[Quickfire Questions and Answers Thread (Tactic and Training Questions Only)]

Yups

If you want a more generalised player development, you'd go with higher general and low individual .

I see you are from Viborg btw, that is the team I'm currently managing

Actually I don't go with a lower individual, but even with that on heavy you can still train at the normal general level. If you are trying to teach a player a new position you might have to dial down the focus though.

And good luck with Viborg - you'll need it! They went up this season thanks to ending the season with around 18 games without defeat (and the competition stumbling a bit). I suspect they are favorites to go down next season, but you never know. I plan to catch a few games this season (live...).

[Quickfire Questions and Answers Thread (Tactic and Training Questions Only)]

I feel that you can get away with general medium and focus heavy if you have a good team. Some players will whine, but only the poorer ones. If you set general to low you will actually get some complaints from player who want to train more (and they are the top-professional ambitious ones).

This does give you less influence on a players total development, so may not be optimal for those who want to mold a player precisely.

[Quickfire Questions and Answers Thread (Tactic and Training Questions Only)]

The simple answer is to drop your strategy to defend or contain. Beyond that its not so simple.

I read a good advice here, that said that you could instruct your team to keep possesion as much and possible (no long shots, short passing, no runs). Combined with time-wasting and maybe dropping deep you can make a lot of time pass that way. Defensive gives the possesion over to the opponent, and that makes them more dangerous.

[Quickfire Questions and Answers Thread (Tactic and Training Questions Only)]

Thanks. I can see the advantage of different lineups compared to just different roles and strategy. The problem is, that you buy good players for the position you have in your standard formations, so you would often have to either field players out of their usual positions, or use a lower quality of player to fill out the other formation(s).

I can't make a winger amc or striker help out much in defence. I tried building a defensive 4-2-4 once, but it didn't really work... With the right roles all midfielders will pull back and help though. Either way three cm's or a dmc are sometimes a good thing to have.

[Quickfire Questions and Answers Thread (Tactic and Training Questions Only)]

Thanks for the reply! I usually have a defending, standard and attacking tactic in the three slots, offen with same basic lineup (4-4-2 usually). Maybe I should reconsider that strategy.?

[Quickfire Questions and Answers Thread (Tactic and Training Questions Only)]

I've played this game since the early 90's, and I'm still an amateur...

I read a lot about people changing a positions role, depending on what player is available. Switching a striker from target man to poacher (and changing team strategy to not playing with a target man).

My question is this: Doesn't this decrease the tactics fluidity (the one you can improve with pre-match training)? I always thought it did.

A side question: Lets say you have two tactics trained to fluidity (one is defending and the other is overload in mentality). Does that mean, that you can change the overload one to defending mentality while playing without losing fluidity?

I hope I stated these questions clearly enough - otherwise I'll gladly elaborate.