Jump to content

pheelf

Members+
  • Content Count

    1,334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

474 "They call it a Royale with cheese"

3 Followers

About pheelf

  • Rank
    Part-Timer

Recent Profile Visitors

3,761 profile views
  1. The reason why I can see your AMR and AML not performing well is because the tactic encourages your team to play through the middle. The 2 playmakers in the centre are acting as ball magnets. As a result, your wide players are going to see the ball much less than they would otherwise especially since you are instructing your players to look for short passes. If players you expect to attack aren't getting on the ball then how are they supposed to perform well? The solution therefore is to get the ball to them more regularly with them in space and let them do what they do best.
  2. I agree with the suggestions others have made. What is your reasoning for setting things up the way you have? I can't understand why you would go all out to try and win the ball back as soon as possible only to then do nothing with it once you've regained possession. Why is it important that the striker is involved in the buildup when you have 3 creatively minded players behind him? If I were defending against your team I would congest the central areas as that would severely blunt your attacking threat. If you are one of the better teams in the division, I think that a lot
  3. No argument from me, you're completely accurate in what you say.
  4. I think the problem here lies in using the same metrics to define success in a higher mentality tactic and a lower mentality tactic. This kind of thinking is exactly the problem. Of course a lower mentality based tactic isn't going to outperform a higher mentality based one. One seeks to create chances to score more than the other. It would be utterly bizarre if using a lower mentality resulted in a tactic that was more effective at attacking than a higher mentality one. Ultimately, the whole purpose of football is to outscore your opponent so therefore I don't understand why it
  5. Can you name a successful team IRL that parks the bus every week? I can't and the closest example I can think of is Greece when they won the Euros in 2004 but that was a cup played over 6 games. My point is that being passive defensively and barely attacking doesn't lead to success IRL over the longer term so why would it be successful in a game that is supposed to be simulating football? Contrary to popular belief, I actually think playing on a lower mentality is far riskier than a higher mentality. Being passive and allowing your opponent into dangerous areas of the pitch unchallenged e
  6. Every so often this topic gets raised and emanates from a lack of understanding caused by an unintentionally obtuse tactical creator. The natural and logical conclusion is that defensive mentality = defensive football based on the descriptions given in the tactical creator. As a result, a user would expect that lowering the mentality would make them more solid defensively. Unfortunately, this couldn't be further from the truth. It also leads to the incorrect notion that the lower end of mentalities are useless when players find their team actually becoming less effective defensively while sacr
  7. I sense you're misguided when you make dramatic changes to your tactic (for e.g. changing the formation and starting mentality) based on the assumption that you should be dominating teams in terms of chance creation. You're sitting pretty, undefeated at the top of the league with a team which I'm not sure anyone was tipping pre-season to be title contenders and many thought would struggle to get into the top 4. In essence you are currently overachieving and seem to be nitpicking at this point. You simply don't have the players to dominate every game and you need to realistically appraise
  8. Tactic looks more balanced than before so for that. As to how you try and prevent the 2v1 situations against the wingbacks. Unfortunately, you are never going to eliminate this completely as they are the only players whose responsibility is to defend the flanks. Perhaps putting your MCL and MCR into the Carrilero duty could work with the AP(A) pushed into the middle. That way they will attempt to cover more for the wingbacks. I feel having a back 3 affords you more freedom to play without a defend duty central midfielder so wouldn't be concerned that would be adding too much risk.
  9. I'll try to address your points in the order you raised them. You say the 5-2-2-1 suits the players you have, may I ask what you are basing this on? Do you have a pair of great wingbacks? I think it's imperative that they are as they will be getting no support to fulfill their attacking or defensive responsibilities and are the only source of width you have. Wanting Immobile to be your main goalscorer is perfectly reasonable. What are his strengths and what kind of service does he need to perform at his best? You say that you want SMS running from deeper to get into the box but
  10. Talking from personal experience, I've run a simple 4-4-2 with minimal instructions for years and only really make in-game tactical changes when I identify issues. The key is understanding the formation you are using and knowing what its strengths and weaknesses are. Maximize the strengths and attempt to mitigate the weaknesses. The best piece of advice I can offer is to WATCH your matches in detail and ANALYZE what you are seeing. If you are struggling with that perhaps posting some .ppms of the matches where your team lost on here can help. Ultimately, you need to have a
  11. I like the BWM(S) in a 4-3-3 as one of the central midfielders. I feel it's a good role to use on the side of an attacking fullback as it can help 'buy time' for the fullback to recover should your attack break down and they be caught high up the pitch. Personally, I would never use one as my holding midfielder thus have never used one in the defend duty. I've found they are simply too unreliable for that purpose. You have to be able to depend on your holding midfielder being where you need him to be, if he's not then that can be hugely detrimental to your defense, especially painful during co
  12. Contrary to the general consensus, I actually feel that your choice of roles is relatively poor if the objective is to create a tactic that will dominate possession. You have way too many roles which want to attempt risky passes and as much as your TIs attempt to counterbalance that risk I think you may have overdone it in the other direction. In my view, playing possession football is more than simply focusing on the ball carrier. You have to think about the ball receiver also. What I see is a front 3 that is very static which is going to make your objective of passing through teams very
  13. The line of engagement as I understand it instructs the team when they should start looking to retrieve the ball from the opponent. I have no doubt that it can be made to work provided you have the right profile of player AND you have the right setup of roles and duties. I feel that in order to make a lower LOE work you either need to put more players in your defensive third like you have done by withdrawing your 2 CMs in the tactic you posted OR be far less aggressive with the pressing especially in a flat 4-4-2 which has a lot of space in between the lines to defend. Given that it'
  14. I can't say that I agree with the conclusion that the 4-4-2 is inherently better than any other formation in this ME. The formation is just a representation of how your team will seek to position themselves when they don't have the ball, nothing more, nothing less. Provided you have a good understanding of how to create and utilize space when attacking then I don't see any reason why you can't make any formation you choose work. Thinking of a striker as a 'lone' player is perhaps where the problem lies. You aren't going to get a striker to score goals consistently without thinki
  15. One of the main weaknesses of a 4-4-2 when it comes to defending is the spaces in between the lines. Thus in my view, to be good defensively you need to have a team that is hardworking in order to consistently cover those gaps and it requires the tactic be set up in a way which compresses the space your players have to cover. Unfortunately, in your tactic. the TIs you've used in the out of possession instructions actually exacerbate the weaknesses. Playing a lower line of engagement means that your midfield and attackers aren't going to really contribute much to defending and instead all
×
×
  • Create New...