Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

57 "Houston, we have a problem"

About juusal

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Coming from someone who has tried to make a back three like this work in multiple different setups, it just does not work consistently. A lot of the situations work nicely and the defence looks good but then in every match there are situations where they defend the wrong area or player. I like how they cover wide areas (three center backs without wingbacks don't cover wide areas at all which is really frustrating) as well, but especially close to their own box they tend have moments where they leave strikers wide open by positioning themselves too wide. Sometimes works wonderfully but pretty m
  2. Deeper defensive lines and lower mentalities encourage your players to drop deeper and narrower. Increasing one of those could help. Another option is to push your fullbacks to the WB position to be slightly higher. Using higher defensive line also helps to cut out passes to the wide players to prevent crossing chances. This of course comes with a risk of leaving too much space in behind. That being said, the floating crosses to the back post from the sideline are really a match engine issue. Players running at a horrible angle playing an extremely accurate cross to a runner on the backpo
  3. Currently your setup has two main passers, the AP/A and the DLF/S which both look to create and make those through balls you want and the CM/S will be chipping in as well as a supportive player. What you are lacking are players to actually pass to behind the lines. CF/A will make those runs yes, but he is pretty much the only one who does that consistently. You could even argue for an advanced forward instead which is a bit more direct role but that might not be necessary, and it also depends on the player. What I would look into is more runners. Maybe have one of the midfielders as a CM/
  4. Well the different roles are just those instructions preset into the game. For a lot of players it is surely better to choose a role according to a description/name of the role than setting up individual instructions.
  5. Also, I strongly disagree. Those are positions but there are actual instructions that define the way a player plays, not just player types. No top level managers (hopefully) just tell their players "Right, you are the defensive midfielder today, do your thing". No, clearly managers give different instructions in terms of movement, passing, etc. In real life you often see the same player played in the same position but given a different role altogether. De Bruyne often plays in a more advanced role and in the half spaces when Sterling plays wide on the right but when Bernardo Silva comes in KDB
  6. I know you probably have much better information that I do but... are you sure about this? I have heard different information in several other discussions. I just want to make sure I account for this in the future then.
  7. Wait really? Seems a bit odd as professionalism is the attribute that determines training development in normal training. Also, and this is just me whining, I find it really annoying that I can't train "trains one-two passes" to my wide players, whether they are wingers, inside forward, fullbacks or wingbacks. I just don't understand why it wouldn't be important for their positions.
  8. I don't really mind having Hradecky as a sweeper keeper as normal goalkeepers are just way too passive in the game, but on an attack duty? No not really, he doesn't really act that way without the ball, dribbling the ball out of his own box and trying risky passes.
  9. Also higher mentalities make players take more risky and speculative shots. If you use attacking mentality, your players might be too desperate for the goal and be too selfish.
  10. New roles? They are missing so many basic behaviours of players they need to fix first. I'll just list a few things: - Mentioned already by @Cleon, a ball playing center back who does't try to pass it long, instead looks to play passes in between the lines, trying to find strikers and advanced midfielders with passes along the ground. - Center backs should be given the option to step into the midfield with or without the ball. There is a PPM for the former but training that PPM is incredibly hard (I have not managed to train that to any of my players so far, I guess you need an extre
  11. I'd argue that Sane and Sterling don't play that narrow in the final third. Occasionally they make runs inside and into the pockets, but I would not say that this is how they generally look to play. Sterling comes inside more regularly to play in the pocket though. From my experience, width has an effect in most phases of play anyway. What I have noticed though is that AML/R positions, wingers as well, tend to go towards the goal (=narrower) in the final third instead of staying wide even with highest width settings. I find this really annoying tbf as there are occasions where I would lik
  12. Double mezzala on the CM positions has been deadly in this FM for me. They combine really well with wingers, but work nicely with inside forwards as well. For the rest of your roles and duties I would consider a mezzala on the left as you have the winger out wide and the fullback is a bit more passive so will only venture forward when there is a good opportunity to do so. Mezzala plays wider than other CM roles, so it gives more support to the winger who might end up being isolated. Either duty is justified, MEZ/A works amazingly for me, they look to get forward into the box a lot, but since y
  13. Retain possession reduces risky passes (or through balls) which isn't directly visible on the TI screen. And of course reduces passing length and tempo.
  14. Ehm I do not think 20 pace is twice as fast as 10 pace in terms of speed, and the same for acceleration. Imagine, a player with 20 pace would be able to run four times the distance in the same time as a player with 5 pace! Just isn't realistic, as differences in pace are not that big in real life. Aubameyang is fast, I think he is close to 20 for pace and acceleration in game. Mertesacker, on the other hand, is probably around 10 for each in game. If Aubameyang runs 100 meters in around 11 seconds, do you think it would take Mertesacker 22 seconds to run 100 meters? For sure not, as slow as he
  • Create New...