Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

betis.png?width=450&height=278&fit=bound

 

Regarding the two CM's and my WB's. Am I right in thinking that the BBM on the support duty is right to be playing on the same side as my WB on attack? So that he can cover the WB when he gets further forward? Or should I put the BBM on the side where the winger is on attack? 

Perhaps it doesn't matter and I'm overthinking things.

One other thing I'm unsure of is whether the mezzala will get in the way of the winger because he will move into the channel, I'm wondering if I should switch the mezzala to the side with the inside forward. Perhaps this is why Tello and Mandi aren't working well together.

You may have to right click on the image and open in new tab to view it fully. I don't know why it crops out half of it on here.

Edited by safcrhys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to the earlier Y|N and I'm sure other more experienced players will have good info, but I've got a similar 3rd tactic to yours in the MF/Ws and found the other option of Mez(s)/IF(s)/WB(a) being in each other's way, that how you have it is how I've got it: https://community.sigames.com/topic/521924-brighton-wandering-seagulls-now-with-some-cityzens-style-4-3-34-1-2-3/?do=findComment&comment=12519027

I like the BBM on the side you have him, in another tactic I have a BWM over there with an instruction to get wide, but with the same idea in mind to provide cover for the WB(a) going for a wander.

That said, my main tactic has an RPM on the same side as the IF(s)/W(a) combo, but being a roaming playmaker he goes all over the place, whereas the Mez is explicitly supposed to be a wide-ish creative mid. Do your players have any personal traits that may hinder their ability to play together or lower teamwork/off the ball attributes than you'd like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBM is not an ideal role to choose if you want cover for the WB(a), because it will push up just outside of the opponent's box in possession (hence the name "box-to-box midfielder"). Luckily you have a DLP(d) there for cover, so it should be fine. The mezzala will not get in the way of the winger, but your WB(s) probably will, so I think you're better off with an IWB on that side.

Share this post


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

Am I right in thinking that the BBM on the support duty is right to be playing on the same side as my WB on attack?

No if you ask me. 

 

1 hour ago, safcrhys said:

So that he can cover the WB when he gets further forward?

BBM is not a role supposed to provide defensive cover for an attack-duty WB or FB. Depending on the player and your overall tactical system, good options in a 4123 wide include carrilero, BWM and DLP (on support duty in all cases). If you want to pair a BBM with an attack-minded fullback role in a 4123 wide, then better go with WB on support (or automatic). 

 

1 hour ago, safcrhys said:

One other thing I'm unsure of is whether the mezzala will get in the way of the winger because he will move into the channel, I'm wondering if I should switch the mezzala to the side with the inside forward

Assuming you have suitable players for both roles, a mezzala works nicely with any wide forward role as long as they are played on different duties (e.g. mezzala on attack with winger/IW/IF on support, and vice versa). But they will still not work if the rest of your tactical setup is not designed sensibly. Which means that you should never consider any role combo in isolation. 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...