Inside the link I provided in the first post you will find an excel sheet (Testing Sample.xlsx) with which you can measure the results of your tactics up to 3 times. You need to enter the GF, GA and PTS into the "white" tables and the results will be in the table just to the right in the "yellow" table. If you run into any problems or difficulties I am here.
The results that my excel sheet produces are translated to a season that has 38 matches. With that in mind I would say if your tactic gets over 60 points I would consider it very good.
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.
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.
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.
Inside the link I provided in the first post you will find an excel sheet (Testing Sample.xlsx) with which you can measure the results of your tactics up to 3 times. You need to enter the GF, GA and PTS into the "white" tables and the results will be in the table just to the right in the "yellow" table. If you run into any problems or difficulties I am here.
The results that my excel sheet produces are translated to a season that has 38 matches. With that in mind I would say if your tactic gets over 60 points I would consider it very good.
Thanks a lot!
Added Be More Expressive
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.
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.
I believe that this practice will work, it just remains to be seen from various examples. Yours is an example.
I am 95% sure
I've released an update to my test league that includes some minor fixes.
For those who wish, you can download it from the first post here.
Happy FMing
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!
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 😉
Added Be More Disciplined
Added Play For Set Pieces
Added Play Out Of Defence, Narrow, Roll It Out, Distribute To Centre-Backs
IFs to IWs
FBs to WBs
Added Shoot On Sight
Added Hit Early Crosses
Added Work Ball Into Box
Added Play Out Of Defence
Added Take More Risks to all applicable positions.
Added Pass Into Space
Added Pass into space and Take more risks to all positions.