Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
YouthGrowth

Pass and Move Tactic Building

Recommended Posts

I'm using Manchester United and I'm trying to build a tactic suitable for the players whilst also playing quick short passing football. I want them to play at a high intensity but keep possession at the same time. I'd also prefer using a 4-2-3-1 and inside forwards. So if I were to use Control-Fluid with team instructions of: be more expressive, higher tempo, retain possession and work ball into the box. Would that be a good starting point? Also note I'm using an updated transfer database. And what role would I need to put players like Pogba in? And what positions would I need to strengthen with what kind of player? All input is helpful.

@Rashidi@Cleon@herne79@Ö-zil to the Arsenal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Probably not what you want to hear but there really is no substitution for seeing how things work for yourself.  Just load up a dummy save and play around :).

2) When using the 4231, don't just think of 2 x CM + AMC/L/R.  Have a think about variations of that formation and how you can make those work.

3) Don't just jump straight into Team Instructions.  Think about what your mentality & team shape settings do first and the style of football you are trying to achieve.

4) You don't need to poke people ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Herne79 can give you a whole tactic, because I can (and I'm not Herne79, I'm waaay more inexperienced), and because I play something very similar to what you want to achieve.
But the reason he didn't do it, and the reason I'm not going to do it, is because first you have to understand reason#3.

But, since it takes some time to complete it, I'm gonna tell you a PPM that will definitely help with what you are trying to achieve here, no matter what TI's or PI's you choose:
"Plays One-Twos". It's the definition of "pass and move". But be careful, it's not for everybody. For example, it's not suited for a Central Defender (logic) or a defensive midfielder, it's suited for more advanced, attacking players, like the ones in the flanks or the AMC. You can start from there, and after some time you can choose who else can benefit from such PPM.

In the end, if you don't really care about understanding things and you just want a tactic to have some fun, pm me and I will give you instructions and advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely want to understand things but I'm also focused on how to build it around the strengths of the team and what players should I use for what role etc. Along with what I mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It definitely helps if you read the descriptions of every role in the Tactics->Player panel.
Also, if you hover your mouse over a Team Instruction or a Player Instruction, it tells you what it does (if you didn't know by now).

But for me, the most important thing is the thread pinned at the top. And it's basically the start for understanding things better (if you haven't checked it already).

Edited by ilkork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry you might have misunderstood me but I meant I want to understand how different roles will link together in a system that I want to create.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming your updated transfer base is for this season IRL. 

Control/Fluid is a good starting point, very fluid is also an option.

For tactics where you are looking for a lot of possession, a lot of support duties are required. Something like this for the rules and duties I think is a good starting point.

Lukaku CF(S)

Martial IF(A) Mata Treq(A) Mkhitaryan W(S)

Matic DLP(D) Pogba RPM(S)

Shaw WB(S) Jones CD(D) Bailly CD(D) Valencia FB(s) OR IWB(S)

Team instructions I would start off a bit different. You did say you want a short passing game so why not use shorter passing instead of retain possession? In my experience, the retain possession shout can really have a negative effect on chance creation as it discourages through balls. I would probably start with just shorter passing and see from there. In a fluid shape, you will already have creative freedom and movement off the ball so it would be best to see if that is satisfactory already or if you need to add extra shouts. 

 

 

Edited by NabsKebabs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, NabsKebabs said:

I'm assuming your updated transfer base is for this season IRL. 

Control/Fluid is a good starting point, very fluid is also an option.

For tactics where you are looking for a lot of possession, a lot of support duties are required. Something like this for the rules and duties I think is a good starting point.

Lukaku CF(S)

Martial IF(A) Mata Treq(A) Mkhitaryan W(S)

Matic DLP(D) Pogba RPM(S)

Shaw WB(S) Jones CD(D) Bailly CD(D) Valencia FB(s) OR IWB(S)

Team instructions I would start off a bit different. You did say you want a short passing game so why not use shorter passing instead of retain possession? In my experience, the retain possession shout can really have a negative effect on chance creation as it discourages through balls. I would probably start with just shorter passing and see from there. In a fluid shape, you will already have creative freedom and movement off the ball so it would be best to see if that is satisfactory already or if you need to add extra shouts. 

 

 

Why Fluid or Very Fluid are better? What is wrong with the other shapes and why aren't they good for "pass & move" tactic?

There is a big thread on Possession football.......with a Very Structured shape.....examples are shown for pass and move.

Every shape can work with the right combination of roles.

In your example for roles, there are 3 playmaking roles in the middle. They need space to operate and two of them have roaming plus movement between the lines. They can benefit from space created via less compressed shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, yonko said:

Why Fluid or Very Fluid are better? What is wrong with the other shapes and why aren't they good for "pass & move" tactic?

There is a big thread on Possession football.......with a Very Structured shape.....examples are shown for pass and move.

Every shape can work with the right combination of roles.

In your example for roles, there are 3 playmaking roles in the middle. They need space to operate and two of them have roaming plus movement between the lines. They can benefit from space created via less compressed shape.

I've read the thread you're referring to and yes you could potentially play any shape, However, for me more fluid shapes make more sense for this style of football - committing more numbers into the opposition half and having players close together moving around freely. Everyone is on the same wavelength in more fluid shapes. Also, if the OP was thinking of Control/Fluid from the start - why tell him to change that drastically when it is a good starting point anyway as I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NabsKebabs said:

I've read the thread you're referring to and yes you could potentially play any shape, However, for me more fluid shapes make more sense for this style of football - committing more numbers into the opposition half and having players close together moving around freely. Everyone is on the same wavelength in more fluid shapes. Also, if the OP was thinking of Control/Fluid from the start - why tell him to change that drastically when it is a good starting point anyway as I said.

Having players close together is not always a good thing though. Pass and move requires space for the players to move in and out of. In your example, Treq, RPM and CF have roaming by default. They need the space to be effective and they will move freely anyway. Playing as Man United the opponents are most likely going to be sitting deep and congesting the space even more. In addition, with a 4231 formation you do not need more players committing forward as you already have 4 very advanced players. Control mentality will contribute to that as well. There will be plenty of options going forward on any team shape with the current roles. 

Control/Fluid is not the only good starting point, especially with the roles you suggested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2017 at 06:53, yonko said:

Why Fluid or Very Fluid are better? What is wrong with the other shapes and why aren't they good for "pass & move" tactic?

There is a big thread on Possession football.......with a Very Structured shape.....examples are shown for pass and move.

Every shape can work with the right combination of roles.

In your example for roles, there are 3 playmaking roles in the middle. They need space to operate and two of them have roaming plus movement between the lines. They can benefit from space created via less compressed shape.

I think since you're trying to create a quick short passing game, allowing the players to get involved in the team's play would explain why fluid or very fluid should be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, sherifdinn_ said:

I think since you're trying to create a quick short passing game, allowing the players to get involved in the team's play would explain why fluid or very fluid should be used.

Except its not that simple like Yonko explained. For a passing game you need space and time for the players to breathe unless you have the best squad in the world who have the perfect attributes to not be pressured and rush a decision. No-one is saying it can't work on a fluid/v. fluid system Saying something is better when its not is misleading, hence Yonko's post.

However saying all that, seeing as the OP wants to play  4231 shape and is Man Utd then I think other structures offer more stability for what he described he wanted in the opening post. Going fluid or very fluid in this top heavy formation can be very problematic because space is already an issue because of how top heavy he is. Add to this he wants to play a quick short passing game that is high intensity then closing the gaps between the lines and having players closer together makes zero sense in this case. What he needs is depth to create the space and movement needed, especially as 90% of sides he faces will be defensive against him.

By playing on fluid or higher he reduces the space his own players have to play in and pushes people closer together, this is a bad thing for the football the OP wants to create. Space and movement is the key here.

Whether you play structured or very fluid, the players aren't involved more not really. It means they're all closer together/further away depending which side of the scale you use. Structured players can be as involved as those who play fluid, it doesn't equate involvement like you seem to think in the literal sense. Players closer together have less space which in turn means less movement and space to use. Playing further away from each other the roles are more defined and allow play between the lines and players to find pockets of space naturally.

For me starting very fluid/fluid is a bad idea based on the type of football he wants. If he was creating a different kind and was focusing on just attacking without the possession side of thing, then I'd advise differently. But for possession the most important thing above all else is space. Players need it in abundance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sherifdinn_ said:

I think since you're trying to create a quick short passing game, allowing the players to get involved in the team's play would explain why fluid or very fluid should be used.

I already explained why is not necessary. I don't think I need to repeat myself. And Cleon added to the explanation too.

Edited by yonko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Except its not that simple like Yonko explained. For a passing game you need space and time for the players to breathe unless you have the best squad in the world who have the perfect attributes to not be pressured and rush a decision. No-one is saying it can't work on a fluid/v. fluid system Saying something is better when its not is misleading, hence Yonko's post.

However saying all that, seeing as the OP wants to play  4231 shape and is Man Utd then I think other structures offer more stability for what he described he wanted in the opening post. Going fluid or very fluid in this top heavy formation can be very problematic because space is already an issue because of how top heavy he is. Add to this he wants to play a quick short passing game that is high intensity then closing the gaps between the lines and having players closer together makes zero sense in this case. What he needs is depth to create the space and movement needed, especially as 90% of sides he faces will be defensive against him.

By playing on fluid or higher he reduces the space his own players have to play in and pushes people closer together, this is a bad thing for the football the OP wants to create. Space and movement is the key here.

Whether you play structured or very fluid, the players aren't involved more not really. It means they're all closer together/further away depending which side of the scale you use. Structured players can be as involved as those who play fluid, it doesn't equate involvement like you seem to think in the literal sense. Players closer together have less space which in turn means less movement and space to use. Playing further away from each other the roles are more defined and allow play between the lines and players to find pockets of space naturally.

For me starting very fluid/fluid is a bad idea based on the type of football he wants. If he was creating a different kind and was focusing on just attacking without the possession side of thing, then I'd advise differently. But for possession the most important thing above all else is space. Players need it in abundance. 

I read an article or at least from what I've watched in klopps Liverpool nd Dortmund, their game play involved quick passing whilst enhancing a compact style which enabled gegen pressing and if course it was fluid. Now using that as a specimen, because you use a fluid system mean it won't aid quick passing, if anything it facilitates short passes. The problem of space depends on the players roles selected. Two players occupying the same space would just mean they would get in each other's way more often. Ontop everything I've said here, i solely believe that when you aim on creating a quick passing game the refrence point should be Johan cruyff,and in his style one of the characteristics was of course a fluid attacking system.

Edited by sherifdinn_
Spelling error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sherifdinn_ said:

I read an article or at least from what I've watched in klopps Liverpool nd Dortmund, their game play involved quick passing whilst enhancing a compact style which enabled gegen pressing and if course it was fluid. Now using that as a specimen, because you use a fluid system mean it won't aid quick passing, if anything it facilitates short passes. The problem of space depends on the players roles selected. Two players occupying the same space would just mean they would get in each other's way more often. Ontop everything I've said here, i solely believe that when you aim on creating a quick passing game the refrence point should be Johan cruyff,and in his style one of the characteristics was of course a flying attacking system.

You're comparing real life elements to a game, its not comparable because you assume that the game translates real world principles exactly the same, when it doesn't. Structure settings as we know it in FM doesn't exist in real football, yet it does on FM.

Fluid in real life football doesn't translate the same into FM, they're two different things. If we were to try and replicate Klopp's  system into FM, while in real life its described as a fluid style. In FM it would likely be structured because each player has a defined role and his playmakers are prominent. Fluid on FM waters this down. 

But like I said, trying to use a real life example like above is pointless, one is real life and one is a game where its coded to play a specific. Hence why in this case for the style the OP wants he would have lots of problems and issues trying to do this on the fluid end of the scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Cleon said:

You're comparing real life elements to a game, its not comparable because you assume that the game translates real world principles exactly the same, when it doesn't. Structure settings as we know it in FM doesn't exist in real football, yet it does on FM.

Fluid in real life football doesn't translate the same into FM, they're two different things. If we were to try and replicate Klopp's  system into FM, while in real life its described as a fluid style. In FM it would likely be structured because each player has a defined role and his playmakers are prominent. Fluid on FM waters this down. 

But like I said, trying to use a real life example like above is pointless, one is real life and one is a game where its coded to play a specific. Hence why in this case for the style the OP wants he would have lots of problems and issues trying to do this on the fluid end of the scale.

One thing is that i fell klopps system I fluid I replicated in FM because the players contribute the the general play in action be it pressing or at least the majority of the players. That is how I feel the short passing game should be made. Also if you can't actually use real life example, then the art of replicating tactics won't exist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, sherifdinn_ said:

One thing is that i fell klopps system I fluid I replicated in FM because the players contribute the the general play in action be it pressing or at least the majority of the players. That is how I feel the short passing game should be made. Also if you can't actually use real life example, then the art of replicating tactics won't exist

Read what I put. You was comparing something in real life to FM, but the thing in FM that relocated this doesn’t exist in real life. Only some aspects of real life can be replicated in FM.

also it doesn’t matter if you recreated Klopp system (btw you didn’t not truly as you can’t press like he does on FM) as it’s not the shape or style the opening poster is trying to create. So again it’s irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Read what I put. You was comparing something in real life to FM, but the thing in FM that relocated this doesn’t exist in real life. Only some aspects of real life can be replicated in FM.

also it doesn’t matter if you recreated Klopp system (btw you didn’t not truly as you can’t press like he does on FM) as it’s not the shape or style the opening poster is trying to create. So again it’s irrelevant.

Okay then, I understand, but what you mean is that it can't be used word for word with  respect to real life. But i can be recreated just it won't be as accurate because of the difference between the human mind an a computer and partly due to the coach instructions in real life. But then again the major aim of recreating a tactic is to make a winning formula nd if you can win with it its already an accomplished mission. Just like the user he just aims on making a quick passing game that can aid success

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And all Cleon and I are saying is that there are many ways to achieve the quick passing game the OP wants. Fluid or Very Fluid shape is not the only way or the best option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, yonko said:

And all Cleon and I are saying is that there are many ways to achieve the quick passing game the OP wants. Fluid or Very Fluid shape is not the only way or the best option.

Well in my opinion fluid or very fluid are the best options for this style...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually a very interesting debate, and reminds me of a thread I saw on twitter comparing the differences between Sarri’s Napoli and Pep Man City. Sarri and Napoli are all about quick combinations in order to circulate the ball, which is facilitated by players being close together. Essentially the always attempt to play through the press. 

Pep’s City differ in build-up; Sane and Sterling in particular keep their width, whilst the rest of the team look to do the same. The reason behind this is to make the pitch as wide as possible, making it difficult for the opposition to press, which often is the case leading to rapid transitions once the press is broken. 

So in FM terms you could argue: Napoli - Fluid, City - Structured. Obviously this is very simiplistic, but what i’m getting at is you can create lovely passing football on any team shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to try the tactic with both team shapes and see which one produces the style I've said I'm looking for. I always USED to think structured was just very uncreative and slightly better for defensive tactics, but recently I've read threads that suggest otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, yonko said:

And all Cleon and I are saying is that there are many ways to achieve the quick passing game the OP wants. Fluid or Very Fluid shape is not the only way or the best option.

Of course, for me the first step o would take to achieve quick passing would be to set the tactic to a high tempo game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2017 at 20:31, Cleon said:

 

Fluid in real life football doesn't translate the same into FM, they're two different things. If we were to try and replicate Klopp's  system into FM, while in real life its described as a fluid style. In FM it would likely be structured because each player has a defined role and his playmakers are prominent. Fluid on FM waters this down. 

Would you say the same goes for Maurizio Sarri? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NabsKebabs said:

Well in my opinion fluid or very fluid are the best options for this style...

That's fine. Doesn't mean you're right though. 

11 hours ago, YouthGrowth said:

I'm going to try the tactic with both team shapes and see which one produces the style I've said I'm looking for. I always USED to think structured was just very uncreative and slightly better for defensive tactics, but recently I've read threads that suggest otherwise.

You can use creative roles in more structured shapes. It actually creates more space for your creative players and sets them apart from the rest of your team. You can select to which players to give more creative responsibilities.

12 hours ago, jc577 said:

This is actually a very interesting debate, and reminds me of a thread I saw on twitter comparing the differences between Sarri’s Napoli and Pep Man City. Sarri and Napoli are all about quick combinations in order to circulate the ball, which is facilitated by players being close together. Essentially the always attempt to play through the press. 

Pep’s City differ in build-up; Sane and Sterling in particular keep their width, whilst the rest of the team look to do the same. The reason behind this is to make the pitch as wide as possible, making it difficult for the opposition to press, which often is the case leading to rapid transitions once the press is broken. 

So in FM terms you could argue: Napoli - Fluid, City - Structured. Obviously this is very simiplistic, but what i’m getting at is you can create lovely passing football on any team shape.

There are a lot more similarities between Sarri and Pep than differences. But you have correctly spotted that Pep gives players their space in order to creates gaps, stretch the opposition and take advantage of that. All his teams did that. Now City take better advantage to some extent because the players are younger and more athletic, more dynamic. 

Here though we are talking about a 4231 formation that is more top heavy than 4123 that Sarri and Pep arguably use. The 4231 needs more balancing and more carful selection of roles, duties and shape. There is no coincidence that so many FM users struggle with that formation. With that formation you already have 6 players close together at the top by default, regardless of team shape selected. You have to create space and allow movement in order to create a quick passing style of play. It has been explained so many times in so many different ways but people still do not understand it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2017 at 04:56, YouthGrowth said:

So if used structured then I can balance it out with creative roles?

Yes, because Team Shape influences individual creative freedom as well. 

Fluid/v fluid does not just make your entire team play closer together, it will also encourage individual creative freedom. The opposite can be said for structured/h structured. 

So, in very general terms, to make a fluid/ v fluid team shape more balanced, you may want to use more general Player Roles like CMs or AMs instead of APs or DLPs etc. Because they hv high creative freedom via Team shape anyway, and if further encouraged via specialiaed player roles may be counter-productive. Again, in very general terms.

On the other hand, to make a structured/h structured team shape (which restricts creative freedom) more balanced, you may want to use specialised Player Roles like Playmakers or BPDs etc to define who has license to be more creative, who's gonna be the playmaker, who's gonna do the through balls etc. 

And again, this is all in very general terms. You can make it work going against these concepts definitely, if you know what you're doing.

The other aspect of Team Shape is, of course, the closeneas your players will be with each other.

Let us assume that you're dead set on 2 things: (1) your formation (4231 with CMs), and (2) you're style of play (pass and move). Non-negotiable.

Now a 4231 is a top heavy formation. You've got 4 players (and at times, 6) beyond the half way line, and only 4 under the halfway line. That's top heavy. 

Yes, you may have you players closer together, especially between your CMs and your front 4, but that also means opponents marking them are also closer to your front 4. Not to mention you're Man Utd, which will probably mean even more men behind the ball against you.

One way to counter/balance such a top heavy formation, and especially when your style of play critically needs the creation of space, is to use a Structured/H Structured team shape, where players are actually further apart if compared to fluid/v fluid team shape.

And so, space-creation wise, it may be more beneficial for you to use a structured/h structured team shape.

And, to counter the restriction of creative freedom via this team shape, u may assign one or multiple specialised Player Roles on players whom u want to be more creative.

Do correct me on anything.

Edited by harryleechinyeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎27‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 05:47, harryleechinyeow said:

Yes, because Team Shape influences individual creative freedom as well. 

Fluid/v fluid does not just make your entire team play closer together, it will also encourage individual creative freedom. The opposite can be said for structured/h structured. 

So, in very general terms, to make a fluid/ v fluid team shape more balanced, you may want to use more general Player Roles like CMs or AMs instead of APs or DLPs etc. Because they hv high creative freedom via Team shape anyway, and if further encouraged via specialiaed player roles may be counter-productive. Again, in very general terms.

On the other hand, to make a structured/h structured team shape (which restricts creative freedom) more balanced, you may want to use specialised Player Roles like Playmakers or BPDs etc to define who has license to be more creative, who's gonna be the playmaker, who's gonna do the through balls etc. 

And again, this is all in very general terms. You can make it work going against these concepts definitely, if you know what you're doing.

The other aspect of Team Shape is, of course, the closeneas your players will be with each other.

Let us assume that you're dead set on 2 things: (1) your formation (4231 with CMs), and (2) you're style of play (pass and move). Non-negotiable.

Now a 4231 is a top heavy formation. You've got 4 players (and at times, 6) beyond the half way line, and only 4 under the halfway line. That's top heavy. 

Yes, you may have you players closer together, especially between your CMs and your front 4, but that also means opponents marking them are also closer to your front 4. Not to mention you're Man Utd, which will probably mean even more men behind the ball against you.

One way to counter/balance such a top heavy formation, and especially when your style of play critically needs the creation of space, is to use a Structured/H Structured team shape, where players are actually further apart if compared to fluid/v fluid team shape.

And so, space-creation wise, it may be more beneficial for you to use a structured/h structured team shape.

And, to counter the restriction of creative freedom via this team shape, u may assign one or multiple specialised Player Roles on players whom u want to be more creative.

Do correct me on anything.

Ahh so for a 4231 it would be wiser to use a structured team shape, I think I understand the whole concept of team shapes now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, YouthGrowth said:

Ahh so for a 4231 it would be wiser to use a structured team shape, I think I understand the whole concept of team shapes now.

I told you the exact same and gave the exact same reasons like 10 days ago :rolleyes::D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20.10.2017 at 21:31, Cleon said:

Fluid in real life football doesn't translate the same into FM, they're two different things. If we were to try and replicate Klopp's  system into FM, while in real life its described as a fluid style. In FM it would likely be structured because each player has a defined role and his playmakers are prominent. Fluid on FM waters this down. 

I thought that Shape now only affects compactness in attack and creative freedom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheJanitor said:

I thought that Shape now only affects compactness in attack and creative freedom?

The lowering of the creative freedom part by playing on structured or lower are what makes playmakers prominent. If everyone has a little bit more creative freedom then it can make them less prominent. The more fluid you go the less defined in the traditional sense the role becomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Cleon said:

The lowering of the creative freedom part by playing on structured or lower are what makes playmakers prominent. If everyone has a little bit more creative freedom then it can make them less prominent. The more fluid you go the less defined in the traditional sense the role becomes.

I learned this the hard way only gone the way of Having Very fluid means that it hinders over all play as every one will try to do every thing and messes it up badly. Especially in Creative freedom as every one tries to be creative thus loosing the over all balance. Unless you have free roles.

In Structured/ Highly structured it might open the gaps but can be covered by going Narrow but having specific players doing specific jobs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ferrarinseb said:

I learned this the hard way only gone the way of Having Very fluid means that it hinders over all play as every one will try to do every thing and messes it up badly. Especially in Creative freedom as every one tries to be creative thus loosing the over all balance. Unless you have free roles.

In Structured/ Highly structured it might open the gaps but can be covered by going Narrow but having specific players doing specific jobs. 

Remember that it only alters the base creative freedom of players though. So it doesn't make everyone have really high levels, players just have more than usual. This is set by the role and duty you use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Remember that it only alters the base creative freedom of players though. So it doesn't make everyone have really high levels, players just have more than usual. This is set by the role and duty you use.

Yes thats what i meant couldn't put the right words :D 

But is it possible to have a 4-1-2-3 with balanced or slightly wider in Structured or highly structured ?  the Gaps open up if we go wide how can i counter it?  or the only option is to set Wing backs to stretch the field so that players can increase the width. Also using the CM's to stretch wide from this version? 

I have a ok knowledge or even better to put sub par knowledge in developing a tactic 

Edited by ferrarinseb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team Shape has nothing to do with width of the team. It only plays a role in Vertical Compactness - meaning from defenders, midfielders to attackers. If you use more structured shape you can counteract that with pushed up D-Line. You also have to consider your formation and if you're using players in the DM or AM strata in addition to the traditional ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×