Middleweight165 said: @ZaZ I think points 2 and 6 are probably the sticking points for most people, myself included. If could propose a scenario. Which player would you choose?
A - CA=160, Acc=12, Pace=12 B - CA=120, Acc=20, Pace=20 C - CA=140, Acc=16, Pace=16
Lets assume other important physical stats are equal and the other points are distributed to Technical and Mental attributes and you are the manager of the best team in the world Expand
I don't play with hidden attributes revealed. I used to play like that before, but the gameplay changes completely. With everything visible, I used to think only about the future and building a perfect squad. With those stats hidden, I can think more about the current season, trying to guess the player hidden attributes based on feeling. I don't mind those that use Genie Scout or In-Game Editor, I just enjoy more playing without them.
That being said, if I could see the attributes, I would choose player B without thinking twice. Just 3 points in either pace or acceleration is enough to drop a tactic from top tier to mediocre (7.0 to 5.6), but we are talking about 4 points in each. If it was 1 or 2 points of difference (combined) I would think about it, but 4 in each, it's a no brainer. Top speed for the win!
I find it very helpful for us users, if you list the various characteristics role by role to look at when buying players. I have put the values you say in the various posts (acceleration, speed above all and a step below agility and dribbling) but I have not found players who have impressed me. If I could comply with my request, millions of users would also be happy. In the meantime, thank you very much for everything you do for us who, like you, love this great game. Expand
I usually hire players like this: 1. Go to player search and make sure transfer interest box is marked. 2. Add a filter for position, age, nationality and key attributes, then set it to the desired values. --- For example: accomplished ML, under 23 years old, UK and Irish region, Acceleration 14+, Pace 14+, Agility 12+, Dribbling 12+. 3. If too many players appear, increase the key attributes. 4. Change the view to show key attributes (set it to physical attributes or add new columns). 5. Sort the table by a key attribute, usually Acceleration or Pace. 6. Check players individually. If they are acceptable, right click and ask agent for availability. 7. If cost is ok, ask for a scout report to reveal a bit and maybe see some hidden attributes. 8. Add good players to a shortlist and ask for a trial or to scout for one more week. 9. Make offer for the best players for the desired position. 10. Stall signings until all players reach an agreement, then choose the best and cancel all others.
ta2199 said: I even retrain McTominay to play MR-DW and Fred to DR-IWB(Su). So there's nothing impossible. Just try to have as many as possible friendly game and let him play at the new position.
But if the ST is slow then just sell him or loan him away Expand
There is a hidden attribute called versatility that affects the speed to learn new positions. Some learn very fast while others learn very slow.
@ta2199, now you can say for sure Fanatic is the best tactic with strikers. Possibly something to do with the wingers, maybe DW have a harder time to cover the gap behind strikers.
I can't talk by Magician, but I believe Phoenix was born as a tweak of Red before going his own direction. Since Blue is also a tweak from the same tactic, it's no surprise that they got very similar.
This tactic looks the same as Fanatic tactic and the only difference I see it uses Defensive Wingers instead of normal Wingers. Am I right? https://fm-arena.com/tactic/953-fanatic/ Expand
Fanatic is a tweak of Phoenix and this is a tweak of Blue. They have some small differences other than the wingers, like player instructions, set pieces and one or other role.
ta2199 said: Hey @ZaZ, can you create a new tactic with 2 AF ( with the same PI's like SS) ?. I just wanted to see which grade that tactic gonna get. I think It gonna be 7.0 Expand
Blue 3.0 with AF instead of SS. I don't think it will reach 7.0, but there it is.
Won the quadruaple in first season using V2, looking forward to testing V3.
Great work Expand
Just to be clear, Blue gets a few of @Egraam's set pieces (from Motion), not the other way around. (P.S.: Unless he changed in later versions and also got something from Blue.)
ta2199 said: Hey @ZaZ, can you create a new tactic with 2 AF ( with the same PI's like SS) ?. I just wanted to see which grade that tactic gonna get. I think It gonna be 7.0 Expand
I don't think it will be much different from Fanatic, but running to post results.
wixta79 said: so do DW give you a better performance the wingers? Expand
They are very similar, but I believe DW are more consistent. It's like DW can go from 6-8 in performance while W-Su goes from 5-9. In both cases, the average is 7. (Hypothetical performance, not in game scores.)
Mark said: Here is an interesting post from many years ago that I think still is valid and interesting - At the beginning of the game, Ronaldo's CA is 192. Ronaldo is natural at AM L; accomplished at S C and AM R; competent at AM C; and unconvincing at M R and M L. - When I change Ronaldo to be natural at S C and every other position to 1, Ronaldo's recommend current ability (RCA) is 195. This means that Ronaldo's ability as a S C is higher than his CA. If I made these changes to Ronaldo's positions and didn't change his CA, within a few days the game would adjust some of Ronaldo's attributes down, so that his RCA would match his CA of 192. - I also tried changing Ronaldo to natural as a D R and every other position to 1. When I do this, Ronaldo's RCA becomes 134. If I changed Ronaldo's positional attributes in this way and didn't lower his CA, within a few days the game would bump up his attributes across the board so that his CA as a DR would reach 192. - Then I made Ronaldo natural at D R and S C. When I do this, his RCA is 178. This is between 195 (RCA as a SC) and 134 (RCA as a D R). However, it is not a simple average. In some earlier games, players with proficiency in many different positions had, often times, very very good attributes. I believe this had to do with the way the game averaged the RCA of different positions to calculate the overall CA. SI seems to have compensated for this potential bug by making the average biased towards the position the player is best at. - When, besides being natural at D R and SC, I also make Ronaldo natural at D C (Ronaldo RCA when he is only a D C is 137), Ronaldo's RCA becomes 170. It seems like the weight given to the RCA in the position the player is less good at becomes even smaller when the player is proficient in many positions. - I also tried starting Ronaldo as a S C only and then, one by one, increase his D R proficiency. Up until D R = 10, Ronaldo's RCA does not change. Starting at 11, Ronaldo's RCA steadily decreases as his DR proficiency increases, reaching 178 when his DR proficiency reaches 20. So, positions are "free" up to 10, and then gradually start to affect the CA weights of attributes. So, my take is that the CA costs of attributes for players with multiple positions are an average of the CA costs of attributes of the different positions. However, this average CA cost is not a simple average (nor even a "simple" weighted average based on the proficiency in the positions). Rather, the CA cost of an attribute is "biased" towards the CA cost of the attribute in the position the player is best RCA-wise. A player with 6 in attributes has a RCA of 0 with any natural position (also when I changed finishing to 5 in a striker, the in-game editor showed a RCA of -1; and when I changed finishing to 7 in a striker, the in-game editor showed a RCA of 1). This implies that you cannot just multiply the CA costs I posted originally by the attributes and get a player's CA. You have to subtract from that calculation, approximately, 6 x sum of the CA costs of all attributes. That being said, I still wouldn't expect you could get the exact CA of a player by doing that calculation. As I explained in the original post, there is some quirks in the way the whole CA weighting of attributes works that I couldn't fully figure out. But the number should be in the neighborhood. Attributes are not "free" up until 6. According to my testing, their cost seems similar below and above 6. What happens is that a player with CA = 1 has an allotment for attributes that is approximately 6 x CA cost of all attributes. You don't start with all attributes at 1 when CA is 1. A player with 1 in all attributes and 2 in corners has RCA = -99 (when I put all attributes to 1 the in game editor shows RCA=0 -> this is probably because the editor is not prepared for that extreme). Expand
I just tested here in the editor. First, I picked Messi and made him have 20 in one position and 0 in each other. As a DC, his RCA is 130, while as AMC his RCA is 192. When I make him have 20 in two different positions, he gets the RCA from the highest, no matter which position I add. There are a few exceptions in which RCA is higher than both positions, like ST + DC or ST + DL/R. When I add any third or fourth position, the RCA always increases. I did the same with Piqué and results were similar.
Xavinwonderland said: So according to you the weight cost of the attributes is calculated based on a worse of scenario (like if you can play multiple position the game will always use the highest weight to determine the cost of the attribute). That is a possibility and that would indeed kill any attempt to game the system even if that would be quite unfair. Do you have any data for that affirmation or this is your gut feeling? If that were the case it would also mean that from an attribute point of view players able to play multiple positions are a bad deal (like a striker /midfielder) as you get more flexibility that you might not need but it has a cost. Expand
I'm quite sure you can open the editor and test it yourself, it shows CA there.
You think that if you take a defender, Acceleration attribute costs cheaper for a defender than it cost for a striker and train him to play a striker then you'll get Acceleration attribute cheaply but that's not how it works when he learns playing a striker then a recalculation of CA will happen and Acceleration attribute will start costing as he were a striker and that's how it works. Expand
I didn't know that was a thing, thanks for the info. =)
Xavinwonderland said: I have been searching the forums for a clear answer on this but couldn't not find anything clear.
When a player gains attribute points the CA cost will depend on its position so increasing tackling for instance will be very expensive for a defender but pretty much free for a striker.
What happens if I have a striker that I retrain as a defender? Is the cost increase based on being a striker? A defender? An average of the 2?
Is it possible to min/max by keeping it natural as a striker and only accomplished as a defender so that the tackling cost is using the striker weight rather than the defender weights? Expand
It's possible, but highly unlikely to produce anything good in a reasonable time. The initial attributes are just too different. Maybe it would take 4 or 5 years for a striker to reach the attributes of a teenager defender, which isn't very impressive at all. Also, DC is one of the positions with the lowest costs for pace, acceleration and agility, which are the most effective attributes overall.
Xavinwonderland said: Bonus question what is the exact trigger? (I have read that it could be position familiarity that would decide if the game considers you to be a striker or a defender) but if the player only trains as a defender but rarely plays it will take ages to achieve familiarity as a defender (which would be good as we could load up more cheap attributes points onto him) Expand
I believe the natural position is decided at generation time, so you can't change it even if he only plays in another position. The natural position is the one that never lowers (always 20) when you stop training, while the other positions can decrease if you stop playing/training.
Here's a look at my club ~40 games into the season. I'm in 2033 in Ligue 1 with RC Lens.
I took the metrics from FM Stag I believe. The attacking metric is: (key passes / 90) + (chances created / 90) + (assists / 90) + (shots on target / 90) + (goals / 90) + (xG / 90) + (xG / shot)
the defensive metric is: (interceptions / 90) + (tackles / 90) + (headers won / 90) / 2
positions of the players: Abbate - DL/DR Balde - AMC Balikwisha - MC Benjelloun - AMC/ML/MR Correa - DC Cristiano - AMC/ML Cuzcueta - ML Damilola - MR/AMC Emeljanov - MR Gamba - MC/AMC Jesus - ML Jimenez - DL/DR Juan - DM Kozuchowski - DM/MC Lambert - DL Mashigo - DR/DL Demirel - DC Navio - DC Nina - DC Salvatori - DL Vandenbroeck - AMC Vera - MR Vranckx - DM
The red lines are the team average in the attacking/defensive metrics. Players in the upper right are above average in both attacking and defensive metrics. They're nearly all primarily ML/MR players. Also, I move around set pieces every match, and the ML/MR are not always my corner takers.
Players in the upper left are above average attacking and below average defending. They're usually the AMC/MC positions.
The lower left are below average defending and attacking. In this case it's my DM's and GK's (who should really be left off the plot but I'm too lazy to filter them out).
The lower right are above average defending and below average attacking. These are mostly the back 4.
I've been making this plot for a few seasons with the red version of this shape, and the distribution of players shown here is pretty universally what I've seen.
There's nothing all that surprising about where the positions end up but I use this type of thing to compare players against each other, i.e. Vandenbroeck is a world class player making $10 million/yr, whereas Damilola is 17 years old making $1 million / yr, and they're practically performing the same. Vandenbroeck plays tougher matches of course but he's really not playing as well as I think he should. Expand
Thanks for the graph, it is very nice. Too bad such thing is not part of the game itself. Some people were commenting here that wingers don't perform well, but I guess this data clearly shows the opposite.
drhay53 said: I make a lot of plots and stuff from the player stats, and from a sheer numbers perspective, the defensive wingers do the most work for me (caveat, I'm using red instead of blue). This is in terms of things like int/90, tkl/90, key passes/90, chances created/90, etc. The wingers stand way out in terms of their overall production in those kinds of stats. They just do a ton of work in both phases of play.
That said, pace at AMC/MC is very important. If I had a player who was my best winger but also my fastest player, I'd play him at AMC/CM first. Expand
I have some stats of Blue 3.0 after one season in vacation mode. Columns are, in order: passes completed, pass attempts, mistakes leading to goals, distance covered per 90 minutes, dribbles made per game, pass attempts per 90 minutes, key passes per 90 minutes, chances created per 90 minutes, shots per 90 minutes, shots on target ratio, interceptions per 90 minutes, tackles per game, tackle completion ratio, aerial challenge attempts per 90 minutes, cross completed compared to crosses attempted, overall number of crosses attempted.
bula1899 said: @ZaZ what do you think, which position is the most important/key positions for tactic? i have many players who can play all positions from attack, ok im sure that CM is very important but i dont know, my best player has better left foot and natural on ML and AMC, where he should play? Expand
It depends on your squad. If you have enough good players in one position, put him in the other. If both positions are well supplied, then switch the worst player off. If you don't have any good player in either position, then play him as ML, because it's easier to find a good AMC than a good ML.
pauloolivieri said: That was the tactic I was trying to achieve. I was tired of the unbalanced 4-3-3 options with players occupying the same space, specially in the wings. And even more tired of lone strikers being useless and lost amongst the opposition defenders (they only work properly for me if there's an AMC behind).
So far, I've managed to achieve some success with two @RDFTactics tactics (Bielsa's with Milan and Sacchi's with Arsenal), but that wasn't enough. I've tried some approaches based on the Strikerless guy ideas, but they didn't work. Then I tested this one in an unsuccessful save with Sampdoria and things just happened. I was going 4-3-3 and made my signings based on it, so I still don't have the players I need for the season. But it's working. I'm using mostly the Light Blue, playing more defensively, and got impressive results against Juventus (3-3 away, they scored from an IMPOSSIBLE free kick at 90+3), Milan 2-1, Roma 3-0, Lazio 3-0. I'm currently in 7th (had a bad start), but possibly will manage to get at least a place for Europa League.
The interchangeable movement of the players is great. Wingbacks switching from going inside/outside, the CM-at making late forward runs makes him my most dangerous player (now who's FMing here, huh). I have Onyeka (originally intended to be a B2B) and Jankto playing there. Onyeka is super fast, but lacks finishing. Still doing fine. Damsgaard and Gabbiadini are doing good as well as the SS.
As my SSs play near the midfield, I often ask them to man-mark the opposition CMs when playing a stronger side. And my wingers to mark their wing/fullbacks. This kills their chance creation possibilities. Also I removed the long throw-ins since it was causing more counters for the opposition than any good to my squad. I will need a player to suit the CM-at next season. Otávio from Porto was my main target, but he's not willing to join Samp now. He's quite a great player, I buy him every save. So I will need this Lothar Matthaus kind of guy, as it seems to be my main role.
Will come back for updates. Expand
Nice job there! I would just recommend Blue 3.0 with cautious mentality instead of Light Blue 3.0. Light version sacrifices win-rate to get less yellow cards and save some energy, it's supposed to be used when you want to hit the brakes thinking about future matches.
A - CA=160, Acc=12, Pace=12
B - CA=120, Acc=20, Pace=20
C - CA=140, Acc=16, Pace=16
Lets assume other important physical stats are equal and the other points are distributed to Technical and Mental attributes and you are the manager of the best team in the world
I don't play with hidden attributes revealed. I used to play like that before, but the gameplay changes completely. With everything visible, I used to think only about the future and building a perfect squad. With those stats hidden, I can think more about the current season, trying to guess the player hidden attributes based on feeling. I don't mind those that use Genie Scout or In-Game Editor, I just enjoy more playing without them.
That being said, if I could see the attributes, I would choose player B without thinking twice. Just 3 points in either pace or acceleration is enough to drop a tactic from top tier to mediocre (7.0 to 5.6), but we are talking about 4 points in each. If it was 1 or 2 points of difference (combined) I would think about it, but 4 in each, it's a no brainer. Top speed for the win!
I find it very helpful for us users, if you list the various characteristics role by role to look at when buying players. I have put the values you say in the various posts (acceleration, speed above all and a step below agility and dribbling) but I have not found players who have impressed me. If I could comply with my request, millions of users would also be happy. In the meantime, thank you very much for everything you do for us who, like you, love this great game.
I usually hire players like this:
1. Go to player search and make sure transfer interest box is marked.
2. Add a filter for position, age, nationality and key attributes, then set it to the desired values.
--- For example: accomplished ML, under 23 years old, UK and Irish region, Acceleration 14+, Pace 14+, Agility 12+, Dribbling 12+.
3. If too many players appear, increase the key attributes.
4. Change the view to show key attributes (set it to physical attributes or add new columns).
5. Sort the table by a key attribute, usually Acceleration or Pace.
6. Check players individually. If they are acceptable, right click and ask agent for availability.
7. If cost is ok, ask for a scout report to reveal a bit and maybe see some hidden attributes.
8. Add good players to a shortlist and ask for a trial or to scout for one more week.
9. Make offer for the best players for the desired position.
10. Stall signings until all players reach an agreement, then choose the best and cancel all others.
However, I believe there are more qualified people to talk about it. I'll leave some links of discussions about that, including some filters in game and filters for genie scout.
https://fm-arena.com/table/9-important-attributes/
https://fm-arena.com/thread/1379-where-can-i-find-more-information-on-the-9-important-attributes/
https://fm-arena.com/thread/938-the-most-important-player-attributes-in-fm21/
https://fm-arena.com/thread/1382-general-consensus-on-most-important-attributes-for-each-position/
But if the ST is slow then just sell him or loan him away
There is a hidden attribute called versatility that affects the speed to learn new positions. Some learn very fast while others learn very slow.
They are pretty similar, to a point that they could have merged during their development. Some versions got more different than others, but they evolved independently. Here is a timeline:
- First tactic I uploaded here, inspired by Duke 433 v4: https://fm-arena.com/tactic/678-zaz-total-football-442/
- First version of Red: https://fm-arena.com/thread/779-zaz-red/
- First version of Blue (it was a tweak of Red): https://fm-arena.com/thread/780-zaz-blue/
- For reference, this is the first version of Phoenix: https://fm-arena.com/thread/784-phoenix/
I can't talk by Magician, but I believe Phoenix was born as a tweak of Red before going his own direction. Since Blue is also a tweak from the same tactic, it's no surprise that they got very similar.
This tactic looks the same as Fanatic tactic and the only difference I see it uses Defensive Wingers instead of normal Wingers. Am I right? https://fm-arena.com/tactic/953-fanatic/
Fanatic is a tweak of Phoenix and this is a tweak of Blue. They have some small differences other than the wingers, like player instructions, set pieces and one or other role.
P.S.: Name got changed. =)
Blue 3.0 with AF instead of SS. I don't think it will reach 7.0, but there it is.
Are set pieces stay the same ZAZ routine?
Won the quadruaple in first season using V2, looking forward to testing V3.
Great work
Just to be clear, Blue gets a few of @Egraam's set pieces (from Motion), not the other way around. (P.S.: Unless he changed in later versions and also got something from Blue.)
I don't think it will be much different from Fanatic, but running to post results.
They are very similar, but I believe DW are more consistent. It's like DW can go from 6-8 in performance while W-Su goes from 5-9. In both cases, the average is 7. (Hypothetical performance, not in game scores.)
- At the beginning of the game, Ronaldo's CA is 192. Ronaldo is natural at AM L; accomplished at S C and AM R; competent at AM C; and unconvincing at M R and M L.
- When I change Ronaldo to be natural at S C and every other position to 1, Ronaldo's recommend current ability (RCA) is 195. This means that Ronaldo's ability as a S C is higher than his CA. If I made these changes to Ronaldo's positions and didn't change his CA, within a few days the game would adjust some of Ronaldo's attributes down, so that his RCA would match his CA of 192.
- I also tried changing Ronaldo to natural as a D R and every other position to 1. When I do this, Ronaldo's RCA becomes 134. If I changed Ronaldo's positional attributes in this way and didn't lower his CA, within a few days the game would bump up his attributes across the board so that his CA as a DR would reach 192.
- Then I made Ronaldo natural at D R and S C. When I do this, his RCA is 178. This is between 195 (RCA as a SC) and 134 (RCA as a D R). However, it is not a simple average. In some earlier games, players with proficiency in many different positions had, often times, very very good attributes. I believe this had to do with the way the game averaged the RCA of different positions to calculate the overall CA. SI seems to have compensated for this potential bug by making the average biased towards the position the player is best at.
- When, besides being natural at D R and SC, I also make Ronaldo natural at D C (Ronaldo RCA when he is only a D C is 137), Ronaldo's RCA becomes 170. It seems like the weight given to the RCA in the position the player is less good at becomes even smaller when the player is proficient in many positions.
- I also tried starting Ronaldo as a S C only and then, one by one, increase his D R proficiency. Up until D R = 10, Ronaldo's RCA does not change. Starting at 11, Ronaldo's RCA steadily decreases as his DR proficiency increases, reaching 178 when his DR proficiency reaches 20. So, positions are "free" up to 10, and then gradually start to affect the CA weights of attributes.
So, my take is that the CA costs of attributes for players with multiple positions are an average of the CA costs of attributes of the different positions. However, this average CA cost is not a simple average (nor even a "simple" weighted average based on the proficiency in the positions). Rather, the CA cost of an attribute is "biased" towards the CA cost of the attribute in the position the player is best RCA-wise.
A player with 6 in attributes has a RCA of 0 with any natural position (also when I changed finishing to 5 in a striker, the in-game editor showed a RCA of -1; and when I changed finishing to 7 in a striker, the in-game editor showed a RCA of 1). This implies that you cannot just multiply the CA costs I posted originally by the attributes and get a player's CA. You have to subtract from that calculation, approximately, 6 x sum of the CA costs of all attributes.
That being said, I still wouldn't expect you could get the exact CA of a player by doing that calculation. As I explained in the original post, there is some quirks in the way the whole CA weighting of attributes works that I couldn't fully figure out. But the number should be in the neighborhood.
Attributes are not "free" up until 6. According to my testing, their cost seems similar below and above 6. What happens is that a player with CA = 1 has an allotment for attributes that is approximately 6 x CA cost of all attributes. You don't start with all attributes at 1 when CA is 1.
A player with 1 in all attributes and 2 in corners has RCA = -99 (when I put all attributes to 1 the in game editor shows RCA=0 -> this is probably because the editor is not prepared for that extreme).
I just tested here in the editor. First, I picked Messi and made him have 20 in one position and 0 in each other. As a DC, his RCA is 130, while as AMC his RCA is 192. When I make him have 20 in two different positions, he gets the RCA from the highest, no matter which position I add. There are a few exceptions in which RCA is higher than both positions, like ST + DC or ST + DL/R. When I add any third or fourth position, the RCA always increases. I did the same with Piqué and results were similar.
That is a possibility and that would indeed kill any attempt to game the system even if that would be quite unfair. Do you have any data for that affirmation or this is your gut feeling?
If that were the case it would also mean that from an attribute point of view players able to play multiple positions are a bad deal (like a striker /midfielder) as you get more flexibility that you might not need but it has a cost.
I'm quite sure you can open the editor and test it yourself, it shows CA there.
You think that if you take a defender, Acceleration attribute costs cheaper for a defender than it cost for a striker and train him to play a striker then you'll get Acceleration attribute cheaply but that's not how it works when he learns playing a striker then a recalculation of CA will happen and Acceleration attribute will start costing as he were a striker and that's how it works.
I didn't know that was a thing, thanks for the info. =)
When a player gains attribute points the CA cost will depend on its position so increasing tackling for instance will be very expensive for a defender but pretty much free for a striker.
What happens if I have a striker that I retrain as a defender? Is the cost increase based on being a striker? A defender? An average of the 2?
Is it possible to min/max by keeping it natural as a striker and only accomplished as a defender so that the tackling cost is using the striker weight rather than the defender weights?
It's possible, but highly unlikely to produce anything good in a reasonable time. The initial attributes are just too different. Maybe it would take 4 or 5 years for a striker to reach the attributes of a teenager defender, which isn't very impressive at all. Also, DC is one of the positions with the lowest costs for pace, acceleration and agility, which are the most effective attributes overall.
Xavinwonderland said: Bonus question what is the exact trigger? (I have read that it could be position familiarity that would decide if the game considers you to be a striker or a defender) but if the player only trains as a defender but rarely plays it will take ages to achieve familiarity as a defender (which would be good as we could load up more cheap attributes points onto him)
I believe the natural position is decided at generation time, so you can't change it even if he only plays in another position. The natural position is the one that never lowers (always 20) when you stop training, while the other positions can decrease if you stop playing/training.
Here's a look at my club ~40 games into the season. I'm in 2033 in Ligue 1 with RC Lens.
I took the metrics from FM Stag I believe.
The attacking metric is:
(key passes / 90) + (chances created / 90) + (assists / 90) + (shots on target / 90) + (goals / 90) + (xG / 90) + (xG / shot)
the defensive metric is:
(interceptions / 90) + (tackles / 90) + (headers won / 90) / 2
positions of the players:
Abbate - DL/DR
Balde - AMC
Balikwisha - MC
Benjelloun - AMC/ML/MR
Correa - DC
Cristiano - AMC/ML
Cuzcueta - ML
Damilola - MR/AMC
Emeljanov - MR
Gamba - MC/AMC
Jesus - ML
Jimenez - DL/DR
Juan - DM
Kozuchowski - DM/MC
Lambert - DL
Mashigo - DR/DL
Demirel - DC
Navio - DC
Nina - DC
Salvatori - DL
Vandenbroeck - AMC
Vera - MR
Vranckx - DM
The red lines are the team average in the attacking/defensive metrics. Players in the upper right are above average in both attacking and defensive metrics. They're nearly all primarily ML/MR players. Also, I move around set pieces every match, and the ML/MR are not always my corner takers.
Players in the upper left are above average attacking and below average defending. They're usually the AMC/MC positions.
The lower left are below average defending and attacking. In this case it's my DM's and GK's (who should really be left off the plot but I'm too lazy to filter them out).
The lower right are above average defending and below average attacking. These are mostly the back 4.
I've been making this plot for a few seasons with the red version of this shape, and the distribution of players shown here is pretty universally what I've seen.
There's nothing all that surprising about where the positions end up but I use this type of thing to compare players against each other, i.e. Vandenbroeck is a world class player making $10 million/yr, whereas Damilola is 17 years old making $1 million / yr, and they're practically performing the same. Vandenbroeck plays tougher matches of course but he's really not playing as well as I think he should.
Thanks for the graph, it is very nice. Too bad such thing is not part of the game itself. Some people were commenting here that wingers don't perform well, but I guess this data clearly shows the opposite.
That said, pace at AMC/MC is very important. If I had a player who was my best winger but also my fastest player, I'd play him at AMC/CM first.
I have some stats of Blue 3.0 after one season in vacation mode. Columns are, in order:
passes completed, pass attempts, mistakes leading to goals, distance covered per 90 minutes, dribbles made per game, pass attempts per 90 minutes, key passes per 90 minutes, chances created per 90 minutes, shots per 90 minutes, shots on target ratio, interceptions per 90 minutes, tackles per game, tackle completion ratio, aerial challenge attempts per 90 minutes, cross completed compared to crosses attempted, overall number of crosses attempted.
i have many players who can play all positions from attack, ok im sure that CM is very important but i dont know, my best player has better left foot and natural on ML and AMC, where he should play?
It depends on your squad. If you have enough good players in one position, put him in the other. If both positions are well supplied, then switch the worst player off. If you don't have any good player in either position, then play him as ML, because it's easier to find a good AMC than a good ML.
What do I have to tick or untick to get my voice back?
It only counts official matches, not friendlies.
So far, I've managed to achieve some success with two @RDFTactics tactics (Bielsa's with Milan and Sacchi's with Arsenal), but that wasn't enough. I've tried some approaches based on the Strikerless guy ideas, but they didn't work. Then I tested this one in an unsuccessful save with Sampdoria and things just happened. I was going 4-3-3 and made my signings based on it, so I still don't have the players I need for the season. But it's working. I'm using mostly the Light Blue, playing more defensively, and got impressive results against Juventus (3-3 away, they scored from an IMPOSSIBLE free kick at 90+3), Milan 2-1, Roma 3-0, Lazio 3-0. I'm currently in 7th (had a bad start), but possibly will manage to get at least a place for Europa League.
The interchangeable movement of the players is great. Wingbacks switching from going inside/outside, the CM-at making late forward runs makes him my most dangerous player (now who's FMing here, huh). I have Onyeka (originally intended to be a B2B) and Jankto playing there. Onyeka is super fast, but lacks finishing. Still doing fine. Damsgaard and Gabbiadini are doing good as well as the SS.
As my SSs play near the midfield, I often ask them to man-mark the opposition CMs when playing a stronger side. And my wingers to mark their wing/fullbacks. This kills their chance creation possibilities. Also I removed the long throw-ins since it was causing more counters for the opposition than any good to my squad. I will need a player to suit the CM-at next season. Otávio from Porto was my main target, but he's not willing to join Samp now. He's quite a great player, I buy him every save. So I will need this Lothar Matthaus kind of guy, as it seems to be my main role.
Will come back for updates.
Nice job there! I would just recommend Blue 3.0 with cautious mentality instead of Light Blue 3.0. Light version sacrifices win-rate to get less yellow cards and save some energy, it's supposed to be used when you want to hit the brakes thinking about future matches.