Generic / Specialized Roles

Is there a complete list of generic and specialized player roles ? Tried a search and have already read some threads but I didn't manage to find one.

Thank you

wwfan has said this - can't remember which thread, maybe a page or two into his Twelve Step Guide.

"I consider the following to be specialist:

Target Man

Poacher

Trequartista

Advanced Playmaker

Box to Box Midfielder

Deep Lying Playmaker

Ball Winning Midfielder

Anchor Man

Libero

These four roles can fit in either camp, depending on your interpretation.

Complete Forward

Defensive Forward

Defensive Winger

Ball Playing Defender

Generic roles:

Advanced Forward

Deep Lying Forward

Attacking Midfielder

Central Midfielder

Defensive Midfielder

Inside Forward

Winger

Wide Midfielder

Wing Back

Full Back

Central Defender

Sweeper

I don't include keepers."

I think he then went all ambiguous on the Box-to-Box Midfielder. Personally, I think it is a grey area, but I would actually lean toward it being generic.

I've been wondering this as it is brought up when discussing what style to play. After looking at the roles can it not be presumed that the roles that offer only one type of setting with them I.e poacher only offers itself on attack, are specialist roles ?

I've been wondering this as it is brought up when discussing what style to play. After looking at the roles can it not be presumed that the roles that offer only one type of setting with them I.e poacher only offers itself on attack, are specialist roles ?

Specialist roles are doing something specific that is not specifically their position - i.e. poacher is not a position, more of a specific action or focus for a striker

What confuses me slightly is the in between camp.

Say you have 2 roles from the specialist list one from the in between and the rest are generic.

Do you go fluid or balanced?

Depends on what kind of style of play you want still. More Fluid styles tend to suit more creativity, and more rigid less creativity. So its not 100% down to roles which Philosophy you use.

wwfan has said this - can't remember which thread, maybe a page or two into his Twelve Step Guide.

"I consider the following to be specialist:

Target Man

Poacher

Trequartista

Advanced Playmaker

Box to Box Midfielder

Deep Lying Playmaker

Ball Winning Midfielder

Anchor Man

Libero

These four roles can fit in either camp, depending on your interpretation.

Complete Forward

Defensive Forward

Defensive Winger

Ball Playing Defender

Generic roles:

Advanced Forward

Deep Lying Forward

Attacking Midfielder

Central Midfielder

Defensive Midfielder

Inside Forward

Winger

Wide Midfielder

Wing Back

Full Back

Central Defender

Sweeper

I don't include keepers."

I am by no means a tactical god so do take wwfan at his word. That being said, is an anchor man really specialised? not a lot of skill is required in my opinion to be an anchor man. Poacher and target man to me are not that specialised either. If you are tall and strong then being a targetman should be second nature and to be a poacher the job is to put the ball in the back of the net. I feel any small nippy striker can play this role. On the other hand, I think more skill is required to be an advanced forward as the player needs to be able to also cross and create chances when he himself cannot score.

I also feel some duties change the player from specialised to generic and vice versa. For example, a defensive full back is not specialised but an attacking full back would be.

My opinion only so feel free to open my mind to other possabilities

Yes an Anchorman is not a position, it is a role, specifically to shield the defence, a Defensive Midfielder is the generic role, but shielding and breaking play only is a specialised role.

Yes an Anchorman is not a position, it is a role, specifically to shield the defence, a Defensive Midfielder is the generic role, but shielding and breaking play only is a specialised role.

Yeah, I understand it is a role rather than a position but there is nothing really that specialised about it. When people pop up and say stuff like "you shouldn't have any more than 2 or 3 specialised roles on the field" I think including anchorman doesn't fit the purpose

"Specialist role" doesn't denote superior ability... it denotes superior ability in a certain aspect of play... or inferior ability in another aspect of play, if you prefer.

Poacher gets goals because:

a) he really knows how to get goals

b) he can't do anything but

Anchorman focuses on defending because:

a) he really knows how to defend

b) he can't do anything but

E: Also, I think people are taking the whole "fluid philosophy => 1 specialist, balanced => 2..." notion way too literally. It's supposed to be a rule of thumb that you can break. Don't you guys ever wonder what the rule is based on instead of following it blindly?

"Specialist role" doesn't denote superior ability... it denotes superior ability in a certain aspect of play... or inferior ability in another aspect of play, if you prefer.

Poacher gets goals because:

a) he really knows how to get goals

b) he can't do anything but

Anchorman focuses on defending because:

a) he really knows how to defend

b) he can't do anything but

E: Also, I think people are taking the whole "fluid philosophy => 1 specialist, balanced => 2..." notion way too literally. It's supposed to be a rule of thumb that you can break. Don't you guys ever wonder what the rule is based on instead of following it blindly?

I disagree with this statement. Alan Shearer could have quite easily played as a poacher, but that does not necessitate that he couldn't have performed another role. He quite easily could be a Target Man or a complete Forward—Shearer was a very good footballer. There are a myriad of other examples too. Marouane Fellaini is one of the league's best Anchor Men, however, he's also a terrific Attacking Midfielder. Superior ability in one "specialist role" quite simply does not denote inferior ability in in others. Sure there are players suited to only one specific role, but such is the modern footballer that it's the exception rather than the rule.

I disagree with this statement. Alan Shearer could have quite easily played as a poacher, but that does not necessitate that he couldn't have performed another role. He quite easily could be a Target Man or a complete Forward—Shearer was a very good footballer. There are a myriad of other examples too. Marouane Fellaini is one of the league's best Anchor Men, however, he's also a terrific Attacking Midfielder. Superior ability in one "specialist role" quite simply does not denote inferior ability in in others. Sure there are players suited to only one specific role, but such is the modern footballer that it's the exception rather than the rule.

But in the context of FM, this is irrelevant.

The fact is you deploy eleven players into certain roles, irrespective of whether they can play two or three roles.

The general concept is that some roles are deemed to be specialist, and certain numbers of such roles may perform more coherently if you operate vaguely within the Style framework. What dakka said was correct in the context of role, and that is the important thing.

Roles are only really there to pair down the responsibilities that each player has, from the really generic ones that ask them to do abit of everything, to the really specific that ask them to do nothing but a tiny fraction of the overall football match.

You can limit very rounded players to doing small fractions of the game and it be successful, it is just hard/unlikely the other way round. This is not down to the roles, but the players attributes themselves.

Any role that asks them to do more (or the same as) the standard positional role in respect to the team's overall game is generic, anything that expects them to do less is specialist.

P.S. On this note a B2B midfielder is surely generic, as it does as its name says, abit of everything; same with BPDs and Complete forwards and libreros.

I disagree with this statement. Alan Shearer could have quite easily played as a poacher, but that does not necessitate that he couldn't have performed another role. He quite easily could be a Target Man or a complete Forward—Shearer was a very good footballer. There are a myriad of other examples too. Marouane Fellaini is one of the league's best Anchor Men, however, he's also a terrific Attacking Midfielder. Superior ability in one "specialist role" quite simply does not denote inferior ability in in others. Sure there are players suited to only one specific role, but such is the modern footballer that it's the exception rather than the rule.

Shearer could've played as a poacher and he could've played as a complete forward. But if Shearer really is well-rounded, the only reason to choose poacher role over complete forward for him would be that your tactic demands it. On a collective level giving Shearer poacher role doesn't tell everything of his skillset, as it's perfectly possible that the team already has a lot of creative players and there's no need for another player in that mould.

On an individual level, in isolation from the rest of the team however, if someone's best role is poacher, he is by definition either a) great finisher or b) limited footballer.

I Agree with Dakka, as the prior post states.

Edit: A good example of this in real life was Rooney in one season, I think 2010 from the stats, where due to the purchase of Berbatov, was forced to poach goals for United due to his natural role being taken.

But, while I think about it, is that another thought on this topic is that it is not just roles that can differentiate between specialised and generic. The choice of the various styles of a role can differentiate, for instance a fullback (defend) is a specialised role, whereas a fullback support or attack is generic, as they are expected to do more than just defend.

FBd isn't specialized, because what makes it limited is not the role but the duty. It's just as limited as any generic defend role. All the player instructions are very similar to CMd, DMd or CBd. There are no tweaks to creative freedom, passing and RFD, crossing, LS, RWB etc. are similar to other generic defend duties.

Specialist roles are compared to generic roles. Compared to what role is full-back a specialist role?

I understand the idea, but there's just no point in calling all defensive roles specialists because they sit back and don't contribute to attack. Calling anchorman specialist does make sense because he contributes even less to attack than the generic equivalent, DMd.

E: A ball-playing full-back /defend with increased CF, TTB often and mixed (10) passing would be a specialist role as he would be a defending player that has additional playmaking responsibilities compared to the generic FBd.

I understand the idea, but there's just no point in calling all defensive roles specialists because they sit back and don't contribute to attack. Calling anchorman specialist does make sense because he contributes even less to attack than the generic equivalent, DMd.

I'm not saying that, if you looked at the prior post, ball playing defenders while they may defend, do take on more than just defending as their job, they look to distribute to start counter attacking moves and occasionally like Hummels did last night burst forward with the ball, those are preconceived midfielder things to do.

Specialist roles are compared to generic roles. Compared to what role is full-back a specialist role?

Wingback? A fullback(d) is a far more specialist role than a wingback/or a support or attack fullback, he wouldn't be played in that role by your logic if he had the skills to do more than that, they may be only instructions, but it makes that role specialist, because a fullback(d) doesn't do more than defend. Which is why you rarely see Fb(D)s at the top level anymore because they provide too little to the overall team's game.

E: A ball-playing full-back /defend with increased CF, TTB often and mixed (10) passing would be a specialist role as he would be a defending player that has additional playmaking responsibilities compared to the generic FBd.

No, he wouldn't he would be a generic player because he is contributing more to the overall teams game. You've literally taken away all the things that made him specialised by modifying him like that, apart from runs forward, as he is allowed to contribute to other areas of the game.

Much like Essien last night, who had almost that exact job, not to burst forward but to use his midfielder ability to play passes and contribute like a midfielder from the Rb spot, that is generic as it is adding it is adding multiple facets to his teams game.

I think you are thinking about the roles too much based on real life, rather than the game side of things.

No, he wouldn't he would be a generic player because he is contributing more to the overall teams game. You've literally taken away all the things that made him specialised by modifying him like that, as he is contributing to other areas of the game.

Much like Essien last night, who had almost that exact job, not to burst forward but to use his midfielder ability to play passes and contribute like a midfielder from the Rb spot, that is generic as it is adding it is adding multiple facets to his teams game.

A generic role, centre-back with increased CF, TTB often and mixed (10) passing is a ball-playing defender, a specialist role.

This we know.

A "specialist" role, full-back with increased CF, TTB often and mixed (10) passing would be a ball-playing full-back, a "generic" role?

How on earth did you figure that out?

How is a ball playing defender a specialist role, you may 'know' that, but I don't?

It flips the entire definition around?

He's specialised, because he does more than your average defender?!

He isn't, he is generic because he adds more to the teams overall game.

Read what you have just written above about roles like the poacher being specialised as they do less and only focus on a tiny fraction of the game, i.e. finishing.

Putting a Ball playing defender who looks to do more than just defend into that category is just ridiculous.

I just followed the logic of your argument to figure it out.

For instance, in a 'fluid' system if you played a ball playing defender the role would get diluted, yes, but it would get diluted to being what it already is, a player who also contributes abit to midfield playmaking from centreback, as all players have to do abit of everything if a system is 'fluid', hence why it is a generic role.

"superior ability in a certain aspect of play"

That superior ability can be surfaced by limiting other aspects of his play (e.g. poacher) or by simply adding another aspect to his play (e.g. BPD). The difference in initial position (defender vs. non-defender) and duty (defend vs. non-defend) are crucial.

A ball-playing defender is to CBd what DLPd is to DMd. Increased CF, more expressive passing, more TTB. BPd is a defensive defender that takes more part in build-up. A DLPd is a defensive midfielder that takes more part in build-up. What is the difference? Why do you see DLP as specialist and BPD generic?

There are specialist roles that can be seen more limited compared to the generic alternative and specialist roles that give extra responsibilities to the player without really taking away from the generic role. Both types are specialists because one aspect of their play is highlighted respective to their duty and position on the field.

Every generic midfielder and forward takes some part in the build-up, even on defend duty. Thus a midfielder on defend duty can be limited to focus only on defence, ridding him of LS and TTB. And a forward on attack duty can be limited to focus only on scoring, ridding him of TTB. This isn't the case with defenders on defend duty, who have 0 attacking player instructions by default.

That's the thing with a FBd. He does exactly what you'd expect any defender on defend duty to do. No more, no less. There is nothing special in a defender defending.

These from wwfan might help you understand more ModernLefty

Logic relates to non-specialists requiring more CF to create, whereas specialists should be able to do it in a rigid framework.

Non-specialist roles pretty much describe a position on the pitch, i.e. central defender, defensive midfielder, central midfielder etc. If the role focuses on what a player does, rather than the position he plays in, i.e. anchoring the midfield, being a playmaker, poaching etc, then it is specialist.

In theory, the more rigid the philosophy, the more specialist roles it can accommodate.

Specialist roles explain what the player does, i.e (playmaking, anchoring, poaching). Generic roles focus only on the players' position, so, Box to Box Midfielder should probably be generic as well, thinking about it.

Cleon, I'm glad WWFan rescinded the box to box being specialist that worried me somewhat.

So about playing a DLP, it sits on the middle catergory. I can either be a solely playmaking role, see Pirlo or in the case of Makelele can combine defensive postioning, with an ability to bring the ball out of defensive and link defensive to midfield and attack.

It boils down to the player you play their quite frankly, which is why though I'm arguing heavily about roles it frustrates me because we get bogged down in them.

By that 'logic' that 'relates to non-specialists requiring more CF to create, whereas specialists should be able to do it in a rigid framework.' Edit: okay I misread the meaning of this. I think he means to 'be creative'.

'Specialist roles that give extra responsibilities to the player without really taking away from the generic role', then they are not specialised.

For instance a team of

CF(S)

IF,AP,Winger

DLP,B2B

FB(A),DLP,DLP,FB(A)

Would work perfectly well as a fluid team, (okay with the right players) because they all do abit of everything. You can argue that a DLP is not as generic as a CM, that I agree with, but a DLP can be more generic than a DM because they do that job, plus in addition play make.

Whereas:

Poacher

DW, Treq, DW

Anchor, BWM

FB(d) LD LD Fb(d)

Definitely wouldn't work as a fluid system, unless you had players that were more rounded than the roles you gave them.

BPD are non-specialists becuase they require creative freedom to look for a pass.

No it doesn't. He would look for the pass based on his other settings and his attributes. The creative freedom slider wouldn't really make him look for passes more because it does -

Creative Freedom affects the tendency of your players to attempt the more difficult and ambitious

He might try more difficult passes but he'd still pass roughly the same amount even with low CF, they'd just be less risky passes and a BPD doesn't always try the hollywood passes anyway. They tend to recycle possession above all else, you only have to watch Ajax play to see this as they use 2.

Sorry, Cleon ignore above,

I just wanted to put this in another post seeing as its a moment of revelation but, I think I get this.

The specialised roles that add stuff to the positions are 'specialised', can we call those ones 'extra-sised' from now on, because they are in a slightly different category. Essentially they allow you to essentially play the roles that the 'generic' roles become when you are playing with 'fluid' settings, but inside a 'rigid' framework that allows other players to do more limited tasks.

P.S.:I thought that was mentality Cleon?

I thought creative freedom does as it says: allows them to make up their own mind as opposed to strictly following the instructions.

With low CF if he was instructed to pass it short he would, if high CF he will try the ambitious because he isn't strictly following the teams instrucions. But this is all relative to the mentality slider, as with high CF and a defensive mentality he would still pass it short, because that is the safest option.

Sure with high CF and high mentality of course its going to be more difficult and ambitious attempted, but also because of the high mentality not just the high CF.

Sorry, Cleon ignore above,

I just wanted to put this in another post seeing as its a moment of revelation but, I think I get this.

The specialised roles that add stuff to the positions are 'specialised', can we call those ones 'extra-sised' from now on, because they are in a slightly different category. Essentially they allow you to essentially play the roles that the 'generic' roles become when you are playing with 'fluid' settings, but inside a 'rigid' framework that allows other players to do more limited tasks.

P.S.:I thought that was mentality Cleon?

I thought creative freedom does as it says: allows them to make up their own mind as opposed to strictly following the instructions.

With low CF if he was instructed to pass it short he would, if high CF he will try the ambitious because he isn't strictly following the teams instrucions. But this is all relative to the mentality slider, as with high CF and a defensive mentality he would still pass it short, because that is the safest option.

Sure with high CF and high mentality of course its going to be more difficult and ambitious attempted, but also because of the high mentality not just the high CF.

But that isn't what you said though is it? Now you are changing it. You originally said;

BPD are non-specialists becuase they require creative freedom to look for a pass.

Which was wrong and what I brought up. Regardless of his CF/mentality he would still look for a pass. It just could be less ambitious, tricky or more safe, but he would still look for a pass.

Mentality would impact the direction of the pass i.e defensive you'd see more backward passes etc and with attacking more forward.

Cleon, yeah it was wrong I'm happy to admit that, I'm here to learn, I can't do that, if I can't discuss and get things wrong.

Nobody learns through constantly succeeding, I've learnt more in FM in the weeks I've been actively discussing it on here than in the year I spent lurking and reading about it, because I'm having my assumptions and understanding actively tested, I'm allowed to retract statements, and understand things further, I don't hold dogmatic positions on things.

I bet you half the misconceptions I have, another bunch of people have. But because I actively bring these views up and let them get refuted or whatever the end product is, I learn and I bet others do to.

I wasn't having a go. I was just pointing out what you originally said before you changed it in the other reply

It just sometimes seems like it, I understand you're forceful and I appreciate that, somebody has to regulate discussions and have the final word.

It just makes it hard when you're not even allowed to change your mind.

But back on topic, is that a reasonable depiction of specialised roles that do extra bits.

Extra-sised roles= DLP, AP, BPD, maybe Complete Forward, I haven't got a clue with Defensive Wingers, but possibly, and also Defensive Forwards.

It just sometimes seems like it, I understand you're forceful and I appreciate that, somebody has to regulate discussions and have the final word.

It just makes it hard when you're not even allowed to change your mind.

But back on topic, is that a reasonable depiction of specialised roles that do extra bits.

Extra-sised roles= DLP, AP, BPD, maybe Complete Forward, I haven't got a clue with Defensive Wingers, but possibly, and also Defensive Forwards.

You didn't change your mind, you said 2 different things and tried to come to the same conclusion. I just pointed out that they would still look for the pass regardless of the CF settings. I don't see how I was forceful by pointing out what you said didn't work like that. I'll leave the discussion now though and be selective again in what I offer advice too, lifes much easier then all round

It wasn't a criticism, and it wasn't meant to be in relation to this or any incident, just the general demeanor... and maybe forceful is the wrong word, just blunt I suppose , and as I've said umpteen times, I appreciate being corrected when I'm wrong and all the input you give, but I thought I came to two different conclusions? I was just unsure on the slider settings.

You're definitely seeing the connection between philosophy and roles well.

Defensive wingers are wingers with:

- cross from mixed

- normal wide play

- hold up ball

- no roaming

- tighter marking

- maxed closing down

The creative specialists - Roles that increase CF:

ball-playing defender

deep-lying playmaker

box-to-box midfielder ()

advanced playmaker

trequartista

complete forward

(libero)

The disciplined specialists - Roles that decrease CF:

limited defender

anchorman

ball-winning midfielder

poacher

The only specialist role that doesn't affect creative freedom is target man, which is probably because he's otherwise so restricted in his options.

The creative specialists can defo work in fluid set-ups and disciplined specialists can as well. Balance is key as always. Too much creative freedom and specialists and you lose the fluidity in the team. It's both visible as all your specialists try to assume too big a role within the team and theoretical as they have increased CF and a couple roles tweak the mentality framework (midfield playmakers and B2B). The disciplined specialists make your team more rigid as well as they are defensive players that defend or attackers that attack, something that is what you expect in a rigid set-up: players that contribute to just one phase of play.