JoeLapira Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 So I've been playing FM for years now and my favourite formation would have to be those based on 3 at the back with wing backs. But I cant seem to get them to work in FM16. I tried it at my first club in my current save but i couldnt get any success with it. Now I'm trying it again with my new club in the top tier of South Korea but i'm having similar difficulties. My first 3 friendlies were against really low ranked sides and with my "best 11" out we won one 1-0, drew another 0-0 and lost 1-0. These were sides we should have been beating comfortably. Here are my 2 formations: ----------------------F9(S)--------------------- -----------SS(A)------------AP(A)---------- ---------------------DLP(S)------------------- WB(S)------------A(D)--------------WB(S) --------CD(D)---CD©---CD(D)-------- --------------AF(A)------DLF(S)----------- ----------------------AP(A)-------------------- ---------------------DLP(S)------------------- WB(a)------------A(D)--------------WB(a) --------CD(D)---CD©---CD(D)-------- I'm using them at Flexible and Stanard with no TIs or PIs as a starting point, any advice on where these tactics could be improved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTHerringbone Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I have to say that I don't like the look of either system. Whilst they differ, the common theme is that you are asking an awful lot of your DM and MC players. I'm not overly familiar with the types of formations you face in South Korea, but you seem to be really imbalanced as having a back five typically means you have to concede numbers further forward, but you haven't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kick Wilstra Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I have to say that I don't like the look of either system. Whilst they differ, the common theme is that you are asking an awful lot of your DM and MC players. I'm not overly familiar with the types of formations you face in South Korea, but you seem to be really imbalanced as having a back five typically means you have to concede numbers further forward, but you haven't. I agree with RTH. You basically only have the DLP as a linking player in the centre of the pitch. The centre backs and anchorman are all 4 defensive orientated, while the shadow striker, advanced playmaker and obviously the forward are all attack orientated. This basicly asks for a long ball approach, but then you should have set a targetman instead of a false 9. Since you have 3 at the back, plus wingbacks you already have 5 players who should contribute to the defence. An anchorman seems overkill to me. Change in to a DM(s) or perhaps even take him to the MC line to have at least one more player contributing to the transitional phase of play. At the fronted, ask yourself, which playmaking oppurtunities does the AP(a) really have? Especially in the above tactive very little, one false 9, who's like to drop deep, and wingbacks are on support, so most of his option would be behind him. An AM(s) would drop deeper and contribute more to the defensive and transitional phases of play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLapira Posted January 7, 2016 Author Share Posted January 7, 2016 Cheers for the feedback lads, i find it very helpful to get a second/third opinion on these things. These two formations served me well in fm14 but they obviously need updating. 4-4-2 would be the most popular formation in S.Korea RTH. That point you make KW about transitional play is probably one of the main issues alright. I've been reading through alot of this section looking for ideas and hopefully i can come up with a solution. I like to have 2 variations, one with 2 strikers and one with a lone striker, from what ye said ive 2 new formations in my head that im going to try out when i get home. What do ye think: ----------------------DLF(S)------------------ -----------------------SS(A)------------------ ---------------AP(S)-------B2B(S)----------- WB(S)------------DM(S)-----------WB(S) --------CD(D)---CD©---CD(D)-------- -----------------AF(A)----DLF(S)---------- --------------------------------------------------- --------AP(A)-----CM(D)-----B2B(S)---- WB(S)---------------------------------WB(A) ----------CD(D)---CD©---CD(D)-------- Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTHerringbone Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 The difficulty is that you haven't said how you expect either system to work? How do you expect to build up play and create chances in either system? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kick Wilstra Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Well, they seem to be better balanced. Without further context that's about all I can say about it. When do you expect to use which tactic? Do you expect to feed your forwards mostly by crosses from the sidelines from the wing backs or by though ball though the centre? Try to answer those questions for yourself and watch a few games with comprehensive highlights or even the full game and see if that is what happens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLapira Posted January 7, 2016 Author Share Posted January 7, 2016 Well this is how i would hope the first of my original tactics would work anyway. Overall I'm looking to play a fairly direct quick tempo game getting the ball to the front 3 fairly quickly. Defensively I like to keep it secure at the back, hence why I chose the Anchorman. This meant keeping 4 at the back at all times with the wing backs and the DLP helping out. Going forward, the player Ive played at SS is my best attacker, so the plan was for the F9 to drop deep, the SS to go by him and the AP to have the option of linking up with the F9 or playing the SS in. The wing backs would offer support out wide and the DLP would hold his midfield position looking to pick out passes from deep. I'd play 2 up top against teams I would be expecting to beat, and 1 up front for when I'm up against a teams who are of the same level or better than us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLapira Posted January 7, 2016 Author Share Posted January 7, 2016 In terms of the new, 1 striker tactic. Again attacking wise the aim would be to move the ball quickly up the field through the middle. The plan of the SS running past the now DLF still remains with the wing backs still providing support out wide and the AP and B2B offering support from deep. Defensively the security of the Anchorman is gone but the DM should still provide some cover with the help of the B2B and the wingbacks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTHerringbone Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 The thing now is to see things in action, and see where the reality deviates from the plan. I can't immediately see how you'll achieve a quick, direct game in a system with pretty neutral settings. The first system in post 4 would arguably benefit from a flat 3 in midfield as you may be a bit narrow both in offensive and defensive phases, but I could be wrong. Instinctively, I think the second system looks like a better base to build from. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.