CM Role

[Arsenal457]

Can someone explain it to me? It is described as there being no special qualities about them. If this is the case, what makes the CM better than other roles? 

[warlock]

2 minutes ago, Arsenal457 said:

what makes the CM better than other roles? 

Depends what you want, but the point that it comes with no fixed instructions is the attraction. Maybe you don't want him to roam, or maybe you don't want him to close down more, or to take more risky passes. The other, more specialised roles may have downsides in terms of your tactic - you can configure the CM to do pretty much what you want.

[Arsenal457]

6 hours ago, warlock said:

Depends what you want, but the point that it comes with no fixed instructions is the attraction. Maybe you don't want him to roam, or maybe you don't want him to close down more, or to take more risky passes. The other, more specialised roles may have downsides in terms of your tactic - you can configure the CM to do pretty much what you want.

Oh ok, so he can fit in anywhere. What if you leave the CM on no instructions?

[viperswhip]

No instructions means all of the above in FM19. So, for example the instruction to tackle more or stay on feet, not choosing one means they just mix it up. It's like no set play in corner kicks, they just mix what they do. If they have good instinct they will do better things more often.

[Arsenal457]

So they fit well in any tactic, but how do you know when to use that role over others?

 

[Andros]

Hi Arsenal457,

 

I am no tactical expert, bit perhaps consider the CM roles to be generalist roles while many other are specialist roles.  By this I mean that if I do not have any special requirements for the CM other than positioning (if I want deeper I choose the defensive role, more forward minded the attacking role, somewhere in the middle the support role) I would choose the CM role.  However, if I want the central midfielder to something special (specialization) then I would look to another role.  For example, if I have a midfield 3 and the opposition have a midfield 2, maybe I want one midfielder to put lots of pressure on the 2 opposition midfielders so I might choose a BWM role.  Or perhaps there is space in the midfield so I want to exploit it, I know that the playmaker roles are ball magnets so if I choose one of those roles (DLP for deeper roles, AP for more advanced roles etc) then they will look to be a magnet for the ball in central areas.

 

And as stated earlier, the CM roles do allow for greater flexibility, but I am not great at playing around with those.

 

For me, I have no problems using general roles unless I have a specific reason for using another one, however there are people that are much better at tactics in these forums than me who can offer much better ideas!

[Arsenal457]

2 hours ago, Andros said:

Hi Arsenal457,

 

I am no tactical expert, bit perhaps consider the CM roles to be generalist roles while many other are specialist roles.  By this I mean that if I do not have any special requirements for the CM other than positioning (if I want deeper I choose the defensive role, more forward minded the attacking role, somewhere in the middle the support role) I would choose the CM role.  However, if I want the central midfielder to something special (specialization) then I would look to another role.  For example, if I have a midfield 3 and the opposition have a midfield 2, maybe I want one midfielder to put lots of pressure on the 2 opposition midfielders so I might choose a BWM role.  Or perhaps there is space in the midfield so I want to exploit it, I know that the playmaker roles are ball magnets so if I choose one of those roles (DLP for deeper roles, AP for more advanced roles etc) then they will look to be a magnet for the ball in central areas.

 

And as stated earlier, the CM roles do allow for greater flexibility, but I am not great at playing around with those.

 

For me, I have no problems using general roles unless I have a specific reason for using another one, however there are people that are much better at tactics in these forums than me who can offer much better ideas!

Ok, thank you for this.

[Brian]

For me, it's the perfect role in midfield (support). Why? You adjust the settings to the players ability. 

Example: I have Donny v/d Beek. His First Touch is 15, Passing 15, Technique 15, Vision 16. I have him on Get Further Forward, Take More Risk (Passing) and depending on how deep the opposition sit More Direct Passing. If I play another player in the same position, it's most likely he won't get the same PI's as v/d Beek because it's a totally different player. Which is why I love the role so much, because you can play i so many diffrent way's and styles without making chances to any role's. 

[s0ni42]

I interpret similar to above responses. Blank slate really. I avoid too many PIs and let player be player here. It’s sort of my flex role to manipulate throughout game to exploit things I may be (incorrect usually) seeing

[Warrenwwr]

I prefer the plain MC (auto) role. Even if the player is rated in the red for the role, as long as the position is natural I've had great results. Of course it depends on your tactics etc etc. Traits really make a big impact, which I actually like to see.

[AdvancedStrayMaker]

I love the CM(A) role.

With the right stats and spaces to attack in your system they can score 20+ goals while contributing defensively with plenty of tackles and interceptions.

For me the absolute key stat is aggression, they have to have the desire to fight their way in to goal scoring positions in the usually congested centre areas of the pitch then get back and get stuck in when the opposition have the ball.

I have a new gen with good stats otherwise ( ant, wor, det, otb, acc, fir, agi, fin, cmp, tec, dec ) but with an aggression of 6 and he misfires badly in the role compared to less talented players with higher aggression.

Makes sense I guess when you think of the great goal scoring centre mids in the last 15 years - Nainggolan, Veratti, Lampard, Gerrard - one thing they certainly don't lack is aggression.

[Rashidi]

On 18/04/2019 at 12:16, Arsenal457 said:

So they fit well in any tactic, but how do you know when to use that role over others?

 

We have roles in the game that are hardcoded to behave in certain ways, a ball winning midfielder is basically just a terrier with a fetish for balls. There are also generic roles that come for certain positions. You can opt to customise the role or you can use it as is, and let the qualities of your player drive the role. If you don't need a specific job done and all you need is  role that links up with players then you can use the role. There are times when all we need is a simple role without too much complication and the CM role actually offers that. 

[Southern Buddie]

56 minutes ago, AdvancedStrayMaker said:

Makes sense I guess when you think of the great goal scoring centre mids in the last 15 years - Nainggolan, Veratti, Lampard, Gerrard - one thing they certainly don't lack is aggression.

Verratti isn’t a goal scoring midfielder :/

[AdvancedStrayMaker]

34 minutes ago, Southern Buddie said:

Verratti isn’t a goal scoring midfielder :/

You're right, I meant Art Vidal. Got my V names muddled up.

[phnompenhandy]

I use CMs all the time. As a lower league manager I don't have fancy-dans who can be playmakers or lah di dah carrilos or whatever.  I prefer BWMs but part-timers are too aggressive and mistime their tackles, so they earn a minimum of a yellow every game. CM is, therefore, the safer option.

[Arsenal457]

Thanks for all of the advice everyone!