Which one of these DMs would you rather have?

Yes, I know it's beating a dead horse but which of the DM's below do you believe would perform better?

They both have the same CA, the only difference is one being 1/20 left footed and the other 19/20. So, we all know that either footed players perform better in the ME (especially midfielders) but will the either footed one really outperform the one-footed one? The stats speak for itself, yes a lot of attributes are beneficial to have when either footed but I'm pretty sure stats like Heading, Marking, and Tackling aren't affected by whether a player is one footed or not. Not to mention the astronomical increase in mental and physical stats. The question is, how many managers would actually take the bottom DM over the top one?

Just the right footer anyday of the week, i take it the right footer is an edited player? His stats are off the charts apart from Influence

Just the right footer anyday of the week, i take it the right footer is an edited player? His stats are off the charts apart from Influence

They are both edited actually, and yeah I was really surprised too at how high the one footed player's stats are.

I'd take the right footed player at any time above the either footed one. The stats are so much better it's almost funny

It shouldn't matter really which foot the guy uses. Even if a player can use both feet very well, with a passing rating of 15, the quality of his passes are still going to be worse than a right footed player with a rating of 16. After all, you can only use one foot at a time for passing, shooting, free kicks, etc.

If i remember rightly from previous threads, the 'dual-footed' ability uses a lot of the CA so it's unlikely that the 'dual-footed' guy will ever reach the same level as the right-footed guy, simply because a large part of his CA is given over to being able to use both feet comfortably.

So i'd take the right footed player

This just illustrates what a crock of sheet the whole two footedness model is. I thought players got some 'free' stats that weren't affected by CA? All I can see from that is det and aggression.

Whats funny is the one footed player makes for a pretty good CB or a half decent striker too. I hope with 20 in Decisions that he'll "decide" to use his right foot 100% of the time.

In general though, isn't two-footedness a natural talent? I know there are exceptions where players learn to use both feet equally well, but you wouldn't say that Adriano is less talented than a two-footed Serie C striker.

Also, why would being two-footed make you slower? It doesn't make any sense.

The second might be worse visually, but they are basically the same.

For an either footed player, you should add 2-4 points to each attribute, to show how they'd look if they were one footed.

It's stupid, Either footedness should be a positive thing, not a crutch that makes the player go slower.

Does anyone have the link to Paul C's reply to this? I recall reading a topic about this in the forums

Depending on how you are going to play him.....I'd pick the bottom one....I play my DM's reasonably deep and defensive and the top guy would be pretty easy for a decent AMC to turn as he would have iffy tackling on his weaker side as well.

The higher up the pitch he will play, the more likely I would pick the superstar at the top!!

(Sorry to be controversial, but I like my workhourse DM's..keeps them in their place )

On average, if they are essentially the "same" player but one has a stronger left foot, then they will perform equally well - although I actually think two-footers play better for the same amount of CA on my tactic.

However, the top one is obviously the better set-piece taker.

If, however, you retrain both DM Cs to a wide position, the top one could be much better if you ask him to do either hug the touchline and cross OR cut in and shoot. If you want them to do both, the bottom one should be better.

How the hell did u get those stats!

I would not mind having both of them.

How the hell did u get those stats!

I would not mind having both of them.

He edited the players in.

For a DM, I doubt you'll need to be able to use two feet so I'm guessing the right-footed one is much much better. I highly doubt that two-footedness plays much of a role in tackling.

But what if it's an ST or AM? Would a two-footed player perform better than right-only (assuming same CA)? From what I've read from SI, a right-footed only player can have passing ability of 20, but if he tries to pass with his left foot, then it's going to end up being a bad pass. Same with shooting, dribbling etc.

The first one (right only) tbf. DMs don't need necessarily have to be either footed to be effective imo.

This equine expired long ago....

But yes, the one footer by a long way.

Id have the second one, he will be more consistant than the first one

I would not have either, edited and not real, if they came through my youths as regens i would have them both tbf, stick them into my liverpool formation.

Both for my 4-2-0-3-1 formation.

But I prefer the 1st one.

These were actually edited for experimentation purposes. I was trying to see what an ideal two footed deep lying playmaker that plays in the DMC role looks like. I normally play Veloso/Gago/Banega in this role and they see the most ball in a match, with usually around 70+ passes with close to 90% completion. I created the bottom DM to see how much either footedness affected passing since they see the ball so much. That's when I stumbled across the top DM when I decided to edit his weaker foot to 1/20 to see what his stats would to be like. Both of their CA's are 190.

I have yet to see an either footed DM in game that comes close to the stats I want for this role, closest is Inler and Hernanes. HIgh stats I was looking for are: 17+ passing/creativity, 15+ first touch/technique/teamwork/workrate/decisions, 15+ technique (for long passes), and about 15ish tackling. Good stamina and natural fitness for physical stats.

I wanted to add that by edit I mean editing via the Data Editor and starting a new game and not through an in game editor. This way the game fills any gaps or overkill in stats when calculating their CA.

It's stupid, Either footedness should be a positive thing, not a crutch that makes the player go slower.

Does anyone have the link to Paul C's reply to this? I recall reading a topic about this in the forums

Actually, I'll think you'll find that a) either "footedness" is a positive thing and b) that's roughly what PaulC's reply was. An either footed player will receive a higher CA from his researcher, because he's a better player. It's like saying "being a good finisher shouldn't make you slower". It doesn't make you slower/ worse at things at all. If Adriano had a right foot, he'd be a better player and therefore have a higher CA. If the two footed Serie C striker was as good at shooting as Adriano, he'd be a better player and therefore have a higher CA.

Regens, of course, provide a different perspective- but again, I refer you to the "finishing" point.

It's really very logical.

Actually, I'll think you'll find that a) either "footedness" is a positive thing and b) that's roughly what PaulC's reply was. An either footed player will receive a higher CA from his researcher, because he's a better player. It's like saying "being a good finisher shouldn't make you slower". It doesn't make you slower/ worse at things at all. If Adriano had a right foot, he'd be a better player and therefore have a higher CA. If the two footed Serie C striker was as good at shooting as Adriano, he'd be a better player and therefore have a higher CA.

Regens, of course, provide a different perspective- but again, I refer you to the "finishing" point.

It's really very logical.

It would be logical if it worked. If researchers get it right with careful balancing then it works well for a researched player. The way things work though, both in research and automatic assignment of attributes in the game, the CA is assigned first. Researchers assign a CA, then distribute the attributes. If they want to assign a high WFA then they need to compensate somewhere else, Cristiano Ronaldo and his ability in the air being the most often cited example.

Where it all goes to pot is where regens and zero attributes come into play. With regens you'll very often have to make the very choice presented in the original post. A one-footed player with great all round attributes - or a two-footed donkey who can't jump, pass, shoot, mark or head but hey - at least he'll be equally carp with either foot. But the game will be rating the players as equally matched. I can guarantee you the right footed player in the original post will outperform the either footed player by some margin.

'Slight' changes are being made in the weightings though, we're being told, so at least it might be slightly less of an issue in fm10.

Just my thoughts:

For a DM, I'd probably go for the top player just on stats alone - and that it is doubtful the AI would put that much attention onto the DM - at least in the early going.

The top player - if I were playing against him - I would set to 'Show Onto Weaker Foot' & 'Man Mark' him with my quickest & strongest marking player. This would essentially cut his 'amazing stats' out of most of the game. Obviously a statistical freak like that would still break out on occasion and make a play, but generally speaking a 'single footed player' can be taken out of action with some tactical adjustments.

The reason I see an 'Either Footed' player valued so highly is they are quite difficult to shut down. This particular 'either foot' example is maybe not the best because he is pretty slow and would be easy to mark tightly and close ALWAYS, but 'Either footed' players with good to great pace/acceleration and reasonably solid stats are a nightmare.

Both of these players are incredible.

I highly doubt that two-footedness plays much of a role in tackling.

I was watching a futbol game on TV and this comment came to mind. The particular defender I was watching consistently tackled with the same lead foot. This got me thinking that 'footed-ness' () would actually play into FM stats on tackling.

You could even make an argument that 'headers' would require a dominant foot to leap from. If the defender is consciously positioning in front of your plant foot, it could have an affect on your jumping/heading ability.

Passing is definitely something that is better if you can use both feet equally. Sure, the right footer can pass 'technically better' during practice, but in game situations where he is marked heavily to one-side, his skill is hurt badly.

It would be logical if it worked. If researchers get it right with careful balancing then it works well for a researched player. The way things work though, both in research and automatic assignment of attributes in the game, the CA is assigned first. Researchers assign a CA, then distribute the attributes. If they want to assign a high WFA then they need to compensate somewhere else, Cristiano Ronaldo and his ability in the air being the most often cited example.

Where it all goes to pot is where regens and zero attributes come into play. With regens you'll very often have to make the very choice presented in the original post. A one-footed player with great all round attributes - or a two-footed donkey who can't jump, pass, shoot, mark or head but hey - at least he'll be equally carp with either foot. But the game will be rating the players as equally matched. I can guarantee you the right footed player in the original post will outperform the either footed player by some margin.

'Slight' changes are being made in the weightings though, we're being told, so at least it might be slightly less of an issue in fm10.

Ronaldo is more to do with him being devastatingly good all round, you can't solely cite his left foot ability. And he still has a good solid jumping attribute.

I'd rather have Miguel Veloso.