Criticism of PPM's and Positional Training ...

I have a criticism of the way PPM's and positional training is implemented, in that I think it is the wrong way round.

Let me explain ...

I play as Fulham, and have Bobby Zamora setup as a target man. I suggest to him that he plays with his back to goal as this will obviously help his game, as he is there to hold up the ball and bring the midfield into play (this is how he plays IRL). However, he rejects my request and states he see's no advantage to playing this way. Firstly, why do I have to ask him? I'm the manager and if I want him to play a certain way then I expect him too?

But this is where things go really wrong. If I take the same player, and go into his training options, I can choose to retrain him as any other position on the playing field, but for this example lets choose a wing back. Now Bobby is a striker, has always been a striker and is currently playing for me as a striker, however he'll happily learn his new position, without comment, without moaning, without question. And I don't even have to ask him to do it, I just tell him.

And that's my issue. Why can I retrain any player, to any other position on the playing field without any interaction as to why and they'll happily do it. But suggest he learns a new style of play that will ultimately benefit him, and he gets to decide whether or not he chooses to accept it ?

Also, should they really be called PPM's ... after all, if I ask him to learn a new one, and he agrees then surely it's my perferred style of play, not his ?

IMO these two things need to be changed around. I should just be able to tell a player to learn a new move because I am the manager and I'm not doing this just for the hell of it, I've identified something that will improve his role and benefit the team and I expect him to do it. On the other hand, if I retrain him as a wing back, I would expect to have to ask him, and for him to need the reasoning behind it etc

What do other people think ?

There definitely seems to be some profound inconsistency there.

There definitely seems to be some profound inconsistency there.

With what I've written? I'm not sure I understand what you mean?

Just because Zamora refuses to lean the PPM "play with back to goal" it doesn't mean that he can't play that way. If he had the PPM that would just mean that he would prefer to play that way but it doesn't really mean that he would be better playing that way.

The PPM just means that all things being equal he would prefer to play with his back to goal rather then doing something like springing the offside trap.

There are several reasons why he would refuse to change the way he plays:

1. He's too old, or thinks he's too old to change. Players over 24 tend to refuse to learn or unlearn PPMs.

2. He doesn't think of himself as a player who plays with his back to goal. I've always thought of Zamora as a striker who like to play on the shoulder of the last man. IMO by asking him to play with his back to goal you're asking him to change the way he prefers to play.

As for positional training, there's been quite a few players who have change the position that they play in because their attributes are suited to another position; e.g. Chris Sutton from DC to SC,

The game lets you do this so that you can retrain a player who could do well or better in another position. The game isn't expecting you to do something silly like retraining a good striker as a full back where he's totally unsuitable.

Basically SI can't really spend time coding for when a user does something silly in the aim of "breaking" the game.

Anyway I seem to recall in previous version of the game the player having an issue if you try to retrain him and he's not happy with it. It may take soemtime to appear and not every player would have the problem, but I do seem to remember seeing it.

Just because Zamora refuses to lean the PPM "play with back to goal" it doesn't mean that he can't play that way. If he had the PPM that would just mean that he would prefer to play that way but it doesn't really mean that he would be better playing that way.

The PPM just means that all things being equal he would prefer to play with his back to goal rather then doing something like springing the offside trap.

There are several reasons why he would refuse to change the way he plays:

1. He's too old, or thinks he's too old to change. Players over 24 tend to refuse to learn or unlearn PPMs.

2. He doesn't think of himself as a player who plays with his back to goal. I've always thought of Zamora as a striker who like to play on the shoulder of the last man. IMO by asking him to play with his back to goal you're asking him to change the way he prefers to play.

As for positional training, there's been quite a few players who have change the position that they play in because their attributes are suited to another position; e.g. Chris Sutton from DC to SC,

The game lets you do this so that you can retrain a player who could do well or better in another position. The game isn't expecting you to do something silly like retraining a good striker as a full back where he's totally unsuitable.

Basically SI can't really spend time coding for when a user does something silly in the aim of "breaking" the game.

Anyway I seem to recall in previous version of the game the player having an issue if you try to retrain him and he's not happy with it. It may take soemtime to appear and not every player would have the problem, but I do seem to remember seeing it.

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with all your points here.

Firstly, Zamora may have played that way prior to being at Fulham, but under Roy Hodgson he now plays the traditional target man role, and having seen him play IRL many times I can say with conviction that he plays with his back to goal. This in itself shows up the second comment about being to old to change, Zamora is 28 and yet under Hodgson has completely changed his style of play, it shouldn't be about age it should be about what the manager wants from his players. This is my main issue, I have to ask the player and he gets to decide, that is just plain incorrect and not true to life.

Also, can you tell me in game how to ask a player to play with his back to goal without asking him to learn this PPM ?

Secondly, I'm not asking for SI to code for every eventuality, I'm asking for a little common sense. IRL if I ask a player to retrain to another position, away from the one that he's played for his entire playing career then I'd expect questions from him as to why and how it would benefit the team, and perhaps then whether or not he's prepared to do it. You don't get this ingame, infact you don't get any feedback.

Asking a player to change his position will have a greater impact on a player IRL than asking him to accommodate a change to the way he plays in his current role. This is my main issue as they are fundamentally implemented the wrong way round.

Im with Spankie on this one..

Also, Zamora was just given as an example here.

Another was on a post I read yesterday about asking a defender to stop recklessy diving into tackles, and the defender refusing to make that change. IRL if a player consistently gave away fouls because of reckless tackles, as a manager you wouldn't ask him to change, you would tell him. And if he refused you'd drop him.

This is the point I'm trying to get across, PPM's are implemented incorrectly (especially since they have precidence over tactical settings) with too much focus on what the player wants, and positional training is implemented incorrectly because theres too little focus on what the player wants.

Another was on a post I read yesterday about asking a defender to stop recklessy diving into tackles, and the defender refusing to make that change. IRL if a player consistently gave away fouls because of reckless tackles, as a manager you wouldn't ask him to change, you would tell him. And if he refused you'd drop him.

Not sure about the rest, but this part I agree with 100%. If Fergie told one of his players to play a certain way and they refused, he would go barmy. We don't have the option to discipline them, which makes no sense to me. We can drop them, but that doesn't achieve anything because the player would never realise he was dropped for that reason. To me, it just seems like the feature hasn't been fully thought through.

Not sure how anyone can disagree with the OP. It makes absolute perfect sense. So, due to the fact that most people seem to be disagreeing, i'm offering some backing to his argument! He's 100% correct, no doubt about it!

Agree with the op. It's very irritating if your player refuses to do what you the manager wants him to do.

Perhaps it could be changed slightly to be made similar to when you ask them to learn from other players e.g if you ask a player to dribble with the ball he could either be happy to do this and so put more effort into this and learn the move in the regular period of time or perhaps he could say "he doesn't necessarily think this will improve his game but will give it a try anyway" it could then take the player a bit longer to learn the move as they arnt 100% into it.

It's good to see others agree with my point of view

@Neji

I agree, it's definitley something that again has been poorly implemented, or not fully thought out in the first place.

@DJB2006UK

Thats a great idea. This way at least they acknowledge what you are trying to do, regardless of if they see the benefit of it.

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with all your points here.

Firstly, Zamora may have played that way prior to being at Fulham, but under Roy Hodgson he now plays the traditional target man role, and having seen him play IRL many times I can say with conviction that he plays with his back to goal. This in itself shows up the second comment about being to old to change, Zamora is 28 and yet under Hodgson has completely changed his style of play, it shouldn't be about age it should be about what the manager wants from his players. This is my main issue, I have to ask the player and he gets to decide, that is just plain incorrect and not true to life.

Then that's a data issue and he should have the PPM in the first place.

Agree 100% with OP, definitely room for improvement here.

Then that's a data issue and he should have the PPM in the first place.

Already discussed with Craven (the Fulham researcher) and it's in for the next data update.

However, people seem to be concentrating too much on Zamora in particular, which was just an example I gave to highlight the issue.

With what I've written? I'm not sure I understand what you mean?

Sorry no, inconsistency with the game. Sorry for not clarifying this earlier.

Already discussed with Craven (the Fulham researcher) and it's in for the next data update.

However, people seem to be concentrating too much on Zamora in particular, which was just an example I gave to highlight the issue.

The question is really, what would annoy a player more?

Saying, you are now playing at left back even though you have been a striker your whole career.

or saying,

I think it would benefit your play if you played with your back to goal.

FM represents this the wrong way round.

....Also, should they really be called PPM's ... after all, if I ask him to learn a new one, and he agrees then surely it's my perferred style of play, not his ?

PPM's are Players Prefered Moves. Moves that the player preferes not what the manager wants him to play. If I prefered to run from the left hand corner to the right hand corner of the pitch, that is MY prefered move, BUT, if the manager says to me "I want you to run from penalty spot to penalty spot" then that is not MY prefered move but my managers instructions.

RG

I'm sure there are algorithms that change with each different game regarding this.