Jump to content

Barbosa04

Members+
  • Content Count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

1 Follower

About Barbosa04

  • Rank
    Amateur

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    ManUtd

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Fiorentina

Recent Profile Visitors

1,433 profile views
  1. Yeah, I had no choice but to adapt. Generally, 3man defenses are harder to break down, so increasing my body count inside the box and picking more stationery/less roaming striker would invite my wide players to play a more prominent role in attacking, thus increasing my chances. Likewise at the back libero/sweeper becomes a suspect when facing 2 out and out strikers, so that was also an easy decision. Goals wise my CF averages more than a goal a game(44 that season). SS 1 in 2 and the rest are shared among the other players. And it should be noted SS is my best assists provider. If y
  2. Me like it too Yeah, I forgot to include them. They are not that important in this case, as they won't affect the playstyle much. The most important PIs which are already mentioned are for WB and DW to man-mark AML(R) positions. And on opposition instructions page to tick "tight marking" to always. During important matches like in knock-out games, I may instruct to personally man-mark the wingers instead of marking the position as in this case I find them carry the instruction more diligently. Like... really... they will be glued to them. I also include the PI "shoot less often" t
  3. What's your reasoning for changing the shape from match to match? More precisely what difference are you expecting to see? I see you your formation as pretty balanced, you just need to play to your strength which is 3man attack. Shorter passing in this case only diminishes the high-risk passes to forwards when they are enjoying a numerical advantage. And there is no point in playing deeper unless you have terrible defenders. You can also instruct your strikers to man-mark opposition's FBs if you want them to help out with defending.
  4. There were some bold decisions from Roberto Martinez. Lukaku as a winger, De Bruyne as a central attacker? Experimenting against Brazil in a knockout game? That's some gamble that could go either way spectacularly. That display now should be as a reference that 3 striker systems are not unrealistic as a lot of fm players moan about. Did you see how many times Belgium's attacking trio was just walking without any pressing and letting the rest of the team do the defending?
  5. Do you reason "work ball into the box" as only long shot modifier? Personally, I find that instruction as restrictive and sometimes it can achieve the oppositive of what you trying for. If there are no runners into the box, your AP will end up shooting anyway from outside the box, because... he ran out of options. That instruction also lessens the number of crosses and you giving PI to wb to cross even less, thus increasing the burden of creating chances on central playmakers. It can work, but it also may struggle against deep defensive sides.
  6. Other tactics: Guardians - Creating defensive fortitude Suicide Squad - Breaking scoring records Magnificent four - Strikerless crying havoc After last year's tactical experiments, I thought I will continue to come up with some more weird but functional systems. The goal is simple - construct distinctive playstyles that work in fm framework. They may not resemble any real-life tactics or even be realistic but why restrict ourselves when stepping over the boundaries is more exciting? As the title suggests, the main attribute of the new system is being asymmetri
  7. @Cleon Thanks for such detailed response. I certainly see that my interpretation of CA style is too specific. And yet I take comfort from seeing that my team is using CA effectively both against attacking and defensive sides, and most goals are scored from distinctive CA move. I'll post a report on it maybe next month when I get the game. And I would be very pleased to know your opinion on it.
  8. Which one is true? Your first sentence implies AI driven CAs don't happen on control/attacking mentalities. Your second one implies it happens for every mentality but the threshold is lower for specific mentalities. I'm not being an ass. Just want to clarify the point as it's an important one and can be a game-changer when devising a CA tactic. Yeah, I agree totally. They can be distinctively different game styles. But would you agree that there are also similarities between the two? If CA football translates for you into having "numbers advantage" - that would require oppo
  9. I'm quite sure it's the opposite. The lower mentality - the less passing range/directness, reduced tempo and generally more cautious passing which are everything C-A isn't about. While lower mentalities brings somewhat deeper D-line which in theory would help to "lure" opposition to your own half, it's efficiency can be negligible depending on your starting formation and highly negated by aforementioned negatives of lower mentalities. I understand that you may somewhat refine the flow/starting point of C-A by giving specific individuals the weight of playmaking, but I think the starting m
  10. While there can be different approaches to counter-attacking style, I find any notion of "keep the ball" mentality even if in short passages during the play goes into direct contradiction of C-A style. When you are a dominant team in your league, lesser teams lines up deep with little pressing, which results in not leaving any openings for you to exploit in "counter-attacking" manner. Thus counter-attacks are incidental and so cannot be presented as a part of overall C-A style of play. In my idealistic view of C-A style is proactively giving an opposition most of the ball, inviting to come up
  11. Both. Barring ultra-defensive tactics, every team will try to counter attack when given an opportunity. You can also "create" a tactic which would increase the rate of counter attacks. The tactic is quite straightforward, put men behind the ball, defend in numbers and try to lure opposition to commit players into your side of pitch, thus "creating" an opportunity to break forward before opposition gets back into it's defensive structure. The default "counter" mentality in the game is not representative of counter attacking football because the URGENCY of delivering the ball forward and m
  12. Will fm go on sale in near future? It went with 75% discount at the start of june last year. Something similar would be sweet to look forward to.
  13. @wkdsoul you may find F9 to have about the same "average position" as SS. Playing against weaker opponent, I find F9 offers bigger attacking threat. Well, my biggest scorelines came with them 8-0, 11-0.
  14. You will lose the benefit of “layers of defense” that creates the romb-like defense structure. Libero pushing CDs in front of him also helps to negate the gaping hole in the middle by bringing players closer to each other which ensure safer ball progression. And Libero/Sweeper is better fit in a system with the highest D-line. If you insist on 3man defense, central on cover and DM with an aggressive role would half-decently mimic the original system. So DM such as regista or ball winning midfielder to slow down the opponent so wide players could slot into FB role.
×
×
  • Create New...