Symmetric Tactic(s)

[made_in_turkey4]

Hi,

In attachment, Ihave a example of my preferred tactic;

WCB can be (D) , depending on opponent.
DM; Hold position & Shoot less often
WB: Shoot less often
MC: Shoot less often
FC: Roam from position.

I don't neccessarily think that having 2 same roles would block instruction(s) on field and have a negative effect on playing football.
I see them as 2 separate blocks for having better and a helping simpler balance for your tactic.
This simpler balanced tactic would in my opinion crash oppononents with the right players and management, as i experience through my FM save, with all respect.

The only annoying thing is that the combination lines give me the roles " are far from suitable and do not work well together" explanation.
Could this negative explanation disappear as i play more and more togheter with thes roles through a specific time?, .. wich i couldn't see beacause i feel annoyed after a while beacause of this.

I would like to know your opinions why a symmetric tactic would not be "good" in FM, because this is what I hear and read, and as if FM says with the roles combination lines.

Thank you.

[Johnny Ace]

9 hours ago, made_in_turkey4 said:

The only annoying thing is that the combination lines give me the roles " are far from suitable and do not work well together" explanation.
Could this negative explanation disappear as i play more and more togheter with thes roles through a specific time?, .. wich i couldn't see beacause i feel annoyed after a while beacause of this.

I'm not fully sure on what you're asking, are you talking about the partnership lines? I would've been helpful to show in the screenshot what you meant

If it's the partnership lines, they usually improve with good form. If it's something else, then show us please 

[made_in_turkey4]

1 hour ago, Johnny Ace said:

I'm not fully sure on what you're asking, are you talking about the partnership lines? I would've been helpful to show in the screenshot what you meant

If it's the partnership lines, they usually improve with good form. If it's something else, then show us please 

I'm sorry,

2x RPM's f.ex. are not working well together as my thoughts are different. To create a more preffered balanced tactic, it could be useful to divede symmetric balance over the field, as with 2x BPD 2x FB and 2x IF,  f.ex. .

[Johnny Ace]

11 minutes ago, made_in_turkey4 said:

I'm sorry,

2x RPM's f.ex. are not working well together as my thoughts are different. To create a more preffered balanced tactic, it could be useful to divede symmetric balance over the field, as with 2x BPD 2x FB and 2x IF,  f.ex. .

Thanks! I think it's saying that because you have the same two roles in CM and they both roam, I think if you changed one of them to CM(S) it would remove it. But if it's working and winning games, don't worry about it  

[made_in_turkey4]

23 minutes ago, Johnny Ace said:

Thanks! I think it's saying that because you have the same two roles in CM and they both roam, I think if you changed one of them to CM(S) it would remove it. But if it's working and winning games, don't worry about it  

Thank you,

I'm little bit getting sometimes annoyed with these things and really want to know if it's for the better for the tactic or not. I like to play 2 rpm's side to side, because of my personal preferences, but if the game says it's not good , then i think i'm doing something wrong..
But if you say as a moderator ( with all respect) that it's totally nothing wrong depending on your choise, then i'd continue with this tactic.

[Johnny Ace]

1 hour ago, made_in_turkey4 said:

Thank you,

I'm little bit getting sometimes annoyed with these things and really want to know if it's for the better for the tactic or not. I like to play 2 rpm's side to side, because of my personal preferences, but if the game says it's not good , then i think i'm doing something wrong..
But if you say as a moderator ( with all respect) that it's totally nothing wrong depending on your choise, then i'd continue with this tactic.

Personally, I wouldn't play the two RPMs nor the two DLFs, but if you're happy with it and getting the performances you want, you can do as you like  

[Johnny Ace]

Having had a look in my own save, I think the positive is more about player suitability for the roles

So just check the role familiarity with both players 

 

[made_in_turkey4]

34 minutes ago, Johnny Ace said:

Having had a look in my own save, I think the positive is more about player suitability for the roles

So just check the role familiarity with both players 

 

Thanks,

I think i will just ignore the explanation given and continue with what I think should be right for my tactic ..

[made_in_turkey4]

1 hour ago, Johnny Ace said:

Personally, I wouldn't play the two RPMs nor the two DLFs, but if you're happy with it and getting the performances you want, you can do as you like  

In my view, 
sk d

fb a

bpd d

bpd d

fb a

dlp d

rpm s

rpm s

if a

if a

cf s / f9 s / dlf s

 

with the right instructions, is my best preference, but i'm open to negative views for bettering myself ..

[Johnny Ace]

7 minutes ago, made_in_turkey4 said:

In my view, 
sk d

fb a

bpd d

bpd d

fb a

dlp d

rpm s

rpm s

if a

if a

cf s / f9 s / dlf s

 

with the right instructions, is my best preference, but i'm open to negative views for bettering myself ..

You seem to like mirrored tactics where if you were to draw a line down the middle, they're the same both sides, I like to mix it up and have both sides doing different things, I think most would agree too but there's nothing wrong with either

[made_in_turkey4]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Ace said:

You seem to like mirrored tactics where if you were to draw a line down the middle, they're the same both sides, I like to mix it up and have both sides doing different things, I think most would agree too but there's nothing wrong with either

Yes, I like a mirrored tactic, so i could discpline and helping balance the system on field.
In my view, this is the "best" way to spur player to field, rather than choosing different roles , wich could lead to chaotic role distributing and negative assymetric positioning.

But yeah .. this is my view..