| Forum » General » Success without CF | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
You sure about that gunner. Look at this guy's finishing and his average. http://uk.strikermanager.com/jugador.php?id_jugador=690055 He'll be starting from next season, I expect to have his finishing around 80 by the end of next season. |
29/11/2011 12:40 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
3363 msgs.
Best scorer
|
No, just my opinion, when I've pulled my RW into the centre with adv formation (still with RW starting line-up) and forced him to play like a CF or RF he doesnt seem to be as effective. Just noticed it during some trial formations, but could be wrong. | 29/11/2011 15:09 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
70 msgs.
Rookie
|
@GunnerNic said: Training the finishing for LF RF or speed for CF will to a large extent neutralise the difference between the 2. I wouldnt advise a purely LW RW attack for a long term solution - I dont see it as potent enough in front of goal but thats just my opinion. I just want to clarify. In the first sentence you say LF/RF and in the second you say LW/RW. So do you see LF/RF as a solution but not wingers? |
29/11/2011 15:50 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
3363 msgs.
Best scorer
|
I think Grant will disagree, but yes, I would prefer a LF/RF to a PURELY winger attack. I like wingers, dont get me wrong, they have the speed I need to get past the defence but I just prefer a pass to a deadly finisher in the end. A CF finishing of 95 is a lot easier to attain with training than a wingers finishing of 95. |
29/11/2011 16:23 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
67 msgs.
Rookie
|
@GunnerNic said: I think Grant will disagree, but yes, I would prefer a LF/RF to a PURELY winger attack. I like wingers, dont get me wrong, they have the speed I need to get past the defence but I just prefer a pass to a deadly finisher in the end. A CF finishing of 95 is a lot easier to attain with training than a wingers finishing of 95. I experienced the same thing as gunner when pulling in my rw. I don't have the same talent on my team, but when pulling in the rw and having him play with my lf my left forward will score more and I score less overall. This is when comparing it to having my rf and lf play, when I play these two in combination my rf scores more and I score more points overall. It is also worth noting that my rf ande rw are the same level. |
29/11/2011 17:01 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Rodstein said: @GunnerNic said: I think Grant will disagree, but yes, I would prefer a LF/RF to a PURELY winger attack. I like wingers, dont get me wrong, they have the speed I need to get past the defence but I just prefer a pass to a deadly finisher in the end. A CF finishing of 95 is a lot easier to attain with training than a wingers finishing of 95. I experienced the same thing as gunner when pulling in my rw. I don't have the same talent on my team, but when pulling in the rw and having him play with my lf my left forward will score more and I score less overall. This is when comparing it to having my rf and lf play, when I play these two in combination my rf scores more and I score more points overall. It is also worth noting that my rf ande rw are the same level. I'd like to point out that your RW has 49% finishing. I play my LIM(68 finishing) up front all the time and he's scored quite a few goals this season. At the end of the day I could be going terribly wrong with my plan, but until I have an 80% finishing winger up front then I don't think we'll know for sure. |
29/11/2011 17:36 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
@GunnerNic said: I think Grant will disagree, but yes, I would prefer a LF/RF to a PURELY winger attack. I like wingers, dont get me wrong, they have the speed I need to get past the defence but I just prefer a pass to a deadly finisher in the end. A CF finishing of 95 is a lot easier to attain with training than a wingers finishing of 95. The only thing I disagree with is the ease of getting a winger to 95%, from my testing wingers train shots on goal almost as well as CF, they just start further back. It won't help teams without high progression players, but I think I can probably build a high finishing winger quite quickly and even if he stalls in his late 80's, then I can live with that, he'll have so many more shots(especially against the offside trap). Plus wingers are cheap as hell(compared to CF's), there's still loads of them on a GB search. |
29/11/2011 17:41 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
70 msgs.
Rookie
|
So overall consensus is that a RF/LF attack can be just as successful as a CF/CF attack? | 29/11/2011 19:57 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1798 msgs.
International
|
Moose0501 said: So overall consensus is that a RF/LF attack can be just as successful as a CF/CF attack? as far as i'm concerned - yes. I would say that CF-CF against no offside trap will score more goals than LF/RF, but you have far more versatility with LF/RF. |
29/11/2011 20:47 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Horath said: Moose0501 said: So overall consensus is that a RF/LF attack can be just as successful as a CF/CF attack? as far as i'm concerned - yes. I would say that CF-CF against no offside trap will score more goals than LF/RF, but you have far more versatility with LF/RF. But that's just down to the fact that CF's generally have better finishing. LF/RF have better speed. These players are only more versatile because everyone is training things that make their average better. Better average != better player as they say in pascal. |
29/11/2011 21:49 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
2
