Deep Lying Playmaker in a 4-2-3-1.

[DAPOS1993]

Hey guys, this is my first post so just shout out to me if I'm doing anything wrong! Anyway, I've decided to employ a deep lying playmaker in a 4-2-3-1 formation with a support role. He has a ball winning midfielder with a defend role beside him and a advanced playmaker with an attack duty ahead of him. I'm just wondering seeing as there's 2 different playmakers in this formation, is one going to be nullified by the other or is possible to get them to play together in a xavi and iniesta like fashion? Thanks lads.

[DavidBeckham]

I set my team up exactly the same way as you in home matches and they work perfectly fine! The deep lying playmaker doesn't get impressive ratings though as the front 3 + lone striker produce most of the goals and assists. However I find it hard playing away without a holding DM so I would shift the ball winning midfielder back and the AP back into his position.

[Althaz]

I have a similar setup, but I've found much improved performances with the Attacking Playmaker on support. I've got Joe Allen as my primary DLP and he is having the season of his life (averaging about a goal or assist per game).

I played a 4-5-1/4-3-3 last season and found that although Joe was solid (and the team was worse when he was gone) he never got good ratings. I switched to the 4-2-3-1 towards the end of the season and saw no improvement, until I switched the AMC to support, then it started raining goals (50 goals in the league after 12 matches)!

[Graham206]

I've been playing that set up with Spurs with great success, with Dembélé or Huddlestone as DLP and Sigurdsson/Dempsey/Wellington Nem as AP. I don't find any problem with two playmakers getting in each other's way: I set the DLP as the team's prime playmaker.

The problem I sometimes find is DLF (Support) and the AP (Attack) getting too close together which I deal with (depending on who I'm playing) by either just switching the AP to AM Support or turning the AP to AP support and turning my striker to CF Atttack.

[Althaz]

@Graham I noticed a similar problem which is why my AP is now on support and my STC is setup as Treq rather than a deep-lying forward. My AP is only on attack when I play 4-5-1/4-3-3 because he's in the MC position then.

[Braenn]

I think people generally underestimate just how defensive a DLP(S) is. While they play plenty of attacking balls - their positioning can be pretty deep. This is fine if you want that behaviour but if you partner them with another defensive player your midfield can be static and disjointed. You can end up with those two pretty deep, and then a line of your four attacking players all being marked standing on the edge of the opposition box.

I think this is one of the most common problems people are having when it comes to building a 4-2-3-1.

[Cleon]

I think people generally underestimate just how defensive a DLP(S) is. While they play plenty of attacking balls - their positioning can be pretty deep. This is fine if you want that behaviour but if you partner them with another defensive player your midfield can be static and disjointed. You can end up with those two pretty deep, and then a line of your four attacking players all being marked standing on the edge of the opposition box.

I think this is one of the most common problems people are having when it comes to building a 4-2-3-1.

In most set ups I see people use the DLP as the defensive player and normally use a more attacking player along side.

[dankrzyz]

In most set ups I see people use the DLP as the defensive player and normally use a more attacking player along side.

+1. Even in a 4-2-3-1 with DMCs, my play improved when I changed from DLP(s)/DMC(d) to DLP(d)/DMC(s). The DMC in a supporting role got forward enough to truly contribute in the middle of the pitch.

[ShirazS]

Agreed, I changed my BWM to a support duty and my DLP to a defend duty. It has made a huge difference, there is one player always holding (DLP) and the BWM gets forward and contributes to the attack. Especially if you have attacking Full-Backs, you need one midfielder to stay put in front of the Center Backs and a BWM-Defend does not do that.

[Althaz]

I think people generally underestimate just how defensive a DLP(S) is. While they play plenty of attacking balls - their positioning can be pretty deep. This is fine if you want that behaviour but if you partner them with another defensive player your midfield can be static and disjointed. You can end up with those two pretty deep, and then a line of your four attacking players all being marked standing on the edge of the opposition box.

I think this is one of the most common problems people are having when it comes to building a 4-2-3-1.

I think if you have an attacking playmaker in front in a 4-2-3-1 and your "2" is in the CM slot, this is exactly what you want. That way you get an aggressive ball-winner (BWM-D) and a sit-in-place playmaker (DLP-S) which can protect your defence but also participate in the play. I don't like a DLP-S in a 4-2-3-1 Deep (prefer DLP-D and DM-S combo) because they are worse defensively than the other options but not that much better in an attacking sense.

[joshgo]

I've been struggling with this choice in my Everton save. I have Vadis Odijda and Fellaini as my MCs in this formation. I currently have Odijda set as DLP/d and Fellaini as box-to-box. I originally had Odijda on support and Fellaini as BWM/d, but didn't think Fellaini was getting involved enough in the play in the final third and wanted to encourage that. I though going with box-to-box would still allow him to play a role defensively, while also contributing to the attack more. I switched Odijda to defend to help offset Fellaini's more advanced runs.

What I have seen is that while we are dominating possession more, we are also giving up more chances through the middle. Odijda actually appears to average a pretty advanced position on the field compared to what I thought he would do with the defend duty and seems to be quite involved in the final third.

I've liked Fellaini as box-to-box, but am not opposed to changing him to just give him more attacking license, AM/support? Would switching Odijda to ballwinner or cm keep him back more to cover for Fellaini? Would defense be better than support for that then?

I've also toyed with the idea of having them swap positions throughout the game to try to draw out opposition markers. Any thoughts? Thanks.

[DominicForza]

You can always tweak individual sliders manually. I like to use the tactical creator as a starting point, but then tweak stuff on my own. I find that I can do better setting the distance between lines this way than the TC. Granted it may be that I don't "understand how to use the TC." I can live with that!

Also I greatly prefer 2 DMCs in a 4231, unless I am significantly superior to opposition, expect to boss the match and they are NOT using an AMC. If you have problems with the gap between DMCs and AMs being to disconnected, try playing with a MC on attacking setting instead of an AMC.

[The Chosen One]

AMC with an attack will push way further and in most cases into the opposition's box. This leaves bigger gap with your defensive midfielder and DLP. The AMC willn't also get much assist. I also had that problem until I changed to support. He plays between my midfielders and forward exactly what I wanted. If I am losing and it's towards the end (70+) I change him to attack to add another player into the opposition's box while also changing my DLP to Advanced Playmaker with support (my defensive midfielder is changed from defend to support)

[bbuullddoogg]

What about your wide players? FB/WBs and wingers/IF’s? Do you give them attack duty?

[The Chosen One]

What about your wide players? FB/WBs and wingers/IF’s? Do you give them attack duty?

Wingers/IFs I set to Support home and away. Unless I am playing at home against poor opponents with poor form. In my first season, I struggled the first half of the season and one of the main factors was I had my wide players (wingers/IFs) as attacking. This really puts too much on your fullbacks because often they have to face the opposing wingers all by themselves. This will result often your fullbacks getting beat especially against superior players. Support duty ensures the wide players get back offer double protection. It won't necesserly eliminate opposing players exposing your fullbacks but will minimize. I switch the wide players to attack half way through the second half if I am losing or drawing (only home fixtures... away I won't change unless am losing).

[bbuullddoogg]

Ok thanks. I’m trying to put my 4-2-3-1 together. Would you mind listing your players roles/duties? You mentioned a defensive midfielder. So do you play 2 CM’s or 2 DM’s?

Something like this?

DR WB(A)

DL WB(A)

DC CD(D)

DC CD(D)

DMC DLP(D)

DMC DM(S)

AMC AP(S)

AML IF(S)

AMR IF(S)

FC TQ(A)/DLF(S)?

I know the perfect solution is whatever works best for your own players but I’m just trying to get a basic starting point that spaces out my players well and has them covering for each other but not having them too close together to where they become ineffective. I think this is a big deal in FM13.

[N1ck]

I thought I would hijack this thread, just need a little bit of help from the experts. Basically Im playing a 4-2-3-1, balanced philosophy and my strategy is always counter, then go attacking later on the match, depending on the situation. The main issue for me that i need help with is that I think the upper middle part of my team is getting a bit congested. Its seems to work fine when my main two central midfielders are Cabaye on DLP (S) and Lucas DLP (D), however when I have to rotate my cm's I put Shelvey in for Cabaye and change his position to a AP (S), then farther up the field I have to IF's on attack, and AM (S) and a DLF (S). Would it be wise to change Shelvey to just a CM (S) or something like this?

[Sleepydude]

Two IFs and an AMC can cause some congestion. Maybe try changing one of the IFs to a winger.

This is how I setup my 4231:

   FB-CD-CD-FB
   CM(D) - CM(S) 
W(S) - AM(A) - IF(A) 
      CF(S)

I like the combination of AM(A) and CF(S) because they both have roaming and the AM will act as a second striker lots of the time, they both create space for each other. The winger, who is a good crosser, gets many assists. It helps if your CF is a good header. The IF on the left is actually left footed and has decent crossing skills too so he doesn't cut inside all the time.

You need a very good complete forward though, ideally somebody who is strong, tall and has at least decent passing, decisions and creativity.

[RTHerringbone]

This is an interesting article about 4-2-3-1: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/15/the-question-4231-football-tactics

[Cleon]

This is an interesting article about 4-2-3-1: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/15/the-question-4231-football-tactics

I read that earlier but I think the issue is not the formation but the type of players that managers are trying to use on the wings. Lazy/selfish wide players will highlight the major flaws in that system if they fail to track back due to the fullback been exposed. I'm not sure what the Jonathan Wilson is trying to get at though because the faults/issues have always existed in this shape and he's well aware of it. I'm surprised he couldn't find more recent examples though and for three quarters of the article kept using examples from 2010.

I like Jonathan Wilson but it feels like he wrote that just for the sake of it imo.

[jaycar]

Thats a great article. very interesting.

[RTHerringbone]

I read that earlier but I think the issue is not the formation but the type of players that managers are trying to use on the wings. Lazy/selfish wide players will highlight the major flaws in that system if they fail to track back due to the fullback been exposed. I'm not sure what the Jonathan Wilson is trying to get at though because the faults/issues have always existed in this shape and he's well aware of it. I'm surprised he couldn't find more recent examples though and for three quarters of the article kept using examples from 2010.

I like Jonathan Wilson but it feels like he wrote that just for the sake of it imo.

I guess journalists are tasked to churn out a set number of articles per week.

There were no really modern examples of the 4-2-3-1 in the article, so he probably had this on the back-burner for a while when waiting for a quiet news week.

I just found it interesting generally, and amusing that I now think of tactics in FM first, and then real life second!

[themadsheep2001]

I guess journalists are tasked to churn out a set number of articles per week.

There were no really modern examples of the 4-2-3-1 in the article, so he probably had this on the back-burner for a while when waiting for a quiet news week.

I just found it interesting generally, and amusing that I now think of tactics in FM first, and then real life second!

Does anyone else find themselves watching a match on TV and end up trying to break it down into FM terms?

[Gee_Simpson]

I guess journalists are tasked to churn out a set number of articles per week.

There were no really modern examples of the 4-2-3-1 in the article, so he probably had this on the back-burner for a while when waiting for a quiet news week.

I just found it interesting generally, and amusing that I now think of tactics in FM first, and then real life second!

Does anyone else find themselves watching a match on TV and end up trying to break it down into FM terms?

That's when you know you need help