Counter Attacking

[TargetPractice6]

I just had an idea and I want to see if you all have had experience with counter attacking that corroborate my idea.

Okay for starters:

1 level of defending equals 1 CA point
- disatrous = 1
- wretched = 2
- poor = 3
- ...

1 level of passing equls 2 CA points
- disastrous = 2
- wretched = 4
- poor = 6
- ...

Now add up all of your CA points. And see if they fall into these ranges:

01 - 10 disastrous
11 - 20 wretched
21 - 30 poor
31 - 40 weak
41 - 50 inad
51 - 60 passable
61 - 70 solid
71 - 80 excellent
81 - 90 formidable
91 - 100 outstanding
and so on...

I haven't been able to use the new tactics much since I haven't been out of the cup for long. But the few examples I've used so far have worked.

[KevinNU7]

I like it.

If I had 3 passable defenders with passable passing then they'd get a rating of passable. Makes sense to me.

[TargetPractice6]

The ranges might also look something like this:

05 - 14 disastrous
15 - 24 wretched
25 - 34 poor
35 - 44 weak
45 - 54 inad
55 - 64 passable
65 - 74 solid
75 - 84 excellent
85 - 94 formidable
95 - 104 outstanding

However, from what I've seen these ranges are close. If anybody has some specific examples, that would be great. I haven't used CA yet.

[BishopMVP]

Only new tactic I've really experimented with is Attack in Middle, using a 2-5-3 with Wingers Towards Middle. It has worked quite well I think.

[thesloppy]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
Only new tactic I've really experimented with is Attack in Middle, using a 2-5-3 with Wingers Towards Middle. It has worked quite well I think.

I've been using that one as well. The Wingers Towards Middle helps to boost my questionable midfield, creating more chances for my two strikers in the midfield.

I'm assuming this particualar tactic will end up being the most popular since it seems to excentuate the midfield and the 3-5-2 formation which most ht players have already been focused on. I'll be interested to see if one tactic becomes the 'standard', or if they all receive somewhat equal play in the future.

Unfortunately, I haven't really been able to get a good guage on how effective the AIM w/WTM is for my team, as all of my recent friendlies haven't been against evenly matched teams (one way or the other).

[damnMikeBrown]

I received an 'Excellent' CA rating with 75pts total.

'Weak' Ca rating with 37 pts total

[antbacker]

I ran a 3-5-2 with total 48 but got passable CA

[Mr. Wednesday]

In match: 9700221
I played a 3-5-2, with the following defender skills (defending/passing):
weak/disastrous, inadequate/week (sent off second half), passable/weak

CA skill: poor

[TargetPractice6]

Keep experience is also factored in (And I'd imagine the form of your defenders too), so this won't be perfect. But from the examples you guys have given me so far, it is pretty close.

[lytic]

check the old IV dynasty and my current one... I'm too lazy to check

[NevStar]

There's probably diminishing returns for extra defenders, also. (much like the 5th midfielder doesn't contribute as much to the midfield).

The big question is how does the c-a level equate to the amount of counter-attacks received?

[daedalus]

Does a failed counter-attack (by way of too weak of an offense) show? I'm thinking a lot of teams will try to play 5-4-1 or 5-3-2 with counter-attack and be pissed that it "didn't work" (because they took too much offense out).

[TargetPractice6]

It says in the rules a counter attack is reported as a goal or missed shot.

[daedalus]

Ahhhhhh, goodly. In that case, we can at least see if it even occurs. That is a GoodThing[tm].

[damnMikeBrown]

Daed, I think you should relinquish the TM on GoodThing. Seeing as how few of them have happened to me lately, I think that maybe your TM is restricting them.