Is 41212 2 the best wide formation?

RadioShaq
16718 posts Moderator
I’ve been trying fullbacks always overlap in different formations but nothing seems to beat the 41212 2. With more using defense on lower width and just narrow formations sometimes it seems like you need width.

3 atbs and 5 atbs just seem to have the fullbacks or mids sit all the way out wide and never come into the play. 433 and 442 the box is usually packed with one defender and the two fullbacks hanging back unmarked but rarely do they push up.

Is 41212 2 the only formation where the fullbacks take a diagonal line to the box and then get in behind? Seems like the only formation I can overload the defense with as all others have players hang back. Video example below to see if anyone can get it to work like that in other formations I would appreciate cts or formation setups.


Comments

  • dylanmx
    4427 posts National Call-Up
    I used to use this formation and it was okay but to me it felt too spread out, not wide just spread out and limited options.

    The 4411 changed everything for me. It had everything I needed, players wide, supporting players everywhere. It's kinda like a 3atb formation, but with 4.
  • Stickybelly
    2666 posts Fans' Favourite
    I play 4222 and the full backs play an integral part in my build up play. I leave them on balanced though I don’t tell them to overlap all the time though.
  • Jaysin
    1348 posts Professional
    Yeah I think it’s only natural especially when the LM/RM are set to get forward. They try to fill that gap and provide the attacking support, but personally I think in the 4222 the wingbacks provide just the right amount of support and defense. Been using this and it causes hell to my opponents
  • Tomb1302
    7626 posts League Winner
    3412
  • RadioShaq
    16718 posts Moderator
    I know that 442 or 4222 provide better balance but I am looking for when you need to comeback or just want to overload your opponent. Sometimes I just feel like playing all out attack too and and want fullbacks to actually go forward like the video example. Struggling to do that in other formations.
  • Jaysin
    1348 posts Professional
    Well unless you have super great CB’s it’s gonna be painful on the counter.
  • mdizzl3
    12418 posts Has That Special Something
    3412
  • RadioShaq
    16718 posts Moderator
    Jaysin wrote: »
    Well unless you have super great CB’s it’s gonna be painful on the counter.

    Yeah but that’s what I am looking for. If I am going to take the risk of holding possession I don’t want players to hold back unmarked for no reason.

    For those saying 3412 I couldn’t get it to replicate the video example. If you can give examples in cts or videos that would be great as I am willing to try them out.

    Here is an example of 442 of sokker having only one fullback on stay back while attacking. He attacks to fast to really show the problem but at about 6:50 you can see the fullback run back even on alway overlap. He forces them to overlap at times but it’s still seems a problem in 442.




  • Retro_G
    33020 posts National Team Captain
    You've lots of width with the false 9, your wingers hug the sideline, it's a great formation for attacking fullbacks. I had a lot of success with this formation the last few weeks, it counters the narrow formations. Possession football is a must though, to make it work. Have a look at this video with custom tactics mate.

  • RadioShaq
    16718 posts Moderator
    Retro_G wrote: »
    You've lots of width with the false 9, your wingers hug the sideline, it's a great formation for attacking fullbacks. I had a lot of success with this formation the last few weeks, it counters the narrow formations. Possession football is a must though, to make it work. Have a look at this video with custom tactics mate.


    I’ve tried his cts and while it’s great for possession it lacks width in the final third. You can see his fullbacks back off and sit in wasted space. If they would overlap it would probably be perfect.
  • Retro_G
    33020 posts National Team Captain
    RadioShaq wrote: »
    Retro_G wrote: »
    You've lots of width with the false 9, your wingers hug the sideline, it's a great formation for attacking fullbacks. I had a lot of success with this formation the last few weeks, it counters the narrow formations. Possession football is a must though, to make it work. Have a look at this video with custom tactics mate.


    I’ve tried his cts and while it’s great for possession it lacks width in the final third. You can see his fullbacks back off and sit in wasted space. If they would overlap it would probably be perfect.

    Put your full backs on overlap. I use different custom tactics, will post them later when I get back on console.
  • RadioShaq
    16718 posts Moderator
    I know he had his on stay back while attacking. Even on overlap they don’t attack the box like they do in 41212 2. Now granted I haven’t tried all the formations or even played enough games to know for sure.

    Try the 41212 2 and see how aggressive the fullbacks attack and see if you think you can get the same out of 433 5. If so I will try the tactics that worked for you.

    I tend to notice the fullbacks we’re afraid to push up in 433 5. They are probably loosely marking for a counter but if they would make the run that defender would have to mark or let in a free goal like in the 41212 2.
  • Salama
    1305 posts Professional
    I have fullbacks on balanced (unless the opponent plays wide attack), and they are making a lot of runs on 4231 and 433 (4). I just get them involved when I'm near the sideline, near the middle line. If I hold the ball with my wide cam / winger and cut inside a bit, they just sprint past the defending player and I can make a through pass. Workrates: IF Kolasinac H/M and Valencia H/H.
  • Pieman25
    17917 posts Moderator
    edited April 2018
    I prefer 4312 over 41212 2, just less gaps to play through imo.
  • RadioShaq
    16718 posts Moderator
    Pieman25 wrote: »
    I prefer 4312 over 4212 2, just less gaps to play through imo.

    I would think those are similar. I just wouldn’t expect those to have more wing play than 433s and 3atbs and attacking 5atbs.
  • CharlieC
    7422 posts League Winner
    Pieman25 wrote: »
    I prefer 4312 over 4212 2, just less gaps to play through imo.

    You probably prefer it because you only have 9 outfield players in the second formation :wink:
  • Pieman25
    17917 posts Moderator
    CharlieC wrote: »
    Pieman25 wrote: »
    I prefer 4312 over 4212 2, just less gaps to play through imo.

    You probably prefer it because you only have 9 outfield players in the second formation :wink:

    Definitely less gaps then.
Sign In or Register to comment.