Positions in FM are really redundant (long and rambly)

[Matshit]

If there is one thing that is bothering me about FM compared to real life it is the player positions. I will show what i meen by giving a few examples.

Take Ryan Shawcross for example. He is a good defender, but hopeless at anything with the ball in his feet. That is what makes him a central defender. In the game though, he is a central defender because he is a central defender.

Then we have Alan Smith. A former striker who was moved back into central midfield after his injury because he had lost his speed, and was mainly a hard worker. When a speed merchant striker become old and slow in game you have no way of moving him back into midfield to use him for a year or two there. This happens all the time IRL (just ask Shebby Singh). If a player suddenly got the ability to play in a different position he should not have to take a year to learn this new position.

Another example is Jesus Navas. He is a natural right winger, but akward on the left.

This is just as easily represented by the fact that he has the preferred moves of running down the right and avoiding using his weaker foot. Plus the fact that he is a weak finisher making him not useful for cutting inside.

Another example is the difference between a CM and a CDM (or RB and RWB).

A player can have natural DM, but he is not capable of playing CM. Hedwiges Maduro to just mention an example. This means that he can play virtualy the same way, but if his starting position is just a little higher (with sliders i guess i could even make the DM more attacking then the CM) he suddenly is a much weaker player.

The way i feel the game should work is this:

1) No player have a position in the database.

2) The positions shown in game are just suggestions based on his qualities as a player and his preferred moves.

3) Training a player in a new position will only increase key stats for that position.

4. The AI select players based on who has the best stats+PM for the position and not who has the most green light for the position.

I understand that there is a bunch of problems. If Ronaldo was moved to a conference club (not a realistic example but could happen in FM due to editor) the team might end up using him as a central defender because his physic+anticipation and heading would be so high that the fact that he has no defensive fibers wouldn't matter. But i am still sure that making the skill of a player determine where he should play is a much better way then making a skill per position. In game there is no way that Valencia suddenly would put Jordi Alba as a wing back (in old FMs he was only a winger) without a year of training for the new position. And i don't think i have ever seen a player developing a position from scratch by the AI.

My suggestion would also fix the problem of players with the wrong skills for his position. There is no way for example that a quick small striker with no defensive skills should be a defender as well.

[jujigatame]

I actually think this is a pretty interesting idea, and FM has already moved slightly in this direction by allowing you to train players for a specific role. I think the wingback vs. fullback issue is the most obvious problem case where wingback is both a role and a position, which doesn't make that much sense.

Also when you say Ronaldo could end up playing CB, I actually doubt that would happen. His high finishing/dribbling/technique and poor marking/tackling would probably make it obvious that it's not the right role for him.

[THOG]

This isn't really true. Changing positions involves completely changing your understanding of your responsibilities as a player and how to read the game from the perspective of those responsibilities. Understanding proper positioning as a centreback does not mean you understand proper positioning as a central midfielder. Some players can make this change quicker than others, but it's not an easy process.

With that said, I don't see why FB/WB, ML/AML, CB/SW and DCM/CM/ACM need to be completely separate positions.

[Divide]

With that said, I don't see why FB/WB, ML/AML, CB/SW and DCM/CM/ACM need to be completely separate positions.

Following on from this, a player then has the ability to play a zone on the pitch more than a specific position. Then within that, could be a specialist within the zone for specific positions. Although there are several players in the game that have adapted to this already but we see them as DR/WBR/MR for example. Instead this could read defensive minded wide right.

[Matshit]

Understanding proper positioning as a centreback does not mean you understand proper positioning as a central midfielder. Some players can make this change quicker than others, but it's not an easy process.

I actually feel this at best semi true. If you look at the best central midfielders with over 17 at positioning they have either already been used with success as defenders (Busquets, De Rossi, Mascherano) or lack other defensive skills to become a defender (Pirlo or Alonso for example).

If you look at the real world, a huge percentage of the worlds best central defenders are former midfielders (Thiago Silva, Kompany, Hummels, Pique) or fullbacks (Ramos, Puyol, Chiellini).

If you have the qualities, changing position should not be that big a deal. It takes months of training for a player to even be good enough at a new position to play there. I can see a bit of time getting used to the new position, but not that long.

The problem is not so bad at the start of the game, as most stats are compatible with their positions (the big problem is the fact that a team with wing backs would transferlist a fullback even if he had attacking qualities). But there comes regens into the game who has positions that makes no sense. As the Jan Kollertype who can play as a winger, or the Inzaghi who can play in defense. Or the right midfield/left winger. All of this is completly pointless. A player should play where his skills dictate him to play. The reason Van Nistelrooy (another player that was suddenly used in a new position and became lightyears better) was used as a striker was not that he simply WAS a striker. It was because his goalscoring qualities was some of the best of all time, and his tackling/defensive positioning was not even close.

I realize that my suggestion might be to push it to far, but the way it works today really need a big rewamp.

And while i am on it:

If i have two right sided midfielders and put one on the right and one on the left and train the one on the right at playing on the left it makes no sense that the one playing on the right end up as the best left wing. What are he learning in training? If anything it should be opposite.

[macca72]

I made a similar suggestion a while back. My idea was to have all of the positional indicators black, then you should be able to fit a player into any number of positions based on the role you provide him in the TC (or his settings if you use classic tactics).

[bigdunk]

The fundamental problem with this, is that several attributes are intimately tied in with positions. For example, a DC with positioning 20 knows how to position himself as a central defender, but it says absolutely nothing about his ability to position himself as a fullback. Maybe he would be good there, maybe he wouldn't, but we don't know in any way. The ability to play in a position is more than just having suitable attributes to play there, it's the accumulated knowledge of playing in that position for however many years. Yes players can switch positions, but someone like Kompany didn't switch from being a world class midfielder to being a world class defender, he's gradually got better and better at his new position. FM replicates this fairly well in that you can play a player out of position, and providing they have decent attributes for it, they'll do okay, and if you train them up there as well, they'll eventually be fine (adaptability and age etc notwithstanding).

What I do agree with is that there should be more linkage between positions - my favourite 'worst' example is a player that can play D/M L but has no rating for WB L. That makes no sense to me - any player that has those two positions in the DB should have some kind of rating at WBL, even if he's never played there in real life IMO.

[Keyzer Soze]

bigdunk

[milnerpoint]

The fundamental problem with this, is that several attributes are intimately tied in with positions. For example, a DC with positioning 20 knows how to position himself as a central defender, but it says absolutely nothing about his ability to position himself as a fullback. Maybe he would be good there, maybe he wouldn't, but we don't know in any way. The ability to play in a position is more than just having suitable attributes to play there, it's the accumulated knowledge of playing in that position for however many years. Yes players can switch positions, but someone like Kompany didn't switch from being a world class midfielder to being a world class defender, he's gradually got better and better at his new position. FM replicates this fairly well in that you can play a player out of position, and providing they have decent attributes for it, they'll do okay, and if you train them up there as well, they'll eventually be fine (adaptability and age etc notwithstanding).

What I do agree with is that there should be more linkage between positions - my favourite 'worst' example is a player that can play D/M L but has no rating for WB L. That makes no sense to me - any player that has those two positions in the DB should have some kind of rating at WBL, even if he's never played there in real life IMO.

Bang on the money!

[junwenteh]

A primitive sollution would to make a position adjacent to a natural position easier to train than what is further from it. Example: if Natural = CB, then position adjacent to it would be DL/DR or DM easier to train, position not adjacent to it ie: AMC or CM would be harder to adapt. Of course, it will be interesting if SI takes up the positional map similiar to Proevolution Soccer, where at times, positional maps of CM and DMC overlaps, and overlaps make players adapt easier.

[jdrawmer]

A primitive sollution would to make a position adjacent to a natural position easier to train than what is further from it. Example: if Natural = CB, then position adjacent to it would be DL/DR or DM easier to train, position not adjacent to it ie: AMC or CM would be harder to adapt. Of course, it will be interesting if SI takes up the positional map similiar to Proevolution Soccer, where at times, positional maps of CM and DMC overlaps, and overlaps make players adapt easier.

Think that's a good idea. You could tie this in with 2 hidden attributes 'wide play' and 'central play' or something which determines how easy they learn wide and central positions so that a standard CB will learn DMC faster than DLR as I believe that's probably the case in reality

[roquesantacruz]

My view would be all AMC should be able to play Centre Mid, same with DMC. All AMR should be able to play MR, and all AML should be able to play ML. Aside from that, I think the way positions are represented in FM is realistic.

Frustrating when you have a club with players who play AMR naturally but can't even fill in on MR to slot into a 4-4-2.

Best example is Simon Vukcevic at Blackburn Rovers, simply can't play him unless I play 4-2-3-1

[Bobble2002]

the only problem i see with the Op's idea is that would make it too easy to just buy a player with a lot of high stats and use him all over the pitch whereas for real players can play in other positions but often nowhere near as well as their main position and training often takes a long time in RL to get the player accomplished in a new position

[kingjericho]

The fundamental problem with this, is that several attributes are intimately tied in with positions. For example, a DC with positioning 20 knows how to position himself as a central defender, but it says absolutely nothing about his ability to position himself as a fullback. Maybe he would be good there, maybe he wouldn't, but we don't know in any way. The ability to play in a position is more than just having suitable attributes to play there, it's the accumulated knowledge of playing in that position for however many years. Yes players can switch positions, but someone like Kompany didn't switch from being a world class midfielder to being a world class defender, he's gradually got better and better at his new position. FM replicates this fairly well in that you can play a player out of position, and providing they have decent attributes for it, they'll do okay, and if you train them up there as well, they'll eventually be fine (adaptability and age etc notwithstanding).

What I do agree with is that there should be more linkage between positions - my favourite 'worst' example is a player that can play D/M L but has no rating for WB L. That makes no sense to me - any player that has those two positions in the DB should have some kind of rating at WBL, even if he's never played there in real life IMO.

100% agreed, thus I think the discussion about FM not having any listed positions for players is over. And the D/M L makes every sense.

A primitive sollution would to make a position adjacent to a natural position easier to train than what is further from it. Example: if Natural = CB, then position adjacent to it would be DL/DR or DM easier to train, position not adjacent to it ie: AMC or CM would be harder to adapt. Of course, it will be interesting if SI takes up the positional map similiar to Proevolution Soccer, where at times, positional maps of CM and DMC overlaps, and overlaps make players adapt easier.

My view would be all AMC should be able to play Centre Mid, same with DMC. All AMR should be able to play MR, and all AML should be able to play ML. Aside from that, I think the way positions are represented in FM is realistic.

This looks like a good solution, and it's probably not very difficult to implement this in the game. For example regarding CBs, they should naturally have some sort of comfort playing as a DM, which wouldn't necessarily make them a natural DM but at least they would have a general idea of what they are supposed to do.

The problem with saying that every M R should also be a natural AM R (and vice-versa) is more tricky. Imagine Hulk: his attributes make him a striker that plays better in wide positions, but I don't see him playing as a M R in a flat 442.

[Matshit]

The example of Hulk is actually pretty good. The difference between a AMR and a MR is that the MR is a more defensive player with more early crosses. Hulk lacks the work rate and defensive qualities to work from the back, and his preferred moves and lack of right foot make him a pretty bad crosser of the ball. This should mean that even if Hulk had a natural right midfielder, he should not be able to do a good job there. In reality it should make him a AMR even if his starting position was MR. I can see the argument between a central defender and a striker, but positions like MR and AMR is mostly the same thing.

I would suggest that even if we don't like my most extreme version something should be done about the way positions are treated today.

And i would suggest the following things as important improvements:

-Learning a new position should be done by playing there, not by focusing your training. I still cant explain to myself how that works.

-Learning a new position up to at least accomplished should be much quicker than today if the positions are similar. (DL to ML or MR to ML)

-The AI should be much more willing to retrain players if they have attributes that dictates it.

-The second (DM) and fifth line (AM) of positions should be removed, and a player should always be as natural in those positions if they are natural at the standard version of the position.

-The AI should look at the qualities/foot/PM of a player and how good that fits the role, and not just accept the fact that he can play in that position. Like when Juve use Giovinco as a LM with solo responsibility of the left side.

[Spart]

I would suggest that even if we don't like my most extreme version something should be done about the way positions are treated today.

And i would suggest the following things as important improvements:

-Learning a new position should be done by playing there, not by focusing your training. I still cant explain to myself how that works.

Shouldn't players be able to learn through both methods - putting the work in on the training ground shouldn't be dismissed over purely learning through match experience.

-Learning a new position up to at least accomplished should be much quicker than today if the positions are similar. (DL to ML or MR to ML)

AML to ML I could understand or similar, but DL to ML and MR to ML might not be as simple as you make it sound for some players. Plus, some not be the sort of people that find it easy to adapt or change their methods.

-The AI should be much more willing to retrain players if they have attributes that dictates it.

...

-The AI should look at the qualities/foot/PM of a player and how good that fits the role, and not just accept the fact that he can play in that position. Like when Juve use Giovinco as a LM with solo responsibility of the left side.

Agree.

-The second (DM) and fifth line (AM) of positions should be removed, and a player should always be as natural in those positions if they are natural at the standard version of the position.

I don't see the logic here. These lines between the lines of defence, midfield and attack exist in football so why take them away or obscure them?

Giovinco shouldn't necessarily be able to play as a DM just because he's in the hole. Similarly, Carrick shouldn't automatically be ready for an AM position despite his experience at CM/DM.

While the role of the midfielder can be very general depending on tactics and the player, it can also be very specialised for some footballers.

[Matshit]

Shouldn't players be able to learn through both methods - putting the work in on the training ground shouldn't be dismissed over purely learning through match experience.

Honestly? No. Learning to play football is done by playing football. How often does a big team play 11vs11 in training? If a central defender focused on becoming a fullback in training he could increase his speed/stamina/crossing/work rate++, but if there is some sort of understanding of being a back and not being a stopper, it has to be learned by playing in that position in a 11 vs 11 match.

AML to ML I could understand or similar, but DL to ML and MR to ML might not be as simple as you make it sound for some players. Plus, some not be the sort of people that find it easy to adapt or change their methods.

Of course there is personal differences. Some players could take more time than others. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't in general be faster.

When it comes to DL to ML the difference is not that big. If you play as a left back and is moved forward into the ML role it should not matter that much. A player like Leighton Baines should easily turn into a left winger, but if the player was like Gary Neville his lack of technical skills should make him useless as a winger. Still, he should be able to learn the position, just not master it.

I don't see the logic here. These lines between the lines of defence, midfield and attack exist in football so why take them away or obscure them?

Giovinco shouldn't necessarily be able to play as a DM just because he's in the hole. Similarly, Carrick shouldn't automatically be ready for an AM position despite his experience at CM/DM.

While the role of the midfielder can be very general depending on tactics and the player, it can also be very specialised for some footballers.

I don't want to remove the positions, just the positional "understanding".

To take a simple example. Gojko Kacar is a natural advandced playmaker. He would still be terrible at it though because he has no technique, and no creativity but positionally he is natural. In the same way Giovinco (who really should be a natural striker and not AMC) should be a natural DM, but his lack of positioning, strength and defensive abilities would still make it guaranteed that he was never used there. But maybe when he is old and play for a weaker side, his positioning has gone up and made him into some sort of deep-lying playmaker, the same way that happened to Dwight Yorke. Giovinco is maybe a to extreme example for it to ever happen, but IRL old players get retrained all the time. In game it would never happen because for a old player to gain a position it would take so long before he became decent that it has to be planed long time in advance.

[kingjericho]

In the same way Giovinco (who really should be a natural striker and not AMC) should be a natural DM, but his lack of positioning, strength and defensive abilities would still make it guaranteed that he was never used there. But maybe when he is old and play for a weaker side, his positioning has gone up and made him into some sort of deep-lying playmaker, the same way that happened to Dwight Yorke. Giovinco is maybe a to extreme example for it to ever happen, but IRL old players get retrained all the time. In game it would never happen because for a old player to gain a position it would take so long before he became decent that it has to be planed long time in advance.

From what you're saying it can be concluded that Giovinco should be accomplished at a position (DM) he has never, and probably will never play during his carrer. I just don't see the logic in that.

Just because the DM and AM lines are 'intermediate' lines that doesn't make them less important, and in my opinion that doesn't mean at all that a CM can play at a DM or AM. The only criteria that you use in this argument is the player's positioning is similar. That makes sense, but that isn't enough to make them play comfortably at a certain position on the pitch.

Though your theory about CMs being at least a little familiarized with the DM and AM positions makes sense, I don't think you can immediately say that they can effectively play there. Look at another example: Ozil is a AM, but does that mean that he can be a good CM? I find it hard to believe that he would play half of what he can if he was in a flat 442, because he doesn't have high work rate, stamina, or strength. He has the right attributes for a classic number 10, and for that to work entirely, he has to play in the AM slot.

[x42bn6]

Positions are important. Rafael, a relatively two-footed attacking full-back is substantially worse at left-back than right-back. Could you thread a needle only looking at a mirror? It's not that easy to do something as a mirror image. Rafael is used to his partnering centre-back being in specific positions, and positions his body relative to that. That flies out of the window for him at left-back and he is pulled all over the place (more than usual). Then there's wingers who are much less dangerous on their opposite flank, or centre-backs having a horrible time at full-back even though they are tasked with not attacking, as the positioning for a full-back is very different to a centre-back.

As for the positional knowledge bit - a D/M L who has never played (nor trained) at left wing-back should not know anything at left wing-back. However, you would expect such a player to pick up left wing-back quicker than someone who doesn't have the knowledge of similar positions, because that knowledge isn't there. Similar arguments are made for the likes of DM C <=> M C <=> AM C; D C <=> D R (or D L), ST <=> AM R (or AM L), etc.

So, for example, it might take 3 months of training and playing for a D/M L to become accomplished at WB L, but it would take 12 months for a DM C (say), for the same versatility attribute, assuming performances there are the same (which is unlikely, as the former player will learn quicker, but just assume that that is the case).

[Spart]

Stewart Downing is doing an excellent job of showing the issues AML/ML players can have when converted to DL...

[x42bn6]

Stewart Downing is doing an excellent job of showing the issues AML/ML players can have when converted to DL...

Downing is not a football player, so that is a bit unfair.

[ReggaeBwoy]

Stewart Downing is doing an excellent job of showing the issues AML/ML players can have when converted to DL...

LMAO :lol::o:D:lol:

[Spart]

Downing is not a football player, so that is a bit unfair.

Haha, touche.

[x42bn6]

On a more serious note, Downing does have a use in this discussion (probably not enough uses for Liverpool, though) - would the AI ever play an out-of-form José Enriqué at left-wing while putting Downing at left-back, effectively flipping their natural/accomplished positions?

It could be a suggestion that maybe positions are perhaps a tad too "much" in the game in the sense that positional penalties are fairly low in reality (for less important matches and more fluid formations perhaps), and that Brendan Hodgson sees Downing's lack of confidence, end-product, pace, trickery and cowardice sufficient enough to see a player out-of-position as a superior option for left-wing.

[THOG]

Stewart Downing is doing an excellent job of showing the issues AML/ML players can have when converted to DL...

In fairness to Downing, Liverpool's defense conceded less to Spurs at WHL with him as leftback than your team did at Old Trafford with two natural fullbacks. He's played about as well there as he did as a winger (though that still raises the question as to why he's playing at all when Rodgers has four left-footed players who can both defend and get forward with a similar or greater degree of effectiveness).

With that said, it doesn't really support either argument as Downing has never shown an aptitude for defensive play. I would wholly expect a natural fullback with Downing's "Positioning" to make the sort of mistakes that Downing did today.

As far as AI managers using players out of position, the bigger issue is the AI rarely dropping out-of-form players. The AI does convert players to new positions quite frequently (arguably too frequently as in one FM12 save where I saw United playing a 33 year-old Sandro as a right-winger).

[RBKalle]

Aren't we forgetting the biggest factor while discussing this?

Positional knowledge in FM = attributes weighing = CA limitations

IIRC there was an exploit a couple of iterations ago allowing players to be retrained in a completely "out of character" position (ie. DC as ST and the other way around) in order to raise secondary attributes at a very low cost of CA points... I'm not sure how/how well it worked as I never tried it, but i remember reading about it.

Anyway, retraining a DC to be a LB or a DMC will cause an "imbalance" of his attributes so weighing will be readjusted with repercussions on his attributes and possibly on his PA points left. Also, I'm unsure about that but do new positions need CA points by themselves or it's just about the aforementioned change in distribution?

I think the current system won't allow for such an extreme measure as the OP suggested (although I'm not entirely against it myself).

Retraining isn't a big deal with original players, as there are very few examples of "wrong roles", so retraining is merely a matter of new opportunities or of late-career changes (see many AMC, MC closing their career as DC/Libero).

The cracks in the system do appear when the gameworld starts to fill with newgens... those AWFUL newgens whose attributes don't match the position... They'd need a quick retrain, but it's often a waste of time as it'd take them months or even years, still while retaining as "Natural" a position which is just wrong and it's still a huge problem for their attributes weighing.

So unless there's an overhaul of how CA is "translated" into attributes, a different/faster positional retraining is going to create more problems than it'd solve.

P.S. about tall-slow strikers being AML/AMR, don't forget AML/R also counts when you play 3 wide strikers... so while not entirely accurate, not ever AML/R in the game is actually player as Winger/Inside Forward.

It's rare having a realtively slow striker playing out wide, but it can happen.

Time to reintroduce FR and FL?

[robertcornell68]

Seems to me that while tactics, training & scouting have become role based, this aspect is stuck in 2007.

It's daft that an advanced playmaker (attack) can switch instantaneously to a ball winning midfielder (defend) during a match but to do exactly the same things ten yards further forwards can take all season to learn.

Also, in FM12 I had a natural MC who could also play at AML and MR but not ML or AMR. Did he become left footed when he crassed the half way line?

That said, I have no constructive suggestions about how to fix it.

[Dperry]

As an idea it might make more sense if players learnt roles not positions. On top of that there would need to be a left/right modifier.

So if a right footed player has learnt the winger role 100% they can play in the AMR, MR, WBR position - it doesn't matter as long as they are playing in a role they are familiar they get a green dot. If a player was equally adept with his left foot he could also play AML, ML and WBL in that role.

Then the roles themselves would need some kind of relationship to each other. For example, if a player is 100% comfortable playing in the Defensive winger role then they should automatically be, say, 50% comfortable in the Full Back role and therefore get a yellow dot if playing at DL or DR. Whereas the winger role might only give 25% and the inside forward 10%

[Kenco]

Does anyone actually know how much of an effect it has when you play someone out of position? I know they will not perform to 100% of their ability but what percentage can they achieve if they are accomplished, competent, awkward, etc.

Has anyone looked at a player in their squad and thought 'This AML has good enough attributes to be a good DL but has a red dot. I'm going to play him there consistently for a whole season and see how he does'?

[THOG]

Does anyone actually know how much of an effect it has when you play someone out of position? I know they will not perform to 100% of their ability but what percentage can they achieve if they are accomplished, competent, awkward, etc.

Has anyone looked at a player in their squad and thought 'This AML has good enough attributes to be a good DL but has a red dot. I'm going to play him there consistently for a whole season and see how he does'?

It doesn't have that great of an effect and it only actually affects a few attributes, so you can minimize the actual effect by using the player in a more limited role. I believe the total effect is also dependent on a player's Versatility attribute (which is hidden).

I also recall reading that the effect has been reduced in recent versions.

[RBKalle]

I remember a guy playing and winning with every single City's player out of position... so apparently the red dot doesn't mean much as long as the player is good... or, knowing the (old?) match engine, pacey enough

[milnerpoint]

Does anyone actually know how much of an effect it has when you play someone out of position? I know they will not perform to 100% of their ability but what percentage can they achieve if they are accomplished, competent, awkward, etc.

Has anyone looked at a player in their squad and thought 'This AML has good enough attributes to be a good DL but has a red dot. I'm going to play him there consistently for a whole season and see how he does'?

I've been doing almost exactly that, i have a left winger, never really going to be good enough for left wing, but he has all the right attributes (except tackling) for making a solid back up left back. I've spent the last season re-training him to be a left back, he started off with a red dot there, but ive played him in all the smaller less important games, and against weak european teams and he has performed well enough for me to put off buying another full back. In a season its gone from red dot, to a green one, another few months and im hoping he will be natural on left back so i can stop training that and work on his tackling 8 attribute. There have been a few games where he has had shockers, but you would expect that for a player learning a new position, but on the whole it hasnt really effected my team in an adverse way.

[Spart]

I often play players out of position (red) when I'm new to a club with a fairly specialist squad or at a lower league team without much back up.

Works alright as long as the attributes are there e.g. full-backs to MC and vica versa, defensive mids to defense and sometimes even strikers/CBs swapping ends. Usually only as an emergency mind!

[kingjericho]

As for the positional knowledge bit - a D/M L who has never played (nor trained) at left wing-back should not know anything at left wing-back.

I don't agree. The full back/wing back situation is very specific in the sense that for this position only, natural fullbacks should be able to do both positions. I can say with reasonable certainty that if a natural full back (Rafael, Ashley Cole, Sagna, Dani Alves) was transferred to an italian side he could play in a 352 system with no problems at all. I say again that this should only apply to natural full backs.

[THOG]

I don't agree. The full back/wing back situation is very specific in the sense that for this position only, natural fullbacks should be able to do both positions. I can say with reasonable certainty that if a natural full back (Rafael, Ashley Cole, Sagna, Dani Alves) was transferred to an italian side he could play in a 352 system with no problems at all. I say again that this should only apply to natural full backs.

I agree to an extent, but there certainly would be an adjustment period. Certainly, wingback and fullback really aren't wholly separate positions in real football as they are in football manager (the same is true of ML and AML as well CM and ACM). These are less different positions than different tactical instructions, but players do need time to adjust to new tactics, roles and duties. But to the extent that players need to learn these new roles/duties (and should learn them in less time than it takes, for example, a striker to learn how to play as a centreback), FM already represents that to the extent that it takes players a few months to adapt to entirely new formations and tactical instructions.

[x42bn6]

I don't agree. The full back/wing back situation is very specific in the sense that for this position only, natural fullbacks should be able to do both positions. I can say with reasonable certainty that if a natural full back (Rafael, Ashley Cole, Sagna, Dani Alves) was transferred to an italian side he could play in a 352 system with no problems at all. I say again that this should only apply to natural full backs.

Some full-backs are converted centre-backs who are simply centre-backs at full-back who have naturally grown into the full-back role, and hence could be something like D R (20), D C (18) or something. Not every natural full-back is a Dani Alves. As you go down the leagues, you will see less attacking and more "big" full-backs who are closer to Robert Huth than Patrice Evra.

In addition, I think "natural" is a bit of a red herring because it's just "one level more than accomplished". A full-back doesn't suddenly know more about full-back if he's near-natural (especially given the fact that young players play all over the place as youngsters). You might have a player who is:

D R (20)

WB R (18)

M R (18)

AM R (18)

D L (18)

i.e. A player who can play all down the right flank but has a lot of experience at left-back, perhaps because his team has injury-prone former Arsenal left-backs. Such a player knows how to play all over the right flank so he just needs to get his head round the mirror image of things. This player already knows what a wing-back does, even though he is not natural at D L. You might argue the very fact that he knows WB R and D L means he will probably learn WB L faster than someone who is a natural D L but not accomplished at WB R.

[THOG]

Some full-backs are converted centre-backs who are simply centre-backs at full-back who have naturally grown into the full-back role, and hence could be something like D R (20), D C (18) or something. Not every natural full-back is a Dani Alves. As you go down the leagues, you will see less attacking and more "big" full-backs who are closer to Robert Huth than Patrice Evra.

But isn't that just better reflected by having a fullback with crappy technical attributes? At the professional level, any fullback is going to be expected to overlap and put in a cross from time to time. No one plays fullbacks as nothing more than an extra pair of centrebacks, except maybe some really awful teams at the amateur level. It doesn't necessarily mean they're good at it, but getting forward from time to time is a fundamental aspect of the position in the modern game. Even very early in youth systems, overlapping is one of the main skills taught to young defenders being played out wide. And the question of getting forward more often (i.e., operating as a wingback as opposed to a fullback) is, again, more of an issue of adjusting to a new tactic (and having the stamina, technical ability to pull it off) rather than learning a wholly new position. It would make just as much (if not more) sense to separate Inside Forward (Attack) and Winger (Support) into separate positions.

EDIT: And in FM, the actual behavior of a DR set to a wingback role is virtually indistinguishable from that of a WBR. As far as I can tell, the only function the distinction of DR and WBR serves is to provide a different attribute weighting system for more aggressive defenders or more defensive wingers.

[x42bn6]

But isn't that just better reflected by having a fullback with crappy technical attributes? At the professional level, any fullback is going to be expected to overlap and put in a cross from time to time. No one plays fullbacks as nothing more than an extra pair of centrebacks, except maybe some really awful teams at the amateur level. It doesn't necessarily mean they're good at it, but getting forward from time to time is a fundamental aspect of the position in the modern game. Even very early in youth systems, overlapping is one of the main skills taught to young defenders being played out wide. And the question of getting forward more often (i.e., operating as a wingback as opposed to a fullback) is, again, more of an issue of adjusting to a new tactic (and having the stamina, technical ability to pull it off) rather than learning a wholly new position. It would make just as much (if not more) sense to separate Inside Forward (Attack) and Winger (Support) into separate positions.

EDIT: And in FM, the actual behavior of a DR set to a wingback role is virtually indistinguishable from that of a WBR. As far as I can tell, the only function the distinction of DR and WBR serves is to provide a different attribute weighting system for more aggressive defenders or more defensive wingers.

There is a lot more to a wing-back than just being able to get forward, though. Wing-backs are expected to pretty much dominate the flanks as the main source of width. You're not going to find Wes Brown or John O'Shea dominating the flanks, and their best positions are arguably at full-back.

Even if you have to go far down the leagues (you don't, really), it does show that being a wing-back is not a given for a "natural" (or near-natural) full-back.

To me, it's not as clear-cut as M L vs AM L (or the right side). Mostly because pure side midfielders are... Rare nowadays. Even players you might have classed as side midfielders, such as Beckham, could easily be considered as AM R (perhaps with different tactics than an orthodox AM R).

[THOG]

There is a lot more to a wing-back than just being able to get forward, though. Wing-backs are expected to pretty much dominate the flanks as the main source of width. You're not going to find Wes Brown or John O'Shea dominating the flanks, and their best positions are arguably at full-back.

Even if you have to go far down the leagues (you don't, really), it does show that being a wing-back is not a given for a "natural" (or near-natural) full-back.

Again, that seems more of an issue of whether a player has the attributes to fulfill a specific role rather than whether a player must learn to play a completely different position. Big target men, likewise, are expected to carry out very different set of tasks than a trequartista... but they still play the same position and the roles just involve expanding and decreasing various basic responsibilities associated with the position. I wouldn't expect Andy Carroll to do what Carlos Tevez does... but this doesn't mean they play different positions. Likewise, if you go down the leagues, you'll find that being a trequartista is not a given for a "natural" striker. Obviously, like a wingback, it's a specialized role that can only be properly carried out by players who are very accomplished in nearly aspect of the basic position.

Yes, wingbacks emphasize the attacking aspects of the fullback position more than a standard fullback (but unlike wingers, not totally at the expense of the defensive aspect), but what the wingback does is not at all alien to a fullback at any level. It just takes one of the fundamental parts of the position's responsibilities to an extreme and, in doing so, demands more of the individual player (in terms of stamina and technical ability). The fact that some fullbacks won't do that well if asked to get forward and press higher up just indicates that some fullbacks have different strengths suited to different roles. It doesn't mean that fullbacks like Leighton Baines and Rafael who have never really played WBL/WBR would have the same problems playing as wingbacks as they would playing as strikers.

Again, that role adjustment is better reflected by tactical familiarity as opposed to positional familiarity.

EDIT: Regardless of whatever point the original argument has been diverted to, you've already basically agreed with the above when you said that retraining a DR as a WBR should take as long as it takes for a player playing with a defensive mentality in a 4-4-2 to become fluid in a 5-3-2 where he has an attacking mentality (about 3 months).

[RocheBag]

I just think you're worrying too much about position familiarity. I play people out of position all the time if they have the attributes for it, and they always perform very well.

[Matshit]

If that is the case, its great.

The problem though is the fact that the AI would never consider putting players out of position.

The AI will still put Giovinco on the left midfield and refuse to put Lichtsteiner on the right because one has natural left midfield (start acc. but usually get trained since Juve dont have a natural left midfielder) and the other lacks the natural right midfield.

My problem is mostly with the AI from the start because you are able to do what you want. Plus the fact that the retraining feature is really unrealistic.

[HUNT3R]

Seems to me that while tactics, training & scouting have become role based, this aspect is stuck in 2007.

It's daft that an advanced playmaker (attack) can switch instantaneously to a ball winning midfielder (defend) during a match but to do exactly the same things ten yards further forwards can take all season to learn.

This.

Although changing to a system like this would be a huge undertaking, it is something that needs doing eventually.

[BiggusD]

I concur with the idea to move on to a system of roles and duties instead of positions.

It is more realistic, makes it easier to find players suited to your system and would greatly aid the AI's squad-building abilities.

[x42bn6]

Again, that seems more of an issue of whether a player has the attributes to fulfill a specific role rather than whether a player must learn to play a completely different position. Big target men, likewise, are expected to carry out very different set of tasks than a trequartista... but they still play the same position and the roles just involve expanding and decreasing various basic responsibilities associated with the position. I wouldn't expect Andy Carroll to do what Carlos Tevez does... but this doesn't mean they play different positions. Likewise, if you go down the leagues, you'll find that being a trequartista is not a given for a "natural" striker. Obviously, like a wingback, it's a specialized role that can only be properly carried out by players who are very accomplished in nearly aspect of the basic position.

Yes, wingbacks emphasize the attacking aspects of the fullback position more than a standard fullback (but unlike wingers, not totally at the expense of the defensive aspect), but what the wingback does is not at all alien to a fullback at any level. It just takes one of the fundamental parts of the position's responsibilities to an extreme and, in doing so, demands more of the individual player (in terms of stamina and technical ability). The fact that some fullbacks won't do that well if asked to get forward and press higher up just indicates that some fullbacks have different strengths suited to different roles. It doesn't mean that fullbacks like Leighton Baines and Rafael who have never really played WBL/WBR would have the same problems playing as wingbacks as they would playing as strikers.

Again, that role adjustment is better reflected by tactical familiarity as opposed to positional familiarity.

I did sleep on it last night and sort of agree, although in a different way. A wing-back has a specific "skill set" requirement to "understand" the position (if not necessarily be any good at it). Full-backs too have a specific "skill set" requirement. It turns out that they overlap in many ways, so you could argue that a full-back "knows" part of a wing-back's "skill set" even without playing at wing-back (perhaps with a little regression due to the fact they are not aware in practice of the overlap).

So yes, a D/M L should immediately know "something" about playing at wing-back because he has played in similar roles. The same argument could be made for AM L, M C and D C, of course, although you would argue the "matrix" of familiarity is not even (i.e. DM C to WB L is different to, say, ST to AM L - wing-backs are very different to defensive midfielders, but many strikers end up playing wide on occasion).

EDIT: Regardless of whatever point the original argument has been diverted to, you've already basically agreed with the above when you said that retraining a DR as a WBR should take as long as it takes for a player playing with a defensive mentality in a 4-4-2 to become fluid in a 5-3-2 where he has an attacking mentality (about 3 months).

Not quite - the 3 months was derived with the argument that since the player knew the "surrounding" positions, he has a better idea about what a wing-back does than someone who has played at full-back but not winger. The "mentality" of the player doesn't really matter as it just means that the player will know that role in theory only if they are Wes Brown, say.

Imagine we had a "familiarity matrix" like the following. The "position" is the "base position", which is the raw positional knowledge of the player:

Position  Familiarity  Other position  Other position familiarity boost
D L       20           D C             2
D L       20           WB L            4
M L       20           WB L            4
M L       20           M C             3
M L       20           AM L            12
M L       18           WB L            3
M L       18           M C             2
M L       18           AM L            10

If the player is 20 at D L and 18 at M L, initially (in one of my posts above), I argued the player should go from 0 to 18 at WB L in 3 months due to the fact he knew D L and M L. If he only knew D L, it would take him longer. However, having slept on it, I'm now suggesting that a player who is 20 at D L and 18 at M L automatically has 7 (= 4 + 3) at WB L and hence he goes from 7 to 18 in 3 months, but at the same rate as the 0 to 18. Maybe we need to rescale my 3 months () but hopefully you get the idea. In a similar fashion, if the player was only D L 20, he would have WB L automatically at 4 (which is lower than 7, as he doesn't have the M L knowledge).

This means that a researcher would enter D L 20, M L 18; and it would be implicit immediately that he is WB L at 7. A researcher can override the attribute, but not below 7, as the mechanics state that that is the minimum overlap.

The last column reflects the fact that, say, M L and AM L are a lot similar than D L and D C, with lots of interchangeable knowledge. The last three rows reflect the fact that "residual knowledge" scales with "raw knowledge".

[Wege]

I read somewhere that a player's familiarity with a position only affects his 'decision making' attribute when played out of position. In this case training a player on a specific position is just improving his decision making in said position. Seems fair enough to me.