Subject: Strikers - a discussion

SECONDARIES > STRIKING

In my cup match, I played my 2 b-team striker trainees. One of which I just bought, and he played his very first game today. He got FOUR goals.

Claude Ferrell, age: 20
value: 77 000 $, wage: 1 125 $
club: Ball Crushers, country: USA
solid form, tragic tactical discipline

average stamina, hopeless keeper
solid pace, weak defender
very good technique, hopeless playmaker
weak passing, weak striker
(edited)

Yeah, my newest trainee played his first official match, came out of it with one goal and one assist. I was actually a little irritated that all of the scoring opportunities were going his way, as I didn't score until almost halftime.

Kalju Lusikas, age: 19
value: 183 750 $, wage: 2 000 $
club: Saia`s Strikers, country: Eesti
magical form, unsatisfactory tactical discipline

average stamina, hopeless keeper
excellent pace, weak defender
formidable technique, weak playmaker
weak passing, unsatisfactory striker

Alright, I'll step in.

Until last season before the ME changes, strikers efficiency appeared to depends on the Striker VS Keeper match up. Now, I'm not sure.

Guacamole: Was our friendly in the HA Cup playoffs last season old ME or new ME? It was week 13.
(edited)

My latest striker trainee has lots of good 2ndaries, but he was expensive...

Roger Arnhofer, age: 18
value: 103 000 $, wage: 1 425 $
club: Cool Arrows, country: Deutschland
adequate form, weak tactical discipline

weak stamina, hopeless keeper
solid pace, good defender
very good technique, good playmaker
tragic passing, solid striker

lol, I imagine so. He's a better striker then any of the ones I have on my team, save for one.

That could partially be a result of your opponent's goalie being horrible? I'd guess at BEST solid, and more likely good goaltending...

You'd basically never score, even if you increased pace and tech to whatever you wanted basically, with weak striking (or even solid) if you were playing a real goalie...

Just imho.

And i'm not saying that striking is the be-all-end-all, i'm just saying it's not unimportant. Persoanlly i like striking to be a few levels higher than pace and tech. And tech, i don't really think needs to go higher than formidible (even formid tech strikers don't dribble thru tough a-league (note i said tough a-league, there's some defensive players who are only solid, i'm not counting them) or ML-calibur defenders).

Agreed. Shockingly. My ideal striker is, well, Kalita. Brilliant/form/form striker/pace/tech.

I don't think so. Kurt Leffew, one of my strikers, has quite a few goals against Bogan and for most of that time he's only had solid - excellent striking.

Kalita getting balls from your mids would be a scary thing.

Guacamole: Was our friendly in the HA Cup playoffs last season old ME or new ME? It was week 13.

Probably new.

The reason I ask is, Robertson is considerably better keeper then my strikers are.

--------------------------------------------
Guacamole: Was our friendly in the HA Cup playoffs last season old ME or new ME? It was week 13.

Probably new.
----------------------------------------------

If i remember well they said that the new ME would start immediately for NT games and on friendly games only after every cup ended: Polska CUP ended on week 14, so only the friendly game play on week 15 was the one with the ME.

I've got a question for striker trainers. Do you guys generally buy guys that already have high secondaries and mainly train them at striker? Or is it better to mix it up and get a guy that has somewhat decent skills in striker/secondaries and train all three of the important skills? Thanks.

I train all 3 every season,

striker, pace and tech, (I vary the ratios depending on needed training).

Because I'm in the ML, I get trainees that already have some PM, def and passing which are usefull (not essential) for strikers.

Pal: the way you use your strikers, you use them more as defensive forwards.

I would definitely look for guys who have average or better defense when looking at prospects.
(edited)