Flat 442

[mikcheck]

Hello,

I'm seeking for opinion on this flat 442. I'm bored of using the most common formations and I want to try something different that I've very rarely used. I have a very strong team.

So here it goes:

Thank you!

[Experienced Defender]

37 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

 

37 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

I'm seeking for opinion on this flat 442

A mezzala on attack duty in a 442 (or any formation without a DM) is a bit too risky IMHO. Even the standard CM on attack duty is not advisable in such kind of formation, let alone the mezzala.

Up front, you have both creator roles (CF and DLF). It's not to say that it cannot work, but I personally prefer to have one creator and the other more simple striker. But even if you want to play both strikers in creator roles, DLF on support and CF on attack would be the more logical combo.

Prevent short distribution does not make much sense (if any) in a system with less than 3 players up front. You have only 2. Therefore, I would remove this instruction. 

[bowieinspace]

Would agree with the post above! 
 

as an alternative to the mezzala role perhaps a BBM? Still roams but offers better coverage. Could be worth trying the DLP role in D rather than S as well but that’s something you’d need to analyse in game depending on other roles changes you make and any adjustments to mentality for example.

Im currently using a flat 4-4-2 with a CF-A and DLP-S and I think it works pretty well so if it suits the rest of your system then no stress there. I have explored an AF-A in the CF role as well and it was good, but I decided a CF helped in other ways in my system specifically.

One of the tactical innovations surrounding the 4-4-2 in recent years is in regards to pressing and lines of engagement. As @Experienced Defender says it’s very difficult to stop short GK distribution due to the shape, so you have to consider whether a high press is even the best policy. Personally with a 4-4-2 I like to set up a bit deeper with a very compact shape vertically, as otherwise gaps between the lines are easy to exploit for anyone in DM or AMC positions. This doesn’t mean you can’t press aggressively, it just affects where on the pitch you choose to press!
 

 

[mikcheck]

Em 31/12/2019 em 00:09, Experienced Defender disse:

 

A mezzala on attack duty in a 442 (or any formation without a DM) is a bit too risky IMHO. Even the standard CM on attack duty is not advisable in such kind of formation, let alone the mezzala.

Up front, you have both creator roles (CF and DLF). It's not to say that it cannot work, but I personally prefer to have one creator and the other more simple striker. But even if you want to play both strikers in creator roles, DLF on support and CF on attack would be the more logical combo.

Prevent short distribution does not make much sense (if any) in a system with less than 3 players up front. You have only 2. Therefore, I would remove this instruction. 

Thanks.

What about a mezzala on support or BBM?

As for the strikers, I've chose this partnership because I'd prefer to use my most creative striker in a CF(s) and the other one is a DLF(a) because I didn't want to give him "simple" roles like poacher or adv forward, but he is also not totally capable to play it on CF(a), that is why I went for that combo.  The left one is my CF(s), the other is my DLF(a):

.  

 

As far as the prevent short distribution I agree, I'll remove it and tell my 2 strikers and maybe my most attack minded central midfielder to close down more and tackle harder, what do you think?

Also, what is your opinion on having the most defensive minded central midfielder man marking opposition AMC?

 

Em 31/12/2019 em 05:41, bowieinspace disse:

Would agree with the post above! 
 

as an alternative to the mezzala role perhaps a BBM? Still roams but offers better coverage. Could be worth trying the DLP role in D rather than S as well but that’s something you’d need to analyse in game depending on other roles changes you make and any adjustments to mentality for example.

Im currently using a flat 4-4-2 with a CF-A and DLP-S and I think it works pretty well so if it suits the rest of your system then no stress there. I have explored an AF-A in the CF role as well and it was good, but I decided a CF helped in other ways in my system specifically.

One of the tactical innovations surrounding the 4-4-2 in recent years is in regards to pressing and lines of engagement. As @Experienced Defender says it’s very difficult to stop short GK distribution due to the shape, so you have to consider whether a high press is even the best policy. Personally with a 4-4-2 I like to set up a bit deeper with a very compact shape vertically, as otherwise gaps between the lines are easy to exploit for anyone in DM or AMC positions. This doesn’t mean you can’t press aggressively, it just affects where on the pitch you choose to press!
 

 

Thanks.

As far as the DLP, he has comes deep to get the ball PPM, that is also why I chose the support role. Beside that, I also play with a balanced mentality, so I think it will be fine. Maybe I'll need to change it against strong teams.

DLF(s) and CF(a) must also be a great combo. I'd try that if my other striker were stronger with his vision. That's why I went for CF(s) and DLF(a), because I also didn't want to use him with the most basic striker roles like poacher or adv forward, even though they can work great.

I will try to lower my LOE, so my team can be more compact, but keep the higher line, because I have fast defenders. I'll also remove prevent short distribution and maybe will tell my strikers and the most attack minded central midfielder to close down more and tackle harder. That might be a better option

[bowieinspace]

5 hours ago, mikcheck said:

Thanks.

What about a mezzala on support or BBM?

As for the strikers, I've chose this partnership because I'd prefer to use my most creative striker in a CF(s) and the other one is a DLF(a) because I didn't want to give him "simple" roles like poacher or adv forward, but he is also not totally capable to play it on CF(a), that is why I went for that combo.  The left one is my CF(s), the other is my DLF(a):

.  

 

As far as the prevent short distribution I agree, I'll remove it and tell my 2 strikers and maybe my most attack minded central midfielder to close down more and tackle harder, what do you think?

Also, what is your opinion on having the most defensive minded central midfielder man marking opposition AMC?

 

Thanks.

As far as the DLP, he has comes deep to get the ball PPM, that is also why I chose the support role. Beside that, I also play with a balanced mentality, so I think it will be fine. Maybe I'll need to change it against strong teams.

DLF(s) and CF(a) must also be a great combo. I'd try that if my other striker were stronger with his vision. That's why I went for CF(s) and DLF(a), because I also didn't want to use him with the most basic striker roles like poacher or adv forward, even though they can work great.

I will try to lower my LOE, so my team can be more compact, but keep the higher line, because I have fast defenders. I'll also remove prevent short distribution and maybe will tell my strikers and the most attack minded central midfielder to close down more and tackle harder. That might be a better option

Yeah worth exploring that to see how it goes for sure.

Your strikers are amazing btw, I'd probably play the flamboyant striker as an AF(A) or CF (A), he'd be excellent there. His looks for pass rather than attempting to score trait won't hinder him too much I don't think. Then I'd use the other guy (the world class striker) as a DLF (S)...with those attributes he would both score and create with that role - from my experience playing a DLF (S) they still get into a lot of scoring positions!

[permanentquandary]

On 30/12/2019 at 23:24, mikcheck said:

Hello,

I'm seeking for opinion on this flat 442. I'm bored of using the most common formations and I want to try something different that I've very rarely used. I have a very strong team.

So here it goes:

Thank you!

Try two CM(S) with Hold Position and Tackle Harder as PIs. Don't specialise the central roles in a 442 - both need to be hard working and versatile.
Two WM(S) to give you freedom to choose the PIs, should have gets further forward as a PI on the support striker side. This will also improve defensive stability and give the players freedom to move inside or stay wide.
Two FB(S) again for maximum flexibility. Gets further forward on the less adventurous WM's side, so he overlaps.

In defense you have 442, in attack, something close to 3-4-3.

[thehig2]

3 hours ago, permanentquandary said:

Try two CM(S) with Hold Position and Tackle Harder as PIs. Don't specialise the central roles in a 442 - both need to be hard working and versatile.
Two WM(S) to give you freedom to choose the PIs, should have gets further forward as a PI on the support striker side. This will also improve defensive stability and give the players freedom to move inside or stay wide.
Two FB(S) again for maximum flexibility. Gets further forward on the less adventurous WM's side, so he overlaps.

In defense you have 442, in attack, something close to 3-4-3.

Agree about the centre midfielders, they need to mobile and hardworking and both of them have some kind of defensive ability, even the the more expansive of the to.

Centre midfield on Support and Centre Midfield on defend is my preferred combo.

Ive found that playmakers, Mezallas, Box to Box and Ball Winning Midfielders(on support) abondon the centre of the pitch leaving your defence exposed.

[permanentquandary]

5 minutes ago, thehig2 said:

Agree about the centre midfielders, they need to mobile and hardworking and both of them have some kind of defensive ability, even the the more expansive of the to.

Centre midfield on Support and Centre Midfield on defend is my preferred combo.

Ive found that playmakers, Mezallas, Box to Box and Ball Winning Midfielders(on support) abondon the centre of the pitch leaving your defence exposed.

I suggested double support because the duty affects individual mentality. If you put one on defend, that side of the pitch tends to lose possession more. You can achieve the same shielding affect from support+hold position PI whilst retaining the benefits of having closer passing options.

What I find is that the defend duty unnecessarily invites pressure onto the team, so unless you are specifically looking for that, I recommend double support.

[thehig2]

11 minutes ago, permanentquandary said:

I suggested double support because the duty affects individual mentality. If you put one on defend, that side of the pitch tends to lose possession more. You can achieve the same shielding affect from support+hold position PI whilst retaining the benefits of having closer passing options.

What I find is that the defend duty unnecessarily invites pressure onto the team, so unless you are specifically looking for that, I recommend double support.

I tend to use defend duty on a side of the pitch I have an attack minded player, such as a Winger on attack duty. Works quite well in that regard.

When the teams mentality is on positive or attacking I've found a midfielder on defend duty helps provide balance.

[Warre10]

On 31/12/2019 at 06:41, bowieinspace said:

 

 

Would you mind sharing more details about your tactic, @bowieinspace? I also play with Athletic (read your posts in the Athletic thread) and have used a 433 formation (dm and wingers) for the first couple of seasons, but I think I want to change because of a few decent strikers coming up. 

The results have been good for the first few games, but it seems a bit gung-ho. I tried to lower the LOE in order to become more compact (and not lose possession in the centre?).

This is how it looks right now. Any comments/tips?

Edited January 3, 2020 by Warre10

[Experienced Defender]

6 hours ago, Warre10 said:

 

6 hours ago, Warre10 said:

This is how it looks right now. Any comments/tips?

Except for the lack of variety on the flanks, nothing in your tactic seems to be particularly problematic. Counter-press can be a double-edged sword, so be careful. Play and watch to see if there are any significant issues.

Btw, which are your strikers' respective stronger feet? I know this sounds like a minor thing, but can prove more important than one may believe.

And yes - I would not play with both CBs as BPDs. One is enough.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Experienced Defender

[Warre10]

Thank you. I will try to change the right midfielder to IW and play with only one BPD. Perhaps IW and AF should be on the same side (due to a possible conflict between DLF and IW?)?

What issues would typically come from counter-press? Will try to play without to see if anything changes.

At the moment, both my first-choice strikers are right-footed, but I have two left-footed coming up. Villalibre is also left-footed.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Warre10 said:

What issues would typically come from counter-press?

If your players are lacking the right attributes to execute the counter-press properly - and/or you are playing against a team whose players are able to play their way through the counter-press (or any type of intensive pressing) - you can make yourself too exposed defensively. That's why you need to be careful and use the CP rather situationally than as part of your regular tactic. 

 

1 hour ago, Warre10 said:

At the moment, both my first-choice strikers are right-footed

Okay, taking that into account - i.e. both strikers right-footed - I would swap your strikers around. Like this:

DLF    AF 

1 hour ago, Warre10 said:

Perhaps IW and AF should be on the same side (due to a possible conflict between DLF and IW?)?

In your current setup, I would go this way if I were to use an IW on one flank:

DLFsu   AF

IWsu   DLP   BBM    WMsu

There is no conflict between DLF and IW. Together with the DLP, they can create an overload, plus the LWB can naturally overlap to provide width when needed. 

NOTE: This suggestions applies when both strikers are right-footed. 

P.S: you can also consider playing the LB as FB on attack duty.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Experienced Defender

[bowieinspace]

12 hours ago, Warre10 said:

Would you mind sharing more details about your tactic, @bowieinspace? I also play with Athletic (read your posts in the Athletic thread) and have used a 433 formation (dm and wingers) for the first couple of seasons, but I think I want to change because of a few decent strikers coming up. 

The results have been good for the first few games, but it seems a bit gung-ho. I tried to lower the LOE in order to become more compact (and not lose possession in the centre?).

This is how it looks right now. Any comments/tips?

@Experienced Defender has provided some great advice for you there, my tactic probably isn't worth your time as we're in 2028 and have a team full of mostly regens (including an absolutely world class playmaker who the whole team revolves around), you've got to find the right fit for the players you have. 

Great to hear you've enjoyed the Athletic thread!

[mikcheck]

What do you guys do when for example you play against a 4-3-3 and their DMC has a lot of time one the ball ? Do you normally ask one of your strikers to man mark him?

[bowieinspace]

6 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

What do you guys do when for example you play against a 4-3-3 and their DMC has a lot of time one the ball ? Do you normally ask one of your strikers to man mark him?

If he's dictating play I will sometimes drop my DLF to the AM strata, man marking can be a little hit and miss I find (although I certainly would do it if I wanted to keep the two up top!)

[Experienced Defender]

25 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

What do you guys do when for example you play against a 4-3-3 and their DMC has a lot of time one the ball ? Do you normally ask one of your strikers to man mark him?

I would be more inclined to use aggressive OIs on him (tight mark and close down always, perhaps even hard tackling) than specifically man-mark him. But only if he's a really important player for the organization of opposition attacks. Otherwise, I would not be that much bothered about him.

[HanziZoloman]

How do you guys adjust with a 442 against two DM in opponent teams?

[bowieinspace]

26 minutes ago, HanziZoloman said:

How do you guys adjust with a 442 against two DM in opponent teams?

Personally the 4-4-2 I am using is probably the most successful system I've found against two DM systems, which I've had a lot of trouble with on FM20

[mikcheck]

15 minutos atrás, bowieinspace disse:

Personally the 4-4-2 I am using is probably the most successful system I've found against two DM systems, which I've had a lot of trouble with on FM20

Can you post a screenshot of your 442 pls? 

Edited January 4, 2020 by mikcheck

[HanziZoloman]

12 minutes ago, bowieinspace said:

Personally the 4-4-2 I am using is probably the most successful system I've found against two DM systems, which I've had a lot of trouble with on FM20

Which is the actual tactic set up? 

Edited January 4, 2020 by HanziZoloman

[DirtyJoe]

I am using the following with great success. Will get a streak of draws, but overall a great tactic.

 

[bowieinspace]

 

There you go, but as with any tactic, it's largely based around the players at my disposal, so heres a few notes:

1) I originally set this up with a roaming playmaker rather than an AP, but I found too often this left us with the prime creator of our team sitting two deep, with the wide players all pushed too far up and we couldn't make good transitions...so I changed him to an AP (S) and changed the left winger to support rather than attack to improve the link between midfield and attack. The W (S) and FB (S) on that side provide reasonable defensive coverage. 

2) The tactic is heavily focused around our AP (S) who is absolutely world class and easily the key player in the team. The goal is for him to be the main playmaker in the side, with passing options around him. In possession, he normally has at least 3 or 4 passing options. I'm not sure how well this tactic would work without a player in that role who is top quality. 

3) We are a top team, 3rd in Europe on the rankings and most of our domestic games in Spain are against lesser opposition. This system works really well against those sides and creates a decent number of chances. I've probably not played enough games against top teams to really have a strong evaluation of it yet, but I will potentially make some adjustments as our pressing instructions are quite extreme. E.g. I would tone down the closing down and stop counter pressing. Right now I am giving it time to see how it works out.

4) I originally had the D-Line deeper but given my CBs are really good, and quick, we were able to play a higher line without too much trouble. This didn't seem to have a major effect on the number of through balls for the AF so it works well for us.

5) The CM (D) is mentally very good, so he is capable of holding position and cleaning up any situations that look dodgy. He's also an excellent passer so calmly deals with high pressure situations on the ball. The reason I was a bit nervous about the AP (S) in this system was the defensive coverage, but with the quality CM D in there it works well.

6) On the right side, the WM (A) is set up to play more like a slightly wider forward, with the PI's to roam and sit narrower to create a nice link with the DLF (S). That allows the WB to overlap on that flank without a specific overlap TI. The CM D being on that side means there's extra coverage for the marauding runs of the WB, but naturally this is an area we can potentially be exposed if they had an attack duty left winger. I'm quite conscious of this and do adjust roles in game to manage that. We had a spell vs PSG where they switched a player into an attacking inside forward role on that side without me realising and it cost us. It's very much risk/reward, but against a team like PSG with insane players, we need to be more cautious and I'm still working through managing that, but it's only limited games where I get exposed to it so not made definitive plans on doing that yet.

7) I don't use BPD's because my CB's are a bit marginal to do that role - they're good but I'd rather they used the play out of defence TI to feed the creative and high quality ball players in central midfield instead of looking for the long through ball (BPD) or clearance you'd get from a more limited CB.

8) Up front we have a left footed AF and a right footed DLF. If the preferred feet were the other way around I would need to adjust the tactic I think.

9) Defensively we are vertically more compact than normal (high defensive line with a standard line of engagement), and we defend narrow to limit space through the middle. Personally I've always felt this to be quite important with a 4-4-2. 

10) Apart from the PI's on the WM (A). The only other PI's are on the central midfielders who are set to tackle harder. I want them to be aggressive - basically the way I see it is that when the opposition gets the ball, with a 4-4-2 we are naturally quite weak through the middle so it's likely the opposition will attack us there. The two forwards will press a bit, but with the standard line of engagement and higher D line combination, even with the urgent pressing, usually they're not suuuuper aggressive, just aggressive enough to force passes out from the defensive line without losing all shape. When the ball enters our CM area, I want those two to hammer the opposition players in that area and if that means fouling that's fine.

11) Counter press and counter instructions are inherently risky, however we have the players to do it and we are a good enough team to do it. These instructions are ones I will be looking at vs the bigger teams alongside pressing intensity. I find the counter instruction in particular is quite handy for us, because the goal is to force them to pass out fairly quickly from the back line, to then get trapped by our aggressive midfield and strong centre backs. When we win the ball back in the middle from that scenario, as we aren't using a high line of engagement they have usually moved up enough for us to have space to counter via a quick pass to the AF for example.

12) TI wise going forwards, we use pass into space to encourage through balls to to the AF, and balls down the flanks for our pacey wide players to run on to. We then use the work ball into box TI to slow play down if the quick transition is coming to nothing, this allows our WM (A) to form something of an attacking 3, with the DLF (S) dropping off creating a problem for the CD on that side. We often score from a through ball to the WM who is running into space caused by the movement of the DLF. Low crosses to encourage cut backs and low balls through to our forwards who aren't super strong aerially. 

 

Whenever you're looking at a tactic like this, you have to note this is not a plug and play tactic. It's designed specifically based around the players I have and their attributes, and making the most of them, and it was created by watching the team play alongside what 'should' work from a theoretical sense. You could not play a system like this with a weak team, it would be suicidal. Our AP had an average rating of 7.7 last season across 37 league games, and he is one of the best players in Europe, so his output was superb at that kind of average rating. With an RPM role he had a decent average rating, but I found he was consistently too deep when on the ball without enough shorter supportive passing options. Especially from goal kicks I found too often both the central midfielders were coming way too deep, with the AP role instead that stopped. 

[mikcheck]

@bowieinspace what do you think of you WM(a) with sit narrower? Because sometimes I find him too narrow for my liking because he goes inside too soon and congests that zone. I'm always  in doubt if I should use it or not. Sometimes I like what I see, sometimes I don't.

Edited January 5, 2020 by mikcheck

[bowieinspace]

8 hours ago, mikcheck said:

@bowieinspace what do you think of you WM(a) with sit narrower? Because sometimes I find him too narrow for my liking because he goes inside too soon and congests that zone. I'm always  in doubt if I should use it or not. Sometimes I like what I see, sometimes I don't.

Yeah I guess you can be flexible with it depending on the game, I find it works well with the DLF on that side and the overlapping wingback, as even if the WM runs into a congested area, it generally frees up space for the overlap

[mikcheck]

Hello,

@Experienced Defender I've changed it a bit and I changed to positive mentality, I'm a big team so why not? Could you please take a more detailed look into it and give your opinion? I'll also post my players attributes.

 

PI's:

WB(s) - Stay wider

IW - Stay narrow, Roam from position

BBM - Moves into channels, Close down more, tackle harder

DLF(s) - Roam from position, Close down more, tackle harder

CF(a) - Close down more, tackle harder

Why don't I have an attacking role in midfield? My idea is that the IW(s) is the one attacking the box there but since he has player traits to get forward and to get into opposition area, I've kept it with a support duty instead of attacking. My DLP(s) is not on defend because he has comes deep to get the ball, so I though I'd go with a support duty instead. Does it makes sense to you?

Players:

CD's:

    

 

WB:                                                                                                                                                   IWB:

             

 

DLP:                                                                                                                                                  BBM: 

           

 

IW:                                                                                                                                            W:       

      

 

DLF:                                                                                                                                              CF:

           

 

Thank you!

Edited January 11, 2020 by mikcheck

[Experienced Defender]

9 hours ago, mikcheck said:

I've taken a look both at the tactic and players. The tactic looks pretty decent, nothing strikingly wrong. Players are very good overall.

There are a couple of potential tweaks you might want to consider, but before we discuss that, I have to ask you: why have you opted to play with a lower LOE, given that your tactic is obviously not counter-attacking, plus you said you are a "big team", which means you are rarely going to face an opponent that would look to attack you? 

Also, why the narrower width, especially as part of a starting (primary) tactic? 

9 hours ago, mikcheck said:

Why don't I have an attacking role in midfield? My idea is that the IW(s) is the one attacking the box there but since he has player traits to get forward and to get into opposition area, I've kept it with a support duty instead of attacking

In a 442 it's not necessary to have an attack-duty in the midfield, so that's not a problem. Speaking of attack duties, I'd prefer the LB as a fullback on attack btw. However, given that he has the trait to get forward often, it may not be necessary anyway. WB on support will also naturally overlap the IW, so that should work okay. 

 

9 hours ago, mikcheck said:

My DLP(s) is not on defend because he has comes deep to get the ball, so I though I'd go with a support duty instead. Does it makes sense to you?

Yes, it does make sense, not only because he comes deep to get the ball, but also within the overall context of your tactic. When it comes do defend duties, I would consider the RB as an IWB on defend, to make him sort of a quasi-DM/holding midfielder. Even more so if you notice that he often tends to stay too close to the BBM and winger as the IWB on support, which is quite possible to happen. 

 

9 hours ago, mikcheck said:

PI's:

WB(s) - Stay wider

IW - Stay narrow, Roam from position

BBM - Moves into channels, Close down more, tackle harder

DLF(s) - Roam from position, Close down more, tackle harder

CF(a) - Close down more, tackle harder

Close down more for the strikers and BBM is okay to me 

Hard tacking? Not sure, but you can play and see how it works.

Stay wider for the LWB? I have no particular opinion on this PI. 

The Pi I would remove is:

- roam from position for both the IW and DLF. You already use the Be more expressive TI, which allows players to have more freedom of movement (besides creative freedom). On top of that, there already is a naturally roaming and highly mobile role in attack in the form of CF.

Move into channels for the BBM also does not make too much sense IMHO, again due to the CF in attack, who is already doing that (unless you have a very clear idea why that would be useful in this particular tactic).

Remember: the better/more intelligent your players are, the fewer specific instructions you need to give them, because they will already know what they should do in most situations.

 

[mikcheck]

Em 11/01/2020 em 23:34, Experienced Defender disse:

I've taken a look both at the tactic and players. The tactic looks pretty decent, nothing strikingly wrong. Players are very good overall.

There are a couple of potential tweaks you might want to consider, but before we discuss that, I have to ask you: why have you opted to play with a lower LOE, given that your tactic is obviously not counter-attacking, plus you said you are a "big team", which means you are rarely going to face an opponent that would look to attack you? 

Also, why the narrower width, especially as part of a starting (primary) tactic? 

Thanks for your reply. 

You're right, doesn't make much sense to use a lower LOE playing as I'm a big team now, I'll move it up to standard instead.

As for the narrow width, not sure exactly why I did it, would you keep it normal?

Citar

Citar

In a 442 it's not necessary to have an attack-duty in the midfield, so that's not a problem. Speaking of attack duties, I'd prefer the LB as a fullback on attack btw. However, given that he has the trait to get forward often, it may not be necessary anyway. WB on support will also naturally overlap the IW, so that should work okay. 

Yes I've also thought about it, but since he has that trait, I've kept it on support.

Now, about the IW, my bench player for that position will leave the clube on a free transfer, unfortunately, which means I have to get a substitute. Happens that I have this  belgian wonderkid striker to whom I've paid a lot of money when he as only 17  and I think it could be used there, since I want that role to be somewhat a mix between IF and a RMD, occupying the space left by the DLF.  

What do you think? However, I believe we won't  want to learn traits like going forward and get into the box, in that case should I use an attack duty instead? Also, the fact the he is lef footed playing on the left concerns me.

 

Citar

Yes, it does make sense, not only because he comes deep to get the ball, but also within the overall context of your tactic. When it comes do defend duties, I would consider the RB as an IWB on defend, to make him sort of a quasi-DM/holding midfielder. Even more so if you notice that he often tends to stay too close to the BBM and winger as the IWB on support, which is quite possible to happen. 

That makes sense, and it can be better to recycle possession too.

Citar

Citar

Close down more for the strikers and BBM is okay to me 

Hard tacking? Not sure, but you can play and see how it works.

Stay wider for the LWB? I have no particular opinion on this PI. 

The Pi I would remove is:

- roam from position for both the IW and DLF. You already use the Be more expressive TI, which allows players to have more freedom of movement (besides creative freedom). On top of that, there already is a naturally roaming and highly mobile role in attack in the form of CF.

Move into channels for the BBM also does not make too much sense IMHO, again due to the CF in attack, who is already doing that (unless you have a very clear idea why that would be useful in this particular tactic).

Remember: the better/more intelligent your players are, the fewer specific instructions you need to give them, because they will already know what they should do in most situations.

 

Thanks, I'll do it and see how it goes. I have this thing that since the player has good off the ball and intelligence, I want him to roam lol but that is not always good.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by mikcheck

[Experienced Defender]

13 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

You're right, doesn't make much sense to use a lower LOE playing as I'm a big team now, I'll move it up to standard instead

Smart move! The standard LOE is exactly the one I would go with in your tactic. Gives you optimal compactness while not giving the opposition too much time on the ball to organize their attacks. You may sometimes even need to move the LOE to higher, but standard is a good starting point in combination with higher DL in a 442. You can then easily tweak from there. 

 

18 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

As for the narrow width, not sure exactly why I did it, would you keep it normal?

Yes, I would always start with normal (i.e. default), unless I specifically want to employ a wing-play style (where wider width would be the logical choice). Width is one of those instructions I like to call "secondary", which means they can be tweaked at any point during a math, rather than being regularly used as part of a starting tactic. 

 

25 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

Now, about the IW, my bench player for that position will leave the clube on a free transfer, unfortunately, which means I have to get a substitute. Happens that I have this  belgian wonderkid striker to whom I've paid a lot of money when he as only 17  and I think it could be used there, since I want that role to be somewhat a mix between IF and a RMD, occupying the space left by the DLF.  

What do you think? However, I believe we won't  want to learn traits like going forward and get into the box, in that case should I use an attack duty instead? Also, the fact the he is lef footed playing on the left concerns me

You absolutely can play him as an IW in ML position on both support and attack duties (provided the rest of your setup remains unchanged). You can even try him as a WM on attack duty (WM is a beautiful role, even though it seems to be underrated by many). And his left-footedness is absolutely no problem in this particular case/tactic.