So it comes out that if you're gonna use '4-4-2 Wide Diamond' formation in the normal game then finding 'Natural'(20) ML/MR players will be a huge headache. Taking into consideration that in our testing '4-4-2 Wide Diamond' gets only a tiny fraction better score than other formations then I would think twice before going for '4-4-2 Wide Diamond' formation in the normal game.
Just look almost all best players in the game are Natural(20) at AML or AMR or STC or AMC positions, which means it will be much easier to build your team for '4-2-3-1 DM' formation or '4-2-4 formation' than '4-4-2 Wide Diamond' formation and your results will be better with '4-2-3-1 DM' formation or '4-2-4 formation' than with '4-4-2 Wide Diamond' formation.
There are only 11 Natural(20) ML players with Acceleration and Pace above "16" in the game.
There are only 16 Natural(20) MR players with Acceleration and Pace above "16" in the game.
But
There are 154 Natural(20) AML players with Acceleration and Pace above "16" in the game.
There are 183 Natural(20) AMR players with Acceleration and Pace above "16" in the game.
So if your tactic uses ML and MR positions then most of the time it would required retraining players to play at ML and MR positions, which might take 1-3 seasons for them to get 'Natural'(20) rating at the positions.
DW is special, he has pressing trigger that cannot be overachieved by any position on flanks from ML/MR to AML/AMR. I guess this ending paying off the lack of natural position skills.
Totally agree, that's why there should be an emphasis on choosing a tactic to suit your team rather then building a team around a tactic (No harm wanting to build team team towards a 'meta' tactic, but that should be a long term goal)
The performance difference from tactics scoring 55+ here are well within standard deviation and are more then likely to work out all the same IMO
MemorizableUsername said: Totally agree, that's why there should be an emphasis on choosing a tactic to suit your team rather then building a team around a tactic (No harm wanting to build team team towards a 'meta' tactic, but that should be a long term goal)
The performance difference from tactics scoring 55+ here are well within standard deviation and are more then likely to work out all the same IMO Expand
Realistically there isn't a meta yet that's worth using more than the others. So while this is the case, I wonder if we are hindering ourselves with the wide diamond for all the reasons that Zippo has outlined here.
Hi,
I'm noticing that '4-4-2 Wide Diamond' formation is very popular among our tacticians at the moment.
I guess the reason behind it is that in our tactic testing '4-4-2 Wide Diamond' formation gets a tiny fraction better score than any other formation.
But '4-4-2 Wide Diamond' formation uses ML and MR positions and this is a very important matter.
In our tactic testing league all Wingers and Inside Forwards are 'Natural'(20) at AML, AMR, ML and MR positions.
But let's look how things stand in the normal game.
If we take the best 9,296 players in the game:
785 players of 9,296 are 'Natural'(20) at AML position
710 players of 9,296 are 'Natural'(20) at AMR position
101 players of 9,296 are 'Natural'(20) at ML position
100 players of 9,296 are 'Natural'(20) at MR position
As you can see 'Natural'(20) MR/ML players are rare like unicorns.
If you wonder how it's important for a player to be 'Natural'(20) at the playing position then you can check our test - https://fm-arena.com/table/19-playing-position-testing/
So it comes out that if you're gonna use '4-4-2 Wide Diamond' formation in the normal game then finding 'Natural'(20) ML/MR players will be a huge headache. Taking into consideration that in our testing '4-4-2 Wide Diamond' gets only a tiny fraction better score than other formations then I would think twice before going for '4-4-2 Wide Diamond' formation in the normal game.
Just look almost all best players in the game are Natural(20) at AML or AMR or STC or AMC positions, which means it will be much easier to build your team for '4-2-3-1 DM' formation or '4-2-4 formation' than '4-4-2 Wide Diamond' formation and your results will be better with '4-2-3-1 DM' formation or '4-2-4 formation' than with '4-4-2 Wide Diamond' formation.
Just look how much difference the attributes can make - https://fm-arena.com/thread/2980-game-changing-player-attributes/
The purpose of this post is to give people food for thought.
Cheers.
Also, I want to add, it's obvious that 'Acceleration' and 'Pace' are game-changing attributes - https://fm-arena.com/thread/2980-game-changing-player-attributes/
but if look at all players in the game then:
There are only 11 Natural(20) ML players with Acceleration and Pace above "16" in the game.
There are only 16 Natural(20) MR players with Acceleration and Pace above "16" in the game.
But
There are 154 Natural(20) AML players with Acceleration and Pace above "16" in the game.
There are 183 Natural(20) AMR players with Acceleration and Pace above "16" in the game.
So if your tactic uses ML and MR positions then most of the time it would required retraining players to play at ML and MR positions, which might take 1-3 seasons for them to get 'Natural'(20) rating at the positions.
DW is special, he has pressing trigger that cannot be overachieved by any position on flanks from ML/MR to AML/AMR. I guess this ending paying off the lack of natural position skills.
Nice post! Thank for the efforts.
Totally agree, that's why there should be an emphasis on choosing a tactic to suit your team rather then building a team around a tactic (No harm wanting to build team team towards a 'meta' tactic, but that should be a long term goal)
The performance difference from tactics scoring 55+ here are well within standard deviation and are more then likely to work out all the same IMO
It's really a good analysis, Zippo. Thanks.
MemorizableUsername said: Totally agree, that's why there should be an emphasis on choosing a tactic to suit your team rather then building a team around a tactic (No harm wanting to build team team towards a 'meta' tactic, but that should be a long term goal)
The performance difference from tactics scoring 55+ here are well within standard deviation and are more then likely to work out all the same IMO
Realistically there isn't a meta yet that's worth using more than the others. So while this is the case, I wonder if we are hindering ourselves with the wide diamond for all the reasons that Zippo has outlined here.