anyone else a 4-4-2 purist?

[manutilidie]

i've been playing football manager since it first hit our pc's (in 2004?), and i have only ever had real success with a team when playing a standard 4-4-2 formation. i've extensively tried other formations with mixed results, and here are some of the problems i have encountered: -

4-4-2 diamond: no centre midfielders, you are having a laugh? it is so often over run by the opposition midfield. i love the idea of the three-pronged attack, but it is too detrimental to other areas of the team.

4-3-3/4-5-1: one of the best alternatives i've used, and in certain match situations i do use it. however i cannot find consistency with any formation that uses only one striker; so often i find myself over run, and the isolated lone striker cannot relieve pressure/provide a sound counter-attacking threat.

anything which doesn't utilise wingers/wide midfielders (e.g. 4-1-2-1-2, 4-1-3-2 etc). even when playing with team width, i find that the midfield are far too close together to be effective. play becomes congested and with no wingers, there is no out-ball. without the ball, opposition wide players gain far too much space, and my midfield and fullbacks are dragged out of position.

anything with 3 at the back (3-5-2 etc). this is the one i find least effective, especially when playing against 2 strikers, or a team with attacking wide players. the oppostion dominate the flanks, and this can never be a good thing. when i'm behind and looking to throw the kitchen sink, is probably the only situation i use it in.

does anyone else swear by the 4-4-2 when playing football manager?

hopefully quite a few posts to follow,
andy

 

[Jake]

4-4-2 diamond: no centre midfielders, you are having a laugh? it is so often over run by the opposition midfield. i love the idea of the three-pronged attack, but it is too detrimental to other areas of the team.

4-3-3/4-5-1: one of the best alternatives i've used, and in certain match situations i do use it. however i cannot find consistency with any formation that uses only one striker; so often i find myself over run, and the isolated lone striker cannot relieve pressure/provide a sound counter-attacking threat.

anything which doesn't utilise wingers/wide midfielders (e.g. 4-1-2-1-2, 4-1-3-2 etc). even when playing with team width, i find that the midfield are far too close together to be effective. play becomes congested and with no wingers, there is no out-ball. without the ball, opposition wide players gain far too much space, and my midfield and fullbacks are dragged out of position.

anything with 3 at the back (3-5-2 etc). this is the one i find least effective, especially when playing against 2 strikers, or a team with attacking wide players. the oppostion dominate the flanks, and this can never be a good thing. when i'm behind and looking to throw the kitchen sink, is probably the only situation i use it in.

does anyone else swear by the 4-4-2 when playing football manager?

andy

442 diamond you need a top defensive midfield bosher for it to be effective. think viera in his pomp.

451 you need a complete forward/targetman. ibrahimovic/dzeko

no wingers. have you tried complete dominance???????

352 needs top wing backs, darijo srna/marcelo etc

but i use 442 or variants of it the most 8-|

 

[manutilidie]

442 diamond you need a top defensive midfield bosher for it to be effective. think viera in his pomp.

451 you need a complete forward/targetman. ibrahimovic/dzeko

no wingers. have you tried complete dominance???????

352 needs top wing backs, darijo srna/marcelo etc

but i use 442 or variants of it the most 8-|

i agree with what you say mostly, but:

i don't think that when playing 4-4-2 diamond, a top DM compensates for two CM's working together. it just doesn't cut it for me. if i managed say roma/inter, who would play de rossi/cambiasso, would 4-4-2 diamond work well?

i have similar thoughts on 3-5-2, having good wingbacks will make a difference sure, but i prefer using fullbacks for defensive stability.

i've heard good things about Complete Dominance, but i've never tried it. what makes it so good/how does it deal with the problems i've suggested?

thanks,
andy

 

[KingEric]

i agree with what you say mostly, but:

i don't think that when playing 4-4-2 diamond, a top DM compensates for two CM's working together. it just doesn't cut it for me. if i managed say roma/inter, who would play de rossi/cambiasso, would 4-4-2 diamond work well?

i have similar thoughts on 3-5-2, having good wingbacks will make a difference sure, but i prefer using fullbacks for defensive stability.

i've heard good things about Complete Dominance, but i've never tried it. what makes it so good/how does it deal with the problems i've suggested?

thanks,
andy

Complete Dominance is awesome if you use the Opposition Instructions ie. Close down and tight mark the opponents wingers.

 

[Mike.]

definitely a 4-4-2 purist, i use other formations when countering other temas when needed, like chelsea liverpool. but my main formation is the 4-4-2

 

[Peglegpolly]

i am a 442 lover aswell, the only 2 tactics i have uploaded on here have been of a 442 with different settings. think it is the best formation all round given the right players

 

[Jamie F]

Whilst I love a good 4-4-2, my preference is a 4-2-3-1 with 2 DM's 1 CM and 2 Inside Forwards. This allows the full backs to push forward while the DM's cover the gaps and the CM plays a Fabregas role. The striker is usually a complete forward e.g. Torres type of player. I recommend it if you are struggling in defence and want a good counter attacking formation. Works for me

 

[Jake]

i agree with what you say mostly, but:

i don't think that when playing 4-4-2 diamond, a top DM compensates for two CM's working together. it just doesn't cut it for me. if i managed say roma/inter, who would play de rossi/cambiasso, would 4-4-2 diamond work well?

i have similar thoughts on 3-5-2, having good wingbacks will make a difference sure, but i prefer using fullbacks for defensive stability.

i've heard good things about Complete Dominance, but i've never tried it. what makes it so good/how does it deal with the problems i've suggested?

thanks,
andy

well its just me, i often base my team around a top DM, ie a de rossi/essien/veloso/camacho type. A classy player who can break up play but is good enough on the ball to make things happen. and thats jkust it, if hes a top player he can do the job of 2 central mids on his own. leaving the AMC at the top of the diamond to roam free and cause havoc in the final third.

and as for 3-5-2 i much prefer normal full backs in a back four, but its not to say 3-5-2 wont work, but another thing to consider is the very limited nu,ber of truly world class wing backs.

ive never used complete dominance but the sheer amount of downloads and rave reviews speak volumes for its effectiveness at every level.

i would say if you are struggling to use anything other than 442 then try complete dominance, no doubt you will be as pleased as the hundreds who have tried it so far

 

[Striker122]

i love a 4-4-2 as it to me is so ballenced but for some reason on FM i prefer a 4-3-3, prob as i cant make a good 4-4-2 tactic i hate formations like 5-3-2 too defensive, i do love tactics like 4-2-4 but with the 2 being CM not DM's the prob is its so prone to the counter and you will prob conceed loads, a good 4-4-2 will beat any tactic i believe