Opinions on 4-2-2-1-1 and 4-2-1-2-1

[antoniofs]

Hello,

I'd like to get your wise opinions and expertise on two different formations I've been testing:

a) 4-2(dm)-2(mr,ml)-1(amc)-1
b) 4-2(dm)-1(mc)-2(amr,aml)-1

I know each formation is different and has its own pros and cons.

But I'd like to get reactions from the forum.

I shall add that I've been using defensive counter attacking orders since I've realized I get more chances on goal for me and less for opponents.

What do you recommend?

Thanks.
Cheers!!

[Master Tactician]

Both are 4-2-3-1 variations. I like the 2nd one more. Both of them count on ball possession. If you wanna go 4-2-3-1 (eihter a or b) you need very good full backs with red arrows. You must have red arrows on them (DR,DL) because they have a lot of space to run and make crosses. If you take the 1st, if you have playmaker AMC it could be really great. It's a classic trequartista position. Maybe red arrow AMC as well. It's not really that defensive but an all round tactic. You can go attacking as well. If you go defensive of course you have to counterattack. If you go attacking consider the off side trap. You can either focus down both flags or mixed.

If your opponent defends with 3 DC or uses short tactics then go for either a or b. If he has 4 at defense he can counter you in some cases especially if he has good wingers.
A serious backdrop of both these formations is that they can be hurt by wide players that attack wide areas. Therefore, it can be countered by eg a 4-1-4-1 or 4-4-2 variations.

[antoniofs]

Thanks, that was really helpfull and confirmed a lot of what I thought.
Just another question, if you don't mind:

- which do you think works better with counter attack? I gues it would be 4-2-2-1-1, from my experience. Do you agree?

Thanks again!

[Master Tactician]

Yes, I think 4-2-2-1-1 is a little bit more defensive than 4-2-1-2-1 therefore counter attack will work better with that. It depends on the opponent's formation and your team's strenghts.
eg if he has DMCs you may consider 4-2-1-2-1 if he has AMCs and Forwards then 4-2-2-1-1 would be better.
Or if you have strong MR-ML go for 4-2-1-2-1, if you have a strong AMC go for 4-2-2-1-1.
The most important thing to play with counterattacks is to have defensive mindset.

[antoniofs]

That makes sense and it's how I've been using both formations.

When I go 4-2-1-2-1 I tend to be more attacking.

With 4-2-2-1-1, I put Defensive and Counter Attack, zonal marking, with mixed (style and focus) passing. Should I play long balls or change to some focus? Looking at the shape of the formation, it seems better all mixed...

Thanks!!

[Master Tactician]

Yep, mixed I think is fine. You could go for long if you had ST with very good Positioning and backs+ wings with very good crosses but, I personally don't trust top eleven at these things. Some stats probably don't affect anything so stick to mixed.