JiggyDempsey Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallen Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edle Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 its probably counting the widemen as part of your midfield and the AMC as an attacker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiggyDempsey Posted January 8, 2010 Author Share Posted January 8, 2010 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Bestie7 Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouchaldinho Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiggyDempsey Posted January 9, 2010 Author Share Posted January 9, 2010 My wingers are set to attack always same with the AMC. I think it should be called a 4-1-1-3-1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Bestie7 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCIAG Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 I think this formation should show up as either 4-2-3-1 or 4-5-1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misodoctakleidist Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouchaldinho Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 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! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priim3ra Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 4-2-3-1 with a deep lying playmaker and a defensive midfielder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bognorboy Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 i used maily 4-4-2 or 4-4-3 but i use 4-4-2 my fav Formation Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCIAG Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacksquare Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 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). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManUTactician247 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 looks more like 4-1-1-3-1 to me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sean Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 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... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.