NotSoSpecialOne

In that match, it is very understandable most of the attacking play came through the wings. RB Leipzig are also using a narrow formation. Re: Focus play instructions, this is just my opinion but I find that they create space in the areas of the pitch that aren't where the play is being focused (either you overload that section of the pitch or the defense drifts to that part of the pitch there by creating space elsewhere). So by focusing play through the middle, you are creating space down the flanks if the opposition reacts to this.

Meanwhile, I feel as if the game (or rather series) has gotten harder (very gradually) over time, not that this is a bad thing mind you. Not because of the tactics creator though more along the following points; 1) Plug and Play or perhaps better put Set and Forget tactics aren't as effective as they used to be. It's slowly becoming more important to be a bit more flexible and responsive to your opponents tactical set up both before and during a match 2) Man Management is also becoming more important. Bad morale can hold back even a well designed tactic (just as an example).

I mean, even world class defenders will commit fouls and give away penalties from time to time. Much like their real life counterparts, simulated players aren't perfect. As for tactics with high lines being immune to counters, I cannot agree. A very significant portion of the goals my defensively solid Deportivo La Coruna side concedes over the years has been from counter attacks.

Show us your tactic. And post match analysis.

4-3-3 in a possession/tiki taka based system have been the best defensive setup based on personal experience. Opposition can't score if they never have the ball. If you want people to suggest how to make your tactic better defensively, I recommend posting it and telling us what defensive issues you're facing.

As confusing as it may seem, the heading attribute isn't actually relevant to winning an aerial challenge. It only comes into play if the challenge is won. Maybe one or more mental attributes are average/below average (a good amount of them factor in to varying extents). Maybe the crosses he is losing out on are being whipped in rather than floated?

More to shift over a bit in possession but I had a play around and it doesn't drift as wide as I was envisioning (DM needs to be a HB or a CB in the central position for what I had in mind).

Have not seen the game as of yet so I'm just working off the second link provided by @Jean0987654321 for the following shape (I've flipped it so the left side is the threat as you want) CF(A) IF(Su) IW(A) Mez(Su) CM(Su) DLP(De) CWB(A) CD(De) CD(De) IWB(De) SK(De) IF(Su): Sit Narrower CM(Su): Move Into Cha

The more time spent training, the larger the impact on player condition and potential for injuries. I imagine that the default training schedules are probably on the conservative side and might include more rest sessions than needed but I'm typically happy to leave as is, so I'll let an expert dive into the minutia/optimal amount of rest sessions. In the real world, if you were doing 3 hour long physical sessions with minimal break inbetween (just as an example) the 'going home' part may not be sufficient rest period. You're also not just resting more but exerting yourself less.

Try Chillwell on WB(A) and Mount on IF(Su) with roam from position. An IF in general will move central earlier than an IW does, thus more likely to be in those positions you seem to want. That's a starting point anyway.

The Underlap TI doesn't make anyone perform underlapping runs. It increases fullback mentality, decreases mentality of the wideman in CM/AM strata and is also sometimes hold up the ball to look for runs being made on the inside. Role selection and the resulting space on the pitch is more important. Even if Mount picks the ball up wide and there is space for an underlapping run though I'm not confident a WB(Su) would look to exploit it. An IWB or Complete WB would be better suited to the task IMO

Playing well in 'big matches' is what'll improve it. I wouldn't expect to see much though.

I usually shoot for the 185cm mark or higher with center backs but I wouldn't call it a golden rule. I'll happily play a Fabio Cannavaro-esque player there if his stats are good enough. What's more important is how you're matching up against your opposition. For example, do you really need a 190cm CB if he's going to be marking a forward that's 170cm? Probably not. (Also factoring in attributes of course)

When you've only got the two central midfielders, a BBM and a BWM on support seems like a bad idea. BWM on support is going to leave his position to aggressively close down the opposition, so that combined with the way BBM plays will leave that area with a lot of space. Ideally you'd want a CM(De) or BWM(De) to pair with the BBM.

I often tweak my tactics on a game by game basis; pre-game in conjunction with next game only setting or during the game as needed. It's exceptionally rare that I don't finish a season using the same tactic(s) that I started with (they may not be exactly the same but no large deviations). Of course there are exceptions to that rule, for example last season after the January transfer window closed, I lost one first choice winger for the rest of the season and my other one for a month and a half the very next game. One of my backups wasn't yet good enough for regular starts and unable to re