Jump to content

Recommended Posts

(So, just to preface I wanna clarify that by no means do I feel like I'm any kind of tactical wizard in the least, so feel free to just tell me I'm an idiot or stupid for not understanding basic principles or something. Enjoying football is something that came late in life to me (lived in Australia in my teens, at the time it wasn't really a popular sport there), so most of my fun and enjoyment of the sport has come from watching it and playing video games. So, I've had no "schooling" as it were by playing any real life football)

So, I was fiddling around wanting to try something new as a tactical set-up for myself for a new save. Thinking of using a 4-1-4-1 style formation, thinking it could be super adaptable and fluid to make changes with in games as they progress. With doing it I started thinking about the Inverted types of roles in the game, specifically an Inverted Winger. From what I remember reading or seeing, I seem to be under the impression that;

If your player is playing as an Inverted role, you want them to have the opposite footedness to the flank they're on.

So, right footed player on the left, left footed player on the right. Right? So they can cut inside and comfortably pass/shoot on their stronger foot centrally.

Now I'm just wondering as to why... like, I can understand it as a principle for an Inside Forward who will want to cut inside and shoot on his stronger foot. Say, your Robben style player. But to me an IF is basically a striker on the pitch more or less, his job is to get in on goal in some way whatsoever. How does the footedness preference affect a role like an Inverted Winger in a flat midfield 4 set-up?

The reason why I'm thinking it is I wanted to try something like this;

2009794992_Screenshot2021-04-28at12_15_38.png.f9730d382108629946525eae783d0d63.png

Ignore the lack of anything really there instruction wise, I'm more focusing on the idea of the shape here and theoretically how they would interact and work before adding anything else. Really, the focus I just want is on the left side, everything else is more or less adaptable for the time being. What I'm trying to work out is how these players will interact here;

1506741794_Screenshot2021-04-28at12_15_38.png.7fe46596c888feba40e47d662bbddb7d.png  

Now with this shape, what I would like to be happening tactically is this;

- On that left hand side I want the IW(s) to run and cut inside, occupying the space in front of the DLP(s). A player who, from what I understand, is going to hold his position, per his role instructions. This means that the space ahead of him is not going to be doubled up on, and the IW will have a little pocket to go into.

- This then allows the WB(a) to have freedom to basically bomb up and down on that left channel all by himself. He's a creative player, good passer and crosser, and good physical attributes. So it's something that I was thinking for an outlet. More or less wanting him to be a key creative outlet for the side.

Now... why does this affect the footedness of the IW at all you probably ask?

Well... again. Sorry for the super rough diagram, but it's just for illustrative purposes at this point. The way I would want to envision this tactic is it working like this in the beginning of play;

1340228212_Screenshot2021-04-28at12_04_34.png.b8e07ff7db37343c32932e8f3e291027.png

So, as we can see... just a rough idea of the way I would like some of the players to go forward. The thinking being, that when we're in comfortable possession it would ideally switch into something very, very roughly illustrated like this;

2107036621_Screenshot2021-04-28at12_25_36.png.49e936c7d3442c1a3fcf2c49ad7dbbfb.png

Again, ignore the bulk of it, and just focus on that left side. I know a HB probably won't operate that way, there's swathes of space left behind the WB, that's not how the right wing would work, etc... I just want to focus on the interaction between that IW(s) and the WB(a)

What I want is the WB(a) to be an outlet. So, the IW(s) cutting inside is still gonna be wanting to use the WB as a passing option, and a way to influence the game. So, naturally he should be wanting to pass to him with his stronger foot towards the player, no? Just because he's occupying a more central position when in attack doesn't mean I want him with blinkers on and not able to utilise a pass to the WB.

I think I'm trying to be using the same logic that a lot of people say with CB pairings, with how for a left sided CB in a pairing you want a strong left foot, so he doesn't have to check across himself to comfortably pass onto the left hand side of the pitch.

It's what I'm wanting for my IW(s). I don't necessarily want him making that pass through the centre, I just want him occupying that space and spraying out a pass to the WB(a), and that the option to take it out wide is something he can just do without having to turn or rearrange his body in any way shape or form to get a decent pass off as I imagine he might end up doing if he was strictly right footed playing on the left as an IW (as I've otherwise been told)

Or is it all moot and pointless and I've wasted my time writing this? Does it really not matter too much what preference you have with an Inverted role? If I just ask for the Overlap is it something that will just naturally happen as a passing option, regardless of foot preference on that IW?

Cheers for anyone who bothers to indulge me with an answer!
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SuperBiggles said:

(So, just to preface I wanna clarify that by no means do I feel like I'm any kind of tactical wizard in the least, so feel free to just tell me I'm an idiot or stupid for not understanding basic principles or something. Enjoying football is something that came late in life to me (lived in Australia in my teens, at the time it wasn't really a popular sport there), so most of my fun and enjoyment of the sport has come from watching it and playing video games. So, I've had no "schooling" as it were by playing any real life football)

So, I was fiddling around wanting to try something new as a tactical set-up for myself for a new save. Thinking of using a 4-1-4-1 style formation, thinking it could be super adaptable and fluid to make changes with in games as they progress. With doing it I started thinking about the Inverted types of roles in the game, specifically an Inverted Winger. From what I remember reading or seeing, I seem to be under the impression that;

If your player is playing as an Inverted role, you want them to have the opposite footedness to the flank they're on.

So, right footed player on the left, left footed player on the right. Right? So they can cut inside and comfortably pass/shoot on their stronger foot centrally.

Now I'm just wondering as to why... like, I can understand it as a principle for an Inside Forward who will want to cut inside and shoot on his stronger foot. Say, your Robben style player. But to me an IF is basically a striker on the pitch more or less, his job is to get in on goal in some way whatsoever. How does the footedness preference affect a role like an Inverted Winger in a flat midfield 4 set-up?

The reason why I'm thinking it is I wanted to try something like this;

2009794992_Screenshot2021-04-28at12_15_38.png.f9730d382108629946525eae783d0d63.png

Ignore the lack of anything really there instruction wise, I'm more focusing on the idea of the shape here and theoretically how they would interact and work before adding anything else. Really, the focus I just want is on the left side, everything else is more or less adaptable for the time being. What I'm trying to work out is how these players will interact here;

1506741794_Screenshot2021-04-28at12_15_38.png.7fe46596c888feba40e47d662bbddb7d.png  

Now with this shape, what I would like to be happening tactically is this;

- On that left hand side I want the IW(s) to run and cut inside, occupying the space in front of the DLP(s). A player who, from what I understand, is going to hold his position, per his role instructions. This means that the space ahead of him is not going to be doubled up on, and the IW will have a little pocket to go into.

- This then allows the WB(a) to have freedom to basically bomb up and down on that left channel all by himself. He's a creative player, good passer and crosser, and good physical attributes. So it's something that I was thinking for an outlet. More or less wanting him to be a key creative outlet for the side.

Now... why does this affect the footedness of the IW at all you probably ask?

Well... again. Sorry for the super rough diagram, but it's just for illustrative purposes at this point. The way I would want to envision this tactic is it working like this in the beginning of play;

1340228212_Screenshot2021-04-28at12_04_34.png.b8e07ff7db37343c32932e8f3e291027.png

So, as we can see... just a rough idea of the way I would like some of the players to go forward. The thinking being, that when we're in comfortable possession it would ideally switch into something very, very roughly illustrated like this;

2107036621_Screenshot2021-04-28at12_25_36.png.49e936c7d3442c1a3fcf2c49ad7dbbfb.png

Again, ignore the bulk of it, and just focus on that left side. I know a HB probably won't operate that way, there's swathes of space left behind the WB, that's not how the right wing would work, etc... I just want to focus on the interaction between that IW(s) and the WB(a)

What I want is the WB(a) to be an outlet. So, the IW(s) cutting inside is still gonna be wanting to use the WB as a passing option, and a way to influence the game. So, naturally he should be wanting to pass to him with his stronger foot towards the player, no? Just because he's occupying a more central position when in attack doesn't mean I want him with blinkers on and not able to utilise a pass to the WB.

I think I'm trying to be using the same logic that a lot of people say with CB pairings, with how for a left sided CB in a pairing you want a strong left foot, so he doesn't have to check across himself to comfortably pass onto the left hand side of the pitch.

It's what I'm wanting for my IW(s). I don't necessarily want him making that pass through the centre, I just want him occupying that space and spraying out a pass to the WB(a), and that the option to take it out wide is something he can just do without having to turn or rearrange his body in any way shape or form to get a decent pass off as I imagine he might end up doing if he was strictly right footed playing on the left as an IW (as I've otherwise been told)

Or is it all moot and pointless and I've wasted my time writing this? Does it really not matter too much what preference you have with an Inverted role? If I just ask for the Overlap is it something that will just naturally happen as a passing option, regardless of foot preference on that IW?

Cheers for anyone who bothers to indulge me with an answer!
 

Not sure if you have played football in real life before but cutting inside with your stronger foot is a lot more easier and a pass is much quicker with a direction opposite the foot that you are using ie. a pass to the left with your right foot and vice versa because you do not have to open your inside foot to make the pass. So if I understood correctly you want your IW to make the pass to the WB which is at his left side. So naturally he can make the pass much quicker if he is right footed. If he is left footed, defenders can just easily defend the outside knowing that the inverted winger does not pose a threat cutting inside. If he is right footed, defenders will need to defend the inside and outside knowing that the inverted winger can choose to cut inside or make a pass outside.

An added benefit of playing opposite foot wingers are because they can cut inside with their opposite foot while the opposing full backs will have to defend with their weaker foot due to how teams usually play right footed players as right backs and left footed players as left backs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For what you specifically want to achieve, the setup on your left flank/side is very well thought out - the supporting IW cuts inside creating space on the left for the attacking WB to make an overlapping run, while the holding DLP serves both as defensive cover and a passing option to recycle possession from a deeper area. Now, that does not mean that the IW will always pass the ball to the (naturally overlapping) WB on the left, because sometimes he may have other - and potentially better - options available elsewhere (e.g. switch the ball to the opposite flank or try a killer through ball or pass it back to the DLP who can then release the LWB). So you cannot expect to see what you want every single time, i.e. in every single attack by your team. After all, how players will behave depends not just on the tactical setup but also their relevant attributes (decisions, vision, anticipation etc.). 

But your general line of reasoning is spot on :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those cuts inside with the ball are much better if you're playing with strong foot on the opposite side, but I've still had some success with it the other way around as well because there really aren't any other major problems there, off ball movement works perfectly fine and crossing is of course easier the other way around. I find that they don't force dumb dribbles inside too much, but they often have to recycle possession with a pass going backwards or diagonally so it can hamper counter attacks a bit. A good weak foot helps a bunch of course.

 

One "trick" I often use here is to actually play them as normal winger but train the PPM cuts inside if I want something between an actual IW and an actual winger. I find this adds a good amount of goals for wingers if they have the attributes for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/04/2021 at 14:41, SuperBiggles said:

(So, just to preface I wanna clarify that by no means do I feel like I'm any kind of tactical wizard in the least, so feel free to just tell me I'm an idiot or stupid for not understanding basic principles or something. Enjoying football is something that came late in life to me (lived in Australia in my teens, at the time it wasn't really a popular sport there), so most of my fun and enjoyment of the sport has come from watching it and playing video games. So, I've had no "schooling" as it were by playing any real life football)

So, I was fiddling around wanting to try something new as a tactical set-up for myself for a new save. Thinking of using a 4-1-4-1 style formation, thinking it could be super adaptable and fluid to make changes with in games as they progress. With doing it I started thinking about the Inverted types of roles in the game, specifically an Inverted Winger. From what I remember reading or seeing, I seem to be under the impression that;

If your player is playing as an Inverted role, you want them to have the opposite footedness to the flank they're on.

So, right footed player on the left, left footed player on the right. Right? So they can cut inside and comfortably pass/shoot on their stronger foot centrally.

Now I'm just wondering as to why... like, I can understand it as a principle for an Inside Forward who will want to cut inside and shoot on his stronger foot. Say, your Robben style player. But to me an IF is basically a striker on the pitch more or less, his job is to get in on goal in some way whatsoever. How does the footedness preference affect a role like an Inverted Winger in a flat midfield 4 set-up?

The reason why I'm thinking it is I wanted to try something like this;

2009794992_Screenshot2021-04-28at12_15_38.png.f9730d382108629946525eae783d0d63.png

Ignore the lack of anything really there instruction wise, I'm more focusing on the idea of the shape here and theoretically how they would interact and work before adding anything else. Really, the focus I just want is on the left side, everything else is more or less adaptable for the time being. What I'm trying to work out is how these players will interact here;

1506741794_Screenshot2021-04-28at12_15_38.png.7fe46596c888feba40e47d662bbddb7d.png  

Now with this shape, what I would like to be happening tactically is this;

- On that left hand side I want the IW(s) to run and cut inside, occupying the space in front of the DLP(s). A player who, from what I understand, is going to hold his position, per his role instructions. This means that the space ahead of him is not going to be doubled up on, and the IW will have a little pocket to go into.

- This then allows the WB(a) to have freedom to basically bomb up and down on that left channel all by himself. He's a creative player, good passer and crosser, and good physical attributes. So it's something that I was thinking for an outlet. More or less wanting him to be a key creative outlet for the side.

Now... why does this affect the footedness of the IW at all you probably ask?

Well... again. Sorry for the super rough diagram, but it's just for illustrative purposes at this point. The way I would want to envision this tactic is it working like this in the beginning of play;

1340228212_Screenshot2021-04-28at12_04_34.png.b8e07ff7db37343c32932e8f3e291027.png

So, as we can see... just a rough idea of the way I would like some of the players to go forward. The thinking being, that when we're in comfortable possession it would ideally switch into something very, very roughly illustrated like this;

2107036621_Screenshot2021-04-28at12_25_36.png.49e936c7d3442c1a3fcf2c49ad7dbbfb.png

Again, ignore the bulk of it, and just focus on that left side. I know a HB probably won't operate that way, there's swathes of space left behind the WB, that's not how the right wing would work, etc... I just want to focus on the interaction between that IW(s) and the WB(a)

What I want is the WB(a) to be an outlet. So, the IW(s) cutting inside is still gonna be wanting to use the WB as a passing option, and a way to influence the game. So, naturally he should be wanting to pass to him with his stronger foot towards the player, no? Just because he's occupying a more central position when in attack doesn't mean I want him with blinkers on and not able to utilise a pass to the WB.

I think I'm trying to be using the same logic that a lot of people say with CB pairings, with how for a left sided CB in a pairing you want a strong left foot, so he doesn't have to check across himself to comfortably pass onto the left hand side of the pitch.

It's what I'm wanting for my IW(s). I don't necessarily want him making that pass through the centre, I just want him occupying that space and spraying out a pass to the WB(a), and that the option to take it out wide is something he can just do without having to turn or rearrange his body in any way shape or form to get a decent pass off as I imagine he might end up doing if he was strictly right footed playing on the left as an IW (as I've otherwise been told)

Or is it all moot and pointless and I've wasted my time writing this? Does it really not matter too much what preference you have with an Inverted role? If I just ask for the Overlap is it something that will just naturally happen as a passing option, regardless of foot preference on that IW?

Cheers for anyone who bothers to indulge me with an answer!
 

I was running very similar tactics, albeit in FM19. It appeared, that the winger will NOT usually pass to the wingback. Instead, he would pass back to DLP with his LEFT foot. And then DLP will launch a WB down the wing. So for this setup you would actually prefer a left-footer on IW, but make sure it's still the case in FM21.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...