Recent content by Seaneh10

  1. S

    Tactic Testing Update: Match Engine v2026

    We're waiting for our new database to be completed before we start testing again. Once that is ready, we'll be providing much more information than our current testing table provides. It will be worth the wait!
  2. S

    Tactics from around the world

    Here you go.
  3. S

    4-2-3-1 Spirit of 2004

    I believe they mean give the corner to one of AML or AMR, AML is their choice.
  4. S

    433Tikitaka v1 Bortmounth 100P 131-45 v1 - Tweak

    The results will be up later for the testing, but this looks like you've improved the original for underdogs! Based on our testing, I've not seen an underdog tactic quite as strong as this one. It has the highest points per game (1.41) and while it doesn't score quite as many goals as the...
  5. S

    playgm Shaolin Angry Chicken v1

    Yet another tactic from StephenHK - this time it's a 4-1-3-2 on PlayGM! As you can see, it's essentially a 4-4-2 with one CM one DM. It has scored very highly in our testing, so definitely worth a try. Formation: Set pieces have been set up in the tactic - they are set as follows: Left...
  6. S

    playgm Shaolin Angry Chicken

    Seaneh10 uploaded Shaolin Angry Chicken Leave feedback below.
  7. S

    Gungnir; A Dirty Strikerless Tactic

    Great post. I've followed your website for years now, but haven't ventured into playing strikerless tactics yet this version. That quickly changed when I was roped in by all of the Archer gifs ;) Super small sample size so far, but I've plugged it in with my Arsenal team for the North London...
  8. S

    Manchester United 4-2-3-1 (season 2022-2023)

    You'd need to upload the .fmf tactic file. You can upload it here if you'd like it to be tested:
  9. S

    Tactic Testing Feedback

    I think there's possibly something up with the auto upload, assuming you're referring to your 4-4-1-1. It came out pretty good, to give you a little preview ;)
  10. S

    Tactic Testing Feedback

    Hi! Thanks for flagging these up. Seems like a data entry problem so we'll probably have to retest them. Well spotted :)