Nikola75 Posted March 25, 2020 Author Share Posted March 25, 2020 Well, I can think of at least 4 times OK,I know this is (too) long post... On 16/03/2020 at 22:01, Experienced Defender said: 1. Would you consider switching to a more balanced formation (e.g. 4411 or 4123 wide) or you insist specifically on the 4231? On 17/03/2020 at 13:40, Experienced Defender said: If you fear they would struggle in a 4411, you can go with a 4141dm wide (a.k.a. 4123). They would still be played in wide forward positions (AML/R), but the formation is better balanced than 4231 and thus offers more options and room for maneuver when it comes to the setup of roles and duties. On 17/03/2020 at 15:58, Experienced Defender said: For example, let's say I want to play a counter-attacking football using the 4123 formation, but I am not sure about every single instruction I may need to use. What do I do? On 19/03/2020 at 01:20, Experienced Defender said: A really good player, and definitely natural anchor man (in terms of his attributes). The only problem with playing him as a CM in a 4231 is the lack of speed - he is too slow. Plus has very low stamina. And given that he is 33, it's only going to get worse. Which is just one more reason for you to consider switching to a 4123. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Experienced Defender Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 11 minutes ago, Nikola75 said: Well, I can think of at least 4 times OK,I know this is (too) long post... I was talking about the 4123 formation, that's absolutely true. But I have never ever recommended that particular tactic which you ascribed to me. Formation and tactic are different things Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikola75 Posted March 25, 2020 Author Share Posted March 25, 2020 Ok, someone might call this semantics. I wanted to say that you were persistant enough that I might try to employ 4123 formation, which I tried for days and could not get it working. It is working now and I was trying to analyze what I changed in my tactic in comparison to the one we have chatted above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Experienced Defender Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 26 minutes ago, Nikola75 said: Ok, someone might call this semantics. I wanted to say that you were persistant enough that I might try to employ 4123 formation, which I tried for days and could not get it working. It is working now and I was trying to analyze what I changed in my tactic in comparison to the one we have chatted above. Okay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now