Meet The Inside Forward

[Keyzer Soze]

6 minutes ago, Cleon said:

I used an attacking duty not because of the space but more because I needed someone to occupy the oppositions defenders, to stop them pushing up and reducing the space I have. In your set up, the CM and DLF would be the main supply yes.

I did an article yesterday that is probably more fitting so you can understand how everything works together. It's for a 3-5-2 but the principles are the same regardless of the shape used;

 

Thks, gonna read it.

But clarify one thing, the DLF with attack duty can also be a supplier? Can he occupy the opponents defenders and also be a second supplier to my IF(a)? Or for him to work as a supplier he must be with a support duty?

[Cleon]

14 minutes ago, Keyzer Soze said:

Thks, gonna read it.

But clarify one thing, the DLF with attack duty can also be a supplier? Can he occupy the opponents defenders and also be a second supplier to my IF(a)? Or for him to work as a supplier he must be with a support duty?

In my system yes he can. There is no reason he shouldn't do the same in yours but like always you'll only know if you try it

Supplying isn't tied to the duty you use, it's tied to the settings the role has and what the player does with that role during a match. An advanced forward can be a supplier (as I showed with the David Brooks article) but it's how everything links together with the roles around him etc that determine if someone is a supplier or not. The same with runners, it's the roles you use.

[Keyzer Soze]

Thks again @Cleon

Very nice article, that remind me how i keep forgeting about players attributes and how they can influence the tactics... many times much more then the roles/duties i choose.

 

[anorthernboy]

My experience with the DLF is that on support he comes a little deeper and takes a little moment to assess his options before deciding. On attack duty he's more inclined to try to create a chance for himself. I apply that principle to most striker roles that have the support/attack option.

[Bunkerossian]

Is there a simple rule of thumb that tells which roles to AVOID using in conjunction with an Inside Forward?

[jc577]

2 hours ago, Bunkerossian said:

Is there a simple rule of thumb that tells which roles to AVOID using in conjunction with an Inside Forward?

Roles that use the same space as is the Inside Forward.

[Bunkerossian]

10 hours ago, jc577 said:

Roles that use the same space as is the Inside Forward.

I'm unsure on certain central midfield roles and their interaction with the IF. When using two central midfielders, which roles should I avoid placing on the side where I want an IF?

[Cleon]

7 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

I'm unsure on certain central midfield roles and their interaction with the IF. When using two central midfielders, which roles should I avoid placing on the side where I want an IF?

Look at the settings that the roles have and read the brief description of the roles and you should be able to tell which uses the same space i.e Mezalla does the exact same thing an IF would and so on.

[Bunkerossian]

18 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Look at the settings that the roles have and read the brief description of the roles and you should be able to tell which uses the same space i.e Mezalla does the exact same thing an IF would and so on.

The descriptions don't always tell much about the direction of movement in a particular role. Also, I don't know what the game considers ˝getting in each others' way˝ to be. I only know that I have never been able to make an Inside Forward be prolific in any team that has had one.

[Cleon]

15 minutes ago, Bunkerossian said:

The descriptions don't always tell much about the direction of movement in a particular role. Also, I don't know what the game considers ˝getting in each others' way˝ to be. I only know that I have never been able to make an Inside Forward be prolific in any team that has had one.

The descriptions tell you enough about what it's supposed to do and the instructions tell you what movement etc he is doing. Honestly it is more than enough to get a basic idea of what the player is expected to do. I know the descriptions could be better but you still get the basic info, especially when you look at the settings it comes with too.

It's not the game considering 'what gets in each other way' it's from what you see based on the roles/duties you used. You can see if the Mez for example is getting in the way of the IF and stopping him cutting in effectively and keeping him wider than he is supposed to be for example. If you've not read it already, this thread is better for understanding how things should link together to give you a better idea;

 

[Bunkerossian]

54 minutes ago, Cleon said:

The descriptions tell you enough about what it's supposed to do and the instructions tell you what movement etc he is doing. Honestly it is more than enough to get a basic idea of what the player is expected to do. I know the descriptions could be better but you still get the basic info, especially when you look at the settings it comes with too.

It's not the game considering 'what gets in each other way' it's from what you see based on the roles/duties you used. You can see if the Mez for example is getting in the way of the IF and stopping him cutting in effectively and keeping him wider than he is supposed to be for example. If you've not read it already, this thread is better for understanding how things should link together to give you a better idea;

 

Is there a way to set up a tactic so that the players use their best judgment in how to organise attacks, with minimum or no tactical instructions? An equivalent of: ˝You 4 out there combine and attack as you see fit, the rest focuses on defense.˝ Because as soon as I try to play a team that is expected to attack, I have poor results. Incidentally, zhose teams tend to have strange roles- like the Inside Forward.

[anorthernboy]

Highly structured team shape? If you read the description it sounds like what you're after. I think.

[Jasonnumber13]

Incredible text