prior to the sending off was a huge lesson to me watching.

Perhaps the biggest lesson all season though came from Anfield, where Alonso left for Madrid, Benitez refused to adapt, and Liverpool FC imploded. Their battle to finish above Everton and finish in the Europa League positions came down to the last 3 games, and a European ban for Portsmouth.

The key issue is that the prevailance of the three man midfield has come about because of the tactical battle for space and effective use of roles for the tactics of an entire team in midfield, and those that are continuing to be successful are continuing that tactical battle into every game. You cannot simply stop because you have setup a particular three man midfield, and those that do like Benitez are being crushed by failing to understand that football is an ongoing process, match by match.

[Jenko_EFC]

I thought the Champions League Final last night was a classic example of the potency of an AMC used at the right time, in the right place, with the right tactical support. It was testament to how poor Bayern are defensively and how astute Mourinho was tactically that the final move "and through to Eto'o!!!" was never employed as Snjeider pretty much single handedly destroyed Bayern on the counter sitting neatly between Pandev and Milito in attack.

Something I have been noticing alot recently is the fundamental importance of understanding the tactical flexibility of the three man midfield. All of the issues of the impotant AMC, the defensively weak Regista, the inability to defend against one form of a midfield and attack another form of a midfield, are all caused by the refusal/failure to adapt your own three man midfield to the opponent in even the most basic of fashions. The European Cup this season has been full of examples of this, good, bad and ugly.

Mourinho's destruction of both Barcelona and Bayern was almost hilariously simple. Likewise how Manchester United took apart Milan and then tore into Bayern in the second leg prior to the sending off was a huge lesson to me watching.

Perhaps the biggest lesson all season though came from Anfield, where Alonso left for Madrid, Benitez refused to adapt, and Liverpool FC imploded. Their battle to finish above Everton and finish in the Europa League positions came down to the last 3 games, and a European ban for Portsmouth.

The key issue is that the prevailance of the three man midfield has come about because of the tactical battle for space and effective use of roles for the tactics of an entire team in midfield, and those that are continuing to be successful are continuing that tactical battle into every game. You cannot simply stop because you have setup a particular three man midfield, and those that do like Benitez are being crushed by failing to understand that football is an ongoing process, match by match.

Benitez is a laughing stock to pretty much all my friends. Half of them are reds themselves but it never fails to amaze me how bad a manager he really is. To be honest, he has employed the 4-2-3-1 for donkeys at Valencia and won the European Cup with Houllier's team with the exception of Djibrill Cisse who barely participated in the final if I remember correctly!

What's that meant to mean about us, hey?! I honestly believe we're getting closer to most. Without our crippling injuries this season we'd have easily finished above them and possibly Manchester City who we gave a lesson to twice about how to play football and also gave you one in the process . Our failings are down to lack of money as we have a whopping budget of £0m this summer and it looks like either Pienaar, Rodwell or possibly Jagielka out the door if we want to buy anyone! Also, the fact that we lack a right side atall! Moyes loves a narrow midfield with overlapping fullbacks but at the moment we're stuck with Phil Neville or Tony Hibbert. Watch the Tottenham home game for evidence of what happens when we have a pacey right back when Coleman came on and got an assist and was probably MoM although he was only on for about 25 mins. Then you look to Donovan who turned our season around and was the key to beating a few teams.

Anyway, back on topic the 4-2-3-1 needs to be changed almost every game otherwise it will get overrun simple in my opinion. Liverpool's trio of Alonso, Gerrard and Mascherano as deep-lying playmaker, trequarista? and ball-winner did well as it had balance and very good players to fulfill it. Now they have Lucas who is not top 10 standard! Gerrard is on awful form as well meaning they only have a brilliant ball-winner. Their creativity is gone now. Lucas is hardly Alonso and Aquilani barely plays and when he does he is much better as an advanced player in my opinion. All this concludes that Benitez can't adapt. He either simply can't accept that his trusted formation isn't working or he doesn't like changing his team like most FM players!

[crouchaldinho]

Benitez is a laughing stock to pretty much all my friends. Half of them are reds themselves but it never fails to amaze me how bad a manager he really is. To be honest, he has employed the 4-2-3-1 for donkeys at Valencia and won the European Cup with Houllier's team with the exception of Djibrill Cisse who barely participated in the final if I remember correctly!

You say Benitez won the European Cup with Houllier's team as if it is a bad thing. I would call that pretty remarkable in itself personally as that was a very poor side with the likes of Djimi Traore and Igor Biscan as first teamers!

It's also factually incorrect to say that anyway. Two of the key players that season were Xabi Alonso & Luis Garcia, both signed by Benitez (probably two of his very best signings). And Djibril Cissé was a Houllier signing anyway, so that's irrelevant.

At Valencia, Benitez was Spanish Champion and also won the UEFA Cup. He won the Champions League with Liverpool in 2005, then took them to the final again in 2007 and the semis in 2008. Then last season, he took them to their best league finish since 2002. I don't think you become a bad manager over night.

I know you and SFraser are fans of rival clubs but you have to look a little less subjectively. To talk about Benitez as if he is tactically naive, I would totally disagree with. You could question his transfer policy and his motivational skills and probably come up with more to criticise there. In my opinion, Benitez has also been hampered by the situation at his football club. Unrest and general dissatisfaction has spread amongst his squad this season and morale has been low, which ultimately has stemmed from the top.

(Not a Liverpool fan by the way or, in fact, a fan of any Premier League club! )

[Finknottle]

Hello again "C". As a LFC supporter since 1949 would you please allow me to throw in my two penn'orths worth? Liverpool supporters have been spoilt with the amount of success we've had. It had to end sometime. It took LFC 25 years to assemble a team and formation under Bob Paisley, that for 5-6 years were completely unplayable. That will not happen again.

After Istanbul, there wasn't any Liverpool supporter saying that the team was Gerard Houlliers. Rafa worked something marvellous that night and we should all be grateful.

Xabi Alonso was a very good passer of the football, if he was allowed the time. If you man marked him he could be nullified. The episode about him wanting to be at the birth of his child was the beginning of the end for him. Good Lord, think of all the menbers of our armed forces who will never come home to ever see their children.

During the 08/09 season, I don't recall too many people complaining about the manager's tactics or indeed the dreaded zonal marking arguement. [iv'e never seen a zone score a goal], how original is that? I firmly believe that Rafa will come good again this coming season. As Jamie Carragher said. Let all those who don't want to be here, go! We will recover if Torres, gerard and Mascherano leave. We have had better players than those down the years. King Kenny, Graeme Souness, Ian Rush. I can go a lot further back than that. If Mascherano leaves look out for Lucas, he is a far more comfortable player when Mascherano is not playing alongside him.

[Jenko_EFC]

You say Benitez won the European Cup with Houllier's team as if it is a bad thing. I would call that pretty remarkable in itself personally as that was a very poor side with the likes of Djimi Traore and Igor Biscan as first teamers!

It's also factually incorrect to say that anyway. Two of the key players that season were Xabi Alonso & Luis Garcia, both signed by Benitez (probably two of his very best signings). And Djibril Cissé was a Houllier signing anyway, so that's irrelevant.

At Valencia, Benitez was Spanish Champion and also won the UEFA Cup. He won the Champions League with Liverpool in 2005, then took them to the final again in 2007 and the semis in 2008. Then last season, he took them to their best league finish since 2002. I don't think you become a bad manager over night.

I know you and SFraser are fans of rival clubs but you have to look a little less subjectively. To talk about Benitez as if he is tactically naive, I would totally disagree with. You could question his transfer policy and his motivational skills and probably come up with more to criticise there. In my opinion, Benitez has also been hampered by the situation at his football club. Unrest and general dissatisfaction has spread amongst his squad this season and morale has been low, which ultimately has stemmed from the top.

(Not a Liverpool fan by the way or, in fact, a fan of any Premier League club! )

Yes, he has been under alot of pressure but that only stems from his inability to change/adapt. I'd say this season they've dropped to their true league position. I am not wearing blue tinted spectacles either as you can't deny he can't apapt a fromation atall because he simply doesn't!

I got it wrong about Cisse yes as I forgot! Hardly say Garcia was a major success and I'm not criticizing his transfers either he has made some incredible ones like Torres but no doubt they're on a slippery solpe and I do believe Benitez has made it worse. For a team of Liverpool's so-called stature they shouldn't finish 6th. We operate on a budget of £0 and finish 2 places below them and I'd only take about 6 of their players to our starting XI to be honest.

He has got some good cup runs because 4-2-3-1 works at european level, the atmosphere at Anfield and because Gerrard and co turn it on at the big matches. He took them to their highest finish since 2002, I'd say that was due to multiple reasons as well including Torres on hot form, players peaking at the right time and most of it Alonso who he and Arbeloa who left for a measely £2m and was first-choice iirc. He replaced Alonso with a player who is unable to do what Alonso does in the slightest bit and does something completely different yet refuses to let him away from a deep-lying playmaker. If that doesn't suggest a manager that doesn't/can't adapt I don't know what does to be honest!

[zychan1]

Unfortunately I have to agree with SFraser and Jenko EFC. While I still have fond memories watching the end-season 2008/2009 Liverpool team, it's apparent that the buck for not being to adapt to change of personnel in the team has to land firmly with Benitez. Don't forget that Aquilani was his signing, and it was clear to everybody that he, or Lucas was no Xabi Alonso. IMHO with Aquilani and Johnson he should have went with a assymetric 4-2-3-1 with Kuyt at RM and Johnson as a RWB, Masch at DMC, Aquilani at LMC, Gerrard at RAMC, Benayoun/Riera/Babel at AML and Torres FC up front. Even without Aquilani in the team Gerrard can always shift to LMC with Benayoun at RAMC behind Torres. Playing Lucas and Mascherano in the same lineup puts too much pressure on the front 4 to attack, and even with both fullbacks pushing up, players like Insua and Kuyt offer more industry than flair upfront, unfortunately, though with a better LB and RM it could have worked. Also the formation placed too much onus on Gerrard to be the sole playmaker of the team, turning the formation into more of a wide 4-2-1-2-1 rather than a 4-2-3-1, which leaves Torres much too isolated. We all know poor results mean low morale, hence there was no turning back from then on when the manager refuses to change.

[Jenko_EFC]

Unfortunately I have to agree with SFraser and Jenko EFC. While I still have fond memories watching the end-season 2008/2009 Liverpool team, it's apparent that the buck for not being to adapt to change of personnel in the team has to land firmly with Benitez. Don't forget that Aquilani was his signing, and it was clear to everybody that he, or Lucas was no Xabi Alonso. IMHO with Aquilani and Johnson he should have went with a assymetric 4-2-3-1 with Kuyt at RM and Johnson as a RWB, Masch at DMC, Aquilani at LMC, Gerrard at RAMC, Benayoun/Riera/Babel at AML and Torres FC up front. Even without Aquilani in the team Gerrard can always shift to LMC with Benayoun at RAMC behind Torres. Playing Lucas and Mascherano in the same lineup puts too much pressure on the front 4 to attack, and even with both fullbacks pushing up, players like Insua and Kuyt offer more industry than flair upfront, unfortunately, though with a better LB and RM it could have worked. Also the formation placed too much onus on Gerrard to be the sole playmaker of the team, turning the formation into more of a wide 4-2-1-2-1 rather than a 4-2-3-1, which leaves Torres much too isolated. We all know poor results mean low morale, hence there was no turning back from then on when the manager refuses to change.

Nothing against Benitez however, we all have our own style but his has undoubtedly hit rock bottom. You raise many key points so . Lucas and Aqualani are no Alonso as you say and that is why Liverpool have done so bad this season, Gerrard can't do what Alonso does from the front either and when teams ''park the bus'' the front 4 are often isolated. Nothing against Aquilaini either he looks brilliant but is being played awfully wrong and unless he adapts to the position himself which seems unlikely, Liverpool look in a worrying state. The decline of Gerrard this season, weather that be due to the world cup is unknown, has obviously hindered Liverpool this season as it would any team not having Gerrard play well as we all know what happens when he does!

Gerrard is no playmaker, one of the main examples of that was Wigan Athletic at home. He attempted to do it but just failed and in the end settled for short backward passing and even they weren't too successful. This season will be remembered for the beachball incident but really I do think in 5-10 years this was the turning point. Either, for new owners, new managers and a haul upto 1st or a downward one where they end up battling it out with Blackburn, Sunderland etc.

[crouchaldinho]

Yes, he has been under alot of pressure but that only stems from his inability to change/adapt. I'd say this season they've dropped to their true league position. I am not wearing blue tinted spectacles either as you can't deny he can't apapt a fromation atall because he simply doesn't!

He played 4-4-2 and 4-4-1-1 for much of his early Liverpool career, so clearly he has adapted his formation over the last few seasons to play the 4-2-3-1.

He has got some good cup runs because 4-2-3-1 works at european level, the atmosphere at Anfield and because Gerrard and co turn it on at the big matches.

I don't think you can say that 4-2-3-1 only works in Europe for a start. I also think that the European runs have more to do with excellent tactical preparation. The truth is, Benitez got it right more than he got it wrong in Europe, and that involved a lot of adapting, especially during his early time with Liverpool where he got the best from a poor squad, and that's why he was successful.

He took them to their highest finish since 2002, I'd say that was due to multiple reasons as well including Torres on hot form, players peaking at the right time and most of it Alonso

So it's not good management then? Is that what you are saying? It was just luck or coincidence or what?

He replaced Alonso with a player who is unable to do what Alonso does in the slightest bit and does something completely different yet refuses to let him away from a deep-lying playmaker. If that doesn't suggest a manager that doesn't/can't adapt I don't know what does to be honest!

I don't think that the Aquilani argument holds any relevance, especially seeing as his playing time was minimal this season.

[crouchaldinho]

IMHO with Aquilani and Johnson he should have went with a assymetric 4-2-3-1 with Kuyt at RM and Johnson as a RWB, Masch at DMC, Aquilani at LMC, Gerrard at RAMC, Benayoun/Riera/Babel at AML and Torres FC up front.

I think you lost me here to be honest. Real life is not like Football Manager. I don't believe that there is any real life formation called 'asymmetric 4-2-3-1'.

This is why real managers have it so hard these days. Because you get a stadium full of people watching their team each week who think that they know better after a few good seasons on Football Manager.

'Rafa, you've got it all wrong mate. You need to switch to an asymmetric 4-2-3-1 or ask Mr Hough if you can download his tactics!'

Just a joke, of course!

[crouchaldinho]

Hello again "C". As a LFC supporter since 1949 would you please allow me to throw in my two penn'orths worth? Liverpool supporters have been spoilt with the amount of success we've had. It had to end sometime. It took LFC 25 years to assemble a team and formation under Bob Paisley, that for 5-6 years were completely unplayable. That will not happen again.

After Istanbul, there wasn't any Liverpool supporter saying that the team was Gerard Houlliers. Rafa worked something marvellous that night and we should all be grateful.

Xabi Alonso was a very good passer of the football, if he was allowed the time. If you man marked him he could be nullified. The episode about him wanting to be at the birth of his child was the beginning of the end for him. Good Lord, think of all the menbers of our armed forces who will never come home to ever see their children.

During the 08/09 season, I don't recall too many people complaining about the manager's tactics or indeed the dreaded zonal marking arguement. [iv'e never seen a zone score a goal], how original is that? I firmly believe that Rafa will come good again this coming season. As Jamie Carragher said. Let all those who don't want to be here, go! We will recover if Torres, gerard and Mascherano leave. We have had better players than those down the years. King Kenny, Graeme Souness, Ian Rush. I can go a lot further back than that. If Mascherano leaves look out for Lucas, he is a far more comfortable player when Mascherano is not playing alongside him.

Hello Oescus.

I realise that I seem to have responded to these posts in the Homeric order. Anyway, nice to have the input of a Liverpool supporter.

For me personally, Xabi Alonso is one of the best midfield players I have seen play (watching in the stadium, that is). His range of passing, his touch and his awareness took my breath away. It's pretty easy to link the demise of Liverpool to the sale of this one player, as the media and many fans have done. In reality, there is a lot more to it.

As I said above, for me, you can maybe talk about some poor signings or the rumours about the way Rafa man manages his players, but Benitez has been hugely hampered by the situation at Liverpool. I'm not sure that you can argue that this hasn't been an absolutely huge factor in their downfall. And Oescus sums it up - stability off the pitch would give Benitez a much better chance of taking Liverpool forward.

[Jenko_EFC]

He played 4-4-2 and 4-4-1-1 for much of his early Liverpool career, so clearly he has adapted his formation over the last few seasons to play the 4-2-3-1.

I don't think you can say that 4-2-3-1 only works in Europe for a start. I also think that the European runs have more to do with excellent tactical preparation. The truth is, Benitez got it right more than he got it wrong in Europe, and that involved a lot of adapting, especially during his early time with Liverpool where he got the best from a poor squad, and that's why he was successful.

So it's not good management then? Is that what you are saying? It was just luck or coincidence or what?

I don't think that the Aquilani argument holds any relevance, especially seeing as his playing time was minimal this season.

4-4-2 and 4-4-1-1 isn't too different from a 4-2-3-1 in the sense that he would play a deep striker and offensive wingers which meant something very similar.

Hardly, he is/was a cautious manager and that worked wonders in the Champions League due to them being the underdog alot, he had a bit of pace and Gerrard and co as I mentioned always play at their best when it matters to be honest which is why they won't win the league although they've came close 2nd they lack the consistency of Manchester United's and the Chelsea's.

It does hold relevence quite simply because he and Lucas who you never mentioned aren't like Alonso! He hasn't adapted to that and that's what's caused their failings. He sold a dee-lying playmaker who was absolutely crucial to their style of play and replaced him with someone who doesn't come close to that.

Basically saying it was a mixture. He did well that season with alot of players peaking, Alonso dominating and Torres scoring, it all worked well and came together then he strangely goes and sells Alonso and Arbeloa and although they wanted to go he never replaced Alonso and Arbeloa went for £2m. To say it was luck would be wrong but not too far off tbh. That season was where it all came together and this season was the season it all fell apart.

[crouchaldinho]

Okay Jenko. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Your argument has quite a few factual errors and your opinions are clearly compromised by your dislike of the club and the manager. Not trying to be harsh, as I respect that you have your opinion and clearly not everything you are saying is clouded by this, but I'm just stating the facts (shades of Rafa there - we all know he is keen on facts!)

No hard feelings anyway. We should probably get back on topic and get back to talking about 4-2-3-1.

[Finknottle]

The final word. In Rafa, we trust. All others, pay cash!!! Once again I have "cocked up" my save. I had just beaten Manchester City to get to the League Cup final, as well. I was also 8th in the Premiership with Hull City. Never mind I shall start a new save and try to use the 4-2-3-1 [Deep] formation from the start but matbe not with Hull. I need a rest from the awful Bullard! Kind regards.

[crouchaldinho]

Good luck then Oescus!

I quite like the asymmetric 4-2-3-1 (the formation that comes with the game). I've been playing that lately. Plays out quite like an ordinary 4-2-3-1 in the match engine.

I've got a hard-working player at MR and a quality attacking inside-forward player at AML. It also allows you to play a DM alongside an MC. Getting some nice football from this tactic.

[Jenko_EFC]

@Crouchaldinho

I hope I didn't offend you or anything :o. I obvoiusly dislike the club but try to stay impartial however difficult that maybe . Factual errors are obviously on my part at least, impossible for me to get right as I don't follow the club much but watch football alot generally and having seen them a bit this season I feel that with a more tactically astute manager they may have been able to build on last year. Good for me that they never ofcourse but again that's probably because I dislike Rafa!

Back on-topic, used the 4-2-3-1 to decent success but a very distant way from the standard way. Currently considering making a new thread about France in EURO 2004 where they played like this

A few simiilarities there, Henry drifts wide, Trezeguet plays on his own and Pires on the opposite side. Zidane supported by two holding midfielders playmaking! Ends up like this with Chelsea who seemed perfect.

You get the general idea. Although it looks nothing like a 4-2-3-1 it plays out very, very similar.

[crouchaldinho]

No offended at all. Of course not.

You should definitely make the France thread by the way. Looking at their 4-2-3-1 in 2000 might be interesting too. I think Inverting talks about that in some detail in one of the final sections.

[Jenko_EFC]

Will have a look at that. This seemed interesting as you'll find out tomorrow when I hopefully open the thread it was a case of everything seemed perfect but a few things went horribly, horribly wrong. Mainly, they played against a defensive 8 and attacked with 4 so were outnumbered. Lizrazu was reluctant to get forward in the heat and Pires and Henry's partnership was broken up meaning they didn't play as well as they did with Arsenal!

Glad you're not offended .

[zychan1]

I think you lost me here to be honest. Real life is not like Football Manager. I don't believe that there is any real life formation called 'asymmetric 4-2-3-1'.

This is why real managers have it so hard these days. Because you get a stadium full of people watching their team each week who think that they know better after a few good seasons on Football Manager.

'Rafa, you've got it all wrong mate. You need to switch to an asymmetric 4-2-3-1 or ask Mr Hough if you can download his tactics!'

Just a joke, of course!

Haha. Well I guess to a certain extent you can put down asymmetric formations by the nominal positions and roles the players take up on the pitch and their movements. Case in point would probably be Jenko's France formation down there and Cleon's thread on Brazil's current formation. There ARE asymmetric formations being used by managers these days and it's kudos to SI for recognising this and building the ME to make this work in game.

But I agree that it's easier to be an armchair manager then to actually sit in the dugout, and Benitez isn't a bad manager per say. I wouldn't lump Benitez in the same group as... Domenech or Maradona

[Finknottle]

Good luck then Oescus!

I quite like the asymmetric 4-2-3-1 (the formation that comes with the game). I've been playing that lately. Plays out quite like an ordinary 4-2-3-1 in the match engine.

I've got a hard-working player at MR and a quality attacking inside-forward player at AML. It also allows you to play a DM alongside an MC. Getting some nice football from this tactic.

"C". Just lately I've been a little more than interested in trying to read the match engine. To be honest, I haven't a clue. I wouldn't know where to start reading the match engine. I've found that by trial and error that by playing narrow counter attacking or defensively, keeping possession and sometimes pass to feet, that I don't lose too often to the so called "big four". My problems appear when playing against those teams immediately around me. I don't seem to be able to get the tactic setting right.

I usually start off by using the standard tactic but if, after fifteen minutes I usually find that I am not getting enough possession [37% vs 63%] No matter how I change things, whether by passing or tactic [ control, defensive or whatever] I usually end up losing.

I read one of Cleons post only a day or so ago and he mentions the following, [roughly]. If you are Hull and the like, then trying to play attacking if you don't know the workings of the match engine, you are on the backfoot immediately. How do you boffins get to know the workings of the match engine? I think that I might commit "Hari-the-Kari".

[crouchaldinho]

Haha. Well I guess to a certain extent you can put down asymmetric formations by the nominal positions and roles the players take up on the pitch and their movements. Case in point would probably be Jenko's France formation down there and Cleon's thread on Brazil's current formation. There ARE asymmetric formations being used by managers these days and it's kudos to SI for recognising this and building the ME to make this work in game.

I know what you meant.

[crouchaldinho]

"C". Just lately I've been a little more than interested in trying to read the match engine. To be honest, I haven't a clue. I wouldn't know where to start reading the match engine. I've found that by trial and error that by playing narrow counter attacking or defensively, keeping possession and sometimes pass to feet, that I don't lose too often to the so called "big four". My problems appear when playing against those teams immediately around me. I don't seem to be able to get the tactic setting right.

I usually start off by using the standard tactic but if, after fifteen minutes I usually find that I am not getting enough possession [37% vs 63%] No matter how I change things, whether by passing or tactic [ control, defensive or whatever] I usually end up losing.

I read one of Cleons post only a day or so ago and he mentions the following, [roughly]. If you are Hull and the like, then trying to play attacking if you don't know the workings of the match engine, you are on the backfoot immediately. How do you boffins get to know the workings of the match engine? I think that I might commit "Hari-the-Kari".

Oescus, I hope this might help - http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=5392051&postcount=87

I've just written a modest little guide to what I tend to do for each match.

I thought I would put it in this thread so as not to go 'off topic' here.

[SFraser]

My apologies for inspiring a page of Benitez debate, my point was to say how I think that match-by-match midfield rotation of roles and positions in a 4-2-3-1 is key to avoid being easilly neutralised and to make maximum usage of your defensive and attacking talents in the key areas of the opponents midfield.

For example take the AMC/Trequartista role, it can be hugely effective if the opponent does not have particular deep or defensively capable DM's, such as a Deep Lying Playmaker for example. If however the opponent does have a solid DM or deep midfield then the AMC/Trequartista might be better off employed in a slightly deeper role with your own DM's playing a more advanced box-to-box role.

Take for example the combination of Scholes and Fletcher. The more offensive of the two players sits deep and dictates the tempo while the more defensive of the two makes runs from deep into attacking areas, making up numbers in attack and creating space for the playmaker. Then the rest of the midfield and attack is fleshed out by playing any number of various combinations of Nani/Park/Giggs/Carrick/Gibson/Berbatov depending on the exact opponent. For example Park had two excellent games as a defensive AMC/Second Striker against Milan and another against Liverpool in the same role. In the first Milan match there was no true Left Winger as Fletcher played left side of a diamond and Park played defensive AMC. In the second Milan match Fletcher dropped back to RCM, Carrick was dropped and Nani played Left Wing. In the last two games of the Premier League Park was dropped and Berbatov played a more attacking role from a similar position.

So my point was to state that having a 3 man midfield does not mean you have to be stuck playing the exact same lineup of players in identical roles, but can put your Attacking players where they will do most damage, your Defensive players likewise where they will be most effective, make subtle tweaks to personel and roles for similar basic formations but completely different in-game effect and level of defense/threat, and switch and swap roles and positions as each game demands.

[Finknottle]

Oescus, I hope this might help - http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=5392051&postcount=87

I've just written a modest little guide to what I tend to do for each match.

I thought I would put it in this thread so as not to go 'off topic' here.

Thanks "C", You're a gentleman and a "scallop!"

[dankrzyz]

Now for the very early update on the deep 4-2-3-1 tactic. After three games the worrying thing that I have immediately seen is this. Both the DMC's seem to drop back into the back four and make up a back six. I don't know how to stop this.

Any updates to your experience with DMs instead of MCs?

I've had a chance to play three matches with DMs, unfortunately none versus comparable opponents (pre-season morale-building friendlies) so I can't really say my DMs had much to defend against at all! I will say that my roaming AMC/Trequartista hasn't played much a role in any of the attacking play. Not exactly leader-of-the-team type behavior, mostly just running around and being ignored by his teammates or marked by his opponents.

[crouchaldinho]

One of the best examples of 4-2-3-1 to talk about is the French national team from 2000 up to 2006.

Below, I have detailed the team that contested the World Cup in 2006 which got to the final:

		Barthez


Sagnol		Thuram		Gallas		Abidal


	Vieira		Makelele


Ribery			Zidane			Malouda


		Henry		

Employing two holders in Vieira and Makelele in order to be able to field Ribery, Zidane and Malouda behind Henry.

How do you think this team would be set up on FM?

I would imagine a fairly standard back four. Makelele as anchor man, Vieira as defensive midfielder (support).

Ribery and Molouda as wingers (attack).

Then Zidane as trequartista or maybe advanced playmaker (attack). Henry as the complete forward (support).

Maybe someone who knows the French team of this time better than I do will be able to detail the roles and duties.

A great example of a successful 4-2-3-1.

[zychan1]

Hmmm... Personally, I would have went with something more like this:

--------------- Barthez ---------------

Sagnol - Thuram - Gallas - Abidal

--------------- Makelele --------------

---------- Viera ------------ Malouda

Ribery ------------- Zidane ----------

---------------- Henry -----------------

Makelele anchorman, Viera defensive midfielder support or B2B with forward runs mixed, longshots rarely and a slight drop in mentality, Ribery as an Attacking Midfielder/Advance Playmaker attack, Zidane trequartista, Malouda winger attack but with crossing from mixed and Henry as a poacher set as TM with ball played to feet.

The shift in formation is mainly to push Viera slightly further ahead so he can be put into the B2B player role as imo his runs into the box are a key option especially when malouda or ribery are crossing. However he does start in a nominal DM role (much like how Melo and Gilberto are set up in the current Brazil team) which is why I'd drop his mentality slightly to compensate for that.

Ribery I feel is much more than just a simple classical winger getting to the by-line, while Malouda helps out with the defense a little bit more and his high stamina means he can get up and down the flank often. Henry is set as a poacher to make sure that he's always the one furthest forward and with ball played to feet, it gives him the freedom to work his magic as close to the opposition defence as possible where he's most effective.

[zychan1]

Finally found time to squeeze in a season with A.C. Milan in between my exams period with mixed results. This was a new save on the 10.3 patch and I only made 2 signings to fill into the AMC role, namely Paulo Henrique Ganso who's supposed to be the new Kaka and Sotiris Ninis along with Marco Motta. With the midfield being fairly old, I opt to go for a 4-2-3-1 with 2 DMCs instead of MCs as a DLP (support) and Anchor Man respectively. Pato started as AMR as an Inside Forward (Attack), Huntelaar as a FC Complete Forward (support) and Ronaldinho as AML Advance Playmaker (Attack). Thiago Silva partnered Nesta in a stopper-cover central defence contrary to my previous ideas, with both my fullbacks on support.

The problem position though, was AMC. Though I've played through most of the season with the AMC as Advance Playmaker (attack) with shortest passing, it did not work as well as I have liked. The AMC often opted to stay behind the FC instead of making runs beyond him, which is what I intended him to do, but he did link up well with the team when dropping deep. Often when he did make a run into the box though, he did get a CCC at goal so that will be what I'll be aiming for him to do more often next season. I've refrained from using a Trequartista role because I didn't want him to neglect his defensive duties unless I was going all-out attack, and so far that seems to be the case. With Attacking Midfielder and Inside Forward roles, he seemed very constricted with his movements despite given the freedom to roam, and didn't link up as well with the team or make any extra runs into the box. Hence I settled for the Advance Playmaker role.

So far the best player who seem to work best into my vision of a 4-2-3-1 is Pato. I played slightly narrow to get the AML/AMR to tuck in closer to occupy the opposing DL and LDC and it's given him space to either go outside the fullback or cut inside, despite being right-footed and playing on the right flank. Running into channels often meant he went outside too often then I would have liked, so I kept it at cut-inside. His high dribbling stat and explosiveness makes him a tricky player to come up against, and he seemed to drift inside nicely to offer an aerial threat when crosses were coming in from the left-flank, which is what I wanted him to do as well though he doesn't have the best heading ability. Ronnie at AML was less effective though, possibly because he was opposite footed and hence cut in a lot more often and didn't utilise the flank better. So far in my 2nd pre-season I've had Diego Buonanotte in that position and being left-footed, he's actually been more effective than Ronaldinho working in and outside the fullback.

My main concern though, is with the DLP (support) starting at DMC. Because of how I play when going away I tend to tweak my formation to counter the opposing team's, so frequently I went 3-2-2-2-1 with 2 wingbacks 2 MCs and 2 Wingers to counter narrow 4-3-1-2 or 4-3-2-1 formations. When this happens Pirlo is pushed forward to MC but still as DLP (support) and he's more involved in the build up play and generally seemed more effective offensively. But with him and Ambrosini in MC, the don't form an effective dual-volante when defending, so the back four is more exposed. When he starts in my normal deep 4-2-3-1 though, it seems that he's a bit too far away from the offense to really play a lot of through balls, even when I ask him to play more direct passes, and hence is less effective. However playing him deeper alongside an Anchor Man means he gives the team a lot more stability and a lot more possesion, enabling him to dictate play. Bottom line is: the DLP (support) is better offensively at MC, but is more solid and gives a better balance to the team at DMC.

The FC has functioned as I would have hoped, and I'm pleased that despite their relatively low creativity and passing stats and less-rounded ability, Huntelaar and Boriello have done reasonably well as a Complete Forward (support). I've signed Milevskyi to take over as first choice in the 2nd season, and with his high creativity and passing has shown a lot of promise in pre-season and my first few games. Fullbacks though, have been a real surprise. Despite their support instructions, they frequently run down the flanks and attempt to overlap and put in crosses, even though I have crossing set to from deep. It might be because Zambrotta, Motta and Jankulovski are more attacking in nature, but because I play with 2 DMCs, it is still relatively "safe" at the back when one of them push up beyond the AMR/L. It does provide another dimension to my offense though, which is good, but the end product is not nearly up to scratch. Jankulovski mainly has the annoying tendency to move slightly deeper in and take long shots from distance, but I suspect that's more due to him having that PPM rather than my instructions.

As I said so far I've got the shape of the team down to the best I can and the main problem is to work out how to make the AMC make more runs into the box consistently and have people slotting in through balls. I've also tried setting him as a Target Man with run onto ball but to no avail. The funny thing is the tactic worked a charm in my first game in charge, which was a pre-season match against weak opponents, where my AMC hit a brace, and in my last game of the season in the CL final against Barcelona, where Paulo Henrique grabbed a hattrick. I highlighted this because each of those goals were scored exactly as I envisioned them, with a through ball into the box and the AMC running past the DCs and slotting it past the 'keeper. Otherwise throughout the season there's been maybe a few good runs, but hardly enough for it to work as a main attacking tactic. In 25(16) he's hit 8 goals and 10 assists, which is not an amazing return, while Ninis had 7 goals and 8 assists in 21(8) playing mostly in the same position. Pato played 32(3) and had 8 and 8, while Huntelaar, my first choice FC had 17 goals and 10 assists in 29(8). Boriello 27(9) but hit 18 and 7 assists, though those were against weaker opposition and he sometimes played a top-2 with Inzaghi (poacher), and Ronaldinho got 9 goals and 10 assists in 30(6). Pirlo my main DLP only had 3 goals and 4 assists playing mostly in the deep DLP role with 29(6), so it's safe to say I can expect more.

As you can see there's still room for improvement in the team and any suggestions are definitely welcome. I definitely want more assists from my DLP and while the goals are pretty spread out amongst my offense, I'd like my AMCs and AMR/L to score abit more. I'm going to start Buonanotte at AML more as an advance playmaker/inside forward next season and I have a feeling that he'll do much better than Ronaldinho. Also I'll be trying to get the AMC and FC to switch positions and see if that makes him get into the box a bit more. Otherwise as with any A.C. Milan game, it's all about trying to freshen up the team and bring in more players that will suit my 4-2-3-1, especially a sweeper keeper so that I can try out a defend-defend DC partnership. Also maybe I'll have a go at an assymetric midfield and see if I can get the DLP to function better. Will update once I'm done with my 2nd season.

[crouchaldinho]

The way I look at it, there are maybe 5 main types of 4-2-3-1 and I have experimented with most of them.

The five are as follows:

1) 4-2-3-1 Deep (two DMs and AMR/AML)

2) 4-2-3-1 MCs (two MCs and AMR/AML)

3) 4-2-3-1 Narrow (two MCs and three AMCs)

4) 4-2-3-1 Narrow and Deep (two DMs and three AMCs)

5) Asymmetric 4-2-3-1 (see the default version in the tactics creator)

I was just wondering what people thought were the main advantages/disadvantages of each shape?

I would say that the deep versions obviously offer more defensive stability, while the MC versions are probably more attacking in their nature. The narrow formations generally send play through the middle more and , by flooding the middle, I guess they are also more defensively solid and less adventurous.

Any thoughts chaps?

[zychan1]

I've pretty much tried them all as well, except for the 4-2-3-1 narrow and deep. I'm not sure setting up a team that way is a good idea unless the AMCl and AMCr are drifting wide or dropping deep. in the normal 4-2-3-1, the central midfielders are closer to the AMCs, which means they can play neat triangles with each other and keep possesion. With a 4-2-3-1 narrow and deep though, you're leaving space near the center circle and on the flanks, which means there's a chance your squad will be split into a 6-4 defence-attack. This isn't the case with a wide 4-2-3-1 deep though as the wingers will drop deep to offer passing options and the AMC roaming.

As you know I'm playing with the 4-2-3-1 deep and it seems defensively solid if nothing else and your attack depends on your front-four clicking, where the FBs and DMCs recycling possesion and dictating play. The 4-2-3-1 with MCs is much more attacking but does leave your back four exposed since you don't have a specialised midfield shield in front of your defence. The narrow 4-2-3-1 really allows you to dominate posession in your opposition's area, but leaves even more gaps at the back when your fullbacks bomb forward to provide width. Finally the asymmetric 4-2-3-1 offers the most balance in terms of offense and defense if you have the right players for each position. You'd need a very-hardworking MC in the middle with a clinical striker and a complete AMC who's a classic number 10. If you can assemble such a team then the asymmetric definitely gets my vote.

[yonko]

The way I look at it, there are maybe 5 main types of 4-2-3-1 and I have experimented with most of them.

The five are as follows:

1) 4-2-3-1 Deep (two DMs and AMR/AML)

2) 4-2-3-1 MCs (two MCs and AMR/AML)

3) 4-2-3-1 Narrow (two MCs and three AMCs)

4) 4-2-3-1 Narrow and Deep (two DMs and three AMCs)

5) Asymmetric 4-2-3-1 (see the default version in the tactics creator)

I was just wondering what people thought were the main advantages/disadvantages of each shape?

I would say that the deep versions obviously offer more defensive stability, while the MC versions are probably more attacking in their nature. The narrow formations generally send play through the middle more and , by flooding the middle, I guess they are also more defensively solid and less adventurous.

Any thoughts chaps?

I've been away from FM (and these forums) for a few months, but decided to come back recently because I wanted to create a different formation/tactic than my usual and favorite 433/451/41221.

Developing some type of 4231 was what brought me back into it. I tried a few of the above variations with Barca until I decided upon using what is more like a 41131 formation:

GK - Valdes - normal gk

DR - D.Alves - fullback (attack)

DL - Abidal - fullback (attack)

DC - Pique - ball-playing defender (defend)

DC - Puyol - defender (cover)

DM - Yaya Toure - defensive midfielder (defend)

MC - Xavi - advanced playmaker (support)

AMR - Pedro - inside forward (attack) + move into channels

AML - Iniesta - advanced playmaker (attack) + cuts inside

AMC - Messi - trequartista (attack) + RWB=often

FC - Villa - advanced forward (attack) + normal wide play

I use Fluid philosophy + attack strategy. The passing is manually set for each position to various degree of "short", with the AMC and FC on the shortest possible setting. I've seen some excellent combination plays between them two upfront. Messi has 22 goals 10 assist 10 MOMs avr 8.12 from 23 games, while Villa has 13 goals from 17 games and avr 7.68 but he was injured for a few weeks in end of November/ beginning of December. Henry as his replacement has 12 goals from 13 starts and 9 sub apps with avr 7.88.

Has anyone else tried to use something like this? Is 41131 really a variation on the 4231? I've also tried using 2MCs both as deep-lying playmaker, one on defend duty and the other on support. Another good combo was anchor man with box-to-box on support duty.

One thing I don't like is, when defending, my AMC looks to come back too deep for my liking. I would want to see him stay a little further up field. How can I make this happen? Would a different player role make that happen?

[crouchaldinho]

I've pretty much tried them all as well, except for the 4-2-3-1 narrow and deep. I'm not sure setting up a team that way is a good idea unless the AMCl and AMCr are drifting wide or dropping deep. in the normal 4-2-3-1, the central midfielders are closer to the AMCs, which means they can play neat triangles with each other and keep possesion. With a 4-2-3-1 narrow and deep though, you're leaving space near the center circle and on the flanks, which means there's a chance your squad will be split into a 6-4 defence-attack. This isn't the case with a wide 4-2-3-1 deep though as the wingers will drop deep to offer passing options and the AMC roaming.

Interesting point that Zychan. The narrow and deep shape is the one I have yet to mess around with. I understand what you mean about the AMR and AML getting back on the flanks. Theoretically, I'm sure it would work though, especially because of the way that the match engine adjusts positioning for a side playing DMs and AMs with no MCs.

As you know I'm playing with the 4-2-3-1 deep and it seems defensively solid if nothing else and your attack depends on your front-four clicking, where the FBs and DMCs recycling possesion and dictating play.

This is by far my favourite variation. Two holders or you can go with a DLP and a holder to make it a little more creative. The front four, as you suggest, are probably most effective with roles encouraging them all to roam. That can increase the attacking potency.

When I need a really solid system which I know I can rely on, this is often the shape I go back to.

The 4-2-3-1 with MCs is much more attacking but does leave your back four exposed since you don't have a specialised midfield shield in front of your defence.

That's my feeling too, so I tend to only use it when I feel I have a superior side or if the opposition is setting up in a particularly defensive way.

The narrow 4-2-3-1 really allows you to dominate posession in your opposition's area, but leaves even more gaps at the back when your fullbacks bomb forward to provide width.

I liked the football I saw with the 4-2-3-1 narrow and the AMs do move into the channels to provide width too.

Finally the asymmetric 4-2-3-1 offers the most balance in terms of offense and defense if you have the right players for each position. You'd need a very-hardworking MC in the middle with a clinical striker and a complete AMC who's a classic number 10. If you can assemble such a team then the asymmetric definitely gets my vote.

I used the asymmetric for a while and I also thought you really needed the right kind of side to pull it off. It's very balanced though, as you say. For the midfield partnership, I actually went for an anchor player as DM with a DLP in the MC slot. This made them both sit quite deep though, almost side-by-side. Perhaps this didn't work so well.

The DM and MC combination in the asymmetric reminds me of the Argentina midfield against Nigeria with Mascherano as DM and Veron as MC. How would you best recreate Veron's performance in that game? He played as a very mobile midfield player ahead of Mascherano. What role would suit him? Any opinions?

[crouchaldinho]

Developing some type of 4231 was what brought me back into it. I tried a few of the above variations with Barca until I decided upon using what is more like a 41131 formation:

The tradition is to refer to formations in three or four bands, so you would call this 4-2-3-1 anyway.

Out of interest, do you use the DM and MC both centrally? How do they position themselves in relation to one another? I take it that one never gets in the way of the other and that they both move to one side or the other as if they were playing side-by-side?

Is 41131 really a variation on the 4231?

It's just another way of setting out a 4-2-3-1 with one midfield holder and one central midfielder. I'd say it's quite common in real life, isn't it?

[zychan1]

Interesting point that Zychan. The narrow and deep shape is the one I have yet to mess around with. I understand what you mean about the AMR and AML getting back on the flanks. Theoretically, I'm sure it would work though, especially because of the way that the match engine adjusts positioning for a side playing DMs and AMs with no MCs.

I've not tried it, but it does not seem tactically sound. You'll need to play with a really high defensive line so that your midfield players are not too far from each other and that seems to defeat the purpose of having two screening players. Can see how a 4-3-2-1 with wingers can really do the damage especially if they double up on your FBs and just spread play to the wings.

That's my feeling too, so I tend to only use it when I feel I have a superior side or if the opposition is setting up in a particularly defensive way.

Yes the 4-2-3-1 MC is one of my favourite formations too. You need an excellent striker but otherwise, the ball gets moved around really fast and there's a lot of penetration with the AML-AMC-AMR making runs all day long.

I used the asymmetric for a while and I also thought you really needed the right kind of side to pull it off. It's very balanced though, as you say. For the midfield partnership, I actually went for an anchor player as DM with a DLP in the MC slot. This made them both sit quite deep though, almost side-by-side. Perhaps this didn't work so well.

I always have the MC as a box-to-box midfielder with mixed long shots when going assymetric. You also need high closing down and sometimes push abit higher up. That way the MC will become the link between the defense and offense, and will occupy the same line as the ML/MR. When this happens the ML/MR usually tucks in slightly to play through balls to the front three or cross from deep, forming a sort of inverted midfield triangle with the Anchorman. if the ball reaches the TQ, then the MC will make a run from deep to support the front line, giving you four players up front + your wingback pushing up and potentially your wide ML/MR too. The AI also seems to have problems picking up the TQ who's playing slightly to the side of the central striker and he does get tonnes of goals either from long shots or runs into the box, which is why it's important to have a player of the class of Baggio or Zidane who can create and score at the same time. I tend to go with a poacher with this formation with TM ball to feet so that he can either slide a short pass in or just dribble straight into the box.

The DM and MC combination in the asymmetric reminds me of the Argentina midfield against Nigeria with Mascherano as DM and Veron as MC. How would you best recreate Veron's performance in that game? He played as a very mobile midfield player ahead of Mascherano. What role would suit him? Any opinions?

It's a tough one. Contrary to what I thought before, Veron was actually given license to roam around in midfield but he wasn't playing in the hole. They had Messi for that. It might just be me but he wasn't as good as he could be, and his passing seems a bit conservative at times. Maybe he was having a off day but if you watched how Riquelme played at the Olympics, I think that is sort of what Maradona expects from him. By process of elimination in FM terms I would have to go with DLP (support) and tick roaming, no RFD, no dribbling which would relieve him of almost all of his defensive duties and allow him to move freely and just play passes. Veron is much too talented to be "just" a Central Midfielder support and the other roles don't seem to make sense. I actually experimented with these instructions before for Milan but it wasn't what I was really looking for from Pirlo, but it seems to suit Veron just fine.

I was not very convinced about Argentina actually. They controlled the game but Nigeria was just sitting back and allowing them all the space in midfield. There was no intent, no urgency in the passing after they got the goal and other than Messi nobody seemed too keen to have a go at the Nigerian defense. Comparing this to Pekerman's Argentina (or even Bielsa's Olympic team), they were a much more adventurous side. Also with Veron roaming like that, they're effectively left with a back three + Mascherano, since Jonas doesn't seem to know how to defend at all. It's not exactly a 4-2-3-1, more like a lop-sided 4-2-2-1-2 and Mascherano seems to be doing a lot as the "water-carrier" of the team. Incidentally he seemed much more willing to play longer passes compared to Veron, which is a surprise. IMHO this is how they lined up:

-------------- Romero ----------------

------ Demichelis --- Samuel --- Heinze

Jonas ------- Mascherano -------------

------- Veron --------------- di Maria -

-------------- Messi ------------------

--- Tevez --------- Higuain -----------

but I suppose this is a discussion for another thread.

[zychan1]

One thing I don't like is, when defending, my AMC looks to come back too deep for my liking. I would want to see him stay a little further up field. How can I make this happen? Would a different player role make that happen?

You can try giving him the Trequartista setting. As the description says, your AMC will then abandon any sort of defensive work and concentrate purely on offense.

It's just another way of setting out a 4-2-3-1 with one midfield holder and one central midfielder. I'd say it's quite common in real life, isn't it?

It is, but it does seem to be a pain in the ass when trying to set it up for our FM teams

[crouchaldinho]

I've not tried it, but it does not seem tactically sound. You'll need to play with a really high defensive line so that your midfield players are not too far from each other and that seems to defeat the purpose of having two screening players.

Test it out in the engine. The DMs and AMs positioning means that they aren't too far apart. Pretty sure the match engine adjusts the positioning so that they play closer together so you shouldn't need to make adjustments like that, although the TC makes an automatic adjustment to the d-line when playing DMs (but it is very slight).

IMHO this is how they lined up:

-------------- Romero ----------------

------ Demichelis --- Samuel --- Heinze

Jonas ------- Mascherano -------------

------- Veron --------------- di Maria -

-------------- Messi ------------------

--- Tevez --------- Higuain -----------

Totally agree with that shape.

[zychan1]

Test it out in the engine. The DMs and AMs positioning means that they aren't too far apart. Pretty sure the match engine adjusts the positioning so that they play closer together so you shouldn't need to make adjustments like that, although the TC makes an automatic adjustment to the d-line when playing DMs (but it is very slight).

Don't you leave a yawning gap between the two midfield bands, or between the DMs and the backline though? Or a lot of space behind the back line when attacking??

[yonko]

The tradition is to refer to formations in three or four bands, so you would call this 4-2-3-1 anyway.

Out of interest, do you use the DM and MC both centrally? How do they position themselves in relation to one another? I take it that one never gets in the way of the other and that they both move to one side or the other as if they were playing side-by-side?

It's just another way of setting out a 4-2-3-1 with one midfield holder and one central midfielder. I'd say it's quite common in real life, isn't it?

Yes, both DMC and MC are in the center. What I often see is the MC drifting a little to the left or right of the DMC - I guess due to the roaming instruction. In addition, the AMC always drifts slightly opposite of the MC.

You can try giving him the Trequartista setting. As the description says, your AMC will then abandon any sort of defensive work and concentrate purely on offense.

My AMC is set up as Trequartista with RWB clicked to often.

[crouchaldinho]

Don't you leave a yawning gap between the two midfield bands, or between the DMs and the backline though? Or a lot of space behind the back line when attacking??

No, in fact the d-line is able to sit deeper with the DMs present and the DMs and AMs play close enough together. I haven't seen any problem.

Yes, both DMC and MC are in the center. What I often see is the MC drifting a little to the left or right of the DMC - I guess due to the roaming instruction. In addition, the AMC always drifts slightly opposite of the MC.

Do you think it might be related to footedness?

[yonko]

Do you think it might be related to footedness?

Probably not, because I see the MC drifting equally to both sides of the DM. Plus it happens when I play Iniesta as AMC.

[roseboy64]

What works best to get the two wide AMs in a 4-2-3-1 to roam? I have my FBs on automatic and my team on control so they don't always go forward but enough I fee. May change them to attack though. Central Am is Adv. Play. Support and striker is a Poacher. Have as MCs a DLP and BWM on Support/Defend.

How I want to set up the two AMs is to have them set up the poacher along with the central AM and MCs as well as each other. Also want them to run onto through balls. Would like bit of roaming as well. Basically how Spain are set up really. Both as Trequartistas?

[crouchaldinho]

When I played the narrow 4-2-3-1 for a while, I set the AMs as attacking midfielders on attack duty, which saw them roaming and playing in the channels. Also, maybe think about changing one of your fullbacks to wingback to encourage him to get forward more?

[roseboy64]

When I played the narrow 4-2-3-1 for a while, I set the AMs as attacking midfielders on attack duty, which saw them roaming and playing in the channels. Also, maybe think about changing one of your fullbacks to wingback to encourage him to get forward more?

Well my RB seems like he'd make a good WB. Will see how that works.

[yonko]

Well, after I went out of the CL earlier with Barca to Dinamo Kiev on away goals rule (lost 0-2 away and won 3-1 home), I've changed my 4-2-3-1 to the more conventional one using two MC's. So now it looks like this:

GK - normal settings

DR - wingback-attack (Alves), fullback-attack (Puyol)

DL - fullback-attack (Abidal), wingback-attack (Maxwell)

DCr - ball-playing defender-defend (Pique, Marquez, Chygrinsky)

DCl - defender-cover (Puyol, Milito, Pique)

MCl - ball-winning midfielder-defend (Busquets, Yaya, Keita)

MCr - advanced playmaker-support (Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets)

AMR - inside forward-attack (Pedro, Bojan) mixed RFD, moves into channels

AMC - trequartista-attack (Messi, Iniesta, Di Maria) mixed RFD, often RWB

AML - inside forward-attack (Iniesta, Di Maria) mixed RFD, moves into channels

FC - advanced forward-attack (Villa, Henry) rarely RFD, moves into channels

Messi is having a 40+ goals season so far, 29 goals of which in the league with two games left until the end of the season, from the AMC position. He looks like he does at the WC right now, only he scores his chances. He also has 15+ assists so far.

I will post some more details later.

[zychan1]

Well, after I went out of the CL earlier with Barca to Dinamo Kiev on away goals rule (lost 0-2 away and won 3-1 home), I've changed my 4-2-3-1 to the more conventional one using two MC's. So now it looks like this:

GK - normal settings

DR - wingback-attack (Alves), fullback-attack (Puyol)

DL - fullback-attack (Abidal), wingback-attack (Maxwell)

DCr - ball-playing defender-defend (Pique, Marquez, Chygrinsky)

DCl - defender-cover (Puyol, Milito, Pique)

MCl - ball-winning midfielder-defend (Busquets, Yaya, Keita)

MCr - advanced playmaker-support (Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets)

AMR - inside forward-attack (Pedro, Bojan) mixed RFD, moves into channels

AMC - trequartista-attack (Messi, Iniesta, Di Maria) mixed RFD, often RWB

AML - inside forward-attack (Iniesta, Di Maria) mixed RFD, moves into channels

FC - advanced forward-attack (Villa, Henry) rarely RFD, moves into channels

Messi is having a 40+ goals season so far, 29 goals of which in the league with two games left until the end of the season, from the AMC position. He looks like he does at the WC right now, only he scores his chances. He also has 15+ assists so far.

I will post some more details later.

Whoa, that looks like an ultra-attacking formation and tactics you're using there. Won't you be caught on the break especially on the wings with both FBs on attacking formation? Granted you're Barcelona but I can't imagine you dominating every match and retaining much of possession, especially away from home. Still, whatever suits you I suppose? 40+ goals from Messi is certainly nothing to scoff at. Are the other players scoring much though, or is it just Messi?

[yonko]

Whoa, that looks like an ultra-attacking formation and tactics you're using there. Won't you be caught on the break especially on the wings with both FBs on attacking formation? Granted you're Barcelona but I can't imagine you dominating every match and retaining much of possession, especially away from home. Still, whatever suits you I suppose? 40+ goals from Messi is certainly nothing to scoff at. Are the other players scoring much though, or is it just Messi?

Attack is the best form of defense, my friend ;-)

This is the final league table:

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/3131/screenshot20100618at125.png

These are the squad stats:

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/3131/screenshot20100618at125.png

Team instructions:

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/7469/screenshot20100618at113.png

Messi's instructions:

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/5492/screenshot20100618at114.png

However, when I played Dynamo Kiev in the round of 16 in the CL, I lost on the away goals rule after losing 0-2 away and winning 3-1 at home. In the home game I was up 2-0 and their GK kicked the ball long to their FC running behind my defense and he killed me with blasting the ball into the net 1v1 vs Valdes. I lost Copa del Rey 2-3 vs Villareal the same way, when Rossi was played behind my defense. These are the only two times I was caught at the back, but that's because I kept my D-line pushed up when I had gained advantage score-wise. I just didn't react tactically well in both occasions out of cockiness I guess.