Blau
Going to try to optimize this narrow tactic over the next couple of days. I really like this shape and want to try out the best combinations for it. The goal is to have it be 60+ if possible.

Changes:
Vols Move into channels

Going to try to optimize this narrow tactic over the next couple of days. I really like this shape and want to try out the best combinations for it. The goal is to have it be 60+ if possible.

Changes:
WBs instead of FBs
Normal lines

Going to try to optimize this narrow tactic over the next couple of days. I really like this shape and want to try out the best combinations for it. The goal is to have it be 60+ if possible.

Changes:
CWB

Going to try to optimize this narrow tactic over the next couple of days. I really like this shape and want to try out the best combinations for it. The goal is to have it be 60+ if possible.

Changes:
WBs instead of FBs
Much Lower Lines
Drop off more


Going to try to optimize this narrow tactic over the next couple of days. I really like this shape and want to try out the best combinations for it. The goal is to have it be 60+ if possible.

Underlaps on both sides. VOL also on move into channels

Changed a fair amount of PIs

Vol- Move into channels
DW- Shoot less often
WB- Cross from byline, dribble more

Switched up the midfield to be also asymmetrical. I feel like it might be becoming more of a 433 at this point.

Added take more risks and shoot less often to a bunch of positions

Impressive for a normal 433!
Higher D-line

b0nec0 said: Hello, can you test with Shadow Strikers instead of Attacking Midfielder for the tables? The tactic is very unique and not similiar like any other of the tables and i feel that have potencial to be on top

Going on 4rd season save and in 2nd season i changed and i feel mutch more effective in scoring goals/assists. The squad is also mutch better so maybe is just my impression

Test a few more changes like PF in place of AF and asymmetry but dont feel like it as a upgrade.


A similar tactic that you have described has been tested and performed worse (https://fm-arena.com/thread/4669-redux-v5-2-tweak/). However, what tests the best on FMArena is not always the best for your individual save. So just try out whatever you feel like and use what works best for you.
wheelerdealer said: Looks a solid tactic. Do you find the DM covers the space behind the LWB when they go forward? As in theory down the left you have 2 more attacking roles, I will try this for sure, but might try with standard FB role on left for added stability as i love keeping clean sheets! Cheers

I think having the DM helps and I like the combo of an IF with a WB overlapping. A FB would work fine though so it's really up to what you prefer.


TargetPerson said: Great results for a 442 :thup:

Have you tried inverting duties on the left flank i.e. WB (at) and IF (su)? Should work well with a DM (de) on the same side and maybe help adding more width (if necessary)


I have not tried that. I would be worried that the left side would struggle to break down the defense without the inside forward on attack with the strikers asymmetrical to the right. However, I think it would work with normal strikers. Feel free to test it out!
Seeing if I can squeeze out a little more performance with a FB on AT.


TommyToxic said: Only change was moving the striker?

The only change was the striker. Besides some possible RNG luck lol
Testing the difference between regular and asymmetrical strikers

Moving the IW up to an IF

Decided to try out a PF in this formation. I thought he would benefit the left side more because of the lack of a DW on that side. Changes things up from the two AFs.

chef said: Oof, nice :)

A bit of backstory behind the change:

- I've been watching a lot of match engine these past few days and started to tweak the current top tactic, which I believed checks all the boxes for great tactic (from watching it compared to others), you can read all the details here if interested: https://fm-arena.com/thread/4793-match-engine-personal-observations/
- For the life of me, I couldn't figure out why the defensive winger is better than wide midfielder (defensively - not directly taking the ball, but just pure pressure that we're trying to play), even if I set the same exact instructions on both. So I've watched games with DW on one side, and WM on other side and I've noticed that DW plays a lot more defence. And then I've noticed they have Close down more attribute which you can't tick on WM - obvious but I've completely missed it.
- So I basically applied the same logic to forwards - Close down more only exists for pressing forwards
- Could really be an OP directive for the forward players

I raised up the defensive line to make that whole pressure more compact, and left one AF since they really pull the opponents defensive line lower + are closer to goalkeeper for Prevent Short GK directive. But for further testing, other PF/AF variations might be better + different defensive lines.


I really like the idea. However, I think you are right that at least one AF is essential. Hopefully, this can shake up the dominance of almost every top tactic using multiple AFs.