Season 93 - Are you ready?

[Tactician]

Ok lets put on the table another option, just many people with same conditions have a wave of same bad results so, then, is when the conspiration begins xD

...^^`

who knows the truth?... nobody really... we just think what others want us to think... and what we prefeer to think... lol


Probably all is the same history as always, "players are all"... that simple..... this talking about the V or any other formation.... then about the STs sudden change I am not so sure of what to say.... maybe is time to recovery my first 4-3-3?.... and see if I can find again a good line of strikers?...

lol, funny you 're saying that Khris as we 're playing in the same asso group and you can see that most of the times I 'm using this formation.
After 4 seasons of staying in the same level, my team is too strong (7*-8*, 135% q) so I had many games vs more strong opponents (the asso higher q team, usually a 150% q team).
But still I can have good results wit 1/2 or 1* less q team.

I have to agree with Nik and MadFlo about the 4-5-1v. Most of my losses are against that formation.

Hahaha.

Jokes aside, I never lost to a 4-5-1(V) and 'never' lost to a 4-3N-3 (though I did lose one in testing accounts, but that does not count), even against stronger ones, but this is not really by chance. I even defeated a strong and very active 4-5-1(V) (not passive, that is not the one that would sit back and wait for counter-attacking opportunities, but attacking and pressing like Barcelona) 4-3 way back during the early weeks of the associations. For me, when I see an opponent with 4-5-1(V) or 4-3-3, it is like the win is almost in the bag. Sure, there are still some doubts at times, but those two formations are among the ones I mastered on how to beat them.

Nik (4-5-1(V)) and khris (4-3-3) never faced me, and khris (4-2-3W-1) never faced me. But if ever I had to face those 3, I would be more worry about the 4-2-3W-1 than the other two. I learned a bit how to deal with the 4-2-3W-1 too but lack practice against it. But, nowadays, in this game, it seems that formations do not matter much like before, and even quality on its own, unless you have large quality differences. Many formations can beat many other formations by other means other than the base positioning of players according to the formation used itself.

I would like to mention something though. It was Nik that showed me how to play with 4-5-1(V) in this game (I mean the defensive and counter-attacking style) when I was in L2. At that time, I did not have much knowledge of the game, and that little bit that Nik showed me did help me to win some things.

[pcmacdaniel]

Hahaha.

Jokes aside, I never lost to a 4-5-1(V) and 'never' lost to a 4-3N-3 (though I did lose one in testing accounts, but that does not count), even against stronger ones, but this is not really by chance. I even defeated a strong and very active 4-5-1(V) (not passive, that is not the one that would sit back and wait for counter-attacking opportunities, but attacking and pressing like Barcelona) 4-3 way back during the early weeks of the associations. For me, when I see an opponent with 4-5-1(V) or 4-3-3, it is like the win is almost in the bag. Sure, there are still some doubts at times, but those two formations are among the ones I mastered on how to beat them.

Nik (4-5-1(V)) and khris (4-3-3) never faced me, and khris (4-2-3W-1) never faced me. But if ever I had to face those 3, I would be more worry about the 4-2-3W-1 than the other two. I learned a bit how to deal with the 4-2-3W-1 too but lack practice against it. But, nowadays, in this game, it seems that formations do not matter much like before, and even quality on its own, unless you have large quality differences. Many formations can beat many other formations by other means other than the base positioning of players according to the formation used itself.

I would like to mention something though. It was Nik that showed me how to play with 4-5-1(V) in this game (I mean the defensive and counter-attacking style) when I was in L2. At that time, I did not have much knowledge of the game, and that little bit that Nik showed me did help me to win some things.

Tactican, the thing that makes the 4-5-1v difficult to play against is that there is an alternate tactical setup to it. I usually play it the same way Nik does, however in addition to the one Nik mentioned, there is an attacking V. It's setup with something like attacking/hard attacking, short passing (usually), high press, force counters on (I saw your post about the weird orders of force counters + attacking working in this game, and it seems to in the case of this tactic as well).. So when you setup against the "V" managers (especially if it's an opponent one isn't familiar with) are in the dark about figuring out the opponent, more so than they would be if they face other formations. If I know my opponent is playing 4-5-1v, defense + counters, i'm going to have a higher success rate, than if I'm in the dark. But this is the one formation (more so than others), that could be playing defense, normal or attacking. It's a very difficult read.

[Tactician]

Tactican, the thing that makes the 4-5-1v difficult to play against is that there is an alternate tactical setup to it. I usually play it the same way Nik does, however in addition to the one Nik mentioned, there is an attacking V. It's setup with something like attacking/hard attacking, short passing (usually), high press, force counters on (I saw your post about the weird orders of force counters + attacking working in this game, and it seems to in the case of this tactic as well).. So when you setup against the "V" managers (especially if it's an opponent one isn't familiar with) are in the dark about figuring out the opponent, more so than they would be if they face other formations. If I know my opponent is playing 4-5-1v, defense + counters, i'm going to have a higher success rate, than if I'm in the dark. But this is the one formation (more so than others), that could be playing defense, normal or attacking. It's a very difficult read.

Attacking or defensive 4-5-1(V), there is one line that seems to be a common one. When you have it in your formation, the 4-5-1(V) is already put at a disadvantage as a whole. Then there is another line, this can be either the defensive line or the offensive like. If you go for the offensive line, the (V) cannot defend against that, and if you go for the defensive line, it cannot attack against that. In some cases, there may be large scores, but still the V is beaten. In the past, an opponent almost beat Nik out of the Champions League because he had part of those lines above. If he managed to complete the puzzle, he would have been through unless the game sided fully to Nik's side. So, he ended up losing, but narrowly.

You get the other ones too - the one that plays normal and even mixed, mixed (not even focusing to the flanks). The harder one I have faced was the attacking one, one that seemed to press high and with the manager himself knows what other orders he used. What I saw on the pitch was as soon as my player got the ball in my own half, he was surrounded with players like bees swarming (like Barcelona pressing) and had no room to breath. It could have been Hard Attacking, High Pressing, Man-on-Man Marking, Hard Tackling and Offside. His side defenders were up too in my half. One match ended 4-3 and the other ended 3-2. In one match, I went offensive and in the other I went with defensive (using the appropriate lines) despite that the opponent probably used the same approach (maybe more intense in one of the matches). In one match, the A.M even indicated that what i was using was very good and that left the opponent with no options for his 4-5-1(V). But the game seems to have changed; so things might not be the same, but some elements seem still to be around. Also, you must have the players too - those players that are are just programmed to do well. I had one at back on my left side, and this one shut a good part of the menace from his side of the flank, while on the other side I had an average one, and so he let some attacks through or had trouble dealing with the attackers on this side (yellow card).

But nowadays, more is required. What look like teams using centre-attacking formations may attack through the flanks, and they win too. So, it just not you would see say 4-5-1(V), so you would block the flanks and attack the flanks, or you would see narrow diamond, you would block the middle and attack the flanks. The opponent could be doing the reverse of what you would expect based on the formation he put. What is funny in there is that many did not even intend to do it - I mean by chance they put things like that and they turn out to be game changers for particular matches. How is he attacking, and who is he pushing up to boost his numbers in front? This one is difficult to find out itself. It took me one full match (+ some time after) to figure out how an opponent was probably attacking in a Cup match this season, and I lost the game 2-0 at home. He used what seemed to be a middle attacking formation, but he went through the flanks and with counters too. Assistant manager was no help at all, and what is funny is that he rarely showed up during that match (maybe he sold the match ). But in the away match, I set things up to block where I suspected he attacked in the first match, and I went to attack where I should go logically. I won that game 4-0 (if I am not mistaken).

The game match duration itself is way too short. As a manager, someone needs more time (and also more highlights) to analyse what is going on, and more time to make changes, and enough time so that those changes can be put into effect.