Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by XuluBak

  1. Based on your players, I'd probably go 442. (admittedly don't know much about your opponents in Russia, if there's much 352, then that might not be the best idea) Lovren and ??? at the back. Santos to their left, whoever is playing better on the right. Fomin (DLP) and Wendel in the middle. Malcom and Velasco wide. Dzyuba (DLF/TM) and Azmoun up top. Driussi and Claudinho both look useful off the bench in a few different roles. If you have any budget to spend in the winter window, then I'd look for an athletic CB upgrade (bonus points for a lefty!) to pair with Lovren. if not, then Rakitskyi and a conservative backline is probably your best option.
  2. Ok. Are you more drawn to a narrow formation or 3ATB? Fair enough, but football is ultimately a numbers game, and you don't have enough numbers forward for it to make sense. Not only are you shorthanded in your pressing, but if you manage to win it back high up the pitch, then you're left either hoping for moments of individual brilliance from your strikers or waitings for bodies to get forward. Fair enough, but you don't need a DM for your wingbacks to bomb forward like if you're playing 3ATB. It's just overkill. To be clear, I'm not saying you can't employ a DM in a 3ATB formation. Or even that you can't be a progressive team with that formation. It has advantages, especially against strong teams employing a 4231, but it's a square peg-round hole trying to gegenpress from 352DM.
  3. There's a disconnect between your formation and tactics. 352 with a DM is one of the most defensive, back-heavy formations, and you're asking them to gegenpress. You don't have the numbers for that to make sense. Are you more attached to the formation or the tactical identity? How do you want your team to play? How do you envision them scoring goals?
  4. My point wasn't that it can't work. My point was that it's unnecessarily complex and most players aren't good enough to actually justify that complexity. You say it worked "generally well" in England's 5th division in a 442D. Fair enough, but that's a sample size of one and doesn't even contradict my point. Just because something worked, doesn't mean something else wouldn't have worked better. Based on numerous saves, formations, tactical setups, etc. I've found that WB(A/S) outperforms CWB(A/S) more often that not (over the past couple iterations of FM). Not just for that player, but the team as a whole. The OP provided very little to go on other than a screenshot and saying it doesn't work very well going forward. I don't know much about Bari, but a quick look at a few of those players revealed... 1) Antenucci is not well suited to being an AF. He's severely lacking athleticism, especially pace, although very good by Serie C standards aside from that; 2) Neither WB offers a whole lot going forward, except decent crossing ability (and Rolando is right footed, so I'd probably want him putting in inswingers from deeper, instead of trying to get to the byline); 3) That midfield four appears to be high utility, but lacking dynamism or playmaking. Don't know all player traits or PIs, but based on the info available, it's not surprising that setup struggles a bit going forward (or that it's good defensively). I think you have to envision how you want your team to play (or how someone else's team would play to provide input/feedback). Bari should be favored in most Serie C matches, so they have to dictate. Meaning there isn't going to be a lot of space for an AF to run into very often, and Antenucci lacks the pace to exploit it anyways. So I envision the ball going wide, then the CWB/Car/AM(S) on that side passing the ball around aimlessly until someone puts in a hopeful cross an awful lot. Where are the goals supposed to come from, who's creating the chances?
  5. I wouldn't go that far, but very few players are good enough to justify using the CWB role, and it's unnecessarily complex for a narrow formation, where more than anything, you need your WBs to provide width.
  6. 3421 might be my favorite formation; however, I've found two strikers far more effective for narrow formations in FM over the past few iterations. Unfortunately, I don't think FM does a great job realizing the full potential of 3ATB systems. I haven't tried it to the same extent in FM21, but 4312 (narrow) was fairly ridiculous in FM20. To the point it felt like an exploit to use that formation.
  7. I used it pretty extensively last year, but only briefly this year. I like it as something different, but honestly, think players underperform compared to alternative roles. Might give it another go this year, if I ever land on a new save.
  8. Absolutely. Schick and/or Dolberg. Pogba was player of the tournament, until he put himself over team being ridiculous, and ultimately cost them a game they should have had wrapped up. Give his spot to Pedri. Hardly his fault his team couldn't finish.
  9. It wasn't because of Grealish flying in the way he did in the first place, combined with Jorginho going over the ball (same as Phillips).
  10. Tends to happen when the other team can't finish. They had two breakaways and a couple other premium chances despite your extremely defensive setup. Rice was fortunate to not be sent off breaking up another.
  11. The same criticisms were made before and throughout. He manages to not lose. His preference for and/or against certain players is baffling to say the least.
  12. Idk. There's an argument to be made for putting your best taker fifth, but there's also one for putting your best taker(s) first. Otherwise you risk losing without your best taker even getting a kick.
  13. Absolutely. 120 minutes, only shot on target was Shaw's goal in the 2nd, surely those subs could have come sooner.
  14. Florenzi was injured and hadn't played since the first group match. He may not have been fit for any more than taking a pen. And he was brought in for Emerson; has he ever even taken one? Florenzi is a good taker and still wasn't in the five. (Would be interesting to know where he was in the queue) Maybe it matters, maybe it doesn't, or maybe it just depends on the player. I don't like it. Regardless, Rashford and Sancho could have had an impact before pens.
  15. He's a good penalty taker. Bringing him on to take one is the right move. Waiting til the dying moments of extra time to bring him and Sancho on to take them is indefensible. I criticized Klopp for doing the same thing with Brewster last year (I think?). They're not in the game, barely warmed up, then thrown into that pressure. In the end, results are all that matter, but nothing from this tournament has changed my opinion on Southgate. If anything, it's solidified it. Everything setup for England to win, but he made every step harder than it should have been, and ultimately blew it in the end.
  16. Just because one of them didn't run over and kick it out of play in the middle of an English attack doesn't mean they didn't notice it. Also doesn't mean it didn't impact play. The game should have been slowed or stopped (long before it got to that point) for it to be kicked out. Poor officiating, whether it actually impacted the play or not.
  17. IDK. I'd say Bruno tends to be one of those players that has great games and awful ones. Very few in between. The screaming and acting like he's been shot all the damn time is what makes him so unlikable.
  18. If anything, I think the goal might have been the best thing that could have happened to him. He looked a disaster waiting to happen with some of his early distribution. It's easy to say he should have done better on the FK, from a TV vantage point, but could see the late wall movement throwing him off just enough. He made a couple nice saves after that. One was flagged for offside, but not convinced that was actually the case had it ended up in the back of the net. England still won and now that cleansheet talking point is out of the equation. It also kinda seemed to wake England up. They were not the better side up until that point.
  • Create New...