Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Recommended Posts

Hello, 

Can any of you smart people tell me the basic differences / positives & negatives of using a Wing Back with Support duty vs Full Backs with Attack duty?

I'm playing as Hull using a 451/433 with my 2 wide forward players with instructions to move inside and support the central striker. Therefore I need my left and right backs (Robertson and El-Mohamady) to provide my team with width and get crosses in but I'm not sure which roles to use. Initially I thought FB-A but after reading the tactical guides it seems that the general consensus is that you shouldn't have too many players on attack duty unless you're playing an attacking style. Being Hull, it's rare that I'll be taking the game to teams so this has made me reconsider... Basically I want their approach to be defence-first but willing to get forward on counters and when the opportunity arises to do so safely and to exploit openings.

Any advice welcome.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The fullback attack will start from deeper and defend deeper than a wingback, but an attack fullback will get further forward than a support wingback on the attack as he has a higher mentality. Both fullbacks and wingbacks have the same mentality with the same duty. A fullback attack has get further forward active, as do wingbacks on all duties.  If you want defense first, fullback is better as he plays deeper on defense, but with an attack duty he is risky. For what you want, a wingback support might do better because his mentality is lower, but he will still take opportunities to get forward maybe more than you'd like. If a safety first thing is what you want, you might try as fullback support, as he won't get caught out near so much. The downside of course, being that he might not be as active offensively as you want. As with all things FM, each option carries with it some risk :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that reply, what I might try is Fb Support with a "Get forward" instruction and see how that goes.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does depend on your play style too, I've noticed when I have a possession style of play my FB-S will drift up the pitch quite a bit more than you'd expect them to. But when you are playing that way they are doing what they should be and supporting the attack.

Share this post


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

Thanks for that reply, what I might try is Fb Support with a "Get forward" instruction and see how that goes.

 

Cheers

Check the players' PPMs before you do.  If he has the PPM to get forward often you may not need the PI as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the intromission in the thread, but i have a question related with this...

 

i'm playing with a 4123 wide DM formation, with the following setup:

 

CF(s)

W(s)                                        RMD(a)

CM(a)           AP(s)

DLP(d)

WB(a)         CD(st)       CD(co)          WB(s)

SK(d)

Usually playing with Control or Standard mentality.

My question is related with the WB(a) role and how it combine with the W(s) ahead.

In the pairs and combination document by Llama he says this about combinations that provide width:

"Your other alternatives are to use a pair of wide players, who remain wide and rely on using overlapping to create space down the flank:
Full Back (Attack) or Wing Back (Attack) or Complete Wing Back (Attack)
With:
Wide Midfielder (Support) or Winger (Support) or Defensive Winger (Support) or Wide Target Man (Support)"

 

Because i want my left flank to stay wide, to give more space for my CM(a) to make runs, i went for the WB(a)+W(s). I know that it's a risky combination, that could give some space in defence, but i'm ok with that.

The problem is that i've notice that many times the WB(a)+W(s) don't work, and i dont see the overlaping situations that i was expecting. In fact many times WB(a) and W(s) almost get in each other way trying to reach the ball at the same time, or in others occasions, the winger just goes forward with the WB(a) going behind him and not contributing to the play.

So, should i changed the WB(a) to a support role?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play a very similar forma

29 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

Sorry for the intromission in the thread, but i have a question related with this...

 

i'm playing with a 4123 wide DM formation, with the following setup:

 

CF(s)

W(s)                                        RMD(a)

CM(a)           AP(s)

DLP(d)

WB(a)         CD(st)       CD(co)          WB(s)

SK(d)

Usually playing with Control or Standard mentality.

My question is related with the WB(a) role and how it combine with the W(s) ahead.

In the pairs and combination document by Llama he says this about combinations that provide width:

"Your other alternatives are to use a pair of wide players, who remain wide and rely on using overlapping to create space down the flank:
Full Back (Attack) or Wing Back (Attack) or Complete Wing Back (Attack)
With:
Wide Midfielder (Support) or Winger (Support) or Defensive Winger (Support) or Wide Target Man (Support)"

 

Because i want my left flank to stay wide, to give more space for my CM(a) to make runs, i went for the WB(a)+W(s). I know that it's a risky combination, that could give some space in defence, but i'm ok with that.

The problem is that i've notice that many times the WB(a)+W(s) don't work, and i dont see the overlaping situations that i was expecting. In fact many times WB(a) and W(s) almost get in each other way trying to reach the ball at the same time, or in others occasions, the winger just goes forward with the WB(a) going behind him and not contributing to the play.

So, should i changed the WB(a) to a support role?

I play a very similar formation to you so can give a bit of advice. Rather than changing your WB(a) to WB(s) I would actually consider your left W(s) to W(a). As you said you are not seeing the overlap you want, but changing your WB(a) to WB(s) is probably not going to help that. In fact, it is more likely going to lead you having your WB sit back even more and be less inclined to get forward. 

Changing your W(s) to W(a) can help as you should see your winger getting forward more and being more involved in the attack. This should keep the opposition's FB more busy, leaving more space for your WB to exploit. With this setup I regularly see my W(a) driving at the opposition defense and usually playing a little narrower thus opening up a lot of space either for my WB to exploit out-wide on the overlap or will be in a position from deep where he has a lot of space and time to pick out a good cross into the box.

I don't think it would be too damaging for your team balance either. You already have 2x CBs(d) and a DLP(d) who can cover for when your WB(a) goes forward, as well as most likely have another man other the right side sitting back (WB(s)). Your attack may even work a bit better as well, as you will have another playing looking to get into around the box (W(a)). By having both your W(a) and RMD(a) making forward runs and looking for space their should be more movement for your AP(a) to pick out forward passes, whilst your CF(s) should act as a pivot in your frontline with your wideman being able to operate off him. 

I hope that works well! Let me know how it goes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could give it a try, but changing the W(s) to W(a) is something that i would like to avoid because:

1) it will leave all my flank side too attacking, with WB(a) + CM(a) + W(a). At the moment i don't have defensive issues like i said, but... it just feel too much

2) with a WB(a)+W(a) combination i have two players with instructions to do the same: dribble more, cross more, cross by line, run with ball.

I never try it, and it could work, but by looking for the players instructions i would say it's a bad solution.

For me, it always makes more sense to have attacking fullbacks/wingbacks only when the player ahead is on support duty, or if the player ahead has a role to cut inside.

If with WB(a)+W(s) i alreay see the players getting in each other way, my logical thinking would say that with both on attack this would be even more obvious.

But i will try in my next couple of games and see how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

I could give it a try, but changing the W(s) to W(a) is something that i would like to avoid because:

1) it will leave all my flank side too attacking, with WB(a) + CM(a) + W(a). At the moment i don't have defensive issues like i said, but... it just feel too much

2) with a WB(a)+W(a) combination i have two players with instructions to do the same: dribble more, cross more, cross by line, run with ball.

I never try it, and it could work, but by looking for the players instructions i would say it's a bad solution.

For me, it always makes more sense to have attacking fullbacks/wingbacks only when the player ahead is on support duty, or if the player ahead has a role to cut inside.

If with WB(a)+W(s) i alreay see the players getting in each other way, my logical thinking would say that with both on attack this would be even more obvious.

But i will try in my next couple of games and see how it goes.

Fair point on the CM(a). I did not see that, I thought it was a CM(S), which is actually what I would recommend changing it too. Having both CM(A) and AP(A) leave you potentially overwhelmed in the central midfield area. I would consider a CM(S) or even a BBM(S) as a more suitable  alternative.

With regards to the WB(a) & W(A) combination of dribble more, cross more, etc. yes, they have the same instructions but they go about it slightly differently.  The W(a) is going to be more focused at driving at the opposition goal, whilst your WB(a) is more focused on getting forward outwide. I have both in my team and the linkup between them is great, with both chipping in with a lot of assists and goals. Also, if your players have even mediocre intelligence they shouldn't get in the way too much, and whilst they are both instructed to attack they will do this in a co-operative manner rather than clashing manner. 

Like I said, it works extremely well for me, and I can vouch for it very well. So I would say give it a shot and try it. But if you do I defintely recommend changing that CM(A) to a support role. It is a good role of thumb to have at least a balanced midfield as it is the one strata that is most heavily involved with all parts of play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but the AP is not on attacking duty, but on support. So i don't think that it's a option changing the CM(a) to a support role.

The idea is having the CM(a) exploring the space leave by the Winger, and the AP, with support duty, staying back supplying for the RMD and CM(a). So changing the CM(a) to a CM(s) is not something that i would want, because then i would kill one of my major goal threat.

At this moment, all this works well in my tactic. The AP(s) links well with both CM(a) and RMD(a). The CF(s) links well with the CM(a) and RMD(a). And the W(s) links well with the CM(a) and also with the RMD(a) by giving killer crosses to the opposite flank.

The only thing that it's not perfect is that link between the WB(a)+W(s). I just feel that i'm not tacking advantage of the risk that i take by having a WB(a). that's why i was thinking of giving him the support role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Keyzer Soze said:

Yeah, but the AP is not on attacking duty, but on support. So i don't think that it's a option changing the CM(a) to a support role.

The idea is having the CM(a) exploring the space leave by the Winger, and the AP, with support duty, staying back supplying for the RMD and CM(a). So changing the CM(a) to a CM(s) is not something that i would want, because then i would kill one of my major goal threat.

At this moment, all this works well in my tactic. The AP(s) links well with both CM(a) and RMD(a). The CF(s) links well with the CM(a) and RMD(a). And the W(s) links well with the CM(a) and also with the RMD(a) by giving killer crosses to the opposite flank.

The only thing that it's not perfect is that link between the WB(a)+W(s). I just feel that i'm not tacking advantage of the risk that i take by having a WB(a). that's why i was thinking of giving him the support role.

Oh, I see! I also thought the AP(S) was AP(A), must have got the CM and AP duties muddeled up on my quick read through earlier. In that case I see your issue. Well I think you have two options then:

1) Change your WB(a) to WB(S) and deal with the fact that you will most likely have less forward runs overlapping options down the left-hand side of the pitch.

2) Keep your WB(a), but change the W(s) to W(a), the CM(A) to CM(s) and AP(S) to AP(A), thus balancing your midfield a little better down that left side of the pitch, Without knowing your player attributes it's hard to recommend this option, as it is quite a few changes to take into your team... especially when actually you are playing quite well and your only concern is the lack of forward movement from your WB(a).

Perhaps you could also examine your WB PPMs? Does he have likes to get forward more or dribble down the left handside of the pitch? They would be beneficial to teach him.... And if he has "stays back at all times" you might want to unteach him that one?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thks again Tmason,

My left wingback have the ppm to get forward. 

I guess the problem is that the W(s) don't hold position as much i would want to.

Don't know if it's related with the team mentality (control). The W(s) has the option to give the "hold on" in the player instruction. Could try that, if he will "wait" more for the WB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Keyzer Soze Whilst on this topic of PPMs it would also be logical to examine your W(S) PPMs. Maybe his PPMs are too aggressive for what you want him doing. You might want to teach him "come deep to get ball" and "Dwells on ball", rather than the traditional ones of "runs with ball down left" and "runs with ball often". 

I personally dislike wingers with "dwell on ball" and "come deep to get ball" PPMs, but for what you are trying to achieve it will probably be useful. Hope it helps!

Edited by tmason122

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play the same formation with Everton (but my attack duty is on the DR rather than DL. I have no problem seeing Coleman bombing up the right flank with a FB-A role. Maybe there's a tempo or passing issue at play rather than a problem with the winger?

I use 'lower tempo' and 'play out of defence' TIs, and I find that my central midfield will slow down the play allowing enough time for my FB-A to transition into attack.

I couldn't see if you'd listed your TIs anywhere, so perhaps that's where the problem lies.

 

edit: just thought on, and maybe its a shape issue - I play structured rather than fluid, so possibly your DL is using the additional creative freedom present in a fluid system to say 'the winger is in front of me I'd better not get too far forward', whereas in my structured system My DR is saying 'the boss told me to bomb down the wing so that's what I'd better do'.

...assuming I'm understanding shape correctly :)

Edited by facman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...