A MUST READ – NEW MANAGERS

[blahblah]

I have pretty much made my mind up that I will never sign a player who is older than 26. (however, I reserve the right to change this strategy at a moments notice if push comes to shove)

When you do, make sure they are good ones

[Richt]

I have pretty much made my mind up that I will never sign a player who is older than 26. (however, I reserve the right to change this strategy at a moments notice if push comes to shove)

When you do, make sure they are good ones

My first signing has gone through, said Mr Emilyn Hughes has joined Knight Riders FC for a smidgen over 500,000 econs......

(God, even my posts are starting to read like press releases now)

[spireiteontour]

my chesterfield team are awesone
as are Fists of FISO and they are also set up perfectly with the layered ages

JBA are almost there as well

am still working on the Borg and LEster city

Crystal Palace are also just about there

you need to check my player out and player in lists for chesterfield
It is a VERY long time since i bought anyone over 18 years old

[blahblah]

my chesterfield team are awesone
as are Fists of FISO and they are also set up perfectly with the layered ages

JBA are almost there as well

am still working on the Borg and LEster city

Crystal Palace are also just about there

you need to check my player out and player in lists for chesterfield
It is a VERY long time since i bought anyone over 18 years old

I totally agree medium/long term, but for new teams playing catch up, there can be exceptions.

[Karrde]

But you wont catch up thats the thing. You will close the gap for a season or two, but you wont catch up fully. And because you have dead econs while your rival is using his properly for those two seasons, youre effectively taking 1 step forward and then 2 steps back - when you were 2 steps back before hand anyway.

[blahblah]

I think Attilla was a good buy...

[spireiteontour]

But you wont catch up thats the thing. You will close the gap for a season or two, but you wont catch up fully. And because you have dead econs while your rival is using his properly for those two seasons, youre effectively taking 1 step forward and then 2 steps back - when you were 2 steps back before hand anyway.

karrde is right

you willthink you have closed the gap
you will almost compete for a season or 2
and then all of a sudden your better players have gone an the other sides just stride forward

and you think how did that happen

[blahblah]

Without him I would have no midfielders between 23 and 31, and playing with\against high bars helps DV's the kids will benefit from him, and hopefully.

[Angry Alien]

Without him I would have no midfielders between 23 and 31, and playing with\against high bars helps DV's the kids will benefit from him, and hopefully.

Blah .............don't fight it





Y0u know they're Right

[Karrde]

Sometimes you just have to suck it up, take your beats and know you cant catch up this season. Best example I have is Quahog in the YDL, hanging on by my fingertips 4 seasons ago, now one of the best balanced squads in the league.

The only time an exception is made and its ok buying an older player is when your youth is already in place and you can still afford to train the holy bejesus out of them anyway.

[blahblah]

Without him I would only have one player aged between 23 and 29

[Angry Alien]

Sometimes you just have to suck it up, take your beats and know you cant catch up this season. Best example I have is Quahog in the YDL, hanging on by my fingertips 4 seasons ago, now one of the best balanced squads in the league.

The only time an exception is made and its ok buying an older player is when your youth is already in place and you can still afford to train the holy bejesus out of them anyway.

4 matches ago ........i resigned to Relegation

Then results improved...........but could still go down

can anyone tell me what would be best long term????

[spireiteontour]

there is nothing wrong with buying one or 2 old players right at the very very beginning

but you must not and cannot afford to do it a lot

Average age issues are the only reason for me

take alook at my signings for any of my teams

player sin

i just do not buy older players unless the team is in its first couple of seasons

4 years ago i was buying older players all over the place
i started slipping right down the leagues i played

Then i suddenly realised what you have to do and it took me 3 seasons with each team just to put right the listakes and then i started to do better

[blahblah]

Sometimes you just have to suck it up, take your beats and know you cant catch up this season. Best example I have is Quahog in the YDL, hanging on by my fingertips 4 seasons ago, now one of the best balanced squads in the league.

The only time an exception is made and its ok buying an older player is when your youth is already in place and you can still afford to train the holy bejesus out of them anyway.

4 matches ago ........i resigned to Relegation

Then results improved...........but could still go down

can anyone tell me what would be best long term????

You only have 4 under 20

7 here.

[Angry Alien]

TBC.............................what about



Shqipron Sejko 34 def????

[Angry Alien]

Sometimes you just have to suck it up, take your beats and know you cant catch up this season. Best example I have is Quahog in the YDL, hanging on by my fingertips 4 seasons ago, now one of the best balanced squads in the league.

The only time an exception is made and its ok buying an older player is when your youth is already in place and you can still afford to train the holy bejesus out of them anyway.

4 matches ago ........i resigned to Relegation

Then results improved...........but could still go down

can anyone tell me what would be best long term????

You only have 4 under 20

Atleast 2/3 of yours are farms

7 here.

[blahblah]

TBC.............................what about



Shqipron Sejko 34 def????

Radebe (25) was a theft of an internal, I seem to remember; not sure about Salvatori (28)

[blahblah]

Mahir was a late talent, and haven't been able to sell him

No other potential sales amongst them, I hope.

[Angry Alien]

TBC.............................what about



Shqipron Sejko 34 def????

Radebe (25) was a theft of an internal, I seem to remember; not sure about Salvatori (28)

it was only me and you jealous of the Lucas Affair.............as i recall

[spireiteontour]

TBC.............................what about



Shqipron Sejko 34 def????

Radebe (25) was a theft of an internal, I seem to remember; not sure about Salvatori (28)

it was only me and you jealous of the Lucas Affair.............as i recall

Lucas was 1.25 mill AND Ian Greening adding up to the correct value - No theft there

Salvatori will never play for my team. singed him just incase both my forwards got booked and suspended at the same time last 3 games

Sejko replaces Tomkins who retired. He will play for only 1 more season as my other defenders will finally be old enough. Sejko plays now only when i play rufus or hook

Anyfurther questions?


i am after a spread of ages

[blahblah]

i am after a spread of ages

Exactly my point re Attilla and Caligula; for which I am getting slaughtered. Maybe I did not justify them correctly?

[Karrde]

A change to the average age rule. Not just a problem for young teams now.

http://www.xperteleven.com/xpertdaily.a ... =3&lang=EN" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ashers]

Great read:

http://www.freewebs.com/leftblank/xpert11guideIV.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[blahblah]

Got me to have another look at it. This was one of the bits that stuck in my mind, as the rest becomes self-evident after a while.

This is because we‟ve given each player has a base-strength which is a hidden trait. This is something that can explain why there are several unexpected results in the games.” What it means? Contraduck added his interpretation: “The hidden strength thing just means that there's a baseline amount of skill that all players have no matter how many skill bars you see. Think of it as meaning that each player has a few extra skill bars than what you can see in the game. This value is the same for every player. Say, for example, that base level of skill is 4 bars worth. Now that means a player with 5 visible skill bars is actually a 9 internally, and a player with 10 visible bars is actually a 14 internally. While it may seem that the 10 bar player should be twice as good as the 5 bar, the actual skill difference isn't quite that large.” Problem is that no player has figured out a way to estimate the „hidden skill value‟ so far. Anyway, it means that the skill is not as hard a value as you might think. It‟s an indication. Useful, but only as a „soft‟ value.

Cut and pasted from pdf, so apologies for the odd punctuation.

[blahblah]

And another.


“Special qualities like good header, goal instinct, fast runner, power shots etc that affects the way a player plays on the field never makes the player a worse player than a player without the special qualities. The player is not generally better than a player without the special qualities. The player is just more specialized than another player. The accumulated skill is the same for a player with special qualities compared to a player without the special qualities. For example: if I would have to select between 2 players with equal skill where one have special qualities and the other haven't but they have the same price I would go for the player with special qualities. The difference with special qualities are generally marginal but increases with the skill of the player. The players are not one-dimensional and are not easy to explain.”

[Angry Alien]

And another.


“Special qualities like good header, goal instinct, fast runner, power shots etc that affects the way a player plays on the field never makes the player a worse player than a player without the special qualities. The player is not generally better than a player without the special qualities. The player is just more specialized than another player. The accumulated skill is the same for a player with special qualities compared to a player without the special qualities. For example: if I would have to select between 2 players with equal skill where one have special qualities and the other haven't but they have the same price I would go for the player with special qualities. The difference with special qualities are generally marginal but increases with the skill of the player. The players are not one-dimensional and are not easy to explain.”

My interpretation of this is

e.g your forward has heading qualities/ tactic would be to play wings plays.(scoring headed goals)

What i mean is every quality/ should enhance the skill dependent on the tactic.

I hope this is as clear as mud

[Angry Alien]

Got me to have another look at it. This was one of the bits that stuck in my mind, as the rest becomes self-evident after a while.

This is because we‟ve given each player has a base-strength which is a hidden trait. This is something that can explain why there are several unexpected results in the games.” What it means? Contraduck added his interpretation: “The hidden strength thing just means that there's a baseline amount of skill that all players have no matter how many skill bars you see. Think of it as meaning that each player has a few extra skill bars than what you can see in the game. This value is the same for every player. Say, for example, that base level of skill is 4 bars worth. Now that means a player with 5 visible skill bars is actually a 9 internally, and a player with 10 visible bars is actually a 14 internally. While it may seem that the 10 bar player should be twice as good as the 5 bar, the actual skill difference isn't quite that large.” Problem is that no player has figured out a way to estimate the „hidden skill value‟ so far. Anyway, it means that the skill is not as hard a value as you might think. It‟s an indication. Useful, but only as a „soft‟ value.

Cut and pasted from pdf, so apologies for the odd punctuation.

The only idea i have come up with.Is that is somehow related to the Last Line up ratings.
As they do not really correlate to anything else

These rating ebb and flow dramatically??

[blahblah]

The second one means that there is a hidden value. It is probably only noticeable through the last line up view, I agree. I have kept one player on this basis, and he is still not disappointing.

The first one, is not what you understand. For Example:

There are only two skills (a and b). The players have 10 units for the two skills. 7+ units gets them a "visible" skill.

Player One has 7 units for skill a and 3 for skill b; Player Two has 5 and 5.

So for Player one, we see the icon for skill a, and none for Player Two. (Player One is shit at skill b)

SO where you have a player with a lot of SQ's you can be pretty sure that he is pants at the rest, and one with none is average at everything.

[Angry Alien]

The second one means that there is a hidden value. It is probably only noticeable through the last line up view, I agree. I have kept one player on this basis, and he is still not disappointing.

The first one, is not what you understand. For Example:

There are only two skills (a and b). The players have 10 units for the two skills. 7+ units gets them a "visible" skill.

Player One has 7 units for skill a and 3 for skill b; Player Two has 5 and 5.

So for Player one, we see the icon for skill a, and none for Player Two. (Player One is shit at skill b)

SO where you have a player with a lot of SQ's you can be pretty sure that he is pants at the rest, and one with none is average at everything.

So you would not link using a players best SQ's to tactics then?
Surely this could then be linked to manager skill?

[blahblah]

Of course I do, but the point is that he is bad at what you can not see.

All players have the same number of units for all SQ's, so the more that are high, the more that are low.