|
Post by Malky(Admin) on Jul 28, 2015 13:20:42 GMT
I don't think Levi has done anything wrong here. His formation and tactics are un-orthodox, but it would be pretty boring if we all played 442N week in week out. Hopefully this will encourage others to be bold with secondary skill and we'll see some interesting results. If this had been a complete flop, my response might have been different, but I think Levi deserves credit for his effort and a big congratulation on gaining promotion! its a grey area of this game that i'd like to clear up before next season starts, Levi DOES use this formation and tactics in other games he plays with a good level of success, so its not like it is something new, he never came out before the match and said he was not bothered if he went up or not, infact he seems pleased at getting a crack at Division One but like i said we need to clear this up pre season as i dont want to keep having the same posts and agro about this subject
|
|
|
Post by pezza @ Marseille on Jul 28, 2015 14:09:02 GMT
The simple solution is to leave everybody to manage their team as they see fit
We are all on here to do the best for our team, we can't all fit into the same mould and we all find different aspects of the game enjoyable so why try and micro manage what everybody is doing?
Just leave us to it and unless their is clear evidence to the contrary, assume we are all trying our best to do what we feel is right for our team
|
|
|
Post by bigdan on Jul 28, 2015 14:43:12 GMT
But you have to draw the line somewhere Pezza. Everyone is doing their best for their team. But it's possible to do the best for your team in a way that is not within the spirit of the game. E.g. playing all FWs as DFs in your reserves, so that you concede loads of shots and your reserve keeper gets extra abs. That is doing the best for your team (if you want to develop a new keeper) but no-one wants to see that happen.
Or, to go back to your situation. It seems you genuinely had reasons for putting out the team that you did, which I accept. But suppose that wasn't the case, and that a manager freely admitted it was better for the team to not get promoted. They found themselves in the playoffs but didn't want to go up. Would it be OK for them to put out a weak team to try not to get promoted? It's still doing what the manager feels is right for the team.
|
|
|
Post by Malky(Admin) on Jul 28, 2015 16:12:45 GMT
Other games I know have went to the wall due to managers running teams as they want, is to make super keepers, then the whole structure needs changed ie ratings reduced etc, apart from keeper freezes I think its shown we have been responsible by having guidelines and rules to prolong the life of this game.
|
|
|
Post by pezza @ Marseille on Jul 28, 2015 16:49:00 GMT
But you have to draw the line somewhere Pezza. Everyone is doing their best for their team. But it's possible to do the best for your team in a way that is not within the spirit of the game. E.g. playing all FWs as DFs in your reserves, so that you concede loads of shots and your reserve keeper gets extra abs. That is doing the best for your team (if you want to develop a new keeper) but no-one wants to see that happen. Or, to go back to your situation. It seems you genuinely had reasons for putting out the team that you did, which I accept. But suppose that wasn't the case, and that a manager freely admitted it was better for the team to not get promoted. They found themselves in the playoffs but didn't want to go up. Would it be OK for them to put out a weak team to try not to get promoted? It's still doing what the manager feels is right for the team. But that's not what we're talking about here is it - if it happens again and again and a team is losing heavily then maybe it can be questioned, but trying things out, playing young players to develop them in the first team when there are no reserve games or when they are too old for the reserves, these are not things that people should be interfering with.
|
|
|
Post by pezza @ Marseille on Jul 28, 2015 16:57:31 GMT
Other games I know have went to the wall due to managers running teams as they want, is to make super keepers, then the whole structure needs changed ie ratings reduced etc, apart from keeper freezes I think its shown we have been responsible by having guidelines and rules to prolong the life of this game. Goalkeepers get out of control in EVERY game i have ever been in, most long standing ones end up having to half their skills or reduce them by a set % eventually, it's not a problem solely caused by managers trying to develop super keepers. Obviously there are certain things that need to be ruled against and i agree this is one of them, but i don't think Spurs and Sao Paulo have done anything wrong, i didn't think Barcelona?? had last time they got accused of playing low rated defenders - when this is all they had. If you want to stop low rated players then make a minimum skill rating for first team and reserves but if you allow players to move between either squad then how can anybody try to dictate which players have to play when and where when there is no rule governing this. The playing players out of position rule needs to be removed in my opinion, players in esms do not have positions, clearly playing defenders as DM and DM's as defenders can work well with certain tactics - why can't this be done? Just let managers play the game, if they are breaking rules over and over again and the team is suffering because of it then step in, otherwise just let them get on with trying to get their team to be the best it can.
|
|
|
Post by Levi (TTH) on Jul 28, 2015 17:08:31 GMT
I can sympathize with the view point on the 6-2-2 tactic with guys in different positions that it's not 'a real football tactic'. If this was undesirable, the one of these could be done:
1. Limit to 5 DFs. This would still mean Perotta playing as a FW.
2. Limit players to being 'in position'. Something like, if the primary skill is Tk, that player can only play DF or DM. There would be an issue in how this was policed. Perhaps it would have to be through protest by the opposing team.
3. Change the weights of the P strategy such that playing guys like Perotta as a FW is no longer useful. Some people might already think it's not good strategy to do this. Tweaking the tactics tables can also be tricky. ESL's P strategy looks a lot like any other leagues P strategy (and I play similar formations there too).
|
|
|
Post by pezza @ Marseille on Jul 28, 2015 19:46:25 GMT
to be honest after seeing what you've done with that team this season i might just have a go at some of your ideas myself!
|
|
|
Post by bigdan on Jul 28, 2015 20:08:55 GMT
The playing players out of position rule needs to be removed in my opinion, players in esms do not have positions, clearly playing defenders as DM and DM's as defenders can work well with certain tactics - why can't this be done? There is no playing players out of position rule. The rules just say: "any manager who has underlying plans that involve playing far lesser skilled players in positions where the aim is just to gain maximum abbs will be punished" "examples of what i dont want to see are ie, midfielders with skill 1,2 etc playing in defence, keepers playing outfield" These don't apply to what Levi has done. So I think it's a misunderstanding that there is any such rule. There is also a rule "low skilled players (<17) playing in your main squad, when you have better players available" - Malky I think this 17 figure should be updated to account for inflation, to something like 21?
|
|
|
Post by bigdan on Jul 28, 2015 20:12:08 GMT
But that's not what we're talking about here is it - if it happens again and again and a team is losing heavily then maybe it can be questioned, but trying things out, playing young players to develop them in the first team when there are no reserve games or when they are too old for the reserves, these are not things that people should be interfering with. I agree it's not what we're talking about here. But you said that managers should be free to run their team how they want. I've given an example of when perhaps they should not be allowed to. So I'm pointing out that we need rules, we can't just let managers do what they want. The question is what's acceptable and what's not.
|
|
|
Post by pezza @ Marseille on Jul 28, 2015 20:45:41 GMT
But that's not what we're talking about here is it - if it happens again and again and a team is losing heavily then maybe it can be questioned, but trying things out, playing young players to develop them in the first team when there are no reserve games or when they are too old for the reserves, these are not things that people should be interfering with. I agree it's not what we're talking about here. But you said that managers should be free to run their team how they want. I've given an example of when perhaps they should not be allowed to. So I'm pointing out that we need rules, we can't just let managers do what they want. The question is what's acceptable and what's not. Yea i appreciate that, but managers should be given the benefit of the doubt to get on with it, how many managers have we had here who have seriously broken the rules or messed around with the team? Since i've been here i can think of only the previous Spurs manager, i know Ahmed had some accusations of dropping down divisions but that was never substantiated, so really...is there a actually a problem here?
|
|
|
Post by Levi (TTH) on Jul 28, 2015 20:56:19 GMT
There is also a rule "low skilled players (<17) playing in your main squad, when you have better players available" - Malky I think this 17 figure should be updated to account for inflation, to something like 21? The trouble is that 'better player' is so subjective. I value multi skilled more than individual skill. Doriva with his 17/19/9 I'd take over a 3/21/3.
|
|
|
Post by bigdan on Jul 28, 2015 21:17:15 GMT
Since i've been here i can think of only the previous Spurs manager, i know Ahmed had some accusations of dropping down divisions but that was never substantiated, so really...is there a actually a problem here? Fair point mate. Maybe I am making this out to be a bigger problem than it is.
|
|