I play this evening an opponent playing 4-2DMC-AML-AMR-ST-ST. The possession stats of the team looked normal in the previous league matches (worst possession ratio was 43-57), so I don't think that not having a ML, MC, MR (unconfirmed case) leads to an illegal formation.
The formation looks like a variation of the hexagon, so I will try a 4-4-2 against it.
Founded: January, 16th 2013
League level: 20
"We are no cup team, we are a pub team"
- FCK stories from time to time, when I look around. -
Post screenshots from your match, if you can, and if he uses the formation vs you. Looking at past results (that you didn't watch) is not conclusive.Originally Posted by Chris Rath
~^~*~^~ My opinions are best when taken with a grain of salt. No iodine added. ~^~*~^~
He is correct. Not having ML/MC/MR is not illegal as I have also played against teams without one and no possession penalty was given
Season 15 - Level 15
League Winners (14) - Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
26-0-0 league (4) - Levels 3, 4, 7 & 8
Undefeated in league (11) - Levels 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14
Cup winners (2) - Level 1 & 14
Cup 3rd place (1) - Level 12
Champions League Winners (10) - Levels 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Champions League Runners up(1) - Level 9
>My team<
Please explain why this formation is illegal then:
Consistently, lack of a mid-row player results in an illegal formation.
If you can show otherwise, please do. I can't.
If you can provide an alternate theory why the above 5-0-0-3w-2 formation is illegal, please do. I can't.
~^~*~^~ My opinions are best when taken with a grain of salt. No iodine added. ~^~*~^~
A remark in another thread makes me wonder if this rule misinterprets what a midfielder is?Please explain why this formation is illegal then:
Consistently, lack of a mid-row player results in an illegal formation.
If you can show otherwise, please do. I can't.
If you can provide an alternate theory why the above 5-0-0-3w-2 formation is illegal, please do. I can't.
Thus it could be:
- at least 3 midfielders (DM*, M*, AM*) at least one of which has to be in the middle row (MC, ML or MR) *This rule isn't totally confirmed
- at least x midfielders (DM* or M*) (AM* not counting as a 'midfielder' )
That would fit both observations, i think.
Test cases for x = 1:
- 5-1-0-1-3 (1 DM* midfielder) ILLEGAL
- 5-0-1-1-3 (1 M* midfielder) ILLEGAL
- 5-1-0-2-2 LEGAL
Pretty solid case for adjusting the rule to:
at least 3 midfielders (DM*, M*, AM*) at least one of which has to be an DM* or M*
Accounts for all known observations at this time.
Last edited by Razz; 04-28-2013 at 01:15 PM.
~^~*~^~ My opinions are best when taken with a grain of salt. No iodine added. ~^~*~^~
How about 4-3-3?
--ST ST ST--
--------------
--MC----MC--
--------------
-----MC-----
DL-DC-DC-DR
-----GK-------
I read about needing to have Wingers then is counted as a legal formations, but in this case, i dont have any wingers, is it ok?
Read the first post in this thread. Do you still have questions?
~^~*~^~ My opinions are best when taken with a grain of salt. No iodine added. ~^~*~^~
46Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
