r0x0r Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 so, the basic 4-4-2. Should every young player have at least one natural or acomplished position that fits one of these positions? I have one player at the moment who's a natural AML, and nothing else. Luckily he's young so I can retrain him to ML, but seriously, I can't think of a single example of a player who can only play as a sweeper, DM or AM and not also as in at least one position in the main 3 defence/midfield/attack lines. An ML/AML or AML/St would be fine. A DC/DMC or a DMC/MC would be fine. just an AML just seems odd though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephanie McMahon's Secret Lover Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 ALL players should have a 442 position. Why? Just check out the number of AMC or DMC only players who get listed mainly due to their teams not using a DMC or AMC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Almondo Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 The thing is that Attacking Midfielders especially at wide positions can play those positions as ML/MR so can slot into 4-4-2 easily Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jirki88 Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 A player that's "natural" as AM L/R should atleast be Accomplished as M L/R, since the only difference between those two are a larger defensive responsibility as M L/R. And I can hardly think of any AM L/R that would actually be so stupid that he couldn't play decently as M L/R... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whoopy D Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 A player that's "natural" as AM L/R should atleast be Accomplished as M L/R, since the only difference between those two are a larger defensive responsibility as M L/R. And I can hardly think of any AM L/R that would actually be so stupid that he couldn't play decently as M L/R... I was thinking exactly this earlier, I have a youngster who can play ST/AMR/AML so a good utility player to have on the bench. The only problem is he doesn't have any rating at all for RM/LM so not such a great utility player after all, ridiculous really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealMagpies Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 There are also quite a few just WBL or WBR knocking around, aswell as a few SW positions too. football is more than just 442, even if most of the world seems to use it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0x0r Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 I was thinking exactly this earlier, I have a youngster who can play ST/AMR/AML so a good utility player to have on the bench. The only problem is he doesn't have any rating at all for RM/LM so not such a great utility player after all, ridiculous really. That is the only one that makes sense to me. He's a wide striker, someone who is really a forward, but can do fine out wide too. any defensive responsibility at all though and he's lost. What i'm annoyed with is just AML. He's not a winger or a wide striker... He can only play in AML, which really is silly. :-p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinGoodey Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Ronaldinho would be a good real world example of someone who is Natural at AML, but would make an awful ML - when was the last time you saw him ever track back and make a tackle PS - I've no idea what he is actually set as in the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCIAG Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Ronaldinho would be a good real world example of someone who is Natural at AML, but would make an awful ML - when was the last time you saw him ever track back and make a tackle PS - I've no idea what he is actually set as in the game. Natural AMC iirc. I do't use ML/R, I never have. I find that players are more effective in the AMR/L positions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micado Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I do't use ML/R, I never have. I find that players are more effective in the AMR/L positions. Same here. And here in Holland, many teams play a 4-3-3 with a kind of wingers, so no classic 4-4-2, thus no ML/MR. You will see that may Dutch wingers will have AMl/R as natural but nothing else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crafty bison Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Still, getting a newgen who can only play WB L at all is silly. They should at least have some kind of competence in other positions. This goes for other positions too - they aren't versatile enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.