Difference between an Inside Forward and an Inverted Winger?

[Luizinho]

Hi All,

As the title suggests, struggling to work out the difference between the two roles. What I imagine is the Inside Forward plays slightly further forward and is more goal focused, while the Inverted Winger starts from a deeper position and is more involved in the build-up.

An IF is also less likely to track back than IW.

 

Anyone able to share their thoughts on how they distinguish between the two?

Any real life example they can link it to?

Edited January 18, 2020 by Luizinho

[kingjericho]

For me,

Inverted winger: just like a regular winger but focused on opposite foot (ex: Albrighton, Ashley Young, righ-footed winger playing on the left)

Inside forward: wide player with more to his game than a basic run/cross winger (ex: Aubameyang, Insigne, Bale, Ribéry)

[Luizinho]

7 minutes ago, kingjericho said:

For me,

Inverted winger: just like a regular winger but focused on opposite foot (ex: Albrighton, Ashley Young, righ-footed winger playing on the left)

Inside forward: wide player with more to his game than a basic run/cross winger (ex: Aubameyang, Insigne, Bale, Ribéry)

So I can either have an Ashley Young or a Gareth Bale?

Hmmm... 

[nick1408]

1 hour ago, kingjericho said:

For me,

Inverted winger: just like a regular winger but focused on opposite foot (ex: Albrighton, Ashley Young, righ-footed winger playing on the left)

This is a bit too simplistic for me. If it really was just this why introduce the role when you can just set a role to winger and put an opposite footed player into the position?

[kingjericho]

1 hour ago, nick1408 said:

This is a bit too simplistic for me. If it really was just this why introduce the role when you can just set a role to winger and put an opposite footed player into the position?

If you look at the role's instructions that's the only change, from "stay wider" to  "cut inside".

[mikcheck]

From what I see, bease on PI, the only   difference is that the IF take more risks and cross less often.

[nick1408]

1 hour ago, kingjericho said:

If you look at the role's instructions that's the only change, from "stay wider" to  "cut inside".

Again, I think it's a bit simplistic:

IW-Su vs W-Su: Winger has stay wider, inverted winger has no instructions when team has the ball. IW will cut inside with ball, winger will run wide with ball. Both do dribble more. Winger will cross more often, IW has no instructions relating to crossing. On support the IW wants to move in front of CB's and play through balls to the strikers (as an example), the winger wants to stay wide and put in crosses early.

 

IW-At vs W-At: Both players look to get further forward but the winger will also stay wider when the team has the ball. As with the support duties one cuts in while the other stays wider. Again, the IW doesn't have any crossing preferences but cannot be asked to cross from the byline. The winger is a crossing machine and wants to beat his man and whip in a cross (as per the hardcoded instructions), The winger isn't expected to be an excellent passer while it is possible to ask the IW to try more risky passes.

 

The blurb on the attacking options is far more similar in that they are both looking to shoot/pass/cross. The way they operate is what is different. The winger wants to operate from the wide areas while the IW wants to move inside to do his dangerous work there. The winger wants to stretch defences while the IW wants to overload them. To take this back to the original posters question (IW vs IF):

The instructions are really similar, but also it isn't just the hardcoded PI's - it's also what you cannot ask them to do (e.g. crossing instructions). The difference I see the IW is less aggressive in wanting to score and is more of a ball player. The IF is designed to operate more like a striker.   Mentality is the key here. The reason for Take More Risks (in my opinion) is the attacking mentality and wanting above more else to score rather than bringing players into the match. The IW-At is probably closer to the IF-Su (same mentality and similar instructions) but there are still enough differences in what they are trying to do to make them different roles.

[Rashidi]

In a nutshell the IF takes players and space on and is primarily a goal threat an IW’s priority is to force overloads and is primarily a creator. Whether they do this in your game depends on the roles and duties you have selected. If you don’t see them behaving this way then chances are you need to take a look at your role/duty distribution.

[Hilly1979]

I don’t think the inverted winger role needed to be added to the AMR/AML strata, works perfectly well in the RM/LM strata but to me now it has muddied the waters with IF on support, will only cause confusion.

If inverted winger is more of a creative role what is a inside forward on support?

[Miravlix]

You should include AP in the list.

 

AML/R IF, IW and AP is all the same positional behavior on the pitch. They cut inside, they jump unto the box as an additional striker. The difference is how they focus on finishing.

 

IF is a goal score. It's a Striker in a deeper position.

IW creates assist and goal score a mix of IF and AP.

AP create chances.

 

AP can score goals and IF can create chances, it all depends on how the dice roll fall on the pitch, so depending on weather, rest of the team and the player it self, an AP can score more goals than an IF. So while the IF/IW/AP behavior is technically correct, you will not see the picked role perform PERFECTLY according to what we expect of the role.

 

Look at the players attributes and see what role covers what you feel is the best combination of the attributes and pick that as role, it doesn't matter if the player is AP/S or IF/A as long as he has a high chance of getting good attribute dice rolls.

 

Edit: It can have a big impact on the overall team tactic what role you pick, if you pick AP then the entire team might focus on passing the ball to that player, because of the build in pass choice attraction of the role, but the player it self is not going to behave radically different no matter the role choice.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Miravlix

[Hilly1979]

16 minutes ago, Miravlix said:

You should include AP in the list.

 

AML/R IF, IW and AP is all the same positional behavior on the pitch. They cut inside, they jump unto the box as an additional striker. The difference is how they focus on finishing.

 

IF is a goal score. It's a Striker in a deeper position.

IW creates assist and goal score a mix of IF and AP.

AP create chances.

 

AP can score goals and IF can create chances, it all depends on how the dice roll fall on the pitch, so depending on weather, rest of the team and the player it self, an AP can score more goals than an IF. So while the IF/IW/AP behavior is technically correct, you will not see the picked role perform PERFECTLY according to what we expect of the role.

 

Look at the players attributes and see what role covers what you feel is the best combination of the attributes and pick that as role, it doesn't matter if the player is AP/S or IF/A as long as he has a high chance of getting good attribute dice rolls.

 

Edit: It can have a big impact on the overall team tactic what role you pick, if you pick AP then the entire team might focus on passing the ball to that player, because of the build in pass choice attraction of the role, but the player it self is not going to behave radically different no matter the role choice.

You say IF is a goal scorer but that depends on the duty, many guides on here indicate that IF on attack looks to score and IF on support looks to create.

[nick1408]

31 minutes ago, Hilly1979 said:

You say IF is a goal scorer but that depends on the duty, many guides on here indicate that IF on attack looks to score and IF on support looks to create.

I look at it more of a sliding scale (From scoring to creating) - IF-At -> IF-Su-----> IW-At -> IW-Su --------------> Ap-At -> AP-Su

 

Wingers are a different kettle of fish altogether as they operate in a different area of the pitch. Trequartistas, raumdeuters and wide target men are all on their own individual scales

 

[Miravlix]

46 minutes ago, Hilly1979 said:

You say IF is a goal scorer but that depends on the duty, many guides on here indicate that IF on attack looks to score and IF on support looks to create.

 

Yes, there is a slight chance he IF/S may choose a different option than an IF/A, just as there is a chance that an AP/S may choose a different option than an IF/A, I'm sure you can find microscopic differences in behavior if you use a computer to detect it, but us mere mortals can't really tell the difference.

 

You still might end up with the same player as IF/S scoring more goals and when played as IF/A he create more chances.

 

What you get is the players positional preferences on the pitch and its effect on the rest of the tactics. The rest is like guessing the outcome of a coin toss, sometimes you get it right, sometimes you don't.

 

I have a clear example of this in my team right now Mo Salah is an IF/A, but he score more goals played as an IW/A.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Miravlix

[eupheus]

4 hours ago, Miravlix said:

IF is a goal score. It's a Striker in a deeper position.

IW creates assist and goal score a mix of IF and AP.

AP create chances.

Based on the roles, is it possible to play both IW/S or IW/A on both sides ?

 

[Novem9]

12 часов назад, Rashidi сказал:

In a nutshell the IF takes players and space on and is primarily a goal threat an IW’s priority is to force overloads and is primarily a creator. Whether they do this in your game depends on the roles and duties you have selected. If you don’t see them behaving this way then chances are you need to take a look at your role/duty distribution.

Rashidi , clarify me please.

IF in fm20 has more riskly mentality in compare of w and iw. Is it mean better to avoid if(a) in positive mentality? 

He is already attacking in support duty on balanced mentality 

[Rashidi]

I would just play the position to the duty you need in  your system. And choose the specific role for the job. I think SI are doing the right thing by making roles more distinctive now with the way they play its a really big change in FM20

[Novem9]

12 минут назад, Rashidi сказал:

I would just play the position to the duty you need in  your system. And choose the specific role for the job. I think SI are doing the right thing by making roles more distinctive now with the way they play its a really big change in FM20

I like this changes too. Just noticed my IF(a) in positive looks very separate, but this is no issue for SI, just a gameplay moment for own investigation 
Actually I see a logic to use IF(s) only in riskly mentalities as positive but for sure I agree this is not a rule.