• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About ajsr1982

  • Rank

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing

Recent Profile Visitors

1,219 profile views
  1. Yes, I play with a standard mentality. I hardly ever go above standard to be honest. The choice of two WBs is really to make sure they provide width higher up the field. It's not coming from anywhere else, right? The CM/A and the DF do indeed have Move Into Channels ticked. The choice of a DF was really because I don't have a player that fits the DLF role too well. I have a couple of decent target men and a couple of decent AFs. So the DF was a 'sort of' TM without the ball magnetism that I don't want. I have tried the DLF in a few games, and I'm not too upset with the results. I can see myself using that long term. The system probably needs a little context as well. I probably wouldn't leave myself that open at the back under normal circumstances, but I'm playing in Serie C in Italy. Low block defences with a big gap to two forwards are typical, so this is an attempt to be a bit bolder and increase chance creation, without some of the things I don't like about Control/Attacking team mentalities. It's increased risk, but on an individual basis. So, I don't find the left flank gets too exposed. The right flank does a little as I mentioned. Off the top of my head I've scored 19 and conceded 17 in 15 games. I'm in mid-table, but the change to this formation is seeing me creating more (and better) chances than the opposition.
  2. Completely agree with this. I have a smiliar issue trying to replicate the Kuyt role he used to play for Liverpool, which was part Raumdeuter, part Wide Target Man and part Defensive Winger. The DW in the AMR/L slot was a reasonable proxy, but it's not available in FM17. WM/A with IF-type PIs looks your best bet.
  3. I've recently set this formation up and it brought about a huge improvement in chance creation, which is something I was really struggling with in my 4-4-2. The 4-3-1-2 was actually something of a compromise to find something with two up front. I've gone with... GK/D WB/A CD/D CD/D WB/S CM/S BWM/D CM/A AP/S AF/A DF/S I'm relatively happy with how it works, but that front three has yet to really click, so I'm still toying around with roles and PIs to get what I want. The CM/A works really nicely in this system. The CM/A is one of my favourite roles in the game. I have the 'Hold Position' PI on the CM/S, but even so, this can be susceptible to a quick long ball into the RB area, particularly against teams who have an AML who hangs out, or against two-forward systems.
  4. Yeah, I'd have something like... F9 RMD W AP CM WB The AP should be able to easily feed the WB or the RMD from there. If your RMD is any good, he should be attacking the near post if the ball goes out to the WB. Completely agree with @herne79 though; if your AP is on the opposite flank, he's more likely to try to feed the CF, the CM on the same side of the pitch, or an overlapping FB.
  5. I'm not sure about this Raumdeuter business. As @herne79 says, I feel he's really just a poacher type centre forward that moves out wide to find space and offer some (meagre) defensive protection - he's half poacher, half wide forward, half free role (if herne can have three hands, I can have three halves). To that end, it's just a centre forward with really good 'Off The Ball' ratings. However, in FM, that's really, really hard to replicate,, and I think the RMD effectively ends up acting the same as most other (non-playmaker) roles that you can use in the AML/R slots, with a few differences that are so minor that you'll hardly notice them. All players will look to attack space, to varying degrees, and all players that are notionally wide players will have a role as a creator to some extent. As others have said, someone creating space (maybe a F9), someone feeding him (maybe an AP on the same side and a winger on the opposite side) are going to be key to getting your RMD in the goals. However, my personal view would be it potentially causes imbalances elsewhere and I'd be wary of changing things if it's working okay.
  6. A couple of threads that might help. Disclaimer: Ozil understands this stuff much better than I do!
  7. Good points all. My point about being susceptible to long shots was pretty much the same thing as being pinned in and around my box. The DLF has 'Hold up ball' as standard. I'm not sure I want both CFs doing it, but then, I'm not sure the DF is the correct role anyway. I'll be keeping an eye on the WM positions, as this is going to be my main avenue of attack.
  8. I thought I'd jump on to this thread rather than start a new one. It's interesting that some of the posts earlier had mentioned going without any defensive duties. I've taken this to the extreme; I don't have any attack duties either! This is an attempt at anti-football, while still hoping to nick a goal. Comments are welcome. The formation: GK/D FB/S CD/D CD/D FB/S WM/S DLP/S CM/S WM/S DF/S DLF/S This is on Defensive and Very Fluid. Defensive because I effectively want to be extremely hard to beat. That means dropping deep, playing narrow, and not taking too many risks in attack. It also means I perhaps don't need the 'belt and braces' of defensive duties. Very Fluid because I don't want to leave too many gaps between my players, particularly in between midfield and defence. Team Instructions: Higher Tempo: This is really to offset the slower passing that comes with the Defensive mentality. Inviting the opposition on to me and leaving two up front, I might be able to create 2-on2 situations. I also don't want my central midfielders hanging on to the ball too long in an area of the pitch where they're going to find themselves often outnumbered. This is Serie C in Italy, and that horrible 5-3-2 formation (where the midfield is a DM and two CMs) crops up all too often. Be More Disciplined: To offset the creativity that comes with Very Fluid. I want the compactness without the players deciding what to do. Pass Into Space: There should be space in behind the opposition. Drop Deeper: If I'm conceding the space in front of my midfield, I might as well make sure there is absolutely zero space in behind me. Close Down Much Less: See above, and this is all about keeping the shape. Player Instructions: WMs: Get Further Forward, Sit Narrower - This is an effort to aid defence and keep a narrow shape, but also to try and offer some support to the attack. DF: Move Into Channels - Some lateral movement up front is never a bad thing. Let's see how it goes. I'm worried about the following: - A lack of movement and the creation of passing options - The DF chasing the opposition with no backup. - Being susceptible to long shots. - The lack of a real option in behind the opposition defence. - Being one-dimensional in attack, with no real supply line from wide positions.
  9. This is good advice, and to build on it, you might then want to think about how your team gets the ball to your playmaker/creator, and how your playmaker feeds your goalscorers. Does it all hang together? There's no real science to this; just good old common sense. To give you an example, if you play a DLP/Regista, you maybe don't want to play Limited Defenders or tell your team to hoof it long (think about mentality too). Who, then, is your DLP playing the ball to? Where is the space? Sounds like if the opposition is playing two DMs then it's going to be on the wings, but if you play people in the AML/R slots, and the ball is coming in from the DM position, there's a good chance they'll receive the ball with their back to goal. Is that what you want? I'm a big fan of having players running on to the ball, so maybe you want WBs or FBs providing the width? In which case, this perhaps starts to look like a 5-3-2 or a 4-1-3-2. Ball into the DLP, out wide from there for FBs/WBs to provide crosses to CFs and midfield runners. Or... you overload them in that area, with, say, a 4-2-3-1 Narrow.
  10. If two attacking full backs/wing backs is what you want, I think the question becomes one of who is supplying them? Who do you have providing the assist to the assist, in other words? @summatsupeer makes an excellent point. Players are most likely to pass the ball in the direction they're facing, more or less. So your IF/AP or whatever isn't going to (consistently) feed your overlapping full backs. It depends on what formation you're using, but I'd suggest it's going to be the two CMs that feed the WBs in a 4-2-3-1, and you need to have their roles set to effectively provide that supply. I have the following set up on my left flank. This might not work for you, but it seems to get me a lot of goals. WB/A in the LB position AP/A in the AML position CM/S in the LCM position. My AP gets the ball and runs inside with it, often dragging the opposition RB along. The WB exploits the space. AP lays off to CM and CM feeds the WB to cross. Perhaps worth noting that I use a 4-1-2-2-1 formation, rather than a 4-2-3-1, so no AMC. I like to have players providing crosses from both flanks, so on the other side, I have WB/S, W/A, CM/A. That's Standard/Structured, by the way, with 'Higher Tempo'. I'm (just) the highest scorers in the league with this (though I'm in 4th place). CF has 22 goals I think, with 8-13 each for the AP/A, CM/A and W/A. Just to push the winger agenda from above, I have Sadio Mane in that position, and he has 13 goals and 17 assists, with about a month of the season to go. This will regularly stick two or three goals past teams that look to sit in. It doesn't beat everything, however (a 7-1 thumping against Shakhtar using a 4-4-2 will attest to that), which I suppose is why I'm 4th; I very rarely move away from this setup due to a lack of time, and my inability to find anything else that comes close to working!
  11. How are you looking to score? From what you've said, it sounds like you're looking to soak up pressure, before hitting the ball long to the target man, then looking for him to flick it on for the poacher/shadow striker. The issue I'd have with this is that your TM is going to be close to the half way line, maybe a bit deeper if you have him on support duty. Your SS will also drop deeper with a low mentality like counter/defensive. The first thing I'd do is check to see where your TM and SS are when you win the ball back deep in your own half. Do your players realistically have anything to aim at? Even if they do, it seems a low percentage play. Is your TM as good as you think/hope? Check his stats to see what proportion of aerial duels he wins. If it's below 50%, that means you're conceding possession back more often than not when the ball goes up to him (accepting that the ball isn't always in the air). What is his pass completion like? Basically, is he losing the ball a lot? I haven't really had any success using a TM in the past to be honest, but in theory, I think you want him receiving the ball in the final third, rather than on the half way line. You might want to look at your team mentality here as well. It will restrict the risk your SS takes, even with an attack duty. Again though, if you get the ball to your TM higher up the pitch, you should see the SS more willing to get beyond him.
  12. And how many do you score? What combination of AMs are you using here? And congratulations on making yourself very clear in another language. Another feather in an ostensibly very feathery cap.
  13. On topic... The original conversation talked about strikers 'not tracking back behind the half way line'. Which I think is indeed a red herring. I've seen my CFs move back to press opposition midfielders. Having them defend from behind the ball is a different matter, but let me ask you this: Why do you want them to? The reason I ask is that it appears to be something that's done to block passing lanes into midfield, but it can only really happen because in real life teams will move the ball back and forth between CBs, FBs, and maybe a DM while probing for an opening. Teams don't behave that way in FM. If you look at how many times your CBs pass the ball to one another, it's very, very low. Maybe this is all a little chicken and egg, and they don't pass to one another because the forwards are high up the pitch. But back to the original question. Is there a purpose to having CFs behind the ball (from a FM17 point of view?), or is it simply to recreate a tactic, and get your CFs to stand where Atletico's CFs stand? On Balotelli: Of course position and role is important, but to use your own example, if you play Balotelli as a limited left back, it's only a matter of time before he 'forgets' to track that opposition right winger. The wide midfield slots are more important though. They need good work rate to be able to get back into defensive shape and become compact once again as quickly as possible after the attacking phase. All I was saying to @jc577 was that a 4-4-2 isn't necessarily a naturally compact formation, and that if his players are lacking certain attributes, an extra body in midfield might be useful. On possession: Well done you.
  14. Personally, I think the 4-4-2 is good for two things. 1. You have good wingers. A (static) playmaker/ball winner combo in central midfield moves the ball out wide quickly in an effort to isolate the opposition full backs and deliver crosses for the two CFs. 2. You have an excellent target man (or at a stretch, a DLF type). You get the ball up to him quickly, with a poacher type forward looking to feed off him. In the second phase you look for support from midfield. The sad fact is the 4-4-2 isn't good for possession, generally speaking. Possession comes from creating passing triangles of passing options, and the 4-4-2 is square as a starting point. It's possible, but it needs fantastic movement and players who can transition quickly back into defence. Getting caught out of position in a 4-4-2 can quickly lead to problems. The two-man central midfield means controlling the centre of the pitch through possession will be incredibly difficult, as you'll never outnumber the opposition. I honestly think the 4-4-2 is possibly the hardest formation to get right in FM. Good luck!