Tactics 4-1-2-1-2 - (MUFC-test - IFs on fire!)

[BarnDoor]

No problem, it was my pleasure. As I've said, I'm having a lot of fun with this tactic.

Just to make it clear, when I said "relationships" I meant the orange/green lines that connect your players and I think you mixed that up with "mentoring". Mentoring definitely helps, but relationships (supposedly) don't.

I'm already doing a 3rd test btw. I'm addicted to this tactic 😂 trying something a bit different this time to test some theories.

[Reshetnikov]

2 minutes ago, BarnDoor said:

No problem, it was my pleasure. As I've said, I'm having a lot of fun with this tactic.

Just to make it clear, when I said "relationships" I meant the orange/green lines that connect your players and I think you mixed that up with "mentoring". Mentoring definitely helps, but relationships (supposedly) don't.

I'm already doing a 3rd test btw. I'm addicted to this tactic 😂 trying something a bit different this time to test some theories.

Oh, ok! 

So yes, I was saying about mentoring) Sorry, English it's my third language, actually 😆

I find relationships helping with movement in spaces and timing of through passes. I think with green relationships players better understand movement of each other. That's my thought, not tested yet, I think we can see it in number of successful passes and key passes, but I need the help of editor to test this out, I think. 🙂

Which team have you picked on the third run?)

[DanEnglish]

Question - have you tried this with IWBs? I wonder how they would perform in this system … 🤔 

[Reshetnikov]

12 minutes ago, DanEnglish said:

Question - have you tried this with IWBs? I wonder how they would perform in this system … 🤔 

I didn't try it. 

I will try and come back with some screenshots, I have doubt that will maintain a good width of the team.

[DanEnglish]

15 minutes ago, Reshetnikov said:

I didn't try it. 

I will try and come back with some screenshots, I have doubt that will maintain a good width of the team.

I don’t know if we need width here. As long as the IFs keep making their runs inside, I think (hope?) it’ll work well

Edited March 11, 2023 by DanEnglish

[BarnDoor]

1 hour ago, Reshetnikov said:

Which team have you picked on the third run?

Going with Atletic Madrid this time. Strong team, but not the best, in a decently strong league.

Why Atletico?

I want to see how strikers perform when played as IFs. Atletico has Griezmann and Depay who are both natural strikers and IFs as well, but neither of them has the IF signature trait - "cuts inside". I want to see if that affects their movement and scoring.

Also, in both of my previous tests, I've had AP with "shoots from distance" trait and decent shooting attributes. This time I'm using the opposite to see how it affects that role.

And, to top it off, I've had the same idea as @DanEnglish - I'm playing with IWBs this time. Btw, a question for you Dan - do you prefer IWBs to play with their stronger foot out or in? Its difficult to find "opposite" footed WBs.

[Reshetnikov]

Ok, So I did quick test with IWB or FB. I played one match 4 times, two with IWB, two with FB, same players, same opposite team (Aston Villa, which played 4-4-2 in defensive mentality every time) I know it doesn't count like a whole season, but I was just checking positions and plays in the field.

1. With IWBs.

First game, positions from the highlights:

Spoiler

Result for me: opponent's wingers were covering my BBMs more often, due to narrower positions of IWB and lack of forward runs from them. They were just sitting on one line with my DM and did nothing else. I scored 1 goal from the corner 😀

Game stats after first game:

Spoiler

Second game, positions from the highlights:

Spoiler

Same here. I saw a lot of covering my BBMs from Villa's wingers. My IWBs stayed at the back whole time.

Second game results and stats:

Spoiler

 

 

2. With FBs.

First game positions:

Spoiler

Don't know if it's seen well, but I saw something like FBs kept maintaining width and sometimes stretched Villa's wingers in semi-position between them (FBs) and my BBMs. So my midfielders had more time and space with the ball.

First game stats and results:

Spoiler

Second game positions:

Spoiler

What's most important I find here - look how 14 (Eriksen) or 34 (Van de Beek) has space between opponents defence and wingers. For this tactic I see this very important thing, because most of the times BBMs will play WIDER than my IFs, in half spaces in the flanks, which need to be cleared from opponent's wingers by my FBs. 🙂

Second game results and stats:

Spoiler

Thoughts in the end:

It's a small amount of matches played, but still for me what I saw with the IWBs, I'd change team width to normal. This can also stretch the opposition a little, because in balanced mentality + narrow width + narrow formation with IWB = will be there any space for quick through passes? Or push up mentality to Control.

And also I want to try to bring WB roles to my flanks 😀 due to my tests with Man Utd only, I preferred to leave player roles as it is. Mb WB will be even better, but I'm afraid of a rising amount of crosses.

Edited March 11, 2023 by Reshetnikov

[DanEnglish]

11 hours ago, BarnDoor said:

Btw, a question for you Dan - do you prefer IWBs to play with their stronger foot out or in? Its difficult to find "opposite" footed WBs.

I usually don’t have much choice! But I’m fine either way, don’t mind.

[BarnDoor]

Ok, once again I'm back with the results...

As previously stated, I was using Atletico Madrid this time to test some specific things:

1.does "cuts inside" trait matter for IFs

2.do "shoots from distance" and "tries killer balls often" traits matter for AP

3.how does the tactic perform when switching FBs for IWBs

Why Atletico? They had a perfect group of players to test this (in terms of traits), and they are playing in a competitive league. They weren't overpowered like PSG or underdogs like Brighton from my previous tests.

For this test, same rules applied as in my PSG test - same players for 90 mins in every game (except in case of suspensions or injuries during the game). Editor was used to heal them up and boost their morale before every game. No signings. No changes to staff. Blah, blah, blah... Short verision - I tried to stay neutral in terms of team management as much as I could.

Points 1 and 2 were easy to answer and I wont talk much about them.

The traits didn't make a huge difference. Players were still effective. I haven't seen anything different from IFs in terms of movement (with and without the ball). The whole "cuts inside" trait may just be a hoax 🤔

The lack of traits on my AP was noticable, though. He provided lots of assists even without the "killer balls" trait, but I've seen the passes he could've made, which he didn't. More than once he could've sent my IFs straight into 1v1 against the keeper but he didnt pass the ball. Maybe its due to creativity, decisions, passing... Idk, but there was definitely more that he could've done.

The lack of "shoots from distance" was also noticable. He would still take long shots very often, but if he had space in front of him to run, he would use it. Messi and Rodriguez (from my previous tests) would often just shoot, disregarding the open areas in front of them. This time, that wasn't the case. The tactic is built to play around long shots (shoot on sight + lack of actual striker) so the lack of this trait isn't very important as your players will more often than not have to shoot from distance anyway.

Ok, now for the main event - IWBs!

In order to test this, I needed something to compare it to. The most logical choice was to play the same season with the same team and the same players TWICE. And thats what I did. If you want to skip all of the screenshots and analysis, here's the short version - IWBs suck 😒

Now, the long version...

Spoiler

This test wasnt about winning the trophies. It was about numbers.

The best way to compare two saves was to look at league games only (same opponents). The cup games, UCL and all that crap was just a side mission this time.

With IWBs we got knocked out from UCL but won everything else. With FBs we won the UCL as well.

I went into detailed analysis of the stats from EVERY league game from both saves and will discuss the results shortly...

But first, lets look at some shiny pictures!

Spoiler

This is the FB version

Spoiler

And this is the IWB version

The difference may not be obvious at the first glance, but when you check the players' stats it really shows.

I can't be sure why this happened, but I have a theory... If you look closely at the stats, the AP and LF had the biggest change, but how are FBs/IWBs related to it? Well...

From observing the gameplay, I noticed that IWBs drift inside and pretty much stay in the DM line, maybe sometimes pushing to the CM line, but they never "baited" any defenders and didnt create any room for our attackers. They were simply not a factor in our offense.

When we had FBs on the field, they also didnt push forward past the CM line, but they drew the attention of opposing CMs and DMs more often, leaving our CMs with lots of room to operate. Usually, opposing DM or even CD would rush to our CMs in that case, and that would leave our AP wide open. He could take a shot himself or make an assist to our IFs. Why did he prefer LF over RF? Idk.

Is this how the game works? Maybe... Or maybe not. But that's what I've seen.

Another thing that our FBs did that our IWBs didnt was that they would sometimes do a long pass close to the line, straight to our IFs who would (sometimes) outspeed the opponents and have a clear shot at the goal. It happened very rarely though.

Now, lets talk about the numbers! I didn't do this much maths since highschool and that alone is a good enough reason for me to talk about it!

Spoiler

As I have already said, I wanted to compare the stats only from the LEAGUE games because in cups, UCL and friendlies we had different opponents.

The main idea of using IWBs was to reduce the amounts of crosses, but I've also taken notes of various different stats that should paint a pretty picture of how we played. So, lets dive into it...

 

FULLBACKS

Goals: 94 (2.47/g). 8 goals from corners/penalties, which means only 86 goals (2.26/g) from play.

Goals against: 4 (0.11/g)

Shots: 543 (14.29/g)

Shots against: 104 (2.74/g)

Possession: 55.66% on average

Passes attemtped: 13995 (368.29/g)

Passes completed: 12051 (317.13/g)

Pass completion: 86.11%

Crosses attempted: 416 (10.95/g)

 

INVERTED WINGBACKS

Goals: 73 (1.92/g). 12 goals from corners/penalties, which means only 61 goals (1.60/g) from play.

Goals against: 6 (0.16/g)

Shots: 513 (13.50/g)

Shots against: 121 (3.18/g)

Possession: 53.95% on average

Passes attemtped: 13390 (352.37/g)

Passes completed: 11167 (293.87/g)

Pass completion: 83.40%

Crosses attempted: 391 (10.29/g)

You just skipped over the numbers, didn't you? Ok, I will add even more text to this already extremely long post... 

If the idea was to reduce the number of crosses, then I guess we can say we succeeded in that when we employed our IWBs, but was it worth it?

For a marginally small reduction in number of cross attempts (less that 1 per game) we're giving up everything else (possession, shots, and most importantly goals).

Fullbacks elevated every aspect of our game, even the defence, and I feel free to say that they are by far the superior choice for this tactic.

Now excuse me, I've been writing this for so long that I got hungry. I'll go eat something and think of all of the things I could've done these past two days Instead of playing FMM.

[AndersJ]

49 minutes ago, BarnDoor said:

Ok, once again I'm back with the results...

As previously stated, I was using Atletico Madrid this time to test some specific things:

1.does "cuts inside" trait matter for IFs

2.do "shoots from distance" and "tries killer balls often" traits matter for AP

3.how does the tactic perform when switching FBs for IWBs

Why Atletico? They had a perfect group of players to test this (in terms of traits), and they are playing in a competitive league. They weren't overpowered like PSG or underdogs like Brighton from my previous tests.

For this test, same rules applied as in my PSG test - same players for 90 mins in every game (except in case of suspensions or injuries during the game). Editor was used to heal them up and boost their morale before every game. No signings. No changes to staff. Blah, blah, blah... Short verision - I tried to stay neutral in terms of team management as much as I could.

Points 1 and 2 were easy to answer and I wont talk much about them.

The traits didn't make a huge difference. Players were still effective. I haven't seen anything different from IFs in terms of movement (with and without the ball). The whole "cuts inside" trait may just be a hoax 🤔

The lack of traits on my AP was noticable, though. He provided lots of assists even without the "killer balls" trait, but I've seen the passes he could've made, which he didn't. More than once he could've sent my IFs straight into 1v1 against the keeper but he didnt pass the ball. Maybe its due to creativity, decisions, passing... Idk, but there was definitely more that he could've done.

The lack of "shoots from distance" was also noticable. He would still take long shots very often, but if he had space in front of him to run, he would use it. Messi and Rodriguez (from my previous tests) would often just shoot, disregarding the open areas in front of them. This time, that wasn't the case. The tactic is built to play around long shots (shoot on sight + lack of actual striker) so the lack of this trait isn't very important as your players will more often than not have to shoot from distance anyway.

Ok, now for the main event - IWBs!

In order to test this, I needed something to compare it to. The most logical choice was to play the same season with the same team and the same players TWICE. And thats what I did. If you want to skip all of the screenshots and analysis, here's the short version - IWBs suck 😒

Now, the long version...

  Reveal hidden contents

This test wasnt about winning the trophies. It was about numbers.

The best way to compare two saves was to look at league games only (same opponents). The cup games, UCL and all that crap was just a side mission this time.

With IWBs we got knocked out from UCL but won everything else. With FBs we won the UCL as well.

I went into detailed analysis of the stats from EVERY league game from both saves and will discuss the results shortly...

But first, lets look at some shiny pictures!

  Reveal hidden contents

This is the FB version

  Reveal hidden contents

And this is the IWB version

The difference may not be obvious at the first glance, but when you check the players' stats it really shows.

I can't be sure why this happened, but I have a theory... If you look closely at the stats, the AP and LF had the biggest change, but how are FBs/IWBs related to it? Well...

From observing the gameplay, I noticed that IWBs drift inside and pretty much stay in the DM line, maybe sometimes pushing to the CM line, but they never "baited" any defenders and didnt create any room for our attackers. They were simply not a factor in our offense.

When we had FBs on the field, they also didnt push forward past the CM line, but they drew the attention of opposing CMs and DMs more often, leaving our CMs with lots of room to operate. Usually, opposing DM or even CD would rush to our CMs in that case, and that would leave our AP wide open. He could take a shot himself or make an assist to our IFs. Why did he prefer LF over RF? Idk.

Is this how the game works? Maybe... Or maybe not. But that's what I've seen.

Another thing that our FBs did that our IWBs didnt was that they would sometimes do a long pass close to the line, straight to our IFs who would (sometimes) outspeed the opponents and have a clear shot at the goal. It happened very rarely though.

Now, lets talk about the numbers! I didn't do this much maths since highschool and that alone is a good enough reason for me to talk about it!

  Reveal hidden contents

As I have already said, I wanted to compare the stats only from the LEAGUE games because in cups, UCL and friendlies we had different opponents.

The main idea of using IWBs was to reduce the amounts of crosses, but I've also taken notes of various different stats that should paint a pretty picture of how we played. So, lets dive into it...

 

FULLBACKS

Goals: 94 (2.47/g). 8 goals from corners/penalties, which means only 86 goals (2.26/g) from play.

Goals against: 4 (0.11/g)

Shots: 543 (14.29/g)

Shots against: 104 (2.74/g)

Possession: 55.66% on average

Passes attemtped: 13995 (368.29/g)

Passes completed: 12051 (317.13/g)

Pass completion: 86.11%

Crosses attempted: 416 (10.95/g)

 

INVERTED WINGBACKS

Goals: 73 (1.92/g). 12 goals from corners/penalties, which means only 61 goals (1.60/g) from play.

Goals against: 6 (0.16/g)

Shots: 513 (13.50/g)

Shots against: 121 (3.18/g)

Possession: 53.95% on average

Passes attemtped: 13390 (352.37/g)

Passes completed: 11167 (293.87/g)

Pass completion: 83.40%

Crosses attempted: 391 (10.29/g)

You just skipped over the numbers, didn't you? Ok, I will add even more text to this already extremely long post... 

If the idea was to reduce the number of crosses, then I guess we can say we succeeded in that when we employed our IWBs, but was it worth it?

For a marginally small reduction in number of cross attempts (less that 1 per game) we're giving up everything else (possession, shots, and most importantly goals).

Fullbacks elevated every aspect of our game, even the defence, and I feel free to say that they are by far the superior choice for this tactic.

Now excuse me, I've been writing this for so long that I got hungry. I'll go eat something and think of all of the things I could've done these past two days Instead of playing FMM.

Great writeup! So short question. Your setup with Atletico is just like the whole setup in the start of the game ;)?

[BarnDoor]

9 minutes ago, AndersJ said:

Great writeup! So short question. Your setup with Atletico is just like the whole setup in the start of the game ;)?

Thanks! I've put a lot of effort in it.

I'm not sure what do you mean by setup?

I didn't do any transfers, staff changes, facility upgrades... Didn't talk to players (praise/criticise), and didn't assign any mentors.

I have obviously set the tactic, but set pieces were left to default. I picked who takes them, though (all Carrasco, so it's easy to track).

Training was set to the position + role that they were playing in this tactic, and the focused attribute was teamwork for everyone.

I have edited Carrasco to be natural in the AMC position because retraining would take long time. I retrained some others who were already "green" but not natural in the positions that I wanted them to play (Lemar and Correa, I think).

[AndersJ]

4 minutes ago, BarnDoor said:

Thanks! I've put a lot of effort in it.

I'm not sure what do you mean by setup?

I didn't do any transfers, staff changes, facility upgrades... Didn't talk to players (praise/criticise), and didn't assign any mentors.

I have obviously set the tactic, but set pieces were left to default. I picked who takes them, though (all Carrasco, so it's easy to track).

Training was set to the position + role that they were playing in this tactic, and the focused attribute was teamwork for everyone.

I have edited Carrasco to be natural in the AMC position because retraining would take long time. I retrained some others who were already "green" but not natural in the positions that I wanted them to play (Lemar and Correa, I think).

I only ment from the start of this great post

[BarnDoor]

Yep, its all the same.

When I'm doing tests like this I try to keep "manager" factor to a minimum. I even refer to my players by their positions usually, not by their names. They are just pieces of data to me 😅

Hopefully, I can go back to playing the game normal way now. No more tests for a while.

Edited March 13, 2023 by BarnDoor

[DanEnglish]

9 hours ago, BarnDoor said:

The traits didn't make a huge difference. Players were still effective. I haven't seen anything different from IFs in terms of movement (with and without the ball). The whole "cuts inside" trait may just be a hoax 🤔

I am currently testing exactly that! Just need to write up the results 🙂 

[rseven]

1 hour ago, DanEnglish said:

I am currently testing exactly that! Just need to write up the results 🙂 

How about the footage impact,  especially for two BBMs?

[BarnDoor]

2 hours ago, DanEnglish said:

I am currently testing exactly that! Just need to write up the results 🙂 

You're making me nervous now. Given your reputation and expertise, my entire test is in jeopardy 😅

[Reshetnikov]

On 13/03/2023 at 20:37, BarnDoor said:

Ok, once again I'm back with the results...

As previously stated, I was using Atletico Madrid this time to test some specific things:

1.does "cuts inside" trait matter for IFs

2.do "shoots from distance" and "tries killer balls often" traits matter for AP

3.how does the tactic perform when switching FBs for IWBs

Why Atletico? They had a perfect group of players to test this (in terms of traits), and they are playing in a competitive league. They weren't overpowered like PSG or underdogs like Brighton from my previous tests.

For this test, same rules applied as in my PSG test - same players for 90 mins in every game (except in case of suspensions or injuries during the game). Editor was used to heal them up and boost their morale before every game. No signings. No changes to staff. Blah, blah, blah... Short verision - I tried to stay neutral in terms of team management as much as I could.

Points 1 and 2 were easy to answer and I wont talk much about them.

The traits didn't make a huge difference. Players were still effective. I haven't seen anything different from IFs in terms of movement (with and without the ball). The whole "cuts inside" trait may just be a hoax 🤔

The lack of traits on my AP was noticable, though. He provided lots of assists even without the "killer balls" trait, but I've seen the passes he could've made, which he didn't. More than once he could've sent my IFs straight into 1v1 against the keeper but he didnt pass the ball. Maybe its due to creativity, decisions, passing... Idk, but there was definitely more that he could've done.

The lack of "shoots from distance" was also noticable. He would still take long shots very often, but if he had space in front of him to run, he would use it. Messi and Rodriguez (from my previous tests) would often just shoot, disregarding the open areas in front of them. This time, that wasn't the case. The tactic is built to play around long shots (shoot on sight + lack of actual striker) so the lack of this trait isn't very important as your players will more often than not have to shoot from distance anyway.

Ok, now for the main event - IWBs!

In order to test this, I needed something to compare it to. The most logical choice was to play the same season with the same team and the same players TWICE. And thats what I did. If you want to skip all of the screenshots and analysis, here's the short version - IWBs suck 😒

Now, the long version...

  Reveal hidden contents

This test wasnt about winning the trophies. It was about numbers.

The best way to compare two saves was to look at league games only (same opponents). The cup games, UCL and all that crap was just a side mission this time.

With IWBs we got knocked out from UCL but won everything else. With FBs we won the UCL as well.

I went into detailed analysis of the stats from EVERY league game from both saves and will discuss the results shortly...

But first, lets look at some shiny pictures!

  Reveal hidden contents

This is the FB version

  Reveal hidden contents

And this is the IWB version

The difference may not be obvious at the first glance, but when you check the players' stats it really shows.

I can't be sure why this happened, but I have a theory... If you look closely at the stats, the AP and LF had the biggest change, but how are FBs/IWBs related to it? Well...

From observing the gameplay, I noticed that IWBs drift inside and pretty much stay in the DM line, maybe sometimes pushing to the CM line, but they never "baited" any defenders and didnt create any room for our attackers. They were simply not a factor in our offense.

When we had FBs on the field, they also didnt push forward past the CM line, but they drew the attention of opposing CMs and DMs more often, leaving our CMs with lots of room to operate. Usually, opposing DM or even CD would rush to our CMs in that case, and that would leave our AP wide open. He could take a shot himself or make an assist to our IFs. Why did he prefer LF over RF? Idk.

Is this how the game works? Maybe... Or maybe not. But that's what I've seen.

Another thing that our FBs did that our IWBs didnt was that they would sometimes do a long pass close to the line, straight to our IFs who would (sometimes) outspeed the opponents and have a clear shot at the goal. It happened very rarely though.

Now, lets talk about the numbers! I didn't do this much maths since highschool and that alone is a good enough reason for me to talk about it!

  Reveal hidden contents

As I have already said, I wanted to compare the stats only from the LEAGUE games because in cups, UCL and friendlies we had different opponents.

The main idea of using IWBs was to reduce the amounts of crosses, but I've also taken notes of various different stats that should paint a pretty picture of how we played. So, lets dive into it...

 

FULLBACKS

Goals: 94 (2.47/g). 8 goals from corners/penalties, which means only 86 goals (2.26/g) from play.

Goals against: 4 (0.11/g)

Shots: 543 (14.29/g)

Shots against: 104 (2.74/g)

Possession: 55.66% on average

Passes attemtped: 13995 (368.29/g)

Passes completed: 12051 (317.13/g)

Pass completion: 86.11%

Crosses attempted: 416 (10.95/g)

 

INVERTED WINGBACKS

Goals: 73 (1.92/g). 12 goals from corners/penalties, which means only 61 goals (1.60/g) from play.

Goals against: 6 (0.16/g)

Shots: 513 (13.50/g)

Shots against: 121 (3.18/g)

Possession: 53.95% on average

Passes attemtped: 13390 (352.37/g)

Passes completed: 11167 (293.87/g)

Pass completion: 83.40%

Crosses attempted: 391 (10.29/g)

You just skipped over the numbers, didn't you? Ok, I will add even more text to this already extremely long post... 

If the idea was to reduce the number of crosses, then I guess we can say we succeeded in that when we employed our IWBs, but was it worth it?

For a marginally small reduction in number of cross attempts (less that 1 per game) we're giving up everything else (possession, shots, and most importantly goals).

Fullbacks elevated every aspect of our game, even the defence, and I feel free to say that they are by far the superior choice for this tactic.

Now excuse me, I've been writing this for so long that I got hungry. I'll go eat something and think of all of the things I could've done these past two days Instead of playing FMM.

Great work there, @BarnDoor! Somehow I'm glad FBs showed better work than IWBs 😀 I think with IWBs we need another mentality + different set-up in the midfield (two APs, an SS, an PF, two wingers, but not IFs...) to maintain the balance in build-up. Now I'm testing a season with WBs and an DLP in DMC position, higher defensive line + offside trap and mixed pass direction. It seems pretty solid, but I think IFs will show less profit in goals.

On 13/03/2023 at 20:37, BarnDoor said:

He could take a shot himself or make an assist to our IFs. Why did he prefer LF over RF? Idk.

I have some questions here. Which preferred foot has player on AMC positions? Which are relationships between LF and AMC? And RF and AMC? Which traits/stats numbers LF and RF have in movement, pace, teamwork?

I think I'll write the ideas on player's traits in the @DanEnglish topic. I also don't want to believe they are completely worthless. 😀

And the last question to all who tested this tactic - any ideas on DMC position? I've tested Anchor role (it's very good vs two strikers upfront), simple DM, and BMW. Now I'm playing with an DLP, and haven't tried RP there.

[BarnDoor]

2 hours ago, Reshetnikov said:

I have some questions here. Which preferred foot has player on AMC positions? Which are relationships between LF and AMC? And RF and AMC? Which traits/stats numbers LF and RF have in movement, pace, teamwork?

Ah, I was thinking of that, and thats why AMC (Carrasco) was edited to have both of his feet equally good. The relationships between AMC and IFs dont exist apparently because they are too far away from each other in formation. Their attributes and traits are below in the pictures.

Spoiler

 

2 hours ago, Reshetnikov said:

And the last question to all who tested this tactic - any ideas on DMC position? I've tested Anchor role (it's very good vs two strikers upfront), simple DM, and BMW. Now I'm playing with an DLP, and haven't tried RP there

I tried different roles here only for a few matches and didn't find any that I liked. Anchor did the same job as DM but somehow got worse rating. DLP didn't really provide those pinpoint long passes that I was hoping for, and BWM always seemed like he had a personal goal of getting as many yellow cards as possible.

I've been using RP a lot i den a different tactic (Black Hawk) and its been working great, but its an entirely different role than DM. Personally, I like how DM solidified the defense. Less than 10 goals conceded per season is really good.

Edited March 15, 2023 by BarnDoor

[Reshetnikov]

1 hour ago, BarnDoor said:

The relationships between AMC and IFs dont exist apparently because they are too far away from each other in formation.

I know they're far away from each other, but mb there are some relationships beside that, like Rashford and Sancho had already good relationship at the start of my tests.

1 hour ago, BarnDoor said:

DLP didn't really provide those pinpoint long passes that I was hoping for

I think on balanced creativity + short passes there will be no such big amount of long or direct passes from DLP.

Yes, RP is good on that position, but he's always moves upfront in CM or even AMC (at attacking mentality) position, so I don't see the point to use an AP + RP right behind him in the same line. Since this tactic was created for Man Utd, where's Bruno is one man orchestra, I headed towards more simple role for Mctominay/Casemiro.

What I see now in my test, it's still pretty good looking with WBs + higher defensive line, want to finish second season and I'll post results here.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Reshetnikov

[BarnDoor]

Nope, nothing in the relationships tab either.

And when I bring the IFs closer on the formation screen, no lines appear.

[denied]

same tactic but why my player cant score, 1-0 every match lol. any suggest? my if's (rashford n antony) so hard to make play with bruno(AP), the ball just stuck never go into the box. the goal.just came from free kick n corner. pls help