Jump to content

Robson 07

Members+
  • Posts

    1,501
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Robson 07 last won the day on October 6 2018

Robson 07 had the most liked content!

Reputation

535 "Wax on, wax off"

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

2,120 profile views
  1. I would say it was too passive or non-descript, not optimistic. Get some tough roles into the team through PI's and use a ball winner. Earn the right to play. Personally I'm not keen on both wingers stopping to check the ball on to the inside. Inside forward I think Marcus Rashford but inverted winger I think Marc Albrighton . Team instructions are a bit sparse and roles like CM, FB and even DM are all a bit bland without much defined purpose. 28 goals conceded is a worrying sign, make changes or be very wary about sticking with this tactic.
  2. Yes you're right, I realised I made a slight error there soon after the post. I was merely thinking about the cover required for a SV-A. Come back and let us know how you are getting on.
  3. My formation is not dissimilar to yours. I choose the TQ and not the F9. For me, the TQ links play, creates space and finishes moves. The F9 on the other hand simply drops into midfield and in my tactic was less effective and not worth it.
  4. I would remove focus play & narrowness. Don't see any need for the roam instruction either on the AM. Use a different role on the left mid as recommended above. For me, a winger. The left back needs to be inverted. Personally I would add counter-press and pressing urgency.
  5. It will be. You play out of defence into a 6-man midfield without any width in an attacking sense. To compound matters you have a TM that will focusing the play centrally. Unsure how much that fix will ultimately help. Defensive wingers should be used to free up attacking fullbacks, I don't think they are a good role out wide on their own. Also, Target men typically suit direct play by winning the ball and bringing a partner into play. I think you could tinker with this tactic for a long time and never quite make it click.
  6. But isn't that AMCL or AMCR effectively in 'no man's land' from a defensive objective? Not directly covering a DMC nor particularly close to a central defender.
  7. Hiya, I can't help myself pointing this out but you're almost using the terms the wrong way around. Strategy is the long term vision; tactics are the short term actions.
  8. Thanks as I'd totally missed this and the first couple of posts alone are brilliant.
  9. similar to @Kuchiki and @Experienced Defender's 1st reply. Makes sense. Good post.
  10. Thanks for reply @Experienced Defender but can I redress the question. - Team mentality has been set to Defend. - Out of possession instructions are untouched. So both DL and LOE are standard. - Do I have a low block? Y/N ----- Then same question as above except DL and LOE is now higher. Do we have a low block (thanks to Defend Mentality); or a mid-block; or a high-block?
  11. QQ for you ED. Say you pick team mentality as Defend. And you can set your LOE options to:- a) Lower LOE b) Standard LOE c) Higher LOE Because your baseline was Defend have you still actually got a low LOE even with options b & c?
  12. Made a few adjustments to the post above with the aim of providing a clearer insight. Thanks.
  13. Both tactics are incredibly intense with that bar indicator well into the red. You will get tired players late in matches and more so toward the end of the season. Fatigue and injury. You also have 4 attacking duties in attacking tactics. Take the 4231 with a CWB Atk. His mentality is very attacking and he roams from position, ahead of him on that side is an IF Atk who'll play like a wide striker. It makes that tactic unbalanced, well they both are. As a big side you might be fine when you score first and pile it on. A lot less good if morale & conditioning start to drop and you're against more astute opposition.
×
×
  • Create New...