Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by XuluBak

  1. Meaning what, exactly? Like you can set the board's willingness to approve affiliates, tolerance re: your approval rating for doing such, foreign vs domestic, etc.?
  2. I don't think tenure at the club has a whole lot to do with it. Just board approval. I asked for an affiliate as one of my first acts taking over Rennes and was able to give my recommendation from that first one onward. I've been granted four affiliates, all with loan out and first option on their players. I'd say that's fairly standard. Only downside is I've yet to be offered a domestic option. Previously, with Konyaspur, they were completely unwilling to even consider adding an additional affiliate (start with a lower tier club in Konya), regardless of how long I'd been there or successes along the way. It seemed like the board was just coded to be completely opposed to adding any additional affiliates. I've encountered similar in previous saves, although, it seems uncommon.
  3. Looks pretty similar to something I tried in FM20 with Atalanta and a futuristic Milan. It seemed ridiculously overpowered with both. At it's best, I think I ended up using DLF/CF(s), AF/CF(a), Mez(a)+WB(s) on the DLF/CF(S) side, B2B/Mez(s) + WB(a) on the AF/CF(a) side. DLP(d) in the middle. AM was basically setup like a Treq. I can't recall all TIs, and I'm sure they varied a bit between the two teams, but definitely didn't play "narrow" in attack, definitely would have played offside or one CB as 'cover,' and no 'tight marking' as a team instruction.
  4. I think those midfield setups are too conservative for your desired mentality and playstyle. There are a lot of combinations that would work, depending on players, but a double pivot in front of a back three is very conservative. If you want to use a DLP, that should probably be your most conservative midfielder. I don't like a flat back three. Especially not with an aggressive, attacking side. I'd recommend using your middle CB as a "stopper" (w/ offside trap) or "cover" (without). I prefer the latter. But even the former can be useful situationally.
  5. More or less. The specifics would be dependent on players of course.
  6. Unless I've misunderstood, you're playing 442 DM not 424 DM. For me, the wingers being in the CM/AM strata is big of a deal (provided mentality, tactics, and instructions are right), as not having anyone centrally in the CM/AM strata. It seems that'd create a huge pocket for teams to play into and break through your press with relative ease. TBF, I've never tried it, but I've never tried it because it doesn't make sense to me.
  7. I've used "cover" far more than "stopper." The latter really only makes sense to me when playing 3ATB, or situationally in a 442/4411, when you're not using a DM, but need someone to close down that space, without compromising your structure elsewhere.
  8. If you want to press using 3ATB, without wingers, then I'd recommend 3412/3421. I've found 3412 generally performs better, but think it's best to be open and capable of using either, as situation/matchup dictates. To be clear, when I say 3421/3412, I mean that basic formation, however it's actually setup in FM. In other words, with your WBs in the DM or CM strata. I'm not differentiating there. I've had success with and there are advantages to both.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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).
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Absolutely. 120 minutes, only shot on target was Shaw's goal in the 2nd, surely those subs could have come sooner.
  • Create New...