Subject: [NT]vs Lietuva

They only had two. When midfield is crowded (high defence adds to that, btw), more midfielders means less, because they're going to work less efficient (short passes keep the ball near the same opposing midfielder, IMO), so a third one is a waste.
Second, a lot of the time, the mids were behind the other mids, so too high: out of reach for the defs, useless for ball recuperation. So another waste of manpower.

If Belgium wants to play with 3 mids, wouldn't it make more sense to spread them out, to take advantage of the numerical advantage? More spread = better, IMO.
Until short passes become really reliable and high technique something to count on, trying to play football on a hankerchief, is waiting to lose the ball. Again, IMO.

Also, low passes through the middle aren't as reliable as high crosses, aren't they?

Anyway, I suggest you keep the mids lower ;) Now the def left its line too much to tackle and was dragged away from his position ;)

Well you have some right. I'm still trying different things, checking out what works best and what doesn't work at all. The winger tactic is an easy one to make, preparing a wing-less tactic is a bit harder, at least for me - that's why I try it so often lately, the more tries = the better it gets...at least it should get better.

I will try placing the mids lower, I played it like that in previous season but there were games when there was way too much space between mids and strikers.

As for wide central mids...what do you mean exactly? :) Could you please make a tactical screen of it? Might be worth trying? :)

I'm not a tactical genious, so I doubt a tactic with 3 wide placed central mids is useful, but I learned that several closely placed mids are with weveral- 1 too many. One opposing mid van occupy them just as easy as if he were alone. And if one mid passes to the other, the ball is still in the vicinity of the same mid (or the mids that came to its support). If mids are placed further apart, this cannot happen as easily.
That's why I don't like to place my mids too close to eachother. I often play with 2 defensive mids, each on their own side of the field, so quite wide, but still central enough to support eachothter.

I tried a few times playing with 4 (and 3) mids placed as if they were high defenders. That is, behind the ball at all times, but high enough to force the opponent on his own a half. This was less succesful than the 2 defmid tactic, mostly because I ran out of players on the offence (even though I kept the ball quite high all the time). Another reason was that my strikers/offensive mid were surrounded all the time and couldn't do a thing.

Mids higher than the ball are only really useful (IMO, but I can just as well be wrong) to relay the ball to the strikers. More than one seems a waste, again. I keep mine usually right behind the striker, so the opponent has less chance to have a defmid of def in the line of the pass (like he would with a diagonal pass). At this time, the biggest problem is that during the first half of the attack the offensive mid is on the same spot as the striker he is supposed to suppert (due to offside position). So if I reposition the offensive mid, he's either too low (with a too big gap between him and the striker) or too high (and rather useless). But all in all, a two leveled midfield works well. Keep the defmids lower than the ball and a single offmid to relay it.

The biggest obstacle is that mids never seem to pass to the player you want them to or to the player that is smartest to pass to (even on NT level). So you have to keep his passing options as safe and as constructive as possible. The drawback is that you need the defmids to keep the opponent under control and to keep your line of defence in position.

In another tactic, I run my defmid as single real defmid, with my defensive line in close support. The defmid has high pace, so he can stay in position very often and thus the defensive line stays intact (mostly). The other 'defmid' is placed at the same height as the ball and enough to the side to let the first defmid do all the running. The second one is used to relay the ball to the striker, but I find that he does enough passing to the strikers on his own. High wingbacks to keep the playing field wide and keep the opponent out of position. But I wouldn't recommend this tactic, it leaves huge gaps in the middle and I rely on my defenders and high wingbacks to fix any problems.

the leader in my league uses a different approach. Wide def, wide attack, and a single mid in the middle. He keeps the field really tight and it is a bitch to play against. But very interesting to watch.

A funny problem that I encounter now, is that my supporting offensive mid only runs for the ball when the ball is on his own side of the field (the side of the number 10 striker). When he has to run for a ball on the other side, the number 11 attacker has to get it himself. Even though that striker has to run farther to get it. Weird.

i'd love to see his match with Omil injured or suspended after 1 minute :)

well, against me: no problem. I played light on the controlling midfield, so he could have passed straight from defence to offencive line. Against other teams... he struggled the most against a team with a diamond midfield (3-2 win and 2-2 draw), which is currently in 6th of 5th place, I forgot.

Anyway, I know what I'll play in the last game of the season.

Will give it a read later on, nice to see someone really active and helpful :)