[neiltrain]

hi all,

i need a little help. i'm some way into preseason and haven't made too many moves into the transfer market apart from an attacking right sided midfielder and some defensive reinforcements.

the reason for this is that i cant decide whether to play 4231 or 442. i have most of the players needed for both these formations and wont have any trouble picking up the 2-3 needed once i have decided on a formation.

if i went into the season playing both these formations i'd need maybe an extra 2 players to be able to shift between system but that's not the way i want to go.

i want to be decisive and stick to one. simply because i havent the tactical nous to really decide when i should be using each.

can you help? what are the key differences i should be aware of when employing both system?

basically my 4231 has two wide inside forwards that i expect to create and also weigh in with goals.

my 442 doesnt use traditional wingers, i have again two midfielders cutting in from wide and passing, ttb, and often being an extra presence in and around the box. my cm are a mc/attack and a box to boxer. no real destroyer but they can both defend a little.

what should i be looking for to determine between these two systems?

would really like some advice, thanks.

[Millie]

You could argue that 4-4-2 and 4-2-3-1 are very similar systems. There's also a 4-4-1-1 which might be of interest to you.

The main difference is the centre of the midfield. In the 4-4-1-1 and 4-2-3-1 you have an extra man in the centre, which can help to control possession or disrupt the opposition. The AMC plays between the lines, and so can act either as a harrier or as a creative link between the midfield and the lone forward.

As long as you have wide players who can play AML/ML (or R, obviously) and a player who is either adept at playing MC/AMC or AMC/FC, then you effectively have a squad that can play both systems.

There are deeper differences, of course, in passing patterns, marking patterns, and so on. But if your 4-4-2 is not using traditional wingers anyway, then you should be OK with either.

The compromise position, of course, is 4-4-1-1, with a deeper forward playing in the hole.

[zdlr]

If given the choice, I would always opt for 4231 or 4411 over 442. The primary reason was hinted at by Millie: marking patterns.

If you play 442 and come up against a 442, these two systems can present a fairly even match-up of marking patterns. But, when a 442 comes up against a 4231, the AMC poses a difficult problem. With a sufficiently talented back line and MCd, the AMC could be naturally stifled and their threat neutralized. However, it is difficult to set up a 442 to mark effectively when so many players are between both lateral and longitudinal lines.

I'd rather harness this fact to my advantage, to the point where my 4231 is very rarely troubled by a 442 formation, with my AMC often running amok. In fact, the only formations I dislike seeing in the pre-match analysis is the 532 (or its twin the 352). In these cases I know I'm in for one of those games where it's simply of a matter of breaking them down without leaving too many gaps at the back.

The 4231 also comes with a variety of built-in options. Assuming a flat back 4 (ie: DR/L, 2xDC) 2xMC, AMC/L/R, ST, you can switch the instructions around of various players until you find a blend that works for your personnel.

The ST can be any kind of striker at all, as long as he is supported sufficiently. He can be a big, burly target man who thrives on crosses and can hold up play - providing you play with wingers and your AMC is mobile and can get beyond him. He can be a small, tricky type that creates for inside forwards and gets on the end of incisive passes from your AMC. He can be nothing but a finisher if your attacking midfielders are happy to supply him. Ideally, though, he would be a decent mixture of all these things. The best player I've had in the ST role in a 4231 is probably Torres.

The AML/R can be out-and-out wingers who beat their man and whip cross after cross into the box. They can be Beckham-type playmakers who feed runners and cross from deep. They can be inside-forwards who drive directly at goal with the ball at their feet. Most importantly, they can be completely asymmetric so long as it benefits another attacking component - ie: no point in having a traditional winger if there's no-one to profit from their crosses.

The AMC can also fulfill three roles in a similar manner. They can act as a goal threat from deep, timing their runs perfectly to arrive late in the box. They can hang back at all times and stay in the hole, pulling defences apart with lateral movement. Or they can simply play pinpoint passes between defenders for the AML/R or ST.

The MC's can dovetail in many different ways and are - in some respects - the most important part of the team. I find that the combination of a creator who can tackle and a destroyer who can pass to be the most potent mix. One has an emphasis on creativity, passing and technique (while retaining good positioning, tackling, teamwork and workrate) while the other inverts this emphasis.

The DR/L will likely play a more restrained role than some 442 implementations, but they can certainly be asked to get forward a lot if you need to overload the opposition.

All in, 4231 is my favourite formation and has yielded the greatest success for me on FM11.

[Vertigo]

zdlr, on 06 July 2011 - 07:01 PM, said:

All in, 4231 is my favourite formation and has yielded the greatest success for me on FM11.

Totally agree

[supermini]

Vertigo, on 07 September 2011 - 01:39 PM, said:

Totally agree

I've had troubles with it. No matter how I set up the MCs, it seems to be less defensively stable than 4-3-3 (with a DMC), especially against teams that use an AMC. I split the defenders into cover/stopper when up against AM/ST combination, but without a DMC shielding the cover/stopper pair they leave a big gap between them that can be exploited easily. Playing defenders in a line causes the same issue that playing 4-4-2 has: either the AM roams free or one of the DCs tries to close him down, leaving a gap. I've tried every type of defensively-minded CM and short of pulling him to DMC position I can't get him to shield the defense properly.

In an earlier save I used a combination of deep lying playmaker (defend) and ball winning midfielder (support) to some effect which is "creator who can tackle and a destroyer who can pass" that the OP mentioned. However, it's not ideal for every team.

[jaeger]

supermini, on 14 September 2011 - 02:57 AM, said:

I've had troubles with it. No matter how I set up the MCs, it seems to be less defensively stable than 4-3-3 (with a DMC), especially against teams that use an AMC. I split the defenders into cover/stopper when up against AM/ST combination, but without a DMC shielding the cover/stopper pair they leave a big gap between them that can be exploited easily. Playing defenders in a line causes the same issue that playing 4-4-2 has: either the AM roams free or one of the DCs tries to close him down, leaving a gap. I've tried every type of defensively-minded CM and short of pulling him to DMC position I can't get him to shield the defense properly.

In an earlier save I used a combination of deep lying playmaker (defend) and ball winning midfielder (support) to some effect which is "creator who can tackle and a destroyer who can pass" that the OP mentioned. However, it's not ideal for every team.

I have the same experience. The 4231 formation seems to be 'flawed' in the match engine. It works wonders in the attack, but lack the defensive stability that it is supposed to have. Make no mistake it is a good formation, but it irritates me that it leaves a large space unprotected in front of the back four. Playing two DM's doesn't do the trick either.

My observation is that ANY formation with a single DM shielding the back four is defensivly superior to those without.