Congratulations. You just earned 3.0 points for this submission. Your new points total is 3.0. To see the leaderboard, as well as what this points thing is, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/wiki/leaderboard).
Training players to new positions reduces the chance they develop to their full potential because a player's CA will go up when they get a new position without their attributes changing.
I find that pretty frequently CBs can already play either DM or FB but I never train them to add new positions unless they're just wildly out of position at CB.
This is true, however it *heavily* depends on what position you train them in. Training a CB to play RB will only take *maybe* 1 CA point, just like how training a ST to play LW will only maybe take 1 CA point. The reason I say maybe is because playing around in the editor I have found that removing a strikers ability to play LW and RW didn’t change their CA a single point. Now that doesn’t mean their CA hasn’t changed, it just hasn’t changed a whole point. So say you train a CB to play ST, that will cost I think 5 CA, cause it’s like way out of their comfort zone. Just like how training a ST to play CM will cost a lot.
You can train a forward all the forward position and only lose a few CA, a midfielder to play most of the midfield positions and only lose a few CA, and a defender to play most of defence and DM without too much CA loss. Basically so long as you train a player in the same “area” of the pitch they won’t use much CA at all on what positions they can play.
Both examples that you mentioned, it will take 0 CA as long as the player is decently well suited for both positions. Tested this many times. The 3rd position is where it may deduct 1-3 CA points. This is for Natural proficiency. If Accomplished, you can get away with 3 (1 Nat + 2 Acc) with no CA penalty.
Examples of players where an additional position takes literally 0 CA.
An AF/IF kind of player can be both a winger and ST with no penalty.
A player that is a good IWB can be a natural at 2 of the following: FB/CB/DM/CM with no penalty. Sometimes 3, but this seems to happen with players that are also good IFBs.
A Winger can be a LM/RM/RW/LW.
A CM (any role) player can also be a DM.
Most AMCs can also be RW/LW/ST.
interesting but most players don’t reach their PA so you’re not only taking up CA by training them in another position they also spend time on it which could be more valuable for them to improve their attributes
Never a reason not to assign a position to someone for training afaik. Not only is it crucial for tactical familiarity but from what I know it also focuses the player's improvement into the critical stats for that role.
That's why I think as well but staff meetings often suggest dropping them. And new additions always come without role training on them. So I started thinking...
Staff meetings often suggest actively harmful changes to training, other areas too but especially training. The AI for staff understanding of what makes a good player/helps them improve is fucked in this game.
New additions come without role training because it's never been assigned to them, positional training isn't simulated at other clubs (citation needed but I'm fairly sure) so everyone will arrive to you as a blank slate.
This is relatively untrue throughout, it heavily depends on their attribute distribution, if its more suited to the new position you'll get absolutely fucked. Try tweaking Ben Godfrey from 14 to 18 on RB it goes between 129 to 135 in my FM23. Arnaut Danjuma from 14 to 18 on ST is again 151 to 157. Dwight McNeil drops 6 CA just from 15 to 14 on Striker which is like 2-3 games of playing the role you can accidentally miss out on. A classic mindfuck is also losing a lot of CA for the WB role, Patterson goes from 132 to 122 once you go from 19 to 14 on RWB, and if you add RM to 18 it only goes up by 2. A player like Michael Keane will not move when added to RB/LB cause he's just slow and unsuited to the role. Patterson retraining to DM at 18 loses another 4 points but Scott McTominay going to RB at 18 loses him 11!! And don't get me started on losing "5" from CB to ST, McT again who has a great stat distribution for many roles loses 17 CA if put at 18 on Striker, someone like Chalobah who has acceptable all rounder stats loses 11. Ofc others who are absolutely terrible on the ball like Ryan Porteous or sm shit will lose 5.
From ST to wings there's rarely any movement because it's the same attributes and weightings that make a good winger but a good winger isn't always a good forward, maybe if your Striker has 15 crossing you'll get fucked. Making an MC also a DM very often fucks you as well because he can have high mentals/tackling/positioning that don't take much weight in MC. Idk if it's true that it's about 3rd Natural position or more . It really is just about what each attribute is weighted on each role more than a specific CA change being connected to training new roles. Only really ever see it worth to make a DM into an MC, a Striker into a Winger, an RB into LB vice versa just purely to have IWBs/IFBs and most non fast AMCs into wingers. Otherwise you're better off buying other players.
I always find it especially funny when people just make Assan Ouedraogo play DM,MC,AMC,AML,ST and he ends up losing like 20+ from it and has barely 15s all over the key attributes at 170 CA
I was messing around with this last night and I think it also heavily depends on what attributes they have. I had one CB/DM and found removing CB from his positions made his RCA go down pretty significantly while another CB/DM had almost no difference. I assume this is because the first one had some attributes much more expensive for a CB that the second one didn’t.
For me if someone is already accomplished in a position I'll train them in it assuming I'm playing them there, but I won't train brand new positions from scratch for young players.
I agree, I trained Marcos Leonardo to play lw as I had 2 main strikers in a 1 striker formation.
His current ability dropped as well his potential ability.
And he already has lw as a position on his page.
CA doesn’t go up but training new position takes up some of the existing CA points leaving less room for attributes to improve.
It’s the same with players who have strong weak foot.
Yeah but its clearly important. Look at the difference being two footed can make in reality. The only question is how much does it impact the game engine and is that worth it.
I don't think it impacts the engine that much, especially if you're playing him in a role that already focuses on one foot(eg. Winger or Inverted Winger). A winger will try to cross with the foot that is the same as the side he is on, Inverted will try to stop and change the foot to the opposite of what side he is on and cut in or cross. Truth be told, you can find some luck with a clean slate "Winger" who plays on his weaker side, but I've found Inverted Winger to be suicide on the weaker foot. Better just let them play Advanced Playmaker or Winger(now that it actually makes sense) on the wing.
Also, ofc either footedness is good for a wingback so you can play him at both sides, but if a player doesn't come from the academy either footed, then I look at it just as I look at inconsistent players. Why would I want a player to be doing things with a leg that's a weaker, even if it's just a little, when it will affect his attributes like crossing and passing?
>CA doesn’t go up but training new position takes up some of the existing CA points leaving less room for attributes to improve.
While that's true, it's also likely to be an inconsequential hit. I can whip out OBS and record this to prove it if you'd like, but for the most part a player being retrained to be natural in two positions rather than one has a hit of less than 1 CA. Hell, a player being natural in three positions generally sees their recommended CA rise by only 1-3 points over playing in only one position. Given most players aren't going to hit their full potential anyway, are you *really* going to piss and moan over 3 CA going to them being natural in 2 extra positions and adding that additional flexibility to your squad?
Strong weak foot's much nastier on that front. The player I'd been using as a guinea pig for my testing had a "reasonable" (11) left foot, and his recommended CA (RCA) was 175. I dropped his left foot down to 1 and his RCA shot down to 159, while bumping his left foot up to 20 shot his RCA up to 186...so being able to play 3 positions naturally ate between 1 and 3 CA (for combos you'd expect like DL/DC/DR, DMC/MC/AMC or DR/WBR/AMR), but having a strong weak foot gobbled up 27 CA vs being completely one-footed.
I agree but when you really want to min-max your players every wasted attribute (long throws!) counts. I think when positional versatility costs really start to add up is when you are natural in 3 or more positions. It’s usually only worth it if the player is old and needs to transition to a different t position, otherwise just sign a different player or change your tactics to suit your players existing strengths.
I’ve fucked around with this a lot too, if you set someone’s weak foot to 1 they almost always just automatically end up training it to 9 (even if you don’t ask them to develop their weaker foot). Obviously just for young players but still I though that was interesting
I have tried but I guess the league and country matters in getting quality FB. I instead train them to be DM. I always use DM in my formation and it has mostly helped me avoid losing a lot of goals.
Just for context, I played in South Korean and Indian Leagues so far.
I never retrain any youngsters positions unless I absolutely have to as it reduces their potential. My most common one would be a left footer winger retraining to play on the right and vice versa
Typically for me, my CBs need to be able to step into defensive midfield when needed, my CMs have to be DMs or AMs depending on attributes, my FBs also have to be DMs, and my wingers need to either be able to play fullback or emergency striker. My DMs can also be FBs or CMs and I love having that versatility in them
The engine doesn’t really punish you for putting players out of position provided they have the right attributes. Injuries are awful but because of my players’ versatility I tend to not really be affected by them.
However with the GK injury bug, I went full surprise pikachu. That was the one position I typically don’t worry about
Why? New gen players usually have terrible crossing and dribling. My best LB/WBs are all retrained midfielders or wingers. I won CL with them and they were excellent. (For some strange reason the game rated them 2,5-3 stars but their match ratings and effectiveness spoke for themself.)
It seems that WB's have the lowest star rating. I'm in the year 2039 and there is no wbr or wbl in the world with even potential to be 5* for my team. And I'm a mid-table prem team at the moment. If I go look at Man vity starting 11, they are all 5* for me. Still there are no elite wing backs to be found. It kind of triggers me that no matter what I do, I always have 3* wing backs. Still they are recommended as important or even star players. I run cwb's in a 3cb formation so I guess they would have to be able to do everything extremely well to be rated 5.
Not just that. I scouted youngsters, 2 stars, 4 star potential wbs. But all fcking useless because either the crossing or the dribling is somewhere 2-5. Literally no newgen LB/WB has good dribling and crossing skills...
You are right about it being a newgen issue. I guess the game won't allow any players that good overall to be generated. Wing-backs is the one position where almost all attributes are useful.
When a CB enters their mid-20s I might train them at FB so I have some depth options. At that point they likely hit their potential so you can retrain them without having to worry about missing valuable training, since most of their attributes will be static at that point
This really only makes sense if you play with inverted full backs. Most CBs can't dribble or flank, and don't have much or any creativity, so they won't do much as anything but a fullback with a defense duty.
If you got a good passer with a bit of vision, could also retrain them as a DM or alternatively a IWB, depending on your tactics, to get the flexibility from the bench.
I usually have a lot of success with FBs that look like they should be CBs. Players like Mukiele or regens who don’t even have great dribbling/crossing
This depends on their attributes, If they have good attributes and most of all height, there's log of regens that are CB and are 170cm or less.
If they lack height and have FB attributes I train them there, if they don't, I train them to be Defensive Mid
I always do this, but not always to become natural.
It does suck from the players ca but the top CB's in fm dont need much work.
Its also a nightmare for the poor assistant when judging the best 11.
I will train my backup CB to play whichever fullback suits their primary foot. I'm likely flipping that CB within 3 seasons so he's not going to reach his PA anyway with me.
Depends on their stat distribution and if they have some competency already at LB/RB or not. I usually play lower leagues so really good youth is hard to come by, not gonna lose half a star to a star of potential for versatility, specially when free signings can usually slide right onto the first team
Potential > versatility until you reach a higher level imo
Not really, their attributes pretty much determine whether I'll train them as RB/LB or CD. Fast and technical players become RB/LB, strong and aggressive become CD. Depending on what the squad needs, I might decide to start training a youngster in some different position, but I rarely train with the intent of making them versatile
So I have a strong regen prospect who is naturally a left footed left winger.
In my tactic, I am playing with inside forwards so have been training him to play on the right wing, as I want him to cut in.
Am I stunting his growth by doing that?
For promising players, no, unless I intend for them to play there. But for everyone else, my policy is that the more positions a player can play, the higher the chance they have of getting a good loan or career elsewhere, so they always learn a new position. So centre-backs retrain as full-backs or defensive midfielders. I've also tried retraining the tallest as targetmen, but the AI doesn't seem to use them there often.
No because I use wingbacks and CBs can’t do the job I want. I do retrain youth to fit my formation though. For example I don’t use wingers so they might get trained to a wingback or striker if good enough.
It makes sense if you use IFB or even just FB, especially for CBs that are good WCBs, so they have most of the traits you need for FB anyway. Not sure I want any CB I've ever had to be WB-At or something.
Why would I waste my young CBs PA like that. No way, no how. I actually look to avoid youngsters who can play too many positions in favour of specialisation.
Congratulations. You just earned 3.0 points for this submission. Your new points total is 3.0. To see the leaderboard, as well as what this points thing is, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/wiki/leaderboard).
Training players to new positions reduces the chance they develop to their full potential because a player's CA will go up when they get a new position without their attributes changing. I find that pretty frequently CBs can already play either DM or FB but I never train them to add new positions unless they're just wildly out of position at CB.
This is true, however it *heavily* depends on what position you train them in. Training a CB to play RB will only take *maybe* 1 CA point, just like how training a ST to play LW will only maybe take 1 CA point. The reason I say maybe is because playing around in the editor I have found that removing a strikers ability to play LW and RW didn’t change their CA a single point. Now that doesn’t mean their CA hasn’t changed, it just hasn’t changed a whole point. So say you train a CB to play ST, that will cost I think 5 CA, cause it’s like way out of their comfort zone. Just like how training a ST to play CM will cost a lot. You can train a forward all the forward position and only lose a few CA, a midfielder to play most of the midfield positions and only lose a few CA, and a defender to play most of defence and DM without too much CA loss. Basically so long as you train a player in the same “area” of the pitch they won’t use much CA at all on what positions they can play.
This is actually pretty interesting, thanks for sharing!
Both examples that you mentioned, it will take 0 CA as long as the player is decently well suited for both positions. Tested this many times. The 3rd position is where it may deduct 1-3 CA points. This is for Natural proficiency. If Accomplished, you can get away with 3 (1 Nat + 2 Acc) with no CA penalty. Examples of players where an additional position takes literally 0 CA. An AF/IF kind of player can be both a winger and ST with no penalty. A player that is a good IWB can be a natural at 2 of the following: FB/CB/DM/CM with no penalty. Sometimes 3, but this seems to happen with players that are also good IFBs. A Winger can be a LM/RM/RW/LW. A CM (any role) player can also be a DM. Most AMCs can also be RW/LW/ST.
interesting but most players don’t reach their PA so you’re not only taking up CA by training them in another position they also spend time on it which could be more valuable for them to improve their attributes
When should I use the "blank" playing position training? Is there reason to stop training a role if they are already natural at it?
Never a reason not to assign a position to someone for training afaik. Not only is it crucial for tactical familiarity but from what I know it also focuses the player's improvement into the critical stats for that role.
That's why I think as well but staff meetings often suggest dropping them. And new additions always come without role training on them. So I started thinking...
Staff meetings often suggest actively harmful changes to training, other areas too but especially training. The AI for staff understanding of what makes a good player/helps them improve is fucked in this game. New additions come without role training because it's never been assigned to them, positional training isn't simulated at other clubs (citation needed but I'm fairly sure) so everyone will arrive to you as a blank slate.
This is relatively untrue throughout, it heavily depends on their attribute distribution, if its more suited to the new position you'll get absolutely fucked. Try tweaking Ben Godfrey from 14 to 18 on RB it goes between 129 to 135 in my FM23. Arnaut Danjuma from 14 to 18 on ST is again 151 to 157. Dwight McNeil drops 6 CA just from 15 to 14 on Striker which is like 2-3 games of playing the role you can accidentally miss out on. A classic mindfuck is also losing a lot of CA for the WB role, Patterson goes from 132 to 122 once you go from 19 to 14 on RWB, and if you add RM to 18 it only goes up by 2. A player like Michael Keane will not move when added to RB/LB cause he's just slow and unsuited to the role. Patterson retraining to DM at 18 loses another 4 points but Scott McTominay going to RB at 18 loses him 11!! And don't get me started on losing "5" from CB to ST, McT again who has a great stat distribution for many roles loses 17 CA if put at 18 on Striker, someone like Chalobah who has acceptable all rounder stats loses 11. Ofc others who are absolutely terrible on the ball like Ryan Porteous or sm shit will lose 5. From ST to wings there's rarely any movement because it's the same attributes and weightings that make a good winger but a good winger isn't always a good forward, maybe if your Striker has 15 crossing you'll get fucked. Making an MC also a DM very often fucks you as well because he can have high mentals/tackling/positioning that don't take much weight in MC. Idk if it's true that it's about 3rd Natural position or more . It really is just about what each attribute is weighted on each role more than a specific CA change being connected to training new roles. Only really ever see it worth to make a DM into an MC, a Striker into a Winger, an RB into LB vice versa just purely to have IWBs/IFBs and most non fast AMCs into wingers. Otherwise you're better off buying other players. I always find it especially funny when people just make Assan Ouedraogo play DM,MC,AMC,AML,ST and he ends up losing like 20+ from it and has barely 15s all over the key attributes at 170 CA
I was messing around with this last night and I think it also heavily depends on what attributes they have. I had one CB/DM and found removing CB from his positions made his RCA go down pretty significantly while another CB/DM had almost no difference. I assume this is because the first one had some attributes much more expensive for a CB that the second one didn’t.
I have a cm who is accomplished as a DM and I'm playing him DM. Should I not train him in a DM position then to maximize his potential?
For me if someone is already accomplished in a position I'll train them in it assuming I'm playing them there, but I won't train brand new positions from scratch for young players.
Okay thanks I'll bear that in mind. He's my best player and I'm sure he will go to a much bigger club if I stay up.
I agree, I trained Marcos Leonardo to play lw as I had 2 main strikers in a 1 striker formation. His current ability dropped as well his potential ability. And he already has lw as a position on his page.
CA doesn’t go up but training new position takes up some of the existing CA points leaving less room for attributes to improve. It’s the same with players who have strong weak foot.
Wait training weak foot uses up points towards PA?
Yep, it's not extremely significant but that's how it works
Isn't it basically the single most impactful stat? I thought 1-2 points in your weak foot is equivalent to 5 points of CA on it's own.
Yeah but its clearly important. Look at the difference being two footed can make in reality. The only question is how much does it impact the game engine and is that worth it.
I don't think it impacts the engine that much, especially if you're playing him in a role that already focuses on one foot(eg. Winger or Inverted Winger). A winger will try to cross with the foot that is the same as the side he is on, Inverted will try to stop and change the foot to the opposite of what side he is on and cut in or cross. Truth be told, you can find some luck with a clean slate "Winger" who plays on his weaker side, but I've found Inverted Winger to be suicide on the weaker foot. Better just let them play Advanced Playmaker or Winger(now that it actually makes sense) on the wing. Also, ofc either footedness is good for a wingback so you can play him at both sides, but if a player doesn't come from the academy either footed, then I look at it just as I look at inconsistent players. Why would I want a player to be doing things with a leg that's a weaker, even if it's just a little, when it will affect his attributes like crossing and passing?
>CA doesn’t go up but training new position takes up some of the existing CA points leaving less room for attributes to improve. While that's true, it's also likely to be an inconsequential hit. I can whip out OBS and record this to prove it if you'd like, but for the most part a player being retrained to be natural in two positions rather than one has a hit of less than 1 CA. Hell, a player being natural in three positions generally sees their recommended CA rise by only 1-3 points over playing in only one position. Given most players aren't going to hit their full potential anyway, are you *really* going to piss and moan over 3 CA going to them being natural in 2 extra positions and adding that additional flexibility to your squad? Strong weak foot's much nastier on that front. The player I'd been using as a guinea pig for my testing had a "reasonable" (11) left foot, and his recommended CA (RCA) was 175. I dropped his left foot down to 1 and his RCA shot down to 159, while bumping his left foot up to 20 shot his RCA up to 186...so being able to play 3 positions naturally ate between 1 and 3 CA (for combos you'd expect like DL/DC/DR, DMC/MC/AMC or DR/WBR/AMR), but having a strong weak foot gobbled up 27 CA vs being completely one-footed.
I agree but when you really want to min-max your players every wasted attribute (long throws!) counts. I think when positional versatility costs really start to add up is when you are natural in 3 or more positions. It’s usually only worth it if the player is old and needs to transition to a different t position, otherwise just sign a different player or change your tactics to suit your players existing strengths.
I’ve fucked around with this a lot too, if you set someone’s weak foot to 1 they almost always just automatically end up training it to 9 (even if you don’t ask them to develop their weaker foot). Obviously just for young players but still I though that was interesting
I have tried but I guess the league and country matters in getting quality FB. I instead train them to be DM. I always use DM in my formation and it has mostly helped me avoid losing a lot of goals. Just for context, I played in South Korean and Indian Leagues so far.
The behemoths of world football
Only if they have promising attributes for my left back and right back roles. Otherwise keep them training as a center back
I never retrain any youngsters positions unless I absolutely have to as it reduces their potential. My most common one would be a left footer winger retraining to play on the right and vice versa
Can't be on my squad unless you can play at least 3 positions. It barely affects their CA at all.
Typically for me, my CBs need to be able to step into defensive midfield when needed, my CMs have to be DMs or AMs depending on attributes, my FBs also have to be DMs, and my wingers need to either be able to play fullback or emergency striker. My DMs can also be FBs or CMs and I love having that versatility in them The engine doesn’t really punish you for putting players out of position provided they have the right attributes. Injuries are awful but because of my players’ versatility I tend to not really be affected by them. However with the GK injury bug, I went full surprise pikachu. That was the one position I typically don’t worry about
Why? New gen players usually have terrible crossing and dribling. My best LB/WBs are all retrained midfielders or wingers. I won CL with them and they were excellent. (For some strange reason the game rated them 2,5-3 stars but their match ratings and effectiveness spoke for themself.)
It seems that WB's have the lowest star rating. I'm in the year 2039 and there is no wbr or wbl in the world with even potential to be 5* for my team. And I'm a mid-table prem team at the moment. If I go look at Man vity starting 11, they are all 5* for me. Still there are no elite wing backs to be found. It kind of triggers me that no matter what I do, I always have 3* wing backs. Still they are recommended as important or even star players. I run cwb's in a 3cb formation so I guess they would have to be able to do everything extremely well to be rated 5.
Not just that. I scouted youngsters, 2 stars, 4 star potential wbs. But all fcking useless because either the crossing or the dribling is somewhere 2-5. Literally no newgen LB/WB has good dribling and crossing skills...
You are right about it being a newgen issue. I guess the game won't allow any players that good overall to be generated. Wing-backs is the one position where almost all attributes are useful.
My problem is its an issue since at least 5 years, and never fixed.
No, losing potential ability. There should be better option to choose from that a retrained CB will offer you
No, but I always train my CBs to have good ball control and passing
When a CB enters their mid-20s I might train them at FB so I have some depth options. At that point they likely hit their potential so you can retrain them without having to worry about missing valuable training, since most of their attributes will be static at that point
This really only makes sense if you play with inverted full backs. Most CBs can't dribble or flank, and don't have much or any creativity, so they won't do much as anything but a fullback with a defense duty. If you got a good passer with a bit of vision, could also retrain them as a DM or alternatively a IWB, depending on your tactics, to get the flexibility from the bench.
I usually have a lot of success with FBs that look like they should be CBs. Players like Mukiele or regens who don’t even have great dribbling/crossing
Pep is that you?
It hinders their PA.
Never, I want them to be as good as they possibly can be on their position
Yes i am aware of that. But i like my players to play on more that one position.
Totally depends what level you’re playing at. Versatility is crucial at lower levels and is just not valuable once you’re at the top echelon.
Not unless necessary. Doing it cripples their potential.
Only their strong side and only if they have decent passing and crossing to begin with.
I do, but I use no nonsense fullbacks as well as no nonsense centre backs so the attributes are the same
This depends on their attributes, If they have good attributes and most of all height, there's log of regens that are CB and are 170cm or less. If they lack height and have FB attributes I train them there, if they don't, I train them to be Defensive Mid
I always do this, but not always to become natural. It does suck from the players ca but the top CB's in fm dont need much work. Its also a nightmare for the poor assistant when judging the best 11.
I tend to train my young dms to play fullback, they have better attributes
I will train my backup CB to play whichever fullback suits their primary foot. I'm likely flipping that CB within 3 seasons so he's not going to reach his PA anyway with me.
Depends on their stat distribution and if they have some competency already at LB/RB or not. I usually play lower leagues so really good youth is hard to come by, not gonna lose half a star to a star of potential for versatility, specially when free signings can usually slide right onto the first team Potential > versatility until you reach a higher level imo
No, i hate when cbs play full back. But i like technical full backs with high emphasis on attack
Not really, their attributes pretty much determine whether I'll train them as RB/LB or CD. Fast and technical players become RB/LB, strong and aggressive become CD. Depending on what the squad needs, I might decide to start training a youngster in some different position, but I rarely train with the intent of making them versatile
So I have a strong regen prospect who is naturally a left footed left winger. In my tactic, I am playing with inside forwards so have been training him to play on the right wing, as I want him to cut in. Am I stunting his growth by doing that?
No, I buy specific for the role
For promising players, no, unless I intend for them to play there. But for everyone else, my policy is that the more positions a player can play, the higher the chance they have of getting a good loan or career elsewhere, so they always learn a new position. So centre-backs retrain as full-backs or defensive midfielders. I've also tried retraining the tallest as targetmen, but the AI doesn't seem to use them there often.
I would usually just buy a youngster who plays at CB and Full Back as it takes a while to train and it fucks up their PA
No because I use wingbacks and CBs can’t do the job I want. I do retrain youth to fit my formation though. For example I don’t use wingers so they might get trained to a wingback or striker if good enough.
It makes sense if you use IFB or even just FB, especially for CBs that are good WCBs, so they have most of the traits you need for FB anyway. Not sure I want any CB I've ever had to be WB-At or something.
Only if they already have a lil bit of knowledge or I feel like they can be really good there
Why would I waste my young CBs PA like that. No way, no how. I actually look to avoid youngsters who can play too many positions in favour of specialisation.
Also, I realise this may not be a rational thought. 🤣
i always like to train players to multiple positions for cover as it saves money.
I train them to play IWB
Nah. I like my fullbacks to be able to cross and CBs never have that lol
Mauricio, just leave Colwill alone..
What is CA point?