atomzero236 said: How much do you all think it really matters if the IWBs have the inverted preferred foot? Would a right footed right IWB still work alright? The success here in the tests makes it seem like it would work fine. Expand
Yes it should be fine, preferred foot is not so important for IWB in my opinion. More important would be having a reasonable weaker foot as they are playing as central midfielders in possession and two footed players are strong here
Update on my first 442 submission. I am trying to get a flat 442 that competes with the other top tactics. I notice there aren't many strong 442s (not including 2x DM variations).
Tested a few versions since 0.1 and currently favouring this one. Can't remember every change but main difference is 2x BWM(s) and Wingbacks now
Last season I had a 4231 where I had a DM behind a CM like this (41131 I guess). But I used BWM(s) as the CM, and not the DM as I found BWM plays like a headless chicken, running around ballchasing; even with Defend duty. I preferred having the BWM further up pressing, and a DM that sat back behind him to protect the back 4 (I used DLP in that M.E.).
I wonder how this would do with a DM(D) behind and BWM(S) ahead
Ahh ok gotcha. Freezing can’t be done in FM’s editor, but there’s a third party tool called FMRTE that allows you to freeze player states (not free though)
Delicious said: This test made me want to check again GKs roles, i did back then but maybe was really RNG gk on (su) seem the most logical gonna check even the mistake difference Expand
I've always used sweeper keeper on support. I've actually just submitted a tactic where I've changed to defend duty and I think its the first time I've ever used it lol
My logic is, I would only prefer a defend duty if the goalkeeper kept making mistakes that led to big chances. But I almost never see this happen, so I prefer to leave it on support. On defend duty I expect to see losing possession more often when keeper kicks it out of play in a panic. Or kicking it long instead of trying a short pass to defenders
Changes from v2.1: SK(S) --> SK(D) FB(s) --> IWB(s) Add TI: be more disciplined
I had best results when FB were cutting inside rather than staying wide (despite overlaps). So I've changed them to IWB. Gives a 3-man midfield in possession too.
Yes it should be fine, preferred foot is not so important for IWB in my opinion. More important would be having a reasonable weaker foot as they are playing as central midfielders in possession and two footed players are strong here
Tested a few versions since 0.1 and currently favouring this one. Can't remember every change but main difference is 2x BWM(s) and Wingbacks now
v0.1: https://fm-arena.com/thread/4452-two-banks-pv442/
Taken base from my PV415 v2.2
I wonder how this would do with a DM(D) behind and BWM(S) ahead
Thanks! Agreed, I’ve not had much fortune with attacking mids either.
No, I haven’t seen his routines. Are they better than the standard reliable set pieces?
Added "shoot less" to back 4 and to both wingers now
Added "take more risks" to the central of the 3 strikers
When you holiday are you running fm editor changes like dynamics? Or freeze editor?
I've always used sweeper keeper on support. I've actually just submitted a tactic where I've changed to defend duty and I think its the first time I've ever used it lol
My logic is, I would only prefer a defend duty if the goalkeeper kept making mistakes that led to big chances. But I almost never see this happen, so I prefer to leave it on support. On defend duty I expect to see losing possession more often when keeper kicks it out of play in a panic. Or kicking it long instead of trying a short pass to defenders
SK(S) --> SK(D)
FB(s) --> IWB(s)
Add TI: be more disciplined
I had best results when FB were cutting inside rather than staying wide (despite overlaps). So I've changed them to IWB. Gives a 3-man midfield in possession too.
Changed DM-->BWM
Changed IF-->IW
Full back PIs: Cut inside -->Run wide
Added Get further forward
Added: Lower Defensive Line
Added: Get Stuck In