retired_laswell

i began thinking about this when i had downing and realised he was "ineffectual" when playing ML.

now i looked at a player in my team who is natural at ML - Gareth Barry

this led me to think:

does an ML need defensive qualities as well as obvious offensive-winger attributes - whereas AMLs just need to have the offensive-winger attributes?

Please could people discuss this and help me understand

beccalennon80

Yes I met the same problem.I'd played 4-4-2 with National(Romania) and I wanted to retrain my players for this positions.I had Shorj as DM and retrained him as Mc,Costea was AML and i retrained him as ML(he was ineffectual at beginning too,but I'd retrained him).AND!!!!! I tried to make AMR Abiodun MR and I couldn't because it wasn't in the list as potential position for retraining.That's why my point of view THAT SI doesn't write when a player is MR and AMR it choose AMR.Hope you understand my English(I'm from Moldova).

kdunn

It depends how you play.

If you use a counter attacking or defensive system, then your forward players will be defending more.

In my formations, wingers tend to do a lot less defending if they are dragged too far out of positions by arrows - one small arrow isnt too bad but anything else means they are often out of position during an opposition attack. This ahppens when I move a winger into a central position with a farrow for example.

There are attacking advantages to this, thats why its stil worthwhile against particular formations.

In other formations such as my 442m, the wingers are kept more wide for defensive purposes to counter the ai '442 defensive' attack which is based around the wings.

retired_laswell

cheers very much. its beginning to get mroe clear

so, do you think in downing (for example) will perform as ML?

retired_e_fores

I dont think it makes much of a difference at all. Usually ML's and MR's have farrows to AML and AMR but even if you don't at times the only real difference is that your ML/MR will be back a bit more to defend. Thi doesn't really matter as MR/ML beig asked to defend a bit are usually just bodies in the way of the opposition like IRL.

retired_e_fores

Didn't see this question but yes, I think he would perform perfectly fine. Assuming you play 442 or something like that I'm guessing you'll have farrows anyway.

The only time I would worry about an out and out AMR/AML (winger like Downing, Ronaldo, Joaquin) would be if I played 3 at the back because then your wide player would be the only man on the flank to defend with no full back (or wing back) , and thus have no farrow and need to defend.

retired_janae55

AMLs can play just as well at ML position even if they are not Accomplished or Natural there. MLs though cannot play well at AML if they are not trained to play there.

retired_mikela619

What gives you this impression and what is the reasoning behind this view? If a AML can play in ML, why can a ML not play AML?

retired_kary_land77

Because C.Ronaldo can play at MR when he's an AMR and Fletcher can't play in AMR althuogh he can play in MR... Fletcher lacks the offensive qualities and is not an amazing crosser eitherway, but Ronaldo has all the stats he needs. AMR rarely defends in my formation, but MRs (when i use them) attack less, not necessarily defend more. So in this example Ronaldo just attacks less at MR but more in AMR, but Fletcher attacks less at MR but would struggle to attack more at AMR coz he just can't do that.

retired_lachina

You are comparing 2 players with a huge difference in abilities.

:thdn:

Another theory by someone who obviously didn't test it and has no evidence to back his claims up.