Opinions?

[GC28]

2014-02-14_00001 by gic28, on Flickr

So this tactic has been working quite well for me, but It seems my strikers struggle for goals (Luckily the AM L & R make up for that)

Do you think Advanced Forward is the wrong role for a lone striker in this formation?

[brawla123]

Is he getting good support from the other players? What kind of chances is he getting?

[Miravlix]

With IF's wanting to share the strikers space, I always prefer strikers that get the hell out of dodge like the F9.

But other types might work with roaming.

[Dagenham_Dave]

You could change the forward to a DLF or a F9, and move your AP in midfield to the right hand side of the three. Put your ball-winner in the middle. Either that or change your advanced forward's mentality to 'support'. (I think you can do this with an AF, perhaps not). I only ever have a forward player with an attack duty if he's part of a partnership up front (ie a TM and a P). I always have lone striker with a support duty now.

[SpartyOn]

You could change the forward to a DLF or a F9, and move your AP in midfield to the right hand side of the three. Put your ball-winner in the middle. Either that or change your advanced forward's mentality to 'support'. (I think you can do this with an AF, perhaps not). I only ever have a forward player with an attack duty if he's part of a partnership up front (ie a TM and a P). I always have lone striker with a support duty now.

AF can only be attack.

My favorite lone striker role is CF/S. He'll drop deep into space and give you the movement you need in a formation like this, but can also still be a major goal threat.

[GC28]

You could change the forward to a DLF or a F9, and move your AP in midfield to the right hand side of the three. Put your ball-winner in the middle. Either that or change your advanced forward's mentality to 'support'. (I think you can do this with an AF, perhaps not). I only ever have a forward player with an attack duty if he's part of a partnership up front (ie a TM and a P). I always have lone striker with a support duty now.

Thanks funnily enough that's what i went with before coming back to look at the post!

Thanks!

[GC28]

AF can only be attack.

My favorite lone striker role is CF/S. He'll drop deep into space and give you the movement you need in a formation like this, but can also still be a major goal threat.

Giving it ago!

[GC28]

Seems like after a while my goals have dried up and with that my wins, Does the CPU get used to you using the same tactic after a while?

Currently 10th after being in the champions league semi final last season, I've been trying other things like a BBM as one of the 3 but nothings helping at the moment!!

2014-03-05_00001 by gic28, on Flickr

[PeeKay]

Seems like after a while my goals have dried up and with that my wins, Does the CPU get used to you using the same tactic after a while?

Currently 10th after being in the champions league semi final last season, I've been trying other things like a BBM as one of the 3 but nothings helping at the moment!!

Be aware, that the Retain Possession Team Instruction will reduce the number of chances the team creates. I usually Retain Possession after I've taken the lead.

[llama3]

You have no defensive cover in central midfield (the BWM pushes on to win the ball - no player sits and holds) & only 1 player breaking into the box (IF(A) @ AML) which is unsufficient. Both need resolving.

[GC28]

So the BWM set to defend doesn't have hit sit back?

And Januzaj set to AP Attack doesn't have him push into the box?

Looking at this you might have a point with 16 conceded from the center of the pitch!!

2014-03-05_00002 by gic28, on Flickr

[RTHerringbone]

The BWM will just chase the ball, and so not give you a good, static base in midfield (which I think every single tactic requires).

The AP (A) will not get forward quickly enough.

Consider swapping the BWM for a CM (D) - note you can invite him to Play More Risky Passes and so act like a Playmaker, and you can get him to Tackle Harder to add a bit of bite.

Consider swapping the AP (A) for a CM (A), because that Role / Duty combination definitely gets into the box.

[GC28]

Thanks I've given that a go will see if it improves things!!

Does anyone think that this defensive line is too high or does nobody really bother with the heat maps?

2014-03-05_00003 by gic28, on Flickr

[RTHerringbone]

The line is only too high if you are consistently conceding similar goals where the ball is played in behind your midfield.

Looking again at your set up, I'd be concerned about having the CM (A) on the right of midfield as your Full Back Attacks on that side.

It really risks opening up that side of your team, as the Winger is too high to defend with any regularity, irrespective of his Duty.

A Defensive Winger might be an option but would still be too high to prevent you being exploited down that side, so I'd think about how you could rejig your Duties across that MC line.

Is there a reason you've gone for that shape rather than a 4-5-1 (4-1-2-2-1)?

[tomtuck01]

Be aware, that the Retain Possession Team Instruction will reduce the number of chances the team creates. I usually Retain Possession after I've taken the lead.

I wish people wouldn't say stuff like this that is at best misguidung to others and at worst totally untrue.

I alwsys use the "Retain Possession" instruction and I create plenty of chances.

[GC28]

The line is only too high if you are consistently conceding similar goals where the ball is played in behind your midfield.

Looking again at your set up, I'd be concerned about having the CM (A) on the right of midfield as your Full Back Attacks on that side.

It really risks opening up that side of your team, as the Winger is too high to defend with any regularity, irrespective of his Duty.

A Defensive Winger might be an option but would still be too high to prevent you being exploited down that side, so I'd think about how you could rejig your Duties across that MC line.

Is there a reason you've gone for that shape rather than a 4-5-1 (4-1-2-2-1)?

I conceded a lofted goal in my last game but can't say it's a major issue from looking at that average positions map i'd say the big problem is everyone seems very close together from the midfield forward!

Definitely makes sense to have the Attacking MC on the right side but then there could be an issue with most of the attacking coming from one side?

4-5-1 flat do you mean?

If so i'd just thing the striker would be too isolated in that formation...

(4-1-2-2-1) Could be an option I suppose would offer more defensive cover I suppose!

[RTHerringbone]

What I meant was that I don't think the CM (A) on the right is a good idea. I'd look to shift him and get a more defensively responsible Role / Duty combination to cover the FB (A).

With regard to formation, I meant the 4-1-2-2-1 - I still think of it as a 4-5-1!

What I've always found when using any flat formation, is that you try so hard to get one player to do the job that he would in the higher or lower stratum, that you might as well stick them there in the first place.

With your current formation, you need to try to get someone to cover the gap back to DC, and the most effective way is to just whack some DM Role in and tinker with him until he gives the balance you've want. I don't want to make you think you have to do that, it is just what my own experiments have tended to suggest to me.

Once you have him "doing his job" at DM, I find it actually gives you license to be a bit more creative with what you do with your two MC guys.

A lone striker can be very effective with nobody at all near him on the formation screen. I use a 4-1-4-1 but regularly have 2 or 3 in the box with the lone striker.

[PeeKay]

I wish people wouldn't say stuff like this that is at best misguidung to others and at worst totally untrue.

I alwsys use the "Retain Possession" instruction and I create plenty of chances.

I use the "Reatin Possession" instruction as well, when I take it off I create more chances. Nothing misguiding or untrue.

[tomtuck01]

I use the "Reatin Possession" instruction as well, when I take it off I create more chances. Nothing misguiding or untrue.

I'd venture then that it's a problem with other instructions not working well in unison with it as I have no issue whatsoever creating chances with it selected.