Has re-training positions been made more difficult in FM23?

[jacob_m_mack]

I found a DM who I thought had the attributes of a good right back, as he was a solid ball carrier and crosser in addition to having good size, pace and defensive ability. He had no experience at the position but as I had been struggling to fill my right back spot I brought him in and figured I would train him up at right back: I think this mirrors real world trend as well, it genuinely seems like the majority of fullbacks at the professional level are converts from other positions.

However, I've given him 8 full 90s at fullback and he's yet to get past "makeshift" at the position, I felt like in past iterations of the game by this point he would at the very least have been "awkward". I haven't gotten the "upset about learning a new position" report from his training, he's performing very well in training. I even went into the pre-game editor to see if his versatility was set very low: it's 10 out of 20 so there shouldn't be some big hold up in him learning the new position.

Has anyone trained one of their players up from 0 to Natural in a position yet, and did they notice it taking much longer than in previous FMs?  Just want to know others' experiences re:this so I can decide whether I press on with this idea through the end of the season or if I wait for next preseason to pick it back up.

[el_manayer]

How old is he? I have not tried that in FM23 yet, but I think that in previous editions this was only easy if the player was young enough

[jacob_m_mack]

4 minutes ago, el_manayer said:

How old is he? I have not tried that in FM23 yet, but I think that in previous editions this was only easy if the player was young enough

Fair point. He's 23 which I suppose might be right on the borderline?

[phnompenhandy]

Those green pies can be misleading. So what if he doesn't max out? If you play him in your chosen role because he has the atts, and he performs as you want him to, never mind about what the game thinks is his suitability - your own experience shows you that he does the job.

[kertiek]

48 minutes ago, jacob_m_mack said:

I found a DM who I thought had the attributes of a good right back, as he was a solid ball carrier and crosser in addition to having good size, pace and defensive ability. He had no experience at the position but as I had been struggling to fill my right back spot I brought him in and figured I would train him up at right back: I think this mirrors real world trend as well, it genuinely seems like the majority of fullbacks at the professional level are converts from other positions.

However, I've given him 8 full 90s at fullback and he's yet to get past "makeshift" at the position, I felt like in past iterations of the game by this point he would at the very least have been "awkward". I haven't gotten the "upset about learning a new position" report from his training, he's performing very well in training. I even went into the pre-game editor to see if his versatility was set very low: it's 10 out of 20 so there shouldn't be some big hold up in him learning the new position.

Has anyone trained one of their players up from 0 to Natural in a position yet, and did they notice it taking much longer than in previous FMs?  Just want to know others' experiences re:this so I can decide whether I press on with this idea through the end of the season or if I wait for next preseason to pick it back up.

the players have a hidden attribute callled "versatility"  and that precisely is used when they are learning to play in a new position/role, maybe just that specific player has really low versatility

[jacob_m_mack]

45 minutes ago, phnompenhandy said:

Those green pies can be misleading. So what if he doesn't max out? If you play him in your chosen role because he has the atts, and he performs as you want him to, never mind about what the game thinks is his suitability - your own experience shows you that he does the job.

Technically fair I can still play him there if I'd like: but it's not actually misleading, each player has a rating from 1 to 20 for their experience at every position in the game, for every point lower than 20 they're at for the position the worse they will play there. What the circles are representing is where he is between 1 and 20, for "makeshift" it means he's somewhere between 1 and 4. So not really misleading at all, it's representing a particular thing.

[jacob_m_mack]

23 minutes ago, kertiek said:

the players have a hidden attribute callled "versatility"  and that precisely is used when they are learning to play in a new position/role, maybe just that specific player has really low versatility

I mentioned his versatility in the post! I checked it in the pre-game editor to see if it was really low so I wouldn't be asking whether the game mechanics had changed needlessly: it's 10 out of 20 so he should be fine at learning new positions.

[phnompenhandy]

Just now, jacob_m_mack said:

Technically fair I can still play him there if I'd like: but it's not actually misleading, each player has a rating from 1 to 20 for their experience at every position in the game, for every point lower than 20 they're at for the position the worse they will play there. What the circles are representing is where he is between 1 and 20, for "makeshift" it means he's somewhere between 1 and 4. So not really misleading at all, it's representing a particular thing.

That's what SI tell us. But plenty lower league managers play players out of position out of necessity, and many managers play players in positions the pies say isn't feasible and have great success.

I think if you raise the issue in the Tactics forum, those specialists will offer more insight than I can.