Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Sign in to follow this  
bennyj22

Deeply lying forward and box to box midfielder

Recommended Posts

I'm using a 4141.

 

                      DLF (s)

  IF (a)                                     IF (a)

 

             BBM (s)   BWM (s)

 

 WB (s)          DLP (de)          WB (s)

 

           CD (de)        CD (de)

 

                       SK (s)

 

I'm wandering if having a box to box midfielder may be incongruent with the DLF as they may end up occupying the same space.

Any thoughts on such a set up?

(I'm trying to play vertical tiki taka football).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bennyj22 said:

I'm wandering if having a box to box midfielder may be incongruent with the DLF as they may end up occupying the same space.

People seem obsessed with the idea you cant have players in the same area... Not sure where this has come from. 

If they are occupying the same space that can be a benefit, causing overload... Or a negative, creating congestion... It's always a choice of pro vs con...and monitoring the partnership. Some players will thrive when working in tight space, some players need a bit more room.

Also, players are intelligent (ish) they wont just look at each other dumfounded in the proverbial unstoppable force (player making forward run) meets an immovable object (player dropping deep). They should form an understanding. Attributes and ppm are/should be key [not place to discuss the reality of this ME] 

In this instance, when using a striker that drops deep the most common link up is to then have a midfield runner or IF running beyond. So yes, bbm is ideal or cm-a or mezzala or if, iw, rmd etc. The question you need to ask... Is a bbm plus 2xIF-a overkill... (one dimensional, congestive) or is it an unstoppable overload creating 4vs3/2 consistently and resulting in good chance creation? Observation will be key. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

People seem obsessed with the idea you cant have players in the same area... Not sure where this has come from. 

If they are occupying the same space that can be a benefit, causing overload... Or a negative, creating congestion... It's always a choice of pro vs con...and monitoring the partnership. Some players will thrive when working in tight space, some players need a bit more room.

Also, players are intelligent (ish) they wont just look at each other dumfounded in the proverbial unstoppable force (player making forward run) meets an immovable object (player dropping deep). They should form an understanding. Attributes and ppm are/should be key [not place to discuss the reality of this ME] 

In this instance, when using a striker that drops deep the most common link up is to then have a midfield runner or IF running beyond. So yes, bbm is ideal or cm-a or mezzala or if, iw, rmd etc. The question you need to ask... Is a bbm plus 2xIF-a overkill... (one dimensional, congestive) or is it an unstoppable overload creating 4vs3/2 consistently and resulting in good chance creation? Observation will be key. 

Are you saying that you would advise against 2 inside forwards in this set-up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, bennyj22 said:

Are you saying that you would advise against 2 inside forwards in this set-up?

No. It could work... The wbs will stretch play wide. It could be easy to defend. You have to see how it goes. Certainly in terms of your player selection in the IF roles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, westy8chimp said:

No. It could work... The wbs will stretch play wide. It could be easy to defend. You have to see how it goes. Certainly in terms of your player selection in the IF roles. 

Do you mean easy to defend against? I'm thinking of making one IF a winger so as to make it all a little less one dimensional.

Also, do you think I'm running a bit of a risk with higher wing backs? I thought positioning them there would aid in tiki taka triangle passes to the front. But would keeping the back four flat still produce a similar effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DLF can easily co-exist with a BBM, if there's anything that would recommend against a BBM are the two IF(A)s. Between them and the DLF you have plenty of goal scoring threat, so you do not need two midfield runners. On the other hand, I think the setup doesn't have enough creative chops - the two IFs are essentially strikers, and while the DLF will be your creator to an extent, most of the times he will look to move into channels to receive the ball and will not drop deep enough to link up with the DLP(D).

Personally I would play as BBM the player you were planning to use as BWM, and pair him with a plain old AP(S). Tiki-taka looks to win the ball by pressuring the opposition into an interception not by attacking the ball decisively like Gegen does, and every player has maxed out closing down anyway. This makes a BWM redundant at best, possibly even counterproductive.

As a bonus, the AP(S) will make it easier for you to switch the DLP to a HB when up against two forwards formations such as the classic 442.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×