Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Feel like both these roles are so similar, how are they different? Wondering which role would be better to use behind a support duty forward IF/IW in a 4231?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KCHDD said:

Feel like both these roles are so similar, how are they different?

WB has a higher initial positioning than FB, tends to be a bit more aggressive in the defensive phase of play and is generally more attack-minded. These are key differences between the two roles apart from their duties.

1 hour ago, KCHDD said:

Wondering which role would be better to use behind a support duty forward IF/IW in a 4231?

As always, that entirely depends on your tactical setup as a whole and your intended playing style, of course. Both WB support and FB attack will naturally overlap their F/IW partner (provided you are in control of the game in the opposition half). WB on support is generally better suited to possession-oriented styles, whereas FB on attack is usually a better choice for more direct styles with greater emphasis on defensive solidity (despite its higher duty).

Whichever of the two you opt for in a 4231, better make sure that the CM on that side is the holding (or at least covering) type of role (as opposed to runner ir/and roamer).

If you post a screenshot of the tactic as you envision it, I can tell you if there are any potential issues you need to be aware of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think ED covered it well. Just one more thing to consider, why you would pick one or the other, is that a FB on attack has Cross more often. So if you want your wide players to refrain from crosses and rather look for cutback passes, WB on support is your role to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my observations in game, the only real differences between the two roles are the predone player instructions. IIRC, a wingback is more likely to stay wider, dribble more, run wide with ball, cross etc, than a fullback on the same duty. In terms of how high up the pitch they get the duty is mostly what matters (so a FBa will go forward more often than a WBs). Although a WB on the same duty as a FB will likely seem to be going further forward due to its dribbling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikcheck said:

But isn't a FB on attack more aggressive than a WB on support? He has higher mentality

Higher mentality is not about aggression but willingness for attacking risks (more speculative passing and crossing as well as readiness to get forward early). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the old interface is anything to go on, then the main difference is that a wb have hug touchline (so he will play wider) and is set to cross higher up the pitch (this will make them run/dribble a bit more before crossing) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/06/2021 at 08:05, mikcheck said:

But isn't a FB on attack more aggressive than a WB on support? He has higher mentality

Note that on some team mentalities, FB(a) and WB(s) have the same player mentality.  On my current tactic, the same on Positive, Balanced and Cautious team mentalities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Le 03/06/2021 à 15:20, KCHDD a dit :

Feel like both these roles are so similar, how are they different? Wondering which role would be better to use behind a support duty forward IF/IW in a 4231?

You can find some good answers in this thread:

FB(A) is going to run up and down the pitch a lot more than WB(S). He's both more aggressive on when you have possession and more conservative when you don't.

 

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...