Help building my 4-1-2-3

[Rashidi]

15 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

In my current save with Benfica I’ve been testing the MEZ+AP mention by @Rashidi, and it’s probably the best way to pair up the MEZ with someone playing in the attacking midfield wing.

So atm playing like this:

               DLF(a)

AP(s)                             IF(a)

        MEZ(s)      CM(s)

                DM(s)

WB(a)    CD(d)   CD(d).   WB(s)

                   SK(d)

The IF duty is the one I change a lot during the game, depending how is performing. In same games playing with a support duty works better, other games it’s better with a attacking duty.

At first I was playing with a DLP in the midfield, but I think the CM works beter because allows that the MEZ shine more.

That is a very good setup, its essentially almost the same way I play, here the key positions you can switch to impact a game are:

WB(A) to IWB(D) when you want the Mez to punch through the middle with AP(S) changed to a W(S) and IF(A) changed to W(A)
WB(S) changed to WB(A) and IF(A) changed to support

I could go through a few combinations but the 4123 is perhaps one of the best versatile systems in the game that you can change in a game without screwing your side over. At the heart of the system is the 3 man midfield in the DM MEZ and the CM, most cases the the DM can be changed to D or the CM(S) can be changed to a BWM is you want higher support for the IF(A) or you want the WB to be more attacking.

[Keyzer Soze]

Thks @Rashidi

the only thing I’m a bit unhappy with my setup is that sometimes the beginning of play can be a little tricky against teams that have higher systems and are pressing my defense.

for more then one occasion my centerbacks make stupid mistakes giving the possession away far too easy leading to a goal.

im still trying to understand why this happens... if it’s related with the passing quality of my defenders, or if it’s related with the tactic and how the player in the DM position is plating.

i already tested it with a HB and DLP(d) but with no obvious improvements. It just feels that I don’t have the right support for a built play from the defense.

any ideas?

i have my team to play from defense with the goalie to distribute to the centerbacks, that have the PI to make less risky passes. 

 

[Rashidi]

Could be the DM on support, against some high pressing teams its not uncommon to see set my two backs to defend duty.

[BlairNo.1]

Love all the variations that have been suggested on this thread so far. Gives me something to play about with and certainly feel like I have a better understanding for why some things work and others don't.

Should keep me occupied for a while, or at least until I hit another wall and come back with more problems 😂

Thanks all for your input 👍

[yonko]

2 hours ago, BlairNo.1 said:

Love all the variations that have been suggested on this thread so far. Gives me something to play about with and certainly feel like I have a better understanding for why some things work and others don't.

Should keep me occupied for a while, or at least until I hit another wall and come back with more problems 😂

Thanks all for your input 👍

Use the ideas from here and start thinking along those line. So when you hit another wall, you will know how to break through it with different thinking. You need to learn to understand what the roles do and how players will perform in them with their attributes and PPMs. You also need to observe that on the pitch. Being a manager/coach is about observing, analyzing and making corrections in a repeated cycle. There is no more set one tactic and dominate forever until you get bored.

[Rashidi]

To reiterate what @herne79 said. The key to playing well is seeing the possibilities within your own system. Too often people come to the forums expecting a tactical fix, when in reality that is only temporary. What may work against a top side may not against a cellar dweller. And that is why I did the video on supersystems. If you can think of playing your one system in different ways against different opponents you get options. This requires you to observe what’s happening in the game.

I have done videos showing how I use tactical tools to analyse a teams play and how I study transitions. Most people can get by without changing their tactics very much, and to be honest you can probably holiday mode your save now and still beat the odds, but to outperform consistently you need to observe and then adapt. You do not need to make major changes, for example, you could find yourself in a position where your playmaker is not getting time on the ball. Switching him to the other flank can be a simple fix. And that’s how we can all develop our own supersystems. It starts with observation.

[HUNT3R]

36 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

I have done videos showing how I use tactical tools to analyse a teams play and how I study transitions. Most people can get by without changing their tactics very much, and to be honest you can probably holiday mode your save now and still beat the odds, but to outperform consistently you need to observe and then adapt. You do not need to make major changes, for example, you could find yourself in a position where your playmaker is not getting time on the ball. Switching him to the other flank can be a simple fix. And that’s how we can all develop our own supersystems. It starts with observation.

This year I'm happy with my overall system, so I only make small changes. As a mid-table team, against the top guys, my team shape is Structured. That ensures I don't over-commit (specifically those fullbacks) too much against better opposition. Against "easier" teams, I'll switch to Fluid, which sees my fullbacks get involved earlier, so I'm more attacking without changing anything else.

[ferrarinseb]

                 DLF(a)

AP(s)                             IF(a)

        MEZ(s)      CM(s)

                DM(s)

WB(a)    CD(d)   CD(d).   WB(s)

                   SK(d)

 

Is it better to have SS over DLF. so that i can attack the space instead of trying to bring out the Forward tracking back i.e Attacking empty space instead of vacating it if needed?

[Keyzer Soze]

@Rashidi

Quick question regarding the average position screen...

This is my team, playing with the 4123 formation that i posted earlier in this thread, apart from changing the IF(a) to a W(s). So now playing like this:

DLF(a)

AP(s)                                       W(s)

MEZ(s)          CM(s)

DM(s)

WB(a)     CD(d)       CD(d)     WB(s)

SK(d)

Standard and Flexible team shape.

TI's: Play from defense, close down more, roam from position, 

PI's: WB(a) to stay wider, DM(s) to hold position, dribble and shoot less, MEZ(s) to shoot less, CM(s) to shoot less, more risky passes and more direct passes.

Now, as you can see, when in position the MEZ and AP are very close together and i also think the DLF(a) it's a little isolated from the rest of the team.

The DLF(a) issue, i think is related with the fact that both players in the Attacking Midfield and Midfield line have a support duty, with onluy the MEZ with the PI to get further forward. In some games, to try to fix this, i change the W(s) to a W(a) so that the DLF(a) have a little more support.

But i'm most concern about the position of the AP(s) and the MEZ(a). Do you think it's normal that they are so close, and do you think that this is something that is damaging the tactic, or quite the opposite and the fact that they are so close will help them?

[Rashidi]

I don’t really bother about the av positions. I just pay attention to how they play, looking for moments when we are building play down that flank. They will be close so they are always lending Support to each other. And this almost always gives me the option to use the Mezzala on attack. I do not use the DM on Support though, then there would be too many in close support.

 

[Keyzer Soze]

13 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

I don’t really bother about the av positions. I just pay attention to how they play, looking for moments when we are building play down that flank. They will be close so they are always lending Support to each other. And this almost always gives me the option to use the Mezzala on attack. I do not use the DM on Support though, then there would be too many in close support.

 

I did test the MEZ with attack duty, but i was playing against a team that was very deep in defense, so i didn0t take much advantage from that. But, when i did that, i keep the DM on support duty, so i will give it a go once again but wih the DM in defense duty.

Usually when i'm facing more difficuties to score, my first change is the W(s) to W(a), then if that not works, i change the AP(s) to W(s) to give more width to my attack.

The mentality, sometimes i change to contol, but when i do that i use the TI to work the ball into box, to prevent stupid long shots... manly from the MEZ and the CM.

It's working so far, but i still feel that i'm not in full control of the match. The amount of shots that the opponent can make it's still worrying me, but i hope with the tweaks the tactic will improve.

[Rashidi]

I don’t really bother about the av positions. I just pay attention to how they play, looking for moments when we are building play down that flank. They will be close so they are always lending Support to each other. And this almost always gives me the option to use the Mezzala on attack. I do not use the DM on Support though, then there would be too many in close support.

 

[Keyzer Soze]

@Rashidi

Yeah, you already said that, two hours ago! 

[Rashidi]

Wow I posted that a while ago...and it came back ...without me even trying to post it..wierd

[RCCook]

20 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

This year I'm happy with my overall system, so I only make small changes. As a mid-table team, against the top guys, my team shape is Structured. That ensures I don't over-commit (specifically those fullbacks) too much against better opposition. Against "easier" teams, I'll switch to Fluid, which sees my fullbacks get involved earlier, so I'm more attacking without changing anything else.

May give that a go in matches against "lesser" sides- I was using a WB/S and a FB/A, but found that it left my team really open to crosses. Switched to FB/S on both sides, and it's much better defensively, but still have trouble breaking some teams down. I'm playing a front three of IF-A, CF-A, and W-S, and we create a lot of good chances, but finishing can be inconsistent.

[HUNT3R]

3 hours ago, RCCook said:

May give that a go in matches against "lesser" sides- I was using a WB/S and a FB/A, but found that it left my team really open to crosses. Switched to FB/S on both sides, and it's much better defensively, but still have trouble breaking some teams down. I'm playing a front three of IF-A, CF-A, and W-S, and we create a lot of good chances, but finishing can be inconsistent.

Remember I said my overall system was good. If you have big issues, like being "really open" to crosses, Team Shape won't fix that. All it did was make the defenders a little more or less aggressive.

My role and duty choices all worked and linked together. All I wanted was a subtle move to something slightly more or less aggressive.

 

[BlairNo.1]

So things are going ok, or were going ok until I lost 3 of my last 4 league games. My problem over the season so far seems to be creating chances and scoring goals. Upto now my main goal threat is the W-A which is Mane. He is flying. The mezzala has also chipped in with quite a few but that seems to be where it stops. My team do have alot of long shots and thats with the WBIB instruction on.

I'm trying to think of ways I can get more goals out of my team.

This is how i've setup for the most part of the season. Firmino is chipping in with a goal every other game but with an average rating of 6.99 something is not right there. Coutinho as the AP-S have only grabbed a couple this season and is also only averaging 7.08.

Defensively I am sound but I only seem to be getting the best out of 2 players from the front 5.

I have noticed during the game that the AP-S does drop very deep, around the halfway line which would explain the lack of goals and assists from that area. One piece of play that I do see often is the link up between the Mezzala and the WB-A. He seems to attract players to him leaving space for the WB-A to attack. Would I be better with a winger on support? This would avoid the AP-S and the Mezzala operating in the same areas which they currently do. Also, would that then help my striker as I would have another player that bit closer to him?

[jc577]

How are your goals typically scored? I'm using a fairly simple but effective 433, which is this:

Very simple, but we can score goals in a variety of ways. The most common combinations are: winger crosses to CF-s OR the IF hitting the back post, the CM-a slips the winger through on goal, the CF-s plays the IF through, and lastly through passes from the CM-s to the IF. I'm not a tactical genius, far from it, but it's important to envisage how you're going to score goals when creating a tactic. I'm not entirely sure how you're planning to score goals, your left flank is very passive, and only your striker and the IF are going to be in the box regularly. The MEZ will enter but much later on, i'd definitely give him an attack duty, that way he should push higher up into the half-space whilst the AP drops deep, should see some nice interchanging of positions. Also, your midfield looks devoid of any flair and/or vision, in terms of personnel. Is Milner really a Mezzala, despite what the game says? Can isn't the most creative player either. I'd look at moving Coutinho into midfield, just to add a bit more creativity. 

 

 

[summatsupeer]

I think your tactic is a bit heavy on forward runs and lacks anyone consistently using the hole.  MEZ moves wider, AP might come inside but typically deeper or left sided, CM-S typically deeper, IF-A higher and DLF-A high to.   If playing down the left through the playmaker (which is likely since players prefer to give him the ball), unless the ball goes backwards to the DM-D/CM-S or a long cross field pass is played there's not much linking the creative left flank and the goal threat on the right flank.

I would have the ST drop into the hole will give a bit more variety, I mean Firmino isn't going to win a foot race against most CB's with his speed anyway!  

[RCCook]

18 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

Remember I said my overall system was good. If you have big issues, like being "really open" to crosses, Team Shape won't fix that. All it did was make the defenders a little more or less aggressive.

My role and duty choices all worked and linked together. All I wanted was a subtle move to something slightly more or less aggressive.

 

Sorry, should have been more clear: changing my outside defender roles to more defensive ones seems to have resolved the issue with crosses, but I've had some issues with breaking down more defensive sides, and thought the FB role change might be contributing to that.

So I was thinking that I might try a more fluid team shape to see if that would improve the attack, without sacrificing our current defensive stability. I did experiment with it last night in a match where we were drawing 0-0 to a defensive side at halftime, and wound up winning 2-0. Not sure that the change was the reason we won, but I'll play around with it some more and see what happens. 

[BlairNo.1]

Honest to god, how can things just go so wrong!! Scored 2 goals in last 10 games at the end of the season. Missed out on champions league. SACKED. Brilliant.

[Rashidi]

7 hours ago, BlairNo.1 said:

Honest to god, how can things just go so wrong!! Scored 2 goals in last 10 games at the end of the season. Missed out on champions league. SACKED. Brilliant.

I can see why. Frankly your system is built with 2 wingbacks who are attacking, against teams that hit on the break you will be very vulnerable you aren’t controlling the pitch to create any overloads. Instead you are hoping to punch through. Just change both WBs, one can afford to be a defensive back and the other can be on support.

You need to observe games to see when you can unleash both. A wingback is inherently more attacking minded as well.

[BlairNo.1]

17 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

I can see why. Frankly your system is built with 2 wingbacks who are attacking, against teams that hit on the break you will be very vulnerable you aren’t controlling the pitch to create any overloads. Instead you are hoping to punch through. Just change both WBs, one can afford to be a defensive back and the other can be on support.

You need to observe games to see when you can unleash both. A wingback is inherently more attacking minded as well.

So do you not see any issues higher up the pitch? You're right though, struggling to break down smaller teams and struggling away from home against bigger sides

[davehibb]

I've had great success with the 4-1-2-3 in my Dortmund save so far. So much so that i've really surprised myself!

What I wanted was a solid defensive base to allow my fullbacks to support attacks without being too cavalier. I really wanted to funnel chances to Aubameyang and have a secondary scoring threat in Reus and a late runner as another scoring threat in the Mezzala.

Here's the setup, incase it gives you a few ideas.

GK- SK(s) - Burki

DR - WB(s) - Pizcek
DL - WB(a) - Digne
DC - DC(d) - Bartra
DC - DC(d) - Rugani

DM - DLP(d) - Diawara

MCR - MEZ(a) - Milinkovic-Savic
MCL - CM(s) - Dahood

AMR - W(s) - Anderson
AML - IF(a) - Reus

ST - AF(a) - Aubameyang

Control/Structured
Prevent GK Dist
Close Down More
Play Out Of Defense
Pass Into Space

No Oi's, never use them.

Limited PI's - GK distribute to CDs and DLP has more direct passing.

The idea is to have PEA constantly looking to break the defensive line and for us to look to spring him with long passes from our DLP or diagonal balls from our wide men, as well as obviously getting on the end of crosses. He has been insane in terms of goalscoring, plus we also have Reus and Milinkovic-Savic being scoring threats too.

[Keyzer Soze]

Not trying to divert from @BlairNo.1 issues, but since this is the thread about the 4123 more active at the moment, would like to know the opinion about my current shape.

So right now, i'm playing like this:

DLF(a)

IF(s)                                               W(s)

AP(a)           MEZ(s)

DM(d)

WB(a)       CD(d)        CD(d)         FB(s)

SK(d)

 

Standard/Flexible with TI's playing from defense, work ball into box and close down more.

The first thing i've notice when seeing my games, is that many times the AP(a)+MEZ(s) would push up too much, in particulary against teams that would sit deep. I've try to fix that by giving the AP(a) the PI to hold position.

The second thing i've notice, is the role that i choose for the right back. At first i was playing with a IWB(s). It work in some games, but in others i was getting too exposed in particulary when i was loosing the ball in attack. Because of that, i change to a regular FB(s).

Well, just would like to know what do you think about the tactic...

And, would like the opinion about the forward role. Is the DLF(a) the best choice in this case?

[vasilli07]

I think the DLF(A) is ok if you want him to drop deep at times. Without an AM behind him, that's probably fine.

[Keyzer Soze]

I don't know... the more i play, the more i can relate with @BlairNo.1.

Every setup that i try for the 4123 Wide DM end's ups failing after a couple of games. I can even get 3 or 4 wins, but then get that strange loss against a bottom table.

Just now, lost 3-0 away against Moreirense for the Portuguese league (playing with Benfica). They completly trash me with more possession, more shots... more everything.

And i'm playing the FMT version of the game, so there's no excuse for a stupid team talk or whatever.

I really need to re-think my game strategy.

[jc577]

3 hours ago, davehibb said:

I've had great success with the 4-1-2-3 in my Dortmund save so far. So much so that i've really surprised myself!

What I wanted was a solid defensive base to allow my fullbacks to support attacks without being too cavalier. I really wanted to funnel chances to Aubameyang and have a secondary scoring threat in Reus and a late runner as another scoring threat in the Mezzala.

Here's the setup, incase it gives you a few ideas.

GK- SK(s) - Burki

DR - WB(s) - Pizcek
DL - WB(a) - Digne
DC - DC(d) - Bartra
DC - DC(d) - Rugani

DM - DLP(d) - Diawara

MCR - MEZ(a) - Milinkovic-Savic
MCL - CM(s) - Dahood

AMR - W(s) - Anderson
AML - IF(a) - Reus

ST - AF(a) - Aubameyang

Control/Structured
Prevent GK Dist
Close Down More
Play Out Of Defense
Pass Into Space

No Oi's, never use them.

Limited PI's - GK distribute to CDs and DLP has more direct passing.

The idea is to have PEA constantly looking to break the defensive line and for us to look to spring him with long passes from our DLP or diagonal balls from our wide men, as well as obviously getting on the end of crosses. He has been insane in terms of goalscoring, plus we also have Reus and Milinkovic-Savic being scoring threats too.

Very similar to the 433 i’m using at the moment, even the ti’s are more or less the same  Doesn’t that flank cause you trouble with two attack duties?

[davehibb]

30 minutes ago, jc577 said:

Very similar to the 433 i’m using at the moment, even the ti’s are more or less the same  Doesn’t that flank cause you trouble with two attack duties?

Nothing that's been noticeable. The CM on support and the DLP on defend usually clean up and recycle any clearances down that side or press any opposition breaks.

In fact in season 3, we just set the new Bundesliga clean sheet record, going 10 games without conceding and I think we've conceded something like 2 in the last 18 league games.

[Rashidi]

6 hours ago, BlairNo.1 said:

So do you not see any issues higher up the pitch? You're right though, struggling to break down smaller teams and struggling away from home against bigger sides

Up the pitch no not really, I see issues in you failing to control midfield with your attacking wingbacks. I'd focus on locking down the flank where your playmaker and mez are with a defensive duty for a back and on the right flank use a support duty. Then work your chances.

[BlairNo.1]

3 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Up the pitch no not really, I see issues in you failing to control midfield with your attacking wingbacks. I'd focus on locking down the flank where your playmaker and mez are with a defensive duty for a back and on the right flank use a support duty. Then work your chances.

Thanks @Rashidi I'll give it a go. Would you revert back to fullbacks or stick with the wingback? I would have thought fullback on the right and wingback on the left as the AP-S seems to drop deep and more central.

 

[Rashidi]

43 minutes ago, BlairNo.1 said:

Thanks @Rashidi I'll give it a go. Would you revert back to fullbacks or stick with the wingback? I would have thought fullback on the right and wingback on the left as the AP-S seems to drop deep and more central.

 

Personally I will go...if he's meant to stay back...and hardly take part..then he becomes a DFB and if he is meant to be more attacking and I need him to support midfield then he is a WB. A lot depends on the kind of players you have at the back too. Its about knowing your own team and getting the balance right

[yonko]

9 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

I don't know... the more i play, the more i can relate with @BlairNo.1.

Every setup that i try for the 4123 Wide DM end's ups failing after a couple of games. I can even get 3 or 4 wins, but then get that strange loss against a bottom table.

Just now, lost 3-0 away against Moreirense for the Portuguese league (playing with Benfica). They completly trash me with more possession, more shots... more everything.

And i'm playing the FMT version of the game, so there's no excuse for a stupid team talk or whatever.

I really need to re-think my game strategy.

There is no more 1 tactic works every game against everyone. Those days are gone. A solid sound tactic (or set of tactics that @Rashidi calls Supersystems) needs to be created and tweaked slightly based on what happens in each game. Every tactic/system contains advantages and disadvantages that need to be manipulated slightly to achieve wins. Of course, every now and again, a game will be lost no matter what. No one goes unbeaten.

I think there is enough information shared here for anyone to create a solid tactic, understand why it's solid and how to tweak it to keep winning....most of the time, except the odd game. The 4123 Wide DM formation is one of the most versatile formations and there are many options and combinations within it.

[RCCook]

10 hours ago, vasilli07 said:

I think the DLF(A) is ok if you want him to drop deep at times. Without an AM behind him, that's probably fine.

I've had good luck with a CF-A as well. Tried using a DLF, but neither of my strikers really has the passing/vision attributes to excel in that role. 

[Keyzer Soze]

16 hours ago, yonko said:

There is no more 1 tactic works every game against everyone. Those days are gone. A solid sound tactic (or set of tactics that @Rashidi calls Supersystems) needs to be created and tweaked slightly based on what happens in each game. Every tactic/system contains advantages and disadvantages that need to be manipulated slightly to achieve wins. Of course, every now and again, a game will be lost no matter what. No one goes unbeaten.

I think there is enough information shared here for anyone to create a solid tactic, understand why it's solid and how to tweak it to keep winning....most of the time, except the odd game. The 4123 Wide DM formation is one of the most versatile formations and there are many options and combinations within it.

I know, and i agree with you.

That other post was a bit of a rant, after loosing a game.

In previous editions, i did manage to built my own "supersystem". A tactic that i use in my entire save, just making small tweaks here and there in some particular games.

This is the way i play FM, since... forever, and always with great sucess.

But this year, i haven't been able to do that. It's a matter of time.

[yonko]

4 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

I know, and i agree with you.

That other post was a bit of a rant, after loosing a game.

In previous editions, i did manage to built my own "supersystem". A tactic that i use in my entire save, just making small tweaks here and there in some particular games.

This is the way i play FM, since... forever, and always with great sucess.

But this year, i haven't been able to do that. It's a matter of time.

Well, actually a Sypersystem is a set of two or three different tactics with different instructions that are for different opponents/scenarios. Each one will exploit different type of weakness in your opponents' set up.

I usually have 4-1-2-3 Wide DM and 4-2-3-1 Wide formations loaded with slight tweaks in the TIs (definitely different mentality and shape). And sometimes I have a 3rd tactic that uses a random formation (442, 4-1-4-1 or something like that).

I try to load the following combinations of mentality and shape:

Standard + Flexible 

Control + Structured

Counter + Fluid

This year I've decided to avoid the extremes for some reason. I have found comfort and simplicity in using these set ups. 

[BlairNo.1]

I'm still really struggling with this tactic. I've tried the couple of changes suggested by @Rashidi but my team are still really struggling to create any decent chances.

This is how I have been playing:

When I look at the tactic as it is I get the feeling that the players in the DLF and W position are going to be high up and separated from the midfield trio and the AP - S.

I'm certainly not convinced that DLF-A is the best role for the forward and I often see the AP-S dropping deep and playing in and around the Mez position. Would I get more out of this if I changed the Mez to an attacking duty?

I need more inspiration :-) I have a very good side but we are far too inconsistent and finding it impossible to challenge for the top 4. I've once again toyed with the idea of a change of system but I can't bring myself to do it. I know if I create any other formation and leave this one behind I will not be happy.

[Keyzer Soze]

Hi, 

Been thinking about a new setup for the 4123 formation, trying to put together in the midfield a AP and a MEZ. 

Came down to the this :

                    DLF(a) 

IF(s)                                       W(s) 

            AP(a)    MEZ(s) 

                     DM(s) 

WB(a)    CD(d)       CD(d)      WB(s) 

                        SK(d) 

TI's: play out of defense, work ball into box, press more

The idea was getting a very creative midfield, with the AP(a) creating for the forwards runs from the MEZ and the IF, with the winger providing width in the attack. 

Some doubts about the forward role (DLF, attack or support, or CF support) and also some doubts about the Inside Forward, perhaps would make more sense change the IF to attack and the left wingback to support to have more attacking runs on the left side of the pitch. 

What do you think? 

[summatsupeer]

 

1 hour ago, BlairNo.1 said:

I'm certainly not convinced that DLF-A is the best role for the forward and I often see the AP-S dropping deep and playing in and around the Mez position. Would I get more out of this if I changed the Mez to an attacking duty?

I posted this earlier:

On 1/17/2018 at 23:39, summatsupeer said:

I think your tactic is a bit heavy on forward runs and lacks anyone consistently using the hole.  MEZ moves wider, AP might come inside but typically deeper or left sided, CM-S typically deeper, IF-A higher and DLF-A high to.   If playing down the left through the playmaker (which is likely since players prefer to give him the ball), unless the ball goes backwards to the DM-D/CM-S or a long cross field pass is played there's not much linking the creative left flank and the goal threat on the right flank.

I would have the ST drop into the hole will give a bit more variety, I mean Firmino isn't going to win a foot race against most CB's with his speed anyway!  

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

With the ST using the hole more it could allow the MEZ to be more attacking.  I think with a W-A, DLF-A and MEZ-A you'd just be compounding the issue above, especially against a parked bus.

 

[BlairNo.1]

After I posted that earlier I went back to the drawing board tried some things. I went on holiday mode for the full season and the results were much much better. FA cup final, 4th in the table after a poor last 5 games or I could have won the league. More goals going in and 29 conceded in 38 :-)

I'm going with the below tactic for a while and see how I get on. Surely I'm a better manager than my assistant whilst I was on holiday. It's my year!!!

[summatsupeer]

I don't see the point in MEZ + IF.  Sure you might still get good results due to the quality of the players but when i've watched games they're using the same area very often.  Thats not always a bad thing but I rarely saw them overloading the opposition, it more often reduced the number of options available for other players with the ball since 2 players were doing what 1 player could of done.

Why not use a AP-A instead of the MEZ-A so he can carry the ball forward and use the hole more rather than having another player (IF-S + AF) using that left channel?

[isignedupfornorealreason]

1 hour ago, BlairNo.1 said:

Surely I'm a better manager than my assistant whilst I was on holiday. It's my year!!!

Hehe.

I really hate this formation, I could bludgeon it into working but I had so many frustrations to do with players taking long shots and not taking their time to create chances. 

1 hour ago, summatsupeer said:

I think your tactic is a bit heavy on forward runs and lacks anyone consistently using the hole.  MEZ moves wider, AP might come inside but typically deeper or left sided, CM-S typically deeper, IF-A higher and DLF-A high to.   If playing down the left through the playmaker (which is likely since players prefer to give him the ball), unless the ball goes backwards to the DM-D/CM-S or a long cross field pass is played there's not much linking the creative left flank and the goal threat on the right flank.

Just to throw it out there, what are you thinking of in terms of the 'hole' player? The striker or someone from midfield?

[BlairNo.1]

1 hour ago, summatsupeer said:

I don't see the point in MEZ + IF.  Sure you might still get good results due to the quality of the players but when i've watched games they're using the same area very often.  Thats not always a bad thing but I rarely saw them overloading the opposition, it more often reduced the number of options available for other players with the ball since 2 players were doing what 1 player could of done.

Why not use a AP-A instead of the MEZ-A so he can carry the ball forward and use the hole more rather than having another player (IF-S + AF) using that left channel?

That's what I found with the AP-S and the Mez-S in the setup I was using before.

Would it be wise to have 2 playmakers? I like the playmaker in the DM position upto now.

[summatsupeer]

57 minutes ago, isignedupfornorealreason said:

Hehe.

I really hate this formation, I could bludgeon it into working but I had so many frustrations to do with players taking long shots and not taking their time to create chances. 

Just to throw it out there, what are you thinking of in terms of the 'hole' player? The striker or someone from midfield?

hehe 4123 DM Wide is my most used formation, i'm a "clean sheet first" kind of manager rather than "we'll score more than they do" and as long as you get your wide forwards to help its hard to break down with the DM.

Either or both tbh.  Depends on the overall setup, in other formations like 4411 you have 2 players in that danger area but in 4123 DM Wide there's only the ST unless one of the CM gets forward but not move/roam into wider areas.  For example I currently have a AP-A with a CAR-S as my midfield pair with a IF-A, CF-S and IF-S as my front 3.  The CF-S drops to work the space but also makes runs from deep.  The AP-A drives forward with the ball to either play through one of the IF or combines with the CF.  The IF pair don't really use the area behind the CF, its wider/channel areas they use.

58 minutes ago, BlairNo.1 said:

That's what I found with the AP-S and the Mez-S in the setup I was using before.

Would it be wise to have 2 playmakers? I like the playmaker in the DM position upto now.

AP-S and MEZ-S could end up supporting in the same area, I think IF-S and MEZ-S is even more likely as the AP will be deeper more often than the IF.

AP-S and MEZ-A I found to link up nicely, whilst sometimes they would be in the same area it was typically as one dropped came narrow whilst the other pushed up and wider.  I didn't see them standing around in the same areas often.

The question i'd ask when deciding if you want a playmaker is, do you want him to see a bit more of the ball (hence take a bit of possession away from teammates) and move towards the ball more often to collect it?  You could have more than 2 if you like, though if they are all "pure" playmakers (eg. ozil+pirlo) you might have issues defending compared to say Coutinho+Matic.

[BlairNo.1]

8 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

AP-S and MEZ-S could end up supporting in the same area, I think IF-S and MEZ-S is even more likely as the AP will be deeper more often than the IF.

AP-S and MEZ-A I found to link up nicely, whilst sometimes they would be in the same area it was typically as one dropped came narrow whilst the other pushed up and wider.  I didn't see them standing around in the same areas often.

The question i'd ask when deciding if you want a playmaker is, do you want him to see a bit more of the ball (hence take a bit of possession away from teammates) and move towards the ball more often to collect it?  You could have more than 2 if you like, though if they are all "pure" playmakers (eg. ozil+pirlo) you might have issues defending compared to say Coutinho+Matic.

To be honest I don't want the ball to be pushed over to the AML if on an AP-S role. I prefer the idea of the DLP-D in the DM position because he then has everyone in front of him and dictate the play from behind.

The way I have it setup at the minute saw me get plenty of goals from the AML, AMR and ST which is what I want. The AMR in particular was scoring and assisting for fun.

If I do see any issues at least I can then look at the AP-A next to my CM-S

[BlairNo.1]

I've hit a wall with this. I've tried numerous saves using various versions of the 4-1-2-2-1, some of which are copied below. I still continue to struggle and the end result is me getting sacked each and every time.

Each time I try a new version I think about why I'm doing the things i'm doing and that just obviously isn't playing out as I intend. The main problem continues to be breaking teams down and creating good quality chances.

I really want my team to build from the back. I don't want long balls are games of head tennis. I want the ball down on the floor and to play good football. That starts with the goalkeeper therefore I am setting him to distribute to my centre backs.

As the centre backs receive the ball they will be looking to keep it simple and ideally give it to my DLP-D. He is the one who is going to be sat deep, dictating play and have everyone in front of him so he can pick out passes and start the attacking moves.

With that in mind, I don't want all of the top half of my team bombing forward once the DLP-D receives the ball as this may leave him isolated and with little option but the long ball.

I will be having one of my central midfielders on attack duty as I want him to get forward and support the attacking play. This player will be the MEZ-A. He will be playing behind the W-S on the right side as I want him to get forward and support. The W-S will play wide enough so that the MEZ has room to operate in the half spaces as he should. With this side of the pitch having and attacking CM and also a AMR who will naturally be quite high due to starting position I will play a FB-D. This player will get up to around the halfway line. From there he can be a passing option for the DLP-D and also a passing option for the MEZ-A and W-S if they need to come back. The right side of the pitch shouldn't be too congested and there should be passing options for my players.

The left side of the pitch is going to have a WB-S. I want him to get forward at the right times and provide the width as he will be playing behind a IF-A. The IF-A will be looking to run at the opposition defence, get into the box and link up with my striker and get on the end of crosses from the W-S on the right. The central midfielder on the left side will be a simple CM-S. With that role he won't get too far forward so that he interferes with my IF-A but he should be a passing option. He can also provide to the IF-A.

As things stand I am trying to imagine that there will be good link up play and plenty of passing options.

My striker shouldn't have to drop too deep because my wide players are naturally high up the pitch and the MEZ-A will also be pushing up behind him. For that reason I'm going to operate with a CF-A. He should play on the shoulder but he will also hold up the ball and bring others into play.

I would normally go with a control mentality but my team will already be quite advanced so I am torn between counter and standard. I'm going to go with standard purely because I'm not sure and that is the default setting :-)

Team shape I'm also not sure about. I feel like I should play with a fluid setting because I want to encourage good football. I have good technical players and this should encourage that bit more creativity from them.

So what we have for now is:

Now to create the style of play I want without over complicating things.

I will leave tempo as default. I don't want to play too fast as I risk not controlling the ball. I also don't want to slow down too much as I'll likely face problems breaking teams down.

I want to spread the play and make the play wider. This is mainly because on one side I have a winger and on the other side I have a wingback. The will provide the width, hopefully spread the opposition defence and that should provide more space for the IF-A and the MEZ-A to work with. The IF-A will be running at the defence so the further apart the defenders are the better. Also, as the MEZ-A is operating in the half spaces these should be bigger areas than if I were to play narrow.

Defensive line and closing down. I would normally increase one or both of these but I am going to leave on default for now. If I play higher up that will push my players up the pitch meaning their starting positions are higher, leaving less space to build up in. I also don't want my players breaking my defensive shape by charging after the ball.

I definitely want to play out of defence for reasons mentioned above. I did think about passing into space as I am going to be playing wider but I am going to leave this as one of the things I use in a game if required.

The only other thing I will change is the cross type. I don't want any floated crosses as I will often be playing Firmino up top and he is not likely to beat centre backs. I'm torn between low crosses and whipped. I am going to go with whipped as there is more chance of the cross making it to the back post for my IF-A.

I'm left with this:

 

So, I've created that as I've typed this so that I could write down my thought process and show how I've come up with what I have.

There's a strong possibility that I've just waffled and come up with another formula for failure but I would appreciate any thoughts you have on this. I am going to do some testing on FMT initially to get some immediate feedback but do any problems stand out just looking at it?

 

Thanks AGAIN :-)

 

[Keyzer Soze]

@BlairNo.1

Don't really know very well Liverpool team, so i can say anything about the style of play and choosen roles and if they suit the players you have.

But talking about how the roles link together, i don't see any thing wrong and i think it's a well balanced formation.

The only role i'm a little spetic is the CF with attack duty. Not a big fan of the complete forward with attack duty in formation with only one forward. I think these kind of formations need a forward that will be more involve in the gameplay, and because of that roles like the DLF, support or attack, work better.

[davehibb]

@BlairNo.1 Like Keyzer I don't see a whole lot terribly wrong with what you have set up or your thought process. It's very similar to the system I use in my BVB save, that said though, when I tried to plug and play that system into my Liverpool save, it didn't play out anywhere near as well.

I think the best thing to do is to persevere with it, watch some games on comprehensive or full highlights and see how everything comes together, how players interact, where play breaks down and where your system gets exploited by the opposition and adjust it accordingly.

Same goes for your players, do they work in the roles you are playing them? Not judging them by their suitability but by actually seeing how they perform. Are you using Salah on the right for example? I think he might struggle as a W(s) on the right as he's left footed and if memory serves, he doesn't have the cuts inside PPM. Does the W(s) have support in general, given the FB is on defend and the Mez(a) will be pushing forward? Does the W(s) have anyone to aim for in the middle with your striker being a CF who tends to roam around a lot?

My system used an AF(a) who was always in the box, always looking to break the lines and really was the focal point of the attack, with my IF(a) and MEZ(a) as secondary goalscoring threats.

Hope that helps.

If it's any consolation, in my Liverpool save, although I wont the league comfortably, I struggled to create a style I liked and was never happy how my front 3 or 4 worked together.

One other thing to try is maybe going Structured, instead of Fluid. Fluid ups players creative freedom I think and do you really wants the likes of Moreno, Lovren and Hendo overthinking things and trying to be too fancy?

[summatsupeer]

I think you've still got same old issue of everyone pushing forward and wide so lack consistent threat through the middle.

[Keyzer Soze]

@summatsupeer

Little question about my version of the 4123 DM Wide.

Playing like this:

 

CF(s)

IF(s)                                        W(s)

AP(s)          CM(a)

DM(s)

WB(a)    CD(d)     CD(d)      FB(s)

SK(d)

Standard mentality, Flexible team shape

TI's: D-Line Higher, play from defense, close down much more

PI's: IF(s) with instruction to sit narrow, CF(s) with instruction to move into channels, CM(a) with instruction to shoot less and more risky passes.

Playing with a big team in the portuguese league, so expecting that the large majority of the opponents will sit deep.

The idea, was having, on the right side, the winger providing width, stretching the play, with the CM(a) going forward to be a goal threat.

On the left, the IF(s) sitting a little more narrow, to that he can combine better with the AP(s) and the CF(s), at the same time the WB(a) will go forward, providing width assist (byline crosses to the box).

Play 5 games untill now, supercup and 4 league games, all against bottom half teams. Manage to win all, but:

- In all games i've conceed at least one goal, all from counter attack situation or setpieces (corners).

- Score at least 2 goals in all games, but the team seems to struggle to create good chances, in particulary in home games.

- In all games the IF got the lowest rating. untill now just one goal, and zero assist.

- The CM(a) only score one goal, but from a long shot... not exactly what i was expecting from him

- CF(s) and W(s) are my best scorers, both with 4 goals.

So despite i'm winning, i'm not trully convinced with this setup. The CM and the IF, whom i expect to be more influencial in the game play are not working the way i was expecting. I would like to see the CM(a) overlapping the CF(s) when he drops for example, but in all 5 games he didn't do that one single time.

So, in your opinion, what is wrong here?