Why is my tactic performing better with control than standard

[DavyDepuydt1]

I'm playing this 4-1-2-2-1, with no PI and only 3 team instructions:

• Play out of defense and shorter passing to have some more possesion (without it I Always had less then 50%)
• Prevent short GK distrubtion... just because I like this

I've now experienced that my tactic works alot better on Control mentality than it does with standard mentality (less chances for the opponent, more for me).
It's like my midfield is a bit stronger....

I'm wondering why this is, is this because of the higher D-Line in that mentality?

And is this something that is Always advised in a only 2-men midfield? I aks because I'm thinking about a secundary tactic with an AM instead of a DM.Th

Thanks for any advise,

Davy

 

[A.Pierfrancesco]

It depends, with an higher mentality you have higher tempo, higher closing down, higher mentality for your player. You will play a faster football and you will closing down opponents more often and your player will be more attacking minded than with standard mentality. 

[DavyDepuydt1]

6 hours ago, A.Pierfrancesco said:

It depends, with an higher mentality you have higher tempo, higher closing down, higher mentality for your player. You will play a faster football and you will closing down opponents more often and your player will be more attacking minded than with standard mentality. 

Thanks, I was just surprised that my tactic works well on control and it's alot more ups & downs on standard. I was wondering where the big difference came from, I started to think that it was related with to formation that is not so suited for standard mentality - or at least not without some extra TI's?

[Kick Wilstra]

Although certain formations are more suited for certain mentalities, but 4-3-3 is a pretty flexible formation that can work with most mentalities. In the end it's all about how well everything (your formation, the player roles, the instructions, etc.) blends together.

In your case some the key reason why control seems to work better is that your TI's blend well with the control mentality since all are focussend on controlling possession and work better if your line plat closes together. Also a lone striker in an AF(A) role is prone to getting isolated if he doesn't get proper support from the flanks and midfield, on standard only your AP and IF will do support your striker somewhat regularly, on control your W and CM wil do so as well, making your attacks much more fluid.

[DavyDepuydt1]

1 hour ago, Kick Wilstra said:

Although certain formations are more suited for certain mentalities, but 4-3-3 is a pretty flexible formation that can work with most mentalities. In the end it's all about how well everything (your formation, the player roles, the instructions, etc.) blends together.

In your case some the key reason why control seems to work better is that your TI's blend well with the control mentality since all are focussend on controlling possession and work better if your line plat closes together. Also a lone striker in an AF(A) role is prone to getting isolated if he doesn't get proper support from the flanks and midfield, on standard only your AP and IF will do support your striker somewhat regularly, on control your W and CM wil do so as well, making your attacks much more fluid.

Thanks, that makes sense.
I've tried another formation 3-5-2 (2 wing backs, 3 CM's) and there control did not work at all, and Standard (and at times counter)  did a fine job.

I guess this is because I have not enough player high up the field to play control?

This was my 3-5-2

AF(A)  - F9

BBM - AP(S) - CM (D)

WB(A) - WB(A)

BPD - BPD - BPD

 

[WhyMe]

I would guess the reason your 3-5-2 didn't work is because of a lack of forward movement in your midfield.  I would suggest dropping your left sided wing back to support and giving your AP an attack duty and see if that helps.  Alternatively you could just give the AP an attack duty and leave the wing back but that might be a bit risky.

[westy8chimp]

What did you note to come to the conclusion that you are performing better? simply results or specifically scoring more goals etc?

Your original setup is pretty good, no glaring contradictions, well balanced, perhaps a little cautious. Your instructions are again on the cautious side (play out, retain possession, short passing) can be slow and allow the opposition to settle.

By moving to control your team is taking a little more risk and attacking intent - so I imagine you are scoring more and still solid at the back.