Formations and tactics ideas!

[Awe Imoleayo Peter]

Or maybe managers playing 4-5-1v are the one replying.

[Abhinavsharma]

Or maybe managers playing 4-5-1v are the one replying.

If others dont reply thats fine.

[Abhinavsharma]

5-1dmc-2-2 also worked for me when opponent is on heavy attack.

[Abhinavsharma]

4-5-1v is bad against narrow diamonds formation as well as 4-4-2 classic untill you play down the flanks it works well.

[Tactician]

There is no best formation as this varies from situation to situation, and also this depends on what is the most used formation and tactics among opponents in a particular batch.

For instance, if you are in a league, where say more than 50% of the opposing teams use a common formation, and the formation you usually use is among the ones that counters this particular formation, you will likely to say that the formation you used is the best formation. But, then what if the next season, you are put in a league where 50% of the opposing teams usually use a formation that counters your usually used formation? Does that make your formation be among the worst? No. Many of the replies here might be biased due to past experiences (what worked for them) and/or preference in style of play.

But, it is possible to classify some formations according to which generally works (including which formation counters the most formations), which cost less to use and so on.

4-1-2-1-2 N.D and 4-3N-3N can be classified as good attacking formations. They are also relatively low on cost, though 4-3(N)-3(N) is even more cheaper to use, and is also less predictable.

4-5-1-(V) is a very good counter-attacking formation. While some people may say that this formation is flexible, it is in fact limited, and it is predictable (I won't say how so as not to disclose things that may affect some users positively or negatively. That is up to you to find out.). It is also a formation that costs a lot to use and maintain. AMLs and AMRs, especially the good ones or the right ones, are more difficult to find on the market as compared to MCs and STs, though this might vary from server to server.

It seems that 4-4-2 is a good formation too. But, MLs and MRs might be more difficult to find as compared to MCs.

I would classify those 4 formations mentioned above as more appropriate for debutants and lower-intermediates. Once a user gets to know the basics of those formations, he is likely to win some competitions by using one or two of them (in fact, some have won a lot using mostly those formations).

3N-2W-2N-2W-1 (Butterfly) is an expensive formation to use as in addition to AMLs and AMRs, there is the need for DMLs and DMRs.

[Abhinavsharma]

There is no best formation as this varies from situation to situation, and also this depends on what is the most used formation and tactics among opponents in a particular batch.

For instance, if you are in a league, where say more than 50% of the opposing teams use a common formation, and the formation you usually use is among the ones that counters this particular formation, you will likely to say that the formation you used is the best formation. But, then what if the next season, you are put in a league where 50% of the opposing teams usually use a formation that counters your usually used formation? Does that make your formation be among the worst? No. Many of the replies here might be biased due to past experiences (what worked for them) and/or preference in style of play.

But, it is possible to classify some formations according to which generally works (including which formation counters the most formations), which cost less to use and so on.

4-1-2-1-2 N.D and 4-3N-3N can be classified as good attacking formations. They are also relatively low on cost, though 4-3(N)-3(N) is even more cheaper to use, and is also less predictable.

4-5-1-(V) is a very good counter-attacking formation. While some people may say that this formation is flexible, it is in fact limited, and it is predictable (I won't say how so as not to disclose things that may affect some users positively or negatively. That is up to you to find out.). It is also a formation that costs a lot to use and maintain. AMLs and AMRs, especially the good ones or the right ones, are more difficult to find on the market as compared to MCs And STs, though this might vary from server to server.

It seems that 4-4-2 is a good formation too. But, MLs and MRs might be more difficult to find as compared to MCs.

I would classify those 4 formations mentioned above as more appropriate for debutants and lower-intermediates. Once a user gets to know the basics of those formations, he is likely to win some competitions by using one or two of them (in fact, some have won a lot using mostly those formations).

3N-2W-2N-2W-1 (Butterfly) is an expensive formation to use as in addition to AMLs and AMRs, there is the need for DMLs and DMRs.

Any tactical idea for using 4-2mc-2W-2st?

[Arion]

Any tactical idea for using 4-2mc-2W-2st?

That's way attacking. With hexagonal formation I prefer short and mixed passes, due to the close proximity of the majority of players, it's easy to build up attacks. Butterfly can also be classified as a hex, with an extra DC.

[Arion]

3N-2W-2N-2W-1 (Butterfly) is an expensive formation to use as in addition to AMLs and AMRs, there is the need for DMLs and DMRs.

My server has more DML/ML and DMR/MR than attacking midfielders. Since people rarely ever use them it won't be surprising to get them for a T.

[Tactician]

Any tactical idea for using 4-2mc-2W-2st?

By just looking at the formation, it is evident that you have to make use of the wings. Appropriate passing orders will more likely be mixed or short. DR and DL may be asked to provide support in attack, especially if short passing is set as preferred. It can also be played with high pressing.

In terms of personal preference, it's not something that I would like to use. I have used this formation only once or twice, where on one of the occasions, it failed against a weaker team despite looking good as counter formation on paper at that time. This formation, while it might look very pleasing to the eye (seems very good in attack), will likely to fail in many cases, because it is very weak in midfield, especially the centre part. An opponent can easily exploit this. While you might score a few goals if your opponent has weaknesses on the wings and at the back, you will likely concede a lot goals and also fail to retain possession; and, given the fact that a team using such an attacking formation can only score provided that it has enough possession, if you cannot get enough hold of the ball, you will have trouble scoring goals despite having 4 players upfront. It is likely that you will lose or draw games (1-0, 1-1) against weaker normal or defensive teams, especially if you do not attend the match, and can 'easily' lose games with high scores against attacking and very attacking teams. This formation can be classified as an inferior formation for general use.

[Abhinavsharma]

So we must prefer blue arrows on Mc's and long passes to bind the midfield gap?