Game Development idea

Tom@Charlton wrote:

From all your trials Paul, the idea seems to be worth doing. All the formations are comfotable on the larger pitch, with just a few tweeks here and there for some managers.

Has it convinced you that it will be a success?

generally so far it looks good but i think we have a problem here with slowbk/wbk away from home as each tactical system should at least give you some chance of getting at least a point and atm there seems to bo less chance of that happening on the big pitch for slowbk/wbk.

But then there are certain formations that are suicide away from home aren't there?

Would Roma's results be similar if they were at home?

ok ive made centrebacks a bit faster to spot the fact they may need to move out to the fullback positions when there are no fullbacks and three centrebacks playing, this should improve their effectiveness slightly and cancel out the detrimental affect of the increased pitch size.

I'll play Roma in their 361 formation to see how it works.

ancona 2 roma 0 3chancesto6 51% CFDYsupLKCLAMPMP2good

ancona 2 roma 2 2chancesto3 49% CFDYsupCLAMPMgoodRKpoor

ancona 2 roma 0 0chancesto5 46% CFDYCLsupAMPMP2good

ancona 4 roma 2 4chancesto5 52% DYsubCFsupPMP2good

ancona 2 roma 2 3chancesto5 49% DYsupCFPMP2AMCLLKgood

this is about as good as it should get really and seems about right to me now, the new weightings give Roma a chance of a draw at least even though they still get outnumbered when they are trying to play their SLO and they are attacking, the way it should be in these circumstances.

I will try them in WBK formation as this should improve them in possession of the ball. see how that works going forward for them.

Roma WBK5 LKRK CRCCCL AM PMP2DY CF

ancona 2 roma 0 2chancesto2 44% 3sup3good

ancona 2 roma 1 3chancesto6 42% CFsubPMAMsup3goodRKpoor

ancona 1 roma 1 6chancesto1 58% DYsubLKAMCFPMsup3goodGKP2poor

this seems to be working the way i'd expect with the surplus P2 still playing, i'll try taking him out and playing a ST in his place

Roma WBK5 352 LKRK CRCCCL AM PMDY CFST

ancona 2 roma 1 6chancesto4 48% 4sup4good

ancona 2 roma 0 2chancesto3 44% DYsubPMCFsupCLCRAMgood

ancona 3 roma 1 3chancesto5 44% 4sup2good

the extra midfielder is slightly better so i'll try an e BW instead of the P2

ROMA WBK5 352 LKRK CLCCCR AMBWPMDY CF

ancona 3 roma 0 6chancesto4 52% LKsubCFPMBWsupAMDYgood

ancona 3 roma 2 3chancesto6 42% 3sup4good

ancona 1 roma 0 6chancesto3 58% PMsubCFBWAMsupLKCLDYgood

good that doesnt make a lot of difference

these games are being decided on the wide areas where ancona have an advantage, esp on the left where Piatti is too quick for both Rafinha and the revamped Alex, which i think is very realistic and seems to be working as I intended it to.

The 3 centrebacks are now more effective at covering the wide areas and just to check I'll make sure that Roma can still win at home in the same game.

Roma SLO3 LKRK CLCCCR AM PMP2DY CF

roma 1 ancona 1 7chancesto3 60% 5sup3good

roma 1 ancona 0 3chancesto3 52% DYsub3sup2good

roma 2 ancona 1 3chancesto3 56% 4sup4good

thats okay, not great scores but then SLO is still being outnumbered but this is countered because MIX is not so effective away from home. MIXed is more attacking at home and more defensive away from home. if you want to attack more away from home then you need to swap MIX for ATT.

in general SLO with wingbacks is not very effective against the 442 formations in terms of keeping possession but the extra bodies in midfield can counter-balance that by reducing the opponents possession.

Its overall effectiveness i would say is below that of the 442 SLO formations though and i'm now not convinced it is a good SLO option at all as it doesnt play like SLO up against 442 formations.

Each tactical system should give you an advantage as well as a drawback but atm i cant see any advantage of playing SLO with wingbacks. Your thoughts are welcome on this.

One thing I have forgotten of course is the 2 AM option.

When you play two anchormen they do cover for the fullbacks when they fullbacks are attacking, and likewise for wingbacks, so I'll try this option too.

Paul Hemmings wrote:

One thing I have forgotten of course is the 2 AM option.

When you play two anchormen they do cover for the fullbacks when they fullbacks are attacking, and likewise for wingbacks, so I'll try this option too.

But 2 anchormen in SLO means you have 3 centre backs, 2 anchormen and 2 playmakers ........ only leaves 3 men to attack. How do you score?

DL DR CF?

Roma SLO3 LKRK CRCCCL ALAR PMP2 CF ( derossi now at AR )

this effectively makes the system a 541 when the wingbacks are attacking.

ancona 1 roma 1 2chancesto6

ancona 0 roma 1 3chancesto3

ancona 1 roma 0

its far tighter with 2 AMs which is about right

Stuart@Roma wrote:

DL DR CF?

if you play LKRK and DLDR they will occupy the same areas and you'll effectively be playing with 9 players

Paul, thanks for doing all that testing with my team. any chance of testing the team with De Rossi at PM instead of Krasic? or does that make little difference

this week i'm going with this:

MAXWELL LK (DEF)
RAFINHA RK (DEF)
BONUCCI CL (DOL)
THIAGO CC
ALEX CR (DOR)
JOSUE AM
AQUILANI PM
DE ROSSI P2 (LRS)
KRASIC DY (ATT)
PAZZINI (CF)

any chance of you being able to test that against ancona?

SO you think im better off with a rigid 4-4-2 then for SLO? I was thinking of trying 4-5-1 like rob does (with the below line-up). Rob always seems to create loads of chances and not score with his 4-5-1 tho...why is that?

MAXWELL LB
BONUCCI CL
ALEX CR
RAFINHA RB
AQUILANI PM
JOSUE P2
DE ROSSI DY
PEREIRA LH (ATT)
KRASIC RH (ATT)
PAZZINI CF

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Stuart@Roma wrote:

DL DR CF?

if you play LKRK and DLDR they will occupy the same areas and you'll effectively be playing with 9 players

gotcha...so im better with AL and AR then? i'll better change that! I always thought DY's played in the channels between the wing half / centre mid position? Is that wrong then?

Stuart@Roma wrote:

Paul, thanks for doing all that testing with my team. any chance of testing the team with De Rossi at PM instead of Krasic? or does that make little difference

this week i'm going with this:

MAXWELL LK (DEF)
RAFINHA RK (DEF)
BONUCCI CL (DOL)
THIAGO CC
ALEX CR (DOR)
JOSUE AM
AQUILANI PM
DE ROSSI P2 (LRS)
KRASIC DY (ATT)
PAZZINI (CF)

any chance of you being able to test that against ancona?

SO you think im better off with a rigid 4-4-2 then for SLO? I was thinking of trying 4-5-1 like rob does (with the below line-up). Rob always seems to create loads of chances and not score with his 4-5-1 tho...why is that?

MAXWELL LB
BONUCCI CL
ALEX CR
RAFINHA RB
AQUILANI PM
JOSUE P2
DE ROSSI DY
PEREIRA LH (ATT)
KRASIC RH (ATT)
PAZZINI CF

SLO is designed as a ball possession and win 1-0 maybe

ok so even sticking attack commands on a LH and RH isnt going to give much more of an attacking threat. some of my players look too attacking for slow i think (krasic) what do you think?

Stuart@Roma wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Stuart@Roma wrote:

DL DR CF?

if you play LKRK and DLDR they will occupy the same areas and you'll effectively be playing with 9 players

gotcha...so im better with AL and AR then? i'll better change that! I always thought DY's played in the channels between the wing half / centre mid position? Is that wrong then?

with SLO DL and DR drift out wide

ahhh so thats how rupert managed to do so well playing wing halves as dynamo's when he was sucessful with this tactic? he seemed to have the best balance/shape for SLO. he was destroying teams with his formation tho and not just 1-0 wins?

no, it was the other way around, he played dynamo's as wing halves and with higuain at CF and Pazzini as F2. interesting...how can that work.

Stuart@Roma wrote:

no, it was the other way around, he played dynamo's as wing halves and with higuain at CF and Pazzini as F2. interesting...how can that work.

CF F2 was too strong, thats one of the reasons I took out the F2 position and restricted you to just CF

Stuart@Roma wrote:

no, it was the other way around, he played dynamo's as wing halves and with higuain at CF and Pazzini as F2. interesting...how can that work.

there's nothing to stop you playing dynamos as winghalves, if a players PP=DY he can also play at LHRH without losing any of his bonuses for playing in his PP.

Ive made one other slight modification as well.

PP=AMBW are the destructive type of AM whilst

PP=AMPM are the more creative type of AM

AMBW can now play at BW without losing his bonus whilst

AMPM can now play at PM without losing his bonus.