Natural positions

[CWR15]

Okay, gonna throw this out there and see what response it gets. I'll use Theo Walcott as an example, although there have been plenty of others in the past.

At the moment, Theo is a (20) AMR which is correct. As we all know, he has recently said he wants to play as a striker, as he feels this is his natural position. So let's assume he gets his wish after Christmas and scores 15 goals in the second half of the season, before bagging 35 next season. I'd soon expect the Arsenal researcher to change his Natural position to (20) SC and perhaps 18 for AMR.

Henry, came to arsenal a winger, left as the 2nd best striker the club had ever had (Bergkamp for me)

What I am saying is that a lot of players start their careers slightly out of position. Strikers will play on the wing, centrebacks will play at full back, midfielders on the wing etc. and it is not until a player tries a new position with a run of games that we really know how he can do there.

Now as it is researchers are strongly encouraged not to give players multiple natural positions which is fair enough, but I think the term 'Natural position' should be replaced with Favourite position, it still has a score of 20, but it is dynamic.

Let's return to my Theo example. He wants to play up front, so he gets his chance. Let's say his SC has a rating of 15 and AMR = 20. The more he plays there, and trains the position, the higher that SC rating will get until it gets to say 18. At this point, only reputation can claim the last two points. So he needs to score lots of goals, win lots of games, create lots of goals - over a prolonged period (say 2 years) then his favoured position will switch to (20) SC and 17/18 (AMR).

So basically I am suggesting that Natural position becomes dynamic, and based on attributes, position he plays in, and reputation within that position can actually change over time.

I know it sounds like a strange point, as the difference between accomplished in natural is miniscule, but I know of players (I was one myself) that hate seeing that slightly duller green dot because I am playing a player out of position (for the 300th time in his career)

[Keyzer Soze]

Why dont you train the player for another position.

The Walcott example you're giving, why dont you train him as a striker? I'm sure after one season or so, if his getting enough time playing as a striker, you will get that green dott in your tactical board.

[CWR15]

You can train and play him there, and with the right attributes, he would eventually go all the way to (19) - Accomplished, but it would never become his primary position.

[Matej]

Ok , my q about positions. I trained Player aml to be a amr to be accomplished. But i noticed that when i removed him from pos. Training, he lost amr accomplished after few months. How long he must train on some other position, so ican be sure he would not lose that position, after i stop training him for that position? Does playing on that position helps he dont lose that new position? Tnx.

[Gandy]

I like the idea of favoured position (whilst keeping natural/accomplished). Like Daniel Sturridge at Chelsea (as another example), he prefers to play centrally, but AVB played him out on the right.

[CWR15]

Playing and training will improve and maintain a players rating in a non natural position. The players attributes will help too.

[soccer.joel]

Fair point SI should consider this

[Cougar2010]

You can train and play him there, and with the right attributes, he would eventually go all the way to (19) - Accomplished, but it would never become his primary position.

You can train a player to be natural (20).

[CWR15]

You can train a player to be natural (20).

Are you sure on this, I have retrained plenty of players, and never seen it improve to natural? I had one player (most recent example), who started as an AM R/L but had amazing attributes as a CF. I trained him as CF from the age of 15 to 22 when he left to join Roma. Despite playing 95% of his games for me as a striker, and playing as a forward at Roma and England, he still only said Accomplished. After a year or two at Roma they started playing hm on the wing and he was wasted.

[Keyzer Soze]

I had a player with natural position at CF, and accomplished and AML and AMR, and after 2 season of training position he was natural at CF, AML and AMR.

The same happen with a natural AMC that i trained to be a natural MC.

[CWR15]

I stand corrected.

[Keyzer Soze]

But anyway,

A player with 20, or 19 or 18 for is position will play the same way. I never see any difference in terms of performance.

[Cougar2010]

I stand corrected.

You couldn't originally but it got changed so you could around FM10/11 if I remember correctly.

[Dirkjan]

I've never seen a player turned 'natural'.

I really like the idea, it would be an awesome outcome for me as a FM-player who 'holidays' a lot. And assistants tend to use natural players more than accomplished players for the positions i've got in my tactics.

[bigdunk]

You can't retrain everyone to natural, but given a reasonably young player with the right attributes, plenting of playing time and retraining, he can make natural.

And not that it actually matters, but both Walcott and Henry started out as strikers (or they certainly had plenty of playing time at Southampton and Monaco as strikers).

[Fabio MVP]

Ok , my q about positions. I trained Player aml to be a amr to be accomplished. But i noticed that when i removed him from pos. Training, he lost amr accomplished after few months. How long he must train on some other position, so ican be sure he would not lose that position, after i stop training him for that position? Does playing on that position helps he dont lose that new position? Tnx.

He will always lose it unless he always train it. Even when he becomes Natural in some position he will lose it if you still don't train him and especially if you don't play him in his new Natural position. The youngers players are, more they are likely to become natural faster in a new position. Versatility matters a lot as well.

Cougar is also correct.

[Nocuous]

You can retrain someone to being a natural in a position, but the weird part is that even after retraining them to being a natural, they can actually lose it if you stop playing/training them there, which doesn't happen in the position that players are initially natural in. So although you can train someone to being natural (20) in a new position, I tend to call it being artificially natural (oxymorons ftw), as if you're not careful, it can slide right back down again.

[Fabio MVP]

You can retrain someone to being a natural in a position, but the weird part is that even after retraining them to being a natural, they can actually lose it if you stop playing/training them there, which doesn't happen in the position that players are initially natural in. So although you can train someone to being natural (20) in a new position, I tend to call it being artificially natural (oxymorons ftw), as if you're not careful, it can slide right back down again.

That's what suck and it shouldn't be that way IMO. If he reaches Natural, it should never drop again.

[MakaveliPT]

It's a nice OP and suggestion, although like some people said you can already train them to be natural at another position, you can have walcott natural at striker and AMR. What i think the problem is, is that you'll need to keep training him as striker otherwise he will lose his natural positioning even if you play him as a striker everytime, which i think is stupid, so ye if positions were dynamic after he got natural as striker you should be able to stop training him as striker, and as he plays there, AMR should eventually get lower to effective.

[Keyzer Soze]

No no no.

You dont need to keep training him in that position. What you need is keep playing him in that position for a minimum number of games per season. And if you think about it makes sence.

You train Walcott to be a striker, playing him at that position. After he reaches the striker position as natural, if you stop playing him as striker and putting him as a winger again, it's only natural that he will drop the natural striker position.

Playing the player in the position it's the key element here.

The same way, if you are training Walcott to be a striker, but never play him in that position... you could train him for 10 years that he will never reach a natural striker position.

[däkkä]

I don't want to hijack the thread but regarding positions... I just got a youngster who is natural FC and natural MC but his AMC ability is 0. Which gets you thinking.

Do you guys not feel there are two many positions for the players? I mean how many full-backs are there that can't play wing-back? I have a AMR/MR youngster and I retrain him to play DR. He still can't do anything at WBR. Logic? How many players are natural centre midfielder in a 4-4-2 but can't play anywhere in a 4-2-3-1 (2 DMC)?

I could go on, the system just doesn't make sense it is way too rigid.

If SI improved and simplified the positional system, Walcott and Rooney would be non-issues. Rooney's ability to play in the hole would be determined by his skill set.

All these attributes and all these roles in the TC and yet this arbitrary position dominates what the player can do...

And if you don't want to get rid of the at least make the edition-by-edition year-by-year changes in the DB consistent with what we can achieve as managers playing the game. If Pedro is natural FC in FM06 and can't play anywhere else and in FM11 he's competent or whatever for FC, I want to be able to achieve the same decrease by detraining positions.

[Keyzer Soze]

I understand what you're saying dakka, and it makes sence.

The same with a AMR player. How many AMR are complete 0 playing AML, MR and ML?

It could make some sence, for example, any AMR would get immediatly a 10 as AML.

The striker position it's more specific. For example, they are striker that are complete 0 playing as AMC, AMR and AML (Caroll, for example).

[spankie]

I have a AMR/MR youngster and I retrain him to play DR. He still can't do anything at WBR. Logic? How many players are natural centre midfielder in a 4-4-2 but can't play anywhere in a 4-2-3-1 (2 DMC)?

Have you actually played him as WBR? I think that SI have made changed a few versions ago where if a player can play in 1 role he can at least do a decent job in a similar role. You DR and WBR is an example.

I have over the past few seasons played an AMR with nothing for MR in the MR position and he did OK considering it wasn't his natural position. I did however use the tactics to play to his strengths.

I have also used MC with good physical and defensive attributes in an unfamilir DMC role and again he did OK.

I don't mean that the position of the player has no efffect, as it clearly does. But it is possible for players to do OK in an unfamiliar role as long as the tactics he is using are suitable for his attributes.

[CurnRaisin]

I'm 100% sure you can train players to be natural in a position, and I agree with the 20% of the training it consumes to do so, but what annoys me to no end is the fact once you get them there its still cost the 20% of your training and if you ever remove them they will lose their "natural" rating in that position, for example I had a natural DC who was also accomplished at DMC and MC but his stats where that of a worldcass MC or even AMC, so i decided to train him MC after a while he became natural there, played him as first choice MC for years then i started to switch up my tactics to have DMC. So I started to train my player to be a DMC so he would become natural there then, he lost the natural MC after playing and training there for years he lost it after 2weeks-4weeks even tho I was still swapping between my 2 tactics of having MC in one and DMC in the other so he still got regular games in MC yet he lost it, all the time tho he was still natural in DC even tho he got maybe 3 appearances there a season.

I think the position system could be tweaked to be more dynamic so even the players defualt "natural" (and "acomplished" if he has one) position(s) could be lost if he didnt play there enough and players who you trained to be natural in a new position wont lose that if you stop training them there as long as you still play them.

Also if there positions where based on that players stats could work too, for example the DC in my example had 18-20 dribling first touch and passing hence me wanting to train him higher up the pitch but if the game used the players stats to determine there position it could work, that way as your player gets better stats they may gain new positions for them, for example you have a young AMC come though your youth set up, he looks good and has descent stats but low composure and finishing, but as he progresses you see big improvements on the finishing and composure stats, he potions also change to be maybe Competent or awkward in SC or if his crossing where to go up maybe AML/R.

[BigBlueAl]

Had a player who was a natural AMC and accomplished MC,played him a lot as an MC but never trained him for that position and he still became a natural MC,so you don't always have to train players to be a natural in a position !

[BiggusD]

Some players will keep their new natural position even if you stop training them in it, as long as they play regularly in that position. I think it is Versatility that is the key here; it needs to be very high for this to work. If it is not, which is mostly the case, he will train 20% less than the others his entire career at the club and it will take a lot longer for him to become natural, because after a short time he will drop back to natural if you stop training him in it. Players with low Versatility will not become natural no matter how many years they spend 1/5th of their working day practicing for the new role.

This system doesn't make sense. What does it actually mean to retrain to another position? a Natural AMR only (common among regens) needs to be retrained to MR because the tactic is a flat 442. What exactly does he spend those hours every day doing? It doesn't affect attributes (if it does it is only indirectly through attribute weightings), so what is he practicing on? What is the difference between a good AMR and a good MR? According to FM it is that an MR works harder defensively and stuff like that, so what is Team Work and Work Rate for, then?

A defensive midfielder is a player with good overall football skills with a defensive mindset. Likes passing options, to receive the ball and pass it on, to mark opposition players and help the team prevent chances against. So what is a MC (central midfielder) then? The exact same thing, except he likes to go forward and help the attack, to arrive in the box and shoot, through balls, blast it from distance, but he works hard defensively as well - just not as natural at marking an opponent and cover space as his more defensive-minded teammate. The question, then, is: where do the designations MC and DMC come into the picture? It is just for convenience. If you put these two guys side by side in the middle of the pitch with the exact same instructions, the former should behave more defensively anyways, and the latter more offensively. Telling them to have strictly defensive duties the latter should be worse at it and of course vice versa for offensive duties. They would both be bad as strikers, but the former would of course be worse. And so on.

There is no such thing as "position"; only player skillsets and duties. The idea of "formations" in FM is also outdated.

[Shakes]

My observations of how it currently works:

If you train them long enough and play them in the position long enough they'll eventually become natural, even if they had zero ability in the position to start with. I've turned central mids into full backs no problems. The amount of time it takes varies (presumably according to the hidden versatility attribute), I've had players pick up a position from scratch in little more than a year, while others take a year to even get from nothing to orange.

If you train them in a position but barely play them there then you can't expect them to make much progress. You have to play them in the position for fastest results, even if that means playing them when they're low level of competence at the position. Thankfully it doesn't seem to dramatically reduce performance ... which makes you wonder why you spend 20% of your training time anyway. Oh well, losing 20% of training time also doesn't seem to dramatically effect how fast a player develops, so I guess it's a wash.

Once they get to natural, it all depends on their versatility. Some players (presumably the versatility attribute again, I don't use cheats to look at this) will retain their position without training so long as you mostly play them in the new position. These are the best sorts of players, you can safely remove them from training and never worry again unless you change up your tactics and start using them elsewhere on the field. The next tier down of players will retain their position without training until some idiot ass man or international manager plays them in their original position for a few games. You can mostly remove these guys from training but watch them, so long as you spot the decrease from natural shortly after it happens you can usually get it back with a quick burst of training. The next tier (which unfortunately seems to be at least half of the players) you have to keep training them for life. They'll lose their natural over the off-season - when you know it's not from playing their old position - if you turn the position training off, which is a huge WTF since they're not meant to be training then so why should position training matter. These are the guys who can train and play a position for 10 years yet if you turn off the training they'll drop a level in a month.

I think this is all a bit bizarre really ... it's certainly not intuitive that a player knows a position for life just because he arrived at the club playing that position as a 15 year old kid, yet you can play him for the next 15 years of his life at another position and he'll never ever be completely natural there without working on it every day! I wonder if the increased emphasis on player roles in FM13 means that the concept of players knowing positions is one that will be throw out in a future version, and players will just be what they can do. A sort of "duck positioning" system ("If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.") where the positions are shown from bright green to nothing based on whatever the players attributes are, rather than a positional knowledge stat, could work.

[x42bn6]

Positions should be dynamic. At present, a player's positional graph can only ever be their initial graph (database as a real player, generated as a regen), plus one to natural. In other words, if a player is an awkward D L at 15 when he starts, he will never dip below awkward for D L even at 40+, even if you never play him there, even if you never train him there. By contrast, a position learnt naturally can be forgotten in a season if you never play him there nor train him there.

The reality is that "positional knowledge" is gained and forgotten over time, depending on where they play. You would expect a player who plays as a striker and nothing but a striker, and never trains a new position, to eventually become a natural striker and nothing more, regardless of what his initial positional graph was.

[CurnRaisin]

If they could get some sort of system that "looked" at the players stats and the % of positions played and then worked out there position. i.e player A has great tackling marking and heading amongst others, so the game rates him at a DC, but you have an abundance of good DC so you start to train his passing specifically and play him in DMC as his passing goes up and he plays say 70% of matches played as a DMC then his rating in that position increases, Then you have the option to also train him there for the 20% cost for a faster increase or maybe as a substitute for actually playing games in that position that way youngsters and subs can get retained with out much first team football.

That way as players mature they may in fact be suited to a different position for examples as wingers lose there pace and physical side of the game they might be more suited to a MC role, look at Gigs at Utd, years ago he was a out and out winger AML style and you would have never of imagined him as a MC but now he is used more so a MC, even the FM scouts see this change in my game anyway he is only accomplished in ML and AML and natural in MC yet this will never happen in the game, you will never see a regen come though who as a bright young 16yr old is a SC but then due to him having descent passing and crossing say, his new manager (he made it big and got a large money deal) starts to play him AML/R then as his blistering pace dies down and he is approaching the latter years in his career his manager uses his knowledge of the game and passing ability to move him into the MC where pace isnt as much of an issue. So our bright young 16yr SC in the latter years of his careear now captining his home town team from the centre of midfeild(after he lost his pace he was deam surplus to requirments and sold back to the old team)