Jump to content

Benoit2

Members+
  • Content Count

    9,487
  • Joined

Community Reputation

155 "Just keep swimming"

2 Followers

About Benoit2

  • Rank
    Development Squad

About Me

  • About Me
    The Netherlands

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Chelsea, Ajax

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Should Alaba have 'will leave on a free transfer' ticked in the database? I think he's declarerd he won't renew at Bayern, didn't he?
  2. @MBJ96: can you post a screenshot of the tactic that has you Abraham be on fire?
  3. Cesc is unhappy with a lack of football. I ask Cahill to have a word, he refuses. I ask Azpi to have a word and Cesc drops his complaints. Thank you Dave (and screw you Cahill..)
  4. It's still wrong. In real life they don't just defend wide a little. Their defensive positioning in real life is wide by default, not ahead of Kanté and Matic. Aggressive closing down can then push them more forward in real life. By putting them at AMC, you're doing the exact opposite. You're asking them to defend ahead of Kante and Matic by default and only defend wide when closing down aggressively. What if you don't want to close down aggressively, but simply want to defend with a bank of four ahead of a defensive five? You won't get that by placing them at AMC. I repeat again, fo
  5. No. In FM, formation is defensive positioning. Chelsea do not defend with Hazard and Pedro right in front of Matic and Kante. If you've tried it, there's no way you can claim this to be realistic, it looks very silly. Chelsea defend with Hazard and Pedro to the side of Matic and Kante. Since formation determines defensive position, there's no way you can play them at AMC. I understand why people would think that, but that's because they're looking to replicate the attacking side with the formation. That's wrong. You replicate the attacking side with player roles, duties and PI's.
  6. Having double checked the researcher guidelines, it states that adjusting the defensive line does also adjust closing down, but not vice versa. In that case it doesnt make sense imo that the defensive line visually changes when you use close down more/less (yet not when using close down much more/less). I'll report it.
  7. Adjusting closing down also visually changes the defensive line in the UI
  8. Better way would probably to teach your midfielders/attackers the ppm plays one-twos.
  9. Tempo means how much time you want players to take on the ball You have other tools to determine the quickness of transition from defence to attack.
  10. For which sources? UEFA: Arsenal have 704 passes, Monaco 281. Thats 71% of the passes for Arsenal. Their possession is only 61% though. WhoScored: Arsenal have 760 passes, Monaco 324. Thats 70% of the passes for Arsenal. Their possession is only 68.8% though. Soccerway: Unfortunately they do not seem to record total passes, but they give Arsenal only 66% possession. So based on these three sources, I see no support for the claim that possession IRL is calculated by amount of passes. I do see support to claim that every source has different stats on possession and amount of passes, meaning
  11. Then you dont actually want forwards, but midfielders who push up in possession instead.
  12. If you want to defend in an 'extreme' way, you're gonna have to think outside the box. Here's a 4-4-2 in attack: http://i.snag.gy/lnZHg.jpg And the same 4-4-2 in defence, with the two up top extremely far back like you want apparently: http://i.snag.gy/IJplG.jpg Is that the way you like it? Didnt even take me a second to figure out how to do it.
  13. How would this work with an attack strategy? As its often said that direct works better with an attack strategy and short works better with a counter strategy. What strategy would you associate with Real Madrid, Atletico Madrid, Bayern (pre-Pep) and Dortmund? Madrid would stand off, but the other three were known for a heavy pressing system. All four would go forward quickly upon winning the ball.
  14. That you seem to suggest that when there's only a 10% chance of winning the ball, a player will go for it on hard, but not on easy tackling, in identical circumstances. If tackling doesnt determine frequency, but only aggressiveness, than it shouldnt matter how big or how small the chance is, the player is equally like to try and get the ball, regardless of easy or hard tackling. So if a player decides to go for it with a 10% chance, a player on easy tackling should also go for it with just 10% chance, except he will just stick a leg out to try and nick the ball away, rather than make a slidin
×
×
  • Create New...