Sharing: Midfield balance spreadsheet

[thizaum]

Hi there,

I made a spreadsheet for organizing the midfield on my tactics and figured that it would be nice to share it with the community.

Basically, it's a "mathematization" or "putting to numbers" of the guide found on this website (which I highly recommend overall): http://www.guidetofootballmanager.com/tactics/central-midfielders

To use, all you have to do is input a "1" on each line of the column P, according to the roles you're using, and you'll find the results on row 38, between columns J and O. The values shown there will tell you if your midfield roles are balanced or favoring one of each trait (holding, runner, creator, etc).

This is the link for the XLS (just download it and make use, let me know if the link doesn't work): https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByK1bljSarlWcy1JcjB0NlpyY2M

Above is all you needed to know to use it. Below, I'll explain the data for those interested.

Each row is a role (no pun intended), divided by strata, role and duty. On columns C-H, I've put values for each trait (holding, aggressor, defensive support, on ball runner, off ball runner, and creator) according to the guide.

I've used same colors for aggressor / defensive support and both runners as they refer to similar things, but differently. Therefore you have 4 major traits (4 colors). I.e. you may have a balanced midfield without aggressors, but with enough defensive support.

Also, I've used the value "2" if the guide says it's a primary task of said role and "1" if it says it's secondary. But the number of tasks each role performs lowers the score of each task. That's what's shown on columns J-O. I.e. A deep lying playmaker performs less "holding" than the anchorman, as he also creates. I cannot confirm this to be true, but it's how I read the game and anybody who disagrees is more than welcome to say something.

And finally, I'm not taking into account the other roles and strata that help on these traits, like the BPD or the IF, for example. You may consider it when looking at the final results on row 38. I might add it sometime later, maybe when FM16 is out.

I hope this helps anybody.

Cheers.

[rninejr]

as I recall that site isnt recommended by our moderator here because the tactical information there are not exactly accurate. it's better to trust the coder of the ME itself which is belong here

[Macon]

Thanks very much - I'm a massive fan of that site.

[thizaum]

as I recall that site isnt recommended by our moderator here because the tactical information there are not exactly accurate. it's better to trust the coder of the ME itself which is belong here

I did not know that. Actually I've seen parts of it in here in the Pairs and Combinations Sticky post.

I don't see it much of a "trust" matter. This website has been very helpful to me. I believe it's right on plenty of things that it says that works.

On the other hand, it's not necessarily right on the things it does not say that works.

[thizaum]

Thanks very much - I'm a massive fan of that site.

You're welcome. I hope this is of any help.

[cijamus]

Nice stuff.

Could you do some material about this and all player roles based on PI.

In perfection I'd like only to put values of player attributes and excel logic calculates the best ratio how I could use the player: for example Adam Smith, Trequartista-A, PI (Dribble More, Shoot Less).

Don't think I'm impudent, but I see you can structure and transform arrays of data very well.

[thizaum]

Could you do some material about this and all player roles based on PI.

Well, it would probably take more time than this one. I'll take a look at it. I still have to figure out how worthy it is of the time of me making it and everybody inputting numbers in relation to the way the game already shows you the important attributes for each role. I don't really use the star system too much because of role familiarity, but a good look at the attributes always helps.

In perfection I'd like only to put values of player attributes and excel logic calculates the best ratio how I could use the player: for example Adam Smith, Trequartista-A, PI (Dribble More, Shoot Less).

Somebody made this, but the link got deleted and the post was forgotten. I did think about it, but got to the same problem as the guy who made the 1st one: we can't (should not) consider every attribute with the same weight for each role/duty. And besides that, there are attributes that are not considered, but help as well.

Most of all, I don't think a formation made of players best role/duty is the best way to go. Imagine that Adam Smith is a 10 as a Treq, but a 9.5 as an AM-s.

[mike_e]

Here's a post about using a weighted rating system to evaluate players: https://fmcoffeehouse.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/fm15-1718-dortmund-always-the-bridesmaid-never-the-bride/#more-371. Look for the section titled 'The Rating System: How does it work'.

I used an approach based on this post for my long-term FM15 save. I used it to analyze my own players, and also for scouting. It worked pretty well. As the post points out, you can't blindly rely on the numbers. You still have to use your own judgement.

[Macon]

That's really interesting stuff. If you keep exactly the same attributes in exactly the same categories of importance for a role, but fiddle about with the weightings a bit, have you investigated if there's much impact on your overall score?

[cijamus]

Here's a post about using a weighted rating system to evaluate players: https://fmcoffeehouse.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/fm15-1718-dortmund-always-the-bridesmaid-never-the-bride/#more-371. Look for the section titled 'The Rating System: How does it work'.

I used an approach based on this post for my long-term FM15 save. I used it to analyze my own players, and also for scouting. It worked pretty well. As the post points out, you can't blindly rely on the numbers. You still have to use your own judgement.

That author has merged different roles in one place like Poacher/AF and I don't understand how he filled BW30 : DG31 cells. He created very common system but I'd like to see something like:

-DLP/D, ((Composure+Decisions+Teamwork+Vision)/4 * (First Touch+Passing+Technique+Positioning)/4)/20 ratio (for example, 11.34)

-DLP/S, ((Composure+Decisions+Teamwork+Vision)/4 * (First Touch+Passing+Technique+Off The Ball)/4)/20 ratio (for example, 11.52)

Than we have set of PI and TI based on player attributes and every instruction add/divide some value from base ratio like:

Hold Up Ball (Anticipation+Decisions+Teamwork+Balance+Strength+Agression+Work Rate)/7 (for example, 10.74)

If common role > specific instruction than adding instruction reduce player quality: (11.52 > 10.74).

But it's very hard to recreate very precise system. Everybody has own logic and principles.

[thizaum]

Here's a post about using a weighted rating system to evaluate players: https://fmcoffeehouse.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/fm15-1718-dortmund-always-the-bridesmaid-never-the-bride/#more-371. Look for the section titled 'The Rating System: How does it work'.

I used an approach based on this post for my long-term FM15 save. I used it to analyze my own players, and also for scouting. It worked pretty well. As the post points out, you can't blindly rely on the numbers. You still have to use your own judgement.

Well, that's pretty straighforward. The problem is that we have to trust his judgement over the weights, especially while grouping different roles and duties with the same weights.

Nonetheless, it still could be of some help, but not as the only tool, like Mike pointed out.

I've complemented it with a bar graph to illustrate the difference between the grades for the #1-10 roles.

I'll try it out to check the roles that I've been using for underperforming players tonight.

But I think the best use for this might be checking if a player is worthy of training a whole new position. As a Valencia supporter, I remember when Jordi Alba was a winger and they started using him as a left back. Or even the left back Mathieu that became the team's best central defender. Now they are both on Barça for tens of millions euros.

[mike_e]

That's really interesting stuff. If you keep exactly the same attributes in exactly the same categories of importance for a role, but fiddle about with the weightings a bit, have you investigated if there's much impact on your overall score?

I first identified the types of players that I wanted for my tactical system (I had seven of these types), and then set up weights for each type. I then tweaked the weights over a number of iterations. I could definitely see the effect of changing the weights over time---the final set of weights gave "better" ratings than the first set ("better" being entirely subjective, of course).

That author has merged different roles in one place like Poacher/AF

Yes. If the roles had the same weights, he combined them.

I don't understand how he filled BW30 : DG31 cells.

These are the mean and standard deviation of "historical" data. They are used to normalize ratings between different roles. In the comments of his post, he says that "they’re from several of my teams. I could do all the top European leagues but it’d take ages". I did something similar, although I don't recall exactly what set of teams I used.

The problem is that we have to trust his judgement over the weights, especially while grouping different roles and duties with the same weights.

Not necessarily. As I mentioned above, I came up with my own weights entirely. You can completely customize to your own judgement and preferences.

But I think the best use for this might be checking if a player is worthy of training a whole new position.

It definitely helped me do that with a number of players.