Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Recommended Posts

I noticed throughout the game that there seem to be very little inverted wingbacks, or better said: backs who are seen as suitable operating in this role. Even a lot of the best backs in the game are apparently 'unconvincing' in this role. 

I feel the role of inverted wingbacks is an interesting one as in the modern game many backs are nowadays asked to contribute to the play on the inner parts of the pitch rather than just running up and down the flanks. Yet in FM I feel the implementation of this can still be improved.  

What is the actual reason that so many backs are being touted as unconvincing in the inverted wingback role by the game? And is this something that will see an improvement in the future? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Experimenting with the editor a bit:

Footedness plays a big role in the calculation. Not only does the game expect the inner foot to be dominant, it also expects the outer to be weak - a 20/20 player is seen as worse than a 20/10 player. 

This naturally means a lot of the Either players and most regular wingbacks have comparatively bad (positional) ratings despite potentially good stats for the role. 

But that doesn't mean they are bad. Stats mean more than that and especially the players that can hold a ball or can pass while not being the fastest absolutely thrive in the role. Which is why Ricardo Rodriguez still is the best (left!) IWB I ever had despite the game telling me otherwise. 

If you want the best suitability, I fear you have to make your own IWBs. Defensive midfielders have a good spread for that as well as the more defensive IWs. A few starting CBs as well but later on they miss the offensive drive unless they are good Liberos. 

Edited by Piperita
Added '(positional)'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Cedrik said:

I noticed throughout the game that there seem to be very little inverted wingbacks, or better said: backs who are seen as suitable operating in this role. Even a lot of the best backs in the game are apparently 'unconvincing' in this role. 

I feel the role of inverted wingbacks is an interesting one as in the modern game many backs are nowadays asked to contribute to the play on the inner parts of the pitch rather than just running up and down the flanks. Yet in FM I feel the implementation of this can still be improved.  

What is the actual reason that so many backs are being touted as unconvincing in the inverted wingback role by the game? And is this something that will see an improvement in the future? :)

Name 10 IWB IRL? Name 5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the point but have found by playing wing backs who are seen as unconvincing in the role if the tactic is solid and the players stats are good in the right areas they still perform very well regardless. I just look at the stats now and go off that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever actually had any joy playing inverted wing backs?

I'm interested to have a little experiment myself with them! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

Name 10 IWB IRL? Name 5?

I don't really think it works that way in real life, that players can be categorized according to FM-roles. I think in real life players are much more versatile than in FM where they are often limited to two or perhaps three roles in which they are convincing. Take for example the transition football underwent the last couple of years in which more and more managers started playing teams with three defenders and sometimes wingers where used as backs (or vice-versa). In FM suchs players are simply not capable of playing in other positions than they are assinged to (of course unless you firstly train them for a long time and depending on a lot of factors they will perhaps become capable of playing in that role). 

The point I want to make is more that is seems unrealistic that there is a role on a position in FM where even the best possible players in the game on that position are rated as 'unconvincing' in that role. I would say that players like Marcelo, Kimmich, Alba, Fabinho, Sergi Roberto and Florenzi should all be more than capable of playing that role in the game. Guardiola also used his backs often in a way that is comparable to what the role of inverted wingback is described to be in FM. But as said, it is difficult to make the exact comparison imo due the fluidity that players have in real life in comparison with the more rigid/fixed positions of players in FM. 

11 hours ago, simon07 said:

Has anyone ever actually had any joy playing inverted wing backs?

I'm interested to have a little experiment myself with them! 

Yes, it can definitely work. But the game will still state that players are unconvincing in this role.

 

Edited by Cedrik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cedrik said:

What is the actual reason that so many backs are being touted as unconvincing in the inverted wingback role by the game? And is this something that will see an improvement in the future? :)

 

I wouldn't put stock on that. I'm following the video series of a guy doing a lower league save and he found himself with no suitable left back, so he played a fresh right winger with one red cheesy bit in 'convincibility'. The guy's tearing it up, getting PotMs and all sorts. The manager just went with his own analysis of the player's attributes and watched how he performed in his matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cedrik said:

I don't really think it works that way in real life, that players can be categorized according to FM-roles. I think in real life players are much more versatile than in FM where they are often limited to two or perhaps three roles in which they are convincing. Take for example the transition football underwent the last couple of years in which more and more managers started playing teams with three defenders and sometimes wingers where used as backs (or vice-versa). In FM suchs players are simply not capable of playing in other positions than they are assinged to (of course unless you firstly train them for a long time and depending on a lot of factors they will perhaps become capable of playing in that role). 

The point I want to make is more that is seems unrealistic that there is a role on a position in FM where even the best possible players in the game on that position are rated as 'unconvincing' in that role. I would say that players like Marcelo, Kimmich, Alba, Fabinho,

Sergi Roberto and Florenzi should all be more than capable of playing that role in the game. Guardiola also used his backs often in a way that is comparable to what the role of inverted wingback is described to be in FM. But as said, it is difficult to make the exact comparison imo due the fluidity that players have in real life in comparison with the more rigid/fixed positions of players in FM. 

Yes, it can definitely work. But the game will still state that players are unconvincing in this role.

 

You said it - the players are good enough to play as an IWB. So if they have the attributes, they'll be fine, regardless of what the indicator says. You're putting too much stock into something that has no effect on performances at all and that's not really even your fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/01/2019 at 17:55, HUNT3R said:

Name 10 IWB IRL? Name 5?

As said by another poster, categorising real life players by FM roles isn't an exact science. 

I'm a Crystal Palace fan and we over the past 10 years or so we have been a 'wing play' team of sorts. Currently we have Van Aanholt and Wan Bissaka. I would say they are both wing backs, but also capable of performing FB and IWB roles. In fact, both players invert when we have Zaha and Townsend playing wider, offering up options to central midfield. Van Aanholt cuts into the box, Wan Bissaka cuts in deeper back. Neither has an amazing weaker foot but it still can be effective as they aren't necessarily crossing or shooting.

I find the same with wingers and IFW. FM places huge emphasis on footedness in role suitability but with the right tactic and supporting roles, you can stick a low suitability IFW in and they still perform. In that regard, I never play with two wingers, one is always IFW and often I swap them during the game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to hear i might be lucky to have a regen Player in 2038 that is one of the best on my team and even "green" as an iWb only.

Edited by GerdMuller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the attributes not the labels. 

If you want a player to fit a tactic with an inverted wing back find a full back from the other side of the pitch who maybe has good passing and off the ball but less able to cross and dribble and train him on the side you want him on so his stronger foot is on the inside. Or just turn someone two footed. They'll do perfectly fine if they're good enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/01/2019 at 21:02, simon07 said:

Has anyone ever actually had any joy playing inverted wing backs?

I'm interested to have a little experiment myself with them! 

Yes. Finally got around to use them in my normal formation and I'm having plenty of fun. 

The formation* in question: Sweeper Keeper — BPD(St), Libero(A), BPD(St) — IWBs, IWBa — RPM, DLPd — SS — AF, DLFs. Played with almost the standard Vertical Tiki-Taka but even slower, narrower and shorter.

If the strengths are comparable or I am stronger, I face only few good attacks and force the opponents into lots of errors. Every other game I either get a penalty or an opponent is send off. 

Together with the Libero the IWB are the key players for the success. Offensively, they run from the back and interact with the other supportive or offensive players and (in such narrow) formations either only cut inside when close to the goal or when there is plenty of space. One of my favourite move is seeing both interact with each other which often happens from central areas to the flank and vice-versa. 

Defensively, they are almost like other fullbacks. But, being often found centrally, they can run back diagonally to their position, having a shorter way to their position, often cutting off opponents looking to exploit the spaces on a counter. 

Being on the wingback slot and on one side on attack duty, they also are good at pressing up the pitch. Their late-ish runs also help cause disorder in the box.

* I am not fully happy with the SS and AF yet. From what works a somewhat more offensive AMs and another striker might be more fitting. 

-----------------------

Two other things:

1) Having only one-footed players or 'Refrains from using weaker foot' really cripple the role. Especially for Support duty which often gets in position for crosses or chips from the flank. On attack duty it can be helped by knocking the ball past but the üoss to dribbling or low backward crosses still are felt.

2) Due to that I really like my Support role to be either both-feeted or even to be stronger on the outer foot when used in a narrow formation. They more often run on the flank or get to chip or cross with the inner foot mostly playing it short and safe. 

Edited by Piperita
Added the two other things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience the role suitability is almost meaningless. I've consistently used players with an orange or even slightly red suitability rating, and they perform very well. I think actual attributes for that role are weighted much more heavily. If they have good attributes for the role that's pretty much all I look at. 

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...