CBP87 said: Interesting, I wonder how 2 DLFs on support would fare. Good insight there pal Expand I think someone already tried it with 2 DLFs but it didn't work out and I think the reason is that DLFs are more creative players than PFs. Also CFs are more aggressive than PFs and I don't think that role will work either.
I personally categorize the attacking roles within the game like this:
Creative strikers - Deep Lying Forward - Trequartista - False Nine
Support strikers - Pressing Forward - Target Forward
This setup, featuring two PFs on support duty and two IFs on attack duty, seems effective. I've crafted a similar setup before, and it performed well. EF 424 IF P105 AC (Dzek Tweak 1)
Here are some insights from this year's FM with this specific arrangement: - The PFs drop back into the AM positions to play a more active role in the build up of attacks, drawing the opposing team's center-backs out of position. This movement creates opportunities for other players, particularly the IFs, to exploit spaces behind the defense. - The new "Positional Play" feature shows that if the wing players converge towards the centre with or without the ball and the central players shift to AM roles, the wing players become less effective due to the priority they give to central movements. This explains the discrepancy in scores with the previous VOL test and with this test.
Further analysis of this setup could yield interesting results.
GSBall said: Hi can someone test the default tactics with no team instructions (e.g. 442, 424) to see how they compare? Expand Hi GSBall,
I have test them multiple times with and without instructions.
I'm not in front of my computer but I remember very well that in all my tests the “best” formations without any instructions were almost always 4-2-2-2, 4-2-4 and 4-4-2 with small differences.
Added Pass Into Space, Throw It Long, Distribute To Centre-Backs, Slow Pace Down Removed Play Out Of Defence, Run At Defence, Focus Play, Distribute Quickly
I think someone already tried it with 2 DLFs but it didn't work out and I think the reason is that DLFs are more creative players than PFs. Also CFs are more aggressive than PFs and I don't think that role will work either.
I personally categorize the attacking roles within the game like this:
Creative strikers
- Deep Lying Forward
- Trequartista
- False Nine
Support strikers
- Pressing Forward
- Target Forward
Attacking strikers
- Complete Forward
- Advanced Forward
- Poacher
Here are some insights from this year's FM with this specific arrangement:
- The PFs drop back into the AM positions to play a more active role in the build up of attacks, drawing the opposing team's center-backs out of position. This movement creates opportunities for other players, particularly the IFs, to exploit spaces behind the defense.
- The new "Positional Play" feature shows that if the wing players converge towards the centre with or without the ball and the central players shift to AM roles, the wing players become less effective due to the priority they give to central movements. This explains the discrepancy in scores with the previous VOL test and with this test.
Further analysis of this setup could yield interesting results.
Hi brother,
I don’t play anymore FM24 because I don’t have time. Sorry
Did you try this tactic with “Wide” attacking width?
Hi GSBall,
I have test them multiple times with and without instructions.
I'm not in front of my computer but I remember very well that in all my tests the “best” formations without any instructions were almost always 4-2-2-2, 4-2-4 and 4-4-2 with small differences.
Added Pass Into Space, Throw It Long, Distribute To Centre-Backs, Slow Pace Down
Removed Play Out Of Defence, Run At Defence, Focus Play, Distribute Quickly
WBa -> FBa
Removed Underlaps
Removed Pass Into Space