Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

jens_dewit

Members+
  • Content Count

    743
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jens_dewit

  • Rank
    Amateur

Biography

  • Biography
    I've been a hardcore FMH Fan since FMH (06)

About Me

  • About Me
    Belgium/Mechelen

Interests

  • Interests
    Sports/music

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    KV Mechelen

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    YR KV Mechelen

Recent Profile Visitors

3,924 profile views
  1. Two IF's can certainly work, but then you'd be better off playing one on support. The first thing you should consider for yourself if whether you really want your striker to be your main goalscoring outlet. If the answer is yes, than it doesn't make sense to play 2 IF's on attack. One IW on support would be better, combined with (eg) a DLF on attack I think. A F9 is different from a DLF in that he drops even deeper, acting a lot more like a creator than a striker. He creates spaces by dropping back, hopefully dragging a defender with him and then playing that pass for the IF to run onto. A F9 can still score of course, but he'll mainly be a kind of playmaker on top. It starts by making clear what you want to achieve and then puzzling the pieces together. My idea for scoring wingers would be something like this: DLF(s) IF(a) IW(s) Mez(s) DLP(s) DM(d) FB(s) CD CD FB(a) You could try experimenting with a WB(d) on the left or a WB(s) or even WB(a) on the right, but I have to say I don't have a lot of experience in this system. This is what I'd do based on the tips I found here.
  2. Two things I'd look at are your wings and the role you give your striker. If you play two identical wings, you'll have quite a one-dimensional attack. Secondly, I'm guessing your players are overflowing the box? Two IF on attack will both be attacking the box at the same time, while the striker is joining in right behind them. Very shortly after your mezala will arrive and then even the BBM. My guess is there is no space for your striker to exploit. This way you're set up for your IF's to score all the goals - is your striker at least giving them assists? Something I'd try is either a F9 (so he drops even deeper and gives up the space he might be taking up otherwise) and enjoy your IF's performance, or make your wings a bit more conservative. One other thing: are you trying to play a counter tactic or a poss based system? Some of your TI's are working against each other. If you're trying to counter, I wouldn't be playing the striker on DLF(s). But, of course, I'm guessing the counters work out great for your inside forwards? I'm not an expert (by all means ) but the way I see it, you've built a tactic made for your wingers to score and not for your strikers.
  3. Thanks for the explanation and sorry for my late answer. Myself I'd have chosen a DLP on support on that side and changing the AP to a CM or B2B. But I must admit I'm still too focused on roles without checking if the players I'm using are really suited for them.
  4. I'm interested in your approach, but could you please elaborate a bit more on why you would switch from IW to IF? And why you would choose a carillero as well, when you have decent options out wide as well as in the middle. I thought the CAR was meant for when you don't have a lot of width yet want someone to cover the wider areas. I'm probably wrong though.
  5. Say what you will, but this game has far too few passes... In a top game, my (non-playmaker!!!) CD will have made most passes, totalling 60 if he's been productive. Irl, you often get players making over 100 touches, but that never seems to happen in the game. Isn't that a tad unrealistic?
  6. Purchases are restored as they are linked to your account rather than to the game.
  7. Well, Jupp Heynckes was what? 72? Wenger is 70 and looking to get back into the game. Ferguson quit at 71. Hodgson is 72 I think? And still going... Calm down, it's only a number... Besides they say life starts at 50
  8. 11.0.3 I think. I switched phones yesterday and haven't played a lot since. Haven't had it yet on the 2nd phone, so maybe a bug from the previous version on the previous phone? Am I making sense? I'll keep an eye out though.
  9. Not sure if this is a bug or by design, but sometimes when all new messages are read, the inbox goes back to the oldest message in there. Quite annoying if you want to take another look at the last message you got. Something that can be rectified or something I should learn to live with?
  10. Well, absorbing an entire team in the bermuda triangle is a tact I've never heard of before.
  11. Not being really helpful here, but I always used a Treq as a support player. I read in the 12 step guide a couple of years ago that even though he has an attack duty, you should think of him as a support player. It's been a while since I used him myself, so can't help in terms of shape. But thought that might be worthwhile to share
  12. Thing is I saw the exact same things when I still had a standard line. Perhaps my problems will be solved if I switch to a lower line and keep the rest? I'll definitely try that out, thanks!
  13. Thanks for the suggestions. I changed the DLP back to a DM(d), but I don't feel it does much in terms of stability. I then tried your suggestion of turning it into a regular 4231, which looked like this: PF(a) IF(s)---AP(s)---W(a) DLP(d)---Mez(s) FB(a)-CD-CD-FB(s) SK(d) Still on positive, with my TI's from before + higher D-line. It worked for about one and a half game, including a 4-0 victory over Sporting where my striker seemed to be freed from his shackles (even though he did make quite some runs as a CF(s)). But I think that might be to do with more space being open as less players were agressively attacking the box (because I left out the IWB, that was one less player around the box). But then I lost the game to Standard Liège 4-2 where all the counter-attacking flaws became visible again. My defenders are among the best in the league, if not thé best, but during counters my right defender misses his interceptions and the left one lets his man slip away too easily. So I'm thinking of reverting back to my previous shape, but being more conservative: PF(a) ------IF(s)------AP(s)--W(a) CM(s)---- DM(d) FB(a)--CD-CD--FB(s) SK(d) I feel my AP does best if he gets to drop deep into the CM spot so I'd like to keep him. Maybe turning the MEZ into a supporting CM gets me more stability because of getting rid of one roaming role, while still providing me with a runner from deep. I've thought of making him a DLP(s) so it looks more like what you'd use in a regular 433, but then I'd lose him attacking the box as often as I'd want. I'm dropping the D-line again, but I'm keeping the split press to the front four. I'm interested to see if this can get me more options against counters, while hopefully rediscovering our strong attacking football. What do you think?
  14. Hi all, Lately I've had some great success with a tactic I devised back in 2014. After some trial and error I managed to update it to this year's standards. First some background on how it came to be. I was playing the small side (in this year's version) KV Mechelen. I won promotion from the second division unbeaten (with this weird tactic). The striker was never fully working for that one, but in the end it did get me my first league title in the first division (thank god for the play-offs) in my thrid year at the highest level. The season after I messed around with a regular 4132 but after a good start it didn't really get me anywhere (my fault, not the tactic's ). I then switched to my old tactic from 2014, which now looks like this: CF(s) ----IF(S)----------AP(s)--W(a) Mez(a)------ DLP(d) IW(s)--CB(d)---CB(d)--WB(s) SK(d) TI: Positive mentality, standard passing, higher tempo, counter-press, standard pressing (but with split press for Mez, AP, IF, W and CF), IF and W switch places during games, standard defensive line and LoE. And that's pretty much it (iirc). In 2014 I had quite a lot of TI's, but now with minimal instructions it worked so well. The AP is an ACMR, the mezalla is a CML. The idea behind the tactic is for the AP to fall back, dragging opposition players with him, creating space for the winger/IF/mezzala to run into. The CF is supposed to be dragging defenders around as well, allowing those three running players to infiltrate, while also being a goal threat. The DLP and centre backs are meant to purely focus on the defence. The DLP sometimes launches a splitting pass to the quick wing players, creating opportunities. The IW is supposed to fill in the gap the mezzala leaves behind, which gives great combinations with the Mez and IF. The WB is meant to keep things wide, offering footballing solutions rather than crosses. In the title winning season+1, it gave me my second title in a row. But things really clicked in the season after, when we won our third title pretty easily. We won most games 3-0, 4-1, 2-0,... plenty of goals and great defense. My striker (Haaland) got 20 goals in 37 games, my Winger 18, IF 15, his replacement another 14, my mezzalas 12 and 8. I say all this to illustrate that the AI already saw my team as the best in the league, but we still managed to handle it and win the treble with great football. The AP's I used got some 4 goals each. Now for the new season we had a very mixed start. We're still dominating, but our opponents are getting crazy counter goals. In my second competition game against AA Gent (currently the third best team) we got 27 shots, 15 on target (we usually get about 50% on target, which I'm very happy with), but we lost 0-4 to their 7 shots, 4 on target. Same story against Anderlecht where we lost 1-0. We drew a few games against smaller opposition and drew in the super cup to Club Brugge (again some 12 OT vs their 2, we finished 2-2 and lost on penalties). I'm not too worried about everything YET. But we face PSG next (we never do very well against teams of their stature, often losing 3-0, 4-0). So I was hoping to get an extra perspective on things you'd do differently. I know some people aren't fond of 'crooked' formations, but they seem to do well for me My reasoning behind this one was to get the attacking options from the 4231 and the defensive possibilities of the 433. I like a DLP in the DM strata as it seems to keep my defence together better than anything else I've tried. So, am I making mistakes in my resoning somewhere? I personally think I've come a long way thanks to several tips on this forum, like Experienced Defender's tips on 4231. But of course, there's a very good chance I'm overlooking certain things. Tl;DR: do you see glaring errors I'm missing and how would you adapt this to face better opposition without completely overhauling what I've got? Finally, thank you all for the great work you do and the things you've taught me. Edit: Error in the title, should be 433 of course.
×
×
  • Create New...