Fullback positition. Do we *really* need so many roles?

[Jack722]

I've been playing FM for years now, and also watch a lot of irl football.. But I still couldn't confidently really tell you the difference between a wingback and a fullback in the fullback position. I doubt many others could either. 

Traditionally, you would describe the wingback as a more attacking player in a back 3 (and maybe a diamond) system, while you'd describe a fullback as a more defensive player in most other systems (that can still overlap and be attacking obviously). But it's difficult to follow this simple and well known definition when you can have a wingback on defend and a fullback on attack. The lines become very blurred. I think it would make a lot of sense to limit the duties of these two roles, one way or another, to keep everything more simple.

Based on what I see in game, the difference between the two roles on the same duty (eg defend, defend) is very minimal. As are the desired attributes when on the player profile screen. Currently, based on the wingback description "Usually playing out wide with no wing support" I have only been playing wingbacks in the fullback position in a diamond formation, or when behind a playmaking role (since they come very narrow). I wonder if the wingback role in the fullback position is one of those more specialist roles like the carilero, which should only ideally be played in specific systems. What does everyone else think?

 

Edited January 16, 2022 by Jack722

[Andrew Marines]

watch the average position of both of them without the ball, you'll see the difference there

[Jack722]

23 minutes ago, Andrew Marines said:

watch the average position of both of them without the ball, you'll see the difference there

dont have fm open atm, can you expand on this?

[Jack722]

Also, what do you think it means by 'wide support'? for example, would a Salah-style aggressive inside forward, that spends a lot of time in the half spaces trying to attack the box, count as wide support?

[De Nile]

I think its fine, have you ever wondered why the wing back loses the ball too much or it dribbles too much down the line, then you would use a fullback because unlike the wingback it takes time to assess what to do. 

Wingback on defend can be useful leaving a winger 1v1 on the fullback if the winger was doubled teamed either it overlaps or stays back to play the switch ball to the other flank/ plays it back into midfield. With the fullback on attack it times the runs into wide areas so it doesn't become defensively liable. The difference is wingback on defend would be higher on positioned than the fullback and it dribbles into wide areas more.

But it depends on how you use them if I had a wide playmaker on support, I would play fullback on attack so it waits until the WP drifts inside and then runs into the wide area to play a cross. A wingback on defend would rather dribble into the vacant area and play from that side of the pitch could be stale since it can be closed down from a deeper position and passes would be rushed so they do serve different purposes.

[Jack722]

13 minutes ago, De Nile said:

The difference is wingback on defend would be higher on positioned than the fullback and it dribbles into wide areas more.

fullback on what duty?]

[De Nile]

Just now, Jack722 said:

fullback on what duty?]

fullback on attack since its wingbacks are more aggressive naturally 

[Jack722]

Just now, De Nile said:

fullback on attack since its wingbacks are more aggressive naturally 

Hmm that would make sense based on the role descriptions (since the wingback has to also be a winger) but it's not what I see. I see the FBa move much higher and earlier than a WBd.

[Andrew Marines]

45 minuti fa, Jack722 ha scritto:

dont have fm open atm, can you expand on this?

Let's try this formation on FM20.

 

with ball:

without ball:

 

 

 

 

45 minuti fa, Jack722 ha scritto:

Also, what do you think it means by 'wide support'?

watching those two pictures, you can see that the wingback provides more width. Why?

Cause the wingback has hardcoded the PI Run Wide with Ball.

WB:

 

FB:

[De Nile]

27 minutes ago, Jack722 said:

Hmm that would make sense based on the role descriptions (since the wingback has to also be a winger) but it's not what I see. I see the FBa move much higher and earlier than a WBd.

Yes but the main thing its would not make that run to sacrifice defence responsibility and if it does then either you have to check player attributes and the traits. As Andrew has just shown the WB is higher positionally and this goes for all wingback depending on what duty you use. If the wingback is defending it would defend higher and support play deeper and much more later. FB would attack when necessary  as long as it is confident that it would not ruin defence and cause a turnover.  What I am saying may not be truth to you but if you look at player roles and duties logically then you should see how things work properly.

Also it depends who you play around the fullback so any DM in defend/support , carrilero, CM on defend would usually see the fullback move early

Edited January 16, 2022 by De Nile

[Jack722]

5 hours ago, Andrew Marines said:

Let's try this formation on FM20.

 

with ball:

without ball:

 

 

 

 

watching those two pictures, you can see that the wingback provides more width. Why?

Cause the wingback has hardcoded the PI Run Wide with Ball.

WB:

 

FB:

That's interesting so thanks, would you say the wingback defend is more attacking than a fullback support, or attack?

[Andrew Marines]

1 ora fa, Jack722 ha scritto:

That's interesting so thanks, would you say the wingback defend is more attacking than a fullback support, or attack?

Those are different roles(you know, different behaviours) but no, a fullback on attack is a lot more attacking minded than a WB on defend. Watch the player mentality and you'll see how much attack-minded is a role

[Jack722]

10 hours ago, Andrew Marines said:

Those are different roles(you know, different behaviours) but no, a fullback on attack is a lot more attacking minded than a WB on defend. Watch the player mentality and you'll see how much attack-minded is a role

So in what scenario would you choose a FB over WB? and vice versa

When I think of a wb in a back 4, I think Cuadrado at Juve has been doing this for a while (dribbling at defenders, hugging the touchline- essentially a winger) as well as Alphonso Davies. But the  why on earth  can yoi choose a wingback on defend? I don't see the point of that duty for a wingback, seeing as it's an attacking role. If I wanted a Conservative player there, I would choose fb defend or support.

With a more attacking fb, I think of Luke Shaw at Man U last season, getting forward a lot, crossing, but not necessarily drivbling at defenders so much like a wb. He also varies between underlapping and overlapping the inside forward.

[Andrew Marines]

8 minuti fa, Jack722 ha scritto:

So in what scenario would you choose a FB over WB? and vice versa

I use wingbacks when playing a wingerless formation(like a 4312) or when my AM/LR players don't give width(cause i tell them to stay narrow for example). I use fullbacks when i need to tweaks more settings. like i want them to stay  wider but when they have the ball to go inside the field or when i need to choose if the player should get further forward during the match(remember WB on support has get further forward hard-coded while FB-S not).

11 minuti fa, Jack722 ha scritto:

But the  why on earth  can yoi choose a wingback on defend?

a WB-D is more offensive than the FB-D. Think about a 4312 again.  WB-D and mezzala-A. The WB-D will get further forward only when he thinks that is safe to do that and when the mezzala gives him the space. He will not go up if the mezzala is going in his attacking position and if he get the ball he's just gonna cross from far.

 

 

15 minuti fa, Jack722 ha scritto:

If I wanted a Conservative player there, I would choose fb defend or support.

Again, his behaviour will be different. A FB-D, except if you have a team attacking mentality, will not go up in any case. a FB on support could behave like an added midfielder while the WB-D has the goal to cross, dribble and cross in a wider position

 

 

14 minuti fa, Jack722 ha scritto:

I think Cuadrado at Juve has been doing this for a while

I think Cuadrado is a complete wingback cause you can see him doing a lot of different things during a match.

 

 

 

 

[Tsuru]

3 horas atrás, Jack722 disse:

So in what scenario would you choose a FB over WB? and vice versa

I know that the question was not addressed directly to me, but I would like you to give another point of view on this.

I like to use WBs in wingerless formations or when my advanced side midfielders need more support from the back - if they are inside oriented (IF, IW, Raumdetter, AP etc.) or maybe if I use a Winger on Attack. 

And when I use FBs? Normally when the central midfielder ahead of him is more attacking oriented, so I will need more defensive cover. If the FB is just required to help on defence and midfield, I use him at Support (for example with a W-Su ahead). If I have a more offensive central midfielder but the AML/AMR ahead needs some kind of support from the back, then I use a FB-At.

[_mxrky]

We need a quasi cb role for fullback.

[Poison]

20 minutes ago, _mxrky said:

We need a quasi cb role for fullback.

Wouldn't that be no-nonsense fb?

[De Nile]

41 minutes ago, _mxrky said:

We need a quasi cb role for fullback.

There already is fb on defend, NNFB and iwb on defend that you can use as cb if you want to defend in a lopsided back 3 or a full defensive back 4

[_mxrky]

3 minutes ago, De Nile said:

There already is fb on defend, NNFB and iwb on defend that you can use as cb if you want to defend in a lopsided back 3 or a full defensive back 4

Both of them stay too wide in possession. IWB-d stays in the dm strata

26 minutes ago, Poison said:

Wouldn't that be no-nonsense fb?

Nope

[De Nile]

1 minute ago, _mxrky said:

Both of them stay too wide in possession. IWB-d stays in the dm strata

Before the WCB there has been lots of successful examples of using iwb on defend as a cb and it does work noted you need to use pi's to make it play like cb but it works

[Jack722]

7 hours ago, Tsuru said:

I know that the question was not addressed directly to me, but I would like you to give another point of view on this.

I like to use WBs in wingerless formations or when my advanced side midfielders need more support from the back - if they are inside oriented (IF, IW, Raumdetter, AP etc.) or maybe if I use a Winger on Attack. 

And when I use FBs? Normally when the central midfielder ahead of him is more attacking oriented, so I will need more defensive cover. If the FB is just required to help on defence and midfield, I use him at Support (for example with a W-Su ahead). If I have a more offensive central midfielder but the AML/AMR ahead needs some kind of support from the back, then I use a FB-At.

so if you want your player to be more defensive, you'd choose a FBa over a WBd?

[Tsuru]

33 minutos atrás, Jack722 disse:

so if you want your player to be more defensive, you'd choose a FBa over a WBd?

Yes. I have always read that a Fullback is always more defensive than a Wingback, despite the duty.

[Andrew Marines]

Il 17/1/2022 in 17:24 , _mxrky ha scritto:

We need a quasi cb role for fullback

No-nonsense fullback with stay narrow. I use it to create a fake back 3