4-4-2 - Atletico Madrid / Simeone Style - The Right Space and Shape ?

[joeyBanana]

Hello guys,

so im trying to emulate Simeones Atletico from the last years, playing a tight 4-4-2 formation with pressing elements. First some screenshots to oblige to the holy rules:

View attachment 198717

View attachment 198714

Against teams with a strong offensive midfield, i find my defense a little lost. I studied Cleons 442 article and the space between Midfield and Defense is kind of open land, since the AMs of my opposition can exploit this space to the max. My CM-D is too involved in midfield and pressing battles, since his hardcoded PI of Closing Down forces him to do so, i do understand that he isnt a holding player . The questions is, if there is a way to fix this problem and keep the 442 shape. I got some solutions and tried them out, all with mixed results;

1. Playing deep and narrow -> Gives opponents too much time on the ball, even lower table teams get too many chances, flanks are more prone to crosses
2. Playing very fluid to keep the shape tight. Seems to help, but doesn't fix the problem
3. Playing 4-2CM-2AM-2 to pull them back “naturally”, still doesnt help

So, is it possible to keep a 442 shape and control the space behind the mid 4 or should i just let it go and try out a 4-1-4-1 ? What about putting the 2 CMs in DM and going maybe with DM (PI: Get further forward) as runner and an Anchor Man for screening? I want to keep my middle real tight, play through the flanks. I would prefer winning 1:0 ten times more than going 5:3 every game. I want real tight, defensive football, no jokes, no flair, without giving up too much space and time, preferably in a 442.

Maybe you can help me out ? Is there anything else i might screwed up and could need some attention ?

(Sorz for my english, not a native speaker nor writer )

 

[WJ]

If you need the space between the D and M strata to be smaller, push the D-Line up.

 

[Bigpapa42]

Your English is fine. I've seen a few takes on the Simeone 4-4-2 and I'm not sure its entirely possible. The space you mention is part of the issue, especially against formations that have more men in midfield. It seems like Simeone tends to have CMs drop a bit deeper and the forwards (at least one of them) drop back to defend.

-the simplest solution would be moving away from a 4-4-2 and drop a forward in to the CM or DM strata. A 4-1-4-1 or even a 4-5-1 should defend better.

-dropping both CMs into DMs could help somewhat but you're really just adjusting the space allowed to the opposition, not truly reducing it.

-I'm not sure its possible to get forwards to defend as much in FM as Atletico's do. At least one of them as a DF-S or DF-D would help. You could also have one of them mark the deepest of the opposition midfielders, which would pull them out of position but leave fewer players for your CMs to have to deal with.

-pushing the D-line up, as already mentioned.

 

[joeyBanana]

Hey guys,

thx for your quick answers. Pushing the D-Line up could be a way to address this issue. Although the playing style of Atletico s like being a punching ball, absorbing strikes deep and than getting the ball forward to the strikers as quickly as possible.

So if I would pull the D-Line further back, would the Midfield strata "follow" too, or only when i push up? I like the idea though, of staying compact but pushing the D-Line to the Max against weaker teams, maybe combined with a SK and Offside Trap.

Ive got a couple of solutions which i will try out: Playing with 2 DMs on Support, one with Running Instructions and one with holding Instructions, since DM-D has closing down hardcoded and i would like to stay organized.

Another idea is to play strikerless with two SS or one Treq and a SS for example, to keep the squad vertically tight.

The thing i like about a lone striker so far away, is that he can get the lucky punch or hold up the play for others to join in, kind of like the most advanced pivot u might imagine. Maybe i should pick a combination like Martinez as DF-S/D and a Dribbler like Griezmann as SS behind them. Two roles which would press naturally, still having a tall man forward as a DF.

I really would like to use a brand of destructive, defensive football, which can one-shot you with a lucky cross and then park the bus.

 

[Bigpapa42]

I'm really liking a more defensive approach on FM16. Part of why Atletico has interested me, though I have yet to dive into a game with them. I will say that whether you are playing on the counter or parking the bus, a 4-4-2 has limitations. With either intent, you really want as many players deep as possible, but with a 4-4-2, you have two players ahead of the ball.

A few other thoughts....

-if you do go 4-4-2 with deep CMs, you can always get the two WMs to sit inside more. That provides some extra coverage inside.

-going strikerless is definitely an option. But the one drawback I see is that most of the "false striker" type roles aren't going to add that much defensively. They may hassle the opposition defense but you probably won't get them naturally dropping into the midfield strata too much. The DF is a pretty good option for this kind of tactic and the SS at AM could be an effective combo.

-You may want to scale back the wingbacks a touch. WB-A is pretty **** attacking. Going to Support might be safe if your prioritizing defensive solidity.

 

[WJ]

Dropping deeper will mean that you increase the gap, which isn't what you want. That's why I suggested Pushing up. The more defensive mentalities will ensure that you are still deep and narrow.

 

[maxchaplin55]

Try 'Very Fluid' Team Shape - I believe I am right in thinking your midfielders will be more of an influence in defence- hopefully closing the spaces left between your D and M.

 

[Bigpapa42]

Dropping deeper will mean that you increase the gap, which isn't what you want. That's why I suggested Pushing up. The more defensive mentalities will ensure that you are still deep and narrow.

Exactly. The overall mentality keeps you deep, so the higher defensive line doesn't push the whole team up. The defenders for Atletico aren't slow so it shouldn't be too dangerous. Against the fastest attackers, it might get a touch dangerous but those kind of teams (Barca, Madrid) are always gonnae be tough.

Try 'Very Fluid' Team Shape - I believe I am right in thinking your midfielders will be more of an influence in defence- hopefully closing the spaces left between your D and M.

The problem with Very Fluid is that it opens up the overall creative freedom for the whole team. More conservative roles will limit it but you could still see players doing things that don't really fit a defensive intent. Rigid or Very Rigid are probably safer in that sense - it will have them sticking moreso to your intended usage, and only the high creativity roles will give that kind of creativity.

 

[WJ]

The OP did mention that Very Fluid was already suggested to him. It is the most compact of all the shapes. You can always lessen the creative freedom issue, with the TI Be More Disciplined.

 

[Bigpapa42]

The OP did mention that Very Fluid was already suggested to him. It is the most compact of all the shapes. You can always lessen the creative freedom issue, with the TI Be More Disciplined.

Yeah, I'm going by a couple of SI posts by Hand of God. I'm thinking either approach could work. Fluid or Very Fluid with the TIs, as mentioned. Or more Structured and ensuring the compactness through roles and duties.

The mentality of the player still matters, so on the same setting, you should see a difference between a Structured set-up with an attack duty up top and a Structured set-up with a support duty up top. Right now, team shape works like this:

Very Fluid = Most Compact
Fluid = Compact
Flexible = Default
Structured = More Depth
Highly Structured = Much More Depth

However, within that, you also have the effect of duties so the ST's role/duty in particular will have a big influence on how stretched you become in build-up play. So, for example, an F9 is still going to be an F9 on Highly Structured whilst a Poacher will still tend to hang on the last defender on Very Fluid.

The underlying design philosophy seems to be that Role/Duty are primary, at least in terms of build-up play, with everything else being a smaller modification.

You can see it that way, but that's arguably overcomplicating it a bit. Putting aside all the management theory stuff and just putting it in football terms:

More fluid will make players try more tricks and play with more creativity, flair and pizzazz. There are a couple of reasons you might want this. From a tactical standpoint, it can possibly help players unlock defences by making play less predictable and harder for defenders to read. It also tends to be more fun to watch.

More structured will encourage players to keep it simple and more precise. You would choose this if you want players to stick to the basics and avoid losing the ball with technically difficult passing/dribbling. The downside is that you might restrict some players' creativity and your team's style can end up being rather workmanlike/boring.

Now, whether that makes a player break/stick to their role depends on the role. If you're playing a limited role like the Poacher or Ball Winning Midfielder, more fluid will conflict with the idea that these players should keep it simple. Of course, you don't have to embrace that idea and you might very well want your poacher doing overhead kicks and backheels when he gets the chance. On the other hand, a playmaker or "complete" role will be all the more flamboyant on a more fluid setting, so it's not really conflicting with the role so much as taking it to a further extreme.

Beyond that, there's the "shape/depth/compactness" aspect of the instruction, but role/duty are vastly more influential instructions in this regard. More structured will make strikers more positionally aggressive and defenders more positionally cautious (fluid does the opposite), but these are minor adjustments that won't dramatically alter how your team plays.

 

[WJ]

Yeah, I'm going by a couple of SI posts by Hand of God. I'm thinking either approach could work. Fluid or Very Fluid with the TIs, as mentioned. Or more Structured and ensuring the compactness through roles and duties.

I'll still stick with what I said. Very Fluid for compactness and More Disciplined for less Creative Freedom.

Even your quoted text agrees with this.

Beyond that, there's the "shape/depth/compactness" aspect of the instruction, but role/duty are vastly more influential instructions in this regard. More structured will make strikers more positionally aggressive and defenders more positionally cautious (fluid does the opposite), but these are minor adjustments that won't dramatically alter how your team plays.

Strikers being more positionally aggressive and defenders less so is exactly what is creating bigger gaps between the lines. As he says, it's not a big difference overall, but as the OP is looking for maximum compactness, Very Fluid is the way to go.

 

[joeyBanana]

Hey guys,

thank you for all the input! So im trying out the following solutions, also adressing the other issues that came up:

1. TI Higher D-Line (Optional: Add Very Fluid + More Disciplined)
2. Put on a DF-D and a SS Combo upfront
3. On the right side i want to try out a W-A, to get some other, unpredictable lines of attacks
4. When its 0-0, any other Draw or when im ahead, i will put on Retain Possession, for giving me even more stability
5. Switching up the Mentaliy to Counter from time to time, to put pressure on lower table clubs or chase a draw

Hopefully this concept sounds reasonable, i would love to have another round of brainstorming and I will keep you updated about my progress.

EDIT: 6. I did put the WB on support to retain the shape better, like u proposed Bigpapa, but i think i will put him on FB-S or even D, since i want to play with a W-A on the right side.

 

[joeyBanana]

I had a nice game against Barcelona with the following Setup. I forgot "Be more Disciplined" to be honest and put Counter on, since i didnt want to concede my possession all the time to Barca. What do you think about it, especially when u see the stats ? Anything to optimize so far, or should i give it a try and go the long way, a whole season long ?

Formation:

View attachment 198196

Tactics:

View attachment 198217

Stats:

View attachment 198218

PKM:

View attachment 198193

 

[Ghents]

I've seen a few people try to take on the Atletico 442 and I'm intrigued by defensive football. Have you thought about playing asymmetric in the midfield/striker partnership? DF-S and SS-A staggered, then a CM-S and an Anchorman in the DM slot on the same side as your winger, leaving the WB-S in place?

The 4411 setup you have looks promising, though.

I know those might not be the actual "roles", but may give the functionality.