Question about Wing back (a) and Complete wing back

Basically, what is the main difference between these two roles? My formation is a 4-1-2-2-1

Back 4

Regista

RPM - BBM

-----SS ---------------------- - RDM

Complete forward

The RDM I want to drift sort of all over the pitch, therefore my full backs have to provide all my width.

Which role would you guys suggest I use to achieve this? I have used both in quite a few matches and I haven't noticed that much difference however that is probably because I am far superior to a lot of my opponents so I'm likely to win either way.

Cheers

The Complete Wing Back has the instruction 'Roam from Position' activated. Where as the Wingback doesn't.

If you want the wingback to provide width then I would recommend the Wingback (Attack) role as this means 100% of his time will be spent going up and down the touchline.

It is the same with Box-to-Box midfielders vs Central Midfield (Support) so be aware that both of your central midfielders will be roaming.

It's a good question this as I have always switched between the two and seen little difference. Anyone know which one defends better out of the two?

The Complete Wing Back has the instruction 'Roam from Position' activated. Where as the Wingback doesn't.

If you want the wingback to provide width then I would recommend the Wingback (Attack) role as this means 100% of his time will be spent going up and down the touchline.

It is the same with Box-to-Box midfielders vs Central Midfield (Support) so be aware that both of your central midfielders will be roaming.

So is that the only difference between the two roles? Where does the CWB tend to roam? Would it be into a central midfield position? Thanks

as far as i know, CWB has much creative freedom by default

it is the most aggresive wide defender role, also the only wide defender role with roam from position already active

with the right setup it can act as an additional wide forward. in my opinion CWB, unlike Complete forward which is a combination of many striker roles, is designed to mainly penetrate opposition wide area.

So is that the only difference between the two roles? Where does the CWB tend to roam? Would it be into a central midfield position? Thanks

That's the only difference I can see. There could be a higher mentality depending on your structure (balanced, rigid, fluid).

To be honest, I can't answer the question on where the player would roam, or why you would want that. I guess it depends on your overall formation and where there are gaps.

Personally I prefer the Wingback (Attack) role in cases where I want the player to get forward and cross. Wingback (Support) if I have a small strike force and don't want crosses, but still want width.

Done some experimenting during various saves and I find Wing Back (Attack) the best of the two. Especially if your wide midfielder (I usually employ a straightforward 4-4-2), has an inferior crossing ability to your right back/wing back. The wing back looks for the overlap with the player infront and is a superb way of getting a player in behind the opposition full back to deliver crosses into the box for your waiting striker/s

Roaming on a CWB is a bit strange in some ways because a CWB has "stay wider" already active under his PI's. You can also add a TI of "run wide with ball" which makes him wider still it seems and yet with all this ordering to stay wide where does he roam to?!!!!

I agree. I noticed a significant improvement in performance when I switched from Complete Wingback to Wingback.

CWB = into the box, moves central(ish), priority on the attack.

WB = Stays wide, gets further forward than a full back but is more likely to fulfil his defensive duties than the CWB.

Least that is how I understand it.

CWB = into the box, moves central(ish), priority on the attack.

WB = Stays wide, gets further forward than a full back but is more likely to fulfil his defensive duties than the CWB.

Least that is how I understand it.

This is where some confusion is in the game. Sure I read somewhere with another opinion voiced that CWB fulfilled his defensive duties more than a wing back, hence the word "complete". However if a CWB roams then the chance that he may get caught out of position further from his "natural position" would make defending harder for him IMO.

I really hope that some of the explanations are better in FM16 for some of the roles.

This is where some confusion is in the game. Sure I read somewhere with another opinion voiced that CWB fulfilled his defensive duties more than a wing back, hence the word "complete". However if a CWB roams then the chance that he may get caught out of position further from his "natural position" would make defending harder for him IMO.

I really hope that some of the explanations are better in FM16 for some of the roles.

CWB is the most aggresive wide defender role IMO. idk why SI gave "complete" on its name but the fact is CWB especially in an attack duty is looking himself as half winger and half wide forward. If you seek balanced role for wide defender, F(a) provides a better balance though it depends on your team shape

This is where some confusion is in the game. Sure I read somewhere with another opinion voiced that CWB fulfilled his defensive duties more than a wing back, hence the word "complete". However if a CWB roams then the chance that he may get caught out of position further from his "natural position" would make defending harder for him IMO.

I really hope that some of the explanations are better in FM16 for some of the roles.

I'm pretty sure (haven't got the game installed) that the CWB description even says it focuses more on attack.

Actually I'll google it;

The CWB loves to attack, and whilst he is capable of occupying his defensive duties, his natural inclination is to affect the game in the offensive third.

Support: Combines his attacking instincts with *some* defensive responsibilities.

Attack: More adventurous, primarily affecting the game in the opposition half.

In all descriptions he is marked out as an offensive role, primarily pushing into the final third and neglecting or at least not prioritising the defence insomuch as a wing back who is said to 'balance attack and defence duties of a winger AND a full back'.

If people are getting confused, I think it is in reading the name and not the descriptions in my opinion, as from the descriptions it is pretty clear the WB is the defensive option in contrast. Though if that is 'wrong' then there is a serious issue with the role description as I can't fathom any other interpretion. >_>

CWB is the most aggresive wide defender role IMO. idk why SI gave "complete" on its name but the fact is CWB especially in an attack duty is looking himself as half winger and half wide forward. If you seek balanced role for wide defender, F(a) provides a better balance though it depends on your team shape

I play a 4312 so it's a fine balancing act. The other issue I have is that my full/wing backs are all great crossers with decent pace but hopeless dribblers. My main intention is to get them further forward and bang in crosses when they receive the ball but not try and get there by dribbling with it. I tried them on Full Back but I still think wing back is the best of the three, for me anyway.

I tried training them in a previous save for a season at dribbling but no increase in stat was seen. Playing FMC though and not sure if personal training is effective. Might give a try with "knock ball past opponent" and see what that does because running with the ball is different to dribbling.

I find that the CWB has more complex movement. If the wingback behaves like a winger then a cwb is winger/wide forward hybrid. They roam from position gives them more complex movement Instead of just overlapping the make runs on their own when they see the space. So if your setup is right in addition to the traditional overlap they also make runs from out to in to get in behind the defence and sometimes even make runs inbetween the Cb and FB on occasion . Basically look at someone like Jordi Alba.

The wingback plays a simpler game than the complete wingback. On offense that means that the complete wingback is more likely to make runs into the box like a winger would. On defense, it seems to me that the complete wingback is more aggressive (though I'm less sure about that) but that generally defends the same and definitely will work to get back. The only real defensive disadvantage is that because the complete wingback makes more forward runs off the ball they may have further to get back.

So basically the complete wingback is a more dynamic player than the wingback. If you have a player with the right attributes you should choose complete wingback. They can dominate up and down the pitch. If not, you are better off with the simple wingback.

I've played around this a bit and I prefer the WB role. I play quite a narrow 4-6-0 system so I like the WB's the stay out wide as much as possible to spread the play. I've found that the WB pushing forward into advanced wide positions encourages my Inside Forwards to make runs into the box which puts pressure on the opposition Full Back to either follow the IF and leave the WB free or vice versa. With the Complete Wing Back role I've found the player moves inside too often which can congest play in the middle of the park which often forces my IF's onto the flanks to find space which I don't want.

Now that you've started Wingback discussion, I have a question. What would be the best way to replicate Alaba's movement from Bayern - Wolfsburg game (second half)? Douglas Costa was a winger, Alaba was cutting inside, making "underlapping" runs into the box. I tried both WB(A) and CWB(A) with Cut inside, but player with both roles tends to stay too wide. Any suggestions?

Its the inverted wing back role ur referring too.But the role does not work in fm and does merely the same as the wing and complete back roles do and not the opposite that it should.Wait for the next years adaptation.Fingers crossed

Its the inverted wing back role ur referring too.But the role does not work in fm and does merely the same as the wing and complete back roles do and not the opposite that it should.Wait for the next years adaptation.Fingers crossed

Last I used a Inverted Wing Back it went towards the center of the pitch, instead of the normal behavior for just going up and down the side. Now I readily admit to lacking long term experience, as I've yet to make a season setup intended to use IWB's.

You sure it's not a myth that Inverted Wing Back's doesn't work?

The two PPM's that involve line's break a IWB, but a clean player does in my experience somewhat run inside, I personally feel it crowds things way to much, so have never used it long term and have always assumed the "claims" that IWB is broken is either because of PPM's or that something else doesn't work after they have cut inside.