Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: asymetrical formations

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Famous Accyrover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,553
    The above are not really Asymmetrical as such (they are what I call lob sided) and in the case you have above a DMC placed centrally would pick up that AM player.
    A standard generic formation as the V would be fine.
    Asymmetrical formations need balance to work those do not. IMO Focusing attack on the opposite side to your stronger defensive side is, well! ......... short of players, and that's being kind.
    Last edited by Accyrover; 01-11-2013 at 01:35 PM.
    Level 1,2,3,4,5,6 League winners

    Level 1,2,3,5 CL Winners

    Level 4 CL runner up.

    Level 2,3,4 Cup winners

    P267 W244 D2 L11 GF1024 GA91

  2. #2
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    25
    I
    Quote Originally Posted by Accyrover View Post
    The above are not really Asymmetrical as such (they are what I call lob sided) and in the case you have above a DMC placed centrally would pick up that AM player.
    A standard generic formation as the V would be fine.
    Asymmetrical formations need balance to work those do not. IMO Focusing attack on the opposite side to your stronger defensive side is, well! ......... short of players, and that's being kind.
    I agree. this is not really very assymetrical. i used to play a normal MR with an AML which worked well. However very assymmetrical formations seem to be at a disadvantage although IMO more so on the defensive side than offense. If the other side is assymmetrical in attack I might move the better DC to that side etc. If a defense is assymmetric it might be a good idea to attack that weakness. I am still trying to gather info. Anyone with any data?