PSA: Player position competency and ratings

[Vicente14]

I think lots of the data people and fans (Ronaldo should be 20 for everything!) don't understand how this all is supposed to work so I'm going to tell everyone because I'm fed up of this silliness.

It seems to me that if a player plays more than two seasons in a position they become a natural at it in FM, even when it makes no sense. It just doesn't work like that. The one that got my goat originally was Alan Smith. He plays one season terribly at DM and all of the sudden he's a natural DM, accomplished CM and an at first competent striker going to awkward, disappearing then coming back awkward, dunno where it's at now, not looked, doesn't matter. He played as a striker right up until the point SAF got a brain worm and thought because he can tackle a bit and will get stuck in and win the ball and run about he's obviously a brilliant DM. Couldn't have been further from the truth. He's a striker, always has been, could make a case for AMC but either way that wasn't his natural position. Why are people suddenly making it his natural position? His stats should have basically stayed the same and positions too but with DM and that added in as awkward. They didn't, his finishing went down, passing, everything offensive because it wasn't being utilised. Just because someone stops doing something doesn't mean they can't. I see it with set piece specialists in the game all the time. Know Bojan Krkic? He's actually a pretty good taker of a freekick, look at him at youth level. But because he's a 12 year old boy he doesn't get to take them, even if he's better or worse or whatever, doesn't matter, there's an order to things, you earn the right. So now it's plummeted down to 12 or something from the 15-16 it used to be. Why? He hasn't suddenly forgot how to kick a ball. He's just not taking them anymore because he's not the big cheese like he was at youth level. I’ll get to this later though. Zoran Tosic was a out and out LW his whole life up until he joined CSKA but now after two years he's a natural at RW and accomplished at LW? Give me a break.

I'm going to break down the position ratings and try to explain what they mean because people seem to think you're either amazing at something or terrible, and that's just not the case.

Natural - The position they played growing up, where they'd play if you asked them to build a team around them, the position they gravitate to time and time again. An example would be Rooney and AMC. That's his natural position, deal with it. Phil Jones and Smalling aren't natural RB's. For a player to become natural should be rare and take many years of constantly playing the position, and they should be related, like LW and RW.

Accomplished - A position that isn't natural to them but they've worked at to the point where they understand all the requirements of it. An IRL example of this would be Leo Messi and striker. Ain't his natural position, that would be AML and AMR (and he's one of the few players you can say that about, Ronaldo would be another) but I'll be jiggered if he ain't good at it. Same with Zanetti and CM. Probably...

Competent - This is where people get more confused. If you're competent that does not mean you're bad at it. That's how people seem to treat it. Competent means you can do it without making many mistakes but you're still going to make some. An example of this would be Rooney and CM or AML/R. He can do it but I would do my best to avoid putting him there. Same with Gerrard when he was at RW, just a bit pointless. He could cross and that and didn't embarrass himself too much. Valencia at RB would be another. Jones and Smalling should be two more but they're not, they're down as accomplished/natural even though they can get done when playing out there and are only mediocre crossers.

Awkward - They don't really know how to play the position at all. Alan Smith at DM is a prime example of this. Gerrard at RB is another, in the CL final. He got by ourely based on his experience and athleticism, but I remember in FM 06, boom, it was accomplished.

If you need more definitions then just open a dictionary and look up each word.

Ineffectual - They can't play the position, they just about know the core principals but can't really execute on them and it's just going to end in tears. An example would be any occasion where a winger has had to be moved to fullback. They know what they're supposed to do but just can't do it. We've all seen it.

The only place I'd say naturalness can be tossed aside is at CM and on the wing, this is mostly a formation thing. Particularly CM and DM. AM and CM is trickier. I think everyone who has CM as natural should have one of AM or DM as accomplished depending on their skillset. EG Xabi Alonso should be natural for CM and DM. Scholes should be natural for CM, AMC and STC. STC because, going back to the first point, even though he doesn't play there he's said that's always been his perferred and favourite position but clearly became a natural CM and as an extention AM because he did that first. He'd be down as a accomplished DM because he knows how to do it all, he's just too old to now but if you could put him in his 24 yearold body he'd be good at it. Crap tackler though.

The exception to the above paragraph though is out wide. If you're an LW natural you should be a LM natural, accomplished at worse if the player is one who does not track back, but again, that's more a player thing and not a position thing. So I find it annoying when I see players who can only play as an AMR or something and have MR as competent or something, that's just dumb. As someone who is a natural winger I can say personally that stick me at ML or AML; all the same, just got further to run (and maybe I'll give the opposition winger some hassle too without the ball but it's not like you need to and frankly I'd probably do it at AML too, it's more about where I go when we have the ball and I don't but to me at least it's basically meaningless. If I had my way it wouldn't exist. What is wide AM would be wide striker in a 4-3-3 type thing. People would just moan about that though.

Ratings

10 average because it’s in the middle. Not bad. In the game it seems to me that 13 is viewed as average and anything less than 10 is viewed as bad. If you’re good at something it 16-18 and if you’re very good it’s 18-20.

This is wrong. You have to think about the entirety of football when picking numbers. Everything that is, was and will be. 20 should be reserved for the history makers, people who are phenomenon’s at what they do. It annoys me when I can go through the database and find some scrub playing in the 4th divison or something with a technical attribute over 18. If they were that good at anything they wouldn’t be playing in such a low, not even professional, level. I know one stat does not make a player, and I’ll get to this, but just take a moment, fire up FM13 and search for Nikola Svitic. He’s a real life player that someone has rated, he plays semi-pro football in Serbia…

17 for dribbling

18 for finishing

16 for technique

Valued at 2.5k….

He’s slow, he’s weak, he’s unfit… but to put that into perspective those stats are equal to:

Dri – Iniesta, Bale, Suarez, Cazorla, Mata, Silva

Fin – Cavani, Higuain and Soldado

Tec – Oscar, Lewandowski, Lucas Moura, Ronaldo, Suarez, Balotelli

So yeah… I don’t care if you’re short, slow, unfit and weak (his physical stats are all 10 or close to it and a lot of his technical and mental stats aren't bad too), you’d tear that league to shreds and as such would not be playing in it. So who was sat there, scouting for… whatever that team is and thought they saw that? Not saying he ain’t good for the level but in this game, if he were just a bit smarter, he’d be world class. As such he’s stuck in semi-pro Serbian football and if you’re a LLM there’s a talented AMC/ST for you.

He’s there IRL though which means he might be good for that league, but that doesn’t make him good for FM, because we have to consider all football.

It’s the same higher up though. Player pings a couple goals in from 30 yards and suddenly his long shots are at 16 from 10. Guy bends in a FK in a big game near the end of the season and again, suddenly they’ve gone from 12 to 16. People need to look at the bigger picture. How good are they really? Was there evidence for this at youth level? Very rarely do people suddenly get good at something. Same thing for the opposite though, as mentioned with Bojan. Just because someone stops doing something doesn’t mean they can’t if they’ve been doing it just fine previously. Of course again there’s caveats to that too. The best example of that is Torres. He’s been crap ever since he joined Chelsea but it’s taken until this FM for his stats to get anywhere near where they actually should be because people can’t see what’s in front of them. He’s a bit rubbish now and has been for years and the stats back that up. So basically to tl;dr this entire section…

If there’s no consistent evidence supporting it, don’t change it. If there is then change it and 10 is average; not bad, but conversely if you want to give someone 18+ you need to compare them to the greats. If I see anyone who isn’t at Juninho or Mihajlovic’s level at a dead ball with 19+ for FKs someone is getting punched. Also scoring a blockbuster freekick once a season doesn’t make you awesome people-who-want-Ronaldo-at-59,000, that would go back to there being consistent evidence against it. Use your common sense people. Just because a guy bags 20 goalsa season doesn't make him brilliant at finishing, oob, heading etc, have to look at the whole package. That's why Higuain went nuts last year and consistently scored 40 goals a season, but doing something a lot doesn't make you good at it too, like Peter Crouch and heading. He's awful at it but only recently has his heading been coming down.

[Veg1ta]

completely agree, on the basis that players always play better in there natural postions, so si chopping and changing just because one player plays in a different position for a year he suddenly becomes natural at it but doesnt keep his previous natural, i assume on the basis players would become to powerful in performance.

good post and a very good point buddy.

[Domus Clamantium]

In my experience in the game, if they have the attributes for the position and role, they play well. Matthew Briggs from Fulham plays at left back naturally and is unrated for centre midfield. But in the game he has huge strength and stamina and good work rate, team work, and decent in the air and at passing, decent bravery and aggression and other mental stats. And unsurprisingly he plays consistently well at centre mid as a BWM(defend). As a bonus, he possesses a fair amount of pace too.

[tajj 7]

What you are saying about attributes is wrong.

You are looking at them in isolation. Yeh a guy has 18 for dribbling is good at being able to move with the ball close to his feet, but if he has poor technique, pace, acceleration, agility etc. he;s not going to do anything with those attributes unless he;s against players with similar ability. A full back with 13-14's for decent defensive stats will nulify him completely.

[Puni]

What you are saying about attributes is wrong.

You are looking at them in isolation. Yeh a guy has 18 for dribbling is good at being able to move with the ball close to his feet, but if he has poor technique, pace, acceleration, agility etc. he;s not going to do anything with those attributes unless he;s against players with similar ability. A full back with 13-14's for decent defensive stats will nulify him completely.

Correct. Stats are, now more than ever, linked to each other. Good luck having a striker with 20 finishing if he doesn't have the ability to decide when to do what, if he doesn't have the technique to hit a ball or if he doesn't have the composure to put away important chances.

[looknohands]

If you are going to make "natural" more difficult to train to, at the very least it should become permanent and never drop back down to "accomplished." One of my most frustrating issues with the game is training a player for two years to play one position and finally become natural at it...only to see it drop down to accomplished the moment I stop his training (even though he is still playing in that position.)

I also have issues with the fact that learning positions takes up a player's CA; it's ridiculous to think that a player learning how to play in the midfield would see his dribbling (for example) ability decrease as he "learns" how to play a new position. The game would be better off by having the ability to learn a new position take longer as you progress. For example, the time it takes a player to move from unconvincing to competent at a position should be much shorter than moving from competent to accomplished.

[Bonzo1]

Can I point out that just because someone "grew up" playing in a certain position doesn't mean they are "natural" there. Scholes never looked good enough as a striker, but his natural game suited midfield. I would argue that the "natural" position should be the one their stats most suit.

[Yastru]

awful post, and torres actually played very well this season. it can be argued that hes been unsettled and presurised upon coming to chelsea, not that his attributes decreased. as we saw in euro and cups chelsea played.

also, if someone is not doing something, his stats should be decreased a bit. how do you know bojan is a world class free kick taker if he doesnt take them anymore ? youd think there is a reason for roma and milan using others instead of him ?

equally, if someone bumps a few long range goals, there is a argument there that that attribute should be increased instead of someone who did the same years ago. if scholes played striker at begining of his career and then spent rest of it playing in the middle, there is no way he should be anywhere past competent in that position.

same with smith, id take opinion and experience of saf that alan smith is at least acomplished in that position instead of yours.

[Yastru]

also, it may well be that the guy that is playing in serbian lower league is world class finisher but runs like a 80 year old gramps.

i dont see anything wrong or unrealistic about that

[BiggusD]

I agree with much of what you say about positions, but I disagree with what you say about attributes.

10 isn't average because the attributes aren't absolutes in isolation. The attributes are about what is good enough in the league the player is playing in. In Blue Square Premier, 11-13 means he is good at it. In L1, though, 11-13 is merely what must be expected in the key attributes. To be good at something in L1 you need 14. In Championship it's 15 and in Premier Leauge it is 16. A player who has 10 in Tackling playing as a full back in the Premier League will have a huge problem. "Average" tackling for a PL defender is 13-14.

Another factor is the ME. FM11 and 12 I collected and developed players to have 15 in everything necessary, and that meant that they would be excellent players. In FM13 a winger with 15 pace, 15 acceleration, 15 technique, 15 dribbling and 15 flair will NOT be an effective dribbler down the flank at the top level. I have found that to consistently go past a defender on a run, he needs at least 16 in all of that and most likely at least 17 in quickness. Meaning that for a winger, any key attribute below 15 is "average".

I do agree with one thing, though - how do the researchers determine that a player has 20 Finishing but only 10 Composure and Balance? Or more precisely - how do they figure out his shot accuracy? The German researchers are more prone to use extremes in order to mimic rl behaviour, so it is there you can find most of the strikers with 10 Finishing but 20 Composure (or thereabouts). How do they determine that? Player A (20/10) is a sniper in front of goal but misses when he is closed down, while player B (10/20) couldn't care less about what the defenders do but can't hit a barn door from five meters out? They both miss big chances! Both of their shots are saved by the keeper! What if Player A really have 14 in both, but 9 in Technique because he just uses too much time to control the ball before being able to shoot? What if player B is really 12 in both but 17 in Technique because he can aim more quickly?

There are too many attributes.

For instance, what does First Touch do? I have seen players with poor First Touch control a long, high, hard through-ball while at full pace with one simple fluid touch of the ball. What's the point of the attributes then?

What about reducing them to this list:

Technical ability: Ball Control, Defensive-technical ability, Attacking-technical ability, Finishing

Mental ability: Teamwork, Defensive decisions, Attacking decisions, Reading the game

Physical ability: Quickness, Strength, Aerial Prowess, Athleticism