Attacking middle or flanks

Printable View

03-23-2017
Vernie83

Attacking middle or flanks

Hi everyone. One doubt that keeps me wondering. In order to decide if attacking through the middle or the flanks what do you consider first? The tactic of the opponent, or yours? For instance, if the opponent plays without an DMC I most of the times go middle even I play with ML MR AML AMR. Is that correct?

Obviously if the player plays with 3Dw I go flanks but if he isn't I don't know for sure what is best. Does anyone can shine a light on this? I would appreciate it.

Thanks in advance
03-23-2017
Toxcatl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vernie83

Hi everyone. One doubt that keeps me wondering. In order to decide if attacking through the middle or the flanks what do you consider first? The tactic of the opponent, or yours? For instance, if the opponent plays without an DMC I most of the times go middle even I play with ML MR AML AMR. Is that correct?

Obviously if the player plays with 3Dw I go flanks but if he isn't I don't know for sure what is best. Does anyone can shine a light on this? I would appreciate it.

Thanks in advance

See oppo's formation -> set your formation to counter him -> set orders for your formation.
For example, no reason to play ND and go through flanks if your opponent have 3Dn-DMC. It's like trying to sprint backwards instead of just turning around.
03-23-2017
Vernie83

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toxcatl

See oppo's formation -> set your formation to counter him -> set orders for your formation.
For example, no reason to play ND and go through flanks if your opponent have 3Dn-DMC. It's like trying to sprint backwards instead of just turning around.

I know what you mean. But your example is pretty clear. Let me put another example. What if the oppo play a 4 4 1 1? Make sense if I go 4 1DMC 3W 1 1, cause he's got no DMC and go through the middle, or should I go the flanks?

Thanks
03-23-2017
Toxcatl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vernie83

I know what you mean. But your example is pretty clear. Let me put another example. What if the oppo play a 4 4 1 1? Make sense if I go 4 1DMC 3W 1 1, cause he's got no DMC and go through the middle, or should I go the flanks?

4-x-4-x flat formations are the hardest IMHO. Strong defence and no weak spots, especially for 4-1-4-1. You can try the middle, flanks or mixed, just use positions your players play the best.
But again, if you use AML/AMR, don't go through the middle. If you want to go through the middle, don't use AML/R.

As for 4-1-3w-1-1, it is not a counter-formation for anything. Use 4-1-4-1 flat instead and attack through the middle or mixed (MC/L/R are more attaking players than defending).
03-23-2017
Vernie83

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vernie83

I know what you mean. But your example is pretty clear. Let me put another example. What if the oppo play a 4 4 1 1? Make sense if I go 4 1DMC 3W 1 1, cause he's got no DMC and go through the middle, or should I go the flanks?

Thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toxcatl

4-x-4-x flat formations are the hardest IMHO. Strong defence and no weak spots, especially for 4-1-4-1. You can try the middle, flanks or mixed, just use positions your players play the best.
But again, if you use AML/AMR, don't go through the middle. If you want to go through the middle, don't use AML/R.

As for 4-1-3w-1-1, it is not a counter-formation for anything. Use 4-1-4-1 flat instead and attack through the middle or mixed (MC/L/R are more attaking players than defending).

I will do it, thanks Toxcatl
03-23-2017
Toxcatl

I played against 4-4-2 today (CL), he was 6% stronger. I started with 4-1-4-1 (def, middle, long, counters), but he had a way better stat and scored. In the 2nd half I switched to ND (normal, middle, long, counters off) and won 2-1. His SoT stayed a little bit better, but not that much as in the 1st half.
03-24-2017
Vernie83

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toxcatl

I played against 4-4-2 today (CL), he was 6% stronger. I started with 4-1-4-1 (def, middle, long, counters), but he had a way better stat and scored. In the 2nd half I switched to ND (normal, middle, long, counters off) and won 2-1. His SoT stayed a little bit better, but not that much as in the 1st half.

In 2nd half you don't play with counter on? I almost always that play long play with counters on. But most of the times I play mixed
03-26-2017
Toxcatl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vernie83

In 2nd half you don't play with counter on? I almost always that play long play with counters on. But most of the times I play mixed

I switched counters off, because I needed posession.

Second game was ND (me) against 4-3w(m*)-3(st). I played defensively with counters+long, got better stat and won 2-0.
03-26-2017
sgreenaway1348

Personally I have never attacked through the middle as I don't find it affective at all!!!! Use the mixed instructions. I find attacking down the flanks affective against formations which don't have a lm/mr or a dml/dmr. For example against the 4-1-2-1-2 Narrow.
03-27-2017
Vernie83

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toxcatl

I switched counters off, because I needed posession.

Second game was ND (me) against 4-3w(m*)-3(st). I played defensively with counters+long, got better stat and won 2-0.

And do you know how possession could offer you more than counters? Just asking, because I don't even know how to balance both, if more counter or more possession, because sometimes you can win having only 40% and lose having 60% or more.

Thanks in advance man
03-27-2017
Vernie83

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgreenaway1348

Personally I have never attacked through the middle as I don't find it affective at all!!!! Use the mixed instructions. I find attacking down the flanks affective against formations which don't have a lm/mr or a dml/dmr. For example against the 4-1-2-1-2 Narrow.

Well I disagree, there are formations that are weaker on the flanks and others through the middle. What I don't even know is, for example, if you go with an 4 5 1V, if you can attack middle and so....