Spurs

It is a tactic designed in hopes of a successful 21–22 season for Tottenham Hotspur.

Among my previous tactical personal guidelines, I removed 'mark firmly' for more creative attack.

For a more direct attack, 'DLP-De' and 'Mezzala-su' were added.

It is most effective when a player with good dribbling is located on the left wing.

I think this tactic will be far more powerful than 'Liar' in terms of pursuing creative counterattacks.

Half of the season was on holiday

Finished 3rd in the PL and won the Europa League title.

Test please. Thanks.

https://fm-arena.com/thread/1297-spurs-v2-0/

The newly added v2.0 tactic is in this thread. Both attack and defense achieved much more satisfactory results than v1. If you need it, refer to it.

great 4-2-3-1 !

i was wondering if Son wouldn't be better as an advanced forward with his dribling and pace and Kane as the attacking forward ? what do you think

cavariFM said: great 4-2-3-1 !

i was wondering if Son wouldn't be better as an advanced forward with his dribling and pace and Kane as the attacking forward ? what do you think Expand

Thank you
You mean, to place Son on advanced forward and Kane on shadow striker?

That's exactly how I used them in my game, and Son won the top scorer.

What I would give for Spurs V2 to be tested.

I'm super curious if it ends up above liar.

What do you think @Gaksital

commute said: What I would give for Spurs V2 to be tested.

I'm super curious if it ends up above liar.

What do you think @Gaksital Expand

I'm also curious.
Unfortunately, the manager seems to have determined V2 has not changed much from v1.

Perhaps, the instability of the defensive area could lead to a lower rating than 'liar'.

I also try to think that tactics that are not tested by the policies of this site have reasonable grounds.

Really want my drifting tactic tested. but
Maybe testing all tactics with only a small change will overload the site's traffic.

According to this link:
https://fm-arena.com/thread/826-information-regarding-the-way-we-pick-tactics-for-the-testing/


Perhaps, if V2 receives good feedback from many users, it may be tested.

I used spurs V2 with inter Milan and went through Serie A undefeated, will post screenshots soon

yaozy said: I used spurs V2 with inter Milan and went through Serie A undefeated, will post screenshots soon Expand

I'm looking forward to your screenshots
Thanks to good feedbacks such as your comment, I hope my Spurs V2 can be tested.

amazing spurs v2 striker scores quite a bit

Gaksital said: I'm looking forward to your screenshots
Thanks to good feedbacks such as your comment, I hope my Spurs V2 can be tested. Expand

Such a great tactic for people who like 4-2-3-1 and striker scoring lots of goals

It really does seem promising.
Quick question though, did any of you use any OI`s during your tests?

yaozy said: Such a great tactic for people who like 4-2-3-1 and striker scoring lots of goals Expand

Thank you


Iodine said: It really does seem promising.
Quick question though, did any of you use any OI`s during your tests? Expand

I don't use OIs to Liar tactics that applied 'Mark firmly' personal guidelines to most players. However, Spurs tactics, which are not applied that personal guidelines to players, are delegated OIs to the head coach only in big games or against strong teams.

But I don't know exactly, because I haven't experimented with the influence of OI on the outcome of the game. It's only a theoretical idea.

@Zippo

I've added a Spurs v3 tactic here!

<Changes from v2>
* Attacking Width : Very narrow -> Fairly wide
* Added two Inverted Wingers
* Added an Inverted Wingback
* BPDs -> CDs
* Some personal guidelines edited.

It did very well with not only Spurs, but also Leicester and ManCity







I did holiday-test with Spurs until January, and then played with proper rotation.
Other teams were holiday tested thoroughout the season. Surprisingly, Leicester City won the PL with Body scoring 57 goals in the season. The better the striker, the better the tactic seems to be.

Below is the in-game positioning.
The main attack route is to the left, where WB and IW link.
On the right, the IWB enters the empty space where the MEZ penetrated.



Could you test this tactic?
Thank you.

(The file attached to this post is a roaster that makes the probability of injury close to 0%. I'm using it when I run holiday tests. refer to it, if necessary.)

https://fm-arena.com/thread/826-information-regarding-the-way-we-pick-tactics-for-the-testing/

The way to pick the tactics of this site is too ambigious, i think. Can anyone explain why this much-changed tactic has not been tested again?

I tried not to do "brute-force cracking". but have I been too active in this quiet forum recently? I'm really curious.

Gaksital said: https://fm-arena.com/thread/826-information-regarding-the-way-we-pick-tactics-for-the-testing/

The way to pick the tactics of this site is too ambigious, i think. Can anyone explain why this much-changed tactic has not been tested again?

I tried not to do "brute-force cracking". but have I been too active in this quiet forum recently? I'm really curious. Expand

Hi, @Gaksital.

We find 2-3 tactics with the same formation from one author is enough. You already have 6 tactics(4231) tested. In general, we want the number of tested tactics from one author to be reasonable and we find about 10 is enough and you've already got 16.

Also, the changes you offered for testing have been already tested many times and there's nothing new. We want to see people learn from what has been tested and they don't start from a clean slate. I hope you understand.

Zippo said: Hi, @Gaksital.

We find 2-3 tactics with the same formation from one author is enough. You already have 6 tactics(4231) tested. In general, we want the number of tested tactics from one author to be reasonable and we find about 10 is enough and you've already got 16.

Also, the changes you offered for testing have been already tested many times and there's nothing new. We want to see people learn from what has been tested already and they don't start from a clean slate. I hope you understand. Expand

Thank you for the understandable explanation.  I still haven't found another tactic exactly the same as this one, but I've now learned the exact meaning of the 'reasonable limits' of the above policy.
I just thought that with good feedbacks, tactics would be tested for sure.

Gaksital said: Thank you for the understandable explanation. Expand

You're welcome. I'm glad to see you understand that.

Gaksital said: I still haven't found another tactic exactly the same as this one Expand

Let's say you make a change CD->BPD in your tactic and offer it for testing but we have already tested that change in other different tactics many times and found that it didn't make any meaningful difference so it's highly unlikely we'll test that change once more.

Zippo said: Let's say you make a change CD->BPD in your tactic and offer it for testing but we have already tested that change in other different tactics many times and found that it didn't make any meaningful difference so it's highly unlikely we'll test that change once more. Expand

Oh, I got it. I may have had to be more careful  . thank you.