What needs to be done in FM2011 for player positions and training system

I think these are the first areas that need work.

The player positions need to be completely re-done. I like having the players' ability to play in different positions rated as 'natural', 'accomplished', etc., but I think every player should have at least 'ineffectual' in every position on the field. Those light green, dark green, orange, yellow circles on tactics screen should exist at each position on the field for each player, and they should be calculated simply from the players' attributes. And depending on how a player's attributes will develop and shape when he gets older, the colors of those circles should change, in accordance with the training system of course.

Which brings me to the other area that needs to be reworked, and preferebly simplified: There should be templates ready for each positions training, and we should just simply assign each player to the training regime we want. So, lets say I have an 18 year old player who is naturaly a CB, but he is accomplished in DR (again, calculated from his attributes). If I want him to develop as a fullback more, then all I have to do should be to assign him to fullback training schedule, and with time his attributes should start shaping him more into a fullback, e.g. his tackling, dribbling, crossing attributes should gain points), and after some time the game should turn his dark green circle in right back position into a light green one, making him 'natural' there.

I really really hate the fact that just because a player doesn't have any color circle at a position he can't play in that position. For example I have a AM C newgen whose attributes actually fit better to a winger. But he has no circle on AM R, so I start re-training him in that position, and after months when finally a green circle appears there his attributes take a hit. Then if I stop training him in that position, that green circle turns into orange, yellow, and disappears eventually. This current system is just plain terrible, no offense.

Like I said, what needs to be done is, and it is very simple, when a newgen is created, the game should assign 1 natural position to him, and calculate the colors of those circles for all the other positions on the soccer field, and they should be calculated from the players' attributes, including also the versatility attribute in the calculation.

i agree 100% with this. Most top teams now interchange their wingers in the game but you cant really do that on FM because your players doesnt have a "green dot" on the other side of the pitch. Man Utd always switch wingers.

Also look at Man Utd's defensive situation this season with Carrick, Fletcher and Park playin in defence. Apart from the Fulham game where the were completely tore apart they did quite well. Especially the Wolfsburg game away. If you put Carrick and Fletcher at centre back in the game you would probably get slaughtered.

Same goes for defenders. IMO defenders can play anywhere on the back line. So to have a player that is CB only is just stupid. If they needed to cover at RB/LB im sure they could do a decent enough job. Again in game they cant because they dont have the "green dot".

I think the mental attributes should take something of a hit if someone is being played out of position. This is to reflect the unfamiliarity with the poistion and the flow of the game. However, the technical attributes should be the same and unaffected. As stated above, putting a CB to play right back and him suddenly being unable to tackle/pass is unrealistic.

Those light green, dark green, orange, yellow circles on tactics screen should exist at each position on the field for each player, and they should be calculated simply from the players' attributes.

Not quite true. Positional familiarity should not be underestimated. I was watching Manchester United 7-1 Roma a few days ago because I wanted to figure out how we lined up after Ferdinand's injury but I did notice that Evra's positioning at right-back was all over the place despite being up 6-1 and generally unchallenged.

Rafael is a bit more two-footed than most and in theory should settle in at left-back quite easily - but I remember the only game where he did play there he was at fault for one goal and was generally rather rubbish and predictable, unlike his much more familiar right-back role.

Ferdinand can bring the ball out from midfield well and is a decent passer. In theory a decent defensive midfielder. Fergie tried that three times a few years back - the first two worked well (Wolves and someone else, I forgot which - Rooney was his midfield partner against Wolves ) - but the third he was dreadful and I think at fault for conceding a goal, and Fergie promptly put him back in defence.

A lot of people say Rooney would be a decent midfielder or winger and his attributes certainly suggest that - but he's not familiar with the role and is therefore a lot worse.

I talked about positions a while back and here's my thread: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=187285

Same goes for defenders. IMO defenders can play anywhere on the back line. So to have a player that is CB only is just stupid. If they needed to cover at RB/LB im sure they could do a decent enough job. Again in game they cant because they dont have the "green dot".

Er, no. I think Hull City played centre-backs and defensive midfielders at full-back and they've been decent but not great. Touré for Arsenal in his final season played at right-back and he wasn't great there - a general lack of stamina after injury didn't help. And he was originally a right-back too! In addition, a lot of full-backs can't play at centre-back.

The positions graph you see is purely a "positional familiarity" graph. In a limited role, such as a winger simply running down the wing and winning a corner, you can get away with "no dot" wingers that are simply quick. For more difficult roles, you wouldn't want to. SI have already said things like positioning take a hit when playing someone out of position.

I had a hard think about it just before and I believe that it is harder to play in different defensive positions than attacking, especially at a higher level. I would think that switching from left central defence to right central defence is harder than changing from left striker to right striker. The reason for this is that attackers rely heavily on surprise, while defenders rely heavily on discipline.

I had a hard think about it just before and I believe that it is harder to play in different defensive positions than attacking, especially at a higher level. I would think that switching from left central defence to right central defence is harder than changing from left striker to right striker. The reason for this is that attackers rely heavily on surprise, while defenders rely heavily on discipline.

I think in terms of "learning" it's about the same though - it would take roughly the same amount of time to "peak" your learning at left-back or left-wing if you were right-back or right-wing respectively. Of course, the consequences would be very different depending on your tactics - for attacking full-backs the consequences could be dire; for defensive full-backs your tactics would ensure that it wouldn't hurt as much as attacking full-backs, while for wingers there wouldn't be much of a disaster but they'd be rather subdued.

Er, no. I think Hull City played centre-backs and defensive midfielders at full-back and they've been decent but not great. Touré for Arsenal in his final season played at right-back and he wasn't great there - a general lack of stamina after injury didn't help. And he was originally a right-back too! In addition, a lot of full-backs can't play at centre-back.

The positions graph you see is purely a "positional familiarity" graph. In a limited role, such as a winger simply running down the wing and winning a corner, you can get away with "no dot" wingers that are simply quick. For more difficult roles, you wouldn't want to. SI have already said things like positioning take a hit when playing someone out of position.

Any decent defender can play anywhere on the back line if need be. Wes Brown, Gary Neville, Phil Neville, John O'shea, Jonny Evans, Mikael Silvestre all played RB or LB and CB for Man Utd. Ok they may not be as good, and I understand your point about familiarity but they can all play there to some extent. Id rather have Neville or Brown at CB which you could argue is not there "natural" position than say somebody like Titus Bramble where you could argue his "natural" position is CB

Any decent defender can play anywhere on the back line if need be. Wes Brown, Gary Neville, Phil Neville, John O'shea, Jonny Evans, Mikael Silvestre all played RB or LB and CB for Man Utd. Ok they may not be as good, and I understand your point about familiarity but they can all play there to some extent. Id rather have Neville or Brown at CB which you could argue is not there "natural" position than say somebody like Titus Bramble where you could argue his "natural" position is CB

I think this is reflected in-game - they can play there in a limited fashion, but they are in no way "familiar" with the position at all. I wouldn't say "they can all play there to some extent" - it's more that "they're good players with high attributes in important areas so they are less likely to be caught out of position on the wrong flank". Wes Brown knows little about playing on the left but he may get away with it if the need arises. So I'd say Wes Brown can't play left-back but if you asked him to he'd do OK as long as he doesn't do things like bomb forward too much, for example.

The main thing I think the game fails to reflect is that when you play 90 minutes out of position, or even 1-2 minutes, you learn something but the game won't make that dot any greener.

Then there's things like "you never forget fully" which I discussed in my thread (linked above).

I think this is reflected in-game - they can play there in a limited fashion, but they are in no way "familiar" with the position at all. I wouldn't say "they can all play there to some extent" - it's more that "they're good players with high attributes in important areas so they are less likely to be caught out of position on the wrong flank". Wes Brown knows little about playing on the left but he may get away with it if the need arises. So I'd say Wes Brown can't play left-back but if you asked him to he'd do OK as long as he doesn't do things like bomb forward too much, for example.

The main thing I think the game fails to reflect is that when you play 90 minutes out of position, or even 1-2 minutes, you learn something but the game won't make that dot any greener.

Then there's things like "you never forget fully" which I discussed in my thread (linked above).

Ok maybe not to an extent of playing on the other side of the pitch but if you have a CB that right footed, always playes on the right of the two CB's, should he not be OK with playing at right back? Im sure in-game if you put Rio Ferdinand at RB he would have a stinker.

Ok maybe not to an extent of playing on the other side of the pitch but if you have a CB that right footed, always playes on the right of the two CB's, should he not be OK with playing at right back? Im sure in-game if you put Rio Ferdinand at RB he would have a stinker.

There is a huge, huge difference between playing as a right-sided centre-back and a right-back, even a defensive one. Wes Brown himself is familiar in both but is substantially better at right-back. Ferdinand will lack things like right-back positioning, the ability to show a winger onto the inside or outside as necessary, the ability to dribble and cross, is slightly less agile as a big centre-back so will find tricky wingers challenging, and may even lack things like pace and acceleration. Yes he'll learn this over time if necessary but he will never be a good right-back any time soon.

It took Steven Taylor of Newcastle to learn how to play right-back as well although he's eventually learnt it properly.

There is a huge, huge difference between playing as a right-sided centre-back and a right-back, even a defensive one. Wes Brown himself is familiar in both but is substantially better at right-back. Ferdinand will lack things like right-back positioning, the ability to show a winger onto the inside or outside as necessary, the ability to dribble and cross, is slightly less agile as a big centre-back so will find tricky wingers challenging, and may even lack things like pace and acceleration. Yes he'll learn this over time if necessary but he will never be a good right-back any time soon.

It took Steven Taylor of Newcastle to learn how to play right-back as well although he's eventually learnt it properly.

1) The ability to show an attacker onto either side is one of the first things you learn as a defender. Its called jockying. Playing CB or RB its the same.

2) The aility to drible and cross? Ferdinand can dribble as we have seen many times. Brown?

3) I'd say Ferdinand is more agile than Brown.

4) Pace and Acceleration? Ferdinand beats Brown for both.

If you take away number 1 which all defenders get taught to do from a very early age, would thats make Ferdinand a better RB seeing as he wins points 2,3 and 4 hands down?

Stevo: Have you actually played football? I'm currently playing at left back in a Scottish D2 team. Thing is, because I'm so tall, the captain initially plonked me into central defence and put the short guy left back, but due to my dreadful performance in the first three games, we got switched around and that has significantly tightened up the defence, having only conceded 18 goals this season.

Thing is, defensive duties are so different for CB and side backs. You are playing against completely different players: A CB usually faces up against a target forward or a supporting attacker, where the side backs deal with tricky wingers who tend to run much faster and require quicker reactions. Totally different techniques, knowledge and positioning are required: for example when the defence is caught one or two short it usually turns out that one side of the pitch has more attackers. The CB on the opposite side usually gets drawn to mark the most dangerous central player, pulling towards the side with the ball, meanwhile the side back on that side has to deal with two players. Now, a side back will know how to instinctively cover both players, by covering the inner's run. A CB put in a side back's position lacks that positional instinct which could cause a goal. Which is bad in football for the defending team

However, this doesn't apply for opposite wings, except when the player is very strongly one-footed.

Anyway, directing towards the original poster now, I think that your idea is close, but still not good enough. I would like to put forward the idea that a player could have one or two main positions where he plays frequently and knows well, and the rest of the positions are determined by attributes: This would keep the ability to have specialised positions, but would differentiate between the ability of a slow CB and a fast RB playing at RW, for example.

And also learning of positions should be based on stats. If they have good stats in the category, the main position should be learned quicker (As a defender with extremely poor shooting and attacking knowledge would never make a good finisher), and yes, positions that have been learned should be kept for longer, as you don't just forget how to play as a striker after a year out, it just isn't as effective.

1) The ability to show an attacker onto either side is one of the first things you learn as a defender. Its called jockying. Playing CB or RB its the same.

2) The aility to drible and cross? Ferdinand can dribble as we have seen many times. Brown?

3) I'd say Ferdinand is more agile than Brown.

4) Pace and Acceleration? Ferdinand beats Brown for both.

If you take away number 1 which all defenders get taught to do from a very early age, would thats make Ferdinand a better RB seeing as he wins points 2,3 and 4 hands down?

Stevo: Have you actually played football? I'm currently playing at left back in a Scottish D2 team. Thing is, because I'm so tall, the captain initially plonked me into central defence and put the short guy left back, but due to my dreadful performance in the first three games, we got switched around and that has significantly tightened up the defence, having only conceded 18 goals this season.

Thing is, defensive duties are so different for CB and side backs. You are playing against completely different players: A CB usually faces up against a target forward or a supporting attacker, where the side backs deal with tricky wingers who tend to run much faster and require quicker reactions. Totally different techniques, knowledge and positioning are required: for example when the defence is caught one or two short it usually turns out that one side of the pitch has more attackers. The CB on the opposite side usually gets drawn to mark the most dangerous central player, pulling towards the side with the ball, meanwhile the side back on that side has to deal with two players. Now, a side back will know how to instinctively cover both players, by covering the inner's run. A CB put in a side back's position lacks that positional instinct which could cause a goal. Which is bad in football for the defending team

Answers my question I guess.

It's a whole new ballpark playing at a different position. Wingers often struggle enough playing on the opposite wing despite their similarities. Centre-backs at full-back would struggle for different reasons but would struggle nevertheless.

Well really do we need the tactical pitch to be covered in green dots all over?

I think players whom you can play both sides are already marked with orange or light green dots, and those who arent you must retrain like in real life.

Look at Messi he's originally an AML but when he got to the first team Rijkaard trained him to become a more effective AMR so he can play comfortably as a backup for Ronaldinho or a starter at the AMR position. He achieved that position by training, so should all players this isn't a gift like if a player has heading 20 maybe he's good at defending maybe he's good at attacking but to do both you have to have versatility which is not so common.

I know modern football is progressing towards the idea that you can put a right midfielder as AMR, MR, FBR, DR, but this takes lots of work.

If SI would go through with the idea to put everybody available for every position then the this game will be ruined.

Those players whom can play in more then 1 position have already got green dots in other areas as well, for the rest it's retraining and constant games.

Stevo: Have you actually played football? I'm currently playing at left back in a Scottish D2 team. Thing is, because I'm so tall, the captain initially plonked me into central defence and put the short guy left back, but due to my dreadful performance in the first three games, we got switched around and that has significantly tightened up the defence, having only conceded 18 goals this season.

Thing is, defensive duties are so different for CB and side backs. You are playing against completely different players: A CB usually faces up against a target forward or a supporting attacker, where the side backs deal with tricky wingers who tend to run much faster and require quicker reactions. Totally different techniques, knowledge and positioning are required: for example when the defence is caught one or two short it usually turns out that one side of the pitch has more attackers. The CB on the opposite side usually gets drawn to mark the most dangerous central player, pulling towards the side with the ball, meanwhile the side back on that side has to deal with two players. Now, a side back will know how to instinctively cover both players, by covering the inner's run. A CB put in a side back's position lacks that positional instinct which could cause a goal. Which is bad in football for the defending team

However, this doesn't apply for opposite wings, except when the player is very strongly one-footed.

Anyway, directing towards the original poster now, I think that your idea is close, but still not good enough. I would like to put forward the idea that a player could have one or two main positions where he plays frequently and knows well, and the rest of the positions are determined by attributes: This would keep the ability to have specialised positions, but would differentiate between the ability of a slow CB and a fast RB playing at RW, for example.

And also learning of positions should be based on stats. If they have good stats in the category, the main position should be learned quicker (As a defender with extremely poor shooting and attacking knowledge would never make a good finisher), and yes, positions that have been learned should be kept for longer, as you don't just forget how to play as a striker after a year out, it just isn't as effective.

Yes I have played football and to a higher level then Scottish D2. Do you expect me to take you seriously when you use words like "side backs" and "inners". You might as well go and play in the MLS.

Im not saying EVERY player should be able to play in a certain position but most players can cover in a position they wouldnt normally play if need be. Look at defenders being put upfront towards the end of games. Dion Dublin is a prime example. Striker/Defender and a very good one at that. Wayne Rooney could probably play anywhere on the pitch at a decent level. He's even said that he likes go go in net in training (and he's not bad).

Currently in game it takes nothing into account with reagards to attributes as to where a player can play or be effective. Its simple, if the player doesn't have a green dot then he can't play there regardless of his attributes. This is what needs to be changed. Just more flexablity. As ive already said, look at Man Utd's Midfield playing in Defence. They didn't do too bad a job but I bet Carrick and Fletcher can't play at CB in next years game even though they have proved they can.

Im not saying EVERY player should be able to play in a certain position but most players can cover in a position they wouldnt normally play if need be. Look at defenders being put upfront towards the end of games. Dion Dublin is a prime example. Striker/Defender and a very good one at that. Wayne Rooney could probably play anywhere on the pitch at a decent level. He's even said that he likes go go in net in training (and he's not bad).

I don't think you understand. Big guys like Dublin do decently - not always well - at centre-back and centre-forward, just as how fast players will generally do decently on the wing no matter what their natural position is. However, the point is that unless they've trained in that position or played there for a substantial amount of time, they won't know anything about that position at all! Theory is one thing, practice another. The lack of knowledge is reflected by no dot on their positional graph.

Dion Dublin has also played at centre-back for a substantial amount of time, just like Chris Sutton. He's learnt the trade at centre-back and knows what to do there. This is in contrast to a potential Drogba-in-defence scenario - Drogba is big, but he will know little at first about things like marking and setting the offside trap. This is unlike Dublin and Sutton who have learnt it down the years.

A lot of football players play in various positions as youngsters and sometimes you get positional graphs like Tom Cleverley's or Kieran Lee's as a result. However, this doesn't reflect the fact that Cleverley and Lee can play in a position despite having never learnt it nor played there - it reflects the fact they've played there as well as trained there for a substantial amount of time.

We have no reason to believe Rooney knows how to play left-back. In fact, I'd imagine he doesn't. He could do a job there perhaps in a dreadful injury crisis but Rooney will know nothing about that position.

The positional graph reflects positional "knowledge" or "familiarity"; the attributes determine how good they will do there assuming perfect knowledge (i.e. these attributes will be somewhat lower in practice for an accomplished, rather than natural, player).

Otherwise you'd have players awkward in every other position "because they can do a job there". Yes they can do a job there but no they don't know how to!

Currently in game it takes nothing into account with reagards to attributes as to where a player can play or be effective. Its simple, if the player doesn't have a green dot then he can't play there regardless of his attributes. This is what needs to be changed. Just more flexablity. As ive already said, look at Man Utd's Midfield playing in Defence. They didn't do too bad a job but I bet Carrick and Fletcher can't play at CB in next years game even though they have proved they can.

Carrick and Fletcher were hopeless centre-backs, did you see them against Fulham? Or the amateurish defending against Wolfsburg?

Their attributes suggest they'll be OK-ish centre-backs in an injury crisis and the best candidates, but they know little about playing at centre-back and arguably still don't.

----

I see it as: If you see a midfielder-winger with finishing 20 and composure 20, then it's the manager's job to retrain them to a striker. Yes he should be in theory good as a striker but there's much, much, much more to a striker than just sticking him up front and banging in goals. This is the positional retraining part of the game. Of course, an ineffectual striker with these attributes will do considerably better than an ineffectual striker with finishing 4 and composure 3, but this is why you are retraining them in the first place!

You may think that with finishing and composure like that he should have been a striker as a youngster - but then again, there's Frank Lampard who is a similar sort of player but no striker by himself.

i agree 100% with this. Most top teams now interchange their wingers in the game but you cant really do that on FM because your players doesnt have a "green dot" on the other side of the pitch. Man Utd always switch wingers.

Also look at Man Utd's defensive situation this season with Carrick, Fletcher and Park playin in defence. Apart from the Fulham game where the were completely tore apart they did quite well. Especially the Wolfsburg game away. If you put Carrick and Fletcher at centre back in the game you would probably get slaughtered.

Same goes for defenders. IMO defenders can play anywhere on the back line. So to have a player that is CB only is just stupid. If they needed to cover at RB/LB im sure they could do a decent enough job. Again in game they cant because they dont have the "green dot".

Yes I have already acknowledged the Fulham game. They were terrible that day, and I dont think it was just an off day or anything like that. They was exposed because they are not defenders but do you really think they was that bad against Wolfsburg? Apart from giving Dzeko a few free headers (which he should have done better with) I think they did quite well. Seeing as they are not natural defenders and it was an important away Champions League game.

I see what you say about retraining wingers to strikers. Thierry Henry springs to mind, but he must have had some considerable natural talent in that position already. It wasn't all down to retraining.

Patrice Evra started his career as a Striker, then was moved to Left Wing, then because of an injury crisis at Monaco he was moved to Left Back where he has stayed ever since. You can tell he has experince of being a winger by how composed he is on the ball, his dribbling and crossing yet he doesnt even have 'awkward' as a Striker. You don't forget these things over time. Ok he may have adapted his game to be more defensive but should still be awkward at least as a striker. I know his golascoring record isnt great compared to somebody like Glen Johnson but he was still a striker non the less. Same goes for Ashley Cole. Played as a striker even for Arsenal youth if im not mistaken yet in game there isnt even an 'awkward' dot for him.

I argued that in a post linked above somewhere. It's the attributes part I was trying to get at.

I think researchers need to be a bit more liberal with handing out position capabilities, but basing them on attributes is not realistic, as x42 says. Seol Ki-Hyeon has all the attributes required for a good striker- strength, height, pace, two good feet, a rocket shot- but he's pretty awful there as he simply doesn't know what he's meant to be doing.

However, is it not safe to presume that Wes Brown knows more about playing left back than Darren Fletcher, who knows more than Dimitar Berbatov? Who knows more about playing as a left winger, Patrice Evra or Nemanja Vidic? IMO more "5"s should be handed out for positions it is safe to presume a player can play in to some small extent. These will make them more aware of that role than a complete different player, but still behind the naturals in that position.

However, is it not safe to presume that Wes Brown knows more about playing left back than Darren Fletcher, who knows more than Dimitar Berbatov? Who knows more about playing as a left winger, Patrice Evra or Nemanja Vidic? IMO more "5"s should be handed out for positions it is safe to presume a player can play in to some small extent. These will make them more aware of that role than a complete different player, but still behind the naturals in that position.

I'd say none of Fletcher, Brown or Berbatov know anything about playing at left-back, but Wes Brown would probably learn it quicker in real-life if the need be (you read my positions thread, SCIAG, I believe?) because he knows how to play as a defender. Doesn't detract from the fact that they're clueless in that position as it stands of course.

).

Currently in game it takes nothing into account with reagards to attributes as to where a player can play or be effective. Its simple, if the player doesn't have a green dot then he can't play there regardless of his attributes. This is what needs to be changed. Just more flexablity. As ive already said, look at Man Utd's Midfield playing in Defence. They didn't do too bad a job but I bet Carrick and Fletcher can't play at CB in next years game even though they have proved they can.

Completely agree with this

Ok, actually I have a better idea now. An idea that covers what I said at the beginning, and also that takes into account what some of us suggest, that it is important how much experience a certain player has in a certain position.

Here we go:

Every newgen should start 'dot'less. AI coaches (and us) should decide where the player will play better by looking at his attributes. Let's say I think this one 6'2" guy with great heading, jumping, tackling, marking, etc. will be a good CB. So I start playing him as a CB, and train him as a CB as well. After a few weeks a yellow dot will appear in the CB position. If I keep playing him in that position, that yellow dot should turn into orange, dark green and light green eventually. Let's say his speed and acceleration, dribbling etc. improve a lot, so that he may become a good candidate for DR, or maybe DM C as well. So I will start playing him in those positions as well. As a result, by the time he is 18 let's say, he will have a light green dot in CB position, a dark green in DR, and an orange dot in DM C position.

I think something like this would be perfect. Waht do y'all think?

By the time you're 16, you've had quite a training in football already.

By the time you're 16, you've had quite a training in football already.

I know, but the whole point here is to add some flexibility to the players' positions. I don't want to have to keep training a player in a position so that he can play there while his attributes are perfect for that position but he can't play there just because he doesn't have a green dot there.

In other words, I don't want the game to create newgens in positions that don't fit their attributes. Now what is not clear about this?