Hi ! I'm a french and spanish guy and I would ask you your opinion aboute 4-3-3.
it's my formation and I would know the failures, strenghts and counter please
My players are placed as it :
Attachment 136264
Printable View
Hi ! I'm a french and spanish guy and I would ask you your opinion aboute 4-3-3.
it's my formation and I would know the failures, strenghts and counter please
My players are placed as it :
Attachment 136264
It won’t matter because the game is basically a coin flip.
Your formation is more closer to 4-5V-1 than typical 4-3-3.Quote:
Originally Posted by FurioIslo
Strength would be rather strong in defence, with good potential to score via flanks against opponents with weak fullbacks.
Weakness is lack of grip in midfield and could be overrun by 3 MCs or ML/MC/MR, and could lose the match solely via conceding too much possession even when the team has a good quality advantage. Or being beaten by quality opponents in a 4-3W-3W via both flanks.
Perfect counter:
Opponents of 10% or better: 4-3W-3W or 4-3M-2W-1 via both flanks
Opponents of 10%- to 20%+: 4-1-3M-1W-1 via 1 flank. DMC position depends on if opponent ST quality requires 3v1 marking or 2 MCs need DMC help covering
I have noticed the sames strenghts than you but what is it a typical 4-3-3 for you ?
Is it this ? :
Attachment 136271
About weaknesses, I have 3 MC's also what is the problem and how correct the grip of midfield as you said ?
About 4-3W-3W, it's ok because opponnt has a numeric superioruty on flanks
Since your 3 midfielders are MCs (the MC/DMC is supposed to change to 4-5v-1 when needed), your team would be fine in MC area as long as those 3 MCs are placed flat in the middle. The earlier image suggested that you may have pulled 1 of those back and pushed 2 forward, hence the 4-5v-1 comparison.
3 MCs weakness would be facing flat-4 (flank) or diamond-4 (middle) midfield formations. The solution is either having ML & MR on the bench, or starters AML & AMR have additional roles of ML & MR (AML/ML[R]), so both wingers could just move back to control midfield when needed, and then 1 MC move back & 1 MC move forward to take full control of the whole midfield for possession if needed.
2 more separate notes:
1) wingers aligned with ST may be better off without arrows as they could fall onto offside traps easier
2) fullbacks may be better without up-arrows as no-arrow would allow them joining attacks, as there could be too much space on both flanks for opponent’s counter attack via wingers
He asked you what is typical 4-3-3. Is it 3mc+3st or ml/mc/mr + 3st?
Because when i started to play the game i thought the same as him because 4-3-3 for me consisted of 3 midfielders 2 wingers or wide forwards and a striker.
Typical 4-3-3, for me, is with 3 midfielders, 2 wide forwards and a ST (4-3M-3W). Wide forwards who can also play as wingers are way more variable.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomu741
Having 3 STs can also be a typical 4-3-3 for some and also is right actually, though in TE 4-3-3 with 3 STs is very rare among managers due to its inflexibility and/or high acquisition cost.
MC-positioning can make or break a team setup alone. Learned this the hard way.
3w is what? aml/amr near st line? But than they become that "second strikers" whose play in the middle.
The 2 wingers can be deployed close to ST region and play as 3 STs if needed (for opponents who play 2 DCs with fullbacks pushed very high up). Experienced managers usually would not set up fullbacks so dangerously when facing ST + 2 wingers - deserves a heavy loss if being so naive.
The exact positioning of wide forwards is more of a personal preference. And actually players position choice at auction and gameplan are involved. I will explain my setup of 4-3W-3W and the related training a bit.
Attachment 136282
When playing 3 front players looking to maximize the pressurising of opponent’s defence, which would enable both wide midfielders to take full advantage of both flanks’ space (ST a bit forward to occupy DCs, wingers at the corner of box to be further forward than fullbacks to push them back but slightly behind DC-alignment to avoid offside), shooting ability from range by wingers and wide midfielders is where the battle is won even when opponent’s defenders could be very good.
And that is also exactly why all my wide ML/R must also have addition position of AML/R. The reason is shooting & finishing are grey for wide midfielders but white for wingers. Attacking drills of PGS & Fast Counter-Attacks alone are already enough to make ML/AML(R) deadly (especially efficient for lower level managers who may not have all drills levelled up or learnt yet).
[MC/ML, a 6* player reward from event, in the image is not my preferred choice of midfielder - MC defensive skills + ML wide midfielder skills are nearly the exact opposite, hence making a player being average. He is in the squad purely because of 1* better than the rest except key players. Own preference of multi-roles are MC/DMC, ML/AML(R), DC/DMC & ST/AMC as main white skills are mostly overlapped and the flexibility of turning into defensive without subs to defend 1-goal leads very efficiently).
Attachment 136281
The other point is about the 3 MCs in a 4-3M-3W setting. MCs do not have crossing ability (except with multi-role with ML(R), which makes the midfielder average as above), so placing MCs close to ML or MR region are not preferred because they would keep wasting attacking chances by rubbish crosses when attacking via flanks. Keeping 3 MCs tight in the middle forces the engine to enable their passing abilities more, and so playing with AML & R in default positions in a 4-3M-2W-1 via flanks would be better. Similarly, when 2 wide forwards are played as aligned STs, keeping the 3 MCs tight in the middle and attacking via middle would have a better result.
Only exception is when we have 2 of the 3 MCs have ML & MR roles too and also we have a 10%+ quality advantage over opponent’s MCs, then playing both MCs close to ML & MR would both dominate MC areas and also assist efficiently via wide areas via attacking flanks. Implementation of this should have started with players acquisition in auction already, though this setup is really T-expensive.
Yes, because I know the 4-3-3 like you with 2 wingers
Thanks for yours observations, I will to modify my formation
Where you position the players doesn't really matter, as long as they are inside the boxes for that position.
Here's my 4-3-3 as I go into the game and during it
Attachment 136330
It matters. For example ml/mr have 3 different placements which affects his movments
I just won 10-2 against a team 14% weaker than me with the above formation. Yesterday I beat the 2nd place in the league 3-0, they were 4% weaker than me, day before I won 8-0 against 6th place team etc etcQuote:
Originally Posted by tomu741
Years ago that team above would have absolutely tanked due to the formation, nowadays the graphics may show it as odd but the gameplay ignores it
Quote:
Originally Posted by gogs67
On this, both of you could be correct, depending on the quality of opponents our team is facing.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomu741
When facing weak opponents of some 10%+ worse where we have a significant advantage, ‘irregular’ positions may not affect the win/draw/lose outcome.
However, when facing same-quality or superior opponents, placing our defenders at ‘irregular’ positions definitely would negatively impact team performance. When facing superior opponents of 20%+, such position placement can guarantee a heavy loss. A 20%- inferior team with a combination of perfect counter + right orders + main scorers on-form could still get an upset win in 1 of 4-5 matches, or even more frequent when the inferior team has some well-trained attackers.
Wide ML & MR are so flexible. Could at least be down-arrow & pulled back to act as DL when playing 3 DCs, up-arrow & pushed up to act as AML when opposition has no fullbacks and ML+MR placed close to MC region as 3Ms to win MC area possession against 2 MCs formation too. Positioning & arrows of wide midfielders do make a difference.
Of course the arrows make a difference, that's why they're there, albeit subtle, although I never really use them.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavensAAA
But if the actual positioning in the designated box made a difference then, because my players are so far out, I shouldn't be winning, whether my % is around the same or I've got a 15% advantage. You've seen the screenshot I posted, that's a ridiculous formation lol!
I just wonder what my opponents think losing to that!!
My favourite formation so far as it covers all possible special abilities. However I don't believe there's a "best formation", my advice is to do your formation based on the players you find on the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by FurioIslo
So i am a bit confused. So what is difference between ml, aml and wide left forward? And so 4-5-1 is with 3mc+ml/mr advanced which in my think is the real 4-5-1 and 4-5-1v is with dmc+2mc+aml/amr. So why they both called 4-5-1?
