Where should I put my AMC and ST in Narrow 4-1-3-1-1

Jatjr

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2013
Messages
181
Reaction score
4
Points
18
I am playing an network game. I survived the season after promotion playing 5-2-1-2 WB Narrow. I have created a new tactic for next season. It is this tactic.

Are the positions where ST and AMC set up here ok? Or should I move them both to center?

I actually just changed my MC-R to AP-A from CM-A. Should I change it back? Any thoughts on these roles? I'd like to hear some thoughts. What fluidity should this tactic go? At the moment, I am guessing Structured with Control? Or should it be Flexible, even more structured, or fluid?

Thanks
 
It's unusual, but it could work. Why don't you see how it performs? See if it's working the way you intend?

What is the thinking behind the tactic? How do you want it to work?

You're asking questions that no one can answer but you. You need to decide how you want to play and create a tactic based on that. If you're going to use that many playmakers and other specialists, you're probably better of going with a highly sructured approach so everyone sticks to the role you've selected.
 
I have used a very similar set up with quite a bit of success in my story "get it India!" Should do ok for you.
 
Thanks for the reply! I am pretty far from being FM-smart. But I try to set up a tactic with good plan. I would like to have these FBs sometime to attack and shoot at GK. DM to function similar to a defender so I think halfback is the role. Left AP passes and makes some plays but doesn't go into the box while Right AP is the same but does go further forward (for additional attack option). The AMC and ST, I have them run wide with ball and roam to avoid being marked.

The gameplan is control because I would like to have more time with ball than they do. Plus, I like the passing game so anything to encourage that.

But you are right, I need to see how this setup fare in match. I will need to go ahead and do that! :)


Edit: Lippo255 posted while I was making a reply. Thank you for pointing that out. I will come and make a read of your story! :)
 
Ok, During the network session that just concluded tonight. My team had just played a testimonial match for a player who has been on the team for 10 years. I picked a similar-rating team for an opponent. I went into the match as underdog. (I do consider them as a better team who finished 14th place while my team finished 1 spot above relegation)

20 minutes into the match, I changed CWB-A to CWB-S because I felt they were going too forward for my liking. But I left things as-is for the rest of match until I changed to Standard mentality once 4th goal came.

Match stat
Heat Map, I was pleased to see AMC and ST are looking right to me. I was hoping the MC was slightly more back but maybe this is ok

top 2 ratings were MC-L, the AP without get further forward, finished with 8.8 and MC, the DLP-S finished with 8.0.

It is just one match, especially that it is a friendly. But It was a good match.
 
Midfields a bit narrow, but its a good solid shape. looks good. The only problem you might have in the lower leagues is the stamina of the full backs depending how much running they do.
 
Midfields a bit narrow, but its a good solid shape. looks good. The only problem you might have in the lower leagues is the stamina of the full backs depending how much running they do.
Should I change from CWB-S to something else to help them preserve more stamina? But you are right, midfield are little too narrow. With second thoughts, there were some instances where the midfield players were too close to each other. I have the "play narrow" instruction on, I could try with that turned off?
 
Is it necessary to use a DLP in the centre of three CMs? I would be tempted to give that player a CM-A role since you have a HB directly behind him. One (or two) of you wider CMs can then be used as more of a support player to balance out the trio.
 
Top