Most recent tactic comes in at 4.8, despite my testing database grading it out at 2.118 ppg (which would be a 7.0). I expected a regression with their DB, but not one that large. Was hoping for the 5.8 range and am surprised it performed that poorly.
I have to admit that I'm confused. Dino and I have worked hard to create a testing environment that mirrors the FM-Arena database and being more selective on the tactics that we/I post.
Perhaps Inter and Napoli are just that much better than Team A and Team B and we should be testing with the bottom teams in our DB?
Methodology: Collaborated with Dino to share a testing database. Top 20 teams in the world, 76 game season, no continental or domestic cup competitions, all teams have injuries and suspensions wiped at the start of the test. Upper mid-table Inter and lower mid-table Napoli were used for the tests to most closely mirror Team A and Team B in the FM-Arena tests.
Discussion: Spent some time the last two days revisiting the Arrowhead 1.0 tactic. The 2.0 tactic moved to RPMs while the 1.0 tactic attacked with Segundo Volante's. I think there is still some room to improve the VOL version, so I've gone back to the drawing board.
I'm posting two versions of the tactic today, one with FBs and IWs and the other with IWBs and IWs. The double inverted tactic obviously could face some difficulties against a team with two high wingers, but I think it does well against the field and simple in game adjustments between these two tactics can maximize results.
Methodology =========== Downloaded a 4-division European Super League database and selected 1 team in each of the top divisions and gave them all of the same tactic. Lazio, Arsenal, Tottenham, and Napoli were selected for the holiday test.
Changelog ========= WB to FB Anchor to RPM Very Attacking to Attacking Removed focus play down right
Results [over 30 game season] ======= Lazio 63 pts Tottenham 70 pts Arsenal 71 pts Napoli 75 pts
The 2.1 performed worse in the testing league, which I think makes sense. The higher line is probably only good when you are the favored team or the home team. Back to the drawing board for something that does well against the top teams in the way that the standard line does. I'll keep trying to break through the 1.8 pts per game threshold with Arrowhead!
Gaksital said: You mean, that the only one change in the defensive line has brought about dramatic change of result? interesting Expand
I was surprised too. I tried adding and removing a bunch of other stuff one at a time like Be more discipled, remove tighter marking, tell BPDs not to stay wider, etc. But the only result that increased output was the higher as opposed to standard line. If you think about it, it is kind of a big change to how you set up AND compresses the gap between the RPMs and the attack.
I've split this from the other thread and labeled it as 2.0 rather than 1.2 because while the shape is the same, the roles have changed pretty drastically.
Changelog (from Arrowhead 1.0) ========= IWBs switched to WBs VOLs switched to RPMs RPMs instructed to move into channels AP switched to SS
The RPMs operate at the top of the 18 and rarely get into the box. The channel instruction keep them in the attacking channels really well. Without the VOLs dragging players into the box with them, there is more room for the striker. Kane scored 78 goals in this test!
Results ======= 92 points - 111 goals - 43 conceded Won EURO II Took 6 points off of Man City and Chelsea
Revisiting the "Very Attacking" version of the tactic for the first time since the full release.
Changelog: Individual instructions changed to short passes for the VOL Wingers have become Inverted Wingers Both CBs are now BPDs GK is now SK support Roll it out is now Throw it Long with Distribute Quickly
Test results with EVERTON: 86 points - 97 goals - 45 conceded Richarlison played as the AF, scored 36 league goals
In an attempt shore up the defensive stats for the Arrowhead tactic, the mentality has been dialed back to Positive and the IWBs have been set on support (I know, I'm a chicken). The VOL on attack seems more important than the IWBs on attack.
The most recent test with Leeds, generated the following results:
Mark said: It tested well but not great with me. I holiday test with 3 very lowly ranked sides in Vanarama National, North and South. Electro is still well clear. All the numbers are averages between the 3 comps.
Expand
I have some concerns with the Vanarama methodology. Some tactics won't perform as well with a lower quality of players, but obviously I'm biased after seeing my Arrowhead tactic performing so poorly, lol.
I'm glad the IWBa seems to be working. They are way better at staying in the pocket this year. Last year IWBs on attack would end up wide and get exposed in transition. Pushing up the channel and staying narrow keeps them relevant at breaking up counter attacks. Until the ME punishes me for it, I'll keep playing on very attacking and using as many attacking roles as I can!
Three team test methodology: Only run premier league, disable first transfer window, control three teams, locking in the same tactic. Teams selected: Aston Villa, West Ham United, Wolves.
Results: Wolves 3rd, West Ham 4th, Aston Villa 6th Villa lost final 4 games, still finished 6th only a point behind Man City in 5th The three teams combined to score over 300 goals!
Tactic theory: Like many of us, I played a lot of strikerless on FM21, it's been difficult to recreate a shape and results, but this one has done it. While this result was holiday'd, I did look back at lots of goal highlights to get a sense of how it was scoring. Like everything else in FM22, it was crosses galore. Gone are the beautiful through-ball strikerless goals of the past. Now it's wide players finding late runs for easy headers and finishers with defenders sitting way too deep in the box.
Screenshots of the tactic and final table shown below. As always, I am interested in a Tottenham simulation or other's results.
Harry Kane had 72 goals? Holy hell. 3rd is a good result with Spurs, was hoping for more after getting Villa/West Ham/Wolves all into europe. Thanks for the verification!
That's not a great result. Oof. Suprised by some of the players, like Raphinha as the IW, Harrison as the AP and Dan James as the MR. Bamford needs to the be the TF and bin off Gelhardt. Kalvin Phillips? Wonder if it does better with better player position assignments. Either way, 12th is concerning.
Thought I would throw up a few other stats. This tactic does not generate possession. The three tested teams were the worst possession teams in the EPL. Additionally they did not complete very many passes. However, they were the top three teams in chances created and goals. All three were top 5 in xG. Finally, the tested teams were 3 of the top 4 in interceptions.
The tactic is not for the faint of heart and does concede goals while generating a bunch of 3-1, 3-2, and 4-2 type wins.
You can download any game save and see for yourself - https://fm-arena.com/tactic/1976-arrowhead-1-4-4-2-2-1-1/
I assume the DB is not available for download? A blank DB, rather than the results DB.
I have to admit that I'm confused. Dino and I have worked hard to create a testing environment that mirrors the FM-Arena database and being more selective on the tactics that we/I post.
Perhaps Inter and Napoli are just that much better than Team A and Team B and we should be testing with the bottom teams in our DB?
Back to the drawing board...
Discussion: Spent some time the last two days revisiting the Arrowhead 1.0 tactic. The 2.0 tactic moved to RPMs while the 1.0 tactic attacked with Segundo Volante's. I think there is still some room to improve the VOL version, so I've gone back to the drawing board.
I'm posting two versions of the tactic today, one with FBs and IWs and the other with IWBs and IWs. The double inverted tactic obviously could face some difficulties against a team with two high wingers, but I think it does well against the field and simple in game adjustments between these two tactics can maximize results.
Arrowhead 1.3 [4-2-2-1-1] (IWB VOL IW T)
=========================
Arrowhead 1.4 [4-2-2-1-1] (IWB VOL W SS)
=========================
The top 20 clubs have been entered in the Premier League and I tested with Inter and AC Milan.
Results: 2.01 ppg. 2.64 gpg. 1.47 apg. Obviously will be some regression with more games in the FM-Arena test, but this is encouraging over 76 games.
Here is the final table with this tactic:
Tactic and stats for Inter
Tactic and stats for AC Milan
Methodology
===========
Downloaded a 4-division European Super League database and selected 1 team in each of the top divisions and gave them all of the same tactic. Lazio, Arsenal, Tottenham, and Napoli were selected for the holiday test.
Changelog
=========
WB to FB
Anchor to RPM
Very Attacking to Attacking
Removed focus play down right
Results [over 30 game season]
=======
Lazio 63 pts
Tottenham 70 pts
Arsenal 71 pts
Napoli 75 pts
Screenshots
===========
Tactic
Tables
I was surprised too. I tried adding and removing a bunch of other stuff one at a time like Be more discipled, remove tighter marking, tell BPDs not to stay wider, etc. But the only result that increased output was the higher as opposed to standard line. If you think about it, it is kind of a big change to how you set up AND compresses the gap between the RPMs and the attack.
As one of the few single striker tactics going, I'm going to keep pushing and releasing updates to the tactic.
A small tweak to the tactic has been tested and had the best testing result of FM22 for me.
Changelog
=========
Moved the defensive line from standard to higher
Results
=======
94 points, 120 goals for, 37 goals against
Kane had 81 goals in 59 games
Screenshots
===========
85 points, 106 goals, 48 conceded
Won Euro II again
Kane had 63 goals
I've split this from the other thread and labeled it as 2.0 rather than 1.2 because while the shape is the same, the roles have changed pretty drastically.
Changelog (from Arrowhead 1.0)
=========
IWBs switched to WBs
VOLs switched to RPMs
RPMs instructed to move into channels
AP switched to SS
The RPMs operate at the top of the 18 and rarely get into the box. The channel instruction keep them in the attacking channels really well. Without the VOLs dragging players into the box with them, there is more room for the striker. Kane scored 78 goals in this test!
Results
=======
92 points - 111 goals - 43 conceded
Won EURO II
Took 6 points off of Man City and Chelsea
Screenshots
===========
Revisiting the "Very Attacking" version of the tactic for the first time since the full release.
Changelog:
Individual instructions changed to short passes for the VOL
Wingers have become Inverted Wingers
Both CBs are now BPDs
GK is now SK support
Roll it out is now Throw it Long with Distribute Quickly
Test results with EVERTON:
86 points - 97 goals - 45 conceded
Richarlison played as the AF, scored 36 league goals
Screenshots:
Changelog
IWBs from Support to Attacking
VOLs from Attacking to Support
Results
Leeds - 89 pts - 82 for - 38 against
Tactic
Overview Full Table
Schedule 1 Schedule 2
Arrowhead 4-2-2-1-1 IW Positive [1.0]
In an attempt shore up the defensive stats for the Arrowhead tactic, the mentality has been dialed back to Positive and the IWBs have been set on support (I know, I'm a chicken). The VOL on attack seems more important than the IWBs on attack.
The most recent test with Leeds, generated the following results:
88pts - 93g - 35a
Feedback and verification welcomed!
I have some concerns with the Vanarama methodology. Some tactics won't perform as well with a lower quality of players, but obviously I'm biased after seeing my Arrowhead tactic performing so poorly, lol.
Wingers changed to IW, team instructions tweaked, results improved. Tottenham tests on 89 and 90 points. Kane with 62 and 65 goal seasons.
I think this version is better than the one with the Wingers and has less outlier holiday tests.
Tactic
Test 1
Test 2
Three team test methodology: Only run premier league, disable first transfer window, control three teams, locking in the same tactic. Teams selected: Aston Villa, West Ham United, Wolves.
Results: Wolves 3rd, West Ham 4th, Aston Villa 6th
Villa lost final 4 games, still finished 6th only a point behind Man City in 5th
The three teams combined to score over 300 goals!
Tactic theory: Like many of us, I played a lot of strikerless on FM21, it's been difficult to recreate a shape and results, but this one has done it. While this result was holiday'd, I did look back at lots of goal highlights to get a sense of how it was scoring. Like everything else in FM22, it was crosses galore. Gone are the beautiful through-ball strikerless goals of the past. Now it's wide players finding late runs for easy headers and finishers with defenders sitting way too deep in the box.
Screenshots of the tactic and final table shown below. As always, I am interested in a Tottenham simulation or other's results.
That's not a great result. Oof. Suprised by some of the players, like Raphinha as the IW, Harrison as the AP and Dan James as the MR. Bamford needs to the be the TF and bin off Gelhardt. Kalvin Phillips? Wonder if it does better with better player position assignments. Either way, 12th is concerning.
The tactic is not for the faint of heart and does concede goals while generating a bunch of 3-1, 3-2, and 4-2 type wins.