Subject: The End of an Era??

Dude, he actually is pretty good at tactics. He'll be in a-league soon enough.

It's true many of the teams don't change their tactics much, because many of them aren't motivated to do so

This is exactly my point though. You do it because you're more motivated to do so now to stay out of the 8 hole.

The fact that it's not motivating to study opponent tactics and change accordingly is exactly why I said what you quoted.

re: fromaster, I know. I mentioned to Jon, when I was helping him scout out a gameplan for Billy, what he could have also done against Fromo (he won 1-0 anyway) to further nullify his offense.

To Billy's credit, he altered his own gameplan (to my surprise, as this is unusual) which nullified a few of my suggestions to Jon (some of which he implemented, some of which he chose not to).

Giving you another example, our last NT match with Netherlands.

I'm gonna take a wild guess as to why Bobo started at striker. Keep in mind I don't know, I havent asked Lakay, and I could be completely wrong.

I believe Bobo started because he's got the best tech out of all our strikers.

Why?

Because I studied Netherlands team. Their defense was amazing. They were giving opposing strikers breakaways then taking them away every time, with tackles from behind. That tells me that not only are they amazingly fast, but also amazingly skilled.

The only way to maintain a breakaway against a defense like that is to have awesome tech, to break the tackle from behind. As it is, the tackle from behind is a negative modifier to the defender - but if the defender has 5 ranks of defense over the forward on the breakaway - then it doesn't matter really does it?

Fast pace wasn't going to help ANY striker in the world against that defensive line. Unless pace was magical or better I suppose ;) But still, tech influences pace on the ball as much as anything else.

point is, it frustrates me that there are tactical advantages you can give your team. Some obvious, some not so obvious, yet in the end randomness envelopes it all as a larger factor in match results.

That's just how I feel, anyway.

Like Jon said, he doesnt change his tactics weekly out of laziness. Yet he seldom gets beat. Why? Because tactics don't matter. Team skills matter most, and randomness matters second.
(edited)

Thanks for the response, islander1.

Sounds like maybe Sokker isn't for you...

codymac: If it werne't for initially joining Sokker, I'd have not cared about actually learning about the sport at all. Which is all wise cracks aside, kinda unfortunate in a sense.

Because I've put so much time into the game, it probably makes more sense for me to just half-ass tactics like everyone else seems to do.

That way, if I get results like the last two weeks...a season effectively ruined through no fault of my own and despite a couple hours tactical efforts...I won't be nearly as disappointed.

I think ultimately thats the answer. But it sucks. I do that for Trophymanager because I just can't really get into it.

You're a smart man, getting your excuses lined-up way in-advance...

:P

just chipping in..:)

i prolly havent changed my tactics in the last 2,5 season maybe more (dont really care), but my point is that i have a tactic that is adapted to my players strengths.

sometimes it works, sometimes it dont, i guess thats the random factor.

I think the reason other players are on ur case is that you have been extremly "open" about letting others know how good of a tactician u are.

Im sure you know ur tactics, just dont let everybody know that.. :)

I reserve the right to be wrong ;)

robfol: No, you bring up a valid point. I just am ultra-competitive, and I get really ticked when I feel like the game's shafting me.

I didn't complain the two times Pewsum beat me, both were pretty even matches that could have gone either way (well one he flogged me pretty good, the other was close).

But other matches I'm left asking myself - why do I even bother trying?

I've actually had this love-hate thing with Sokker for a long time. Just ask Guac. I come close to quitting Sokker once or twice every season since I've been in B league.

Everyone knew the 49ers were going all West Coast on them. It still worked most seasons. AND Walsh is viewed as a tactical genius.

It is all in how you view being a tactician - the best coach is one who designs a plan that suits his team, but the best GM is one that finds the right players for his coach's plan.

I'm more of a GM type now, having decided that my plan was a good one.

any of us would get beaten by a top tactician with the same players, however. 7 times out of 10 at least.

which was why I was somewhat interested in running the NT. The players are ready made, you don't need to worry about making training mistakes with them. Or worry about buying better coaches, etc etc.

The NT is all about tactics, although ultimately the random factor is still large, unfortunate to me as it is.

Honestly, i'd indeed vote for someone who was consistently outperforming based on their player skills, if Lakay didn't run again... I'd prefer someone with experience with high quality opposition, which you don't have at this point, but i would have considered giving you my support.

"Would have considered" not "would consider", as i certainly woudn't vote for someone who decides they want to quit once or twice a season after a tough loss.

It probably would have been better for him if he'd gone through a few losses in his initial two seasons. Then he wouldn't have unrealistic visions of how he should win every game.

thing is to me is, if I lose it should be because I deserver to.

I should lose if a team is too good for me tactics regardless, like the Cats (although I didnt try beating him this season - I figured why bother after I DID try the season before).

I should lose if an opposing manager pokes holes in my tactics. If I underestimate someone.

I shouldn't lose, or tie matches where I dominate play, pile on many shots from high percentage areas, only to see none of them go in the net on a subpar keeper.

Initially when I entered B league, I understood why my scoring was lower - because all of my strikers were initially solid. Then again I never expected to win the division my first season in. Hell, I didnt 'expect' to win last season either, not with Pewsum around.

This season, I still don't 'expect' to win (again, pewsum), but I certainly don't 'expect' to lose points to feeble opponents because of extreme degrees of random results either.

"I shouldn't lose, or tie matches where I dominate play, pile on many shots from high percentage areas, only to see none of them go in the net on a subpar keeper."

You shouldn't? Ever?

NOG.