HTs on Global/All Out Attack

From Hattrick
Revision as of 09:14, 14 July 2008 by EchoMan (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Keywords: (All Out Attack), (Offensive Central Defenders)
From: HT-Tjecken (7831771.37) as reply to (7831771.20)
To: Everyone 18.01.2007 at 16:48
Reply to (7831762.483)

What is your opinion about AoA (ALL out Attack) and the abuse of Offensive Central Defenders?? its a way of play, Or is it a change to think about the future?

My mind is trying to decide what to think about it, half of it says it's boring and half of it says the AoA tactic's "success" is more because a lot of ppl fail tactically (imho) when facing an all out attack team. Generally speaking we want as many tactics as possible, but non should let be totally superior compared to the others. The same goes for strategies in the game by the way - the more the merrier.

The all out attack tactic is an extreme one, but it's not superior. In fact it's far from superior. And as long as it's not superior, why should we limitate its existance? As I said above, imho this tactic's success is more a result of poor tactics from their opponents then the AoA tactic being good. If you let an AoA team dominate the midfield completely, you've got to have a very good defense together with good CA rating and a big portion of luck to succeed. There are a lot of defensive teams doing this (totally let the other team dominate the midfield), but then you'll have to accept that you will have a very hard time (no matter how good defense you've got) to keep the ball out of the danger area for 90 minutes. Eventually a shot may touch a leg, change direction and the goalie can just watch as the ball goes into the net.

In theory, Hattrick tactics is about three things:

  • Getting as many chances as possible
  • Make sure your chances turn into goals
  • Make sure your opponents chances fail

When facing a AoA team you don't really have to think about the success of your own chances that much. As your attackers won't face any defenders you'll easily score - when you get a chance. More importantly is not letting the AoA team get so many chances, or at least make sure you've got a good chance to get a few. It's of course also very important to have a good defense, moreover a good defense might also create chances (if you choose to play counter attacks).

So to sum up, you need a good midfield in order to get some chances, and also reduce your opponent's chances. You'll also need a good defense in order to stop your opponent to score, which also could be used to get some more chances of your own. You'll however not need much of an attack as you're likely to score anyway. Still I see a lot of teams playing with 2 forwards when facing an AoA team (as if they're facing a team with a real defense..?) and just 3 defenders (as if your defense isn't of importance against an AoA team..?).

Defense does matter, it matters a lot. But you can't just rely on your defense, just like no AoA team can rely simply on their attack. Unfortunately most defensive teams lack in midfield and/or attack. The nature of defending is to defend, therefore it is naturally hard to win matches only out of your defense as defenders don't attack that much. Imho many defensive team managers wish to win because of their defense, and that's imho their biggest mistake. After all, without any midfield/attack 0-0 is the best result they could wish for.

Anyway, as I said in the beginning of this post I also think this tactic is boring. Partly because it's not really close to realism, but more because so many teams use a tactic where one part of the team is totally ignored and are to some extent successful doing so. This is of course something we are and will keep an eye on, but as I think you understand from this post we think it's more because of poor manager choices than a poor game engine.

(I've seen other questions related to this topic, so I'll get back on this subject another day)