Pro P.I.M.P
Registered User
Come Back Jmz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Advanced Formations (Images)
- Thread starter jMz
- Start date
ive just read this thread a bit, seems like u people love it, but its shows how obsessed u r with this game, i usually stick to a slightly modified 4 4 2 and destroy people, i have set up a formation a and b before, 1 of those was more defensive that never got used once and the other was more attacking, that never got used, really isnt the whole point to win, u dont need 15 minutes altering formations to do this
filthydani
Registered User
maybe your people arent good enough for you, try to play online?
what i think is there is no way you can play the WHOLE game with the SAME formation!
Because there is no something called the ULTIMATE formation, every formation has its weaknesses and all you have to do is to know WHEN to use this and WHEN NOT to use that….
AM I MAKIN ANY SENSE HERE? I hope so
I dare anyone who can give me a good formation for defense and offense!!! It doesn't exist !!
what i think is there is no way you can play the WHOLE game with the SAME formation!
Because there is no something called the ULTIMATE formation, every formation has its weaknesses and all you have to do is to know WHEN to use this and WHEN NOT to use that….
AM I MAKIN ANY SENSE HERE? I hope so
I dare anyone who can give me a good formation for defense and offense!!! It doesn't exist !!
TheSpecial-1
Registered User
filthydani said:
Introducing the 3-3-2-2 - the epitome of perfection
--------------gk------------------ ---------------gk-------------
------CB-----SW--------CB------- -------------------------------
---------------------------------- --CB-----------DM-------CB---
-----------CM-----CM--------LM-- ----------CM--------CM-------
-----------OM-----OM------------ ---------OM---------OM------
-RW-------CF--------------------- -RW-----CF---------CF-------
This formation is sick! I hereby dare you to beat this tactic. This Ultimate Formation of mine. One whereby no alterations are needed to counteract the threat that your opponent poses. Play with out and out wingers to expose my flanks and you would normally have 1 central striker v my 3 central defenders. Endless supply of crosses, little end product. And in midfield, I will totally dominate both in defending and attacking no matter what midfield setup u have. Upfront though, not much to rave about. But having just 3 attackers is good enough for me considering the amount of time I hav with the ball(thanks to midfield) Thus more opportunites to create goal-scoring chances for the front trio. My out and out right winger is an excellent target for quick counters as your fullbacks indefinitely would overlap when ur team is attacking, leaving my RW totally unmarked. A long diagonal ball to the right would activate my counter attack immediately. Should you keep a steady back four and instruct your fullbacks to hold back then you might just see your midfield totally outnumbered (5 v 2 assuming your using a normal 4-4-2). If you endeavour to hoof the ball upfield to catch me offguard while my players are all positioned in your half, then prepare to be caught offside. All in all, this is the perfect formation offering defensive solidarity,midfield domination,unpredictable attack. Cheers mate
TheSpecial-1
Registered User
Mussav said:
Well if u prefer a more normal-looking formation that guarantees mediocre success..what can I say?
filthydani
Registered User
TheSpecial-1 said:Introducing the 3-3-2-2 - the epitome of perfection
--------------gk------------------ ---------------gk-------------
------CB-----SW--------CB------- -------------------------------
---------------------------------- --CB-----------DM-------CB---
-----------CM-----CM--------LM-- ----------CM--------CM-------
-----------OM-----OM------------ ---------OM---------OM------
-RW-------CF--------------------- -RW-----CF---------CF-------
This formation is sick! I hereby dare you to beat this tactic. This Ultimate Formation of mine. One whereby no alterations are needed to counteract the threat that your opponent poses. Play with out and out wingers to expose my flanks and you would normally have 1 central striker v my 3 central defenders. Endless supply of crosses, little end product. And in midfield, I will totally dominate both in defending and attacking no matter what midfield setup u have. Upfront though, not much to rave about. But having just 3 attackers is good enough for me considering the amount of time I hav with the ball(thanks to midfield) Thus more opportunites to create goal-scoring chances for the front trio. My out and out right winger is an excellent target for quick counters as your fullbacks indefinitely would overlap when ur team is attacking, leaving my RW totally unmarked. A long diagonal ball to the right would activate my counter attack immediately. Should you keep a steady back four and instruct your fullbacks to hold back then you might just see your midfield totally outnumbered (5 v 2 assuming your using a normal 4-4-2). If you endeavour to hoof the ball upfield to catch me offguard while my players are all positioned in your half, then prepare to be caught offside. All in all, this is the perfect formation offering defensive solidarity,midfield domination,unpredictable attack. Cheers mate
You formation is very very bad at defence, you only got 3 players defending counter attacks, thats not enough at all, they shouldnt be less than 4 players (for example 2 CBS/1 DH/1 SB)
but you only got 2 CB/1 SW....
try to play with this formation online and you will see that its very poor in defense
TheSpecial-1
Registered User
That's just your assumptionfilthydani said:
And to correct you, I have 0 players to defend counter attacks. But it doesnt matter so much. I've a more potent counter attack then what my opponent has. If you can't beat them, you mgiht as well join them. I don't setup a defence that counters my opponent's counter attack. Instead, I make mine even more dangerous. Besides they would have to counter with short passes then to hoof it upfield coz they probably would be caught offside 10 times out of 10. Having said all that, how are they suppose to make their counter attacks count when my team would be controlling the game possession. And fyi, a back three is actually more defensive than a back four.filthydani
Registered User
You have 0 players to defend counter attacks? I thought your formation is a perfect formation offering defensive solidarity???????????
TheSpecial-1
Registered User
Try beating my back 3 with your star striker (Henry,Shevchenko,Adriano) running at my defence. When you've succeeded, it would only be a consolation goal. How are u suppose to counter attack if your players are caught offside 24/7 ?filthydani said:
I think It is pointless to argue which formation is the best, and who can beat who with this formation. It all boils down to how good you are,your players, and how suitable the formation you use to your way and style of play. I think the key is to have a set of formations that you feel comfortable with and change them during the game depending on the situation and your opponent's formation. However, I would like to chime in with some points:
1. Using only 3 CB is considered highly risky. Your team might hold itself pretty well for a while, but at a moment of time it collapses. This usually happens when you loose the ball, and most of you players were in the offense situation. At those rare moments, 3 CB could do a little to stop a good attack especially if your human opponent is skilled and has 3 CFs.
2. Another disadvantage of 3 CB is you can not cover the sides. I think the least you should do if you are using 3 CB, is to have 1 or 2 SMF and 1 or 2 DMF and give them some defensive arrows to cover the sides, and stretch your team more.
3. I also agree with what has been said that defending with 4 is sometimes more risky than 3, cause you SB end up running to the front, leaving a huge space behind them. the use of awareness arrows is crucial here to control their movement and have them attack only when you want them to do so.
I always say if you are good in defense, you can spare an extra player to participate in the offense. I feel more comfortable these days playing with 4 CBs, and 1 CMF (with back arrows), and this is all I need to defend. I would use 3 CB only as a back up formation that I switch to when I am completely dominant in the game, or in an all out attack mode.
My 2 Cents.
1. Using only 3 CB is considered highly risky. Your team might hold itself pretty well for a while, but at a moment of time it collapses. This usually happens when you loose the ball, and most of you players were in the offense situation. At those rare moments, 3 CB could do a little to stop a good attack especially if your human opponent is skilled and has 3 CFs.
2. Another disadvantage of 3 CB is you can not cover the sides. I think the least you should do if you are using 3 CB, is to have 1 or 2 SMF and 1 or 2 DMF and give them some defensive arrows to cover the sides, and stretch your team more.
3. I also agree with what has been said that defending with 4 is sometimes more risky than 3, cause you SB end up running to the front, leaving a huge space behind them. the use of awareness arrows is crucial here to control their movement and have them attack only when you want them to do so.
I always say if you are good in defense, you can spare an extra player to participate in the offense. I feel more comfortable these days playing with 4 CBs, and 1 CMF (with back arrows), and this is all I need to defend. I would use 3 CB only as a back up formation that I switch to when I am completely dominant in the game, or in an all out attack mode.
My 2 Cents.
TheSpecial-1
Registered User
observer said:I think It is pointless to argue which formation is the best, and who can beat who with this formation. It all boils down to how good you are,your players, and how suitable the formation you use to your way and style of play. I think the key is to have a set of formations that you feel comfortable with and change them during the game depending on the situation and your opponent's formation. However, I would like to chime in with some points:
1. Using only 3 CB is considered highly risky. Your team might hold itself pretty well for a while, but at a moment of time it collapses. This usually happens when you loose the ball, and most of you players were in the offense situation. At those rare moments, 3 CB could do a little to stop a good attack especially if your human opponent is skilled and has 3 CFs.
2. Another disadvantage of 3 CB is you can not cover the sides. I think the least you should do if you are using 3 CB, is to have 1 or 2 SMF and 1 or 2 DMF and give them some defensive arrows to cover the sides, and stretch your team more.
3. I also agree with what has been said that defending with 4 is sometimes more risky than 3, cause you SB end up running to the front, leaving a huge space behind them. the use of awareness arrows is crucial here to control their movement and have them attack only when you want them to do so.
I always say if you are good in defense, you can spare an extra player to participate in the offense. I feel more comfortable these days playing with 4 CBs, and 1 CMF (with back arrows), and this is all I need to defend. I would use 3 CB only as a back up formation that I switch to when I am completely dominant in the game, or in an all out attack mode.
My 2 Cents.
I ain't no diplomat. I've gotta say this formation, in my opinion, is the best. It's based on tradeoffs rather then matching your opponent or counteract their threat. My back three leave the wings exposed. In return I get a 3 v 2 situation in the middle. Which is more important? Cutting the supply or stopping the end product? The opponent can whip in thousands of crosses and it would be useless if their striker cant score(as a result of being outnumbered). I have got 0 defenders at the back when I'm in the offensive , prone to counter attacks you might say. But in return I have 7 players in midfield. Which is more important? Having the ball to create chances or to have the ball once in a blue moon only to find yourself having to pass laterally (with no defenders,your front 2 or 3 are way offside.)
filthydani
Registered User
observer said:I always say if you are good in defense, you can spare an extra player to participate in the offense. I feel more comfortable these days playing with 4 CBs, and 1 CMF (with back arrows), and this is all I need to defend. I would use 3 CB only as a back up formation that I switch to when I am completely dominant in the game, or in an all out attack mode.
My 2 Cents.
Side backs are VERY important to bulid up attacks and defend the sides and to posses the ball in the midfield more... I think you really need to play with Side backs
TheSpecial-1
Registered User
Exactly. Even though I don't use a back four, but I do know that when you use a back four there has to be two sidebacks rather than 4 CBs.filthydani said:
Zygalski said:
Zygalski, you do sound really pissed now, that is rare
I agree with you I know This "special" formation doesn't look good on paper, and I don't know how good it will be in real life. but to say the truth, if I am playin against a human opponent, and I see this formation first in his formation sceen, I would think "hmmm....We gonna have some serious fun tonight "
On another note, I do play with 2 SB in one of my formations. It is just that I always pay attention when they run forward making sure they are well covered.
TheSpecial-1
Registered User
Sorry Pal. Guess the seemingly "radical" best formation in the world of doesnt sit well with most. It doesn't looks good enough on paper for many.Zygalski said:
I suppose I can only keep it to myself rather then share it with everyone in here. Cheers mates