3-4-3 Diamond

[thesharmz]

How would you set up a tiki-taka 3-4-3 diamond? 

I've tried using IWBs and FBs on sit narrow with a half back (though not in the screenshot), and with DCs on sit wider with a DLP-d and I either get caught through the middle or out wide depending on the setup.

In the screenshots, I've got DLP and AP in midfield, though I've tried setting up with Carrileros and CM with sit wider instructions, as well as setting up my defensive and attacking shape as wide. All roles and TIs are purely indicative, and not set in stone.

On the plus side, when I do have the ball, I tend to control the game and create chances, but often get caught on the counter. With this formation and style, I'm looking for a total football/Guardiola-esque style of play that's controlled, fluid and attacking, and the control that we have should provide the defensive stability.

[EnigMattic1]

I'm going to follow this because I'm curious as I'm trying to set up a 3-4-3. Personally, There is probably too many playmakers in midfield.

[thesharmz]

41 minutes ago, EnigMattic1 said:

I'm going to follow this because I'm curious as I'm trying to set up a 3-4-3. Personally, There is probably too many playmakers in midfield.

Yeah, possibly. Though that certainly works in a 4-3-3/4-1-2-3. Or at least it has done for me. Not sure they offer the right balance in this setup though...

[EnigMattic1]

I'm playing a 3-4-3 with wing backs. It doesn't seem to be too bad.

I have a Mezzala(a) and a Carrilero at cm and my back 3 is 2x dc and a Libero. 

If I was trying to play a diamond, I would try to use a Regista or deep lying playmaker in the dmc position but I'm not sure about the top of the diamond.

If I've ever played someone in the Amc slot I have used an advanced playmaker (a) with get further forward, hold up ball and roam from position as pi's.

[thesharmz]

I've tried a Conte-style 3-4-3 with wingbacks but I'd like something that includes extra midfielders rather than extra defenders. 

A register could work with three DCs but possibly not with fullbacks, whatever their role was. And I always struggle with the AMC role, so I’d be interested to see how someone would interpret this system.

[kingjericho]

This thread should you give you some basic ideas. Some things need to change due to the tactics creator but the essentials remain.

 

[thesharmz]

40 minutes ago, kingjericho said:

This thread should you give you some basic ideas. Some things need to change due to the tactics creator but the essentials remain.

 

Thanks for this. I have seen this thread and tried some of the ideas in the past. I've noticed some of the same issues with that 3-6-1 formation as I have with the 3-4-3 I've tried: namely, that you get caught out wide. Also that iteration of a 3-4-3 doesn't really allow for wide forwards, which is what I'd like to use.

[JEinchy]

If counters are the problem, you can try:

• Regroup instead of Counter-Press
• Lowering the Line of Engagement
• Changing the DM to a defensive role

One potential issue with your set-up is the number of players in advanced areas who, without the ball, will leave their positions to press. If teams manage to play out of this pressure, the lack of defensive cover on the flanks is ripe for exploitation. One good pass could cut out six of your players and get opposition forward attacking the wide spaces. 

This is where Regroup/Lower LoE can be handy because it'll encourage your players to become a tight mid-block out of possession. With your players closer together, you're less exposed and have a higher chance of picking up second balls.

In theory - and I stress the theory part because FM doesn't always work as it does in reality - a DLP(D) with a back three should create a solid block of four behind the ball to safeguard against counters as well. As it is, you're leaving just three defenders to deal with it because the DLP(S) will push higher up the pitch. You've already got five players doing that - does the DM really need to as well?

[EnigMattic1]

As far as getting caught on the counter goes, you don't have anyone on a defensive duty other than your 3 defenders. If you are playing with a diamond and want to use playmakers, maybe try a dlp(d) instead of a support?

Personally, I'd want an anchor or a half back in front of my back 3 but I am definitely not an expert when it comes to setting up a tactic. Someone like @Experienced Defender may be able to offer some insight in that respect as his advice has helped me out no end in the past.

I also thing he would probable echo what @JEinchy has said regarding the LoE and other instructions. I believe there is a really good thread regarding defensive setup by @Experienced Defender created a while back.

[Experienced Defender]

5 hours ago, thesharmz said:

 

5 hours ago, thesharmz said:

How would you set up a tiki-taka 3-4-3 diamond?

I want to help you with some (hopefully) useful suggestions. But given that I never use preset tactics, I first have to ask you - do you insist on a tactic based exclusively on the tiki-taka preset, or it can be any tactic based on such (patient possession) style of football, but not necessarily on a FM preset tactic? 

But even before you answer my question, I can tell you what IMHO is the most problematic in your setup of roles and duties - having as many as 3 playmakers literally next to one another is a classic example of tactical overkill. And in this case, you not only have 3 PMs, but all 3 are on the same duty (support) and 2 are even in the same role (DLP). Even 2 PMs so close to each other is usually an overkill, let alone 3.

[thesharmz]

2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

I want to help you with some (hopefully) useful suggestions. But given that I never use preset tactics, I first have to ask you - do you insist on a tactic based exclusively on the tiki-taka preset, or it can be any tactic based on such (patient possession) style of football, but not necessarily on a FM preset tactic? 

But even before you answer my question, I can tell you what IMHO is the most problematic in your setup of roles and duties - having as many as 3 playmakers literally next to one another is a classic example of tactical overkill. And in this case, you not only have 3 PMs, but all 3 are on the same duty (support) and 2 are even in the same role (DLP). Even 2 PMs so close to each other is usually an overkill, let alone 3.

No, I'm not wedded to the preset tiki taka--or any other--style. And yes, I'd like patient possession football.

The three midfielders are overkill, I agree. The DM would probably be a half back, or an anchor man as I'd like him to stay deep in front of the defence. I wouldn't want the two central midfielders from going too far forward though, and would ideally shuttle wide, which probably means they should be Carrileros? I'd struggle with the AM position/role as I never use one, but that position would be the hook that connects midfield to attack.

[camoulton21]

56 minutes ago, thesharmz said:

The three midfielders are overkill, I agree. The DM would probably be a half back, or an anchor man as I'd like him to stay deep in front of the defence. I wouldn't want the two central midfielders from going too far forward though, and would ideally shuttle wide, which probably means they should be Carrileros? I'd struggle with the AM position/role as I never use one, but that position would be the hook that connects midfield to attack.

If you would like a "hook that connects midfield to attack" then you should try the Enganche role. I've read O-zil's Cryuff thread quite a few times and I remember him paying distinct attention to the role the AMC plays in this system. From what I can remember, the player is meant to function as an offensive pivot, he used an AM-Attack role but I think that this description fits an Enganche role as well. You would probably need some midfield runners to make it work because an Enganche can be quite static but it could at least be something for you to consider

Edited March 18, 2020 by camoulton21

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, thesharmz said:

No, I'm not wedded to the preset tiki taka--or any other--style. And yes, I'd like patient possession football

Okay  

 

2 hours ago, thesharmz said:

The three midfielders are overkill, I agree. The DM would probably be a half back, or an anchor man as I'd like him to stay deep in front of the defence

He should definitely be on defend duty, given how vulnerable your formation inherently is defense-wise, but his specific role would depend on the rest of the setup (and of course the type of the player). 

 

2 hours ago, thesharmz said:

I wouldn't want the two central midfielders from going too far forward though, and would ideally shuttle wide, which probably means they should be Carrileros?

I would also go with 2 carrileros, precisely due to the lack of defensive presence on your flanks (no fullbacks, no wing-backs and even no wide midfielders). 

 

2 hours ago, thesharmz said:

I'd struggle with the AM position/role as I never use one, but that position would be the hook that connects midfield to attack

Here I can agree with @camoulton21 on this: 

2 hours ago, camoulton21 said:

If you would like a "hook that connects midfield to attack" then you should try the Enganche role

Because that's exactly what the enganche is supposed to do. The only potential problem with the enganche in this particular formation is that the role is fairly static, which means it would need as much support from the teammates around him as possible. And given that you cannot afford to use some more attack-minded role in the central midfield (such as mezzala, for example) due to the nature of your formation, there is a risk that the enganche may struggle. But you can try the role anyway and see if it works. 

In case the option with the enganche fails, you may try with the trequartista (provided you have the right player, given how demanding the role is).

A third potential option could be this one (with neither ENG nor TQ):

PO/PFat

APsu        AMat         IWsu

CAR    CAR

Here you still have a playmaker among the front four, but on a flank instead of the middle, which could be an even better option, given that there normally is less congestion in wide than in central areas, so he should have more space to operate and organize your play. 

When it comes to instructions, given that you want a patient possession style, this is what I would start with:

Mentality - Positive (or Balanced)

In possession - play out of defence, shorter passing and work ball into box

In transition - nothing

Out of possession - higher D-line, higher or standard LOE, default pressing, prevent short GK distribution and wider defensive width (offside trap only if all 3 CBs are played on the same duty, i.e. defend)

And there is one trick you may potentially apply - given that your formation is naturally vulnerable on the flanks, you can use the overlap (or underlap) team instruction on both flanks, not in order to get actual overlaps or underlaps (because without fullbacks or wing-backs they it cannot happen anyway), but to slightly reduce the mentality of your wide forwards and thus make them a bit more defense-minded.

 

[3LionsFM]

Very interesting thread. 

[3LionsFM]

9 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Okay  

 

He should definitely be on defend duty, given how vulnerable your formation inherently is defense-wise, but his specific role would depend on the rest of the setup (and of course the type of the player). 

 

I would also go with 2 carrileros, precisely due to the lack of defensive presence on your flanks (no fullbacks, no wing-backs and even no wide midfielders). 

 

Here I can agree with @camoulton21 on this: 

Because that's exactly what the enganche is supposed to do. The only potential problem with the enganche in this particular formation is that the role is fairly static, which means it would need as much support from the teammates around him as possible. And given that you cannot afford to use some more attack-minded role in the central midfield (such as mezzala, for example) due to the nature of your formation, there is a risk that the enganche may struggle. But you can try the role anyway and see if it works. 

In case the option with the enganche fails, you may try with the trequartista (provided you have the right player, given how demanding the role is).

A third potential option could be this one (with neither ENG nor TQ):

PO/PFat

APsu        AMat         IWsu

CAR    CAR

Here you still have a playmaker among the front four, but on a flank instead of the middle, which could be an even better option, given that there normally is less congestion in wide than in central areas, so he should have more space to operate and organize your play. 

When it comes to instructions, given that you want a patient possession style, this is what I would start with:

Mentality - Positive (or Balanced)

In possession - play out of defence, shorter passing and work ball into box

In transition - nothing

Out of possession - higher D-line, higher or standard LOE, default pressing, prevent short GK distribution and wider defensive width (offside trap only if all 3 CBs are played on the same duty, i.e. defend)

And there is one trick you may potentially apply - given that your formation is naturally vulnerable on the flanks, you can use the overlap (or underlap) team instruction on both flanks, not in order to get actual overlaps or underlaps (because without fullbacks or wing-backs they it cannot happen anyway), but to slightly reduce the mentality of your wide forwards and thus make them a bit more defense-minded.

 

@Experienced Defender

Would you use any PI's?

Also why have you gone with a striker on Attack duty? Wouldn't it be better for him to drop into space to create room for the AM? Perhaps a F9/SS combo could work? 

Edited March 19, 2020 by 3LionsFM

[Experienced Defender]

3 hours ago, 3LionsFM said:

Would you use any PI's?

Not necessarily. I would first watch the match carefully and decide if and which PIs might be helpful based on what I observe during the first 10-15 minutes. Possibly the AP would be encouraged to roam from position or something like that, but nothing special. I generally tend to use as few PIs as possible (if any). 

 

3 hours ago, 3LionsFM said:

lso why have you gone with a striker on Attack duty? Wouldn't it be better for him to drop into space to create room for the AM? Perhaps a F9/SS combo could work?

For 3 primary reasons:

1. to get some meaningful penetration, given that the formation does not allow for typical deep runners that can be used in a more balanced system

2. to sort of reduce the congestion caused by having too many players in a relatively limited area of space (that's why in this particular setup I opted for the AMC also on attack duty)

3. to open space for the attacking AMC behind him

The point is that - among other factors - you always need to think about the formation you use and its specialties.

[BMNJohn]

21 hours ago, thesharmz said:

Thanks for this. I have seen this thread and tried some of the ideas in the past. I've noticed some of the same issues with that 3-6-1 formation as I have with the 3-4-3 I've tried: namely, that you get caught out wide. Also that iteration of a 3-4-3 doesn't really allow for wide forwards, which is what I'd like to use.

I've experimented with the setup as far back as FM17 and have posted my thoughts about it. I've probably said it before but anyway: to me, it's a lot easier to play if you use a 5-4-1 Diamond rather than an actual 3-4-3 Diamond because as usual in FM, the formation in your tactics creator is your defensive formation. I'd retrain wingers to play as WB(A) since I don't need them to be actually any good defensively; I only need them to cover the space. FBs that are good offensively are difficult to find to say the least, so I prefer retraining offensive Wingers instead.

WBs on Attack duty contribute surprisingly well to the offensive game, and you can very often find them in the box in good positions. To me, CWBs aren't disciplined enough, so I don't really like to use the role.

Edited March 19, 2020 by BMNJohn

[thesharmz]

18 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

A third potential option could be this one (with neither ENG nor TQ):

PFat

IWsu        AMat         APsu

CAR    CAR

 

This is what I've gone for, with a slight tweak of the TI. I'm playing as Barcelona so, I've got sufficient quality. Messi enjoys that AP role on the right too. So far, so good, though, I noticed that play was a little flat and we weren't creating very much from open play.

I changed the LOE to higher, and took off underlaps on the right, which, from your suggestion, would mean that Messi/AMR is a little more free to focus on the attacking side of his game.

Perhaps it's not a great test because of the lack of competition in La Liga, but my last result was a 5-0 win vs Leganes. The style of play is just what I wanted as you can see from the match stats.That match aside, my AMC has struggled. I've tried Messi in that position as a APat, Treq, SS and AMat, but he doesn't seem to get sufficient space to operate. Jota performed well in the last game, but perhaps I need a specialist AMC to get the best results. 

 

EDIT: Real Madrid next, so I should get a better idea of how the tactic performs...

Edited March 19, 2020 by thesharmz

[Experienced Defender]

45 minutes ago, thesharmz said:

If you want a patient possession style, then you should not play the sweeper keeper on attack duty. Play him on support instead. 

[Danklin]

Please keep this thread updated, really interested to see how this evolves! 

[djjoshiejosh]

This is my take on it, I have the wide midfielders set to stay wider, get further forward and to man mark the opposing most forward wide player. 

[3LionsFM]

I would recommend Jonathan Wilson's book The Barcelona Legacy. Lots of interesting anecdotes and tidbits of info which might prove useful. 

It's a great read!