FM20 - My 4-3-1-2 Gets Hard-Countered by 4-1-4-1 ... help!

[SuperBiggles]

So, been doing a save using the database that adds down to tier 10. Took over Whitchurch United, and been having a great amount of fun and success. Back to back promotions have lead me straight into League Two first time of asking.

The reason I managed to get the promotion to League Two was thanks to switching to my beloved 4-3-1-2 (a favourite from some other saves). After a shaky start to my Vanarama National season, were promotion initially seemed a far off, unattainable goal with my old tactics, this one massively boosted the rest of the season and led to unlikely 1st position. It really played into the strengths of most of my players, and seemed damn good for getting me results. The tactic is as follows;

 

This is kind of what I settled on. The main influence seems to be the left-sided PF helping out a lot. Tried the Poacher as an AF quite a bit, but for whatever reason the AF just never got going and worked. I struggled a lot with trying to figure out the right-sided midfield role, before getting a huge amount of joy from just playing a plain CM on support. The only extra instructions I have is on the FB's, asking both to run wide with the ball when in possession. The AP(Att) was a relatively late edition. For a while I had success with a AM(support), but that fizzled out. So tried experimenting, and the AP just stuck and seemed to work. Mostly he seems to just draw attention of attackers, freeing up strikers to do the business.

Here are some typical kind of results with this tactic;

 

Both games are handy wins, and it's kind of indicative of most of my results against teams that try to play 4-4-2, or variations of that. Bar the odd result were my team decides not to show up, I tend to really dominate those games.

However. 

I seem to be completely and utterly hard-countered by any team that plays 4-1-4-1. Towards the end of my promotion winning Vanarama National season I suffered a very squeaky bum end of the season after I lost 3 of my last 5 games, only going on to clinch the title cos 2nd place cocked up to. The recurring theme in those dodgy losses was being utterly stifled, stopped and frustrated by teams playing 4-1-4-1. I'm pretty sure the AI knew it was a weakness...

An example is my most recent result against a bang average Chester side who have had a miserable start to the new season, but somehow utterly dominated me;

 

It took until the 70th minute for me to get my first shot on target, and that was only thanks to me making the switch at halftime to my own 4-1-4-1 tactic, which eventually morphed into a 4-2-3-1 when I went down 1-0. I felt hard done by, but lucky to get a 1-1 draw. Again, one of those weird games were the team just doesn't turn up, or the opposition turn themselves up to 11.

But still, the matter stands that with the main tactic I like using, I just can't beat a 4-1-4-1. Like, it almost seems impossible. In my opinion FM20 is pretty harsh on any and all AM roles, but when facing a 4-1-4-1 he just disappears from games. I experimented with trying to get the AM role to mark their DM role, as sometimes that was their main playmaker/difference maker, but that didn't help at all. Tried changing up LoE, but to no effect. 

I also tried switching to a 4-3-3, playing 3 strikers, pushing the AM role into a F9 role. Expecting to still be that man who comes a bit deeper and attempts to link midfield and attack. But that had mixed success. Felt I had to play direct, as passing options were limited.

Am I barking up a dead tree (defo not a saying)? Does my lovely 4-3-1-2 just suffer from a basic stand point against those hard to break down, defensivey 4-1-4-1 formations?

Cheers for any help.

[Experienced Defender]

18 hours ago, SuperBiggles said:

Does my lovely 4-3-1-2 just suffer from a basic stand point against those hard to break down, defensivey 4-1-4-1 formations?

I cannot comment on the formation-vs-formation basis, simply because any formation can both win and lose against any other formation. Much more important for me is how I set up the tactic within the formation I use. And my choice of both the formation and tactic is always based on very careful and deep analysis of my players and their strengths and weaknesses.

So, if I were to use a narrow formation (like yours 4312), the first thing I would do is make sure my fullbacks/wing-backs - as the only wide players on their respective flanks - are able to regularly bomb forward to support the attack and then quickly track back in defense once possession is lost (acceleration, pace, stamina, work rate, anticipation, decisions, teamwork etc.). Otherwise, I am simply not going to use a narrow formation. 

Speaking specifically of your tactic, I am not sure what is the style of play you are trying to implement. Once I know that, I can offer more meaningful advice. But what I can definitely tell is that in any narrow system, a wing-back (or CWB) as a role makes a lot more sense than a standard FB. Precisely for the reason stated above: 

Quote

as the only wide players on their respective flanks - are able to regularly bomb forward to support the attack and then quickly track back in defense once possession is lost

 

[SuperBiggles]

2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

I cannot comment on the formation-vs-formation basis, simply because any formation can both win and lose against any other formation. Much more important for me is how I set up the tactic within the formation I use. And my choice of both the formation and tactic is always based on very careful and deep analysis of my players and their strengths and weaknesses.

So, if I were to use a narrow formation (like yours 4312), the first thing I would do is make sure my fullbacks/wing-backs - as the only wide players on their respective flanks - are able to regularly bomb forward to support the attack and then quickly track back in defense once possession is lost (acceleration, pace, stamina, work rate, anticipation, decisions, teamwork etc.). Otherwise, I am simply not going to use a narrow formation. 

Speaking specifically of your tactic, I am not sure what is the style of play you are trying to implement. Once I know that, I can offer more meaningful advice. But what I can definitely tell is that in any narrow system, a wing-back (or CWB) as a role makes a lot more sense than a standard FB. Precisely for the reason stated above: 

 

The tactic is basically a hodge-podge of ideas and experimenting that seems to work. More or less, anyway. It became almost a Frankenstein of things that seem to work together, and looks enjoyable to watch in highlights. Really enjoyable to watch when it's going well. Very flowing. There's still some tinkering I need to sort out... striker roles at times work, but then maybe don't, the AP(Att) works in highlights, but get's low ratings sometimes, etc...

Having said that, if I was to attempt to put a finger on how I'm trying to play... 

I think for me, it boils down into being a short passing game that, with the roles and formation, always seems to make nice little triangles and makes it so there's someone who can receive a pass and move it forward. Playing through the middle, focusing it all that way, with the FB's gradually getting forward to provide a killer cross into the box if needed, but not being demanded of. Or at least that's the intention. The Counter-Press is there to try and win the ball back, mostly in midfield since I more often than not congest the area. The counter is to just get the ball moving again, not wanting to patiently do it. Very much want a high tempo, forward thinking style.

I did try and play with WB's (it's how I had the tactic in FM19) but more often than not they became my Achilles heel. They always committed too far forward, and left me exposed and open to being overrun and doubled up on in the wings. Defensively they always seemed to get caught out by attacking AML/AMR opposition players, and the WB always seemed to defensively leave a tonne of space behind him, and I get so sick of it being exploited I gave up on it for a while as a tactic.

After watching ... I think it was Zealand on YouTube? I gave the FB I try... from what he insinuated, he said that offensively a FB can get forward just as much and as easily as the WB, but defensively they offer that extra element of staying back a bit more in the defensive phase. And so far that seems to be ringing very true for me. I found that offensively the FB is essentially getting forward just as much as the WB was, and providing a decent amount of assists. This is a screenshot of one of my FB's last season;

 

I mean, 6 assists in 24 games is alright. The FB's are asked with individual instructions to run wider, providing some more of the width for the team. 

I think I still find that having them as FB's over WB's works more. At least at this point knowing that I'm one of the weakest teams in the league I'm in. Once I get to the dizzying heights and become a better team I would potentially change them to WB's if I can attract the better players and know I've got good, quality players to fill those roles. Adding the instruction for them to play wider helps currently. But having them as they are doesn't seem to neuter my teams width, but helps massively defensively.

It's still the odd thing that I just get completely shut down when facing the 4-1-4-1. I can't seem to suss it out. Various tweaks while retaining the same formation for myself don't seem to help at all. There's no glaring weakness that stands out. I don't get exploited on the wing overly (in fact, more often than not I totally dominate 4-4-2 formations that focus on wing play), but just that one opposition DM seems to totally shut me down. The 4-1-4-1 is the only set-up I seem to face that even employs a DM of some sort at this point. The AI seems very limited in what it likes to play

I'm mostly thinking that the reason I struggle is through by not having those world class style players that are able to play effectively through a defensive style opposition. My players might just not be good enough to play the way I want sometimes. But I don't know

[CaptCanuck]

@SuperBiggles One simple suggestion I'd make based purely on your tactics and this - but just that one opposition DM seems to totally shut me down - would be to remove the Focus play through the middle PI and/or change your AP to an AM. Let the DLP be the magnet in the build up, it's possible your guys are stuck between the two playmaker roles and if they try and feed the AP more than he should he is getting easily shut down by the opponent's DM and play is stalling.

One additional thing, you could always have your CM get wide in possession and see if that gives the opposition's DM more decisions to make in terms of cover. You Mez does that naturally of course, so maybe it's not necessary.

Edited September 1, 2020 by CaptCanuck

[Enzo_Francescoli]

In possession, I think you could try playing narrower to exploit the numerical advantage you have in the middle of the park, with overlaps and/or get further forward PI for your full-backs to get them higher up the pitch for width. Focus play is not really enough. I would also exchange the duties of the mezzala and the AP, which could make the latter drop deeper and the former overlap him - give their DM problems.

Out of possession, I would man-mark one or both of their full-backs with your side midfielders, because judging from the ratings of the Chester game, that's where they beat you. If you're averse to man-marking, you can try defending wider and higher up the pitch with OI's added. I've also found that a great way to give the 433 (4141 DM wide or whatever) problems with a two-striker tatic is identifying the opponent's more attacking full-back and have a runner at striker on that side and tell him to stay wider. An advanced forward type with acceleration, off the ball, anticipation and dribbling can run behind that full-back while also drawing a centre-back, thus creating lots of space.

[SuperBiggles]

On 01/09/2020 at 23:37, CaptCanuck said:

@SuperBiggles One simple suggestion I'd make based purely on your tactics and this - but just that one opposition DM seems to totally shut me down - would be to remove the Focus play through the middle PI and/or change your AP to an AM. Let the DLP be the magnet in the build up, it's possible your guys are stuck between the two playmaker roles and if they try and feed the AP more than he should he is getting easily shut down by the opponent's DM and play is stalling.

One additional thing, you could always have your CM get wide in possession and see if that gives the opposition's DM more decisions to make in terms of cover. You Mez does that naturally of course, so maybe it's not necessary.

Think I'll have to give this a try. I don't recall in any game any significant difference if I removed the play through middle. More often than not I end up changing the AP to an AM, but he always just seems to be the one totally shut out of games. To be honest, he rarely ever seems to outwardly contribute a massive amount. I think it's a common thing in FM20 that the AM position/roles are just a bit harshly rated, though.

I was tempted to think about moving the AM more asymmetrical, shift him either slightly to the left or right? Thinking being he might draw the opposition DM away from his more central position, resulting in more space in that area of the pitch.

 

On 02/09/2020 at 08:51, Enzo_Francescoli said:

In possession, I think you could try playing narrower to exploit the numerical advantage you have in the middle of the park, with overlaps and/or get further forward PI for your full-backs to get them higher up the pitch for width. Focus play is not really enough. I would also exchange the duties of the mezzala and the AP, which could make the latter drop deeper and the former overlap him - give their DM problems.

Out of possession, I would man-mark one or both of their full-backs with your side midfielders, because judging from the ratings of the Chester game, that's where they beat you. If you're averse to man-marking, you can try defending wider and higher up the pitch with OI's added. I've also found that a great way to give the 433 (4141 DM wide or whatever) problems with a two-striker tatic is identifying the opponent's more attacking full-back and have a runner at striker on that side and tell him to stay wider. An advanced forward type with acceleration, off the ball, anticipation and dribbling can run behind that full-back while also drawing a centre-back, thus creating lots of space.

Cheers, I'll give some of this a try. I think for my current team more often than not we don't have the quality to force the issue and play our way out of situations, so I have tried playing more narrow, but it just results in even very, very bad football. Did it in a game I ended up losing, and in highlight I noticed it was just ridiculously congested in midfield. I had the entire front and mid 3 all basically occupying the same spaces, passing it between each other, but not offering any decent runs or penetration.

I'll defo try the man-marking the fullbacks. I agree that more often than not that that's were I seem to lose out with this system. Weirdly enough not against flat 4-4-2's, just always with teams that possess some kind of DM.