Go to page 1, 2
| Forum » Doubts and questions » L/RF versus CF | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Username
1642 msgs.
International
|
Hi guys, I previously asked about L/RW versus L/RF debate, as to which one was better. The ultimate answer was the the wingers stretched the defence whilst the forwards finished their chances off in front of goal. But now, I want to know what the difference is between a L/RF versus a CF. From what I can see, L/R can be trained to have all the important aspects of a CF, but also have ball steal and passing also that goes up faster. Why would you go CF over the L//RF? Why wouldn't you put a L/R in a CF position and adjust his positioning using advanced formation tactics? Would like to hear some thoughts. |
13/04/2014 11:29 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
4708 msgs.
Best scorer
|
L/RF are also playing inside the box, and I think they are sharper than CF, cos they play both sides.. L/RF are speedsters More like L/RW. though, they support CF.. |
13/04/2014 13:15 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5433 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Each position do have their importance.most managers play cf for a purpose(maybe for gbs)and using only cf is at a risk too because he may get red card in a match unlike playing lf/rf where one can still function if the other won't continue in a game.. | 13/04/2014 14:53 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1835 msgs.
International
|
The two above posts are gibberish. Don't listen to them. I use LF CF RF. Or LF OM RF. Some prefer wings some prefer LF RF. Depends on how to attack and how you want to play. CFs can train shots faster - look at the training table- LF RF can bel trained to be more versatile - crossing and beating markers affects then more than CFs. They train speed faster- sprint doesn't help CFs as much as LF RF. LF RF were and maybe are cheaper also- I haven't looked in awhile - but the past seasons say a 90 avg LF was cheaper than a comparative CF. maybe that's changed - again I haven't looked but don't think it has. So price is another factor. |
13/04/2014 15:28 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5433 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
And your own post is what?maybe he should listen to yours which is out of point because most managers knows that cf cost more than lf/rf..of which the manager that brought the question knows. ABC DEFG said: The two above posts are gibberish. Don't listen to them. I use LF CF RF. Or LF OM RF. Some prefer wings some prefer LF RF. Depends on how to attack and how you want to play. CFs can train shots faster - look at the training table- LF RF can bel trained to be more versatile - crossing and beating markers affects then more than CFs. They train speed faster- sprint doesn't help CFs as much as LF RF. LF RF were and maybe are cheaper also- I haven't looked in awhile - but the past seasons say a 90 avg LF was cheaper than a comparative CF. maybe that's changed - again I haven't looked but don't think it has. So price is another factor. |
13/04/2014 15:38 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
4708 msgs.
Best scorer
|
ABC DEFG said: The two above posts are gibberish. Don't listen to them. I use LF CF RF. Or LF OM RF. Some prefer wings some prefer LF RF. Depends on how to attack and how you want to play. CFs can train shots faster - look at the training table- LF RF can bel trained to be more versatile - crossing and beating markers affects then more than CFs. They train speed faster- sprint doesn't help CFs as much as LF RF. LF RF were and maybe are cheaper also- I haven't looked in awhile - but the past seasons say a 90 avg LF was cheaper than a comparative CF. maybe that's changed - again I haven't looked but don't think it has. So price is another factor. +1 man.. you're saying what I'm sending out.. I train Forwards.. and I know how it is... so no gibberish mate....  and topic did not say anything about price... |
13/04/2014 15:51 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5433 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Ofcourse | 13/04/2014 16:09 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5349 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
mr waz said: ABC DEFG said: The two above posts are gibberish. Don't listen to them. I use LF CF RF. Or LF OM RF. Some prefer wings some prefer LF RF. Depends on how to attack and how you want to play. CFs can train shots faster - look at the training table- LF RF can bel trained to be more versatile - crossing and beating markers affects then more than CFs. They train speed faster- sprint doesn't help CFs as much as LF RF. LF RF were and maybe are cheaper also- I haven't looked in awhile - but the past seasons say a 90 avg LF was cheaper than a comparative CF. maybe that's changed - again I haven't looked but don't think it has. So price is another factor. +1 man.. you're saying what I'm sending out.. I train Forwards.. and I know how it is... so no gibberish mate.... and topic did not say anything about price...*Sitting on the block* the topic was "Versus"... And when you are comparing, you put out all stats. Mine is : Goal Poachers CF vs LF/RF = CF Easily locked by xDF's = CF More Expensive = CF Easily trained = LF/RF these are the stats i can think of now  |
13/04/2014 22:25 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
1394 msgs.
International
|
mr waz brings in top point price : cf's are much more expensive there is ofc a reason for this - they are much better at scoring i dont think many people who use cf's rely on them they near all have some sort of utility striker (wing, rf,lf or om) if i had the money i would use om / cf + a wider winger or lf /rf |
13/04/2014 23:16 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
269 msgs.
First-team player
|
Price may not be considered in this question.it deals with what each position(cf & l/rf) can do in a field of play.perhaps,many managers use cf because he can convert all the goals the other position(l/rf)would share and for a manager who wants gb(top scorer)will eventually use cf for the fight. | 13/04/2014 23:40 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
Go to page 1, 2
1
