Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Overmars

Members+
  • Content Count

    792
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Overmars

  • Rank
    Amateur

About Me

  • About Me
    Toronto, Canada

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Liverpool

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was surprised by how dramatic that fee reduction was in their example. That seems like an excessive discount because the agent "likes" you.
  2. I agree with the above. The mentality is probably the main thing holding you back. It says "Defensive", but it doesn't necessarily work great at producing the style you are hoping for. And the thing about those two DMs is that they will work great at holding down the middle defensively, but you lose the potential of one of them running up into the box late to get on the end of a loose ball after one of your many crosses. I would suggest keeping one of them as a defensive anchor and freeing up the other to get up the field to supplement attacks.
  3. My guess is that it's a consequence of his traditional 3 at the back system and not any specific, "Let them cross!" instruction. Coding it into the game seems redundant given his preferred formation.
  4. 31 corners is a joke. It is my least favourite thing about FM19. A dominant team keeps the ball, probes the opponent, and then almost invariably tries a cross (which is often blocked for a corner). Teams attempting 70+ crosses a game are too common, and I'm pretty sure 31 corners would break a record for most ever in an EPL match (not sure about Serie A).
  5. I think attempting to play a possession game with that formation is kind of silly. The entire advantage of that formation is having players in position to attack immediately and overload the AI central defenders. Get them the ball directly and let them go do their thing. Keeping possession and slowing down the game is only going to put your non-forwards under immense pressure.
  6. Your front three will be positioned narrowly among 4 or 5 defenders. Your own half back and central defenders will be hanging back. Your two playmakers will have the ball, and neither will be readily attacking the box, instead opting to seek out a pass recipient. Either they will end up passing to each other or to your wingbacks, since they will be in the space vacated by the inside forwards. And from there, the match engine mechanics take over, and you will get cross after cross after cross. In FM19, the way people generally change this typical attack is by using inverted wingbacks and giving the central midfielders licence to go forward themselves. Attacks through the middle can occur more easily that way because an IWB(a) and/or a CM(a)/MEZ(a) racing into the box can pull attention away from your front three and create more varied passing opportunities. If you don't have those runs through the middle, you get a mostly stationary front three waiting for something to happen, and that something will almost always be a cross.
  7. My first reaction is that you took it to the extreme and created a tactic singularly focused on one player. Everyone else is on support, which I guess could work, but I would prefer to give someone else a more aggressive attacking role to give the opposition something else to think about. Maybe that MEZ could be a MEZ(a).
  8. These results feel a little too good to be true, especially for a club without an obvious talent advantage.
  9. It's the #1 item that has reduced my enjoyment of FM19. Recycling possession doesn't happen nearly as often as it does in real life, and consequently, FM19 crossing attempts are far greater than real life totals. I'm so sick of the superior team in a match crossing 70-80 times in 90 minutes. How can a match ever look right with those numbers? If FM20 cuts crossing frequency in half from FM19 then that will improve the game immeasurably.
  10. I don't think those three defensive duty defenders will actually spread out properly over the field, though. Yes, you could use a defensive full back in a 4-4-1-1 and talk yourself into having 3 at the back when going forward, but you aren't going to get that left arrow movement from Laurini as shown in the OP's last link. I think the straightforward way in FM to convert a back 4 to a back 3 in attack is to use a HB in the DM spot with two attacking wingback roles patrolling the flanks. Two examples: 4-1-3-2 would convert to a 3-5-2 in attack, and probably a 3-4-1-2 if you use a CM(a) or AP(a) in the middle. 4-1-4-1 would convert to a 3-4-3 in attack if the two wingers are given inverted winger roles ahead of the attacking wingbacks.
  11. That would do the opposite for me since transfers are one of my favourite parts of the game. For FM20, I want to manage in the second or third tier of France (maybe Paris FC) and switch the game language to French to make it feel more authentic. Eventually, I'd like to create a legitimate rivalry between PSG and Paris FC.
  12. Some formations I enjoy messing around with when a bit bored: Strikerless: 4-2-4-0 or 4-1-2-3-0 or 3-2-2-3-0 or pretty much anything with a few attacking midfielders making runs and wreaking havoc Deep Christmas Tree: 4-3(DM)-2(AM)-1 Libero: 5-3-1-1 with an attacking libero in the middle, which would force you to scout out and/or retrain unique players with central defender, dribbling, and playmaker attributes Box: 4-2-2-2 The key is to ban yourself from morphing into 4-2-3-1/4-5-1/4-4-2 variations no matter what the score or form situation.
  13. "Attacking" isn't the mentality I would use with such a deep formation. All of the defaults for that mentality seem to make more sense for a formation with AML/AMR or two forwards. When you play attacking, you are telling your team to move more quickly, but your 5-4-1 formation typically requires patience, possession, and careful passing to allow the bulk of your team to move forward into the attacking zone. If you want to play with such a deep formation then I think you need a more patient mentality and technical proficiency. If you want to play on attacking, and especially as a below average side, I think you need fast players, probably an AMR/AML formation and a lot of direct passing and counters.
  14. With a back four, I like using a defensive-minded DM [HB(d), AM(d), DM(d), or maybe a DLP(d)] with a playmaker [DLP(s), RPM(s), or AP] and a mobile midfielder alongside [BBM(s), CM(a), or MEZ(a)]. With a back three/five, logic says you can be more adventurous than that (ex. REG instead of AM), though I haven't had much joy using a back three/five in FM19 no matter who is in the midfield.
  15. Wouldn't it make more sense to attempt this with a mid-table team? That's a really easy Champions League group too. You were probably favoured to win almost every one of the matches you listed. Two attack duty wingbacks and no defensive midfielders should be a horrible combination when you aren't actually favoured to win. Also, using wingbacks behind wingers is a bit nonsensical to me.
×
×
  • Create New...