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.
Gerrard said: Spurs test with normal width, Overall slightly worse than narrow Expand The difference in comparing the two is the -3 points in the league? If so then there is no reason to use the "narrow" instruction in the long term but only in individual cases which need more testing to decide which these cases are.
Also I can see that with “normal” width, you have won Carabao Cup too but with “narrow” you didn't.
sibelius said: I think it's the "narrow" width. I was using the early versions of the 424 Classic (by Gianaa9) a month ago, and it was working well. For some reason, these guys tested the tactic with narrow width and it apparently fared better -- but that's not the case when you're playing. I used the newer narrow versions with the same squad and it struggled to create or score, especially when you're facing AI teams with 3 at the back (Serie A has lots).
When I switched to Katana or GrassFury or BoxLevante, I started winning again immediately. Then I tried the narrow 424 again, it slumped once more (even on a positive mentality)
BUT... when I went back to old "fairly wide" 424 classic, results were a bit better. Hence my deduction. Expand I'm thinking exactly the same thing.
It doesn't make sense to have the "narrow" instruction enabled because considering the other instructions that try to penetrate the defense with through/vertical passes then this instruction doesn't help much. I can say that this instruction, although it's in the category of "In Possession" and "Attacking Width" but is more helpful and encourages "Out of Possession" and "Invite Crosses" which actually affects the defensive width of your team.
My personal opinion and view, to achieve the "perfect" system your team needs to defend very tightly and attack very widely.
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.
WM to W
VOL to DM
Inspired from TON 424 V9 HUB TH P97 by @Gerrard.
MRL to AMRL
VOL to DM
WM to IF
The difference in comparing the two is the -3 points in the league? If so then there is no reason to use the "narrow" instruction in the long term but only in individual cases which need more testing to decide which these cases are.
Also I can see that with “normal” width, you have won Carabao Cup too but with “narrow” you didn't.
I was using the early versions of the 424 Classic (by Gianaa9) a month ago, and it was working well.
For some reason, these guys tested the tactic with narrow width and it apparently fared better -- but that's not the case when you're playing.
I used the newer narrow versions with the same squad and it struggled to create or score, especially when you're facing AI teams with 3 at the back (Serie A has lots).
When I switched to Katana or GrassFury or BoxLevante, I started winning again immediately. Then I tried the narrow 424 again, it slumped once more (even on a positive mentality)
BUT... when I went back to old "fairly wide" 424 classic, results were a bit better.
Hence my deduction.
I'm thinking exactly the same thing.
It doesn't make sense to have the "narrow" instruction enabled because considering the other instructions that try to penetrate the defense with through/vertical passes then this instruction doesn't help much. I can say that this instruction, although it's in the category of "In Possession" and "Attacking Width" but is more helpful and encourages "Out of Possession" and "Invite Crosses" which actually affects the defensive width of your team.
My personal opinion and view, to achieve the "perfect" system your team needs to defend very tightly and attack very widely.
Good job @Gerrard.