CWB and WB

[LUCA]

I don't get the differnce between this two. Can you explain the difference to me?

[vasilli07]

Look at the positioning of the two roles and PIs. CWB positioning is higher than WB so he will defend higher. He is also more adventurous or given more freedom to move as he has roam from position PI.

[Col Dè Ma Ma Daqua]

also, because a cwb is higher up the field, play with 3 defenders, or you will be exposed a lot.

[HUNT3R]

İlk olarak Bomb 'Endi18' Jovi tarafından gönderildi:

also, because a cwb is higher up the field, play with 3 defenders, or you will be exposed a lot.

No you won't. It's all how you set up.

[Kamakazeee_]

The CWB is allowed the roam

[fiddypence2010]

İlk olarak HUNT3R tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Bomb 'Endi18' Jovi tarafından gönderildi:

also, because a cwb is higher up the field, play with 3 defenders, or you will be exposed a lot.

No you won't. It's all how you set up.

Yes you will, its not rocket science. that doesn't mean to say you have to play with 3 cb's, although it's a good suggestion.

[Jhonny Walker]

Check out my recently uploaded tactic. I'm playing 4 at the back, with CWB's and my home record is amazing. 10 wins, 1 loss. 22 goals for and 1 goal against. Yes, I know, big woop, I'm Man Utd so it's not exactly Ross County winning the champions league, but i've never managed to get a tactic that works this well before. I use two Ball playing defenders on 'Stopper' duty. Seems to work. Matic plays in the deep lying playmaker role (defend) and although his stats arent't amazing, he does the dirty work, so you dont have to ...

[HUNT3R]

İlk olarak fiddypence2010 tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak HUNT3R tarafından gönderildi:

No you won't. It's all how you set up.

Yes you will, its not rocket science. that doesn't mean to say you have to play with 3 cb's, although it's a good suggestion.

It's not rocket science to have midfielders cover for him like you would any Attack duty fullback.

[fiddypence2010]

İlk olarak HUNT3R tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak fiddypence2010 tarafından gönderildi:

Yes you will, its not rocket science. that doesn't mean to say you have to play with 3 cb's, although it's a good suggestion.

It's not rocket science to have midfielders cover for him like you would any Attack duty fullback.

But no midfielder will cover your keeper as much as a defender, that is the guys point. So for example, you can still play with 3 CB's, wingbacks and midfielders supporting the defence...then do the same thing but with 2 CB's and your keeper will be exposed more.

If your argument had any substance then most managers/people would play with 1 CB and stick a load of players in midfield and attack, it doesn't work like that.

[TheMinstermen]

İlk olarak HUNT3R tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak fiddypence2010 tarafından gönderildi:

Yes you will, its not rocket science. that doesn't mean to say you have to play with 3 cb's, although it's a good suggestion.

It's not rocket science to have midfielders cover for him like you would any Attack duty fullback.

So then you midfield is dominated by the opposition, u need a back 3 for a CWB

[HUNT3R]

İlk olarak fiddypence2010 tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak HUNT3R tarafından gönderildi:

It's not rocket science to have midfielders cover for him like you would any Attack duty fullback.

But no midfielder will cover your keeper as much as a defender, that is the guys point. So for example, you can still play with 3 CB's, wingbacks and midfielders supporting the defence...then do the same thing but with 2 CB's and your keeper will be exposed more.

If your argument had any substance then most managers/people would play with 1 CB and stick a load of players in midfield and attack, it doesn't work like that.

That's completely missing the entire point.

A midfielder is just supposed to COVER for the fullback, not defend there. He won't defend there, because he's a midfielder, not a fullback. He can shift across though if and when the CWB (or anyone, really) gets forward and leaves that area exposed.

[HUNT3R]

İlk olarak The Minstermen tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak HUNT3R tarafından gönderildi:

It's not rocket science to have midfielders cover for him like you would any Attack duty fullback.

So then you midfield is dominated by the opposition, u need a back 3 for a CWB

I'm using a 4-2-3-1 right now with a CWB. Works perfectly. I'm "dominating the opposition" and I have a midfielder that's in position to cover for the CWB. Very easy to set up - it's still the same principle as having a WB/S, WB/A or FB/A.

[TheMinstermen]

but when u loose the ball with the wb so high up u get hit on the counter through the middle if the mid is covering the wb

[HUNT3R]

İlk olarak The Minstermen tarafından gönderildi:

but when u loose the ball with the wb so high up u get hit on the counter through the middle if the mid is covering the wb

No, of course you wouldn't because there are others covering - if you set up properly. Again (why is this being missed?) it's no different to having a WB or FB/A.

Edit: You do realise that there's little difference in what I'm saying to what you say "needs" to happen, right? You have a DC to cover the CWB, I have a midfielder. I'm just saying that there's more than just one way of doing something.

[TheMinstermen]

İlk olarak HUNT3R tarafından gönderildi:

if you set up properly. Again (why is this being missed?)

if i could have a quid for everytime you have said that...

[HUNT3R]

İlk olarak The Minstermen tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak HUNT3R tarafından gönderildi:

if you set up properly. Again (why is this being missed?)

if i could have a quid for everytime you have said that...

The quote should look like this:

"Again (why is this being missed?) it's no different to having a WB or FB/A."