Playing an IWBa in front of a wingback

[Hog]

Dear all,

I wonder and do start a thread on the issue that is beginning to tickle my fancy.

Wanting to incorporate in my tactic a winger that will cut inside and support and at the same time be an attacking threat I got the idea of putting an inverted attacking wingback in the WB/DM strata in front of an overlapping wingback in the full back/centre back strata.

The setup is as follows (strikerless)

 

...........ssa........ta

Wma bwms dlpd

...............................iwba

Fbs ...cbd ....cbd..... wbs

 

Team instructions boil down to high pressing instructions.

I have only played a friendly game repeatedly so far and had decent results (the problem is more the lack of high pressing from the role rather than attacking contribution even though I played a wingback there so even the latter wasn't that great). What I would do when testing this concept more extensively is retrain an inverted winger to the wingback position rather than playing an orthodox wingback there. In short, does anyone think that this can work? I would test this tactical concept myself but I am interested if there is anyone on this message board who already has.

 

 

[De Nile]

I have tried that before (but with different roles and instructions and it's not strikerless.) in defence they kind of defended the same area as apposed to two separate deep pressing zones so the opposition fullback had a lot more time to cross from deep. Attack was alright. The thing is in your system you plan to use a treq on the same side as your double wingback so the wingback will have extra work and the opposition can easily overload the flank your wingback and treq are protecting in addition you plan to high press so they most likely wait for you to come forward and then direct counter. But since you got good results you can continue with your tactic just be aware 

[kevkel]

I tried this, I had a successful 4-3-2-1 tactic I was using but I was fed up of my DLP-D having a poor match rating despite everything statistically saying he played well. So I moved him to the IWB position in front of my WB-A. He performed brilliantly there, his assists went up almost to 1 every other game, his av. rating went up massively aswell so from his point of view it was great but it made my Normal FB  who had always played as a WB-A useless as he wasn't doing anything. The tackles were made by IWB, the interceptions were made by IWB so my WB-A would always have a low match rating as he wasn't involved in the game. 

[Hog]

3 hours ago, kevkel said:

I tried this, I had a successful 4-3-2-1 tactic I was using but I was fed up of my DLP-D having a poor match rating despite everything statistically saying he played well. So I moved him to the IWB position in front of my WB-A. He performed brilliantly there, his assists went up almost to 1 every other game, his av. rating went up massively aswell so from his point of view it was great but it made my Normal FB  who had always played as a WB-A useless as he wasn't doing anything. The tackles were made by IWB, the interceptions were made by IWB so my WB-A would always have a low match rating as he wasn't involved in the game. 

Interesting. Did your IWB score or just assist, I would be curious to know? ,

I see your problem with the WBa, it is related to what De Nile reports about the two defending the same area, but perhaps it would have made it slightly better if you had tried a WB-s instead, creating more space in between the two. In my limited testing, I found that the two players on the flank combined ok as one would attack the inside when he could and the other more to the outside, supporting the IWB in attack, which still does not fix the defensive issue. 

23 hours ago, De Nile said:

I have tried that before (but with different roles and instructions and it's not strikerless.) in defence they kind of defended the same area as apposed to two separate deep pressing zones so the opposition fullback had a lot more time to cross from deep. Attack was alright. The thing is in your system you plan to use a treq on the same side as your double wingback so the wingback will have extra work and the opposition can easily overload the flank your wingback and treq are protecting in addition you plan to high press so they most likely wait for you to come forward and then direct counter. But since you got good results you can continue with your tactic just be aware 

Thank you for the warning. I see it as a problem, as well, that the IWB would not press high enough, leaving their fullback to pick apart my defence and my two players marking the same zone with nobody marking the zone higher up. Perhaps this is a risk worth taking though in order to utilise the IWB going forward.

Edited May 7, 2022 by Hog

[kevkel]

Quote

14 hours ago, Hog said:

Interesting. Did your IWB score or just assist, I would be curious to know? ,

I see your problem with the WBa, it is related to what De Nile reports about the two defending the same area, but perhaps it would have made it slightly better if you had tried a WB-s instead, creating more space in between the two. In my limited testing, I found that the two players on the flank combined ok as one would attack the inside when he could and the other more to the outside, supporting the IWB in attack, which still does not fix the defensive issue. 

 

 

Chipped in with the odd goal here and there.

I played around with the FB and tried different things to improve his performance but couldn't get anything to work consistently. Tried with different roles, tried with overlap, underlap.

There is a youtube video by Stinger based on IWB which might help with building a tactic

 

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by kevkel