Considering the massive advantage one gains for having a balanced defender
Based on the training CLM was alluding to (say, getting a short player/guard up to 9 or 10 in ID), the effort is not worth the gain both in the GE and on the TL. There also the opportunity cost of losing games you may have won by putting players in their best position.
In short, it takes effort and short-term pain to make a player who will long-term be incredibly valuable.
It takes effort and short-term pain to make a player who will long-term have marginally increased value to the GE and TL.
As long as managers as a whole are making a mistake by not training well-rounded players, we don't see this as someplace where a rules change is the right answer.
There's a cost-benefit line that gets crossed once you start to attempt to train players in skills that are outside of their position and not fit for their height. Every case of manager (that i'm aware of) going out of their way to attempt to build a player(s) that can defend inside and outside (to be effective as a SF), has appeared to be detrimental to their team's long-term success.
Last edited by brian at 8/27/2009 11:56:10 AM"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt