Jump to content

Soccerwiki - Player Positions


Guest Redsky
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

linking to soccerway is not to prove that Robben deserves to play M(R ) - it's to prove that transfermarkt have different standards to soccerwiki & SM. what would be a M(R ) in soccerwiki & SM (playing on the right of a midfield four in a 3421) is AM(R ) according to transfermarkt.

 

so transfermarkt cannot be a reliable source of information for soccerwiki & SM, because they define positions differently.

 

come on, it's not that complicated.

 

 

 

it's not really a contradiction.

 

every midfielder who drifts wide like Iniesta does, with the kind of defensive responsibility he carries and executes, should have the M(L ) positional marker. yes. this is why I suggested Isco have it too.

 

but that isn't EVERY AM/winger.

 

do you people even watch football? or do you just read blog and check stats on websites.

 

because I'm really starting to wonder.

 

 

 

 

yes, soccerway is not necessarily reliable. but did you watch the game in question?

 

Robben and Coman were RM and LM in a 3421. and they played those roles during the game. the formation as accurate.

 

 

 

 

oh for goodness sake.

 

Coman and Robben lined up as RM and LM in a 3421. yes, their relative positions were higher up because Bayern dominated the game so much. but they were still lined up as RM and LM, with Costa and Muller as RW and LW in a front three.

 

if I were to try and replicate this system on SM, it wouldn't work. Coman and Robben don't have the M(R ) and M(L) positional markers. so I can't replicate a formation used in real life by the best manager in the world. how is that fair?

 

do you see what I'm saying?

 

these are players who can play these positions. is it very attacking? yes. but it can and is being done in real life. so why can't I do it on the game?

 

 

Both Coman and Robben played as M (R or L) one time only this season and you want to add them M position. You are saying this. I'm saying one game (or few games) is not enough to change position to players.

Remember: midfielder Kwadwo Asamoah of Juventus FC needed 1 whole season + another half playing as D(L) to reach this position on SW/SM attributes. So you have to do this work: are Coman and Robben playing as wide Middies by so far to justify a position add? Answer is NOT. Easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Coman and Robben played as M (R or L) one time only this season and you want to add them M position. You are saying this. I'm saying one game (or few games) is not enough to change position to players.

Remember: midfielder Kwadwo Asamoah of Juventus FC needed 1 whole season + another half playing as D(L) to reach this position on SW/SM attributes. So you have to do this work: are Coman and Robben playing as wide Middies by so far to justify a position add? Answer is NOT. Easy.

 

I brought up the Stuttgart game to prove why transfermarkt is not consistent with SM/soccerwiki.

 

nothing else.

 

my arguments for Robben and Coman playing M(RL) are separate to that game.

 

that game can be evidence, sure, but it's not my entire argument which I won't go over again.

 

 

 

This is an incredibly stupid thing to say even if it is true. I'll restrain mysefl from going into further discussions with you.

 

thank you for acknowledging that it is true and I am right.

 

 

 

All your complains is about AM(CLR), and if they can or can't play in M(CLR) spot. But what about real M and DM's??

Cazorla for example don't deserve a DM?

Dzagoev the same(DM).

Luiz Gustavo still has D(CL) (this season has never play in that spot)

Kampl play in Leverkusen and as DM. The same Max Arnold in Wolfsburg

Moussa Dempele in Spurs. He play in DM and AM® position also

Bonaventura he can play all the left winger spot M-AM-F(L) in Milan

Less recognised players also have rights

How in hell is possible Sergi Roberto and Jonathan Schmid to play as CB in 352 just because they have D® ????

 

I've never argued in favour of fullbacks being able to play in a back 3. it's nonsense and I'm glad SM have done away with it.

 

I think the tactical changes SM made were actually very good. my issue is with SM/soccerwiki not having certain players with the correct positional data.

 

and yes, I know less recognised players have rights. my intent with this thread was to have people suggest changes and I got the ball rolling with players I've been arguing for. do you have some suggestions? please make them! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ido you have some suggestions? please make them! 

 

...I suggest that you answer my original question instead of nervously side stepping the issue.

 

If (according to your logic) HUMMELS occupies DM© positions...why would you deny him the DM© positional ability...when (again, according to your logic) INIESTA should be allowed the M(RCL) positional ability because he occupies M(RCL) positions?

 

Why do you treat them differently? Answer the question.

 

 

(Don't worry readers...if Metaphysical refuses to answer this...I will provide you with his answer.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Coman and Robben played as M (R or L) one time only this season and you want to add them M position. You are saying this. I'm saying one game (or few games) is not enough to change position to players.

Remember: midfielder Kwadwo Asamoah of Juventus FC needed 1 whole season + another half playing as D(L) to reach this position on SW/SM attributes. So you have to do this work: are Coman and Robben playing as wide Middies by so far to justify a position add? Answer is NOT. Easy.

 

Fantastically summed up. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why shouldn't I as a manager be able to play 4 AMs and one DM in a 352 formation if I want to? It seems that there are some on here that are taking a tunnel vision view to the formations, fine if you want to play a 352 with flat midfielders then you should be able to,but at the same time those of us that want to play our style of formation should be allowed to as well,SM should be looking to make the game the best it can be for all,not just a minority that shout the loudest. The fact is if they introduced an attacking version of these formations (in particular 352) it would solve the arguments, however I do agree that there should be some kind of rule as to how many games played in a position before it can be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until SM bring out a formation that rivals the current 352 then this "problem" or "debate" will go on forever. 352 dominates the most because of certain criteria - and the people that are currently moaning about it the loudest probably have no real idea WHY it's so successful. That's why they turn their attention to trying to stop it in its tracks buy trying to make it so that 352 remains, but it also ends up with less power due to having to field at a weaker overall rating.

 

SM should bring out a 3-5-2 with advanced WMs instead of a flat midfield to appease this overall. It would be a start anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why shouldn't I as a manager be able to play 4 AMs and one DM in a 352 formation if I want to? It seems that there are some on here that are taking a tunnel vision view to the formations, fine if you want to play a 352 with flat midfielders then you should be able to,but at the same time those of us that want to play our style of formation should be allowed to as well,SM should be looking to make the game the best it can be for all,not just a minority that shout the loudest. The fact is if they introduced an attacking version of these formations (in particular 352) it would solve the arguments, however I do agree that there should be some kind of rule as to how many games played in a position before it can be changed.

 

Because this (Soccer Manager Worlds) is a real life based managerial game. So you are not obliged to train your players, you are not able to play it as FIFA16 and you are not allowed to decide/improve player skills as real manager like real life needs. It's a real life based game and you can play so. You can decide transfers and tactics only = Soccer Manager (Worlds).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why shouldn't I as a manager be able to play 4 AMs and one DM in a 352 formation if I want to? It seems that there are some on here that are taking a tunnel vision view to the formations, fine if you want to play a 352 with flat midfielders then you should be able to,but at the same time those of us that want to play our style of formation should be allowed to as well,SM should be looking to make the game the best it can be for all,not just a minority that shout the loudest. The fact is if they introduced an attacking version of these formations (in particular 352) it would solve the arguments, however I do agree that there should be some kind of rule as to how many games played in a position before it can be changed.

 

...yeah...great idea, why don't they just create a 3-0-7 formation for you.

 

Then you can hoard all of the world's best F(RCL)s and field seven of them in a starting 11  :rolleyes:

 

You see my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until SM bring out a formation that rivals the current 352 then this "problem" or "debate" will go on forever. 352 dominates the most because of certain criteria - and the people that are currently moaning about it the loudest probably have no real idea WHY it's so successful. That's why they turn their attention to trying to stop it in its tracks buy trying to make it so that 352 remains, but it also ends up with less power due to having to field at a weaker overall rating.

 

SM should bring out a 3-5-2 with advanced WMs instead of a flat midfield to appease this overall. It would be a start anyway...

 

I'm sorry...but I never tried to stop anything 'in it's tracks'.

 

The 3-5-2 features one DM©, two M©, a RM and a LM...correct?

 

Players like HAZARD, TURAN, OZIL, AGUERO etc...do NOT feature any of these positions (primary or secondary) in game...correct?

 

 

Putting aside the debate over whether these players 'should' or 'should not' have the M(RCL) ability for one moment (which incidentally, I believe that they should not have)...is it fair that SM both informs managers that players cannot play at M(RCL)...and then simultaneously allows others to do the complete opposite in game...with success???

 

You make it sound like there is some 'skill' in deploying the 3-5-2...when in fact, this is complete rubbish. Let's be under no illusions here...the only reason that the 3-5-2 is successful is because some managers have worked out that they can 'get away with' ignoring SM by playing AM/wingers out of position...manipulating a blind spot in the game engine. That SM will permit and even reward this kind of behavior.

 

It is a cheat, a flaw, a loop hole...and nothing more.

 

...so stop trying to make it sound like I am arguing for an unfair change in the rules. That I am trying to bend the game engine in my favor.

 

The only thing that is 'bent' and biased was the way in which the old game engine operated...and the way in which managers abused their specific knowledge and unfair advantage. What is happening now...is redemption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because this (Soccer Manager Worlds) is a real life based managerial game. So you are not obliged to train your players, you are not able to play it as FIFA16 and you are not allowed to decide/improve player skills as real manager like real life needs. It's a real life based game and you can play so. You can decide transfers and tactics only = Soccer Manager (Worlds).

I think you should read what I wrote again my friend, I do know what the game is,I have been playing for 8 years, currently have 34 teams and have won every competition at least once. Real life based means it should be based as much on real life as possible and if a manager chooses to play AMs in midfield instead of more defensive ones then he or she should be able to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you should tea what I wrote again my friend, I do know what the game is,I have been playing for 8 years, currently have 34 teams and have won every competition at least once. Real life based means it should be based as much on real life as possible and if a manager chooses to play AMs in midfield instead of more defensive ones then he or she should be able to.

 

I agree...but just like DEPAY being played as a CB...or TERRY being played as a F(RCL)...there should be in game penalties for playing people out of position.

 

...they shouldn't be able to score

 

...they shouldn't be able to assist

 

...their maximum in game rating should be capped at 4.0

 

...their morale should drop

 

...the odds of the team losing should be dramatically increased

 

Just like real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A beautiful post is that. Again tells its own story. You answered exactly as I predicted you would do.

 

 

 

FWIW, some of my sides only come in at 89/90 when at their very strongest - and 352 still allows me to compete with the 93+ Barce's of this mad SM world. :D

 

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

 

Its a shame that I cant say the same for your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

FWIW, some of my sides only come in at 89/90 when at their very strongest - and 352 still allows me to compete with the 93+ Barce's of this mad SM world.  :D

 

P.S.

 

It is a fairly sorry 'state of affairs' that you have to rely on one overpowered formation with players out of position to 'compete'.

(...a 'state of affairs' which I completely disagree with).

 

You think that the '93+ Barce's of this mad SM world' are not as 'smart' as you??? That they don't abuse the exact same tactics???

 

Of course they are/of course they do! Don't be so silly...and don't naively believe that you are the only one 'smart' enough to abuse this tactic...because almost everyone is abusing it!

 

The game engine needs rectifying and 'shaking up'....the changes should achieve this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...yeah...great idea, why don't they just create a 3-0-7 formation for you.

Then you can hoard all of the world's best F(RCL)s and field seven of them in a starting 11 :rolleyes:

You see my point.

you miss the point completely, I want to play AMs in midfield not forwards,I think you'll find that was the point this thread appeared to be making at the start,if players were given the right positions in first place then you wouldn't be able to play so many forwards,we simply want to be able to play more attacking MIDFIELDERS in midfield not forwards or players that play more defensively. But more to point it is about the way that this has been changed and now players that could play there can't,I'm sure you wouldn't be so pleased if it was done the other way round and it was changed so all the mids in your formation had to be AMs? More to point as some of us are trying to point out,this could be argued back and forward for years, if SM simply introduced an attacking version of the formation then everyone would be happy,unless you really are trying to stop it in it's tracks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree...but just like DEPAY being played as a CB...or TERRY being played as a F(RCL)...there should be in game penalties for playing people out of position.

...they shouldn't be able to score

...they shouldn't be able to assist

...their maximum in game rating should be capped at 4.0

...their morale should drop

...the odds of the team losing should be dramatically increased

Just like real life.

if the formation was rigid then yes but that is the point I have been trying to make,why should it be rigid,you look on playing AMs as a loophole, you don't have loopholes to formations or rigid formations in real life just like a player who is forced to play out of position might not play at their best but that doesn't mean they can't score and as SM tries to be true to real life so why should there be loopholes? One of the good things about SM is that the formations were fluid just like in real life, if you want rigid pick a,b or c type of game then fine but the reason most of us are on SM is it's not like that! Fact is I am here to make suggestions to the developers for the good of a game I love and have played for years not for a debate, you have your thoughts I have mine,but as a member for over 8years I am as entitled to my opinion as you are. My opinion is that the change is to the detriment of the game,managers are already leaving and more like myself will too if it is not sorted out,what sense is it that a player could play in a formation and position for 10 years and then suddenly no longer be able to!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

please stop with this nonsense bickering.

 

if you're going to post in here, suggest new player positions please.

 

if you want to argue and spam post after post, go to player discussion and do it there. I made this thread in this section so the mods and admins would be able to read it and see our suggested improvements.

 

thank you.

 

ok so let's start this again:

 

Aaron Ramsey: M(C ), AM(RLC)

he's been long overdue for a positional change. I'm amazed his current one has lasted as long as it has. he has the ability to play M(C ) and obviously can play all across the attacking midfield three. I suspect he could play wide of a front three too but we've not seen him do that yet so it will have to wait.

 

Romelu Lukaku: F(RLC)

while he is obviously a #9 he has great horizontal versatility to his game and often last season played as a very advanced RW.

 

Angel Di Maria: M,AM(RLC),F(RL)
he played for Benfica, Real Madrid (in 13/14) and Argentina (in World Cup, and Copa) as a hybrid role M(LC). and when he played on the right for Madrid under Mourinho functionally he often played in M(R ) spaces. certainly he had those kind of defensive duties.
 
Arda Turan: M,F(RL),AM(RLC)
he played a hybrid wing role for Atletico, covering enormous patches of the touchline. had the defensive responsibilities of a M(RL) and the attacking ones of an AM(RLC) - also plays a similar role for Turkey. the forward positions are there because he can play in the wide positions in a front three and you can't play there in a flat front three on SM without a F(RL).
 
Franck Ribery: M,AM,F(L)
look where he starts moves, and the responsibilities he has. if he was fit Pep would play him on the left of midfield in the 3421.
 
Isco: M,AM(LC),F(L)
functionally occupies M(L) spaces when he plays M(C ). always drifts to the left flank. when playing on the left of Madrid's 4321 also occupies M(L) defensive responsibilities and positioning. the forward position is there because he can play wide left in a front three (does for Spain and Madrid) and you can't play there in a flat front three on SM without a F(RL).
 
James Rodriguez: AM(RLC),F(RL)
the forward positions are there because he can play in the wide positions in a front three and you can't play there in a flat front three on SM without a F(RL). 
 
Douglas Costa: M,F(RL),AM(RLC)
played as a traditional wide-midfielder/winger for Brazil, and Bayern at times. hugs the touchline, defends the forward and middle thirds of the pitch. classic M(RL) behaviour. the forward positions are there because he can play on the wide positions in a front three (did for Shakhtar) and you can't play there in a flat front three on SM without a F(RL).
 
Yannick Carrasco: M,F(RL),AM(RLC)
doesn't play for Monaco anymore. has taken over Arda Turan's role in Atletico Madrid. so plays down the sides of midfield in M(RL) positions in defensive and offensive transitions and begins attacks from there also. the forward positions are there because he can play on the wide positions in a front three (has done for Belgium) and you can't play there in a flat front three on SM without a F(RL).
 
Mesut Ozil: AM(RLC),F(RL)
the forward positions are there because he can play on the wide positions in a front three (has done for Madrid, Germany, and even Arsenal tbh) and you can't play there in a flat front three on SM without a F(RL).
 
Kevin De Bruyne: M,F(RL),AM(RLC)
for all three of his clubs he begins attacks in M(RL) zones and defends there too. the forward positions are there because he can play on the wide positions in a front three (does for Belgium) and you can't play there in a flat front three on SM without a F(RL).
 
David Silva: AM(RLC),F(RL)
he can play on the wide positions in a front three (does at times for Spain) and you can't play there in a flat front three on SM without a F(RL).
 
Edinson Cavani: AM(RL),F(RLC)
plays on the wing for PSG. simple as that really. his role for Uruguay is often wing-based as well.
 
Andres Iniesta: M,AM(LC),F(L)
the forward position is there because he can play wide left in a front three (has done many times for Spain and Barcelona) and you can't play there in a flat front three on SM without a F(L).
 
Sergi Roberto: D(R ),DM,M,AM(RC)
he can play all the down the right flank and then obviously all the central midfield positions. he's played on the right of a front three for Barcelona but as he's only done it twice that's not enough to justify F(R ) - having AM(R ) will be enough.

 

 

The 3-5-2 features one DM©, two M©, a RM and a LM...correct?

 

Players like HAZARD, TURAN, OZIL, AGUERO etc...do NOT feature any of these positions (primary or secondary) in game...correct?

 

 

Putting aside the debate over whether these players 'should' or 'should not' have the M(RCL) ability for one moment (which incidentally, I believe that they should not have)...is it fair that SM both informs managers that players cannot play at M(RCL)...and then simultaneously allows others to do the complete opposite in game...with success???

 

You make it sound like there is some 'skill' in deploying the 3-5-2 [3-4-1-2/3-4-2-1]...when in fact, this is complete rubbish. Let's be under no illusions here...the only reason that the 3-5-2  [3-4-1-2/3-4-2-1] is successful is because some managers have worked out that they can 'get away with' ignoring SM by playing AM/wingers out of position...manipulating a blind spot in the game engine. That SM will permit and even reward this kind of behavior.

 

It is a cheat, a flaw, a loop hole...and nothing more.

 

...so stop trying to make it sound like I am arguing for an unfair change in the rules. That I am trying to bend the game engine in my favor.

 

The only thing that is 'bent' and biased was the way in which the old game engine operated...and the way in which managers abused their specific knowledge and unfair advantage. What is happening now...is redemption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

old enough to know when a post is tongue in cheek. ;)

 

(older than you)

 

...I suggest that you answer my original question instead of nervously side stepping the issue.

 

If (according to your logic) HUMMELS occupies DM© positions...why would you deny him the DM© positional ability...when (again, according to your logic) INIESTA should be allowed the M(RCL) positional ability because he occupies M(RCL) positions?

 

Why do you treat them differently? Answer the question.

 

 

(Don't worry readers...if Metaphysical refuses to answer this...I will provide you with his answer.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the formation was rigid then yes but that is the point I have been trying to make,why should it be rigid,you look on playing AMs as a loophole, you don't have loopholes to formations or rigid formations in real life just like a player who is forced to play out of position might not play at their best but that doesn't mean they can't score and as SM tries to be true to real life so why should there be loopholes? One of the good things about SM is that the formations were fluid just like in real life, if you want rigid pick a,b or c type of game then fine but the reason most of us are on SM is it's not like that! Fact is I am here to make suggestions to the developers for the good of a game I love and have played for years not for a debate, you have your thoughts I have mine,but as a member for over 8years I am as entitled to my opinion as you are. My opinion is that the change is to the detriment of the game,managers are already leaving and more like myself will too if it is not sorted out,what sense is it that a player could play in a formation and position for 10 years and then suddenly no longer be able to!

 

...so John TERRY is okay to be played at F(RCL) then? He is okay to score and assist and get at 9.0 match rating at F(RCL) then???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...