4-2-3-1

[Lillywhite Dean]

I've tried a number of different formations in both FMM18 and FMM19 but the one I always go back to is 4-2-3-1. It practically guarantees successful results.

Does anyone else swear by a different formation or is the 4-2-3-1 formation your go-to tactic too?

[Footix]

I played 4-2-3-1 for a while and had some success with it, but I found it somewhat hard to get the roles right. I always had a feeling the tactic could have been better. 

Currently playing a 4-4-2 with the wingers pushed forward to AMR and AML (making it almost a 4-2-4 when attacking), it's surprisingly effective. 

[Lillywhite Dean]

38 minutes ago, Footix said:

I played 4-2-3-1 for a while and had some success with it, but I found it somewhat hard to get the roles right. I always had a feeling the tactic could have been better. 

Currently playing a 4-4-2 with the wingers pushed forward to AMR and AML (making it almost a 4-2-4 when attacking), it's surprisingly effective. 

Interestingly 4-2-4 is my second choice tactic. It's a good one to switch to when playing with a 4-2-3-1 and you're chasing the game with 20 mins or so left to play. 

[Jupe]

When you play 4-2-3-1 do you play with the 2 as DCM or CM?  I had a lot more success with 2x DCM.      

My go to formation is 4-1-2-2-1 with a Ball winning DCM, 2x CM playing as AP’s, AML/AMR as inside forwards and a Complete forward up top. 

Once you build a dominate squad. Moving to 4-2-3-1 seems to create a lot more goals. 

[Lillywhite Dean]

12 hours ago, Jupe said:

When you play 4-2-3-1 do you play with the 2 as DCM or CM?  I had a lot more success with 2x DCM.      

My go to formation is 4-1-2-2-1 with a Ball winning DCM, 2x CM playing as AP’s, AML/AMR as inside forwards and a Complete forward up top. 

Once you build a dominate squad. Moving to 4-2-3-1 seems to create a lot more goals. 

I tend to play my 4-2-3-1 as:

GK, 2x WB, 2x CB, 1x BWM, 1x AP, 1x AP (in the AM position), 2x IF, and 1x AF.

I will look to switch a CB to a BPD if I have a player with the necessary passing attributes and sometimes I will switch one of my IF to another AP because the game tends to have a wealth of very decent play-makers. I sometimes play with FBs rather than WBs but because I usually play with IF, the WBs will cover the channels that my IFs will vacate.

I usually play with an AF regardless of whether my chosen striker plays in that position. The AF just seems to score lots of goals. I also think FMM is flawed in that it will be biased towards your strikers scoring lots of goals compared to the AI strikers.

[jupestar]

On 24/01/2019 at 09:19, Lillywhite Dean said:

I tend to play my 4-2-3-1 as:

GK, 2x WB, 2x CB, 1x BWM, 1x AP, 1x AP (in the AM position), 2x IF, and 1x AF.

I will look to switch a CB to a BPD if I have a player with the necessary passing attributes and sometimes I will switch one of my IF to another AP because the game tends to have a wealth of very decent play-makers. I sometimes play with FBs rather than WBs but because I usually play with IF, the WBs will cover the channels that my IFs will vacate.

I usually play with an AF regardless of whether my chosen striker plays in that position. The AF just seems to score lots of goals. I also think FMM is flawed in that it will be biased towards your strikers scoring lots of goals compared to the AI strikers.

I try and mix it up, but normally default to the same, flat back 4, CF and a ALW and ARW, the only thing i juggle around is the 3 in Midfield.

1) My goto is  1 BWM @ DCM,  2 x AP @ CM.

1a) If i'm struggling or losing a few, i may swap the BWM to DLP, and one of the AP to BWM. 

or when i'm dominant i use

2)  BWM + DLP @ DCM and AP @ ACM - this normally kicks in once the re-gens have formed. 

I normally find that i have the top scorer (actually nearly always), but my team overall don't score more goals than the main rivals in the league.  but by Goals Against is normally far better.  i just assumed it was the tactic funneling the goals though the CF (my reserve CF is always up there too).

In general i find the game gets easier the longer you stay with a club, i tend to start unemployed and swap around until i get the Man Utd/England jobs, that way it is challenging, then once you have got them to the top you can generally win most things, and its very easy to maintain every year.  If you dive straight in at a top club (United), and can avoid the sack in the first season, your home and dry.    I think the game would be fairly easy if you took your first position all the way, but I've never bothered, i nearly did it with Oxford once but the new version came out and i never bothered going back to finish. 

[Lillywhite Dean]

1 hour ago, jupestar said:

In general i find the game gets easier the longer you stay with a club, i tend to start unemployed and swap around until i get the Man Utd/England jobs, that way it is challenging, then once you have got them to the top you can generally win most things, and its very easy to maintain every year.  If you dive straight in at a top club (United), and can avoid the sack in the first season, your home and dry.    I think the game would be fairly easy if you took your first position all the way, but I've never bothered, i nearly did it with Oxford once but the new version came out and i never bothered going back to finish. 

I think that's the challenge for SI. How do you keep the game challenging the further into your career you reach. I'm only five seasons into my current career yet I've won the Champions League twice, the league title every year and numerous domestic cups. It has got to the point where I've lost interest in what I'm doing and think about starting a new career with different playable leagues. If the game somehow upped the difficulty level based on how well you are performing as a manager - or at least kept the AI competitive, long careers would be so much more enjoyable.

I'm currently manager of Spartak Moscow and to try and keep things interesting, I've decided to implement a transfer policy of buying and developing Russian players only. I sold some of my best players in order to do this and their replacements are nowhere near as good. Yet I'm still competing at the highest level. 

[Marc Vaughan]

I play various combinations generally often 4-2-3-1, but also 4-4-2 attacking (high wingers) and 4-4-2 standard (ie. normal wingers).

Of the three I find:
* 4-2-3-1 - Tends towards exciting, high scoring matches, often exploited by wide opposition with fast players - relies heavily on the lone striker being a strong player (or physically good in lower leagues)
* 4-4-2 Attacking - Tends towards exciting, high scoring matches, bit more consistent than 4-2-3-1 if your front men arent' great I find.
* 4-4-2 Standard - Tends towards tighter matches, back tends to leak a little less but sometimes the lack of bodies moving forward can leave you a little one dimensional

(this is using inhouse version of the game - so slightly different to current release)

PS - Anyone play three at the back? ... its not something I tend to 'enjoy' myself .... 
PPS - The next full update will have some tweaks to the overall game engine in it which should help somewhat with long-term challenge for the more experienced of you, while also (hopefully)  not making things impossible for new comers ... as always time will tell

[Lillywhite Dean]

14 hours ago, Marc Vaughan said:

PS - Anyone play three at the back? ... its not something I tend to 'enjoy' myself .... 

I gave the 3-4-3 formation a go in FMM18 and had great success with it in Italy. I switched to this formation having realised my wing play (wing-backs/full-backs + wingers) were not great. I had three very decent CBs with good stats in positioning, decisions and pace. So a high press with an offside trap worked really well. My two wide players, who had decent defensive stats, were played as defensive wingers so that provided cover on the channels. It was a really good tactic and I enjoyed the fact that I was using something other than the 4-2-3-1 or 4-2-4 formation.

I tried to do this in FMM19 but struggled to recapture the same kind of success. I think I probably could have made it work once I brought in the right players for it but 4-2-3-1 just seems to click right away.

[jens_dewit]

On 05/02/2019 at 22:34, Marc Vaughan said:

I play various combinations generally often 4-2-3-1, but also 4-4-2 attacking (high wingers) and 4-4-2 standard (ie. normal wingers).

Of the three I find:
* 4-2-3-1 - Tends towards exciting, high scoring matches, often exploited by wide opposition with fast players - relies heavily on the lone striker being a strong player (or physically good in lower leagues)
* 4-4-2 Attacking - Tends towards exciting, high scoring matches, bit more consistent than 4-2-3-1 if your front men arent' great I find.
* 4-4-2 Standard - Tends towards tighter matches, back tends to leak a little less but sometimes the lack of bodies moving forward can leave you a little one dimensional

(this is using inhouse version of the game - so slightly different to current release)

PS - Anyone play three at the back? ... its not something I tend to 'enjoy' myself .... 
PPS - The next full update will have some tweaks to the overall game engine in it which should help somewhat with long-term challenge for the more experienced of you, while also (hopefully)  not making things impossible for new comers ... as always time will tell

I enjoy 4 at the back, with wing backs in DMC strata. Looking forward to the changes you mention. 15 titles in a row with Anderlecht is just too unrealistic