Here some dilemmas... as should a GK be a good MC or ST?.... in reality if a team for some reason have to use a MC as GK I dont see any case in what the player is so bad and abnormal as to recive 5 goals... so, the name of the position don't do a player worst.... as a DC been DC can score and a ST been ST can save in defense.. should this do not happen? no... now this happen, so is how should be... is good a penalty, lets say in possession terms and so, too a simulation using the player in wrong position in a light way, like less decisive/participative but I don't think have to go more far away, as under all is a simulation that simulates a player/person with skills, and me and you can play in the United as ST and DC's and probably will not perform as bad as to concede 40 consecutive defeats.

Regarding the Quality differance... I know we have very different perspective of analysis of the game, but we are always in the same conflict with that, the term "much weaker Quality" is not this, a 6* team vs a team that have 4-5 x5* and the 4*and some 3* players is not a much weaker team that should not score 2 goals.

A 3* player DC can save more chances and be moreactive in defense than one of 6* simply because the players are not only the external atributes.
I know we've had many discusions with that, but believe me, the margin of Quality in what a team can surprise another is more extense than this.
Even training and adding 4* or 5* of cones + than another player in the shooting skill, and train shooting till 9-10* this can fail more than one with 4* for the simple reason as is that one have a high max. of ratio to score till the point that give you 1 goal per 2 matches and convert the 50% of the shoots with 4* and the other with 9* have a ratio of 1 goal per 15 matches as max. with 4* or with 9* and even doing a friendly vs a team of -20 levels the guy will not appear.

I know you know ma opinion because we talked about the same last summer, but I think is right how it is xD