Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: much injuries and red cards
Charles, I must admit you have nerves of steel for dealing with this ;-)
I know. But I can't accept it that some people are telling others they can't do a thing about injuries and cards when they can.
Same for you Charles
I'm trying to do my best not to ;)
I know. But I can't accept it that some people are telling others they can't do a thing about injuries and cards when they can.
Same for you Charles
I'm trying to do my best not to ;)
I've given up. Over 5 people already told tactics have an influence on injuries, but he keeps laughing it away.
And worse, not even willing to try something new, even though you know that keep doing the same will give the same result over and over again, to many injuries and cards. If you know this will happen, I just don't understand why not changing it .... Then there must be another reason why not changing a thing. If it was about pain I would say that person must love SM, but this isn't about pain :P
I am willing to try your tactics but if you explain why should i do it... some "scientific" arguments behind it not just wild guess which "works" like alternative medicine does.
maybe your players are not so valuable and you play less important matches so it has nothing to do with tactics? At least i tend to think of this that way because in my experience most of the new players which i bring to club as an "improvement" get injured in same tactics i play for seasons and players who played there survived it before.
And it's not even about the age cause this season two U-21 NT players which i bought got injured in first or second game they played...one of them twice in a row
agressive tactics? It will be hard to convince me as for example my last game another improvement got injured in his second game (1st he was lucky with just yellow card) - double divine def. There are more examples from history but i don't want to investigate atm...
I am not the one that has too many injuries or red cards but i support people who has... and i am affraid that it will affect me too as soon as i jump to "higher" level of play
maybe your players are not so valuable and you play less important matches so it has nothing to do with tactics? At least i tend to think of this that way because in my experience most of the new players which i bring to club as an "improvement" get injured in same tactics i play for seasons and players who played there survived it before.
And it's not even about the age cause this season two U-21 NT players which i bought got injured in first or second game they played...one of them twice in a row
agressive tactics? It will be hard to convince me as for example my last game another improvement got injured in his second game (1st he was lucky with just yellow card) - double divine def. There are more examples from history but i don't want to investigate atm...
I am not the one that has too many injuries or red cards but i support people who has... and i am affraid that it will affect me too as soon as i jump to "higher" level of play
I play on top of 2nd level in Belgium, against teams that can easily reach 65+ rating, and this with hardly any injuries. The only one who is vulnerable is my winger in the tactic I used last week, since he is meant to run a lot with the ball
It does have an influence but e.g. average red card per match is 0,4. That only means that fair tactics gets you e.g. 0,6 RCs and unfair tactics gets you 0,2 per match. RL average is stil 0,18 which means that fair teams have e.g. 0,09 and unfair ones 0,27.
So, do you now see why pointing people to playing fair tactics is a totally stupid argument?
So, do you now see why pointing people to playing fair tactics is a totally stupid argument?
From what statistic do you get the red card average?
I am willing to try your tactics but if you explain why should i do it... some "scientific" arguments behind it not just wild guess which "works" like alternative medicine does.
does logical argument qualifies as a scientific one for u?:p anyways, everything is based on how much players get tackled. I´ve played with 3 strikers since for ever. at first I placed them very widely, 1 near the left line, one in the center, and one near the right line. I also didn´t support them enough from midfield. the ones on the wings started getting injured. very often they slowed down when running because of lack of passing opportunities. so they got tackled even more. I didn´t blame the ME, because I saw it as my own fault, not as a fault of the ME. I dunno, but for some reason, what ever I do in my life, I´m intuitively used to adapt the system, not to go cry somewhere and ask the vice a verca, "system should adapt to me".
atm where ever the ball is, my strikers always have a place to pass. and also to avoid getting tackled more, my strikers have formidable+ playmaker. yes I know it would be very selfish to ask everyone to have strikers with 11+ pm, but my point is that u can reduce your injury percentage by the way you manage your team tactically. ofc it doesn´t cover those passing the ball injuries and sometimes ur players still get injured by a tackle. (one of my striker got 24day injury a couple of weeks ago when passing the ball:D)
agressive tactics?
agressive tactics in general is where ur players tackle opponents from back or from side most of the time(+ the previous story what I just wrote). I´ve tactically organised my defence line to tackle from the front most of the time, so the rate of tackles won is much bigger and therefore there are far less fouls done, which means the chance of getting a yellow/red card is once again, tactically reduced. and also, I don´t know if its a fact or not, but I´ve noticed players are less likely to injure themselves when they win a tackle compered to a situation when they lose the tackle. I mean, I´ve seen more times how a player fails to win the tackle and gets injured than how a player wins a tackle and gets an injured.
I remember some time ago, before last ME change I think, when 5 def ultra high defence was very popular, there were lots of red cards in those teams that had that tactics. ultrahigh defence means more tackles from back of the player, because opponent strikers will get more easily passed the defence line. I´m pretty sure the tactic being agressive is one of the reason why there were more red cards than usually.
edit: I also wanted to add that ultra high defence means also that players are in a smaller area = usually more tackles = more fouls = more injuries/cards. but ultra high defence is not the only one examülpe of a agressive tactics and actually not all ultra high defence tactics are agressive ones, because u can still reduce the dangers in several ways.
and also. since the beginning, I considered defence skill as one of the most important skills a midfielder should have. I know quite a decent amount of sk users don´t really seem to care about the defence skill when talking about midfielders, buut, having midfielders with decent def skill is probably also a reason why I´ve never had problems with many red cards.
so yeah, u can do many small things that actually give u an advantage compered to those who don´t know or don´t want to know that there are ways to adapt the system.
(edited)
does logical argument qualifies as a scientific one for u?:p anyways, everything is based on how much players get tackled. I´ve played with 3 strikers since for ever. at first I placed them very widely, 1 near the left line, one in the center, and one near the right line. I also didn´t support them enough from midfield. the ones on the wings started getting injured. very often they slowed down when running because of lack of passing opportunities. so they got tackled even more. I didn´t blame the ME, because I saw it as my own fault, not as a fault of the ME. I dunno, but for some reason, what ever I do in my life, I´m intuitively used to adapt the system, not to go cry somewhere and ask the vice a verca, "system should adapt to me".
atm where ever the ball is, my strikers always have a place to pass. and also to avoid getting tackled more, my strikers have formidable+ playmaker. yes I know it would be very selfish to ask everyone to have strikers with 11+ pm, but my point is that u can reduce your injury percentage by the way you manage your team tactically. ofc it doesn´t cover those passing the ball injuries and sometimes ur players still get injured by a tackle. (one of my striker got 24day injury a couple of weeks ago when passing the ball:D)
agressive tactics?
agressive tactics in general is where ur players tackle opponents from back or from side most of the time(+ the previous story what I just wrote). I´ve tactically organised my defence line to tackle from the front most of the time, so the rate of tackles won is much bigger and therefore there are far less fouls done, which means the chance of getting a yellow/red card is once again, tactically reduced. and also, I don´t know if its a fact or not, but I´ve noticed players are less likely to injure themselves when they win a tackle compered to a situation when they lose the tackle. I mean, I´ve seen more times how a player fails to win the tackle and gets injured than how a player wins a tackle and gets an injured.
I remember some time ago, before last ME change I think, when 5 def ultra high defence was very popular, there were lots of red cards in those teams that had that tactics. ultrahigh defence means more tackles from back of the player, because opponent strikers will get more easily passed the defence line. I´m pretty sure the tactic being agressive is one of the reason why there were more red cards than usually.
edit: I also wanted to add that ultra high defence means also that players are in a smaller area = usually more tackles = more fouls = more injuries/cards. but ultra high defence is not the only one examülpe of a agressive tactics and actually not all ultra high defence tactics are agressive ones, because u can still reduce the dangers in several ways.
and also. since the beginning, I considered defence skill as one of the most important skills a midfielder should have. I know quite a decent amount of sk users don´t really seem to care about the defence skill when talking about midfielders, buut, having midfielders with decent def skill is probably also a reason why I´ve never had problems with many red cards.
so yeah, u can do many small things that actually give u an advantage compered to those who don´t know or don´t want to know that there are ways to adapt the system.
(edited)
Here's the intro post from my change cards distribution idea:
Yellow and red cards influence on the game should be more simmilar to real life.
Here's the link to an article containing 4000+ matches statistics from Premiership and Bundesliga showing real life match averages and distribution per periods.Article
Based on this data I also made a very useful Excel.Excel.
So, in RL per match averages are: 3.41 1st YC, 0.08 2nd YC and 0.10 straight RC. Total RC avg is thus 0.18.
In Sokker I have counted 67 RCs in 162 random matches (100 in Div1 and 62 in Div3) which gives a total RC average of 0.414 per match. This is more than double than in RL. Stats for YC are based on 62 matches and avg YC/match is 1.71. This is aprox. half of RL average.
Another problem is that probability of receiving a card remains the same throughout the match. The same RL analysis shows this distribution per periods:
Minutes Total YC Straight RC Avg
1-15 6,7% 3,8% 5,3%
16-30 13,5% 9,4% 11,4%
31-45 19,9% 14,9% 17,4%
46-60 16,1% 16,1% 16,1%
61-75 19,4% 24,0% 21,7%
76-90 24,5% 31,7% 28,1%
Having the same distribution throughout the match is not a problem when a player receives only 1 YC. But with RCs this is a serious problem because apart from the fact that their frequency is much higher than RL, RCs in sokker also appear much earlier in the matches thus having substantial influence on the results.
Changing this distribution would also reduce RCs based on 2nd YC so maybe this should be done first and then later see if it's also necessary to change probabilities in general as well.
Yellow and red cards influence on the game should be more simmilar to real life.
Here's the link to an article containing 4000+ matches statistics from Premiership and Bundesliga showing real life match averages and distribution per periods.Article
Based on this data I also made a very useful Excel.Excel.
So, in RL per match averages are: 3.41 1st YC, 0.08 2nd YC and 0.10 straight RC. Total RC avg is thus 0.18.
In Sokker I have counted 67 RCs in 162 random matches (100 in Div1 and 62 in Div3) which gives a total RC average of 0.414 per match. This is more than double than in RL. Stats for YC are based on 62 matches and avg YC/match is 1.71. This is aprox. half of RL average.
Another problem is that probability of receiving a card remains the same throughout the match. The same RL analysis shows this distribution per periods:
Minutes Total YC Straight RC Avg
1-15 6,7% 3,8% 5,3%
16-30 13,5% 9,4% 11,4%
31-45 19,9% 14,9% 17,4%
46-60 16,1% 16,1% 16,1%
61-75 19,4% 24,0% 21,7%
76-90 24,5% 31,7% 28,1%
Having the same distribution throughout the match is not a problem when a player receives only 1 YC. But with RCs this is a serious problem because apart from the fact that their frequency is much higher than RL, RCs in sokker also appear much earlier in the matches thus having substantial influence on the results.
Changing this distribution would also reduce RCs based on 2nd YC so maybe this should be done first and then later see if it's also necessary to change probabilities in general as well.
obviously not all injuries are due to duels ... like in real life. Never seen an injury after bad landing, overstretch, ... ?