Off course you loose big, narrow diamond attacks through the middle and you dont have a midfield, only 2 players (MC/AMC)
Off course you loose big, narrow diamond attacks through the middle and you dont have a midfield, only 2 players (MC/AMC)
Hi guys, pardon my ignorance but aren't ML and MR midfield players too?
I appreciate the advice given about how certain formations play through the middle or down the flanks. But I am wondering, if one team plays a particular way, wouldn't playing your team the opposite way also benefit you?
For example, if narrow diamond plays through the middle, why should only Awglan's team suffer? Awglan will have ML and MR players, and IF Awglan plays down the flanks, wouldn't Awglan exploit his opponent's lack of cover on the flanks?
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. Just trying to get a better understanding.
Thanks again.
I totally agree with your argument, if narrow diamond benefits through the middle play. Then my formation should take him through the flanks. That is why Im thinking that narrow diamond is unbalanced. And it was not like he had 20-80 possession it was 50-50% and had almost same amount of shots fired.
1. Don't look at overall team quality, compare the first 11.
2. Did you played through the flanks?
3. What were the after-match ratings for his DL & DR and your ML & MR?
4. How did his team scored the gools? strikers? midfielders?
My guess is he played defensive, mixed or long pass, maybe with hard tackling
Per aspera ad astra...
reds on DL/DR --> DML/DMR likewise.
reds on MR/ML (like 4-4-2 flat usually uses) -> AML/AMR
DML/AML and DMR/AMR plays in the same field zone, so if your defenders are better you tend to stop almost everything in there. An additional blue arrow on your dmc can make him help the remaining 2 DCs if you are facing 2 STs. or the 2 DCs can dispose of the lone st.
Additionally, DR/DL get aid from the dmc on the sides.