Hi,
I have great interest in football tactics. If I was a manager I'd be a tactician. I like defence-first football. Mourinho, Simeone, Conte.
Relating this to football manager, I could have some fun creating tactics that suit my philosophy (and I have). But after reading Mr Langvatn's Tactics Centre and seeing that all the best tactics use 3 at the back, often with inverted wingbacks, thus proving the match engine has a clear weakness to such a shape - what is the point in creating a tactic that isn't 3 at the back using inverted wingbacks? As you'll never be able to reach the heights that your same team could with a 3 at the back tactic could use.
Correct me if I'm wrong - but that's the way I see it. I understand that - of course - you'll find it much more rewarding creating your own tactic. But I just feel constantly undermined playing a game whereby I know a different shape would yield better results almost as a cheat. Can we just label it a cheat?
Walker
I have great interest in football tactics. If I was a manager I'd be a tactician. I like defence-first football. Mourinho, Simeone, Conte.
Relating this to football manager, I could have some fun creating tactics that suit my philosophy (and I have). But after reading Mr Langvatn's Tactics Centre and seeing that all the best tactics use 3 at the back, often with inverted wingbacks, thus proving the match engine has a clear weakness to such a shape - what is the point in creating a tactic that isn't 3 at the back using inverted wingbacks? As you'll never be able to reach the heights that your same team could with a 3 at the back tactic could use.
Correct me if I'm wrong - but that's the way I see it. I understand that - of course - you'll find it much more rewarding creating your own tactic. But I just feel constantly undermined playing a game whereby I know a different shape would yield better results almost as a cheat. Can we just label it a cheat?
Walker