Jump to content

Experienced Defender

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,173 "Show me the money!"

About Experienced Defender

  • Rank
    Tactics, Training & Strategies Moderator

About Me

  • About Me
    Tactical "maniac"


  • Interests
    FM, EPL...

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team

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. In your first post, you said that you are using the opposition instruction "tight marking", not a specific man-to-man marking player instruction. Therefore, marking is done by whichever player whose zone of responsibility is entered by the specific opposition player at a given point. The Bugs forum is here. So please go there if you want to complain about alleged "bugs". The tactical forum is for people who really need tactical advice and are willing to listen and learn (rather than starting topic after topic to make trivial complaints). This thread is now locked (as
  2. CAR or BWMsu or DLPsu are the roles I would look for in that regard. Although you already have a DLP in DM, so either carrilero or BWM.
  3. When it comes to roles and duties, the biggest issue is the RB's role - because IWB on defend duty is too conservative to properly support attacks in a short-passing, possession-minded style like yours. His duty definitely needs to be changed from defend into support.
  4. So what? You need to learn once and for all that tactical instructions are not magic bullets and that absolutely nothing works in isolation. On top of that, there is an important difference between telling your players to do something and their actual ability to do that effectively. But even if they are good enough to execute an instruction, no instruction will help if the setup of roles and duties is flawed in any sense. The ME is not bugged. It only tends to punish wrong tactical choices and decision. That's the standpoint you should start thinking from.
  5. Given that your AMC is given the support duty + both wing-backs are played in attack-minded roles, I would not use any kind of runner role in central midfield. Either 2 holding roles or 1 holding and 1 covering role. Now, as the more attack-minded WB is on the right, the more conservative CM role would also be on the right. Basically, these are CM combos I personally would consider: DLPsu CMde OR BWMsu DLPsu(de) The carrilero might also be an option in MCL, although I would be cautious with that role in a system with no DM. When it comes to choosing bet
  6. Ah okay, I now see what the OP meant. Thanks for the clarification
  7. Sorry, but I don't understand the question. What does the "runs wide" trait have to do with the "cuts inside" that you initially mentioned? Does he have both these traits or what?
  8. @saware Sorry mate, but you'll have to start your own separate thread if you want a discussion about your tactic or tactical issues. This one is solely about the OP's tactic.
  9. I don't want to derail the OP's thread by any further discussion about the pass into space TI (or whatever), so let's simply agree to disagree and get back to the topic. Plus, I never argue with anybody over their tactical views or understanding of tactics in general. You have your opinion, I have mine, which is perfectly okay
  10. I think it should be obvious. Possession-oriented football means you want to keep/retain possession of the ball over an extended period of time until a good opportunity occurs for a potential defense-splitting pass or anything that can produce a goal-scoring chance. Such decisive final passes are usually played by a couple of most creative midfield or attacking players in the final stage of attacking actions. But until such opportunity occurs, players are looking to play low-risk passes to feet of one another, precisely because the main goal is to keep the ball and patiently wait for the "mome
  11. In terms of roles and duties, the right side of your setup is very unbalanced. In that regard, I would change the WB on attack preferably into IWB on support or WB on support. On the other hand, the left side looks perfectly logical You are also using a number of needless instructions. When it comes to defensive TIs, tight marking makes no sense in a tactic and tactical style like yours. So I would advise you to immediately remove that instruction. You are also needlessly aggressive in the defensive phase, which reduces the space for your players up front to potentially ta
  12. Plus one more contradiction - 2 BPDs in a possession-minded tactical style.
  • Create New...