2-3-2-3-0 formation

[GabrielBCFC]

Thinking of trying a new formation for FM16. My idea is 2 ball-playing centre-backs, 2 wing-backs, 1 anchor man, 2 ball winners, 2 inside forwards and a false 9.

My aim is to press high up the pitch. For it to work, the DM has to stay behind the ball and the WBs have to drop back into the full-back position when the ball gets to their flank. When we have the ball, the DM drops behind the two CBs and the defence spreads out while the 2 CMs and 2 IFs drop deep to collect. Then when the ball gets played into midfield, the F9 drops deep and 2 or 3 players run past him into space. The system is basically about fluid movement and needs players who have a good work rate.

A similar system worked for me on FM13 with Solihull Moors, but that was with 2 out-and-out strikers and I'm yet to try this at a higher level. Anyone think it'll work?

 

[WJ]

Try it? It's going to have to be extremely aggressive for you to only have 2 defenders and get away with it. An Anchor Man won't do what you want him to. Just read the description for the DM roles to see which one does.

 

[kallemannen]

Just call it a 4-3-3 (?)
2 IF, 1 false nine, 2 cm, one half back and two very attacking fullbacks?

So u play a HB infront of the 2 CB
then 2 complete attacking wingback, perhaps one cm support, one attack or both support
then your 2 if + false 9

 

[WJ]

Just call it a 4-3-3 (?)

A 4-3-3 has 4 defenders. His idea has 2 defenders.

 

[callamity]

could always call it an 0-10-0 cos it has so many outfield players

 

[Traahaaearn]

The wing-backs are outfield players, so are the BPD, so are the BWM. That's a 0-7-2-1 maybe ^^

 

[Shyftyy]

2 Ballwinners will make it extremely difficult as they will both chase the ball and get pulled out of position far too easily. 2 out of position kills your formation.

That being said, having come up with a 6-1-2-1-0 myself in previous editions, I love to see people be creative with formations so keep at it.

 

[pl3rious]

based on my thread FM15. someone will hate it and call it unrealistic tactic

that what you got for being creative out of the box

 

[WJ]

The question was whether we think it'll work. I don't think it'll work.

Even the idea is flawed. A DM will be in the DM spot when defending. The formation screen shows that and the formation you set is your basic defensive shape. WBs cannot drop back next to defenders when defending, because they're wingbacks. Again, the formation is the defensive shape. If you want a back 4, set up a back 4.

 

[kallemannen]

A 4-3-3 has 4 defenders. His idea has 2 defenders.

You are not counting wingbacks as defenders? On paper id still call it a back 4 even though they arent aligned in the def line

 

[WJ]

You are not counting wingbacks as defenders? On paper id still call it a back 4 even though they arent aligned in the def line

I thought it was clear enough, but no, I don't. It isn't a back 4 as the back 4 players aren't in line. They aren't defending in line. That means there will be space behind the wingbacks. It's worrying that you're saying that and even 'on paper' it's quite clearly a back 2.

 

[WJ]

I was just bored at work, scrolling through some threads, saw he wrote something about wingbacks and 2-3-2-3-0 formation and i was like, just called it a 4-3-3
I didnt think at the minute that might have placed the position wingback (in line with cdm)

Mistake by me!, sometimes, with unimportant things, we humans tend to overlook facts and so
Is that really reason enough for you to attack me and call me "worrying"

I didn't call YOU worrying - I called your post worrying. You know why? Because you go around telling everyone you're an editor. Chapter 1, Page 3 of your researcher's guidelines says that the formation you set is the defensive one and you didn't seem to get that a formation with 2 defenders will have only 2 defenders in the D-Line when defending. That seemed worrying.

But, as you explained, you overlooked the thread title, post 4 and post 9. All good now.

 

[ajt09]

The next person who uses a disability/syndrome as a personal insult will be banned instantly without warning. This is a forum for football debate-not a playground for ignorance. Grow the **** up or go elsewhere.

Only warning

 

[BeastBoyy]

Hii, i also made this formation and i wonder how it works for you? for me it works GREAT!

 

[apalobod]

The game names this configuration "4-1-2-3 DM WB Wide". For the game this is a combination between 4-1-2-3 DM Wide and 4-1-4-1 DM Wide (4-1-4-1 becomes 4-1-2-3 if AF is changed into F9)

 

[BeastBoyy]

aah i created it myself and named it 2-3-2-3 also have some costum instructions in it and it seems to work very well

 

[BeastBoyy]

I will post the tactic on here tomorrow in case anyone wannts to try it

 

[molochicken]

I have successfully played with a similar tactic, but different up front with Spurs for 3 years. Won 2 Chmpions league back to back, 1 League title and 2 times 2nd, 1 FA cup and 1 Capital Cup.

The tactic is similar in terms of 2 ball playing defenders, 2 wingbacks (S) and an Anchor man (or Defensive midfielder (D)).The difference is I played 3 shadow strikers. The formation could be called 4-3-3-0 or 2-5-3-0, being attacking and very fluid. The defensive line is pushed to highest with offside traps while tight marking is ticked.

All I can conclude is defensively it could work, I conceded the least goals in the league for the third season, but do not expect it can make clean sheets regualrly.

I had massive succes offensively, but I suppose three shadow stirkers is different set-up. BTW, false nine is not counted as a 0 up front when you consider formation numbers.

 

[duca015]

This can work, but you need to refine slightly formation in order to become more stable at back. First, your WB-s need to close down less, so they keep width of your defense and not leave you exposed down flanks. Then, you need to change DM role I think, to HB... With this change similar formation (only I had BMB and RPM as midfield duo, and DF-sup as striker) worked for me quite well i Pl with Leicester. I also tried with two INF-s and two Defensive Wingers on side, same setup for other players and it also worked well against 4-4-1-1 formations...

 

[Bullardinho]

I took over a struggling Fiorentina in the second season (17th in Serie A after 20ish games) and I used a similar formation and we won 12-13 games on the bounce, eventually making them a regular title contender.

It was a few months ago but from memory my tactic was 2-2-2-1-2-1 (2CB-2WB-2DM-CM-LIF-RIF-ST). I played a very high defensive line, offside trap, attacking + flexible mentality. I had both DM's closing down often and playing short passes with the CM in a RPM role.

My idea was to basically close the ball down as soon as possible and just bombard them with attacks. Surprisingly our defensive record was actually very good as well.