After some discussions we've had here on the forum about which tactics perform best in regular seasons I thought I'd share this thought with you about how I'd approach tactics based matches with what I know so far.
So I would suggest the following: - If your opponent is using FB/WB/CWB on both sides then I would go with a tactic that uses two wingers and two fullbacks.
- If your opponent uses IWB on both sides and doesn't use any DMs or the ones they do use rotate (Segundo Volante, Roaming Playmaker and Half Back) then I would go with a tactic that has two AMCs and two fullbacks.
- If your opponent is using IWB on both sides and also is using at least one DM that does NOT rotate (all roles except Segundo Volante, Roaming Playmaker and Half Back) then I would go with a tactic that has three AMCs and two fullbacks.
** These examples are there to make it even easier for those of you who simply choose tactics based on the best score. Other tactics from other creators can perform just fine as long as they maintain the specific formation for each case!
Have you actually tried this approach out yourself and got better results, or is it more like a theory you think might work? I'll definitely give it a go in my games. Though, I'm thinking of starting a new save with a weaker side to really see if it outperforms the standard plug & play approach of just using the top-rated tactic.
Have you actually tried this approach out yourself and got better results, or is it more like a theory you think might work? I'll definitely give it a go in my games. Though, I'm thinking of starting a new save with a weaker side to really see if it outperforms the standard plug & play approach of just using the top-rated tactic. Expand I haven't tried it to be honest, but I'm almost 90% sure that this approach will work better than always using the same formation for the whole season and for every match.
I'm curious to see some results! Please when you try it out, post them here.
Chris said: That's an interesting thread, thank you for the information, I'll be using it. Expand Thank you! When you have some results, please post them so we can help more people try these approaches
3 - Match Nottingham Forest (- If your opponent uses FB/WB/CWB on one side and IWB on the other then I would go with a 4-2-2-2 asymmetrical formation.) Tactic - 424 deformation II A1 by @A Smile - if the opponent uses IWB on DL position.
Match stats - 1-0
So far, it looks good, playing the matches myself, felt like the stats could be better, but a good start. Let's see how it will look over a season.
Ralle said: So, a few more matches have been played, although it's still early, I personally think it looks very promising! Expand I believe that this practice will work, it just remains to be seen from various examples. Yours is an example.
Ralle said: What do you think about OI's, would these also have an effect? Expand Personally I never use them so I recommend to not use them too and dont delegate them to your staff because OIs can make changes to your formation and how it behaves inside the match. It’s better to stick with this plan.
What's the thinking behind using AMCs against IWBs (central against central) and vice versa for Wingers and FBs, my first instinct is that the opposite makes sense actually I would love to know more about the theory behind this? thanks
Zeyad said: What's the thinking behind using AMCs against IWBs (central against central) and vice versa for Wingers and FBs, my first instinct is that the opposite makes sense actually I would love to know more about the theory behind this? thanks Expand Seems kind of weird, right?
The logic behind this is simple. When you create a tactic (look the image below), what you see is when your team is NOT in possession.
Example:// There are exceptions 1. If we take for example that the opponent is using IWBs on both sides and based on the Positional Play they introduced this year in the game, the opposing IWBs (when their team has possession of the ball) will rotate from their D R/L or WB R/L positions and go to DMC R/L respectively.
Exceptions: 1. If the opponent uses 2 IWBs and at the same time has 2 DMs (which do not rotate to other positions - I explain in the exception 2), then one of the two IWBs will be rotated to the DM position and the other will remain in its position.
2. If the opponent is using 2 IWBs and again at the same time has 2 DMs but one or both DMs are Segundo Volante and/or Roaming Playmaker and/or Half Back then the first example applies where BOTH IWBs are rotated to the DMC R/L positions respectively. But in such a case you will have 3 opponents in the DMs positions and there you could use a tactic like this - TON 4231 N TH P99 by @Gerrard.
Knowing this I would rather have 2 AMCs than 2 AMRLs. By the same logic for the opposite scenario or the scenario where only one side uses IWB.
The season has ended, they used the above-mentioned methods halfway through the season, the result is okay, could have hoped for a bit more. but overall, a really good performance, definitely an opportunity to play the game.
Ralle said: The season has ended, they used the above-mentioned methods halfway through the season, the result is okay, could have hoped for a bit more. but overall, a really good performance, definitely an opportunity to play the game.
All matches have been played. Expand Nice. What results did you get? Wins, draws and losses? Can you share them please?
Hi everyone,
After some discussions we've had here on the forum about which tactics perform best in regular seasons I thought I'd share this thought with you about how I'd approach tactics based matches with what I know so far.
So I would suggest the following:
- If your opponent is using FB/WB/CWB on both sides then I would go with a tactic that uses two wingers and two fullbacks.
Examples:
TON 424 V9 HUB TH P97 by @Gerrard
Katana 4231 ATT 103p v1.9 by @CBP87
3322 Merc400 by @Jae
343 BULDAK PARK BALANCED v5.7 by @chanho
32122 DangerM by @Jae
433 Tailwind RPM v1.0 by @Abel Asano
4132 xiaomeifeiwu v3 by @Feiwuxiaomei
- If your opponent uses IWB on both sides and doesn't use any DMs or the ones they do use rotate (Segundo Volante, Roaming Playmaker and Half Back) then I would go with a tactic that has two AMCs and two fullbacks.
Examples:
4222 Centrifuge Box Deformation v9.5 by @CaOxide
Box Levante x Pirate 2 x Lone Striker by @leopfv
TON 4231 N TH P99 by @Gerrard
- If your opponent is using IWB on both sides and also is using at least one DM that does NOT rotate (all roles except Segundo Volante, Roaming Playmaker and Half Back) then I would go with a tactic that has three AMCs and two fullbacks.
Examples:
TON 4231 N TH P99 by @Gerrard
415 Fivestars 100Pts by @Pbopeer
- If your opponent uses FB/WB/CWB on one side and IWB on the other then I would go with a 4-2-2-2 asymmetrical formation.
Examples:
Box Levante x Pirate 2 by @Chris - if the opponent uses IWB on DR position.
424 deformation II A1 by @A Smile - if the opponent uses IWB on DL position.
Thank you!
** These examples are there to make it even easier for those of you who simply choose tactics based on the best score. Other tactics from other creators can perform just fine as long as they maintain the specific formation for each case!
Interesting stuff.
Have you actually tried this approach out yourself and got better results, or is it more like a theory you think might work? I'll definitely give it a go in my games. Though, I'm thinking of starting a new save with a weaker side to really see if it outperforms the standard plug & play approach of just using the top-rated tactic.
kvasir said: Interesting stuff.
Have you actually tried this approach out yourself and got better results, or is it more like a theory you think might work? I'll definitely give it a go in my games. Though, I'm thinking of starting a new save with a weaker side to really see if it outperforms the standard plug & play approach of just using the top-rated tactic.
I haven't tried it to be honest, but I'm almost 90% sure that this approach will work better than always using the same formation for the whole season and for every match.
I'm curious to see some results! Please when you try it out, post them here.
That's an interesting thread, thank you for the information, I'll be using it.
Chris said: That's an interesting thread, thank you for the information, I'll be using it.
Thank you! When you have some results, please post them so we can help more people try these approaches
UPDATED - 13/4/2024
My approach is different - I change my tactics depending on attacking formation of my opponent.
Against team with 1 striker:
- best tactics with 4 defenders (TON 424 V9 HUB TH P97 at the moment),
Against team with 2 strikers:
- best tactics with 3 defenders + WBs (3322 Merc400 at the moment).
Now, I need to consider, how to mix both methods
Hi @Prysiu,
This is a good method of having more defenders than your opponent has attackers. You can easily apply both methods to a tactic.
If you want and have time, share your results with us 😉
1 - match Liverpool (If your opponent is using IWB on both sides then I would go with a tactic that has two AMCs and two fullbacks.) Tactic - https://fm-arena.com/thread/10044-4222-centrifuge-box-deformation-v9-5/
Match stats 2-3
2 - match Sheffield (- If your opponent is using FB/WB/CWB on both sides then I would go with a tactic that uses two wingers and two fullbacks.) Tactic - https://fm-arena.com/thread/10537-ton-424-v9-hub-th-p97/
Match stats 1-4
3 - Match Nottingham Forest (- If your opponent uses FB/WB/CWB on one side and IWB on the other then I would go with a 4-2-2-2 asymmetrical formation.) Tactic - 424 deformation II A1 by @A Smile - if the opponent uses IWB on DL position.
Match stats - 1-0
So far, it looks good, playing the matches myself, felt like the stats could be better, but a good start. Let's see how it will look over a season.
Hi @Ralle,
This practice seems to be working but it's too early to come to a conclusion. I'm curious to see what happens next in your season. Keep it up!
So, a few more matches have been played, although it's still early, I personally think it looks very promising!
Ralle said: So, a few more matches have been played, although it's still early, I personally think it looks very promising!
I believe that this practice will work, it just remains to be seen from various examples. Yours is an example.
I am 95% sure
What do you think about OI's, would these also have an effect?
Ralle said: What do you think about OI's, would these also have an effect?
Personally I never use them so I recommend to not use them too and dont delegate them to your staff because OIs can make changes to your formation and how it behaves inside the match. It’s better to stick with this plan.
What's the thinking behind using AMCs against IWBs (central against central) and vice versa for Wingers and FBs, my first instinct is that the opposite makes sense actually I would love to know more about the theory behind this? thanks
Zeyad said: What's the thinking behind using AMCs against IWBs (central against central) and vice versa for Wingers and FBs, my first instinct is that the opposite makes sense actually I would love to know more about the theory behind this? thanks
Seems kind of weird, right?
The logic behind this is simple. When you create a tactic (look the image below), what you see is when your team is NOT in possession.
Example: // There are exceptions
1. If we take for example that the opponent is using IWBs on both sides and based on the Positional Play they introduced this year in the game, the opposing IWBs (when their team has possession of the ball) will rotate from their D R/L or WB R/L positions and go to DMC R/L respectively.
Exceptions:
1. If the opponent uses 2 IWBs and at the same time has 2 DMs (which do not rotate to other positions - I explain in the exception 2), then one of the two IWBs will be rotated to the DM position and the other will remain in its position.
2. If the opponent is using 2 IWBs and again at the same time has 2 DMs but one or both DMs are Segundo Volante and/or Roaming Playmaker and/or Half Back then the first example applies where BOTH IWBs are rotated to the DMC R/L positions respectively. But in such a case you will have 3 opponents in the DMs positions and there you could use a tactic like this - TON 4231 N TH P99 by @Gerrard.
Knowing this I would rather have 2 AMCs than 2 AMRLs. By the same logic for the opposite scenario or the scenario where only one side uses IWB.
The season has ended, they used the above-mentioned methods halfway through the season, the result is okay, could have hoped for a bit more. but overall, a really good performance, definitely an opportunity to play the game.
All matches have been played.
Ralle said: The season has ended, they used the above-mentioned methods halfway through the season, the result is okay, could have hoped for a bit more. but overall, a really good performance, definitely an opportunity to play the game.
All matches have been played.
Nice. What results did you get? Wins, draws and losses? Can you share them please?
dzek said: Nice. What results did you get? Wins, draws and losses? Can you share them please?
Not bad at all for the first season
You had difficult fixtures in your last games of the season.