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 kovalenkov:
I think what Ksotis was saying and I do the same, is that if a scout recommends you a player, and you look at him and you find that he is not suitable for your club, then you say no.
I never signed any player that was marked as not good enough.
Of xure. My scouts sometimes recommend what look to me to be donkeys, and I definitely don't sign players that look dreadful to me, whatever the scout says. I just wanted to clarify, in case any less zealot-like folks decided to interpret Kostis otherwise.
My scouts sometimes recommend what look to me to be donkeys, and I definitely don't sign players that look dreadful to me, whatever the scout says.
Isn't this a case of double standards? If the scout thinks X is excellent you won't sign him; but you won't consider signing a player that your scout thinks is crap even though what you see and your gut feeling tell you that's not the case?
Originally posted by Kfoolmoon:
I've lost count of the times I've found myself in disagreement with a scout's evaluation of a player. A far as I'm concerned, the scout is there to show me the numbers - the final judgement belongs to me.
That's how it ought to be and how it is IRL. THe scouts are just pointing out players to you. If a scout calls a guy not good enough I stil reserve the right to overrule him. Why? Becuase the scouts are not in tune with, nor are they necessarily recommending players with the team's tactical needs in view. Why use them if you overrule them? Because they are sending in a report on players they've watched that they feel might be good for the club. By this action we are allowing the scouts to determine the parameters of players we consider for acquisition. If the player isn't scouted, we don't sign him. Therefore, we are already according our scouts with a great deal of say about the playing staff of our club, and that is as much power as I care to give them.
Originally posted by Kfoolmoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by jcb23:
My scouts sometimes recommend what look to me to be donkeys, and I definitely don't sign players that look dreadful to me, whatever the scout says.
Isn't this a case of double standards? If the scout thinks X is excellent you won't sign him; but you won't consider signing a player that your scout thinks is crap even though what you see and your gut feeling tell you that's not the case? </BLOCKQUOTE>
Caught out with the exaggeration :o
When I say "whatever" the scout says, that's not strictly true. If the scout says he's excellent, it tends to make even binary players look decent to me And of course it depends on how much you trust your scouts and other factors too.
My point is that the one constant I have is not to sign players the scout says are "not good enough", on the grounds that as I see it a player should be recommended to me by a scout. If he is initially found by the scout that's an automatic recommendation. If I've sent the scout after a specific player I became aware of in the media, I think I should at least get a green light from the scout, whether that be "add depth", "decent", "excellent" or whatever.
Originally posted by jcb23:
I think I should at least get a green light from the scout, whether that be "add depth", "decent", "excellent" or whatever.
Look at my situation on my game...
I had only 3 DCs in the squad, sold one becouse of the combination Financial Problems'nd Good Offer, i need to sign a cheap DC..
Well, i found a DC out of contract in the media... he was an old crap, i admit, and my scout denied him.
He was the cheaper choice for the subs bench and a few games if injury forces-me...
Originally posted by dGreb:
Look at my situation on my game...
I had only 3 DCs in the squad, sold one becouse of the combination Financial Problems'nd Good Offer, i need to sign a cheap DC..
Well, i found a DC out of contract in the media... he was an old crap, i admit, and my scout denied him.
He was the cheaper choice for the subs bench and a few games if injury forces-me...
Hired! I'm a buziness man too...
One of the exact points I was making: the scouts have no idea of your club's tactical needs, so sometimes it is imperative to disregard their recommendations as to the usefulness of a player.
Originally posted by Dr. Hook:
One of the exact points I was making: the scouts have no idea of your club's tactical needs, so sometimes it is imperative to disregard their recommendations as to the usefulness of a player.
Forgot to say i was spoting your point with that Pete Pan's Devil...
Originally posted by Dr. Hook:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by dGreb:
Look at my situation on my game...
I had only 3 DCs in the squad, sold one becouse of the combination Financial Problems'nd Good Offer, i need to sign a cheap DC..
Well, i found a DC out of contract in the media... he was an old crap, i admit, and my scout denied him.
He was the cheaper choice for the subs bench and a few games if injury forces-me...
Hired! I'm a buziness man too...
One of the exact points I was making: the scouts have no idea of your club's tactical needs, so sometimes it is imperative to disregard their recommendations as to the usefulness of a player. </BLOCKQUOTE>
I think is not good enough to play for this club is a pretty good indicator that whatever your tactical needs, he ain't the one.
IMHO if you intend to ignore a scout, then you may as well not scout, which means you aren't playing LLM
When I see 'Useless twat is not good enough to play for this club' my immediate thoughts are 'I'm a busy man, why the f^ck did you have waste my time telling me? You see 100 **** footballers every week, why is this one so special. Now get the f^ck out of my office "
"
Linear Mode
