Jump to content

okereke

Members+
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by okereke

  1. With all of this FM Touch delay thing that is going on (the version I have been playing instead of the full version for the last three or four years) I have been wondering... for those that have played both the full and Touch versions of the game lately (FM19, FM20, FM21), or mostly the full/fat version, to which point is the full FM version "adaptable/able to be automated" in terms of delegating tasks to the CPU in order to get a closer experience to that of Touch? Is this viable at all? I was convinced of getting Touch alone this year but to be honest, I had not considered that option a
  2. With all of this FM Touch delay thing that is going on (the version I have been playing instead of the full version for the last three or four years) I have been wondering... for those that have played both the full and Touch versions of the game lately (FM19, FM20, FM21), or mostly the full/fat version, to which point is the full FM version "adaptable/able to be automated" in terms of delegating tasks to the CPU in order to get a closer experience to that of Touch? Is this viable at all? I was convinced of getting Touch alone this year but to be honest, I had not considered that option a
  3. All of this got me wondering... for those that have played both the full and Touch versions of the game lately (FM19, FM20, FM21), to which point is the fat version "adaptable" in terms of delegating tasks to the CPU in order to get a closer experience to that of Touch? Is this viable at all? I was convinced of getting Touch alone this year but to be honest, I had not considered that option and Touch seems to be an afterthought for SI these days... Can any provide any info about this? As long as I can get rid of most of the junk (press, player interactions, etc...) and focus on the
  4. Three-week delay from the supposed beta release without prior notice, and ultimately no beta at all. Great way of dealing with customers, for sure.
  5. Welcome to the (active) community! I was kinda like you back in the day, never wanting to post and just reading, but once I did it I enjoyed it a lot so I think you definitely did the best you could. Be sure you'll have tons of fun engaging in conversation with the gents around here and it will allow you also to learn much more. One thing you constantly repeat through your text explaining your approach is that you still feel that this tactic is not yours, that it is just a combination of other tactics, etc etc... Don't sell yourself so low man! How many real life managers build stuff
  6. Wait what? They said Touch would have a Beta version too... Waiting for it to drop or they to announce there won't definitely be one to be honest.
  7. Awesome! As I have it now we're pretty solid defending as you can see by the results I posted yesterday. It seems like I have found the right balance in defense with the triangle of the CBs+BWM. I guess I prefer to do innovative and creative stuff while having fun and exploring some new ways to play the game than just download a pre-made tactic and press the spacebar ad infinitum to see my inbox full of "congratulations on winning the cup again!". Personal taste. To me, the problem is not the MEZ not going forward (they do and pretty well) but rather wide, kind of overlapping t
  8. "Remember when I signed my contract a few months ago and moved to Merseyside? Remember what they said? 'He won't make it here as in Scotland. He won't be able to handle this level of play. This is no one-team league. No minnows here.' They can suck it now, that's what I say." - Robbie Gould, Liverpool's manager. PS: I did this post for fun and I know karma will hit me back in the forehead making me lose like 8 or 10 games in a row, just in case.
  9. This has to do with a few things. First, I need my IWBs as CMs covering the whole midfield because MEZ are not supposed to play that role when we are on attack (they are supposed to turn into wingers). Second, if I don't play them on attack, I've seen (or at least I think) that they hit a wall and don't go upfield enough to my liking. Third, they produce overloading situations around the opposition area through the center of the pitch and force the MEZ to get a little wider. Fourth, they sometimes even roam around the edge of the box, which is great for recycling possession. Fifth, they're oft
  10. I ditched the APs as soon as I fired the game today and played 5 minutes of the first game I didn't want more ball-magnets on the system, much less ones with "playmaker" attached to them. We're keeping the IFs there for the time being. As explained, IWBs are doing what I want them to do. They are false CMs and play like them. Get the ball, pass the ball, don't get too fancy. And they are hyper fast tracking back and positioning on defense (even while actually being players meant to play on CM positions as you can see by the names in my best XI). Man if I could make your comment abou
  11. Preseason completed. So far, so good, yet not so good. Am I happy with the results? Sure. Look at the numbers: 34 goals in 7 games and only 5 conceded (I don't even know what happened against MTK, the team was utter crap to be honest for some mysterious reason). Am I happy with the way the system is playing out? Hmm... Not 100%. At least not until the last game against Tranmere, which yes I know is not 2011 Barcelona but still. That felt like the game in which the tweaks I did to the formation made it work the closest to what I want to achieve. So this is it. I know. I know
  12. Great concepts you are using there, and indeed somewhat close to what I'd like to do, although not quite the same from what I read. After a couple of quick tests during the first match of the preseason I've already reached v5 of my tactic (yes, I save "major" changes as different versions as I get closer to what would ultimately be the final system). Right now I'm using some of your instructions, so we're close in some of the stuff you mentioned. For example, underlapping works better than overlapping more than anything because I want to limit how outside the IWBs get/remain, which that a
  13. After thinking about it, I've finally settled at a 4-1-2-2-1 formation, as the follow image depicts. These are the key points to consider, which I more or less already introduced: 2 CBs drift wide to give space to the dropping HB, creating a 3 D-Men line to build from 2 IWBs turn into play-making CMs 2 MEZ turn into Wingers (Central Wingers) 2 Wingers (probably IFs) get inside 1 DLF to link with the IWBs during the build up and share the ball with the IFs in the area As you can see from the names (not definitive, but projected), I won't be using play
  14. In name of those present here I ask for all of those docs to be photographed and uploaded and shared here. Or you can just send them over DM to me
  15. Probably not entirely relevant (as we don't discuss your system exactly as is or talk about how to change it), but you may find some light here from me and @SD.
  16. Replied in the quote, not completely focusing on how I'd go against Chelsea but rather applying my answers to this IC#2, but hope it can pour some interesting stuff into what you probably expected to read as an answer. I didn't mean or wasn't going for Fluid in the title as the "Fluid Shape" that is used in FM. I used it as defined in football as a whole, in the "real world" rather than FM. I could have use other terms such as "adaptive", "transformative", or whatever. What I meant was to represent somehow the classical "Totalvoetval" of the Dutch in that if you look at the diagra
  17. Intro Following the somewhat unexpected (and good) response to my first tactical thread here (which came from a challenge originally posted by @herne79 and was heavily inspired by @westy8chimp and @Ö-zil to the Arsenal! work), here is the second instalment of the series that I plan to keep writing about for some time, or at least in those moments time allows me to. As I already said in the first topic and Concept thread, what I'm trying to do here is only to build formations or work on concepts I've read or watched somewhere that, even not fully knowing about them, inspired something that
  18. Here are some stats and numbers. Thanks for the idea, I will keep track of them during the duration of the series. Pretty good record both on goal scored and allowed, with a 1.29 goal difference between them in all competitions. Rangers, for example, were incredibly potent in offense scoring 94 goals (2.47 per game) in 38 league matches while allowing 38. Had Morelos not been injured (in a match against us...) for 3 months he could have finished with over 30 goals easily (he scored 17 in 18 league games). To not play a true-forward and go with a strikerless system, something I had ne
  19. Time for a last update, which doesn't mean the thread needs to be close as I'll still be able to discuss anything you want about the system, approach, inspiration, etc. I opted to start writing about my FM experiences not long ago and this was the first serious and "live" topic I created about an ongoing game, but as I already said I don't have much time to put on playing so I usually opt to go for developing quick "ideas" or saves in which I take a team and try to do something concrete. In this case, I think after one season I've achieved the goal of creating that concept of having a for
  20. Thank Robson. I'll be posting the last update today or tomorrow and then move on to another concept, which will probably be based around a greater scenario/plan.
  21. 1. I was actually kind of lucky to opt to use the TQ role from the get-go, as it pretty much fit what I was looking for. Although I've not tried or tested the RMD option much in this schema, I'd say it wouldn't be quite what I would expect given that I see the TQ more as a playmaker (then dropping more) than the RMD. I wanted my wingers to cover the flank and also get inside the area as some sort of a forward pair, and it is happening by using the combination of 2TQ+SS, while also giving the TQs freedom to build the game from the halfway line, something the RMD may not be so inclined to do.
  22. In order to keep individual threads going instead of clogging other topics such as the one that fostered this whole thing, I've opted to start a series of topics focusing on different concepts, tactics, formations and systems that inspire me to put in action on FM. For this first one I'll just copy the messages I already posted on the Challenge thread and go from there, probably with a couple or three more updates before closing it and move onto another thing. Hope you enjoy and of course, I look forward to discuss anything you want as that is the main point of the series in order to make
  23. In this third entry I’ll present some more image-supported plays were some concepts were applied and developed, so the work being done with the team becomes clearer and the goal of this series gets closer to its achievement. Before getting into what has happened into the field, this is what has happened in the tactic board. The formation remains exactly the same as it was from the first post, and the changes at the forward positions were already described in the last one, when I opted for two False Nines at the top of the team’s tactic. On top of that, and new, are the attacking
  24. One of the first things that I had in mind when thinking about changes was definitely the forward roles. Actually, at the very first time I thought of taking into this journey, the first formation I could think had no strikers on it. I think a good approach to this system could be a tactic with two Attacking Playmakers with attack duties. While this seemed to be a good idea, I tried it for a short period of time but it made the team feel way defensive as a unit, so I discarded it almost right away. So I decided to go on the opposite direction while maintaining the “deeper” positions active. I
×
×
  • Create New...