Formation,how often do you change?

[Pbutcher]

hello people, a quick questions ;

How often do you change your formation? do you try to stick the same formation that works, and tweek the tactics depending on the opponents?

Or do you regulary change formation to try keep things fresh and new?

thanks for any help.

[lam]

PB,

I generally keep the same formation ALL the time, but I make many many changes to my tactics within the formation.

[123hello]

Never, otherwise the team never settles

[xpassuncax]

I've read somewhere that team settling is unaffected by inner midfield changes (MC to DMC or AMC to MC, etc). But if you change FB to WG, or AMR/L to AMC then the outline frame changes and that affects team settling.

Can anyone confirm if this is correct?

[jaycar]

I only change it in game, I start with a 4411 but if I want to attack more I make it a 4231, or if an AMC is really causing me grief I'll pull the MCd back to the proper DMC position, or if I'm facing a 4321 I'll make them both DMC's. Or you can make it a 451 or a 4141. Very versatile starting formation.

[lam]

I've read somewhere that team settling is unaffected by inner midfield changes (MC to DMC or AMC to MC, etc). But if you change FB to WG, or AMR/L to AMC then the outline frame changes and that affects team settling.

Can anyone confirm if this is correct?

I cant confirm either way, but you read that in 'The Games' post of 'How to pwn football manager'. It stands to reason what he was saying as technicaly the a 442 flat or a 442 diamond is still a 442.

I think if that a route you want to go down then its worth studying the various default formations and establish what is classified as a change or not.

LAM

[hassebasse80]

I play a 4-4-2 each and every match, altho sometimes it evolves to a 4-4-1 when my trigger happy midfielder is gunning for the oppo's ligaments

Within that 442 i usually have a Shut up shop, a standard, and a gung ho variation

[crouchaldinho]

I think it might be an FM myth that formation changes have an effect on performance. I've often switched between a number of formations and, as long as the overall tactic is good, I've still had the performance I want to see from the team.

Having said that, I generally stick to one formation because it is easier to manage and you always know the types of players you need in the squad. I sometimes push my wide players up to wingers when chasing a goal, but that's about the only time I change anything formation-wise.

C.

[PhroX]

I think it might be an FM myth that formation changes have an effect on performance. I've often switched between a number of formations and, as long as the overall tactic is good, I've still had the performance I want to see from the team.

Having said that, I generally stick to one formation because it is easier to manage and you always know the types of players you need in the squad. I sometimes push my wide players up to wingers when chasing a goal, but that's about the only time I change anything formation-wise.

C.

I don't think it's a myth, but I think it can be greatly exaggerated.

My personal thoughts are that changing formation does affect performance, but so does changing the tactical instructions (and dozens of other factors, but they're what are relavent here). So, if you go from a 4-4-2 to a 4-5-1, and keep the tactical instructions pretty much the same (maybe changing just the striker and the "new" midfielder), there's not going to be a massive effect on the performance, maybe a couple of games but players won't take long to adapt, and their performance won't be significantly lower while they're doing so.

On the other hand, if you switch from, say, a 4-4-2 to a 3-6-1, and at the same time change your mentality settings from a RoO system to Global, and go from high tempo direct passing to a slow short game, then it will take a fair bit of time for the players to adapt.

I also don't think there's a "binary" scale where up to a certain point changes don't have any effect and above that point they have a large effect. My inclination is that it is an analogue sliding scale. For things like changing a flat 4-4-2 to a diamond, there is an effect, but it's very small, as most of you're players will be in the same posistion with the same instructions, and those that have changed have not done so by much.

As to the original question, I make some changes. I usually have two base formations - eg a 4-4-2 and a 4-5-1 - with nearly identical tactical settings which I change depending on the game (I'll use the 4-5-1 against tougher opponents). I'll also sometimes make alterations depending on the events in game - eg if the opponent's AMC is dominating, I might drop my MC(d) to DMC, or if I need a goal, I might push my wide midfielders up to wingers.

[Frosin]

I usually switch between 4 4 2 , 4 1 3 2 , 4 1 4 1, depend on field, weather and opponent formation. Since all the tactic setting is almost totally different. Although I start to get lazy after a few season when my team just became way too good, which is when I start to settle down on 4 4 2 till some random match start to screw up bad then I would start switching again for that match.

Usually the tactic advantage is enough to offset the less "familiar" formation / tactic to win the game.

[GoodfellaLFC]

I never change my formation from game to game but I sometimes change from my normal 4-3-3 to a 4-4-2 in game if I really need a goal.

[Magnakai Haaskivi]

I fluctuate between a 4-2-3-1 and a 4-2-2-2, depending on what's needed in a specific game. I haven't noticed any real performance drop-off when doing that, either; recently I've added a 4-5-1 into the mix on occasion, and that's been pretty successful too.