Football » English » ManagerZone talk

Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 07-11-2017 14:36

Just curious to find out about how many middle level to top level managers out there use 4-3-3 in all its variations but more of a focus on 1 top with two supporting strikers. What has your experience been like in terms of balance and goal scoring? And as a side note, I think the ever ubiquitous 3 back is becoming more and more useless because I've noticed that strikers in this sim instead of passing to feet pass into space for their partners to shoot almost always unmarked with a 3 back formation. But I digress.Just curious to find out about how many middle level to top level managers out there use 4-3-3 in all its variations but more of a focus on 1 top with two supporting strikers. What has your experience been like in terms of balance and goal scoring? And as a side note, I think the ever ubiquitous 3 back is becoming more and more useless because I've noticed that strikers in this sim instead of passing to feet pass into space for their partners to shoot almost always unmarked with a 3 back formation. But I digress.

 

Page 1

 

Reply

Last Message

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By aldebaran - 07-11-2017 22:57

I'm a middle level div1 team I play a 4-2-1-2-1 short passing symmetrical tactic I win some, I lose some I play with 1 striker for reasons having to do with budget and because my current roster and managerial mentality (whatever that might be) work better with that formation The base of the "bermuda triangle" in the front will either manage to disrupt the opponent's defense and produce a chance for the ST to score or manage to score some long shot goals (which are harder to block than those 1 on 1 chances of the ST)) and ridicule my expensive ST's performance! Sometimes the only thing they manage to do is have lots of chances gone missing, hence the "bermuda triangle" nickname for the tactic :p Also it seems to give me more control on the offense, especialy if the opponent has a low sp/st (at least that's how I "translate the 2d). Not so great tactic when I'm up against teams that can play quality wingplay gameI'm a middle level div1 team
I play a 4-2-1-2-1 short passing symmetrical tactic

I win some, I lose some

I play with 1 striker for reasons having to do with budget and because my current roster and managerial mentality (whatever that might be) work better with that formation

The base of the "bermuda triangle" in the front will either manage to disrupt the opponent's defense and produce a chance for the ST to score or manage to score some long shot goals (which are harder to block than those 1 on 1 chances of the ST)) and ridicule my expensive ST's performance!

Sometimes the only thing they manage to do is have lots of chances gone missing, hence the "bermuda triangle" nickname for the tactic :p

Also it seems to give me more control on the offense, especialy if the opponent has a low sp/st (at least that's how I "translate the 2d).

Not so great tactic when I'm up against teams that can play quality wingplay game

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 08-11-2017 00:02

lol I can relate with the bermuda triangle phenomenon. But would you say you score more goals from this one striker when played alone or when he's paired?

aldebaran wrote:

I'm a middle level div1 team
I play a 4-2-1-2-1 short passing symmetrical tactic

I win some, I lose some

I play with 1 striker for reasons having to do with budget and because my current roster and managerial mentality (whatever that might be) work better with that formation

The base of the "bermuda triangle" in the front will either manage to disrupt the opponent's defense and produce a chance for the ST to score or manage to score some long shot goals (which are harder to block than those 1 on 1 chances of the ST)) and ridicule my expensive ST's performance!

Sometimes the only thing they manage to do is have lots of chances gone missing, hence the "bermuda triangle" nickname for the tactic :p

Also it seems to give me more control on the offense, especialy if the opponent has a low sp/st (at least that's how I "translate the 2d).

Not so great tactic when I'm up against teams that can play quality wingplay game

lol I can relate with the bermuda triangle phenomenon. But would you say you score more goals from this one striker when played alone or when he's paired?

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By aldebaran - 08-11-2017 01:26

There are too many variables to be able to give you a definite answer Statisticaly speaking, 1 st works better with my roster and the 2 amc help the build up play and/or pressing much better than a V triangle in attack or even the classic zig zag positioning. But as i said...I win some and I lose some, cause such is life in MZ :)There are too many variables to be able to give you a definite answer

Statisticaly speaking, 1 st works better with my roster and the 2 amc help the build up play and/or pressing much better than a V triangle in attack or even the classic zig zag positioning.

But as i said...I win some and I lose some, cause such is life in MZ :)

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By aldebaran - 08-11-2017 01:33

Also the lonely scorer tends to finish the season in one of the top places inthe goalscorers table...so i guess being a lonely gun works for him well enoughAlso the lonely scorer tends to finish the season in one of the top places inthe goalscorers table...so i guess being a lonely gun works for him well enough

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 08-11-2017 01:34

May that's the kind of philosophical stance I should adapt to help me cope with ridiculous results.

aldebaran wrote:

But as i said...I win some and I lose some, cause such is life in MZ :)

May that's the kind of philosophical stance I should adapt to help me cope with ridiculous results.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 08-11-2017 01:40

Noted. I'm still trying to figure out my club's identity by testing various tactics. But I'm seeing some very positive results since switching to the back 4 I mentioned earlier and so I'm sticking to that. It's tinkering for that solid tactic that has an excellent transition from defence to attack with efficient passing patterns which create more scoring chances for the forwards. I think once I figure that out the forward problem will solve itself. More shots on target leads to more goals right? But then I remember I'm playing mz and end up cuddling the bottle for comfort.

aldebaran wrote:

Also the lonely scorer tends to finish the season in one of the top places inthe goalscorers table...so i guess being a lonely gun works for him well enough

Noted. I'm still trying to figure out my club's identity by testing various tactics. But I'm seeing some very positive results since switching to the back 4 I mentioned earlier and so I'm sticking to that. It's tinkering for that solid tactic that has an excellent transition from defence to attack with efficient passing patterns which create more scoring chances for the forwards. I think once I figure that out the forward problem will solve itself. More shots on target leads to more goals right? But then I remember I'm playing mz and end up cuddling the bottle for comfort.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By chucky06 - 08-11-2017 07:33

[AUSNZ]
President

Finding "one tactic" and sticking with it is a failed system. You need to be versatile and be able to play a back 4 or 5 against teams that play wings and be able to play 3 at the back and SP against teams with back 5's etc. I'm not saying you need to change tactic for every opponent and every match but knowing what works and what tactic's "counters" are will help you win more than you lose. Taking advantage of space on the field and countering your opponent is how I have most of my success.Finding "one tactic" and sticking with it is a failed system.

You need to be versatile and be able to play a back 4 or 5 against teams that play wings and be able to play 3 at the back and SP against teams with back 5's etc. I'm not saying you need to change tactic for every opponent and every match but knowing what works and what tactic's "counters" are will help you win more than you lose.

Taking advantage of space on the field and countering your opponent is how I have most of my success.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By theloyalone - 08-11-2017 07:48

and the same goes for your NT isnt it ? [:P][;)]

chucky06 wrote:

Taking advantage of space on the field and countering your opponent is how I have most of my success.

and the same goes for your NT isnt it ? :P;)

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By chucky06 - 08-11-2017 08:50

[AUSNZ]
President

I'm not the coach, that's his choice. I was just talking about my personal team. In saying that I'd love to draw your team in the round of 16 :)I'm not the coach, that's his choice. I was just talking about my personal team.

In saying that I'd love to draw your team in the round of 16 :)

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By theloyalone - 08-11-2017 09:12

oh haha why ? [:P] eager to bring the cricket rivalry to football eh ? [;)] (i hardly watch cricket tho :P) but i'm the complete opposite. i dont believe in changing tactics often :P i was quite a fan of that before, but that's not my stuff anymore :P coz you see, the SIM's already so random, that i feel it's best to stick to a formation which has worked best for you in the past. anything else and that would make you end up on the 'wrong' side of the SIM's randomness :P (but when it comes to facing extremely tough teams like Argentina etc, then that's another thing altogether lol). so if and when we draw in the Round of 16, it will be my 'consistency' Vs your(s) versatility ;)

chucky06 wrote:

In saying that I'd love to draw your team in the round of 16 :)

oh haha why ? :P eager to bring the cricket rivalry to football eh ? ;) (i hardly watch cricket tho :P)


but i'm the complete opposite. i dont believe in changing tactics often :P i was quite a fan of that before, but that's not my stuff anymore :P

coz you see, the SIM's already so random, that i feel it's best to stick to a formation which has worked best for you in the past. anything else and that would make you end up on the 'wrong' side of the SIM's randomness :P (but when it comes to facing extremely tough teams like Argentina etc, then that's another thing altogether lol).

so if and when we draw in the Round of 16, it will be my 'consistency' Vs your(s) versatility ;)

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By theloyalone - 08-11-2017 09:39

and in fact the standard formation's always served us well except for last night. but last night's was anyway my fault lol. a very very silly yet huge error which may cost us the qualification spot (very less chance tho).and in fact the standard formation's always served us well except for last night. but last night's was anyway my fault lol. a very very silly yet huge error which may cost us the qualification spot (very less chance tho).

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 08-11-2017 10:03

Unfortunately I have seen more teams become successful with just one tactic league match after league match than teams that change tactic to suit their opponents. Adaptation would be the ideal thing to do but unfortunately that would mean having the players to do so. Not even having 9 foreign slots solves this problem. Take a look at the MZ country transfer market when you have the time. We frequently have 0 players on the transfer market lol. That's zero.

chucky06 wrote:

Finding "one tactic" and sticking with it is a failed system.

You need to be versatile and be able to play a back 4 or 5 against teams that play wings and be able to play 3 at the back and SP against teams with back 5's etc. I'm not saying you need to change tactic for every opponent and every match but knowing what works and what tactic's "counters" are will help you win more than you lose.

Taking advantage of space on the field and countering your opponent is how I have most of my success.

Unfortunately I have seen more teams become successful with just one tactic league match after league match than teams that change tactic to suit their opponents. Adaptation would be the ideal thing to do but unfortunately that would mean having the players to do so. Not even having 9 foreign slots solves this problem. Take a look at the MZ country transfer market when you have the time. We frequently have 0 players on the transfer market lol. That's zero.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By theloyalone - 08-11-2017 10:08

true. i knew (and still know) one manager who hadnt even looked (let alone change :P) at his tactics for 2 seasons continuously and still managed to win back-to-back League seasons (in our topmost league), that too during a competitive period in our country's league. not to mention, he also won quite a few 'international' cups during the same time. the most important thing is finding the right tactic - once that's done, you're the boss [H]

killerbeeez wrote:

Unfortunately I have seen more teams become successful with just one tactic league match after league match than teams that change tactic to suit their opponents. Adaptation would be the ideal thing to do but unfortunately that would mean having the players to do so. Not even having 9 foreign slots solves this problem. Take a look at the MZ country transfer market when you have the time. We frequently have 0 players on the transfer market lol. That's zero.

true. i knew (and still know) one manager who hadnt even looked (let alone change :P) at his tactics for 2 seasons continuously and still managed to win back-to-back League seasons (in our topmost league), that too during a competitive period in our country's league. not to mention, he also won quite a few 'international' cups during the same time.

the most important thing is finding the right tactic - once that's done, you're the boss H

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 08-11-2017 10:14

hahaa indeed. I find that finding a tactic you like that's well balanced then buying the players to fit into this system for the long-term looks to be the best approach.

theloyalone wrote:

true. i knew (and still know) one manager who hadnt even looked (let alone change :P) at his tactics for 2 seasons continuously and still managed to win back-to-back League seasons (in our topmost league), that too during a competitive period in our country's league. not to mention, he also won quite a few 'international' cups during the same time.

the most important thing is finding the right tactic - once that's done, you're the boss

hahaa indeed. I find that finding a tactic you like that's well balanced then buying the players to fit into this system for the long-term looks to be the best approach.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By aldebaran - 08-11-2017 10:19

you need 1 tactic that works best with your roster and is able to produce wins you need 1 tactic for countering wing play (if you're playing short passing) and finaly you need 1 tactic for those very difficult adversaries where a loss is almost 100% guaranteed if you're already playing a wing play tactic, then you (probably) only need 2 formations, one with 4 defenders on the back and one with 5 if a tactic works for the majority of your current opponents, then it's a keeper also you should consider another thing when you're setting up your tactics... what are your strengths and weaknesses will you set up your tactics in order to give an extra push on the stronger department (ie def/mid/att) or will you hinder that same department as to balance/help the weaker one(s)? in my case I've found out that trying to balance things out is not working (mainly cause of roster/budget restrictions). NT teams are another case though, since they have a roster made up from the best of the cream. But that's just my opinion man :Pyou need 1 tactic that works best with your roster and is able to produce wins
you need 1 tactic for countering wing play (if you're playing short passing)
and finaly you need 1 tactic for those very difficult adversaries where a loss is almost 100% guaranteed

if you're already playing a wing play tactic, then you (probably) only need 2 formations, one with 4 defenders on the back and one with 5

if a tactic works for the majority of your current opponents, then it's a keeper

also you should consider another thing when you're setting up your tactics...
what are your strengths and weaknesses

will you set up your tactics in order to give an extra push on the stronger department (ie def/mid/att) or will you hinder that same department as to balance/help the weaker one(s)?

in my case I've found out that trying to balance things out is not working (mainly cause of roster/budget restrictions). NT teams are another case though, since they have a roster made up from the best of the cream.

But that's just my opinion man :P

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By theloyalone - 08-11-2017 10:20

true, but you should also keep testing that in order to make sure that's the only tactic where your players (current ones) will perform at an optimal level. for eg - if i'm an NC and have practiced/tested multiple tactics against teams and found one of them to be the best-suited one, i'll stick to that tactic unless i'm not confronted with an opponent like Argentina/Brazil etc. but maybe (just maybe), in that case too (argentina brazil etc) i may find it worth sticking to my 'standard' tactic, since i anyways have nothing to lose and hence it's best to play a formation which you have used all this while, for the reason that you know it's the best suited one for your team.

killerbeeez wrote:

hahaa indeed. I find that finding a tactic you like that's well balanced then buying the players to fit into this system for the long-term looks to be the best approach.

true, but you should also keep testing that in order to make sure that's the only tactic where your players (current ones) will perform at an optimal level. for eg - if i'm an NC and have practiced/tested multiple tactics against teams and found one of them to be the best-suited one, i'll stick to that tactic unless i'm not confronted with an opponent like Argentina/Brazil etc.

but maybe (just maybe), in that case too (argentina brazil etc) i may find it worth sticking to my 'standard' tactic, since i anyways have nothing to lose and hence it's best to play a formation which you have used all this while, for the reason that you know it's the best suited one for your team.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 08-11-2017 10:23

I agree.

theloyalone wrote:

true, but you should also keep testing that in order to make sure that's the only tactic where your players (current ones) will perform at an optimal level. for eg - if i'm an NC and have practiced/tested multiple tactics against teams and found one of them to be the best-suited one, i'll stick to that tactic unless i'm not confronted with an opponent like Argentina/Brazil etc.

but maybe (just maybe), in that case too (argentina brazil etc) i may find it worth sticking to my 'standard' tactic, since i anyways have nothing to lose and hence it's best to play a formation which you have used all this while, for the reason that you know it's the best suited one for your team.

I agree.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By theloyalone - 08-11-2017 10:25

also, when the SIM's already so random, why play something 'random' (new formation) and make all things around you more random ? [:P] that will leave you 'randomized' (by the SIM) with only yourself to blame for it [;)][:P] and in any case, i'll prefer losing with my 'best formation' (standard) than losing with some 'makeshift' formation, since a loss due to the latter will always make one question linger in my mind - [b]what if[/b] i'd stuck to my formation ? would i have won ?also, when the SIM's already so random, why play something 'random' (new formation) and make all things around you more random ? :P that will leave you 'randomized' (by the SIM) with only yourself to blame for it ;):P

and in any case, i'll prefer losing with my 'best formation' (standard) than losing with some 'makeshift' formation, since a loss due to the latter will always make one question linger in my mind - what if i'd stuck to my formation ? would i have won ?

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By chucky06 - 08-11-2017 10:26

[AUSNZ]
President

Everyone has their own tactics that work for them. The take away point from all this really is you need to continually be exploring more tactics and looking for one that might even be better for your current side than you have.Everyone has their own tactics that work for them.

The take away point from all this really is you need to continually be exploring more tactics and looking for one that might even be better for your current side than you have.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 08-11-2017 10:27

That's the problem. Loading up on the attack for example will only leave you frustrated as I've discovered. Nothing is more annoying than watching your excellent forwards just shoot 18 shots on target into the opposition keeper's gut. But guess what he gets 8 shots on target and wins the match 4-0. So yes balancing the teams means spending more money but not doing so is not prudent. Defenders are highly handicapped in this sim so I don't think you should give the sim any more reasons to weaken your defence.

aldebaran wrote:

you need 1 tactic that works best with your roster and is able to produce wins
you need 1 tactic for countering wing play (if you're playing short passing)
and finaly you need 1 tactic for those very difficult adversaries where a loss is almost 100% guaranteed

if you're already playing a wing play tactic, then you (probably) only need 2 formations, one with 4 defenders on the back and one with 5

if a tactic works for the majority of your current opponents, then it's a keeper

also you should consider another thing when you're setting up your tactics...
what are your strengths and weaknesses

will you set up your tactics in order to give an extra push on the stronger department (ie def/mid/att) or will you hinder that same department as to balance/help the weaker one(s)?

in my case I've found out that trying to balance things out is not working (mainly cause of roster/budget restrictions). NT teams are another case though, since they have a roster made up from the best of the cream.

But that's just my opinion man :P

That's the problem. Loading up on the attack for example will only leave you frustrated as I've discovered. Nothing is more annoying than watching your excellent forwards just shoot 18 shots on target into the opposition keeper's gut. But guess what he gets 8 shots on target and wins the match 4-0. So yes balancing the teams means spending more money but not doing so is not prudent. Defenders are highly handicapped in this sim so I don't think you should give the sim any more reasons to weaken your defence.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By chucky06 - 08-11-2017 10:28

[AUSNZ]
President

I wasn't talking about playing random tactics either. Playing proven tactics and counters that work. Not made up tactics with players randomly distributed, lol.I wasn't talking about playing random tactics either. Playing proven tactics and counters that work. Not made up tactics with players randomly distributed, lol.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 08-11-2017 10:30

Exactly! Hence my decision to stick one. Monogamy is boring but it provides much needed peace of mind. Right? lol

theloyalone wrote:

and in any case, i'll prefer losing with my 'best formation' (standard) than losing with some 'makeshift' formation, since a loss due to the latter will always make one question linger in my mind - what if i'd stuck to my formation ? would i have won ?

Exactly! Hence my decision to stick one. Monogamy is boring but it provides much needed peace of mind. Right? lol

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By theloyalone - 08-11-2017 10:40

exactly. but what i feel is additionally important is to stick to the one that is your current best when it comes to important matches (than trying out 'new' attractive/suitable-looking ones). i didnt mean that lol. i meant random as in something that you havent tried before. and when i say 'havent tried before', i include even the minutest of 'shifts' in player pixel positions..since a minor change in these too can affect ur team's performance big time.

chucky06 wrote:

Everyone has their own tactics that work for them.

The take away point from all this really is you need to continually be exploring more tactics and looking for one that might even be better for your current side than you have.

exactly. but what i feel is additionally important is to stick to the one that is your current best when it comes to important matches (than trying out 'new' attractive/suitable-looking ones).

chucky06 wrote:

I wasn't talking about playing random tactics either. Playing proven tactics and counters that work. Not made up tactics with players randomly distributed, lol.

i didnt mean that lol. i meant random as in something that you havent tried before. and when i say 'havent tried before', i include even the minutest of 'shifts' in player pixel positions..since a minor change in these too can affect ur team's performance big time.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By theloyalone - 08-11-2017 10:46

true :P

killerbeeez wrote:

Exactly! Hence my decision to stick one. Monogamy is boring but it provides much needed peace of mind. Right? lol

true :P

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By civilu - 08-11-2017 11:50

[RAF]
President

A 2-1 attack is very easy to counter and then everything belongs to chance. I wouldn't use it but for when I know my opponent doesn't change tactics and such a drilling attack is needed. IMO, a 1-2 attack is much better on all occasions - you can compromise this by having the 3 attackers (or AMC plus forwards) placed assimetrically yet it's the same 1-2, better than a 2-1. A 2-1 is only good if you have only one solid striker and good mids... Otherwise, buy 2 strikers!A 2-1 attack is very easy to counter and then everything belongs to chance. I wouldn't use it but for when I know my opponent doesn't change tactics and such a drilling attack is needed. IMO, a 1-2 attack is much better on all occasions - you can compromise this by having the 3 attackers (or AMC plus forwards) placed assimetrically yet it's the same 1-2, better than a 2-1.

A 2-1 is only good if you have only one solid striker and good mids... Otherwise, buy 2 strikers!

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 08-11-2017 12:24

I'm confused 1-2 2-1 ? From which side of the pitch are you attacking?

civilu wrote:

A 2-1 attack is very easy to counter and then everything belongs to chance. I wouldn't use it but for when I know my opponent doesn't change tactics and such a drilling attack is needed. IMO, a 1-2 attack is much better on all occasions - you can compromise this by having the 3 attackers (or AMC plus forwards) placed assimetrically yet it's the same 1-2, better than a 2-1.

A 2-1 is only good if you have only one solid striker and good mids... Otherwise, buy 2 strikers!

I'm confused 1-2 2-1 ? From which side of the pitch are you attacking?

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By aldebaran - 08-11-2017 14:36

I consider this one a good striker at least for my league :P [fpl=191365648]I consider this one a good striker
at least for my league :P

Denílson Mazza

Age: 54 (Retired)

SpeedSp					(7)
StaminaSt					(7)
Play IntelligencePI					(9)
PassingPa					(7)
ShootingSh					(10)
HeadingHe					(5)
KeepingKe					(0)
Ball ControlBC					(8)
TacklingTa					(9)
Aerial PassingAP					(2)
Set PlaysSP					(5)
ExperienceEx					(10)
FormFo					(9)
Total Skill Balls					69

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By aldebaran - 08-11-2017 14:40

1-2 as in 1 AMC + 2 STs 2-1 as in 2 AMCs + 1 ST usually we start "counting" from lower defensive position towards the upper attacking position thus a 3-2-2-1-2 would be something like 3 defenders / 2 Defensive midfielders / 2 midfielders / 1 attacking midfielder / 2 strikers

killerbeeez wrote:

I'm confused 1-2 2-1 ? From which side of the pitch are you attacking?

1-2 as in 1 AMC + 2 STs

2-1 as in 2 AMCs + 1 ST

usually we start "counting" from lower defensive position towards the upper attacking position

thus a 3-2-2-1-2 would be something like 3 defenders / 2 Defensive midfielders / 2 midfielders / 1 attacking midfielder / 2 strikers

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By civilu - 08-11-2017 14:56

[RAF]
President

Spot on!

aldebaran wrote:

usually we start "counting" from lower defensive position towards the upper attacking position

Spot on!

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 08-11-2017 15:36

At least for your league?? lol. This guy should be able to play in any league.

aldebaran wrote:

I consider this one a good striker
at least for my league :P

Denílson Mazza

Age: 54 (Retired)

SpeedSp					(7)
StaminaSt					(7)
Play IntelligencePI					(9)
PassingPa					(7)
ShootingSh					(10)
HeadingHe					(5)
KeepingKe					(0)
Ball ControlBC					(8)
TacklingTa					(9)
Aerial PassingAP					(2)
Set PlaysSP					(5)
ExperienceEx					(10)
FormFo					(9)
Total Skill Balls					69

At least for your league?? lol. This guy should be able to play in any league.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 08-11-2017 15:37

Really dude? :-P .

aldebaran wrote:

1-2 as in 1 AMC + 2 STs

2-1 as in 2 AMCs + 1 ST

usually we start "counting" from lower defensive position towards the upper attacking position

thus a 3-2-2-1-2 would be something like 3 defenders / 2 Defensive midfielders / 2 midfielders / 1 attacking midfielder / 2 strikers

Really dude? :-P .

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 08-11-2017 15:38

I realise how dumb that question sounded. Time to put that bottle down...I realise how dumb that question sounded. Time to put that bottle down...

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By aldebaran - 08-11-2017 15:39

:D

killerbeeez wrote:

Really dude? :-P .

:D

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By evosa - 08-11-2017 16:43

[LEGEND]

it's a nice defender! [:P]

aldebaran wrote:

Denílson Mazza

Age: 54 (Retired)

SpeedSp					(7)
StaminaSt					(7)
Play IntelligencePI					(9)
PassingPa					(7)
ShootingSh					(10)
HeadingHe					(5)
KeepingKe					(0)
Ball ControlBC					(8)
TacklingTa					(9)
Aerial PassingAP					(2)
Set PlaysSP					(5)
ExperienceEx					(10)
FormFo					(9)
Total Skill Balls					69

it's a nice defender!

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By civilu - 08-11-2017 17:26

[RAF]
President

A solid striker or a good DM... for a passing tactic. Otherwise, neither of that if one plays wings.A solid striker or a good DM... for a passing tactic. Otherwise, neither of that if one plays wings.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By andyferg88 - 12-11-2017 12:28

[B&IFF]

Like chucky stated, a single tactic system sets you up for failure. Playing the exact same tactic all the time leaves you exposed to the smallest amount of research so have a couple of variations in order to try and match your opponent now and again. I use a 4 at the back in order to compete with wings and it does work but on the odd occasion can still get obliterated. For example, I won a Division Cup recently using a 4 at the back short passing in most rounds to counter the sheer volume of wings but when my opponent was also short passing I switched to 3-2. The flip side is I comfortably reached a Season Cup final with the same strategy...but lost by an incredible 8 nil scoreline to a Polish wing playing team. If I fielded a 3-2 short passing all the time, I would lose to inferior wing teams more often than not, you need to leave something to the imagination.Like chucky stated, a single tactic system sets you up for failure. Playing the exact same tactic all the time leaves you exposed to the smallest amount of research so have a couple of variations in order to try and match your opponent now and again. I use a 4 at the back in order to compete with wings and it does work but on the odd occasion can still get obliterated. For example, I won a Division Cup recently using a 4 at the back short passing in most rounds to counter the sheer volume of wings but when my opponent was also short passing I switched to 3-2. The flip side is I comfortably reached a Season Cup final with the same strategy...but lost by an incredible 8 nil scoreline to a Polish wing playing team. If I fielded a 3-2 short passing all the time, I would lose to inferior wing teams more often than not, you need to leave something to the imagination.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 12-11-2017 12:54

So you played short passing just because there were too many wing playing teams in the competition? That doesn't sound like a sound decision as I'm sure you're aware that wing play is the strongest tactic with this sim. I have personally decided to play wing tactic with the same formation. Here's why. I find that anytime I switch formations to suit an opponent my team struggles in the first 20 to 30 mins adapting to the new tactic. Now Crew will have you believe that teams are affected by tactic changes because the players don't have to compete with formation like in another sim manager game whose name shall not be mentioned :-). But personally I've noticed that my team performs better and more consistently when they play with the same formation. I might move some players around to suit my opposition since my team is not evenly balanced in terms of talent but the formation stays the same. And personally I switched to wing tactic just because of how incredibly efficient it is. Now I noticed that with short passing I would destroy teams of lower divisions in friendlies but would struggle or get destroyed by other short passing teams or obliterated by wing passing teams of similar standing or better quality. Playing wing eliminates one huge flaw with short passing. The huge outlay for talent to play short passing doesn't correlate to performance. Whereas you can spend half or even 1/3 of the same budget spent on a short passing team on a wing team and have far superior performances. That pressure to have a bullet proof transition of play from back to front is eliminated. All the players have to do is hoof the ball to the wing which kills the opposition attack, and creates your own. No more balls being stolen countless number times from defenders, DMs and central midfielders who should pass sooner but decide to beat 4 players before making a simple pass.

andyferg88 wrote:

Like chucky stated, a single tactic system sets you up for failure. Playing the exact same tactic all the time leaves you exposed to the smallest amount of research so have a couple of variations in order to try and match your opponent now and again. I use a 4 at the back in order to compete with wings and it does work but on the odd occasion can still get obliterated. For example, I won a Division Cup recently using a 4 at the back short passing in most rounds to counter the sheer volume of wings but when my opponent was also short passing I switched to 3-2. The flip side is I comfortably reached a Season Cup final with the same strategy...but lost by an incredible 8 nil scoreline to a Polish wing playing team. If I fielded a 3-2 short passing all the time, I would lose to inferior wing teams more often than not, you need to leave something to the imagination.

So you played short passing just because there were too many wing playing teams in the competition? That doesn't sound like a sound decision as I'm sure you're aware that wing play is the strongest tactic with this sim. I have personally decided to play wing tactic with the same formation. Here's why.

I find that anytime I switch formations to suit an opponent my team struggles in the first 20 to 30 mins adapting to the new tactic. Now Crew will have you believe that teams are affected by tactic changes because the players don't have to compete with formation like in another sim manager game whose name shall not be mentioned :-). But personally I've noticed that my team performs better and more consistently when they play with the same formation. I might move some players around to suit my opposition since my team is not evenly balanced in terms of talent but the formation stays the same.

And personally I switched to wing tactic just because of how incredibly efficient it is. Now I noticed that with short passing I would destroy teams of lower divisions in friendlies but would struggle or get destroyed by other short passing teams or obliterated by wing passing teams of similar standing or better quality. Playing wing eliminates one huge flaw with short passing. The huge outlay for talent to play short passing doesn't correlate to performance. Whereas you can spend half or even 1/3 of the same budget spent on a short passing team on a wing team and have far superior performances. That pressure to have a bullet proof transition of play from back to front is eliminated. All the players have to do is hoof the ball to the wing which kills the opposition attack, and creates your own. No more balls being stolen countless number times from defenders, DMs and central midfielders who should pass sooner but decide to beat 4 players before making a simple pass.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By aldebaran - 12-11-2017 13:17

playing wings Tactic A: 4 man defense wing playing Tactic B: 5 man defense wing playing Tactic C: B squad for friendlies playing short passing Tactic A: main short passing tactic that works most of the times Tactic B: main short passing tactic that hopefully will work against a 3 man offensive wing playing opponent Tactic C: main short passing tactic that hopefully will work against a 2 man offensive wing playing opponent Tactic D: main short passing tactic that hopefully will work against a 3 man offensive wing playing opponent + 1 AMC in the attack Tactic E: main short passing tactic that hopefully will work against a 3 man offensive wing playing opponent + 1 AMC + 1 L/R DMC (supporting winger role) Tactic F: main short passing tactic that will (probably) work against the tight packed central field axis short passing game opponent Tactic G: main short passing tactic that will (probably) work against the typical one sided zig zag short passing opponent Tactic H: B squad for friendlies.... problem solved :pppppplaying wings

Tactic A: 4 man defense wing playing
Tactic B: 5 man defense wing playing
Tactic C: B squad for friendlies


playing short passing

Tactic A: main short passing tactic that works most of the times

Tactic B: main short passing tactic that hopefully will work against a 3 man offensive wing playing opponent

Tactic C: main short passing tactic that hopefully will work against a 2 man offensive wing playing opponent

Tactic D: main short passing tactic that hopefully will work against a 3 man offensive wing playing opponent + 1 AMC in the attack

Tactic E: main short passing tactic that hopefully will work against a 3 man offensive wing playing opponent + 1 AMC + 1 L/R DMC (supporting winger role)

Tactic F: main short passing tactic that will (probably) work against the tight packed central field axis short passing game opponent

Tactic G: main short passing tactic that will (probably) work against the typical one sided zig zag short passing opponent

Tactic H: B squad for friendlies....

problem solved :ppppp

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 12-11-2017 13:29

LOL. My point exactly. You have options of Tactic A to H for short passing but only have three tactical options for playing wing attack. Wing attack is way more superior and I regret not sticking to it. Fun fact: I won and International top division national cup playing wing attack against BAG GIRLS who was the most prolific team to win the league in MZ country history until CHOP CHOP came unto the scene. Short passing is more fun to watch that's why I made the switch after coming back to the game but I'm playing wing tactic now and I'm not looking back. And my main reason is the drastic reduction in turn over of balls lost by defence or central midfielders which ended up piling minutes of needless pressure on the defence and keeper.

aldebaran wrote:

playing wings

Tactic A: 4 man defense wing playing
Tactic B: 5 man defense wing playing
Tactic C: B squad for friendlies


playing short passing

Tactic A: main short passing tactic that works most of the times

Tactic B: main short passing tactic that hopefully will work against a 3 man offensive wing playing opponent

Tactic C: main short passing tactic that hopefully will work against a 2 man offensive wing playing opponent

Tactic D: main short passing tactic that hopefully will work against a 3 man offensive wing playing opponent + 1 AMC in the attack

Tactic E: main short passing tactic that hopefully will work against a 3 man offensive wing playing opponent + 1 AMC + 1 L/R DMC (supporting winger role)

Tactic F: main short passing tactic that will (probably) work against the tight packed central field axis short passing game opponent

Tactic G: main short passing tactic that will (probably) work against the typical one sided zig zag short passing opponent

Tactic H: B squad for friendlies....

problem solved :ppppp

LOL. My point exactly. You have options of Tactic A to H for short passing but only have three tactical options for playing wing attack. Wing attack is way more superior and I regret not sticking to it. Fun fact: I won and International top division national cup playing wing attack against BAG GIRLS who was the most prolific team to win the league in MZ country history until CHOP CHOP came unto the scene. Short passing is more fun to watch that's why I made the switch after coming back to the game but I'm playing wing tactic now and I'm not looking back. And my main reason is the drastic reduction in turn over of balls lost by defence or central midfielders which ended up piling minutes of needless pressure on the defence and keeper.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 12-11-2017 13:31

My next target is getting a 10 ball shooter because the 9 ball strikers aren't as prolific as I thought they would be. The gap between 9 ball and 10 is more than 1 ball . I'm sure of it.My next target is getting a 10 ball shooter because the 9 ball strikers aren't as prolific as I thought they would be. The gap between 9 ball and 10 is more than 1 ball . I'm sure of it.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By andyferg88 - 12-11-2017 13:33

[B&IFF]

No that's not really what I meant Killerbeeez. I meant that I played a short passing variation of 4 at the back in order to counter the teams who were fielding wings, instead of a narrower 3-2 which would have left my team exposed. The reason I played it a lot is because in top teams there are significantly more wing tactic teams than not as you are well aware, this is just part of MZ. I didn't just decide to play short passing because all these teams were playing wings, I decided to play short passing when building this side because I wanted to. I used a particular variation of this because it was pretty successful in countering wings. You may think this wasn't a sound decision either but I have played this game since 2004, I've built many different sides. I do agree that you can build a cheaper wing team that what it costs to build a short passing side but as the thread was about a successful short passing team, I thought I would chip in with some feedback on why you might not want to stick to one particular short passing tactic variation. Maybe a wings specialist will want to give their opinion on what to do with wings, I wont comment on that as I have recently tried wings with less success and enjoyment. I'll maybe chip in later with the attacking element the OP was on about.No that's not really what I meant Killerbeeez.

I meant that I played a short passing variation of 4 at the back in order to counter the teams who were fielding wings, instead of a narrower 3-2 which would have left my team exposed. The reason I played it a lot is because in top teams there are significantly more wing tactic teams than not as you are well aware, this is just part of MZ. I didn't just decide to play short passing because all these teams were playing wings, I decided to play short passing when building this side because I wanted to. I used a particular variation of this because it was pretty successful in countering wings. You may think this wasn't a sound decision either but I have played this game since 2004, I've built many different sides.

I do agree that you can build a cheaper wing team that what it costs to build a short passing side but as the thread was about a successful short passing team, I thought I would chip in with some feedback on why you might not want to stick to one particular short passing tactic variation. Maybe a wings specialist will want to give their opinion on what to do with wings, I wont comment on that as I have recently tried wings with less success and enjoyment. I'll maybe chip in later with the attacking element the OP was on about.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 12-11-2017 13:41

Right. Thanks the input. But another fun fact, I've been playing this game since 2001. Before Mz country was formed I played in USA :-). DO you remember Valle Vista and Winning Eleven? And with my old mz country team I won my leagues from div 6 to div1 back to back ;-)... Since we're throwing credentials around LOL.

andyferg88 wrote:

No that's not really what I meant Killerbeeez.

I meant that I played a short passing variation of 4 at the back in order to counter the teams who were fielding wings, instead of a narrower 3-2 which would have left my team exposed. The reason I played it a lot is because in top teams there are significantly more wing tactic teams than not as you are well aware, this is just part of MZ. I didn't just decide to play short passing because all these teams were playing wings, I decided to play short passing when building this side because I wanted to. I used a particular variation of this because it was pretty successful in countering wings. You may think this wasn't a sound decision either but I have played this game since 2004, I've built many different sides.

I do agree that you can build a cheaper wing team that what it costs to build a short passing side but as the thread was about a successful short passing team, I thought I would chip in with some feedback on why you might not want to stick to one particular short passing tactic variation. Maybe a wings specialist will want to give their opinion on what to do with wings, I wont comment on that as I have recently tried wings with less success and enjoyment. I'll maybe chip in later with the attacking element the OP was on about.

Right. Thanks the input. But another fun fact, I've been playing this game since 2001. Before Mz country was formed I played in USA :-). DO you remember Valle Vista and Winning Eleven? And with my old mz country team I won my leagues from div 6 to div1 back to back ;-)... Since we're throwing credentials around LOL.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By aldebaran - 12-11-2017 13:47

Valle Vista...that's a blast from the past ! fun fact: Meat-wall the first "uber" tactic in MZ :PValle Vista...that's a blast from the past !

fun fact: Meat-wall the first "uber" tactic in MZ :P

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 12-11-2017 14:00

Hahaa. Tell me about it. Winning Eleven popularized the tactic I think after winning so many trophies.

aldebaran wrote:

Valle Vista...that's a blast from the past !

fun fact: Meat-wall the first "uber" tactic in MZ :P

Hahaa. Tell me about it. Winning Eleven popularized the tactic I think after winning so many trophies.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By andyferg88 - 12-11-2017 14:01

[B&IFF]

Fantastic big fella, congratulations. My point in stating when I joined was that playing short passing wasn't a completely blind choice and have had at least some experience, not because I had more or better experience than anyone else.Fantastic big fella, congratulations.

My point in stating when I joined was that playing short passing wasn't a completely blind choice and have had at least some experience, not because I had more or better experience than anyone else.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 12-11-2017 14:02

lol. Ok.

andyferg88 wrote:

Fantastic big fella, congratulations.

My point in stating when I joined was that playing short passing wasn't a completely blind choice and have had at least some experience, not because I had more or better experience than anyone else.

lol. Ok.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By xoio - 16-07-2020 01:12

I have the same problem I think. Usually I don't think fair Most of the games my team shoots a lot to score when compared to opponents. I came back to MZ last year, and last season I started to keep record of the matches. I'm still a lower league (Div4 in Brazil this is the fourth season in this level). Last season I finished second, but was sixth in Shot Conversion percent. I'm still playing with short passes, and I think I'll take sometime to change this way, but this season so far I'm playing with two players in attack line.I have the same problem I think. Usually I don't think fair Most of the games my team shoots a lot to score when compared to opponents. I came back to MZ last year, and last season I started to keep record of the matches. I'm still a lower league (Div4 in Brazil this is the fourth season in this level). Last season I finished second, but was sixth in Shot Conversion percent.

I'm still playing with short passes, and I think I'll take sometime to change this way, but this season so far I'm playing with two players in attack line.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By chucky06 - 16-07-2020 03:10

[AUSNZ]
President

If you’re playing the same SP tactic every match that’s half of your problem. You should be adapting to your opponent, playing variations based on their tactics. For example if a team plays with a back 5 then your two attackers up top is most effective. If they play with a back three then have your attackers off to one side etc. Learning counter tactics will help you score more goals. It’s not going to bridge the gap between shot conversion compared to wing tactics but it will help.

xoio wrote:

I have the same problem I think. Usually I don't think fair Most of the games my team shoots a lot to score when compared to opponents. I came back to MZ last year, and last season I started to keep record of the matches. I'm still a lower league (Div4 in Brazil this is the fourth season in this level). Last season I finished second, but was sixth in Shot Conversion percent.

I'm still playing with short passes, and I think I'll take sometime to change this way, but this season so far I'm playing with two players in attack line.

If you’re playing the same SP tactic every match that’s half of your problem. You should be adapting to your opponent, playing variations based on their tactics. For example if a team plays with a back 5 then your two attackers up top is most effective. If they play with a back three then have your attackers off to one side etc.

Learning counter tactics will help you score more goals. It’s not going to bridge the gap between shot conversion compared to wing tactics but it will help.

Re: Prolific 4-3-3 short passing teams?

By killerbeeez (NC) - 16-07-2020 12:08

If you read the manual it clearly states that playing short passing means you will generally have a lot of possession but lack a cutting edging in front of goal. Wings is the way to go if you want to start winning matches. There are a lot of managers like you out there who prefer short passing but because they don't win much started playing wings and started winning more.

xoio wrote:

I have the same problem I think. Usually I don't think fair Most of the games my team shoots a lot to score when compared to opponents. I came back to MZ last year, and last season I started to keep record of the matches. I'm still a lower league (Div4 in Brazil this is the fourth season in this level). Last season I finished second, but was sixth in Shot Conversion percent.

I'm still playing with short passes, and I think I'll take sometime to change this way, but this season so far I'm playing with two players in attack line.

If you read the manual it clearly states that playing short passing means you will generally have a lot of possession but lack a cutting edging in front of goal. Wings is the way to go if you want to start winning matches. There are a lot of managers like you out there who prefer short passing but because they don't win much started playing wings and started winning more.

 

Page 1