WBsu vs FBat

[KCHDD]

Feel like both these roles are so similar, how are they different? Wondering which role would be better to use behind a support duty forward IF/IW in a 4231?

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, KCHDD said:

Feel like both these roles are so similar, how are they different?

WB has a higher initial positioning than FB, tends to be a bit more aggressive in the defensive phase of play and is generally more attack-minded. These are key differences between the two roles apart from their duties.

1 hour ago, KCHDD said:

Wondering which role would be better to use behind a support duty forward IF/IW in a 4231?

As always, that entirely depends on your tactical setup as a whole and your intended playing style, of course. Both WB support and FB attack will naturally overlap their F/IW partner (provided you are in control of the game in the opposition half). WB on support is generally better suited to possession-oriented styles, whereas FB on attack is usually a better choice for more direct styles with greater emphasis on defensive solidity (despite its higher duty).

Whichever of the two you opt for in a 4231, better make sure that the CM on that side is the holding (or at least covering) type of role (as opposed to runner ir/and roamer).

If you post a screenshot of the tactic as you envision it, I can tell you if there are any potential issues you need to be aware of.

[mikcheck]

But isn't a FB on attack more aggressive than a WB on support? He has higher mentality

[CARRERA]

I think ED covered it well. Just one more thing to consider, why you would pick one or the other, is that a FB on attack has Cross more often. So if you want your wide players to refrain from crosses and rather look for cutback passes, WB on support is your role to go.

[Jack722]

From my observations in game, the only real differences between the two roles are the predone player instructions. IIRC, a wingback is more likely to stay wider, dribble more, run wide with ball, cross etc, than a fullback on the same duty. In terms of how high up the pitch they get the duty is mostly what matters (so a FBa will go forward more often than a WBs). Although a WB on the same duty as a FB will likely seem to be going further forward due to its dribbling.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, mikcheck said:

But isn't a FB on attack more aggressive than a WB on support? He has higher mentality

Higher mentality is not about aggression but willingness for attacking risks (more speculative passing and crossing as well as readiness to get forward early). 

[Falahk]

If the old interface is anything to go on, then the main difference is that a wb have hug touchline (so he will play wider) and is set to cross higher up the pitch (this will make them run/dribble a bit more before crossing) 

[glengarry224]

On 03/06/2021 at 08:05, mikcheck said:

But isn't a FB on attack more aggressive than a WB on support? He has higher mentality

Note that on some team mentalities, FB(a) and WB(s) have the same player mentality.  On my current tactic, the same on Positive, Balanced and Cautious team mentalities.

[Xavier Lukhas]

Le 03/06/2021 à 15:20, KCHDD a dit :

Feel like both these roles are so similar, how are they different? Wondering which role would be better to use behind a support duty forward IF/IW in a 4231?

You can find some good answers in this thread:

FB(A) is going to run up and down the pitch a lot more than WB(S). He's both more aggressive on when you have possession and more conservative when you don't.