Not really. I still haven't gotten through to you.
I'm afraid it's you who's unable to understand what I'm trying to say. Nevermind, you'll probably find out, with time, that training schemes are probably going to stay more less the same in the future. On the other hand, I'm quite sure (much) more variety and depth will be put into the tactics system rather sooner than later.
I didn't IMPLY it. I stated it directly.
Oh well. I tried.
Well, then allow me to spell it for you - T A C T I C S and T R A I N I N G have nothing to do at all with each other. So your first post is senseless, IMHO. IF defensive pairings are to be implemented into the game, they should NOT affect training at all.
Going on with your example, let's imagine you're training RBD with C/PFs. You want your SG to receive rebounding training, so you deploy him as a PF but use your 'real' PF to defend the best player of your rival in that position. Right, the SG is 'benefiting' somehow from the system. But, at the same time, your 'real' PF is not receiving any training at all. Furthermore, your rival can ALSO do the same thing, or something similar, if he/she wishes. So where the heck is the ADVANTAGE, my friend? I don't see it anywhere.