Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Experienced Defender

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Experienced Defender

  • Rank

About Me

  • About Me
    Tactical "maniac"


  • Interests
    FM, EPL...

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Crystal Palace

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Experienced Defender

    Mentality Importance

    It is true that mentality involves the "risk" factor in the sense that a higher mentality encourages players to make more forward passes, more speculative shots, to put more crosses into the box etc., but it would be too simplistic to reduce it just to the level of risk-taking. The game don't expect you to be either positive or "negative" (i.e. cautious). You can even intentionally play on a more cautious mentality against weaker teams in order to try and draw them out of their solid defensive shape and then hit them on the counter if you cannot break them down through regular attacking.
  2. Experienced Defender

    Form: Home vs Away

    It seems to me that a lot of people believe that winning is guaranteed in advance just because they are managing top-quality teams (such as City, Utd, LFC...) and using an (extremely) attacking and aggressive tactic. But the truth is, each opponent is a different story, as well as whether it's a home or away game, so it's perfectly logical that you are not going to win some team just because they are "weaker" than you if you are unwilling to analyze and make necessary adjustments to your tactic. Just like in RL football
  3. I cannot tell you how similar (or dissimilar) your tactic is to Valverde's because I'm not familiar enough with Barca's style under him, but what is striking to me in your setup is that even 3 of your 4 midfielders are on attack duty, which is defensively very risky, especially in a system without anyone in a DM position, such as a flat 442. Plus, the roles that are on attack duty are the most offensive ones in their respective positions (MEZ in central midfield and W/IW in wide midfield). Maybe it can work for Barca due to the strength and quality of the team, but in general I would strongly recommend against such an adventurous approach. Ironically, a lower d-line makes it even riskier because while your back line might (arguably) be less exposed to killer through balls, it is now very much exposed to opposition runs from midfield, where a quick interchange of quick one-two passes can easily put your defense on the back foot.
  4. Experienced Defender

    4-3-3 Flat and Wide Help

    Regardless of the possible striker-related ME issue, if you want to play a fluid style of football, the first thing you need to make sure is your players overall have good passing, movement (off the ball) and first touch to begin with. For a counter-attacking tactic of any type, strong and solid defence (not just the back four, but overall defensive strategy) is a must. As for your CM roles, what I see is that all 3 of them are holding ones (i.e. nobody providing attacking runs from deep). Plus 2 entirely same type of playmakers in the same line (DLPs). If one of your DLPs was changed to BtBM for example, I guess it would make your attacks a bit more potent. But always consider your players and their capabilities before making any final decision on tactics.
  5. Experienced Defender

    Lone striker advice

    Precisely because you don't use counter-press, a PF can be a good option for the lone striker.
  6. Your cross completion ratio is not bad at all if you ask me. I think your main problem is your unrealistic expectations. It seems that you expect your team to play as though there are no opposition players trying to counteract yours.
  7. Have you changed any roles and duties compared to the original tactic, or just TIs? But in any case, I think these results are more than satisfying regardless of how many CCCs you created. It's not easy to create CCCs when the opposition defends deep and tight against you. To the contrary, teams that play more defensively and use counter-attacks are more likely to create CCCs because they are in a better position to exploit space behind the high d-lines used by more attack-minded sides.
  8. From what I see, you've won all 4 games (of which 3 were away) - 1 even convincingly (4-0) and 2 comfortably (2-0), and you even won LFC which is a team of similar quality as yours. Plus no goals conceded. So I am not sure what's your reason for complaint
  9. When it comes to defensive (out of possession) settings, yes - these are the changes I would consider first. More specifically, I would set d-line to just higher (instead of much higher), LOE to standard, pressing intensity to more (instead of extremely) urgent and defensive width to standard. But as I said, this pertains only to defensive side of your tactic. What else I would consider is: - in transition - counter and distribute to (both) CBs and FBs (so that the keeper can opt for the safer option at any given moment). Against weaker opponents - counter-press as well. - in possession - I would remove BME and focus play TTM, set normal width instead of wider, normal tempo and shorter passing instead of much shorter (lest I unnecessarily limit players' available passing options). In short, I would look to avoid adding any "fancy" instructions (such as BME, pass into space, focus play here or there...) until I get sufficiently comfortable with the tactic and have a full understanding of how it works. And finally, some of the roles and duties would definitely need reconsideration IMO, both for defensive and offensive reasons.
  10. I don't know if it's "normal" because what is "normal" is relative, but to me it's absolutely unsurprising given how you set the tactic up. The most probable reason your lone striker (AF) is deeper than you would expect given his role and duty is that he - as the only player with attack duty - is extremely isolated from the rest of the team, so by dropping deeper he is logically trying to reduce his isolation and be more involved in play.
  11. @Ozman You are basically making the same kind of tactical mistakes as many other players who have similar issues - extremely aggressive defending, which not only leaves your back line very vulnerable, but also minimizes the space in the attacking third for your players to exploit when in possession. Actually, I am not surprised that you are struggling to score. I'm much more surprised that you aren't conceding a lot of goals from counter-attacks by the opposition, especially as your CBs are virtually left with minimal (if any) protection given that in both tactics you are giving both fullbacks the most offensive possible roles, and even your DM's role and duty is not primarily defensive.
  12. I don't see any reason why that would be "essential". Which of course does not mean that you should not use the lone striker as a PF.
  13. Experienced Defender

    [Help/FM19] 4-1-4-1 DM

    AFAIR, when it comes to the "cut inside", all wide forward roles (AMR/L) except wingers have that PI either as hard-coded (IF) or as a selectable option. So if a wide player has the "cut inside" PPM, he can play not only as IF but also as APM (for example), especially if his stronger foot is opposite to his side of the pitch. In short, when you are deciding which role is the best for a player (or which player would be best for a role), you need to look at his attributes and PPMs (and in some cases his stronger foot as well). In each player's profile you can select all roles and duties available for his position and see which attributes are key for the role/duty and which ones are preferable. Btw, the role the game suggests as the "best" (i.e. "natrural") for a player (the full green circle) is not necessarily really the best, so it can be misleading (sometimes a player can be very good in a role in which the game suggests he would be "unconvincing"). But all this is just a small part of what you need to consider when creating a tactic. There is a lot more to be taken into account. Some players can play equally well in different roles. Some will struggle even in their "best" role. Some will play greatly in a certain tactical system, but will struggle in another regardless of the role you give them. So everything needs to be put into the right context. You wrote in an earlier post that you want your IF to make the "no-look" passes like Ronaldinho. But is he anywhere near as good a player as Ronaldinho? And even if he is, are his teammates for whom the pass is intended capable of utilizing it? And so on, and so on...
  14. Experienced Defender

    [Help/FM19] 4-1-4-1 DM

    What's your exact reason for using IFs? Do you have players whose attributes and PPMs (traits) suggest they should play well in an IF role or you simply like the inside forward as a role, no matter what kind of players you have in your team? And why do you insist on having IF on both flanks? I don't say it's bad idea, just curious to understand your logic. There is no better (or worse) role/duty. You can successfully combine a number of different roles/duties within a single system (formation), but what works great for one team may be disastrous for another, because their players are different. For example, Man Utd as a top team and, say, Huddersfield as a much weaker one can both play in a 4231 formation, but their players' roles and duties will differ, as well as mentality and a number of other settings (tempo, d-line, LOE and so on...).