3-6-1 A Logical Step

[forlegaizen]

Inspired by the Spielverlagerung article (which i shamelessly stole the name ) and the fantastic Ö-zil to the Arsenal! thread I decided to try this underused formation.

The Club

Fußball-Club Kaiserslautern

Home of the one of the best midlefielders of all time Michael Ballack and current record holder of number of goals scored in World Cups Miroslav Klose

 

A little background

This is actually my second season as a manager of Kaiserlautern

In the first season we alligned in a 4-4-2 diamond formation

We ended up in a decent 4th place (predicted 7th) and if wasnt for the leaky defense I believe we could ended in playoff spots and maybe even promotion.

 

The Tactic

The long term goal is to implement a philosophy of attacking and possession football so for this season this is the mentality we are going for:

Control mentality gives us higher tempo , width , D-Line and closing down

 

• Team Shape

          

           In the future the objective is to use Fluid or Very Fluid but analysing our squad I don't feel confortamble giving that much so creative freedom so Flexible it is.

          

•   Formation and Roles

    

   So formations are relative and since a flat 3-6-1 isnt possible in FM this is my interpretation , a 3-3-2-1-1 if you like.

   The reason for the having and AM instead of another MC is that I like the diamond shape and to provide closer support to the striker.

   I am still unsure about the support duty on the AMC and the double carrileros, maybe that would cause lack of penetration but I will leave that for when the games start

 

• Team Instructions

     

      - Play Out Of Defense - Build from the back

      - Shorter Passing - Reduce tempo and width

       I am hoping that with these instructions to tone a little bit of the high risk of the Control mentality

 

Pre-Season

 Not much to say, we played very weak opponents (besides Burnley) to build the morale and I didnt notice nothing of the ordinary

 

I will play some games and provide some analysis of how the tactic plays and the problems I find (if any )

[Experienced Defender]

3-6-1 has a number of variants. Which one are you going to use? I personally prefer 3-2-2-3 (with 2DMs, 2SMs, 2AMCs and a lone striker). It is quite elastic and hence can be utilized in several ways and with different basic styles of play or mentalities. One possible example:

 

F9

SS              APM(sup)

IW(sup)                                         WM(att)

DLP(def)        SV(sup)

DCL(def)   DC(cov)    DC(def)

[forlegaizen]

@Experienced Defender I updated now the post with more info

[Experienced Defender]

It's actually 5-4-1diamond WB. Given that you want to use Control mentality, maybe having a playmaker would be useful. Personally, I'd set DM to DLP support, change one CAR to MEZ attack and give the WB on the other side an attack duty. Flexible shape is not a bad option if you are unsure of what shape best suits your team. Anyway, we'll see how it develops after a few more games.

[forlegaizen]

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

Personally, I'd set DM to DLP support,

Yeah I considered that or maybe even a roaming playmaker might be one thing to look at

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

change one CAR to MEZ attack

Not sure about this one I am more inclined to change to CM(s) with get further foward if we dont have enough  penetration

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

give the WB on the other side an attack duty.

I am not a fan of WB on attack they seem to just dribble wide and dumb crosses whenever i use them, at the moment I have the WBs with the PI of stay wide

[Experienced Defender]

5 minutes ago, forlegaizen said:

a roaming playmaker might be one thing to look at

RPM in DM or a MC position? If you used him as DM, it could leave your backline a bit more vulnerable as RPM is less responsible defensively than DLP.

7 minutes ago, forlegaizen said:

I am more inclined to change to CM(s) with get further foward if we dont have enough  penetration

That's also an option that may work well.

[Fosse]

Manchester United played a 361 of sorts against Spurs which reminded of the same SV article.

 

Your roles and duties seem a bit passive, even on control. The numbers in midfield allow for more variability especially as nobody aside from the forward and AM are going to be routinely in the box.

[Robson 07]

With the diamond in season 1 your press was too weak to sustain that higher line and full backs on attack duty.  You would have got countered a fair bit I imagine.

That said it just needed tweaking.  By turning the fullbacks to wingbacks and losing a striker, for a 3-man defence, with an unchanged midfield lineup, I fear you're about to trade a marginally better defence for a marginally worse attack in Season 2 and not much more.

Why are you holding off going fluid?  Have you tried it? 

[OJ403]

This thread and those quoted in the O.P. have inspired me as regards to my FM19 philosophy. But before I get onto that I have to agree with @Robson 07 with regards to fluidity, maybe try it alongside "be more disciplined" TI to dial down the creative freedom?

In my eyes the possible 3-6-1 variants seems ideal for exploiting the half space, pressing in midfield and possession. Thus I have had 4 ideas as to formation:

3-2-4-1

- double pivot providing ball circulation, linking defence and midfield and exempt from the press

- WM and MEZ with staggered duties to over/underlap each other and destroy the half spaces

- DLF to link a-la Diego Costa

3-2-2-2-1

- essentially still the 3-2-4-1

- this time AM and WM have staggered duties, to achieve the same thing as in the 3-4-2-1

- AF to lead the line as players are closer to him initially so no need to play the Costa-link role

3-1-4-1-1

- closer to @Ö-zil to the Arsenal!'s Cruyff formation

- DLP replace MEZ-S to keep a double pivot of sorts

- either AM-A/DLF-S pairing to encourage overlaps or an AM-S/AF-A pairing to encourage more traditional 10/9 play

- WMs could be dropped down to WBs for defensive reasons as an out-and-out double pivot is not present

3-1-5-1

- no double pivot

- central centre midfield role uncertain

- same MEZ/WM situation as before

- again WMs could be dropped down to WBs for defensive reasons, to give the same formation as in the O.P.

- my least favourite personally, likely to be discarded long term

All would probably play between counter and attacking depending on quality of player and opposition with either fluid or very fluid shape for similar reasons. TIs probably "play out of defence", "PSGD", "close down (much?) more" and "tight marking"; PIs on the CD-C and possibly players in the DM stata to "close down (much?) less" so as they don't get drawn out of position and in the DM stratas case to play a disciplined late-Pirlo/Busquets defensively stationary holding role(s).

I don't know if these will be any help to you @forlegaizen, they're just another interpretation of the articles and any comments from others would be appreciated.

[RodentofDoom]

Many versions ago the AI would switch to one of 2 formations during play

424 to score goals when losing

361 to defend leads

 

iirc the 361 was built using 2 halves

The Attacking half

    ST                                     ST

   AMC             or        AMCL AMCR 

MCL MCR                          MC

The Defending half

WBL DMC WBR        WBL DMC WBR

 CDL CDC CDR  or       CDL CDR

                                          SW

 

It was always a pain to break it down and score goals.

[mortiphago]

It looks like the third half is a bit empty, two WB two Carrileros and an AM , all in support? Who's going to run to, you know, the center? that's where the goal is  . I'd say, change at least one WB to Inverse (A) , the AM to A and turn a carrilero into a Mezzala, possibly on attack too (might be too much, fiddle with it). You might want to set the DM to defend, too, with so many players on support you might get wrecked on counter attacks / long balls back.

Edit:

On a second thought, wouldnt the carrileros and wingbacks both conflict a bit with each other? They'd both naturally want to go wide. I'd probably change the carrileros to one Mezzala and one Box to Box or Ball Winning Midfielder.

[forlegaizen]

Sorry to not respond sooner, I have been away.

On 31/08/2018 at 19:00, Fosse said:

Your roles and duties seem a bit passive, even on control. The numbers in midfield allow for more variability especially as nobody aside from the forward and AM are going to be routinely in the box.

 

1 hour ago, mortiphago said:

It looks like the third half is a bit empty, two WB two Carrileros and an AM , all in support? Who's going to run to, you know, the center? that's where the goal is

I have played some games and done a bit of analysis and you were right, my midlefield roles and duties are not well balanced but i will do a post with pictures that goes through the problems I spotted

 

On 31/08/2018 at 22:22, Robson 07 said:

With the diamond in season 1 your press was too weak to sustain that higher line and full backs on attack duty.  You would have got countered a fair bit I imagine.

Not really, most of the goals we conceded were from crosses to 2nd post where the fullback was incapable to deal. Thats one of the reasons i switched to 3 at the back, to have more bodies to deal with that.

 

On 31/08/2018 at 22:22, Robson 07 said:

Why are you holding off going fluid?  Have you tried it? 

In regard of going fluid or very fuild I dint try it but from experimenting in other saves I am reluctant of doing that. I feel the squad is weak mentally, specially in the decision making attribute (1 player above 14)

 

@OJ403

I agree on your idea of one of the strong points of this formation is the control of the half-space, however I dont like the versions when have people in the winger strata.

I believe you can get the same attacking capabilty with the WB's and performe better defensively

The only doubt I have is using a flat 3 midlefield or using a DM but for now I will stick with the DM

[forlegaizen]

1 hour ago, mortiphago said:

On a second thought, wouldnt the carrileros and wingbacks both conflict a bit with each other? They'd both naturally want to go wide. I'd probably change the carrileros to one Mezzala and one Box to Box or Ball Winning Midfielder.

The carrilero only go wide when the team doesnt have the ball if I understand the description of the role right.

Ironically one of the problems I found was that they weren't moving wide fast enough to help the full back from being doubled up

[forlegaizen]

Just a quick question does any one knows how to watch a full game after being played ?

The way I am doing the analysis  is choosing compreensive highlights and then move around with the bar but sometimes it does some weird jumps

[OJ403]

34 minutes ago, forlegaizen said:

I agree on your idea of one of the strong points of this formation is the control of the half-space, however I dont like the versions when have people in the winger strata.

I believe you can get the same attacking capabilty with the WB's and performe better defensively

The only doubt I have is using a flat 3 midlefield or using a DM but for now I will stick with the DM

Yeah the winger/WB thing is more a matter of personell available than tactical preference in all honesty. And I have to agree on sticking with the DM, but I would be tempted to stick him on a defend duty to form a "defensive diamond" with your CBs, which is a shape I have found useful when defending counter attacks and building play up from the back. Plus, for me, I would then afford the wing backs more attacking roles/duties - perhaps a CWB-S and a WB-A?

And I must stress I am by no means a tactical genius, merely a fellow tinkerer trying to nail down a philosophy, it just so happens we seem to view football, particularly the 3-6-1, in similair ways, akin to chilli and chocolate.

[Robson 07]

1 hour ago, forlegaizen said:

 

On ‎31‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 22:22, Robson 07 said:

Why are you holding off going fluid?  Have you tried it? 

In regard of going fluid or very fuild I dint try it but from experimenting in other saves I am reluctant of doing that. I feel the squad is weak mentally, specially in the decision making attribute (1 player above 14)

I mentioned fluidity because of the compactness and pressing that comes with it.  Its where I think you diamond formation fell short.  Having a strong centralised press is what pressing is all about.  You own the centre just like the grandmasters of chess.  The diamond is an awesome formation for pressing and that means it can dovetail brilliantly with fluid and very fluid team shape.  I think, or should say suspect, that you got countered too frequently - in your 1st season - over your fullbacks because your press was not implemented to capacity.

Now a 361 could operate similarly to the diamond depending how you configure it.  Hence me again harping back to fluid.  I understand your reasoning that it may go beyond the capability levels of your players in which case perhaps don't go this 3-6-1 route at all until you have all the pieces you want assembled. 

 

[forlegaizen]

Match Analysis

So I played 3 games and here are the results

Nothing impressive, the last one was a cup game and it was basically a friendly so some signs of worry

 

Game 1

First game was against Nürnberg, a mid table team so I expected a win since I am playoff candidate

Stats

In terms of shots it was pretty balanced but we dominated in terms of clear cut chances wich may indicate we created quality chances.

This were the player stats, the only stand out I find its the number of crosses my WBR, Kessel, completed (1 in 10). I need to find if its a aiming issue or lack of bodies in the box so now we need to watch the game.

Pitch

Taking from the problem noticed above lets try to find out whats happening.

I watched every cross Kessel performed, here is one example

Kessel is about to release the ball and as you can see only my striker is in the box with my midlefield being miles aways from threatening anything .

Actually this image reveals 2 problems : 

•  Lack of bodies going forward
• The wb has no support so his only option is to cross it from a bad position

The same can be seen in the next shot

The midlefield its completly out of it once again. I believe this caused by the roles and duties of my midlefield, as some of you have pointed.

I am pretty sure the AM needs an attack duty although I'm still unsure about the 2 Mc's

The AM duty issue is more evident in this image

Barreto is way too deep, he needs to be where the X is.

The last thing I noticed its the lack of support my carrileros are giving

You can see that neither of my carrileros are trying to go foward to help, adding to that I would like that number 28 would give a little more width, near the referee would be good

 

Ok so this was game 1, tommorow I will post game 2 and 3 and the changes I will make

 

[forlegaizen]

@Robson 07

I agree with you that the diamond its excelent for dominating the midlefield but regarding to pressing I would say it has some weaknesses especially in the wide areas as you can't press efficiently the fullbacks / wingbacks of your opponent.

For heavy pressing I prefer some kind of variant of the 4-3-3 (4-5-1, 4-1-4-1, etc) or a 4-2-3-1.

Saying that, in the future I intend to move to a more pressing style and for that I will definitely use fluid / very fluid.

For now I am happy if the team defends in a kind of a medium block.

[OJ403]

@forlegaizen

Apologies if it seems like I'm riding your coattails here, that is certainly not intended.

After a bit more thought I've realised your system is not too disimilair to the way Our Gareth got England playing at the World Cup. So by that logic Barreto is playing the "Sterling Role", so it is only appropriate he is doing sh*t all 😂😂

Although I'm not sure how much of us you saw at the WC. But on a serious note Alli, Lingard and Kane were our main goal threats. Particularly, Alli and Lingard's runs from deep causing indecision and doubt in opposing centre halves. Do they come out and press them, but then leave Sterling, Kane and the WB space in behind to exploit? Or sit deep and let Alli/Lingard run at them. Having seen Jesse week in week out when he was on loan at the Mighty Rams, I can confirm you do not want to let that happen. To do this I'd assign one or both of your CMs an attack duty, as well as your AM like you say, which should solve the numbers in the box issue.

Also in the first screenshot you had only 1 shot in the first half. Now this could be an anomaly, but I'd keep an eye on this. Why did you then take 11 second half shots? Was it your team talk? Or did you change anything tactially? I wouldn't panic now, but I'd keep an eye on it longer term as an early goal is a good goal as it causes opposition to have to reassess, if you score early enough it can be like going into the game with an aggregate scoreline.

Looking forward to your analysis of games 2 and 3 soon

[Robson 07]

29 minutes ago, forlegaizen said:

the diamond its excelent for dominating the midlefield but regarding to pressing I would say it has some weaknesses especially in the wide areas as you can't press efficiently the fullbacks / wingbacks of your opponent.

How it should be executed (IRL) is that the forwards split into the channels between centre back and fullback.  The centre backs can have the ball but the passing lane is cut off to the fullback(s) by this movement.  The centre backs are also blocked from passing up the middle as the AMC at the tip of the diamond is blocking that route, so they end up forcing it long.  That's the theory.

[OJ403]

6 minutes ago, Robson 07 said:

How it should be executed (IRL) is that the forwards split into the channels between centre back and fullback.  The centre backs can have the ball but the passing lane is cut off to the fullback(s) by this movement.  The centre backs are also blocked from passing up the middle as the AMC at the tip of the diamond is blocking that route, so they end up forcing it long.  That's the theory.

I believe there's an excellent video from Cruyff somewhere in which he explains his 4-4-2 diamond strikers more as wide forwards, or wingers. Perhaps in FM terms you could liken them to a Raumdeuter, leaving a 4-3-3-0?

I believe its somewhere in this video, but I cannot be sure.

[mortiphago]

I'd give "very fluid" a spin, as you note part of the problem is that your players arent "going to help" / roaming enough , so fluidity should help that. Perhaps also change side central defenders from Defend to Stopper , that should make them more willing to go sideways and aid the wingers.

On paper it sounds like it'll just end with your players going nuts, but from experience it works better than I'd expect. I've only tried this with championship / low premier tier players so YMMV

[forlegaizen]

23 hours ago, OJ403 said:

Apologies if it seems like I'm riding your coattails here, that is certainly not intended.

No worries man, the fun part of this is to bounce ideas and hopefully become better at the game.

To be honest I didnt see much of England but I agree they lined in some sort of 3-4-2-1 wich is very similar to a 3-6-1

[forlegaizen]

Match Analysis

Lets jump to the second game and do some more analysis.

Game 2

Our second match was against Düsseldorf, another mid table team that we should be able to beat.

Stats

Very poor game from both sides, both teams only creating danger from long shots and nothing else.

Player Stats

Once again my the number of completed crosses of my WB's is shocking ( 0% !), again its probably down to the lack of players in the box as we saw last game.

Pitch

The next 3 images show what I suspected, the problem of not enough players in the box seem a real problem.

          

Adding to this it seems that midlefield being too crowded is also a serious issue that needs to be fixed ASAP.

       

 

The only new thing I spotted this game was the DMC sometimes being too advanced for my liking.

Maybe give it the PI to Hold Position but I am more inclined to change his role to a DLP(s),

Well this is all for Game 2, I think I will skip game 3 and show the changes I made and if they worked or not.

[BJT]

On 03/09/2018 at 00:37, OJ403 said:

3-1-5-1

- no double pivot

- central centre midfield role uncertain

- same MEZ/WM situation as before

- again WMs could be dropped down to WBs for defensive reasons, to give the same formation as in the O.P.

- my least favourite personally, likely to be discarded long term

(Sorry for the DP - don't know how to separate the post from a quote!)

 

[BJT]

I'm currently playing around with formations utilising control mentality and I actually really liked the idea of a 3151. I had a vision of trying out what could be also considered a 370, control and possession based. 

My changes from the screenshot would have a False 9 up front, with two Wingers on attack and two Mezzala's also on attack duty. Given there are no full backs to get forward like in a 460, I hoped that it would then be offensive and penetrative enough to not be too negative so it could be plug n played through a whole season (I tend to do that with all my tactics I make). I also like to play from the back so my SK was on defend duty.

With the play looking to exploit all areas, naturally someone needs to dictate the play centrally and provide some sort of threat from the middle. So a DLP on Support is what I would go with in the Xabi Alonso mould acting like an offensive pivot, with the DM-D the defensive pivot to keep the play moving and bringing the ball playing centre backs into play thus recycling the ball from the back again.

So I went control and very fluid to try bring about this effect. It worked out okay, averaging 60% possession through the whole year and had the best defence. It wasn't great offensively, but with good set-pieces you'll have more than enough to win the majority of the games and have success with this system. 

[OJ403]

Just out of curiosity who were you managing and how did the season go for you vs how you expected it to go before hand?

3 hours ago, BJT said:

I had a vision of trying out what could be also considered a 370, control and possession based.  

And you jogged my memory something brilliant. Back in FM17 I was going through a strikerless phase - it was bloody brilliant and I fully intended to go back to it this year, but I haven't got round to it unfortunately. I was managing my beloved Derby County and we kept losing big games, so I invented a tactic I dubbed "Catalan Catenaccio", a 3-7-0, or more specifically 3-3-3-1-0. I don't have access to that save or the system anymore sadly, so no screenshots, but I can recall some details. It was counter/very-fluid, with both wingbacks set as WB-D, and a DM-D, a trio in the midfield strata of CM-D, CM-A, AP-S and a SS-A at the tip. The concept was we were compact, tough to break down, and kept the ball at all costs (I believe in the game I'll tell you about later we achieved between 60%-70% possession from memory) in an attempt to chokehold opponents. I'm sure that element was what inspired the Slaves song Chokehold... Once we'd knackered opposition chasing our calm, composed and disciplined retention of the ball, I sacrificed the DM-D for an AM-A, or Guido's withdrawn target man, switched to attacking, and scored. Pure good old fashioned sh*thousery, and it was beautiful.

The final game of that save was Man Utd in the Champions League final. I set up in Catalan Catenaccio and we sh*thoused them for 100 odd minutes to the extent they lost all discipline and went down to 9 men. The withdrawn target man came on. We won 2-0. My single greatest FM moment, if not the single greatest moment of my life.

God that was nostalgic... @BJT thank you, thank you very much

[BJT]

I've been using Man City, although I'm a few seasons in when I tested this particular formation. I've been creating different ones each year trying to maximise possession on the control mentality as I haven't set up any beforehand.

The first half of the season wasn't the best but tweaked it so the second half went more how I had hoped. I had originally used a DLF on support but the F9 worked better. I then beat United 4-3 in the CL final although I had been 4-1 up. But can't say it was as epic as yours after bringing back your memory bells!

I was hoping for more possession, but I think having Mezzala's or wingers on support wouldn't have been offensive enough to break down the more defensive teams. The max average I've reached for a league season so far is 66%. But I guess given the roles a little less probably would be expected in hindsight.

Bus-parking on this though is certainly to be admired - but it's also not very good for the heart! I'd have never thought such an idea could work so well as on your save there.

[OJ403]

In all honesty the counter mentality forced us into having our moments offensively, it was overall just a case of being bold and trusting the philosophy and knowing when to go for it. Best part was when I brought Will Hughes on to lift ths trophy. He'd been with us from season one and had just been sold by Gary Rowett - the boring snakey money grabbing b*stard - in real life at the time, so it was sort of a two fingers up to him as well. I almost cried at the sight of his 3d replica lifting the trophy. And I'm sure other Derby fans and Stoke fans can vouch for what a dull, sly b*stard  he is.

And I've been using the 3-4-2-1 I suggested earlier, with the only tweaks being a CF-S and the BPD given a stopper duty, in the Europa League in my current save. Admittedly we haven't played the best sides in the world, but it looks promising so far. Its attacking/very-fluid, with closing down to the max, PSGD, play out of defence and pass into space. We've had between 55%-65% possession, many shots, many goals and conceding zero. The mezzalas get forward well and operate in the AM strata when we attack well, the support attack duty provides a staggering effect that makes marking them harder. Then by having a WM-S on the side of the MEZ-A provides a deeper threat out wide, and vice-versa on the other side with the MEZ providing a deeper threat in the half space. I don't like to have symmetric roles and duties on both sides to avoid us being predictable ideally. Once I've trialled it further against better sides (we've drawn Sporting and a decent Toulouse side in the groups) I can update to see if it can help you and/or @forlegaizen, if you'd like?

[jc577]

On 05/09/2018 at 00:04, OJ403 said:

I believe its somewhere in this video, but I cannot be sure.

Quickest 4 minutes or so of my life... could listen to Cruyff talk for hours!

[BJT]

Quote

"I don't like to have symmetric roles and duties on both sides"

Not only did we differ on the liking of the 3151 shape - but it's symmetry I like in my tactics too....Probably related  

Funny you mentioned a 3421...that was actually going to be my attempt to up the possession on this 361. I have just finished a season with a 3412 and it's probably the best control tactic I've come up with from an overall perspective. It gave me over 64% possession season average, but 109 goals for and 19 against too. I hadn't been able to get 100 plus goals using control till then. I was surprised how well it worked defensively too.

Based on the success of that, I'm hoping I can somehow maintain a good balance but where I'll now drop a striker for an additional role in the AMC position. I'm just not so sure it's going to be able to press as well as the 3412 though...

[OJ403]

25 minutes ago, BJT said:

Not only did we differ on the liking of the 3151 shape - but it's symmetry I like in my tactics too....Probably related  

Like chalk and cheese seemingly. That's what I love about FM and the community, 2 people with polar opposite opinions and likes can have the same sort of idea.

26 minutes ago, BJT said:

Funny you mentioned a 3421...that was actually going to be my attempt to up the possession on this 361.

Apologies on my part there. I meant the 3-2-4-1, with 2 DMs and 4 players across the CM strata. However it does attack like a 3-4-2-1 and press pretty effectively, due to the attacking/very-fluid approach and maximum closing down my players are pretty aggressive. The CMs can afford to step out and press aggressively as they have the two DMs behind, the same applies for the DMs and the CBs. In my head having additional players starting deeper allows us to circulate possession better, but I may be wrong; plus with the way things seem to be going you'll probably think the opposite for the same reasons 😂😂

I did find that a 3-4-2-1, with 2 DMs and 2 AMs, we lacked build up options and didn't gain anything from a pressing perspective. However, it has only been used in Europa League qualifiers so we haven't exactly played amazing sides, but the early signs are promising and I'm testing it in all non-league competitions regardless of opponent.

[BJT]

Yeps, there is more than one way to skin a cat  I know what you mean with how formations set don't really mean that holds true when on the offence. I made a 4141 but it played very much like a 235 going forward.

I do kind of get you, I think if you don't have ball-playing personnel at the back then it's probably a good idea to have someone play from deeper especially with a deep defensive line but in general, you're right in that I don't think it necessarily means you can't circulate possession well. The 3412 I referenced above had no players in the DMC zone of the pitch. But I'd then ensure to always have a DLP that drops deep into that zone when our side has the ball.

With my 3421 by employing it there again and by having a False 9 dropping deep, it's going to keep triangular passing options to the system. The DLP will then look forward and still have 6 reachable passing options to pick from. 

I'm hoping I'm going to get more possession with this variant. It's looking like this..

                    SK D

        BPD D    CD D      BPD D

W A       CM S   DLP D       W A

       AP A                   AP A

                    F9 S

[OJ403]

14 minutes ago, BJT said:

                    SK D

        BPD D    CD D      BPD D

W A       CM S   DLP D       W A

       AP A                   AP A

                    F9 S

Looks like you've got plenty of passing options, good width and decent numbers in and around the box at first glance. Personally, I've never been able to get the best out of an AP-A in the AM strata, but thats probably user error as oppose to the role itself. Reckon you ought yo be able to smash your possession records, especially as your City a few years in so I can only presume you've got some of the best technical players in the game. In my save I've got some brilliant technical players, but others are more limited, particularly my two holding players. They're good DMs, but no Busquets or Pirlo technically. Its a pitty playing FM and test match cricket don't mix, but with the way England are throwing it away I might as well give up and bash out the 3-2-4-1...

[Experienced Defender]

31 minutes ago, BJT said:

SK D

        BPD D    CD D      BPD D

W A       CM S   DLP D       W A

       AP A                   AP A

                    F9 S

With both WMs playing as wingers, and on Attack duty at that, your flanks will be pretty much vulnerable defensively, given the absence of FBs. 

You have 3 playmakers, two of which (APs) play in the same position, role and duty (just on the opposite sides), plus 2 BPDs. For what reason? 

 

[OJ403]

14 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

You have 3 playmakers, two of which (APs) play in the same position, role and duty (just on the opposite sides), plus 2 BPDs. For what reason? 

The playmakers confused me also, but I guessed by having more ball magnets in a smallish space, he will keep the ball better, if that makes sense? Not sure though. Personally I like somewhere between 0 and 2. And BPDs aren't ball magnets, so shouldn't come into the playmaker debate in my eyes, also I don't actually notice that much of a difference between them and normal CDs (I believe @westy8chimp saw similar in one of his threads?). I personally use them to encourage more expansive play, whether there is much of an impact or not I am not sure. I'd imagine someone like @Cleon or @herne79 could answer that particular one better than me

 

24 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

With both WMs playing as wingers, and on Attack duty at that, your flanks will be pretty much vulnerable defensively, given the absence of FBs. 

That is a perfectly reasonable observation to make, first impressions certainly come across that way. However, with good work rate and man-marking instructions (in my Europa League 3-6-1 I use WMs, one support one attack, and tell them to make their winger, be it AML/R or ML/R) the WMs do defend as almost full backs.

[BJT]

Well I want as much possession as possible - but it's always having the balance between quality possession and just having it for the sake of it. I've always liked to play offensively, so pressing high and trying to play around the opponents box with as many offensive options and threats as possible whilst being able to recycle the ball well is the aim.

Naturally having more on the attack role is going to give a greater goal-scoring and direct threat rather than keeping the ball but not really looking that threatening, hence the APs being on attack.

I like symmetry in my tactics, hence the same role on each side. They are there to create for the side closer to the opponents box and hold up the play to try and bring the wingers into play receiving the ball in more dangerous positions rather than them just running down the sides for the sake of it like in a 442.

They also get forward often, and so when the F9 drop deeps he then has 4 options to play the onrushing wingers or the APs in. By playing APs in these positions, they'll also be more prone to be sought out in receiving the ball so they can either play in the wingers or attack spaces between the fullbacks and centre backs that the wingers create by staying wide.

Both my midfielders are holding their positions to help recycle the ball and move the play to the other side so to try and keep continuous pressure on the opponents defence and probe each flank.

Ball playing defenders will be needed to play the riskier passes when required, such as no immediate option available to pass safely to the two centre midfielders. Trying to play too short if they are being marked closely and teams pressing high is risky business and varying the play is a must option to have in my opinion.

[BJT]

Quote

That is a perfectly reasonable observation to make, first impressions certainly come across that way. However, with good work rate and man-marking instructions (in my Europa League 3-6-1 I use WMs, one support one attack, and tell them to make their winger, be it AML/R or ML/R) the WMs do defend as almost full backs

Indeed, each system has its weaknesses - and it was my worry that pressing may not be as effective on this system, because the aim is to force the other team to boot the ball aimlessly high up the pitch for my defenders to then retrieve the ball and build up from the back again. If my team don't press well and put pressure on them immediately, I will be very much exposed

[Experienced Defender]

7 minutes ago, OJ403 said:

The playmakers confused me also, but I guessed by having more ball magnets in a smallish space, he will keep the ball better

If you want that, then a better option is to have one DLP in DM position and another one in AM strata (preferably on a flank). But given that he doesn't employ a DM, I'd rather go with a playmaker in a CM position.

11 minutes ago, OJ403 said:

BPDs aren't ball magnets, so shouldn't come into the playmaker debate in my eyes, also I don't actually notice that much of a difference between them and normal CDs

They certainly aren't ball magnets, but tend to be more creative than other types of CBs and therefore to play more risky passes, which makes them a sort of defensive playmakers. Having one BPD is not a bad idea at all, but it's important that he really possesses good passing, technique, vision and first touch above all. Otherwise, I don't see a point in using him (just for the sake of it).

[Experienced Defender]

17 minutes ago, BJT said:

Well I want as much possession as possible - but it's always having the balance between quality possession and just having it for the sake of it. I've always liked to play offensively, so pressing high and trying to play around the opponents box with as many offensive options and threats as possible whilst being able to recycle the ball well is the aim.

Naturally having more on the attack role is going to give a greater goal-scoring and direct threat rather than keeping the ball but not really looking that threatening, hence the APs being on attack.

I like symmetry in my tactics, hence the same role on each side. They are there to create for the side closer to the opponents box and hold up the play to try and bring the wingers into play receiving the ball in more dangerous positions rather than them just running down the sides for the sake of it like in a 442.

They also get forward often, and so when the F9 drop deeps he then has 4 options to play the onrushing wingers or the APs in. By playing APs in these positions, they'll also be more prone to be sought out in receiving the ball so they can either play in the wingers or attack spaces between the fullbacks and centre backs that the wingers create by staying wide.

Both my midfielders are holding their positions to help recycle the ball and move the play to the other side so to try and keep continuous pressure on the opponents defence and probe each flank.

Ball playing defenders will be needed to play the riskier passes when required, such as no immediate option available to pass safely to the two centre midfielders. Trying to play too short if they are being marked closely and teams pressing high is risky business and varying the play is a must option to have in my opinion.

If you want to play an attractive offensive football (and it seems so according to what you've written), you don't need to have many attacking duties across your formation, especially near each other. You can achieve it even without any player on Attack duty if you set their roles in the right way, along with TIs and PIs. If you use Control (or even Attack) mentality, your more advanced players will already be higher up the pitch. By giving them attack duties, you force them into an area of the pitch (inside and around OP's penalty area) that will most likely be congested as they will look to defend against you (assuming that you have a really strong team, given the way you want to play, right?). Therefore, your offensive players will have very little space to operate within and, on top of that, leave an extra space behind them for the OP to utilize when counter-attacking. Of course, the better players you have, the more likely they'll be to overcome such issues, but I still think there's no need for so much risk 

[OJ403]

34 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

They certainly aren't ball magnets, but tend to be more creative than other types of CBs and therefore to play more risky passes, which makes them a sort of defensive playmakers.

In my experiences I haven't seen a BPD actually be defensive playmaker, more a CD who lumps it to a man rather than any space like a DCB. Not sure if you've seen any different?

10 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

If you want to play an attractive offensive football (and it seems so according to what you've written), you don't need to have many attacking duties across your formation, especially near each other.

Similarly I'd rather cut off all connections to football, be it virtual or real, than play with such symmetry as it totally contradicts how I see football, I want different threats from different starting and finishing positions all over the pitch. But I do see why @BJT has done it and can get over someone else doing so as they've provided me with more than valid reasoning for doing so.

17 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Of course, the better players you have, the more likely they'll be to overcome such issues, but I still think there's no need for so much risk 

Risk is relative. Yes @BJT's players may be operating on a high individual mentality therefore are more prone to doing risky things, but in the context of the specific match scenario that risk may not be very risky at all, hence me saying risk is relative. For example what is risky against Barcelona would not be very risky against Alfreton Town. Say @BJT's City push high up the pitch leaving only his four defensive players back (his three CDs and DLP-D) against, which the game would class as risky, due to the higher individual mentalities of players given by the control/attacking mentality, but the risk doesn't pay off and he gives the ball away. If he was playing Barcelona, Messi and co. would counter him and he would probably concede due to the sheer class of Barca's attackers. However, if the opposition were one of the Alfreton's of this world, they would counter, but probably achieve sh*t all as their players aren't very good, in comparison to City's. However FM would still factor this risk the same regardless of opponent, which we all know does influence the riskiness of the risk. Therefore, risk is relative and not just to opponent, but also things such as the score line (a risk at 0-0 wouldn't be as risky at 4-0), amongst others.

[BJT]

I do indeed  The way I see football is you can win in either two ways. Try and take each game as it comes and adjust tactics etc accordingly, or have a strong plan A / philosophy the players fit perfectly for. I'm definitely not a tinkerer  So my style will always be extreme in one form or another.

Only in lower leagues I'd end up going counter-attack focused and structured, but trying to balance that with having enough quality possession to grind out results. Definitely not a defensive coach here. I've only ever made a 4411 and 442 aiming to go long and direct, but my FM highlight funnily enough probably was creating a 442 that won the Championship with Fulham with 100 points and with an average possession of 35%. The brief was to  do it under 38% possession with Big Sam and Tony Pulis my inspirations there. I've never enjoyed chewing so much gum in an FM season. Got to love a bit of hoof-ball!

But most of the coaches nowadays seems to go the Plan A route in most part. Klopp, Sarri, Guardiola, instantly spring to mind. Not sure what roles balance you would consider their sides to use with respect to the support / attacking side. But I've just felt that when you do come up against a side that parks the bus, if you don't have enough attacking threats you'll end up dropping a lot of points. Hence may as well vision a tactic and go Plan A and so I did have a 325 in mind with this particular 3421.

 

 

 

 

[BJT]

Quote

Similarly I'd rather cut off all connections to football, be it virtual or real, than play with such symmetry as it totally contradicts how I see football, I want different threats from different starting and finishing positions all over the pitch. But I do see why @BJT has done it and can get over someone else doing so as they've provided me with more than valid reasoning for doing so.

I realise you're probably someone I'd not ever be able to have appreciate a symmetrical formation! But glad I could explain though  Another big reason for that approach for me is team structure, working as one cohesive unit and that's considerations taken both offensively and defensively.

Although I like to play very fluid, by having similarities across the pitch I know when we lose the ball my players are going to be in similar positions in similar circumstances to then begin the press as one unit and all on that same wavelength. So in that sense I do like that structured element to a very fluid game.

[OJ403]

16 minutes ago, BJT said:

I realise you're probably someone I'd not ever be able to have appreciate a symmetrical formation! But glad I could explain though  

So in that sense I do like that structured element to a very fluid game.

Yeah there's many different ways to achieve the same things, it's just a matter of opinion and preference. The only reason I wouldn't use it is that I like different dimensions all over. Like although you could argue Mane and Salah or Neymar and Messi (when they were both at Barcelona) played the same role, they are on different duties, if I was to FM-ify what I chose to see in real life. In football we may be watching the same things happen, but what we chose to see and how we interpret that could be different.

And that structured thing is actually very clever, I hadn't at all thought of it at all that way. So if your saying you actually use dual AP-As for more defensive purposes, which I think you are, that makes perfect sense, as you can get the same role to play differently due to PPMs. For example an AP-A with comes deep to get the ball would play differently to an AP-A with likes to beat offside trap.

Genius that. I might as well start calling you Frank Lampard, what with the tactical nouse your showing 😂😂

[Experienced Defender]

@BJT I've been thinking about how I would use your 3-4-2-1 if I intended to play the type of football you prefer. Of course, this is just an example of my way of thinking, nothing more than that. So don't take it as any kind of suggestion or advice  Now. let's imagine that I manage a team with players of excellent quality in each single line, which allows me to play a beautiful attacking football...

SWK(s)

DC(d)   BPD(st)   DC(cov)

 

WM(s/aut)   BtBM   BWM(s/d)   W(s)

AM(a)                    AP(s)

DLF(a) or CF(s)

mentality - control

shape - fluid

Basic TIs: press more, normal d-line, higher tempo, shorter passing, WBiB, play out of def (optionally look for underlap)

Of course, PIs and TIs (even some roles) would vary from situation to situation (game to game), I would tweak them if needed, based on how the match progresses.

 

 

[BJT]

Quote

So if your saying you actually use dual AP-As for more defensive purposes, which I think you are, that makes perfect sense

Very much so. They, along with the wingers and the F9 form part of the my main press high up. If for instance I had the AP(s) and AM(a) combo in the AM strata as in Experienced Defender's setup below, I would expect the AMa will frequently make more forward runs and find himself often nearer to the striker.

The AP(s) will most likely be deeper and then be the only player within the AM strata where my organised press would then not be existent to take place. The AMa would be too far and too frequently out of that position for my liking.

With that said, that may not a bad thing if you're looking to unsettle a side and cause a little panic by closing down immediately. However, rather than on a control mentality I'd personally be more comfortable using such a combo in a more attacking mentality where it is a bit more gung-ho. Although I never will as you will know

Quote

SWK(s)

DC(d)   BPD(st)   DC(cov)

 

WM(s/aut)   BtBM   BWM(s/d)   W(s)

AM(a)                    AP(s)

DLF(a) or CF(s)

You're going to have to go and try that one out now, create some organised chaotic havoc in the OP box  

 

 

 

 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, BJT said:

You're going to have to go and try that one out now, create some organised chaotic havoc in the OP box

I would, but I'm currently managing Crystal Palace, so I don't have anywhere near capable players 

But in some of future saves, with a high-quality team, I'll give it a try 

[BJT]

Lol yep, it's gonna need some back-side deflection to get Benteke back on the score sheet

[OJ403]

2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

                     SWK(s)

DC(d)   BPD(st)   DC(cov)

 

WM(s/aut)   BtBM   BWM(s/d)   W(s)

AM(a)                    AP(s)

DLF(a) or CF(s)

mentality - control

shape - fluid

Basic TIs: press more, normal d-line, higher tempo, shorter passing, WBiB, play out of def (optionally look for underlap)

Actually reckon something of the sort could work with Palace, you'd just probably want to go a little more direct and have a more disciplined double pivot. Benteke could be used as a DLF or TM depending on whether you wanted him to be a ball magnet or not. Zaha is ready made with his pace and goal scoring ability to get close to Benteke's knock downs. Milivojevic is a quality all action midfielder. Plus with CBs like Sakho your not going to struggle with balls into your box from the more exposed flanks. Maybe a counter mentality, normal tempo, mixed/direct passing and no underlap?

My 33/34 Nuneaton team that I've referenced previously are probably somewhere between Everton and Palace (on a good day) and I'd back us to do it. At the end of the day, if you score more goals you win the match. Although this can come at an expense to your heart rate...

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, OJ403 said:

Actually reckon something of the sort could work with Palace, you'd just probably want to go a little more direct and have a more disciplined double pivot. Benteke could be used as a DLF or TM depending on whether you wanted him to be a ball magnet or not. Zaha is ready made with his pace and goal scoring ability to get close to Benteke's knock downs. Milivojevic is a quality all action midfielder. Plus with CBs like Sakho your not going to struggle with balls into your box from the more exposed flanks. Maybe a counter mentality, normal tempo, mixed/direct passing and no underlap?

It's possible to play in 3-4-2-1 with my Palace team, though certainly not with the kind of tactic I described above. Yes, it would probably have to be shifted between counter, defensive and (occasionally) standard mentality, depending on the OP. Btw, when you mentioned Zaha, he is still recovering from injury  But anyway, it's interesting to give some thought to possible tactical solutions. For example:

GK

CD(d)  DCB(cov)   BPD(d)

 

W(s)   BWM(d)   BtBM   WM(s/aut)

AM/SS(a)      AP(s)

TM(s) or DLF(s/a)

mentalities - counter, defensive, standard

shapes - structured, fluid, flexible

tempo - normal

passing styles - direct, mixed

d-line - slightly deeper, normal

team pressing - sometimes (default)

Roles and duties could be somewhat adjusted on occasion, depending on the OP and who would play where in a particular match.

GK - Hennessey

DCs (from right to left) - Tomkins, Sakho, Riedewald (Dann)

Midfield - Zaha (Townsend), Milivojević (McArthur, Fosu Mensah), Cabaye (Mc Arthur), Schlupp (van Aanholt)

AM strata - Puncheon (B. Sako), C.Y. Lee (Rakip)

Lone striker - Benteke (Sorloth)

The biggest problem I am finding about this particular formation is that my fullbacks Ward (on the right) and Souare (on the left) would have to be dropped out, as they can only play in fullback and wingback positions.