Richt wrote: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 wrote: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)
My first signing has gone through, said Mr Emilyn Hughes has joined Knight Riders FC for a smidgen over 500,000 econs......blahblah wrote:Richt wrote: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
spireiteontour wrote: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
Karrde wrote: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.
Blah .............don't fight itblahblah wrote: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.
4 matches ago ........i resigned to RelegationKarrde wrote: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.
Angry Alien wrote:4 matches ago ........i resigned to RelegationKarrde wrote: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.
Then results improved...........but could still go down
can anyone tell me what would be best long term????
blahblah wrote:Angry Alien wrote:4 matches ago ........i resigned to RelegationKarrde wrote: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.
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.
Angry Alien wrote:TBC.............................what about
Shqipron Sejko 34 def????
it was only me and you jealous of the Lucas Affair.............as i recallblahblah wrote:Angry Alien wrote:TBC.............................what about
Shqipron Sejko 34 def????
Radebe (25) was a theft of an internal, I seem to remember; not sure about Salvatori (28)
Lucas was 1.25 mill AND Ian Greening adding up to the correct value - No theft thereAngry Alien wrote:it was only me and you jealous of the Lucas Affair.............as i recallblahblah wrote:Angry Alien wrote:TBC.............................what about
Shqipron Sejko 34 def????
Radebe (25) was a theft of an internal, I seem to remember; not sure about Salvatori (28)
Exactly my point re Attilla and Caligula; for which I am getting slaughtered. Maybe I did not justify them correctly?spireiteontour wrote:
i am after a spread of ages
My interpretation of this isblahblah wrote: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.”
The only idea i have come up with.Is that is somehow related to the Last Line up ratings.blahblah wrote: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.
So you would not link using a players best SQ's to tactics then?blahblah wrote: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.