Team database - bug reports

OK, I've checked out the Mozg tactical options. They are excellent and do address the wrong in-game formations I mentioned already. But as I mentioned, this (or any other tac fixes) do not fix the player position labels. For example in the 20-21 Everton team (the only PL team to use 4-3-3 in this data) attached we have

RW Doucoure
M Allan
LW Sigurdsson
A James
A Richarlison
A Calvert-Lewin

IRL or for functional player/tactical rearranging,
Doucoure is not a RW
Sigurdsson is not a LW
James is not an A
Richarlison is not an A

The data would be accurate like this (in their regular 20-21 formation, even if you are to leave it as "4-3-3 + Mozg"):

M Doucoure
M Allan
M Sigurdsson
RW James
LW Richarlison
A Calvert-Lewin

Once into the game you can't change those labels by fixing your tactics, and you won't be able to rearrange the team because of the player positions being wrong, and won't want to buy a "RW" that is like Doucoure (a central/defensive midfielder), nor buy James if he's an "A".
A similar correction can be applied to make any team that is currently 4-3-3 much more accurate, because this RW-M-LW-A-A-A thing is not found in real life.

Bernard (on the bench), while it's good/fine to include him and exclude Cenk Tosun, is also not an A.

[FYI the 5-3-2 in the SWOS 2020 loader's 'tactical comparison' shows the original 3-5-2, not 5-3-2. So there is no change when you switch from 5-3-2 to 3-5-2]

Of course SWOS 2020 is really fantastic work. Actually it's a thing of beauty. I am just suggesting a correction/improvement. For the reasons outlined it is not just superficial that teams use 4-3-3, nor does the tactic fix address all of its symptoms. Cheers

It is? I'm sure 5-3-2 had a messed-up lineup at the time (Amiga, 90s, OG then 95-96)... Now, I might think they 'fixed' that in 96/97 (else someone else with a hex editor did) by simply copy-pasting 3-5-2 over it... no complaints really to be had about that!

Could be. In which case the pre-match pitch diagram not corresponding with the in-game formation (if you switch from 3-5-2 to 5-3-2 in the pre-match screen, your centre backs go out to wing back and midfielders drop into centre back, while wing backs become RCM and LCM - i.e. it doesn't correspond at all to the 3-5-2 that is still actually in use) may be the problem.

See attachments - big red cross indeed!

I know about the diagram being fixed to whatever it started off as, when editing.
What I didn't know was that the 5-3-2 diagram didn't even correspond to itself! Explains everything about the 5-3-2.
You'll be pleased to know that if you switch from 3-5-2 to 5-3-2 in Sociable Soccer, the wing-backs remain the wing-backs. So it just works (and the wing-backs do move back!)

BTW the Inter example above (or any 3-5-2 or 3-4-3 team) is worth consideration too - 2 of the 3 CBs in these formations are listed as fullbacks, usually incorrectly (and variously, the wing backs might be better off being RB/LB than RW/LW, depending on the team/players). For example Bastoni here (a CB playing as a CB) is listed as LB and is a CB who has never played anywhere but CB (D). Much like 96/97 Jurgen Kohler/many others. I preferred to give all 3 CBs the D label, then you can buy/sell and rearrange well. If they are in a back 3 in the real-life formation, they can play and are playing CB/D, and no team in history goes out with only one CB/D in their lineup.

I should add that these problematic position labels (in 433, 352 and 343) are not a thing that has been done newly in SWOS 2020, the original SWOS data had the same problem and this just happens when we follow the same conventions. In my view it can be overcome with new conventions

Synchronated wrote: I know about the diagram being fixed to whatever it started off as, when editing.
What I didn't know was that the 5-3-2 diagram didn't even correspond to itself! Explains everything about the 5-3-2.
You'll be pleased to know that if you switch from 3-5-2 to 5-3-2 in Sociable Soccer, the wing-backs remain the wing-backs. So it just works (and the wing-backs do move back!)

BTW the Inter example above (or any 3-5-2 or 3-4-3 team) is worth consideration too - 2 of the 3 CBs in these formations are listed as fullbacks, usually incorrectly (and variously, the wing backs might be better off being RB/LB than RW/LW, depending on the team/players). For example Bastoni here (a CB playing as a CB) is listed as LB and is a CB who has never played anywhere but CB (D). Much like 96/97 Jurgen Kohler/many others. I preferred to give all 3 CBs the D label, then you can buy/sell and rearrange well. If they are in a back 3 in the real-life formation, they can play and are playing CB/D, and no team in history goes out with only one CB/D in their lineup.

I should add that these problematic position labels (in 433, 352 and 343) are not a thing that has been done newly in SWOS 2020, the original SWOS data had the same problem and this just happens when we follow the same conventions. In my view it can be overcome with new conventions

then I have a question

since in 352 you placed D-D-D instead of RB-D-LB, will the team that has no RB or LB not have poor results ?? look at the original 96/97 structure for example Bayern. The players are there in the wrong positions and as I remember Bayern did not do good results, when I put them in good positions, they achieved much better results!

Not as far as I know (after all, they are actually playing at CB/D, so they're not in a wrong position, and the RB/LB guys are generally much happier out wide than in a back 3). This can be tested quite easily by running a few leagues with such a team, then changing the position labels only on that team and running again. I can do this tonight (provided that in SWOS 2020 one can simply edit/replace the data files)

As I recall the 96/97 Bayern players were in very wrong positions, yes? Mario Basler at centre-back?