Mini experiment : Does it really matter where you play your players?

I have been a bit frustrated because I have bought some good players recently in my game which is in 2015. Good passers of the ball in an effort to make my team stronger and it is now a strong, passing, attacking outfit, on paper!!! I still have the old problems against the Arsenals (brilliant whatever year you are in), Man City's and Man Uniteds and these games despite having stats as good as the big Clubs still concede far too much possession against them.

As for the superstars, well the Balotelli's, Poli's and Di Maria's are not much better than the Carlton Cole's, Tomkin's and Nobles of my West Ham side or that's how it looks and I wondered, does it really matter how good players are? So I thought I would do a mini experiment within my 4-4-2 formation and play an away game against 13th placed Wolves at their ground twice. Players out of position for the first game, reload and play a stronger 11 with players in natural positions in the second game.

I used a proper goalkeeper for both :

First Game .... Rating .... Second Game .... Rating

GK Larsen 6.7 .... GK Larsen 7.2

RB Altidore 7.0 .... RB Onuoha 7.2

CB Collison 7.2 . ... CB Tomkins 7.2

CB Cole 7.3 .... MOM CB Dawson 6.9

LB Balotelli 7.0 .... LB Spence 7.2

RM Spence 6.9 .... RM Valencia 7.0

CM Di Maria 6.9 .... CM Noble 7.5 MOM

CM Valencia 7.0 .... CM Poli 6.9

LM Dawson 7.0 .... LM Di Maria 6.9

CF Tomkins 6.8 .... CF Cole 7.0

CF Onuoha 6.9 .... CF Balotelli 6.4

0-0 Draw .... 1-0 Win

Shots WOL 15 WHU 6 .... Shots WOL 11 WHU 15

On Tar WOL 1 WHU 1 .... On Tar WOL 4 WHU 7

Poss WOL 48% WHU 52% .... Poss WOL 44% WHU 56%

Ok yes I won the second game with my proper side out but the possession increased after Wolves had a player sent off in the 80th minute. But ?

Wolves only getting one shot on goal against a make shift defence but 4 on targe against the usual back 4?

Only a small shift in possession between the two games?

How can Balotelli get a higher rating at right back than he does as Striker?

How can Michael Dawson a great lumbering Centre Half get a better rating at left wing rather than his natural position and not only that do better there rating wise than Angel Di Maria?

Carlon Cole getting the Man of The Match award with a rating of 7.3 at centre back? A higer rating than all of my proper defenders in Match 2?!!!

Nedum Onoha rating better up front than Balotelli?

All defenders in Match 1 with ratings over 7 despite a striker at Right Back, Left Back and Centre Back and a midfielder at Centre Back?

Watching both games of course the second match was smoother and had more cohesion but that of course is to be suspected and I no doubt will be told that it is only one game which doesn't mean anything but it should do. Surely even only one game should show a massive difference between both games otherwise what really is the point in players positions and players ability?

I would be interested to hear if anyone else has tried something like this for longer and what the results were?

They'll lose a little from being played out of position but if they have the key skills for that position then they'll still put in a decent performance.

Taking Dawson for instance on the left wing, I doubt he beat the fullback but I'll bet he made plenty of passes to MCs/STs and he would be better than the average winger when defending leading to a solid rating. 7 for me is had a solid game getting involved but doing nothing outstanding or wrong.

i play hazard LMF and have a friendly where rooney gets puts there so i might reload a few times to see if need be hazard is good there, as he cuts inside anyway or just fires a fantastic cross. so i presume rooney is similar.

They'll lose a little from being played out of position but if they have the key skills for that position then they'll still put in a decent performance.

Taking Dawson for instance on the left wing, I doubt he beat the fullback but I'll bet he made plenty of passes to MCs/STs and he would be better than the average winger when defending leading to a solid rating. 7 for me is had a solid game getting involved but doing nothing outstanding or wrong.

Surely playing so many players out of position should be a problem, though? I mean, Rafael da Silva is noticeably poorer at left-back, despite the fact he is quite two-footed and attacks a lot. Rooney is noticeably subdued on the left flank. Koscielny and Djourou are not great at right-back, although they have the physical attributes to play there. And so on.

Balotelli and Altidore are physically very good but if anyone played these two at full-back, they would be torn to shreds in a competitive match, because they quite simply don't know how to play there.

They'll lose a little from being played out of position but if they have the key skills for that position then they'll still put in a decent performance.

Taking Dawson for instance on the left wing, I doubt he beat the fullback but I'll bet he made plenty of passes to MCs/STs and he would be better than the average winger when defending leading to a solid rating. 7 for me is had a solid game getting involved but doing nothing outstanding or wrong.

Di Maria and Valencia aren't beating the full backs and putting crossing in let alone Dawson!!!!

I see what you are saying but surely Dawson shouldn't be getting a better rating as a winger than he does as a centre back?! In the matches above there were 6 players of a rating of 7 and above for the out of position players and 7 with a rating of 7 and above in the regular players game. That's not right surely. Wolves having 1 shot on goal against a defence that comprises of 3 strikers and a midfielder is surely not right either. As X42 says they should be torn to shreds.

It is pretty simple to explain.

In the first match, you were outplayed yet clung on for a draw. Consequently, the likelihood of your defenders, and midfielders with good defensive attributes, getting high ratings goes up, whereas your strikers, who barely saw the ball, are going to have pretty average games.

In contrast, in the second game, you were the better side. I would imagine Balotelli blew a sitter or two, which would explain his poor ratings, and Noble either scored or made a great assist. Ratings will be slightly up overall because you played well and won, but potentially slightly lower at the back as they didn't have to play so well to get the result.

Ratings need to be taken in context with the match. If you got battered yet got a result, the backline will get good marks. If you missed chance after chance, your strikers will get bad scores. Ratings are not the be all and end all of a match, the actual game is. Players will not automatically get bad ratings because they are out of position. As long as the match result was good and they played their part, then they will get good marks.

Very interesting thread.... But it is just one game. I am not trying to suggest you should do more games as that would not be viable/practical. But If the same was repeated for the entire season then maybe a few conclusions could be made etc. Obviously all players have a hidden attribute rating for each position. But it would be interesting to see to what extent the difference in match performance would be. Of course a natural position player will perform better to that of an awkward one (same player).... but how much?

The only thing this experiment shows is that when a football player is played out of position he doesn't forget how to play football. I'd say it's quite realistic for those players to get those ratings and as wwfan pointed out you have to look at it in the context of the game. Those ratings also don't take into account with which proficiency and skill the player played his role. They only take into account how well he passed, tackled, etc. I'd say ratings hardly represent how well a player actually played let alone represent how good he is in the position he played. The only thing playing a player out of position does is lower a few mental attributes a bit (decisions and anticipation I think). A good football player will still play decently well when played out of position and I think this is completely realistic. I think Balotelli would actually be a decent fullback in a pinch, his great physicals and technical ability should allow him to do a decent job and his terrible defensive attributes won't be the end of the world really. So in the end I'd say that the only useful info from the experiment is that football players don't forget how to play football if played somewhere else on the pitch.

The only thing this experiment shows is that when a football player is played out of position he doesn't forget how to play football. I'd say it's quite realistic for those players to get those ratings and as wwfan pointed out you have to look at it in the context of the game. Those ratings also don't take into account with which proficiency and skill the player played his role. They only take into account how well he passed, tackled, etc. I'd say ratings hardly represent how well a player actually played let alone represent how good he is in the position he played. The only thing playing a player out of position does is lower a few mental attributes a bit (decisions and anticipation I think). A good football player will still play decently well when played out of position and I think this is completely realistic. I think Balotelli would actually be a decent fullback in a pinch, his great physicals and technical ability should allow him to do a decent job and his terrible defensive attributes won't be the end of the world really. So in the end I'd say that the only useful info from the experiment is that football players don't forget how to play football if played somewhere else on the pitch.

Except positioning on the pitch is often dependent on preffered position. Decision-making regarding the two movement attributes, Positioning and Off the Ball, should be awful if a player plays out of position even though his other attributes are suitable for the role. In real life a striker-only will often cut inside too early if he is not proficient in a flank role, and the same goes for centre-backs playing as full backs. A striker playing in the midfield would struggle finding his position and leave open space behind him.

That's the whole idea behind being "Natural" in a position, after all.

Interesting replies. Only one I wouldn't totally agree with is that the team wasn't totally outplayed in the first game as possession and shots on goal shows. My teams quite often lose on the shots stat because I have all my players on rare long shots (have done for years) because they just shoot from all over the place which is pretty much what the AI does hence why the AI usually has far more shots but not neccessarily on target. Indeed more shots for Wolves on target and a better goalkeeping stat in the second game suggest Wolves had more luck and space against the proper defence than they did against the makeshift one.

Was just a mini experiment as you say just one game. Maybe if anything it shows that the AI manager on this occasion wasn't much good because you would IRL target certain players like a centre back at left midfield and get a pacy winger to run at him for instance.

In fact in my real game I have Nicholas Gaitan who is an attacking winger who I had hoped to train as a wide midfielder in a 4-4-2. He isn't improving in training yet plays more consistently as a wide midfielder (which he is listed as awkward) in a 4-4-2 than he does pushed further forward into his natural position. That is for a run of games not one.

I was always a striker IRL but I remember one game that I had to play right back. Whilst being able to pass the ball confortably because technically I was a decent footballer I couldn't tackle because strikers generally can't! and despite a solid first half in the second half I had a whippet of a winger to contend with and I struggled big time and was always out of position with the rest of the back 4 because I wasn't used to playing an offside trap. I also got drawn into the middle too much because you aren't used to playing on the wings so eventually I was torn to pieces. That I think should have happened at some stage in this game but it didn't.

Very interesting thread.... But it is just one game. I am not trying to suggest you should do more games as that would not be viable/practical. But If the same was repeated for the entire season then maybe a few conclusions could be made etc. Obviously all players have a hidden attribute rating for each position. But it would be interesting to see to what extent the difference in match performance would be. Of course a natural position player will perform better to that of an awkward one (same player).... but how much?

Exactly. You cannot draw conclusions from just one match because of random elements in the game making it unpredictable, you really need to do this on a bigger scale. A whole season probably wouldn't work, since players will start getting upset about not being played in the right position along with other outside factors which could affect their game. You may even get sacked!

I would suggest re-loading and playing the same match at least 20 times with the natural team and then 20 times with the awkward team. Play them in the same positions every time, then work out an average match rating for each player.

Interseting idea there

However, for coming to any conclusions from comparing just two single matches your test just does not provide a sufficient sample size. Try this 100 times and we'd have intersting data to interpret. This way, I'm afraid, we cannot back any conclusion with sufficient empirical background.

If a player is "red" for a certain position but you play him there from time to time what are the effects?

Does it affect his performance even if he has the required attributes for that role?

Does it affect his development in the long run?

I'd like a bit more information on this if anyone can help me out. Thanks.

I wouldnt suggest re-loading the game over and over, i would just play through a season of playing people out of position, playing the same game over and over only proves so much, a full season against as many teams as possible is a better indicator.

One game isn't enough, no, but the fact that the AI didn't tear the team to shreds is a problem, really. It should be blatantly obvious to the AI that facing two strikers at full-back (and Balotelli is hardly known for his work ethic in his natural position) is a weakness that can be exploited. In addition to the fact that you have two "central midfielders", one of which has serious problems pulling his weight - surely this should be a game that is a foregone conclusion?

It's almost as bad as this, although guaranteed, this one is pre-patch: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/283877-FM2012-difficulty.?p=7280740&viewfull=1#post7280740

In reality, with that team, you would see no defensive strategy or coherence whatsoever, leading to nearly zero marking, offside traps being broken time and time again, and the opposition team being turned into Barcelona for a day.

I don't think the AI is advanced enough to spot players out of position tbh.

I think you'll have to wait several more versions for something like that to be taken into account.

I don't think the AI is advanced enough to spot players out of position tbh.

I think you'll have to wait several more versions for something like that to be taken into account.

Have to contradict here. If the AI couldn't handle this, then there was no point of having positions in the game at all for a start.

Actually, already CM93 could take this into account. Fairly basic task of comparing position ability with set position and applying a knock-down if positions don't match.

edit: Guess, I got you wrong here. Apologies if you were, as I suspect, relating to the post before yours.

You need to know, X42bn6, that the AI try to frustrate your strong players and never aim your weakness.

About Sussex experiment, it's logical cause all players are top one !!!! Try the same thing with lower league team and you will have a different result. Don't forget, that when your team get the ball, ALL of your players attack and when opponent have the ball, ALL your team defend. So it's not surprise to see a striker with good attributes everywhere to be able to be a Full Back. You need to consider also that if you play out of position a player too often, you will see his moral decrease and be unhappy etc etc....

I don't think the AI is advanced enough to spot players out of position tbh.

I think you'll have to wait several more versions for something like that to be taken into account.

I just tried another in the next game. Away against 3rd placed Liverpool. I used my Attacking Classic Global 4-4-2 for both games. No substitutions made and made the same team talks. Liverpool played a 4-4-2 as well which helps the experiment.

First game players out of positions, Second game usual slots. Things to note are that in the first game I put striker Steven Fletcher in Central Midfield despite being injured with a fitness of 67% and up top I put my reserve keeper Santos.

First Game.....................................................Second Game

GK.....LARSEN.....8.0.......................................LARSEN.....6.8

RB.....NOBLE.......6.7.......................................ONUOHA....6.1

CB.....COLE........7.3.......................................DAWSON....6.7

CB.....COLLISON..6.9......................................TOMKINS....5.5

LB.....BALOTELLI.6.7.......................................SPENCE.....6.7

RM....ONUOHA....6.9.......................................GAITAN.....6.6

CM....TOMKINS...7.0.......................................COLLISON..6.8

CM....FLETCHER..6.7.......................................NOBLE......6.8

LM....DAWSON....6.6.......................................JOHNSON..7.0

CF....SPENCE.....6.6........................................COLE........6.7

CF....SANTOS....6.7........................................BALOTELLI.6.8

SCORE......LIV..3...WHU..0................................SCORE.....LIV..2...WHU..0

SHOTS.....LIV..26..WHU..6................................SHOTS....LIV..16..WHU..6

ON TARG..LIV...9...WHU..1................................ON TARG..LIV..8...WHU..2

CCC.........LIV..1....WHU..1...............................CCC.........LIV..3...WHU..0

POSS.......LIV.57%.WHU.43%............................POSS.......LIV.59%.WHU..41%

So....

Liverpool create only 1 CC chance against the rabble but 3 against my best 11.

They have more possession against my first 11.

Shots on target again only one in it. Remember I don't use long shots.

Two players in the rabble with a rating of 7 including James Tomkins who got a 7 at central midfield but 5.5 at centre back. Only one player with a rating of 7 in first 11.

6.7 rating for a goalkeeper up front not bad, neither is a 6.7 rating for an injured Steven Fletcher who plays 90 minutes in central midfield.

Deductions I make out of this :

If the AI is not intelligent enough to work out that you are not playing players in their proper positions then...

1. Is there any point in buying top players?

2. Is there much point in the game in fact?

3. The only thing that prevents you from doing this regularly is a players happpiness.

4. Are there any real plus points to players abilities and strengths?

5. I will now play Carlton Cole as a centre back because he is clearly better there than he is up front!!!!!

A lot of people here make interesting comments about the randomness of the game throwing up various possibilities in game and with regard to explanations about this experiment. If that is totally true do we actually have a game here that is so random that as a Manager you in fact have whatever you do little control on what happens in the outcome of matches and seasons?

This in my opinion throws up a lot of potential questions, especially the great answer some use on here when something is not right with the game, "It's your tactics"!!!!!! Well in fact if you argue that footballers in FM are intelligent enough to play in different positions like they seem to be in this experiment then surely a player must be intelligent enough to play in most tactics? Why is it then that you buy a top class player but he never performs for you?! Too much randomness in the game maybe?!

If this experiment merely shows that players can adapt because they are footballers then why don't we see Redknapp playing Defoe at Centre Back and Scott Parker up front every week? Ot Torres at left back, or Tom Howard up front!!!

Ok this is only two games but surely the gap should be far far bigger between the random team and the first 11 than it is.

We know all that with top team, you can play and manage like a dummy and having great success anyway. Lots of posts on this forum are here to prove it. They win but they didn't understand the game.

Great thread.

Marsupian is mini-correct with "The only thing this experiment shows is that when a football player is played out of position he doesn't forget how to play football."

But the truth is most players out of position ARE useless in real life, even the top ones. Because they all have a natural ability to play where they are, something they were born with and have trained over many years to perfect. Asked to go from a strong presence and goal-getter up front to keeping Matt Jarvis quiet down the left-flank would be like asking Balotelli to use a firework properly. He'd say "Duuhhhhhhhh...." and f**k it up.

I find the results of this test really disappointing I had hopped the ME was stronger then this. Even if there was no disadvantage to playing a player out of position some of them have very poor attributes relative to there positions which should have a bigger effect on their performance and the performance of the team as a whole.

I once previously did try to test this more long-term, by holidaying but advising my assistent to keep tactics and line-ups as he I set them up. Though I did got some quirky results (Bremen at home posing no threat and not scoring against a back four containing Schweinsteiger and Olic), the assistent didn't adhere to the settings all the time.

Here are a couple quirky numbers I have of a game I managed myself - the reason the formation screen is missing one player a team each is that Schalke got a red card in injury time of the second half, and the corresponding foul caused my left-back to be injured, all subs already used. I was a bit, er, surprised how this team was able to challenge away like that, and some of the stats are a bit.. surprising. In Breno's case, who skinned his opponents five times according to the stats fielded as a forward, the moves aren't any genuinely skilfull dribbling moves, if you actually look at the match action unfold. Bottom line: Numbers aren't everything, but I found this a bit surprising as well. Won't jump to any conclusions just because of a single match, naturally.

Formations: http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/2764/6svczmnk_jpg.htm

Statistics: http://s7.directupload.net/file/d/2764/s9zv8iau_jpg.htm (tackling success of the makeshift back four marked)

Breno moves: http://s7.directupload.net/file/d/2764/qmo9ouda_jpg.htm

I just tried another in the next game. Away against 3rd placed Liverpool. I used my Attacking Classic Global 4-4-2 for both games. No substitutions made and made the same team talks. Liverpool played a 4-4-2 as well which helps the experiment.

First game players out of positions, Second game usual slots. Things to note are that in the first game I put striker Steven Fletcher in Central Midfield despite being injured with a fitness of 67% and up top I put my reserve keeper Santos.

First Game.....................................................Second Game

GK.....LARSEN.....8.0.......................................LARSEN.....6.8

RB.....NOBLE.......6.7.......................................ONUOHA....6.1

CB.....COLE........7.3.......................................DAWSON....6.7

CB.....COLLISON..6.9......................................TOMKINS....5.5

LB.....BALOTELLI.6.7.......................................SPENCE.....6.7

RM....ONUOHA....6.9.......................................GAITAN.....6.6

CM....TOMKINS...7.0.......................................COLLISON..6.8

CM....FLETCHER..6.7.......................................NOBLE......6.8

LM....DAWSON....6.6.......................................JOHNSON..7.0

CF....SPENCE.....6.6........................................COLE........6.7

CF....SANTOS....6.7........................................BALOTELLI.6.8

SCORE......LIV..3...WHU..0................................SCORE.....LIV..2...WHU..0

SHOTS.....LIV..26..WHU..6................................SHOTS....LIV..16..WHU..6

ON TARG..LIV...9...WHU..1................................ON TARG..LIV..8...WHU..2

CCC.........LIV..1....WHU..1...............................CCC.........LIV..3...WHU..0

POSS.......LIV.57%.WHU.43%............................POSS.......LIV.59%.WHU..41%

So....

Liverpool create only 1 CC chance against the rabble but 3 against my best 11.

They have more possession against my first 11.

Shots on target again only one in it. Remember I don't use long shots.

Two players in the rabble with a rating of 7 including James Tomkins who got a 7 at central midfield but 5.5 at centre back. Only one player with a rating of 7 in first 11.

6.7 rating for a goalkeeper up front not bad, neither is a 6.7 rating for an injured Steven Fletcher who plays 90 minutes in central midfield.

Deductions I make out of this :

If the AI is not intelligent enough to work out that you are not playing players in their proper positions then...

1. Is there any point in buying top players?

2. Is there much point in the game in fact?

3. The only thing that prevents you from doing this regularly is a players happpiness.

4. Are there any real plus points to players abilities and strengths?

5. I will now play Carlton Cole as a centre back because he is clearly better there than he is up front!!!!!

A lot of people here make interesting comments about the randomness of the game throwing up various possibilities in game and with regard to explanations about this experiment. If that is totally true do we actually have a game here that is so random that as a Manager you in fact have whatever you do little control on what happens in the outcome of matches and seasons?

This in my opinion throws up a lot of potential questions, especially the great answer some use on here when something is not right with the game, "It's your tactics"!!!!!! Well in fact if you argue that footballers in FM are intelligent enough to play in different positions like they seem to be in this experiment then surely a player must be intelligent enough to play in most tactics? Why is it then that you buy a top class player but he never performs for you?! Too much randomness in the game maybe?!

If this experiment merely shows that players can adapt because they are footballers then why don't we see Redknapp playing Defoe at Centre Back and Scott Parker up front every week? Ot Torres at left back, or Tom Howard up front!!!

Ok this is only two games but surely the gap should be far far bigger between the random team and the first 11 than it is.

Again the problem is it's just the one match. You could play this game twice with exactly the same selection and tactics and get 2 completely different results, but do it 20 times and you will see more of a pattern. I personally would not draw any conclusions from such a small sample.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if I played the same game 500 times and got the same results time and time again it still wouldn't be enough for some!!!!! ;-)

You are still guilty of over focusing on the numbers, not the context.

In Game 1, WHU were outplayed, even if they only conceded 1 CCC. They lost 3-0 without anybody playing horribly badly and the keeper having a really good game, i.e. they were beaten across the team and required good performances from Cole and Larsen to keep the scoreline respectable. If the keeper had only played averagely, I suspect Liverpool would have won by at least five. In the 2nd game they competed, but were let down by at least two bad mistakes at the back, which is reflected in the Onuohua and Tomkins ratings. If it weren't for those mistakes, they might have sneaked a draw, or, had they frustrated Liverpool for a long time, a late winner.

The game is all about morale.

A better experiment for me would be a very happy, clearly weaker and out of poisition team against a very unhappy, quality team playing in the right positions.

Morale Manager 2012.

required good performances from Cole

LOL Carlton Cole is a Striker. He shouldn't be capable of a good performance at centre back away against liverpool, he just doesn't have the attributes for it. Unless he's been given this generous rating for the number of key headers he must have won ? Despite his poor positioning.

LOL Carlton Cole is a Striker. He shouldn't be capable of a good performance at centre back away against liverpool, he just doesn't have the attributes for it. Unless he's been given this generous rating for the number of key headers he must have won ? Despite his poor positioning.

I don't see why he shouldn't be capable. If he didn't make any major mistakes and won a high percentage of his headers (which is likely given his attributes), then he'd get a solid rating. His poor defensive attributes and lack of experience in the position will make it more likely he would make serious mistakes, but don't mean that he has to. Over time, you'd se him getting a number of very poor ratings because of mistakes, but in one off matches, he'll have a good chance of playing reasonably well.

People seem to think that everything should be either 100% black or 100% white and that it would be 'like, totally impossible, man' for a player to ever do well in a non-natural position. That isn't the case. He is less likely to do well, and won't do as well over time. What is clear in Sussex Hammer's examples is that the context of the match is significantly changed by playing players out of position. Individual stats are far less important than the overall context of the game. Over time, the context differences will result in WHU getting a number of very heavy losses, because Cole will have bad games out of position and the team, being outplayed anyway because of the position issues, will get punished for it.

You're right it does need to be tested more before we start calling bug, but the fact that ten players played out of position twice and no one had a real stinker does make me suspicious.

You're right it does need to be tested more before we start calling bug, but the fact that ten players played out of position twice and no one had a real stinker does make me suspicious.

Players only have stinkers if they miss sitters, make errors leading to goals or the team gets totally crushed. That doesn't have to happen if a player is out of position. Indeed, strikers are less likely to get poor scores as the team is generally incapable of creating any CCCs for them to miss.

I could agree that this means the player scores aren't quite as useful as they might be, which is a perfectly valid critique. However, the overall match context is blatantly different in both the test cases, which suggests there is no major issue and players are getting penalised for being put of position.

Let's look at the match context of both matches, from which you can determine what might happen over the course of a season. In the out of position matches, WHU created 12 chances, scoring 0, and gave up 41 chances, conceding 3. In the properly positioned matches, they created 21 chances, scoring 1, and gave up 27 chances, conceding 2.

Looking at this tactically, I would be relatively happy with my defence in both scenarios, as I am conceding less than the expected average (1 goal per 9 shots). However, I would be very concerned that my attack was misfiring. Looking back at the matches, I can clarify slightly I have actually been very lucky in the out of position matches not to concede more as I have relied on my keeper having a stormer in one game. Had he played averagely, I would have conceded another goal at the minimum. I would be very worried that my defence will leak at about 1 in 9, whereas my attack will need more than 1 in 12 to score. I'd be especially worried that my team looked to be playing OK on an individual level, yet were getting hammered in match stats, which suggests my midfield is being totally outclassed. Giving up an average over 20 shots per match is asking for trouble. I'd start training up some anti-football tactics to give myself a fighting chance of survival.

In the in-position matches, I would be pretty happy with my defence, as they have conceded less than I'd expect given the shot count without anyone having played particularly well. In fact, I only conceded the two goals through bad individual errors. I would determine that I would probably be relatively solid at the back through the rest of the season. My lack of scoring would also be worrying, although that would be mediated by my seeing that Balotelli probably missed a couple of good chances in one of the games. I'd expect him to play better than that on average, so would surmise that my chance conversion ratio would be better across the season. I'd expect the midfield to be competitive at home or against weaker teams, but would look into perhaps training up a 4-5-1 for tough away games to add some extra steel in the centre of the park. As a top half side, I'd not be happy with giving up so many shots over two matches and would be looking at ways to reduce the likelihood of it happening, and stop my defence making sloppy errors (which is quite likely to happen when playing an open, attacking tactic away from home).

Fair point wwfan. Bit annoyed I didn't even look at the player stats really because I suspect that would have given a better view of things as it would have shown up shots, dribbles, tackles etc. However I do agree that ratings maybe fairly useless in someways to see who is performing well. I mean Player A may have a very tidy game with neat passes always finding the target but he only gets a 6 whislt Player B may keep losing possession, miss 5 sitters but if he scores two tap in's he may get an 8!

Sounds good, but what irks me is that with prettty much all players played out of position, just setting a "standard" strategy and never changing any, it appears you can start about as well into a season as van Gaal did when he started out at Bayern. Whilst Ribery didn't turn into a decent header when played as center back, it is still worrysome how the side was easily able to hold decent amounts of possesssion in almost every game, how Breno is shaping up to be a decent goal getter and van Buyten piling up scorer points, and how the side were often utterly dominating even home games that were drawn 1-1 with more than 60% possession (Rubin and Augsburg, by bad luck) - except for the Milan friendly and the game against Cologne - a side which appears to vastly overperform in almost every save of FM 2012, and that is not just me. Since I have saved the game, I am going to test this further before making up theories about rubber band algorithms that'd weight in team reputation to balance results even in the full detail match sim or how a team's or player's CA would carry more weight than the attributes or anything, naturally.

Results

Starting eleven and stats.

Procedure: Set up a save game with only the Bundesliga fully loaded, small database, set up a "standard" strategy in the TC which never gets changed. After that I holiday to the next match so the assistant would not change the starting eleven, let the assistant handle opp instructions and talks, get through the match and wash, rinse, repeat.

Interesting thread...

Also I can half-refute the notion of "it would have made more difference at a lower level", because actually the lower you go on the FM football ladder, the less meaningful positions are. A mediocre player who has 5s-to-8s all across the attribute board is less likely to suffer from being played out of position because he's so poor it does barely makes a difference if he's playing as CB or as AMR.

Then, about the OP experiment, it's indeed worrying but IMO it tells us a lot more on how unreliable the rating system is than on how meaningless the positions are.

A screenshot of the full players stats screens would have helped a lot more in defining what went wrong with the two matches.

Still I maintain a player completely out of position should perform terribly, or at least underperform to the point of being "invisible", almost all the time.

Alas FM match engine has some noticeable weaknesses (first of all the Pace effect) so those tend to limit the impact of players' positions.

Unfortunalely in FM it's totally possible to perform just fine with players in unconventional roles as long as morale and general ability (and reputation even?!) are matching the minimum requirements for the team's ambitions and quality.

no RBKalle, in lower league, often players have medium or good attributes where they need to have depending on the position they play...a striker will have 10 or 12 in Finishing but 4 in tackling....

In top class team, players have good and very good attributes every where, so they can play in each position and perform well. That's why FM is easy with top club, cause staff, coach and players can rub out user errors.

@ Sussex Hammer, yes you can play 500 times, same result, a few days ago, we know that the match is pre-calculated. So if you make no tactical change during match, same result.

no RBKalle, in lower league, often players have medium or good attributes where they need to have depending on the position they play...a striker will have 10 or 12 in Finishing but 4 in tackling....

A good striker yes... average players aren't equally "specialized". In my several stints in lower leagues I've had plenty of players so average they could play pretty much everywhere.

In top class team, players have good and very good attributes every where, so they can play in each position and perform well. That's why FM is easy with top club, cause staff, coach and players can rub out user errors.

And that's the worst part...

Joe Bloggs from Crapton FC could probably be competent enough even as emergency fullback, while I don't think the same could be said about a guy who's been playing as central midfielder at EPL level for years.

That's the reason for Top Clubs having several alternatives for every position... Otherwise while wasting transfer and wage budget on a set of backup fullbacks if they could just play the left wing as left back and a centreback as right back?

Top level football is a lot more specialized than lower league or amateur football... There was a reason if Zlatan wasn't a huge hit at Barça: he just wasn't the right striker for their gameplan. And we ca agree he is a world class striker. He wasn't even played out of position, he was just "out of role"

Therefore the notion of being able to win with Balotelli and Dzeko as fullbacks is completely laughable, regardless of the inherent quality of the players.

Players only have stinkers if they miss sitters, make errors leading to goals or the team gets totally crushed. That doesn't have to happen if a player is out of position. Indeed, strikers are less likely to get poor scores as the team is generally incapable of creating any CCCs for them to miss.

I could agree that this means the player scores aren't quite as useful as they might be, which is a perfectly valid critique. However, the overall match context is blatantly different in both the test cases, which suggests there is no major issue and players are getting penalised for being put of position.

Mancini isn't going to stick Balotelli at full-back in reality because he won't track back, won't defend, will likely foul himself into a red card and will make tons of mistakes - he's not a full-back, full-stop. Yet it suggests that Balotelli can be quite a competent full-back in-game.

I don't know what Balotelli's defensive attributes are (marking, positioning, tackling, etc.), but they probably aren't Premier League standard. Combine it with his non-existent positional knowledge at full-back and you should have a headless chicken at full-back, unable to do much at all.

Right, did another one. Purely an out of position team away against Birmingham. Drew the game 1-1.

What really interested me is that Jack Collison was MOM at centre back and won 6 out of 7 headers. His heading rating is 7.

My back four were Collison (rating 7.7), Cole (6.8), Balotelli again (6.6) and Altidore (6.6)

-----------------marking-------positioning-------tackling------heading------

Collison------------13-------------15--------------13-----------7

Cole---------------9---------------8---------------7-----------13

Balotelli------------4---------------4---------------4-----------11

Altidore------------4---------------6---------------4-----------13

Here are stats of the game :

WHU Formation v Bir

http://s250.photobucket.com/albums/gg265/SussexHammer/?action=view&current=WHUVBIRFORMATION.jpg

WHU Player Stats v Bir

http://s250.photobucket.com/albums/gg265/SussexHammer/?action=view&current=WHUSTATSVBIR.jpg

Match Stats v Bir

http://s250.photobucket.com/albums/gg265/SussexHammer/?action=view&current=BIRvWHUMatchStats.jpg

Now I don't know about you as three games isn't a lot but come on something is a little amiss here, a back four with a combined Positioning of 33 out of 80 and marking combined of 30 out of 80 only concedes one goal!! Mmmmm!!

What really interested me is that Jack Collison was MOM at centre back and won 6 out of 7 headers. His heading rating is 7.

Not looked at the links but a quick note:

Heading in FM is how accurately a player can direct the ball once he has "won" the header. Attributes such as height, jumping, positioning, strength, decisions etc decide if he wins the header.

Well looking at the stats, you have been dominated, except colins who has had a very good game winning most headers and key tackles, not surprising with his stats really, your keeper has obviously had a good game and kept you in it. You've conceded 21 chances to Birmingham, if that was me i would have been raging and screaming at the screen, but luckily a combo of their strikers prob not playing well (cant see their match ratings) and your keeper making 3 good saves out of the 5 shots on target has kept you in it. Is this early in the season? How well are Birmingham playing at that time?

Balliotelli has been poor, and only had to make 2 tackles, 1 of which he missed, hasnt connected any crosses, made 3 fouls with only 2 tackles(?) and generally done nothing, he is going to win headers because he will be up against short wingers, he is quite tall so will usually out jump them but outwith that he has done nothing. and will have been helped by the fact you have 4 centre halves playing in front of him doing most of the defending work in your team, as you can see your midfield has barely lost a tackle or header so although its 4 centre halfs they would have been a solid line infront of your weak defence.

You've created very few chances as you would expect and i dont know how you scored but you obviously got a good chance easy enough to put away i doubt it was any kind of mazy run or fantastic goal. You've basically got out of jail through Birminghams weaknesses.

Right, did another one. Purely an out of position team away against Birmingham. Drew the game 1-1.

What really interested me is that Jack Collison was MOM at centre back and won 6 out of 7 headers. His heading rating is 7.

My back four were Collison (rating 7.7), Cole (6.8), Balotelli again (6.6) and Altidore (6.6)

-----------------marking-------positioning-------tackling------heading------

Collison------------13-------------15--------------13-----------7

Cole---------------9---------------8---------------7-----------13

Balotelli------------4---------------4---------------4-----------11

Altidore------------4---------------6---------------4-----------13

Here are stats of the game :

WHU Formation v Bir

http://s250.photobucket.com/albums/gg265/SussexHammer/?action=view&current=WHUVBIRFORMATION.jpg

WHU Player Stats v Bir

http://s250.photobucket.com/albums/gg265/SussexHammer/?action=view&current=WHUSTATSVBIR.jpg

Match Stats v Bir

http://s250.photobucket.com/albums/gg265/SussexHammer/?action=view&current=BIRvWHUMatchStats.jpg

Now I don't know about you as three games isn't a lot but come on something is a little amiss here, a back four with a combined Positioning of 33 out of 80 and marking combined of 30 out of 80 only concedes one goal!! Mmmmm!!

Perhaps the opposition just had an off day?

I played a game just now and Luis Suarez got a match rating of 5.7. He is a striker and I played him up front. Should I now conclude that he is a rubbish striker, based on one match?

Birmingham 21 shots..... 1 goal.

Wolves 15 shots......1 goal.

Liverpool.....26 shots....3 goals.

And all we can make out of this experiment is that it's all down to the opposition's weakness and the fact that my two pretty poor reserve goalkeeper played blinders?!?!?! Mmmmmm!!

RE Collison on winning 6 out of 7 headers.

His attributes are :

Height.....6 foot

Jumping.....13

Positioning.....15

strength.....14

decisions.....13

anticipation...12

Why are we still talking about individual games in isolation if this can be put to a more proper long-term test so easily?! Continued from where I left off with Bayern (see above), here was the premise:

Procedure: Set up a save game with only the Bundesliga fully loaded, small database, set up a "standard" strategy in the TC which never gets changed. After that I holiday to the next match so the assistant would not change the starting eleven, let the assistant handle opp instructions and talks, get through the match and wash, rinse, repeat.

It turned out Breno didn't become the next van Nistelrooy, nor did van Buyten or any of his company turn into Mesut Özil. I was sacked after going down 1-4 in Leverkusen by the start of november, apparently moving too close to the league's drop zone for the board to not consider axing me.

Results - I didn't save before getting the sack after Leverkusen, but the match in Genk was won by two goals.

Squad - and Ribery still can't win a lot of headers.

It is impossible to tell what impact it had on the squad turning "concerned" about being fielded out of position throughout pretty much the entire squad, and how the drop in morale affected everything. The season started reasonably ok, all things considered, see the shots I posted in the post above. But for now this seems clear enough. What irked me wasn't how the save played out in its entirety, however indeed individual performances aren't quite as easy to explain. Mostly it were away matches in which the side really struggled, suggesting that when they were pushed they were having trouble to cope you'd expect it to have.

But at home they often dominated their possession as well as the opposition - never mind that it was Petersen, a bonafide poacher, acting as makeshift holding midfielder, and players like van Buyten were asked to hold possession and create opportunities in the final third of the pitch. Some of those results don't show this, but the first match I'm going to post a shot of was like this for long spells of the game, just it wasn't reflected by the result.

http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/2765/hzr8htfz_jpg.htm

http://s7.directupload.net/file/d/2765/86ncluh2_jpg.htm (really?!)

http://s7.directupload.net/file/d/2765/jvc83xx9_jpg.htm

http://s7.directupload.net/file/d/2765/jvc83xx9_jpg.htm (the odd away match against good opposition that DID go well)

Birmingham 21 shots..... 1 goal.

Wolves 15 shots......1 goal.

Liverpool.....26 shots....3 goals.

And all we can make out of this experiment is that it's all down to the opposition's weakness and the fact that my two pretty poor reserve goalkeeper played blinders?!?!?! Mmmmmm!!

RE Collison on winning 6 out of 7 headers.

His attributes are :

Height.....6 foot

Jumping.....13

Positioning.....15

strength.....14

decisions.....13

anticipation...12

You have done three games, its hardly a large sample. Why not test it over an entire season. Results would be far more interesting, and useful

Why are we still talking about individual games in isolation if this can be put to a more proper long-term test so easily?! Continued from where I left off with Bayern (see above), here was the premise:

It turned out Breno didn't become the next van Nistelrooy, nor did van Buyten or any of his company turn into Mesut Özil. I was sacked after going down 1-4 in Leverkusen by the start of november, apparently moving too close to the league's drop zone for the board to not consider axing me.

Results - I didn't save before getting the sack after Leverkusen, but the match in Genk was won by two goals.

Squad - and Ribery still can't win a lot of headers.

It is impossible to tell what impact it had on the squad turning "concerned" about being fielded out of position throughout pretty much the entire squad, and how the drop in morale affected everything. The season started reasonably ok, all things considered, see the shots I posted in the post above. But for now this seems clear enough. What irked me wasn't how the save played out in its entirety, however indeed individual performances aren't quite as easy to explain. Mostly it were away matches in which the side really struggled, suggesting that when they were pushed they were having trouble to cope you'd expect it to have.

But at home they often dominated their possession as well as the opposition - never mind that it was Petersen, a bonafide poacher, acting as makeshift holding midfielder, and players like van Buyten were asked to hold possession and create opportunities in the final third of the pitch. Some of those results don't show this, but the first match I'm going to post a shot of was like this for long spells of the game, just it wasn't reflected by the result.

http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/2765/hzr8htfz_jpg.htm

http://s7.directupload.net/file/d/2765/86ncluh2_jpg.htm (really?!)

http://s7.directupload.net/file/d/2765/jvc83xx9_jpg.htm

http://s7.directupload.net/file/d/2765/jvc83xx9_jpg.htm (the odd away match against good opposition that DID go well)

Interesting results Svenc, in the home games, were the teams reluctant to attack you? I'm assuming so because you are Bayern, but obviously i havent seen the pkm. just wondering if the lack of pressure meant the team were not forced into mistakes. The away form on the whole is a more like you would expect though, though couple of crazy results there!

Let's out this to rest now. In the three Sussex Hammer games, the shot ratio has been 62 - 21 against and he's only picked up 2 points. He's being heavily outplayed on a consistent basis and has been lucky to pick up anything. At some stage, he's going to get a hiding, as a team is going to put away its chances against him. Morale is going to drop and he's going to go into a death spiral.

We also need to take into consideration the use of an 'optimised' tactic, which will tilt the balance in the user's favour (which will be true of all of us). I'd like to see what happens if he plays a bog standard TC tactic doing this.

When using a bog standard TC tactic, Sven's test saw him getting sacked for underperformance at Bayern. By November. Which means huge underperformance.

The only critique that can be made is that individual player ratings don't reflect performance accurately enough. I think that, while this has legs, it still misses the point. In the two away games in which he picked up points, Sussex Hammer's team has relied on one stand out defensive performance to keep them in it. The goalkeeper has been good to brilliant. Hardly anybody else has contributed. Take away those great individual performances, and WHU are in real trouble.

The question needing to be answered is: is it possible for an out of position player, on occasion, to play really well? If you don't think it is, then there is an issue. If you think that's an acceptable premise, then there isn't.

We also need to take into consideration the use of an 'optimised' tactic, which will tilt the balance in the user's favour (which will be true of all of us). I'd like to see what happens if he plays a bog standard TC tactic doing this.

Well if a bog standard classic global 4-4-2 with all players on the same instructions bar centre backs and goalkeeper who are merely on rare is "optimised" then well what can I say?!?!

My last word on subject as it's clear that any slight questioning of the game in any way is a hanging offence!! I did in fact as suggestion from wwfan go with a bog standard TC 4-4-2 away at West Brom as a last experiment with players out of position again bar a goalkeeper. Lost 2-1 and one goal was a penalty. They had 17 shots with 9 on target and I had 8 shots with 2 on target but I edged possession by 58% to 42%. A possession stat that I would probably have been happy with if I had my best team out!!! All players rated in the 6's bar Green in goal with a 7 and Jordan Spence at wide right who scored his first goal for the Club with a 7.4.

I am far from saying there is a major issue. Just find it a little odd that players can on "occasion" out perform themselves in a different position. In fact Cole has got better ratings in those 3 of those 4 games than he does for me up top!!!!! And no I wouldn't expect it to remain that way long term.

In fact probably the thing that it does show up more than anything else to me is that both AI and human strikers a lot of the time can't finish for toffee!!!!

I would never suggest that criticism of the game is not acceptable. However, the logic has to be sound. You've now played 4 games with out of position players, giving up 79 shots, having 29, with a 0-2-2 record. That is terrible, especially for a team that, on paper, should survive with some ease, if not be a top half team.

The main reason some of your defensive players are getting poor ratings is because the team is under so much pressure, that they have to have played well for you to be in the game. Likewise, your forwards rarely get horrible stats, because they team isn't creating enough chances for them to have major impacts on the game. if they blow good chances, they will get poor marks. If they score, they will get good ones. If they do neither, they will get average ones. I agree that this reflects badly on how marks for performance are awarded. However, I would argue your entire test has conclusively proved that a team with all its players playing out of position sucks.

In response to your criticisms, as for the 'optimised' tactic, I'd argue that pretty much anyone with solid FM experience will be able to design a tactic that is better than the ones the AI produces. None of us deliberately play flawed tactics and do our best to make good ones. If you haven't done that, please accept my apologies.

Secondly, the possession stat is worthless if you gave up 2-1 shot ratio against and lost. Possession can very often relate to how the match played out. If the opposition is pushing forward at pace, it is likely you will have the better possession with a lower pace, more controlled tactic. Likewise, you can get better possession if the opposition gets a good lead then tries to kill the game. Meaningless without context.