Wasn't sure where to post this, but I have a niggling question regarding formations. I seem to remember years and years ago that there was a thing about what the more "superior" formations were. These days, it seems that 4-5-1 in passing/normal weather and 5-2-3 in long ball weather is the "standard." However, I seem to remember back in the old days when 3-5-2 used to be a popular formation (I used it a lot, so did many others), as well as 4-3-3. But I also remember the debate regarding whether formations were more advantageous over others. For example, I vaguely remember 4-5-1 being more dominant over 3-5-2 using passing tactics... and unless my memory is failing, 4-3-3 was more dominant over 5-2-3 using long ball tactics.
Analysing the players in my team, it seems that if I want to use and make the most of my strongest players, 4-3-3 is the best bet for me at the moment (a formation that is said to only be best using long ball tactics over passing tactics), so I am debating whether or not to use this as my default.
I guess I am confusing myself because some of the top players on SL (e.g., The Borg) have used 5-2-3 as their default tactics a lot for both long ball AND passing tactics. Others have used 4-2-4. And Poachers (Contrast) used 2-5-3 throughout SL5 and only conceded 3 goals!
So the question I am asking in summary is:
1) Is there really a bunch of more superior formations for certain tactics (i.e., passing or long ball), or does it just depend on the overall strength of the players or team?
2) Does particular formations have better advantage over others? (e.g., is 4-5-1 better against 3-5-2, 4-3-3 against 5-2-3 etc., etc)
3) SHOULD I use 4-3-3 as my default (in rain and passing weather) to use my best players at all times, or should I stick to my usual 4-5-1 and 5-2-3 the same as most people generally do for passing and long ball? I find that 5-2-3 is awful for me in terms of possession.
Phew! Hope this makes sense. Apologies for the long message!
