Jump to content

Soccerwiki - Player Positions


Recommended Posts

 

From your posts you come across as one of these 'I don't have the players required to play the formation I want to play, lets see if I can persuade those in charge of positional/player changes to put the players I want into my chosen formation' kind of guy.

 

On you basis and reasoning virtually all attacking Full-Backs should be have R/LW as a standard. What about CB's that venture past the halfway line? Should they all have CM in their positional chart?

 

Too many players already can play in too many positions and perform to 100% of their ability. That is the key! I would not mind Isco playing F(L/R) for example, if he was penalised for doing so. Perhaps say he would be able to perform to 85% of his ability or thereabouts. This games MUST remain a challenge. If you had your way.........it will not be one.

 

I have said numerous times that I've not had to buy or sell anyone to keep playing my teams to maximum. I only had one team that played 3412 and they've adapted just fine and dandy thank you. I'm not making this argument for personal gain.

 

as for CB's that move past the halfway line. do they have responsibilities, both offensive and defensive, of a central midfielder? no. they don't. do fullbacks have the offensive and defensive responsibilities of a winger? I dunno about winger, but wide midfielder certainly, which is why a lot of them have M(RL) in their positional profile.

 

my argument is not just "they play in that space" my argument is "they play in that space and have the responsibilities of that position" - you may have noticed I'm not mentioning every AM(RL) - not even CLOSE to mentioning every AM(RL) - because not everyone who plays AM(RL) has the responsibilities of a M(RL).

 

as for the versatility thing - players are incredibly versatile, my friend! without the ability to train new positions in the game, having the kind of positional versatility they do is essential!

 

 

 

What is the point of offering suggestions when you shoot down every one that isn't in line with your view. As far as I'm concerned I would ban both of you for your stubborn childish approach to this.

 

shooting down? I agreed with the only other person to offer any suggestions of their own, and I engaged Anton when he disagreed with my suggestions and we had a debate. the rest of the thread is bogged down in argumentative bickering and spam.

 

I'm trying to get this thread on track and all you can do is come in here and be glib.

 

make some suggestions or go elsewhere, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This I agree with. The changes are here to stay in regards to the formations and positions.   However, when will Soccerwiki accurately update player positions to reflect these changes?   Out of in

No. I just want an ignore button on the forum so I can easily read peoples opinions rather than you trying to win the same argument for weeks now in multiple threads with multiple posters. 

Good morning...   BBB, you have made your point (several, several, tedious times) and the powers that be (lol) agree with you!   Result!   So how come that's not good enough for you, pal?   Do

Interesting discussion as I keep popping back to read it and see what everyone's view is but can I ask you put the bickering to one side as it can put people off reading and/or joining in the debate.

 

 

The changes to formations will not be changed and as I said in another thread the penalties for playing players out of position will be harsher in the coming weeks.

 

This I agree with. The changes are here to stay in regards to the formations and positions.

 

However, when will Soccerwiki accurately update player positions to reflect these changes?

 

Out of interest. Does SM have any impact upon the changes on Soccerwiki or is it a completely separate company?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest. Does SM have any impact upon the changes on Soccerwiki or is it a completely separate company?

 

 

 

I'd like to know this too. I'm sure that when Soccerwiki was introduced it was a different entity to SM and was introduced to allow the community to have more of an impact on the database i.e new players and positions.

 

I'd like to see either an update to Soccerwiki or an alternative as it has been a bit of a backward step in my view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried again today to pick some teams and do some scouting. There are bugs galore in this game! Much more than I thought initially.

 

SM, just get someone (or several people) sat with a laptop on their knee, actually interacting and playing the game, to sort out every bug in one foul swoop. Asap. Is that too much to ask?

 

 

We shouldn't have to put up with having to try and get used to a new UI and at the same time report back to you where all the bugs are too.

 

 

Come on, what is going on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This I agree with. The changes are here to stay in regards to the formations and positions.

 

However, when will Soccerwiki accurately update player positions to reflect these changes?

 

Out of interest. Does SM have any impact upon the changes on Soccerwiki or is it a completely separate company?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if either were the case. It maybe that Soccerwiki is operated by the SM owners, or that it is an independent company.

 

I have touched on this...but I think that the match engine/tactical changes have been made with existing Soccerwiki positions in mind. They know how Soccerwiki have assigned certain players...and they know that there is not much that can be done about this.

 

Furthermore, I think that this misses the whole point of the update. Steven may want to clarify this, but I think that the match engine changes are designed to work with what Soccerwiki has already assigned. By this I mean that SM has deliberately made the changes to deter managers from fielding players in certain positions. They are aware that many managers have fielded players with (solely) AM/winger abilities at M(RCL) in the past and this is the thing to be stopped. Their intention is to prevent this from happening...so allowing (solely) AM/wingers to be redefined to play at M(RCL) kind of defeats the whole spirit and intention of the update.

 

They would therefore be inclined to avoid changing what Soccerwiki has already decided with regards to positions.

 

As everyone is already aware. I am generally supportive of this approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From your posts you come across as one of these 'I don't have the players required to play the formation I want to play, lets see if I can persuade those in charge of positional/player changes to put the players I want into my chosen formation' kind of guy.

 

This really does fantastically summarize my own feelings on the matter and it is reassuring to know that there are a number of people who share my concerns. The issue of reassigning Soccerwiki positions should be based on evidence and evidence alone. More so, they should be motivated by a desire to mimic a player's true, 'real life' consistent and recent playing positions as closely as possible.

 

Personally, I feel that there are a number of players who could be revised. For example, there are many RB/LBs who possess the M(R/L) ability, despite having not played there in the past few seasons (like Newcastle's JANMATT). But note with this example, there is absolutely no ulterior motive involved. This type of change would in no way alter how I field my own team and I would have said the exact same thing irregardless of SM's recent changes. The only motive with this example is accuracy to 'real life'. What's more I could provide many transfermarket and goal.com references to support my point (rather than relying on my own subjective opinion).

 

What concerns me is that most of the poster's recent demands for positional changes are related to AM(wingers) being altered to M(RCL). They have all come after SM's update and very few of them have any reference to external statistical sites (like transfermarket or goal.com). Indeed, with a quick cross reference, most the player's proposed for revision have not played at M(RCL) recently or consistently in any commonly agreed way.

 

One poster even had the audacity to claim that (because the data didn't support his propositions) transfermarket, goal.com and soccerwiki must have all got their player positions 'wrong'...and for this reason, they couldn't be used as evidence!!...as if everyone in the world (including well respected organisations) are wrong in their interpretations, while he is the only person getting it right!  :)  

 

georgie34, on 13 Dec 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

Too many players already can play in too many positions and perform to 100% of their ability. That is the key! I would not mind Isco playing F(L/R) for example, if he was penalised for doing so. Perhaps say he would be able to perform to 85% of his ability or thereabouts. This games MUST remain a challenge. If you had your way.........it will not be one.

 

 

Once again I am in complete agreement with you on this issue. I don't particularly have a problem with TURAN being played at M(RCL). SM should allow this. I have a problem with the match engine behaving as if TURAN was playing in his position, with all the goals, assists and high match ratings that would come with it. As you have correctly pointed out, in 'real life' he would not really be playing at 100% of his ability because the different position demands different skills and responsibilities. He would effectively be playing 'out of position' and It is only right that the game engine reflects the realities of this kind of deployment with some kind of penalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My mistake there is actually an ignore function. 

 

Click on your name at the top & 'Manage Ignore Prefs'.

 

Easily done & useful.  B)

 

lifesaver!!

 

ADAM LALLANA: AM(RLC),F(RL)

someone mentioned him earlier but I thought I'd bring it up again. he plays wide of a front three, and now to play wide in a flat front three you need F(RL), so, he should get F(RL).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sort of ok with the changes, never felt comfortable with where some players could play in certain formations, but I have 2 issues.

 

1. How it was done. We should have ensured players positions were up to date before implementing. 

 

2. Although I don't spend much time on the game anymore, I always altered my formations to suit the opposition. Or I made changes to the formation if I was loosing at 60mins/75mins. These changes make it virtually impossible because concerns dont let you keep decent players to suit different formations, this is another dumbing down of the game and unrealistic as teams alter formations during a game. You can make certain tweaks but not wholesale changes. We appear to have gone down the route of, pick your favourite formation, get players to suit and then stick to it.

 

Another thought to ponder, should we have to have historical data for a players position or should we consider if they are capable of playing well there? eg. Real Madrid have many injuries or suspensions. Could Gareth Bale revert to the LB position he played for years and play it well?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thought to ponder, should we have to have historical data for a players position or should we consider if they are capable of playing well there? eg. Real Madrid have many injuries or suspensions. Could Gareth Bale revert to the LB position he played for years and play it well?

 

This point has a logic. I'm surprised Metaphysical didn't ask for it as he reported other premature or unlikely player position requests (see last Lallana).

 

I said lot of times Bale should keep his fullback skills as he could even now play there very well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This point has a logic. I'm surprised Metaphysical didn't ask for it as he reported other premature or unlikely player position requests (see last Lallana).

 

I said lot of times Bale should keep his fullback skills as he could even now play there very well.

 

so Bale, who hasn't played LB for literally years (til last night because of injuries) and only became world-class once he moved to LW, should keep his LB markings. but you dispute that Di Maria should be a M(RLC) despite him coming up in that position and, indeed, winning the Champions League playing as a M(LC)...

 

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

no, seriously...... what?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

also: Lallana has been playing as part of a front three for the last two seasons now.

 

hell if you wanna get technical Lallana should be M,AM(RLC),F(RL) because guess what position he played when emerging for Southampton?

 

go on, guess.

 

you'll love it, I promise!

 

but obviously I decided to be very conservative and only suggest the positions he's been playing the last two years. but even THAT was wrong according to you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sort of ok with the changes, never felt comfortable with where some players could play in certain formations, but I have 2 issues.

 

Another thought to ponder, should we have to have historical data for a players position or should we consider if they are capable of playing well there? eg. Real Madrid have many injuries or suspensions. Could Gareth Bale revert to the LB position he played for years and play it well?

 

Some interesting points here. I could say that Ashley Cole could play as F(RCL), because this is the position that he played when he was growing up. It was only later when he turned professional that he moved to LB. Going by this you could easily argue that Cole has played F(RCL) for years and played it well, but it wouldn't accurately describe his actual positional ability and skills today.

 

I think the point in georgie34's post was spot on. We might expect BALE to be able to play the LB position today, but would he playing it as well as if he was playing LW? Consider that BALE only shot to form, goals and fame when he was moved further up the pitch. For this reason, he wouldn't be playing at 100% at LB and it is good that the game engine is trying to mimic this.

 

 More importantly, I would say that surely any player could play anywhere according to subjective opinion. Without 'historical data' or evidence that a player has played a position recently, with some consistency and to a high standard...it is just what someone thinks (it is baseless). Essentially it is just an opinion and I cannot think of many successful arguments that have not used evidence to support it's claims.

 

This point has a logic. I'm surprised Metaphysical didn't ask for it as he reported other premature or unlikely player position requests (see last Lallana).

 

I said lot of times Bale should keep his fullback skills as he could even now play there very well.

 

Whilst I disagree a little with BALE (I would want to see more evidence of successful and recent LB play), I have quickly cross checked transfermarkt and you have a point with Lallana. Despite what Metaphyisical claims, the data shows that Lallana has played:

 

...19 games 15/16 season

...14/19 at AM...with 2 goals, 2 assists

...5/19 at LW...with 1 assist

 

...40 games 14/15 season

...23/40 at AM...with 4 goals, 3 assists

...10/40 at LW...with 1 goal, 1 assist

...3/40 at RW...with 0 goals, 0 assists

...3/40 at LM...with 1 goal, 0 assists

...1/40 at F©...with 0 goals, 0 assists

 

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/adam-lallana/leistungsdaten/spieler/43530

 

Perhaps the argument could be made for LW ability. I will give you that.

 

As for the LM, RW and F© abilities, 7/59 with 1 goal and 0 assists in the past two years is far from compelling evidence in support of these positional attributes.

 

 

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

no, seriously...... what?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

go on, guess.

 

but obviously I decided to be very conservative and only suggest the positions he's been playing the last two years. but even THAT was wrong according to you!

 

...perhaps you should just keep shouting at posters and disrespecting them/blocking them when they disagree with your viewpoint. It has worked great for you so far :rolleyes:  

Link to post
Share on other sites

so Bale, who hasn't played LB for literally years (til last night because of injuries) and only became world-class once he moved to LW, should keep his LB markings. but you dispute that Di Maria should be a M(RLC) despite him coming up in that position and, indeed, winning the Champions League playing as a M(LC)...

 

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

no, seriously...... what?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

also: Lallana has been playing as part of a front three for the last two seasons now.

 

hell if you wanna get technical Lallana should be M,AM(RLC),F(RL) because guess what position he played when emerging for Southampton?

 

go on, guess.

 

you'll love it, I promise!

 

but obviously I decided to be very conservative and only suggest the positions he's been playing the last two years. but even THAT was wrong according to you!

 

 

Here we are finally: I was waiting you at the door!

your logic says:

 

Bale NOT

 

Turan YES

 

Explain us why please.

 

I will do for Bale with your own words:

 

"also: Bale has been playing as part of a four back pack for some year.

 

hell if you wanna get technical Bale should be D,DM,M(L),OM(RL) because guess what position he played when emerging for Tottenham?

 

go on, guess".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting points here. I could say that Ashley Cole could play as F(RCL), because this is the position that he played when he was growing up. It was only later when he turned professional that he moved to LB. Going by this you could easily argue that Cole has played F(RCL) for years and played it well, but it wouldn't accurately describe his actual positional ability and skills today.

 

I think the point in georgie34's post was spot on. We might expect BALE to be able to play the LB position today, but would he playing it as well as if he was playing LW? Consider that BALE only shot to form, goals and fame when he was moved further up the pitch. For this reason, he wouldn't be playing at 100% at LB and it is good that the game engine is trying to mimic this.

 

 More importantly, I would say that surely any player could play anywhere according to subjective opinion. Without 'historical data' or evidence that a player has played a position recently, with some consistency and to a high standard...it is just what someone thinks (it is baseless). Essentially it is just an opinion and I cannot think of many successful arguments that have not used evidence to support it's claims.

 

 

Whilst I disagree a little with BALE (I would want to see more evidence of successful and recent LB play), I have quickly cross checked transfermarkt and you have a point with Lallana. Despite what Metaphyisical claims, the data shows that Lallana has played:

 

...19 games 15/16 season

...14/19 at AM...with 2 goals, 2 assists

...5/19 at LW...with 1 assist

 

...40 games 14/15 season

...23/40 at AM...with 4 goals, 3 assists

...10/40 at LW...with 1 goal, 1 assist

...3/40 at RW...with 0 goals, 0 assists

...3/40 at LM...with 1 goal, 0 assists

...1/40 at F©...with 0 goals, 0 assists

 

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/adam-lallana/leistungsdaten/spieler/43530

 

Perhaps the argument could be made for LW ability. I will give you that.

 

As for the LM, RW and F© abilities, 7/59 with 1 goal and 0 assists in the past two years is far from compelling evidence in support of these positional attributes.

 

 

 

...perhaps you should just keep shouting at posters and disrespecting them/blocking them when they disagree with your viewpoint. It has worked great for you so far :rolleyes:  

 

Playing few games in different and new position is not enough for asking position change, this is the point. As I said Asamoah needed 1 season and a half to get D(L) skill. And... it's not important for me time elapsed from old position played by a player to remove it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Playing few games in different and new position is not enough for asking position change, this is the point. As I said Asamoah needed 1 season and a half to get D(L) skill. And... it's not important for me time elapsed from old position played by a player to remove it.

 

...I must admit I fall on your side of the argument Anton.

 

Better for Soccerwiki to be cautious and conservative...rather than throwing new positions at players left, right and center (based on only a few games).

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Here we are finally: I was waiting you at the door!

your logic says:

 

Bale NOT

 

Turan YES

 

Explain us why please.

 

the last time Bale played D(L) regularly was 2009-10. five years ago. I think he played it a couple of times in 10-11 as well, but yeah, he hasn't been a regular D(L) in five years. and he wasn't really a great D(L), bar his free-kicks obviously. he went through a record-breaking run of PL games without ever being on the winning side for goodness sake!

 

his emergence as a great footballer came when he was moved forward to M,AM(L). and being moved even further up and given more freedom as an AM(RLC),F(RL) is how he became world-class. the positional changes were essential to him becoming brilliant.

 

now, could he translate his new-found skills back to playing D(L)? it's certainly possible, and I'd like to see it tried actually. but there's no proof for it both in terms of starting position on the field and functional play during games. he doesn't even have the defensive responsibilities of a M(RL) anymore, let alone a D(L).

 

Arda Turan, meanwhile, last played M(RL)... this season. admittedly not that much, but that's because he's only been able to play for Turkey due to the Barcelona transfer ban. but his Turkey position, like role for Atleti, is that of a hybrid M(RL),AM(RLC). he was constantly playing down the sides of midfield with enormous defensive and offensive responsibility (you acknowledged this yourself!). so that is why he should have M(RL) in his profile while Bale should not have D(L).

 

that's pretty clear, no?

 

also, I ask again: why do you object to Di Maria being M(RLC) but ask for Bale to be D(L)? Di Maria played M(LC) muuuuuch more recently than Bale played D(L) - I mean, as recently as this summer if you count international football. so what gives?

 

 

 

Playing few games in different and new position is not enough for asking position change, this is the point. As I said Asamoah needed 1 season and a half to get D(L) skill. And... it's not important for me time elapsed from old position played by a player to remove it.

 

Lallana has played enough games as a winger in a flat front three to justify having F(L), maybe F(RL), in his positional profile. 

 

soccerwiki taking FOREVER to upgrade Asamoah shouldn't be the benchmark. that was ridiculous. they should react much quicker to changes in football.

 

and I see brutbrutbrut has expanded his repertoire beyond the straw-man and is now including the reductio ad absurdum! Ashley Cole playing as a striker in youth football before transitioning to D(L) as a professional is not at all the same as anything I've been arguing for. what is this lunacy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Lallana has played enough games as a winger in a flat front three to justify having F(L), maybe F(RL), in his positional profile. 

 

and I see brutbrutbrut has expanded his repertoire beyond the straw-man and is now including the reductio ad absurdum! 

 

LW maybe, but F(RC) or LM...no.

 

I think the evidence speaks for itself:

 

 

 

...19 games 15/16 season

...14/19 at AM...with 2 goals, 2 assists

...5/19 at LW...with 1 assist

 

...40 games 14/15 season

...23/40 at AM...with 4 goals, 3 assists

...10/40 at LW...with 1 goal, 1 assist

...3/40 at RW...with 0 goals, 0 assists

...3/40 at LM...with 1 goal, 0 assists

...1/40 at F©...with 0 goals, 0 assists

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

...I must admit I fall on your side of the argument Anton.

 

Better for Soccerwiki to be cautious and conservative...rather than throwing new positions at players left, right and center (based on only a few games).

 

 

 

 

 

 

the last time Bale played D(L) regularly was 2009-10. five years ago. I think he played it a couple of times in 10-11 as well, but yeah, he hasn't been a regular D(L) in five years. and he wasn't really a great D(L), bar his free-kicks obviously. he went through a record-breaking run of PL games without ever being on the winning side for goodness sake!

 

his emergence as a great footballer came when he was moved forward to M,AM(L). and being moved even further up and given more freedom as an AM(RLC),F(RL) is how he became world-class. the positional changes were essential to him becoming brilliant.

 

now, could he translate his new-found skills back to playing D(L)? it's certainly possible, and I'd like to see it tried actually. but there's no proof for it both in terms of starting position on the field and functional play during games. he doesn't even have the defensive responsibilities of a M(RL) anymore, let alone a D(L).

 

Arda Turan, meanwhile, last played M(RL)... this season. admittedly not that much, but that's because he's only been able to play for Turkey due to the Barcelona transfer ban. but his Turkey position, like role for Atleti, is that of a hybrid M(RL),AM(RLC). he was constantly playing down the sides of midfield with enormous defensive and offensive responsibility (you acknowledged this yourself!). so that is why he should have M(RL) in his profile while Bale should not have D(L).

 

that's pretty clear, no?

 

also, I ask again: why do you object to Di Maria being M(RLC) but ask for Bale to be D(L)? Di Maria played M(LC) muuuuuch more recently than Bale played D(L) - I mean, as recently as this summer if you count international football. so what gives?

 

 

 

 

Lallana has played enough games as a winger in a flat front three to justify having F(L), maybe F(RL), in his positional profile. 

 

soccerwiki taking FOREVER to upgrade Asamoah shouldn't be the benchmark. that was ridiculous. they should react much quicker to changes in football.

 

and I see brutbrutbrut has expanded his repertoire beyond the straw-man and is now including the reductio ad absurdum! Ashley Cole playing as a striker in youth football before transitioning to D(L) as a professional is not at all the same as anything I've been arguing for. what is this lunacy?

 

 

Thanks to you both BrutBrutBrut and Metaphysical, it's a pleasure to debate with you on this issue.

 

So Brut, I agree with you as you say SoccerWiki should be conservative about skill changes because in the past it was a bit too tolerant.

 

And Meta, I don't care how long time Bale is not getting caps as D(L). It's obviously he could play as fullback at any time. I'd say more: he would play better in the left flank than as OM or F, his progression speed in the pitch is lowered as you put him as a forwarder position.

Another point: you are asking for position adding only. Why don't you care position removing too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And Meta, I don't care how long time Bale is not getting caps as D(L). It's obviously he could play as fullback at any time. I'd say more: he would play better in the left flank than as OM or F, his progression speed in the pitch is lowered as you put him as a forwarder position.

Another point: you are asking for position adding only. Why don't you care position removing too?

 

I agree with the part in bold. he's at his best playing in the AM(RLC) zones, maybe even a bit deeper, in a counterattacking style of football. he doesn't have the deft movement, dribbling and agility to play to his best level further forward. Madrid seem intent on making him their main forward tho.

 

and I don't dispute that he could be a phenomenal attacking left-back (I don't know how his defending would be now), but my point was we've not seen any evidence of it, not in his starting XI position nor in his functional play on the pitch.

 

and again: why did you dispute Di Maria when you want Bale to get D(L) back?

 

and I did add a couple of positional removals remember? but it's not as important to me because, for the most part, players don't forget how to play a position and their games don't change as massively as Bale's has when he switched from D(L) to AM,F(RLC)

Link to post
Share on other sites

For Tactical matters :

a). Corelation between your new tactics with player's position, if you said could change player's rating & also could make player's performance could be low/bad, then these is very very very serious matter. I suggesting 3 option for this matters :

ⅰ). Fixing all "3 defender" formations that provided in "New version" into "Old version" ie : 3-5-2, 3-4-3, 3-4-2-1, 3-4-1-2, 3-2-2-2-1. Why? Because Right/Left Midfielder made players out of position. We couldn't sell our AM (RL) players & switching with low rating players that suitable with new position (pure M (RL)). This is the era of flexible strategies, so many players could be played minimum into 2 or 3 positions (including AM (RL) could play as M (RL), for REAL). For this matter, your option are fixing it, or providing us with more type of that formation ( "B", or "C", or "D" & etc). I think many users very need this.

ⅱ). Configuring new tactic model based and/or liked the old one, and with some improvements. Example : variant of 3-5-2 named "3-1-4-2" with AM (RL) could play as M (RL).

ⅲ). From basic formations that you provide, users could make it to be "Custom" formation as like as user's need. Example : Based formation 3-5-2, display in match game "3-5-2 Custom".

B). The way in changing/switching players in tactical formation. We need players can be sort by rating, condition, position & morale.

c). Making our tactic instruction were hidden/private too in match's statistic tab. Giving basic formation (without movement) is more than enough. This will give flexibility for managers in creating their personal strategy.

Recently, I read some users debating about Right/Left Fullback can played as Centerback. Maybe we could remember how Guardiola given the role to Adriano as Centerback for many times. Many Fullbacks adapted as Centerback & feel comfortable, then Centerback become their primary position. Named Nesta & Zaccardo from DR, Chiellini & Mathieu from DL and manymore.

My opinion, this matter shouldn't be debated, because this is an era of flexible football, with more custom roles, instructions, playing styles & strategies itself. Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the part in bold. he's at his best playing in the AM(RLC) zones, maybe even a bit deeper, in a counterattacking style of football. he doesn't have the deft movement, dribbling and agility to play to his best level further forward. Madrid seem intent on making him their main forward tho.

 

and I don't dispute that he could be a phenomenal attacking left-back (I don't know how his defending would be now), but my point was we've not seen any evidence of it, not in his starting XI position nor in his functional play on the pitch.

 

and again: why did you dispute Di Maria when you want Bale to get D(L) back?

 

Because Di Maria played as M(RL) few times (20) during his career.

Gareth Bale played as D(L) 33 times (a whole season) and played as M(L) 120 times as Transfermarkt report.

 

If I was you I'd care with removing Bale's F(LC) position: he played in this position 6 times only as CF and 2 times only as F(L) in the last two years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Di Maria played as M(RL) few times (20) during his career.

Gareth Bale played as D(L) 33 times (a whole season) and played as M(L) 120 times as Transfermarkt report.

 

If I was you I'd care with removing Bale's F(LC) position: he played in this position 6 times only as CF and 2 times only as F(L) in the last two years.

 

still going by transfermarkt as your bible, then?

 

fair enough.

 

we'll have to agree to disagree because if you can't see that Di Maria played M(LC) for Benfica, Madrid in 13/14 and for Argentina then idk what to tell you (transfermarkt contend that he played AM for Madrid in 13/14, which is laughable, and they don't even have data for Argentina)

Link to post
Share on other sites

still going by transfermarkt as your bible, then?

 

fair enough.

 

:rolleyes: ...

 

 

 ... surely any player could play anywhere according to subjective opinion. Without 'historical data' or evidence that a player has played a position recently, with some consistency and to a high standard...it is just what someone thinks (it is baseless). Essentially it is just an opinion and I cannot think of many successful arguments that have not used evidence to support it's claims.

...One poster even had the audacity to claim that (because the data didn't support his propositions) transfermarket, goal.com and soccerwiki must have all got their player positions 'wrong'...and for this reason, they couldn't be used as evidence!!...as if everyone in the world (including well respected organisations) are wrong in their interpretations, while he is the only person getting it right!  :)  

Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...