No-striker tactic?

[JeffDogg]

Someone played with the idea of a no-striker tactic? Or has one that's really nice?

I've been thinking about it for a long time, since strikers are so poor in the game. But I'm really not that tactic guy.

I don't find any on internet, so I assume it's not really working in the game. But maybe it's just that nobody really tried? I don't know

[Exius]

I used sometimes 4-1-2-3 strikerless with Barcelona, where striker is dropped to the AMC position, since F9 wasn't dropping deep as often as I wanted him to. It was pretty good for ball retention but lacked penetration in the attacking third, so this tactic is good only if you want to hold the score.

[herne79]

39 minutes ago, JeffDogg said:

since strikers are so poor in the game

Mine aren't, nor are lots of other people's strikers.  Having a decent striker is perfectly possible to set up.  If you are having problems you could post your detailed system and somebody may be able to help.

However if you really want to pursue strikerless, just google "strikerless guido" as a decent starting point.

[JeffDogg]

I've played with a good dozen of tactics, and strikers just are inconsistent. And most people say it. Just go on FM boards, tactic boards, FM reviews. Many people struggle with that. I have amazing strikers, they will score 3 and disappear for 4 games, barely grabbing a 6.3. And that's like that for a LOT of people.

[herne79]

27 minutes ago, JeffDogg said:

I've played with a good dozen of tactics, and strikers just are inconsistent. And most people say it. Just go on FM boards, tactic boards, FM reviews. Many people struggle with that. I have amazing strikers, they will score 3 and disappear for 4 games, barely grabbing a 6.3. And that's like that for a LOT of people.

If you make generalised statements such as "strikers are so poor in this game" or "most people say it", a lot of what you then write becomes confirmation bias - "I've seen it, others say the same, must be true".

If strikers are so poor, how are my strikers doing this:

Save A, season 1 - played 45, scored 36, average rating 7.69;  season 2 - played 42, scored 41, rating 7.74; season 3 P 31, scored 27, rating 7.59.

Save B, new signing, first season - played 37, scored 33, rating 7.76

Also Save B, previous striker before the one above was bought - season 1 P20, S16, R7.66; season 2 - P24, S10, R7.44; season 3 - P28, S24, R7.76; season 4 - P23, S16, R7.60

That's with different formations and tactics.  They also chip in with a lot of assists.

So yeh, many people do have problems with getting their strikers scoring, but many people don't.  Things could be improved in this area - as it could be in pretty much every area - but that doesn't mean you can't improve things yourself, rather than simply thinking the game won't allow it.

[enigmatic]

I think the ratings thing is exaggerated.

6.3 for a striker who hasn't scored generally means "hasn't won many headers, hasn't dribbled" which for a lot of types of striker isn't something you expect from them anyway. And not many strikers score in every game.

[alexnoname]

23 hours ago, herne79 said:

If you make generalised statements such as "strikers are so poor in this game" or "most people say it", a lot of what you then write becomes confirmation bias - "I've seen it, others say the same, must be true".

If strikers are so poor, how are my strikers doing this:

Save A, season 1 - played 45, scored 36, average rating 7.69;  season 2 - played 42, scored 41, rating 7.74; season 3 P 31, scored 27, rating 7.59.

Save B, new signing, first season - played 37, scored 33, rating 7.76

Also Save B, previous striker before the one above was bought - season 1 P20, S16, R7.66; season 2 - P24, S10, R7.44; season 3 - P28, S24, R7.76; season 4 - P23, S16, R7.60

That's with different formations and tactics.  They also chip in with a lot of assists.

So yeh, many people do have problems with getting their strikers scoring, but many people don't.  Things could be improved in this area - as it could be in pretty much every area - but that doesn't mean you can't improve things yourself, rather than simply thinking the game won't allow it.

Hi, I think your strikers did an excellent job. But I also meet similar problem, the rating of my strikers remains low, 6.6 or lower, until they score in the game. I want my strikers to drop deep or roam to support the team, but I couldn't understand the low rating before goal...

[herne79]

12 minutes ago, alexnoname said:

but I couldn't understand the low rating before goal...

As enigmatic says above:

22 hours ago, enigmatic said:

I think the ratings thing is exaggerated.

6.3 for a striker who hasn't scored generally means "hasn't won many headers, hasn't dribbled" which for a lot of types of striker isn't something you expect from them anyway. And not many strikers score in every game.

How the ratings are calculated are a bit of a mystery.  For a striker, by far and away the largest impact on their rating will be scoring a goal.  They could have a rating of 6.3, score a goal and that will suddenly shoot up to 7.5 or higher.

If you want your strikers to drop deep or roam to support the team as you say, ignore the ratings.  Watch how they are behaving on the pitch.  If they are doing what you want then great.  If they aren't, adjust their role or duty (or whatever other suitable tactical adjustment) to help them play how you want.

[effluxgaming]

Same here (i.e. strikers underperform a bit), but i've also had successful strikers tbh. Not sure why but i think that of all the positions, striker is the most "sensitive" to the tactical instructions. In other words, based on my experience, if the tactic is not built around the strikers characteristics, it normally means the strikers don't perform as well.

I've tried playing "strikerless", with 2x Shadow Strikers in the AMC position, but that didn't work for me. 

Of all the roles for strikers, the one i've had more success with is the Advanced Forward role. Better yet if it's with 2x strikers (2nd striker doesn't need to be AF).