4 ms·
Just from a counting argument, the strategy is probably closer to cooperate against the leading team. Then you commit half of your players to the attack, as doe
by yk 8y ago
Just from a counting argument, the strategy is probably closer to cooperate against the leading team. Then you commit half of your players to the attack, as does the cooperating team, and you can then match the leading team, while having half of your team in defensive. (And the only uncommitted opposing players are half of the players of your cooperating partner.)
- notahacker 8y agoSince the game is about who concedes fewest, I'd be packing my team with defenders and drilling them mostly on defensive organization. A well organised and skilled defence should be capable of repelling a team with numerical superiority for extended periods anyway (particularly with a lack of coordination amongst attacking players and a pitch shape which eliminates the ability to get in behind the opponents at the byline) and there's always the incentive for one of the collaborating teams to defect, especially if they're getting tired of not scoring and then the ball's lobbed into an area where they'll find themselves in a one on one situation if they decide to chase it. And even if that strategy fails, the alliance against you is only likely to last until you stop leading.