Keyzer Soze

Hi, Have you try the tactic? And if so, are you getting good results? The best way to avaluate a tactic, it's to try it. If you are getting good results... don't change a thing. in any case, just a couple of opinions: 1) for a underdog team, your out of possession instructions are very risky. In fact your transition and out of possession instructions are much more suited for a top team. So, keep a eye on your defence. 2) i not a fan of simetric tactics. unless you have some PI's on the IF and CM, you are attacking the same way from both flanks. Changing some roles to h

With the stay wide PI he will still cut inside but from a wider initial position. It may come in handy, particularly playing against opposition that defend deep and very narrow.

Hi, Does it make sense playing with a lower LOE and adding the instruction to prevent goalkeeper distribution? Or to use that instruction I must always have a higher/very high LOE?

There are roles that, because of is specifically are harder to use right in the game, because you need players with the right set of attributes to fill the role. If you give a player the CWB role, and he don't have the right attributes it can be a disaster. Bare in mind that, in the end, it's the players that play the game, so, first you need good players, and not just set a nice combination of roles and duties.

I agree with you, but only if none of the CM slots are filled with a MEZ. Because the Mezzala not only have roam from position hardcoded, but also the get forward, and if you pair him with another player that roam from position you can easily loose your midfield stability. So, for me I would go with a roaming playmaker and a box-to-box midfielder, or a BBM with a CM with roam from position PI. When I use a MEZ (support or attack duty) I prefer to pair him with a more "static" player like a DLP(s) or a AP(s).

Thks alot for the suggestions @herne79 Gonna test some of your suggestions.

OK, I get that But what about those games were playing with the balanced mentality will not work? What should I do, to be more attacking, to change something in the game, but without changing the mentality?

Understood

Yes, I also used BME with the positive Mentality but, at least to my knowledge, BME don't change others instructions (team or players), just adds more creativity and I think a little bit more roam from position in the final third. Am I wrong?

Hi, I've came up with this tactic and my initial idea was playing with a Positive Mentality. Playing with a top team, at least in domestic games, so I thought that I could afford the extra risk and go with a Positive Mentality. Tactic is very simple, with very few Ti's. In terms of pressing, I'm using a split block with the 3 advanced players + the CM(a) with instructions to press more. I also added the PI to take more risks to the right winger and the PI to roam from position to the CM(a). Thing is... My team don't play well with a Positive Mentality... But wins

The problem, imo, with your tactic is that, by having such risky wing roles (attacking wingbacks plus inside forward on attack) you need to be a bit more conservative in your midfield role choices. but instead, you have choose two roles with "roam from position" hard coded, and one of them (MEZ) with the make more forward runs also hard coded. On top of that you have also choose very agressive out of possession instructions, with "much more" everything. So you are Barcelona, you will be facing teams that will defend narrow, sit deep, and wait for your attacks. And you will atta

There is no such thing as "less instructions is better" or "just click in all instructions and it will work". A tactic, any tactic, to work needs: - a formation (any, one that you like). All can work. Some better. Some worse... Depending on the ME version. The 442 is always a good choice. - a set of instructions, more or less, that are logic between them. And don't forget, by setting the mentality you are already setting a bunch of instructions by default. - a group of players, with the necessary attributes, so that they can fulfil the criteria implemented by the formati

@crusadertsar I never use the PI to stay wider combine with the roam from position. Because i thought the stay wider instruction could mitigate the effect of the roam from position instruction. Gonna try in my tactic. I use a very similar tactic, and set of instructions by the way. Except i don't use the higher tempo and the counter instruction. I also, instead of the CM(d) use a DM(s) on the defensive midfield line. And a WB(s) instead of the IWB(s). But gonna try the IWB(s) and giving the IW(s) the stay wider instruction. Because in my current tactic sometimes the MEZ(a)

@crusadertsar With the combination of roles/duties on the right side: IW(s)+CM(a)+IWB(s) don't you suffer, in some games, with a lack of width on that side? Because, when the IW(s) cuts inside you don't have anyone exploring the space he leaves. Even if you change the CM(a) for a MEZ(a).

Please, don't take my words in the wrong way. The most important thing in FM is enjoy the game, no matter the way you play the game. And, if the tactic is working, then great, just keep using it and have fun. I think that many times we forget to have fun and get to strict about the way FM should reflect real life football... and forget that FM is a game. But, when we look at your tactic.... 3 defenders... 4 playmakers... All players upfront attacking... And th instructions... ... so many... just got me thinking how well the match engine is working. But never forget the m