keithb said: Sesko and even Lucca being slower are incredible. Expand
So, you'd choose Lucca over someone faster but with poor jumping reach?
I tried this strategy for a couple of seasons and noticed that my AF scored more goals when he had high jumping reach. I used Emegha, who had 16/17 pace and acceleration and 18 jumping reach. However, I realized that he rarely scored from open-play high crosses; most of his goals came from set-pieces because he was the main aerial threat.
After that, I stopped obsessively seeking strikers with high jumping reach because they are rare after 10-15 years into the save, and those that do appear often have low speed. However, having at least one striker who can jump and score 4-5 goals from random high crosses can be smart, but not as crucial as you suggest. You might as well get a center-back with high jumping reach who will score the 20 goals from set-pieces that my kangaroo striker would have otherwise.
kvasir said: So, you'd choose Lucca over someone faster but with poor jumping reach?
I tried this strategy for a couple of seasons and noticed that my AF scored more goals when he had high jumping reach. I used Emegha, who had 16/17 pace and acceleration and 18 jumping reach. However, I realized that he rarely scored from open-play high crosses; most of his goals came from set-pieces because he was the main aerial threat.
After that, I stopped obsessively seeking strikers with high jumping reach because they are rare after 10-15 years into the save, and those that do appear often have low speed. However, having at least one striker who can jump and score 4-5 goals from random high crosses can be smart, but not as crucial as you suggest. You might as well get a center-back with high jumping reach who will score the 20 goals from set-pieces that my kangaroo striker would have otherwise. Expand
Headers attempted and won and stats I feel improve your results all over the pitch. They also improve average rating, but that's just because the game is shit.
Arena have ran tests to show that jumping reach doesn't matter for a striker, so against what I'm saying, but also ran the test with dribbling, acceleration, jumping reach and pace set to 20 and all other attributes 7. The conclusion should be that jumping reach is important, but possibly not sure where or only for centre backs? But it's so high in the table that surely it must be useful in other positions as well? I feel strikers with high acceleration, jumping reach and pace are very good. Leon Grgic is one
Bradjc94 said: Who would be some of the players in the game that would be ideal to fill the Pressing Forward role for this tactic? Expand
You want someone with good acceleration and pace to start with. Aggression and work rate too. Think of a Gabriel Jesus type of player, like Watkins. Tell you who is good, Josh Sargent from Norwich
I appreciate the tactic but it's another example of how broken the game is.
Every top tactic is a slight variation of getting the front players to force the opposition defense to go narrow so your fullbacks have space.
The 4 up front accomplish this and the fullbacks get a free run every time.
The one-twos and the through balls are virtually non-existent and it's very predictable and boring to watch. Also unbelievably unrealistic, crossing has gone almost extinct IRL because of how ineffective it is. Not to mention corners. IRL teams always favor keeping possession instead of crossing and short corners for a reason.
Every other style of play pales in comparison and makes the game very unfun for lack of options. They claimed counter-attacking was buffed but it's a cruel joke.
It's particularly worse for me because I love a number 10 and not only is this position unsuited for narrowing the opposition defense it's also just fundamentally useless in the game itself regardless of the tactic/role/instructions. I've yet to get a single 7+ average rating throughout a season on a 10 no matter how good he is. He just gets lost and hardly receives the ball ever.
This game forces you to play the only viable tactic or get left behind.
magiyij155 said: I appreciate the tactic but it's another example of how broken the game is.
Every top tactic is a slight variation of getting the front players to force the opposition defense to go narrow so your fullbacks have space.
The 4 up front accomplish this and the fullbacks get a free run every time.
The one-twos and the through balls are virtually non-existent and it's very predictable and boring to watch. Also unbelievably unrealistic, crossing has gone almost extinct IRL because of how ineffective it is. Not to mention corners. IRL teams always favor keeping possession instead of crossing and short corners for a reason.
Every other style of play pales in comparison and makes the game very unfun for lack of options. They claimed counter-attacking was buffed but it's a cruel joke.
It's particularly worse for me because I love a number 10 and not only is this position unsuited for narrowing the opposition defense it's also just fundamentally useless in the game itself regardless of the tactic/role/instructions. I've yet to get a single 7+ average rating throughout a season on a 10 no matter how good he is. He just gets lost and hardly receives the ball ever.
This game forces you to play the only viable tactic or get left behind.
It's sad. Expand
Very well written and I agree, but unfortunately there has always been 1 dominant shape per game for as far as I remember. Hopefully with the new match engine from next year we will say a different variation of top tactical shapes and instructions allowing people to play a different style of football that will achieve similar results.
By number 10, I assume you mean an AM role, if so, there are a lot of very good 4231s out there that will get the best out of your number 10
CBP87 said: Very well written and I agree, but unfortunately there has always been 1 dominant shape per game for as far as I remember. Hopefully with the new match engine from next year we will say a different variation of top tactical shapes and instructions allowing people to play a different style of football that will achieve similar results.
By number 10, I assume you mean an AM role, if so, there are a lot of very good 4231s out there that will get the best out of your number 10 Expand
Thank you for the compliment.
Yes that's what I mean by number 10, an attacking midfielder AMC.
Unfortunately, from what I see, the small amount of tactics here that use a number 10 are using it as an inferior version of having two strikers up front, aiming for that exact same situation of narrowing the defense and being a goal scorer.
My personal preference is a Mesut Ozil type number 10 that orchestrates play by sitting between the lines and spamming through balls which I have been unable to accomplish despite all my efforts.
The closes I've ever come to that dynamic is actually having 2 numbers 10's. That brazilian box tactic that was popular some time ago. But that obviously is inferior in terms of results, although in my opinion is a much more entertaining spectacle to watch.
The Brazilian box by Steelwood? If so, yes that was pretty good to watch. I'm not going to mention other tactics on this post as I feel its disrepectful but Ill tag you in some 4231s where the number 10 is allowed to pulled the strings but please remember it also depends on the type of player you have
Hi everyone, may I ask how did everyone get on with this tactic, I wonder if anyone would have some experience to share at all?
As far as I understand from the comments here, there are only minor tactical difference between this tactic and Problem Solving:
CBP87 said: Roam from position removed from PF and added to IF Expand
So I have made the changes and ran this tactic 3 times, each time lasted 2 to 3 seasons.
I lost a lot of more games comparing to Problem Solving.
I am a console player, I always play Spurs and buy almost the same players each run, and I will restart once I won the Champ League, it's usually the 2nd season.
With Problem Solving, I would usually lose no more than 4 games a season, but with this improved tactic, I have lost about 4 times that.
Is the free roaming on the IF's all there is to change?
Zhi said: Hi everyone, may I ask how did everyone get on with this tactic, I wonder if anyone would have some experience to share at all?
As far as I understand from the comments here, there are only minor tactical difference between this tactic and Problem Solving:
So I have made the changes and ran this tactic 3 times, each time lasted 2 to 3 seasons.
I lost a lot of more games comparing to Problem Solving.
I am a console player, I always play Spurs and buy almost the same players each run, and I will restart once I won the Champ League, it's usually the 2nd season.
With Problem Solving, I would usually lose no more than 4 games a season, but with this improved tactic, I have lost about 4 times that.
Is the free roaming on the IF's all there is to change?
Please advice. Expand
My advice would be to use problem solving if it works for you. This tactic is very good and so is problem solving, what I would suggest is having a look at the movement attributes of your inside forwards, they may not have the attributes to roam from position effectively
CBP87 said: My advice would be to use problem solving if it works for you. This tactic is very good and so is problem solving, what I would suggest is having a look at the movement attributes of your inside forwards, they may not have the attributes to roam from position effectively Expand
Hi there,
May I ask what would you command for the IF's attributes?
I have used Kulusevski, Pino, Writz and Yammal in my runs.
Yes that's what I mean by number 10, an attacking midfielder AMC.
Unfortunately, from what I see, the small amount of tactics here that use a number 10 are using it as an inferior version of having two strikers up front, aiming for that exact same situation of narrowing the defense and being a goal scorer.
My personal preference is a Mesut Ozil type number 10 that orchestrates play by sitting between the lines and spamming through balls which I have been unable to accomplish despite all my efforts.
The closes I've ever come to that dynamic is actually having 2 numbers 10's. That brazilian box tactic that was popular some time ago. But that obviously is inferior in terms of results, although in my opinion is a much more entertaining spectacle to watch. Expand
There was an interview a few years ago with Messi and Zidan, and while Messi payed respects for Zizu and his career he said, that he won't be able to get such a successfull career nowdays as 10, and Zizu rapidly agreed. Saying he'd become an IF-type just like Messi if he could give more speed than he did actually, but looking realistically, he would rather become a mobile 8 or DLP with his skills. They both agreed, that playmaking 10 is dead in modern meta.
May I ask what would you command for the IF's attributes?
I have used Kulusevski, Pino, Writz and Yammal in my runs. Expand
Hi,
Left footer on the right, right on the left
Attributes wise I would say you need acceleration, pace, agility, off the ball, anticipation, strength and technique. So off the ball will compliment roam from position and strength will compliment hold up ball
Attributes wise I would say you need acceleration, pace, agility, off the ball, anticipation, strength and technique. So off the ball will compliment roam from position and strength will compliment hold up ball Expand
Hello,
Yea I've got the players matching to your suggestions.
EDIT: Do you have the mark DL and DR on the Inside Forwards or do you take that off?
I'm puzzled by the fullbacks personal instructions.
Take more risks - Cut inside - Cross from byline
I've played and watched this tactic many seasons and the fullbacks all have the same behavior.
They will run with the ball to the byline and cross.
So why take more risks when they're not passing. They're receiving passes, not making them. (Assuming passing ≠ crossing)
Cut inside vs cross from byline are straight up opposing movements.
Cutting inside they simply never do. This might be a trait problem because most fullbacks have playing wide traits and/or because the Inside Forwards are already occupying these spaces so the engine's positional play triggers and they never cut inside.
I don't know why you would want them to anyway. This tactic is obviously very effective and the main reason is because the front 4 narrow the opposition defense so the fullbacks have free space out wide to attack.
So either this combination of instructions somehow exploits the engine or they are meaningless which I'm guessing is the answer as we've seen many tests on this website that show how little most personal instructions have an impact.
Combining with that is the Tactical Instruction to underlap each side which no player on the pitch does even with the insistence on having the "hold up ball" Personal Instruction on the Inside Forwards.
Personally I got rid of "Take more risks" and "Cut inside" from my fullbacks and saw no meaningful change in play or results.
magiyij155 said: I'm puzzled by the fullbacks personal instructions.
<snip>
Personally I got rid of "Take more risks" and "Cut inside" from my fullbacks and saw no meaningful change in play or results. Expand
here's what happens sometimes on the leaderboard. Some tactic achieves a nice score. Everyone comes in and makes small tweaks, and eventually through skill or RNG, someone gets a score that is .2 higher or whatever. The whole thing starts over, and people start making small tweaks to the new leader.
It's kind of like evolution. Mutations accumulate over time, and not all of them are actually helping. Sometimes a neutral mutation just gets swept along for the ride. Eventually, maybe someone does some kind of a/b test to see if a certain instruction is actually making a difference, but it's hard to tease out the effects when there's multiple moving parts, and it's hard to get a big enough sample to be totally confident in the findings.
I also tend to run fewer instructions than some of the creators here. The only test that really matters is if it's working in your save for you.
p.s. I will say that I think the cut inside on the FBs is doing something--I've tried adding it here and there, and my very subjective and not at all data-supported feeling is that they're cutting inside with the ball more than before mostly in the second phase of buildup, around midfield.
Talkingtactcis said: Do these tactics work if you sim the game and if you sim which option should you choose Expand
On instant results with this tactic, you will not lose at all. Maybe only in the late stages of the Champions League playoffs and with early sent off your player against the giants
mongusplyr said: The tactic is good but my ball possession rate is low, does anyone know why? Expand
Hello.
The tactic seems to be relying on interception of passes and then counter, most of the time you are not in procession against a good team. 29% to 35% is very common for my 10+ seasons using this. I have tried reducing the Tempo so my players have more time on the ball, or reduce the pressing against high pressing teams so my players are in position to intercept, but I can't really tell much of a difference. The only thing I feel makes a difference is to change from Balance to Caution, this seems to make a difference in reducing the chance of them losing the ball, and you would have a higher procession.
Your attack is very fast and you either make it or not make it a goal, or a corner, so you don't have a lot of time on the ball and passing it around the tactic push everyone to their own goal line and take a chance.
Most of the time they are all really long passes, two passes you are in front of the opposition's goal, it seems okay not having a whole lot of procession, or I am doing something wrong.
Another thing I also have changed is taken off "Get Stuck In", this is to reduce the chance to give away set pieces.
This tacic is great but the AI counter you after a season or so by stacking people right infront of the goal, very often their goalkeeper would safe 9 shots, and sometimes like 23 shots from you, I guess they react to the stats on where you usually attack. I am on PS5 so things might be different.
One more question with focus play down each side does it make a significant difference because I usually lose with it on and when I take it off I win can anyone explain ?
keithb said: Sesko and even Lucca being slower are incredible.
So, you'd choose Lucca over someone faster but with poor jumping reach?
I tried this strategy for a couple of seasons and noticed that my AF scored more goals when he had high jumping reach. I used Emegha, who had 16/17 pace and acceleration and 18 jumping reach. However, I realized that he rarely scored from open-play high crosses; most of his goals came from set-pieces because he was the main aerial threat.
After that, I stopped obsessively seeking strikers with high jumping reach because they are rare after 10-15 years into the save, and those that do appear often have low speed. However, having at least one striker who can jump and score 4-5 goals from random high crosses can be smart, but not as crucial as you suggest. You might as well get a center-back with high jumping reach who will score the 20 goals from set-pieces that my kangaroo striker would have otherwise.
Does this tactic work with weaker teams, underdogs teams?
@Gerrard
kvasir said: So, you'd choose Lucca over someone faster but with poor jumping reach?
I tried this strategy for a couple of seasons and noticed that my AF scored more goals when he had high jumping reach. I used Emegha, who had 16/17 pace and acceleration and 18 jumping reach. However, I realized that he rarely scored from open-play high crosses; most of his goals came from set-pieces because he was the main aerial threat.
After that, I stopped obsessively seeking strikers with high jumping reach because they are rare after 10-15 years into the save, and those that do appear often have low speed. However, having at least one striker who can jump and score 4-5 goals from random high crosses can be smart, but not as crucial as you suggest. You might as well get a center-back with high jumping reach who will score the 20 goals from set-pieces that my kangaroo striker would have otherwise.
Headers attempted and won and stats I feel improve your results all over the pitch. They also improve average rating, but that's just because the game is shit.
Arena have ran tests to show that jumping reach doesn't matter for a striker, so against what I'm saying, but also ran the test with dribbling, acceleration, jumping reach and pace set to 20 and all other attributes 7. The conclusion should be that jumping reach is important, but possibly not sure where or only for centre backs? But it's so high in the table that surely it must be useful in other positions as well? I feel strikers with high acceleration, jumping reach and pace are very good. Leon Grgic is one
Who would be some of the players in the game that would be ideal to fill the Pressing Forward role for this tactic?
Bradjc94 said: Who would be some of the players in the game that would be ideal to fill the Pressing Forward role for this tactic?
You want someone with good acceleration and pace to start with. Aggression and work rate too. Think of a Gabriel Jesus type of player, like Watkins. Tell you who is good, Josh Sargent from Norwich
I appreciate the tactic but it's another example of how broken the game is.
Every top tactic is a slight variation of getting the front players to force the opposition defense to go narrow so your fullbacks have space.
The 4 up front accomplish this and the fullbacks get a free run every time.
The one-twos and the through balls are virtually non-existent and it's very predictable and boring to watch. Also unbelievably unrealistic, crossing has gone almost extinct IRL because of how ineffective it is. Not to mention corners. IRL teams always favor keeping possession instead of crossing and short corners for a reason.
Every other style of play pales in comparison and makes the game very unfun for lack of options. They claimed counter-attacking was buffed but it's a cruel joke.
It's particularly worse for me because I love a number 10 and not only is this position unsuited for narrowing the opposition defense it's also just fundamentally useless in the game itself regardless of the tactic/role/instructions. I've yet to get a single 7+ average rating throughout a season on a 10 no matter how good he is. He just gets lost and hardly receives the ball ever.
This game forces you to play the only viable tactic or get left behind.
It's sad.
magiyij155 said: I appreciate the tactic but it's another example of how broken the game is.
Every top tactic is a slight variation of getting the front players to force the opposition defense to go narrow so your fullbacks have space.
The 4 up front accomplish this and the fullbacks get a free run every time.
The one-twos and the through balls are virtually non-existent and it's very predictable and boring to watch. Also unbelievably unrealistic, crossing has gone almost extinct IRL because of how ineffective it is. Not to mention corners. IRL teams always favor keeping possession instead of crossing and short corners for a reason.
Every other style of play pales in comparison and makes the game very unfun for lack of options. They claimed counter-attacking was buffed but it's a cruel joke.
It's particularly worse for me because I love a number 10 and not only is this position unsuited for narrowing the opposition defense it's also just fundamentally useless in the game itself regardless of the tactic/role/instructions. I've yet to get a single 7+ average rating throughout a season on a 10 no matter how good he is. He just gets lost and hardly receives the ball ever.
This game forces you to play the only viable tactic or get left behind.
It's sad.
Very well written and I agree, but unfortunately there has always been 1 dominant shape per game for as far as I remember. Hopefully with the new match engine from next year we will say a different variation of top tactical shapes and instructions allowing people to play a different style of football that will achieve similar results.
By number 10, I assume you mean an AM role, if so, there are a lot of very good 4231s out there that will get the best out of your number 10
CBP87 said: Very well written and I agree, but unfortunately there has always been 1 dominant shape per game for as far as I remember. Hopefully with the new match engine from next year we will say a different variation of top tactical shapes and instructions allowing people to play a different style of football that will achieve similar results.
By number 10, I assume you mean an AM role, if so, there are a lot of very good 4231s out there that will get the best out of your number 10
Thank you for the compliment.
Yes that's what I mean by number 10, an attacking midfielder AMC.
Unfortunately, from what I see, the small amount of tactics here that use a number 10 are using it as an inferior version of having two strikers up front, aiming for that exact same situation of narrowing the defense and being a goal scorer.
My personal preference is a Mesut Ozil type number 10 that orchestrates play by sitting between the lines and spamming through balls which I have been unable to accomplish despite all my efforts.
The closes I've ever come to that dynamic is actually having 2 numbers 10's. That brazilian box tactic that was popular some time ago. But that obviously is inferior in terms of results, although in my opinion is a much more entertaining spectacle to watch.
The Brazilian box by Steelwood? If so, yes that was pretty good to watch. I'm not going to mention other tactics on this post as I feel its disrepectful but Ill tag you in some 4231s where the number 10 is allowed to pulled the strings but please remember it also depends on the type of player you have
is there any good trainig scedhule for this tactic
Hello, in what mentality does this tactic play please?
NeptriusS said: Hello, in what mentality does this tactic play please?
It's literally written in the first screenshot...
Hi everyone, may I ask how did everyone get on with this tactic, I wonder if anyone would have some experience to share at all?
As far as I understand from the comments here, there are only minor tactical difference between this tactic and Problem Solving:
CBP87 said: Roam from position removed from PF and added to IF
So I have made the changes and ran this tactic 3 times, each time lasted 2 to 3 seasons.
I lost a lot of more games comparing to Problem Solving.
I am a console player, I always play Spurs and buy almost the same players each run, and I will restart once I won the Champ League, it's usually the 2nd season.
With Problem Solving, I would usually lose no more than 4 games a season, but with this improved tactic, I have lost about 4 times that.
Is the free roaming on the IF's all there is to change?
Please advice.
Zhi said: Hi everyone, may I ask how did everyone get on with this tactic, I wonder if anyone would have some experience to share at all?
As far as I understand from the comments here, there are only minor tactical difference between this tactic and Problem Solving:
So I have made the changes and ran this tactic 3 times, each time lasted 2 to 3 seasons.
I lost a lot of more games comparing to Problem Solving.
I am a console player, I always play Spurs and buy almost the same players each run, and I will restart once I won the Champ League, it's usually the 2nd season.
With Problem Solving, I would usually lose no more than 4 games a season, but with this improved tactic, I have lost about 4 times that.
Is the free roaming on the IF's all there is to change?
Please advice.
My advice would be to use problem solving if it works for you. This tactic is very good and so is problem solving, what I would suggest is having a look at the movement attributes of your inside forwards, they may not have the attributes to roam from position effectively
CBP87 said: My advice would be to use problem solving if it works for you. This tactic is very good and so is problem solving, what I would suggest is having a look at the movement attributes of your inside forwards, they may not have the attributes to roam from position effectively
Hi there,
May I ask what would you command for the IF's attributes?
I have used Kulusevski, Pino, Writz and Yammal in my runs.
magiyij155 said: Thank you for the compliment.
Yes that's what I mean by number 10, an attacking midfielder AMC.
Unfortunately, from what I see, the small amount of tactics here that use a number 10 are using it as an inferior version of having two strikers up front, aiming for that exact same situation of narrowing the defense and being a goal scorer.
My personal preference is a Mesut Ozil type number 10 that orchestrates play by sitting between the lines and spamming through balls which I have been unable to accomplish despite all my efforts.
The closes I've ever come to that dynamic is actually having 2 numbers 10's. That brazilian box tactic that was popular some time ago. But that obviously is inferior in terms of results, although in my opinion is a much more entertaining spectacle to watch.
There was an interview a few years ago with Messi and Zidan, and while Messi payed respects for Zizu and his career he said, that he won't be able to get such a successfull career nowdays as 10, and Zizu rapidly agreed. Saying he'd become an IF-type just like Messi if he could give more speed than he did actually, but looking realistically, he would rather become a mobile 8 or DLP with his skills. They both agreed, that playmaking 10 is dead in modern meta.
Zhi said: Hi there,
May I ask what would you command for the IF's attributes?
I have used Kulusevski, Pino, Writz and Yammal in my runs.
Hi,
Left footer on the right, right on the left
Attributes wise I would say you need acceleration, pace, agility, off the ball, anticipation, strength and technique. So off the ball will compliment roam from position and strength will compliment hold up ball
CBP87 said: Hi,
Left footer on the right, right on the left
Attributes wise I would say you need acceleration, pace, agility, off the ball, anticipation, strength and technique. So off the ball will compliment roam from position and strength will compliment hold up ball
Hello,
Yea I've got the players matching to your suggestions.
EDIT: Do you have the mark DL and DR on the Inside Forwards or do you take that off?
Thanks.
Zhi said: Hello,
Yea I've got the players matching to your suggestions.
EDIT: Do you have the mark DL and DR on the Inside Forwards or do you take that off?
Thanks.
It appears to be more effective with it on
The tactic is good but my ball possession rate is low, does anyone know why?
I'm puzzled by the fullbacks personal instructions.
Take more risks - Cut inside - Cross from byline
I've played and watched this tactic many seasons and the fullbacks all have the same behavior.
They will run with the ball to the byline and cross.
So why take more risks when they're not passing. They're receiving passes, not making them. (Assuming passing ≠ crossing)
Cut inside vs cross from byline are straight up opposing movements.
Cutting inside they simply never do. This might be a trait problem because most fullbacks have playing wide traits and/or because the Inside Forwards are already occupying these spaces so the engine's positional play triggers and they never cut inside.
I don't know why you would want them to anyway. This tactic is obviously very effective and the main reason is because the front 4 narrow the opposition defense so the fullbacks have free space out wide to attack.
So either this combination of instructions somehow exploits the engine or they are meaningless which I'm guessing is the answer as we've seen many tests on this website that show how little most personal instructions have an impact.
Combining with that is the Tactical Instruction to underlap each side which no player on the pitch does even with the insistence on having the "hold up ball" Personal Instruction on the Inside Forwards.
Personally I got rid of "Take more risks" and "Cut inside" from my fullbacks and saw no meaningful change in play or results.
magiyij155 said: I'm puzzled by the fullbacks personal instructions.
<snip>
Personally I got rid of "Take more risks" and "Cut inside" from my fullbacks and saw no meaningful change in play or results.
here's what happens sometimes on the leaderboard. Some tactic achieves a nice score. Everyone comes in and makes small tweaks, and eventually through skill or RNG, someone gets a score that is .2 higher or whatever. The whole thing starts over, and people start making small tweaks to the new leader.
It's kind of like evolution. Mutations accumulate over time, and not all of them are actually helping. Sometimes a neutral mutation just gets swept along for the ride. Eventually, maybe someone does some kind of a/b test to see if a certain instruction is actually making a difference, but it's hard to tease out the effects when there's multiple moving parts, and it's hard to get a big enough sample to be totally confident in the findings.
I also tend to run fewer instructions than some of the creators here. The only test that really matters is if it's working in your save for you.
p.s. I will say that I think the cut inside on the FBs is doing something--I've tried adding it here and there, and my very subjective and not at all data-supported feeling is that they're cutting inside with the ball more than before mostly in the second phase of buildup, around midfield.
Do these tactics work if you sim the game and if you sim which option should you choose
Talkingtactcis said: Do these tactics work if you sim the game and if you sim which option should you choose
On instant results with this tactic, you will not lose at all. Maybe only in the late stages of the Champions League playoffs and with early sent off your player against the giants
mongusplyr said: The tactic is good but my ball possession rate is low, does anyone know why?
Hello.
The tactic seems to be relying on interception of passes and then counter, most of the time you are not in procession against a good team. 29% to 35% is very common for my 10+ seasons using this. I have tried reducing the Tempo so my players have more time on the ball, or reduce the pressing against high pressing teams so my players are in position to intercept, but I can't really tell much of a difference. The only thing I feel makes a difference is to change from Balance to Caution, this seems to make a difference in reducing the chance of them losing the ball, and you would have a higher procession.
Your attack is very fast and you either make it or not make it a goal, or a corner, so you don't have a lot of time on the ball and passing it around the tactic push everyone to their own goal line and take a chance.
Most of the time they are all really long passes, two passes you are in front of the opposition's goal, it seems okay not having a whole lot of procession, or I am doing something wrong.
Another thing I also have changed is taken off "Get Stuck In", this is to reduce the chance to give away set pieces.
This tacic is great but the AI counter you after a season or so by stacking people right infront of the goal, very often their goalkeeper would safe 9 shots, and sometimes like 23 shots from you, I guess they react to the stats on where you usually attack. I am on PS5 so things might be different.
There other options for top
One more question with focus play down each side does it make a significant difference because I usually lose with it on and when I take it off I win can anyone explain ?
@Gerrard Amazing tactic,any solutions for away games against much stronger opponent?
filipss said: @Gerrard Amazing tactic,any solutions for away games against much stronger opponent?
I start with tactic and change in game if needed
These are in game tweak tactics
Gerrard said: I start with tactic and change in game if needed
These are in game tweak tactics
sorry,I am new on forum,where can I get those tactics