Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

ryandormer

Members+
  • Content Count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ryandormer

  • Rank
    Amateur

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Arsenal

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Arsenal

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I would agree with @herne79 that if results are going well, leave the tactic as it is. However, a couple of tweaks I would suggest if you want to: 1. Get a runner from midfield who can offer a goal threat. A CM(a) or mezzala(a). At the moment, you have nobody from the midfield offering an attacking option. Obviously, if your team is considered weaker than others, you might want to be a little more cautious. But if you are after more goals, I think that will help; and 2. Remove the overlap instructions. Those instructions, as I understand it, reduce the mentality of the wingers and increase the mentality of the full backs. Both of your wingers are on support, so they probably arent getting into the box much, particularly given your striker is a number nine who wont hold the ball up often. When you add the overlap instruction, I imagine this makes it even less likely that your wingers will be offering a goal threat. Plus, with both wingers and full backs on support, they will naturally overlap sometimes anyway. I like having them both on support, as they can decide whether to overlap or whether the winger should get forward. The way the tactic looks at the moment, there is only one player (striker) who stands a realistic chance of offering a threat to the opposition goal. If your striker is well marked, or having a bad game, there are few, if any, others attacking the goal.
  2. That looks pretty good. Does your right sided central midfielder get forward a little more? I imagine with the AP dropping quite deep, and the winger getting forward and wide, there could be some space in the right channel to exploit. Perhaps something like: PO/PF(a) IF(s) AP(s) W(a) CM(d) BBM(s) WB(a) CD(c) CD(s) FB(s)
  3. Thanks for the responses, guys. I've just won the league with Arsenal again (fifth time in a row) with the 4-1-2-3, I think I'll do one last season and try the 4-2-3-1. If I go with an attacking striker, playmaker number ten and one supporting inside forward, what would you suggest for the other flank? Winger? I have loads of right footed inside forward for the left flank, so it shouldn't be difficult to use a winger. Also, given how deep the playmaker tends to drop, would you suggest a more adventurous role for one of the 'holding' midfielders?
  4. Thanks for the responses. Do you think inside forwards on support may help, as they could move into the number ten zone when the playmaker drops deep?
  5. Before the release of FM20, I am trying to experiment with a few different tactics in what will be my last FM19 save. My 4-1-2-3 tactic was incredibly successful, despite the fact that I think my players are better suited to 4-2-3-1. Given the isolation of the lone striker, I always had him on support, despite the fact that he was clearly more suited to an out-and-out number nine role: He performed pretty well, but I think that's probably because was such a good player in general. I also have an unbelievably good number ten type player, who I retrained to central midfield, and I tend to play him as a mezzala: I cannot seem to get the combination of advanced playmaker (support) and advanced forward (or any other attacking forward) working very well. The advanced playmaker seems to come way too deep. Has anybody gotten the advanced playmaker on support to operate more like a number ten, to link with the number nine properly?
  6. Thanks for the response, I remember reading that quote and that's (largely) why I was so against trying to 'hold shape'. However, I assumed that it would be pro-possession as it is selected in the default 'tiki-taka' tactic in the game. The theory being that, as below, the player would have multiple passing options every time he gets the ball (in front, sideways and behind): Obviously, this is theory only, as I tended to always lose the ball towards the final third due to a complete lack of movement forward in support, and removed the instruction within a couple of games. Even overlapping full-backs would start to overlap way too late to be effective. So I guess I completely agree with you! I was just wondering if this instruction has been used to good effect.
  7. @herne79 Could I ask if you have ever used the 'hold shape' transition instruction, and if so whether you managed to get it working? It seems like it would be ideal for possession-based sides, but whenever I have tried to use it I have abandoned it swiftly as I cannot get proper movement in the final third. I understand that the instruction 'hold shape' suggests that off the ball movement would be limited, but I assumed this would only be in the build up phase, and that players would start to roam a little more as they approach the opposition box. Thanks.
  8. Thanks for the reply, I wasnt sure if the label had any under the hood effects. If it just counts support duties, I'll ignore it. Seems pointless to have it!
  9. Is 'team shape' simply a description in this game? Or does the game give your team more creativity as the shape becomes more fluid (more support duties)? It may simply be that I have used 'very fluid' shapes in almost all previous games, but I keep trying the achieve a 'very fluid' shape in this game, even if the tactic looks like it could do with an extra defensive or attacking player. It may just be a touch of OCD! But I wonder if, the more fluid the shape, the more creativity the game affords your team, perhaps as an under-the-hood type mechanic. Any ideas?
  10. I was planning to use balanced as a default, and then push it up a notch if needed, maybe down if we're holding on to a lead against a strong team. Would you recommend the higher mentality as default? Under what circumstances (if ever) would you use much higher DL/LOE?
  11. That seems a pretty sensible idea. By this point in the game, my team is better than most (if not all) in the league. I try to play possession football but with a good attacking edge. I'm thinking of having a very high line/LOE, counter press (these three instructions have worked well with my previous set up, and with a half-back I'm hoping there will still be enough defensive solidity), play out of defence and shorter passing. Would you recommend anything else/changing anything?
  12. Thank you. With two attack-minded full backs, would you try to keep both central midfielders on support?
  13. Has anybody had any success using two attacking full backs (whether or not 'attack' is the duty given to them)? I am looking to try to get a 4-3-3 (or 4-1-2-3, if you like) working with inside forwards and both full backs playing high. I haven't had a great deal of success with that, and I generally revert to having one more attacking and one more conservative. Thanks.
  14. Dear All, I have experienced two issues recently when I tried to give a player a brand new position (both occurred when training a new position from scratch--from 'zero' rating). I had Guendouzi who was natural in CM and DM. I tried to retrain him as a CB. Everything was fine. However, the moment he got to 'accomplished' at CB, he immediately dropped to 'competent' at DM (retained natural CM position). He did not even hit 'accomplished' at DM. I have since trained him back as a DM, so there isn't a new screenshot. Exactly the same thing happened with Foden. He was natural at CM, AM and RW. I started training him (from zero) as a ST (false nine role). Again, everything was fine, but the exact moment he hit 'accomplished' at ST, he dropped from 'natural' to 'competent' at CM. Screenshot below: Is this supposed to happen? I assumed that it took so long to become 'natural' because that then became a position the player would never lose, as opposed to 'accomplished' which I know can drop if the player is retrained. If this is supposed to happen, is there any way of telling which position which be lost? With Guendouzi, he lost his DM competence, but retained CM. I ended up with a player who could play CB and CM, but not DM, which doesn't make much sense! Thanks, in advance.
  15. Thanks, I think I might do. I always assumed that it took so long to become a 'natural' because, at that point, the player would never lose his ability to play there. I've had players take far longer to go from accomplished to natural than they did to get from nothing to accomplished. I was surprised to see Guendouzi fall from natural to competent almost overnight!
×
×
  • Create New...