• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About summatsupeer

  • Rank
  1. Pretty much. You won't make an attack duty forward link play like a support duty forward by changing team shape, but you can make him play safer which means more tracking back and usually a deeper starting position, but his instruction is to still to get forward. Closing Down has its own setting, I prefer to think about how likely the player is going to track a runner near him or prefer to take a risk and use the space in case we win the ball back. This is why I say roles + duties are the major factor, changing from Fluid to Very Fluid will affect multiple players, contracting the team, but they will still have the same instructions and duties relative to each other, they'll just pick safer/riskier options depending how they've been adjusted.
  2. I wouldn't say a formation is easier, it just offers so much natural balance compared to say a 4231 Wide. It depends what you want, I remember it as one of the first formations I was aware of apart from 442, when Brazil played something like it with Roberto Carlos + Cafu. Still need to get the right players and roles to get the attack to work well. I think it depends on your overall tactic, consider a WB-A with a IF-A, they're both looking to run in behind which is fine if you attack quickly from deep. But if your pushed up camping in the opponents half they're both looking to get behind, its a bit one dimensional so if always playing like that it could struggle against certain opponents. The same will happen with a WB-A + AF-A on that side. Change the advanced wide player or forward on that side to support so its WB-A + IF-S or WB-A + DLF-S and your immediate attacking runs might be reduced on that side but it can draw defenders out for the deeper runner. Against deep defences that variation again can help the player find space to receive the ball and create space for themselves and others. I wouldn't say a player ignores there duty, it just means the duties have a smaller spread the more fluid your team shape is. The player can then deviate from there instructions more often. Any combo of team mentality and shape can work, team shape is applied the same regardless of mentality so it just depends how you want to distribute the risk. Just to be clear, a player has one mentality, it doesn't change between the team mentality and the player mentality or during different phases. How you set the player to play is how he will play all phases excluding triggered counter attacks or swapped position. Is this what was causing your confusion?
  3. Looks good. I really like this version of the 532/352 formation with a AM, back when I was struggling to understand the game I always did much better with it. I think it's pretty hard to get wrong with 3 CB's so has cover built in and WB's so should have good attacking width. Most people know about having a attack + support forward pair. Then having the player in AM to from a front 3 typically makes people more cautious with the CM pair so naturally creates a good balance. Might not be perfect but its hard to make it badly, of course needs suitable players but any tactic can be ruined with the wrong players. I like what you did with the CM-S. In the past i've used a AP-S where you made your CM-S into a creator using PIs. A DLP stays to deep when you have a CM-D + 3x CBs. I used a DLP/AP type of player, creatively good but can tackle and intercept the ball, as an example I think Veretti would be my ideal player for that position. Pair him with a defensive specialist who will cover him and play things simple (can add PI's to make play safer).
  4. You've picked a formation that can be tricky to get right, most teams who play 4231 Wide in RL really play 4411 / 451 when in defensive phase which is what your FM formation is. The first two things I would look at are: I'm not familiar with the players but having two playmakers at the base of your 4231 Wide is risky. These two typically form a base for the 4 attackers to do there thing, without this base your defenders can be exposed. The typical partnership is a DLP-S + CM-D or to offer a bit more threat with some runs a DLP-D + CM-S. Regardless of roles both players should be good defensively, able to win a tackle and intercept the ball. An IF-S combines well with an overlapping fullback but you have a DFB-D so could lack attacking width.
  5. The primary factor will be the role + duty, the more creative freedom the player has the more he can do his PPM rather than what his PI's tell him to do. Don't fall into the trap of thinking support duties don't offer penetration, they offer a bit of everything. Some of my favourite penetration comes from the IF-S who's deeper starting position (compared to IF-A) creates space for him to run into, dribble into or another player to exploit. You can't just create penetration by committing players forward, there needs to be space for them which might require drawing opponents out with a deeper starting position. Against teams that park the bus this is especially true as you don't have the natural space behind opponents. WB-S + BBM-S will probably leave the flank more open due to the WB getting forward often and the BBM roaming. I'd prefer a plain old FB-S just so he's not making runs as often.
  6. Unfortunately I can't read dutch (i guess) so no idea what those roles and instructions are. Even though I can't read them, why do you have 11 instructions if your new to FM? How do you know your starting tactic doesn't play how you want? Keep things simple, see how different roles and duties play and how different team mentalities change the d-line, closing down, tempo, passing etc. Don't assume you need X to give you the football you want, see how things play on the field.
  7. Ah cool, wish they'd get rid of stupid PPMs like that anyway, just because they do what the manager tells them for years doesn't make it a PPM! Personally I wouldn't want Pogba out on a wing, the widest i'd want him is in the half space. If the other two central midfielders are holding and strong defensively you have some flexibility on the left, especially with a great all round player like Pogba. I'd personally be favoring a BBM or more likely RPM, with the P/AF and SS already making attacking runs I think a supportive/creative role might help more than another dedicated runner. If you want your ST to offer more width then that doesn't sounds like a Poacher so i'd go with the AF as your thinking. You could just use a plain FB-S at LB, if opponents are exploiting space when he does sometimes go forward and the DCL + DLP-D can't cover it then i'd probably change him to a WB-D.
  8. Can you just confirm this game was played exactly with the tactic you posted? Assuming so I think the issue is the deeper players not getting forward before the move is over. Options I would of considered: More Fluidity, allows the deeper players to step into transitions earlier so can get forward sooner. WB-D to WB-S. Whilst cover is good its a balance, keep the cover but lose an early option which can result in situations like this. Lower team mentality so they look for recycling passes more. Move one of the CM to AM so there is more support sooner. Obvious choice would be the CM-A, moving the CM-D to cover the WB-A and the CM-S to the WB-D side. Might swap the forwards around to. Which one would I of done? If i'm happy with how the roles + duties play generally i'd probably change the team shape and/or mentality. If I wasn't happy with how the roles+duties were combining i'd tweak them.
  9. Doesn't Dybala have "Likes to beat offside trap"? I'm pretty sure he had it in previous versions but can't remember if he still has it. That would make him play higher to, i'd say he's probably better suited to a AF-A or CF-A. I can't remember last time I tried both forwards on attack duty, its hard to envision how they would combine. Personally when there's a flat midfield 3 I don't really like using a playmaker in AM, there's usually enough central midfielders to transition and move the ball without a playmaker dropping to join them. I really like the CM-A role+duty to, but I think it fits the 4132 DM better than the 4312 AM. In @ajsr1982 tactic that left flank looks very open as you suggest, i'd probably do what you say with the FB and a creative forward. Best tip I can give you with regards to struggling to score is to react to what you see on the pitch, however you think the role+duty should be playing doesn't matter, if they are dropping too deep or pushing to high or wandering around it needs to change even if it should be working in theory. For example just changing a AP-S to AM-S made a massive difference to my 4231 Wide, more presence near the box and immediate support for the forward.
  10. I'd check the FB-S (guessing Shaw?) to see if he has PPM's that will make him get forward more than a FB-S might typically and balance him against the CM-S you use on that side. I'd do the same for the CM-S on the right who will need to be the better defensively of the two CM-S, as he will need to cover the FB-A. You'll have to watch the front 3, i'm thinking the AP-A will drop deep to get the ball and the CF-S might roam deep/wide. Unless a CM-S or FB gets forward that might leave few options for the creators. I find CF-S and TREQ to be a bit unpredictable due to how much they're asked to do, sometimes that's good but can be inconsistent. I'm more a "do what I tell you" rather than "go out and play" manager. I wouldn't rule out any AMC role at this point, you'll want to find the right mix of creating / goal threat. AP-A and AM-A are kind of on opposite ends of the spectrum, an ENG could be a more goal threat playmaker or SS a mix of attacking runs and through balls. If you have a TREQ up front it's hard to say what you'd need in AMC, maybe just a AM-S to keep things simple?
  11. The outer two will do a lot of running due to no wide players to track opponents FBs but i'd say all 3 need to be good defensively. They don't all need to be defensive specialists but they can't really afford to carry a pure playmaker. As you'll have a AM + 2xST and likely have FB's who are strong going forward rather than defensive specialists. Throw something together and can see what sort of balance your thinking of.
  12. Sounds like your doing really well so I wouldn't go massively changing things. I'm guessing your forward two had lost of success getting behind the opposition quickly when they pushed up. Teams will probably be adjusting to your over-achievement soon and either take fewer risks as a team or keeping more players back through duties so you'll need a good second phase if your initial attack doesn't work, which might be too much for your current players. Your going to get the same old generic long shot advice unless you post images/video of whats happening, especially the situations that reoccur. Is it certain players taking most of them? What percentage of your shots are long shots?
  13. IF-S should do what you want, might just need more direct passing depending on your team mentality. Yeah that AP movement is exactly the issue I had. Its OK for more patient possession styles but for fast attacks I don't like it. I'd rather have a DM playmaker with lots of targets in front of him.
  14. Make sure your using all the pitch. Don't flood an area but don't ignore it either. If your tactic is too focused on getting in behind or coming inside your making it easy for a formation with multiple DMs shielding a backline sitting deep. If you have width and depth they'll get pulled out of position, then you can exploit the space but you still need player(s) in those areas. If you just start swinging cross after cross in from the flanks because thats where you can keep possession easily your playing into there hands unless your players are really good at it, but crossing into an organized defence is a very low % completion rate nevermind conversion rate. In the same way, trying to brute force it down there strongest area will just keep bouncing back off there wall. Stretch them and if you have players will the right attributes you'll create chances.
  15. It can work if you use the right players, you'll probably need a powerful forward rather than a little sprinter. I'm not sure if i'd use an AP with this style. If your playing deeper to create space to attack i'd rather use a IF-S to stay higher and attack the space sooner with his running + passing. AP tends to drop deep to collect the ball and the deeper your runners come from the longer your attack will take. I'd prefer to have a deeper playmaker (REG/DLP) to get the ball forward and then if the attack breaks down but you keep possession, the team will look to recycle the ball to him so he can create from a deeper position hopefully drawing defenders/midfielders out.