5-2-3: Difference between revisions
m Changed to singular |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Interwiki/5-2-3}} | |||
One of the more eccentric [[Counter Attack]] [[formation]]s, used mostly by [[defense]] trainers. Depending on the number of [[IM]]'s, there can be three formations. Most usually, managers play it with none: | One of the more eccentric [[Counter Attack]] [[formation]]s, used mostly by [[defense]] trainers. Depending on the number of [[IM]]'s, there can be three formations. Most usually, managers play it with none: | ||
Revision as of 12:42, 17 May 2012
One of the more eccentric Counter Attack formations, used mostly by defense trainers. Depending on the number of IM's, there can be three formations. Most usually, managers play it with none:
| 5-2-3, 0 IM | |||
| GK | |||
| WBD | CD | CD | WBD |
| WO | EF | E.CD | WO |
| FO | FO | ||
With this formation, the manager has good attack ratings in all 3 areas, as well as a strong defense. He or she will, however, probably lose midfield by a massive margin and suffer from confusion.
While it is possible to play this formation using IMs, given that no more than two can be used and that confusion is almost certain to occur, it is likely that the team would still lose midfield by a large margin making this a pointless exercise. This formation can only be successful when the opponents attack is much lower than the counter-attacking teams defence, as their opponents will inevitably recieve all 10 regular chances in the game and the counter-attacking team will have to rely entirely on 2-3 counter attack chances.
It was stated in the Global conference that confusion could possibly affect the scoring probability without affecting the ratings.
