How viable is this as a tactic?

[tedthelabrador]

I'm going to try and play possession football in my new save. My wingers aren't very good and I'm playing in a weak league so I've decided to give this formation a bash:

                          GK
                  CB            CB

WB (A)            DM (D)            WB (A)

              BWM (S)      CM (S)
  
               AM (S)         AP (A)

                          AF (A)

TIs: shorter passing, slower tempo, work ball into the box, slightly higher line, play out of defence

Is this tactic viable? Are there any major issues that you can see with it?

[summatsupeer]

Looks a solid starting point.  Remember players play roles slightly differently depending on there attributes so you will need to see how it plays on the field and then maybe adjust to what you see.

The main thing i'd watch for is the MC pair and AMC pair and how they combine.  Do they end up doing similar things in similar areas so the player in possession lacks options?  Do the AMC pair come deep leaving the AF isolated?

Secondly, why have the WB's in the WB position and not the FB position?  If they defend higher with only 2 CBs it could leave space behind them.  I'd expect the MC+AM on each side to help defend the flanks higher up.

[tedthelabrador]

27 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

Secondly, why have the WB's in the WB position and not the FB position?  If they defend higher with only 2 CBs it could leave space behind them.  I'd expect the MC+AM on each side to help defend the flanks higher up.

I decided to push them further up because I thought it might help add width to the attack. I'll probably adjust it, though, as I want to avoid the defensive problems that you've alluded to.

[Rashidi]

Against teams that sit back your flanks will be vulnerable so those WBs better have good engines 

[summatsupeer]

26 minutes ago, tedthelabrador said:

I decided to push them further up because I thought it might help add width to the attack. I'll probably adjust it, though, as I want to avoid the defensive problems that you've alluded to.

The role and duty dictates how they when you have the ball.  Defending slightly higher could affect where they are when you gain possession but once in final third you won't notice a difference.

[tedthelabrador]

30 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Against teams that sit back your flanks will be vulnerable so those WBs better have good engines

Both have good stamina and work rate for the level that we are playing at, thankfully. Would you say that things look ok from an attacking angle?

[Park]

I played that shape with Roma a few versions ago. I think the best thing to do is like you're intending to do: keep the ball. That way you won't be giving the opposition too many counter attacking opportunities. My wingbacks were Complete Wingback-Attack so even more attacking. I had both my centre backs on Stopper duties to have them quickly close down when a break was on, and to have them closer to my DM (who had the Halfback role). This would probably be terrible with slow defenders though.

My best player was Gervinho retrained as an AMC on Shadow Striker, or Attacking Midfielder with 'Dribble More'. You might want to make sure that your AP is a good dribbler otherwise the whole thing could get a bit static.

[Rashidi]

2 hours ago, tedthelabrador said:

Both have good stamina and work rate for the level that we are playing at, thankfully. Would you say that things look ok from an attacking angle?

You need to try it out, I am not confident with those 2 WBs being so attacking, it may be worth getting the one where the AP is to be on Support. Having said that there is a 90% chance you will concede goals down the flanks.

[Real]

How about changing the CM(S) to Cariello, and also dropping the AP(S) back to do the same on the other flank.  This will give some protection, but still passing options.

[Dingusen]

Been playing 2x CB and 2xWB in DM strata for years and years (it was CM, not FM when I started this) - that is change from FB to WB when I have aquired good enoughg WBs. You need those WBs to be be pretty awsome for it to work ok, and even then you need to accept that you will leave room behind the WBs, crosses against will be frequent. This also means the CBs need great skills in anticipation, jumping reach and heading. As well as being rather fast to cover all the space. 

Your WBs needs work rate and stamina as stated above, but they also need to be very fast to catch up to oposing wingers and if your WBs dont manage to keep the ball for some reason, they often loose it and concede dangerous room behind them. 

It's a challenge to make it work and not look st0pid, but makes for highly entertaining games when it works.  

[Jurigag]

I use almost same tactic, except i have 3 CB without DM. And it works fantastic for me, depending on match i sometimes add DM and remove one AM and move him to CM.