Natural v Accomplished and the positions system

Am I the only person who is really not happy playing anyone out of "natural" positions?

I've never really experiemented with it so I can't say whether it really impacts on performances or anything it just leaves me uneasy for some reason.

I do wonder, for instance, why say Daniele De Rossi is a natural DM but an accomplished CM, yet I could play him as a deep lying playmaker in either of those 2 places yet he'll be more comfortable in the DM slot.

and this sort of leads me on, am I the only person who thinks "Preferred Role" makes more sense than the positions system?

i just train players so that they become natural in that position. i trained phil jones for a little while and now hes a natural there

I know thats an option and I do do it but I guess the main crux of my post is with regards to the role/position thing at the end

I'm usually playing Diego Forlan as Inside forward on AML and he's performing around 7.5 average rating in that position. ( Position is competent and I do not train him .)

Players are more likely to be consistent in their preferred position, though it depends on versatility.

I never used to mind playing players out of position, but then SI put dots next to player's names, and now I get irritated if I can't play a player in his natural position.

Players are more likely to be consistent in their preferred position, though it depends on versatility.

I never used to mind playing players out of position, but then SI put dots next to player's names, and now I get irritated if I can't play a player in his natural position.

haha yes i am exactly the same! ever since the dot introduction i get so nervous about playing people out of their natural positions!

Players are more likely to be consistent in their preferred position, though it depends on versatility.

I never used to mind playing players out of position, but then SI put dots next to player's names, and now I get irritated if I can't play a player in his natural position.

This

I get by okay in higher leagues, but now playing a lower league game and am forced to play a DR at DL due to an injury crisis. His DL ability is competent but I have no other options and it's really irritating me to see the dull green dot.

For me, one thing that SI should "fixed" is the ability of a AMR to play in the left side of the pitch and the opposite, the ability of a AML to play in the right side of the field.

Because, i see a lot of players in FM that there natural position is, for example, AMR and they have a red dot when playing as a AML, when IRL any AMR can also play as an AML... at least acomplish

For me, one thing that SI should "fixed" is the ability of a AMR to play in the left side of the pitch and the opposite, the ability of a AML to play in the right side of the field.

Because, i see a lot of players in FM that there natural position is, for example, AMR and they have a red dot when playing as a AML, when IRL any AMR can also play as an AML... at least acomplish

Maybe not accomplished, but they could be competent.

But it's easy enough to retrain players if you want them playing both sides.

Maybe not accomplished, but they could be competent.

But it's easy enough to retrain players if you want them playing both sides.

I know, but IMO shouldn' need to do that, because IRL you almost dont have AMR or AML, when in fact you have AMR/L

Players are more likely to be consistent in their preferred position, though it depends on versatility.

I never used to mind playing players out of position, but then SI put dots next to player's names, and now I get irritated if I can't play a player in his natural position.

Same!

For me, one thing that SI should "fixed" is the ability of a AMR to play in the left side of the pitch and the opposite, the ability of a AML to play in the right side of the field.

Because, i see a lot of players in FM that there natural position is, for example, AMR and they have a red dot when playing as a AML, when IRL any AMR can also play as an AML... at least acomplish

That is so not true.

I don't know what real life experience you have but playing on the opposite side of the pitch from what your used to is really not easy to start with.

It is important to bear in mind that a player may play better in a position where he is only "accomplished" because of his attributes being more suited to that position. (I had a player who was a "natural" stirker who played much better at LWB!)

I think I recall Cleon once saying that the only impact playing a player out of position has is a decrease in his Decisions attribute. I haven't got a link for that so take it with a pinch of salt; I may have invented it!

It's worth bearing in mind that there can be great variation in the Accomplished rating. In my Red Star squad I have two 3.5* natural right wingers, Lazovic and Vesovic, who are both Accomplished in the attacking midfielder position. My assistant manager rates Vesovic at 3* in the AM position, whereas Lazovic is only rated at 2*. You should always check your ass-man's assessment of a player in unnatural positions to see just how much of an impact it might have. In my experience many natural DMs will be able to perform almost exactly as well at CM.

Right wingers should not be able to switch wing just like that, it's harder to get used to than you think and I think most people who have played football would agree.

However if someone can play MR they should be able to play AMR too, the gap isn't that big.

Btw players who are Accomplished in a position are almost equal to being Natural. And if they reach "Competent" they will, to my knowledge, always be able to train it up to Accomplished.

I think I recall Cleon once saying that the only impact playing a player out of position has is a decrease in his Decisions attribute.

Pretty sure this is a myth.

We've had someone on here before claiming that they had a super player and it turned out that he had cheated and increased the positional rating of his player using FMRTE. What he create was a player who had a shot so fast that you could barely see the ball leave his feet before it hit the back of the net! That would seem to suggest that the positional rating increases or decreases more than just the decision attribute. I'd suggest maybe it decreases mental and technical attributes, although I'm not sure (but logically it shouldn't impact on the physicals).

Another thing is that when you ask your coaches about a player's different positional ratings, they will show his overall rating decreasing depending upon his positional competency. So that would suggest an overall impact on the attributes (or perhaps the CA) of the player when his positional competency is low.

Position system should be revised, it is really bad right now...

Position system should be revised, it is really bad right now...

Rather than just making a comment that means nothing why don't you expand on your thoughts?

Why is it bad?

How should it be revised?

How can it be improved?

I know, but IMO shouldn' need to do that, because IRL you almost dont have AMR or AML, when in fact you have AMR/L

I disagree. Some can adapt very easily, but for others you can see they aren't natural on the opposite side and it takes some work in training to get them up to scratch.

my concern with the system is towards formations.

It often says AM position cant play natural to 4-4-2 formation but in reality its not the formation its how you formulate his role in that system. You may told him to advance and attack but from deeper role than natural AM. The game though reds him because he not got M in his positions which is quite wrong way to go about it.

I find this worse with wingers and now ignore any AM L or AMR and make sure its M/AM L or M/AM R. Now surely any attacking midfielder whether central or wide would be competant in a standard M formation. Unless we completely missing what its refering to and the DEFENSIVE capability of the formation and his competance in that position. However it also happens to with DM players to if no simple M is not present in players position so they dont like being in 4-4-2 playing holding DM role without that M.

Its like two systems the tactical structure but game not understanding this is marely your Formation basis structure and as long there role is competant to his stats and DM or AM it should not an issue. However the game gives them poor shows because in its eyes there out of position but they are not in there roles you set. I would expect incompetance making AM play a DM role but there should not be issue with a DM in M position playing a DM roles set instructions.

I think its fudge to try make players acustomed to formations but with now the new match preperation setup learning your tactic we have which I think its fabulous adition there needs a better way of know basic formation that player acustomed in his career and it monitored and statistically recorded. I would say also with all roles too.

Similar maybe to management and coaching no point getting a player who works in 3-5-2 model if you want a natural 4-4-2 man. He then got learn the formation and your tactical gameplan. Thats whats missing a better grasp how to develop this plus a much better way spotting players who dont work with basic formation systems.

The issue with positions is the fact that a player's position will always tend towards his "starting" set of positions plus the position you train. So if a player is D L 20, D R 5, and you train him at M L, he will always tend towards being D L 20, D R 5, M L 20. Despite the fact you never may ever play him at D L ever again for the rest of his career. It implies you can only train one new position and it never "sticks" - on the other hand, the player's D R rating will never dip below 5. If you train it to 20 and stop training and playing there, it will drop to 5 and stay there. If you train M L to 20 and stop training and playing there, it will drop to 0.

In other words, the starting positions are taken as gospel when they are clearly not.

I wrote about this in a previous post, which also includes an apocalyptic "SCIAG for mod" quote: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/187285-Positional-training-wrong-(long-post)

x42bn6 thanks for that yes it is an issue I can imagine my idea of storing data of historic position info would be nightmare. To be fair SI got a balance when do they make it statistical overdrive.

We could make save games so big it becomes a counter productive to the game.

I am sure we could get a system much easier work much better but is it on the radar for SI to remodel. I have found the motto if not broke dont change it. Si changed things for the worse ie people did not like it subsequantly dropped for older tweaked system.

I suppose if we tweaked it so there is better collision we might get harmony system which.

I suppose one alternative is actual do away with formations (shock horror some might think)

However if players are used to set positions we then select 11 then we naturally find our formation would appear. This in my opinion would at least eliminate confusion. Those with several roles we could drag him to where or right click select his role.

It might not be perfect but an idea to mull