Delicious Story - FM26 Marco Silva Benfica 2026-27 | 4-2-3-1 to 4-4-2 Recreation

This is the second version of my Marco Silva Benfica recreation, built around a 4-2-3-1 in possession that becomes a much clearer 4-4-2 out of possession.

The important word here is recreation.

I wasn't trying to take Marco Silva's ideas and then optimise every role around the strongest behaviours of the FM26 match engine. The objective was to reproduce the structure, the possession, the attacking relationships and the defensive transition between the two shapes.

And the final season produced a very strong combination of results and football.

This was a full-season solo-shot, every match was played.

Season Results

Portuguese League, CHAMPIONS Portuguese Cup, WINNERS League Cup, WINNERS Super Cup, WINNERS Champions League, Quarter-Final vs Manchester City

Portuguese League

90 points

30 wins

0 draws

4 defeats

105 goals scored

27 conceded

+78 goal difference

2.65 points per game

The home and away split was also very balanced:

Home

14 wins

0 draws

3 defeats

53 scored

15 conceded

Away

16 wins

0 draws

1 defeat

52 scored

12 conceded

Thirty wins and zero draws is probably one of the more interesting parts of the league run. This wasn't a season built around collecting safe points. Games were generally decided one way or the other.

Full Season

Across all competitions:

61 matches

50 wins

4 draws

7 defeats

166 goals scored

58 conceded

+108 goal difference

81% win rate

That is also three cup wins alongside the league title.

The Structure: 4-2-3-1 to 4-4-2

The shape itself is relatively simple to explain, but the important part is what happens between phases.

In possession

The base is the 4-2-3-1.

Rafa operates centrally underneath Pavlidis, with Schjelderup and Lukebakio providing the width, while Aursnes and Barrenechea build the midfield connection underneath them.

The full-backs are deliberately asymmetric.

On the right, Amar Dedić uses the Playmaking Wing-Back role, giving us a more aggressive inside connection.

The left side is more conventional and helps keep some stability behind Schjelderup.

That difference between the two sides is important. I didn't want both full-backs making exactly the same movement simply because symmetry looks cleaner on the tactics screen.

Out of possession

This is where the 4-2-3-1 becomes a 4-4-2.

The wide attacking players drop into the midfield line, while Rafa moves alongside the striker.

So rather than defending as a 4-2-3-1 with an isolated forward, we have:

Back four

Wide midfielder, two central midfielders, wide midfielder

Two central pressing references

It is not a complicated transformation, but it changes how the team covers the pitch and how the first pressure is organised.

What the Numbers Actually Say

Benfica finished the league with:

63% average possession

approximately 90% pass completion

105 goals

27 conceded

99.56 xG

34.45 xGA

76.09 xPTS

The xPTS number is worth discussing.

We finished with 90 actual points from 76.09 xPTS, so the results were around 13.91 points above the expected-points model.

That matters.

The season was excellent, but I don't want to take the 90 points and pretend that every part of the underlying performance automatically says "90-point tactic".

The same thing appears at both ends of the pitch.

We scored 105 from 99.56 xG, while conceding only 27 from 34.45 xGA.

So we outperformed the underlying numbers both offensively and defensively.

That doesn't invalidate the results. Those goals and points actually happened.

But it gives us context.

Possession With Output

Possession was not just a cosmetic number.

Benfica averaged 63%, second only to Porto's 66%, while still producing a huge attacking volume.

The Data Hub shows roughly:

23.9 shots per game

3.1 goals per game

2.7 non-penalty xG per 90

47.8% shot accuracy

90.9% passing

around 1.0 xGA per game

around 0.8 goals conceded per game

That combination is much more important to me than possession by itself.

You can have 60% or 65% possession and do absolutely nothing with it.

Here we were using that control to generate volume.

Pavlidis: 50 Goals

The main reference was obviously Vangelis Pavlidis.

Vangelis Pavlidis

50 goals

9 assists

60 starts + 1 substitute appearance

7.29 average rating

But what makes the attacking structure work is that the output doesn't stop with the striker.

Dodi Lukebakio

24 goals

32 assists

7.69 average rating

Rafa

24 goals

21 assists

7.25 average rating

Andreas Schjelderup

13 goals

18 assists

7.10 average rating

So the four main attacking players produced:

111 goals and 80 assists combined.

That distribution is important for this kind of 4-2-3-1.

If everything depends on Pavlidis finishing every move, eventually the system becomes too predictable. Here the three players behind him were producing constantly.

Aursnes Was Extremely Important

Fredrik Aursnes is another player whose contribution is easy to overlook if you only look at the front four.

He finished with:

6 goals

13 assists

7.31 average rating

His role in the structure was important because he could connect midfield, support possession and still arrive high enough to contribute.

Barrenechea gave me the other type of midfielder, so again I wasn't looking for two identical players doing identical things.

Champions League

The European campaign was good, but this is also where we eventually found the limit.

During the League Phase:

6 wins

0 draws

2 defeats

17 goals scored

11 conceded

18 points

7th place

That put us directly into the stronger part of the competition, but the run eventually ended in the quarter-finals against Manchester City.

And I think that is fair context for the tactic.

Domestically we controlled almost everything.

Against the very strongest European opposition, there were moments where the structure could be attacked more aggressively.

That is exactly the kind of distinction I want to keep when I call something a recreation rather than an adaptation.

Recreation vs Adaptation

Could I probably take this structure and make it even stronger in FM26?

Yes.

I could start changing roles around what the engine rewards most, push certain behaviours harder, modify the defensive structure and slowly move towards something more META.

But then the objective changes.

A recreation asks:

How can I reproduce these football ideas inside Football Manager?

An adaptation asks:

How can I take those ideas and make them work as efficiently as possible inside this particular match engine?

Both are completely valid.

They are simply not the same project.

This one is a recreation.

And I think the numbers are strong enough that I don't need to pretend otherwise.

Final Take

The end product is a very aggressive possession-oriented 4-2-3-1 that becomes a 4-4-2 without the ball.

It gave us:

90 league points105 league goals27 conceded63% possession50 wins in 61 matches166 total goals81% win rateLeague title plus three domestic cups

The underlying numbers also tell us something important.

We finished well above xPTS and outperformed both xG and xGA, so I would not treat every final number as the guaranteed baseline of the tactic.

But that is exactly why I include the data.

The results tell you what happened.

The underlying numbers help explain how it happened.

And for a recreation rather than a META adaptation, this was a very strong season.

Tactic file included for Patrons.

Console players: a separate mini-video with all Team Instructions and Player Instructions is included so the setup can be recreated manually.