How is players performance affected by not playing him in his natural position?

Unless the player suitability shown for a role in a particular position is flawed a players performance must presumably, via his attributes, be adjusted for match engine purposes to reflect his proficiency in a particular position.

The attributes for an Advanced Playmaker are the same whether the role is in MC or AMC positions.

Using Mata and de Bruyne as examples, their star suitability for roles in my current save are as follows:

Mata AP in AMC (Natural) 5*

Mata AP in MC (Awkward) 0.5*

de Bruyne AP in AMC (Natural) 3.5*

de Bruyne AP in MC (Accomplished) 3*

Mata has very good attributes for the Advanced Playmaker role with a 5* suitability rating indicated if I play him in his Natural AMC position on the pitch. My current tactics, however, are to play an Advanced Playmaker in the MC position, for which Mata, Awkward, is only rated as 0.5*.

Based upon the above, I would expect Mata to perform a lot better if I play him in AMC position rather than MC but how is this reflected?

Would really be interested in how a players proficiency in a particular position is adjusted for in ME.

It would be nice to have an official response on this.

It would be nice to have an official response on this.

Agreed!

Based upon Mata, de Bruyne examples above it seems that dropping from Natural to Accomplished has a relatively minor hit on star rating; circa O.5* with significant drops to Competent (a further 1*.) and a far greater drop from Competent to Awkward.

A players versatility attribute presumably affects his ability to play in different positions but the key question remains - how is a players performance de-tuned by the ME, presumably via attributes, to reflect his lower proficiency when not playing in his Natural position?

How would it be affected in real life do you think? Players are often played out of position, especially with small squads and injuries.

In will depend on a players ability to play in a position, his adaptability, and the skills/attributes he has and the type of role you are asking him to perform. Its quite easy to see this on the team report.

His actual ratings will also depend on many things including the side he is playing in, norale, if the team played well etc.

I think sometimes people are looking for black and white answers when in real life though don't exist. For example, how well do you think rooney would perform playing as an AML, AMR, AMC, MC etc and how would playing in those positions affect his performance? You might say that Roonet is adaptable, has a strong work ethic, plays for the team etc so would do well but not as well where as doing this with a different player it may be different

I think sometimes people are looking for black and white answers when in real life though don't exist.

There's a big difference between real life and programmed simulation that obeys a specific set of rules, and when these rules are known by some it's not unreasonable for others to enquire about them.

Thats a very defensive post, if you're not open to advice I'll leave you to it

If I remember correctly, in a previous version of FM you could set a player's position t above the perceived maximum of 20, using something like FM RTE, and he would become superhuman (really fast, powerful shots would go in from outside of the box very often). I didn't try it out myself, so I don't know the specifics. But this would suggest that, out of position, a player will perform to a percentage of their maximum ability.

Thats a very defensive post, if you're not open to advice I'll leave you to it

I disagree, you're maybe right people shouldn't be asking black/white questions, but as a matter of fact simulations like this do give black/white answers. I mean, if you put Mata in the MD position the game tells you he'd be "useless", and I wouldn't be surprised at all if that factored a lot in the computation. We're just asking how much.

To answer the OP I suspect it will act like a modifier reducing the relevant attributes by a certain % perhaps depending on how familiar he is playing that position.

If he has good attributes for that position though he will still perform well.

Personally I've always just tried players and watched how they perform, just looking at attributes doesn't work IMO you need to watch them on the pitch to see if they suit the role.

Ok to make this clear, in hidden attributes there is a figure out of 20 that determines how well a player will play in a position, subject to his attributes etc. A player's prime position will be 20/20. In other positions it will be a figure less than 20. To some degree this is explained for each player where you can see how competant he is in some positions. Its also explained from an overall team perspective in the team report.

I still strongly believe that its not black and white because there are so many other factors that will influence how well a player plays. This is the problem sometimes. People may watch a single game and make a judgement on this single game, it may take many games to enable a balanced view.

Watching a game is one element, but perhaps if you are only watching limited highlights will you see the whole picture.

Football Manager is a lot more complicated, just like real life

Personally speaking, i dont overly worry about the positions. Obviously i do use them, but if i see a player who i think can do a certain job i dont care if he has a red dot for that position. I will re-train them to be more competent in that position but i dont think it makes a huge amount of difference. If you have a good player, with the right attributes, set up to play a position in the correct way, more often than not he will have a decent enough game.

Agreed!

Based upon Mata, de Bruyne examples above it seems that dropping from Natural to Accomplished has a relatively minor hit on star rating; circa O.5* with significant drops to Competent (a further 1*.) and a far greater drop from Competent to Awkward.

A players versatility attribute presumably affects his ability to play in different positions but the key question remains - how is a players performance de-tuned by the ME, presumably via attributes, to reflect his lower proficiency when not playing in his Natural position?

Yep - it's one of my bugbears that you can have a player playing winger at the AML spot who is apparently totally incapable of playing winger at the ML spot. It's just not credible at all. I think it's designed to help with research, but it feels odd to me every time I see it.

That said, like a few others - if I can overcome my OCD and just play the player "out of position" but in a spot where it feels like he should be able to play, it normally works out alright.

Yep - it's one of my bugbears that you can have a player playing winger at the AML spot who is apparently totally incapable of playing winger at the ML spot. It's just not credible at all. I think it's designed to help with research, but it feels odd to me every time I see it.

That said, like a few others - if I can overcome my OCD and just play the player "out of position" but in a spot where it feels like he should be able to play, it normally works out alright.

Agreed, this is just ridiculous. I recently changed my formation to drop my AMR/AML back to MR/ML which has improved my team's results but I now have a couple of AMR/L players who are redundant. I've tried to retrain but some have had to be sold.

Strangely, I've spotted a couple of players who are natural AMR, accomplished ML and nothing else whatsoever. How crazy is that?

For me, anyone who is a natural wide player one one side should be at least competent on the other flank as players are utilised like this more and more IRL.

Ok to make this clear, in hidden attributes there is a figure out of 20 that determines how well a player will play in a position, subject to his attributes etc. A player's prime position will be 20/20. In other positions it will be a figure less than 20. To some degree this is explained for each player where you can see how competant he is in some positions. Its also explained from an overall team perspective in the team report.

I still strongly believe that its not black and white because there are so many other factors that will influence how well a player plays. This is the problem sometimes. People may watch a single game and make a judgement on this single game, it may take many games to enable a balanced view.

Watching a game is one element, but perhaps if you are only watching limited highlights will you see the whole picture.

Football Manager is a lot more complicated, just like real life

There may be lots of other factors influencing performance, but I think the OP is simply after the base mathematics of that single modifier.

Its highly unlikely we will ever know the mathematical equation that goes into it, but why would you want to know that? Surely that takes part of the game away.

For me, anyone who is a natural wide player one one side should be at least competent on the other flank as players are utilised like this more and more IRL.

I would totally disagree on that.

Whilst for some playing on either flank comes reasonably naturally it isn't the same for everyone. I've always played on the left in Sunday League at either DL or ML, as I got older I also played as a DM/MC but playing on the right was as alien as playing up front.

Its highly unlikely we will ever know the mathematical equation that goes into it, but why would you want to know that? Surely that takes part of the game away.

How could it possibly take some of the game away? If I'm a real-life manager and I buy a player, I've had my scouts tell me where he can be played and how well he'll do at each position. They may even give percentages, like, "He's about 80% as good at ML as at AML". Then I can back that up with my own observations in training. We don't have that option in this game. All we know is "Natural", "Accomplished", etc... So if we can get a rough idea of what percentage drop-off a player will have an non-Natural positions, it will help us be better managers.

And I know there are many many factors that affect performance, but at least this would be one factor that we could actually allow for. Maybe it it's not as straightforward as a percentage drop in attributes (possibly modified by Adaptability). Maybe his decision-making is worse (which I've read is actually how it is elsewhere), leading to more random performances. Still, knowing this information makes the game much better just by virtue of knowing your players even better, and it's not more than any decent manager already knows about his players.

Agreed. I was not looking for a detailed equation/formula, more an indication/guide as to which of his attributes are likely to be affected and to what extent (% or absolute reduction etc based upon Natural, Accomplished, Competent, Awkward etc).

I would not expect the follwoing attributes to change at all no matter what position I played him in:

Physical (Acceleration, Agility, Balance, Jumping reach, Natural Fitness, Pace, Stamina, Strength)

Similarly, would/should any of his Technical attributes change just because he is not playing in his Natural position? Why should Corners, Crossing, Dribbling ability etc change?

That would then leave the Mental attributes as being the likely suspects for de-tuning.....Composure, Concentration, Decisions. Off the Ball, Positioning, Teamwork, Workrate etc....

Alternatively it could be the key attributes that are shown for the role his is playing that are de-tuned to take account of whether he is playing in a position that is Natural, Accomplished etc.

Some form of concrete guidance on approach used would certainly be useful for managers.

How could it possibly take some of the game away? If I'm a real-life manager and I buy a player, I've had my scouts tell me where he can be played and how well he'll do at each position. They may even give percentages, like, "He's about 80% as good at ML as at AML". Then I can back that up with my own observations in training. We don't have that option in this game. All we know is "Natural", "Accomplished", etc... So if we can get a rough idea of what percentage drop-off a player will have an non-Natural positions, it will help us be better managers.

And I know there are many many factors that affect performance, but at least this would be one factor that we could actually allow for. Maybe it it's not as straightforward as a percentage drop in attributes (possibly modified by Adaptability). Maybe his decision-making is worse (which I've read is actually how it is elsewhere), leading to more random performances. Still, knowing this information makes the game much better just by virtue of knowing your players even better, and it's not more than any decent manager already knows about his players.

Well the info is there. If you see a bright green dot you know thats where he is more comfortable, the more the colour changes the less comfortable he becomes, what happens to make him less comfortable is pretty irrelevant overall. No scout will say to you "he can play AM naturally, but if you play him left mid his concentration is going to drop by 17%. I just dont see the need to know any more than a player isnt as comfortable in this position as he is in another.

Your looking for an absolute answer on something, i really just dont see why it needs to be absolute.

I am not after an absolute, fully detailed, formula based answer. The current system does indeed, via the star rating for a players suitability for a role, give you useful information. However, a better understanding of what elements of a players performance are likely to deteriorate would be useful.

Using Mata playing as an Advanced Playmaker rated as 5* in his Natural AMC position and 0.5* in MC as example. If I play him as an AP in MC:

A) i would not expect any of his physical attributes to be affected (Acceleration, Pace, Natural Fitness etc)

B) similarly, I would not expect his technical attributes to be compromised. Corners, Dribbling, Lobg Shots etc would surely be unaffected.

C) this would seem to lead to conclusion that his Mental attributes are the ones that are likely to be less effective in ME terms. Presumably his Decisions are de-tuned leading to him doing, or trying to do, things that are more risky and/or ineffective from the deeper MC position.

Given that the key attributes for Playing AP role are the same when playing in AMC or MC positions, the 4.5* reduction seems huge.

Feedback confirming and correcting a-c above would be a good start.

What does it matter what exact attributes are affected? How will that make your decision easier?

What does it matter what exact attributes are affected?

What's your point? That one shouldn't ask how exactly the game works?

No the proverbial "one" should not know exactly how the game works.

No the proverbial "one" should not know exactly how the game works.

Seems fairly silly, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

No the proverbial "one" should not know exactly how the game works.

I guess that would be the same "one" looking at the finger instead of the moon.

Your best bet to find any insights is looking through all the patch notes of each and every ME patch, ever. The ME team is usually very tight-lipped regarding the inner workings, but within the patch notes you might find hints here and there.

Such as here: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/245004-Patch-11.2.1-disponible-!

Match v909

----------

- Tweaked effect of playing out of position on player performance

- Tweaked effect of consistency, nervousness and motivation on player performance

- Tweaked effect of choice of captain on other players' performances

- Tweaked effect of morale on performance

[...]

Maybe you'll find something more detailed in one of them. Not sure if it would be of any use what exactly is affected. I remember a post by wwfan where he told about a conversation between him and Paul Collyer in which they had once discovered that wwfan's striker in a save behaved very differently and more ambitious in front of goal when given certain instructions (I think the creative freedom slider of old was the culprit). However, even for PaulC it was impossible to truly 100% attribute that behavior to that instruction, apparently, and a different striker with a different set of attributes apparently might have reacted differently still. Point being that if the core coder of the thing cannot anticipate match play fully, more detailed info on the inner workings won't be of all that much use for you either. I can relate to the curiosity though.

All you need to know that there is some form of penalty for players played out of position, as it also says in the game's tool tips. But obviously when the attribute for that position and role suffice, the player can perform well still. Completely disregarding attributes is sure to lead to catastrophe though, I tried. I personally wouldn't disregard natural positions themselves for multiple players in the squad either, I once did this in FM 2012/2013ish and had Bayern, the Bundesliga stalwart impossible to majorly screw up, compete for mid-table obscurity come December. Whether that is realistic or not is impossible to tell, as obviously you don't see many first division sides playing their entire squads "out of position" week in week out.

There's a great interview up on Rock, Paper, Shotgun currently which goes a little into the targeted depth of simulation: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/25/talk-of-the-terrace-football-manager-interview/ It is rare for a freebie or browser management game to similarily attempt a simulation of the sports proper, but a few do, and in this one it may be approached in similar fashion as far as player penalties/boosts in the game are concerned: http://footstar.gr/blog/2011/03/16/questions-about-the-me-here-are-the-answers/

I would totally disagree on that.

Whilst for some playing on either flank comes reasonably naturally it isn't the same for everyone. I've always played on the left in Sunday League at either DL or ML, as I got older I also played as a DM/MC but playing on the right was as alien as playing up front.

Fair point, I guess I was thinking for players at a higher level. Liverpool have done it numerous times with the likes of Johnson and Flanagan playing DL instead of DR and doing ok. Wingers too seem to swap sides all the time these days.

So perhaps only players with a certain PA and higher should automatically have this ability.

Well the info is there. If you see a bright green dot you know thats where he is more comfortable, the more the colour changes the less comfortable he becomes, what happens to make him less comfortable is pretty irrelevant overall. No scout will say to you "he can play AM naturally, but if you play him left mid his concentration is going to drop by 17%. I just dont see the need to know any more than a player isnt as comfortable in this position as he is in another.

Your looking for an absolute answer on something, i really just dont see why it needs to be absolute.

As I said above, I don't need "an absolute", just a rough idea of what's lowered. It's fine if you don't see the need for it. Play the game as you always have and don't bother trying to force your opinions on others.