Printable View
ST
AML(Up) AMR(Up)
MC MC
DML DMC(Down) DMR
DC DC
What are your general thoughts on this formation?
I think it looks ok on paper so to speak as the DMC(Down) will drop back to make 3 DCs when defending.
The DML/R protect wing atks.
DMC helps midfield battles.
AML/R help wing atk and shot on goal with (up).
It is illegal formation because you use only 2DC, minimum is 3. Try use 3DC & DML+DMR, or DR+DC+DL & 2DMC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc31
Would that actually be effective though?
ST
AML AMR
MC MC
DMC DMC
DL DC DR
Yes, excellent formation. I call this the WM, it's been very effective for me. Another great formation is the same, but the wide AMs are moved to AMC, used for attacking through the middle instead of down the flanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffvader
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potemy
I do like the look of this "WM" formation. But what are its cons? Surely the DL DC DR is not enough? So DMC to have down arrows or not? I might have to wait til end of season to trial it out! :confused:
I don't think there are any real cons. I usually play variations of 3-2-2-2-1, used to be the butterfly but now usually one of the two formations I mentioned above, depending on where I want to attack. Usually I play with red arrows on AMs, blue arrows on DMs. MCs can be either red or blue, depend whether you're stronger or weaker, and want them to help out more with attack or defence. If I really outclass the opponent, DMs can just play with no arrows.
This is how I play against stronger or equal opponents:
Attachment 1688
Against weaker opponents:
Attachment 1687
Focus passing depends on your formation, though.
If I'm playing defensively and counter attacking, passing is always long. If I'm attacking, then mixed passing for wings, short passing for through the middle. Tackling can be easy against much weaker opponents.
