Developing my 4-4-2

[jc577]

You could perhaps use a wide-playmaker and a winger on the flanks? Ross Wallace from what I recall is a good crosser of the ball, and i'm sure foristieri would be a good wide-playmaker, although you'd probably want to use him as the Trequartisa. 

[Rakatics]

On 2017-6-8 at 16:46, Rashidi said:

I got a new challenge for you, was coaching someone on playing the 442, and challenged him to go without any Defend duties in midfield :-) You may find it surprising, if you are still doing the 442 that is.

 

On 2017-6-8 at 17:41, herne79 said:

Funny you should mention that.

I've been toying with something along those lines off and on for a while now (although usually as a 4231 / 4411), and was actually looking at it again earlier today.  Inspiration taken from some of the old sfraser threads.

Amazing what you can achieve with mentality and team shape combinations .

Could you develop it?

 

I find it that in a flat 4-4-2, the middfield shouldnt have any player on a defend duty (specially central midfielders, havent tried with a wide midfielder on defend).

 

The strenght of a flat 4-4-2 is it's flatness and compactness. I feel that with a central midfielder on a defend duty it creates a lot of gaps.

 

With all midfielders on a support duty (maybe on wide midfielder on an attack duty) most adapting and tweaking you make is with the defensive line (one of cleons n.1 rule - checking the defensive line) - either prevent passes into space or to remove time and space from the n.10

[FMWolf]

And you would have to toy with mentality/shape I guess. Something along the lines of Defensive/Counter with Very Fluid/Fluid to lower the central midfielders mentality, allowing them to still provide their cover duties for the team. This and some PI's, such as hold position p.e

[ajsr1982]

I thought I'd jump on to this thread rather than start a new one. It's interesting that some of the posts earlier had mentioned going without any defensive duties. I've taken this to the extreme; I don't have any attack duties either!

This is an attempt at anti-football, while still hoping to nick a goal. Comments are welcome.

The formation:

GK/D

FB/S    CD/D    CD/D    FB/S

WM/S    DLP/S    CM/S    WM/S

DF/S    DLF/S

This is on Defensive and Very Fluid.

Defensive because I effectively want to be extremely hard to beat. That means dropping deep, playing narrow, and not taking too many risks in attack. It also means I perhaps don't need the 'belt and braces' of defensive duties.

Very Fluid because I don't want to leave too many gaps between my players, particularly in between midfield and defence.

Team Instructions:

Higher Tempo: This is really to offset the slower passing that comes with the Defensive mentality. Inviting the opposition on to me and leaving two up front, I might be able to create 2-on2 situations. I also don't want my central midfielders hanging on to the ball too long in an area of the pitch where they're going to find themselves often outnumbered. This is Serie C in Italy, and that horrible 5-3-2 formation (where the midfield is a DM and two CMs) crops up all too often.

Be More Disciplined: To offset the creativity that comes with Very Fluid. I want the compactness without the players deciding what to do.

Pass Into Space: There should be space in behind the opposition.

Drop Deeper: If I'm conceding the space in front of my midfield, I might as well make sure there is absolutely zero space in behind me.

Close Down Much Less: See above, and this is all about keeping the shape.

Player Instructions:

WMs: Get Further Forward, Sit Narrower - This is an effort to aid defence and keep a narrow shape, but also to try and offer some support to the attack.

DF: Move Into Channels - Some lateral movement up front is never a bad thing.

Let's see how it goes. I'm worried about the following:

- A lack of movement and the creation of passing options

- The DF chasing the opposition with no backup.

- Being susceptible to long shots.

- The lack of a real option in behind the opposition defence.

- Being one-dimensional in attack, with no real supply line from wide positions.

[jc577]

I think there's a lot of value in creating a tactic that is very difficult to break down. This issue i've had with counter/defensive tactics is trying to ensure we remain a threat but this often comes at the expense of defensive stability which obviously is the most important element. A few comments: 

- The combination of dropping deeper on a defensive mentality and closing down much less could lead to opponents pinning you around your box, a normal defensive line could suffice. 

- Could be worth adding the instruction 'Holds Up The Ball' to your DF so that if he does win the ball he can wait for support.

- A bit of variation of the WMs could add a lot to attacks. With PIs you could have one as an inside forward and the other as a winger, and I don't think you would lose anything defensively.

Edited June 15, 2017 by jc577

[ajsr1982]

10 minutes ago, jc577 said:

I think there's a lot of value in creating a tactic that is very difficult to break down. This issue i've had with counter/defensive tactics is trying to ensure we remain a threat but this often comes at the expense of defensive stability which obviously is the most important element. A few comments: 

- The combination of dropping deeper on a defensive mentality and closing down much less could lead to opponents pinning you around your box, a normal defensive line could suffice. 

- Could be worth adding the instruction 'Holds Up The Ball' to your DF so that if he does win the ball he can wait for support.

- A bit of variation of the WMs could add a lot to attacks. With PIs you could have one as an inside forward and the other as a winger, and I don't think you would lose anything defensively.

Good points all.

My point about being susceptible to long shots was pretty much the same thing as being pinned in and around my box.

The DLF has 'Hold up ball' as standard. I'm not sure I want both CFs doing it, but then, I'm not sure the DF is the correct role anyway.

I'll be keeping an eye on the WM positions, as this is going to be my main avenue of attack.

[jc577]

Let me know how you get on, gonna take a crack at this myself over the weekend.

[SuperShaka]

This thread finally made tactics make more sense.

Thanks a bunch for making me feel like I am in control.

Awesome :D

Edited August 29, 2018 by SuperShaka

[Cocxa]

@herne79 I'd like to ask what would you change in your Thames Ironworks tactic having these new roles, like inverted winger, mezzala or carillero or would you rather stay with the roles you gave.

I've modified some things on my own and that helped me in creating a monsterous team, but I'm quite curious what's your opinion here.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Cocxa

[herne79]

1 hour ago, Cocxa said:

@herne79 I'd like to ask what would you change in your Thames Ironworks tactic having these new roles, like inverted winger, mezzala or carillero or would you rather stay with the roles you gave.

I've modified some things on my own and that helped me in creating a monsterous team, but I'm quite curious what's your opinion here.

I wouldn't change anything - at least not without trying things out.  It still works well in FM18.

The Inverted Winger is pretty much what my left "winger" does anyway; the Carillero I wouldn't go anywhere near unless it's a wingless tactic (it's what the role is designed for plus you can mess up how your wingers behave if you use wingers); and the Mezzala may lack the central threat I'd be after (although could experiment).

That's not to say the new roles wouldn't work with tweaks (and it sounds like they are for you), I'm just happy with where it's at for me (it's probably my #1 favourite tactic, although a couple this year have come close).

[Cocxa]

Unfortunately I've got some offensive issues recently, but it's start of the 7th season, so I can understand that AI knows my playing style. And the combo of AF + Trequarista doesn't work so smoothly in my team, so I need to tweak some things. F9 + AF wasn't a solution too.

On the roles - Carillero was very useful when I was outnumbered in midfield by the best teams, and I paired him with DLP (D), but I'd rather have BBM and BWM. Inverted wingers did some wonders too. Mezzala is far too offensive in 4-4-2 I'm afraid.

 

But I'm not surprised it's one of your favourites tactics, never seen my team so solid overally. Thanks for the response.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Cocxa

[herne79]

41 minutes ago, Cocxa said:

so I can understand that AI knows my playing style.

No, it really doesn't.  The AI may change how it plays against you based on your form or success, but it never knows how you play.

[djpdavey]

On 22/12/2015 at 00:04, 1967 said:

I've had zero issues partnering a DLF with an AF and having the DLF drop deep. Are you sure you weren't missing anything glaring that could have made your striker play like an AF? I find it weird.

How often was it actually happening? What's his PPMs? Average position? Have you switched the BBM to his side? What was his off the ball rating? Teamwork/ Workrate?

Also, duude, what sort of a squad have you assembled? I'm not having a dig.

I've often struggled to get the DLF or DF OR F9 to drop deep enough. I think it is PPM's that is required to make them drop deep enough some times.

[jc577]

1 hour ago, herne79 said:

No, it really doesn't.  The AI may change how it plays against you based on your form or success, but it never knows how you play.

Say for example you set up your team to play in a pressing style, and your reputation has increased over the years due to the success of the tactic, will the AI opt to hit longer passes from defence because they know you like to press, or is that just a symptom of defensive football causes by your increase in reputation?

Really struggled to word this so apologies if my question isn’t clear 

[herne79]

29 minutes ago, jc577 said:

or is that just a symptom of defensive football causes by your increase in reputation?

That .

It's also the exact same thing during the course of individual matches, except it'll be how the match progresses rather than rep/form.  Ever go in at half time 2-0 up and the opposition come out fighting in the second half?  Or they go 1-0 up and shut up shop?  It's the same thing.  The AI adapts to you (and is actually pretty good at it) based on your performance - either over the course of a season and/or during each match.

[jc577]

16 minutes ago, herne79 said:

That .

It's also the exact same thing during the course of individual matches, except it'll be how the match progresses rather than rep/form.  Ever go in at half time 2-0 up and the opposition come out fighting in the second half?  Or they go 1-0 up and shut up shop?  It's the same thing.  The AI adapts to you (and is actually pretty good at it) based on your performance - either over the course of a season and/or during each match.

Got it, thanks. I’ve even seen the AI go 1-0 up and switch to defensive 4-1-4-1 immediately after! 

[Zardoz]

As a caveat: I am also not a native English speaker and typo-prone, so do not be to harsh on any mistakes. And I have not read this thread completely.

I only want to attach some experience with the classic 442 in FM 17 from my recent save. I prefer a set-up with wing backs especially with underdogs to be more stable in defense. However, after changing the club I had no wingbacks. Furthermore, my experience at lower level clubs was that the modern systems with AMFs as wingers and 1 single forward are not very effective in the attack. I think that this is caused by having winger which are not good at finishing. As least I found no wingers with good finishing qualities who want to play at my clubs.

So I rely on tactics with 2 forwards. In lower leagues I set up rigid and highly structured formations because the players are not very creative and the main "brainwork" is done by a playmaker in the midfield. Furthermore, from my view this helps to avoids "holes" in the mid as there is no defensive midfielder. In the centre I have an advanced playmaker (the "brain") on support or attack (depending on the quality of the opponent) and a BWM on defense (as something similar to a DMF). Because I have good wingers I attack on the flanks.With a deep laying playmaker the team is not so effective. I assume that then to less personell ogf mine is in the opposite area.

This works very well at the moment. I play a team in the Irish premier league.

[Experienced Defender]

On 15/06/2017 at 22:36, ajsr1982 said:

I thought I'd jump on to this thread rather than start a new one. It's interesting that some of the posts earlier had mentioned going without any defensive duties. I've taken this to the extreme; I don't have any attack duties either!

This is an attempt at anti-football, while still hoping to nick a goal. Comments are welcome.

The formation:

GK/D

FB/S    CD/D    CD/D    FB/S

WM/S    DLP/S    CM/S    WM/S

DF/S    DLF/S

This is on Defensive and Very Fluid.

Defensive because I effectively want to be extremely hard to beat. That means dropping deep, playing narrow, and not taking too many risks in attack. It also means I perhaps don't need the 'belt and braces' of defensive duties.

Very Fluid because I don't want to leave too many gaps between my players, particularly in between midfield and defence.

Team Instructions:

Higher Tempo: This is really to offset the slower passing that comes with the Defensive mentality. Inviting the opposition on to me and leaving two up front, I might be able to create 2-on2 situations. I also don't want my central midfielders hanging on to the ball too long in an area of the pitch where they're going to find themselves often outnumbered. This is Serie C in Italy, and that horrible 5-3-2 formation (where the midfield is a DM and two CMs) crops up all too often.

Be More Disciplined: To offset the creativity that comes with Very Fluid. I want the compactness without the players deciding what to do.

Pass Into Space: There should be space in behind the opposition.

Drop Deeper: If I'm conceding the space in front of my midfield, I might as well make sure there is absolutely zero space in behind me.

Close Down Much Less: See above, and this is all about keeping the shape.

Player Instructions:

WMs: Get Further Forward, Sit Narrower - This is an effort to aid defence and keep a narrow shape, but also to try and offer some support to the attack.

DF: Move Into Channels - Some lateral movement up front is never a bad thing.

Let's see how it goes. I'm worried about the following:

- A lack of movement and the creation of passing options

- The DF chasing the opposition with no backup.

- Being susceptible to long shots.

- The lack of a real option in behind the opposition defence.

- Being one-dimensional in attack, with no real supply line from wide positions.

In reference to the bolded parts, I would try this system:

TMs    DLFs

 

DWs    BtBM    DLPs    Ws

 

IWBd     CDd     DCBd     FBs

GK/SWKd

Defensive / Flexible

TIs - play out of defence, float crosses, stick to positions

GK/SWKd - fewer risky passes

CDd - fewer risky passes

FBs - cross more often, cross aim target man

BtBM - get further forward, mark tighter (optionally tackle harder)

DLPs - mark tighter, close down less

Ws - get further forward

TMs - pass shorter, fewer risky passes

DLFs - move into channels, roam from position

This is a basic tactic. Possible tweaks would vary depending on what I see watching a match.

[Harpoon76]

Having only read this thread for the first time (I think!) yesterday, another thank you for Herne.

I've been trying to build a similar ethos / tactic on my current FM17 save with Leeds and I hope what I've learned will help find that little bit extra.  I had widgets for formation and body language showing when in match (I got my pants pulled down many a time prior to having the AI formation on screen at all times!) but I've added the stat's widget based on Herne's advice.