Quick question about Winger and Inside Forward!

[Shotten]

Alright guys, so right now my formation is: View attachment 89229



As you can see I have an Inside forward on the left on support duty.
And an Winger on the right side in attack duty.

I have an attacking back on the left as he's allowed to overlap my inside forward.
And an supportive back on the right to balance out the defensive work.

My question goes: If I change my right wide position to inside forward support, then I should change my back to attack as well? Or perhaps change the inside forward to attack position?

Also I'd like to know what I can expect from my inside forward in attack as I've never really experienced with it.

 

[TheGoat2017]

No you need the rb to have support, you use attack when you dont have a winger because he will then be the main focus point down that side.

Insife forward will score more goals than assist but you can get even more out of them if you train techniques such as cuts inside from the right

 

[Shotten]

Alright, appreciate your input! If I decide to have 2 inside forwards on support and backs on attack. What tempo do you think I should use? Right now I'm using higher tempo and narrow formation.

 

[TheGoat2017]

Wide formation, quick tempo with clear to flanks or slow tempo, narrow formation and work ball into box

you cant really mix both with any decent results so you need to decide what style of play you want to use.

 

[WJ]

Really bad advice.

An inside forward already is asked to cut inside. It's the entire point of the role. Having the PPM or not won't matter at all then.

Clear to flanks (which sets maximum directness and a focus to pass wide) when both wide players are on support duty and will come quite deep when defending? Clear to who?

Tempo is relative to Mentality, so that determines whether it is high or low.

Width is also relative to Mentality.

 

[TheGoat2017]

The ppm extenuates the player doing specific player instructions...so it is exactly what a if needs along with tries killer balls often and maybe shoots from distance(check ronaldo or bale etc) there is no point giving those traits to an out and out winger because they will go against what you are asking him to do. if you use a If you want to use your rb/lb as attacking so they can overlap. if you use a winger you want your rb/lb to support a winger.

I disagreed with his tactic because it doesn't suit one or the other if he uses ifs and full backs to attack he wants to go for a possession based game where you work the ball into the box with a low tempo.

if he wants to play at a higher tempo he should use a wide formation, with clear ball to flanks and yes you are right it depends on mentality but as long as you use attacking or counter it works perfectly. clear ball to the flanks? clear to who? the full backs obviously who are set to attack and then are able to produce the crosses needed.

hardly prudent to come in stating bad advice when that is your opinion not the universal gospel truth.

i personally would go with a If left winger on support with a attacking wing back and a attacking Winger with full back support. in my sunderland save 3 seasons in i had Burke rw and luan as IF, tierney wb att and manquillo as fb support. luan is averaging at least a goal a game and whilst burke is leading the assists board with 28 in 31 games with tierney 5th with 19. i use wide formation, high tempo, sit deep, clear to flanks and if im at home i set it to attack and if away i switch to counter.

i wont go out and say im winning the treble every season but im getting into europe every season and have won a few cups but the closest i have been is 3rd so far.

not perfect but it works well for me

 

[WJ]

The ppm extenuates the player doing specific player instructions...

No it doesn't. There's no cutting inside more or less. You ask a player to cut inside or not. A player will naturally cut inside even if given a winger role, but he has the cut inside PPM obviously, but as in IF it doesn't matter.

I disagreed with his tactic because it doesn't suit one or the other if he uses ifs and full backs to attack he wants to go for a possession based game where you work the ball into the box with a low tempo.

Tempo is still tied to Mentality, so it is all relative. A Control Mentality will never have a low tempo, for instance, whether you set it up as a possession tactic or not.

if he wants to play at a higher tempo he should use a wide formation, with clear ball to flanks and yes you are right it depends on mentality but as long as you use attacking or counter it works perfectly. clear ball to the flanks? clear to who? the full backs obviously who are set to attack and then are able to produce the crosses needed.

No that's stupid, frankly. Fullbacks as we all know are in the fullback positions, so you asking the entire team to be extremely direct will see them looking to be direct far too early for the fullbacks to be that far forward. It makes very little sense. Counter already is fairly direct at the back, so that could be enough anyway.

And again, tempo is related to Mentality. HighER tempo does not mean HIGH tempo by itself. It just means higher than default for the Mentality and because of that, you can use any formation with a higher Mentality.

hardly prudent to come in stating bad advice when that is your opinion not the universal gospel truth.

What I've posted are facts. You can disagree with them, but they are facts.

 

[TheGoat2017]

In answer to the ppm comment please read - Player Preferred Moves | Football Manager 2017 Guide
Section 1 under A Preffered move that compliments a players instructions....

the rest about tactics Tactical Styles | Football Manager 2017 Guide
Have a good read might allow you to open your opinions up

Sports interactive approved fansite...they must not know what they are talking about.

Unless you designed the game it is not facts it is your opinion, your lack of respect for others opinions is quite outstanding

 

[WJ]

I've given you the explanations as to why you're wrong. If you want to stick your head in the sand, go for it. You'll notice that I didn't correct you on everything, but hey.

That is a fan-made guide. For a guide that big, there will be mistakes. With roles in particular and their "recommended" PPMs, they did this a lot. Senseless to have a PPM of "Stays back at all times" when a role already has Hold Position active as they are the same thing. Same with a lot of what's mentioned there like having "Likes to run with ball" but Dribble More is active.

They also still don't "recommend" Agility for a player cutting inside when it is as, if not more important than Dribbling.

So they aren't perfect. They've done a great job in general though.

 

[Death Ball]

This is specially for @WJ since he's the guy against the idea. You say no sense the cutting inside for IF because it's already in this. That makes sense, but one thought occurs to me, wouldn't that help to get a player that naturally tends to ignore that instruction to deviate less often? Is that thought (I've not done anything about it, I very rarely worry about PPMs) something proven to not work, you've not seeing it work like that or should not make sense?

Now, clearing into flanks is meant to be something done from defence upon recovering the ball, so as WJ says it doesn't make it to be for the fullbacks, because it's the start of the attacking move. But I think WJ is wrong about the IFs (I'm assuming I'm not missing certain instruction to have been mentioned) making if senseless to use that instruction. They cut down from the flanks, right? And clear to flanks happens at the start. So as fullbacks are still not up, IFs should still be wide. You can also tell them to stay wider. Now, if they also have the instruction to stay narrower, then the clear to flanks stops making sense, perhaps with the exception of facing three man defences when you may hope the IFs will still be kind of wider than their CBs or be in position to have a good enough chance to contest the ball to the outside CB and then get him out of the play for a fast counter. But my use of IF with stay narrower has not reached two full matches and they didn't have inverted feet (I'm kind of weird with some parts of my tactics) to be sure of whether that could work like that or not.

 

[WJ]

This is specially for @WJ since he's the guy against the idea. You say no sense the cutting inside for IF because it's already in this. That makes sense, but one thought occurs to me, wouldn't that help to get a player that naturally tends to ignore that instruction to deviate less often? Is that thought (I've not done anything about it, I very rarely worry about PPMs) something proven to not work, you've not seeing it work like that or should not make sense?

I think I get what you're asking, but no, as far as I'm aware and everything that we can see - it's on/off. There will be a tendency to cut inside if he has the PPM but the instruction itself hasn't been given in a role. Then again, as long as a player is on his wrong foot, he'll cut in anyway. I have a left footed right wing Winger-Support who cuts in every single time and as you know, the instruction is disabled for a winger and the player doesn't have the PPM either.

Now, clearing into flanks is meant to be something done from defence upon recovering the ball, so as WJ says it doesn't make it to be for the fullbacks, because it's the start of the attacking move. But I think WJ is wrong about the IFs (I'm assuming I'm not missing certain instruction to have been mentioned) making if senseless to use that instruction. They cut down from the flanks, right? And clear to flanks happens at the start. So as fullbacks are still not up, IFs should still be wide. You can also tell them to stay wider. Now, if they also have the instruction to stay narrower, then the clear to flanks stops making sense, perhaps with the exception of facing three man defences when you may hope the IFs will still be kind of wider than their CBs or be in position to have a good enough chance to contest the ball to the outside CB and then get him out of the play for a fast counter. But my use of IF with stay narrower has not reached two full matches and they didn't have inverted feet (I'm kind of weird with some parts of my tactics) to be sure of whether that could work like that or not.

It would make sense if the IFs had Attack duties (or as even Goat had it, one IF on attack), since they'd be far ahead to receive those balls when possession is turned over, but the advice given (or the conclusion made) was that both IFs are on Support, which meant they both will be quite deep and not there to receive a clearance. Regardless, the instruction will definitely not be for fullbacks!

 

[Death Ball]

Oh, yes, the support duty was what was giving me the feeling of forgetting something. Thanks for the answers.