Jump to content

Experienced Defender

Moderators
  • Content Count

    6,859
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,698 "That'll do Pig, that'll do"

About Experienced Defender

  • Rank
    Tactics, Training & Strategies Moderator

About Me

  • About Me
    Tactical "maniac"

Interests

  • Interests
    FM, EPL...

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Liverpool

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Southampton, Brighton, Man Utd...

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I fear that exactly is the major problem here. I mean, you can play a so-called hybrid style of football that mixes a couple of styles, but it still has to be consistent and with a clear idea in mind. Otherwise, it's hardly going to work. In other words, you can play a mix of something, but not of everything. Anyway, I can tell you how I would tweak your setup of roles and duties if you want me to, and after that we can discuss instructions
  2. It's true, but at the same time I am not sure if Fiorentina is (was) the right type of team (club) for such a style of football.
  3. @bigman Mate, I had to remove your post (question) because it exceeds the purpose of this quickfire Q&A thread and therefore requires a separate one. Please start your own separate thread and you'll get proper feedback there
  4. In the first tactic, the reason you were conceding so many goals was most probably defensive overkill - even your WBs were both on defend duty, so you posed no attacking threat at all, which led to constant pressure from the opposition. Because even in the most defensive tactic, you still need to have some attacking bite. And in a narrow bottom-heavy system, the wing-backs are very important in this respect, especially as their forward runs are sufficiently covered by the relatively conservative midfield trio. The second tactic looks a bit better overall, but the problem is the right flan
  5. Without seeing your tactic (screenshot), it's virtually impossible for us to offer any advice/explanation. So please post the screenshot of the tactic.
  6. - extremely aggressive out of possession (and needlessly so, especially the get stuck in TI coupled with so high lines of defense/engagement) - the setup of roles and duties fairly unbalanced (especially the right side - the partnership of CMat and FBat) - up front, IF on attack and AF are not an optimal combination (although this can vary depending on the style of play) - a contradiction between in-possession TIs and the setup of roles and duties (instructions are very much possession-oriented - except for the focus play on the flanks - but roles and duties do not really suppor
  7. It should be possible with your current setup of roles and duties, so I really can't say why it does not happen. Perhaps it's more about your players than the tactic, but that's just my guess. Try with the tweaks I suggested and see if anything happens in that respect.
  8. Okay, so if you have both DL and LOE set to standard and then you push only the DL to higher - LOE automatically becomes higher as well (in terms of the label)? Or I perhaps misunderstood your comment?
  9. How do you mean "automatically" (the bolded part)? I am still on FM20 though, so maybe something has changed in FM21. I would rather call it a fairly compact low block (or mid-to-low block, if you will). Okay, let's say that you are right. But at the end of the day, how we will call this or that type of defensive block is essentially irrelevant. Because the only thing that really matters is which combo optimally suits your players. Everything else is purely theoretic IMHO. Keep also in mind that I intentionally looked to simplify my explanation as much as p
  10. Removing the Prevent GKD was a good move itself, but not necessarily enough. It's hard to say which particular combo of instructions would optimally suit your players - because each team is different - but the combination I've personally had most success with when managing top teams is - higher D-line + standard LOE + default pressing + split block (involving 4 players) + (occasionally) counter-press + Positive team mentality. But in any case, I almost never need to increase the pressing urgency, since those instructions are usually aggressive enough.
  11. Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to read your entire opening post, so I'll for now have to focus on your tactic exclusively. The issue I immediately noticed is on the left side of your setup: an attacking FB behind a regista. All you need to do is just swap the sides of the regista and HB. Like this: HB REG FBat WBsu See how small a tweak sometimes needs to be for better balance. Up front, potentially problematic can be the combo of PF on attack and IF on attack. Instead, you can either switch the PFat to DLFat or IFat to IWat or Wat
  12. On the face of it, the BMD instruction would seem to be more suited to rather defensive tactical styles. And in some cases it is true .However, there are situations (tactics) in which the use of such an instruction can lead to tactical overkill and actually prove counterproductive. Because all elements of a tactic are highly interconnected, so there are (too) many factors you need to think about and take into account. For example, lower team mentalities already discourage creative freedom, so adding the BMD instruction could be a bit too much. On the other hand, if you play on a high ment
  13. It's quite possible, but you did not either post a screenshot of your tactic or at least provided some meaningful info on the tactic, so that we could have offered any tactical suggestions. But if you want to share your tactic (screenshot) with us, I can move the topic back to the tactical forum again
×
×
  • Create New...