Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Experienced Defender

Useful hints on roles and duties in 4-2-3-1

Recommended Posts

Yo guys, really enjoyed this thread and tried to take a lot of it into account when creating my tactic!

I create a lot of chances and always dominate possession but most shots are off target and I concede way too much. Can you guys take a look at what could be improved? Heres my tactic: 

DUksmQu.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hyphron said:

Yo guys, really enjoyed this thread and tried to take a lot of it into account when creating my tactic!

I create a lot of chances and always dominate possession but most shots are off target and I concede way too much. Can you guys take a look at what could be improved? Heres my tactic: 

DUksmQu.png

 

Well, given that you play both the AMC and striker on attack duty, it seems that you actually did not read the thread (guide) carefully ;)

Of course, there are exceptions to this "rule", but they usually pertain to counter-attacking versions of a 4231, which your tactic clearly is not.

Another obvious problem with your tactic IMO is its one-dimensionality imn terms of roles and duties - your flanks literally mirror each other, with CWBsu and IFsu being used on both sides. This makes it easier for the opposition to defend against you.

When it comes to conceding too much, it's absolutely no wonder considering how disrupted your defensive shape is due to the following instructions:

- extremely urgent pressing

- higher DL

- counter-press

And all this is further compounded by playing on a high-risk mentality (positive). Plus, you use a very attack-minded role for both fullbacks (CWB) in a top-heavy system with no DM to protect the defense in a more direct manner. I would warmly recommend you to read my guide on basic principles of defending.

As for the attacking phase, shorter passing and lower tempo used at the same time create a needless overkill by slowing play down too much (let alone much shorter passing, which you use). 

Besides having the AMC and striker both on attack duty, another potential issue is your selection of their respective roles. A general "rule" is - if the AMC is given a creator role, the striker should be given a runner or scorer role (and vice versa). For example: APsu/PO, or AMat/CFsu, or AMsu/AF, or SS/DLFsu etc... The same principle applies in the counter-attacking versions with both being are on attack duty (e.g. TQ/PO, APat/AF, SS/TQ, AMat/CFat etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Experienced Defender

Thanks to your advice on fullbacks in a 4231,I think I have finally managed to create one that works! I'll let you know tomorrow for certain after my final tests tonight! I'm so excited as I have only played 1 season of FM since FM13! As I've been stuck on a test loop for the rest of the time which has been so disheartening. 

It looks as follows for now (subject to slight tweaks):

PO

IF (A) AM (S) W (S) 

BBM (S) BWM (D) 

FB (S) CD (D) CD (D) FB (A) 

SK (S) 

Mentality: Sometimes Balanced, sometimes Positive, rarely Cautious.

I will post up a screenshot tomorrow with the rest of my settings. I also managed to create a 4123 (4141 DM wide) too which also works :D

Finally the endless loop is over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading your advice regarding BWM, I may change him to a CM (D), I'll see how it goes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Gee_Simpson said:

It looks as follows for now (subject to slight tweaks):

PO

IF (A) AM (S) W (S) 

BBM (S) BWM (D) 

FB (S) CD (D) CD (D) FB (A) 

SK (S) 

Looks well-balanced in terms of duties :thup:

As for the roles however, there is some room for improvement IMHO (not only regarding the BWM, but also the flanks). It's important to understand how different roles interact with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 30/05/2019 at 23:46, Experienced Defender said:

Looks well-balanced in terms of duties :thup:

As for the roles however, there is some room for improvement IMHO (not only regarding the BWM, but also the flanks). It's important to understand how different roles interact with each other.

@Experienced Defender

What role changes would you recommend for this one? 

Or does this look better? :

PO

IF (S) AM (S) W (A) 

DLP (D) BBM (S) 

WB (S) CD (D) BPD (D) FB (S) 

SK (S) 

For the left side, I was going to use a FB (A) but I like that the WB (S) doesn't have 'cross more' vs the FB (A). This further aids the possession style I'm aiming for imo. Even though he's on the same duty as the IF in front of him, he will have space due to the IF cutting inside.

The lone striker role I'm not completely sure on yet, been contemplating quite a few others like PF (A), DLF (A) and CF (A). I'll see how the PO performs in a test first. 

Edited by Gee_Simpson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gee_Simpson said:

Or does this look better? :

PO

IF (S) AM (S) W (A) 

DLP (D) BBM (S) 

WB (S) CD (D) BPD (D) FB (S) 

SK (S) 

Yeah, this looks a lot better :thup:

 

1 hour ago, Gee_Simpson said:

For the left side, I was going to use a FB (A) but I like that the WB (S) doesn't have 'cross more' vs the FB (A). This further aids the possession style I'm aiming for imo. Even though he's on the same duty as the IF in front of him, he will have space due to the IF cutting inside.

Absolutely. In this system you can use both WBsu and FBat, depending on what you want to achieve. Neither option is wrong. You explained very well what you want, and that makes perfect sense. Just take care to support this good and well-balanced setup with appropriate instructions (taking the mentality into account, of course).

 

1 hour ago, Gee_Simpson said:

The lone striker role I'm not completely sure on yet, been contemplating quite a few others like PF (A), DLF (A) and CF (A). I'll see how the PO performs in a test first. 

Depends on the type of your striker. In this particular setup, I would consider either poacher or PF on attack. You need a simple attack-duty striker. And if you use a poacher, I would suggest telling him to move into channels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Experienced Defender

Thanks for your help. I will try both PO and PF (A) and see which one suits my player better. I will probably use a variety of mentalities, based on my opponent.

My next goal is to create a balanced and logical 4141 DM (4123) as in my previous test, there was some systems that the 4231 struggled against. Again I have this obsession with the lone striker scoring the most goals for the team, I think it's because I grew up watching Ronaldo (R9) and he was always the main goalscorer in the teams he played for. I'm very much in the 'a striker should be a goalscorer' camp, it's just what I'm used to. Even when I did try a different creative support striker in a 4123, I expected the striker to chip in with some goals at least but it hasn't happened for me, I must be setting it up wrong in that case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Gee_Simpson said:

I will probably use a variety of mentalities, based on my opponent

When you change the mentality, you will usually need to adjust at least some of the instructions that are directly affected by a mentality change. But I would generally suggest that you do not change mentality too often, especially not dramatically. For example, if your "main" mentality is positive, you can change it to balanced or attacking sometimes (and adjust the instructions accordingly), but do not make changes from positive or attacking to cautious or defensive. 

 

50 minutes ago, Gee_Simpson said:

I have this obsession with the lone striker scoring the most goals for the team, I think it's because I grew up watching Ronaldo (R9) and he was always the main goalscorer in the teams he played for

But remember that there are relatively few players of that quality in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

When you change the mentality, you will usually need to adjust at least some of the instructions that are directly affected by a mentality change. But I would generally suggest that you do not change mentality too often, especially not dramatically. For example, if your "main" mentality is positive, you can change it to balanced or attacking sometimes (and adjust the instructions accordingly), but do not make changes from positive or attacking to cautious or defensive. 

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. I want to play a possession high press game, so I'm considering either balanced or positive. I may switch between just them two in that case based on opponent and forget about the other mentalities. I'm thinking for positive then I would be slightly more conservative with my d line and LOE, if on balanced I can push these further. As for pressing, I'm thinking of using a split press for positive and maybe extremely urgent TI for balanced.

 

20 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

But remember that there are relatively few players of that quality in the world.

Yeah I suppose so. I reckon I will then look to create a 4123 with a support duty striker in that case, and forget about focusing so much on the striker scoring goals. I think without an AMC behind him, it's better to use a support duty striker in a 4123. So, I know this is off topic in regards to this thread, but how does this 4123 look to you? Any advice? I'm not sure about the striker's role yet, and I'm considering changing the left WB to an attack duty to overload that side.  I'm considering changing this to a counter system instead though with different instructions or maybe a change in formation but similar style to my 4231 is varied enough? I have always been a possession style man, Barca under Pep is what I enjoyed watching most.

 

 

Screenshot (4).png

Edited by Gee_Simpson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gee_Simpson said:

ive. I may switch between just them two in that case based on opponent and forget about the other mentalities

I would say that's a good idea :thup: 

 

14 minutes ago, Gee_Simpson said:

I'm thinking for positive then I would be slightly more conservative with my d line and LOE, if on balanced I can push these further. As for pressing, I'm thinking of using a split press for positive and maybe extremely urgent TI for balanced.

I would recommend against extremely urgent pressing in any case. Split press is what I would use under both mentalities, rather than increasing team pressing. Maybe on Balanced you could sometimes go with more urgent, but extremely urgent can be too risky. I don't know if you have read my guide on basic principles on defending. If you have not, I would strongly recommend you read it carefully.

 

20 minutes ago, Gee_Simpson said:

I think without an AMC behind him, it's better to use a support duty striker in a 4123

If you want to play possession football using a 4123, then the lone striker on support duty is a logical choice. The role would depend on the type of the player himself as well as the rest of the setup. 

 

22 minutes ago, Gee_Simpson said:

Screenshot (4).png

 

22 minutes ago, Gee_Simpson said:

how does this 4123 look to you?

There is nothing wrong in this tactic in and of itself. Whether it will work? I don't know. Depends on how capable your players are. Defensively, much higher DL can be risky, but not necessarily (you should know if your defenders are good enough to play that way). 

 

26 minutes ago, Gee_Simpson said:

I'm not sure about the striker's role yet, and I'm considering changing the left WB to an attack duty to overload that side

CFsu can work, though my personal preference would be a DLFsu or F9. Because CF is a pretty much demanding role and tends to roam around too much, so the player needs to be really good in all respects.

WB on attack duty on the left? You can try, but that would run counter to possession football, given that the IF is also on attack. A combo of IF on support and FB on attack would make more sense. 

29 minutes ago, Gee_Simpson said:

I'm considering changing this to a counter system instead though with different instructions or maybe a change in formation but similar style to my 4231 is varied enough? I have always been a possession style man, Barca under Pep is what I enjoyed watching most.

If you keep constantly changing your approach, I fear you'll never manage to create a really solid tactic. Make a decision on what exactly you want and then stick to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

I would say that's a good idea :thup:

Nice one. 

28 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

I would recommend against extremely urgent pressing in any case. Split press is what I would use under both mentalities, rather than increasing team pressing. Maybe on Balanced you could sometimes go with more urgent, but extremely urgent can be too risky. I don't know if you have read my guide on basic principles on defending. If you have not, I would strongly recommend you read it carefully.

I'll keep that in mind, thanks. I'm sure I've read that thread but I will take another look :thup:

 

30 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

If you want to play possession football using a 4123, then the lone striker on support duty is a logical choice. The role would depend on the type of the player himself as well as the rest of the setup. 

Yeah I thought that makes more sense. 

31 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

There is nothing wrong in this tactic in and of itself. Whether it will work? I don't know. Depends on how capable your players are. Defensively, much higher DL can be risky, but not necessarily (you should know if your defenders are good enough to play that way).

Cool. I will try this tactic out and see if it works. As for my defenders, they are at a pretty good level, so I shall see how the high line works out. 

36 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

CFsu can work, though my personal preference would be a DLFsu or F9. Because CF is a pretty much demanding role and tends to roam around too much, so the player needs to be really good in all respects.

WB on attack duty on the left? You can try, but that would run counter to possession football, given that the IF is also on attack. A combo of IF on support and FB on attack would make more sense. 

Yeah I had it on F9 to begin with. I really like the idea of a F9, obviously after watching Barca under Pep, so I'll use that role. I think I'll stick to the WB on support then :thup:

 

38 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

If you keep constantly changing your approach, I fear you'll never manage to create a really solid tactic. Make a decision on what exactly you want and then stick to it.

True. I will stick to my possession approach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great thread. I am fairly new to FM19 but have played lots of previous versions and read a lot of the previous guides, particularly those written around FM16 time. 

Some of the criticism of the OP is a little harsh, but I think I read it in the spirit it was written, which is as a guide. NOT a set of rules.

For me personally, I just finished my first season with Blackburn and just missed out on the playoffs, finishing 7th.

I've always been a fan of the old 'christmas tree' formation 4-3-2-1 and started off trying to make that work, but either I set it up wrong or its just a crap formation, but I did find I was caught out down the sides too often, so reverted to 4-2-3-1 WIDE as thats how Tony Mowbray plays the team, although I played it with 2 CMs rather than 2 DMs.

This is how I setup

SW(s)

FB(a) NCB(x) BPD(d) WB(s)

BBM(s) BWM(d)

W(a) AP(a) IF(s)

TM(a)

What I do know is that pairings are often key to success in FM. So full backs and wide attackers, the 2 CBs, the 2 CMs and the AM/ST. All these pairs *should* complement each other for a successful formation.

What I also know is that individual players are better suited to certain roles and/or duties. So playing a player with high flair and creativity in a BWM role probably won't work.

Hence my actual team was flawed for a number of reasons; either playing players out of role/duty or playing pairs that don't compliment each other because I'm trying to emphasise a players strengths.

Specifically:

1. My Right Back is not really an attacking right back, his final ball often left a lot to be desired, but he was incredibly athletic, with good workrate, so was able to get back and cover. His attributes suit much more being a FB(d), but I don't think that duty really works in this type of formation where you want full backs supporting the attack. Turns out you can't specifically train crossing any more, and I haven't delved enough into the training part to put together an individual schedule for him that incorporates the right sessions to emphasise crossing. (I'm not sure if you can even do that for an individual player or whether you have to do it for the entire unit. Can I create a bespoke unit for just him??)

2. My 2 main CBs were perfectly suited to those roles in terms of their attrs, but I'm not sure whether that combo really works. Its the first time I've seen NCB as a role, so I was experimenting. I suspect CD(d) x 2 will work better. The left sided CB has great technical attributes though so it seems a shame not to leverage his ball playing abilities.

3. The entire squad is full of BWM or BBM midfielders. Seriously there are about 5 midfielders whose attributes match those roles perfectly. So it was easy to swap one out for another and know that they'd be suited. I am sure this has contributed to my habit of leaking late goals; neither the BWM or the BBM are disciplined enough, so I was leaving holes to be exploited by opposition when I lost posession. I know I need to change the roles, probably swapping out the BWM(d) for someone more disciplined, but I wasn't sure whether this would expose other flaws in the actual players themselves. Is it better to play players in roles that they are suited for, or try to play players out of role/duty to keep a better shape? For next season I am going to try a different combo, probably BBM(s) and DLP(d). I'll try to train one of the youngsters into more of a DLP and also recruit one and change the balance of the squad.

4. Wasn't quite sure how to play the AM/ST pairing. The two blackburn players who play there IRL get around 15 goals a season IRL, but I couldn't get the same return out of them. I tried SS(A) and DLP(s), I tried AP(A) and TM (both A and S). I tried other combos to no avail. Eventually I ended up dropping the main ST and putting someone else in who fared a lot better and ended up with 15 goals in the end. The AM did end up as top assister though, which was comforting.

Mid-way through the season I set my IF and W to swap places with each other. This seemed to have a positive effect and they both ended up with a lot of goals. They were my main source of goals in fact. It also suited the personnel too as a lot of the wide players at Blackburn are right sided / right footed wingers, who can also play on the left and "cut in". This was actually the main reason for my choice of full back roles. I know I wanted my left-sided IF to cut-in and drive towards goal looking to score - hence the Attack duty. To give balance, I therefore felt I had to put my opposite Winger on support duty and deliver crosses in early. This then informed the supporting full back roles. Overlapping Attack duty on the right and supporting duty on the left. So even though this setup put my right sided FB out of his comfort zone, it felt like the best setup for the team. Now in reality at Blackburn this season, they played a wide midfielder as right full back a lot of the time. Perhaps because of this very problem with the defensive full back...

I found I had better success with a cautious mentality and direct approach. Even against less superior teams. Against the bottom of the table teams who the game was telling me to play attacking / short passing against, I felt they just parked the bus and I wasn't able to penetrate (potentially due to personnel problems). Again it felt like the personnel suited a more counter attacking approach. This is how my IF and W scored a lot of their goals. Perhaps with a more technical midfield (less BWMs and more CM/DLPs) I could succeed more with a positive / attacking mentality.

Thats a lot of words, but I suppose the main point, which many others have made, is that you can't describe the ideal set of roles and duties for a particular formation, because you might not have the personnel to play it. There are some combos that will always leave you exposed (particularly some of the aforementioned 2xCM combos) unless you have some uber-personnel fulfilling those roles with complimentory traits. Succeeding at FM requires adaptation; adaptation of formation to suit players at your disposal (not just the squad you have, but when you get injuries to key players). Adaptation of players to suit formations and roles (getting rid of people who don't suit your style and getting new personnel in). Adaptation of roles or duties to suit particular formations or mentalities (I've still not worked out what the right set of defend/support/attack duties are for different mentalities, or whether it even makes a difference - I see some people on here describing success with role/duty combinations that the guides, and the game itself, wouldn't advise)

I have certainly had fun with this formation though - can certainly agree with many on this thread who describe 4231 as a fun formation to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ntw001 said:

For next season I am going to try a different combo, probably BBM(s) and DLP(d)

A lot better combo IMO than your original BWM/BBM :thup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Question:  Even though CWB can be an exciting role to use, if you want that player to give width and not so much coming inside, WB it's a better choice, right?

Thanks

Edited by mikcheck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikcheck said:

Question:  Even though CWB can be an exciting role to use, if you want that player to give width and not so much coming inside, WB it's a better choice, right?

Thanks

If you want a fullback (or wing-back) to primarily serve as a provider of width, it's not only about his particular role (and duty) but also that of his partner on the flank. So you can use the following combos:

- FBat / IFsu

- FBat / APsu

- WBat / IFsu

- WBat / APsu

- FBsu / IFat

- FBsu / RMD

- WBsu / RMD

- WBsu / IFat

- WBsu / TQ

- FBsu / TQ

If you are willing to take greater risks, you can even use combos such as FBat/IFat or WBat/APat and so on.

The overlap TI can be also used as an additional option.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks for this guide, it has really helped me further develop my tactic. A couple of mistakes I’ve been making that I intend to fix.

Ive always paired Wingbacks to Inside Forwards (to help cover the outside forward third since IFs tend to bracket the CDs in the penalty box).  I see a few people in the thread pairing up a WB to a Winger, but this doesn’t make sense to me because wouldn’t they crowd up in the outside final third?  It seems to make a redundant role that sacrifices defensive structure for what seems little offensive gain.  Am I missing something?

 

Ive also Usually paired Attacking FB/WB with attacking IFs to ensure strong overlap and presence in the outsides of the final third, and defend/support FB/WB when using wingers to prevent redundancy and crowding.  I see in both the OP and many subsequent tactics people are pairing attacking FB/WB with supporting Wingers/IFs.  I get IFs since they hang out in the penalty box, but why would you do that with a Winger (support)?  Wouldn’t they bunch up in the same space with the same roles and duties?

 

last but not least, I’ve usually used 2 IFs with a CF all set to attack.  Why do you recommend against this?  I usually get overlap with the WBs and 3 forwards bracketing 2 CDs.  The only thing that gives me fits is a formation with 3 CDs (5-3-2 is the worst) as it seems to clog up the open lanes I’m the penalty area that the three forwards like to settle into.  Is there a benefit I’m not seeing to pulling one of the IFs out of the attack role?

Edited by Norsoulnet
Another question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/05/2019 at 12:47, Experienced Defender said:

Well, given that you play both the AMC and striker on attack duty, it seems that you actually did not read the thread (guide) carefully ;)

Of course, there are exceptions to this "rule", but they usually pertain to counter-attacking versions of a 4231, which your tactic clearly is not.

Another obvious problem with your tactic IMO is its one-dimensionality imn terms of roles and duties - your flanks literally mirror each other, with CWBsu and IFsu being used on both sides. This makes it easier for the opposition to defend against you.

When it comes to conceding too much, it's absolutely no wonder considering how disrupted your defensive shape is due to the following instructions:

- extremely urgent pressing

- higher DL

- counter-press

And all this is further compounded by playing on a high-risk mentality (positive). Plus, you use a very attack-minded role for both fullbacks (CWB) in a top-heavy system with no DM to protect the defense in a more direct manner. I would warmly recommend you to read my guide on basic principles of defending.

As for the attacking phase, shorter passing and lower tempo used at the same time create a needless overkill by slowing play down too much (let alone much shorter passing, which you use). 

Besides having the AMC and striker both on attack duty, another potential issue is your selection of their respective roles. A general "rule" is - if the AMC is given a creator role, the striker should be given a runner or scorer role (and vice versa). For example: APsu/PO, or AMat/CFsu, or AMsu/AF, or SS/DLFsu etc... The same principle applies in the counter-attacking versions with both being are on attack duty (e.g. TQ/PO, APat/AF, SS/TQ, AMat/CFat etc.)

The CM Defend is not sufficient to cover down the DM role of protecting the CDs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Norsoulnet said:

The CM Defend is not sufficient to cover down the DM role of protecting the CDs?

Who (and where) mentioned a CM on defend duty? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Who (and where) mentioned a CM on defend duty? 

"On 27/05/2019 at 12:14, Hyphron said:"

He had a screencapture with a CM on defend.  Your reply was "Plus, you use a very attack-minded role for both fullbacks (CWB) in a top-heavy system with no DM to protect the defense in a more direct manner."

I have been using CMs on Defend to cover down on the CDs as if he were a DM (I don't have any natural DMs on my Wealdstone team atm).  I was not aware there was a substantial difference between the two other than position further up the pitch.  He also had a DLP on support duty, which I also thought was a moderately good cover for the CDs.  My most aggressive MC duo I have used (not now with Wealdstone as I build them up) was a DLP with a B2B (this on FM18 mobile which I cannot specify support, defend or attack individually).

Edited by Norsoulnet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, in addition to my many other questions (thanks for taking the time to answer if/when you do), what are your thoughts on making the CM duo asymetric, i.e. one playing from the DM position and the other from the MC position?  For instance DM(d) and CM(su)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Norsoulnet said:

He had a screencapture with a CM on defend.  Your reply was "Plus, you use a very attack-minded role for both fullbacks (CWB) in a top-heavy system with no DM to protect the defense in a more direct manner."

Using a CM on defend is not a problem. The problem was that his tactic was defensively too risky in general. CM on defend serves to help protect the defense, but he - like no other role - cannot protect a defense that is overly exposed by a tactic as a whole. And in a 4231 that can be even more of an issue because the system is top-heavy and plus without anybody in a DM position. 

 

3 hours ago, Norsoulnet said:

what are your thoughts on making the CM duo asymetric, i.e. one playing from the DM position and the other from the MC position?  For instance DM(d) and CM(su)?

I absolutely never use asymmetric systems, and therefore cannot comment them. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.thumb.png.c5b19ff6155c390e6ce88159dc1ea70f.png

 

I'm trying to get a 4-2-3-1 DM working but am not really sure how to set it up. I think I need a player like a VOL-Su to help bring the ball from defence to attack before the Treq takes over. I have lots of players that can pass well so I think a possession tactic is best used here. Am I on the right path or do I have something completely wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, nick1408 said:

I'm trying to get a 4-2-3-1 DM working but am not really sure how to set it up. I think I need a player like a VOL-Su to help bring the ball from defence to attack before the Treq takes over. I have lots of players that can pass well so I think a possession tactic is best used here. Am I on the right path or do I have something completely wrong?

Have a look at @Cleon ‘s post ... he uses two DMs here

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nick1408 said:

image.thumb.png.c5b19ff6155c390e6ce88159dc1ea70f.png

 

1 hour ago, nick1408 said:

I'm trying to get a 4-2-3-1 DM working but am not really sure how to set it up. I think I need a player like a VOL-Su to help bring the ball from defence to attack before the Treq takes over

Volante is a great role for a system like 4-2DM-3-1 (if you have the right player). 

 

1 hour ago, nick1408 said:

I have lots of players that can pass well so I think a possession tactic is best used here. Am I on the right path or do I have something completely wrong?

While the deep version of 4231 is better suited to counter-attacking football, it is of course possible to play possession-based football. But the problem with your tactic is twofold:

- it doesn't look defensively solid enough (at least for my liking)

- the tactic itself (including the setup of roles and duties) is not really conducive to the possession football you want to play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/07/2019 at 16:55, Norsoulnet said:

Thanks for this guide, it has really helped me further develop my tactic. A couple of mistakes I’ve been making that I intend to fix.

Ive always paired Wingbacks to Inside Forwards (to help cover the outside forward third since IFs tend to bracket the CDs in the penalty box).  I see a few people in the thread pairing up a WB to a Winger, but this doesn’t make sense to me because wouldn’t they crowd up in the outside final third?  It seems to make a redundant role that sacrifices defensive structure for what seems little offensive gain.  Am I missing something?

 

Ive also Usually paired Attacking FB/WB with attacking IFs to ensure strong overlap and presence in the outsides of the final third, and defend/support FB/WB when using wingers to prevent redundancy and crowding.  I see in both the OP and many subsequent tactics people are pairing attacking FB/WB with supporting Wingers/IFs.  I get IFs since they hang out in the penalty box, but why would you do that with a Winger (support)?  Wouldn’t they bunch up in the same space with the same roles and duties?

 

last but not least, I’ve usually used 2 IFs with a CF all set to attack.  Why do you recommend against this?  I usually get overlap with the WBs and 3 forwards bracketing 2 CDs.  The only thing that gives me fits is a formation with 3 CDs (5-3-2 is the worst) as it seems to clog up the open lanes I’m the penalty area that the three forwards like to settle into.  Is there a benefit I’m not seeing to pulling one of the IFs out of the attack role?

Hi - You definitely don't have to use an IF to get FB to overlap. I use WB(S) + IF(A) on one side and FB(A) + W(S) on the other side and I get overlap on both. "Gets forward whenever possible" trait in your WB/FB also helps. On the IF side, my WB will automatically run into the space left by the IF and will get a pass from my midfielders. On the W side, my overlapping FB will more often than not get sent in behind by the W. I see slightly different behaviour on different flanks, but most of my delivery from wide areas comes from the overlapping FB or WB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Quick question based on the 4-2-3-1, would a CM-D & CM-S combo in midfield be sufficient? They have an AP-S in front on them so I don't want to use another playmaker role in centre midfield.

It just feels too simplistic to me managing the best team in Europe, it feels like a combination I'd use in the lower leagues. I mean, it's logical with the rest of my team & I wasn't comfortable with my usual DLP-D, BBM-S pairing   

Bayern.png

Edited by Johnny Ace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Johnny Ace said:

would a CM-D & CM-S combo in midfield be sufficient?

Why not? There is nothing wrong with a combo of two standard CMs - one on defend, and the other on support. Provided - as always - that the rest of the tactic is set up in an appropriate way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Experienced Defender said:

Why not? There is nothing wrong with a combo of two standard CMs - one on defend, and the other on support. Provided - as always - that the rest of the tactic is set up in an appropriate way.

Cheers pal, just felt a little odd to me, it's not a combo you see used very often, but I really wasn't happy with my previous pairing. I don't like playing more than one playmaker & the BBM was leaving me light down the right hand side 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Johnny Ace said:

I don't like playing more than one playmaker

Me neither :D

Though every rule has its exception (sometimes) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/08/2019 at 23:59, Experienced Defender said:

 

Volante is a great role for a system like 4-2DM-3-1 (if you have the right player). 

 

While the deep version of 4231 is better suited to counter-attacking football, it is of course possible to play possession-based football. But the problem with your tactic is twofold:

- it doesn't look defensively solid enough (at least for my liking)

- the tactic itself (including the setup of roles and duties) is not really conducive to the possession football you want to play

image.thumb.png.57c4519fa2005e25647860181f6da248.png

I ended up with this. The Treq hasn't been as involved as I like but results are good:

image.thumb.png.26c0868d09b9b3011d695fc42800ddbe.png

 

I'm not really sure what to make of the treq's form but since the tactic is working overall I haven't really played with his role (the Barcelona games I had him swapping position with the striker).

image.thumb.png.4993c99558eac07d31f1f8bd28fc6ef8.png

The only thing I have noticed is in the games where he rates higher he does seem to receive a lot of passes deeper than a bog-average game:

Untitled.thumb.png.0ba5d9ff7312256b588152362b626a6b.png

Again, I haven't changed anything because the tactic seems to be working overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, nick1408 said:

I'm not really sure what to make of the treq's form but since the tactic is working overall I haven't really played with his role (the Barcelona games I had him swapping position with the striker).

A TQ generally works better when paired with a non-creator striker role (such as poacher or PF). In counter-attacking systems - which yours is not due to the higher LOE - can work nicely with an AF as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

A TQ generally works better when paired with a non-creator striker role (such as poacher or PF). In counter-attacking systems - which yours is not due to the higher LOE - can work nicely with an AF as well.

Cool. Thanks for that. I have Luka Jovic coming back from loan shortly and wasn’t sure how he’d fit. That’s good to test. I wouldn’t have thought of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, nick1408 said:

I have Luka Jovic coming back from loan shortly and wasn’t sure how he’d fit

I would use him as a poacher. He is born for that role. Plus, poacher and TQ are generally a good combination :thup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

I would use him as a poacher. He is born for that role. Plus, poacher and TQ are generally a good combination :thup:

I agree. I think I’ll need to slightly adjust the tactic to help his introduction. Counter attacking seems wrong as teams in the Portugal League sit back and defend vs me. Maybe I’ll just start with low/whipped crosses and tinker from there.

 

*Edit* I went into the last game of the season away vs Porto needing a win to clinch the title. Went 0-2 down in the 54th minute. I changed the tactic in the following way:

 

Very attacking mentality

Shoot on site

Striker changed to poacher (Jonas had been playing as a deep-lying forward and was leading the goalscoring charts until a 9 game dry spell but had announced his retirement prior to the game so I chose to play him)

Defend wide (Porto were playing a 4-4-2 with wingers - I think)

 

This allowed my trequartista, striker and segundo volante to all score. The last goal came in the 91st minute and won the title for me. In the future I think I will use defensive width wide for wing play and narrow for central play. I know it seems really obvious but with this setup having four players central it does allow me to defend as required in each game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nick1408 said:

Counter attacking seems wrong as teams in the Portugal League sit back and defend vs me

But your tactic is not counter-attacking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

But your tactic is not counter-attacking. 

Bad wording. Just trying to rule out a style more than anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, any thoughts on this setup? I haven't given the 4231 formation a go since forever so this is all a bit new for me. 

I want unpredictability in the attacks and a *fairly* stable defense as far as that's possible with this formation.  

 

2036995681_Skrmavbild2019-08-18kl_17_27_33.thumb.png.7b01b772f3a38fe4ccd1c1d94f09d4f9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SwedenYid said:

Hi, any thoughts on this setup? I haven't given the 4231 formation a go since forever so this is all a bit new for me. 

I want unpredictability in the attacks and a *fairly* stable defense as far as that's possible with this formation.  

 

2036995681_Skrmavbild2019-08-18kl_17_27_33.thumb.png.7b01b772f3a38fe4ccd1c1d94f09d4f9.png

As for the setup of roles and duties, it looks okay. What is vitally important in a 4231 is that both CMs are defensively reliable players (in addition to being able to support attacks). if not, then better don't play in a 4231 system.

As for your team instructions, I would remove Focus play through the middle, not only because it increases the mentalities of CBs, DMs (which you don't use btw) and defend-duty CMs, but also because there is no reason to focus your attacks through the area that is usually most packed by the opposition (except when you play against an opponent that has obvious vulnerabilities in the very central areas).

Another TI I would remove as defensively risky is more urgent pressing, because it can disrupt your defensive shape. Instead, I would opt for a split block and/or prevent short GK distribution (which makes sense when you play with a top-heavy formation like 4231).

Tight marking can also be risky when you play on a higher D-line, so be careful.

Other TIs are okay for a basic tactic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

As for the setup of roles and duties, it looks okay. What is vitally important in a 4231 is that both CMs are defensively reliable players (in addition to being able to support attacks). if not, then better don't play in a 4231 system.

As for your team instructions, I would remove Focus play through the middle, not only because it increases the mentalities of CBs, DMs (which you don't use btw) and defend-duty CMs, but also because there is no reason to focus your attacks through the area that is usually most packed by the opposition (except when you play against an opponent that has obvious vulnerabilities in the very central areas).

Another TI I would remove as defensively risky is more urgent pressing, because it can disrupt your defensive shape. Instead, I would opt for a split block and/or prevent short GK distribution (which makes sense when you play with a top-heavy formation like 4231).

Tight marking can also be risky when you play on a higher D-line, so be careful.

Other TIs are okay for a basic tactic. 

Thanks a lot! I will definitely try this out. Cheers :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I evolved mine over the preseason & with the Bayern board not wanting to ditch possession football, it's turned into this 

I mainly ditched the wing back for one less runner of the ball & the use of a play maker to reserve for when needed 

First game of the season & they gave Dusseldorf a pumping, 3 goals from corners but 4 great in play goals 

Wouter Berger was an important preseason signing as all off my centre mids were creative, runners or both. I needed the water carrier & that was him at £22 mill, 27 years old & just got his first Holland call-up. Kokou Sibabi-Djobo is vital to the team, he came through in my first youth intake & I've had to fend off Barca & Man City to keep him .He's just won best player in Europe & is such a threat out there on the right hand side 

 

Untitled.png

Untitled2.png

Edited by Johnny Ace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/07/2019 at 13:17, Norsoulnet said:

The CM Defend is not sufficient to cover down the DM role of protecting the CDs?

On positive mentality he will probably be on balanced individual mentality and will provide a deeper option for passing. If you lose the ball and it goes to a wide player, you're toast as he will be out of position and your fullbacks will be too far up the pitch. You will probably concede a clear cut chance after a cross to the far post to a running man.

Happens more often than you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a silly question: anyone has tried to let two CM's in (D) with "gets fowards" trait? I was thinking to test, I would like the CMs protect the WB runs but they get forward sometimes when necessary but not always. Someone got some effect like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a bit of an 'issue' that I am not sure if it is worth fixing or not:

image.thumb.png.b1e502fbb3d29e1f26c9357de76c8857.png

PI's:

both DM's: More direct passes, Shoot less often

Both wings & striker: Close down more, Tackle harder

Trequartista: Hold up ball.

This is what I am operating with. Really good tactic to be honest. I've won two leagues (as I should with Benfica) and also a Champions League (very unexpected). I'm scoring heaps and conceding few. I really can't be too upset with it. The 'problem' I have is the striker just isn't scoring at the levels I would have thought. Luka Jovic (gone now - I couldn't get him to sign a new contract and Monaco paid the release clause) scored 15 in 49 matches for me. I would have been happy if it was 20-25 but 15 just seems too low. He scored 11 from 33 in the league. The upside is my winger scored 28 from 38 matches and the inside forward got 15 from 27 matches. The Trequartista's (I used two) scored 14 from 36(9) and 11 from 21(19).

So, should I be trying to get the striker more involved or be happy with the output from elsewhere on the field? I have tried (albeit briefly) roles such as AF instead of poached and also tried to tell the striker to roam but it was all too brief to get a good picture of if it was doing enough to warrant a change to the base tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the same last season, Haaland would go 5 to 7 games without scoring then go on crazy runs of getting 7 in 4 games, so long as the goals are coming & you're winning games, I wouldn't worry about it too much, it's obviously working if you're winning the champs league :thup:

Pushing up & pinning back the other team, the striker's always gonna have a tough time scoring, he's gonna be feeding off scraps. I like to have a tall, strong centre forward that can beat the CB's in the air, like a Target man but without using the role if you now what I mean, a quasi TM of sorts. I usually play him as AF or PF but lately a CF as been interesting to watch    

I've gone with the 2 DM formation this season, same roles as you too. I tried DM (D) & SV (S) but wanted more involvement from them

Have you found the TREQ cause you any defensive problems?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Johnny Ace said:

I had the same last season, Haaland would go 5 to 7 games without scoring then go on crazy runs of getting 7 in 4 games, so long as the goals are coming & you're winning games, I wouldn't worry about it too much, it's obviously working if you're winning the champs league :thup:

Pushing up & pinning back the other team, the striker's always gonna have a tough time scoring, he's gonna be feeding off scraps. I like to have a tall, strong centre forward that can beat the CB's in the air, like a Target man but without using the role if you now what I mean, a quasi TM of sorts. I usually play him as AF or PF but lately a CF as been interesting to watch    

I've gone with the 2 DM formation this season, same roles as you too. I tried DM (D) & SV (S) but wanted more involvement from them

Have you found the TREQ cause you any defensive problems?

 

 

Nah, not with the two DM's and the narrow defensive width. It tends to force the attack to go wide and hope they can hit a target in the middle of my 4-6 players defending centrally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had to abandon my 4-2-3-1

My striker's went on one of those runs, my centre backs were outscoring them

Every team I faced were parking the bus just packing their boxes with bodies, even Real at the Bernabeu 

They couldn't get a clear sniff at goal. I was winning, 2-0, 2-1 but it wasn't great to watch, having to grind teams down, scoring from set pieces

I needed two up top so have switched to 4-4-2 diamond, first game, won 6-0 with the strikers scoring 3 between them, lets see how this goes 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20190909162920_1.thumb.jpg.8da7e358c5caac0f2773608a81b06189.jpg

I've never once posted a tactic on this forum, although I do like to lurk a lot! My current tactic is as above, I like to try and play a possession based game but I struggle to get my 3 attacking players into the game, sure they have the odd game, they'll score 2 or assist but more often than not my striker, whoever it may be, is playing a 6.2-6.4

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Banks_87 said:

20190909162920_1.thumb.jpg.8da7e358c5caac0f2773608a81b06189.jpg

I've never once posted a tactic on this forum, although I do like to lurk a lot! My current tactic is as above, I like to try and play a possession based game but I struggle to get my 3 attacking players into the game, sure they have the odd game, they'll score 2 or assist but more often than not my striker, whoever it may be, is playing a 6.2-6.4

 

Okay, but this is a 4123. The thread is about 4231. You need to start a separate thread, post this same screenshot, explain your issues and people (including myself) will be glad to offer some advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, that's a 4-1-2-3 :D Secondly, it looks very sound

The problem you have with your striker is the same as many, you'll be playing against Defensive & Cautious teams, with your Positive mentally, higher lines you're just going to compress bodies into the penalty area thus your striker won't have a blade grass of space

Options are:

- stick with what you're doing & don't worry about the striker (like Benzema at Real a couple of seasons back, he's more there to help the other two than be the main man)

- try a two striker formation

- be even more patient in your approach

- try the playing deeper approach & hope the other teams take the bait 

-  have your striker drop deep to try & create some space

- use another IF over on the left & get an extra body in their to help out 

- resign :D

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...