Another try at getting a 4222 going. Looks pretty wild watching a game! I'm experimenting with half-backs.
On attack, since the BPDs with dribble more are absolute ball hogs and run past everyone anyways, I'll treat them as attacking DMs, and treat the DMs as true central defenders.
PIs: (Assume tackle harder everywhere) AMs - Run wide, move into channels BPDs - Dribble more, stay wider
Results For Ag GD Pts comment 80 44 36 79 Bournemouth 78 56 22 68 Wolves are consistently bad 78 60 18 61 Wolves are consistently bad 80 57 23 66 Crystal 116 28 88 99 Liverpool 120 35 85 95 ManCity
As a note, Wolves always does worse than Bournemouth for me. Wonder if that's common for others. Wolves media prediction 11th, very lucky to make 3rd. Bournemouth media prediction 20th, easily makes 3rd.
Yeah, this is all just for fun. None of the top tactics actually work for me in real games. I don't know why. Probably because all my games are underdog games
I'm changing up to a more systematic and methodical exploration of tactical changes. I really should have done this earlier, but oh well.
The other thread I uploaded for switching Deep Shadow to underlap was flawed in many ways, as was the local testing for it.
The current tactic is a true underlap, with IF->IW CWB->IWB volante get forward (give space behind for the IWBs) and switching it to balanced.
I also tried positive, but the results were unstable, though encouraging. I may still upload the positive version.
Testing was done with Bournemouth looking at only "for" and "against" goals, and ignoring xG. Holiday mode (as flawed as that is) with no freezes of players. I've at least got enough runs down to think that this might score higher.
This tactic seems to do worse when switching to balanced, which is interesting. Underlap seems to be working better for local testing, so let's see what happens.
A modification of https://fm-arena.com/tactic/3899-4231-deep-shadow/ (score:55 for reference) changing to the current meta to see what difference it makes. Positive->Balanced Lower Defensive Line->Standard CWB->WB
I've seen some issues with the previous system not picking up tactics, and I'm guessing that adding those to the queue is manual for those ones. If it helps the automation, then the clutter from the new system is probably the lesser evil.
I'm experimenting with half-backs.
On attack, since the BPDs with dribble more are absolute ball hogs and run past everyone anyways, I'll treat them as attacking DMs, and treat the DMs as true central defenders.
PIs: (Assume tackle harder everywhere)
AMs - Run wide, move into channels
BPDs - Dribble more, stay wider
Results
For Ag GD Pts comment
80 44 36 79 Bournemouth
78 56 22 68 Wolves are consistently bad
78 60 18 61 Wolves are consistently bad
80 57 23 66 Crystal
116 28 88 99 Liverpool
120 35 85 95 ManCity
As a note, Wolves always does worse than Bournemouth for me. Wonder if that's common for others.
Wolves media prediction 11th, very lucky to make 3rd. Bournemouth media prediction 20th, easily makes 3rd.
Screenshots are from a lucky(?) Liverpool run.
As requested from @Sane
https://fm-arena.com/tactic/4176-433-shadowless/
with meta TI, PI and Set Pieces from https://fm-arena.com/tactic/4252-424-re-dulillah/
|For|Ag|GD|Pts|comment|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|78|45|33|72|Wolves
|82|55|27|70|Wolves
|66|40|26|74|Bournemouth
|78|50|28|68|Bournemouth
Should be interesting..
Changes:
positive->attacking
Changes:
positive->attacking
balanced->positive
Volantes remove get forward
This was a bit unstable during testing, with a wide range of goal differences. Curious to see how it stacks up to more testing.
Bournemouth testing
For:80, Ag:53, 27
For:87, Ag:46, 41
For:52, Ag:66, -14
For:82, Ag:46, 36
For:70, Ag:42, 28
For67:, Ag:57, 10
21.3±8.3
The other thread I uploaded for switching Deep Shadow to underlap was flawed in many ways, as was the local testing for it.
The current tactic is a true underlap, with
IF->IW
CWB->IWB
volante get forward (give space behind for the IWBs)
and switching it to balanced.
I also tried positive, but the results were unstable, though encouraging. I may still upload the positive version.
Testing was done with Bournemouth looking at only "for" and "against" goals, and ignoring xG. Holiday mode (as flawed as that is) with no freezes of players. I've at least got enough runs down to think that this might score higher.
Bournemouth
base: Deep Shadow (score:55)
For:74, Ag:53, 21
For:62, Ag:52, 10
For:69, Ag:60, 9
For:64, Ag:62, 2
=10.5±4
balanced CWB->WB (score:54)
For:74, Ag:60, 14
For:71, Ag:50, 21
For:71, Ag:60, 11
For:52, Ag:58, -6
=10±5.7
base+balanced:
=10.3±3.2
underlap (positive) CWB->IWB, IF->IW
For:80, Ag:53, 27
For:87, Ag:46, 41
For:52, Ag:66, -14
For:82, Ag:46, 36
For:70, Ag:42, 28
For67:, Ag:57, 10
=21.3±8.3
underlap CWB->IWB, IF->IW, balanced, volante get forward (give space behind for the IWBs)
For:79, Ag:47, 32
For:69, Ag:42, 27
For:75:, Ag:50, 25
For:72, Ag:60, 12
For:53, Ag:49, 4
For:76, Ag:34, 42
=23.7±5.6
I'm hopeful that central midfielders aren't completely useless in this patch. BWM on support seems to be working well, but we'll see.
Changes:
Vol su->Vol at
CM at->BWM su
Changes:
overlap->underlap
A modification of https://fm-arena.com/tactic/3899-4231-deep-shadow/ (score:55 for reference) changing to the current meta to see what difference it makes.
Positive->Balanced
Lower Defensive Line->Standard
CWB->WB
Cheers!
@Zippo thanks for all the hard work!