How Not to Design, Create and Maintain Part IV - the Final Chapter?

[wwfan]

I think I have my answer.

Played 3 further games, lost all 3. Tried sticking with the same tactic, applying different tactics, the lot. Thing is, as soon as a goal goes in I know how it plays out, and as we all know that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As Doctor Hook says, the only thing that actually matters is that you enjoy the game, and I'm not enjoying it, so I think it's time for a bit of a rest. Whether it's my own incompetence or a flaw in the game doesn't really matter. The fact is that I've tried everything I can think of, played this game for six months and have yet to complete a season.

I think I'm done. But thanks for the help and kind words all!

I'd like to help, but can't do much as all the images have disappeared due to bandwidth limits.

From this thread, it looks to me like your starting assumptions are a little off. For example, 4-4-2 is not the most suitable formation for a counter attacking strategy, as you don't have enough deep players to soak up the pressure. Likewise, focusing play down the flanks might not be the best strategy without central players breaking into the box in support. You've got both FCs drifting wide in support of the wingers, meaning your most advanced MC has to fill in the spaces they are creating. That's a lot of work for a player in a counter-attacking set up. If he doesn't have the physical attributes to do it (let alone the instructions to encourage it), you'll end up toothless in front of goal. If I'm reading the second post as suggesting the FCs were also small, which makes a wing-based attacking strategy somewhat impotent.

[alinp]

I played for a little yesterday and am still in and around the promotion places.

I've cut my initial TI's down to just those that determine defensive shape and tempo & very much seeing how the game progresses as to any I add in game. My experiences so far do tend towards using a Counter mentality as this generaly seems most successful (even against weaker teams), but adjusting tempo and d-line if necessary rather than changing mentality. I have also settled for 3 base formations which I switch between depending on the opposition set up, these being a 4-5-1 (which sometimes becomes a 4-1-4-1), a flat 4-4-2 & a 4-4-1-1.

Doesn't steamroller teams, but keeps me in the game long enough to have a go in the last 10 if there's a chance of nicking a result.

[alinp]

Here's an example of one of my base formations - the TI's tend to stay the same as a starting point (as above)...

Currently sitting in 6th, mid January

[AngryDad]

Just a quick response to say my rest lasted 2 days, I've started again with a brand new all my own work formation, which I shall post up soon now that my bandwidth has reset. But a general question for Alinp - you talk about your base formation - how often would you expect to change the basic formation over the course of, say, a season? I wonder if I am being too inflexible, for instance trying to play 4-4-2 every game for a season (with tweaks for different situations, but almost always still the basic 4-4-2). I see there is another thread asking why the poster's team always comes down with the Christmas decorations, which is my experience too.

[alinp]

Just a quick response to say my rest lasted 2 days, I've started again with a brand new all my own work formation, which I shall post up soon now that my bandwidth has reset. But a general question for Alinp - you talk about your base formation - how often would you expect to change the basic formation over the course of, say, a season? I wonder if I am being too inflexible, for instance trying to play 4-4-2 every game for a season (with tweaks for different situations, but almost always still the basic 4-4-2). I see there is another thread asking why the poster's team always comes down with the Christmas decorations, which is my experience too.

I have a tendancy to change formation depending on what I'm up against, for example if up against a 4-4-2 I have a couple of preferred options, 1 being to play with a DM in a Half Back role (so a 4-5-1 or 4-1-4-1) so that I effectively have 3 at the back to outnumber their 2 strikers, or alternatively I could trust my 2 CD's to handle their attack and take advantage of the space in between the lines by playing an AM (4-4-1-1 for example). To cope with the variety, I generally tend to have my 3 slots filled with at least one DM formation, and at least 1 AM formation. The third slot can vary between a back 3 or a flat 4-4-2 depending on mood.

Personally, I don't think 3 slots are actually enough.

[RTHerringbone]

Personally, I don't think 3 slots are actually enough.

I agree with this; another reason I use FMC.

Regarding AngryDad's question, my approach in FM13 was exactly the same as alinp is playing now.

I alternated between a 3-1-4-2, 3-5-2 and 3-4-1-2 based on the shape of the AI. I just find it easier to stop an AI AMC if I have a DM physically placed, consistently, in that AMs space.

On FM14, I'm quite different as I resolutely stick (at the moment ) to using a 4-1-2-2-1.

The presence of a DM means that I never need to worry about changing things if playing against an AM.

If I'm not facing an AM, I don't consider the ongoing presence of the DM in my system a "waste of a player", as he is a key ball recycler for me rather than a destroyed, and he enables the MCs in front of him to play.

In general terms, I think the base formation you use tends to determine the degree to which you need to tinker with your shape.

EDIT: Dug this oldish thread of mine up, all about the approach I took in FM13: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/385877-Controlling-Midfield

[alinp]

To slightly expand, when selecting my formation for a match, I will generally look to outnumber their attacking threat (and like RTH - I NEVER leave an AM with any free space) and then look at where I can get players into space (and possibly outnumber my opponent) when attacking. In my main save (LFC), I very often find myself using the narrow diamond (4-1-2-1-2), which not only suits the players available, but often fulfils both these criteria

[JOSEPH!]

In general terms, I think the base formation you use tends to determine the degree to which you need to tinker with your shape.

Agreed.

You can counter specific threats using roles and duties as well. At times, if I know I will be facing an AMC/STC combination where they will interchange (SS and F9 for example) then I use a cover/stopper combination with my CBs to mirror the movement. Likewise, a half back at DMC to drop deeper and negate an advancing AMC.