3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Hi ! I'm a french and spanish guy and I would ask you your opinion aboute 4-3-3.
it's my formation and I would know the failures, strenghts and counter please
My players are placed as it :
Hi ! I'm a french and spanish guy and I would ask you your opinion aboute 4-3-3.
it's my formation and I would know the failures, strenghts and counter please
My players are placed as it :
It won’t matter because the game is basically a coin flip.
Your formation is more closer to 4-5V-1 than typical 4-3-3.Originally Posted by FurioIslo
Hi ! I'm a french and spanish guy and I would ask you your opinion aboute 4-3-3.
it's my formation and I would know the failures, strenghts and counter please
My players are placed as it :
Strength would be rather strong in defence, with good potential to score via flanks against opponents with weak fullbacks.
Weakness is lack of grip in midfield and could be overrun by 3 MCs or ML/MC/MR, and could lose the match solely via conceding too much possession even when the team has a good quality advantage. Or being beaten by quality opponents in a 4-3W-3W via both flanks.
Perfect counter:
Opponents of 10% or better: 4-3W-3W or 4-3M-2W-1 via both flanks
Opponents of 10%- to 20%+: 4-1-3M-1W-1 via 1 flank. DMC position depends on if opponent ST quality requires 3v1 marking or 2 MCs need DMC help covering
Winning is a form of art. Consistently winning is a show-hand of skills and luck.
I have noticed the sames strenghts than you but what is it a typical 4-3-3 for you ?
Is it this ? :
About weaknesses, I have 3 MC's also what is the problem and how correct the grip of midfield as you said ?
About 4-3W-3W, it's ok because opponnt has a numeric superioruty on flanks
Since your 3 midfielders are MCs (the MC/DMC is supposed to change to 4-5v-1 when needed), your team would be fine in MC area as long as those 3 MCs are placed flat in the middle. The earlier image suggested that you may have pulled 1 of those back and pushed 2 forward, hence the 4-5v-1 comparison.
3 MCs weakness would be facing flat-4 (flank) or diamond-4 (middle) midfield formations. The solution is either having ML & MR on the bench, or starters AML & AMR have additional roles of ML & MR (AML/ML[R]), so both wingers could just move back to control midfield when needed, and then 1 MC move back & 1 MC move forward to take full control of the whole midfield for possession if needed.
2 more separate notes:
1) wingers aligned with ST may be better off without arrows as they could fall onto offside traps easier
2) fullbacks may be better without up-arrows as no-arrow would allow them joining attacks, as there could be too much space on both flanks for opponent’s counter attack via wingers
Winning is a form of art. Consistently winning is a show-hand of skills and luck.
Thanks for yours observations, I will to modify my formation
He asked you what is typical 4-3-3. Is it 3mc+3st or ml/mc/mr + 3st?
Because when i started to play the game i thought the same as him because 4-3-3 for me consisted of 3 midfielders 2 wingers or wide forwards and a striker.
Typical 4-3-3, for me, is with 3 midfielders, 2 wide forwards and a ST (4-3M-3W). Wide forwards who can also play as wingers are way more variable.
Having 3 STs can also be a typical 4-3-3 for some and also is right actually, though in TE 4-3-3 with 3 STs is very rare among managers due to its inflexibility and/or high acquisition cost.
MC-positioning can make or break a team setup alone. Learned this the hard way.
Winning is a form of art. Consistently winning is a show-hand of skills and luck.
Yes, because I know the 4-3-3 like you with 2 wingers
3w is what? aml/amr near st line? But than they become that "second strikers" whose play in the middle.
Reply With Quote
