Right/left position for wingers and full backs unnecessary.

The more I see how currently managers deploy their wingers/full backs on the left or right depending on need, without a big concern for their footedness or the position they are most used to (see for instance how mourinho had no doubt in using di maria in the right, where I believe he never played before in benfica or argentina), I think that FM should change and simplify their positions. I think that wingers and full backs should simply be labeled so, without specifying if the player is a right or left winger, right or left back. You can say back, "wait, Valencia (of man u) is a pretty good right winger, but he would suck at left-wing". That may be the case but that happens because of his "attributes" not his positional knowledge. Attributes would, obviously, still determine if a player is more effective on the left or the right, but I don't think that there should be another a position telling me that, for instance, I cannot slot di maria right away in the right, as he clearly has the desired attributes to do so!

I see where you're coming from, but if he was only right-sided, he wouldn't be used to cutting inside, so might be bad on the other wing.

Most managers train the wingers to play on both sides, inc. Ferguson etc, in real life.

@Carnivorous: I don't know if I was clear enough on the first post, but my point is that if a player has perfect attributes to play right wing (and he has the left-wing position but not the right-wing position in the game), he most likely would be able to immediately transition to that position in real life, but not in the game! (he would only be able to play to his full potential there after about a year of training)

(he would only be able to play to his full potential there after about a year of training)

i disagree, i often play valencia on the left, or have him swap position with nani if im playing him on the left. at first i had only just started training him to the left side. and he was playing to an acceptable level there.

i find that if i want to play someone on the opposite side, and there not very good (if able to at all) i still get good resultts from playing them there from the moment i start them learning it. it might take a while for there profile to say there accomplished at it, but they play well enough to begin with. well mostly. lol

@Carnivorous: I don't know if I was clear enough on the first post, but my point is that if a player has perfect attributes to play right wing (and he has the left-wing position but not the right-wing position in the game), he most likely would be able to immediately transition to that position in real life, but not in the game! (he would only be able to play to his full potential there after about a year of training)

a lot of players are comfortable playing on the opposite side, but there are players who are completely out of their depth on the wrong side of the pitch.

watch steven gerrard play on the left and you'll be able to count the amount of left footed passes on one hand, and you will also notice him cutting back onto his right foot 9 times out of 10, usually wasting the opportunity as the ball needed to be played first time.

that is the basis of my argument as to why they should not be automatically adept at playing on the other side.

some players spend a lot of time on the opposite wing when they will very rarely use their weaker foot. that is a major weakness and to say that they are equally adequate on that side is plain wrong.

Lance, you only see the very best managers with the best players in the world. I'm managing in the non-league with players of limited technique and intelligence. That's the level most players in the game are at.

Rafael (Manchester United) has two strong feet but looks completely lost at left-back whenever he does play there (barring one Cup game that escapes my mind).

Aaron Lennon is mostly useless on the left flank.

Nani is substantially better on the right flank - and he's very two-footed too.

So no, the premise is entirely wrong. Players are often more adept on one flank than another.

There is an argument that players should be able to adapt quicker, of course. For example, if a player has positions D/WB R and nothing else, he will learn D L and WB L quicker than someone who knows nothing about D R or WB R - because although it's a different side, it's got largely the same requirements. Another example - a player who knows D L and M L should be able to pick up WB L fairly quickly as it's a "blend" between these two positions. Likewise the forward positions should largely be fluidly learnt - knowing something at AM L usually means AM R is easy to learn, and possibly AM C and ST too, as they have a lot of similarities.

This does mean, though, that we would have to do away with the current clumsy system where you can only learn one new position at a time - it needs to be much more flexible, and players should not forget positions so quickly.

well, it has something to do with their habits of dribbling and also their preferred foot.

just look at people such as Ribery and Robben, they would mostly travel down their own lane. (MOSTLY)

I agree with x42bn6. I think players who are accustomed to playing on one side should not instantly be able to transition to the other side and feel entirely comfortable, but the game certainly needs to reflect that bilateral positions are not all that different. I would suggest that, and this is especially true for regens, their position on the other flank should be automatically and randomly given any level from 'Awkward' to 'Competent'. I think this would reflect the broad range of players' adeptness at being able to play on the other side, right from youth level without any special training.

I'd also suggest that the same could be said for wingers and wide midfielders, and of wing backs and full backs. For example, to have a regen who is only able to play in his natural 'AML' position, but is totally unfamiliar and lost in 'ML' or 'FL' is absurd.

Rafael (Manchester United) has two strong feet but looks completely lost at left-back whenever he does play there (barring one Cup game that escapes my mind).

Aaron Lennon is mostly useless on the left flank.

Nani is substantially better on the right flank - and he's very two-footed too.

So no, the premise is entirely wrong. Players are often more adept on one flank than another.

There is an argument that players should be able to adapt quicker, of course. For example, if a player has positions D/WB R and nothing else, he will learn D L and WB L quicker than someone who knows nothing about D R or WB R - because although it's a different side, it's got largely the same requirements. Another example - a player who knows D L and M L should be able to pick up WB L fairly quickly as it's a "blend" between these two positions. Likewise the forward positions should largely be fluidly learnt - knowing something at AM L usually means AM R is easy to learn, and possibly AM C and ST too, as they have a lot of similarities.

This does mean, though, that we would have to do away with the current clumsy system where you can only learn one new position at a time - it needs to be much more flexible, and players should not forget positions so quickly.

Very well put on all accounts.

Completely agree.

x42 makes a good point.

However, in relation to the OP, you've suggested that all wide men should be able to play both sides, and then just given wingers as examples. After playing RB, LB, RM and LM myself, I can tell you that it is FAR easier to play on the opposite side in attack than in defence. Yes, you may drift, but if you start to drift in attack, the worst that can happen is the break down of an attack, whereas the worst at FB is that you concede.

Playing on the opposite side in attack also has a lot more positives than playing in d. You can cut inside to deliver a different type of cross or a shot, and this is favoured by RL managers - look at Barca for instance - but how often do you see that happen in D? As a FB, one of the most important things is your positioning, and you can't simply switch sides and get it right. Even if you play there regularly, then you still get it wrong occasionally - look at Phil Neville against Romania in Euro 2000 - completely out of position, had to give away a penalty. Paolo Ferreira has regularly played there for Chelsea, and look at how many times he gets caught out, especially by pacey wingers.

I agree on your sentiments in relation to the attacking third, but I don't think it works in D. I, personally, would like to see attacking players able to play in every position in their third. If you watch Utd. or Arsenal play, their strikers and offensive midfielders pop up all over the place (Samir Nasri is a great example - left wing, right wing, deep in midfield and even right up top sometimes. Rooney can often be found on the left or even in a DLP role sometimes).

Another thing to consider is that even if an attacking winger is playing on the "wrong" side, whenever he does something unusual for his position, it doesn't look implausible (i.e. Robben cutting in all the time, Arsenal's "wingers" barring Walcott, etc.) - but if a full-back does something unusual for his position, it means he's messed up and made a mistake. So I don't know if you can chalk it off as "slightly easier to learn wide attacking positions".

In fact, in Messi's case, the reason he is so successful as a youngster was because he did the "wrong" thing on the flanks! And even when he learnt how to play at AM R, his new real position 2 seasons ago, this "incorrect" way of playing became his "correct" way of playing in the sense that he's most dangerous there (or was, before moving into a more central role).

Another way to think about it is that it's easy for an adult to write a letter, but how easy would it be to write a letter without looking at the pen and paper itself, but only through a mirror? It's hard! The same goes for wing-play - just because it's a mirror image doesn't mean it's easy to adapt.

I play fullback in real life and being strong with both feet playing on the right is a lot easier defensively. You mighten realise but you have to change the way you open up to receive the ball. Change the way you pass the ball ect ect. It is a lot harder defensively as a right footed player defending on the left is showing the attacker onto his weaker foot.

Personally, I possibly find it slightly easier to play left back, even though I'm right footed and mostly played right back.

Lance- on the face of it, you may make a good point, but you fail to see what the role of the "position" attributes are. Unless you are versatile (and even then), you'll find it difficult to adjust to playing in a different position because it requires a different way of thinking. These attributes show how comfortable a player is there, rather than how good he is, which attributes determine.

One example I can think of is Reading's Jobi McAnuff. He can play on either flank, and he has the attributes to go up the right and cross or cut in from the left with the ball, but he looks slightly out of place on the left, and performs much better as a right winger.

If you were correct, then the natural next step would be to remove positional attributes all together. After all, if Rooney has the attributes to play right back, why shouldn't he? I'm sure Rooney would play well at right back if SAF played him there, because he has the tenacity, the work rate, and he'd be useful going forward. However, he'd be all out of sorts positionally, and he might not understand what is required of a right back. I think the same would happen in the game currently.

The problem with keeping it the way it is is that the game values these positional ratings way too high! Some of you might say that players are fine playing out of position in the game, but the AI certainly doesn't seem to think so. I have tested this and I'm pretty sure that the game would rather put someone of reserve team level in a natural position, rather than put say rooney on the left wing if he didn't have the position (rooney obviously has some proficiency as a AM L in the game, so this comparison doesn't apply to him, but think instead of some regen with rooney quality and no am l proficiency). You can also look at your own "team reports", even when you have some player that by his attributes you would think would play very well in a given position, if he doesn't have it, you assistant manager would suggest you to play with a much weaker player that has that natural position.

I had to play a left winger on the right due to injuries, when I placed him there on the tactics page he light up red and yet he's had a couple of excellent games, I've just left him on the right wing for a while now and despite still showing up red he plays very well there.

I had to play a left winger on the right due to injuries, when I placed him there on the tactics page he light up red and yet he's had a couple of excellent games, I've just left him on the right wing for a while now and despite still showing up red he plays very well there.

a player may not have the positional ability to play a foreign role, but if they have a high versatility attribute this can help improve the player in that role

Agree with both arguments here to an extent. A workaround would be to suggest that all all natural wide players (defenders/midfielders/forwards), should have at least 50% proficiency (I would be tempted to say 60%) of the natural proficiency (i.e. a DR with position rating 20, should have at least 10 for DL) with increases decided on researchers discretion.

Just because the norm nowadays is to use inverted wingers, doesn't mean those wingers play exactly good in that position. Example would be Valencia at Man Utd who is just awful on the left side. Ferguson would rather bring on Park before swapping Valencia over to the left wing.

Also, Di Maria isn't exaclty playing amazing on the right side. He's actually average but give him time and he will get better on the right wing role.

Agree with both arguments here to an extent. A workaround would be to suggest that all all natural wide players (defenders/midfielders/forwards), should have at least 50% proficiency (I would be tempted to say 60%) of the natural proficiency (i.e. a DR with position rating 20, should have at least 10 for DL) with increases decided on researchers discretion.

There should be no reason for this. You can train them in that position pretty easily as it is. The more he plays in that position as well, the faster he improves. You don't actually think a right winger gets out of bed and can magically play on the left side and cut inside easily. Takes time to change your mindset from running to the flank and cutting in.

Lastly, Consider it a a good thing that learning the opposite flank doesn't take up more CA.

I'm with Novox. Totally disagree with the idea of fullbacks, wide players and wingers being automatically able to play both sides.

The attributes to be a good RB are the same as to be a good LB, and the attributes to be a good AMR are the same as to be a good AML (depending on what type of winger/full back you're going for of course). Therefore, the only thing separating someone's ability to play on either flank is their positional sense, and how they will adapt to playing on another flank. I agree that training someone to play on the opposite flank should be easier than training a central player to play on the flank, but otherwise I think FM has it about right.

The attributes to be a good RB are the same as to be a good LB, and the attributes to be a good AMR are the same as to be a good AML (depending on what type of winger/full back you're going for of course). Therefore, the only thing separating someone's ability to play on either flank is their positional sense, and how they will adapt to playing on another flank. I agree that training someone to play on the opposite flank should be easier than training a central player to play on the flank, but otherwise I think FM has it about right.

Sort of disagree here - training positions is really wrong in this game. For example, it's difficult to learn more than one position at a time, and you can forget retrained positions (although not your "starting" positions). In addition, even if I know nothing about playing at right-wing, for example, if I get thrown out there in an emergency I will learn something about playing at right-wing (i.e. your positional knowledge for that position should increase). While they might not become "accomplished" simply by playing alone (they will have to learn the "theory" behind playing there, i.e. via training), I would argue that they should still be able to become "awkward" without learning.

I think it's fair to say that there are limitations to players' versatility in FM in a way that don't exist in real life but this isn't the ideal solution.

The only answer I can see is for a system to be created where the length of time that it takes for a player to learn a new position is based on the key attributes for that position. Therefore if a player had the required attributes to play in a position for which he is not accustomed, it would take him much less time to become accomplished there compared to if he was re-trained in a position that he doesn't have great attributes. The game would have to know a player's suitability for a position based on their attributes.

Sort of disagree here - training positions is really wrong in this game. For example, it's difficult to learn more than one position at a time, and you can forget retrained positions (although not your "starting" positions). In addition, even if I know nothing about playing at right-wing, for example, if I get thrown out there in an emergency I will learn something about playing at right-wing (i.e. your positional knowledge for that position should increase). While they might not become "accomplished" simply by playing alone (they will have to learn the "theory" behind playing there, i.e. via training), I would argue that they should still be able to become "awkward" without learning.

Difficult to argue with that post really.

For fullbacks it's definitely necessary. Most fullbacks are very much one sided, of course there are a few notable exceptions (Lahm, O'Shea, Zanetti, etc.).

For wingers I think it's necessary too. However, many wingers that often play either side in real life are not represented as such on the game. Di Maria is a great example. Plays on the right for Madrid, and indeed did so last season for Benfica, but cannot in the game.