Difference between DC and DL/DR in a 3-man backline

[Arphaxad]

I played the 3-1-2-3-1 for many seasons, starting with a DL-DC-DR defense. I quickly noticed, that my defense completely fell apart, if the opponent played 2 ST's. So I moved to DC-DC-DC. In general this felt alot more stable, although they obviously struggled more against AML/AMR now.
So from my experience: train your defenders to be DL+DC, DC, DC+DR & your DMC+DC (+ideally one MC to be a DMC too). That way you can easily adapt to what is needed. Either (3-1-2-3-1) 3 DC, or (3-1-2-3-1) DL-DC-DR, (4-2-3-1) DL-DC-DC-DR or even the (4-5V-1) DL-DC-DC-DR-DMC, given that your DMC is a DC too and your MC is a DMC.

Thanks, mate. I'm meeting an opponent who's formation looks like 4-3-2-1 with two AMCs in an hour but on paper it's defined as a 3-1-3-2-1. I'm contemplating playing 3-1-2-3-1 or 3-2-1-3-1 or 3-1-3-2-1 with AML/AMR for the latter. All three formations with a DL-DC-DR set up, but I'm not sure. I want to cover the center as he has two AMCs there.

Also considering playing my standard 4-2-3-1, but put my AML/AMR further forward and more centered so that they drop down and help in the center of the field in defense. Another option would be 4-1-2-2-1 (4-5V-1). But in both cases I feel that four defenders are redundant against an opponent with one striker. I'd rather place one of the defenders in midfield instead, but I'm not confident playing with DL-DC-DR. I'd rather have DCx3 as you suggested.