Experiment

[tomu741]

I tried to move my dmc/mc accordingly to amc and dc positions to see how team strength changes in certain areas. So left picture is original with dmc in his natural position. Then i moved him to amc and team in defense became stronger 107% vs 108.8% and attack weaker - 102.5% vs 101.5%. Then i moved him to dc. So my formation turn into 5 defenders but strength in defense lowered from 108.8% to 107% and attack increased from 101.5% to 102.5% compared to 4-2-3-1. Dmc was with yellow triangle when i pushed him there.
So my question is this - how defense became lower with 5 defenders and attack became weaker with aml/amc/amr? Does that dmc/mc influenced team strenght percentage because he played in not natural position?

[HeavensAAA]

I tried to move my dmc/mc accordingly to amc and dc positions to see how team strength changes in certain areas. So left picture is original with dmc in his natural position. Then i moved him to amc and team in defense became stronger 107% vs 108.8% and attack weaker - 102.5% vs 101.5%. Then i moved him to dc. So my formation turn into 5 defenders but strength in defense lowered from 108.8% to 107% and attack increased from 101.5% to 102.5% compared to 4-2-3-1. Dmc was with yellow triangle when i pushed him there.
So my question is this - how defense became lower with 5 defenders and attack became weaker with aml/amc/amr? Does that dmc/mc influenced team strenght percentage because he played in not natural position?

The system generation of % comparison is very generic by using the player % alone, without considering if the player could actually play in those positions and actual performance for any positional misplacements.

Defence % = Total quality of all GK, DL, DC, DR & DMC /no. of players in these positions (as defined in the saved formation)
Midfield % = Total quality of all ML, MC & MR / no. of players in these positions
Attack % = Total quality of all ST, AML, AMC & AMR / no. of players in these positions

Eg. placing a 200% DC into ST position would push up the Attack % on paper, but in fact performance would surely not be like that.

Therefore, those % can be very misleading, and so it is a default we do have to check the whites of asso opponents to decide on tactics and formation.

[tomu741]

So dmc and amc position not belong to midfield?
But i tried to push my aml/amr to ml/mr because they have 2 positions and my midfield didnt get more % in midfield.

[HeavensAAA]

So dmc and amc position not belong to midfield?
But i tried to push my aml/amr to ml/mr because they have 2 positions and my midfield didnt get more % in midfield.

No. Somehow only those along the midfield line positions are counted as midfielders.

Calculation is based on the first position of the player, unless the player has placed into a totally different line.

Eg. ML/AML pushed up to AML position would not get more % in attack, unless the player is played very high up as wide forwards (say originally 4-5F-1, with both ML & MR being ML/AML & MR/AMR. Both wide players will be counted as attackers if formation shows they move forward enough to qualify as 4-3-3); and vice versa for AML/ML that they will be counted as attackers even as AML, unless they move back enough to qualify as midfielders being a ML in a saved formation.

So theoretically, if the engine uses this number as part of the calculation for matches, we should buy ML/AML(R) if our existing attackers are better or buy AML/ML(R) if our existing attackers % are worse if we want to push up the attack %.

Very good experiment and idea there as I never thought about these % in such a way before! (So I will probably prefer buying ML/AML(R) from now on).