0
UNDERSTANDING THE 4-4-2 DIAMOND
DEFENCE
Despite the fact that there are four ways to play a diamond formation on FM, the differences between them are few and usually subtle. As a starting point, one thing each of them do have in common is a back four in defence. The defence will generally have more protection in the middle than with a flat 4-4-2, especially with the 4-1-3-2 setup. As a trade-off, in a narrow diamond the wingbacks are occasionally under more pressure, while what they offer when bombing down the flank becomes more important, too. Unlike in a flat 4-4-2 where the extent of their wideplay is more often than not to overlap a flank, in a narrow diamond, wingbacks are typically the players with the most impetus in regards to attacking the byline. For this reason, the ability to get past their man and put in a cross warrants that much more attention for a manager looking to get the best out of such a system. In contrast, a wingback in a wider diamond featuring an ML and MR will not be relied on as much to provide width and will link-up with the wide-man ahead of him in a very similar way to a wide-attack from a 4-4-2.
MIDFIELD
The most blatant difference between a diamond and the flat 4-4-2 is how the midfield behaves. For the sake of dispelling a myth, even when playing with a narrow diamond, the flanks are anything but surrendered in the defensive phase. There is initial space to be found there, but the MCl/MCr will move across to press an opposition winger, while they will also look to pick up the run of the wingback on that side in order to prevent a possible overlap. In doing so, MCl/MCr leaves his counterpart in the middle temporarily unmarked. If it's a 4-1-2-1-2 and 4-3-1-2 formation, the AMC will usually track back far enough to pick them up, but with a 4-1-3-2, the MC does so instantly. Either way, there is emphasis on denying space in the middle and the formation still has numbers there even when one of the central midfielders is defending a flank. It's still a 1 player advantage in the center against a flat 4-4-2, or 3v3 when faced with a 4-5-1. There is a drawback, however, as in both cases there is an opposition wingback free should the move end up switching to the other flank. After all, the other MCl/MCr which didn't need to go wide is still marking their opposite. If he goes wide to prevent the overlap, that leaves an unmarked CM who a spare DMC/CM must be quick to notice, especially if the AMC of a 4-1-2-1 or 4-3-1-2 doesn't get back in time to help. This is a weakness against 4-5-1/4-3-3, and even more so against a 4-2-3-1 since the DMC will already be busy with the opposition AMC. Fortunately for the human manager who's utilising a diamond, however, the AI is rarely able to exploit the space on the opposite flank, and so the unmarked wingback usually doesn't come into the equation.
When going forward, with 4 players based in central midfield, the narrow diamond variant has strength through the middle that can even enjoy numerical superiority over 4-5-1 variants, let alone a flat 4-4-2. It doesn't always going through the middle of the pitch, however, due to the fact that the AMC/MC, MCl, MCr and both strikers of a diamond system are sometimes inclined to drift out-wide even if they aren't necessarily being funnelled to there. The option for them to attack the flank or link-up with the wingback is made even more likely when using a more adventurous philosophy. For this reason, it is definitely advantageous to have midfielders/strikers who are capable of being a threat out-wide when playing a narrow diamond variant. The narrow diamond can and will have wingplay aside from the prolonged runs of a wingback, it's just that it comes in the form of a midfielder or striker taking the initative in exploiting any space that's found there. It is a particularly useful course of action when there are not yet enough players who have entered the attacking phase.
4-1-3-2, 4-1-2-1-2, 4-3-1-2?
As the bands suggest, the 4-1-3-2 allows for a sterner defensive shape geared towards crowding the middle when defending. When either the MCl or MCr goes wide, the MC swiftly moves across and picks up the opposition MC that was left behind. Even though the AMC of either of the other two variants will track back and attempt to perform a similar task, the significance of the MC's deeper position is the ever-present numerical strength it offers in the central zone, of which is sacrificed by either the 4-1-2-1-2 and 4-3-1-2. Whereas an AMC will only offer something to the defensive phase when he has tracked back far enough, the MC of a 4-1-3-2 offers an immediate presence and defensive benefit. In short, the 4-1-3-2 results in a diamond that is the most difficult of all to break down.
The flat 4-4-2 will almost always be overwhelmed when going through the middle against the 4-1-3-2. Even a 4-5-1 variant may prefer to quickly make use of the intermittent space on the flank, of which can evade the defensive cover offered by the MCl/MCr if the move is quick enough.
Despite making things difficult through the middle for a 4-5-1 variant, the 4-1-3-2 may not necessarily be the best option for the manager looking to prevent a 4-5-1 from controlling the game. After all, the AMC of a 4-1-2-1-2 or 4-3-1-2 primarily harasses the opposition DMC, unless he is required to catch up to an unmarked MC. Even so, fielding an AMC can be an excellent means of preventing a creative DMC in a 4-5-1/4-3-3 from pulling the strings, providing the AMC is up to the task.
Similarly, the DMC of a 4-1-3-2 or 4-1-2-1-2 may be a focal point in defensive planning when the opposition's most creative player happens to be an AMC. In this situation, playing a 4-3-1-2 may be problematic, as even though the MC will mark the AMC, he will have more space to take advantage of than if the MC occupied the deeper position from either of the other two variants.
The main difference between a 4-1-3-2 and 4-1-2-1-2 is how far the AMC needs to track back in order to help defend the center. The consequences of not having enough time to do so are forgiving against a 4-4-2, and can often even be so against a 4-5-1/4-3-3, too. In those two cases, an unmarked MC will still have your DMC to contend with, who isn't marking anyone. Against an attacking 4-2-3-1, however, the DMC is marking the opponent's AMC. In this situation, the team is either overlapped on a flank, or that threat is dealt with at the expense of freeing up a man in the middle. Either way, it's a dangerous situation for the defence. The consequences are more dire than when at worst, only the DMC is left unmarked if it's a 4-5-1/4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1 that utilises 2 DMs. In both of these situations, your support striker could potentially make himself useful.
The difference between a 4-1-2-1-2 and a 4-3-1-2 is how the DMC is in a more advanced position, usually level with his 2 midfield partners on either side. From this position, he will offer more going forward. He may even be unmarked, unless the opposing system is a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-2-1 xmas tree. This may be appealing for the manager looking to construct as attacking a diamond system as possible. Of course, vacating the hole means that there may suddenly space should a team hit the 4-3-1-2 on the break, particularly if they have an AMC capable of escaping his marker.
ATTACK
Despite the fact that there are 2 strikers, this isn't quite as much of a similarity with a flat 4-4-2 in the final third as initially appears. The support striker has a choice between playing his striker into space, or an AMC if one is used. Naturally, this can lead to a different outcome where in a 4-4-2, the support striker may withdraw to the hole before deciding what to do next. With a player already there / emerging into there from the midfield, it means 2 players capable of creating a chance, of which accentuates a narrow diamond's strength through the middle. Even against a 4-5-1, the support striker and AMC may find enough space between them to cause problems. Alternatively, the manager may wish to accommodate 2 strikers with an attacking duty, especially when playing against a 4-4-2, or against any formation if the team happens to have an exceptional AMC. Another notable difference between 2 strikers in a flat 4-4-2 and a diamond is how in situations where the striker would normally play-in a winger, and he can't find one of the unmarked midfielders who are rallying in support, he will drift wide. Strikers can and will find themselves going out-wide slightly more often than in a flat 4-4-2.
Of course, with 2 striker roles, the manager has plenty of options with a goal in mind. A poacher may seem an attractive option, especially with his lack of contributions to the build-up being far less recognisable than in a flat 4-4-2. Then there's a targetman, who can hold up the ball and find an AMC / unmarked midfielder. If fluidity is favoured and the calibre of personnel allows for it, 2 complete forwards with a creative AMC behind them might be a combination which could be a daunting proposition for even the most resolute of defences. The manager has options, arguably more so than with any other formation which plays 2 utop.
AMC / PLAYMAKER?
The AMC, if utilised, is an important consideration for a manager looking to play a diamond variant. He needs to be capable of creating, as well as proficient at finding space, especially when he has a DMC aiming to mark him out of the game. Due to the fact that he has 2 strikers ahead of him and supporting players very close-by, the AMC can be deadly with an advanced playmaker or trequartista role. As an alternative, the manager may favour the old tradition of having the DMC/MC as a deep lying playmaker. After all, if he doesn't have an AMC pressing him, the deep lying playmaker from this position will have time, space and options, no least an easy one more often than not in the form of an unmarked midfielder nearby.
Something else that the manager may wish to be wary of is what an AMC offers defensively. After all, even if he does swiftly pick up the MC left behind by the MCl/MCr who was needed at the flank, there may still yet be a matter of defending to do. It's rare to have a well-rounded AMC who can be creative going forward, as well as capable when defending. This can be a potential weak-link, even if a subtle one, such is the rarity of exceptional AMCs that have plenty to offer in both attacking and defensive phases.
"WIDE DIAMOND" / "4-4-2 DIAMOND" WITH AN ML AND MR?
The wider diamond is a different animal to the narrow variants. Despite resembling a 4-1-2-1-2 shape and having only two different roles, the attacking and defensive traits of such a system are different. When defending, the ML and MR mark wide players at all times. This is in blatant contrast to the narrow diamond variant where only one flank is defended at any one time. The result of this is chasms of space in the middle whenever the AMC doesn't track back to help the DMC. If the AMC gets back in time, he is able to make it 2v2 in the center (or 2v3 if it's a 4-2-3-1 or an attacking 4-5-1/4-3-3). Therefore, the consequences are dire should he fail, unlike with a narrow diamond variant where numbers in the middle are typically maintained and prioritised at all costs.
The wide diamond also behaves differently when attacking, with both the ML and MR surging down the flanks. It is they who consistently provide wide-play, thus easing what would otherwise be a burden on the wingback, as well as making it less likely for a striker or one of the other 3 midfielders to do so. The ML and MR provide width just as their equivalents do in a 4-4-2. With 2 out-wide, 2 uptop and 1 in the hole, it goes without saying that the wide diamond has a strong and varied attack, although defensive instability may arise due to the AMC's advanced position, of which can leave the DMC outnumbered, especially on the break.
INSTRUCTIONS
With the narrow diamond sometimes leaving too much space out-wide, and the wide diamond vacating space in the middle, the manager can turn to opposition instructions in an attempt to combat these weaknesses as much as possible.
For the manager looking to ensure that an MCl/MCr is quicker to help defend a flank, issuing a a Close Down: Always instruction can be instrumental in ensuring that he does so. However, the manager needs to be mindful of how in doing so, the wingback will have the same inclination. If the wingback is short of pace compared to the opposition winger, this instruction will compromise the attempts of making a flank more secure. In cases of a quick AND very technical winger, it can be difficult to press the issue of him getting early pressure from the MCl/MCr. In this case, it's better to ensure that the wingback will perform by making sure that the winger ISN'T closed down too readily. Even if this will at times mean that the winger evades the attention of a midfielder, it's less harmful than if both the midfielder and the wingback will play into the winger's hands by challenging him too soon. For a manager who would rather not be so inviting of a quick and talented winger, it may be useful to merely resort to Show Onto Foot instructions instead. With its numbers in the middle, a narrow diamond can cope very well with an in-cutting winger as long as the opponent's formation doesn't utilise an AMC. After all, this means that there is a numbers advantage in the middle. It's to the opposition's detriment if a winger is forced into this crowded zone, particularly if he is capable of putting in a good cross from out-wide. It goes without saying that quick and/or skillful wingers are a thorn in the side for a narrow diamond variant. Opposition wingbacks can be a problem, too, should the MCl/MCr be bypassed by the winger, yet also be slow to pick up the opposition wingback. With this mind, a Close Down: Always can be useful, but perhaps not the Tightly Marked instruction, as if the winger gives your wingback the run-a-round, it may be important to have midfielder close enough to put in a challenge if needed, but this may be beyond him if he's to close to the opposition wingback instead.
For the wide diamond, the ML and MR both stay wide and so the space is found in the middle instead. The distance between the DMC and AMC can be a severe problem. With this in mind, it's vital that the DMC holds his position for as long as possible and isn't too impetuous in closing down the middle. In being hesitant, it gives the AMC more time to get back and made it 2v2 / 2v3. Therefore, Close Down: Never can be a useful means of ensuring that the DMC isn't quickly overrun before the AMC can even the odds. No two ways about it, surrendering the middle and making the worst of a 1v2 / 1v3 situation is a dangerous situation which may quickly pave the way for a goal scoring opportunity.
Advantages of a diamond
-A dynamic midfield shape that allows technically sound midfielders to control the game from the middle of the park.
-More space between the lines against a flat 4-4-2, particularly during periods where the AMC is unmarked.
-Narrow diamond variants maintain a numbers advantage in the central zones, both when attacking and defending
-With an initial presence out-wide on both flanks, 2 uptop and 1 in the hole, the wide diamond offer options in attack, even more so than even the most offensive of narrow diamond variants
Disadvantages of a diamond
-Can be unstable when defending against a 4-5-1 variant, especially a 4-2-3-1.
-Despite a midfielder moving across to help the wingback, there is always space down the flanks, particularly for a fast attack.
-Many AMCs can be a liability defensively, even if tight to their man.
-While a wide diamond covers both flanks at all times, it's at the expense of a large gap in the middle
-A wide diamond is always outnumbered 2v3 in the middle of the park against any 4-5-1 variant
CONCLUSION
Although a "staggered 4-4-2" in practice, a diamond system is flexible when defending, yet very versatile when attacking. For a squad with well-rounded players, this can allow for perks which aren't immediately obvious. For example, if the MCl/MCr is able to close down the space quickly enough, the winger is more than likely going to be up against a player who is far better at defending than almost any winger they'd be facing at that against any other formation. Then there's the level of freedom which intelligent or technical players will make the most of. Whether it's starting narrow and going out-wide after all, a fancy interchange with the deep lying support striker, or a quickly exploited numbers advantage in the middle, a diamond system is capable of attacking in many different ways, subject to having the right players.
Despite its dynamism and improvisation when defending, there is no escaping the fact that a 4-4-2 will always have 1 less man in one of the zones against a 4-5-1. No team shape can mask that. Against a 4-5-1/4-3-3, the diamond eventually leaves the opposition DMC free, as well as of the wingbacks. When dealing with the latter case, this leaves an MC who will hopefully then be picked up soon enough by your DMC. With both flanks marked, as well as 2 in the middle, that then resembles the more familiar situation of a 4-4-2 vs 4-5-1, where just the DM is left unmarked. Against a 4-2-3-1, with the DMC already preoccupied, the danger is greater when faced with the prospect with either 2-1 out-wide, or an unmarked man in the center while defending the 2-1 situation.
Edited by Validicus, 27 July 2011 - 04:23 PM.
