Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

jc577

Members
  • Content count

    464
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jc577

  • Rank
    Amateur

Recent Profile Visitors

805 profile views
  1. why is it necessary to use both on support? doesn’t that leave the dm area completely vacant, even when attacking? you’re completely right, i guess i’m just used to using ti’s it feels wrong not to. Having said that i do want to have an identity in how we play, just not quite sure what that is yet.
  2. I'm determined to finally crack fm18, or at least create something that creates chances is and reasonably solid defensively. I've struggled a lot recently, so i've gone back to a club that brought me great success in fm17; AFC Bournemouth. What I like about their squad is the fact that they have good passers in midfield, in the shape of Surman and Hydnman, and pacey wingers/strikers. The Formation The idea behind the roles and duties selected is fairly simple. Standard back four, with the exception of Daniels as a WB-s to provide some width when the WM-a cuts inside. Onto midfield; the DLP-d is meant to be the chief of the side, starting attacks with long range passing a la Paul Scholes, whilst holding his position in front of the defence when we're attacking. I've opted for a simple CM-s as his partner, and i'm expecting this role to play differently based on who is selected. For example, I expect Lewis Cook to be more of a box-to-box player, whilst Arter will be more akin to a ball-winning midfielder. On the right we've got an attacking winger.. every 442 needs a winger, right? The left midfielder is a lot different in his movement, with pi's of 'Sit Narrower, Roam from Position, Pass it Shorter, and Cut inside with Ball', we're expecting him to act as a deep-lying ramdeuter. Up top we've got a simple DLF-s/AF-a combination. For once I'm pretty happy with the roles/duties selected, however when I look at the tactics creator, I have zero idea what ti's to select, yet alone team shape and mentality. Essentially I just don't really know exactly how I want to play. It would probably be sensible to play to our strengths, making use of the pace we have up top - but I don't want to sit deep and play on the counter. I also don't want us to overly rush play; if the counter is on then go for it, but if not then i'm more than happy to work opportunities. I guess I'm just looking for balanced which is why I'm tempted to leave it on standard/flexible, but what ti's should I add? Thanks in advance
  3. Did you use any pi’s? or train players to learn specific ppms?
  4. Apologies, as @HUNT3R suggested I was blowing off steam more than anything else. I’m going back to the drawing board and will open a new thread if I encounter problems. Cheers anyway. Mods you can close this thread now please.
  5. No matter what I do, i can’t create a decent tactic for s*** and i’m beginning to get really frustrated. Spend ages thinking about a tactic, reading guides etc and it just plays like complete crap. I actually do not understand how what appears to be a balanced tactic on paper can play out so badly in the ME. I’ve watched games in full, tried to analyse what’s going wrong yet nothing works I am in no way blaming the ME, and i’ve been successful in the past, but just haven’t got to grips with FM18 yet.
  6. I reckon a simple am-s, he’d play as a sort of hybrid target-man/playmaker.
  7. Interesting article @Cleon , the way you think about/play the game is very eye opening. I had never thought of having players with different attributes playing the same role, yet alone using this as a tactical change. Great stuff.
  8. Poche's 3-4-2-1

    I think the difficulty lies in balancing the striker role with the two attacking mids in behind. Whilst Kane does drop deep and has an integral role in build-up play, for FM purposes it’s necessary for the striker to push up against the opposition’s d-line, in order to create space for the two in behind. I think a DLF-a could work, but the CF-a role is probably more accurate. The only caviet is that ‘dribble more’ is hardcoded into the role, and Kane rarely dribbles imo.
  9. This has given me a lot of food for thought - i’m going to try and transfer some of these principals into a 4231, although it’s a bit trickier than a 433 due to it being top heavy. Ideally I’d like Miki as an AP-a on the right wing, but don’t want him and the AM (probably Mata as an AM-s) to get in each other’s way. Will have a think for sure.
  10. Thanks for the feedback mate, i'm gonna play around with the roles and duties so try and get more balance whilst remaining true to what I want from the tactic. Although now you mention it, seen as I'm united maybe I need to be more proactive from the off? I have zero idea what a plan b would look like, took me long enough to figure out how I wanted this tactic to play out
  11. I’d be interested in seeing your 4231 for what it’s worth.
  12. Great post, thanks for your reply mate. I've actually read Cleon's article several times over, but keep making the same mistakes. The highlighted part is exactly what I'm after, I don't mind only having 10 shots per game if the majority of them are inside the box stemming from well-worked moves. Unfortunately I'm not seeing this currently, and we're scrapping wins as opposed to dominating games, so i'm posting this before the wheels fall off. Perhaps a Volante on support will provide better balance, or even a DLP-s to provide through balls for the WM to latch on to? In games where we've come up against a parked bus, i've ticked off 'pass into space' but it hasn't really helped and we still struggle to create, but as you said that's probably due to an incorrect selection of roles and duties rather than anything else.
  13. The idea behind this tactic was fairly simple; work the ball around patiently to create openings but break fast when the opportunity arises. For this reason I opted for a fully deep 4-2-3-1 as the deeper positioning of the forwards should allow us to break quickly with several runners from deep. The IW is meant to be the ball-carrier, driving up the pitch with the ball and looking for angled through passes to onrushing players. The DF is there to just keep it simple, progress the ball in an efficient manner, whilst the WM-a is our main goalscoring threat. Despite being top of the league (yes I know this sounds ridiculous) the quality of our play is poor, and we sit around 15th for SoT% which is damn right awful. In a recent game against Roma (which we won 3-0), we had 25 shots, 6 on target, and 16!!! were long shots. The majority of goals are scored from set-pieces or are just scrappy in general - nothing that's gonna get me out of my seat. Occasionally players can't catch up with play, whereas other times we can't break defensive teams down and attacking players are receiving the ball in poor positions. Really beginning to get frustrated. Any help will be appreciated, thanks.
  14. Whilst I do ultimately agree with @Cleon, I do sympathise with the OP. Context is everything in football manager, so to say ‘fluid shapes are more vulnerable to counters than more structured shapes’ without taking into account formation, roles & duties etc simply isn’t accurate. However, I think the OP was mainly referring to innately risky set-ups (possession styles, attacking football) where inevitably your defensive line will be fairly high in order to dominate the match - in these instances I believe using a fluid shape could be more vulernable. @Rashidi Has spoke several times in some of his videos about how many ‘bands’ or ‘lines’ a formation has, and why it could be risky using a fluid shape with a 442 due to there only being 3 lines of cover - there’s a lack of depth to the formation. However, the point still remains that everything is contextual imo but in more aggressive set-ups then using a fluid shape could be more risky.
×