Would this work?

[poweriess]

I'm currently on holiday but when I'm back I'm planning on creating a 4231 tactic with these points incorporated:
- CDL Stopper
- CDR BPD Cover
- GK Sweeper Keeper and distribution to long to Target man (Striker)
- Everyone zonal marking apart from Inside Forwards, Fullbacks and Advanced Playmaker on man marking
- Counter Attack On
- High Defensive Line
- Short passing apart from SK and BPD on Direct (To Target Man) and DLP and Advanced Playmaker on Mixed
- Wingbacks Support hug touch line
- Inside Forwards on cut inside
- A Poacher as target man to run onto the balls from the SK, BPD, DLP and Adv Playmaker

i will line up like this:
Poacher
Inside Forward Attack - Advanced Playmaker Support - Inside Forward Attack
Centre Mid Support - Deep Lying Playmaker Defence
Wingbaks Support - Central Defender Stopper - Ball Playing Defender Cover - Wing Back Supprt
Sweeper Keeper Defend

Team Instructions:
- Fluid
- Attacking
- Shorter Passing
- Default
- Press More
- Default
- Zonal Marking
- Drill Crosses
- More Roaming
- Defensive Line Push Up
- Width Narrow
- Build Up Play Slow
- Time Wasting Sometimes
- Focus Passing Through the middle
- Counter Attack On
- Target man ST
- Playmaker AMC

General Player Instructions:
- Long Shots Rarely
- Short Passing
- Zonal Marking

Would this work and if you have any improvements let me know.

 

[TheBetterHalf]

My first impressions for things where I see a conflict.

Channeling the play through the middle, playing Narrow and using a Target Man
- Here, I think that the players Will struggle to find him with balls and when he actually gets them, he Will go straight for goal, nit really making the tactic Floyd in its flow
My suggestion would be to either use the flanks aswell and use an advanced FC instead... Or... Not use the FC as the focal point of play.


The lack if space used
- Pushe up, narrow width and using both a CM moving forward, an AMC and wingers moving inside WITH the ball. It might be that your team will struggle against lesser teams that whilst being inferior in quality will still be good at denying that space in the middle.
My suggestion would be to NOT play narrow, but perhaps " normal" and have one winger as a winger on support, hugging the touchline. After all , it's both about exploiting AND creating space so I would also use one more player moving into channels, perhaps the AMC, not actually used as a playmaker( especially against teams playing deep and compact with on DMC as he will struggle with space and time on the ball.

 

[TheBetterHalf]

I would also strongly suggest NOT letting the GK hoofing the ball upfield onto the poacher who will be facing atleats 2 players for every single challenged for the ball. That is if he actually gets to the situation in time or the hooded ball is quality.

 

[poweriess]

Are the duties on the Centre Backs stable and would Inside Forwards on support be better?

 

[Mordox]

I agree with TheBetterHalf, you're going to have a crowded attack playing narrow with focus passing through the middle - the inside forwards might not have room to cut inside since you wont be spreading the defenders. The wing backs will be out wide, but most of their defence is going to be in the box and you're not playing a real target man, so I cant see your crosses connecting too often.

Personally, playing with a high back line and setting a CB to stopper makes me nervous, but if you have a good cover then it should be fine I guess. Having a team setting of fluid would freak me out even more about this defence. I normally play with slower CBs that dominate with headers... so this is pretty different from what I normally go with. I guess if your team is dominating already then you don't have to worry about this too often.

I think long passes to your poacher is probably not a great idea. Long passes usually means a header at the end of it except when a counter is on and there is space to run into... but you already have counter set to on so they'll do that anyway when appropriate. If you had a real target man in this position then I'd say it sounds good.