Possible tactics flaw in 09?

Just wondering what people think of the new tactics set up?

because the new tactics require player mentalities to be similer and not to far apart, making an offensive tactic with a solid defence seems really hard, if you set your Central defenders to a defensive mentality, you always get the gap is to big from the assistant manager..

Increasing centre backs mentaliy to normal, they seem to leave so much space and get skinned or pulled out of position via threw balls.

what is the answer to this?

i like it this way. the new tactical tips deal with the gap problem. you can either use the nike defence and make one of your dc's slightly more offensive or just make one of your mc's more of a dm. and frankly, you need an anchorman deeper in midfield to defend the pocket and connect passes to the midfield. it is up to you to decide who is better for this role. dc or mc

i also like the way it is and have experienced no problems with my tactics

Anybody have any screenshots of their tactics,So I can see where i'm going wrong I've tried loads but none seem to be any good.

cheers guys

dont get me wrong i like it, im just saying its hard to have a defensive centre half but get an even balance..

when you play a game and lose or dont do that well. at what point do you say. well my tactics are spot on its my crap players.

depending on what league you are playing in, how crucial are the stars that players get in junction with the league you play in.

We all know that a strong attack with a solid defense is a good tactic, but it's quite impossible to do this. You always have to sacrifice one for the other, as good defense is based on throwing more players behind the ball and good attack is throwing more players towards the other half. They are conflicting philosophies, so you can't try and do both. If it were possible in real life, no team would ever concede goals.

I agree with one of the posters above, slight individual instructional change is the way to go to get something special to happen.

Regarding the gap, you only have to set one of your central midfielders to have the same or a close mentality to your defense and your problem will be solved.

We all know that a strong attack with a solid defense is a good tactic, but it's quite impossible to do this. You always have to sacrifice one for the other, as good defense is based on throwing more players behind the ball and good attack is throwing more players towards the other half. They are conflicting philosophies, so you can't try and do both. If it were possible in real life, no team would ever concede goals.

I agree with one of the posters above, slight individual instructional change is the way to go to get something special to happen.

Regarding the gap, you only have to set one of your central midfielders to have the same or a close mentality to your defense and your problem will be solved.

ok will give that a whirl, but at what point do you know that your tactic is good and you need new players? or that the players are great but the tactics are flawed?

We all know that a strong attack with a solid defense is a good tactic, but it's quite impossible to do this. You always have to sacrifice one for the other, as good defense is based on throwing more players behind the ball and good attack is throwing more players towards the other half. They are conflicting philosophies, so you can't try and do both.

Rubbish. Tell that to Ferguson, or Scolari, or Mourinho, or Wenger, or Capello or Lippi or any manager who has ever had both. Even in the lower divisions, ask the managers of any of the six or seven 100 point plus sides. They're not conflicting at all, all it needs is a solid defensive unit and one defensive midfielder (though that isn't estential) coupled with two attacking wingers and a playmaking midfielder. I can get it to work on other versions.

Rubbish. Tell that to Ferguson, or Scolari, or Mourinho, or Wenger, or Capello or Lippi or any manager who has ever had both. Even in the lower divisions, ask the managers of any of the six or seven 100 point plus sides. They're not conflicting at all, all it needs is a solid defensive unit and one defensive midfielder (though that isn't estential) coupled with two attacking wingers and a playmaking midfielder. I can get it to work on other versions.

You can point at any of those managers and say "his tactics are generally more attacking/defensive/balanced". These teams all have much higher defensive/offensive abilities than they display usually because they need to watch out for both sides of their game.

What you have said is agreeing with me - you have to find a good balance. By putting the midfielder in defense you are sacrificing his offensive capability for your wingers, and vice versa. You're not going all out on the attack and you're not leaving the defending up to luck either. Also, the wingers can't be too far away from the midfield so the midfielders don't have too much space they need to cover. Again, that is stifling the winger's attacking abilities.

to put it in numbers, you have 100%. You can do whatever you like with it, 80% defense, 20% attack or whatever, but you can't go over 100%.

I guess I made my point badly (in fact, when I look back at my last post it didn't make as much sense as I thought it did) as I was mostly trying to point out that having mentalities close together is logical, but I think it's reasonable to say that if you wanted to be more attacking, then you should understand that your defense won't be as effective, and if you play defensively then you shouldn't expect to score many goals either.

Overall: You can't expect to have the perfect attack and the perfect defense, but you can hope to find a healthy balance between the two.

ok will give that a whirl' date=' but at what point do you know that your tactic is good and you need new players? or that the players are great but the tactics are flawed?[/quote']

That's probably a question every manager asks when what they do doesn't work, and its different for each case, so I don't really know what kind of advice I should give you for this. Personally I like to look at the stats and checking if the player is doing what he is supposed to do. Did he make enough passes? crosses? tackles? Shots? How many did he miss? And even just his overall rating. And also if other players are performing badly also. Some tactics, are good, but just don't work. Sometimes you might just have to change individual instructions. Some players just have to get used to the system.

That's probably a question every manager asks when what they do doesn't work, and its different for each case, so I don't really know what kind of advice I should give you for this. Personally I like to look at the stats and checking if the player is doing what he is supposed to do. Did he make enough passes? crosses? tackles? Shots? How many did he miss? And even just his overall rating. And also if other players are performing badly also. Some tactics, are good, but just don't work. Sometimes you might just have to change individual instructions. Some players just have to get used to the system.

but THIS is the real stuff. this is the reason why this years game looks so great. when you have to keep guessing and using your experience and wisdom to find out where is the reason of your defeats.... that is what i call a simulation!!!

I like the new balance. Good teams nearly always employ a defensive-minded midfielder to link up the different areas of the pitch. If you play too offensively in real life, you get caught out. I feel this is reflected well in the new tactics. Even Chelsea who are currently scoring for fun, always have a 'link' midfielder to maintain a solid base. I feel this is achievable in '09.

I do like the new system. Previously I had always had DC's set to full defensive and ST's set to full offensive, makes more sense that it's going to create gaps. Thing I have noticed though is even with mentalities set the same the formation does impact any gaps. I was playing a 4-1-3-2 and tried a 4-4-2 and all of a sudden their were gaps because I had moved the DM to MC.

I like the new balance. Good teams nearly always employ a defensive-minded midfielder to link up the different areas of the pitch. If you play too offensively in real life, you get caught out. I feel this is reflected well in the new tactics. Even Chelsea who are currently scoring for fun, always have a 'link' midfielder to maintain a solid base. I feel this is achievable in '09.

that is right, just remember what problems had Real Madrid, when Claude Makelele left and they played without dm. it hurt their defence AND their attack. and not just slightly...

all the preset ones seem to work very well ive found