Tactics The Black Hawk 2026 - Work in Progress

[hueguero]

1 hour ago, Pinuccio said:

Meu amigo, há problemas sérios com este jogo. Além da anarquia que encontrei, há outro problema. Estou analisando capturas de tela de vários usuários e meus próprios testes, e o padrão é sempre o mesmo. Independentemente da tática, seja uma defesa com 3, 4 ou 5 jogadores, o sucesso é sempre garantido. Há algo que está mimando demais os jogadores do time que gerenciamos. Se são efeitos de diálogo ou treinamento, eu não sei. Mas, seja qual for a tática usada, todo time gerenciado por um usuário parece um time de estrelas. Estou jogando com minhas próprias táticas, estou testando, e como você pode ver, estou gerenciando o Campobasso na Série C italiana. O Campobasso é um time mediano que, no início da carreira, me diz que seu objetivo é se manter na Série C, mas seu desempenho é de um time de ponta da Série C. É claro que algo está errado aqui.

@Marc VaughanMarc, tenho a impressão de que o jogo está configurado no modo fácil. Isso não é bom para jogadores experientes, pois se torna entediante com o tempo devido à facilidade de vencer e tira o realismo.

Share your tatics friend 

[DanEnglish]

It's quite interesting that the reply above 'the game is set to easy mode' from Pinuccio feels quite different from the other posts above.

Therefore I've loaded a quick poll to ask whether you all feel FMM26 is currently too easy vs too difficult - after the first week of playing.

PS. Yes I do recognise that Black Hawk and Tactico's point is that they're struggling to get consistency from the match engine / it doesn't make sense (which is a bit different to 'too easy vs too difficult'). However I think that BOTH are interesting questions 🙂 

 

[Tubba]

Been playing around with a few tactics, swapped over to the updated 4-1-2-3 one after about 15 games in (after back to back CL defeats to Ajax and Frankfurt) and didn't lose a single game all season after that, including smashing Barca 6-0. Forgot to get a screenshot of fixtures, just the league table.

 

1st season was inconsistent (but then again that's very Chelsea!), 2nd season much better after swapping to this. Also enjoyed Utd getting relegated!

 

Will keep updated on S3 😊

[willz81]

I so wish this was real life lol Liverpool are unreal on fmm26 but im not complaining 😂

Using your opening post beta tactic 

Edited November 11 by willz81

[DutchTony]

1 hour ago, Tubba said:

Been playing around with a few tactics, swapped over to the updated 4-1-2-3 one after about 15 games in (after back to back CL defeats to Ajax and Frankfurt) and didn't lose a single game all season after that, including smashing Barca 6-0. Forgot to get a screenshot of fixtures, just the league table.

 

1st season was inconsistent (but then again that's very Chelsea!), 2nd season much better after swapping to this. Also enjoyed Utd getting relegated!

 

Will keep updated on S3 😊

Did you use the original version of this tactic as per the first post on this thread?

[Tubba]

40 minutes ago, DutchTony said:

Did you use the original version of this tactic as per the first post on this thread?

Yeah, used the one from the first post 🙂

[Black Hawk]

11 hours ago, DanEnglish said:

It's quite interesting that the reply above 'the game is set to easy mode' from Pinuccio feels quite different from the other posts above.

Therefore I've loaded a quick poll to ask whether you all feel FMM26 is currently too easy vs too difficult - after the first week of playing.

PS. Yes I do recognise that Black Hawk and Tactico's point is that they're struggling to get consistency from the match engine / it doesn't make sense (which is a bit different to 'too easy vs too difficult'). However I think that BOTH are interesting questions 🙂 

 

The game seems easy if we simply go along with what the match engine expects or is designed to do, ie, direct play, wing play, counter-attack minded football.

Given time I may develop a tactic that works well playing that way, but I don't want to. I want to develop a control minded, short passing system that relies on movement off the ball as I always did and was the core of every tactic I designed since FMM23.

Right now, that's not possible or at least I was unable to because the way of our defenders play when in possession close to our box.

I may give two examples to express this and let me tag @Marc Vaughan here so he can see what I'm complaining about.

Also, let me clarify I don't want to complain for the sake of it. I enjoy how our opponents are now pressing our team all over the pitch. That's much better than the permissive teams we had the last two versions of the game.

But with that, we should have the tools to counter our opponents... and that's not happening.

 

Example 1: with two Wide Centre Backs and one Centre Back/Ball Playing Defender/Libero

 

So, here I am Crystal Palace and am playing Aston Villa. I tested here a version of three at the back with two Wide Centre Backs and a Central Defender.

 

Well, we can see this went horribly wrong and that was because of a bad distribution by Henderson.

But we look at it closer, several things are off or completely wrong.

 

 

We started with a goal kick and right away there's two odd things happening: our Wide Centre Backs as just going away with our Wing Backs and my Centre Back is just there with our goalkeeper.

I thought "OK, my keeper will pass to my centre backs", but that didn't happened. Next image I show what happened, but first and most interesting are the two Wide Centre Backs.

Wide Centre Backs should provide width to out defensive line and go up the field whenever possible when we are attacking, but they are already on full attacking mode when we still didn't even started our play.

But it gets worse.

 

 

Henderson started the game passing it to my left Wing Back. It wouldn't be my choice, but at least he did short distribution, so that's OK.

Now my Wing Back (#3) could run with the ball a bit and had the Wide Centre Back (#6) to play with, while we also have my left B2B (#12) and my left IF (#7) close to provide support.

I don't even will talk about how is my left WCB working as WB while my WB is left behind, who is already fundamentaly wrong, but anyway...

In the meantime, look at the other side of the field. My rights WB a WCB are man-marking each other. My WB should be ahead, my WCB should be behind to provide passing options, but they stood there, neither attacking nor supporting, they are simply two less players at this time.

This is not only one of the causes all this failed, but the major cause of it as can be seen next.

 

 

My left WCB decided to pass the ball back to my CB who now has the ball. OK, not what I would do, but not a bad decision also.

Notice how in the right side we still have my rights WCB and WB man-marking each other and doing absolutely nothing.

Now my CB could pass the ball back to my left WCB, who now has more space to go ahead. We even have my left IF providing depth on the left. If the ball comes back to my left WCB, we have the left WB and the left IF to exploit the wing against only one defender.

But...

 

 

... Lacroix decided to hold the ball and went for his right. That's when everything fell apart as he didn't had anyone to pass the ball too.

Why? Because my right WCB still is man-marking my right Wing Back. Should he be where he was supposed to be (where the cross is) and this would be very promising because then he could receive the ball and we had three players (WCB #26, WB #2 and DLP #20) to only one opponent (rival #27).

This would leave my WB #2 alone to start the play if my WCB #26 pass him the ball. Alternatively, my WCB #26 could pass to DLP #20, who would then pass to WB #2. Either way, we would break the first line of pressure from the opposition and start the play with numerical superiority down the right flank.

But as my WCB isn't there, Lacroix only could pass the ball behind to our goalkeeper.

 

 

Now we have two problems.

The first is that both my WCB are nowhere close enough to provide any passing option. They are too deep on the field when they should go back to where the crosses are. That way, we would have no problem as Henderson would have two clear and easy passing options.

But they were not there, so the only options available would be to pass the ball to my DLP #20, who is alone and providing a clear and easy passing option.

BTW, noticed where my B2B #12 is? He is man-marking may striker? Why? I don't know. Box-to-Boxs are supposed to support, running back and forth as the team goes up or back the pitch, but for some reason they are running ahead as if they were attacking midfielders.

They shouldn't perform like that, but that's what they do on this match engine: they run ahead like crazy when we have the ball regardless of where the ball is.

Anyway, Henderson was going to pass the ball to my DLP #20, right?

 

 

Wrong! He shoot it ahead directly to an opponent and the test you guys have already seen on the gif: a fast counter-attack and a great goal on a shot from distance.

So, we had at least two clear chances to break the first line of pressure from our opponents, but instead we conceded a goal.

There were two bad decisions there that I can cope with: my left WCB passing the ball back to CD and my CD going to the right side instead of passing the ball back to the left. Those are from bad decisions, they are not prime Piqué or Van Dijk, those are errors I accept.

But then we have Wide Centre Backs being undercover Wingers who do not help at all on construction. Box-to-Boxs that run ahead and not provide passing options and a Deep Lying Playmaker proving those, but being ignored when there was a clear line for him to receive the ball.

Ok, Henderson is not Neuer, but if I tell him to do short distribution and he has a clear short passing line, why is he shooting ahead? Are we supposed to have prime Neuer to be able to have a short passing system?

There's the difference between an attacking play of ours and a goal conceded.

 

Example 2: with three Centre Backs/Playing Centre Backs/Liberos

 

Next time I tested the same game with two Ball Playing Defenders and a Libero, and then with two Liberos and a Centre Back to bypass how useless Wide Centre Backs are when building up from deep behind.

 

 

So, with a Libero (#5) and two Ball Playing Defenders (#26 and #6), my back line is nowhere wide enough to give any passing options. Our adversary only has to crowd the middle of the pitch and we are done.

Please keep in mind on this example I was playing already with balanced width.

Also, noticed again where my B2Bs are? #12 and #20 are just standing there with my forwards. They don't help, they don't provide, they don't support.

 

 

Here I show three images of the same play that show how my three defenders are so close that Henderson has no chance to do short distribution. At this time I had a CB (#6) and two Liberos (#26 and #5).

The only ways to bypass this is turning my WBs into FBs and/or my MC into DLPs to have more people able to give short passing options.

That way that could work, but then if we go ahead who would be left to attack?

Tldr:

- The players roles are not working as they are supposed to. WCB are basically undercover Wingers who run ahead. They don't help behind nor give width, passing options or support when we are starting our plays.

- When not having WCB, the three defenders just stand there really close, not providing space and passing options. Any team nowadays with three at the back plays with a really open line when in possession, sometimes passing it around them until a passing option shows itself. That's not happening on this match engine as I have shown, but also because the players don't pass the ball around and instead shoot ahead after one or two passes - it's almost like they are in a hurry.

- Box-to-Boxs and Roaming Playmakers are just running ahead the moment we have the ball. If it's a goal kick, they are already close to our forwards even before our goalkeeper could kick the ball. The only ways to bypass this is to turn them into defensive roles to force them to help behind, but then they are not helping when we reach the final third.

Overall, this is making a control and possession minded football almost impossible to work. With big teams it might work because the players are better than their opponents, but with midtable teams this is impossible. We play counter-attack or we don't play at all.

Again, I would be OK if my players were trying to do what I instructed them to do and they couldn't. Maybe they were uninspired, maybe they missed some pass or were afraid to try a really hard passing line, but they aren't playing like instructed at all.

Edited November 11 by Black Hawk

[Pinuccio]

1 hour ago, Black Hawk said:

Il gioco sembra facile se semplicemente accettiamo ciò che il motore della partita si aspetta o è progettato per fare, cioè gioco diretto, gioco d'ala, calcio orientato al contropiede.

Con il tempo potrei sviluppare una tattica che funziona bene giocando in quel modo, ma non voglio. Voglio sviluppare un sistema di passaggio corto e orientato al controllo che si basi sul movimento fuori dalla palla come ho sempre fatto ed è stato il fulcro di ogni tattica che ho progettato a partire da FMM23.

In questo momento, non è possibile o almeno non sono stato in grado di farlo perché il modo in cui i nostri difensori giocano quando sono in possesso vicino alla nostra area.

Posso fornire due esempi per esprimere questo e lasciarmi taggare @Marc Vaughan qui così può vedere di cosa mi lamento.

Inoltre, lasciatemi chiarire che non voglio lamentarmi per il gusto di farlo. Mi piace come i nostri avversari stiano ora pressando la nostra squadra su tutto il campo. È molto meglio dei team permissivi che avevamo nelle ultime due versioni del gioco.

Ma con questo dovremmo avere gli strumenti per contrastare i nostri avversari... e questo non sta accadendo.

 

Esempio 1: con due difensori centrali larghi e un difensore centrale/difensore di gioco della palla/Libero

 

Quindi, eccomi qui al Crystal Palace e sto giocando all'Aston Villa. Ho testato qui una versione di tre sul retro con due Wide Center Back e un Central Defender.

 

Bene, possiamo vedere che è andato terribilmente storto e questo è dovuto a una cattiva distribuzione da parte di Henderson.

Ma lo guardiamo più da vicino, diverse cose sono sbagliate o completamente sbagliate.

 

 

Abbiamo iniziato con un calcio di rinvio e subito stanno succedendo due cose strane: i nostri difensori centrali larghi come se andassero via con i nostri difensori esterni e il mio difensore centrale fosse proprio lì con il nostro portiere.

Ho pensato "OK, il mio portiere passerà ai miei difensori centrali", ma non è successo. Immagine successiva Mostro quello che è successo, ma prima e più interessante sono i due Wide Center Back.

I difensori centrali larghi dovrebbero fornire larghezza per superare la linea difensiva e salire in campo quando possibile quando stiamo attaccando, ma sono già in modalità offensiva completa quando ancora non abbiamo nemmeno iniziato il nostro gioco.

Ma peggiora.

 

 

Henderson ha iniziato la partita passandola al mio Wing Back sinistro. Non sarebbe una mia scelta, ma almeno ha fatto una distribuzione breve, quindi va bene.

Ora il mio Wing Back (#3) poteva correre un pò con la palla e aveva il Wide Center Back (#6) con cui giocare, mentre abbiamo anche il mio B2B sinistro (#12) e il mio IF sinistro (#7) vicino per fornire supporto.

Non parlerò nemmeno di come funziona la mia WCB sinistra come WB mentre la mia WB viene lasciata indietro, il che è già sostanzialmente sbagliato, ma comunque...

Nel frattempo guardate l'altro lato del campo. I miei diritti WB a WCB si stanno marcando a vicenda. La mia WB dovrebbe essere avanti, la mia WCB dovrebbe essere indietro per fornire opzioni di passaggio, ma loro sono rimasti lì, né attaccando né supportando, sono semplicemente due giocatori in meno in questo momento.

Questa non è solo una delle cause di tutto questo fallito, ma la causa principale di esso come si può vedere in seguito.

 

 

Il mio WCB sinistro ha deciso di restituire la palla al mio CB che ora ha la palla. OK, non quello che farei, ma anche una decisione non sbagliata.

Notate come nella parte destra abbiamo ancora i miei diritti WCB e WB che si marcano a vicenda e non fanno assolutamente nulla.

Ora il mio CB potrebbe far tornare la palla al mio WCB sinistro, che ora ha più spazio per andare avanti. Abbiamo anche il mio IF sinistro che fornisce profondità a sinistra. Se la palla torna al mio WCB sinistro, abbiamo il WB sinistro e l'IF sinistro per sfruttare l'ala contro un solo difensore.

Ma...

 

 

... Lacroix ha deciso di tenere la palla e ha puntato alla sua destra. Fu allora che tutto andò in pezzi perché non aveva nessuno che passasse la palla.

Perché? Perché il mio WCB destro segna ancora la mia ala destra. Dovrebbe essere dove avrebbe dovuto essere (dove c'è il cross) e questo sarebbe molto promettente perché così avrebbe potuto ricevere la palla e avevamo tre giocatori (WCB #26, WB #2 e DLP #20) a un solo avversario (rivale #27).

Questo lascerebbe il mio WB #2 da solo per iniziare il gioco se il mio WCB #26 gli passasse la palla. In alternativa, il mio WCB #26 potrebbe passare al DLP #20, che passerebbe poi al WB #2. In ogni caso, spezzeremmo la prima linea di pressione degli avversari e inizieremmo il gioco con superiorità numerica lungo la fascia destra.

Ma dato che la mia WCB non c'è, Lacroix potrebbe solo passare la palla al nostro portiere.

 

 

Ora abbiamo due problemi.

Il primo è che entrambi i miei WCB non sono abbastanza vicini da fornire alcuna opzione di passaggio. Sono troppo in profondità sul campo quando dovrebbero tornare dove sono le croci. In questo modo non avremmo problemi poiché Henderson avrebbe due opzioni di passaggio chiare e facili.

Ma non c'erano, quindi le uniche opzioni disponibili sarebbero passare la palla al mio DLP #20, che è solo e fornisce un'opzione di passaggio chiara e facile.

A proposito, ho notato dov'è il mio B2B #12? Sta segnando l'uomo, può colpire? Perché? Non lo so. I Box-to-Box dovrebbero supportare, correndo avanti e indietro mentre la squadra sale o torna in campo, ma per qualche motivo corrono avanti come se fossero trequartisti.

Non dovrebbero comportarsi così, ma è quello che fanno su questo motore di gara: corrono avanti come matti quando abbiamo la palla indipendentemente da dove si trovi la palla.

Comunque, Henderson avrebbe passato la palla al mio DLP n. 20, giusto?

 

 

Sbagliato! Lo tira in vantaggio direttamente a un avversario e alla prova che voi ragazzi avete già visto in gif: un contropiede veloce e un grande gol su un tiro dalla distanza.

Quindi, abbiamo avuto almeno due occasioni chiare per rompere la prima linea di pressione dei nostri avversari, ma invece abbiamo subito un gol.

Ci sono state due decisioni sbagliate che posso affrontare: il mio WCB sinistro che ha restituito la palla al CD e il mio CD che è andato sul lato destro invece di passare la palla a sinistra. Quelli sono da decisioni sbagliate, non sono primi Piqué o Van Dijk, sono errori che accetto.

Ma poi abbiamo Wide Center Backs che sono Winger sotto copertura che non aiutano affatto nella costruzione. Box-to-Box che corrono avanti e non forniscono opzioni di passaggio e un Deep Lying Playmaker che le dimostra, ma vengono ignorati quando c'era una linea chiara per ricevere la palla.

Ok, Henderson non è Neuer, ma se gli dico di fare la distribuzione corta e ha una linea di passaggio corta chiara, perché sta tirando avanti? Dovremmo avere Neuer primo per poter avere un sistema di passaggi brevi?

C'è la differenza tra una nostra giocata offensiva e un gol subito.

 

Esempio 2: con tre difensori centrali/difensori centrali/Liberos

 

La prossima volta ho testato lo stesso gioco con due difensori che giocano a palla e un Libero, e poi con due Libero e un difensore centrale per aggirare quanto siano inutili i difensori centrali larghi quando si accumulano da dietro.

 

 

Quindi, con un Libero (#5) e due Ball Playing Defenders (#26 e #6), la mia linea di fondo non è abbastanza larga da dare alcuna opzione di passaggio. Il nostro avversario deve solo affollare il centro del campo e abbiamo finito.

Tieni presente che su questo esempio stavo già giocando con larghezza bilanciata.

Inoltre, notato di nuovo dove sono i miei B2B? I numeri 12 e 20 stanno lì con i miei attaccanti. Non aiutano, non forniscono, non sostengono.

 

 

Qui mostro tre immagini della stessa giocata che mostrano come i miei tre difensori siano così vicini che Henderson non ha alcuna possibilità di fare una breve distribuzione. In questo momento avevo un CB (#6) e due Libero (#26 e #5).

L'unico modo per aggirare questo problema è trasformare i miei WB in FB e/o i miei MC in DLP per avere più persone in grado di offrire opzioni di passaggio breve.

In questo modo potrebbe funzionare, ma se andiamo avanti chi rimarrebbe ad attaccare?

Tldr:

- I ruoli dei giocatori non funzionano come dovrebbero. I WCB sono fondamentalmente Winger sotto copertura che corrono avanti. Non aiutano dietro né danno larghezza, opzioni di passaggio o supporto quando iniziamo le nostre giocate.

- Quando non hanno WCB, i tre difensori stanno lì davvero vicini, senza fornire spazio e opzioni di passaggio. Qualsiasi squadra al giorno d'oggi con tre in fondo gioca con una linea davvero aperta quando è in possesso, a volte passandola attorno a sé finché non si mostra un'opzione di passaggio. Questo non sta accadendo su questo motore di partita come ho mostrato, ma anche perché i giocatori non passano la palla in giro e invece tirano avanti dopo uno o due passaggi - è quasi come se avessero fretta.

- Box-to-Boxs e Roaming Playmakers stanno correndo avanti nel momento in cui avremo la palla. Se si tratta di un calcio di rinvio, sono già vicini ai nostri attaccanti ancor prima che il nostro portiere possa calciare la palla. L'unico modo per aggirare questo problema è trasformarli in ruoli difensivi per costringerli ad aiutare dietro, ma poi non aiutano quando raggiungiamo l'ultimo terzo.

Nel complesso, ciò sta rendendo quasi impossibile il funzionamento di un calcio orientato al controllo e al possesso palla. Con le grandi squadre potrebbe funzionare perché i giocatori sono migliori dei loro avversari, ma con le squadre a metà classifica questo è impossibile. Giochiamo in contropiede o non giochiamo affatto.

Ancora una volta, starei bene se i miei giocatori cercassero di fare ciò che ho detto loro di fare e non potessero. Forse non erano ispirati, forse hanno mancato qualche passaggio o avevano paura di provare una linea di passaggio davvero dura, ma non giocano affatto come indicato.

This is why I haven't published anything yet. There are situations where the wide defender and the fullback get in each other's way. The same goes for playing with an advanced playmaker on the left and a mobile playmaker on the right in midfield. The two players will get in each other's way. The wide central defender works well if he doesn't have a fullback near, a wide central defender with a winger in midfield play well. Furthermore, the penalty area striker never attacks the depth like he did in FM24. He doesn't run forward, even with the right setup, and participates too much in the offensive build-up. Furthermore, if we have two wingers with overlapping tactical setups, these two will go to the byline and make crosses that pose no threat.

Edited November 11 by Pinuccio

[DanEnglish]

@Black Hawk - for those 2 examples, what mentality was being used?

And what width did you use in the first example? You already answered ‘normal’ width for the 2nd example. 

[Black Hawk]

36 minutes ago, Pinuccio said:

This is why I haven't published anything yet. There are situations where the wide defender and the fullback get in each other's way. The same goes for playing with an advanced playmaker on the left and a mobile playmaker on the right in midfield. The two players will get in each other's way. The wide central defender works well if he doesn't have a fullback near, a wide central defender with a winger in midfield play well. Furthermore, the penalty area striker never attacks the depth like he did in FM24. He doesn't run forward, even with the right setup, and participates too much in the offensive build-up. Furthermore, if we have two wingers with overlapping tactical setups, these two will go to the byline and make crosses that pose no threat.

I must confess I've been so focused on the way we play at the start of our plays that I didn't noticed that on the forward.

24 minutes ago, DanEnglish said:

@Black Hawk - for those 2 examples, what mentality was being used?

And what width did you use in the first example? You already answered ‘normal’ width for the 2nd example. 

First example was in control and narrow.

[Black Hawk]

Three more examples.

Henderson with the ball, short distribution and short passing, he is not under pressure and had a clear passing option with my MC #20. And a simple one at that.

He shot it to nowhere anyway. Because that's what goalkeepers do and our instructions are irrelevant.

Here I tested a Inverted Wing Back with Attacking Mentality.

He is #2 and instead of attacking, he is playing as... I don't know, central defender?

Here I have a Wide Centre Back as player role in this team. Can you guys guess who it is from this image?

Yes, it's my #26. The guy is already close to my right Winger!

This is unplayable. I mean, it's playable if I ignore all this and just play Kick & Rush, but other than that it's not worth the time.

Fix these things and I may very well try again, but not like this.

[Resurgam]

1 hour ago, Black Hawk said:

Three more examples.

Henderson with the ball, short distribution and short passing, he is not under pressure and had a clear passing option with my MC #20. And a simple one at that.

He shot it to nowhere anyway. Because that's what goalkeepers do and our instructions are irrelevant.

Here I tested a Inverted Wing Back with Attacking Mentality.

He is #2 and instead of attacking, he is playing as... I don't know, central defender?

Here I have a Wide Centre Back as player role in this team. Can you guys guess who it is from this image?

Yes, it's my #26. The guy is already close to my right Winger!

This is unplayable. I mean, it's playable if I ignore all this and just play Kick & Rush, but other than that it's not worth the time.

Fix these things and I may very well try again, but not like this.

I know you don’t want to, but I’d love for you to create an anti football/long ball/old school 4-4-2 😂

[alonsoom27]

It happens to me that in clubs, like Boca Juniors and West Ham, tactics work perfectly for me. But I also manage the Brazilian national team, which I cannot beat either Bolivia and my world-class players have a poor performance in matches, why will this happen? I have tried to touch on some things, but nothing is like the selections are bugged. 

[hsyncn9]

Hello, this tactic worked very well for me in FM23. I will try this tactic for the first time in FM26. I just downloaded the game. I hope this tactic will be successful in Galatasaray.

[Rhys Rockley]

Switched to 3-4-3 ( Turning off run at defence) following a run of poor and inconsistent results with the regular Black Hawk tactic and must admit I am flying now. Goals seem to come more freely...Key seems to be defence, if you get the right players at the back you will tighten up.

[Pinuccio]

3 hours ago, Black Hawk said:

Three more examples.

Henderson with the ball, short distribution and short passing, he is not under pressure and had a clear passing option with my MC #20. And a simple one at that.

He shot it to nowhere anyway. Because that's what goalkeepers do and our instructions are irrelevant.

Here I tested a Inverted Wing Back with Attacking Mentality.

He is #2 and instead of attacking, he is playing as... I don't know, central defender?

Here I have a Wide Centre Back as player role in this team. Can you guys guess who it is from this image?

Yes, it's my #26. The guy is already close to my right Winger!

This is unplayable. I mean, it's playable if I ignore all this and just play Kick & Rush, but other than that it's not worth the time.

Fix these things and I may very well try again, but not like this.

don't give up!!!

[Pinuccio]

Try moving the wingers forward to midfield. This way, the two wide defenders can work better and avoid crowding the fullbacks. @Black Hawk

[Sammy 2207]

It works but am not satisfied so in my second season I moved the Roaming Playmaker to the attacking midfielder position 

Because of Cole Palmer and in the second season we were doing better I will send post more screenshots when am done ✅

[neutralstate]

@Black Hawk have you tried using basic No Nonsense Centrebacks? I know that description implies that they just boot the ball up route 1 but i've played with them for a short period and i feel like they do basic passes to my wing backs  much more consistently than just basic CDs.

 

not sure if its just some kind of placebo effect, ive never played with NCBs prior to 26.

[rseven]

15 hours ago, Black Hawk said:

Example 1: with two Wide Centre Backs and one Centre Back/Ball Playing Defender/Libero

1. If WCB has not been blocked by MR/L position in counter and higher team mentality , WCB goes too wide, to close to side line. 
I have reported this comment to @Marc Vaughan, Marc said he will be carefully before tweak the setup of new role.
I hope this is the good and detail feedback from you for him to make decision. 

2. In FMM24, there is same issue, such as RP and SS role, they will go up to quick, no matter the position of  the ball even the ball has not beend passed over the midline. So, same issue for new role WCB.

 

 

[rseven]

And @Black Hawk, please consider the player footy when design the pass direction. Player with right footy, he prefer to pass to his right side.

[Myfanwy365]

Well this is working beautifully for me. Had a bit of a wobble in the first season, but got to the playoffs, losing in the final to Birmingham. 

Retooled my squad, again a few small issues at the start, since then though 

Just beat 2nd placed Southampton and wasn't close

[Leandrop]

@blackhawkHave you wondered if the reason players don't follow your instructions is because of your reputation as a manager?

[TazerMan]

Black Hawk, if you can’t find a solution for the new Black Hawk tactic that you want to create, pleeease make the counter attack tactic that you said, which fits with the new match engine. Thank you for all your efforts for finding the best tactic.

[Black Hawk]

On 11/11/2025 at 18:27, alonsoom27 said:

It happens to me that in clubs, like Boca Juniors and West Ham, tactics work perfectly for me. But I also manage the Brazilian national team, which I cannot beat either Bolivia and my world-class players have a poor performance in matches, why will this happen? I have tried to touch on some things, but nothing is like the selections are bugged. 

In some saves people noticed that the tactic took its time to start to perform, like if players needed some time to adapt to instructions. Maybe in a National Team there's a lack of train and games for them to adapt?

I don't know, I never managed a National Team on Mobile, but it could because of that.

On 11/11/2025 at 19:41, Rhys Rockley said:

Switched to 3-4-3 ( Turning off run at defence) following a run of poor and inconsistent results with the regular Black Hawk tactic and must admit I am flying now. Goals seem to come more freely...Key seems to be defence, if you get the right players at the back you will tighten up.

I too took Run At Defence away on my most recent tests. Feels like players aren't dribbling defenders so they loose the ball instead, isn't it?

On 11/11/2025 at 20:20, Pinuccio said:

Try moving the wingers forward to midfield. This way, the two wide defenders can work better and avoid crowding the fullbacks. @Black Hawk

Yeah, you are right. Problem with that is that I don't like to play with Wingers on the midfield line. Mainly because they don't close the flank behind, but also because most teams have Full Backs or Wing Backs on their squads that become useless that way.

On 11/11/2025 at 23:01, Sammy 2207 said:

It works but am not satisfied so in my second season I moved the Roaming Playmaker to the attacking midfielder position 

Because of Cole Palmer and in the second season we were doing better I will send post more screenshots when am done ✅

Never thought of that. How is that going?

On 12/11/2025 at 01:26, neutralstate said:

@Black Hawk have you tried using basic No Nonsense Centrebacks? I know that description implies that they just boot the ball up route 1 but i've played with them for a short period and i feel like they do basic passes to my wing backs  much more consistently than just basic CDs.

 

not sure if its just some kind of placebo effect, ive never played with NCBs prior to 26.

Also never thought of that, but it may be worth a shot 🤭

On 12/11/2025 at 05:02, rseven said:

1. If WCB has not been blocked by MR/L position in counter and higher team mentality , WCB goes too wide, to close to side line. 
I have reported this comment to @Marc Vaughan, Marc said he will be carefully before tweak the setup of new role.
I hope this is the good and detail feedback from you for him to make decision. 

2. In FMM24, there is same issue, such as RP and SS role, they will go up to quick, no matter the position of  the ball even the ball has not beend passed over the midline. So, same issue for new role WCB.

 

 

Thank you, brother.

On 12/11/2025 at 07:30, rseven said:

And @Black Hawk, please consider the player footy when design the pass direction. Player with right footy, he prefer to pass to his right side.

I usually try for my right B2B to be left footed and my left B2B to be right footed, when that's possible, to force them to try and find options on the Inside.

But on the defensive line, I go for right Centre Back to be right footed to allow for him to search for the Wing Back. The same on the left.

On 12/11/2025 at 11:31, Myfanwy365 said:

Well this is working beautifully for me. Had a bit of a wobble in the first season, but got to the playoffs, losing in the final to Birmingham. 

Retooled my squad, again a few small issues at the start, since then though 

Just beat 2nd placed Southampton and wasn't close

Wonderful 🤩

18 hours ago, Leandrop said:

@blackhawkHave you wondered if the reason players don't follow your instructions is because of your reputation as a manager?

Wait, does that influence?!?

16 hours ago, TazerMan said:

Black Hawk, if you can’t find a solution for the new Black Hawk tactic that you want to create, pleeease make the counter attack tactic that you said, which fits with the new match engine. Thank you for all your efforts for finding the best tactic.

Wouldn't be funny if The Black Hawk 2026 became a tactic that basically countered The Black Hawk from FMM23 and FMM24? 🤣

Thank you all guys for the support. I did two tests that I will share soon. I found the results promissing, but not entirely good. It's was the best I could do until now, anyways.

[Black Hawk]

UPDATE

 

I decided to abandon the three at the back design and stick to my instincts. Which is to say, I've gone back to the old 4123.

In Portugal, we have an expression: "velho do Restelo," which literally translates to "old man of Restelo" and means someone who clings to old ideas and opposes innovation. I'm a bit like that with this new match engine in the sense that I've already realized there are different things and I should be molding my tactics to them, but I like playing in this 4123 system and I'll continue until I make it work or die trying.

The funny part is that it's even giving results, at least in the two most recent tests I did with Crystal Palace and Nottingham Forest. Still, it's not entirely to my liking, but it's the best I could come with until now.

 

Regarding the match engine

 

The match engine is quite chaotic. Some games are based on the old and infamous Kick & Rush, which is kicking forward and running; if the opponent recovers the ball, they kick forward and run behind or with the ball, and so on.

I don't like this approach of this years match engine. Games end up lacking order, and even when we manage to control the game, often a single bad pass is enough to trigger a deadly counter-attack and opponents are terribly effective on the counter-attack; even weak teams become top teams when they recover the ball. They recover the ball, kick it forward, and we have a striker running towards out goalkeeper.

This is guaranteed. There's no way to avoid it. I tested playing with a low block, deep defensive line, sit back closing down, and even then, opponents manage to get their strikers behind out defense backs with long passes.

If it's guaranteed they'll succeed with this, I decided to ignore it and play with the law of probabilities. If we create more goal-scoring opportunities and have more possession, in most games it might be enough to compensate for the goal-scoring opportunities that the opponent will inevitably create.

 

Why 4123 for now

 

As you saw on the last pages, I tried to create a system with three at the back and discovered that for a possession-based and game-controlling system, it doesn't work the way I want.

There is a way, which Pinuccio mentioned, that involves placing the Wing Backs in the midfielder line, effectively making them Wingers. I don't like the idea because I want a tactic that everyone can use. Most teams have Full Backs / Wing Backs who would become useless because they can't play that far up the pitch, which would require squad adjustments to use the tactic.

For a possession-based and game-controlling system to work with three at the back, there would have to be options to receive the ball from the goalkeeper. Now, the three Centre Backs are too close together to provide that option; if you use Wide Centre Backs, they run forward as if they were Wingers and don't give options to receive the ball either.

This forces the goalkeeper to kick the ball forward, often resulting in lost of possession and counter-attacks that lead to goals.

Therefore, until the functioning of the Wide Center Backs or the ball positioning of the three Center Backs is corrected (preferably both), the best way to play out from the back continues to be with a back four, as this way the Wing Backs stay back and give the goalkeeper the option of a short pass. From there, the Roaming Playmaker or the Inside Forward are options to play out and thus we can overcome the intense pressure that all opponents now apply in the central zone of the pitch.

This won't always work because even so, the goalkeeper and even the Wing Backs continue to kick the ball forward without any strategy, even when there are options close to them, I would say maybe half the time or close to that, but it's something we have to deal with - the match engine was designed for players to have these behaviors.

Okay, having made these preliminary points, this is the best I could come up with so far.

 

 

This is basically the layout of the old The Black Hawk 4123 from FMM24. I increased Tackling to Committed, removed Run At Defence and Through Balls, and changed Passing Focus to Mixed.

Tackling was set this way because much of the game is now based on individual duels. Opponents also make decisions faster, and it's helpful to be more assertive in tackling. This results in more cards, so when making substitutions, keep this in mind because the risk of a red card for someone who already has a yellow card is much higher.

Passing Focus was changed to Mixed because opponents crowd the central zone more. This way, we try to play down the flanks more often to get around the volume of players in the middle. I didn't go for Both Wings because then we would only play down the flanks, and that's boring to watch.

Run At Defence and Through Balls were part of The Black Hawk in the FMM23 (RAD) and FMM24 (TB) versions, but this time it doesn't seem to work as well.

Run At Defence might work in top teams because we have better players, but in midtable or weaker teams it leads to many turnovers.

I haven't yet managed to find a way for Through Balls to work well. Opponents put a lot of people in the central zone and it's difficult to find space to put the ball deep for our forwards when we're in organized attack - maybe it works better in counter-attack systems.

I didn't change the Width because then the players are too far apart to maintain the short passing system. In better teams it might work, but in midtable or weaker teams it leads to many misplaced passes.

Overall, this is a balanced system for both strong and weaker teams. It can be used as a base, but then, depending on the players and the moments of the game, there might be some tweaks here and there that can be made, for example when we are winning near the end and the opponent comes at us with everything - and believe me, they attack with everything!

 

The two tests I made

 

From my experience in these two tests, the tactic isn't as strong as in FMM24. This isn't necessarily bad, because it makes the games more balanced, and teams like Palace or Forest aren't supposed to completely dominate Liverpools or Man Citys.

There are games where we were much better, others where we were worse, we gained points where we didn't deserve them, and we lost points when we should have won easily. It would even be realistic if this wasn't caused by players not following instructions, but at least the games are quite tough, and I never know what to expect from each game.

My idea is that the match preparation is OP. A bad approach in match preparation and we're going to have a terrible day regardless of the tactic we use. I haven't gone into much detail about the different options yet, but be careful with the choices you make; they are the difference between winning by a large margin or being thrashed.

Keep in mind that this tactic in the current match engine allows clear cut chances for opponents. It also seems to me that any control and possession tactic will have this problem in this match engine because counter-attacks are overpowered.

Well, I'll share the two tests done so far.

 

Test #01: Crystal Palace

 

Just to clarify, Palace has a terribly unbalanced squad for this 4123 formation, especially since they start with many injured players.

For example, we only have one striker, Mateta, who thankfully is fantastic, but forced me to play many games with a midfielder as a striker (in this case, I opted for Ahamada due to a lack of alternatives) until Nketiah's return.

The team also only has two decent IFs. I had to bring Rak-Sakyi back from loan to have someone to rotate with the two starters (Sarr and Pino).

The midfield is nothing special, although Uche and Wharton seem to be good players, which made it difficult to maintain possession in some games and we conceded goals because of that.

The two main center backs are good, but the wing backs are only OK at the start and only improved as the game progressed.

 

 

Overall, it exceeded my expectations. I had set a target of 35 points for the middle of the season and we ended up with 40 points in 18 games without a single defeat.

Note that we are still playing in both domestic cups.

In the games against the stronger teams, I noticed that we weren't dominant, something that was possible in FMM24 with mid-table teams, and in some of them we came away with points when we could easily have lost.

In others, we even deserved to win and we didn't. I think it's part of the game.

It didn't happen in this test, but in others I did with similar variants I had games against stronger teams (Liverpool and Arsenal, in particular) where I conceded four or five goals from six or seven shots, so keep in mind that there may be a couple of occasional games where this goes very wrong.

Oh, just to comment that in the UEFA Conference League I always played with the second team.

 

 

Offensively, the team relied heavily on goals from their strikers: Mateta in the Premier League and Nketiah in the UEFA Conference League after he returned from injury. Pino and Sarr aren't exactly goalscorers, and none of the midfielders are strong offensively (except perhaps Uche).

This made me afraid that the tactic only worked because of Mateta, so the second test was done with a team without big strikers.

 

Test #2: Nottingham Forest

 

I don't know why, but Chris Wood is weak in this FMM26. The alternatives don't seem anything special to me either (maybe they have the potential to grow?).

In any case, Forest has a good defense and a great midfield. Hudson-Odoi is also a good IF, Ndoye isn't bad, but they're the only ones. I ended up adapting Hutchinson to right IF and bringing Jota Silva back from loan to have alternatives.

 

 

The results were basically the same as the first test against Palace. One more goal scored and one less conceded, I also played one more game than with Palace, and in terms of points it was more or less the same.

In the UEFA Europa League I also played with the second team so I could focus on the Premier League. Here too we are still playing in both domestic cups.

What I wrote about the test with Palace applies here in the same way.

 

 

Here we didn't have Mateta, but the team compensated for the absence of a goalscorer by distributing the goals among other players. This made me feel more at ease. It's as if the team, lacking a goalscorer, looks for other ways to reach the opponent's goal.

 

Okay, this is the best I've managed so far. I think this is a good base to start with.

Over time, perhaps some tweaks will be found for certain moments of the game: to defend a lead late in the game, to seek victory in a game we are dominating, things like that, but in the current format I think it already allows us to obtain some positive results.

In these tests I think we are a little above what would be normal. I can't shake the feeling that I was lucky in some games, it may even be my usual pessimism talking, but I think in both I could have finished with around 35/36 points instead of the 40/41 I achieved.

 

But it's also important to keep in mind that I went full plug & play; in some games I could have gotten something better if I had set the team to defend more or attack more, but I wanted to test this version without changes to see how far we could go playing like this.

For a base system, I think it's not bad. If I find improvements, I'll share them.

Edited November 13 by Black Hawk

[Pinuccio]

30 minutes ago, Black Hawk said:

AGGIORNAMENTO

 

Ho deciso di abbandonare il design dei tre sul retro e di attenermi al mio istinto. Vale a dire, sono tornato al vecchio 4123.

In Portogallo, abbiamo un'espressione: "velho do Restelo", che si traduce letteralmente in "vecchio di Restelo" e significa qualcuno che si aggrappa alle vecchie idee e si oppone all'innovazione. Sono un pò così con questo nuovo match engine nel senso che ho già capito che ci sono cose diverse e dovrei modellare le mie tattiche su di esse, ma mi piace giocare in questo sistema 4123 e continuerò fino a quando non lo farò funzionare o morirò provandoci.

La parte divertente è che sta dando anche dei risultati, almeno nei due test più recenti che ho fatto con Crystal Palace e Nottingham Forest. Tuttavia, non è del tutto di mio gradimento, ma è il meglio che ho potuto ottenere fino ad ora.

 

Per quanto riguarda il motore della partita

 

Il motore del fiammifero è piuttosto caotico. Alcuni giochi sono basati sul vecchio e famigerato Kick & Rush, che sta calciando in avanti e correndo; se l'avversario recupera la palla, calcia in avanti e corre dietro o con la palla, e così via.

Non mi piace questo approccio di questo match engine di anni. Le partite finiscono per mancare di ordine, e anche quando riusciamo a controllare il gioco, spesso basta un solo brutto passaggio per innescare un micidiale contropiede e gli avversari sono terribilmente efficaci in contropiede; anche le squadre deboli diventano top team quando recuperano la palla. Recuperano la palla, la calciano in avanti e abbiamo un attaccante che corre verso il portiere esterno.

Questo è garantito. Non c'è modo di evitarlo. Ho provato a giocare con un blocco basso, una linea difensiva profonda, un sit back che si chiude e, anche in questo caso, gli avversari riescono a portare i loro attaccanti dietro i difensori con passaggi lunghi.

Se è garantito che ci riusciranno, ho deciso di ignorarlo e giocare con la legge delle probabilità. Se creiamo più opportunità di segnare gol e abbiamo più possesso palla, nella maggior parte delle partite potrebbe essere sufficiente a compensare le opportunità di segnare gol che l'avversario inevitabilmente creerà.

 

Perché 4123 per ora

 

Come hai visto nelle ultime pagine, ho provato a creare un sistema con tre sul retro e ho scoperto che per un sistema basato sul possesso e sul controllo del gioco, non funziona come voglio.

C'è un modo, di cui ha parlato Pinuccio, che prevede di posizionare i Wing Back nella linea di centrocampista, rendendoli di fatto Winger. Non mi piace l'idea perché voglio una tattica che tutti possano usare. La maggior parte delle squadre ha Full Back/Wing Back che diventerebbero inutili perché non possono giocare così lontano in campo, il che richiederebbe aggiustamenti della squadra per utilizzare la tattica.

Affinché un sistema basato sul possesso palla e di controllo del gioco funzioni con tre in fondo, dovrebbero esserci opzioni per ricevere la palla dal portiere. Ora, i tre difensori centrali sono troppo vicini per fornire questa opzione; se usi i difensori centrali larghi, corrono avanti come se fossero ali e non danno nemmeno opzioni per ricevere la palla.

Ciò costringe il portiere a calciare la palla in avanti, spesso con conseguente perdita di possesso palla e contropiedi che portano a gol.

Pertanto, fino a quando non viene corretto il funzionamento dei Wide Center Back o il posizionamento della palla dei tre Center Back (preferibilmente entrambi), il modo migliore per giocare da dietro continua ad essere con un back four, in quanto in questo modo i Wing Back restano indietro e danno al portiere la possibilità di un passaggio corto. Da lì, il Playmaker in Roaming o l'Inside Forward sono opzioni da giocare e così possiamo superare l'intensa pressione che tutti gli avversari ora applicano nella zona centrale del campo.

Questo non funzionerà sempre perché anche così, il portiere e anche i Wing Back continuano a calciare la palla in avanti senza alcuna strategia, anche quando ci sono opzioni vicine a loro, direi forse la metà del tempo o vicino a quello, ma è qualcosa che dobbiamo affrontare - il motore della partita è stato progettato per i giocatori di avere questi comportamenti.

Ok, dopo aver sottolineato questi punti preliminari, questo è il meglio che ho potuto trovare finora.

 

 

Questo è fondamentalmente il layout del vecchio The Black Hawk 4123 di FMM24. Ho aumentato il contrasto in impegno, rimosso la corsa in difesa e le palle passanti e ho cambiato la messa a fuoco passante in mista.

Il contrasto è stato impostato in questo modo perché gran parte del gioco è ora basato su duelli individuali. Gli avversari prendono anche decisioni più velocemente ed è utile essere più assertivi nell'affrontare. Ciò si traduce in più carte, quindi quando si effettuano sostituzioni, tienilo a mente perché il rischio di un cartellino rosso per qualcuno che ha già un cartellino giallo è molto più alto.

Passing Focus è stato cambiato in Mixed perché gli avversari affollano maggiormente la zona centrale. In questo modo, cerchiamo di sdrammatizzare i fianchi più spesso per aggirare il volume dei giocatori nel mezzo. Non ho scelto Both Wings perché in quel caso avremmo giocato solo lungo i fianchi, ed è noioso da guardare.

Run At Defense e Through Balls facevano parte di The Black Hawk nelle versioni FMM23 (RAD) e FMM24 (TB), ma questa volta non sembra funzionare altrettanto bene.

Run At Defense potrebbe funzionare nelle migliori squadre perché abbiamo giocatori migliori, ma nelle squadre a metà classifica o più deboli porta a molte palle perse.

Non sono ancora riuscito a trovare un modo per far funzionare bene Through Balls. Gli avversari mettono molte persone nella zona centrale ed è difficile trovare spazio per mettere la palla in profondità per i nostri attaccanti quando siamo in attacco organizzato - forse funziona meglio nei sistemi di contropiede.

Non ho cambiato la Larghezza perché poi i giocatori sono troppo distanti per mantenere il sistema di passaggi corti. Nelle squadre migliori potrebbe funzionare, ma nelle squadre a metà classifica o più deboli porta a molti passaggi fuori posto.

Nel complesso, questo è un sistema equilibrato sia per le squadre forti che per quelle più deboli. Può essere usato come base, ma poi, a seconda dei giocatori e dei momenti del gioco, potrebbero esserci alcune modifiche qua e là che possono essere apportate, ad esempio quando stiamo vincendo verso la fine e l'avversario ci viene incontro con tutto - e credimi, attaccano con tutto!

 

I due test che ho fatto

 

Dalla mia esperienza in questi due test, la tattica non è così forte come in FMM24. Questo non è necessariamente negativo, perché rende le partite più equilibrate e squadre come Palace o Forest non dovrebbero dominare completamente Liverpool o Man City.

Ci sono partite in cui siamo stati molto meglio, altre in cui siamo stati peggio, abbiamo guadagnato punti dove non li meritavamo, e abbiamo perso punti quando avremmo dovuto vincere facilmente. Sarebbe anche realistico se questo non fosse causato dai giocatori che non seguono le istruzioni, ma almeno i giochi sono piuttosto duri, e non so mai cosa aspettarmi da ogni gioco.

La mia idea è che la preparazione della partita sia OP. Un brutto approccio nella preparazione delle partite e avremo una giornata terribile indipendentemente dalla tattica che usiamo. Non sono ancora entrato molto nel dettaglio delle diverse opzioni, ma fai attenzione alle scelte che fai; sono la differenza tra vincere con un ampio margine o essere picchiato.

Tieni presente che questa tattica nell'attuale motore della partita consente possibilità di taglio netto per gli avversari. Mi sembra anche che qualsiasi tattica di controllo e possesso avrà questo problema in questo motore di partita perché i contrattacchi sono sopraffatti.

Beh, condividerò i due test fatti finora.

 

Prova n. 01: Crystal Palace

 

Giusto per chiarire, Palace ha una rosa terribilmente sbilanciata per questo modulo 4123, soprattutto perché inizia con molti giocatori infortunati.

Ad esempio, abbiamo solo un attaccante, Mateta, che per fortuna è fantastico, ma mi ha costretto a giocare molte partite con un centrocampista come attaccante (in questo caso ho optato per l'Ahamada per mancanza di alternative) fino al ritorno di Nketiah.

La squadra ha anche solo due IF decenti. Ho dovuto riportare Rak-Sakyi dal prestito per avere qualcuno che ruotasse con i due titolari (Sarr e Pino).

Il centrocampo non è niente di speciale, anche se Uche e Wharton sembrano essere buoni giocatori, il che ha reso difficile mantenere il possesso palla in alcune partite e per questo abbiamo subito gol.

I due difensori centrali principali sono buoni, ma i difensori esterni sono OK solo all'inizio e sono migliorati solo con il progredire della partita.

 

 

Nel complesso, ha superato le mie aspettative. Avevo fissato un obiettivo di 35 punti per metà stagione e ci siamo ritrovati con 40 punti in 18 partite senza una sola sconfitta.

Si noti che stiamo ancora giocando in entrambe le coppe nazionali.

Nelle partite contro le squadre più forti, ho notato che non eravamo dominanti, qualcosa che era possibile in FMM24 con squadre di metà classifica, e in alcune di esse siamo usciti con punti quando avremmo potuto facilmente perdere.

In altri, abbiamo anche meritato di vincere e non l'abbiamo fatto. Credo faccia parte del gioco.

Non è successo in questo test, ma in altri l'ho fatto con varianti simili ho avuto partite contro squadre più forti (Liverpool e Arsenal, in particolare) dove ho subito quattro o cinque gol su sei o sette tiri, quindi tieni presente che potrebbero esserci un paio di partite occasionali in cui questo va molto storto.

Oh, tanto per commentare che in UEFA Conference League ho sempre giocato con la seconda squadra.

 

 

In attacco, la squadra ha fatto molto affidamento sui gol dei propri attaccanti: Mateta in Premier League e Nketiah in UEFA Conference League dopo il suo ritorno dall'infortunio. Pino e Sarr non sono esattamente marcatori, e nessuno dei centrocampisti è forte in attacco (tranne forse Uche).

Questo mi ha fatto temere che la tattica funzionasse solo a causa di Mateta, quindi il secondo test è stato fatto con una squadra senza grandi attaccanti.

 

Prova n. 2: Nottingham Forest

 

Non so perché, ma Chris Wood è debole in questo FMM26. Anche le alternative non mi sembrano niente di speciale (forse hanno il potenziale per crescere?).

In ogni caso, il Forest ha una buona difesa e un grande centrocampo. Hudson-Odoi è anche un buon IF, Ndoye non è male, ma sono gli unici. Ho finito per adattare Hutchinson all'IF destro e riportare Jota Silva dal prestito per avere alternative.

 

 

I risultati sono stati sostanzialmente gli stessi del primo test contro il Palace. Un gol in più segnato e uno in meno subito, ho giocato anche una partita in più rispetto al Palace, e in termini di punti è stato più o meno lo stesso.

In UEFA Europa League ho giocato anche con la seconda squadra per potermi concentrare sulla Premier League. Anche qui giochiamo ancora in entrambe le coppe nazionali.

Ciò che ho scritto sul test con Palace vale qui allo stesso modo.

 

 

Qui non avevamo il Mateta, ma la squadra compensava l'assenza di un goleador distribuendo i gol tra gli altri giocatori. Questo mi ha fatto sentire più a mio agio. È come se la squadra, mancando di un marcatore, cercasse altri modi per raggiungere la porta avversaria.

 

Ok, questo è il migliore che ho gestito finora. Penso che questa sia una buona base per cominciare.

Col tempo forse qualche ritocco si troverà per certi momenti di gioco: per difendere un vantaggio a fine partita, per cercare la vittoria in una partita che stiamo dominando, cose del genere, ma nel formato attuale penso che ci permetta già di ottenere qualche risultato positivo.

In questi test penso che siamo un pò al di sopra di quello che sarebbe normale. Non riesco a scrollarmi di dosso la sensazione di essere stato fortunato in alcune partite, può anche essere il mio solito pessimismo a parlare, ma penso che in entrambe avrei potuto finire con circa 35/36 punti invece dei 40/41 che ho ottenuto.

 

Ma è anche importante tenere a mente che sono andato full plug & play; in alcune partite avrei potuto ottenere qualcosa di meglio se avessi impostato la squadra per difendere di più o attaccare di più, ma volevo testare questa versione senza modifiche per vedere fino a che punto avremmo potuto andare a giocare in questo modo.

Per un sistema base, penso che non sia male. Se trovo dei miglioramenti, li condividerò.

I read carefully. True conclusions! You said something right: that tactics in this edition of the game are influenced, for better or worse, by pre-match preparation and dialogue. When the time comes, I'll include this in my tactics. Maybe we should all write it in our publications. I like the 433 you're developing. I'm a fan of the Czech Zeman's historic 433, but on this platform, unfortunately, it's almost impossible to edit.

[rseven]

34 minutes ago, Black Hawk said:

UPDATE

 

I decided to abandon the three at the back design and stick to my instincts. Which is to say, I've gone back to the old 4123.

In Portugal, we have an expression: "velho do Restelo," which literally translates to "old man of Restelo" and means someone who clings to old ideas and opposes innovation. I'm a bit like that with this new match engine in the sense that I've already realized there are different things and I should be molding my tactics to them, but I like playing in this 4123 system and I'll continue until I make it work or die trying.

The funny part is that it's even giving results, at least in the two most recent tests I did with Crystal Palace and Nottingham Forest. Still, it's not entirely to my liking, but it's the best I could come with until now.

 

Regarding the match engine

 

The match engine is quite chaotic. Some games are based on the old and infamous Kick & Rush, which is kicking forward and running; if the opponent recovers the ball, they kick forward and run behind or with the ball, and so on.

I don't like this approach of this years match engine. Games end up lacking order, and even when we manage to control the game, often a single bad pass is enough to trigger a deadly counter-attack and opponents are terribly effective on the counter-attack; even weak teams become top teams when they recover the ball. They recover the ball, kick it forward, and we have a striker running towards out goalkeeper.

This is guaranteed. There's no way to avoid it. I tested playing with a low block, deep defensive line, sit back closing down, and even then, opponents manage to get their strikers behind out defense backs with long passes.

If it's guaranteed they'll succeed with this, I decided to ignore it and play with the law of probabilities. If we create more goal-scoring opportunities and have more possession, in most games it might be enough to compensate for the goal-scoring opportunities that the opponent will inevitably create.

 

Why 4123 for now

 

As you saw on the last pages, I tried to create a system with three at the back and discovered that for a possession-based and game-controlling system, it doesn't work the way I want.

There is a way, which Pinuccio mentioned, that involves placing the Wing Backs in the midfielder line, effectively making them Wingers. I don't like the idea because I want a tactic that everyone can use. Most teams have Full Backs / Wing Backs who would become useless because they can't play that far up the pitch, which would require squad adjustments to use the tactic.

For a possession-based and game-controlling system to work with three at the back, there would have to be options to receive the ball from the goalkeeper. Now, the three Centre Backs are too close together to provide that option; if you use Wide Centre Backs, they run forward as if they were Wingers and don't give options to receive the ball either.

This forces the goalkeeper to kick the ball forward, often resulting in lost of possession and counter-attacks that lead to goals.

Therefore, until the functioning of the Wide Center Backs or the ball positioning of the three Center Backs is corrected (preferably both), the best way to play out from the back continues to be with a back four, as this way the Wing Backs stay back and give the goalkeeper the option of a short pass. From there, the Roaming Playmaker or the Inside Forward are options to play out and thus we can overcome the intense pressure that all opponents now apply in the central zone of the pitch.

This won't always work because even so, the goalkeeper and even the Wing Backs continue to kick the ball forward without any strategy, even when there are options close to them, I would say maybe half the time or close to that, but it's something we have to deal with - the match engine was designed for players to have these behaviors.

Okay, having made these preliminary points, this is the best I could come up with so far.

 

 

This is basically the layout of the old The Black Hawk 4123 from FMM24. I increased Tackling to Committed, removed Run At Defence and Through Balls, and changed Passing Focus to Mixed.

Tackling was set this way because much of the game is now based on individual duels. Opponents also make decisions faster, and it's helpful to be more assertive in tackling. This results in more cards, so when making substitutions, keep this in mind because the risk of a red card for someone who already has a yellow card is much higher.

Passing Focus was changed to Mixed because opponents crowd the central zone more. This way, we try to play down the flanks more often to get around the volume of players in the middle. I didn't go for Both Wings because then we would only play down the flanks, and that's boring to watch.

Run At Defence and Through Balls were part of The Black Hawk in the FMM23 (RAD) and FMM24 (TB) versions, but this time it doesn't seem to work as well.

Run At Defence might work in top teams because we have better players, but in midtable or weaker teams it leads to many turnovers.

I haven't yet managed to find a way for Through Balls to work well. Opponents put a lot of people in the central zone and it's difficult to find space to put the ball deep for our forwards when we're in organized attack - maybe it works better in counter-attack systems.

I didn't change the Width because then the players are too far apart to maintain the short passing system. In better teams it might work, but in midtable or weaker teams it leads to many misplaced passes.

Overall, this is a balanced system for both strong and weaker teams. It can be used as a base, but then, depending on the players and the moments of the game, there might be some tweaks here and there that can be made, for example when we are winning near the end and the opponent comes at us with everything - and believe me, they attack with everything!

 

The two tests I made

 

From my experience in these two tests, the tactic isn't as strong as in FMM24. This isn't necessarily bad, because it makes the games more balanced, and teams like Palace or Forest aren't supposed to completely dominate Liverpools or Man Citys.

There are games where we were much better, others where we were worse, we gained points where we didn't deserve them, and we lost points when we should have won easily. It would even be realistic if this wasn't caused by players not following instructions, but at least the games are quite tough, and I never know what to expect from each game.

My idea is that the match preparation is OP. A bad approach in match preparation and we're going to have a terrible day regardless of the tactic we use. I haven't gone into much detail about the different options yet, but be careful with the choices you make; they are the difference between winning by a large margin or being thrashed.

Keep in mind that this tactic in the current match engine allows clear cut chances for opponents. It also seems to me that any control and possession tactic will have this problem in this match engine because counter-attacks are overpowered.

Well, I'll share the two tests done so far.

 

Test #01: Crystal Palace

 

Just to clarify, Palace has a terribly unbalanced squad for this 4123 formation, especially since they start with many injured players.

For example, we only have one striker, Mateta, who thankfully is fantastic, but forced me to play many games with a midfielder as a striker (in this case, I opted for Ahamada due to a lack of alternatives) until Nketiah's return.

The team also only has two decent IFs. I had to bring Rak-Sakyi back from loan to have someone to rotate with the two starters (Sarr and Pino).

The midfield is nothing special, although Uche and Wharton seem to be good players, which made it difficult to maintain possession in some games and we conceded goals because of that.

The two main center backs are good, but the wing backs are only OK at the start and only improved as the game progressed.

 

 

Overall, it exceeded my expectations. I had set a target of 35 points for the middle of the season and we ended up with 40 points in 18 games without a single defeat.

Note that we are still playing in both domestic cups.

In the games against the stronger teams, I noticed that we weren't dominant, something that was possible in FMM24 with mid-table teams, and in some of them we came away with points when we could easily have lost.

In others, we even deserved to win and we didn't. I think it's part of the game.

It didn't happen in this test, but in others I did with similar variants I had games against stronger teams (Liverpool and Arsenal, in particular) where I conceded four or five goals from six or seven shots, so keep in mind that there may be a couple of occasional games where this goes very wrong.

Oh, just to comment that in the UEFA Conference League I always played with the second team.

 

 

Offensively, the team relied heavily on goals from their strikers: Mateta in the Premier League and Nketiah in the UEFA Conference League after he returned from injury. Pino and Sarr aren't exactly goalscorers, and none of the midfielders are strong offensively (except perhaps Uche).

This made me afraid that the tactic only worked because of Mateta, so the second test was done with a team without big strikers.

 

Test #2: Nottingham Forest

 

I don't know why, but Chris Wood is weak in this FMM26. The alternatives don't seem anything special to me either (maybe they have the potential to grow?).

In any case, Forest has a good defense and a great midfield. Hudson-Odoi is also a good IF, Ndoye isn't bad, but they're the only ones. I ended up adapting Hutchinson to right IF and bringing Jota Silva back from loan to have alternatives.

 

 

The results were basically the same as the first test against Palace. One more goal scored and one less conceded, I also played one more game than with Palace, and in terms of points it was more or less the same.

In the UEFA Europa League I also played with the second team so I could focus on the Premier League. Here too we are still playing in both domestic cups.

What I wrote about the test with Palace applies here in the same way.

 

 

Here we didn't have Mateta, but the team compensated for the absence of a goalscorer by distributing the goals among other players. This made me feel more at ease. It's as if the team, lacking a goalscorer, looks for other ways to reach the opponent's goal.

 

Okay, this is the best I've managed so far. I think this is a good base to start with.

Over time, perhaps some tweaks will be found for certain moments of the game: to defend a lead late in the game, to seek victory in a game we are dominating, things like that, but in the current format I think it already allows us to obtain some positive results.

In these tests I think we are a little above what would be normal. I can't shake the feeling that I was lucky in some games, it may even be my usual pessimism talking, but I think in both I could have finished with around 35/36 points instead of the 40/41 I achieved.

 

But it's also important to keep in mind that I went full plug & play; in some games I could have gotten something better if I had set the team to defend more or attack more, but I wanted to test this version without changes to see how far we could go playing like this.

For a base system, I think it's not bad. If I find improvements, I'll share them.

Have you tried to change IF to AF or PF, and turn on run at defense? In my Wolves sav, this setting help me to build up, ball from GK to WK to AF/PF than to the BBM. 

[Pinuccio]

1 hour ago, Black Hawk said:

UPDATE

 

I decided to abandon the three at the back design and stick to my instincts. Which is to say, I've gone back to the old 4123.

In Portugal, we have an expression: "velho do Restelo," which literally translates to "old man of Restelo" and means someone who clings to old ideas and opposes innovation. I'm a bit like that with this new match engine in the sense that I've already realized there are different things and I should be molding my tactics to them, but I like playing in this 4123 system and I'll continue until I make it work or die trying.

The funny part is that it's even giving results, at least in the two most recent tests I did with Crystal Palace and Nottingham Forest. Still, it's not entirely to my liking, but it's the best I could come with until now.

 

Regarding the match engine

 

The match engine is quite chaotic. Some games are based on the old and infamous Kick & Rush, which is kicking forward and running; if the opponent recovers the ball, they kick forward and run behind or with the ball, and so on.

I don't like this approach of this years match engine. Games end up lacking order, and even when we manage to control the game, often a single bad pass is enough to trigger a deadly counter-attack and opponents are terribly effective on the counter-attack; even weak teams become top teams when they recover the ball. They recover the ball, kick it forward, and we have a striker running towards out goalkeeper.

This is guaranteed. There's no way to avoid it. I tested playing with a low block, deep defensive line, sit back closing down, and even then, opponents manage to get their strikers behind out defense backs with long passes.

If it's guaranteed they'll succeed with this, I decided to ignore it and play with the law of probabilities. If we create more goal-scoring opportunities and have more possession, in most games it might be enough to compensate for the goal-scoring opportunities that the opponent will inevitably create.

 

Why 4123 for now

 

As you saw on the last pages, I tried to create a system with three at the back and discovered that for a possession-based and game-controlling system, it doesn't work the way I want.

There is a way, which Pinuccio mentioned, that involves placing the Wing Backs in the midfielder line, effectively making them Wingers. I don't like the idea because I want a tactic that everyone can use. Most teams have Full Backs / Wing Backs who would become useless because they can't play that far up the pitch, which would require squad adjustments to use the tactic.

For a possession-based and game-controlling system to work with three at the back, there would have to be options to receive the ball from the goalkeeper. Now, the three Centre Backs are too close together to provide that option; if you use Wide Centre Backs, they run forward as if they were Wingers and don't give options to receive the ball either.

This forces the goalkeeper to kick the ball forward, often resulting in lost of possession and counter-attacks that lead to goals.

Therefore, until the functioning of the Wide Center Backs or the ball positioning of the three Center Backs is corrected (preferably both), the best way to play out from the back continues to be with a back four, as this way the Wing Backs stay back and give the goalkeeper the option of a short pass. From there, the Roaming Playmaker or the Inside Forward are options to play out and thus we can overcome the intense pressure that all opponents now apply in the central zone of the pitch.

This won't always work because even so, the goalkeeper and even the Wing Backs continue to kick the ball forward without any strategy, even when there are options close to them, I would say maybe half the time or close to that, but it's something we have to deal with - the match engine was designed for players to have these behaviors.

Okay, having made these preliminary points, this is the best I could come up with so far.

 

 

This is basically the layout of the old The Black Hawk 4123 from FMM24. I increased Tackling to Committed, removed Run At Defence and Through Balls, and changed Passing Focus to Mixed.

Tackling was set this way because much of the game is now based on individual duels. Opponents also make decisions faster, and it's helpful to be more assertive in tackling. This results in more cards, so when making substitutions, keep this in mind because the risk of a red card for someone who already has a yellow card is much higher.

Passing Focus was changed to Mixed because opponents crowd the central zone more. This way, we try to play down the flanks more often to get around the volume of players in the middle. I didn't go for Both Wings because then we would only play down the flanks, and that's boring to watch.

Run At Defence and Through Balls were part of The Black Hawk in the FMM23 (RAD) and FMM24 (TB) versions, but this time it doesn't seem to work as well.

Run At Defence might work in top teams because we have better players, but in midtable or weaker teams it leads to many turnovers.

I haven't yet managed to find a way for Through Balls to work well. Opponents put a lot of people in the central zone and it's difficult to find space to put the ball deep for our forwards when we're in organized attack - maybe it works better in counter-attack systems.

I didn't change the Width because then the players are too far apart to maintain the short passing system. In better teams it might work, but in midtable or weaker teams it leads to many misplaced passes.

Overall, this is a balanced system for both strong and weaker teams. It can be used as a base, but then, depending on the players and the moments of the game, there might be some tweaks here and there that can be made, for example when we are winning near the end and the opponent comes at us with everything - and believe me, they attack with everything!

 

The two tests I made

 

From my experience in these two tests, the tactic isn't as strong as in FMM24. This isn't necessarily bad, because it makes the games more balanced, and teams like Palace or Forest aren't supposed to completely dominate Liverpools or Man Citys.

There are games where we were much better, others where we were worse, we gained points where we didn't deserve them, and we lost points when we should have won easily. It would even be realistic if this wasn't caused by players not following instructions, but at least the games are quite tough, and I never know what to expect from each game.

My idea is that the match preparation is OP. A bad approach in match preparation and we're going to have a terrible day regardless of the tactic we use. I haven't gone into much detail about the different options yet, but be careful with the choices you make; they are the difference between winning by a large margin or being thrashed.

Keep in mind that this tactic in the current match engine allows clear cut chances for opponents. It also seems to me that any control and possession tactic will have this problem in this match engine because counter-attacks are overpowered.

Well, I'll share the two tests done so far.

 

Test #01: Crystal Palace

 

Just to clarify, Palace has a terribly unbalanced squad for this 4123 formation, especially since they start with many injured players.

For example, we only have one striker, Mateta, who thankfully is fantastic, but forced me to play many games with a midfielder as a striker (in this case, I opted for Ahamada due to a lack of alternatives) until Nketiah's return.

The team also only has two decent IFs. I had to bring Rak-Sakyi back from loan to have someone to rotate with the two starters (Sarr and Pino).

The midfield is nothing special, although Uche and Wharton seem to be good players, which made it difficult to maintain possession in some games and we conceded goals because of that.

The two main center backs are good, but the wing backs are only OK at the start and only improved as the game progressed.

 

 

Overall, it exceeded my expectations. I had set a target of 35 points for the middle of the season and we ended up with 40 points in 18 games without a single defeat.

Note that we are still playing in both domestic cups.

In the games against the stronger teams, I noticed that we weren't dominant, something that was possible in FMM24 with mid-table teams, and in some of them we came away with points when we could easily have lost.

In others, we even deserved to win and we didn't. I think it's part of the game.

It didn't happen in this test, but in others I did with similar variants I had games against stronger teams (Liverpool and Arsenal, in particular) where I conceded four or five goals from six or seven shots, so keep in mind that there may be a couple of occasional games where this goes very wrong.

Oh, just to comment that in the UEFA Conference League I always played with the second team.

 

 

Offensively, the team relied heavily on goals from their strikers: Mateta in the Premier League and Nketiah in the UEFA Conference League after he returned from injury. Pino and Sarr aren't exactly goalscorers, and none of the midfielders are strong offensively (except perhaps Uche).

This made me afraid that the tactic only worked because of Mateta, so the second test was done with a team without big strikers.

 

Test #2: Nottingham Forest

 

I don't know why, but Chris Wood is weak in this FMM26. The alternatives don't seem anything special to me either (maybe they have the potential to grow?).

In any case, Forest has a good defense and a great midfield. Hudson-Odoi is also a good IF, Ndoye isn't bad, but they're the only ones. I ended up adapting Hutchinson to right IF and bringing Jota Silva back from loan to have alternatives.

 

 

The results were basically the same as the first test against Palace. One more goal scored and one less conceded, I also played one more game than with Palace, and in terms of points it was more or less the same.

In the UEFA Europa League I also played with the second team so I could focus on the Premier League. Here too we are still playing in both domestic cups.

What I wrote about the test with Palace applies here in the same way.

 

 

Here we didn't have Mateta, but the team compensated for the absence of a goalscorer by distributing the goals among other players. This made me feel more at ease. It's as if the team, lacking a goalscorer, looks for other ways to reach the opponent's goal.

 

Okay, this is the best I've managed so far. I think this is a good base to start with.

Over time, perhaps some tweaks will be found for certain moments of the game: to defend a lead late in the game, to seek victory in a game we are dominating, things like that, but in the current format I think it already allows us to obtain some positive results.

In these tests I think we are a little above what would be normal. I can't shake the feeling that I was lucky in some games, it may even be my usual pessimism talking, but I think in both I could have finished with around 35/36 points instead of the 40/41 I achieved.

 

But it's also important to keep in mind that I went full plug & play; in some games I could have gotten something better if I had set the team to defend more or attack more, but I wanted to test this version without changes to see how far we could go playing like this.

For a base system, I think it's not bad. If I find improvements, I'll share them.

falcon, I wrote to you, read me as soon as you can.🙏

[Sergey Godina]

1 hour ago, Black Hawk said:

UPDATE

 

I decided to abandon the three at the back design and stick to my instincts. Which is to say, I've gone back to the old 4123.

In Portugal, we have an expression: "velho do Restelo," which literally translates to "old man of Restelo" and means someone who clings to old ideas and opposes innovation. I'm a bit like that with this new match engine in the sense that I've already realized there are different things and I should be molding my tactics to them, but I like playing in this 4123 system and I'll continue until I make it work or die trying.

The funny part is that it's even giving results, at least in the two most recent tests I did with Crystal Palace and Nottingham Forest. Still, it's not entirely to my liking, but it's the best I could come with until now.

 

Regarding the match engine

 

The match engine is quite chaotic. Some games are based on the old and infamous Kick & Rush, which is kicking forward and running; if the opponent recovers the ball, they kick forward and run behind or with the ball, and so on.

I don't like this approach of this years match engine. Games end up lacking order, and even when we manage to control the game, often a single bad pass is enough to trigger a deadly counter-attack and opponents are terribly effective on the counter-attack; even weak teams become top teams when they recover the ball. They recover the ball, kick it forward, and we have a striker running towards out goalkeeper.

This is guaranteed. There's no way to avoid it. I tested playing with a low block, deep defensive line, sit back closing down, and even then, opponents manage to get their strikers behind out defense backs with long passes.

If it's guaranteed they'll succeed with this, I decided to ignore it and play with the law of probabilities. If we create more goal-scoring opportunities and have more possession, in most games it might be enough to compensate for the goal-scoring opportunities that the opponent will inevitably create.

 

Why 4123 for now

 

As you saw on the last pages, I tried to create a system with three at the back and discovered that for a possession-based and game-controlling system, it doesn't work the way I want.

There is a way, which Pinuccio mentioned, that involves placing the Wing Backs in the midfielder line, effectively making them Wingers. I don't like the idea because I want a tactic that everyone can use. Most teams have Full Backs / Wing Backs who would become useless because they can't play that far up the pitch, which would require squad adjustments to use the tactic.

For a possession-based and game-controlling system to work with three at the back, there would have to be options to receive the ball from the goalkeeper. Now, the three Centre Backs are too close together to provide that option; if you use Wide Centre Backs, they run forward as if they were Wingers and don't give options to receive the ball either.

This forces the goalkeeper to kick the ball forward, often resulting in lost of possession and counter-attacks that lead to goals.

Therefore, until the functioning of the Wide Center Backs or the ball positioning of the three Center Backs is corrected (preferably both), the best way to play out from the back continues to be with a back four, as this way the Wing Backs stay back and give the goalkeeper the option of a short pass. From there, the Roaming Playmaker or the Inside Forward are options to play out and thus we can overcome the intense pressure that all opponents now apply in the central zone of the pitch.

This won't always work because even so, the goalkeeper and even the Wing Backs continue to kick the ball forward without any strategy, even when there are options close to them, I would say maybe half the time or close to that, but it's something we have to deal with - the match engine was designed for players to have these behaviors.

Okay, having made these preliminary points, this is the best I could come up with so far.

 

 

This is basically the layout of the old The Black Hawk 4123 from FMM24. I increased Tackling to Committed, removed Run At Defence and Through Balls, and changed Passing Focus to Mixed.

Tackling was set this way because much of the game is now based on individual duels. Opponents also make decisions faster, and it's helpful to be more assertive in tackling. This results in more cards, so when making substitutions, keep this in mind because the risk of a red card for someone who already has a yellow card is much higher.

Passing Focus was changed to Mixed because opponents crowd the central zone more. This way, we try to play down the flanks more often to get around the volume of players in the middle. I didn't go for Both Wings because then we would only play down the flanks, and that's boring to watch.

Run At Defence and Through Balls were part of The Black Hawk in the FMM23 (RAD) and FMM24 (TB) versions, but this time it doesn't seem to work as well.

Run At Defence might work in top teams because we have better players, but in midtable or weaker teams it leads to many turnovers.

I haven't yet managed to find a way for Through Balls to work well. Opponents put a lot of people in the central zone and it's difficult to find space to put the ball deep for our forwards when we're in organized attack - maybe it works better in counter-attack systems.

I didn't change the Width because then the players are too far apart to maintain the short passing system. In better teams it might work, but in midtable or weaker teams it leads to many misplaced passes.

Overall, this is a balanced system for both strong and weaker teams. It can be used as a base, but then, depending on the players and the moments of the game, there might be some tweaks here and there that can be made, for example when we are winning near the end and the opponent comes at us with everything - and believe me, they attack with everything!

 

The two tests I made

 

From my experience in these two tests, the tactic isn't as strong as in FMM24. This isn't necessarily bad, because it makes the games more balanced, and teams like Palace or Forest aren't supposed to completely dominate Liverpools or Man Citys.

There are games where we were much better, others where we were worse, we gained points where we didn't deserve them, and we lost points when we should have won easily. It would even be realistic if this wasn't caused by players not following instructions, but at least the games are quite tough, and I never know what to expect from each game.

My idea is that the match preparation is OP. A bad approach in match preparation and we're going to have a terrible day regardless of the tactic we use. I haven't gone into much detail about the different options yet, but be careful with the choices you make; they are the difference between winning by a large margin or being thrashed.

Keep in mind that this tactic in the current match engine allows clear cut chances for opponents. It also seems to me that any control and possession tactic will have this problem in this match engine because counter-attacks are overpowered.

Well, I'll share the two tests done so far.

 

Test #01: Crystal Palace

 

Just to clarify, Palace has a terribly unbalanced squad for this 4123 formation, especially since they start with many injured players.

For example, we only have one striker, Mateta, who thankfully is fantastic, but forced me to play many games with a midfielder as a striker (in this case, I opted for Ahamada due to a lack of alternatives) until Nketiah's return.

The team also only has two decent IFs. I had to bring Rak-Sakyi back from loan to have someone to rotate with the two starters (Sarr and Pino).

The midfield is nothing special, although Uche and Wharton seem to be good players, which made it difficult to maintain possession in some games and we conceded goals because of that.

Два основных центральных защитника хороши, но крайние защитники неплохи только на старте и только улучшают свою игру по ходу матча.

 

 

В целом, результат превзошёл мои ожидания. Я поставил себе цель набрать 35 очков к середине сезона, и в итоге мы набрали 40 очков в 18 играх, не потерпев ни одного поражения.

Обратите внимание, что мы все еще играем в обоих внутренних кубках.

В играх против более сильных команд я заметил, что мы не доминировали, что было возможно в FMM24 с командами из середины турнирной таблицы, и в некоторых из них мы набирали очки, хотя могли легко проиграть.

В других случаях мы даже заслуживали победы, но не победили. Думаю, это часть игры.

В этом тесте этого не произошло, но в других тестах с похожими вариантами прозвучало. У меня были игры против более сильных команд (в частности, «Ливерпуля» и «Арсенала»), где я пропустил четыре или пять голов с шестью или семью ударами, так что имейте в виду, что может быть пара случайных игр, где это получается совсем не так.

О, просто хочу отметить, что в конференции УЕФА я всегда играл во втором составе.

 

 

В атаке команда во многом играла на голах своих нападающих: Матеты в Премьер-лиге и Нкетия в Лиге конференций УЕФА после того, как он вернулся после травмы. Пино и Сарр не соответствуют бомбардирской игре, и ни один из полузащитников не обладает значительным атакующим потенциалом (кроме, разве что, Уче).

Это заставило меня опасаться, что тактика сработала только из-за Матеты, поэтому второй тест проводился с командой без большого количества нападающих.

 

Тест №2: Ноттингемский лес

 

Не знаю почему, но Крис Вуд в этом FMM26 слаб. Альтернативы тоже не являются для меня чем-то особенным (может быть, у них есть потенциал для роста?).

В любом случае у «Фореста» хорошая защита и отличная полузащита. Хадсон-Одои тоже хороший центральный полузащитник, Ндойе неплох, но они единственные. В конце концов я адаптировал Хатчинсона в настоящую центральную полузащиту и вернулся из аренды Жоту Силву, чтобы у меня были альтернативы.

 

 

Результаты были практически такими же, как и в первом тесте против «Пэлас». На одну гол больше забито и на одну пропущено меньше, я также сыграл в одной игре больше, чем за «Пэлас», и по очкам всё было примерно одинаково.

В Лиге Европы УЕФА я также играл во второй команде, чтобы сосредоточиться на Премьер-лиге. Здесь мы также продолжаем играть в обоих внутренних кубах.

То, что я написал о тесте с Дворцом, применимостью и здесь.

 

 

Здесь у нас не было Матеты, но команда компенсировала отсутствие бомбардира, отставая голы между другими игроками. Это меня немного успокоило. Складывается впечатление, что команда, не имея бомбардира, ищет другие способы победить гол.

 

Ладно, это лучшее, что мне удалось. Думаю, это хорошая основа для начала.

Тем временем, возможно, будут найдены какие-то хитрости для определенных моментов игры: сохранить преимущество в конце матча, добиться победы в игре, в которой мы доминируем, и так похоже, но в нынешнем формате, я думаю, это уже позволяет нам добиваться определенных результатов.

Думаю, в этих тестах мы немного превзошли норму. Не могу отделаться от ощущений, которые в некоторых играх мне повезло, возможно, это просто мой обычный пессимизм, но, думаю, в текущих играх я мог бы набрать около 35/36 очков вместо 40/41, как у меня.

 

Но важно также помнить, что я действовал по принципу «подключи и работай»; в некоторых играх я мог бы добиться чего-то лучшего, если бы построил команду больше вируситься или больше атаковать, но я хотел протестировать эту версию без изменений, чтобы увидеть, как далеко мы сможем зайти таким, играя таким образом.

Для системы защиты, думаю, неплохо. Если найду улучшение, поделюсь.

But you still decided to go with BPD in the center defense and not the usual CD as it was in the first version. Are there any reasons for this?