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

[Arphaxad]

Trying to figure out the difference in movement and behaviour if you place the backs at the same spot in both alternatives and play a 3-man backline with

DC - DC - DC
or
DL - DC - DR

Anyone with experience? Will the DL/DR drift out wide or hold the line?

Going against a 4-3W-2-1 formation in the cup final the coming days (yes, I believe we both will reach the final) and trying to plan ahead. I'm currently using a 4-2-3-1 formation but considering changing to a 3-1-4-1-1 formation to counter his AMCs. He has a 7*+ attacker as well. Problem is I don't have 3 capable DCs but strong DL/DR. So I want to utilise them.

Usually I wouldn't change my formation to counter other player's formation. The only reason for me to change formation most of the times is to counter specific overpowered players, but I'm tepmted to test this. Also, relatively new to TE so I'm not familiar with the game engine yet.

Alternatively, I might keep my 4-2-3-1 formation and use red arrows on my two MCs to counter his AMCs and play my AML/AMR further down mimicing a 4-4-1-1 formation.

Looking forward to hear the thoughts of the more experienced managers.

[Polotoed]

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.

[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.

[KayObianigwe]

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.

Thank you

Sent from my TECNO LA7 Pro using Tapatalk