Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
jc577

Help Setting up a 4-3-1-2

Recommended Posts

I'm playing as Man United and I've just won 'The Septuple' so I'm looking to try something different, and i've heard narrow formations tend to be successful in fm17. The issue I'm having is with the two outer midfielders, can they be given playmaker roles or should a hard-working, ball-winning type midfielder occupy this position in order to provide be security for the flanks? I am also toying with the idea of flipping the formation. Thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The outer two will do a lot of running due to no wide players to track opponents FBs but i'd say all 3 need to be good defensively.  They don't all need to be defensive specialists but they can't really afford to carry a pure playmaker.  As you'll have a AM + 2xST and likely have FB's who are strong going forward rather than defensive specialists.

Throw something together and can see what sort of balance your thinking of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I've got so far, also thinking about having a Treq instead of a CF-s, and turning the AP-a into an AM-a. 

4-3-1-2.png

4-3-1-2 TI.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd check the FB-S (guessing Shaw?) to see if he has PPM's that will make him get forward more than a FB-S might typically and balance him against the CM-S you use on that side.  I'd do the same for the CM-S on the right who will need to be the better defensively of the two CM-S, as he will need to cover the FB-A.

You'll have to watch the front 3, i'm thinking the AP-A will drop deep to get the ball and the CF-S might roam deep/wide.  Unless a CM-S or FB gets forward that might leave few options for the creators.  I find CF-S and TREQ to be a bit unpredictable due to how much they're asked to do, sometimes that's good but can be inconsistent.  I'm more a "do what I tell you" rather than "go out and play" manager.  I wouldn't rule out any AMC role at this point, you'll want to find the right mix of creating / goal threat.  AP-A and AM-A are kind of on opposite ends of the spectrum, an ENG could be a more goal threat playmaker or SS a mix of attacking runs and through balls.  If you have a TREQ up front it's hard to say what you'd need in AMC, maybe just a AM-S to keep things simple?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've recently set this formation up and it brought about a huge improvement in chance creation, which is something I was really struggling with in my 4-4-2. The 4-3-1-2 was actually something of a compromise to find something with two up front. I've gone with...

GK/D

WB/A    CD/D    CD/D    WB/S

 

CM/S   BWM/D   CM/A

AP/S

AF/A    DF/S

I'm relatively happy with how it works, but that front three has yet to really click, so I'm still toying around with roles and PIs to get what I want.

The CM/A works really nicely in this system. The CM/A is one of my favourite roles in the game.

I have the 'Hold Position' PI on the CM/S, but even so, this can be susceptible to a quick long ball into the RB area, particularly against teams who have an AML who hangs out, or against two-forward systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against 4 man defenses with no DM,  particularly a 4-4-2, I find that a AF/a, DLF/s, and SS/a (with roaming) trio work very well, provided you have players on the flanks to keep the opposing FBs from drifting in without giving up a free cross.

The forwards match up with the defending pair and the SS looks to split between them. If either tucks in to cover the SS, the SS is quick to pass a through ball (risky passes by default) to the now free forward.

Further, if I am playing narrow vs a team that is trying to overlap their FB, I put the AF/a on the side of the overlapping FB and man mark him against that FB. It's far from perfect, but it helps cut down on the FB getting free space and also has a nice benifit of causing the AF/a to start from wider in transition which can free him up for a pass as he transitions from wide to center in the opposing half.

Meanwhile the DLF/s is pressuring the opposing CD and looking to hold up the ball in transition and on attack

The SS/a with roaming is often a solid link between the midfield and will regularly come back for the ball in transition or if you have to recycle possession.

Unfortunately vs a DM or 3 back, the SS/a can find splitting the defense difficult and can't force the CD off the forwards and I tend to other attacking options in those situations, typically a single forward formation and focusing more on IFs, crosses from the wings, or adding an attacking MC role.

Edit: That isn't to say that the SS or trio are useless vs DM or 3 man defense. They just need somebody to beat their man to make something happen. If the SS can dribble past his man, or the AF/a find space or beat his man via speed, the trio will still work. And even with a DM, the SS/a will find space to assist the attack due to roaming, it will just be more in the build up phase as opposed to being the creator/scorer he is vs 4 man D.

Edited by VinceLombardi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

I'd check the FB-S (guessing Shaw?) to see if he has PPM's that will make him get forward more than a FB-S might typically and balance him against the CM-S you use on that side.  I'd do the same for the CM-S on the right who will need to be the better defensively of the two CM-S, as he will need to cover the FB-A.

You'll have to watch the front 3, i'm thinking the AP-A will drop deep to get the ball and the CF-S might roam deep/wide.  Unless a CM-S or FB gets forward that might leave few options for the creators.  I find CF-S and TREQ to be a bit unpredictable due to how much they're asked to do, sometimes that's good but can be inconsistent.  I'm more a "do what I tell you" rather than "go out and play" manager.  I wouldn't rule out any AMC role at this point, you'll want to find the right mix of creating / goal threat.  AP-A and AM-A are kind of on opposite ends of the spectrum, an ENG could be a more goal threat playmaker or SS a mix of attacking runs and through balls.  If you have a TREQ up front it's hard to say what you'd need in AMC, maybe just a AM-S to keep things simple?

I see, the thing is that the player I'm using in the right striker position is Dybala who has the PPM 'Moves Into Channels' anyway, which is annoying as even if I want to use him as a DLFs and just hold his position, he's still going to roam around regardless. I may try to get him to unlearn this PPM and give me more flexibility. An AM-s behind him could work, especially with a few pi's to get him roaming around and play riskier passes. Ideally I want both strikers to be prominent goal-scorers.

 

4 hours ago, ajsr1982 said:

I've recently set this formation up and it brought about a huge improvement in chance creation, which is something I was really struggling with in my 4-4-2. The 4-3-1-2 was actually something of a compromise to find something with two up front. I've gone with...

GK/D

WB/A    CD/D    CD/D    WB/S

 

CM/S   BWM/D   CM/A

AP/S

AF/A    DF/S

I'm relatively happy with how it works, but that front three has yet to really click, so I'm still toying around with roles and PIs to get what I want.

The CM/A works really nicely in this system. The CM/A is one of my favourite roles in the game.

I have the 'Hold Position' PI on the CM/S, but even so, this can be susceptible to a quick long ball into the RB area, particularly against teams who have an AML who hangs out, or against two-forward systems.

Creating clear-cut chances is something I have struggled with, especially seen as i'm playing with United a lot of teams are happy to come away with a point. Last season although we won the league, we drew 7 games 0-0 which just isn't good enough.. are you playing on a lower mentality (standard, counter)? I too love the CM/a role, if used it in a lot of other saves. How does he interact with the WBs on the same side? I'd be tempted to use a WBd or even FBs and ask the CMa to roam from position and move into channels, or even use a DLFs on that side and ask him to move into channels so that you still get some width. 

 

3 hours ago, VinceLombardi said:

Against 4 man defenses with no DM,  particularly a 4-4-2, I find that a AF/a, DLF/s, and SS/a (with roaming) trio work very well, provided you have players on the flanks to keep the opposing FBs from drifting in without giving up a free cross.

The forwards match up with the defending pair and the SS looks to split between them. If either tucks in to cover the SS, the SS is quick to pass a through ball (risky passes by default) to the now free forward.

Further, if I am playing narrow vs a team that is trying to overlap their FB, I put the AF/a on the side of the overlapping FB and man mark him against that FB. It's far from perfect, but it helps cut down on the FB getting free space and also has a nice benifit of causing the AF/a to start from wider in transition which can free him up for a pass as he transitions from wide to center in the opposing half.

Meanwhile the DLF/s is pressuring the opposing CD and looking to hold up the ball in transition and on attack

The SS/a with roaming is often a solid link between the midfield and will regularly come back for the ball in transition or if you have to recycle possession.

Unfortunately vs a DM or 3 back, the SS/a can find splitting the defense difficult and can't force the CD off the forwards and I tend to other attacking options in those situations, typically a single forward formation and focusing more on IFs, crosses from the wings, or adding an attacking MC role.

Edit: That isn't to say that the SS or trio are useless vs DM or 3 man defense. They just need somebody to beat their man to make something happen. If the SS can dribble past his man, or the AF/a find space or beat his man via speed, the trio will still work. And even with a DM, the SS/a will find space to assist the attack due to roaming, it will just be more in the build up phase as opposed to being the creator/scorer he is vs 4 man D.

I do like the idea of an SS as a hybrid goal-scorer/creator, I can see him causing havoc against a 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 as he basically a spare man as you said and with roaming can be hard to pick up. When you instruct your AF to man-mark their full-back, isn't there the possibility that he's too deep and it becomes more difficult to counter? I'd be tempted to ask the SS to do this, so if you win back possession he's deep enough to pick up the ball and pick out your two strikers who could potentially be left 2 on 2 with the opposition CB's. I've got a lot to think about:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jc577 said:

I see, the thing is that the player I'm using in the right striker position is Dybala who has the PPM 'Moves Into Channels' anyway, which is annoying as even if I want to use him as a DLFs and just hold his position, he's still going to roam around regardless. I may try to get him to unlearn this PPM and give me more flexibility. An AM-s behind him could work, especially with a few pi's to get him roaming around and play riskier passes. Ideally I want both strikers to be prominent goal-scorers.

 

Creating clear-cut chances is something I have struggled with, especially seen as i'm playing with United a lot of teams are happy to come away with a point. Last season although we won the league, we drew 7 games 0-0 which just isn't good enough.. are you playing on a lower mentality (standard, counter)? I too love the CM/a role, if used it in a lot of other saves. How does he interact with the WBs on the same side? I'd be tempted to use a WBd or even FBs and ask the CMa to roam from position and move into channels, or even use a DLFs on that side and ask him to move into channels so that you still get some width. 

 

I do like the idea of an SS as a hybrid goal-scorer/creator, I can see him causing havoc against a 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 as he basically a spare man as you said and with roaming can be hard to pick up. When you instruct your AF to man-mark their full-back, isn't there the possibility that he's too deep and it becomes more difficult to counter? I'd be tempted to ask the SS to do this, so if you win back possession he's deep enough to pick up the ball and pick out your two strikers who could potentially be left 2 on 2 with the opposition CB's. I've got a lot to think about:lol:

Doesn't Dybala have "Likes to beat offside trap"?  I'm pretty sure he had it in previous versions but can't remember if he still has it. That would make him play higher to, i'd say he's probably better suited to a AF-A or CF-A.  I can't remember last time I tried both forwards on attack duty, its hard to envision how they would combine.

Personally when there's a flat midfield 3 I don't really like using a playmaker in AM, there's usually enough central midfielders to transition and move the ball without a playmaker dropping to join them.  I really like the CM-A role+duty to, but I think it fits the 4132 DM better than the 4312 AM. In @ajsr1982 tactic that left flank looks very open as you suggest, i'd probably do what you say with the FB and a creative forward.

Best tip I can give you with regards to struggling to score is to react to what you see on the pitch, however you think the role+duty should be playing doesn't matter, if they are dropping too deep or pushing to high or wandering around it needs to change even if it should be working in theory.  For example just changing a AP-S to AM-S made a massive difference to my 4231 Wide, more presence near the box and immediate support for the forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you can see Dybala is just ridiculous.. I had him in fm15 and think he did have "Likes to beat offside trap" but seems to be a more creative striker now. I don't particularly like the idea of both strikers on attack duties, I feel it would suffer from a lack of movement and would be a bit one-dimensional. 

I've analysed my squad and come up with a new tactic, and managed to incorporate a CM-a which i'm very happy about :lol:. I've gone without a playmaker in the AM slot as you suggested. I may come up with another tactic where I flip the formation and have a simple DM-d in the DM-strata, and an AP-a above. My only concern is the potential lack of width on the left.. i'm tempted to add 'moves into channels' and 'roam from position' to the CM-a to try and encourage more lateral movement, and could be worth teaching him (Pogba) 'Runs wide with ball' so that he becomes a central winger. How often will a poacher drift out wide and lend support? Would an AF be better at this? 

update.png

Screen Shot 2017-06-20 at 19.46.22.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the Counter event/mechanism. I find it risky as it also pulls your own players, particularly defenders, out of position to facilitate the attack. I don't play mentalities/formations which encourage it, and when I want a transition based attack I use a version of Highly Structured/Attacking. This allows me to control what players rush to get forward (anything with an attack role or in the forward/attacking midfield positions) but keeps my defenders back and the support where it belongs.

To specifically answer your question, in those situations the AF/a man-marking the FB is a double edged sword. He normally isn't in position to latch onto a long ball, unless it's down the flank and he can beat the FB to cross it into the box. Nor is he in position to score right away, as he is normally the 2nd or 3rd player into the box (after either the SS/a or DLF/s)

On the other hand, he is typically wide open running through the channel to receive a pass in an advanced position and sometimes this can cause either the FB, CD, or both to step up to defend him. If it's the FB, that can often open up my own flank player for an easy pass and cross. If it's the CD, it typically frees up the SS/a and with the DLF/s creates a 2 on 1 on the remaining central defender. 

Also worth mentioning is that with the opposing FB covered, it naturally causes less balls to get passed out to that flank, limiting the number of times the FB really bombs forwards -- perhaps the best defensive contribution the AF/s makes (as he is not great at actually defending the FB if the FB gets a step on him). This means the AF/s is typically starting from a midfield position in transition and rarely finds himself all the way in the corner defending.

Also even if the AF/a finds himself so far back that he is out of the play, the DLF/s and SS/a can still create a 2 v 2 or a 2 v 3 (counting the midfielder the SS/a was defending) without the help. 

But most importantly, I find having the SS/a harrassing the midfield in defense and ready to receive a pass in transiton far more important than the AF/a being ready for the long ball. I don't want to give up a midfield defender and the SS/a is too valuable in buildup has he roams where he is needed and it almost always an outlet for a pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you mean, Cleon in his 'The Art of Counter Attacking' did reference the important of having an anchor type player to protect the defence when the rest of the team go surging forward. The style i'm trying to create is controlled and measured, not really looking to attack the opposition quickly but rather create fewer, better quality chances. I've found the only real way to do this is to play on lower mentalities, as otherwise play is somewhat rushed and i'm fed up of constant long-shots. 

Thanks for clearing that up, makes a lot of sense. The fact that the AF is marking the opposition FB will scare him from making forward runs, so in reality there could be games where the AF doesn't even need to track back that much and the threat will be reduced relatively early in the game. 

In regards to your SS, what ppms does he have/what do you think are ideal ppms? I think 'Comes deep to get the ball' is an obvious one, but can't think of many others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, jc577 said:

I get what you mean, Cleon in his 'The Art of Counter Attacking' did reference the important of having an anchor type player to protect the defence when the rest of the team go surging forward. The style i'm trying to create is controlled and measured, not really looking to attack the opposition quickly but rather create fewer, better quality chances. I've found the only real way to do this is to play on lower mentalities, as otherwise play is somewhat rushed and i'm fed up of constant long-shots. 

Thanks for clearing that up, makes a lot of sense. The fact that the AF is marking the opposition FB will scare him from making forward runs, so in reality there could be games where the AF doesn't even need to track back that much and the threat will be reduced relatively early in the game. 

In regards to your SS, what ppms does he have/what do you think are ideal ppms? I think 'Comes deep to get the ball' is an obvious one, but can't think of many others.

For controlled and measured I opt for a Structured/Flexible or Control/Fluid depending on how involved I want the defenders to get. Control/fluid encourages more defender involvement. 

Yeah, the AF/a 's primary goal in defense is just to take away the free passing outlet. It can also have the benifit of encouraging the other team to play the other side of the field, which takes even more pressure off the AF/a. 

Comes deep, gets forward, killer balls are all ideal.

Places shot, runs with ball, 1-2s , first time shots, and the one that encourages dribbling vs defenders (drawing a blank) can all be helpful based on finishing, dribble, and pace/acceleration attributes.

If he has decent defensive stats, even a marks opponents closely or dives into tackles can make for some really interesting choices as he can really put some pressure on the defenders/holding midfielders. Its impressive how quickly they can latch onto a poorly played back pass or kick something loose for the DLF to jump on. Typically, though I just leave these to PI on tactics as I would prefer to use the ones above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jc577 said:

Creating clear-cut chances is something I have struggled with, especially seen as i'm playing with United a lot of teams are happy to come away with a point. Last season although we won the league, we drew 7 games 0-0 which just isn't good enough.. are you playing on a lower mentality (standard, counter)? I too love the CM/a role, if used it in a lot of other saves. How does he interact with the WBs on the same side? I'd be tempted to use a WBd or even FBs and ask the CMa to roam from position and move into channels, or even use a DLFs on that side and ask him to move into channels so that you still get some width. 

Yes, I play with a standard mentality. I hardly ever go above standard to be honest.

The choice of two WBs is really to make sure they provide width higher up the field. It's not coming from anywhere else, right? The CM/A and the DF do indeed have Move Into Channels ticked. The choice of a DF was really because I don't have a player that fits the DLF role too well. I have a couple of decent target men and a couple of decent AFs. So the DF was a 'sort of' TM without the ball magnetism that I don't want. I have tried the DLF in a few games, and I'm not too upset with the results. I can see myself using that long term.

The system probably needs a little context as well. I probably wouldn't leave myself that open at the back under normal circumstances, but I'm playing in Serie C in Italy. Low block defences with a big gap to two forwards are typical, so this is an attempt to be a bit bolder and increase chance creation, without some of the things I don't like about Control/Attacking team mentalities. It's increased risk, but on an individual basis.

So, I don't find the left flank gets too exposed. The right flank does a little as I mentioned. Off the top of my head I've scored 19 and conceded 17 in 15 games. I'm in mid-table, but the change to this formation is seeing me creating more (and better) chances than the opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jc577 said:

As you can see Dybala is just ridiculous.. I had him in fm15 and think he did have "Likes to beat offside trap" but seems to be a more creative striker now. I don't particularly like the idea of both strikers on attack duties, I feel it would suffer from a lack of movement and would be a bit one-dimensional. 

I've analysed my squad and come up with a new tactic, and managed to incorporate a CM-a which i'm very happy about :lol:. I've gone without a playmaker in the AM slot as you suggested. I may come up with another tactic where I flip the formation and have a simple DM-d in the DM-strata, and an AP-a above. My only concern is the potential lack of width on the left.. i'm tempted to add 'moves into channels' and 'roam from position' to the CM-a to try and encourage more lateral movement, and could be worth teaching him (Pogba) 'Runs wide with ball' so that he becomes a central winger. How often will a poacher drift out wide and lend support? Would an AF be better at this? 

Ah cool, wish they'd get rid of stupid PPMs like that anyway, just because they do what the manager tells them for years doesn't make it a PPM!

Personally I wouldn't want Pogba out on a wing, the widest i'd want him is in the half space. If the other two central midfielders are holding and strong defensively you have some flexibility on the left, especially with a great all round player like Pogba.  I'd personally be favoring a BBM or more likely RPM, with the P/AF and SS already making attacking runs I think a supportive/creative role might help more than another dedicated runner.

If you want your ST to offer more width then that doesn't sounds like a Poacher so i'd go with the AF as your thinking.  You could just use a plain FB-S at LB, if opponents are exploiting space when he does sometimes go forward and the DCL + DLP-D can't cover it then i'd probably change him to a WB-D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ajsr1982 said:

Yes, I play with a standard mentality. I hardly ever go above standard to be honest.

The choice of two WBs is really to make sure they provide width higher up the field. It's not coming from anywhere else, right? The CM/A and the DF do indeed have Move Into Channels ticked. The choice of a DF was really because I don't have a player that fits the DLF role too well. I have a couple of decent target men and a couple of decent AFs. So the DF was a 'sort of' TM without the ball magnetism that I don't want. I have tried the DLF in a few games, and I'm not too upset with the results. I can see myself using that long term.

The system probably needs a little context as well. I probably wouldn't leave myself that open at the back under normal circumstances, but I'm playing in Serie C in Italy. Low block defences with a big gap to two forwards are typical, so this is an attempt to be a bit bolder and increase chance creation, without some of the things I don't like about Control/Attacking team mentalities. It's increased risk, but on an individual basis.

So, I don't find the left flank gets too exposed. The right flank does a little as I mentioned. Off the top of my head I've scored 19 and conceded 17 in 15 games. I'm in mid-table, but the change to this formation is seeing me creating more (and better) chances than the opposition.

Do you use shorter passing/and or lower tempo? Yeah I agree re width, in many of my games the IWB ended up playing as an ordinary WB as there was no one else providing any real width. As long as your happy with the roles, duties and how the tactic plays out that's all that matters. You actually create systems that a very potent going forward on lower mentalities, as long as roles and duties have been set up correctly. I too prefer certain individuals taking risk as opposed to the whole team. 

 

2 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

Ah cool, wish they'd get rid of stupid PPMs like that anyway, just because they do what the manager tells them for years doesn't make it a PPM!

Personally I wouldn't want Pogba out on a wing, the widest i'd want him is in the half space. If the other two central midfielders are holding and strong defensively you have some flexibility on the left, especially with a great all round player like Pogba.  I'd personally be favoring a BBM or more likely RPM, with the P/AF and SS already making attacking runs I think a supportive/creative role might help more than another dedicated runner.

If you want your ST to offer more width then that doesn't sounds like a Poacher so i'd go with the AF as your thinking.  You could just use a plain FB-S at LB, if opponents are exploiting space when he does sometimes go forward and the DCL + DLP-D can't cover it then i'd probably change him to a WB-D.

My thoughts exactly! The most frustrating PPM is 'Comes deep to get the ball' and this is affecting the balance of my front three, particularly as my SS also has the same PPM. Not quite sure if there's anything I can do..? I think because two of the forward players like to come deep, Pogba making attacking runs from deep is creates some nice interplay and penetration that way may not have otherwise. Having said that, there have been times when we win the ball fairly deep in our half, Pogba is making a penetrative run and we lack a link to the forwards, so maybe BBM could be the way to go. 

I think a WBs + BBMs is better balanced than WBd + CMa.. what do you think? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jc577 said:

My thoughts exactly! The most frustrating PPM is 'Comes deep to get the ball' and this is affecting the balance of my front three, particularly as my SS also has the same PPM. Not quite sure if there's anything I can do..? I think because two of the forward players like to come deep, Pogba making attacking runs from deep is creates some nice interplay and penetration that way may not have otherwise. Having said that, there have been times when we win the ball fairly deep in our half, Pogba is making a penetrative run and we lack a link to the forwards, so maybe BBM could be the way to go. 

I think a WBs + BBMs is better balanced than WBd + CMa.. what do you think? 

The primary factor will be the role + duty, the more creative freedom the player has the more he can do his PPM rather than what his PI's tell him to do.  Don't fall into the trap of thinking support duties don't offer penetration, they offer a bit of everything. Some of my favourite penetration comes from the IF-S who's deeper starting position (compared to IF-A) creates space for him to run into, dribble into or another player to exploit.  You can't just create penetration by committing players forward, there needs to be space for them which might require drawing opponents out with a deeper starting position.  Against teams that park the bus this is especially true as you don't have the natural space behind opponents.

WB-S + BBM-S will probably leave the flank more open due to the WB getting forward often and the BBM roaming.  I'd prefer a plain old FB-S just so he's not making runs as often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

Ah cool, wish they'd get rid of stupid PPMs like that anyway, just because they do what the manager tells them for years doesn't make it a PPM!

I had a striker who came with the ppm likes to hug touchline and dribble down the left, I almost died of laughter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How crucial is it that my SS learns the ppm 'comes deep to get ball'? i'm thinking seen as Dybala already does this, it could be worth changing his role to an F9 (as dropping into midfield is a pre-requisite of the role anyway), and then making turning the SS into an AMa so he focuses more on just getting into he box.. thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another example of a thread that leans on a false presupposition. Narrow systems only do well if you know how to tak advantage of overloads, and take care of vulnerabilities.

The 4312 has been my favourite since CM days, historically it's one of the most potent systems that has ever been played. Like the 4231 another popular system it features a top heavy system. Unlike the 4231 it's vulnerabilities lies in its offensive qualities.

Anyone who has followed my saves will notice how I plan to finish each long term save by ending on a 4312. It's brutal with the right players and offers the possibility of plenty of attacking variations. It's deadly  not because it's narrow. It's deadly because you have so many options.

1. Opt to use both FBs in a WB configuration to bomb down the flanks with up to 3 midfielders providing a strong screen.

2. Opt to use only one FB as a WB but give the middle an added punch by having someone carve open from the middle.

3 Double up flank and centre attacks

4. Play with an aggressive combo of shouts that pass to feet and roam played on a low mentality

5. Play with a conservative set of shouts that pass into space exploiting roles that attack space.

6. Use roles in the final third that give width and drop back to draw defenders out of position to allow WBs to exploit the space behind.

There are a lot more options and I am typing this out while my wife drives the car, once I get back I will continue, but the one thing I will add is that far too many people playing the 4312 are one dimensional, they eventually reach a point where they can't unlock defenses. It's at this stage where players who understand the 4312 really shine. And this has nothing to do with the engine. 

The one role I would not use here is the CF upfront I find that he does his own thing too much. You have a variety of roles to choose from and each lend a different dynamic, but they need to work together in combinations.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

This is another example of a thread that leans on a false presupposition. Narrow systems only do well if you know how to tak advantage of overloads, and take care of vulnerabilities.

The 4312 has been my favourite since CM days, historically it's one of the most potent systems that has ever been played. Like the 4231 another popular system it features a top heavy system. Unlike the 4231 it's vulnerabilities lies in its offensive qualities.

Anyone who has followed my saves will notice how I plan to finish each long term save by ending on a 4312. It's brutal with the right players and offers the possibility of plenty of attacking variations. It's deadly  not because it's narrow. It's deadly because you have so many options.

1. Opt to use both FBs in a WB configuration to bomb down the flanks with up to 3 midfielders providing a strong screen.

2. Opt to use only one FB as a WB but give the middle an added punch by having someone carve open from the middle.

3 Double up flank and centre attacks

4. Play with an aggressive combo of shouts that pass to feet and roam played on a low mentality

5. Play with a conservative set of shouts that pass into space exploiting roles that attack space.

6. Use roles in the final third that give width and drop back to draw defenders out of position to allow WBs to exploit the space behind.

There are a lot more options and I am typing this out while my wife drives the car, once I get back I will continue, but the one thing I will add is that far too many people playing the 4312 are one dimensional, they eventually reach a point where they can't unlock defenses. It's at this stage where players who understand the 4312 really shine. And this has nothing to do with the engine. 

The one role I would not use here is the CF upfront I find that he does his own thing too much. You have a variety of roles to choose from and each lend a different dynamic, but they need to work together in combinations.

 

 

 

That's precisely the issue i'm having; defensively we're solid (only conceded 3 goals in 10 matches) but going forward is where we have struggled. The front three at times have linked up well and showed some nice combinations, but not often enough. I've got a few questions:

2. Do you mean give a player an attack duty who is middle of the three cm's? For example, you could have a ball-winner on the side of the attacking wingback, a CMa in the middle and a DLP on the side where you have a supporting full-back? 

5. Are you referring to dropping the d-line to set d-line traps? I can imagine this being lethal with three forwards ready and waiting for the counter.

6. This is the one that i'm really not sure about. The majority of roles in the AM strata won't provide that much width, and the main striker roles  which provide width are the F9 and the AF (and the Poacher at a push). I guess in theory a WB could push beyond the f9, but what about the other side where you could have an AF for example who won't be dropping deeper?

Edited by jc577

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rashidi This is the tactic i've come up with, it correlates to point 2, with the BBM looking to provide extra penetration and go beyond the f9 when he drops deep. I think the balance of duties is good, with 3 players (Poacher, Wingback & the AM) looking to get in behind, with the f9 and DLP tasked with creating and good support from the BBM and the BWM. Another tactic I'm working on relating to point 6 also added posted.

new tactic.png

New tactic 2.png

Edited by jc577

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...