If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
Originally posted by oisinlambe:
If you are averageing barely 1.3 points per game with Arsenal, I would suggest that maybe the problem is not the players individual skills or the game engine; maybe instead the problem is the manager!?
Your totally missing the point. I wasn't trying to manage i was doing an experiment and i didn't change anything apart form moving the players around.
If you stoped to think you would have realized that the manager was the same for the good team and the crap team but yet the results were the same for both. Yes the good team underperformed but the crap team should have done allot worse considering there all in positions they don't have the skills for.
My point is this: Arsenal should be performing better than 1.3 points per game, whatever the opposition.
Therefore, if you showed me a stat saying Arsenal got 40+ points from 18games, with both the 'good' and 'bad' team I would agree with you about individual poisitions/skills not mattering.
However all you have shown is too sets of poor results, as you say the good team underperformed, perhaps the bad team performed as expected or even overperformed?
I would be interested if you 'went on holiday' having pre-selected your prefered side (good and bad) and then compared the two seasons.
I would be interested if you 'went on holiday' having pre-selected your prefered side (good and bad) and then compared the two seasons.
I thought of that but i'm not sure if will work because even if i click keep the same team my assistant is bound to replace any injured/tired players with players more suited to the position. It could mean the 2 teams end up the same after a few games. I might try anyway.
Ye thats a fair point, but I think it works that whenever they are fit, the assistant has to pick the team you select. I would be surprised if Arsenal with Walcott and Eduardo at CD and say Clichy and Senderos at CF were up to much!
The other thing is most Arsenal players are v.good on the ball, therefore there adaptablity potential might be a little higher than normal teams.
Ok i'll try it with another team but my point was the players should play to there individual skills and if you look at the team i picked they don't have the skills suited to the positions i played them in.
Maybe it was a freak set of results but i did the same test with champ manager and the difference between the good and crap team was a massive 1.7 goals per game and 1.6 points per game, and that was over only 10 games. I only continued the test longer with FM because i was convinced the results had to change but they didn't.
Originally posted by Ranger:
I am also managing arsenal in my game, and due to some injuries in a match very early on i had to play gallas up front and Walcott as right back.(well i didnt have to play gallas up front, but at the time it seemed a good idea prefered him over Simpson due to heading skills...
It was a mess at home to Villa, lost 3-1, Walcott gettin a 3!!, Gallas however made a 5..
Surely Gallas at RB and Walcott up front would have been a better choice...
Surely Gallas at RB and Walcott up front would have been a better choice...
Yep, sure but that really goes down to my managing decisions, and they might have been bad. To try to defend it, i wanted a good header up front, and walcott dosent fit the bill.And i got the striker injured before the RB...
My point is this: Arsenal should be performing better than 1.3 points per game, whatever the opposition.
Therefore, if you showed me a stat saying Arsenal got 40+ points from 18games, with both the 'good' and 'bad' team I would agree with you about individual poisitions/skills not mattering.
Good point!
You might wanna do this test with a lower ranked team. If your conclusions are right so far, this should happen with any team,no?
Linear Mode
