Unbeaten in 20 odd games with West Ham 3 strikers

[benffffffffffff]

I know there was an exploit in 2018, seems to still be there. I'm playing a 523 with wingbacks and have been unstopable. Yarmelenko and Anderson as wing backs

 

[benffffffffffff]

Wrong screen shot but I'm massively overachieving with West Ham, too unrealistic. I like to struggle a little, before being dominaant...

 

[herne79]

Then stop using the tactic?

[benffffffffffff]

Is it a cheat? I'm happy to win and like to think that my tactic is working. 

[herne79]

It's not a cheat (although others might disagree).

What it is is unrealistic, so if you input something unrealistic (e., the tactic) you might get unrealistic results as the output.  But at the same time the tactic creator and match engine should be applauded for being this flexible.  We're free to play the game however we choose.  We can choose to play as realistically (or not) as we want to.  Everybody plays the game differently.

It is of course perfectly possible to get similar results playing in a more realistic manner if you want to, it just may take a little more time as you develop the squad further.

TL;DR play the game however you enjoy playing it.

[Guest]

Lol I always laugh at this kinda stuff. Well done for the streak and creating a solid setup but don't open with "I like a challenge" then recreate the most exploitative tactic from last year. 

 

[dannyfc]

Out of interest, what makes it exploitable? Does it work even against two holding DMs?

[benffffffffffff]

Have a butchers

super 1.fmf

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, dannyfc said:

Out of interest, what makes it exploitable? Does it work even against two holding DMs?

Not every 3-striker tactic is an exploit tactic. You can have perfectly reasonable tactic that employs 3 strikers. 

As for 2 holding DMs, an exploit tactic should work against any system (that's why it's called "exploit"), but you don't need an exploit tactic to defeat a team that uses 2 (holding) DMs (such as 4213 Wide for example). You can do that with a normal tactic as well. 

[Guest]

Yeah you can, but the op hasn't, which is totally fine. 

I'm of the opinion that if you play single player, do it however you want and enjoy the game. If others are involed then its a bit scummy tbh. Is it a cheat? Not really, but if it's more effective than it should be due to how the ME works, then its an exploit. 

I like using 3 strikers and I'm a big fan of wingbacks but I refused to use it in 18 as it was just far too strong, I had hoped that this years version has fixed that but doesn't seem so.

[SD]

I can't remember who, but someone made a well argued point a few weeks ago, that the problem with three strikers is not necessarily inherent to the ME, but because of the attributes disparity between attackers and defenders. The more I think about it, the more this seems like the most plausible explanation. I'm not talking about Messi, Neymar or Ronaldo, but there are no defenders that match up ability-wise even to players like Hazard, Dybala or Griezmann.

Of course, if that's the case, the fix still lies with the match engine, otherwise, if you'd simply boost the CA of all defenders across the board you'd get the new, flavor of the year, 3CBs tactic that allows 5 goals a season and wins matches 1-0.

[mrgoal100]

So we have (even) more useless and cosmetic buttons to press but the 3 strikers thing is not fixed...

Good to know before buying fm19.

[SD]

1 minute ago, mrgoal100 said:

So we have (even) more useless and cosmetic buttons to press but the 3 strikers thing is not fixed...

Good to know before buying fm19.

At the end of the day, this is a primarily single player game, and if a player is bent to exploit it then there are plenty of other ways to do it - editors, scouting programs, wonderkid shortlists.

FM19 is definitely worth purchasing, what they did with training is a masterpiece.

[ajsr1982]

28 minutes ago, SD said:

I can't remember who, but someone made a well argued point a few weeks ago, that the problem with three strikers is not necessarily inherent to the ME, but because of the attributes disparity between attackers and defenders. The more I think about it, the more this seems like the most plausible explanation. I'm not talking about Messi, Neymar or Ronaldo, but there are no defenders that match up ability-wise even to players like Hazard, Dybala or Griezmann.

Of course, if that's the case, the fix still lies with the match engine, otherwise, if you'd simply boost the CA of all defenders across the board you'd get the new, flavor of the year, 3CBs tactic that allows 5 goals a season and wins matches 1-0.

I suppose the issue is that it shouldn't matter, because football isn't a series of one-on-one duels, it's about the collective being more than the sum of the individuals. It's about space, and the restriction/exploitation of it. The three central striker 'issue' is an issue regardless of what level one plays at, so I find it hard to believe it's because forwards are better than defenders.

 

[SD]

2 hours ago, ajsr1982 said:

it's about the collective being more than the sum of the individuals

Yes, but that's the case for the collectives on both ends of the pitch. So my thinking was that the collective that put out a greater quantity of CA on the pitch may have an edge.

However, I concede this is unlikely to be the explanation for the success of 3 striker formations. Even if it's true, this edge is still not big enough to explain the tactic performing so consistently.

[bennyj22]

3 striker formations are cheating. I tried it out and got to the FA cup semi-finals with a bloody Conference Team, beating 3 Premier League teams on the way, and pretty much breaking every record in football. It was fun, for a season.

And not if every manager in the Premier League came together and planned West Ham tactics for a year would they be unbeaten in 20 games.

So yes, it is clearly, blatantly unrealistic. And not by any small margin.

But if you wan't to pretend otherwise, by all means.

[Peljam]

You can have 3 striker tactics that aren't cheating in FM18. The exploit wasn't simply the number of strikers, it was overloading the defense with your players so that they were outnumbered or your players had options - often resulting in a tap in, more space than usual or lots of successful crosses because of available players. A lot of the 3 striker exploits were set up in a way that kept 3-4 of your players advanced - either with a winger/wingback crossing from wide with 3 strikers lined up to nod it in, or from passes through the centre that ended up defense splitting because there were too many players for the defense to handle. Which is why those tactics also usually ended up with the 3 strikers set on the same role (Poacher or Adv F), all getting 15+ goals a season.

You could create the same effect with1 striker and 2 AM's, 2 strikers and 1 AM, 1 striker and two wide AM's... You could even manage a verison of it with 0 strikers and 3 AM's with the right roles and instructions. So long as you end up with the extra players in the box then the defense is over run.

There are sensible 3 striker tactics (or variants) that don't try to exploit simply by overloading with numbers. Regardless of what's going on with the OP here, or the popular tactics downloads last year, it is possible.

[melogroovy]

When I started 18 with Newcastle, I played a 3 striker formation (before it became popular as an exploit) and came in 4th.  When the formation came into question I restarted playing with a 4231 and came in 4th.  

 

/shrug

[GreenTriangle]

I played over 100 hours (FM18) using different combinations of 523 wb narrow. And there is something strange about OP. West Ham is not a top team but not a relegation candidate.  A very offensive 523 wb combination could generate at least 6 chances per game.  But in OP there are generated below 5 chances per game.  A good team playing 523 wb can score 10 goals for every 25 chances. A very good team (full of world class strikers)  can score 10 goals for every 20-22 chances. But in OP are scored 10 goals at every 19 chances. Is West Ham team full of world class strikers ? I don't think. Their strikers are quality players but not world class players.  There is any way to score a lot of goals from a low number of chances ? Yes. Having a lot of luck ... or using reloads.  Even the fact that were generated a relative low number of chances is interesting. It means that ME can better cope with unrealistic tactical instructions and configurations.

[Experienced Defender]

An example of exploit 3-striker tactic:

AF     AF     AF

CMa  APMa   CMa

(C)WBa  CB  CB  (C)WBa

(+ offensive mentality and an abnormal amount of aggressive TIs)

An example of non-exploit 3-striker tactic (with the same 433 formation):

DLFs   DFd   P

CAR   CMa    DLPs

FBa   CB   CB    WBs

 

[Deego619]

Three Striker exploits have existed forever in this game. I remember the old FM10 Mr Hough tactic made use of it.

I think it's just a limitation of the static positioning in the ME that you can out number the amount of Center Backs. In real life you'd tell Full Backs to come extremely narrow (more so than you can do in the tactics screen) to help out and attacks would end up immobile in the middle of the pitch. That, or SI have decided that to fix it, it would require a whole new code base of a ME that would take extensive work that they lack the resources for, for a yearly game.

[ajsr1982]

31 minutes ago, JDeeguain said:

Three Striker exploits have existed forever in this game. I remember the old FM10 Mr Hough tactic made use of it.

I think it's just a limitation of the static positioning in the ME that you can out number the amount of Center Backs. In real life you'd tell Full Backs to come extremely narrow (more so than you can do in the tactics screen) to help out and attacks would end up immobile in the middle of the pitch. That, or SI have decided that to fix it, it would require a whole new code base of a ME that would take extensive work that they lack the resources for, for a yearly game.

This, basically.

While my footballing knowledge is far from encyclopaedic, I don't know of a team that has played a 4-3-3 narrow in any match in living memory. That's three central strikers.

You can call Liverpool's formation a 4-3-3 if you wish, but that's really a CF with two IFs who drop in to help out the full backs when out of possession. In FM terms it's closer to a 4-5-1 than a 4-3-3 Narrow. If Liverpool played an actual 4-3-3 Narrow, they'd lose more than they won.

That's not to say Klopp doesn't attempt to overload the centre of the pitch; he does. Liverpools two IFs get really narrow and look to get in behind the opposition defence, and it makes Liverpool very hard indeed to play against. However... as stated here, opposition defences have options. They can defend deep and look to hit Liverpool on the counter, or you tuck your full backs in really narrow, which FM doesn't currently seem capable of doing well enough.

I think this is exacerbated by the ME moving the ball from back to front very quickly. The long ball over the top being perhaps overpowered (and the CBs inability to turn and chase it) means that any overload in that area is likely to be doubly felt.

EDIT: Just to say that this has been around for over 20 years. The old Championship Manager 4-3-1-2 Narrow with up arrows from your whole midfield was unbeatable, and this is effectively what we're talking about.

[SD]

2 minutes ago, ajsr1982 said:

While my footballing knowledge is far from encyclopaedic, I don't know of a team that has played a 4-3-3 narrow in any match in living memory. That's three central strikers.

This is the best argument to people who say 3 strikers is not an exploit. No contemporary real life team plays like this, with three out and out central strikers.

[enigmatic]

2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

An example of exploit 3-striker tactic:

AF     AF     AF

CMa  APMa   CMa

(C)WBa  CB  CB  (C)WBa

(+ offensive mentality and an abnormal amount of aggressive TIs)

An example of non-exploit 3-striker tactic (with the same 433 formation):

DLFs   DFd   P

CAR   CMa    DLPs

FBa   CB   CB    WBs

 

Nah, the exploit is having three strikers to occupy the defence and a couple of early runners and focusing down the middle to exploit the fact the AI wouldn't adapt its defensive shape to your lack of width by tucking in the wide players so you'd always be able to get someone free in the penalty area. Both of your formations do this; its just the first is a bit more prone to conceding goals.

A lot of the most successful implementations of it were otherwise balanced mentality wise or even counter attacking...

[sporadicsmiles]

4 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

An example of exploit 3-striker tactic:

AF     AF     AF

CMa  APMa   CMa

(C)WBa  CB  CB  (C)WBa

(+ offensive mentality and an abnormal amount of aggressive TIs)

An example of non-exploit 3-striker tactic (with the same 433 formation):

DLFs   DFd   P

CAR   CMa    DLPs

FBa   CB   CB    WBs

 

I'm not sure you can say that just by posting some changes in roles and duties. Have you tested both these formations and found that they work completely differently? To call one an exploit and the other not, you have to show that the latter does not create goals due to some deficiency in the ME. I'd be interested in a write up of that, since it would be nice info to be able to show people when discussing such things. I also cannot imagine every using either of those formations as a basis for my team. It is a last resort lets go and score some goals or die tactic. Even then I would prefer a 424, but that is just me. 

To discuss the topic at hand, it is a single player game, so I will not preach about the right or wrong way of playing. I would not use a 433, but that is mostly because I do not find it a realistic tactic and it does not fit with how I want to play. Someone else, however, may want to play that way. You buy the game, you play how you want. And like I said, I would be interested in seeing someone write about this in more detail, just from a game mechanics point of view. 

[Experienced Defender]

23 minutes ago, sporadicsmiles said:

I'm not sure you can say that just by posting some changes in roles and duties

Well, these are not "some" changes. These are meaningful changes in roles and duties. In real life there are teams that use 3-striker formations in a realistic way, including even some that basically play a more defensive style of football. I am not pointing to Klopp's Liverpool, and agree that they actually play with some sort of a 4321Wide (in FM terminology), rather than 433.

 

31 minutes ago, sporadicsmiles said:

Have you tested both these formations and found that they work completely differently?

I had "tested" only the second ("non-exploit") one even before I learned that 3-striker systems are (or can be used as) exploit tactics in FM. I have used it just in two games, once with defensive and the other time with counter mentality, and did not use them during an entire match but just for a part of it. Judging by how my team played in both cases, I did not get the impression that it was an exploit. Yes, we managed to score a goal in either match while playing a 433, but these were friendly matches against much weaker opponents and we had scored even more goals playing with a "normal" formation (with 1 or 2 strikers).

As for the other ("exploit") 433, I haven't tested it and have no intention of doing that because it looks completely senseless from the real-life football perspective. However, I found these exploit tactics (including some with 2 strikers) in the Tactic Sharing section of this forum and read comments from people who tested them claiming that they really work and can beat even much stronger sides using them (with screenshots posted as evidence).

[Robson 07]

13 hours ago, bennyj22 said:

3 striker formations are cheating.

Not really, if it's in the game it's in the game.  And who are you cheating anyway?  It's just you versus the AI and that's it.  Technically I'd say things like editing and replaying matches are cheating but ultimately unless you are in a network game (or the long defunct FM Live) you are the only player of the game.  If you don't want to do it and I get that argument completely, don't do it.

More in support of your case, perhaps it is time the AI manger, or perhaps the match engine, dealt with the problem better and that one is on SI.

[westy8chimp]

What would a fix look like? Never being able to score... Because the ME has to handle me playing 5 strikers which means AI having dynamic defence brain and becomes well overpowered when i play a simple 4141? 

The best fix is for the user not to play mental formations. If you want to, and i do for fun sometimes like my 2341 on fm18, at least invent your own and create some kind of logical narrative.

Or go ahead and play an out n out exploit, its ur game... But dont moan about it on the forum. 

To win any league with a non favorite team you are exploiting the AI to some extent... We can sign better players, use better rotation, scout wonderkids quickly, develop more specifically. We can live to the age of 200+ whilst our rivals are forced to change manager at least every 40 years

Its a game... Do what you want with it. 

A lot of us here surely play to try and recreate some of the great historical tactics or styles... Or simply love a 442, or want to emulate their real life club. Try any of that and you are unlikely to stumble across a purely tactic based exploit. 

[GreenTriangle]

2 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

I did not get the impression that it was an exploit

Of course is not. AI can handle some configurations even if 3 strikers are used. 

 

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, GreenTriangle said:

Of course is not. AI can handle some configurations even if 3 strikers are used. 

 

On top of that, your tactic is very well-balanced and realistic in terms of roles, duties, mentality and shape, which definitely proves that a 433 is not an exploit in and of itself 

[sporadicsmiles]

12 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Well, these are not "some" changes. These are meaningful changes in roles and duties. In real life there are teams that use 3-striker formations in a realistic way, including even some that basically play a more defensive style of football. I am not pointing to Klopp's Liverpool, and agree that they actually play with some sort of a 4321Wide (in FM terminology), rather than 433.

 

I had "tested" only the second ("non-exploit") one even before I learned that 3-striker systems are (or can be used as) exploit tactics in FM. I have used it just in two games, once with defensive and the other time with counter mentality, and did not use them during an entire match but just for a part of it. Judging by how my team played in both cases, I did not get the impression that it was an exploit. Yes, we managed to score a goal in either match while playing a 433, but these were friendly matches against much weaker opponents and we had scored even more goals playing with a "normal" formation (with 1 or 2 strikers).

As for the other ("exploit") 433, I haven't tested it and have no intention of doing that because it looks completely senseless from the real-life football perspective. However, I found these exploit tactics (including some with 2 strikers) in the Tactic Sharing section of this forum and read comments from people who tested them claiming that they really work and can beat even much stronger sides using them (with screenshots posted as evidence).

Out of interest, what teams play a 433 in the real world? I would quite like to go either watch some of their play, or try to find something to read about them. I'd like to see how this works in the real world.

Of course, by testing I did mean playing with. Not some download forum soak test. I like to hear about formations that are completely different to how I would normally play, it is how you learn new things. Interestingly, using a defensive or counter mentality with that formation is one of the things I would do if I were to use this. My main counter attacking formation has 3 forwards who do not really drop deep without me explicitly forcing them to mark someone. the only difference is I use pacy wide players rather than central attackers.

Anyway, another motivation for me asking you about this was because I was contemplating writing something about the difference between exploits and just good tactic building. You see the word exploit bandied around these forums a lot, but often without a lot of context. All successful tactics exploit something, the only problem is if that something is the ME itself. I thought it could be interesting to see if you had any experience with that!

[sporadicsmiles]

10 hours ago, GreenTriangle said:

Of course is not. AI can handle some configurations even if 3 strikers are used. 

 

Good lord you conceded 54 goals in half a season !! I have not conceded that many in my last two seasons combined! I'm a defensive man, I like to build success on the back a mean defense. No wonder I can't think of situations where I would use a formation this top heavy. 4231 is already pushing the boat out.

Anyway, as Experienced Defender says, there is logic behind your choice of roles and duties there, and not all 433s are exploits. Still, 54 goals! I'm not over that yet

[mikcheck]

What about this formation? Would you consider cheat or an easier way to win?

 

 

[herne79]

23 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

What about this formation? Would you consider cheat or an easier way to win?

And therein lies the issue.  All some people want to do is "win" as easily as possible.  They want to beat the game. And that's fine, good luck to them.

On the flip side the only end goal which the game actually has is that which we ourselves individually set.  Want to beat the game as quickly as possible?  Then that's what you set.  Want to play around in the lower leagues for 25 seasons?  Then that's what you set.  Want to take over the club you support and try to play in a realistic manner as them, hopefully taking them to Champions League glory over a number of seasons?  Then that's what you set.

So imo opinion there are no cheats, nor are there any exploits.  There is only individual choice.  Want to play with some so-called "exploit" tactic?  Then do so and have fun.  Don't want to play with some so-called "exploit" tactic?  Then don't and have fun.  Personally I couldn't care less how people play, so long as they themselves are having fun doing it.

[ajsr1982]

48 minutes ago, herne79 said:

And therein lies the issue.  All some people want to do is "win" as easily as possible.  They want to beat the game. And that's fine, good luck to them.

On the flip side the only end goal which the game actually has is that which we ourselves individually set.  Want to beat the game as quickly as possible?  Then that's what you set.  Want to play around in the lower leagues for 25 seasons?  Then that's what you set.  Want to take over the club you support and try to play in a realistic manner as them, hopefully taking them to Champions League glory over a number of seasons?  Then that's what you set.

So imo opinion there are no cheats, nor are there any exploits.  There is only individual choice.  Want to play with some so-called "exploit" tactic?  Then do so and have fun.  Don't want to play with some so-called "exploit" tactic?  Then don't and have fun.  Personally I couldn't care less how people play, so long as they themselves are having fun doing it.

@herne79, I agree with all of that. It's not like FM is unique in this regard, either. It's a game and it follows a set of rules. SI have gone to great lengths to make sure it follows real football as closely as possible, but there are concessions that need to be made in order to ensure the game delivers feasible results. As @westy8chimp alludes to above, ramping up defensive intelligence would have knock-on effects right across the match engine. I'd like to think SI are working on this, but hey, that's another conversation... The gameplay in FIFA is wholly unrealistic, but I suppose we accept it for what it is and take what enjoyment we will from playing it.

That said, I do have to take certain tactical revelations on here with a pinch of salt when I see three central players at the top end of the pitch. I'd welcome the views of other's here, but I'm far more likely to pitch in when I see that someone is trying to craft something that relates to 'real' football.

[Experienced Defender]

4 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

All successful tactics exploit something, the only problem is if that something is the ME itself. I thought it could be interesting to see if you had any experience with that!

No, I haven't. But to cut a long story short, I personally don't have a problem with people using exploit tactics. If that's what makes them happy, I respect their choice. I just want to stress that their choice will never be mine. But when it comes to exploit tactics, I would not blame people who (ab)use them, but rather those in SI who have never managed to fix the issues with the ME that allow these exploits to happen at all.

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, mikcheck said:

What about this formation? Would you consider cheat or an easier way to win?

 

 

I don't see why would this formation (including roles and duties) be considered a "cheat"? Only because it's strikerless? Nah 

[sporadicsmiles]

On 23/10/2018 at 13:28, Experienced Defender said:

No, I haven't. But to cut a long story short, I personally don't have a problem with people using exploit tactics. If that's what makes them happy, I respect their choice. I just want to stress that their choice will never be mine. But when it comes to exploit tactics, I would not blame people who (ab)use them, but rather those in SI who have never managed to fix the issues with the ME that allow these exploits to happen at all.

Me either. Even if I personally dislike them, it is not for me to preach how people play their games. They paid their money for it, so they should be able to do whatever gives them the most pleasure. On the tactical forum, I will try to offer tactical advice. If there is someone bragging about being amazing using one of these tactics on a career thread, well, different story there.

[Cleon]

Quote

But when it comes to exploit tactics, I would not blame people who (ab)use them, but rather those in SI who have never managed to fix the issues with the ME that allow these exploits to happen at all.

You can't fix all exploits. There will always be some kind of exploit, the only way you can get rid of them is if the game was AI vs AI. Blaming SI for not closing exploits off is silly when they do in fact work hard on them. I mean, last year they fixed around 40 major exploits that a lot of you didn't know about. But it's a constant battle for them and something that is being constantly worked on. Some also aren't easy to fix. Anyone who thinks SI don't acknowledge issues or fix them are speaking nonsense. They don't 'allow' them to happen in the first place. People stumble across them.

[Experienced Defender]

5 minutes ago, Cleon said:

You can't fix all exploits. There will always be some kind of exploit, the only way you can get rid of them is if the game was AI vs AI. Blaming SI for not closing exploits off is silly when they do in fact work hard on them. I mean, last year they fixed around 40 major exploits that a lot of you didn't know about. But it's a constant battle for them and something that is being constantly worked on. Some also aren't easy to fix. Anyone who thinks SI don't acknowledge issues or fix them are speaking nonsense. They don't 'allow' them to happen in the first place. People stumble across them.

I don't think that SI intentionally allow these exploits. I am just a bit disappointed that it's proved to be virtually impossible to fix them once and for all. FM is the best and most close simulation of real-life football and I wholeheartedly want it to become even more so. Hence those "harsh words" from me on the inability to get rid of exploits. No bad intention 

[RocheBag]

On 21/10/2018 at 14:20, herne79 said:

Then stop using the tactic?

Come on mate. This response doesn't help anyone. It's a problem with the match engine which shouldn't exist, and it effects more than just people who use it, as the AI plays with this formation quite frequently.

Admittedly he's posted this in the wrong forum, it should be in the feedback thread or raised as a bug, but it isn't so simple as "just don't use it."

[RocheBag]

On 21/10/2018 at 15:27, Dal81 said:

Lol I always laugh at this kinda stuff. Well done for the streak and creating a solid setup but don't open with "I like a challenge" then recreate the most exploitative tactic from last year. 

 

The issue is that the AI uses it too. 

[Dagenham_Dave]

40 minutes ago, RocheBag said:

The issue is that the AI uses it too. 

No they don't. AI teams might play 3 up front from time to time, but as has already been explained earlier in the thread, it's not simply  the '3 up front' formation that is the exploit. It's the roles and instructions used in conjunction with it that the AI most definitely doesn't use. 

 

[Svenc]

1 hour ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

No they don't. AI teams might play 3 up front from time to time, but as has already been explained earlier in the thread, it's not simply  the '3 up front' formation that is the exploit. It's the roles and instructions used in conjunction with it that the AI most definitely doesn't use. 

 

It may be not, but it still evidently costs players unaware of the curious "three fishermen™" dynamics comfortably leads on the occasion -- sometimes in a mere ten minutes in-game time. I've watched any such AI switch at least ever since FM 2015. Now of course you can defend "3 upfront" as such. In itself it also isn't a guaranted loss (it's just very easy breaks on any interception for the AI unless you specifically reply by providing added men to cover the "fishermen"). But in general I don't think I (nor anyone, nor other AI managers for that matter) would need to keep such an eagle eye on simple opposition formational switches the same way in real football, personally.

[herne79]

2 hours ago, RocheBag said:

Come on mate. This response doesn't help anyone.

*sigh* look at the context if you're going to quote people please.  The OP didn't start some generalised discussion about the whys and wherefores of 3 strikers, it was very specific regarding West Ham - which is precisely what my short reply was aimed at.

The OP says he's massively overachieving using the tactic, it's too unrealistic and he likes to struggle a bit before dominating.  Nobody's forcing him to use the tactic.  If he wants to change all of that then he can very easily - by not using the tactic.  That's his only option if he wants to play as West Ham in a more realistic way because West Ham don't use that system in real life.  He can't just tweak the tactic to make it more realistic, he needs a completely new tactic if he's after realism.

So yes, stop using the tactic.

[RocheBag]

1 hour ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

No they don't. AI teams might play 3 up front from time to time, but as has already been explained earlier in the thread, it's not simply  the '3 up front' formation that is the exploit. It's the roles and instructions used in conjunction with it that the AI most definitely doesn't use. 

 

Mate I've played 9 games in the beta so far, 2 of those teams used 3 strikers, and I've lost those 2 easily while winning the other 7. It plays and feels exactly the same as it did in 18 and that's a problem.

[Dagenham_Dave]

2 minutes ago, RocheBag said:

Mate I've played 9 games in the beta so far, 2 of those teams used 3 strikers, and I've lost those 2 easily while winning the other 7.

Of course, the two games you've lost couldn't possibly be your fault. 

[Experienced Defender]

In FM18 I have not so far faced a team that played against me with 3 strikers as its starting tactic. However, in a cup match against Wolves, some 15 minutes prior to the end they switched from a 5-2-3 WB Wide (with one striker and 2 wide players in AM strata) to a flat 3-4-3 (with 3 outright strikers) in a desperate attempt to equalize (as I was leading 1-0). To make things worse for me, my LB Van Aanholt was sent off following a 2nd yellow card in the 83th minute. Did they manage to equalize? No. They did not even created a single clear-cut chance. I don't know whether you will accept this as a sufficient argument that the AI playing with 3 strikers is not necessarily an exploit, but the fact is that you can defend successfully against 3 strikers.

[Miravlix]

The problem is we have no clue when something breaks the ME. For all we know putting an AMC in AMCL or AMCR is all it take to break what the ME can handle. (It sure leads to the same as the Ops extream winning performance for in FM18 and now 19 for me and I'm fairly sure I'm not football tactical genius).

 

I feel like the ME is a coloring book, as long as you color within the lines it's fine, but for someone who can't even see the lines, it's quite easy to paint outside them.

 

 

[SD]

52 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

I don't know whether you will accept this as a sufficient argument that the AI playing with 3 strikers is not necessarily an exploit, but the fact is that you can defend successfully against 3 strikers.

3 strikers may or may not be an exploit in and of itself, but the problem is compounded by AI managers inability to react to it.

 

10 minutes ago, Miravlix said:

The problem is we have no clue when something breaks the ME. For all we know putting an AMC in AMCL or AMCR is all it take to break what the ME can handle.

A good rule of thumb for me personally is: Does this tactic resemble that of any real life team?

Of course, ideally we'd have a bulletproof ME and sometimes there's a thin line between exploit and genius, but three attacking central strikers, an attacking mentality along with every TI possible is definitely not one of these close calls.