new formations?

[gazza88]

any chance of a few new formations?

6-3-1, is rare but can be seen at times of struggle in the lower leagues (injuries etc).
1-3-4-2, can be often seen, with a SW playing behind the CB.
1-3-5-1, same as above
1-3-3-3, same as above
2-3-4-1, 2 SW playing behind the lone CB
2-3-3-2, same as above
3-3-4, useful when needing a win, or low on defender or midfielders

most of the formations above are not seen in major leagues because they can afford back up players, last season we had 2 16yo and 1 17yo player on our bench in one game, which is where the idea for the extra formations come in, fighting relegation. (by the above i mean the team i support in real life.)

im expecting loads of replies saying "i wont use this often" but the fact is you may use them at one point. and could come in handy when injuries set in, instead of playing players out of position, you can change formation to fit.

[unicool]

1-3-4-2, can be often seen, with a SW playing behind the CB.

is 4-4-2.the same playng sistem only the appearence is different.the SW plays behind CB.

1-3-5-1, same as above

is 4-5-1

1-3-3-3, same as above

is 4-3-3

etc etc.
you just changed the formula not the sistem.

[gazza88]

i did change the system, the formula is the system.

eg 4-4-2 to 1-3-4-2
the original system is 1x RB, 1x LB, 2x CB
this system is 1x RB, 1x LB, 1x CB, 1xSW

using how you argue against. i could argue against having different formations.

4-3-3 is the same as 4-4-2, a CM just plays higher up the pitch.


the way i see it is, this will bring the need for SW more into the game. at the minute sweepers are only useful in 5-3-2 (which is 1-4-3-2, 5-3-2 is 3x CB) and not many people want to play with 5 defenders,

the "diamond" formation is 4-1-2-1-2, (im not asking for this because that would need 2 new positions.

i just feel at the minute that the SW position is nearly useless on soccerproject.

[unicool]

the way i see it is, this will bring the need for SW more into the game. at the minute sweepers are only useful in 5-3-2 (which is 1-4-3-2, 5-3-2 is 3x CB) and not many people want to play with 5 defenders,

5-3-2 is LB-CB-SW-CB-RB etc etc and is exactly 1-4-3-2.
4-1-2-1-2 is exactly 4-3-3 but the formula is different.in 4-3-3 when you put the individual orders the sistem became 4-1-2-1-2(with the right individual orders).that's the reason that individual orders are in SP.....to play how you want.

[sljivovica]

It would be cool if you could choose how to line up your defense and/or midfield.

Like a 4-men line defense would use

LB--CB--CB--RB,

while a 4-man diamond defense would use

------SW------
LB---CB---RB


This would create more tactics and diversity.

Now it is suicide to play with a 4-men defense using a Sweeper, because the Sweeper will loose 10% of his performance

I'm always open for such changes that make the tactical part of SP bigger.

New formations should also be possible, I feel like the 'offensive' and 'defensive' settings for defenders and midfielders simply don't feel like you play different.

Some guys say
"Use 5-4-1 and set 1 midfielder to 'defensive' and that equals 6-3-1"
But it just doesn't feel like that
It feels like 5-4-1 with 1 defensive midfielder....
It's really different.

I'm FOR!

[gazza88]

the way i see it is, this will bring the need for SW more into the game. at the minute sweepers are only useful in 5-3-2 (which is 1-4-3-2, 5-3-2 is 3x CB) and not many people want to play with 5 defenders,

5-3-2 is LB-CB-SW-CB-RB etc etc and is exactly 1-4-3-2.
4-1-2-1-2 is exactly 4-3-3 but the formula is different.in 4-3-3 when you put the individual orders the sistem became 4-1-2-1-2(with the right individual orders).that's the reason that individual orders are in SP.....to play how you want.

so putting a SW in a CB position would not result in him not playing as good as he should?

i.e he will still play well even though not in a SW position?

i appreciate that at the minute, 5-3-2 is 1-4-3-2, but to me 5-3-2 is 3x CB in a flat back line of 5 players.

4-3-3 is not 4-1-2-1-2, because 4-1-2-1-2 is 4 midfielders, 4-3-3 is 3 forwards RF, LF and CF.

also, nowhere in the CB individual orders does it say "defensive" or something like that. all it says is normal or play it out, which means either "hoof it out" or "pass it out".

[unicool]

the only different thing is at diamond defense with the SW behind CB.in rest with the proper individual orders you can play how you want.i want a change in attack/defense way.i mean different tactics for defense and attack.a feature that allows me to set my team like i wish...in attack play in 4-3-3 mode and when i defend the sistem became 4-4-2.is the 4-1-2-1-2 way.

[gazza88]

the only different thing is at diamond defense with the SW behind CB.in rest with the proper individual orders you can play how you want.

can you tell me where in my original post i complained about attacking formations/orders?

all i am doing is bringing SW into the game more.

[sljivovica]

can you tell me where in my original post i complained about attacking formations/orders?

I caused that...

all i am doing is bringing SW into the game more.

That way we would need 2 formations for every formation

3-4-3 AND 1-2-4-3
4-3-3 AND 1-3-3-3

It would become much too much I think.

However I do agree that it's a bad thing that SW's can only play at their best in a 5-man defense, because it is not unusual to have a sweeper in a 4-man-defense for more offensive style.
So yes, there is definitely room for improvement in that.

[cercel_jr]

Look's like you don't like negative answers, gazza88, but my opinion is that this will complicate things. For me it's gest another not good enough ideea. Why?
Also this will make the managers job more easier. It's the managers job to handle difficult situations in his team. I bet that this ideea came to you because you had some injuries and you didn't had substitutes good enough.
The game's logo sais: Can you manage it?

[gazza88]

Look's like you don't like negative answers, gazza88,

why be negative? i prefer positive.

I bet that this ideea came to you because you had some injuries and you didn't had substitutes good enough

nope. it came to me when i got a SW through the youth system and has turned out pretty decent, and 5-3-2 or 5-4-1 are boring formations, no attacking prowess, you either get crowded out up front or in midfield in both.

Also this will make the managers job more easier

in which sense? all it is currently doing is stopping managers from playing players in their strongest positions. surely this will help every manager. (you may say "well if it helps every manager why do we need to add more

a quick question to everyone "can you manage it?" (it being extra formations.) top teams can carry on playing regular 4-4-2 , but in order for lower league teams to compete you need more diversity in tactics.

if alex ferguson wanted he could play 1-3-4-2, no one would say "he cant manage it"

also sljivovica i only asked because he quoted my post so i thought he got confused, i apologise to the two of you, my mistake.

[x42bn6]

There's also 3-6-1 (DC-DC-DC-DMC-ML-MC-MC-MR-AMC-FC-FC), 4-2-4 (DL-DC-DC-DR-MC-MC-FL-FC-FC-FR), narrow 4-3-3 (DL-DC-DC-DR-MC-MC-MC-FL-FC-FR), 4-3-2-1 (DL-DC-DC-DR-DMC/MC-DMC/MC-DMC/MC/AMC/AMC/FC) etc.

Some formations might make it more interesting. Obviously, we do not have defensive/attacking midfielders (would be nice though), but 3-6-1 with all MCs or narrow 4-3-3 would be nice.

The current system hurts me. I have a good sweeper and a good right striker - and I cannot field them in a formation without taking a penalty. If I use the sweeper properly, my central strikers are pathetic so I will not get goals, and if I use the right striker, my sweeper cannot be used.

[cercel_jr]

im expecting loads of replies saying "i wont use this often" but the fact is you may use them at one point. and could come in handy when injuries set in, instead of playing players out of position, you can change formation to fit.

Remember this? Read your first post. This is why you posted this ideea.
And another thing, I play 5-3-2(deffensive wall) in the game and in the last season I had the best golaverage in the league , with 10 goals beter than another team with 3-4-3 kick and rush. , 2 of my goal-scorers were in the top 3 of goal-getters;
Example for 5-3-2: look for manager sjarel you will see what "boring" results he has.

I agree with 3-6-1, 4-2-4, 3-3-4, I mean with 3 field lines, we don't need 4 lines, 1 line gest for one player the SW. They should change the whole system for 1 player. It's not very practical.

And by negative answers I meant that you don't accept an answer that doesn't agree with your ideea. There alsways are this kind of answers.

But what are we talking. Ask the programers and you will see that this change doesn't worth implemented.

[unicool]

I agree with 3-6-1

can one of you say to me a team that play this kind of formation?3-6-1?OMG.i played 8 years soccer and never played 3-6-1 or agains this formula.we play 4-3-3 or 3-4-3 in attack and when we was in defense the 3-4-3 became 3-4-2-1.the two wing-forwards retire in front of the midfielders.this sistem plays with the CF pushed forward and left and right forwards plays somewhere behind him in wings.

[JustisministerMyking]

I think it would be good for the game!
It makes it a bit more interesting.
And as someone already said, It would be great for people with a couple of SW`s ..

I`m not saying that i would use 3-6-1 but 2-3-3-2 or something like that would be great

I have like 4 SW so i would use it [a]