Keyzer Soze

We, as managers, should have a option to tell a player to ignore a specific trait in the match. Example: I have a player with the trait to "come deep to get the ball", but in my next game i don't want for he to do that. So, i should have that option, and in that game the willing to do that trait would be reduced or completely ignore, perhaps taking into acount things like his personality (a professional player perhaps would comply more), and other attributes.

Why dont you mirror your tactic, in order to have him playing on the right as a IF(s)?

Agree that Félix could plays as a Trequatrista, but I think he should be in the AM strata to give him more space to roam.

Don't take this in the wrong way, but sometimes i wonder why this threads exist, when theres no feedback about the ideas we purpose...

Hi, Need a little help, and perhaps @herne79or @Rashidi or anyone who as more experience dealing with the flat 442. Everytime i play against the flat 442 i struggle to create any kind of chance. I dominate in terms of position, but the number of shots and chances i can produce is very low (usually under 10 shots per game when facing the 442). And this happens despite i'm facing a stronger or weaker team. The tactic i use, is the one i've posted a couple posts above (i'll copy it again in the end of this post). I think that there is something in this tactic that is completely nullified by the 442. So any suggestions? CF(s) IF(a) IF(s) AP(s) CM(a) DM(d) FB(s) CD(d) CD(d) FB(s) G(d) Pretty stantard choice of roles. I decided to use FB(s) because both players have the trait to get forward whenever possible, so no need to Wingbacks. There are some PI's.... the CM(a) has the instructions to roam from position, take more risks and move into channels. The idea was traying to make a MEZ that plays a little less wide, don't know if makes sence, but was the idea behind the PI's. The IF(s) on the right has the instructions to roam from position and to stay wider. The TI's are much similar to the ones used in the tactics in this thread: shorter passing, play out of defence, wbib, counter-press, higher d-line, much higher LOE

Hi, I think the easiest way to get some help here, is for you to provide us with the current tactic that you are using and tell us the difficulties that you are experiencing. I think that will be a good starting point to try to figure out the best tactic for your team and players.

Yeah, that's how he scores most of his goals, cross from the left and a easy tap in at the second post. He also scored some from through balls provided from the CM(a). But again, I think the key point here is the "get into box" trait that he has.

When I play with DM(d) or the HB I don't use any adicional PI's. As for the DM(s) , the situation is different and I'm still figure out the best set. Usually start with the "Hold position" PI and see if with that he stay too deep or not. Depending on that I'll remove it or not. Always use the PI to shoot less often. Now, about the top goalscorer, funny thing that proves how I know nothing about this game. When I made the tactic, I was expecting that my top goalscorer would be or the CF or the left IF(a). But no, who is scoring for fun is my right IF(s) with 11 goals in 14 games. Both CF and left If score 6 goals. I think this is due to 2 things: the player that I usually play as my right If has the trait to get into the box, and also the PI's that the CM(a) have... Take more risks and roam from position opens space and make through balls to the IF.

Just to add some more thoughts to this thread. The 4123 Wide DM, has been my prefer formation since i can remember. and every year i try to implement a solid one to my teams. From year to year, i tend not to differ mych. Usually i have a CF(s) or a DLF(a) upfront, a combo of IF(a) + IF(s) or IF(s) + W(a) in the wings, a combo FB(s) + WB(s) in defence. No matter how much i change, i usually end up with almost the same choice of roles. And every year i usually struggle with the choice for my midfield duo. With the arrival of the MEZ, the number of options increased, so it's always hard, at least for me, to choose the right set between MEZ, AP, DLP, BBM, MC, etc. This year however, and kudos to @herne79, i began giving much more importance to the DM role and how he can influence the attacking play of my team, and also the defensive stability. Because i usually play with a top team, i start to realize how, in many games, my DM was a non productive player. Usually playing him as a DM(d) or a HB(d), in many games he simple didn't to nothing. He didn't help in attack, in particulary against teams that seat deep, and even in terms of defensive position many times he didn't give the necessary balance to the team. So, and just for the fun of testing some ideas, and trying to implement some sort of system, i fired up a new save, set up a new 4123 wide DM formation, and make some tests. The tactic, has the usually roles... CF(s) IF(a) IF(s) AP(s) CM(a) DM(d) FB(s) CD(d) CD(d) FB(s) G(d) Pretty stantard choice of roles. I decided to use FB(s) because both players have the trait to get forward whenever possible, so no need to Wingbacks. There are some PI's.... the CM(a) has the instructions to roam from position, take more risks and move into channels. The idea was traying to make a MEZ that plays a little less wide, don't know if makes sence, but was the idea behind the PI's. The IF(s) on the right has the instructions to roam from position and to stay wider. The TI's are much similar to the ones used in the tactics in this thread: shorter passing, play out of defence, wbib, counter-press, higher d-line, much higher LOE Now, about the DM(d), i've set some rules, depending on the opponent tactic: a) the opponent plays with someone in the AMC position: i use a DM(d) b) the opponent plays with 2 center forwards: i use a HB(d) c) the opponet don't use anyone in the AMC postion, and this is usually the most common i see when teams play against me: i use a DM(s) First things i've notice: i'm finally having the player in the DM position getting a av. rating above 7. Second thing that was obvious was how much more envolve in the game that he was. Against teams that seat deep, and with my CM(a) and AP(s) pushing forward, now i have a much better option to recycle possession. I'm training the players in that position to have the trait to switch ball to other flank. Third, and also important, i'm scoring more and conceding less. 12 games into the season 11 wins and only 1 drawn. 31 goals scored and only 2 conceded. I haven't try the DLP(s) because i don't like much having two playmakers so close to each other. But it's something i'll try to fit in, but for that i'll probably change the AP(s) to a MC(s). Anyway, just some thoughts i wanted to share. Perhaps to many this is something that was already obvious but to me just make me view the DM position with completely different eyes.

I think that you are cleary a case of someone who needs to manage your own expectations, and also realize what kind of team, and league, you are managing. You are managing in, probably, the most competitive league in the world, with a team that, by the players you have, have the quality to reach a mid table final position, but yet, you are using a tactic that is much more suited to a top team that has the players to dominate in every game. On top of that, and like you say, you play with that same tactic, and players, regardless of the opponent! About your tactic, from the first view, you have a serious problem on your right side. RMD + AP(s) + WB(s) is very risky, and you'll be trashed against most of the teams.

Another thing, and this is just a personal choice, lately I've been trying to implement tactics without playmakers. One thing I don't like in the playmakers is the way they tend to "follow" the ball too much, and in particularly when pairing with a roaming MEZ that runs with the ball they just seems to follow the MEZ and don't give him space to shine.

The IF(a) will be probably lack support, because the DLP(s) just stay too deep. When the IF(a) cuts inside he will get fewer option because: a) the wingback is still in the midfield, b) the CF(s) is already in the box cover my the opponent defence and c) the DLP(s) is deep and too far away. You need someone to get closer to the IF(a) so that can give him or a line of pass or divert the opponent to let the IF get a clean shot. I would probably choose the CM(s) just because it's the only choice that doesn't have the PI "take more risks" choose by default. Wth the MEZ, IF and CF all having that PI, it's good to have someone to make a simple pass.

Inside forward, on support duty, with PI to make more forward runs, and a advanced playmaker, on support, in the MCL position. Usually play with a CF(s) or DLF(a) in front. We, the Portuguese, are everywhere ahahhaha

A Winger, with attack duty, could do that. He will stay wide, but in the final third he will be much more narrow, arriving in the box. If the player the player you are using has the "get into the box" trait, then many times he will attack the channel between the central defender and the fullback. In my tactic, playing with Benfica, i had Salvio playing as a attacking winger on the right side, having a MEZ(s) in the MCR position. Salvio has the trait to get into the box. He scored +20 goals in one season.

Hi, In the android/ios version we have a 3 nation limit when we start a new save. If we start, for example, with England, Spain and Italy nation, we could choose up to 11 leagues where we could manage. Altough this is good if we want to manage a team from a lower league and bring them to the primier league, but if we want to make a save where we want to change from club to club, and nation to nation it kinda limits the option with only 3 nation. So, what i would like is that the limit is not based on the number of nation but on the number of leagues. So lets say that we have a 8 league limit when we start a new save, but those 8 league could be the top leagues from 8 different nation. Another thing that should be implement is a dynamic limit for those leagues. With so many tablets available, with different specs and capacity, it doesn't make much sence that despite the tablet capacity the nation/league limit is the same. So, better tablets should be able to run more leagues.