Anyone else finding that Ws are universally better than IFs?

[jujigatame]

I am finding that almost universally, players I set to Winger roles do better than players I set to IF. Di Maria had a tremendous 2015-16 season for me as a Winger on the left side. Then I brought in Munian and moved Di Maria to the right. Now they're both on the "correct" foot to be IFs, so I set them that way. They are completely mediocre. Oxlade-Chamberlain is another RW for me, I play him as a Winger, he is great.

Has anyone else noticed this trend? Seems like IFs are just prone to awful decision making. I see a lot of shots blasted into the stratosphere. Also, they don't seem to get scoring chances any more frequently than wingers. Wingers line up on the outside of the fullback when the striker/AM has the ball, and fullbacks seem to have trouble defending their runs when they cut in behind. IFs cut inside much earlier than that and the fullbacks seem to have an easier time defending.

Am I crazy or has anyone else made these observations?

[SpartyOn]

I've noticed that too. I play with one attacking winger and one inside forward in a 4-1-2-2-1, and the winger is far more productive. I didn't expect him to be a goal threat at all but he's scoring almost as much as my striker, while the IF rarely scores.

Keepers don't cover their near post very well in this ME and I think wingers are able to exploit that with those late runs.

[JD nawrat]

You aren't crazy, but you are misguided with your information.

I think, in all likelihood, the problem with your IFs not performing as well as your Wingers is down to your overall tactic. Making a radical change such as a W>IF or IF>W is going to have huge ramifications on your team and the style they play. There's going to be more or less space centrally or out wide, there's going to be more or less space for others to attack depending on what you use etc etc.

Basically, your system probably just benefits more from Wingers than it does from Inside Forwards.

I use two IFs. If I switched them to Wingers, would I be successful? Not at all, unless I radically changed my system.

Do my two IFs work? Most definitely. They are highly successful, particularly my AMR (IF/A).

[Miravlix]

Short Answer: You're Holding It Wrong.

IF's need a huge "open" area in front of the opposing goal to work in, so if you're running with 2 strikers and/or AMC the area the IF is supposed to work in is taken, by your own players and the defenders covering them.

The winger on the other hand loves a crowded midfield, since he wants to hit the corner pole and send the ball in to the crowd.

I use two IF/A's they will cross from center field to the opposite corner of the penalty field, to devastating effect for the defense ability to maintain it's shape, creating holes all over for them to pass the ball into the lone striker or the other IF. With CWB/A to support the IF's they will also perform the wingers job, so I get more attack options out of AMR/L.

The only advantage to the winger is that they always go for the corner, so they create more corners and it seems the current consensus is that corners is effective goal oppertunities.

[Bluebird123]

Not at all.

With my Gladbach side I have a W-A on the right and IF-S on the left in a 4-3-3 and the IF gets more assists than the W but the W gets more goals. Both work fine if you give them the space to work in

[jamez_b]

I play a 4-3-3 as below using 2 inside forwards and having a right footed player play in the AM R position seems to work a treat. I have personal instructions set for both IF as run with ball, get forward and sit narrower.

Villalva got 20 goals last season and Ivan Bosnjak my backup got 8 in 10.

Villalva is very fast and he tends to run round the back to feed on the through balls from the complete forward and the other inside forward. Bosnjak is a very different being more of a Dirk Kuyt but still weighs in with a few goals.

Screenshots are from the start of the season rather than the end.

[jujigatame]

I've noticed that too. I play with one attacking winger and one inside forward in a 4-1-2-2-1, and the winger is far more productive. I didn't expect him to be a goal threat at all but he's scoring almost as much as my striker, while the IF rarely scores.

Keepers don't cover their near post very well in this ME and I think wingers are able to exploit that with those late runs.

Yea this is what I'm seeing. Fullbacks don't defend wingers cutting in late as well as they defend IFs running more directly at them.

[jujigatame]

Short Answer: You're Holding It Wrong.

IF's need a huge "open" area in front of the opposing goal to work in, so if you're running with 2 strikers and/or AMC the area the IF is supposed to work in is taken, by your own players and the defenders covering them.

The winger on the other hand loves a crowded midfield, since he wants to hit the corner pole and send the ball in to the crowd.

I use two IF/A's they will cross from center field to the opposite corner of the penalty field, to devastating effect for the defense ability to maintain it's shape, creating holes all over for them to pass the ball into the lone striker or the other IF. With CWB/A to support the IF's they will also perform the wingers job, so I get more attack options out of AMR/L.

The only advantage to the winger is that they always go for the corner, so they create more corners and it seems the current consensus is that corners is effective goal oppertunities.

That's the thing though, I'm frequently seeing the wingers cut in (at the last second, behind the fullbacks) to produce very effective goalscoring chances.

I guess it is possible that since I'm using a 4-2-3-1 that there is not enough space for an IF to operate with my AMC in the way. But surely just because I use an AMC doesn't mean both wide players have to stay wide at all times?

[jujigatame]

So assuming this is down to tactical issues (the middle of the field getting too clogged) what AM strata combinations would people recommend (or recommend avoiding) to alleviate this problem? If I play IF/AP/IF is that just too many central roles? What about IF/AP/W? Still too clogged or perhaps more acceptable? Or what if the AP is changed to a T which roams more?

[jamez_b]

So assuming this is down to tactical issues (the middle of the field getting too clogged) what AM strata combinations would people recommend (or recommend avoiding) to alleviate this problem? If I play IF/AP/IF is that just too many central roles? What about IF/AP/W? Still too clogged or perhaps more acceptable? Or what if the AP is changed to a T which roams more?

Well it depends on your defensive line as if you are higher up I find my IFs have less room to run at the defense than if you are sat deeper. This is especially noticeable if you are facing two DM Cs.

If you are playing IF/AP/IF i would set personal instructions for all 3 of them to roam more and allow wingers to swap. This will keep the opposition guessing, make them impossible to mark out of the game and hopefully create more space for Muniain and Di Maria to exploit.

In terms of the playmaker I'd drop the AP back to a MC and having him as well as your two IFs on Attack duty. I'd then have the Striker as complete/deep lying/false nine on support duty as he'll pull the defenders out of position to create space for your 2 IFs to attack.

I always have my D R and L on wingback - support to provide an option outside or inside dependent on which way the opposition forces your player to run into.

I find using these ways i don't have my players occupying the same space and creates a lot of goals from my 2 IFs.