Adapting to new positions

I meant to write this a while back, but i took a little break from playing FM and i guess i forgot.

Let's imagine i use a formation with no central attacking midfielders, instead i set the role of one of the central midfielders to "advanced playmaker".

Now, i buy someone who i think fits the role of that central midfielder, but he only plays as a central attacking midfielder.

If i want to retrain him he will have to start his new position as "Ineffectual" (there are, obviously, exceptions) even though those two positions aren't all that different. I just think it's a bit of an exaggeration.

So what i'm saying is that some of these adaptations should not start from scratch, maybe if we're trying to make someone go from central defensive midfielder, or central attacking midfielder to central midfielder, they should maybe start as "awkward". A defender training to be a striker? They should obviously start as "Ineffectual". Central attacking midfielder training to be either a right or left central midfielder should start as "awkward" and so on..

It's a bit annoying, for example, to use a formation of 3 men as central midfielders, two of them starting as "Ineffectual".

Well, that's it .. hope i was able to get my point across.

I agree with your sentiment, the whole position capability could use some reworking. My idea was to approach it backwards, not have the player have a rating in position, but have his skillset dictate his positional aptitude. Of course, some degree of familiarity with a given position and adaptability to a new one would be necessary - some players would find it easier, some harder - but basically what I am saying is just repeating what you said. That surely a central midfielder with good defensive attributes, solid positioning etc. ought to have some advantage when it comes to the position ratings when asked to play as a defensive midfielder, and he ought to be a better candidate for retraining than an out and out striker who just happens to have a good hidden attribute.

Agree with both of you. I've also thought a 16 y.o. youth (for example) starting the game with one natural position was somewhat unrealistic. It'd be nice to train them into a position. Either way, in game, I don't mind putting a player in a position he is not "effective" at as long as his attributes say otherwise--temporarily, of course.

Also, training a player to be "natural" in a new position is nice, except you shouldn't have to keep training him in that position! Fix that, SI.

But have you tried playing a player in an "ineffectual" position for which he has the right skillset - it works out pretty realistically, I think?

Before, he'd suddenly lose the ability to control a football, or to pass five yards, but I think it's been toned down. Now, they'll very possibly be positionally shaky (most noticeable if you move someone to CB or DM) or find it harder to get into space in attack, but they'll generally perform fine.

I think people tend to panic at the sight of "ineffectual," but whenever I'm training a player to a new position from scratch, I often still get perfectly adequate performances out of them long before they're a natural.

Xavi and Dani Alves are two players whose performances have been notably worse when asked to do the same thing but farther up the pitch". Also Paul Scholes when SAF tried to move him to an AMC behind Van Nistelrooy. There are definite positional and decision-making effects on performance, and some people do genuinely only know how to play from one part of the pitch. There should perhaps be a few more "awkward" and "unconvincing" positions all round, but it's best to keep things simple for the researchers.

As for the youth - they very rarely come through with only one position, as far as I've seen. Although sometimes they stupidly leapfrog a slot (DR/MRs who can't play WBR etc.).