Ancelloti |
3 month agoI think we can have two defenders but their formations must be done according to their style of play. I would like to know more about the appropriate formation for each style of play.
Like Overrun, Attack, Provoke and others. Thanks
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Azby |
3 month agoNo offence, but I don't really understand what you're asking.
To give you some pointers on styles:
#manual?page=38
#fr#forum?topic=161338
Depending on the style you want to use and the bonus you want to bring to your area of play, you can create a balanced formation (or not) for your team.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Ancelloti |
3 month agoAzby: Sans méchanceté, je ne comprends pas trop ce que tu demandes.
Pour t'aiguiller sur les styles de jeu :
#manual?page=38
#fr#forum?topic=161338Selon le style que tu souhaites mettre en place et le bonus apporté au secteur de jeu, tu as de quoi mettre en place une formation équilibrée (ou pas) pour ton équipe.
I ask that a defender whose instructions are to attack or provoke be trained on the same characteristics with a defender whose instructions are to ride on the stop phases. Or each player must be trained according to the characteristics that correspond to his instruction.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Vrael Zendo |
3 month agoAncelloti: Je demande un défenseur qui a comme consigne attaque ou provoquer doit être formé sur le même caractéristiques avec un défenseur qui a comme consigne monté sur les phases arrêter. Ou chaque joueur doit être formé selon les caractéristiques qui correspondent à sa consigne.
If you're going to provoke and attack, aren't you talking about MCs rather than defenders?
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Ancelloti |
3 month agoVrael Zendo: Pour provoquer et attaquer, ce n'est pas plutôt des mdc dont tu parles et non des défenseurs?
I'm talking about all positions and I've just used that as an example.
But the most important thing would be to know whether a player who is instructed to provoke should be trained in the same way as a player who provokes
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Vrael Zendo |
3 month agoAncelloti: Je parle de tout les postes j'ai pris celà juste pour exemple.
Mais l'essentiel serait de savoir un joueur ayant la consigne provoquer doit il être formé de la même façon comme un joueur qui provoque
In this case I have already opened topics like this one:
#forum?topic=161336
All topics start with [For newbies]
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Ancelloti |
3 month agoVrael Zendo: Dans ce cas là jex à déjà ouvert les sujets comme celui-ci :
#forum?topic=161336
Tout les sujets commencent par [Pour les nouveaux]
Thank you
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Sun's |
3 month agoBlagoje Vidinic |
3 month agoBernarinho |
3 month agoNice table, thanks
but personally, instead of 33/33/33% for the attack MD, I would have put :
50% pass / 25% technique / 25% attack
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Blagoje Vidinic |
3 month agoThis is an old table, and some of the breakdowns may have changed since then.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Sun's |
3 month agoI think it's still a good basis, when I'm in doubt I ask, especially for dfc, "participate in the construction"
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message