Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If you want to play on the counter, I would lower your LOE back to standard. While you did not provide us with too much information regarding your thoughts behind the tactic, I did see you want to feature Leon Bailey's runs, so maybe tick 'dribble more' TI to see more direct running from your outfield players. I would maybe drop the CF to an AF since CF will look to roam a lot more and may take away from Bailey in attack. But all things considered, this seems like a fine tactic on paper. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would check stats/eye test to make sure whoever is playing as the WP-s is making enough progressive passes on counters. I actually like this idea since playmakers are ball magnets i.e. he will be the most common out-ball for a counter, and having the playmaker on the flank means he should have enough space in transition to either carry the ball or play a pass to the striker/am/right winger.

So make sure the player there has the right kind of profile - good vision/passing, off the ball, dribbling and pace/accel would be a bonus too, and make sure he is allowed to make those plays within the tactic - I would consider putting him on attack to ensure he's happy to take those risks with the ball, however support can work too, it's mainly just a case of seeing how he acts in game and adjusting, or not adjusting, accordingly. e.g. adding more direct passing if he is playing too many sideways passes in transition. However I would think in a counter this probably takes care of itself since players automatically have maxed mentality in those scenarios (does anyone know if playmakers keep their ball-magnet effect during in-game counters?)

Altogether though looks like a solid tactic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikcheck said:

It's more of a counter tactic

If it's supposed to be a "counter" tactic, why then do you play with a high LOE? 

And why don't you give the attack duty to the AMC, rather than RM? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

If it's supposed to be a "counter" tactic, why then do you play with a high LOE? 

And why don't you give the attack duty to the AMC, rather than RM? 

Agreed on lowering the LOE and D line. Those need to be lower in a counter tactic. But he did say he wants Bailey on the right wing to be the outlet for his counter-attacks. Wouldn't it make sense for him to have attack duty?

Edited by crusadertsar
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crusadertsar said:

Agreed on lowering the LOE and D line. Those need to be lower in a counter tactic. But he did say he wants Bailey on the right wing to be the outlet for his counter-attacks. Wouldn't it make sense for him to have attack duty?

Fair enough :thup:

Although I personally would then consider a different type of formation as well (e.g. 4-2DM-3-1 or 4213 DM Wide). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Using similar formation but with more conservative roles as don't have really good players. 

FB (au) - CD(d) - CD(d) - FB (au)

---------- DM(s)-DM(s)----------

W (a)------------------------W (a)

---------------AM(s)---------------

---------------PF (a)---------------

Notable PIs: hold position for both DM, take fewer risks for both FB

Balanced/Positive mentality (depends on opposition)

---

Play out of defense

Shorter passes (against weaker teams who sit deep in their own half)

Higher temper

---

Counter

Regroup (using occasionally when need to keep the score or against much stronger teams)

---

Standard block (standard DL+LOE) or low block (standard DL+Lower LOE) most of the time, very rare high block against much weaker sides to put more press on their defenders

More urgent (with positive mentality usually keep it standard)

---

OI: press wingers and fullbacks with focusing on their weaker foot, tight marking lone strikers

 

Of course it's important to have right players. DMs should be able to tackle, wingers to run, strikers to score. Sounds easy but makes sense.

This formation and overall style of play can be successful and it doesn't exploit ME as "super great 100 games unbeatable" tactics with madly aggressive instructions. So you shouldn't expect immediate result but when you have right players, good team cohesion and positive team spirit then you could be really successful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your answers.

I had a bad season, finished 8th. I reckon that my team is not great, overall, but I should've done much better.

Anyway I thought that the tactic was too defensive and too deep, that why I've pushed both DMC's to MC's. It looks like this:

 

221902131_formaao.jpg.8a3b6d56edda6de4196fcb7a11c7497f.jpg

 

But given that I focus down the left and Aranguiz is much more better than Bender with the ball at his feet, shouldn't be better if I switched them? CM(d) on the right and CAR on the left so I have my best ball playing players on that left side?

The reason why I use CM(d) on that side is because I want the WP to have all the space he wants, since he stays narrow, roams and cuts inside. 

What do you guys think?

Thank you.

Edited by mikcheck
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

4th :D

Okay, then it definitely was an underachievement.

Regarding the tactic... given that my approach is primarily about good tactical balance and harmony between elements of the tactic, the first tweak I would make to your setup is to swap positions of the CMde and carrilero. Simply because your right flank - as the more attacking one - needs better defensive protection.

AF as a lone striker always has potential to be isolated, so I would keep his attacking duty but switch the role into a more creative or roaming one (CF or DLF for example). If your tactic was primarily counter-attacking, then AF would make more sense even as a lone striker. But here that's not really the case. 

Instructions such as focus play and width should basically be used as secondary ones (i.e. situational tweaks, rather than regular parts of a tactic). Because against certain types of opposition you may need a different width or focusing play elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 horas atrás, Experienced Defender disse:

Okay, then it definitely was an underachievement.

Regarding the tactic... given that my approach is primarily about good tactical balance and harmony between elements of the tactic, the first tweak I would make to your setup is to swap positions of the CMde and carrilero. Simply because your right flank - as the more attacking one - needs better defensive protection.

AF as a lone striker always has potential to be isolated, so I would keep his attacking duty but switch the role into a more creative or roaming one (CF or DLF for example). If your tactic was primarily counter-attacking, then AF would make more sense even as a lone striker. But here that's not really the case. 

Instructions such as focus play and width should basically be used as secondary ones (i.e. situational tweaks, rather than regular parts of a tactic). Because against certain types of opposition you may need a different width or focusing play elsewhere.

Thanks.

Do you think a roaming AM(a) can work with the AF(a)?

Edited by mikcheck
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

Do you think a roaming AM(a) can work with the AF(a)?

Depends on the system as a whole. I cannot comment on individual roles or partnerships in isolation.

Basically, in a counter-attacking tactic, a combo of AF and attacking AM can work fine. But only if everything else is properly set up as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...