Advice on 3-4-1-2

[Andrew Haines]

Hoping for a bit of advice. I am working on a 3-4-1-2 formation. I am set on 3-4-1-2 because every formation I come up with is dominated by goals by fullback assists. I like the weighting of the team towards midfielders and attackers and my favorite components of a team are a front two, wingers and an attacking midfielders. This shape allows me all these elements but I am finding it very difficult to get a succesful balance. I am hoping for some advice on how to get this working well.

I want to play a passing game so the TIs are built around this. No players have PIs. I want the style of play to be that most chances will come from interplay amongst the midfielders creating chances for the AF (I have also tried a poacher in this role) and the DLF offering goals and getting involved in the interplay. The wide players are there to a large degree to protect the flanks but also to give width in the bulid up play.

The wide midfielders are both defensive wingers, these seemed to offer more flank protection than wide midfielders. Both are on defend duty, I would usually like varied duties from each but support doesn't seem to give the cover needed on the flank. This leaves me reluctant to play a third midfielder on defend duty although with a flat midfield four this feels necessary.

Hoping someone can give me some suggestions as I am finding it really difficult to find a good balance. Either the midfield is too stoic or it doesn't offer enough protection and the gap between midfield and defence or the flanks are exploited.

tactic - this is a fairly typical setup.

[tmpnd]

DW is not a role i really like to use for a lone wide man. Wing back/CWB are the roles you're looking for most of the time unless you really, really know what you're doing.

My mandatory advice:

Pull back the ML/MR to WBL/WBR or DL/DR and give them WB roles. Its easier to make a WB(A) work rather than a DW(D) on that system, i wouldn't ever use a DW(D) unless i'm playing a static midfielder improvised. DW(S) can be a very interesting role, though, specially if they have high work rate and close down a lot. Also note, however, that should a winger possess good mentals, he will still be very useful defensively with a W(S) role/duty as it's a runner role in its nature. Think of Aaron Lennon and Ashley Young. There's also Antonio Valencia, he tracks back so much people started to play him as a defender. Note however that I still strongly advise against using wingers as lone wide men, and WBs are the way to go for you.

Swap out (D) duties for (S) out wide. The (D) duty makes them very underused in build-up.

Swap out the (A) duty for (S) in the CM. The attack duty is leaving you a big gap in the midfield because he's too far forward when possession is lost. Central midfielders on attack duty are much better suited for 3-man midfields where you can divide tasks more. Midfielders on (S) are late runners so don't worry about support unless it's a sitter role.

If you're going to stick with a deep-lying playmaker, make it (D). But I suggest CM(D) if he's able to play it. CM(D) closes down more, but not as much as a BWM and still holds position. He'll play some really nice balls at times, as well, if the player is suited for that. DLP on (S) isn't as safe as on (D), and he tries long shots quite often, which somewhat harms your patient build-up. If you can pin the opposition back, feel free to use (S) though, as you might benefit from these long shots.

My optional advice:

Give your central CB (X) and the other 2 ©. This way your back 3 will be able to handle counterattacks on themselves, and the stopper/cover strata really suits a back 3 because the X is very similar to a BWM, but it's still a CB

Close down much more TI. Really suits passing styles unless your team has bad stamina/work rate/aggression/defends deep.

Swap the CM role to a BWM(S). He will still make forward runs and contribute in build-up, but he tracks back, and in addition to a CM(D) and a DC(X) you'd have a really solid pressing system in the middle.

Swap the DLP to a CM(D) and use a BPD, preferably the stopper, if using a stopper. This will help balance your build-up from deep. The X should be given that role because he steps higher. It's advisable to have a suitable player for that, though. But it's not a real sin to play any defender with that role/duty, unless he has really bad aggression and passing.

Give an attack duty to the wide player that plays on the side of your DLP, make your Advanced Forward play on the opposite side from him. This helps in build-up. And never give a wide player a defense duty unless you're playing a CB improvised there. If he's not as quick as Peter Crouch and can strike a ball, give it support.

Ask your GK to roll it out, distribute to CBs and fewer risky passes. Suits passing styles building up from the back.

Ask all your front 3 to roam from positions unless they have poor mentals. Will encourage your front guys to make more advantage from wider spaces your wingers currently don't occupy. If you're playing a DLF that has cuts inside PPM he will also move to the flanks to do that, at times.

Play Flexible mentality. Personal choice. You don't need compactness at all. You need space to open up and invite the opposition higher up a little bit. Fluid can still be used, though.

If your DLF is a key player and is good enough, play him as CF(S). CF(S) is a broken OP role for a #10. This is just my opinion, though.

If your AM is a key player and is good enough, play him as Enganche. Personal choice again, IMO it's the ultimate playmaker role for the AM strata and (most of the time) only suits a passing game. I like to think of the Attacking Midfielder role as a deeper striker role, just as I see wingers in the AML/R as wide strikers. This is just my own point of view, of course.

@herne79

Edited. By the way, i edited so many times I sound a bit redundant , so sorry in advance.

[herne79]

@tmpnd - it could help the OP if you explain why you make the suggestions that you do. For example why change DW to wingback? What advantage would that give the OP to play the passing game that he wants? Why change mentality to Flexible? Why use close down much more? Why give the central defender a stopper duty if his problem is a lack of defensive protection? It can be much more helpful if you explain advice .

@OP - this is the key part for me:

Either the midfield is too stoic or it doesn't offer enough protection and the gap between midfield and defence or the flanks are exploited.

You've already identified what is probably your main issue - a lack of protection in front of your back 3. As you already have 3 players in advanced positions high up the pitch, you don't really need such a relatively forward thinking midfield pairing. A defend duty + a support duty duo could help you here, possibly a Box to Box midfielder (who will still get forwards in support but can offer better defensive protection than a CM-A) plus a DLP def (if you want to stick with a playmaker role) or change to a CM(D)/BWM(D) if you want something more aggressive to break up play (assuming you have the player for it - not the static Huddlestone).

Further, one or both outside centre halves may benefit from being given a Stopper duty. That can help them move more aggressively towards the flanks to help the defensive winger if being attacked there, safe in the knowledge you still have 2 central defenders behind plus central midfielders tracking back to cover.

Finally, watch how your wingers are playing. Are they getting forwards enough to provide support? How is their crossing (are they wasting possession)? Are they providing sufficient defensive work? You'd need to watch some matches (just go back and review some you've already played) to check this out. If you change your midfield pairing to a defend/support duo, you may be able to change the winger on the side with the defend duty midfielder to a support duty to give you a different attacking option. Again this is something you'd need to watch carefully and experiment with.

These are only small adjustments, and is possibly all you need for greater consistency as your system looks quite balanced overall. Team Shape may also be something to look at as more Fluid shapes add greater individual creativity to players, however keep that on the back burner for now.

[swansongs]

I've only ever done it with the 4 across the DM strata.

[sirgiorgio]

I used to say “there’s no such thing as a 3-x-x without wingbacks”; and I still think it’s true.

However, I’m following the evolution of the classic Italian 5-3-2 (Conte’s Juve, Mazzarri’s Napoli, Ventura’s Torino…) and I think asymmetric formations are the new black nowadays.

Take Paulo Sousa’s Fiorentina, for instance. Their formation is usually described as 3-4-2-1, but it looks like an asymmetric 4-2-3-1 to me:

Juventus (with Cuadrado) use a mix of 4-4-2:

and 4-3-3:

Basically, the idea is to have an isolated player on the right side of the pitch (but you can do it the other way around, if you want) whose job is to “do the winger”: hugs line, runs with ball, looks for 1 v 1 situations… His defensive skills being nonexistent, you need an out-and-out defender to cover him, usually a centre-back acting like a limited fullback.

Nothing new, really…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zona_mista

Now, I don’t know how the ME deals with asymmetric formations and hybrid-roles like the “almost right back”, the “left-winger quasi second striker”, or the “central AND left midfielder”, but the point is, symmetric 5-3-2 (and all their variants) are going “back to the future”.

[galbon]

Hi Andrew,

Big style lurker, hope I don't bungle this post...

I'm a fan of 3 at the back also and like you got bored of WBs being highest assister. I generally like squad building so I often setup a tactical framework I like and develop my squad bringing in players to suit my aims.

Unfortunately I have never been able to get the 3412 to work, its my favourite formation harking back to FM in the late 90s when I had Benito Carbone running riot in the AMC role.

As a compromise I have developed a possession based 352 that I have had success with and enjoy watching. Perhaps you can take elements from it in your 3412 quest? I will outline it briefly below and some of the ways I play the game and hope it helps you.

It came from stripping down and playing around with a downloaded tactic by Wizzu (Damar).

I love possession football so my TIs reflect this. I probably have too many but they make me feel good about myself.

Here are my formation and PIs (images from my Cesena save season 3, usually play in England but fancied a change).

http://imgur.com/a/XpPxl

I do use some PIs for some roles that I like, mostly promoting passing/pressing. I'm not going to include them all below, it would take too long to explain them all and frankly you may not be interested, I don't mind sending you the tactic if you want to have a look/tinker.

It is important to stress that although I use roles above I do like certain attributes in my players and use these to emphasise the way my team plays (I do like decent teamwork and workrate across the board) e.g. my wide midfielders generally work better with some defensive attributes, e.g. 9-10 for tackling, marking and positioning and I have had success playing full backs there (Andrew Robertson should be ideal) however I do generally prioritise classic winger abilities (pace, dribbling and crossing!)

GK - SKs. I have a high line so need my keeper to sweep up. Saying that I struggle to find a good SK so just go for decent GK attributes and if I can get a bit of rushing out/pace/acceleration all the better.

Defensive strata - As Herne I like 2 outer stoppers, they help cover the flanks. Have tried a cover in the middle but prefer a CD defend with a PI of close down less to hold his position. Pace is obviously important - these guys will get exposed.

I use a flat 5 in midfield. I like to control the game so I like numbers in midfield. I just couldn't get this to work with the four across the middle and AMC.

Wings - I like wide midfielders. Only PI is sit narrower - this keeps me tight but also seems to encourage them running in-between full backs and DC and receiving a through ball from F9 or AP. Or sometimes popping up at the back post for a tap in.

The midfield 3 - the 'DLP defend' needs defensive attributes alongside obvious passing skills. Tried a BWM here but he didn't hold his position well. Tends to have low ratings but I ignore that. Huddlestone may work and he is a player I like IRL but he is too lazy for me! Probably go for Diame for Hull.

Advanced playmakers - these two get high ratings almost regardless. Similar to WMs I like a little defensive ability but prioritise AP (dribbling, and passing technical/mentals)

Front two - Both F9s no PIs. In FM2015 I used creator/finisher roles like you (CFs or DLF and CFa or AF) however I have found the F9s using players with differing attributes to work well - I have four strikers with slightly different skill sets and I rotate and sub them. All have decent pace and technical ability. 1 = speedster/poacher type, 2 are more true F9s and a bigger guy.

I don't tinker too much in game. I like to drop the defensive line if I am up against it or up against very quick players other than that I pretty much leave as is. I found opposition instructions mostly disruptive so don't bother with them.

Most goals come from AP through balls and interplay with F9s but I do love the wide midfielders skinning people and whipping in a low cross that gets turned in.

The wide midfielders do track back and the DLP is crucial in plugging the gap between midfield and defence. Because I play high line and high press this isn't too much of a problem anyway. You will come up against a team playing direct with pace out wide and that can be tough but generally you will have so much of the ball teams struggle to hurt you.

Hull have a good squad for this formation, only concern would be pace of DCs and loan in a couple of APs. Should tear up the championship.

As mentioned happy to send the tactic to you if you want to have a look/play around and give more info on the roles and PIs I use if you are interested.

Hope it helps, would love to see the 3412 cracked!

[Overmars]

Experiment. It's the only way to get what you want.

I started thinking about this formation and immediately started with a DW(d) on my right side and a DW(s) on my left side. I checked the positional heat map after one match, and my DW(d) was positioned level with my central defenders, while my DW(s) was positioned up around my AMC. I know that was just one match, but it was still a bit extreme. Also, I was seeing too many direct counterattacks down my flanks, a couple of which finished in the back of my net.

I prefer the idea of using wingbacks. I think they do a better job of mitigating counterattacks while providing some offensive support. I like the thought of a 3-4-1-2 with 4 players in the DM strata, but I think the two DMC players would have to have attacking roles (RPM for sure and either a REG or a DM(s) with player instructions). A back 3 should be solid enough anyway, even with 4 attack-minded players in the DM strata, and those attacking DM-strata players are needed to connect through an empty CM strata to the 3 attackers.

[moolochicken]

I am set on 3-4-1-2 because every formation I come up with is dominated by goals by fullback assists.

It would be really hard to avoid crossing assist from wing backs and it is against the nature of 16, but its your choice. There are some success on work ball into box out there and I have got some too.

I have done some testing on how would Wing backs performs when they are not allowed to cross. Firstly, CWB(A), CWB(S) and WB(A) has default PI cross more, so you could not use them.

If you could accept some risky passes and assists not by crosses, then you can use WB(S) and IWB(S). I test on WB(S) with more risky passes and cross less often, and some good passes down the flanks and to the narrow edge of the box are provided.

If you do not want any risky pass at all and want the wing back to hold position and just provid a passing option, use WB(D).

It all depends on what you would accept.

[Andrew Haines]

Thanks for all the advice guys. A few people commented on using wingbacks, this felt more like a classic 3-5-2 formation which for some reason I don't have a warm feeling for. Odd bearing in mind I grew up watching Martin O'Neills Leicester play this formation. Also, when it comes to player recruitment I would much rather be looking for wide midfielders than wingbacks. I fully concede that from a tactic point of view my arguments for retaining wide midfielders over wingbacks is non-existent. Actually, when I moved the widemen back into the DM strata the formation worked really well. I accept that on the pitch a 3-4-1-2 or a 3-2-2-1-2 can be made to look identical but my reasons are outside of this

I think when it comes to the formation, what I have in my head is the late 90s Milan side coached by Alberto Zaccheroni. He usually played a 3-4-3 formation but won the title in '99 when he withdrew one of the forwards and played Dejan Savecevic as a playmaker behind Beirhoff and Weah. Whether the wide midfielders were wingbacks or defensive wide players is a point for argument (especially as one of those wide players was Thomas Helveg, best known as a defender) but Football Italia always drew the formation at a 3-4-1-2 so this is what I have in my head. Part of my choice is the aesthetic of the tactic.

Anyway.. from a progress point of view I am getting a much better balance now. I took on board a lot of the advice, particularily from tmpnd and herne79 (other posters came after I had done this). I tried out wide midfielders as opposed to defensive wingers but eventually came back to DWs. I made two of the defenders stoppers, this saw them give better cover on the wing and between the DW and CB much reduced the issues from crosses. I tried a number of combinations of front 3 players but came back to what I had originally with the AF(A), DF(S) and AP (S) - I think the screenshot I initially gave had an AM(S) but this wasn't by intention, I was tinkering and probably picked the wrong role. In the midfield, I spent a long time trying to get the right combination. The DC(X) allowed me to put on DW on support duty giving a let symmetrical layout in the midfield, there still was generally enough cover defensively. In the centre I wanted more bite so went for a B2B and CM(D) which worked okay. Later I gave the keeper a PI to distribute to the centrebacks. This worked better with a DLP so I switched the CM(D) to a DLP(D) which worked quite nicely.

The tactic now looks like this. I am yet to give it a good run, I am about to embark on a dafuge challenge so will see how I get on.

[tmpnd]

If you're too tired of WBs assisting you can always use the Work ball 2 box TI, it makes your team cross less and wingers will usually try to angle balls.

It might struggle against bus teams with 2 DMs, though