Wing back or full back?

[yorkie87]

I've always used a full back. Attack on right. Support of left. I use a possession based tactic with the look for overlap instruction. Does changing a full back to a wing back make me more in danger to attacks down my flanks? Will they play wider than a full back leaving the centre halves vulnerable? Many thanks. 

[VinceLombardi]

I find that the differences between the FB and WB roles is that the WB roles are slightly more risky than their FB counterparts. So moving from lowest to highest risk would be FB(d), WB(d), FB(s), WB(s), FB(a) and WB(a). There are also a few more hardcoded PI in the WB roles.

I can't speak to Complete Wingback roles as I don't use them -- I found them generally too aggressive for my system.

Personally, I alternate between FB(a) and WB(s) w/ gets further forward roles. Both are positioned similarly when there isn't space in front of them. However when there is any space, the FB(a) immediately moves into it. On the other hand the WB(s) will wait until play gets to their side of the field or until there is tons of space before they make their runs. In my experience, while it's possible (and likely) for both FB(a) to make runs at the same time, I find that it is much rarer for both my WB(s) to make runs at the same time. 

For my system find that the FB (s) is a bit more reserved than either and can sometimes fail to make runs at all, while the WB (a) is too aggressive and will make runs even when their isn't space.

[yorkie87]

Thanks for that. 👍🏼

[Isura]

WB on support is hard coded to get forward. To get same affect you need FB on attack. Attack mentality affects other things besides getting forward so I choose based on what my goals are. FB on support has "cross from deep" hard coded, which I don't like for a possession based system.