4-3-2-1, central players

[chacal]

Hi forums,

 

So, I'm trying to work out the optimal setup for the central backbone of a 4-3-2-1 tactics. I'm switching between that tactic and a 4-2-3-1 which is quite offensive minded (I play as Arsenal, season 2023/2024).

My 4-3-2-1 tactic derives from my 4-2-3-1 tactic, which is setup like this:

SK | IWB (Attack) - BPD (Cover) - BPD (Stopper) - IWB (attack) | BWM (Sup) - BWM (Sup)  | IF (Sup) - AM (Attack) - IF (Sup) | AF (Attack)

It's Very Fluid and Attack. It has worked wonders for me, but it's vulnerable on the defensive end, especially the flanks since I have IWB on attack and I'm not ready to sacrifice those to cover up the holes they are leaving. This means that I am conceding some goals either via cross, or the opposition exploiting the flanks on the counter and passing their way through my two BPD. Some teams also exploit the hole between the defense and midfield.

What I'm trying to achive with my 4-3-2-1 tactic is basically to tighten up that hole in between the defence and the midfield. I can live with the holes on the flanks if we can tighten up the middle of the pitch, so this is what I'm thinking of in terms of player roles:

SK | IWB (Attack) - BPD (Cover) - BPD (Stopper) - IWB (Attack) | HB (there's only one available mentality, can't remember if it's Defend or Support) | BWM (Sup) - MEZ (Support/Attack) | IF (Sup) - IF (Sup) | AF (Attack)

The idea is that my AM (Attack) from the 4-2-3-1 drops down in the MEZ (Sup/Attack) role, providing the linkage between defence and attack. When on defense I want the HB to sit right infront of the defense when the opposition builds up their attack, and if they exploit the flank, help the defense out in the box. When on attack, the HB can provide an outlet for the BPD, and then either pass the ball shorter to the BWM or directly to the MEZ a little further up the field.

In terms of individual instructions for the central part of my team, I'm thinking something like this:

BPD (Cover) - Close Down Less, Tackle Harder, Pass Shorter

BPD (Stopper) - Close Down More, Tackle Harder, Pass Shorter

HB - Tackle Harder, Mixed Passing, Shoot Less, Dribble Less, More Risky Passes

BWM (Sup) - Tackle Harder, Runs wide with ball, Dribble Less, Shoot Less, More risky passes

MEZ - Get further forward, Shoot Less, Dribble Less, More risky passes, Tackle Harder. I'm still debating with myself if the MEZ mentality should be Sup or Attack, haven't made up my mind yet. 

Something like that... What do you guys think, any comments? Do you think this would be a good setup for a lockdown kinda defense in the middle of the pitch, or do you have any suggestions of improvements?

Thanks! 

[summatsupeer]

Why change formation rather than just addressing the issues you have with the current tactic?

Just as a general comment on the tactic, it feels like your trying to brute force your way to goal with so few players covering and so many players getting forward and coming inside where there's already lots of players.

I think the simplest area to look at is the BWM-S pair, especially as you want to keep the 2xIWB-A+IF-S.  What do the BWM-S pair give you when your 4 wide players are coming inside plus there's already an AM-A and AF-A there?  What are the front 4 doing defensively that requires those covering players to go press so aggressively? 

With regard to your suggested change, I don't see the point in a MEZ when you have IWB + IF who will be moving into/through the channels from there wide starting position. For me thats a 3rd player doing a similar job as the 2 others so is likely to get in the way doing similar runs and reduces the number of different options.

[chacal]

Fair point! The tactic has been quite succesful in overloading, creating 3 players (IF, IWB and BWM) on either side of the centre of the pitch - most often, the IWB dumps it off to the BWM, who lays it off to the IF and the IWB storming into the penalty box. This in turn give us a numerical advantage in the box, with the IWB, AM and AF  all creating havoc in the box (I'm using low crosses). My AM get's the most of the goals from the crosses as he comes a little behind the striker, with the IWB coming just behind the AM and snatches at any loose balls. 

But I'll have a look at the either one or both the BWM, maybe change one of them to a more passive role in terms of closing down. 

Also, I have been running a 4-2-3-1 since the beginning of my save, and it might be that I'm looking at a "new" challenge tactical wise on my save. I'm not the biggest spender transfer wise (replicating Arsenal), working with youngsters through the academy / youth intake, so I'm trying to put a lot of focus on the tactical aspect. Also, last season went great on all fronts until I went head to head with Real Madrid in the Champions Leage Qtr Finals, where they smashed me 6-1, exploiting my tactics to the fullest (hole between my defense and midfield --> flanks --> cross to the middle --> goal). That's when I started thinking about a HB (or equivalent), whilst still trying to maintain the overloading on attack. 

[summatsupeer]

The thing with a HB is he's really just a standard DM player. When you have possession deep he does drop between the CBs who push wider but they don't stay as a back 3 so you don't get that same flank cover.  Maybe you'd be better off with an actual back 3, with mobile outside CBs who can deal with quick, agile wide forwards?  The CM pair would need to be more box to box / BWM type players like Kante to control the midfield area.  Even though you lose the AM who you mention is a main scorer there should be enough players in and around the area that someone else could get into the same area.  Whilst MEZ is the most aggressive CM role it makes the player move wider into the channels, but you don't really need another player working that area and will be very different from what your AM provided.

[chacal]

I have actually tried to stay clear of the back 3 (or back 5 if you include the IWB's) since it's used a lot in those OP 5-2-3-tactics, but in this case I might give it a go. Perhaps going with a back 3, and with the most central one try and replicate a libero-type on attack, pushing forwards and joining up front. I'm going to have to experiment a bit. Also, if I go with a back 3 I'm thinking of pushing the IWB's forward one notch on the tactics screen, try to make them sit in the hole as a DM but a bit wider. Then my outside CB's can cover a bit of the flanks and the IWB's covers part of the hole, sort of. 

I'm also thinking about switching the BWM's to a more simple role, like CM and tinker with the mentality of the roles. I'll lot you know how my experiment goes!