Jump to content

Two-man Central Midfield setup


Recommended Posts

So i just got my two central midfield pairing to develop a partnership.  Ideally, I'd like both players to play both DLP and BWM roles, complimentary but identical roles as each other.   This is not contradictory - they switch depending on what they need to do, or what the other is doing or needs to do.   Bad news is the game is now telling me that roles assigned to both players are far from suitable and do not work well together.

image.png.fe51898009021908c882a725bcda2a74.png

When I set both to DLP or both to BWM, their roles "do not work well together".  When I set one to DLP and the other to BWM, their roles are now "well suited to each individual". However when one is not DLPdefend, there are "minor issues" on that side and in the central area between.  

image.png.18a2fd49e08cb55d96d161ac6a4d7960.png

Only when both are DLPdefend that do I avoid having analysis "minor issues" in the three central midfield squares. 

What I absolutely do NOT want is a side imbalance where the left-center guy is always the DLPdefend and doesn't press high on his side (DLP's are forced to hold position), leading to a vulnerability exploit that can be used to pull players around. 

So my high pressing game requires both central midfielders to press high.  The DLPd/s is forced to hold position when in possession and so he is out of position for a counter press, and also it cannot be set to a medium urgent press.  NOT a good role for a high pressing team game.  But two DLPdefend is the only way the stupid game analysis will tell you do don't have minor issues in central midfield squares - whatever that is supposed to mean.

Now if I look at my play during counter press, Id like both my CM's to be BWMsupport because in possession they don't roam, but are not forced to hold position either.  CMdefend forces a hold position in possession.  CMsupport has the problem of you cannot restrict roam without enabling hold.

So this leaves me with the following options, each of which has some sort of flaw.

DLPd + DLPd   No pressing in central midfield.  Message saying roles are not suited to each other.

DLPd + BWMs   - my DLP side doesn't press and sits too far back in possession and so is out of position during transition restrict.  There are 2 squares with "minor issues".

BWMs + CMs - my CMs side either is forced to sit too far back, or he is not told to not roam.  There are 3 squares with "minor issues".

BWMs + BWMs - There are 3 squares with "minor issues", and a message saying the roles are not suited to each other.

 

So can someone tell me what is worse?  Squares with "minor issues", roles that are "not suited to each other", or playing a sub-optimal counter press with a DLPd.

How minor is minor? How bad is not suited to each other?

Can someone also try and convince me why playing two players in the same role in central midfield is "Not suitable" from a real footballing perspective.

Can someone also explain why playing almost any two CB pairings such as two BPD stoppers with no cover is apparently not unsuitable.

And finally can someone explain why ONLY a DLPd can play in a two-man central midfield without having minor issues in central midfield squares.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Rayzor said:

Bad news is the game is now telling me that roles assigned to both players are far from suitable and do not work well together.

image.png.fe51898009021908c882a725bcda2a74.png

When I set both to DLP or both to BWM, their roles "do not work well together".  When I set one to DLP and the other to BWM, their roles are now "well suited to each individual". However when one is not DLPdefend, there are "minor issues" on that side and in the central area between.  

image.png.18a2fd49e08cb55d96d161ac6a4d7960.png

Only when both are DLPdefend that do I avoid having analysis "minor issues" in the three central midfield squares

What the game says is not necessarily correct, so you should not follow that blindly. However, in this particular case, the game is right. Because having both CMs in the same role and duty is usually not a good idea. It's especially not a good idea if you play both in a playmaker role (because it leads to tactical overkill and can also be confusing to your players, because you have 2 ball-magnets so close to each other). 

When it comes to the BWM role, the risk of playing it in a two-men central midfield without a DM in the rear comes from his aggressive manner of defending. So if you use the 4231 formation, be very careful with a BWM. In a 5212, it's less risky. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Because having both CMs in the same role and duty is usually not a good idea. It's especially not a good idea if you play both in a playmaker role (because it leads to tactical overkill and can also be confusing to your players, because you have 2 ball-magnets so close to each other).

When it comes to the BWM role, the risk of playing it in a two-men central midfield without a DM in the rear comes from his aggressive manner of defending. So if you use the 4231 formation, be very careful with a BWM. In a 5212, it's less risky. 

I disagree completely.  There's no rule of thumb in football that says two players cant both be playmakers, just they obviously shouldn't both be playmakers AT THE SAME TIME.  That's the whole POINT of partnerships... to read what the other guy is going do, and doing something that compliments it.  This idea is not new.  For example the "total football" ideology of Ajax in the 1970's required players change their roles according to where they are on the pitch.   So instead of railroading one guy into the "playmaker" and the other guy into "the ball winner", the reality is players are much more flexible at interchanging roles.  The ball winner has to play a through ball when its on.  The playmaker has to press high when the team is counter pressing.

I'm playing a custom gegenpress.  The quintessential principle is to counter press hard and fast all over the pitch.  Two BWMs are obvious way to facilitate this, its completely the correct role for both of the two central midfielders.   There's nothing tactically overkill or confusing to the players.  There just isn't.  Everyone works hard to win the ball.  Ball WINNING midfielders.  OBVIOUSLY don't all run at one opponent that has the ball.... that goes without saying.  BWM doesnt mean you just charge like an idiot at the guy with the ball and keep chasing the ball.  Just like DLP doesn't mean you keep playing killer balls from deep when there's nothing on.

Now gegenpress says NOTHING about possession play.  I can decide to play gegenpress with possession, a bit like tiki taka, or gegenpress with fast counter maybe a bit like Liverpool.  When i have possession, obviously neither of my central midfielders need to win the ball because I already have it.  So their roles will change when i have possession.

The whole point of partnerships is so you reduce confusion.  It's nothing to do with avoiding sharing roles and both playing like brainless ball magnets "because my manager said so".

The problem is DLP and BWM are not mutually exclusive. They are roles for two completely different parts of the game... possession and out of possession.   There's no reason a player cant play both roles, because the reality is they are not even roles. They are generalised descriptions of how a player plays.    You can say Pirlo is a DLP, or Makalele is a BWM.  The player defines the role.  What you cant do is tell some to play like a DLP or BWM.  The role does NOT define the player.

Now based on this footballing philosophy, how should I setup my 2 men in central midfield?

11 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

When it comes to the BWM role, the risk of playing it in a two-men central midfield without a DM in the rear comes from his aggressive manner of defending. So if you use the 4231 formation, be very careful with a BWM. In a 5212, it's less risky. 

Sorry I disagree again.  There's no rule in football that says playing a BWM without a DM is risky.  There just isn't.  Many teams don't play with a DM, and almost every team asks their midfielders to go win the ball.   You could say not playing with 10 defenders risks conceding more goals., or not playing with 10 strikers risks scoring less goals.  What you risk in one area you might gain elsewhere.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rayzor said:

Sorry I disagree again.  There's no rule in football that says playing a BWM without a DM is risky.  There just isn't.  Many teams don't play with a DM, and almost every team asks their midfielders to go win the ball.   You could say not playing with 10 defenders risks conceding more goals., or not playing with 10 strikers risks scoring less goals.  What you risk in one area you might gain elsewhere.

There's indeed no rule that says you cannot play two BWMs together with no holding midfielder nor DM behind them. You're just more likely to have a bad time. :D To be fair, I'm pretty sure you knew what @Experienced Defender meant there, it's kind of splitting hairs to mention that there's no "rule" about that. That said, a CM(D) also has "Close Down More" by default and much better positional discipline than a BWM, which makes it a safer defensive option if you want a no-nonsense player in a two-man midfield with two centre-backs tactic (4-4-2 and its variants like 4-2-3-1, etc.), with more focus on his defensive duties than a DLP(D). Sure the CM roles don't have anything fancy to them, but they work pretty well.

5 hours ago, Rayzor said:

So i just got my two central midfield pairing to develop a partnership.  Ideally, I'd like both players to play both DLP and BWM roles, complimentary but identical roles as each other.   This is not contradictory - they switch depending on what they need to do, or what the other is doing or needs to do. 

To my knowledge, FM doesn't allow for dynamic role changing depending of the situation. Something has to give there: you can very well choose to play both players with the same role and duty regardless, or you can choose to have a partnership where each player will have a different role/duty that compliments each other. That being said, Player Instructions, Traits as well as the overall tactical setup will also have an influence on what the players do with or without the ball. For example, if you have a Gegenpressing setup, even the most attacking CM(A) would still try to win the ball back quickly and then transition to his offensive duties when the ball is won.

You could also have both players switch their positions on the pitch regularly: one could play on the centre-right midfield, then switch positions to the centre-left. However, they will not switch roles and duties. For example, if a partnership is player A as DLP(S) on the left and player B as CM(D) on the right, and you ask the players to switch positions, player A will become CM(D) on the right and player B DLP(S) on the left. The positions are switched, but the roles/duties are not.

That being said, how good a player is at a given role, and whether you have issues or not with your tactical setup is mostly your AssMan's opinion. Well, let's say it's a guideline rather than his "opinion". You really don't have to follow it. You have a tactical setup and goals, and you put the players you want in the position you desire. If it's what you want, go for it. Well if it works obviously! :)

Edited by BMNJohn
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rayzor said:

I disagree completely.  There's no rule of thumb in football that says two players cant both be playmakers, just they obviously shouldn't both be playmakers AT THE SAME TIME.  That's the whole POINT of partnerships... to read what the other guy is going do, and doing something that compliments it.  This idea is not new.  For example the "total football" ideology of Ajax in the 1970's required players change their roles according to where they are on the pitch.   So instead of railroading one guy into the "playmaker" and the other guy into "the ball winner", the reality is players are much more flexible at interchanging roles.  The ball winner has to play a through ball when its on.  The playmaker has to press high when the team is counter pressing.

I'm playing a custom gegenpress.  The quintessential principle is to counter press hard and fast all over the pitch.  Two BWMs are obvious way to facilitate this, its completely the correct role for both of the two central midfielders.   There's nothing tactically overkill or confusing to the players.  There just isn't.  Everyone works hard to win the ball.  Ball WINNING midfielders.  OBVIOUSLY don't all run at one opponent that has the ball.... that goes without saying.  BWM doesnt mean you just charge like an idiot at the guy with the ball and keep chasing the ball.  Just like DLP doesn't mean you keep playing killer balls from deep when there's nothing on.

Now gegenpress says NOTHING about possession play.  I can decide to play gegenpress with possession, a bit like tiki taka, or gegenpress with fast counter maybe a bit like Liverpool.  When i have possession, obviously neither of my central midfielders need to win the ball because I already have it.  So their roles will change when i have possession.

The whole point of partnerships is so you reduce confusion.  It's nothing to do with avoiding sharing roles and both playing like brainless ball magnets "because my manager said so".

The problem is DLP and BWM are not mutually exclusive. They are roles for two completely different parts of the game... possession and out of possession.   There's no reason a player cant play both roles, because the reality is they are NOT EVEN ROLES!!!!! They are generalised descriptions of how a player plays.    You can say Pirlo is a DLP, or Makalele is a BWM.  The player defines the role.  What you cant do is tell some to play like a DLP or BWM.  The role does NOT define the player.

Now based on this footballing philosophy, how should I setup my 2 men in central midfield?

Sorry I disagree again.  There's no rule in football that says playing a BWM without a DM is risky.  There just isn't.  Many teams don't play with a DM, and almost every team asks their midfielders to go win the ball.   You could say not playing with 10 defenders risks conceding more goals., or not playing with 10 strikers risks scoring less goals.  What you risk in one area you might gain elsewhere.

 

 

As long as they have different responsibilities on the pitch by making them have different traits, it should be fine. There are infinite number of choices while creating a tactic and deciding how much risk one can take should be completely up to the couch manager as they know their team best. One of them could have, for example, traits of switches ball to other flank, comes deep, dictates tempo and arrive late and the other could be endowed with attacking traits(gets forward and/or gets into opp area, run with the ball, etc.):rolleyes: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rayzor said:

I disagree completely.  There's no rule of thumb in football that says two players cant both be playmakers, just they obviously shouldn't both be playmakers AT THE SAME TIME

Well, that does not contradict what I said. Because I did not say that both players cannot or should not be playmakers as a type of player. What I said is that they should not be played both at the same time in a playmaker role.

But of course that nothing can prevent you from playing them however you want. It's your team (save) and your tactic, so you can do with it whatever you want. 

10 hours ago, Rayzor said:

The problem is DLP and BWM are not mutually exclusive

Who said that they are "mutually exclusive" ???

 

10 hours ago, Rayzor said:

NOT EVEN ROLES!!!!!

The use of big letters is not allowed on the forum, so I edited your post in that part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BMNJohn said:

There's indeed no rule that says you cannot play two BWMs together with no holding midfielder nor DM behind them. You're just more likely to have a bad time. :D@Experienced Defender

 

I disagree.  Of course, if you just add an extra player as a DM you're less like to have a bad time.  But you cant just play with 12 men.  Your DM has to be moved from somewhere else.  Where ever else that is you're more likely to have a bad time there.

7 hours ago, BMNJohn said:

You could also have both players switch their positions on the pitch regularly.

I was thinking on this but unfortunately, both my players have a central-side preference.  I don't want them have have different roles and to switch sides. I want them to the have same "general" roles but make decisions on their specific roles in specific situations, without the game telling me that is bad for no real reason.  Like I said, there is no real reason why playing two BWM is bad, other than some arbitrary rule the game has decided.

 

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

Well, that does not contradict what I said. Because I did not say that both players cannot or should not be playmakers as a type of player. What I said is that they should not be played both at the same time in a playmaker role.

Well perhaps I wasnt clear.  My argument is there is no reason why you cant have two players set as playmakers for a game, but in any one situation during a game, only one of them should be playmaking... the guy with the ball!  You can play both KDB and David Silva in a game and ask them both to make plays during the game.   You don't expect them both to be ball magnets at simultaneous moments during the game... they have to figure that out themselves.

But when you have two BWM in central midfield, this is somehow not suitable.  Just doesn't make any sense at all.  The game is saying we should arbitrarily impose different roles and imbalance onto players into the central midfield, because that is "better football".

How can the most the obvious role for a central midfielder in a counter press approach - the BWM - not be suited to be paired together? 

42 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

Who said that they are "mutually exclusive" ???

 

The game.  You can pick either DLP or BWM not both.  That means one or the other.  Mutual exclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rayzor said:

I was thinking on this but unfortunately, both my players have a central-side preference.  I don't want them have have different roles and to switch sides. I want them to the have same "general" roles but make decisions on their specific roles in specific situations, without the game telling me that is bad for no real reason.  Like I said, there is no real reason why playing two BWM is bad, other than some arbitrary rule the game has decided.

But there is a reason, but it's not a "rule" the game has "decided". That's because BWMs is a role that tells players to focus on retrieving the ball at all costs. They have no positional discipline and will gladly follow the ball anywhere on the pitch, leaving gigantic holes behind them. If that does not worry you, then you can play two BMWs in a two-man midfield if you want, which I've already written in the previous post. The game merely advises you that it's not the best idea, and personally I don't think it's even necessary to have two BWMs in a counter-pressing system and you could get counter-pressing even with a CM(D)/DLP(S) duo if you set up your tactics differently. But if you really want to play them as two BWMs on Support, then do it.

 

Edited by BMNJohn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh I don't really get why someone who wants to implement their idea would even worry about what the game tells him against it. It's only there as a guide, why not just play a few games with two BWM role in the middle and see what happens? If it works then great!

I often have some orange/red areas in my setups but it's in places where I am happy to sacrifice and instead prefer to be more solid or dangerous somewhere else on the pitch. Works for me fine even though I'm far from best FM tacticians. 

Edited by right_winger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...