Asymmetrical formations

[EnigMattic1]

I am currently experimenting with different tactics and I would like some advice with regards to understanding asymmetrical formations.

I have a vague idea of how they work but I would like to understand them better. 

Is a role like the segundo volante better suited to an asymmetrical formation or as a 2dm pairing? 

Is a role like the Regista less effective if it is 'offset'? 

What, if anything, is a bad idea for asymmetrical formations? 

Things like that. Obviously, there are going to be pros and cons but I just want a better idea of what goes on. 

[laxrulz7]

IMO, there's two types of Assymmetrical formations. There's ones that are only symmetrical due to the role and then those that are truly assymetrical.

 

For the first group, I'm a big fan. Personally, in my 4231 that I've been playing, I have two MCs that are a DLP-D as the MCL and a MEZ-S as the MCR. Because those players play differently, I then have a WB-A and an IF-A on the left and a IWB-S and RAM-A on the right. The theory (which seems to work) is that I have attacking width provided on the left by the WB while the IF tucks in (I have overlap left turned on but not overlap right, btw) and the right side has midfield width provided by the MEZ while attacking width comes from him and the RAM working together. The IWB folds into the middle to make sure there's always two defensive oriented midfielders ready to break up attacks. If they have a really, really good AML (who can take advantage of the advanced space left open by my IWB on the right, I'll switch him to a FB-S instead which seems to work just fine.

The point is, assymetrical by virtue of roles is fine but can require a little more thought on how the players will interact and making sure you're not creating unwanted vulnerabilities. 

Assymmetrical by actual formation is much trickier. There's a lot more moving parts here. I've had good success taking the above 4231 and dropping the DLP-D back to a true DMC and making him a BWM-D. What's interesting is that, after tweaking, I found that the left side stayed basically the same (I changed the WB to a CWB-A but otherwise everything was fine). But the right side became a mess. The MEZ/IWB/RAM combination wasn't working as dependably. After some experimentation, I found that the best interaction for that side was a WB-S/Carrilero/W-A but that took awhile. And all of that was for a relatively minor change.

To Answer your specific questions, I think the Segundo Volante works great next to an Anchor Man... IME, he has lots of MoM performances for me in my 352. I think the Regista is probably fine if he's offset but you may want to have the CD on the OTHER side from him play a stopper against single striker formations so that he can step up and give him a partner on defense and a passing outlet when necessary. I find that works well (though I don't play a Regista but either a DLP or a BWM).

I think BAD formations are those that overload one side (i.e. draw a line down the middle and count the people on the left vs. the right). My experience is that they generally do not work and, even if they did, I'd be concerned that i was winning by "breaking" the match engine vs. having an actual good tactic. The biggest advantage that I see with the assymmetrical formations is that the computer will never employ them which means that they're much more resistant to being countered then other tactics (again, this kind of feels like a bit of an ME hack so you may feel differently). I've had pretty good luck with minor tweaks to existing formations. Sometimes it really catches the opponent by surprise if my AML drops to an ML for instance if a team's key attacker is their AMR this can really limit the space he can work with. 

Anyways, those are my rambling thoughts. Good luck. Let us know what you come up with.

Edited January 17, 2020 by laxrulz7

[EnigMattic1]

1 hour ago, laxrulz7 said:

IMO, there's two types of Assymmetrical formations. There's ones that are only symmetrical due to the role and then those that are truly assymetrical.

 

For the first group, I'm a big fan. Personally, in my 4231 that I've been playing, I have two MCs that are a DLP-D as the MCL and a MEZ-S as the MCR. Because those players play differently, I then have a WB-A and an IF-A on the left and a IWB-S and RAM-A on the right. The theory (which seems to work) is that I have attacking width provided on the left by the WB while the IF tucks in (I have overlap left turned on but not overlap right, btw) and the right side has midfield width provided by the MEZ while attacking width comes from him and the RAM working together. The IWB folds into the middle to make sure there's always two defensive oriented midfielders ready to break up attacks. If they have a really, really good AML (who can take advantage of the advanced space left open by my IWB on the right, I'll switch him to a FB-S instead which seems to work just fine.

The point is, assymetrical by virtue of roles is fine but can require a little more thought on how the players will interact and making sure you're not creating unwanted vulnerabilities. 

Assymmetrical by actual formation is much trickier. There's a lot more moving parts here. I've had good success taking the above 4231 and dropping the DLP-D back to a true DMC and making him a BWM-D. What's interesting is that, after tweaking, I found that the left side stayed basically the same (I changed the WB to a CWB-A but otherwise everything was fine). But the right side became a mess. The MEZ/IWB/RAM combination wasn't working as dependably. After some experimentation, I found that the best interaction for that side was a WB-S/Carrilero/W-A but that took awhile. And all of that was for a relatively minor change.

To Answer your specific questions, I think the Segundo Volante works great next to an Anchor Man... IME, he has lots of MoM performances for me in my 352. I think the Regista is probably fine if he's offset but you may want to have the CD on the OTHER side from him play a stopper against single striker formations so that he can step up and give him a partner on defense and a passing outlet when necessary. I find that works well (though I don't play a Regista but either a DLP or a BWM).

I think BAD formations are those that overload one side (i.e. draw a line down the middle and count the people on the left vs. the right). My experience is that they generally do not work and, even if they did, I'd be concerned that i was winning by "breaking" the match engine vs. having an actual good tactic. The biggest advantage that I see with the assymmetrical formations is that the computer will never employ them which means that they're much less resistant to being countered then other tactics (again, this kind of feels like a bit of an ME hack so you may feel differently). I've had pretty good luck with minor tweaks to existing formations. Sometimes it really catches the opponent by surprise if my AML drops to an ML for instance if a team's key attacker is their AMR this can really limit the space he can work with. 

Anyways, those are my rambling thoughts. Good luck. Let us know what you come up with.

That helps a lot mate. Thanks.