Mmmhhh... I'll never understand the "logic" of this game.

[HateMeNow]

I hate people when they don't have a clue what they are talking about...

3-3W-2MC-2 is a counter to 4-1-1-2W-2, because not only does it allow you to dominate the midfield section, but it also makes your defense pretty much impenetrable, since the wingers are guarded one on one, and the striker 3 vs only 2.

Check this post for a confirmation : http://forum.topeleven.com/formation...-what-use.html

Because of the domination in the MF section, you can afford to play "attacking" as you'll have the ball most of the time (especially if you have 3 red arrows on the DM's). This is why my possession was so high in the first half.

Not to be rude but before you open it to spit out BS, first check out to see if what you are bratting about is actually accurate. Thank you.

I do think you rely too much on the post counter rather then to common sense. It is true that you dominate the midfield with the 3-3 sistem but what you miss here is that it's still a defensive setup. Even if by dominating you "can" go offensive, that doesn't mean that the formation used adapts to it. Might be your way of playing, but i can assure you that a defensive/counter on tactic with a 3-3 sistem would provide lot more goals and overall better results that the offensive one. Your possession was high due to what you said + 15% bonus (more than 10 anyways i do think?)

Now to look better into it: in your opener post you don't understand how the engine could work out such result, which on your opinion is a troll i take it: as i see it (and i am a believer of the troll engine) what lacked back there wasn't the fact that you let one goal slip but rather that you weren't able to score at all in the first half. As matter of facts you managed to score only late in the game despite your so called "offensive setup", and you had to go hard attacking aswell. Few points i'd like to let you get are:

1-You can play as much offensively as you want BUT if you lack players in the opposite side of the fiels then you won't be able to seal the deal. What you use can be handy and 99% work against weaker teams as even your defensive guys should have better Q at shooting/dribbling than any opponent. But when facing similar qualities the engine will calculate the dribbling Q vs the marking Q deciding if you go away or not, and the shoot Q vs the marking/keeping Q right after. So defensive players are at disavantage for their lower stats. On the other side, if you made up DMs with offensive power rather than balanced/defensive/fitness ones then you compensate partially, but your DMs won't be as effective when defending, hence even with 2 walls you can take goals (as it happened). Either way DMs won't be as effective as MCs or AMs when it comes to break similar Q teams.

2-I believe that 3-3-2-2 is a counter for that module, however you're basing yourself on the counter formation thread which is dated and obsolete since at least 4 seasons. proves are that 4-4-2 ain't anymore that easy to break with ND, and 4-5-1V ie is useless now against it. I might have a low post count but i spent enough time testing modules against similar Q teams to see what's still effective, as i can field the 100% of the possible formations in this game.

3-From point 2, you had to face a 2W-2 attack, and you countered with a 3-3. Not only you had one man too much into the defense, but he was also double and triple marking the opponents who where already double and triple marked (AML is marked by DMR, DCr, AMR by DML,DCl, Sts by DC DC DC): As result, you almost nullified his attacks but since you're playing on an AI, there is no way that you can totally shut down the chanches. In fact, you took a goal in.

4-An MC or AMC woud have totally changed the scoring table: even if there's a DMC in play, your AMC keeps him busy enough to let your STs and expecially MCs free to ride. A second MC gets you the same effect of the dmc, but can turn into AMC when attacking with a red arrow so not only grant you cover, but cover the lack of attacking players too.

5-You might have a wall as defence, but that'll leave your opponent free to press. With so many defensive players you have the upper possession cause simply you are able to cover every area and steal almost any ball. As minus tho, your players don't have enough connections with the opponent's field so you won't nearly have as many chanches as you would with one player connecting the two fields. If by possession you have your team pass the ball between defender and DM's lines, than it's useless. Proof: you had an hard time finding the goal.

6-From point 5, when you play too much on that zone it's only natural that your DMs and DCs will be pressured and commit fouls time by time. When this happens, you have to raise the playzone to midfield or their defensive field. But after you even took the 0-1 you didn't change anything in the second half, and on top of that you got one sent out too.
To me, it seems you rely totally on the counter formation thread rather then figure out what is best during the match. This might be quite remunerative and safe, but when this **** happens you're left bsically with no clue on what to do, apart from obviously replace a DC not to fall on illegal. Counters are useful, but what is more useful is intuition. If not, everyone using the counter formation thread would win almost everything. But doesn't happen. Remember that the counter thread is made not by Nordeus but by players with their experiences: not only it is at best 50% reliable, but with no updates, it can backfire. If you bother to read ALL the pages instead of just page 1, you'll notice that counters change every time and every match. This time you won, but if the opponent was present and changed formation after the red card, what would have happened?

7-You posted here waiting replies, and the fact that you didn't like mine doesn't allow you to actually call it BS. If you came here just to hear out "poor you" or "fkin troll engine" then you should post on Vent thread. I took interest in your post and replied those who seemed to me a PARTIAL explanation. To me it seems that rather then trying to unerstand what i wrote down, you noticed i'm new to the forum and shoot me out. WOuld i have messaged DVD or July with a copy paste of what i wrote, you'd prolly have thought a whole different way.

I'll admit i was lazy enough to reply hastily without specifying any point i made, so here you go with the boring >9000 words. You're free to disagree, but you should do it politely. After all, let me show off a bit and tell that as far as experience go i can safely say i'm near Dv8 and July's ones