2 Box-to-Box midfielders?

[Nazdroid]

Has anyone used two Box-to-Box midfielders in the same tactic? if so, does it work?

I will be playing with a flat 3 in center midfield, the idea is this:

BBM (support) CM (defend) BBM (support)

Thanks!

[Cleon]

Anything in FM can work, what's important is how you implement it and how the other players are set up.

Why wouldn't two BBM's work in a flat 3 like you mention?

[Nazdroid]

Anything in FM can work, what's important is how you implement it and how the other players are set up.

Why wouldn't two BBM's work in a flat 3 like you mention?

Thanks for the reply! I think I read somewhere that two BBM's doesn't work.

Here's the complete formation I'm going to try it with... what's your thoughts?

----------------CF(atk)

---------AP(atk)--AM(sup)

--------BBM--CD(def)--BBM

WB(sup)-CD(def)-CD(def)-FB(sup)

[Cleon]

Where did you read that it didn't work? Without context that is wrong and misleading. Everything needs context!

For example it can and does work. However in your example it makes you really top heavy and I can't see the benefit of how or why you'd want two box to box midfielders in that kind of set up? You have two players already in the AM strata and a striker on attack. When the BBM's drive forward and you lose possession of the ball then you're going to be wide open and be susceptible for counter attacks. You'd have one player - The CMD responsible for marking and covering the entire midfield if they get caught out high up the pitch. It also makes you very narrow which in turn can make it easy for the opposition to dominate you with wide play.

I'm not really sure what you're wanting to achieve with the above set up but I don't think it's well thought out and it's certainly not balanced at all. It seems to be only focused on you attacking with little focus on what happens when you don't have the ball or if you lose it fast. How can a CMD cover the entire midfield?

[Nazdroid]

Thanks for the advice, i'm not a football manager wizard and I know I still have a lot to learn.

This is the formation I'd defiantly want to play with, however is there any recommendation on tweaking the middle 3's roles? such as maybe setting one of them to a CM(auto)??

Or if tweaking the middle 3's roles wouldn't work, is there some other players mentality/role you would change without changing the formation?

many thanks!

[Cyderman]

Two BBM works well in formations like a narrow diamond where you are spreading your team out vertically across all 5 lines (excl sweeper) and still need to have numbers in attack / numbers in defence. It also works where you have more static creative roles in the DMC or AMC slots and you need movement around them. Players with high workrate and mediocre stamina tend to burn themselves out in these roles however and you often find them completing the game in low 60s% fitness - so you might need a dedicate 3rd player on the bench. There are some good RL examples of this working - like Sampaoli's Chile - https://defendingwiththeball.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/chile-attack-attack-and-then-attack-some-more/ - the formation (and strat) is very different to yours.

With your formation - there is no space for the BBM to move forward into. I would guess they won't push forward in possession as you would like because the two AMCs are taking the space. The space is all out wide. Also the flat three MCs can still leave space behind for opponents to exploit particularly on fast transition / counter. You can somewhat compensate for that with a very high D-line - but that causes other problems to deal with (you mobile fast DCs - and a high line doesn't work without pressure on the ball).

[chob]

Thanks for the advice, i'm not a football manager wizard and I know I still have a lot to learn.

This is the formation I'd defiantly want to play with, however is there any recommendation on tweaking the middle 3's roles? such as maybe setting one of them to a CM(auto)??

Or if tweaking the middle 3's roles wouldn't work, is there some other players mentality/role you would change without changing the formation?

many thanks!

Hi, Im using the same formation but with different roles and it's fairly successful. However you do need to make sure you have the right players for it:

-----------AF (A)

-----------AP (S) SS (A)

-------DLP (S) CM(D) AP (S)

----WB (S) CD (D) CD (D) WB (S)

----------------GK (D)

I've purposely put the AF to the left (just in front of the AP) to let the SS have space to run into. Although i really don't know if i actually needed to do that.

--

[Kick Wilstra]

Instead of BBM(s) you could set the wide CM's to something like BWM(s). In that role they still will contribute some to the attack if they see the opportunity to do so, but they'll be a bit more defensively orientated, and are more like to put pressure on any opposition wide players so they'll reduce the load on your fullbacks, who seem to be under threat of being overloaded by the opposition if they play with wingers and overlapping fullbacks.