Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

robot_skeleton

Members
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About robot_skeleton

  • Rank
    Amateur

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Saints

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Southampton

Recent Profile Visitors

333 profile views
  1. I feel like we are very similar. I used the exact same tactics (the assymetric one) so I know it pretty well. I would say try an inverted wingback and a winger on one side and a fullback and inside forward on the other. I avoided playmakers, but that's up to you.
  2. Hi guys! I'm kind of new to the forum and was wondering if it is acceptable to start a FMCU thread that is more about me trying to make a tactic work rather than anything else? I have been really strugling with one formation in particular and felt that if I had someplace to put down my thougths and analysis I would enjoy it more.
  3. Have been trying to do something similar, struggled so far, please do continue! Really looking forward to! I find it interesting though, that you use higher defensive line and not higher line of engagement, because I thought you would want to negate the space in front of the midfield, wondering how it's gonna turn out!
  4. Just because if you flipped them up, you would have a holder (dlp) on the side of your goalscorer. Btw Richarlison's stats are really great, thought he was a bit worse.
  5. For CBs: brings ball out of defence, runs with the ball, tries to play way out of trouble As for any other role, depends on how you set them up, what it is you expect from them.
  6. I quite like this tactic, maybe the last thing - role-wise - would be to consider a more attacking role/duty for your left fullback, I have the feeling the your tactic could carry that, nice overload on the left so that the wide striker is alone on the right. Btw, the last I checked Richarlison wasn't the best at dribbling, did you consider the raumdauter role? Could really exploit his off the ball movement and finishing. Edit: on second thought maybe I would leave the fullbacks alone, and as someone else suggested above, flip the mezzala and dlp instead.
  7. Your pitch dimension is fine. Show the tactic!
  8. Having few instructions is perfectly fine, no need to add anything unless you want it. As for the striker not scoring, my advice would be to give him varied support. You have a deep runner, the mezzala, that's great. You have a winger on the left who will cross the ball and dribble down the line, that's one type of support. But try to give him another type of support from the right, you can choose from a wide range of roles: I would go with an inside forward on support, but the other ones could also work.
  9. If you want more immediate runs in behind the defence ( because the opposition is playing with a high line, or you imagine him as a pure goalscorer), then choose an attack duty - provided you see that there is space to be exploited behind the opposition defence. If there isn't, because they are deep I usually give support duty, because in that case there is space in front of the defence. But as with all things in FM it depends on your setup. Your system might require that a wide player be on attack duty to push back the opposition defence even if they are sitting deep so that late runners have space to run into.
  10. @Cleon do you set something specific for set pieces, or just leave it on default? Is it something you care about?
  11. Teamwork means just how much he will follow the instructions, but he is very good.
  12. There are so many ways to play 4-4-2, do you have ideas? An interesting thing about this year's engine is that when I set up a two striker system with one of them as a support duty, the other one as attack, the support duty role drops so deep in the defensive phase, and I just don't like it - but actually it is very realistic. I like my straight lines in defence, but it's just me.
  13. In FM sense both of them will attract the ball more so than a non-playmaker role, and more often than not both of of those roles tend to move towards the ball. Off the ball the DLP will get further forward less than an AP - but it is a big generalization. They both try risky passes, it's just that they occupy little bit different positions, and the DLP is a less mobile, more deeper playmaker role.
  14. Certainly. Regarding the counter pressing + mentality problem, I have been thinking about it for the past 15 minutes and it is pretty eye opening, what you just wrote. This detail never occured to me and it is not a small thing when you look at a tactic in whole. So thanks for the insight! 😉
×
×
  • Create New...