Dr. Hook

I would suggest that if you have a lone striker he will get marked out and isolated as you noticed. Your two wide men are just that, wide men, and you CMs are support duty guys. Who is making runs into the box/area to supplement your attack? You need to draw attention away from your striker a little bit so he has some room to operate. Your Mezzala could maybe have an attack duty so he gets forward more often and more quickly, or you might look at one of your wide men working as an inside forward or cutting in.

It would be a high risk approach, but sure you could do that. You have to have fast defenders though. The idea that I would have about it is to get the ball forward quickly and then keep it there till I got a scoring chance, so your high line and high pressing is to keep the game in their end as much as you can.

I have always used this contextually- if chasing a game and needing a goal, I tend to turn it on in hopes of producing a little magic to save the day. If I am defending a narrow lead late, I might use it to help lower risk. There are other context where it those can be used to, but that is the thing with FM. It is always contextual when it comes to tactics and in-game decisions. If the choices are clearly not working, off they go.

It does better with attackers who are coming from deep behind him, I agree. I never really had a setup like that because no suitable players, so the TM-A did what it needed to do. I am looking forward to really having a go with the target man in the new FM. I did not play 20 a great deal due to life circumstances. Anyway, I love this thread and what you were able to do with the tactic!

THis. I always loved the idea of the TM-S but in practice I could not ever get them to do quite what I wanted. The TM-A seems to be better choice for the role in most setups.

I addressed that in the post above- there isn't any point in creating an argument or ill-feelings over it.

Okay, it isn't for you, we get it, but no need to keep banging on about it. FOr the OP, no need to go into this. We don't do gaming the tactics engine in here.

Thread lock per use request- no need to troll

It is a guideline for you. I don't know the exact percentages here, but if I get that message, the odds of successfully getting the player to learn the new trait are lower, and in my experience quite a bit lower. That doesn't stop me from trying though, because sometimes it is a trait you absolutely want the player to have. The only downside to it being unsuccessful is the time wasted, it won't hurt the player any.

This trait (PPM as it used to be known) means that if he is closed down, tightly marked or pressed he will try to take the ball to a safer place through dribbling or a risky pass before getting rid of it. Without it, he would be more likely to clear it out of bounds or launch a ball to nowhere.

To be honest, it's been some time since I went with a single striker and no AMs, so I am probably not the best one to ask in this version- in the past I would look to use the flanks more so the striker can connect with the play, in current FM a wide playmaker could be an option, or using direct passing for the midfielders so they can transition it more quickly. One possibility that comes to mind is to go strikerless (on paper) and use an F9 type of role in the AMC spot. Hopefully someone else can chip in with some ideas about this.

Best answer outside of heavy rotation is to sign players with high stamina and nat fitness if you can. I tend to always look for a high natural fitness for signings. Critical players if it is possible, I like to sub out early -55-60 mins- sometimes if I have another game coming up that I need him fresh for and the game situation allows for it. Lots of times you just roll a tired squad, it's part of football, and hope you don't get a rash of injuries

The amount of CF with the shapes is incremental, so while there can be a noticeable difference if you go from Very Structured and Very Fluid, it isn't a great gulf. If you have a playmaker getting marked out of the game you have a couple of options (I like to funnel my plays through specific players as well): add another playmaker is one way to do it, and (and perhaps change your original guy to a "normal" role), move your playmaker around if he's being marked specifically by an opposition player, sub him out if it might be a bad day for him and not what the opponent is doing. Stop using a playmaker at all. You can set any player with PI's of "more direct passing" and "more risky passes" to make them a playmaker, just without the ball magnet happening, and you will get someone who will do creative things. In short, you don't need a second playmaker in a structured system, you just need to adapt to the circumstances as they are happening.

Andy has a nice setup there for a counter system. In general, "bottom heavy" formations work best for the counter as the idea is to have more men behind the ball so that you can trigger the fast, direct breakout. 3-5-2 with WBs works well, 4-5-1 etc. At the same time, you need to have roles and duties that complement the counter style, so for example if your 4-5-1 really plays like an attacking 4-3-3 it won't work as well.

I like his potential- for a BWM role, if I signed him, I would look to try and get his acceleration up a bit, and his tackling. His anticipation could use a bit of a boost too, but he has a good foundation for the role.