Do players have enough individuality on FM?

I'm going to try to explain what I mean, although it may not come across in quite the right way, but I'll try anyway.

I sometimes wonder if players have enough individuality on FM. Sometimes, it seems to me (and this is just my feeling) as if the tactical side of the game can define the performance of a player more than his individual attributes and personality characteristics. It's just a feeling that I have.

Again, it's quite difficult for me to describe what I mean, but if I give the example of creating a tactic with the various roles I want, I generally perceive similar performances or behaviours from the players regardless of their differences. I'm certainly not saying that attributes don't count for anything, or any such extreme argument, but I know that if I have a certain type of player, and that he meets certain basic requirements for his role, he will tend to perform in a similar way as any other player I put into that position. Maybe this seems an obvious statement but I think the point I'm trying to make is that the balance between individuality and position/role/duty defining a player's performance and behaviour might not be balanced enough.

It's as if performances and behaviours are, to some extent, defined by the position and the role given to the player. Of course, this is sort of true in real life football, but it just feels like there is a lack of individuality from FM players. What I am trying to say, I guess, is that sometimes FM players can feel as if they are robotic and overly defined by tactical positions, roles and duties. There seems to be little of the nature of what I often perceive in real life football, where sometimes an individual might shine and almost win a game by himself. Perhaps a player who might go beyond the boundaries of his position, role or duty to win a match. I know we can talk about creative freedom and philosophies but I get the same feeling from any number of tactical settings that I have picked.

A good example of this feeling of a lack of individuality would be two players who scored very different average ratings when given different roles. The first example is a central midfielder who was scoring circa 7.5 as a playmaker but when changed to a bog standard central midfielder his average ratings dropped dramatically. The second example is of a poacher hitting tons of goals and getting an average rating of around 7.8+ but then being switched to a support role and only reaching around 7 in the average ratings plus scoring much less goals. Now I know that this might seem a bit of a silly point as it is true that I am asking the players in question to do different things and therefore that is bound to have an effect on their overall game. Of course, I openly acknowledge that, but where has their individuality gone? Why are they so strictly defined by their roles or duties? I know they should be to some extent, naturally, but it seems too much to me. I know that I am asking them to do different things but they still have the same technical abilities to perform really well. All of a sudden, a player previously reaching world class average ratings has dropped dramatically and that doesn't seem quite right. Perhaps this isn't a good way to make my point but I'm trying to explain a feeling so anecdotal evidence probably isn't the best way anyway.

In addition to all of the above, there is also the feeling that the average ratings system is somewhat flawed. My highest scoring players are always forwards or wingers. My defensive players never seem to get high ratings. The game seems to reward goal scoring, assists and key passes far more than tackles or interceptions. In the FM world, it just doesn't seem to happen that you could have the world's best centre-back getting 7.5+ over the course of a season, or perhaps a holding midfielder or anchor man, for example. Those with the highest average ratings, in my experience, are pretty much always forwards or wingers; the people scoring the goals or creating the most assists (playmakers also tend to get high ratings due to the number of key passes and assists they tend to produce). Furthermore, average ratings are tied to the trigger for club icons & legends. What I end up with is lots of forwards as club legends but never defensive players.

This is just my feeling and I might not have explained it very well. You might totally disagree, in which case I look forward to hearing your perspective. Just to clarify that I am not rubbishing the game but just describing a feeling that I have. I have tried to explain my feeling about this as best as I can. Hopefully, I got the message across. Does anyone else understand what I mean?

Yeah, I get what you mean, speaking as a Galatasaray supporter, when we're losing our CB Servet Cetin regularly charges up the field while we're on the attack to desperately pull out a goal. Another RL example would be people like Chilavert who took set pieces and scored a lot of goals, it seems that the players stick too much to their duties.

Totally agree with the average ratings point, a clean sheet doesnt really boost the average rating for your defenders or goalkeeprs that much. Apart from your goalkeeper having an outstanding game and being a ball magnet, it seems that it's impossible for defenders to get a rating over 8 for being solid all game and shutting the opposition out.

However if your centreback scores a header from a corner, you know he is going to get a rating around 8. At the moment Phil Jagielka has an average rating of just over 8 for me, but this is mainly because he has scored 5 goals in 5 games rather than our good defensive performances.

I notice a difference between different players playing in the same role ie: Wilshere and Cahill are completely different in the AMC role for me at the moment. Wilshere pops up everywhere, constantly taking on a defender or two. Cahill's more about arriving in the box at the right time.

I guess this observation isn't what your getting at however and are probably focusing more on the same player playing in a different role. ie, Rooney will do similar things whether he is playing upfront on his own or on the left wing in real life, or John Terry will occasionally surge forward from defence with the ball. I suppose it's hard to replicate personality when the game boils down to numbers in the end.

I have found that asking a player to do something often may deprive him of using his particular set of skills, so setting him to do something sometimes (but not more than 2-3 sliders, the rest then rarely) will allow him more creative freedom than giving him plenty of creative freedom.

as Iward said, I experience huge differences in how not only individual players but the whole team plays based on the player types I put in the different positions (especially attacking players).

The ratings point (which I know wasn't the main crux of your post) is a good one. It has got better in recent years, but you can have a centre-back have a good season and average 6.9 over the course of that season if they're not a goal-scorer. In this edition full-backs seem to get good ratings consistently.

As to your main point player personalities have a lot of effect on how they interact with you and the press and other members of the squad, but doesn't really seem to translate to the match engine. Like Iward has said it's probably difficult to replicate a Gerrard in the match engine.

A player's role should be chosen to maximise his potential, so clearly assigning a player to a role he has more ability to play in will result in a better performance. Player roles are essentially there to save you the effort of setting up his individual instructions every time like you used to have to do in previous FMs. The way a player will differentiate himself in that role is largely down to his mental stats, and PPMs.

Regarding the ratings point, isn't that the way football works IRL? Strikers/attacking players or goalscorers will generally always grab the headlines. It's very rare you see a defensive player or a keeper win a player of the year award, just look at how many have won the Balon D'Or etc IRL.

Yeah, I get what you mean, speaking as a Galatasaray supporter, when we're losing our CB Servet Cetin regularly charges up the field while we're on the attack to desperately pull out a goal. Another RL example would be people like Chilavert who took set pieces and scored a lot of goals, it seems that the players stick too much to their duties.

Yes, I think this is what I am saying. It's as if the players are sometimes too robotic and lacking in individuality beyond their tactical instructions.

Totally agree with the average ratings point, a clean sheet doesnt really boost the average rating for your defenders or goalkeeprs that much. Apart from your goalkeeper having an outstanding game and being a ball magnet, it seems that it's impossible for defenders to get a rating over 8 for being solid all game and shutting the opposition out.

Indeed, and I think that's a shame. I remember playing CMs in the distant past and having defenders or defensive midfielders among my top ratings for the season. That doesn't happen now.

I notice a difference between different players playing in the same role ie: Wilshere and Cahill are completely different in the AMC role for me at the moment. Wilshere pops up everywhere, constantly taking on a defender or two. Cahill's more about arriving in the box at the right time.

I suppose PPMs can make a big difference. Perhaps this is part of my problem and I need to give my players more PPMs to give them more individuality?

I guess this observation isn't what your getting at however and are probably focusing more on the same player playing in a different role. ie, Rooney will do similar things whether he is playing upfront on his own or on the left wing in real life, or John Terry will occasionally surge forward from defence with the ball. I suppose it's hard to replicate personality when the game boils down to numbers in the end.

Yes, this kind of thing.

The ratings point (which I know wasn't the main crux of your post) is a good one. It has got better in recent years, but you can have a centre-back have a good season and average 6.9 over the course of that season if they're not a goal-scorer. In this edition full-backs seem to get good ratings consistently.

Yes, I think the ratings point is a definite issue, in my opinion.

Fullbacks seem to score highly due to making a lot of runs and crosses.

As to your main point player personalities have a lot of effect on how they interact with you and the press and other members of the squad, but doesn't really seem to translate to the match engine. Like Iward has said it's probably difficult to replicate a Gerrard in the match engine.

Yes, that's more or less what I'm talking about really.

A player's role should be chosen to maximise his potential, so clearly assigning a player to a role he has more ability to play in will result in a better performance.

Yes and no. If you have a striker with the ability to be a complete forward, try setting him first as a poacher and then as a complete forward with a support duty, and you'll find an instance where this statement isn't entirely accurate.

Regarding the ratings point, isn't that the way football works IRL? Strikers/attacking players or goalscorers will generally always grab the headlines. It's very rare you see a defensive player or a keeper win a player of the year award, just look at how many have won the Balon D'Or etc IRL.

I don't think it's the way it works in real life personally.

Let's take a simple example. At the club I follow, the last couple of years have seen a goalkeeper and a fullback win the player of the season award. This year, a favourite to win that prize is another defender who has put shifts in at fullback and centre-back over the course of the season. On FM, this just wouldn't happen, or at least it hasn't happened to me and seems very unlikely.

If you pick up a newspaper that does average ratings and look at the reports on weekend games, you'll see defenders with 8s and possibly even 9s if they've deserved it. They've purely been rewarded based on their defensive performance.

Bit of a random one this, but I remember that two of England's highest rated players in World Cup 2002 and 2006 were Nicky Butt and Owen Hargreaves respectively. These players didn't provide or score goals but they were rated highly. But in FM, you'll find it difficult to get your ball-winning midfielder or anchorman to get high ratings even if he makes tons of good inceptions, tackles and possession-based passes. Furthermore, I'm looking through my weekend paper and I can see the odd holding mid or defender who has been given an 8! Unlikely on FM unless he scored!

Yeah, the player awards might be dominated by the Messis and Ronaldos etc., but I'm talking about player ratings here. They don't seem right to me anyway.

No not enough individuality, although i would say autonomy. Everything is a bit too reliant on touchline shouts and micro management, and a player doesn't seem to step outside of that in any situation unless you personally give them the freedom to do so.

Not gonna quote the posts as I'm lazy, but you're right Crouchy. If a defender puts in a good shift in a 0-0 draw in the league they will often be rated IRL across the media etc with 8s and 9s. You play out a 0-0 draw on FM and half the time you'll be lucky to have a CB get over 7.6.

On one game I was playing I had a CB who was clearly my player of the season, but he rated below a striker who got only 10 goals because his good performances do not get rated the same way as my strikers good performances. Obviously you will get into an argument about goals being all important (unless you're Jonathan Wilson and think goals are overrated) and worth more to you and you will have a point, but I think the disparity in FM is too big between a striker playing well and a defender playing well. This is exacerbated if a CB scores a goal. I can play in 1-1 draw and have my good CB play well and get a 7.2 and my other CB who made a mistake for the goal, looked a little bit dodgy but scored get an 8. That doesn't seem right to me.

I think that sums it the average rating issue pretty well for me Wavelberry.

I think that in English football culture in general, goalscorers are rated much higher than in other cultures where artists playing in the Support Man role (Argentina) is an example of shooting not being a primary value of football.

Strikers in England therefore tend to be one of two types: the target man and the poacher (Carroll and Bent). The latter tends to be egoistical players, and a striker choosing to pass to a better placed teammate risks being frowned upon as being indetermined.. unless they are target men being given the job to connect the midfield to the attack by muscling off defenders.

Fantasy Premier League is an example of goalscorers being valued the highest in English football culture.

FM is primarily an English game.

Indeed, and I think that's a shame. I remember playing CMs in the distant past and having defenders or defensive midfielders among my top ratings for the season. That doesn't happen now.

I definitely understand and agree with your post, i'd just like to talk about this point with defenders in mind...

To me, this is exactly what happens IRL and is perfectly portrayed in FM (albeit most likely unintentional) and i will give you a recent, wide example...

Gareth Bale won Player of the Year last night...something, in my opinion shouldn't have happened. Defenders are completely ignored at times when they put in stellar performances because, in most cases, the attacking players will get the plaudits. Vidic for example, has been simply outstanding all season, yes he has had the odd loss of temper but by and large, he has been vital cog in the United team. Without him, regardless of the attacking powers of the team and with the consistently absent Ferdinand, United Season would have looked so different. Now Bale put in around a months worth of world class performances but in general has been injured for long periods of time and has been inconsistent in others...yet he still wins the award due to being an 'exciting player.' So in essence, the players 'wow factor' is what is most likely to get him highly rated.

So here is where it connects with FM. A defender will rarely go over 7.5 match rating unless he scores...which is what would probably happen IRL due to the fact being a rock at the back rarely gets the plaudits...you may get an honourable mention in the write up but you certainly won't win an award! Plus how would you define the rating system in FM? Surely it must just be the games 'opinion' on how they played?

I agree that defenders are sorely overlooked on this game...but what i've tried to say is, this is what happens IRL!

Sir Alex: you might be right about league awards, but within the club, the player might well receive recognition. For example, at the club I support, last season our left back came third in our POTY voting. The year before, it was another left back. The year before, our goalkeeper was utterly robbed and got pipped to second. The year before, a centre back won. I'm sure it is similar at many other clubs, with defensive players getting in the top three for Player of the Season.

Hmm, beg to differ chaps.

Tobe fair, FM is a computer programme, limited by the capacity of the programmes and programmers. In that respect I think the game has come on leaps and bounds over the years, including adding individuality to players. Nevertheless, of course it is going to fall far short of complete simulation. Players' performances is affected by their morale, consistency, dirtiness and other personality attributes quite well, I think.

In real life, how much do we really see professional players expressing their individuality while the ball is in play? Currently the most individual personality in the Premier league has to be Balotelli. Sometimes he plays like he doesn't care (and that is replicated in FM); last Saturday he played reasonably well to the extent that his 'individuality' wasn't particularly apparent - until the final whistle went and he displayed his immaturity.

Basically, with PPMs, personality attributes and players' morale being affected by events before the match, individuality is covered reasonably well - better than ever before but with plenty room for further progress.

On the point of player ratings, I find this to be better than ever before too. In previous incarnations and patches there always seemed to be one position that was automatically handicapped by a cut on 0.5 point (DMC, AMC) - that's gone. And time and time again I'm finding that MoM is going to players that surprise me - not the goalscorers every time. The current player topping the average ratings league in my division is my left fullback who hasn't scored a goal yet. Behind him are my DCs who have kept a lot of clean sheets this season. Last season my defensive left-winger won the fans' player of the year award.

PPMs are insufficient. What we need is a full-fledged new set of attributes that describe a player's tendencies. For example, being at Arsenal for years means you are more likely to try to pass short, while if you were at Stoke, you would be looking to hoof it up. If you like, the attributes we have now are "how good he is" (barring a few, like aggression), while we need attributes that are "how he plays". Things like tendency to shoot from distance on a 1-20 scale rather than one single PPM, the power put into his shots rather than shoots with power (or not), the tendency to cut in on a 1-20 scale, and so on. That way we can tailor how a player plays.

Of course, this should be shaped over time and doesn't need to be weighted into CA - if an Arsenal player were integrated into Stoke's way of playing, he would initially struggle as his individual tendencies are nothing like Stoke's, but eventually over time he would turn into another Stoke player, although perhaps Stoke might even compensate and become less direct. Influence could have a bigger effect here - the more influential you are, the more likely you are to steer other players' playing styles towards you, and the more likely you are to be used as a template for regens that come through the club.

Interesting point. Let me add my 2 cents to this.

As far as individuality is concerned, I'm looking at it from two angles. The one taken by Crouchy, but also the feel of the players as individuals.

The latter has always been the big strength of CM and FM over any other footie management sim. I remember back in the 90ies it was the only game where players actually had a grace of free will and their ability being mainly hidden left us to judge their actual performances on the pitch. That was way more realistic than anything else.

In comparison another game which was very popular in Germany (I think it was 'Off the Ball' in England???) simply had a few charcteristics which players might have, comparable to the PPMs but more about personality, but after all a player at a certain ability figure. Thus you always just played the best team, with an 10.2 ability being better than a 10.1 ability, bottom line. If the 10.1 guy has scored you 32 goals last season, who cared?

So this is why this aspect of individuality matters a lot to me. I still feel that players do have a personaility in FM much more than in any other management sim, but this is a bit under threat due to the player interaction being a bit sketchy. This really needs to be improved, imho with even more priority than adding 50 moves more or less to the ME. It now feels too robotic and too often the illogical behaviour destroys the feel of realism here.

The other part is of course how the players perform on the pitch. In earlier times there was a lot of room for imagination, actually you needed it, given you were only given text lines

Now with the 3D you just see the guys play.

But here, I have to say, I cannot completely share Crouchy's impression.

I assign roles to players which suit them when I start at a club. After a while I try to change the tactic to my favourite one and sign players with according abilities. Then I often see a lot of the same, but that's because I want that. It's successful.

Other than that I feel that I can see quite well if a player is not really well suited to a role I'm assigning him. He does what I tell him to do as good as he can, but if his attributes, which allow for a very detailed as diverse playing personality, do not really match, I can see him excel or fail in the respective areas, just as I see players excel or fail irl.

I do not believe that players should override our tactical instructions as they wish. I think it's one of the strenths of FM that we get to decide how they play and with the settings for creativity and roaming we even have some triggers with which we can allow our players to deviate from a rigid approach to some extent. That seems to be a good mix to me which is even made better by the allocation of well researched PPMs.

Would players just do what they want, what would that leave us with? We would often be mad at them for not following us and would feel cheated by the game for not being in control.

Thus, as far as the personality on the pitch is concerned, I'm very happy with the game.

edit: As far as the ratings issue is concerned, I agree that they can be improved, especially for players who are unlikely to score goals. But then that was always the case. I remember one version of CM in which the DCs always had the best ratings, often averaging avove 8.x. You just have to compare ratings within one position to cater for the imperfection of the game.

Also, the ability to exactly replicate the very complex behaviour of a few specific rl players is asking too much from a video game imo. On the contrary I'm very impressed how well FM manages to interpret certain roles already, and surely this will still improve incrementally along with the ME.

Today, looking back at some old saves on previous versions of CM/FM, something struck me, and that was that I felt more attached to certain players in some of my old saves than I do in my new ones. I don't know why that is exactly but I have a feeling that it has something to with what I have described above. That is, the more robotic nature of players on the most recent FMs and the way that performances and behaviours seem to be more strongly defined by the tactical settings given to a player. I also think the average ratings thing feeds into it too, in a way. Not sure if that makes sense or not but that's my feeling.

I think this is one of those things where you get out what you put into it. FM is a strategic and tactical football simulator - not a personality simulator. But you can always use a bit of imagination and apply that imagination to your players, it's easier when you're enjoying the game, harder if you're jaded and only playing because you're addicted

You might be spot on in that last comment Hugo_rune. :o

Today, looking back at some old saves on previous versions of CM/FM, something struck me, and that was that I felt more attached to certain players in some of my old saves than I do in my new ones. I don't know why that is exactly but I have a feeling that it has something to with what I have described above. That is, the more robotic nature of players on the most recent FMs and the way that performances and behaviours seem to be more strongly defined by the tactical settings given to a player. I also think the average ratings thing feeds into it too, in a way. Not sure if that makes sense or not but that's my feeling.

I get what you're saying and I won't deny that I feel the same way.

I'm just not sure that this is due to tactical instructions forcing the players into a uniform and rigid system of behaviour. Looking at older FMs, I can't remember my dots of FM05 showing a more individual approach to their game than today's 3D models. For the CMs I couldn't say that either for obvious reasons.

But maybe we're touching on something here. A few issues which may end up founding some kind of theory/analysis as follows :

- In CM times we were left with our imagination of what's happening only. And surely our imagination was far more creative than any ME which necessarily has and will always have limitations.

- In CM times there wasn't too much else to see or do. Thus there was much more focus on players and their personalities.

- In CM times the match ratings were way more important, as they seemed to be very good indicators of how good a player really is, quite unlike the attributes which seemed to have lesser importance, especially in the earlier CMs. It had its flaws with some positions being overrated but knowing that you could still take that into account and use the rating to assess a player. I remember that in those days I would check a player's AvR and compare it to his team-mates to know how good he is. Today, I look at attributes, bottom line. I don't care why his AvR might be good or bad, I just see what use he can be by judging his skills of any kind. This however, is way closer to the undesireable mere comparison of numbers than it was in the old days. Still, there may be plenty of room for variation in those many figures, catering for all kinds of visibly different players, but still the gut feeling to a player has lost importance and that's a shame and may be one of the causes for them losing personality.

What do you think?

What were veering into here is reflection not so much on the game, but on our attitude towards the game. Yes, the game has evolved over the years - but so have we. We are older, more mature (?), maybe with less time to enjoy FM and so on.

I have less time, yet I do deeply identify with my teams and all the individuals in them, in FM11 more than ever before. It's not so much due to the changes in the game as to the attitude I bring to it. In brief, I use my imagination to create a backstory to my campaign.

In my FM11 save (which will be my only one, lasting all year) I'm managing FC United. It's a lower league side but with a difference. I've taken the real situation of it having a special reason for its existence and a certain cult following, and built on it. In my story, there are fans and players & staff who are revolted by the greed in the game and are willing to join the club and me to partake in the dream. Thus, I've used the editor (which you can call cheating - I have no problem with that; for me it's my way of creating my 'story') to give the club a youth recruitment programme and top-class youth facilities. I gave the club a squad of youths aged 14-16 with CAs appropriate for their level but high (random) PAs. I've made them loyal to me and the club and put them on very long contracts. I've created player pics for them. These are my 'babes' - young and useless at the start, but are being closely nurtured by me so that as we steadily climb the ladder they will improve their attributes, but all the while staying with the club. What is more, many of the kids I found in the editor have African and Asian nationalities. I gave them dual nationality with England, Scotland or Wales and in my backstory they are refugees gaining asylum in Manchester. Thus my kids are British/Afghan, Iraqi, Somali, Ethiopean, Libyan and so on. I'm giving them hope, a life away from war and oppression. The actual running about for 90 mins on the pitch is only a small part of my save. My 14 year old Afghan DM has just suffered his second 6-month lay-off; I'm crestfallen for him - I CARE! What I'm saying is that the increased sophistication of FM need not detract from your enjoyment because you can use your imagination to fill in the gaps just as much now as before.

PPMs are insufficient. What we need is a full-fledged new set of attributes that describe a player's tendencies. For example, being at Arsenal for years means you are more likely to try to pass short, while if you were at Stoke, you would be looking to hoof it up. If you like, the attributes we have now are "how good he is" (barring a few, like aggression), while we need attributes that are "how he plays". Things like tendency to shoot from distance on a 1-20 scale rather than one single PPM, the power put into his shots rather than shoots with power (or not), the tendency to cut in on a 1-20 scale, and so on. That way we can tailor how a player plays.

Of course, this should be shaped over time and doesn't need to be weighted into CA - if an Arsenal player were integrated into Stoke's way of playing, he would initially struggle as his individual tendencies are nothing like Stoke's, but eventually over time he would turn into another Stoke player, although perhaps Stoke might even compensate and become less direct. Influence could have a bigger effect here - the more influential you are, the more likely you are to steer other players' playing styles towards you, and the more likely you are to be used as a template for regens that come through the club.

I can't be bothered writing too much, as i doubt anybody with any influence will read it and if they do then it should be succinct and clear enough anyway...

I agree with what you say in that players should have a scalar value which defines their tendency to perform the specified move, rather than a 1/0 or TRUE/FALSE value put into their profiles. However, i disagree with what you're saying about the Stoke/Arsenal way of playing per se, and maybe that the PPMs should be decided by the manager of the team, and the manager's playing preference, his philosophy or infact the philosophy of the club as a whole; would Arsenal still be playing the same football they do now, if Wenger wasn't in charge? I personally don't think so - i don't think they would INSTANTLY change their style, but under different management maybe a more direct approach would be taken. But in the same way, I think Barca would still play pretty much the same football as they do now, if Pep wasn't in charge, mainly because of their personnel and also because of the club's philosophy and how their youth teams are taught to play.

Obviously some players will have a PPM set in stone, so far that it will be there regardless of the manager's preference, but he could possibly ask him to reduce the occurrence and tendency of it happening, to suit his own style. Maybe a different approach would be to have the manager of a team define which PPMs they develop, and have him be able to affect each PPM for each player on an individual basis. Obviously this will be more difficult in case of the AI, but maybe in that case each manager would need a whole new set of attributes to decide how his team and how his players perform, and then slowly his player's PPMs will develop slowly towards whichever end of the scale he prefers. In the case of human management, it would give the manager MUCH more influence over how each of his players, and how each position of his team is played precisely.

It wouldn't make much difference to the match engine, as the PPMs exist anyway; it's just changing how the players decide when to use them. Obviously the biggest change would be a lot of effort having to completely revamp manager's stats and profiles.

Hopefully i've made that clear enough anyway, i don't know if anybody would agree with my thoughts though

I don't really know where I stand on this issue. I'm going to give two examples to show why I'm conflicted about this:

On one hand I play with two inside forwards rather than two wingers. Of course when playing with an AMR and an AML it doesn't cause trouble but sometimes I play a flat 4-4-2 and I want my wide players to cut inside but there is no ML and MR role that allows the player to cut inside and I don't want to set it up manually because then my shouts won't affect them. I've read several times on these boards that if I just put a right-footed player on the left and vice versa they will cut inside naturally no matter what roles I give them, but I just rarely see it happening in the game. Often they will just run to the byline, realize they're on the wrong side and then still attempt a cross with their weaker foot.

On the other hand, in one of my saves I have a player I'm calling "a poor man's Messi" because he's a similar type of player, just not as good. I use him as an AMC in an advanced playmaker role with an attack duty (that means attacking mentality, high creative freedom and mixed forward runs which I would've thought would mean he would stay in the hole between the opposition defence and midfield and drift wide with the occasional run behind the opposition defence). He doesn't have the Comes Deep To Get The Ball PPM but every time there is a highlight I see him coming deep to make himself available for a pass. I figure this is due to his high Anticipation, Off The Ball, Teamwork and Workrate as well as his high amount creative freedom. Every time I stick another one of my players in that position with that role they behave differently. So I do think some players express the "right" level of on-pitch personality but for some reason other players don't.

I can't be bothered writing too much, as i doubt anybody with any influence will read it and if they do then it should be succinct and clear enough anyway...

I agree with what you say in that players should have a scalar value which defines their tendency to perform the specified move, rather than a 1/0 or TRUE/FALSE value put into their profiles. However, i disagree with what you're saying about the Stoke/Arsenal way of playing per se, and maybe that the PPMs should be decided by the manager of the team, and the manager's playing preference, his philosophy or infact the philosophy of the club as a whole; would Arsenal still be playing the same football they do now, if Wenger wasn't in charge? I personally don't think so - i don't think they would INSTANTLY change their style, but under different management maybe a more direct approach would be taken. But in the same way, I think Barca would still play pretty much the same football as they do now, if Pep wasn't in charge, mainly because of their personnel and also because of the club's philosophy and how their youth teams are taught to play.

I never suggested it should be instant.

If, say, Pulis decided to take charge of Arsenal, he may attempt to impose his Stoke City style on the team. If Pulis stayed there for years, he would probably eventually succeed in turning Arsenal into Stoke. It wouldn't be instantaneous. However, his style may be unfamiliar for the Arsenal players - they may ignore his style to begin with, and continue playing how they want to play, or implement his style badly.

Take, for example, Hleb - no matter what team he is in, he will attempt to dribble the ball into the net regardless of which team he is in - he's arguably trying to do exactly the same for Birmingham as he did for Arsenal or Barcelona, despite very different styles. Hleb by definition has his own "style" of play.

Which is why I don't think PPMs should be manager-based. PPMs are how the player "likes" to play, while manager tactics are how the manager "wants" to play. If the two roughly match, brilliant. If they are polar opposites, you get a player who struggles to fit in. Imagine those comments like "XYZ is used to playing at a higher tempo than asked to", for example.

A manager would then "shape" the player over time, to the extent that the style is replicated throughout the club, like Barcelona or Arsenal. For example, Pep is a graduate of the world of Cruyff and Barcelona, and his style is therefore very similar to the Barcelona of old, with perhaps a few little tweaks here and there. So the cycle continues somewhat. Stick Pulis in, of course, and the style might change - alternatively, Pulis's style might change rather than Barcelona's, so the 2030 Barcelona team will be a blend of Pulis and Barcelona.

I've argued that influence should play a part here. Instead of using influence as "captain material", we should split influence into "influence" and "leadership", so a highly-influential player may not be captain material, while a good captain may not be influential (rare of course). Influential players have more of an effect on the styles of teams and others they come across - if the 2020 Barcelona team had terrible influence levels and Pulis came along, they would all easily be swayed towards Pulis's long-ball style. If they were all highly-influential, they would resist - perhaps even have clashes - and the end result would likely be a blend between the two styles. If Pulis joined Barcelona now, his style would be resisted by the senior Barcelona players, for example.