[Bug?] Players proficient as AM and DM (same side) but not M (same side)

[Brian Clough]

This doesn't make sense to me. For all intents and purposes, the M position combines those of the AM and the DM, depending on the flow of the game and the strategic/tactical plans. While it makes some sense that a player might be proficient as an AM and a DM (but not a M) on different sides (such as a DML, AMR proficient player), if they are on the same side (L, C, or R), the M proficiency should come automatically, IMHO.

[intervention]

In theory you are correct, it would make sense that a DML that is proficient in the AML position should also be proficient in the ML position... certanly you are correct that such a player should, in many cases, have stats mimicking a ML player also!

However, a players field position proficiency is not as simple as that in real life, so i guess this has been built into the game also

For a real life example, i can use myself... When in defense i would play CB, however i had to play right of center and struggled to play left of center! I could play ML or MR but in the center of midfield i could only play a DMC position (many moons ago lol).

So, although there are links with other positions, being proficient in specific 'zones' is a very delicate balance... and in essence not a lot to do with the skills of the player (to an extent) 

[Etienne]

DML and AML are easier to play than ML, because you either have to focus on offensiv or defensiv tasks when ML is supposed to be more versatile.

[admin]

DML and AML are easier to play than ML, because you either have to focus on offensiv or defensiv tasks when ML is supposed to be more versatile.

Exactly.