451v Move Screen by Screen

[Buster Keaton]

i think to solve the problem you need the option to set passing for each individual player also for the gk

instead whole team(short/ mixed/long)

the better option is to set tactics for each individual player (much more realistic)and more fun

it should be a good implement in the game if it possible

[Tactician]

i think to solve the problem you need the option to set passing for each individual player also for the gk

instead whole team(short/ mixed/long)

it should be a good implement in the game if it possible

I did put that in the suggestion area; I asked for the ability to give specific orders to each player.

[Buffs Mad]

Crappy capture today but....FK SA showing again

[Gert Funck]

Crappy capture today but....FK SA showing again

nice, do you have a dribbler or corner thingy? or is it only FK shown?

[Tactician]

By the way, how can 4-1-4-1 counter 4-3-3, when 4-1-2N-2W-1 is countered by 4-3-3? 4-1-2N-2W-1 is the same as 4-1-4-1 at the back but with more offensive players on the front sides. In fact, 4-1-2N-2W-1 should have caused more problems to 4-3-3, especially in the final third of the pitch.

[Buffs Mad]

nice, do you have a dribbler or corner thingy? or is it only FK shown?

I think I said before, its only for FKs where I've noticed this and I only have that one player with FK SA. Harper takes FK from the right, Gauld takes FK from the left. It only shows for Gauld. An SA has never shown in the vid caps for Gordon (1on1 stopper), Robertson (AD), Mulgrew (P-M), Baxter (SS) or Harper 1on1.

I have not seen a FK SA icon visible for an opposition player with FK SA when taking a FK.

So it remains the case that the only player that shows this effect is Gauld, which is why I can only say 'it happens" rather than "OMG, OMG, triggered SAs display".

Ofc anyone with access to the Beta app could share too.

[Buffs Mad]

By the way, how can 4-1-4-1 counter 4-3-3, when 4-1-2N-2W-1 is countered by 4-3-3? 4-1-2N-2W-1 is the same as 4-1-4-1 at the back but with more offensive players on the front sides. In fact, 4-1-2N-2W-1 should have caused more problems to 4-3-3, especially in the final third of the pitch.

In other words its not the 'same as'. You only focus on the offensive where the difference is less significant than the defensive. You also make the assumption that the only differences between formations are positional ones and seem to be ignoring the possibility of programmed playstyles (which we can then add 'more' or 'less' too).

[Buffs Mad]

By the way, how can 4-1-4-1 counter 4-3-3, when 4-1-2N-2W-1 is countered by 4-3-3? 4-1-2N-2W-1 is the same as 4-1-4-1 at the back but with more offensive players on the front sides. In fact, 4-1-2N-2W-1 should have caused more problems to 4-3-3, especially in the final third of the pitch.

Taking it only from a positional sense.........

You can look at 451v and think because it has advanced wingers that it will do a better job but numerically its still only 3 v 4 up front if you omit the mcs as the prime attacking threat.



But, if you consider 433 to be an aggressive formation then being able to nullify that threat more effectively from their midfield forward just might be the key. With the 2nd set up the 3n3 doesn't look so bad



But anyway, no matter the whys the hows or the wtfs.

I change from 451v to play 4141 v 433. Additionally if my squad can manage the change should there be a switch, I will start 433 against 451v. But ofc nothing is 100%.

A similar situation exists for what I choose when faced with 413n2, 413w2, 43n12 or 43w12. 451v is my preferred choice against 2 of those (1 with a dmc and 1 with amc) and 4141 the other 2 (again 1 with dmc and 1 with amc). (Although now I have a dmc/mc it adds another 'no sub switch' with 432w1 ).