Help me adjust my 4-2-3-1 for different mentalities

[djpdavey]

Hi,

Playing a 4-2-3-1, have got to the top of the league but the opposition is now being cautious against me which is expected but when I try lower mentalities I get swamped.

i try pushing the DL & LOE but I cant seem to get any joy.

My front 4 are set to close down more and the Wide AM's are asked to mark opposition Wingers/wide AM's out of the game which effectively shapes up as a 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 without the ball.

I also set OI's to press DM's and back line. I want to know how to adjust this for Defensive, Cautious, Balanced and Attacking. I've been trying to read up in this forum about adjusting for different mentalities but I'm clearly not understanding.

I am in lower leagues. Im having no problem playing out from the back its just breaking down opposition now without being countered myself. Please help.

[davidbarros2]

If opposition are being more cautious about you, why do you want to lower your mentality?

[djpdavey]

We'll for one I thought I needed to let them out a tad to create some space and another when playing against better teams. So if some one can help with the adjustments to different mentalities and how to stay on positive but let them out a tad

[davidbarros2]

Well, IMO there are ways to achieve what you want besides changing mentality, cause that will affect other settings aswell.

To break up defensive sides you might wanna try simple tweaks such as be more expressive, or upping your defensive line, perhaps changing your MC to a B2B to have more presence in the box...

Obviously don't try this all at once, but see if it helps and what changes are you seeing on the pitch that makes you feel you're closer to whant you want to achieve.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, djpdavey said:

Rather than changing the mentality - either up or down - I would look to add more deep runners attacking the box in the first place. In a 4231 it's normally more risky (and hence tricky) than with a more balanced formation (e.g. 4141dm wide), but is of course possible (assuming the opposition is really ultra-defensive with almost no attacking intent). But you should not just randomly add more attack duties from deep. It needs to make sense. 

For example:

PO

Wsu         TQ         IFsu

CMde   MEZat

IWBat   CD   CD    IWBsu

And certainly not low defensive line. Both DL and LOE on higher. Aggressive OIs on opposition defense and DM can also be an option, but at the same time a double-edged sword, because you may concede a lot of fouls, which the opposition will use to waste time as much as possible.

Wide att width is not necessary IMO. A more patient build-up to allow as many players as possible to get to the final third and flood the box. I would go with short passing, standard (default) tempo and would also consider adding the Be more expressive TI. That should make a fine balance between being patient and willing to take more risks at the same time.

But in normal circumstances, you should never play with this kind of setup of roles and duties.

 

[djpdavey]

20 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Rather than changing the mentality - either up or down - I would look to add more deep runners attacking the box in the first place. In a 4231 it's normally more risky (and hence tricky) than with a more balanced formation (e.g. 4141dm wide), but is of course possible (assuming the opposition is really ultra-defensive with almost no attacking intent). But you should not just randomly add more attack duties from deep. It needs to make sense. 

For example:

PO

Wsu         TQ         IFsu

CMde   MEZat

IWBat   CD   CD    IWBsu

And certainly not low defensive line. Both DL and LOE on higher. Aggressive OIs on opposition defense and DM can also be an option, but at the same time a double-edged sword, because you may concede a lot of fouls, which the opposition will use to waste time as much as possible.

Wide att width is not necessary IMO. A more patient build-up to allow as many players as possible to get to the final third and flood the box. I would go with short passing, standard (default) tempo and would also consider adding the Be more expressive TI. That should make a fine balance between being patient and willing to take more risks at the same time.

But in normal circumstances, you should never play with this kind of setup of roles and duties.

 

Thanks for this. I did add an IWB on attack on the right (same side as the CM(d) and he scored twice in the last game. also changed the CM(s) to B2B whos position was then covered by an IWB on defend. I also switch the IF to Winger on support. Seemed to work. Is the setup I've gone for too risky to play for every game?

 

[Experienced Defender]

38 minutes ago, djpdavey said:

Is the setup I've gone for too risky to play for every game?

Based on your description, it seems a bit less risky than the setup I suggested (you haven't used a mezzala on attack, but BBM instead). But I cannot definitely tell you how much risky it is unless you post a screenshot of that new tactic, so that I could see the whole picture. Btw, If you watch your matches at least on comprehensive highlights, you should be able to see if there is too much risk in your tactic.

[mikcheck]

Em 27/07/2019 em 16:55, Experienced Defender disse:

Rather than changing the mentality - either up or down - I would look to add more deep runners attacking the box in the first place. In a 4231 it's normally more risky (and hence tricky) than with a more balanced formation (e.g. 4141dm wide), but is of course possible (assuming the opposition is really ultra-defensive with almost no attacking intent). But you should not just randomly add more attack duties from deep. It needs to make sense. 

For example:

PO

Wsu         TQ         IFsu

CMde   MEZat

IWBat   CD   CD    IWBsu

And certainly not low defensive line. Both DL and LOE on higher. Aggressive OIs on opposition defense and DM can also be an option, but at the same time a double-edged sword, because you may concede a lot of fouls, which the opposition will use to waste time as much as possible.

Wide att width is not necessary IMO. A more patient build-up to allow as many players as possible to get to the final third and flood the box. I would go with short passing, standard (default) tempo and would also consider adding the Be more expressive TI. That should make a fine balance between being patient and willing to take more risks at the same time.

But in normal circumstances, you should never play with this kind of setup of roles and duties.

 

Do you think IWB and IF can work well on the same flank with a Mezalla on the same side? Isn't better to play widget to avoid congestion?

[djpdavey]

6 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Based on your description, it seems a bit less risky than the setup I suggested (you haven't used a mezzala on attack, but BBM instead). But I cannot definitely tell you how much risky it is unless you post a screenshot of that new tactic, so that I could see the whole picture. Btw, If you watch your matches at least on comprehensive highlights, you should be able to see if there is too much risk in your tactic.

[summatsupeer]

@Experienced Defender mentioned this @djpdavey  but your still using it and I have no idea why.  Deeper Defensive Line in a 4231 Wide?  On Positive? Why?  Even if it does make it harder to play behind them, there's soooooo much space between CB and CM and even more on the flanks, then your defense will pulled all over.

Every formation gives up space somewhere, your making its natural weakness even bigger.  Is it the right formation for how you want to defend?

[djpdavey]

11 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

Deeper Defensive Line in a 4231 Wide? 

LLM.... The amount of balls over the top the lower DL prevents per game is worth it. I'm not having an issue currently with balls in behind the CM's. Anything higher and I will get punished. 

Currently I am only conceeding from set pieces. I have noted what you've said but until this changes I wont tinker with the DL. In the original tactic the CM was told to hold position so both the CM's holding their positions to stop them being pulled out. With the wide AM's marking the opposition wide players the gaps are reduced and reduces the wide threats.

19 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

Is it the right formation for how you want to defend?

I dont know right now. It's only until the end of the season because of lack of options. End of the season virtually the whole squads contracts are up for renewal which will give me more flexability to move towards a 4-1-4-1 and/or 4-2-2-2.

Due to the tactical familiarity with 4-2-3-1 currently I think it might be more of a risk to change at this point? Or am I wrong? I have no DM's in the squad but due to the lack of signings and carefulness with the wage budget we are making plenty of money which should give us decent budgets for next season.

[herne79]

59 minutes ago, djpdavey said:

LLM.... The amount of balls over the top the lower DL prevents per game is worth it. I'm not having an issue currently with balls in behind the CM's. Anything higher and I will get punished. 

If you are finding it works for you then that's great .

Just to add to this bolded part - if you have seen that you are getting punished then fair enough.  But if this is an assumption, it's not necessarily the case.  As an example, I'm currently managing in tier 10 of the English pyramid using the Positive mentality (so a high def line by default) and the def line pushed up even higher without any issues.  Everything is relative to the level you're playing at: my defenders may be rubbish, but so are the opposition attackers.

[djpdavey]

49 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Just to add to this bolded part - if you have seen that you are getting punished then fair enough.  But if this is an assumption, it's not necessarily the case.  As an example, I'm currently managing in tier 10 of the English pyramid using the Positive mentality (so a high def line by default) and the def line pushed up even higher without any issues.  Everything is relative to the level you're playing at: my defenders may be rubbish, but so are the opposition attackers.

Thanks. Just to clarify.....Are you saying that because you're on positive you're using a standard line but because of the positive mentality it's already higher? or you're using a higher line on positive mentality? 

[herne79]

6 minutes ago, djpdavey said:

Thanks. Just to clarify.....Are you saying that because you're on positive you're using a standard line but because of the positive mentality it's already higher? or you're using a higher line on positive mentality? 

Positive mentality sets a fairly high def line by default.  I've also used the TI to push the line even higher.

I'm not saying to you to follow suit, just pointing out that if you're playing LLM there's no need to assume you shouldn't do something.  Obviously if you've found through experience something in your particular save it isn't working, that's a different kettle of fish.

[djpdavey]

4 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I'm not saying to you to follow suit, just pointing out that if you're playing LLM there's no need to assume you shouldn't do something.  Obviously if you've found through experience something in your particular save it isn't working, that's a different kettle of fish.

I've read so many opinions on here to never use a high line in LLM so thats what led me up this path.

[herne79]

5 minutes ago, djpdavey said:

I've read so many opinions on here to never use a high line in LLM so thats what led me up this path.

I've also read you can't play possession tactics in LLM either...

(that's just a tweaked version of the default control/possession tactic the game comes with).

[laurentius82]

15 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I've also read you can't play possession tactics in LLM either...

(that's just a tweaked version of the default control/possession tactic the game comes with).

I fully agree that axioms saying "you can't do this and that in lower leagues" are utter nonsense.  Like Herne said, the game only considers the abilities of your players relative to the opposition.  As a consequence, there's no reason why you couldn't tiki-taka and gegenpress all you want in the lower leagues, and be successful doing so.

That's also why a non-league match will look indistinguishable from a champions league match in the ME, with the same animations, and patterns of play etc. This is actually something that I hope SI do something about in future iterations of the game, so that the actual skill levels of the players would be better represented in the ME. Now a non-league player does all the same things that Messi and Ronaldo do as long as the opposition is of similar or lower standard, which is quite unrealistic. 

[djpdavey]

When you look at the opposition players when you're playing a high line, are you checking their anticipation and acceleration and agility in comparison to your defenders? 

[Experienced Defender]

On 28/07/2019 at 20:17, mikcheck said:

Do you think IWB and IF can work well on the same flank with a Mezalla on the same side? Isn't better to play widget to avoid congestion?

What do you mean by "play widget" ???

Btw, IWB is here primarily to cover for the mezzala, and he is on support duty precisely in order to bring as many bodies into the opposition half and final third as possible in order to outnumber their packed and stubborn defense. In normal circumstances, I certainly would never play in such a risky manner, but these were special circumstances, so you sometimes have to take greater risk and do the unconventional.

[mikcheck]

43 minutos atrás, Experienced Defender disse:

What do you mean by "play widget" ???

Btw, IWB is here primarily to cover for the mezzala, and he is on support duty precisely in order to bring as many bodies into the opposition half and final third as possible in order to outnumber their packed and stubborn defense. In normal circumstances, I certainly would never play in such a risky manner, but these were special circumstances, so you sometimes have to take greater risk and do the unconventional.

I meant wider, not widget lol, stupid phone.

Thanks

[laurentius82]

On 27/07/2019 at 18:55, Experienced Defender said:

But in normal circumstances, you should never play with this kind of setup of roles and duties.

If you are / have become a top side, this is normal circumstances most of the time. Even the big six play ultra-defensively away from home against you, and sometimes even at home. My Dulwich Hamlet side just had a game at Stamford Bridge where Chelsea parked the bus with a 5-4-1 and didn't even try to attack us until the final two minutes of stoppage time. The system I use to try and break those parked buses is btw very similar to the one you suggested. Switching a mezzala in a 4-2-3-1 from support to attack duty in particular is something that the AI seems to have a lot of trouble dealing with. This is what my "break-them-down" tactic looks like:

PO

   IFs              TQ         IFa/Wa

MEZa   DLPd

WBs   BPDd   CDd    IWBa

Or sometimes, depending on the players and how the game plays out:

DLFa

APs         SS         IFs

MEZa   DLPd

IWBs   BPDd   CDd    CWBa