lol. what a fake ****ing game

[Ljepoje]

For once, I have to disagree with you. According to the "Definitive Illegal Formation Rules" in the Formations and Tactics section on here, the second post down states that you must have a MC in order to have a legal formation. Apparently, a DMC does not count. Technically, 4-4-2 wide diamond, is an illegal formation.

No no... look

This is the summary of the findings in the thread:

Theoretical Legal Formation Requirements:

• Goalkeeper (Must be player's natural position i.e. a GK) **
• Some combination of at least 3 defenders (i.e. 3 players anywhere in the back row )
• At least 1, but no more than 2, players on EACH outside flank. {the D(L/R), DM(L/R), M(L/R), AM(L/R) slots}
• at least 3 midfielders (DM*, M*, AM*) at least one of which has to be an DM* or M*
• At least 4 players on the opponents side of the pitch.
• at least 1 Striker

+

Last Edit: April 28, 2013 Changed mi[SIZE=2]dfielder rule from this

• at least 3 midfielders (DM*, M*, AM*) at least one of which has to be in the middle row (MC, ML or MR) *This rule isn't totally confirmed
• Testing shows that having at least one DM (of 3 midfielders) makes the formation legal.

Based on the known facts, here are my Hypothetical formation rules:

Requirements:

Goalkeeper
Some combination of 3 DBs/FBs (3 players anywhere in the back row )
At least 1, but no more than 2, players on EACH outside flank. {the D(L/R), DM(L/R), M(L/R), AM(L/R) slots}
at least 1 MC (DMC doesn't qualify)
at least 1 Striker

Then he "changed" his mind (again)...

OK, so based on all that, here's an update

Theoretical Legal Formation Requirements:

Goalkeeper
Some combination of 3 defenders (i.e. 3 players anywhere in the back row )
At least 1, but no more than 2, players on EACH outside flank. {the D(L/R), DM(L/R), M(L/R), AM(L/R) slots}
at least 3 midfielders (DM*, M*, AM*) one of which has to be in the middle row (MC, ML or MR)
at least 1 Striker

feel free to suggest better phrasing for clarity.

The 3rd post that @Razz posted isn't correct or the "formal" one. Thats just based on his own "hypothetical formation rules". Also the 4-4-2 diamond wide is a common formation and it would be "silly and ridiculous" to abolish it. One of the best teams at my lvl (Dynamo SWAG) is playing this formation - and winning,winning and winning all that you win could in T11 (League,CL and CUP). I myself used to play this formation back at lvl 1 to 3 - worked fine

[Raykco]

No no... look


+





Then he "changed" his mind (again)...




The 3rd post that @Razz posted isn't correct or the "formal" one. Thats just based on his own "hypothetical formation rules". Also the 4-4-2 diamond wide is a common formation and it would be "silly and ridiculous" to abolish it. One of the best teams at my lvl (Dynamo SWAG) is playing this formation - and winning,winning and winning all that you win could in T11 (League,CL and CUP). I myself used to play this formation back at lvl 1 to 3 - worked fine

So based on Razz's comments, and his changing of mind, we don't really know what is or isn't an illegal formation. Its really all a matter of trial and error for each of us.

[pnr8555]

4-3W-3 will dounter this formation...

[Morgan O'Bree]

It s more likely that you were lucky on not losing more games and not that you lost this one. You practically play with a 3-7 with only 3 defenders guarding you in the end. Any long ball strategy would make you micemeat and probably your opponents are either inactive or new to the game to spot that huge weakness your team has. With 3 Mc and 1 amc COMPLETELY FREE the game was even too kind with the final score.

[PricopGeorgeCătălin]

Please calm down and about your "problem" there's nothing wrong is just your fault, you was using a bad formation and you got a red card.

Please use the vent thread: http://forum.topeleven.com/top-eleve...nt-thread.html

TOPIC CLOSED!