Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Recommended Posts

Good evening everyone,

Hope you're all well!

 

So in season 1, we won the Championship in good fashion. 

Second season, really strong first half of the season sitting between 4th & 7th. Finishing up in 9th, close to 11th.

Now 3rd season we seem to be so inconsistent. Is there anything wrong with this tactical set up?

 

TIA

Sale.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RegistaNoble said:

Sale.png

 

4 hours ago, RegistaNoble said:

Is there anything wrong with this tactical set up?

If you ask me, it's fairly unbalanced in terms of roles and duties. Except for the front three, whose roles and duties make sense. You may consider changing the AML (Vinicius) to IW on support instead of IF on support, but that's not of nearly as much importance as the rest of your setup.

The role I would definitely change is the AP on support into DLP on support. That would create an optimal balance in the left side of your setup.

Then I would also avoid having both the mezzala and the wide forward on the same flank on attack dutiesat the same time. Not just for defensive reasons, but also because good tactical balance is equally helpful in attack. Many people make a big mistake thinking that they need to employ as many attack duties as possible and/or be overly aggressive when defending in order to make their team more dangerous in attack. But that's not how things work. 

In terms of instructions, I would first need to know what exactly you want to achieve with this tactic in terms of the style of football in order to be able to offer any meaningful advice. However, an instruction I would immediately remove is Distribute to PM, because the playmaker will see a lot of the ball by virtue of his role anyway, so there is no need to take needless defensive risks by telling the keeper to play the ball specifically to him (if your PM was played in a DM position, then it would make more sense). On top of that, you already use the Play out of defence, which makes any specific GK distribution instruction pretty much unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

If you ask me, it's fairly unbalanced in terms of roles and duties. Except for the front three, whose roles and duties make sense. You may consider changing the AML (Vinicius) to IW on support instead of IF on support, but that's not of nearly as much importance as the rest of your setup.

The role I would definitely change is the AP on support into DLP on support. That would create an optimal balance in the left side of your setup.

Then I would also avoid having both the mezzala and the wide forward on the same flank on attack dutiesat the same time. Not just for defensive reasons, but also because good tactical balance is equally helpful in attack. Many people make a big mistake thinking that they need to employ as many attack duties as possible and/or be overly aggressive when defending in order to make their team more dangerous in attack. But that's not how things work. 

In terms of instructions, I would first need to know what exactly you want to achieve with this tactic in terms of the style of football in order to be able to offer any meaningful advice. However, an instruction I would immediately remove is Distribute to PM, because the playmaker will see a lot of the ball by virtue of his role anyway, so there is no need to take needless defensive risks by telling the keeper to play the ball specifically to him (if your PM was played in a DM position, then it would make more sense). On top of that, you already use the Play out of defence, which makes any specific GK distribution instruction pretty much unnecessary.

I actually took a look at the styles after i posted and altered a few things. Switched to this system and have won 4 in a row (Including 3 away wins, which we had only 1 of all season prior).

I personally thought the distribute to playmaker would have been useful, on the counter playing to the playmaker to create quick attacks. I sometimes get this game totally wrong! Haha

Usually Mitrovic is in the side over Calvert-Lewin, but he's injured. Is the CDM role okay? I never know if to go more experimental in there or just keep it basic. 

Really appreciate the feedback kind sir

Sale.png

Share this post


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

Is the CDM role okay?

Nothing wrong with DM on defend duty. Depending on the player playing there, you can also try a HB or anchor (who is the safest DM role overall). 

 

21 minutes ago, RegistaNoble said:

Sale.png

 

21 minutes ago, RegistaNoble said:

Switched to this system and have won 4 in a row (Including 3 away wins, which we had only 1 of all season prior)

Even though your results have obviously improved, have to notice that this new tactic is even more unbalanced than the previous one. Hopefully, it will not suddenly fail after this very good initial run of results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Experienced Defender said:

Nothing wrong with DM on defend duty. Depending on the player playing there, you can also try a HB or anchor (who is the safest DM role overall). 

 

 

Even though your results have obviously improved, have to notice that this new tactic is even more unbalanced than the previous one. Hopefully, it will not suddenly fail after this very good initial run of results.

I was literally just about to type that it's gone to pot. Two defeats, Leeds 3-1 Fulham and Fulham 0-2 Wolves (who are struggling massively).

 

How do I get this game so wrong? 😫

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RegistaNoble said:

How do I get this game so wrong?

I really don't know. But if it can be any consolation, you are at least not the only one having that kind of problem :lock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

I really don't know. But if it can be any consolation, you are at least not the only one having that kind of problem :lock:

Okay, let me ask. What do you do when assessing your team and deciding on a tactic?

Share this post


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

What do you do when assessing your team and deciding on a tactic?

When I analyze my team - both compared to the rest of the league and in terms of individual players - I use that analysis to decide what style of football would make most sense for my team and which particular formation would optimally suit my players. Then I work on creating a specific (primary/basic) tactic that belongs to that particular style.

But whichever tactical style I eventually opt for, the tactic must be balanced, sensible and without any tactical overkill. 

Basically, I approach FM just as I would approach real-life football if I were a real-life manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

When I analyze my team - both compared to the rest of the league and in terms of individual players - I use that analysis to decide what style of football would make most sense for my team and which particular formation would optimally suit my players. Then I work on creating a specific (primary/basic) tactic that belongs to that particular style.

But whichever tactical style I eventually opt for, the tactic must be balanced, sensible and without any tactical overkill. 

Basically, I approach FM just as I would approach real-life football if I were a real-life manager.

 Is this unbalanced? I've switched Roberts to S, Majer on A. Hoping for a crossover between the two, Roberts moves in-field & Majer overlaps. 

I've gone with Emerson (RB) on D. Basically on S he was too far forward.

Same with McTominay really, he was too far forward. So putting him as an Anchor will hopefully reduce his forward runs.

 

Does this logic work? Or am I way off? 

Sale.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RegistaNoble said:

Sale.png

 

9 minutes ago, RegistaNoble said:

Does this logic work? Or am I way off? 

A bit better than the previous one, but still not clear enough what's the exact goal of the tactic. 

The key question is - what style of football do you want to play and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Experienced Defender said:

 

A bit better than the previous one, but still not clear enough what's the exact goal of the tactic. 

The key question is - what style of football do you want to play and why?

I want interchange between the front 4 (Majer, Vinicius, Roberts & Mitro to an extent.)

Mitro being the main focus point but with goals coming from the wingers too.

We have fast technical wingers & good passers in the middle. 

 

We do look to get crosses in because Mitrovic is dominant in the air.

Also I feel we have the players to counter at pace.

So it's kind of a mix of how we want to play i guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, RegistaNoble said:

I want interchange between the front 4 (Majer, Vinicius, Roberts & Mitro to an extent.)

Mitro being the main focus point but with goals coming from the wingers too.

We have fast technical wingers & good passers in the middle. 

 

We do look to get crosses in because Mitrovic is dominant in the air.

Also I feel we have the players to counter at pace.

So it's kind of a mix of how we want to play i guess

Okay, but that's not a sufficiently precise description of a tactical style. 

What I would certainly remove is extremely wide width. There is no reason for such an instruction, especially in a starting (basic) tactic. Plus, given that you play on the attacking team mentality, your default width is wide enough by default. 

And would play Mitro in a less roaming role, so that he would be as much of the focal point as possible. Basically PF on attack duty is the role I believe would optimally suit him in this kind of system. 

At least one of the wide forwards should be played in a classic winger role, precisely because of Mitro's aerial abilities coupled with good physical strength overall. 

Your left fullback is a bit too conservative, considering the roles in front of him (a holding CM and attacking IF), so your players may struggle in the final third due to the potential lack of wide support.

I hope these couple observation can help you improve the tactic. Anyway, once you finish the next series of tweaks, post a screenshot of that new tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a read around online to see if I can learn the "do's and don'ts" of the game.

So I'm looking at a lower line of engagement to get Vinicius and ASM closer to play, also give them space in behind if it becomes available.

Distribute to the full backs - again to get it to the easiest channel to play the ball into the feet of the wingers.

VJ and ASM are my most talented players. The best players to make things happen for us.

Run at defence because we have the players to do it i believe. 

Positive mentality to ensure we take a couple of risks every now and then. Moro and Ceballos can both pick a pass.

 

In terms of roles, I'm not sure on a CAR. Don't know if it works, just thought it brings him closer to Vinicius for support.

RB, I'm very unsure of what role to go with.

RW - tempted to stick him on attack duty so he will run at his man more. But being on support, he will come deep to collect.

 

Anything blatantly bad that I'm missing?

This game infuriates me. But God, I love it. 

Sale.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RegistaNoble said:

Sale.png

This tactic definitely looks better than the last one (and even more so than the more previous ones), but the problem is that you tend to make too big changes from tactic to tactic. Here for example you changed not just the mentality (which alone is a pretty big change already) and a number of roles, but also the passing style, line of engagement, manner of distribution. You also removed the early crosses and added run at defence. Nothing wrong with the Run at defence instruction as such (as long as your players can execute it properly), I am just trying to emphasize the problem with making so many changes at once. 

 

1 hour ago, RegistaNoble said:

n terms of roles, I'm not sure on a CAR. Don't know if it works, just thought it brings him closer to Vinicius for support

Yes, carrilero in MCL absolutely makes sense in this setup on your left flank, so that's okay (of course, make sure the player has proper attributes for the role). 

When it comes to the setup of roles and duties specifically, I would play the MCR (Ceballos) on attack duty and would change the AML into IW on attack instead of IF on attack. Simply because of the role of your striker. If Mitro was played as a DLF on attack, then IF on attack would make more sense. But PF on attack generally tends to work better when his attack-duty wide partner is played in a winger or IW role. That's due to the nature of roles. 

Btw, why did you remove the mezzala from the setup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

This tactic definitely looks better than the last one (and even more so than the more previous ones), but the problem is that you tend to make too big changes from tactic to tactic. Here for example you changed not just the mentality (which alone is a pretty big change already) and a number of roles, but also the passing style, line of engagement, manner of distribution. You also removed the early crosses and added run at defence. Nothing wrong with the Run at defence instruction as such (as long as your players can execute it properly), I am just trying to emphasize the problem with making so many changes at once. 

 

Yes, carrilero in MCL absolutely makes sense in this setup on your left flank, so that's okay (of course, make sure the player has proper attributes for the role). 

When it comes to the setup of roles and duties specifically, I would play the MCR (Ceballos) on attack duty and would change the AML into IW on attack instead of IF on attack. Simply because of the role of your striker. If Mitro was played as a DLF on attack, then IF on attack would make more sense. But PF on attack generally tends to work better when his attack-duty wide partner is played in a winger or IW role. That's due to the nature of roles. 

Btw, why did you remove the mezzala from the setup?

Thank you! I'm going to put these in place. I see what you mean about changing them drastically, but it's getting to the point where I'll get sacked if i don't find a solution soon! So I'm panicking haha!

 

I removed Mezzala because he kept getting too close to the winger at first. Then I sold Majer & didn't have another Mezzala as good as him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...