Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: [Change] Injuries in National Team
Idiotic is quite a harsh word. I'd recommend you learn how to choose a proper vocabulary for communication
I shall not ask you to communicate in french, shall I? Ok, bad choice of words, but it's common sence to have NT and U21 teams play on a custom stadium with angel grass, playing only 1 game each week, guaranteeing the field condition to be optimal at the start of a game,
I don't understand why an NT or U21 team should play on an existing field of another user.
@islander and adaca... I advice you both to behave on the forum and stop provocative behaviour.
I don't understand why an NT or U21 team should play on an existing field of another user.
@islander and adaca... I advice you both to behave on the forum and stop provocative behaviour.
playing on someones field makes sense because people have different pitch dimensions and you can't change the dimensions for NT stadium (which is obviously stupid, what a surprise in this stupid game that details are f.. up...)
but playing on a terrible pitch is a very low move, especially in u21, because those terrible pitches increase chances of injuries... so that guy literally chose to increase injury chance for his players and opponents' players, very weak & egoistic thing to do, if I had USA players they would have hidden skills as long as that guy is anywhere near any of the NTs
but playing on a terrible pitch is a very low move, especially in u21, because those terrible pitches increase chances of injuries... so that guy literally chose to increase injury chance for his players and opponents' players, very weak & egoistic thing to do, if I had USA players they would have hidden skills as long as that guy is anywhere near any of the NTs
So yeah, it makes sence because of an idiotic feature in the game, so actually, Thomas's choice of words was not really so bad it seems :-p
@Tad: There's still a huge difference as calling something idiotic and someone an idiot. I think it could be told in a more appropriate choice of words, but he's not really offending anyone, just stating that this possibility to make the choice to play on terrible pitch conditions is indeed a very poor decision, because of an idiotic feature in the game.
@Tad: There's still a huge difference as calling something idiotic and someone an idiot. I think it could be told in a more appropriate choice of words, but he's not really offending anyone, just stating that this possibility to make the choice to play on terrible pitch conditions is indeed a very poor decision, because of an idiotic feature in the game.
here he uses words idiotic, on our forum he calls people cowards. It may not be offending to you but you cant say it doesnt offend anyone since everyone is different.
I’m not saying people can’t criticize the game feature - I actually agree the mechanic is questionable. That being said, the pitch affects both teams equally.
But there’s a difference between criticizing a design decision and labeling choices/people with words like “idiotic,” “cowards,” etc. That kind of language escalates conflict and derails the thread.
If the concern is pitch condition increasing injuries: that’s a legitimate argument, because injuries don’t just affect the NT match - they impact clubs and many managers who didn’t choose the venue.
So I fully support discussing a solution (e.g., minimum pitch condition for NT/U21), but it’s better to do it in constructive language.
(edited)
But there’s a difference between criticizing a design decision and labeling choices/people with words like “idiotic,” “cowards,” etc. That kind of language escalates conflict and derails the thread.
If the concern is pitch condition increasing injuries: that’s a legitimate argument, because injuries don’t just affect the NT match - they impact clubs and many managers who didn’t choose the venue.
So I fully support discussing a solution (e.g., minimum pitch condition for NT/U21), but it’s better to do it in constructive language.
(edited)
"I shall not ask you to communicate in french, shall I?"
English is the default here, so yes - it’s reasonable to expect communication in English if you want a productive discussion, especially that the name of this forum is "Forum Sokker Development (en)".
Bringing up French is irrelevant and doesn’t address the point.
English is the default here, so yes - it’s reasonable to expect communication in English if you want a productive discussion, especially that the name of this forum is "Forum Sokker Development (en)".
Bringing up French is irrelevant and doesn’t address the point.
It is also reasonable to expect that non-native speakers will sometimes use the wrong word when writting in English. You wouldn't be so clever if this discussion were taking place in Polish or Italian.
Are you sure? You don’t know the languages I speak.
And to be clear: I’m not criticizing anyone’s English or grammar - non-native speakers make mistakes all the time (so do natives).
My point is about the message and tone: words like “idiotic” / “cowards” aren’t accidental vocabulary slips, they’re loaded and escalate conflict. Also, coming to forum and questioning who should be a coach is not that kind of issue also.
(edited)
And to be clear: I’m not criticizing anyone’s English or grammar - non-native speakers make mistakes all the time (so do natives).
My point is about the message and tone: words like “idiotic” / “cowards” aren’t accidental vocabulary slips, they’re loaded and escalate conflict. Also, coming to forum and questioning who should be a coach is not that kind of issue also.
(edited)
I would happy to continue this discussion in italian or polish without using any translators.
The word idiot in French may not be as harsh as it is in English. It's common to make these mistakes when words are almost the same in both languages.
The word idiot in French may not be as harsh as it is in English. It's common to make these mistakes when words are almost the same in both languages.
I understand your point - nuances differ between languages, and non-native speakers can pick words that sound harsher than intended.
That said, this thread is about the NT pitch and injury implementation, not language skills. For clarity and inclusiveness, it’s better to keep discussion in English here.
If we agree the feature is problematic, let’s focus on the constructive part: proposing a minimum pitch condition for NT/U21 matches.
That said, this thread is about the NT pitch and injury implementation, not language skills. For clarity and inclusiveness, it’s better to keep discussion in English here.
If we agree the feature is problematic, let’s focus on the constructive part: proposing a minimum pitch condition for NT/U21 matches.
There is a very easy solution - doesn't even need anything special. Just make NT stadiums obligatory - they are already created.
Only thing that needs adjusting is making it possible for the NT coach to change pitch size however he wants. Because this is why people change stadiums for NT matches and it is imo good additional tactical weapon.
Only thing that needs adjusting is making it possible for the NT coach to change pitch size however he wants. Because this is why people change stadiums for NT matches and it is imo good additional tactical weapon.
No problem, I saw that you edited your message, which clarifies things.
To get back to the subject, playing on such a field sends a terrible signal to the owners of US U21 players. I never hide the characteristics of my players selected for the NT, but I would do so if I had an US U21 player for fear that the coach would make him play on a field in poor condition.
To get back to the subject, playing on such a field sends a terrible signal to the owners of US U21 players. I never hide the characteristics of my players selected for the NT, but I would do so if I had an US U21 player for fear that the coach would make him play on a field in poor condition.