The current top two tested tactics are substantially the same except some tweaks in TI. I am not writing this to start (yet another) war on who should be the first to be "credited" because we all build on others' hard work and there is nothing wrong about that at all. But it does prompt me to think whether the 60 pt tactic is necessarily "better" than the 58 pt one. I think the answer is: it really depends on your squad.
One notable difference between 424 Alhamdulillah II (60 pt) and Soft&Wet_4-2-4 (58 pt) is the use of WB in the former. But that does not in my opinion means using WB is always better. Both tactics focus play down the flanks so the CWB/WB will interact a lot with the IF. If the IF has reverse strong foot and prefers to cut in from the wing often then it obviously makes more sense to play WB who will provide the width by bombing down the flank. If the IF has same side strong foot then the IF may have more tendency to go to the byline so it may make more sense to use CWB to fill in the gap in the half space given its roaming character.
I am playing an online game with friends having Alphonso Davies as the LB and Rashford as the left IF and I am using Soft&Wet_4-2-4. Alphonso Davies is supposed to be really good but his ratings are fairly "ordinary" - this prompted me to think whether he is in fact that suited to play as CWB, or whether WB suits him more because he can then dominate the left flank with his pace with Rashford continuously cutting in.
I have Pedro Porro as the RB and I play Sancho as right IF. Since Sancho behaves more as a winger, it makes sense to play Porro as CWB and it turns out he does pretty well. If I play Antony as the right IF, I may then switch Porro to WB so that he can bomb down the right blank and cross from the byline with his good crossing.
There is also the interaction with the two VOL. If your VOL is more progressive and always bomb up the half space (esp with arrive late trait) then it may make more sense to use WB because you do not need the CWB to fill in the void.
Therefore, whether you should use CWB or WB depends really on what kind of players you have. There is certainly nothing to stop you from using CWB on one side and WB on the other (and vice versa).
Another difference between 424 Alhamdulillah II (60 pt) and Soft&Wet_4-2-4 (58 pt) is the GK distribution. The former uses roll it out. The latter uses throw it long. If your goalie has good throwing there is no reason not to take advantage of that. In fact if your goalie has superb kicking you may even tweak it to distribute over defence or to target man.
One further difference between the two tactics is the level of defence line. 424 Alhamdulillah II (60 pt) deploys a standard defence line whereas Soft&Wet_4-2-4 (58 pt) deploys a lower defence line. Naturally a relatively higher defence line is more aggressive and tends to do better generally, but again that depends on the quality of your players. If the positioning of your CB is not high or they are slow, then it makes more sense to play lower defence line as per Soft&Wet_4-2-4 (58 pt).
Whether it should be whipped or low crosses, or whether to hit cross early, also depends on your squad players. If your two AF do not have good anticipation and pace, hit cross early makes little sense because they cannot catch the ball on time and that only means converting possession.
All that I mean to say is the tactics and tested are not the be all and end all. One should really do a "mix and match" and pick and choose the roles that suit the squad, and not be fixated with using an "all or nothing" approach as if any deviation will destroy the meta.
One thing though is quite clear: until the next ME update, 424 generally do well in particular playing with 2 DM. Indeed many teams managed by the AI use 2 DM in a 4231 formation (compared to 2 CM in FM22) so you could see the game designer's preference.
The current top two tested tactics are substantially the same except some tweaks in TI. I am not writing this to start (yet another) war on who should be the first to be "credited" because we all build on others' hard work and there is nothing wrong about that at all. But it does prompt me to think whether the 60 pt tactic is necessarily "better" than the 58 pt one. I think the answer is: it really depends on your squad.
One notable difference between 424 Alhamdulillah II (60 pt) and Soft&Wet_4-2-4 (58 pt) is the use of WB in the former. But that does not in my opinion means using WB is always better. Both tactics focus play down the flanks so the CWB/WB will interact a lot with the IF. If the IF has reverse strong foot and prefers to cut in from the wing often then it obviously makes more sense to play WB who will provide the width by bombing down the flank. If the IF has same side strong foot then the IF may have more tendency to go to the byline so it may make more sense to use CWB to fill in the gap in the half space given its roaming character.
I am playing an online game with friends having Alphonso Davies as the LB and Rashford as the left IF and I am using Soft&Wet_4-2-4. Alphonso Davies is supposed to be really good but his ratings are fairly "ordinary" - this prompted me to think whether he is in fact that suited to play as CWB, or whether WB suits him more because he can then dominate the left flank with his pace with Rashford continuously cutting in.
I have Pedro Porro as the RB and I play Sancho as right IF. Since Sancho behaves more as a winger, it makes sense to play Porro as CWB and it turns out he does pretty well. If I play Antony as the right IF, I may then switch Porro to WB so that he can bomb down the right blank and cross from the byline with his good crossing.
There is also the interaction with the two VOL. If your VOL is more progressive and always bomb up the half space (esp with arrive late trait) then it may make more sense to use WB because you do not need the CWB to fill in the void.
Therefore, whether you should use CWB or WB depends really on what kind of players you have. There is certainly nothing to stop you from using CWB on one side and WB on the other (and vice versa).
Another difference between 424 Alhamdulillah II (60 pt) and Soft&Wet_4-2-4 (58 pt) is the GK distribution. The former uses roll it out. The latter uses throw it long. If your goalie has good throwing there is no reason not to take advantage of that. In fact if your goalie has superb kicking you may even tweak it to distribute over defence or to target man.
One further difference between the two tactics is the level of defence line. 424 Alhamdulillah II (60 pt) deploys a standard defence line whereas Soft&Wet_4-2-4 (58 pt) deploys a lower defence line. Naturally a relatively higher defence line is more aggressive and tends to do better generally, but again that depends on the quality of your players. If the positioning of your CB is not high or they are slow, then it makes more sense to play lower defence line as per Soft&Wet_4-2-4 (58 pt).
Whether it should be whipped or low crosses, or whether to hit cross early, also depends on your squad players. If your two AF do not have good anticipation and pace, hit cross early makes little sense because they cannot catch the ball on time and that only means converting possession.
All that I mean to say is the tactics and tested are not the be all and end all. One should really do a "mix and match" and pick and choose the roles that suit the squad, and not be fixated with using an "all or nothing" approach as if any deviation will destroy the meta.
One thing though is quite clear: until the next ME update, 424 generally do well in particular playing with 2 DM. Indeed many teams managed by the AI use 2 DM in a 4231 formation (compared to 2 CM in FM22) so you could see the game designer's preference.
No doubt on this one