Preferred Formation

In my profile it says

Preferred formation 4-1-3-1-1

Mentality Mixed

Pressing Style Mixed

Coaching Style General

Does that look like 4-1-3-1-1 to you?

I usually play with a Fluid Philosophy, Counter Attack Strategy & Direct Playing Style at home, tweak for big/away games.

I dont think it has picked up my preferred management style correctly? What about you?

Your preferred formation & style etc. is based upon the tactics you've used most throughout your career IIRC. Is this the only tactic you've ever used?

its probably counting the widemen as part of your midfield and the AMC as an attacker.

Your preferred formation & style etc. is based upon the tactics you've used most throughout your career IIRC. Is this the only tactic you've ever used?

4-4-2 and 4-1-2-1-2 on rare occasions

its probably counting the widemen as part of your midfield and the AMC as an attacker.

Hmmm, maybe

its probably counting the widemen as part of your midfield and the AMC as an attacker.

That's exactly it. Generally the DM is counted on his own as is the AMC. The wingers are interchangeable between midfield and attack depending upon the rest of the player setup.

Bestie.

its probably counting the widemen as part of your midfield and the AMC as an attacker.

This.

I play 4-2-3-1 (with DM DM / AMR AMC AML) and on my profile it calls it 4-2-2-1-1, counting the wingers as part of the midfield and the AMC on his own.

Have reported it as a bug.

My wingers are set to attack always same with the AMC. I think it should be called a 4-1-1-3-1

The trouble is that formations aren't all there are to a tactical setup. You can have a 5-man attack but if you set up the instructions in a certain way they are really playing as a LW-AMC-AMC-RW behind 1 striker or LW-AMC-RW behind two even if on the pitch layout it looks like a five-man line.

Bestie.

I think this formation should show up as either 4-2-3-1 or 4-5-1.

The formation is almost always listed incorrectly in the preferred formation section of your profile. I know it is hard to always get it right, but at the moment 4-4-2 is pretty much the only formation that is described correctly.

I think this formation should show up as either 4-2-3-1 or 4-5-1.

Quite right SCIAG. Traditional formation notation is almost always in three or four bands, with the wingers considered part of the midfield or the attack. All this '4-1-2-2-1' stuff drives me crazy!

4-2-3-1 with a deep lying playmaker and a defensive midfielder.

i used maily 4-4-2 or 4-4-3 but i use 4-4-2 my fav Formation

Quite right SCIAG. Traditional formation notation is almost always in three or four bands, with the wingers considered part of the midfield or the attack. All this '4-1-2-2-1' stuff drives me crazy!

4-1-2-1-2 has started all this off. Why not just call it a 4-4-2 diamond?

4-1-2-1-2 has started all this off. Why not just call it a 4-4-2 diamond?

2-1-2 is narrow (only midfielders and no wingers) and 4-4-2 is wide (has wingers).

looks more like 4-1-1-3-1 to me

After reading this thread, it piqued my interest to see if the game had accurately reflected my own style. I can report back that is has.

Formation: 4-1-2-1-2 (wide-diamond)

Pressing style: mixed

Coaching style: general

Playing mentality: cautious (conservative counter-attack with a poacher)

Marking style: mixed

It seems to have me down pretty well...