Translating the Inside Foward role to the midfield strata

My main Control 4-2-3-1 tactic is working out quite well (playing as Arsenal) but, as is customary, I also wanna have an alternative counter tactic for appropriate situations. I figure a 4-4-1-1 cause, y'know, it's near upon a 4-2-3-1 except with the two banks of four. My question is how to recreate Sanchez's Inside forward role in that 4-4-1-1.

A lot of the time I see people use a WP(a) or a WM(a) for this but I don't know, those two seem to be a bit docile for what I'm looking for. Any help would be appreciated ya big numpties <3

You can use PI to replicate the role in the WM spot. WM(A), add Gets Further Forward, Dribble More, Cross Less, Cut Inside and you basically have it except the starting position of the true IF is always going to be further forward and you won't get the same exact positioning with it.

I was going to say that the Wide Playmaker won't really score you many goals so would be a bit of a waste of Sanchez's ability as a goalscorer.

You can easily make a lethal goalscorer out of a WM on attack duty without even using the PIs of a default inside forward. In fact, if you do not mind, try out just these PIs, Get further forward and cross less often. You will be surprised at how often he gets into good goalscoring positions without over-complicating the PIs. A final note is just because the WM starts lower than the IF, does not make it any less lethal in scoring goals if both roles have the same PIs.

Player: Wide Midfielder (Automatic), Get Forward More, Stay Wide, Cut inside With Ball, Dribble More, Cross Less, Cross from Byline.

Team: Attacking, Structured, Fairly Narrow, Mixed Passing, Normal Tempo, Run at Defence, Push up.

This will, in my mind, recreate the Alexis Sanchez 4-4-1-1 role (if you play him at LM) as well as compacting your team to benefit from short passing and possession.

Auto Duty in above example seems "pointless" - I know Cleon used this word recently and got shot down

The reality is that if the Mentality used in the above example is Attacking, then the Auto Duty is Attacking so may as well be used as such.

As an aside - the WM (A) is a cracking Role. So modifiable and so much better than any of the AML/R Roles in my opinion due to its flexibility and where it is initially stationed on the pitch.

Perhaps yourself and Cleon should be shot down. Automatic is a perfectly viable use of player mentality. Yes, you are right, on Attacking team mentality the Automatic players will be Attacking (perhaps that bit should have been mentioned in my post). But to my mind, an "Attacking" mentality player in an "Attacking" mentality team would be too attacking. Plus, Automatic player roles allow an easier switch from (for example) Attacking to Defensive or Counter team mentalities. They mirror the mentality and act accordingly without the need for changing the personal mentality to suit.

Depends on what you want your overall tactic to be/achieve.

Perhaps the "experts" in FM tactics need to re-evaluate the way they deal with an approach that differs from their own, rather than it being "pointless". The role is in the game, so, it must be there for a reason, eh? Just like IWBs are set like they are, for a reason. They, apparently, aren't "pointless".

Agreed though, the WM(a) (or au) role is brilliant.

Perhaps yourself and Cleon should be shot down. Automatic is a perfectly viable use of player mentality. Yes, you are right, on Attacking team mentality the Automatic players will be Attacking (perhaps that bit should have been mentioned in my post). But to my mind, an "Attacking" mentality player in an "Attacking" mentality team would be too attacking. Plus, Automatic player roles allow an easier switch from (for example) Attacking to Defensive or Counter team mentalities. They mirror the mentality and act accordingly without the need for changing the personal mentality to suit.

Depends on what you want your overall tactic to be/achieve.

Perhaps the "experts" in FM tactics need to re-evaluate the way they deal with an approach that differs from their own, rather than it being "pointless". The role is in the game, so, it must be there for a reason, eh? Just like IWBs are set like they are, for a reason. They, apparently, aren't "pointless".

Agreed though, the WM(a) (or au) role is brilliant.

It's nothing to do with how I play or because I don't use something. You're example is also flawed because we've said the IWB should also be removed because it isn't a IWB. Just because something is in the game means its right. If that was the case what's the point of fixing bugs, there in the game after all, if were following your logic.

People who use automatic duties are also in the minority compared to everyone else. And the people who use automatic duties and understand how they work are even fewer. The automatic bit offers nothing that can't be achieved with one click of a button. Majority of people who use them believe them to do something else compared to what they actually do, that's the whole point of why it's useless.

But hey ho, keep making things up and believe I want it removed because I don't use it if that makes you feel better. I wish that was the case though as I'd remove England as a playable league, the boring piece of...............

Worth mentioning that all wide midfield roles cut inside off the ball in the final third. Personally, I find players who cut inside with the ball from deep positions tend to be extremely wasteful.

Worth mentioning that all wide midfield roles cut inside off the ball in the final third. Personally, I find players who cut inside with the ball from deep positions tend to be extremely wasteful.

It can make you very narrow in the final third when this happens. It's hard to break teams down or stretch them when they come inside so early.

It can make you very narrow in the final third when this happens. It's hard to break teams down or stretch them when they come inside so early.

Can you not compensate for this by having a wingback on attack or support duty overlapping him?

It's nothing to do with how I play or because I don't use something. You're example is also flawed because we've said the IWB should also be removed because it isn't a IWB. Just because something is in the game means its right. If that was the case what's the point of fixing bugs, there in the game after all, if were following your logic.

People who use automatic duties are also in the minority compared to everyone else. And the people who use automatic duties and understand how they work are even fewer. The automatic bit offers nothing that can't be achieved with one click of a button. Majority of people who use them believe them to do something else compared to what they actually do, that's the whole point of why it's useless.

But hey ho, keep making things up and believe I want it removed because I don't use it if that makes you feel better. I wish that was the case though as I'd remove England as a playable league, the boring piece of...............

Agreed on the English leagues

Not my logic, just paraphrasing what I was told about IWBs being in the game as "correct" as they play as they have been coded to. Its wrong but I was told they're right.

Ok, so how what do Automatic roles actually do that makes them pointless according to Cleon? I set Auto roles so those players follow my team mentality more rigidly. Is this incorrect? If I want to change my mentality mid match from standard to counter to defensive and then to attacking, while operating as a team and not a bunch of dis ordinate individuals, how would you recommend I do this?

If I set my WM to attack but want to play defensive, am I not setting a player mentality against my team?

Player: Wide Midfielder (Automatic), Get Forward More, Stay Wide, Cut inside With Ball, Dribble More, Cross Less, Cross from Byline.

Team: Attacking, Structured, Fairly Narrow, Mixed Passing, Normal Tempo, Run at Defence, Push up.

This will, in my mind, recreate the Alexis Sanchez 4-4-1-1 role (if you play him at LM) as well as compacting your team to benefit from short passing and possession.

cheersy dearsy for the help but I'm looking to make a counter tactic specifically. Already got my standard one ready for dicking on teams

Just a question about moving a player in the AML/R to ML/R, will it make the player less effective due to not knowing the position as well as his natural position? Also due to the fact that the attributes are quite different? None of my current wide AMs are particularly good at the defensive side of the game (tackling, marking etc.)

It's nothing to do with how I play or because I don't use something. You're example is also flawed because we've said the IWB should also be removed because it isn't a IWB. Just because something is in the game means its right. If that was the case what's the point of fixing bugs, there in the game after all, if were following your logic.

People who use automatic duties are also in the minority compared to everyone else. And the people who use automatic duties and understand how they work are even fewer. The automatic bit offers nothing that can't be achieved with one click of a button. Majority of people who use them believe them to do something else compared to what they actually do, that's the whole point of why it's useless.

But hey ho, keep making things up and believe I want it removed because I don't use it if that makes you feel better. I wish that was the case though as I'd remove England as a playable league, the boring piece of...............

Wow. I have to ask: why would having WMs set to the team mentailty (au) be pointless? Changing the mentality with a click only means I have to click to change the mentailty when what I want is the position to match the team. Why the extra click, if it's not necessary to achieve my tactical goal? Bringing anything else into the conversation could be considered "pointless". The temperature seems to be unnecessarily high in this exchange.

Wow. I have to ask: why would having WMs set to the team mentailty (au) be pointless? Changing the mentality with a click only means I have to click to change the mentailty when what I want is the position to match the team. Why the extra click, if it's not necessary to achieve my tactical goal? Bringing anything else into the conversation could be considered "pointless". The temperature seems to be unnecessarily high in this exchange.

The reason Cleon called it pointless is because it is a redundant feature which has led to a lot more darkness than light in understanding FM tactics. I would prefer to call automatic duty useless myself, but it amounts to the same thing. You put a player on automatic, and his mentality shifts with your match mentality. Yet we have dozens and dozens of people in threads in here not understanding that. Why? Because it is not intuitive at all. That leads to tactical breakdowns with no real understanding of what has happened. If you look at marsh82's response as to how he understands automatic duty, you see the problem. It has nothing to do with team structure or tactical cohesiveness. You can play defensive strategy with attacking roles, and vice versa.

Just a question about moving a player in the AML/R to ML/R, will it make the player less effective due to not knowing the position as well as his natural position? Also due to the fact that the attributes are quite different? None of my current wide AMs are particularly good at the defensive side of the game (tackling, marking etc.)

Don't really need them to be good tacklers or markers. I will look for decent workrate and teamwork instead so they will at least help out the fullbacks when defending.

Is there an article based on the pros and cons of the wide attacking midfielders and wide midfilders?? Or is it basically wether you want them to help with the defensive work? If that is the only distinction then I would have to think defensive attributes would be important. If I'm wrong please tell me why.

Is there an article based on the pros and cons of the wide attacking midfielders and wide midfilders?? Or is it basically wether you want them to help with the defensive work? If that is the only distinction then I would have to think defensive attributes would be important. If I'm wrong please tell me why.

It's a very customisable role so depending on what you want the wide midfielder to be, then the answer to what is important and what isn't would change. It all depends on how you play and what job you expect him to do.

Can you not compensate for this by having a wingback on attack or support duty overlapping him?

In theory yes, also having more roles upfront that creates width, like a striker who moves into channels, or a winger on the AM strata on the other wing, as a Raumdeuter or as a Winger with Stays Wider instruction. I had quite some success back then in the FM12 days playing something like this, I had a "withdrawn inside forward" who was great and created tons of danger. However I tried to replicate it to some extent in FM15 and was a failure.

I find one of the best things about the WM role is being able to have a winger who doesn't have either 'Cuts Inside' or 'Hugs Touchline' in their PIs. Back in FM15 I had Di Maria and Memphis playing as WM(a) and told them to swap every so often - the dynamism in their play was amazing to watch! Sometimes they'd beat the man and whip a cross in, other times they'd drive inside and shoot.

I find one of the best things about the WM role is being able to have a winger who doesn't have either 'Cuts Inside' or 'Hugs Touchline' in their PIs. Back in FM15 I had Di Maria and Memphis playing as WM(a) and told them to swap every so often - the dynamism in their play was amazing to watch! Sometimes they'd beat the man and whip a cross in, other times they'd drive inside and shoot.

I also find it frustrating that there isn't an equivalent in the AM strata. You can either make them a traditional winger, or a guy that cuts inside all the time. There are also the alternatives of a Raumdeuter, a Advanced Playmaker or a Wide Target Man, but they're all even more specific. What if you want a guy that alternates between cutting inside and going wide? It seems as every role in that position is very specific and not that customizable.

I also find it frustrating that there isn't an equivalent in the AM strata. You can either make them a traditional winger, or a guy that cuts inside all the time. There are also the alternatives of a Raumdeuter, a Advanced Playmaker or a Wide Target Man, but they're all even more specific. What if you want a guy that alternates between cutting inside and going wide? It seems as every role in that position is very specific and not that customizable.

Yeah, that thought crossed my mind a few times recently. There should be a role that is essentially an Advanced Wide Midefielder.

I agree. It's an oversight and one which has been raised elsewhere.

I find the problem with the automatic roles is that too many people expect them to be jack of all trades, generalist roles, which couldn't be further from the truth.

I find the problem with the automatic roles is that too many people expect them to be jack of all trades, generalist roles, which couldn't be further from the truth.

There is a joke/pun somewhere here to be made with your username but I can't quite word it.

Just a question about moving a player in the AML/R to ML/R, will it make the player less effective due to not knowing the position as well as his natural position? Also due to the fact that the attributes are quite different? None of my current wide AMs are particularly good at the defensive side of the game (tackling, marking etc.)

As far as I remember, their ability to perform out of position is down to their decision making attribute. But, usually an AM player is competent somewhat in the M position, but if not, re-train them. The key is to ensure they have the attributes to do what you want them to do, if you manage that you're halfway there.

do the players still have to have inverted feet. Left player being right footed and right player being left footed just the same as an inside forward if they cut inside?

do the players still have to have inverted feet. Left player being right footed and right player being left footed just the same as an inside forward if they cut inside?

Even an IF doesn't absolutely have to have inverted feet.

Cheers. Good to know.

Another question, according to pairs and combinations, the wide defender has to be a wb/s, could they be used on attack since the wide midfielder cuts inside?

Cheers. Good to know.

Another question, according to pairs and combinations, the wide defender has to be a wb/s, could they be used on attack since the wide midfielder cuts inside?

Pairs and Combinations is only a guide. The suggestions therein aren't set in stone.

Would a Wide Midfielder Support have the same impact as a Wide Midfielder onbAttack if they are given the same PI to replicate a Inside Forward. I like playing with attacking full backs (WB S or CWB S OR CWB Attack) Am I right in thinking that wide midfielders on Support would balance things out if I am playing with attacking full backs

I also find it frustrating that there isn't an equivalent in the AM strata. You can either make them a traditional winger, or a guy that cuts inside all the time. There are also the alternatives of a Raumdeuter, a Advanced Playmaker or a Wide Target Man, but they're all even more specific. What if you want a guy that alternates between cutting inside and going wide? It seems as every role in that position is very specific and not that customizable.

That's one of the reasons I eventually went to WMs instead of AML/R. Having a multitude of options to have my wide players more like I'd like them to.

Would a Wide Midfielder Support have the same impact as a Wide Midfielder onbAttack if they are given the same PI to replicate a Inside Forward. I like playing with attacking full backs (WB S or CWB S OR CWB Attack) Am I right in thinking that wide midfielders on Support would balance things out if I am playing with attacking full backs

It makes sense have wide mids on support if you have attacking full backs. Just make sure there's space for the wide mids to roam into. So you may have to adjust the roles/duties of your central mids/attackers accordingly.

That's one of the reasons I eventually went to WMs instead of AML/R. Having a multitude of options to have my wide players more like I'd like them to.

It makes sense have wide mids on support if you have attacking full backs. Just make sure there's space for the wide mids to roam into. So you may have to adjust the roles/duties of your central mids/attackers accordingly.

Well I am playing with 4411 and because I have attacking full backs them my CMs are both holding players CMD and DLP D. The problem is what tondo with Ozil. I was thinking of AdvancE Playmaker Attack or Attacking Midfielder Attack. I am playing a Advance Forward Attack, so that will help to push the D-Line back a bit hopefully giving more space for my AMC and wide midfielders to work in. I might also set up one of my wide midfielder with PI so he plays like a winger.

I'd say AP-a but I think that would put your in a position where you'd be lacking a clear secondary scoring option; you'd have an AF up top and essentially 3 support roles behind him. I'm not saying it can't work, I'm just saying that if you start to struggle to create chances this could be the reason why.

And if you're gonna give your wide mid PIs to make him play like a winger, well why not just make him a winger then?

I'd say AP-a but I think that would put your in a position where you'd be lacking a clear secondary scoring option; you'd have an AF up top and essentially 3 support roles behind him. I'm not saying it can't work, I'm just saying that if you start to struggle to create chances this could be the reason why.

And if you're gonna give your wide mid PIs to make him play like a winger, well why not just make him a winger then?

I did think about playing as a winger but I like the flexibility a wide midfielder gives. I am thinking of giving my WM S the following PI Get further forward, Sit Narrower and cut inside. Do you think that would that help towards getting a clear secondary scoring option.

Depending on the roles of your other players it may work, but I do think a WM-a would be a better choice honestly. But if you really wanna keep your wide mids on support, go ahead and try Ozil as an AM-a.

Honestly though, the best thing you can do now is just try it out in game. Because you never know how it all comes together until you're actually in a match.

James9,

Perhaps you could try A.PM-a on the flank instead of WM-a or IF-a; Under my save, the midfielders that i put on this position then to link-up plays better with the lone foward than using IF-a or WM-a.