Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

124 "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"

About Enzo_Francescoli

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

574 profile views
  1. Just caught up with this. Once again, you've created THE thread to follow. Question: do you still use the stay on feet TI? Your defensive statistics for that last season look really good and I'm getting more and more convinced that SOF is like a "lose this match" button on FM21..
  2. The way I see it, with the 442 I only have two players at central midfield, so I gotta make it count. The CM(d) is probably the most passive of all the roles, both on the ball and off it. The OP's latest system has a W(s) in the midfield strata next to him, which will come back to defend early in the transition. On the other side, there's a BBM which will engage the opponent as well. Whereas the CM(d) is just... there, holding his position in front of the defence, doing nothing basically. He won't close down much, nor will he hustle to make a tackle. That's a luxury. In high pressing, top-heav
  3. Overlapping an attacking winger makes no sense to me at all. He will dribble to the byline or arrive at the box to the end of crosses from the other side. How is a support full-back supposed to overlap? Also, a CM(d) will not find much to do in a system like this. That's a great role for protection against counter-attacks in a 4231 for example, but you play a mid-block 442. Most likely, that player will just be a passenger. I would change that to DLP(d) if you want to stick to POD or BWM(d) if you don't.
  4. Also, the FB isn't hardcoded to run wide, even on an attack duty (which is one the reasons I always use full-backs if I have players with good decision-making). The overlap, in most cases, will encourage that.
  5. Great write-up on a great team. Since I've been experimenting with Simeone replications for years, I think I can offer a few thoughts. Simeone is very different stylistically than Pellegrini, but he too employs a shape which is a compact 442 without the ball, but more of a 4222 in possession, with wide players tucking in ahead of the holding midfielders, while witdh is provided by the full-backs. It is unfortunately very hard to replicate in the game. I've found that wide players never quite come inside and play like AMC's during the attacking transition like they often do in real life. O
  6. @shaneomac Not yet on 21. But I've noticed some improvements on the match engine, espacially the enhanced central play, so I would guess a Lobanovsky system could now work even better. If you play both strikers on attack in a 442, they WILL be high up the pitch. It will inevitably result in a more direct attack, which actually is how the tactic was designed. They also won't come back too far to defend, we'll have to live with that. They will press though which is absolutely necessary. I do think you have too many instructions on. No need for much higher LOE, because you'll lose a lot
  7. My approach is I like to have a plan for all four phases of the game. Those are: attacking organization, defensive organization, attacking transitions and defensive transitions. The latter two are more simple, but equally important. More simple because there are far less variables and also generally less need to adjust. Important because transitional play often swings a game's outcome. Defensive transitions is basically where you decide what you want to do when you lose the ball. Do you prioritize winning it back instantly or quickly transitioning back to solid defensive shape where you c
  8. I remember that Milan team. Seedorf dropped to link play and Kaka attacked the box (while Inzaghi basically set camp there and barely moved). So I would go SS for Kaka, AM(su) for Seedorf (with move into channels and roam from position ticked). If you want to go with Mezzala for the Ambrosini role, that will have to be the hardest working mezzala in the world. That guy was one of the most boringly useful players I have ever seen. looking forward to see what you end up with.
  9. Exactly what I meant, thanks for the gif. It does explain it better. I asked only to make sure what exactly constitutes a low-block in the game. There are a number of active posts about setting up such a system and I'm not certain it's exclusively about how one sets the LOE.
  10. Are you positive that's the case in the game though? Because whenever you raise your defensive line, the LOE automatically goes higher, too. For instance, a higher d-line with a lower LOE is essentially mid-block when one observes the plaqyers on that image the slider gives you. Like this: This means I have five players who will engage in the middle of the pitch. The DM will stay just in front of the defenders. That, in my book, is a mid-block. The eye-test seems to confirm this: using a 433 with those settings results in my players starting their press once the opponen
  11. Well, yeah, he changes his strategies a lot. I've seen most of Atletico's games this season and I have seen most everything in terms of pressing. The Salzburg game in the CL, for instance, they definitely went with "less urgent" most times.
  12. It is good to know it can work sometimes. Judging from you careful wording, however, those cases are few and far inbetween. Whereas in real life, even the biggest clubs use it, if not for whole games like Simeone, then for sections of matches at least. Even Liverpool aren't that gung-ho with their pressing like they used to be.
  13. I think I haven't ever seen a tactic that used less urgent pressing, not to mention much less urgent. Ever. I would guess it's for set-ups that are already top-heavy, with high lines and attacking mentality and some aggressive roles. Then again, experience tells me that more urgent actually works better in those cases too.
  14. In your opinion, are there any cases when less urgent or much less urgent pressing makes sense? I mean there must be a reason that slider goes both ways.
  • Create New...