Stuaret said: Yes, I saw that test...maybe with 2 AF and 2 Mez(At) you are more dangerous using the center? And so you get worse results using "focus play to flanks"?

I expect that using this same tactic but with a balanced mentality, you will score the same points, but with 5 fewer goals conceded and 5 fewer goals scored. It would be useful to defend the result once you are ahead!

Yeah will try that, i had 53 points in Terminator II which had 0 PI very few so i focused on other stuff here, and then i thought going back to that and add the PI and knew that 53+ was a possibility, also CM(a) and MEZZ(A) both in my tests are the same maybe 1 or 2 goals better the cm but points the same.

For focus play as i have seen here all flank heavy formation can benefit 4-2-3-1, 4-2-4, 4-3-3 and so on, for the 3-5-2 i prefer all 2 AF and 2 MEZZ to attack at same time and not one to go and help the WB so then i have 3 not 4 in the box for a low cross, when playing 95% of goals are WB crossing to the 4 players in the box, and combinatons between the 4 players is very basic stuff but not bad in the ME, there is a collision bug (MEZZ and AF attack same space at same time and look like they are about to headclash each other and it makes no sense positional wise) which has remained for years which i have reported in FM cause i have used 3-5-2 all my time in FM for years and it annoys me.
Stuaret said: @Avenger22 congratulations for the result!
I really appreciate realistic tactics. Can you try all these tactical instructions again with a balanced mentality?

Thanks i am huge fan of this shape IRL also in FM for years, yeah that will be the final test for this shape in this patch, will try that but i think it will prob be 52-53 range maybe even lower, i tried with just adding focus play to flanks got -3 points so i think this is the max
Well now we know that we just need to see pace and acc for players and jumping reach for defenders extra apart from that ...
Added focus play to both flanks, lets see if having the mezzala can help in attacking the overloads
Wow finally 53+ if it is correct, just needed to go back to old Terminator II and add few stuff ...
sponsorkindest said: So stupid, man here we are using ML rating, python code, excel sheet, genie scout and FMRTE to get the recruitment right but when in reality all you need a filter with Pace >= 16

Same goes for tactics, 10 hours into making a tactic suited for your team, analysing players and ... better playing much higher line attacking gegenpress and you make lutton town a force in PL ...
Lol AM24(Athletics manager 24)
Back to the old shape and tried the PI meta stuff
Based on FM logic Usain Bolt would be best player in the world had he been a footballer ...
Chi said: I tested it, was just defensively worse and did not bring in more goals.

Yeah i too tried a 5-3-2 with libero like you but ofc a symetrical one and did better than the WB slot, i think is because with the libero it will be 4-2-2-2 in attack and WB need to start a bit deeper that is why it works better, while with 3xBPD the WB slot is better
Would be interesting to try this with WB a slot higher see if it affects the score
Libero(s) -> bpd also changed PI of DM nothing else
Mezz(a) -> CM(A) lets see if the CM performs better than Mezz
If the DW formed a back 5 with the 3 CB in defensive phase it would be top tactic here but ...
3 points drop wow, didn't expect even though the 4-4-2 is best for overlaps, IW goes inside and WB overlaps
Trying my best offense, scoring for fun but defense with only 3 did well this test but ofc large holes let's see which of 3 stratas is better for 3-5-2.
Moved WB from the defence to Wb strata lets see which is better
Trying Libero(S) with a back 5 also removing overlaps
Very solid for a 4-4-2 without DM, have you tried it with look for overlap in both wings ?
Added libero and changed DLP(s) to DM(s)