Chris2509 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 I'm managing Borussia Dortmund, it's my second season and this is how I'm trying to play: things went pretty bad until January. I changed the mentality from "attacking" to "control" and the team is doing better now. However, I still concede a lot of chances and goals from my left side. My IF - Schürrle most of the time - just doesn't track back. Schmelzer is often left alone to deal with two players on his flank. Fellaini doesn't really cover as I want him to. Here are some screenshots from different matches: What options do I have other than changing his role to support, which I'm afraid that will make him less effective in the attack? How do I get Fellaini more involved in the left side of the defence? I guess can tell him to man mark the wide players - but is it reasonable when I only have 2 holding midfielders? I'm also having a hard time getting Calhangolu (or anyone else in the AM slot) to perform. Any ideas guys? Thanks in advance Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HUNT3R Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 He has been given an Attack duty, so he's not going to track back. If you want to play him there AND get him to track back, give him specific man marking. Otherwise pull him back to ML. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan787 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Consider that an IF, in addition with Attack duty, is a very offensive role/duty and is also unrealistic that he does a defensive work. Probably the system you want is not a 4-2-3-1 but a 4-4-1-1. I general I found that what in real life is often called 4-2-3-1 is a 4-4-1-1. The issue is that in FM many players that play in that 4-4-1-1 system don't have the ML/MR position as natural. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansongs Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Your shape on the formation screen is your defensive shape. Place your players how you would like them to set up when the opposition has the ball. This is the shape they "track back" to. Attacking shape is defined by roles and duties. You can make a wide midfielder take up attacking positions similar to those of an IF with player instruction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1111 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 An IF Attack is a forward, not a midfielder quite simply. So you have to expect them to play like a forward does and not track back. If you want them to defend as a midfielder, play them in midfield Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWVG Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 IF(s) compared to a WM(a) (with the same PI) offer defensively pretty much the same. In the Attacking Phase, the WM(a) aggressively runs from deep whereas the IF(s) is much more inclined to offer support first and then make late runs. That's at least what I saw... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan787 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 IF(s) compared to a WM(a) (with the same PI) offer defensively pretty much the same.In the Attacking Phase, the WM(a) aggressively runs from deep whereas the IF(s) is much more inclined to offer support first and then make late runs. That's at least what I saw... Yes but, as lot of tactics guides say, is the formation that define your defensive phase. So if you put your players in a 4-2-3-1 you will have a defensive position with 2 midfielder and 3 men upfront. You can try to mitigate this effect by using man marking or other tricks but your defensive phase will always be a 4-2-3-1. If you want your players to defend with 2 banks of 4, with wingers that track back besides midfielder, you must use a 4-4-1-1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siven Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Consider that an IF, in addition with Attack duty, is a very offensive role/duty and is also unrealistic that he does a defensive work.Probably the system you want is not a 4-2-3-1 but a 4-4-1-1. I general I found that what in real life is often called 4-2-3-1 is a 4-4-1-1. The issue is that in FM many players that play in that 4-4-1-1 system don't have the ML/MR position as natural. Yep, unfortunately this. I like the 4-2-3-1 formation, but to get tour AMR/L players to track back or just act better defensively they need to be in the MR/L positions, Or support role isnt too bad. It would be great if by default AMR/L players could have good position rating for MR/L , but if you retrain them there i think it takes some CA (atleast it did years ago) so their stats wont develop as good without the retraining. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadsheep2001 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Yep, unfortunately this.I like the 4-2-3-1 formation, but to get tour AMR/L players to track back or just act better defensively they need to be in the MR/L positions, Or support role isnt too bad. It would be great if by default AMR/L players could have good position rating for MR/L , but if you retrain them there i think it takes some CA (atleast it did years ago) so their stats wont develop as good without the retraining. Interestingly players in the German leagues ARE given this rating by researchers. Personally that would be the way i do it for the vast majority of wide players, but that's just my personal opinion Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.