How to beat 4-1-3W-2

[Tactician]

This formation has been a pain to play against, at least it has been for me.

He's obviously passing down the flanks, so maybe throw an extra body in attack and go 4-3w-3 and rely upon numerical superiority in terms of volume of attacking bodies! That's the last formation I've played against it that didn't lose. Just to note, that match was the champions league final (level 9), but even then the match was a struggle as it remained scoreless until past the 60th minute.

Ended up falling in CL group stages 1-3 against a similar formation 4-1-1-2w-2 while using 4-3w-3 in level 11. Then drew against it with 4-4-1-1 the following match.

Tried 3n-2w-2n-1-2 on a couple occasions in the CL groups stages (level 12 - 2 seasons ago). First match I started with 4-2-2-2 hexagon but found myself trailing 0-1 in the 60th minute; came back for a 2-1 win on the road with 3n-2w-2n-1-2. So next match I went back to the 3n-2w-2n-1-2 and got myself curb-stomped 0-3.

To be completely honest, counter-formations help but they aren't a guarantee to success. I've seen to many managers lose playing what is supposedly the counter-formation. Some players are just better than others (independent of quality) and play some formations/tactics better than others.

It is probably because of the orders (and/or arrows). Orders have a significant effect.
Orders and arrows can be standard, but for some matches, they must be adjusted as this depends on what orders and arrows the opponent put.

[cousland]

Why did you put red arrows on the ST? These were not from the orders I suggested.

Did you change the orders (to defensive and force counter attacks) when you switched to the other formation for the second half?

The red arrows on STs weren't there until after the second half, when I was already 2 goals behind. At that point it couldn't possibly hurt. And yes, I did change the orders to what you recommended when I changed the formation.

[Tactician]

Cousland, given the amount of goals your opponent scored against you, he probably was using an attacking or very attacking mentality. Given the bad ratings for your players, some orders (and definitely the two red arrows on the STs) were not appropriate.
So, using a defensive mentality with counter attacks might have been more appropriate.

3N-3W-2-2 should have prevented many of his attacks. Maybe you should have started this formation with the second set of orders I gave you.

I also suspect that the opponent was using hard tackling given the amount of tackles and fouls his players made.

According to the match statistics, your team had the most chances but your players missed all of them.

[Tactician]

The red arrows on STs weren't there until after the second half, when I was already 2 goals behind. At that point it couldn't possibly hurt. And yes, I did change the orders to what you recommended when I changed the formation.

Don't use red arrows on both strikers. If you want to experiment, or try red arrows on strikers to change the course of a game, use only one red arrow on one striker. Putting arrows on both STs does not mean that they have been instructed to attack more; no one from the company has told us what the arrows actually do.

[Tactician]

I also suspect that your opponent put arrows on some of his players. Post the ratings for the match so that I can see which of his players performed best and which of your players got an average or poor rating.

[Tactician]

Some players are just better than others (independent of quality) and play some formations/tactics better than others.

This might be possible too.

Another possibility is that the formations might be associated with the team too, that is this does not change even if you sell most of the players and replaced them with other players. Some teams seem to play narrow formations better or performed better when the focus is set to the middle.

[pcmacdaniel]

Cousland, given the amount of goals your opponent scored against you, he probably was using an attacking or very attacking mentality. Given the bad ratings for your players, some orders (and definitely the two red arrows on the STs) were not appropriate.
So, using a defensive mentality with counter attacks might have been more appropriate.

3N-3W-2-2 should have prevented many of his attacks. Maybe you should have started this formation with the second set of orders I gave you.

I also suspect that the opponent was using hard tackling given the amount of tackles and fouls his players made.

According to the match statistics, you team had the most chances but your players missed all of them.

Defensive mentality doesn't necessarily mean less goals. Well in real life it does, but in top eleven it doesn't. When I was level 11 my team won the Champions League QTR-final round with a 14:1 aggregate victory over a 5* team (barely escaped the group, finishing 1pt above 3rd, then this happened) . I had used hard defending for the entirety of both legs.

Nik also has made several posts about defensive tactics which should provide you a large sample size than me about how defense in T11 doesn't necessarily equate to less goals. There may be some other managers as well, but i'm not sure.

[Kylos]

Sorry for bumping up this thread. Was reading what you guys have said, Im facing 4-1-3w-2 and am thinking of using 3-3w-2-2.. My quality is 149.1 and opponents is 144.9. You think I should go normal or defensive?? His DMC is 7* though...

[Kylos]

Used the above formation and orders + arrows and got a 1-0 win today... Thanks