Inconsistent or makes sense?

Here’s my question’s details:

When we put a winger (say MR or AMR) to the opposite side (ML/AML), we see a yellow triangle, which loosely means it’s not “completely illegal”. And putting them in the center (MC/AMC) creates a red triangle. Yet, when we want to add a new position to a MR, we can’t add ML; but we have MC available. Isn’t that inconsistent? My opinion is, a winger should be more likely to develop on the other wing (as he can allowed to play there with less penalty) than playing on the center, which we see in real life, too.

What do you think?

It's very good idea from you. A defense player can even learn attacking and turn into an attacker later in real football. New role on a player should be without any restrictions except for GK position.

Yeah, I also wish they would give a bit more freedom with roles. I would like to have DR + DL but without DC for example... It is common in real life football that players can play on both wings.

You have a point there. I hope they get to implement that.

Instead of training a ML to MC before he can be MR, he should straight forward be trained from ML to MR. Same goes for AML to AMR and DL to DR.

You are totally right there.

It means it's possible for us.

Attachment 135251

Attachment 135252

Super RELEVANT post here....
I would even give more freedom to be honest. Likewise DL / AML (skipping the ML position).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaiKo

It means it's possible for us.

Attachment 135251

Attachment 135252

---

Nope, not for me at least. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...822c6d01b8.jpg

Skickat från min VOG-L29 via Tapatalk