retired_babymama2

Basically I'm devising a formation for the new 7.0.2 patch which is basically a 4-3-3. However I figured I would try something different and play one striker in the centre, and the other two strikers at FL and FR.

Now I'm also putting their runs to run back into the AML and AMR positions respectively and in doing so I realised that the FL and FR could also be wingers usually accustomed to the AML and AMR role to play as FL and FR but was not really sure how effective they would be in essentially a position that I striker would take up (i.e. and Henry style pull over to the left or Shevchenko's pull over to the right).

Having tried both wingers and strikers in these positions I found that I have limited success; when strikers were employed in this position, they'd chip in with the odd goal but more often than not will be caught out by not tracking back or delivering crosses effectively. Wingers on the other hand would hit the byline and produce good crosses in for my main striker who'll benefit from them.

Results were pretty inconclusive so I was just wondering if anyone had any idea what would be the best scenario? or whether I should scrap the whole FL/FR thing altogether or if any knew how to employ these tactics successfully.

retired_janellewood86

I'm currently trying out a forward line like this. Although this screeny's of a 3-4-3, I've used it in a 4-3-3 at Aston Villa, Arsenal and Foligno...
http://www.johntroutproductions.co.uk/gamma/images/form3.thumb.jpg[/IMG] Click me!
Not quite the same, but you get the picture. This does exactly what you though. Allows the side strikers to track back and keeps them in positions to lump crosses in. van Persie is very effective here.

The default 4-3-3 with the game is, I believe actually a 4-5-1 with AML/R running to FL/R. SI seem to think this is a good way to play. However, if you're playing with players who naturally play ST or FC, you're perhaps better off with FL/R barrowed to keep them closer to their natural position.

That's what I do, anyway.

retired_janellewood86

retired_krissyski

Interestingly, in Allan Wade's book on different systems (written in 1996 and couched in terms like "centre-half" and "inside left" and "outside right"), his depiction of the 4-3-3 is exactly like that.

drewopel

I think the fact that there isn't a positial attribute for FL/R speaks volumes (there was in previous CM versions). Some will argue that AML/R can play in the FL/R position without penalty, but it's pure hypothesis.

Personally, I don't think that anyone should be situated there as their main position, but that's nothing more than my speculation.

It begs the question as how farrows/barrows affect a players overall performance. Is there a penalty for farrowing/barrowing a player into a position they aren't skilled for? Who knows.

retired_krissyski

Misuse of "begs the question".

retired_krissyski

Similar question - when is an attacking mid a withdrawn forward? I would argue that IRL, the attacking mid plays in back of the forwards, facing the goal, and either looks to spring the forwards with passes into space or takes flick passes from the forwards and moves into space himself. The withdrawn forward, OTOH, plays somewhat in back of the forwards with back to goal, functions as a target man, and either looks to make flick passes to the forwards or bent-running mids after drawing a defender in close or to turn on the marking defender and shooting on goal.

The AMC position as it appears on the game screen is too far back for the withdrawn forward, and to b-arrow a FC is to tell the FC to drop back deep when possession is lost but stay up when possession is held - not what you really want to do. The only way to get what you want here is to list the withdrawn forward with very low attacking mentality and as a target man, but even then I think it may be too inspecific.

Likewise, if you f-arrow the AMC, he will push up all the time, not just when making runs off a target man. Such is the weakness of the arrows in attaining tactical subtleties.

drewopel

eh?

retired_krissyski

eh? </BLOCKQUOTE>

The term "begging the question" does not mean demanding that a question be asked. It means to try to support an assertion with yet another assertion (rather than with a fact). In Fowler's Modern English Usage, the example given is supporting the assertion "the death penalty should be established" by saying "it would serve as a deterrant to criminals" which is not a proven fact, but rather another assertion.

drewopel

I was referring the fact that you felt the need to comment on a misuse of the English language.

I'll take night classes before I post again.