Tactics Help

[WFU03]

Hi all,

Should I play AOW or normal? I should beat my opponent by at least a level or two in midfield, but his attack is better than my def and my attack is better than his def (both are inadequate vs. weak).

Here are my ratings with AOW (both FTW):
RDef: Poor+
CDef: Poor--
LDef: Poor-

Mid: Poor--

RAtt: Excellent-
CAtt: Weak--
LAtt: Excellent++

Here are my ratings with Normal (both F normal):
RDef: Poor+
CDef: Poor++
LDef: Poor-

Mid: Poor--

RAtt: Inadequate+
CAtt: Inadequate++
LAtt: Passable--

[CrewDust]

Where are his attack best at if it's in the middle I would play normal. Also, how much passing does your team have?

[WFU03]

he usually plays AOW with inadequate attack on the two wings and wretched in the middle

if he played normal, i think he would have inadequates across the board

my team has enough passing that i would get an excellent rating for AOW:

current starters
RB: weak
CB: weak
LB: poor

RW: poor
IM: passable
IM: poor
IM: passable
LW: wretched

FW: passable
FW: passable

[tomwilhelm]

Breaking it down, With AOW you're going to score on the wing almost 100% of the time, something that happens 50% of the time, plus the AOW impact. The other 30% or so chances go to the middle, where you have close to the same ratings. 10% always go to free kicks.

With Normal, it's basically all 90% of normal chances with a slightly better (2-3 sublevels) attack than their defense.

The question is... which of these is generally better?

One thing to take into account... how do you calculate the lost central defense into the equation, given that sometimes giving up several sub-levels is devestating to defense and sometimes it's irrelevant to chances converted.

Anyone got an answer?

[WFU03]

In case anyone is curious, here's how the match turned out:
http://www08.hattrick.org/common/matchDetails.asp?matchID=108835932

I played AOW and both Fs as FTW.
Final ratings:
Midfield: poor (very low)
Right Defence: poor (low)
Central Defence: wretched (very high)
Left Defence: poor (very low)
Right Attack: passable (very low)
Central Attack: poor (low)
Left Attack: passable (low)

My flank attacks weren't as high as I calculated they would be (excellents), but the strategy seemed to work out pretty well.

Goals:
1. The guests took the lead in the 22nd minute, after a right-side attack resulted in JC Carmichael scoring the 0 - 1 goal.
2. In the 29th minute, Forest put themselves up 0 - 2 after an attack from the right, caused by a defensive blunder.
3. In the 30th minute, the visitors put themselves ahead 0 - 3 as Clint Haahr finished off an attack from the left with a spectacular scissors kick.
4. A drive on the left side allowed Forest's Peter Plank to get in close and score a goal in the 52nd minute, leading to 1 - 4.
5. The visitors' Peter Callahan took advantage of an error due to a misunderstanding between the home side's goalie and central backs in the 63rd minute. 1 - 5 for Forest.
6. The home crowd was not impressed when Jud Polanco came in from the right, shooting hard to score in the 71st minute.

It looks like 5 of the 6 were on the wings. I'm not sure how to categorize the 5th goal.

[Kermmy803]

In case anyone is curious, here's how the match turned out:
http://www08.hattrick.org/common/matchDetails.asp?matchID=108835932

I played AOW and both Fs as FTW.
Final ratings:
Midfield: poor (very low)
Right Defence: poor (low)
Central Defence: wretched (very high)
Left Defence: poor (very low)
Right Attack: passable (very low)
Central Attack: poor (low)
Left Attack: passable (low)

My flank attacks weren't as high as I calculated they would be (excellents), but the strategy seemed to work out pretty well.

Goals:
1. The guests took the lead in the 22nd minute, after a right-side attack resulted in JC Carmichael scoring the 0 - 1 goal.
2. In the 29th minute, Forest put themselves up 0 - 2 after an attack from the right, caused by a defensive blunder.
3. In the 30th minute, the visitors put themselves ahead 0 - 3 as Clint Haahr finished off an attack from the left with a spectacular scissors kick.
4. A drive on the left side allowed Forest's Peter Plank to get in close and score a goal in the 52nd minute, leading to 1 - 4.
5. The visitors' Peter Callahan took advantage of an error due to a misunderstanding between the home side's goalie and central backs in the 63rd minute. 1 - 5 for Forest.
6. The home crowd was not impressed when Jud Polanco came in from the right, shooting hard to score in the 71st minute.

It looks like 5 of the 6 were on the wings. I'm not sure how to categorize the 5th goal.

#5 is a chance down the middle. The mention of home side's central defenders is the key to determining the chance origin.

[WFU03]

Anybody have any strategies for how I could tie or win my next league match? I can't really come up with a viable strategy, so I might just take the defeat and PIC it.

It's against the team that demoted from Div V.

Match ID: 108835922

[tomwilhelm]

Yeah. He's not only better than you, but you don't seem to be set up to handle him, since he has far superior midfield and a much better offense than your defense. I'd PIC.

Don't feel too bad. I have to basically do that for more than 50% of my games in the series V I just promoted into.

[Kermmy803]

Anybody have any strategies for how I could tie or win my next league match? I can't really come up with a viable strategy, so I might just take the defeat and PIC it.

It's against the team that demoted from Div V.

Match ID: 108835922

Do you have any defenders? I see you played basically AO this past sunday.

Not sure if you watched what Brookings attempted to do this past round. Not a bad idea and almost stole a point on the road.with the CA.

AO would not be a good idea, IMO, while losing MF by what looks to be at least 60%, and could lead to you losing a lot of that GD you gain Sunday.

More defense and a CA could help even out the chance disadvantage you will be up against.

[WFU03]

Do you have any defenders? I see you played basically AO this past sunday.

Not sure if you watched what Brookings attempted to do this past round. Not a bad idea and almost stole a point on the road.with the CA.

AO would not be a good idea, IMO, while losing MF by what looks to be at least 60%, and could lead to you losing a lot of that GD you gain Sunday.

More defense and a CA could help even out the chance disadvantage you will be up against.

Defenders you say? I have no idea what those are. ;)

I would love to be able to duplicate Brookings' strategy, but he's a defense trainer. My options on that front are a bit more limited.

My "best" defenders are (passing in paren):
Mauldin-Passable (weak)
Zoborsky-Passable (passable)
Hunt-Inadequate (poor)
Altamirano-Inadequate (poor)
Lira-Inadequate (disastrous)
Polanco-Inadequate (passable)
Sala-Inadequate (poor)

Unfortunately, Elephants is a PM trainer like me...but several seasons ahead of me. So, as you mention, I will get smoked in the midfield. If I can get some attacks off, I could score.

You think it's even worth trying a CA strategy? I could play
Polanco-Zoborsky-Hunt across the back

I usually play Sala as a wing and could flip him defensive (yes, the rarest of all events...a defensive winger). I will put Altamirano in the midfield and set him defensive.

Even doing all that, though, the best defense I can muster is on the low weak to high weak level. HT-Ratings gives me an inadequate for CA.

I could also try pressing, but, again, my team D is terrible.

[Kermmy803]

Mauldin-Passable (weak)
Zoborsky-Passable (passable)
Polanco-Inadequate (passable)



Those three will give you the best CA rating using their Defense and Passing to calculate it in a 3-5-2. Do you have experience in a 4-5-1?

The thinking with CA is, that you know you are going to lose MF and thus chances. But if you get a CA or 2, then you moved the imbalance of chances back towards your favor.

Now, it takes good defense and a good rating to get CA's, but their is always random. ;)

[WFU03]

I have inadequate experience in a 4-5-1...but could play it in my friendly tomorrow.

Messing around with the ratings for a 4-5-1, it looks like I could now get:
-weak on the left and right def
-inadequate on central def
-wretched mid
-weak right side attack
-poor(very high) central attack
-inadequate left attack

passable counterattack rating

While that matches up much better against his attack, I'm not sure if I have enough attack to score now. However, it likely would keep the score down.

[WFU03]

As an update, trying counterattacking out of a 4-5-1.

That didn't work so well...lost 5-0, erasing my positive GD. Well, what can you do.