Keyzer Soze

How did you done that in a IPAd? Does it need a jailbreak device?

Your right side seems a bit too attacking, and i wonder the advantage that you get by having a FB(a) behind the W(a). Both players have instructions to get by the line and cross. I know you have a CF(a) inside the box, but who else will take advantage of your right side cross galore? The AP(a) and the IF(s) that will get into the box later? I would probably change the FB(a) to a support duty, so that the W(a) will have a recycling possibility when he can't get the cross and i also think you need someone from the midfield that will get into the box to support the CF(a). Perhaps a BTB instead of the BWM.

I believe i read something that was after they made 18.

Unlike @kingjericho, i sometimes like to use a BWM in the DM position, in particulary in the 4123 Wide formation, but in your case i don't think it will work particulary well because you have two advanced playmakers in the midfield. They will close down less, leaving all the work to a player that close down much more. So in terms of closing down you have a very unbalanced midfield trio, that will open big gaps. So, imo, a BWM could work, but you need at least another player that will also close down more, a CM(s) for example, or a BBM(s). Now, what i don't like in your tactic is the fact that is completly one dimensional in attack. Like @kingjericho you have two AP(s) doing the same thing, and on top of that two IF(s) doing the same thing on the flanks, all all these 4 player are going to manly create plays to a single player: the CF(a). So, unless you have a beast playing upfront, you gonna struggle to score.

@Luke Rumble Fantastic news. Thks for the update.

thks for the feedback. @BadanieLuck, i will test the ideas to exploit the flanks or the middle depending on the opponent tatic. @summatsupeer i edited the first post, because i play with a fullback with support duty on the right (by mistake i posted one with the defense duty). I understand what you say about changing the CM(a) to a BBM(s), but the truth is one of the best aspect of my tactic is the overload that happens on the right side, with the DLF(a)+W(a)+CM(a) going forward a making a real mess of the opponent defense. The player i usually play as W(a) has the PI to get into the opponent area, something that i think it helps him to play more narrower then usual. I don't usually play with tactic with 2 forwards, but, taking on with your idea, and changing the DM for a second forward, do you think something like this could work? AF(a) F9(s) IF(s) W(a) DLP(s) CM(s) WB(a) CD(d) CD(d) FB(s) G(d)

I'm currently having a good save with Benfica, playing with a very consisted 4123 Wide DM formation. I'm winning, scoring a lot and with a very solid defense. But, like anyone, sometimes i came across that odd game where no matter what i simply can't score. So, i would like to have a plan B, or C, or D, that would change something in my tactic that could help winning those games. This is my current tactic: DLF(a) IF(s) W(a) AP(s) CM(a) DLP(d) WB(a) CD(d) CD(d) FB(s) G(d) Mentality: Stantard Team Shape: Flexible TI's: Higher D-Line, Use Offside Trap, Close Down Much More, Play From Defense, PI's: G(d): tackle harder, fewer risky passes, roll it out, distribute do central defenders WB(a): stay wider CD(d): Close Down Less, Fewer Risky Passes DLP(d): Close Down More CM(a): Shoot Less Often, More Risky Passes IF(s): Sit Narrower, Shoot Less Often W(a): Shoot Less Often DLF(a): Shoot Less Often At the moment, when i try to make some impact in the game i tend to try this: Plan A: change W(a) to RAUM(a) This is usually my first change when i can't score. The idea with the change is to make available another player in the opponent box. Plan B: Change Mentality to "Attacking", dropping the "play from defense" TI and adding the "retain possession TI" When plan A don't work, i go with plan B, where i change the mentality and those TI's to that the team will be more attacking. So, to you guys have any suggestions of changes that could be made to make some impact in the game? The idea is changes that don't change the 4123 Wide DM formation.

This could be a stupid question, but what is the definition for the PI "make more risky passes". Are those "risky passes" only trough balls" or they also include for example switching the ball for the other flank?

Great article, as always. Thks @Cleon Untill now i always use a SK(d) in my tactic, because i like to play with a higher d-Line. From this article i see now that it is irrelevant, because of the higher D-Line, use a SK(d) or a G(d). I also like, in my tactics, to built from the back so i always choose the distribute to centerbacks/fullbacks + roll it out instruction. Another instruction i usually give to my SK(d) is the one to tackle harder. I do this because i remember reading, i think in a thread related with FM17, that by giving this instruction to G/SK they would be more willing to rush out. Is this truth? So anyway, a think i will probably change my Sk(d) to a G(d).

You can play fluid, flexible, structure with any team and tactic. It's a simple matter of how you want your team to play: more compact and with more creativity, with more players envolved in all phases of the game (attack and defense) go fluid, more spread in the field and with less creativity go structure, want to balance things, choose flexible. In relation with TI's, theres nothing wrong with the ones you've choose, if that's the way you want your team to play. If you want your team to press more and to built the play, slowly, from the back, then this are good TI's to do that.

i would start with a simple change in you midfield: DLP(s) to the left and the BBM(s) to the right. That way, you have the BBM(s) that will stay closer to the W(a), avoiding that William will be so isolated, and on the left the IF(s)+DLP(s) can combine well to create and built up the play. From there, you can then avaluated and see if you need to go more attacking (in terms of roles choice) or not. For example changing the DLP(s) to a AP(s), or perhaps changing the BBM(s) to a CM(a) or a MEZ(s) or (a). But first, swap the midfield duo. That for me is the biggest issue with your tactic.

This is the key point for me. I would prefer if the AI would improve so that, for example, a AI manager would play 2 F9's or a 3 striker tactic with 3 AF, if they "want", then having limitations in the ME that wouldn't allow us to pretty much let us do whatever we want. IRL this kind of unpredictability is what turns, sometimes, a good manager into a great manager, so i would like to see that in AI managers.

W(s) + WB(a) is a great combination that can, In the right setup, work very well.

To be honest I would like a AMR/L generic role, in the same way we have the CM. This would allow, for example to have a player to stay wide and to run wide with ball but without the PI to cross more. Or have a player to cut inside but without the make more risky passes PI. I have a question to @Cleonabout what he said about the carrillero role, and that should one be available for tactics that didn't have any player in the MR/L position. Do you think that the same should happen to the Mezzala role, in relation with tactics that have players in the AMR/L position?

This for the reply, but I’m playing FMT ... so no team talks