packing the midfield

[Michael Mejido]

I am seriously thinking about packing midfield to win the possession battle vs a much better opponent... I

however, to do this (occording to HAM) I am going to have to:

1) play my central defenders as offensive
2) play backup IM's on the wings playing towards middle


this allows me to get my midfield up to passable low (again, according to HAM). This should easily be able to beat the other team's constant midfield rating, being inadquate low. HOWEVER, doing all this sends my attacking on the wings and centrally down to wretched. I would have no chance to score at all.

Should i aim to beat him handily in midfield by doing all this and getting passable low? I have no problem going for the tie as long as a passable low will probably earn me midfield control. OR should i play one of my great wingers offensively, giving myself at least a SHOT to score, but sending my midfield down to inadequate very high (occording to HAM). inadequate very high would still beat inadequate low obviously, but not by much.

Am i assured the tie by packing midfield and going for a 0-0 tie?? or should i give myself at least a tiny chance to score?

[ur_land]

Give yourself a tiny cahnce to score, IMO.

[junjunforever]

I am seriously thinking about packing midfield to win the possession battle vs a much better opponent... I

however, to do this (occording to HAM) I am going to have to:

1) play my central defenders as offensive
2) play backup IM's on the wings playing towards middle


this allows me to get my midfield up to passable low (again, according to HAM). This should easily be able to beat the other team's constant midfield rating, being inadquate low. HOWEVER, doing all this sends my attacking on the wings and centrally down to wretched. I would have no chance to score at all.

Should i aim to beat him handily in midfield by doing all this and getting passable low? I have no problem going for the tie as long as a passable low will probably earn me midfield control. OR should i play one of my great wingers offensively, giving myself at least a SHOT to score, but sending my midfield down to inadequate very high (occording to HAM). inadequate very high would still beat inadequate low obviously, but not by much.

Am i assured the tie by packing midfield and going for a 0-0 tie?? or should i give myself at least a tiny chance to score?

I think the most important question is how high your opponents attack is. If its passable or higher, i'd say go for midfield advantage. If its inad or lower, go play one winger offensive.

Also, why does your central attack become wretched unless you play defensive forward (which i think is a very bad idea)?

[Michael Mejido]

it would become wretched because my IM's are best as defensive.

my opponent's central attack is outstanding.... while my central defense is, at best, solid. when i played them last, i played a 3-5-2 with back-up inner mids as my wings playing towards middle... i pressed, and i lost 1-2 at his place.

[junjunforever]

it would become wretched because my IM's are best as defensive.

my opponent's central attack is outstanding.... while my central defense is, at best, solid. when i played them last, i played a 3-5-2 with back-up inner mids as my wings playing towards middle... i pressed, and i lost 1-2 at his place.

outstanding in the new rating? definitely pack midfield and pray for the best.

[junjunforever]

it would become wretched because my IM's are best as defensive.

my opponent's central attack is outstanding.... while my central defense is, at best, solid. when i played them last, i played a 3-5-2 with back-up inner mids as my wings playing towards middle... i pressed, and i lost 1-2 at his place.

i was just surprised that you said your mid is passable low, which is quite good, but wretched attack is bad. I had weak attack when i had solid scorers with a defensive coach.

[Michael Mejido]

i can *boost* it up to passable low by fiddling with the line-up and basically telling everyone to play towards the midfield in a 4-5-1 :) my midfield would usually be no where NEAR passable any other way.

[PezJunkie]

What good is winning the midfield if you've got no attack? It may help to limit the number of chances that your opponent gets, but all he has to do is finish one and you're screwed.

I can't see a wretched attack scoring many goals against a defense that is averaging Inadequate ratings in all 3 positions. Start praying for set piece goals.

[junjunforever]

What good is winning the midfield if you've got no attack? It may help to limit the number of chances that your opponent gets, but all he has to do is finish one and you're screwed.

I can't see a wretched attack scoring many goals against a defense that is averaging Inadequate ratings in all 3 positions. Start praying for set piece goals.


actually, i realized that if you have enough posession, you can score no matter the attack and defense ratings are. Just how inadequate attack can score out brilliant defense with midfield. Luck becomes a much more important factor when you win midfield. I have 3rd worst attack rating, but scored 3rd most goals in the league, thanks to my midfield.

And michael. i didnt know you played 4-5-1. No wonder. But never theless, if you play 4-5-1, i thinki u can afford to put one central defender as offensive. If you like to gamble, perhaps two central defenders offensive and two wingbacks towards middle... but that's a formation that'll either have you killed or have you win, depending on how much posession you'll get.

I think if u get 65 percent or higher, you will rarely lose.