Debate: 4-2-4

[Erique Quentona]

I have been playing Top 11 for 3 levels now and I favour the 4-4-2 variant 4-2-4

GK
DR-DC-DC-DL
MC-MC
AMR-AML
ST-ST

with red arrows on MCs, AMR, AML or just on the AMR, AML, playing Attacking, passing Down both flanks, pressing varies depending on opponent strength, tackling Normal (hard when chasing the game), passing Short, marking Zonal, no counter/offside

I find this to be a winning formation for my players and can USUALLY beat any formation.

This formation invites the wide men to find space in the box and score goals via assists from strikers, hence usually the strikers do not have impressive goalscoring record but have high assist stats. When the strikers do score, it is off an assist from the partner.

It is also flexible enough to play long balls, which usually drop to the feet of the striker and allows him to shoot or provide the final pass. If you have good MCs, then they can usually score from outside the box via long shots.

The only flaw I can think of is that it could lose out to a flat 3 or 5 midfield. As far as I remember I would tend to struggle to get goals against 3-5-2 & 4-5-1.

In game, when I watch, I can easily switch to 4-5-1V, by withdrawing one striker if I am under pressure or drop to either 4-1-4-1 or 4-4-1-1.

What do the rest think about this formation? Any way to improve?

[Cholo Simeone]

I basically agree. The weakest point is the middle, if your opponent play with 5 midfielders. Additionally, if the DL and DR of your opponent are good defenders, your flanks would be useless. So I would think in a second formation with two ML / MR for matches against tough DL/DR defenders.

Cholo Simeone

[Erique Quentona]

Agreed. Just yesterday I came up against a 4-5-1V formation and I was chasing the game. Dropped my to AMR/AMLs to MR/MLs and scored the equaliser.

It is definitely flawed that it is vulnerable to counterattacks with so many men upfront. However, I have been doing well so far thus reluctant to change...