A few questions..

ok just wondering what people do in certain situations.

For each game when you have to make 2/3 changes to the team do you change the players new roles to there preferred one? Like a player who was in that place before him was a ball winning midfielder, the player you bring in his best role is box to box midfielder. Do you want to keep your teams balance and current tactics or do you change that players new role which surely effects the current balance of your side?

This one is more of a question and improvement for future FMs. In past FMs, quiet e a while ago now. Maybe as far back as FM 06 you could go back on previous games played and check what tactics you used for that game. I mean formation, team instructions, player instructions and everything. Now you can only see formation you used. Surely this has to be re added. I sometimes change my teams instructions for every game, especially if its an away game I have a set home one and set away one, which i adjust according to who we are playing and if we are favs etc or on form etc. and I want to know what I played for each game to look back on in the future but cant.

What do other people think of this. I have more things I wanna put out there but will leave it for a future post. These are the 2 that confuse or annoy me most.

ok just wondering what people do in certain situations.

For each game when you have to make 2/3 changes to the team change the players new roles to there preferred one? Like a player who was in that place before him was a ball winning midfielder, the player you bring in his best role is box to box midfielder. Do you want to keep your teams balance and current tactics or do you change that players new role which surely effects the current balance of your side?

If it harms your tactic, then no. You ALWAYS need to keep the tactic as a whole in mind.

I sometimes change my teams instructions for every game, especially if its an away game I have a set home one and set away one, which i adjust according to who we are playing and if we are favs etc or on form etc. and I want to know what I played for each game to look back on in the future but cant.

Yes, it's incredibly frustrating

If it harms your tactic, then no. You ALWAYS need to keep the tactic as a whole in mind.

Sorry I mean do you change the players role to his preferred one or do you make him play the current role in that position?

Tactics > players.

Changing the role changes the balance of the whole tactic. You develop your tactic/formation then fit the players into it.

Sorry I mean do you change the players role to his preferred one or do you make him play the current role in that position?

Me personally? Never. I have a plan for how I want to play and my tactic follows that plan and this plan was created with the players in mind. I'm not going to go changing roles just because I subbed a player.

I never change tactic roles.

I use 2 tactics 1 attacking for home games and one a bit more couter defensive style against those park the bus teams to draw them out

Tactics > players.

Changing the role changes the balance of the whole tactic. You develop your tactic/formation then fit the players into it.

But dont you think putting a player in a role he may be awful at is even worse? He may make mistakes due to not being great passer if its a playmaker role, or he may be a very attacking player and you bring him on in the a ball winning mid role which he is awful at? Its like bringing on Peter Crouch for Jermaine Defoe and ask him to play poacher role. or vice versa, asking Defoe to be a Target man trying to win balls in the air.

I am chelmsford in the conf south , 1st season. And playing a 3-5-2. my 3 middle players im totally confused as whether to put all my center mids in there fav roles(Ball winning mids) or play a balanced 3, 1 ball winner, 1 advanced play maker, 1 deep lying play maker. or a center mid in there. And when I bring players on from the bench im totally confused whether to bring those player on in those roles or change there roles to there fav ones which surely gets the best out of the player.

But dont you think putting a player in a role he may be awful at is even worse?

I never change the roles, but I have changed the players instructions.

For example if I sub on my AM youth for game time, his passing isn't great at the moment, so I'll take risky passes off so he doesn't try to do something he isn't capable of. When I do that he is very effective, but with it on he plays pretty badly because he keeps giving the ball away.

But dont you think putting a player in a role he may be awful at is even worse? He may make mistakes due to not being great passer if its a playmaker role, or he may be a very attacking player and you bring him on in the a ball winning mid role which he is awful at? Its like bringing on Peter Crouch for Jermaine Defoe and ask him to play poacher role. or vice versa, asking Defoe to be a Target man trying to win balls in the air.

Tactics > Players

But you still shouldn't be putting a player in a role he is awful in. If your GK got injured you shouldn't be putting a midfielder in goal (Unless you had no option), you put another GK in. The same applies to other roles albeit you can make some adjustments.

In your example there wouldn't be an issue with playing Crouch as a poacher and Defoe could probably do a decent job as a target man. In practice though I would prefer Defoe in the more advanced role, if I had to play him in the supporting role I would switch from a target man to a DLF or F9 which would probably suit him better without unbalancing the tactic.

Swopping a defending BWM for a supporting BTB does unbalance the tactic though.

I am chelmsford in the conf south , 1st season. And playing a 3-5-2. my 3 middle players im totally confused as whether to put all my center mids in there fav roles(Ball winning mids) or play a balanced 3, 1 ball winner, 1 advanced play maker, 1 deep lying play maker. or a center mid in there. And when I bring players on from the bench im totally confused whether to bring those player on in those roles or change there roles to there fav ones which surely gets the best out of the player.

I'm currently playing a 352 as well.

Your three mid players ideally should be one defend, one support & one attack.

Your one defend in that formation is generally a BWM after that though you have options.

Your supporting player could be a DLP, AP, BTB or CM while your attacking player can be a AP or CM.

You can build it several different ways but generally I would only want one playmaker in the three after that its a case of how you choose to attack. At the moment I'm using a supporting AP with an attacking CM, but a couple of seasons ago I was using an attacking AP with a supporting BTB.

That's why you don't put players in roles they're awful at. Or to switch that around, that's why you'd have a tactic that accommodates your players to play in their stronger roles. Or, to add more confusion/food for thought, that's why you can shuffle players around when making a sub and 'optimise' your tactic that way without changing roles.

But if you have lets say injurys to your 2 best advanced playmakers do you play a natural ball winner or someone that cant play that role in his place or give the player his fav role?

But if you have lets say injurys to your 2 best advanced playmakers do you play a natural ball winner or someone that cant play that role in his place or give the player his fav role?

I play whoever can play there.

Tactics > Players

But you still shouldn't be putting a player in a role he is awful in. If your GK got injured you shouldn't be putting a midfielder in goal (Unless you had no option), you put another GK in. The same applies to other roles albeit you can make some adjustments.

In your example there wouldn't be an issue with playing Crouch as a poacher and Defoe could probably do a decent job as a target man. In practice though I would prefer Defoe in the more advanced role, if I had to play him in the supporting role I would switch from a target man to a DLF or F9 which would probably suit him better without unbalancing the tactic.

Swopping a defending BWM for a supporting BTB does unbalance the tactic though.

I'm currently playing a 352 as well.

Your three mid players ideally should be one defend, one support & one attack.

Your one defend in that formation is generally a BWM after that though you have options.

Your supporting player could be a DLP, AP, BTB or CM while your attacking player can be a AP or CM.

You can build it several different ways but generally I would only want one playmaker in the three after that its a case of how you choose to attack. At the moment I'm using a supporting AP with an attacking CM, but a couple of seasons ago I was using an attacking AP with a supporting BTB.

But im saying if you have no other players who can play that role what do you do then? Like I said if you are short in ball winners. And your last one gets injured, your only sub mid is a playmaker only, and the other 2 center mid players are not very good in the ball winner position do you put the best player suited for the ball winner role even if his bad? Or do you play players in there fav mid roles?

But im saying if you have no other players who can play that role what do you do then? Like I said if you are short in ball winners. And your last one gets injured, your only sub mid is a playmaker only, and the other 2 center mid players are not very good in the ball winner position do you put the best player suited for the ball winner role even if his bad? Or do you play players in there fav mid roles?

You make the best of it and you put the best BWM you can in there.

You make the best of it and you put the best BWM you can in there.

ok interesting. For me I would change the players roles as I like players playing in what they are most comfy in over playing a player almost out of position as if he cant do that role he is almost infective.

ok interesting. For me I would change the players roles as I like players playing in what they are most comfy in over playing a player almost out of position as if he cant do that role he is almost infective.

If you only had 11 strikers available would you play them all up front?

Generally speaking though we are talking about swopping one midfield role for another so the player won't be rubbish.

ok interesting. For me I would change the players roles as I like players playing in what they are most comfy in over playing a player almost out of position as if he cant do that role he is almost infective.

That's completely the wrong approach. As others have said, it is the collective tactic that matters. Playing a bunch of individuals in their "best" Roles will almost certainly result in an incoherent tactic overall.

If you only had 11 strikers available would you play them all up front?

Generally speaking though we are talking about swopping one midfield role for another so the player won't be rubbish.

Some players have a 1 star at Ball winner or a 5 star as Playmaker and vice versa. Asking a Creative flair player with no ball winning skills to play a ball winning hard tacking midfieler is a bad idea. Surely its best to go attacking if you bring on someone who is totally opposite to the player in that position or vice versa depending on score ofcourse. And no ofcourse I wouldn't play all strikers upfront, thats if you have no options ofcourse. But I would if i had lets say only 3 playmakers and they was all out injured I would change my midfield player roles to there best ones rather than fit best ones in.

Some players have a 1 star at Ball winner or a 5 star as Playmaker and vice versa. Asking a Creative flair player with no ball winning skills to play a ball winning hard tacking midfieler is a bad idea. Surely its best to go attacking if you bring on someone who is totally opposite to the player in that position or vice versa depending on score ofcourse. And no ofcourse I wouldn't play all strikers upfront, thats if you have no options ofcourse. But I would if i had lets say only 3 playmakers and they was all out injured I would change my midfield player roles to there best ones rather than fit best ones in.

In one of the other threads you implied you have RL coaching/managing experience.

Can you honestly say thats a choice you would make IRL? or would you ask one of the MCs to sit more?

Course it is. I would never ask a ball winning midfielder to play a role he cant play. that would be ludicrous. And I wouldn't ask my flair / creative player play a ball winning role. I would want to get the best out of him by telling him instructions he plays best in. Are you seriously saying in real life you would tell players to play the opposite of there natural way of playing?

Its better to attack if you have more attack minded players on the pitch. Attack can be and often is the best form of defence. And vice versa. This is why when I bring on a midfield sub who is only naturally a ball winner I dont want to put him in the playmaker role in midfield. I will tell him to play his natural role. The team seems to adapt on the game. Having 2 or 3 ball winners in the center of midfield seems to work ok. Rather than play a box to box, normal center mid and playmaker. I have done it differently in my other save and a totally diff way in this save with Chelmsford and both seem to work. Still learning how much difference it makes telling a player to play his 3rd or 4th choice player role.

Course it is. I would never ask a ball winning midfielder to play a role he cant play. that would be ludicrous. And I wouldn't ask my flair / creative player play a ball winning role. I would want to get the best out of him by telling him instructions he plays best in. Are you seriously saying in real life you would tell players to play the opposite of there natural way of playing.

Absolutely and its something I've done numerous times IRL.

There is no I in team as the saying goes, there is no point having too many creators on the team is no one is protecting the back line.

You are right in that there tends to be a difference between a defensive & an attacking MC. Your job as a manager is to make sure you have enough cover both in your squad and on the bench 99% of the time. That 1% where you don't have an option its still more important to keep the balance of the overall tactic.

EDIT

TBH thinking about it more given that 1% situation in theory I would possibly choose to bring on a fullback or DC to play the ball winning role rather than an attacking MC as they would be better suited.

Absolutely and its something I've done numerous times IRL.

There is no I in team as the saying goes, there is no point having too many creators on the team is no one is protecting the back line.

You are right in that there tends to be a difference between a defensive & an attacking MC. Your job as a manager is to make sure you have enough cover both in your squad and on the bench 99% of the time. That 1% where you don't have an option its still more important to keep the balance of the overall tactic.

EDIT

TBH thinking about it more given that 1% situation in theory I would possibly choose to bring on a fullback or DC to play the ball winning role rather than an attacking MC as they would be better suited.

Wow I never would. If he had a few stars better in a certain role in midfield I would play him in that role. Its like also with wingers. I have some wingers who can play the mid left position better than the left wing further up the pitch. So I play them in there fav position rather than keep my shape across the midfield. Sure it will leave gaps on 1 side more than the other but at the same time i will get the bets out of my player and he will be further up the pitch when receiving the ball. also saving energy. Plus some are better in that more attacking mid position because they have worse defensive attributes.

Its the same with the Striking positions. Would You really play a slow target man no good at the poacher role just to keep the same roles on the pitch just because you dont have a another poacher? Example. You started the game with a Target man good in air, slow etc. Upfront with a nippy fast poacher. Your poacher gets injured. On the bench you only have another Target man type player awful in the poacher role but good at Target man or defensive forward. You would play him or the other Targer man as a poacher? I would play one as defensive forward if its his 2nd best or something and the other as a Target man.

I mean do you still play big long high balls up the pitch when you have 2 small nippy strikers on the pitch? I always change styles of play depending on what players I have on the pitch also.

Some areas you can adjust roles, others you can't as it unbalances the overall style.

Up front you tend to have more options whereas losing a defensive MC isn't an option and neither really is switching a ML to an AML. Those changes can have massive implications for the overall tactic and how it plays, you really need to get a better understanding of what is affected and how.

You also need to change your thinking each choice you make for an individual you also need to consider how it fits in with the rest of the team.

Er no I dont really as I just said my results have been amazing and my team is playing amazing. If I have to go more attacking by bringing on a more attack minded player for a more defence minded player I change my style to attack more so he gets on the ball and we take advantage of the sub. This is what would happen in real life , and something i have done in real life. Telling a LW who is coming on to play LM when his defensive attributes are not great and his better in the LW position I think is fine. And same for a position in midfield. I would rather get the bet out of my players than ask them to play roles they are very uncomfy in.

I also like to do this as feel bad if I have to tell them to play out of role position and then judge them on a poor average rating for that game. If they play in there fav role and play bad I dont feel bad. I only put this post up to see if anyone noticed a huge diff in results or performances of players. But so far its working great for me putting players into there fav roles when they come on.

So your approach is wrong but you mostly get away with it which leads to the assumption that the changes you make don't have a major affect on the overall style given the context of the match.

This still doesn't mean the overall approach is the correct one in FM or RL as has been highlighted by this thread.

Well in real life it is 100%. This is why I do it on FM. I have rarely seen a manager bring on a player and tell him to play the opposite of his natural role. Bring on Defo and tell him to win high balls in the air because you dont wanna change the current style of play or tactics. Its crazy. Its like asking a Ginola type to come on and do the dogged ball winning role. Its just a bad idea. Best thing to do is change style of play, go on the offensive if you have to bring on a attacking type for a defensive type and more defensive if you have to bring on a more defensive type. Even if you are losing a game going on the defensive can still get you goals. I have played counter attacking football from the start of a game. Gone 2 nil down. Instead of attack the 2nd half I have left on counter and won the game many times. Your players seem to understand they are losing and use there own decision etc to still try and get back in the game.

Well in real life it is 100%. This is why I do it on FM. I have rarely seen a manager bring on a player and tell him to play the opposite of his natural role. Bring on Defo and tell him to win high balls in the air because you dont wanna change the current style of play or tactics. Its crazy. Its like asking a Ginola type to come on and do the dogged ball winning role. Its just a bad idea. Best thing to do is change style of play, go on the offensive if you have to bring on a attacking type for a defensive type and more defensive if you have to bring on a more defensive type. Even if you are losing a game going on the defensive can still get you goals. I have played counter attacking football from the start of a game. Gone 2 nil down. Instead of attack the 2nd half I have left on counter and won the game many times. Your players seem to understand they are losing and use there own decision etc to still try and get back in the game.

Now you are twisting words to suit your argument.

You have told throughout that people would adjust to give the best fit which means if a player is asked to do something which is slightly outside his comfort zone or not using him to the very best of his ability for the overall benefit of the team then so be it.

You pushed & pushed that what if you had no other options scenario that only happens very rarely and you got the answer that the team is still more important than the individual. I even stated in one of my replies I would consider a fullback or DC for the BWM role if all the MCs were attack minded as the better option in that rare scenario.

Yet you are still pushing and seem desperate for people to agree with you and have no interest in seeing another POV.

I'm pretty sure IRL your approach isn't as extreme or at least I hope it isn't and you make more adjustments to get the best out of your team on the pitch.

Now you are twisting words to suit your argument.

You have told throughout that people would adjust to give the best fit which means if a player is asked to do something which is slightly outside his comfort zone or not using him to the very best of his ability for the overall benefit of the team then so be it.

You pushed & pushed that what if you had no other options scenario that only happens very rarely and you got the answer that the team is still more important than the individual. I even stated in one of my replies I would consider a fullback or DC for the BWM role if all the MCs were attack minded as the better option in that rare scenario.

Yet you are still pushing and seem desperate for people to agree with you and have no interest in seeing another POV.

I'm pretty sure IRL your approach isn't as extreme or at least I hope it isn't and you make more adjustments to get the best out of your team on the pitch.

No I have not? I was asking throughout what do other people do and what is there view on this. As FM is diff to real life and it may make a huge difference on FM if you change your current tactics to suite players a bit more. IRL I know what most managers do and what works best. But on FM I wondered if people changed player roles or not when making subs etc.

Surely if a game is going bad anyway the change in balance and player roles may click into a tactic that is better or wins the game. sometimes the tiniest tweek can change a game. I dont care if people agree with me or not based on what happens in FM as its only a game. I am comparing the situation to real life. And I like to play the game as real life as possible. So will continue to change roles when making subs if the player really is like 1 or 2 stars worse at that role.

In FM and in real life:

Roles player => very important for the tactic / semi-important for the players

Changing the roles player => could change the entire shape of your tactic / could change the individual performance of 1 player

The difference between players in their best role and in their worst role (on the right position) is small

The difference between tactics with 1 role different is big.

Conclusion: tactic > players

In FM and in real life:

Roles player => very important for the tactic / semi-important for the players

Changing the roles player => could change the entire shape of your tactic / could change the individual performance of 1 player

The difference between players in their best role and in their worst role (on the right position) is small

The difference between tactics with 1 role different is big.

Conclusion: tactic > players

Not at all. What makes you think the tactic was perfect or right in the 1st place? As I said lets say changing that players role improves the tactic. Then what?

Its an improvement not a hindrance. As I said you may be losing, and getting crushed. You bring on a sub who has a diff best role to the player he is replacing. That player is playing in his best role and you will get the best out of him. All of a sudden the whole balance of the game changes. You change tactics due to that sub also to get the best out of him. All of a sudden the game changes and you win. this has happened to me in real life and on FM.

I should add I am using a 3-5-2. Think I said it earlier in thread. I am losing the game lets say. I have in the middle a flat 3. But one playing as Ball winner, one as playmaker and one as normal center mid. to give 3 diff areas they concentrate in. I have Hughes as my Ball winner, drops deep to protect back 3. I have Sawyer who is the center mid. He stays in the middle and looks for scraps. And I have Rohdell Gorden as my playmaker. Surging forward to pick things up dropping off the strikers.

If one has to come off. Lets say Hughes my ball winner. And my sub is a natural playmaker and poor at ball winner role. Now I could drop Sawyer to ballwinner, Gorden cant really play it. But if my sub is a natural playmaker I may decide to play with 2 playmakers or 2 in a more advanced role, rather than having 1 defensive, 1 central 1 attacking. If the game has been going bad this change in structure and balance can totally change the game for the better.

IMO, the bigger issue is that you think the BWM drops deep to protect the back 4, which is the opposite of what he will do. That's probably why you'd have problems in a match.

If the system is still balanced, then it's fine, but you are drastically changing the balance.

Strange how thats what he is doing. He is a natural Defensive midfielder and I have him on ball winner defend. Altho he dont sit in front of the back 4 he drops deep enough to protect them and win the ball in front of them. I have my 2 side center backs on Limited and stopper and they come out if he gets caught up field to much. He is better in the Center mid position by 2 stars compared to the Defensive mid position. So want to play him in his best role.

I also think some of you get confused with team cohesion and a tactic that have worse cohesion but be a better tactic/balance for that game. Sometimes you may need to change entire formation and tactics fort an away game. Your team cohesion may drop to almost 0 or much lower. This does not mean your team is going to play worse. It means there understanding is worse but it may be the best tactic or set up for that particular game.

IMO, the bigger issue is that you think the BWM drops deep to protect the back 4, which is the opposite of what he will do. That's probably why you'd have problems in a match.

If the system is still balanced, then it's fine, but you are drastically changing the balance.

If the BWM is fairly defensive minded he generally does a decent job of of protecting the defence and doesn't really stray much. Saying that it might be due to having a MCL & MCR either side of him in the 352/532 system.

From playing around I actually think the BWM at MC works better than the BWM at DM for some reason.

I don't think anyone cares about Cohesion here. The overall tactic has to be balanced. Even if you need to change roles, it still needs balance.

Altho he dont sit in front of the back 4 he drops deep enough to protect them and win the ball in front of them.

My apologies then. You made it sound like he drops deep and holds position, when he'll be aggressively hunting for the ball, although deeper than a Support duty midfielder though.

Strange how thats what he is doing. He is a natural Defensive midfielder and I have him on ball winner defend. Altho he dont sit in front of the back 4 he drops deep enough to protect them and win the ball in front of them. I have my 2 side center backs on Limited and stopper and they come out if he gets caught up field to much. He is better in the Center mid position by 2 stars compared to the Defensive mid position. So want to play him in his best role.

I also think some of you get confused with team cohesion and a tactic that have worse cohesion but be a better tactic/balance for that game. Sometimes you may need to change entire formation and tactics fort an away game. Your team cohesion may drop to almost 0 or much lower. This does not mean your team is going to play worse. It means there understanding is worse but it may be the best tactic or set up for that particular game.

I have found the star rating for role is not a good basis for team selection. Maybe logically it should work that way, but in my experience it doesn't. The harm done fidlling around with roles and duties is not going to outweigh a consistent proven team tactic.

I tend to agree with the guys who say that you should fit the players into the tactics.

I don't think anyone cares about Cohesion here. The overall tactic has to be balanced. Even if you need to change roles, it still needs balance.

Course it needs balance. My point was changing roles can work and does work. Playing players in ones there best in and happiest in seems the best way to do things for me aslong as it dont mean playing a tactic that is just not going to work or has no balance. Sometimes as I said if a game is going bad already then changing roles etc can change the balance in your favor.

I also think some of you get confused with team cohesion and a tactic that have worse cohesion but be a better tactic/balance for that game. Sometimes you may need to change entire formation and tactics fort an away game. Your team cohesion may drop to almost 0 or much lower. This does not mean your team is going to play worse. It means there understanding is worse but it may be the best tactic or set up for that particular game.

This is why you have been so totally frustrating in this thread.

You are quite prepared to give up team cohesion & tactic familiarity without a problem in a given situation where you think the team as a whole will benefit.

But when you apply this to an individual position or role you seem blind to the trade off and don't look at the bigger picture.

I have found the star rating for role is not a good basis for team selection. Maybe logically it should work that way, but in my experience it doesn't. The harm done fidlling around with roles and duties is not going to outweigh a consistent proven team tactic.

I tend to agree with the guys who say that you should fit the players into the tactics.

So lets say you play 442. you play with 2 wingers. one gets injured. The reserve winger you bring in is much better(2.5 stars) in the midfield wing position. Not the further wing position. I would play him in the one where he has the higher star rating not the teams current formation. Your saying changing this tiny thing can make the team play worse even tho this player is 2 stars better in that role?

This is why you have been so totally frustrating in this thread.

You are quite prepared to give up team cohesion & tactic familiarity without a problem in a given situation where you think the team as a whole will benefit.

But when you apply this to an individual position or role you seem blind to the trade off and don't look at the bigger picture.

I am having a normal conversation with you. Why do you call this as im being totally frustrating? Maybe you are not understanding what I mean.

Im talking player roles!! Sometimes you need to change tactics even if it lowers your cohesion and understanding. Im saying if you want to keep your best tactic but need to bring in a player whos role is better as sometimes else I think its best to do that. This has nothing to do with tactics! But you may want to change tactics to suit that players new player role more. I have no idea what your getting confused with.

So lets say you play 442. you play with 2 wingers. one gets injured. The reserve winger you bring in is much better(2.5 stars) in the midfield wing position. Not the further wing position. I would play him in the one where he has the higher star rating not the teams current formation. Your saying changing this tiny thing can make the team play worse even tho this player is 2 stars better in that role?

Depends on the role. If he's still largely taking up the same space and/or doing the same thing, it'll be fine.

So lets say you play 442. you play with 2 wingers. one gets injured. The reserve winger you bring in is much better(2.5 stars) in the midfield wing position. Not the further wing position. I would play him in the one where he has the higher star rating not the teams current formation. Your saying changing this tiny thing can make the team play worse even tho this player is 2 stars better in that role?

If my team is playing well then yes, I would sacrifice the player's best position to retain a consistent team tactic.

So lets say you play 442. you play with 2 wingers. one gets injured. The reserve winger you bring in is much better(2.5 stars) in the midfield wing position. Not the further wing position. I would play him in the one where he has the higher star rating not the teams current formation. Your saying changing this tiny thing can make the team play worse even tho this player is 2 stars better in that role?

It could have a massive affect on the overall tactic depending on the setup.

Defensively the player positioned in the AMRL areas contribute less, especially if their natural instinct is to attack (based on attributes) so this could leave more space for the opposition down the wings.

Going forward it could affect your team during the transition phase, the more advanced winger may not be available for a pass due to being too far away and looking to get beyond the full back. This could mean that one side of your team gets shutdown due to passes getting intercepted and moves broken up. On the flipside the more advanced winger is more likely to get behind the defensive line and looks more for through balls over the top or into the channel.