What's the best tactic this year?

EmperorFatihTerim

EmperorFatihTerim

Member
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
80
Reaction score
77
Points
18
Hello guys, what's the best tactic you've used this year? Top team, middle team, low team. Indicate which one you use. Thanks everyone.
 
@sagator07
Not to be a ****, but looking for the "best" tactic and disregarding the testing system at the same time seems a bit contradictory.

First of all, there's no overall "best" tactic, since it widely depends on your player material. Sure, some tactics - especially those that perform well in testing - use the match engine to their advantage very well and therefore work as plug&play tactics, even if your player material doesn't match them well.

Secondly, I get that you are probably looking to learn what kind of tactics are used in what setting and why that particular approach might do better on average. You're not gonna get that just by asking for what kind of team it was used in. If that's all you care about, I can honestly just recommend looking at the tactic testing page here as well. It's probably as objective as it can get as well.

My favored tactic at the moment is one I've actually uploaded here as well. I especially use underdog teams and see massive overperformance. That said, I'm probably a bottom half to bottom third team rather than one that's predicted to get relegated after transfers. Still, I'm fighting to win the league with my tactic.
Funnily enough, that tactic did not perform well in testing as an underdog tactic. So yeah, while I believe in the testing, you can achieve vastly different results than they did of course.

Here's my tactic.

If you find yourself conceding loads and loads, and conceding can be a problem with this tactic at times, switching to a role that's more defensive and true to it's position than BWM, such as Anchor.

Occasionally I'm still using the first tactic I've created, which is much more stable but prone to draws if your attacking players aren't class. So this one (https://fm-base.co.uk/resources/mrcx-4-1-4-1-double-mezzala-the-return-of-the-king.5685/) is a tactic I'd use when I'm a second league team up against Barcelona. Although I usually turn it back to Cautious in those cases where I would take the draw but realistically look for that one counter to get them.

Actually working on a new tactic right now, will let you know when I'm happy with it and feel like it has surpassed the others.

All of these tactics are the plug&play style, though.

Depending on your team other tactics can really just outdo them. Got a keeper was 18 kicking and a 1.96m dude on the wing who's up against a 1.71 WB? Might wanna try long kicks to your WTM and knock it down to the support players. (Actually a tactic I loved in FM20 and one that should probably do better this year provided you have the correct players. Probably one that wouldn't do too well in testing if it just doesn't get those few very important attributes)
 
sagator07 said:
Thanks but I don't believe test leagues give accurate results. That's why I wanted to learn about the tactics they used in their careers and were successful.
Click to expand...

The aim of test leagues is to get an idea; does not guarantee 100% accurate results.
 
MRCX said:
@sagator07
Not to be a ****, but looking for the "best" tactic and disregarding the testing system at the same time seems a bit contradictory.

First of all, there's no overall "best" tactic, since it widely depends on your player material. Sure, some tactics - especially those that perform well in testing - use the match engine to their advantage very well and therefore work as plug&play tactics, even if your player material doesn't match them well.

Secondly, I get that you are probably looking to learn what kind of tactics are used in what setting and why that particular approach might do better on average. You're not gonna get that just by asking for what kind of team it was used in. If that's all you care about, I can honestly just recommend looking at the tactic testing page here as well. It's probably as objective as it can get as well.

My favored tactic at the moment is one I've actually uploaded here as well. I especially use underdog teams and see massive overperformance. That said, I'm probably a bottom half to bottom third team rather than one that's predicted to get relegated after transfers. Still, I'm fighting to win the league with my tactic.
Funnily enough, that tactic did not perform well in testing as an underdog tactic. So yeah, while I believe in the testing, you can achieve vastly different results than they did of course.

Here's my tactic.

If you find yourself conceding loads and loads, and conceding can be a problem with this tactic at times, switching to a role that's more defensive and true to it's position than BWM, such as Anchor.

Occasionally I'm still using the first tactic I've created, which is much more stable but prone to draws if your attacking players aren't class. So this one (https://fm-base.co.uk/resources/mrcx-4-1-4-1-double-mezzala-the-return-of-the-king.5685/) is a tactic I'd use when I'm a second league team up against Barcelona. Although I usually turn it back to Cautious in those cases where I would take the draw but realistically look for that one counter to get them.

Actually working on a new tactic right now, will let you know when I'm happy with it and feel like it has surpassed the others.

All of these tactics are the plug&play style, though.

Depending on your team other tactics can really just outdo them. Got a keeper was 18 kicking and a 1.96m dude on the wing who's up against a 1.71 WB? Might wanna try long kicks to your WTM and knock it down to the support players. (Actually a tactic I loved in FM20 and one that should probably do better this year provided you have the correct players. Probably one that wouldn't do too well in testing if it just doesn't get those few very important attributes)
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. The reason I say the best tactic is because we use dozens of tactics. I asked the best of them. Test results and actual results can be very different. That's why I asked about "used" tactics.
 
sagator07 said:
I don't think they are giving the right idea.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they? Or let me word it differently: In what way do you feel are the results of the tactic testing misleading?
You know, as mentioned above, tactic testing isn't perfect.

But a lot of the variables that change results if you ask the way you ask now get eliminated that way, which arguably gives a better orientation of where that tactic is on average.
If you ask me about my best tactic, lots and lots of factors come into play. How do I micromanage? How much squad-depth do I have? What kind of players do I have, how do I train? Do I use opposition instructions, how do I react and adapt? How well do I look after morale? What kind of transfers do I make?
This is especially relevant for top teams. If I build one of the most ridiculous squads, the tactic barely matters and I'll comfortably win the league, even if I'd fight against relegation with an underdog.

You see, I fail to understand what exactly you want to gain from this and why you believe tactic testing is that misleading.
 
MRCX said:
Why wouldn't they? Or let me word it differently: In what way do you feel are the results of the tactic testing misleading?
You know, as mentioned above, tactic testing isn't perfect.

But a lot of the variables that change results if you ask the way you ask now get eliminated that way, which arguably gives a better orientation of where that tactic is on average.
If you ask me about my best tactic, lots and lots of factors come into play. How do I micromanage? How much squad-depth do I have? What kind of players do I have, how do I train? Do I use opposition instructions, how do I react and adapt? How well do I look after morale? What kind of transfers do I make?
This is especially relevant for top teams. If I build one of the most ridiculous squads, the tactic barely matters and I'll comfortably win the league, even if I'd fight against relegation with an underdog.

You see, I fail to understand what exactly you want to gain from this and why you believe tactic testing is that misleading.
Click to expand...


I think like this. There are tactics that were successful when I used them even though they failed the tests. On the contrary, there are tactics that are successful in tests and bad when I use them. That's why I don't trust the tests. I know the importance of things like team quality, training, opponent instructions. I'll ask them separately when I get an answer to my question.
 
sagator07 said:
There are tactics that were successful when I used them even though they failed the tests. On the contrary, there are tactics that are successful in tests and bad when I use them.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely natural, logical, and in no way a locial reason to distrust or even diffame the testing system. Obviously tactics will work for you and perform bad in testing. Just look at the Wide Target Man tactic I referred to above. Now I'm not sure what the teams the tactic is tested with look like, although you can most definitely find this, but I believe we can both agree that it likely doesn't have 2 1.95m guys on the wing that are still good wingers. And they probably don't contain a keeper with 20 kicking either. So obviously that kind of tactic will do a lot worse in testing than it will be for you if you build yourself a fitting team.

Likewise, lot's of tactics that perform well still rely on pressing, and many of them work even if your players don't fit them well. However, the match engine isn't so bad that it will allow entirely fool-proof tactics. There's still numerous reasons why you could fail with a certain approach. Attributes, Hidden attributes, lack of squad depth, traits and just about anything I mentioned. Take the second tactic I posted, for example. If you have a striker who isn't amazing, if your Mezzalas have 9 acceleration and 10 dribbling, chances are you'll perform worse.

The logical thing, the right thing imo, isn't to just disregard testing. It's to be aware of both it's value and it's limitations, because it can be a brilliant tool and give you more insight and more objectivity than just about any other site on the internet.

It would be better if the community actually gave feedback regularly and rated the tactic, but unfortunately that's not something that happens a lot.
 
This patch i'm getting good and bad results with different systems. I've been very consistent prepatch, and post patch results are all over the place, i still can't put my finger on what is not working for me. I feel the ME is very random, to be honest. What works today may not work tomorrow, even with very similar circumstances.

In general, i feel the 433 DM wide is the most versatile and "consistent" system that i see players using. Gegenpressing almost always work, very high LOE and normal defensive line, you see it in all tactics. Being aggresive is much more consistent than being conservative.

Personally, i've been having a great run with a 4312, a conservative back 4 with just supporting fullbacks, no dm, with two mezzalas on support and a DLP def. Shadow striker and the 2 forwards roles depends on your available players, usually i set up with one on support and one on attack. Positive mentality, with high LOE for teams that i expect to sit back, and low LOE when i face strong opposition, press trigger much more often. I won the italian league 3 times in a row with Spezia with this system. Obviously my team got better year after year, but when i won it for the first time, it was a lower-mid table team.

A tip of advice, train set pieces, and spend some time with the routines. That is always a difference maker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top