Advice for a good midfield trio (DM-CM-CM)

[ryandormer]

I am looking to switch my tactics up a bit. I have played with different wings for the last few seasons, with a full back and winger on one flank, wing back and inside forward on the other.

I am now looking to play a system where the flanks are identical (both inside forwards and wing backs), but create unpredictability via the midfield.

The tactic is as follows:

I was wondering if you have any advice for what combination of roles in the midfield could be particularly effective in this kind of set up.

Thanks.

[BadAss88]

I like the combo of a defensive dm with a playmaker and a mezzala.

MEZ-a --- RPM-s

A-d

 

[ryandormer]

Cheers--how do you find the RPM? I have never managed to get it working particularly well. I might just be using the wrong players, or the wrong roles next to it, but he never seems to attract the ball in the way the other playmaking roles do.

[zlatanera]

Don't expect your RPM to get into the box unless they have traits to encourage it. You'll generally see them drop deep and them move up the pitch with play before camping on the edge of the box.

As an alternative, if you have really good players, why not just let their traits dictate how they play a bit more and have a very un-specialised midfield? For example  DM-De - CM-Su - CM-At. Or even in a flat 3 have a CM-De in between the Su and At ones.

[jcw163]

I'm using a DLPd behind a BBM and MEZa at the moment with pretty good effect, the DLP holds and recycles possession, or switches to the wing backs while the BBM gets up and down the pitch and the MEZ drifts into the attacking midfield area, might be worth a shot depending on players, I'm Liverpool at the moment so it's Henderson behind Fabinho and Keita.

[ryandormer]

9 minutes ago, zlatanera said:

why not just let their traits dictate how they play a bit more and have a very un-specialised midfield? For example  DM-De - CM-Su - CM-At

I've tried that, and this would be my ideal way to play in theory. All of my first choice central midfielders are outstanding, with great passing and movement (Torriera, Rabiot and Gedson). I would rather play a system without a playmaker, and allow all players to be involved in the build up, but I can never get it right. Even when I drop the passing to shorter, or drop the tempo to lower, the team won't stop playing the ball forward fairly quickly, eradicating any patient build up. I find that I need a playmaker to encourage players to opt for the patient, sideways/occasional backwards pass.

Have you managed to get a playmaker-less midfield working?

[ryandormer]

1 minute ago, jcw163 said:

I'm using a DLPd behind a BBM and MEZa at the moment with pretty good effect, the DLP holds and recycles possession, or switches to the wing backs while the BBM gets up and down the pitch and the MEZ drifts into the attacking midfield area, might be worth a shot depending on players, I'm Liverpool at the moment so it's Henderson behind Fabinho and Keita.

I gave that a go for a short while (or something very similar), and it looked like it would be lethal on the counter, but didn't work so well when the opponent defended ultra deep. All of the players in front of the DLP either passed or ran forward, straight into the proverbial bus, giving limited time for other players (full backs or wing backs) to properly get involved.

[jcw163]

56 minutes ago, ryandormer said:

I gave that a go for a short while (or something very similar), and it looked like it would be lethal on the counter, but didn't work so well when the opponent defended ultra deep. All of the players in front of the DLP either passed or ran forward, straight into the proverbial bus, giving limited time for other players (full backs or wing backs) to properly get involved.

Yeh I admit I was having a similar problem for a while. I had the defence and front 3 almost exactly as you do (only difference was one IFa) and the only way I'd fixed this was to change the DLFs role, I'd wanted him to come deep and then the 2 CMs and the wide players to attack space but defenders weren't stupid enough, I changed the DLFs to an attack duty and things worked a lot better but I'm guessing you're fairly happy with the front 3.

[ryandormer]

I might try that, I always used to have at least one of the forward players on attack, but I've really enjoyed the experiment of having them all on support, they seem to interchange a lot more, which is superb when it works. But it's certainly worth a try--I might use it as a backup tactic for a little while, if I need a plan B or if I'm already winning comfortable, and see what success I have.

Cheers for the help.

1 hour ago, zlatanera said:

why not just let their traits dictate how they play a bit more and have a very un-specialised midfield? For example  DM-De - CM-Su - CM-At

I'm trying this in a game at the moment, and it seems to be working pretty nicely now. I've had to change the passing to 'much shorter' to ensure that the team uses the midfield options. The 'unspecialised' roles seem to have led to more all-round cohesion in the team. Admittedly, I'm against a team I should be beating anyway, but I'm liking how the team is playing.

The average positions look great, and there is always a player available for a pass.

(this is only half time)

My top three passers are, more or less, who I'd want/expect them to be--my left back on the same side as my deeper central midfielder, and then my two deeper midfielders. I'd like some key passes coming from midfield, but Tierney is an absolute monster on this save, so I'm hardly surprised they've come from him instead.

[zlatanera]

@ryandormer Using Lyon, my best player was Nabil Fekir, a left-footed AM who I play at AMR as a Trequartista. I then had CM-De - CM-Au behind AM-Su as my midfield. So there was a slight bias towards Fekir but by virtue of usually having a lot of possession we saw all the midfielders getting involved (in the second season my more advanced CM hit 15 goals despite poor Finishing and Long Shots) and often the Trequartista would be on the end of moves, finishing off a cross from the left rather than it always going through him.

[Overmars]

With a back four, I like using a defensive-minded DM [HB(d), AM(d), DM(d), or maybe a DLP(d)] with a playmaker [DLP(s), RPM(s), or AP] and a mobile midfielder alongside [BBM(s), CM(a), or MEZ(a)].

With a back three/five, logic says you can be more adventurous than that (ex. REG instead of AM), though I haven't had much joy using a back three/five in FM19 no matter who is in the midfield.

[interesti88]

For years I've always went with a midfield triangle consisting of a DLP-d RPM-s partnered with a AP-a. 

[Dfs]

With two wingbacks you could try a hb and before him for example dlps and bbm. From my own experience dlp really helps with controlling posession.

[Luizinho]

There's lot of different combinations that you can do in central midfield, all that are viable. How effective they are will depend on a number of things including what players you use in said roles, the rest of your set-up and of course the opposition.

Why do you want to use IF (s) and WB (s)/what is the objective for you? Once we know that we could all help give you some really effective combinations.

[ryandormer]

23 hours ago, Luizinho said:

Why do you want to use IF (s) and WB (s)/what is the objective for you? Once we know that we could all help give you some really effective combinations.

Thank you--the theory is that my three most attacking players (the striker and the wide forwards) will be closer to goal (inside) more often than out wide on the wings, and support/width can be provided by the wing backs and midfielders. They are both on support because I like the unpredictability of the movement. When they are both on support, there is a nice balance between the inside forward running forward and waiting for the wing back to get forward. I always used to use a WB(a)/IF(s) and WB(s)/IF(a) on each flank respectively, and set the team shape to 'very fluid', but in this year's game putting both players on support creates that fluid movement instead.

What I want to avoid is the attack becoming too one dimensional, which is why I'm thinking a varied midfield will help.

Thanks again.

[sporadicsmiles]

The roles you pick strongly depend on the roles around them, you cannot pick in isolation. So here with two IFs, for example, I would be happy to play a mezalla (who will interact nicely) but less inclined to pick a CM(A) (he and the IF will get in each others way). If you had a winger on one side, I would be much happier to play a CM(A) on the same side.

In your case, I would use a playmaker (of your choosing, I usually use DLP to act as a pivot) a mezalla and a DM(S) (since you are a strong side who should dominate most matches the DMC needs to be involved in attacking play too). I would switch the side of the DLP and MEZ on a game by game basis. The MEZ goes onto the oppositions weakest flank. I want to overload their worst fullback. This tactic will be highly reliant on crossing to score goals (there will not be a midfield runner). The DLF may get some assists, but not that many. So make sure both IFs can actually head the ball at least a little bit.

[ryandormer]

Thanks for the responses.

On 13/08/2019 at 09:19, sporadicsmiles said:

This tactic will be highly reliant on crossing to score goals (there will not be a midfield runner).

Doesn't a mezalla act as a midfield runner, given his 'get further forward', 'roam', etc. insructions (albeit running a little wider)?

[Luizinho]

On 13/08/2019 at 08:49, ryandormer said:

Thank you--the theory is that my three most attacking players (the striker and the wide forwards) will be closer to goal (inside) more often than out wide on the wings, and support/width can be provided by the wing backs and midfielders.

Due to the duties you've used, the front three (DLF & both IFs) are all going to be quite narrow in the final third and will generally look to be playing in the same area of the pitch (central). Not necessarily a bad thing, but just consider this when things aren't working for you during a match. You're also using a balanced mentality, which I find can make support duties fairly passive. Again, not necessarily a bad thing, but as far I can see you don't anyone the team showing a lot of attacking intent in your team. It will result in patient play, which I appreciate is the game plan, but I can imagine at times you're play can be quite toothless?

On 13/08/2019 at 08:49, ryandormer said:

What I want to avoid is the attack becoming too one dimensional

You're worried it about it being one dimensional yet you're using exactly the same roles and duties on both wings. I don't understand that?

On 13/08/2019 at 08:49, ryandormer said:

which is why I'm thinking a varied midfield will help.

It all comes down to what you want them to do? It's pointless having varied roles for sake of variation, if they're not contributing to your overall strategy. I've used a system where I've used two generic CM roles with support duties. It worked for me, because I needed them to a certain role for my team. They didn't score, assist or offer any real threat from central midfield, but I didn't need them to as it was provided by positions.

--------

As mentioned your front three are all looking to play or attack the space where you'd typically find an AMC ('The Hole'). So for example, if you chose an Advanced Playmaker as on your central midfielders, do you think that would work?

Not trying to condescend, just trying to get you to answer your own question* 

[Experienced Defender]

7 hours ago, ryandormer said:

Doesn't a mezalla act as a midfield runner

Yes, mezzala is a midfield runner, though a rather creative and technical one.

[sporadicsmiles]

8 hours ago, ryandormer said:

Thanks for the responses.

Doesn't a mezalla act as a midfield runner, given his 'get further forward', 'roam', etc. insructions (albeit running a little wider)?

Yeah but he gets into the channels, so he is not really running towards the goal. He will score goals, and he can link play centrally. I do not mean you will only score goals from crosses. I just think compared to a BBM or CM(A) he is not going to link the middle. I typically do not play with a mezalla much, though. So I could be wrong. The important thing is that if it works for you, then ignore me and play a mezalla! 

[ryandormer]

12 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

Yeah but he gets into the channels, so he is not really running towards the goal. He will score goals, and he can link play centrally. I do not mean you will only score goals from crosses. I just think compared to a BBM or CM(A) he is not going to link the middle. I typically do not play with a mezalla much, though. So I could be wrong. The important thing is that if it works for you, then ignore me and play a mezalla! 

Good point--I might have a few games with a mezalla, a few with the CM(a) and see which operates better.

16 hours ago, Luizinho said:

You're also using a balanced mentality, which I find can make support duties fairly passive

It does--I usually start on balanced to see how the game is going for 20 minutes. 90% of the time, I am bossing the game, even if I haven't scored, and I move the mentality up to positive. If the game seems a little closer, I leave it on balanced for a while, maybe until half time and re-assess.

16 hours ago, Luizinho said:

You're worried it about it being one dimensional yet you're using exactly the same roles and duties on both wings. I don't understand that?

I'm hoping to vary the attack play with a good combination of roles in the middle. For example, an inside forward in front of a DLP will operate differently to an inside forward who is being overlapped by a mezalla. That's the theory, anyway!

17 hours ago, Luizinho said:

As mentioned your front three are all looking to play or attack the space where you'd typically find an AMC ('The Hole'). So for example, if you chose an Advanced Playmaker as on your central midfielders, do you think that would work?

I think it's a possibility! In my head, it could work like this (albeit this is a little too simplistic):

Two wide options who could then deliver a cross, or pass it back, and three options more centrally for a through ball into the box.

What do you think?

[Luizinho]

4 hours ago, ryandormer said:

Good point--I might have a few games with a mezalla, a few with the CM(a) and see which operates better.

It does--I usually start on balanced to see how the game is going for 20 minutes. 90% of the time, I am bossing the game, even if I haven't scored, and I move the mentality up to positive. If the game seems a little closer, I leave it on balanced for a while, maybe until half time and re-assess.

I'm hoping to vary the attack play with a good combination of roles in the middle. For example, an inside forward in front of a DLP will operate differently to an inside forward who is being overlapped by a mezalla. That's the theory, anyway!

I think it's a possibility! In my head, it could work like this (albeit this is a little too simplistic):

Two wide options who could then deliver a cross, or pass it back, and three options more centrally for a through ball into the box.

What do you think?

Why don't you try it out and let us know?

You need to understand that you're relying heavily on your Advanced Playmaker to be the nucleus of your offensive play. Is he up to the task? Also what happens if the opposition nullify him or he's having poor game?

Quote

an inside forward who is being overlapped by a mezalla

I'm not sure that's how these two roles interact. Personally I find they play in the same area (half-space) and get in each others way.

[YasoKuul]

It depends on overall tactic and the other roles but I prefer DMd with BBM and RPM.