4-2-3-1: The making of

[Punt]

I´ve been playing FM and CM for years now but I have always used downloaded tactics, but this year I would like to make my own 4-2-3-1 from scratch so that I don˝t use exploitable tactics anymore so that I don´t have to change tactics every patch.

My general idea of roles was:

                                                                                    DLF (s)

                                                           IF (s)                 SS (a)          W (a)

                                                                     DLP ( d )          BBM (s)

                                                          FB (a)  CD (d)            CD (d)  FB (s)

                                                                                    SK (d) 

 

I was thinking of not using any PI or TI so that I wouldn´t limit my player´s choices or make them do something that they can´t do.

What I would like to know from some tactical guru´s on here is if I´am on the right track or should I change anything. 

I have no general idea how I would like to play, only that I would like to make a tactic that suits most of the players that I have and most of the formations I face.

[sporadicsmiles]

That seems like an entirely reasonable setup, a nice balanced set of roles and duties. Try it, and see how it goes. After watching a few games, you will know if you want to change some things based on what you have seen.

[Punt]

I meant to use balanced mentality so that things are nice and balanced on the pitch, not too attacking and not too defensive and as I said no PI´s or TI´s. I want my players to see space on the pitch and use it accordingly. If there´s a space for ball into space then I want them to use it but if there is no space behind them I want them to patiently wait for openings. My thought process behind those roles are to be universal on the pitch and to react right based on the events on the pitch and to have players in every zone of the field and to change tempo as needed. 

I would like for all my players to play this formation to get fluid with it so that my players know with their eyes closed what to do and where to stand on the pitch without changing too much roles or anything in tactics. Basically I would like something like this to be my tactical philosophy throughout all my squads ( from U - 18 and up ).

Am I asking too much maybe?

 

[westy8chimp]

I like what you are going for with the shadow striker running beyond the dlf. I hope it works out... If not just switch slightly so that the striker is primary attacker... Won't necessarily be the pattern of play you want but it'll be successful. Make it a cf or af and should score plenty... The ss can become am or ap on support and you still have good balance and variety. 

I like the first effort tho... If you get the dlf/shadow striker partnership behaving as you wish it'd be brilliant and some analysis to this thread would be welcome

[bar333]

I tried the DLF-S\F9 & SS\AM-A combo with Liverpool using Firmino and Nabil Fekir and it was pretty poor. Granted that was back around release and maybe it's better on the Beta version but I doubt it considering the major ME issues with AMC's are still there. I honestly wouldn't really recommend a 4-2-3-1 in the current ME.

If you do go for it then sure, looks like a good and well balanced set up. Personally in past FM's I stayed away from a BBM (and a BWM) in this formation as my rule of thumb for the 2 was to have restrained roles that don't roam around as you're very top heavy and light in midfield so any turnover in possession can be costly if your 2 deeper MC's don't stay deep and retain shape. I did use a BBM in my 6 months with Liverpool though and it was actually looking better defensively than in past versions. If you do see an issue with e.g balls over the top though, consider a more conservative CM-S. At the very least be careful with who you use in that BBM role, ideally I wouldn't want a player with forward runs PPM's.

Also, put some TI's in, where's the fun in not trying to create some sort of tactical identity 

[Punt]

17 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

I like what you are going for with the shadow striker running beyond the dlf. I hope it works out... If not just switch slightly so that the striker is primary attacker... Won't necessarily be the pattern of play you want but it'll be successful. Make it a cf or af and should score plenty... The ss can become am or ap on support and you still have good balance and variety. 

I like the first effort tho... If you get the dlf/shadow striker partnership behaving as you wish it'd be brilliant and some analysis to this thread would be welcome

I wanted to create lots of movement between the players ( that´s the idea behing the DLF - SS combo )  without a single PI (  just by using roles ). In theory I thought that DLF on support would drag defender out so that SS can fill the space that defenders leaves. Let´s see it in practice.

 

[Punt]

4 hours ago, bar333 said:

I tried the DLF-S\F9 & SS\AM-A combo with Liverpool using Firmino and Nabil Fekir and it was pretty poor. Granted that was back around release and maybe it's better on the Beta version but I doubt it considering the major ME issues with AMC's are still there. I honestly wouldn't really recommend a 4-2-3-1 in the current ME.

If you do go for it then sure, looks like a good and well balanced set up. Personally in past FM's I stayed away from a BBM (and a BWM) in this formation as my rule of thumb for the 2 was to have restrained roles that don't roam around as you're very top heavy and light in midfield so any turnover in possession can be costly if your 2 deeper MC's don't stay deep and retain shape. I did use a BBM in my 6 months with Liverpool though and it was actually looking better defensively than in past versions. If you do see an issue with e.g balls over the top though, consider a more conservative CM-S. At the very least be careful with who you use in that BBM role, ideally I wouldn't want a player with forward runs PPM's.

Also, put some TI's in, where's the fun in not trying to create some sort of tactical identity 

I am using BTB because I wanted a runner there and I was afraid that MEZ would occupy the same space as WINGER and I didn't use any of the playmakers there because I already have a DLP and I don't want to have more than one playmaker role in my team.

I tried to avoid balls over the top with standard defensive line ( I like high intensity pressing and hard tackling and closing down but that just leads to trouble in some games )

As far as TI are concerned I am using 3 at the moment ( this will likely change as the time passes ):

- Play slightly wider in possession ( I think if we stretch the pitch a little then the holes might appear in opposition defence )

- Take short kicks in transition ( because otherwise GK keeps blasting the ball long to attackers which doesn't work if they are midgets ☺ )

- Press more  urgent ( I want my defenders to hassle the opponent when they pass our line of engagement )

Oh and I also added shoot less often PI to every player.

[Punt]

I would also like to hear suggestion about achieving nice passing triangles all over the pitch. I want my player with the ball to always have two playes ready to receive a pass in every zone of the pitch.

Can this be achieved?

[bar333]

Seems unrealistic to me unless you're aiming to play possession for the sake of possession with support duties all over the pitch. And you should question whether that's something you actually want, and what would be the point of that? "Triangles" are typically the result of an overload in one area of the pitch which is achieved by stacking it with the right roles and duties, typically support duties so they don't make runs forward and instead stay available for a pass. For instance, dropping your W-A to a support duty while also keeping the FB on support should create an overload on the right. But the purpose of doing that is to create space in other areas of the pitch, so you have to think about you exploit that.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Punt said:

I would also like to hear suggestion about achieving nice passing triangles all over the pitch. I want my player with the ball to always have two playes ready to receive a pass in every zone of the pitch.

Can this be achieved?

I like your setup of roles and duties, so I guess you shouldn't have a problem with achieving nice passing combinations most of the time, although it somewhat depends on other tactical settings as well. Asking your winger on attack (AMR) to roam from position could also help in this regard. Of course, the most important thing to consider IMO is whether your tactic (including the formation) suits the players you have at your disposal.

[Punt]

10 hours ago, bar333 said:

Seems unrealistic to me unless you're aiming to play possession for the sake of possession with support duties all over the pitch. And you should question whether that's something you actually want, and what would be the point of that? "Triangles" are typically the result of an overload in one area of the pitch which is achieved by stacking it with the right roles and duties, typically support duties so they don't make runs forward and instead stay available for a pass. For instance, dropping your W-A to a support duty while also keeping the FB on support should create an overload on the right. But the purpose of doing that is to create space in other areas of the pitch, so you have to think about you exploit that.

After reading what you posted I decided against this because I think those changes would limit my players´ choices. I don´t want them to keep the ball just for possession´s sake and miss an opportunity for through ball if it occurs. Changing roles to support would make my tactic unbalanced roles - wise.

[Punt]

9 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

I like your setup of roles and duties, so I guess you shouldn't have a problem with achieving nice passing combinations most of the time, although it somewhat depends on other tactical settings as well. Asking your winger on attack (AMR) to roam from position could also help in this regard. Of course, the most important thing to consider IMO is whether your tactic (including the formation) suits the players you have at your disposal.

I am trying to make tactic that can be used from LLM to top European football without too much changing and through all patches that will be released ( that´s why I am trying to limit PI´s and TI´s ). By suiting the players you mean roles - wise? Because formation suits them.

[Punt]

Guys, should I use two Defensive Midfielders ( Anchor Man (d) - DLP (d) or DM (s) 2x ) instead of Central Midfielders? That would certainly make my defence stronger but would it take too much from my attack?  How would the build up play be? Does anyone have experience with this kind of setup?

[Experienced Defender]

8 hours ago, Punt said:

By suiting the players you mean roles - wise? Because formation suits them.

Basically yes. As I already said, your roles and duties are very well balanced and logical, so you just need to make sure that each player is suitable for the role (and duty) you assigned to him (i.e. does he have the right attributes and traits/PPMs for the role he is playing). 

[summatsupeer]

On 05/12/2018 at 10:49, Punt said:

I was thinking of not using any PI or TI so that I wouldn´t limit my player´s choices or make them do something that they can´t do.

 

The way I think of it is:

• Tactics tell the players what to focus on doing and where.  Role + Duty is very important for this, then mentality and TIs/PIs.  Traits also affect this.
• Players attributes limit what they can do and the actual choice they make.

On 05/12/2018 at 12:22, Punt said:

I meant to use balanced mentality so that things are nice and balanced on the pitch, not too attacking and not too defensive and as I said no PI´s or TI´s. I want my players to see space on the pitch and use it accordingly. If there´s a space for ball into space then I want them to use it but if there is no space behind them I want them to patiently wait for openings. My thought process behind those roles are to be universal on the pitch and to react right based on the events on the pitch and to have players in every zone of the field and to change tempo as needed. 

The roles + duties will be a big factor on how the tactic actually performs, you can create attacking tactics that use Cautious/Defensive mentalities, don't read too much into the name.

The key thing here is making sure you have smart players who can see and select the best option.  You risk sounding like you want the best of every style, possession but attacking in behind, vertical style but good possession etc.  Obviously players only have certain number of attributes and difference balances, a player with the speed to run in behind might not have the mental attributes to pick the best option consistently, if he does then he might not have the technical abilities to do them.  You'll have to find the balance you want, but if your expectation is for players to pick the best option consistently that sounds like a possession style, maybe you can mix in one or two faster but less smart players but thats up to you.

7 hours ago, Punt said:

Guys, should I use two Defensive Midfielders ( Anchor Man (d) - DLP (d) or DM (s) 2x ) instead of Central Midfielders? That would certainly make my defence stronger but would it take too much from my attack?  How would the build up play be? Does anyone have experience with this kind of setup?

The basic difference between 4231 DM Wide and 4231 Wide is do you want the midfielders to shield the CBs or to support the higher players pressing?   More players deeper doesn't mean you'll defend better, it depends on how your defending and if the players are good at that type of defending.  Roles + Duties are the main factor when you have the ball rather than your formation (defensive positioning), you can make DMs behave quite like CMs.

[Punt]

15 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

The key thing here is making sure you have smart players who can see and select the best option.  You risk sounding like you want the best of every style, possession but attacking in behind, vertical style but good possession etc.  Obviously players only have certain number of attributes and difference balances, a player with the speed to run in behind might not have the mental attributes to pick the best option consistently, if he does then he might not have the technical abilities to do them.  You'll have to find the balance you want, but if your expectation is for players to pick the best option consistently that sounds like a possession style, maybe you can mix in one or two faster but less smart players but thats up to you.

 

That is my expectation. Ok, maybe not consistently because they could make mistakes in choosing the right option ( everyone does ), but I would like my players to have a lot of passing options on the pitch even if they don´t use them always. As I get smarter players they will make better choices but I have to set up my tactic so that they have those options.  Wouldn´t playing possession style make my players sometimes retain the ball when it would be smarter to play more direct?

[summatsupeer]

3 hours ago, Punt said:

That is my expectation. Ok, maybe not consistently because they could make mistakes in choosing the right option ( everyone does ), but I would like my players to have a lot of passing options on the pitch even if they don´t use them always. As I get smarter players they will make better choices but I have to set up my tactic so that they have those options.  Wouldn´t playing possession style make my players sometimes retain the ball when it would be smarter to play more direct?

That depends on how you setup the possession system. The game comes with 3 ways (possession, tiki-taka, vertical tiki-taka) but there's lots of ways. Maybe have a look at them for ideas for TIs and roles+duties.

For me the style of the system starts with the roles and duties. For what you want I'd look for a lot of support duties. I wouldn't dismiss playmakers as they have more freedom to do something different from instructed but they will be more focused on collecting the ball than making runs so won't have that generic style.

I'm thinking you could tell your team to Be More Expressive it will give them more freedom to break from that possession style.  Would looking for counter attacks also provide more early vertical attacks when available?

[Punt]

20 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

That depends on how you setup the possession system. The game comes with 3 ways (possession, tiki-taka, vertical tiki-taka) but there's lots of ways. Maybe have a look at them for ideas for TIs and roles+duties.

For me the style of the system starts with the roles and duties. For what you want I'd look for a lot of support duties. I wouldn't dismiss playmakers as they have more freedom to do something different from instructed but they will be more focused on collecting the ball than making runs so won't have that generic style.

I'm thinking you could tell your team to Be More Expressive it will give them more freedom to break from that possession style.  Would looking for counter attacks also provide more early vertical attacks when available?

I´m afraid that if I use a lot of support duties and add some playmakers that they will keep the ball and  there will be lack of runs and penetration.

This is how i´m set up currently:

No PI´s.

[summatsupeer]

3 hours ago, Punt said:

I´m afraid that if I use a lot of support duties and add some playmakers that they will keep the ball and  there will be lack of runs and penetration.

This is how i´m set up currently:

No PI´s.

You'll have to try it and see if its what you want since you have the clearest idea.  As mentioned the players used will affect how it plays and you'll have to decide if the player is the issue or what you've told him to do.

I'd say you have a few specific roles that take lots of risks which didn't sound like what you wanted.  Do you want certain players to take more risks whist others keep it more simple?

 

[Punt]

2 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

You'll have to try it and see if its what you want since you have the clearest idea.  As mentioned the players used will affect how it plays and you'll have to decide if the player is the issue or what you've told him to do.

I'd say you have a few specific roles that take lots of risks which didn't sound like what you wanted.  Do you want certain players to take more risks whist others keep it more simple?

 

I know I will have to. I am trying this in my save and I don´t want to ruin it so I am asking so many questions.

Would you explain more what you meant by that? I˙m still a rookie in making tactics.

[summatsupeer]

Have a look at the instructions for the CWB-A, SS-A and W-A.  Giving them attack duties means they'll take more risks, less likely to play it simple for example.  Then look at the instructions, dribble often, forward runs often, cross often etc so not really "pick best option" and more "try and create a chance quickly".

That's not to say it can't or won't work, its just looks a lot more urgent and attacking than what I thought you wanted.

[yonko]

On 07/12/2018 at 05:36, summatsupeer said:

That depends on how you setup the possession system. The game comes with 3 ways (possession, tiki-taka, vertical tiki-taka) but there's lots of ways. Maybe have a look at them for ideas for TIs and roles+duties.

Besides these 3 possession style types, what are the others you have in mind? And how do they differ from those 3?

[Rub Me]

Struggling with the Dlf this year

[axehan1]

On ‎07‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 13:36, summatsupeer said:

That depends on how you setup the possession system. The game comes with 3 ways (possession, tiki-taka, vertical tiki-taka) but there's lots of ways. Maybe have a look at them for ideas for TIs and roles+duties.

For me the style of the system starts with the roles and duties. For what you want I'd look for a lot of support duties. I wouldn't dismiss playmakers as they have more freedom to do something different from instructed but they will be more focused on collecting the ball than making runs so won't have that generic style.

I'm thinking you could tell your team to Be More Expressive it will give them more freedom to break from that possession style.  Would looking for counter attacks also provide more early vertical attacks when available?

Not to keen on using this shout anymore, I feel like it's just an excuse for my players to play countless unnecessary through balls.

[summatsupeer]

On 08/12/2018 at 22:03, yonko said:

Besides these 3 possession style types, what are the others you have in mind? And how do they differ from those 3?

Pretty much take any combination of instructions and roles+duties used in those examples.  The principles are the same, lots of support duties, safer passing and/or lower tempo with a pressing defensive strategy rather than sitting.  After that your going from a generic possession system with a bit of freedom to more specific patterns like the sarri-ball example (vertical tiki taka).

19 hours ago, axehan1 said:

Not to keen on using this shout anymore, I feel like it's just an excuse for my players to play countless unnecessary through balls.

Are they actually attempting counters or just clearing it like they would anyway?

Really it depends what you want and what your players can do, if its not successful or what you want then don't use it, or even use the don't counter instruction and rely more on your possession system.

[yonko]

18 hours ago, summatsupeer said:

Pretty much take any combination of instructions and roles+duties used in those examples.  The principles are the same, lots of support duties, safer passing and/or lower tempo with a pressing defensive strategy rather than sitting.  After that your going from a generic possession system with a bit of freedom to more specific patterns like the sarri-ball example (vertical tiki taka).

So basically just slight tweaks and/or hybrid systems of the 3 possession pre-sets. 

Do you have an example of something specific?