Good defensive formations

[cracicot]

I think he means this:

------------ST-------------
---------------------------
------MC---MC---MC-------
-DML------DMC-------DMR-
-------DC--DC---DC-------

This formation is almost pure defense. I dont think there are many others out there without being illegal formations.

3-6-1 or 5-4-1, they are both hard to break down regardless of which formation you choose.


------------ST-------------
---------------------------
------MC---MC---MC-------
-----------DMC------------
-DL----DC--DC---DC-----DL


Of course, you have to pick the right tool for the job. You dont use a hammer to tighten a screw, so your orders have to be correct to justify your decision. I think the opponents formation and the desired result are key to the decision. So you have to iron out a few variables before you go with a formation.

[Potemy]

I think he means this:

------------ST-------------
---------------------------
------MC---MC---MC-------
-DML------DMC-------DMR-
-------DC--DC---DC-------

This formation is almost pure defense. I dont think there are many others out there without being illegal formations.

3-6-1 or 5-4-1, they are both hard to break down regardless of which formation you choose.


------------ST-------------
---------------------------
------MC---MC---MC-------
-----------DMC------------
-DL----DC--DC---DC-----DL


Of course, you have to pick the right tool for the job. You dont use a hammer to tighten a screw, so your orders have to be correct to justify your decision. I think the opponents formation and the desired result are key to the decision. So you have to iron out a few variables before you go with a formation.

No, that's not what I meant. I said in my last post, the actual placement, wide or narrow, depends on the opponent's formation.

4-5-1 is a possibility too, 4-2-3-0-1, I guess.

So far this season, I've used 3-3-2-2 and 3-3-2-1-1, as below, to get past my Cup preliminary and first league match respectively, both against teams with scouts playing 4-3W-3.

-----ST-------ST------|----------ST----------
-----------------------|-------------------AMR
-----MC------MC------|--ML--MC--------------
DML-----DMC-----DMR-|-----DMC-----DMC-DMR
-----DC--DC--DC------|--DL--DC--DC----------

[cracicot]

No, that's not what I meant. I said in my last post, the actual placement, wide or narrow, depends on the opponent's formation.

4-5-1 is a possibility too, 4-2-3-0-1, I guess.

So far this season, I've used 3-3-2-2 and 3-3-2-1-1, as below, to get past my Cup preliminary and first league match respectively, both against teams with scouts playing 4-3W-3.

-----ST-------ST------|----------ST----------
-----------------------|-------------------AMR
-----MC------MC------|--ML--MC--------------
DML-----DMC-----DMR-|-----DMC-----DMC-DMR
-----DC--DC--DC------|--DL--DC--DC----------

Yes amigo, but the ultimate question was: can someone give me some good defensive formations.

Unfortunately, I mis-interpreted your post, which is easy to do with the lack of some vital info. If I made this mistake, many others could too. just sayin.

As I said in my post, the opponents formation is key. We both know this. I think my formation was a bit more defensive but it does not make it better. I believe we have both given him some very good defensive formations.

[Potemy]

Yes amigo, but the ultimate question was: can someone give me some good defensive formations.

Unfortunately, I mis-interpreted your post, which is easy to do with the lack of some vital info. If I made this mistake, many others could too. just sayin.

As I said in my post, the opponents formation is key. We both know this. I think my formation was a bit more defensive but it does not make it better. I believe we have both given him some very good defensive formations.

How did you misinterpret my post? Yes, I also said the opponent's formation is a factor, and I think even the players. In my first league match, my opponent had a strong team in 4-3W-3 except his left ST who was 2*, that's why I played that asymmetric formation.

For me, 3-3-3-0-1 is the best defensive formation. The minimal 1 ST is present, as well as 3 Ms to have 4 players in the opponent's half. I explained why I prefer DMs, but you need 3 defenders, so 3-3-3-1, again, actual player position depends.

[Potemy]

Yeah, the main formation is there, of course, just 3 players in each of the back rows, and then 1 ST to keep it legal, but not necessarily 3N-3W-3N-1. I'm not making an issue out of this, though, most of my post isn't even a reply to yours.

How did you misinterpret my post? Yes, I also said the opponent's formation is a factor, and I think even the players. In my first league match, my opponent had a strong team in 4-3W-3 except his left ST who was 2*, that's why I played that asymmetric formation.

For me, 3-3-3-0-1 is the best defensive formation. The minimal 1 ST is present, as well as 3 Ms to have 4 players in the opponent's half. I explained why I prefer DMs, but you need 3 defenders, so 3-3-3-1, again, actual player position depends.

We both said the opponent's formation is important, you've agreed with that, so no issue there. I then go on to point out that even the players are important, using my own experience from my first league match this season. In the second paragraph, I explain my views on the best defensive formation, and how I came to it. Everything I've said is related to the topic, and nothing to do with you.

[cracicot]

No, that's not what I meant. I said in my last post, the actual placement, wide or narrow, depends on the opponent's formation.

If you say that is not what you meant, then I mis-interpreted your post. 3-3-3-1 is not hard to interpret and based on your reply, I think I got the main formation spot on. What I dont understand is why you are making an issue out of this.

At the end of the day, we are both trying to help this guy. I thought I interpreted your post properly, and for the most part, I did. There are many factors which can tweak the said formation, and we both pointed that out.

SO.....why do I sense attitude? I mean no disrespect. I was just trying to help.