件名: I.1

I would hope you're right when you say "Teamwork is the ability to execute as a single unit. If your formation is defence-heavy it is the ability of the team to be strong defensively".

Considering what's in the guide in section "Secondary attribute usage", I'm don't think it's that sophisticated, I'm under the impression that individual play is some average in regards of secondary attributes used by players involved in penalties, free kicks, corner kicks, and so on. Teamwork is a calculation on how your players are good in the position where they play.

As a consequence, it doesn't really matter if you play 4-3-3 or 2-5-3 or whatever. If you have 7 defenders, your teamwork will be good with a 7-2-1 tactics. An interesting test would be to play some 2-3-5 if someone has 5 forward amongst his best players... Probably teamwork would still be good.

Well, at the end, we say almost the same thing, but in the opposite way

Keeping in mind though that Vlady said a few days ago that weird formations would get a large penalty compared to formations that makes some sense. Would such a penalty apply to a 7-2-1 formation? Hope not for cK

There shouldn't be a penalty for a formation. All it should do is shut down the opposition. Just limits his progress in the offense. If I coached a team and we worked on proper technique in a formation with seven defenders I bet we would be a horrible force to face. And playing a counterattack style like the DFB I bet you could wind up stealing lots of games from stronger teams. It's like the trap in hockey.

I haven't read it anywhere in the news or anything. I know others are still doing it. Not sure how it could be enforced nor am I going to inquire since these "deals" help keep teams afloat energy wise that have competitive matches 5 days a week

the best thing about this debate is im not a part of it

I can't find the news Vlady said that, but in the rules, it's stated it is forbidden "to influence the results based on agreement with the manager of the opposing team".

ppm.powerplaymanager.com/...

That's a major buzz kill

I don't think that's what that was referring too. That is referring to throwing a game based on an agreement with the other manager.

You're not influencing the results of the game by both agreeing to play low, you are influencing your further ability to play yes... but that's not at all covered by that statement.

Good point. I think they're more worried about throwing games than importance agreements.

There shouldn't be a penalty on defence for playing with 7 defenders, but the team should have a penalty when attacking.
I wouldn't play real life with 7 defenders because if you have the defenders too close they molest each other and also they give lot of space to the midies of the other team.

I agree. I am curious to see how you'd do playing that formation more often. Likely get a lot of 0-0 draws.

I've played soccer for most of my life. The midfielders and forwards would get so tired trying to make any kind of plays because they would have very little options. It would be hard to score simply because you'd be running the strikers into the ground trying to get to an open spot... plus they could have 2 people on each of your forwards/mids

Also on defence giving up the midfield means that the rival mids can try to score from a longshot.

Hi guys, I'm afraid I've been out of the loop lately due to real life issues. Getting back into managing my team more actively. Any friendlies would be appreciated--my calendar is wide open.

Cheers (and watch out--CHC want to stay in Div I).

As if puredangles won today with 2D in the lineup. 2-5-3... really? This game engine really needs to punish illogical formations.