How this can be f****ing possible ?

[kebess]

Thats not a troll result, 4-3N-3 works well vs 4-5-1 V

Why?
--

[Cat Harrison]

Middle field tied up so their strikers are free?

[kebess]

Middle field tied up so their strikers are free?

Hmmm, have to say, I'm still not convinced, but since I truly find this result odd, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. : )

The thing is his ST were anything but free... There were 5 players on them (at least 2 on each one of the 3). So I'm not seeing how they were free, : (

[dv8r]

Why?
--

Do not question the game engine. I have tried 4-5-1v against the 4-3N-3 many times and got negative results.

This game engine has no logical sense, I wouldn't worry about why and how it counters it lol.

[Cat Harrison]

That was an abject guess, I put the "?" there to indicate such.
=)

"So it is what it is." Sometimes the engine just does things, if it does them over and over at least you can say "this doesn't work."

[kebess]

Do not question the game engine. I have tried 4-5-1v against the 4-3N-3 many times and got negative results.

This game engine has no logical sense, I wouldn't worry about why and how it counters it lol.

I see, : ) I guess this puts an end to the discussion !
I'm a rather logical person, so I can't really function otherwise. Guess, I'll just swing by it...

Middle field tied up

I put a lot of importance in midfield control, and usually I make sure to have at least one more man in that area of the field exactly to have an edge. I guess, in this case, I underestimated my opponent so much that I just wanted to score 10+ goals, by attacking the flanks, and not worry to much about the rest... namely, the midfield control.

[kebess]

That was an abject guess, I put the "?" there to indicate such.
=)

"So it is what it is." Sometimes the engine just does things, if it does them over and over at least you can say "this doesn't work."

Hehe, I thought that "?" was you being sarcastic...

[kebess]

Thats not a troll result, 4-3N-3 works well vs 4-5-1 V

By the way, I just saw this on your sticky formation guide :

4-3-3

--ST--ST--ST--
----------------
--MC--MC--MC--
----------------
DL--DC--DC--DR

4-3-3 is an attacking formation that many managers like to use especially those that just like to fill their team with tons of strikers, however its very weak in the midfield and again formations like 3-5-2, 4-5-1 V and even 4-4-2 Classic should be able to beat this.

Is your guide completely out of date and should be unstickied, or you're simply and totally contradicting yourself here ?

[July Fourth]

By the way, I just saw this on your sticky formation guide :



Is your guide completely out of date and should be unstickied, or you're simply and totally contradicting yourself here ?

That was wrote when we had no idea that 4-5-1 V was getting owned by 4-3-3. I've edited it.

[kebess]

OK, out of date then, : )

So this conclusion is really from various people's experience with losing against 4-3-3, with a 4-5-1V ?