PDA

View Full Version : Players with no 4-4-2 positions?



r0x0r
24-01-2009, 01:47
so, the basic 4-4-2.

Should every young player have at least one natural or acomplished position that fits one of these positions?

I have one player at the moment who's a natural AML, and nothing else. Luckily he's young so I can retrain him to ML, but seriously, I can't think of a single example of a player who can only play as a sweeper, DM or AM and not also as in at least one position in the main 3 defence/midfield/attack lines.


An ML/AML or AML/St would be fine. A DC/DMC or a DMC/MC would be fine. just an AML just seems odd though.

Stephanie McMahon\'s Secret Lover
24-01-2009, 02:14
ALL players should have a 442 position.

Why?

Just check out the number of AMC or DMC only players who get listed mainly due to their teams not using a DMC or AMC.

Almondo
24-01-2009, 02:16
The thing is that Attacking Midfielders especially at wide positions can play those positions as ML/MR so can slot into 4-4-2 easily

Jirki88
24-01-2009, 02:23
A player that's "natural" as AM L/R should atleast be Accomplished as M L/R, since the only difference between those two are a larger defensive responsibility as M L/R. And I can hardly think of any AM L/R that would actually be so stupid that he couldn't play decently as M L/R...

Whoopy D
24-01-2009, 02:25
A player that's "natural" as AM L/R should atleast be Accomplished as M L/R, since the only difference between those two are a larger defensive responsibility as M L/R. And I can hardly think of any AM L/R that would actually be so stupid that he couldn't play decently as M L/R...

I was thinking exactly this earlier, I have a youngster who can play ST/AMR/AML so a good utility player to have on the bench. The only problem is he doesn't have any rating at all for RM/LM so not such a great utility player after all, ridiculous really.

TheRealMagpies
24-01-2009, 03:51
There are also quite a few just WBL or WBR knocking around, aswell as a few SW positions too.

football is more than just 442, even if most of the world seems to use it.

r0x0r
24-01-2009, 11:09
I was thinking exactly this earlier, I have a youngster who can play ST/AMR/AML so a good utility player to have on the bench. The only problem is he doesn't have any rating at all for RM/LM so not such a great utility player after all, ridiculous really.

That is the only one that makes sense to me. He's a wide striker, someone who is really a forward, but can do fine out wide too. any defensive responsibility at all though and he's lost.

What i'm annoyed with is just AML. He's not a winger or a wide striker... He can only play in AML, which really is silly. :-p

RobinGoodey
24-01-2009, 11:32
Ronaldinho would be a good real world example of someone who is Natural at AML, but would make an awful ML - when was the last time you saw him ever track back and make a tackle :D

PS - I've no idea what he is actually set as in the game.

SCIAG
24-01-2009, 11:36
Ronaldinho would be a good real world example of someone who is Natural at AML, but would make an awful ML - when was the last time you saw him ever track back and make a tackle :D

PS - I've no idea what he is actually set as in the game.
Natural AMC iirc.

I do't use ML/R, I never have. I find that players are more effective in the AMR/L positions.

Micado
24-01-2009, 11:41
I do't use ML/R, I never have. I find that players are more effective in the AMR/L positions.
Same here.

And here in Holland, many teams play a 4-3-3 with a kind of wingers, so no classic 4-4-2, thus no ML/MR. You will see that may Dutch wingers will have AMl/R as natural but nothing else.

crafty bison
24-01-2009, 12:20
Still, getting a newgen who can only play WB L at all is silly. They should at least have some kind of competence in other positions. This goes for other positions too - they aren't versatile enough.