Game Struggling to Generate Good Players for Certain Roles?

[MatthewElphinstone]

Is it just me or does FM have an issue when it comes to generating certain player types?

I for example, am looking for a Regista so play as my secondary playmaker in the team but yet it seems the only "natural" Regista (or even one that's deemed capable in the role according to reports) seem to be dog's meat? I can only seemingly find players that are good but can't play there or absolutely rubbish but yet could play the position with their eyes closed.

It appears to be similar to last year where Weston McKennie was the only good natural box to box midfielder in the game and the game wouldn't generate a high level player for that role after him. I also noticed natural wing backs were very hard to come by last year but this year it appears to be creative defensive midfielders (excluding DLP) and right sided inside forwards...

Does anyone else believe this to be the case or am I just looking in all the wrong ways?

 

[Cookie1]

Train young players (18 years old or younger) as preferred role, and they become naturals in that role. I trained a DM as CM-D in FM 18, so it probably would work that way in FM 19 as well.

 

[WJ]

Just look for the attributes you need. You're basing far too much on the role suitability indicator. If a player is capable of being a DLP, a Regista isn't that far from a DLP, so look if he has what you need.

 

[Bigpapa42]

Agree with what WJ says. You have to realize that the suitability indicator is just the game "reading" skillset, not the game saying they cannot play another role. You might have a perfect box-to-box player but because their aggression and tackling are a bit higher, the game says they are better as a Ball Winning Mid. Or that they are "should be" a DLP because their Passing and Flair are a bit higher.

Another factor with young players.... certain "specialist" roles used to have a CA minimum. Pretty sure they still do. So even if the player had the perfect skill distribution for a role like Regista or Complete Forward, the game would still show that as one of the roles they would be "worst" at if their CA wasn't high enough.

You also have to realize the game isn't going to spit out a huge number of high potential youths that have an ideal skillset for a fairly specialized position like Regista. That would be unrealistic. It will create a few, but then it will depend on how the AI develops them, what club they are, the coaching, playing time, etc. If the game creates an ideal 16 year old box-to-box midfielder, two or three years of AI development could see them change notably and no longer be that ideal B2B.

When it comes to buying younger players to develop, rather than buying fully developed stars, it can help to do what the AI can't and be CREATIVE. You can take a player who is one thing and see what they COULD be, then mold to them to that. Retrain to new positions, in some cases. In my current save, I wanted Complete Wing Backs. I found two left wingers, both 5-star newgens, who were reasonably well rounded and could already play at LB. Both are developing towards being absolutely top class CWBs. Similarly, I wanted a DLP DM who was a strong defensive presence and a creative force. Couldn't find one who ticked every box - I found several who were close but lacked the level of Flair I really wanted. So I found a high potential newgen AMC who, again, was reasonably well rounded. Their attacking attributes were strong, their defensive ones were not at the same level but not terrible. So the intent was to positionally retrain and develop the defensive skills to the point where they would be the kind of DLP I wanted to run the tactic.

 

[MatthewElphinstone]

Agree with what WJ says. You have to realize that the suitability indicator is just the game "reading" skillset, not the game saying they cannot play another role. You might have a perfect box-to-box player but because their aggression and tackling are a bit higher, the game says they are better as a Ball Winning Mid. Or that they are "should be" a DLP because their Passing and Flair are a bit higher.

Another factor with young players.... certain "specialist" roles used to have a CA minimum. Pretty sure they still do. So even if the player had the perfect skill distribution for a role like Regista or Complete Forward, the game would still show that as one of the roles they would be "worst" at if their CA wasn't high enough.

You also have to realize the game isn't going to spit out a huge number of high potential youths that have an ideal skillset for a fairly specialized position like Regista. That would be unrealistic. It will create a few, but then it will depend on how the AI develops them, what club they are, the coaching, playing time, etc. If the game creates an ideal 16 year old box-to-box midfielder, two or three years of AI development could see them change notably and no longer be that ideal B2B.

When it comes to buying younger players to develop, rather than buying fully developed stars, it can help to do what the AI can't and be CREATIVE. You can take a player who is one thing and see what they COULD be, then mold to them to that. Retrain to new positions, in some cases. In my current save, I wanted Complete Wing Backs. I found two left wingers, both 5-star newgens, who were reasonably well rounded and could already play at LB. Both are developing towards being absolutely top class CWBs. Similarly, I wanted a DLP DM who was a strong defensive presence and a creative force. Couldn't find one who ticked every box - I found several who were close but lacked the level of Flair I really wanted. So I found a high potential newgen AMC who, again, was reasonably well rounded. Their attacking attributes were strong, their defensive ones were not at the same level but not terrible. So the intent was to positionally retrain and develop the defensive skills to the point where they would be the kind of DLP I wanted to run the tactic.

I absolutely agree with what you's are saying and I have began dabbling in training players from youth upwards to get it right (It's very time consuming, that's why I avoided it before). I do totally understand what you're saying and never meant to come across as whining that they don't make hundred's of thousands of Regista newgens. It was more simply a note that the game doesn't seem to make anyone that they seem to believe will be a high level Regista but after reading what you's have said, mixed with the fact that the game typically doesn't use such a role that often, I can understand why this is the case.

If I can ask a couple of things of you however. How do you set up your training and how often would you revise what you're training? Do you run the general training as well and if so how would you set it out so that the players don't become wildly unhappy about what they turn up to do?

Thanks for the help lads

 

[Bigpapa42]

I absolutely agree with what you's are saying and I have began dabbling in training players from youth upwards to get it right (It's very time consuming, that's why I avoided it before). I do totally understand what you're saying and never meant to come across as whining that they don't make hundred's of thousands of Regista newgens. It was more simply a note that the game doesn't seem to make anyone that they seem to believe will be a high level Regista but after reading what you's have said, mixed with the fact that the game typically doesn't use such a role that often, I can understand why this is the case.

If I can ask a couple of things of you however. How do you set up your training and how often would you revise what you're training? Do you run the general training as well and if so how would you set it out so that the players don't become wildly unhappy about what they turn up to do?

Thanks for the help lads

No problem at all for the help.

I love the new training module on FM19 but I'm still far from expert at it. I started out leaving the training to the AssMan and it was done well enough. I created a set of schedules (time-consuming and a real pain to load into another save), and then a second set. I got player complaints on all of them, so I don't think you are likely to keep everyone happy. Which I guess is realistic. I found solid results with all of them.

To create my own, I did some reading. There are a few threads on the SI forum where people lay out their approaches. Much like with a tactic, simply emulating them isn't ideal, as your goals and situation may differ. But its a good starting point.

The nice thing about creating your own schedules is that you can create schedules that are tailored to what you want to do, and time them to your needs. But it does mean more time dedicated to the process as you kinda need to stay on top of it.

My current method is to have about 5 weekly schedules and just rotate thru. Not on a completely set rotation. One is a "baseline" and the others are more specifically focused. And if there are multiple complaints about something - a unit not getting enough attention, too much of a particular area of physical training - I can adjust.

Individual training, I tailor to what I want that player to develop into. Especially with retraining. So if I have an attacking AMC who I am converting to DM to create that regista / DLP type.... he probably already has good attacking skills. So I don't want him working on those as much as the weaker areas - probably his defensive attributes. So I might actually have him on a flat DM schedule, or even BWM....