Finding the right AMC-SC combination

[jacko7048]

I am trying to develop a 4-2-3-1 for my team. As my team has no playmakers or attacking midfielders, I am trying to fit in one of my striker as a SS or Trequistita role. In doing so, I want him to complement my lone striker. Not sure what role I will/should him. any suggestions

the team set-up i have in mind is

WB-S    CD-D     CD-D     WB-S

        BWM-D           CM-D

IF-A             ???????         IF-A

                     ?????

 

I want my team to have a slow build and patient with ball but look for quick breaks if presented with the opportunities.

 

Any suggestions will be helpful

[Cleon]

With both wingbacks on support and the midfield due on defensive duties then ideally your AM will need to be one who drops deep and links the midfield to the striker and inside forwards. You might get so far without but if not, when the fullbacks have a bad game it's hard to see how your tactic connects together. There's no-one from midfield providing any support or able to distribute the ball to the 3 forwards. So the AMC in your case is going to be vital and the most important role. First and foremost he needs to link the midfield to the attack. As you use two inside forwards you don't really need the AMC to be very attack minded, instead if it was me I'd focus on him providing the supply for the other front 3 players.

As for the striker anything realistically would work in this set up. personally I'd use a CF on attack or support depending as he will be highly mobile and drift wide creating space for the IF's to run into and dragging his marker with him hopefully.

[jacko7048]

Thank you Cleon for your quick reply. Then there's a main problem: my team doesn't really have a "playmaker" and I have no money to really sign one. I have a few strikers (target man) who could (maybe) fill in the AMC role. Hence, thats why I wanted to use one of them as a shadow striker. The reason why I went for two defensive minded players is because of the two attacking wingbacks. I wanted the midfield to offer some cover. I have a bunch of MC/DMCs I can use so I can change their duties to suit the front 3/4. 

the reason why i switched to 4-2-3-1 is because the team was rather bland playing 4-1-2-2-1 and i tried using a shadow striker in half a friendly game. the team played better so I wanted to see how I can develop a tactic around it

In your mind, do you think that would work?

[Santa Claus]

I'm trying to build 4-2-3-1 as well. I have amc as attacking midfielder / attack and striker as dlf / attack. And it works. Other players have different roles to yours though. I have playmaker roles both in mc position and in aml position. I also wanted slow build for my team therefore I have two playmaker roles for then other players will be more inclined to pass to them rather than shoot or dribble (that's my logic at least).

[Cleon]

You don't need a playmaker as such, you need a role/duty that links the front players to the midfield so they get support. If not then its hard to see where the supply comes from other than the wingbacks. If you use a shadow striker exactly who is going to provide him and the IF's the ball? You need to look at a tactic and identify who is going to supply and who is going to support the front players. The player who plays the link role doesn't need to be highly creative, he just need to link that is all.

You might get decent results as things stand but long-term you've got issues when the wingbacks don't link play correctly. If the opposition nullifies them or they have bad games then its extremely hard to see how the balls gets to the front 4 if you use a shadow striker. The tactic is very one dimensional and relies on the wingbacks doing everything. Your IF's are very advanced as both are attacking, so the likelihood is they'll not be useful linking play or dropping deep. So in some games you'll find them very isolated and exposed. You'll basically have 2 players who aren't doing anything in those games, so it'll be 9 vs 11.

When creating a tactic you need to find the correct balance and see how all the roles and duties link together rather than viewing roles for certain players in isolation because what you might favour or what is the players best role might not actually be the best suited for the team and the style you play overall. 

[Santa Claus]

And while we're already at it @Cleon, how do you approach to 4-2-3-1 with two DMs instead of two CMs. Will it improve performance against stronger teams and what roles should those two DMs and my AMC be in order to get decent results?

[Cleon]

10 minutes ago, Santa Claus said:

And while we're already at it @Cleon, how do you approach to 4-2-3-1 with two DMs instead of two CMs. Will it improve performance against stronger teams and what roles should those two DMs and my AMC be in order to get decent results?

I only ever use 4231 with DMC's. Normally I have one DM on support and the other is normally a regista for me. As for roles to get decent results, it doesn't work like that. You have to understand how your tactic works first and foremost. Any combination of settings can work. There aren't roles that don't work but there are roles that don't suit what the user is creating.

[denen123]

2 hours ago, jacko7048 said:

I am trying to develop a 4-2-3-1 for my team. As my team has no playmakers or attacking midfielders, I am trying to fit in one of my striker as a SS or Trequistita role. In doing so, I want him to complement my lone striker. Not sure what role I will/should him. any suggestions

the team set-up i have in mind is

WB-S    CD-D     CD-D     WB-S

        BWM-D           CM-D

IF-A             ???????         IF-A

                     ?????

 

I want my team to have a slow build and patient with ball but look for quick breaks if presented with the opportunities.

 

Any suggestions will be helpful

Hey I'm a bit new to the forum but can I first say I don't think a two holding mf system is viable.I'm usually used to playing a b2b mf with a Bwm(d).my playmaker being an ap (s) and my striker a AF.but if you see the mf you'll notice alot of mobility.I'll recommend a dlp(d) together with cm (s)(pi hold position ).

[Egecann]

If you want to use SS then you should use dlf-su imo. You have 2 IFs aswell.  Dlf-su has more risky passes already. He should do a lot of assists with these setup

[jacko7048]

hi thanks for all your replies.

What if I change one of the IF-A to AP-S? and in doing so, also change the corresponding FB as WB-A? Will that bring more balance?

[Atarin]

Do you have a spare winger? If so you could plug him into the AM slot. As long as he has off the ball, passing, decisions and a bit of vision then you should be able to make it work. If not then have a look at your forwards. Do you have any with decent mentals? If so pop them back there. I'd focus on Roles like AM(s), AP(s), AP(a) & Eg(a) rather than more attacking Roles like AM(a), SS(a) or T(a). Basically you're looking for a pivot who can recieve the ball from deep and switch it out to the IF(a)'s or in behind for the striker.

If you really don't have anyone then its probably worth putting this system on the back burner for a while. You can't force it.

[jacko7048]

Thanks. I tweaked the line a bit. 

 

FB-S    CD-D     CD-D     FB-S

        BWM-D           DLP-S

IF-A             AP-S         IF-A / W-A

                CF-A/AF-A

 

played just one game. dominated possessions away from home 70-30 but couldnt really create too many chances. Also, i noticed that i let the opponents have too many shooting chances when playing with less closing down and slow build up. 9 (4) vs 10 (4)

[macca7292]

On 27 August 2017 at 12:33, Cleon said:

I only ever use 4231 with DMC's. Normally I have one DM on support and the other is normally a regista for me. As for roles to get decent results, it doesn't work like that. You have to understand how your tactic works first and foremost. Any combination of settings can work. There aren't roles that don't work but there are roles that don't suit what the user is creating.

I've tried a deeper 4231 with the 3 in the M strata. I essentially took the roles from the 4231 I was using and moved them down a strata, so AM (A) became CM (A) and the inside forwards on support became WM (S) with PI's to make them behave like inside forwards. I originally had the 2 as CM (D) and DLP (S) which became DM (D) and DLP (S) in the DM strata. I found it good defensively but didn't seem to create as much as the previous version. I'm interested by the choice of regista and dm(s) - with them deeper I guess you can afford more aggressive roles for the 2.

Do you have your 3 in the M strata or do you keep them higher?

[jacko7048]

lost 4-2. how can i stop lobs from halfway line? its all too easy. my defenders were caught time and again

[vpn75]

2 hours ago, jacko7048 said:

lost 4-2. how can i stop lobs from halfway line? its all too easy. my defenders were caught time and again

Adjust your d-line and consider OIs to close down their CMs and CDs to disrupt their buildup

[1967]

On 27/08/2017 at 12:33, Cleon said:

I only ever use 4231 with DMC's. Normally I have one DM on support and the other is normally a regista for me. As for roles to get decent results, it doesn't work like that. You have to understand how your tactic works first and foremost. Any combination of settings can work. There aren't roles that don't work but there are roles that don't suit what the user is creating.

Interesting. I never use players in the DM zone when playing a 4-2-3-1. I'm not a fan of how they defend alongside each other in front of two central defenders. The area that I want to protect is the gap between the defenders that a lone DM will plug. The trouble is I haven't found a work around as of yet without moving away from a 4-2-3-1 formation and it usually gets scrapped for a 4-1-2-2-1.

I like a holder in the CM zone and the best results have been with a CM(D) or a DLP(D) but both do things I don't want - the CM closes down more than I want and a DLP attracts the ball. I want a proper bottle carrier in that  position who acts like an anchor man. One who will just hold his position and watch for counter attacks letting my other CM off the leash.

[Cleon]

2 minutes ago, 1967 said:

Interesting. I never use players in the DM zone when playing a 4-2-3-1. I'm not a fan of how they defend alongside each other in front of two central defenders. The area that I want to protect is the gap between the defenders that a lone DM will plug. The trouble is I haven't found a work around as of yet without moving away from a 4-2-3-1 formation and it usually gets scrapped for a 4-1-2-2-1.

I like a holder in the CM zone and the best results have been with a CM(D) or a DLP(D) but both do things I don't want - the CM closes down more than I want and a DLP attracts the ball. I want a proper bottle carrier in that  position who acts like an anchor man. One who will just hold his position and watch for counter attacks letting my other CM off the leash.

I get all of that and better defensive cover than you'll ever get using two MC's. They don't defend alongside the DC's if you set them up correctly, they cover the same space your CM'd and DLP'd would cover. The only real difference between MC's and DMC's is you don't leave yourself open for the counter as much as using MC's and you're less exposed by balls over the top or cross field balls that switch play and bypass your MC's no matter how good they be. 

[1967]

10 minutes ago, Cleon said:

I get all of that and better defensive cover than you'll ever get using two MC's. They don't defend alongside the DC's if you set them up correctly, they cover the same space your CM'd and DLP'd would cover. The only real difference between MC's and DMC's is you don't leave yourself open for the counter as much as using MC's and you're less exposed by balls over the top or cross field balls that switch play and bypass your MC's no matter how good they be. 

I've just been taking a closer look at the DM(S) role and it looks to be extremely flexible and may give me what I want- and I'll trust you that the area between the four players will be covered. It's just that rectangular slither that I'm worried about - but two more conservative roles in there should zonally block the passing lanes.

DM(S) (possibly adding hold position and conservative passing shouts if needed)

DM(S) + get further forward

[difran8]

Just a note on the two winger duties: after countless efforts on this formation, i think they work best on support duties. On attack duty they bomb forward like strikers. Getting them right is more important than that central AMC

[Marc.Foster050]

17 hours ago, Cleon said:

I get all of that and better defensive cover than you'll ever get using two MC's. They don't defend alongside the DC's if you set them up correctly, they cover the same space your CM'd and DLP'd would cover. The only real difference between MC's and DMC's is you don't leave yourself open for the counter as much as using MC's and you're less exposed by balls over the top or cross field balls that switch play and bypass your MC's no matter how good they be. 

Do you still use the 3 in the am strata or move them back to plug the gap and have them attacking?

[samuelawachie]

19 hours ago, 1967 said:

Interesting. I never use players in the DM zone when playing a 4-2-3-1. I'm not a fan of how they defend alongside each other in front of two central defenders. The area that I want to protect is the gap between the defenders that a lone DM will plug. The trouble is I haven't found a work around as of yet without moving away from a 4-2-3-1 formation and it usually gets scrapped for a 4-1-2-2-1.

I like a holder in the CM zone and the best results have been with a CM(D) or a DLP(D) but both do things I don't want - the CM closes down more than I want and a DLP attracts the ball. I want a proper bottle carrier in that  position who acts like an anchor man. One who will just hold his position and watch for counter attacks letting my other CM off the leash.

Have you considered the 4-2-3-1(asymmetric)? It's the "mid-ground" that I think you're looking for. Check it out

[Hootieleece]

I would use an Advanced Playmaker-S-AMC and Depending on the Forward Players Attributes a Complete Forward-S, Targetman-S, or Advanced Forward-A.

You might want to change one of the MC's roles to Support for link up play. (Probably the CM)

As for defending against Pulis ball........you must play more conservative your self or have superfast defenders.  Try Defensive or Counter Mentalities and possibly a Defend Deeper Defensive Line.

 

[jacko7048]

how can mitigate the lack of pace of my centre backs? put one on cover role?

[Colorado]

On 27/08/2017 at 11:58, Cleon said:

You don't need a playmaker as such, you need a role/duty that links the front players to the midfield so they get support.

I'm only now seeing this thread sorry but with regards to the above, isn't that just what a playmaker does???

[Cleon]

7 hours ago, Colorado said:

I'm only now seeing this thread sorry but with regards to the above, isn't that just what a playmaker does???

No? A playmaker dictates play and runs the show. It's not always a link role it can be just a pure redistribution role etc. A playmaker is many things.  All he needs is someone dropping dropping back, that can be anyone and doesn't have to be a playmaker. It can be a AMC on support who links by being a runner or it could be a playmaking role the choice is his. But remember the quote you quoted was in reference to the actual player not the role. It was in reference to this sentence;

Quote

Then there's a main problem: my team doesn't really have a "playmaker" and I have no money to really sign one.