None-existent semi-positions/rigid match engine – thoughts please.

I would like to hear what peoples thoughts (not rants) are on the current position flexibility of the game.

(I think it is time that SI spends some serious time, going over the default positions of the few positions in the ME [match engine]. At the moment it seems to me like it is just a case of papering over the cracks.)

And more importantly I would also suggest that SI put in a few new positions, mainly:-

DLC & DRC

DMLC & DMRC

MLC & MRC

AMLC & AMRC

Some might say that those positions already exist, but it’s not hard to prove otherwise. You cannot play players in those positions unless you stick a player in between them. And even then although it looks as if the player plays wider (on tactics screen) they are actually still playing as central players. An example would be trying to play with a back 3 (no wingbacks), in theory DLC DC DRC (they play DC DC DC in effect in the ME).

I know that SI has recently made narrow formations less effective, as they were too effective in FM Live; they are still to effect judging by my system/formation in FM10. I like the fact that SI are make narrow formations very ineffective and the game thus more realistic. But in doing so there is a knock on effect that the flexibility/ability to have players in semi-positions is lost. Positions like DLC & DRC and MLC & MRC are needed in diamond formations (442s & 343s), 5-3-2/3-5-2s, 4-3-1-2s.

.........................................

I actually would love this considering I'm attempting to use "Half-Backs" and having issues with getting the settings right. My defensive structure of 2 CBs and 3 DMs is causing me nightmares because my Half-Backs aren't used to covering the wings like defensive wing-backs but then moving back into the centre when attacking.

Bestie.

its really bad because tactically speaking positioning is the most important instruction a manager can give his players. this game desperately needs free positioning and wib/wob instead of the fixed system it has now. it will never be a football sim unless it starts doing so.

.........................................

Have you still not sobered up?

FR and FL positions need reintroduced.

If I play a player as a FL, I get exactly the same options in the tactics wizard as if I was playing him at AML. However, if I've got a player with no striker rating, I'm apparently playing him totally out of position.

Makes absolutely no sense at all.

Absolutely brilliant idea by the way. We do need more control over positions of players. As stated above this is more important than all the other settings you have on a per player basis in terms of creating a better simulation.

I'm not sure about free positioning completely for playability reason but the MLC etc. suggestion sounds just perfect!

FR and FL positions need reintroduced.

If I play a player as a FL, I get exactly the same options in the tactics wizard as if I was playing him at AML. However, if I've got a player with no striker rating, I'm apparently playing him totally out of position.

Makes absolutely no sense at all.

The inverse is also true and a bit exploitable: if I have a striker, he's able to play all along the front line without penalty. So my left-footed AML/FC who's completely incompetent and can't be an inside forward AMR (cutting inside on his stronger foot) can do exactly that if I just move him up to the FR slot. I have a 4-3-3 that uses this and position switching along my entire front line to pretty much destroy any attempt at man-marking my strikers out of position.

its really bad because tactically speaking positioning is the most important instruction a manager can give his players.

Indeed

this game desperately needs free positioning and wib/wob instead of the fixed system it has now. it will never be a football sim unless it starts doing so.

I would rather prefer them to improve (spend time) on our current ability to interact with the players. Wib/wob is still part of the ME, but I doubt they would make an interface so we can interact with it again. The current system is not too bad; we just need more flexibility.

FR and FL positions need reintroduced.

If I play a player as a FL, I get exactly the same options in the tactics wizard as if I was playing him at AML. However, if I've got a player with no striker rating, I'm apparently playing him totally out of position.

Makes absolutely no sense at all.

I do not use the wizard, so cannot comment on that. But I do believe that the FL/FR (currently SL SR in the FM10.2) is a dual role where the players do need wide AM ability as well as Striker/Forward ability.

But I think that the current default positioning of the SL/R in both defence and attack is just plain wrong and needs serious testing by SI.

The tactical setup should have been free of Preset positions ages ago, we should be able to drag-and-drop to any position in the pitch, if SI wants a close-to-real FM.

But no one should spend any time in their default position, except while waiting for goal kicks to be taken. The rest of the time they're moving to get into space or tracking back or closing down.

The more a player's position can be defined from the tactics screen - which positions them with complete blindness to how a match situation will unfold - the more worried I'll be.

This ME's biggest bug - the easy through ball between the two CBs - often arises from one of the CBs holding his tactics screen position, even when the other has been drawn out wide - leading to a gaping hole in the defence. The solution is more intuitive AI players, not more tactics screens.

The massive problem with this is how open such a match engine would be to exploit after exploit.

It has to be fairly rigid as it's made from mathematical formulae. If you could stick the player anywhere on the pitch, it would be incredibly hard to have a match engine that could factor in almost infinite variables.

They could certainly add in a few more places to drop a player in tactically, but giving it a completely free role would be very difficult to implement.

They could certainly add in a few more places to drop a player in tactically, but giving it a completely free role would be very difficult to implement.

Not really Tubey, I remember a Football Manager game from mid-90's, endorsed by big Ron Atkinson,( if my memory is right you could even offer money for a team to lose a match), where you could drag-and-drop players freely into any position. So it can be done.

I don't think free-positioning tactics screen is the way to go either. However, more positions options would be most welcomed.

For example, there should be a clear distinction between ML, MLC, and MC. Like how Malouda played as the MLC in Chelsea's diamond setup.

I don't think free-positioning tactics screen is the way to go either. However, more positions options would be most welcomed.

For example, there should be a clear distinction between ML, MLC, and MC. Like how Malouda played as the MLC in Chelsea's diamond setup.

That can be done actually - just set his width instructions to "Hug Touchline". I know it sounds daft, but he will drift wide from a central position when you're in possession.

I do agree that free positioning is the way forward tactically. I do feel - and perhaps people wish to correct me on this if im taking the wrong view - that it is excluded because such free positioning would be too hard to incorporate into the match engine. With so many variables and potentialities im not sure if it would even be feasible.

I do agree now that some of the positional ideas in the current system are random and slightly vague in places. As has been noted its slightly annoying not to be able to play an AML in the FL position if he doesnt have a striker rating. In real life this FL position would be more associated with a winger. There aer other similar positions.

As well as this, I find myself unconvinced by the rating systems of how able a player is to play a position. While i can acknowledge that a player cannot play a position as successfully as his natural position i do not feel the current system can be applied to every single footballer out there. There are some players who are adept at moving from one position to another with ease. I probably havent explained myself well there, but oh well.

I do agree now that some of the positional ideas in the current system are random and slightly vague in places. As has been noted its slightly annoying not to be able to play an AML in the FL position if he doesnt have a striker rating. In real life this FL position would be more associated with a winger. There aer other similar positions.

You can already do that without been penalised.

All the positions that have been asked for in this thread already exists.

You can already do that without been penalised.

All the positions that have been asked for in this thread already exists.

I have just checked this out in my game Cleon. I have two players who are listed as being able to play AML as part of their position description.

Andrea D'Amico - AM (left, centre)

Henri Lansbury - AM (left, centre, right)

D'Amico also have a striker rating of competent, whilst Lansbury does not.

Upon moving D'Amico to the FL position, I get a green "competent" symbol. If i move Lansbury to the same position I get a red symbol.

I have just checked this out in my game Cleon. I have two players who are listed as being able to play AML as part of their position description.

Andrea D'Amico - AM (left, centre)

Henri Lansbury - AM (left, centre, right)

D'Amico also have a striker rating of competent, whilst Lansbury does not.

Upon moving D'Amico to the FL position, I get a green "competent" symbol. If i move Lansbury to the same position I get a red symbol.

Yes I know. But they can play there fine if most of the time they'll be as a AML like you wanted above. Don't think because someone has a red symbol that they will be crap at that position it doesn't work like that. If you set the FLC up as a AML then he'll be just fine. The same can be said for all positions. After allhe'd only be a FLC at the end of his moves;)

I have just checked this out in my game Cleon. I have two players who are listed as being able to play AML as part of their position description.

Andrea D'Amico - AM (left, centre)

Henri Lansbury - AM (left, centre, right)

D'Amico also have a striker rating of competent, whilst Lansbury does not.

Upon moving D'Amico to the FL position, I get a green "competent" symbol. If i move Lansbury to the same position I get a red symbol.

Edle,

I am trying to figure out what your point is here as I am unsure, so please help me out a little.

From what I can gather you want attacking midfielders to be able to play in the wide forward positions. Is the fact Lansbury only gets a red symbol purely down to the fact he is not a forward whatsoever? D'Amico gets a competent symbol because he can play along the forward line. What's the issue with this and I'll try and help a bit more if I can.

Cheers

Yes I know. But they can play there fine if most of the time they'll be as a AML like you wanted above. Don't think because someone has a red symbol that they will be crap at that position it doesn't work like that. If you set the FLC up as a AML then he'll be just fine. The same can be said for all positions. After allhe'd only be a FLC at the end of his moves;)

Say i wanted to play with 3 up front with an FL, ST and FR though. In this instance only D'Amico would be able to play there with a competent green symbol, whereas Lansbury would get the red one. This is despite them both being apt left wingers. Does the red symbol not mean I am automatically penalised by the match engine and i will see a decline in performance?

So applying this to another scenario - I have a centre back who cant play left back. If I set him up to play as a left back, he could play well there depsite having a red symbol?

If the answer to that is "no, there will be no / negligible effect", whats the point in having these colour symbols in the game?

Say i wanted to play with 3 up front with an FL, ST and FR though. In this instance only D'Amico would be able to play there with a competent green symbol, whereas Lansbury would get the red one. This is despite them both being apt left wingers. Does the red symbol not mean I am automatically penalised by the match engine and i will see a decline in performance?

So applying this to another scenario - I have a centre back who cant play left back. If I set him up to play as a left back, he could play well there depsite having a red symbol?

If the answer to that is "no, there will be no / negligible effect", whats the point in having these colour symbols in the game?

Only their decisions will be lowered which makes sense as its not their natural position. But it doesn't mean they will be crap or ineffective. The symbols are just for a rough guide and used as a indication. It doesn't mean they can't play there though, its more a feature to let you know how bad his decisions might be by playing there. Not everyone who plays FM actually understands football, I feel this feature is more aimed at new/beginners to the game.

In the W-M I created I use a AML and AMR in the FR and FL positions and use centrebacks in the DR and DL positions and that does alright.

I've used many tactics that play people out of position, it's normally the things you think wont/can't work that bring the better results;)

Say i wanted to play with 3 up front with an FL, ST and FR though. In this instance only D'Amico would be able to play there with a competent green symbol, whereas Lansbury would get the red one. This is despite them both being apt left wingers. Does the red symbol not mean I am automatically penalised by the match engine and i will see a decline in performance?

So applying this to another scenario - I have a centre back who cant play left back. If I set him up to play as a left back, he could play well there depsite having a red symbol?

If the answer to that is "no, there will be no / negligible effect", whats the point in having these colour symbols in the game?

Well they wouldn't be playing their natural position, as they'll be turning round or coming deep to get the ball instead of running at goal, because they're further up the pitch - if that makes sense.

Ok,

Well the online manual describes what each colour means and explains how a player would be expected to perform in each position. I wouldn't necessarily take this as gospel though because, as Cleon says, players with red dots have been known to be able to play in those positions if set up correctly.

Here is the link to the relevant part;

http://www.footballmanager.com/manual/?q=books/115-positions

Just in relation to this, I actually played somebody out of position who had a red dot for a couple of games, I wouldn't say his performance level dropped any but he did come to me and stated that he was unhappy with his position in the team. Something I haven't seen before so it probably affects their general happiness too if they're being played out of position and the player is a bit temperamental.

If you really want Lansbury to play up top and not have a red dot you can always re-train him for this position whilst playing him there so that his dot changes from red to green.

@ Cleon - Excellent Thanks for the clarification. All this time ive been taking those symboles a little too literally by the sounds of it.

@ Noel - retraining is a possibility but i think i will be moving him on anyway soon.

@ Cleon - Excellent Thanks for the clarification. All this time ive been taking those symboles a little too literally by the sounds of it.

@ Noel - retraining is a possibility but i think i will be moving him on anyway soon.

As long as the player has the required stats of what's required of him he should be alright. I go with the stats a player has rather than what his position says

That can be done actually - just set his width instructions to "Hug Touchline". I know it sounds daft, but he will drift wide from a central position when you're in possession.

A player with those instructions will as often as possible play as a ML, while he should be occupying the MLC space (Edited 8 feb) with there being 7 spaces (positions) in the midfield line ML MLC MC MC MC MRC MR.

I use the width instructions too, but it is very much just a compromise.

All the positions that have been asked for in this thread already exists.

I disagree with that view (my opening post makes it clear why), but if you can explain how you do it I would be very grateful.

I actually think the positions players are assigned are one of worst areas of player research in the game, and often seem very arbitrary. For this reason, its one of the few areas that I have absolutely no qualms about editing (to at least accomplished) if I believe its warranted and reflects where the player plays in real life.

I would like to hear what peoples thoughts (not rants) are on the current position flexibility of the game.

(I think it is time that SI spends some serious time, going over the default positions of the few positions in the ME [match engine]. At the moment it seems to me like it is just a case of papering over the cracks.)

And more importantly I would also suggest that SI put in a few new positions, mainly:-

DLC & DRC

DMLC & DMRC

MLC & MRC

AMLC & AMRC

Some might say that those positions already exist, but it’s not hard to prove otherwise. You cannot play players in those positions unless you stick a player in between them. And even then although it looks as if the player plays wider (on tactics screen) they are actually still playing as central players. An example would be trying to play with a back 3 (no wingbacks), in theory DLC DC DRC (they play DC DC DC in effect in the ME).

I know that SI has recently made narrow formations less effective, as they were too effective in FM Live; they are still to effect judging by my system/formation in FM10. I like the fact that SI are make narrow formations very ineffective and the game thus more realistic. But in doing so there is a knock on effect that the flexibility/ability to have players in semi-positions is lost. Positions like DLC & DRC and MLC & MRC are needed in diamond formations (442s & 343s), 5-3-2/3-5-2s, 4-3-1-2s.

I would much much rather have improved player movement. control wise and ME wise. for instance a AML who's instructed to cut in should indeed behave more like AMLC. same with MCs in diamond formations. they should by default 'know' how to move and use the space more effectivly and we should be able to control their movement more effectivly.

I agree with you that now the positions are too static, predictable and would need to be more flexible. but positioning is always a static instruction. I'll give one example, how Kranjcar or Modric play for Spurs. in defense they're MLs. but in attack they behave much more like AMCs. with positional instructions this can never be achieved (without wib/wob), with movement instructions it should.

Marz,

I don't understand what you are talking about unfortunately. Please try and help me understand a bit more

What is the difference between your requested DLC and a normal DC?

DLC plays closer to the flank ?

when you play like this : DL DC DC DR then each half is divided by two players. DC wouldn't normally go wider to meet an opposition winger. DLC on contrary (in 3 man DCL DC DCR) will play as a full back when in posession and get closer to center when defending - effectively taking that left-central position.

Marz has easily explained that the only way you can get players in those "semi" positions is to stick another centermost player in-between them. A three-midfielder line looks like MCL MC MCR. But you cannot currently play

------------AMC------------

---MCL-------------- MCR---

you can only play

------------AMC------------

------MC----------MC-------

same with DMC. So the only way you can get players in MCL and MCR positions is by sticking another MC between them. If not then MCL and MCR will become MCs, play closer to center and further from the flank, reducing space in center for DMC to move in or AMC to fall back to. Which, in turn, denies full implementation of certain tactical ideas.

P.S.

Marz :

you should probably up that topic in bugs forum about FL/FR positioning. Sometimes you just have to go and actually prove obvious things, sad but true. SI already made a very complex game, but if you know something's wrong you should get their attention and explain and prove it, otherwise we may have to wait for a very long time until someone notices.

This topic was in Bugs section but it is moved here if I'm not wrong.

i think there should be a cf position just behind the striker

Heh, and while we're on the topic of player freedom... could they let my libero go past the centre circle for something other than a corner... pretty please...

It makes sense why its how it is on FM though. If not you'd have players who could play in every single position and do a good job. That's not really realstic is it. So by having to keep them training the new position it stops them been accomplished for every single position.

OK. So i've been thinking about this issue where apparently the dots on the screen are only a guide, and having a red dot wont give a negative effect However I stumbled across a thread and found the above quote. What i dont understand is this - if, as you claimed above, the dots are only a guide for the new players, why would it matter if the training allowed us to have every player as accomplished in every position?? Because surely if the dots are only a guide then similarly, the accomplished....competent etc....descriptions we see on the position screens are only a guide?

OK. So i've been thinking about this issue where apparently the dots on the screen are only a guide, and having a red dot wont give a negative effect However I stumbled across a thread and found the above quote. What i dont understand is this - if, as you claimed above, the dots are only a guide for the new players, why would it matter if the training allowed us to have every player as accomplished in every position?? Because surely if the dots are only a guide then similarly, the accomplished....competent etc....descriptions we see on the position screens are only a guide?

Well a player could in theory have every single position, however his stats wouldn't allow him to play every position as he'd have poor ones for some positions if not all. You can play any player anywhere if he has the correct stats and all that is penalised is decision making mainly. The more dark the dot, the more his decision making is reduced for that position. If you retrained him and put him on a schedule to suit you could redistribute his stats a number of times.

Th quote you've took is from something completley different to what you was asking about before. You was saying you couldn't play a AML as FLC. I just pointed out you could because even though he gets a red dot the position is morealess the same and he needs to the same stats. Playing a defender there howver would probably have bigger consequences due to the lack of stats he'd require.

Yes i understand that players attributes can effect how well a player can play in a certain position. This leads further questions into my mind:

1) Why would it therefore put the user at an advantage to have a player as accomplished in each position, as your tone suggested in my quote?

2) Do the position ratings in the database have no effect on the game, bar the position description that appears next to their name?

3) If i was for instance, to take drogba and edit his player position rating so that he appeared as a defender in the game ie CB =20,ST=0, and played him as a striker, he would still be as effectual as he was before?

Yes i understand that players attributes can effect how well a player can play in a certain position. This leads further questions into my mind:

1) Why would it therefore put the user at an advantage to have a player as accomplished in each position, as your tone suggested in my quote?

2) Do the position ratings in the database have no effect on the game, bar the position description that appears next to their name?

3) If i was for instance, to take drogba and edit his player position rating so that he appeared as a defender in the game ie CB =20,ST=0, and played him as a striker, he would still be as effectual as he was before?

1) Because he's more likely to have the correct stats for his natural or accomplished position.

2) Yes it lowers decision making

3) Well he'd still have striker stats and striker PPM's. He'd just not be as good at making the correct decisions. And because you'd have edited it drastically he wouldn't be making the right decisions when to run into space, make shots, pass etc.

1) Surely a players ability to become accomplished at a position is based upon his versatility rather than his visible stats?

2) Fair enough.

3) Can the game actually differentiate between the different decisions a player needs to make in certain positions?

1) Surely a players ability to become accomplished at a position is based upon his versatility rather than his visible stats?

2) Fair enough.

3) Can the game actually differentiate between the different decisions a player needs to make in certain positions?

1) I don't know the full workings of how its worked out, but I assume it's like everything else and will be based on where he plays and the stats he has. Players already have the positions selected when the reappear as regens. So I'm guessing the stats that come with favour their position or very close to it. Not for all though but you get where I'm going. The way you raise someones position is by playing them there after training it. So not quite sure what you are asking

3) Yes it can.

And more importantly I would also suggest that SI put in a few new positions, mainly:-

DLC & DRC

DMLC & DMRC

MLC & MRC

AMLC & AMRC

Theres not a single one of them you cannot have already on the game. You can put player's in them positions already.

Some might say that those positions already exist, but it’s not hard to prove otherwise. You cannot play players in those positions unless you stick a player in between them.

Yes you can, they just play wider when a player is inbetween them that's all. So you've not really proved they don't exist.

And even then although it looks as if the player plays wider (on tactics screen) they are actually still playing as central players. An example would be trying to play with a back 3 (no wingbacks), in theory DLC DC DRC (they play DC DC DC in effect in the ME).

They actually favour the side they play on depending on how you've set them up. For example if you set up a DMLC then he will favour attacks at that side depending on how you've set him up. If you don't put a DMRC at the side of him then he will still obviously close down all throughout the middle and tackle etc. Which is what anyone playing that way does. Take a look at real life teams who use things such a AMLC and DMLC's. They still cover everywhere. It's just that their starting position is slightly off set.

And 3 man defences certainly don't play like 3 central defenders for me. It's all in the settings how they play and not actual position. It's very rare if at all a player is in the position you've set ever apart from kick offs. The rest of the time they just occupy space near by.

So I'm not sure why you are asking for things which already exist.

1) I don't know the full workings of how its worked out, but I assume it's like everything else and will be based on where he plays and the stats he has. Players already have the positions selected when the reappear as regens. So I'm guessing the stats that come with favour their position or very close to it. Not for all though but you get where I'm going. The way you raise someones position is by playing them there after training it. So not quite sure what you are asking

3) Yes it can.

To clarify with 1) Would it not be possible to train, for example, a winger to be a full back, even if his defensive attributes were weak, simply because he had a high versatility? Or would the low defensive attribute stop him becoming accomplished in this area?

To clarify with 1) Would it not be possible to train, for example, a winger to be a full back, even if his defensive attributes were weak, simply because he had a high versatility? Or would the low defensive attribute stop him becoming accomplished in this area?

He'd become accomplished by you playing him there. Sorry think I misunderstood you originally

OK. Apologies for seemingly playing devils advocate here - im fairly clueless when it comes to many of the intricacies surrounding the match engine and how the game works. Im just trying to gather as much information as I can.

OK. Apologies for seemingly playing devils advocate here - im fairly clueless when it comes to many of the intricacies surrounding the match engine and how the game works. Im just trying to gather as much information as I can.

Don't worry about it mate. It was my fault I was trying to multi task but then things take twice as long because I get confused and muggled up:D

I'm happy to try and answer anything else if you need to know, just post away:thup:

Ah well youve done well in your advice so far

Im down with questions for now, but im sure ill have some in the future.

Theres not a single one of them you cannot have already on the game. You can put player's in them positions already.

So I'm not sure why you are asking for things which already exist.

We want them to play wider WITHOUT sticking a player in-between - simple as that. We cannot put players in MRC and MLC positions without third-party means of another central player, but we want to, because that is an important aspect of some real-life tactics. I really don't know how make it more clear than it already is.

We want to see :

1)

----------AMC-----------

---MCR----------MCL----

----------DMC-----------

NOT :

2)

----------AMC-----------

------MC------MC--------

----------DMC-----------

because 2) is narrow and 1) is wide and we want wide.

In 1) the center-most area is covered by both AMC who falls back and DMC who goes forward depending on who's in possession. MCR and MCL cover the rest of the field from center to flanks - providing width, passing options and general pitch coverage.

In 2) The midfield is divided into three lines with severely weakened flanks and a crowd in center. There is much less movement possible in-between lines because the space is very likely to be occupied by one of those damn MCs.

Yes you can, they just play wider when a player is inbetween them that's all.

Yeah, that's all, and it's very important to be able to exactly that - to have mc's play much wider without the third central player.

We want them to play wider WITHOUT sticking a player in-between - simple as that.

Whether there is a player inbetween or not, they will still play the same width regardless. How wide they play actually depends on the width you use in the team settings.

We cannot put players in MRC and MLC positions without third-party means of another central player, but we want to, because that is an important aspect of some real-life tactics.

The central MC's are the MLC and MRC though. They only seem wider positioned when you enter a central MC. They still occuppy and do the samething with or without the central player. They are still MLC and MRC.

I really don't know how make it more clear than it already is.

No need to be an arse;)

Both the diagrams you did would both be the same.

because 2) is narrow and 1) is wide and we want wide.

If you change the width settings this is exactly how they would play. They are only narrow if you choose a narrow width, they are wide if you choose wide settings. Just because the overview screen shows them as MC doesn't mean they are not MCL and MCR. If you view a game and alter the width settings it becomes clearer and you'll understand they they already exist.

In 1) the center-most area is covered by both AMC who falls back and DMC who goes forward depending on who's in possession. MCR and MCL cover the rest of the field from center to flanks - providing width, passing options and general pitch coverage.

If you set the player instructions up correctly this should be happening. If this doesn't happen for you already then its a tactical thing that you can easily sort by changing settings.

In 2) The midfield is divided into three lines with severely weakened flanks and a crowd in center. There is much less movement possible in-between lines because the space is very likely to be occupied by one of those damn MCs.

Same as above.

Yeah, that's all, and it's very important to be able to exactly that - to have mc's play much wider without the third central player.

You don't need a 3rd player to achieve it. They only shows as wider on the overview because they've had to put them slighly apart to fit the 3rd MC in the middle of them. But if you view a game they should still play the same regardless if you've got them set up right with or without the 3rd MC.

Cleon, even 20 width is not enough to see what we want to see. That is the problem. I always view the full match, I know what problems you can solve (or create ) increasing width. Besides, I think this question has already been brought up and not once - separate width settings for different lines. What if I want only MCs to play wider, and not defenders for example ? Width is currently a global setting for ALL the lines. We just cannot achieve some things with current tactical options available - otherwise there would be no such topics.

Marz is probably busy, but I'm sure he'll post and clear things up from his experience with Ajax system replication. I simply lack examples like screenshots or PKM analysis, because I play different tactics.Those problems aren't common with common formations, but some complex systems require special tools to be available.

Cleon, even 20 width is not enough to see what we want to see.

It is for the positions that's been said in this thread. Remember it won't only rely on his width though as what you've istrcuted him to do will also play a part.

I think this question has already been brought up and not once - separate width settings for different lines. What if I want only MCs to play wider, and not defenders for example ?

I agree, I've been asking for this since I can remember.

Width is currently a global setting for ALL the lines. We just cannot achieve some things with current tactical options available - otherwise there would be no such topics.

Marz is probably busy, but I'm sure he'll post and clear things up from his experience with Ajax system replication. I simply lack examples like screenshots or PKM analysis, because I play different tactics.Those problems aren't common with common formations, but some complex systems require special tools to be available.

I create almost every classic formation on ever new version of FM. The reason I found somethings are very hard to get right are not because of the lack of positioning (although things like individual tempo and width would help) but because most of them fail in modern football. Total Football, W-M to name a few. You can get the positioning right (although it can be hard) but it's other things like not been able to ask certain players to play at a faster pace than the rest of the team. Or ask someone to play narrow while the rest of the players stay wide.

For me it's things like that, that should be added to the game to make it better and not poistioning for things that already exist imo.