brookie1402

So if I have a player who is natural AMR, and accomplished MR, there will be no difference between training him as a winger on attack duty in either position?

PSG might not be the best example to compare to in terms of sponsorship income as they have wealthy owners which tend to pay over-inflated prices to them via other companies that they also own. The £89m kit sponsorship deal would probably not happen in a 'normal' market.

Given that there is no discernible difference between being natural in a position and being accomplished, does it 'cost' PA to train a player in an already accomplished position, in order to get him to being natural?

Your board being true to form there! Wow. Think I'm right in saying that they have their own attributes, and with you starting with a team so low, it must be randomised. So it's possible you've gotten extremely unlucky and landed with someone with 1 for ambition or whatever attribute determines their acceptance of your requests. Saying that, when you set up a new game and allocate yourself attributes the description for the manager Determination does mention it influences the likelihood that you would get your own way with board requests. Wonder if you have a low attribute for that on you

This makes perfect sense. Basically during training sessions which have an element of 'individual roles' in them, the player will work on his P/R/D *if set*, as well as the additional focus. And if there is no P/R/D assigned, he will work on just the additional focus. It does make me wonder what the player would work on if there was no P/R/D or additional focus set though. As an aside, if you haven't already seen, in the latest update, the option to request that the board sets up a reserve/U23 team has been brought back.

I think I may have misunderstood this element of training. Please could you elaborate a little? I always set P/R/D on all my players training. I’ve never once considered that it wouldn’t be a good idea. What is the difference between leaving it on player position but just setting a focus vs P/R/D and a focus? I’m really intrigued now I’ve seen the results you’ve achieved.

I would think that the answer to that is yes. Thinking about it logically, both groups will be performing headers. So I'd say yes, the primary and secondary group get the heading focus whichever 'side' of the drill they are on. Although it wouldn't be a 'double boost', as the attacking group will get 60% of the attribute focus, and the defending only 20% of it, so more like an additional bit of work on heading.

As it is performed by all outfield players, I would imagine that all of them get the Tactical Familiarity focus. Think of it as a training drill for all outfield players. All players will perform the 'attacking' which gives them a 60% impact, and also all players will also perform the 'secondary impact' (defending) to give the attacking group some opposition, with those attributes being worked on with 20% impact, if that makes sense. Basically everyone gets a turn at attacking, and then opposing the attack, and so in terms of attributes the players will be impacted by the first focus by 60%, t

That is fine by me then. It was something I noticed, in my very small sample FM world, so if the prevalence for English is higher than I noticed then that is fine by me. All my info for Wikipedia or google searches so I can't provide anything more in depth than that. As I say, KUTGW as I really love this mod.

I love this mod and it is probably my favourite one. I'd like a small request for future versions though please. I know you look at things meticulously, but I feel like it could be improved slightly for Poland. The percentage of people who speak English as a second language is in the mid the high 30's I think, yet I've not seen a newgen yet who speaks English at any level. Poland also has 4 or 5 'major' dialects, but the main one is probably Silesian, spoken by around half a million people. I think I remember a couple of months ago a Polish MEP spoke that language in the EU parliament, which w

Come on man, almost zero clues in the phoro. Might as well post a photo of the sky and say where was this taken from! My guess is Paraguay.

I actually think that C would be better in the air than B. I’ve been trying to understand goalkeeping attributes more and so recently discovered that jumping reach is only considered when they have to make a header. Aerial reach is the attribute that determines how high a goalkeeper can get his hands. So with that in mind the difference in attributes between B and C in terms of what I think is important for claiming crosses is:- Aerial Reach 13 - 13 Command of Area 9 - 9 Communication (maybe) 8 - 7 Handling 11 - 9 Aggression 11 - 15 Anticipation 8 - 12 Braver

Player B was my first choice too but my coaches seem to prefer Player C. I've just noticed that he is not as one footed as the other two. Does this skew his attributes slightly and rate them slightly worse than he is perhaps? I do like a lot of his mentals too.

I have 3 first team goalkeepers and I'm struggling to make a decision on the their heirarchy. I'm in a lower league and so 3 first team goalkeepers all over the age of 22 is not ideal from a wages perspective so I'm looking to get rid of one. My coach seems to favour one over the other two but I'm not convinced. I'm looking for the role to be a normal Goalkeeper with a Defend duty. He will sit behind a back four, in a positive mentality team who are instructed to play out of defence, counter attack, but with a lower line of engagement if that is relevant. Player A is 23, Player B is

Thought about this more and maybe the teams mental state being disappointing is an effect rather than the cause. So because of the amount of new players, this settling in period where they are unfamiliar with each other contributes to lower morale, just as it does with positioning, decisions, and anticipation?