retired_w0lfpack1

Class reply, isafm. I'd have expected no less, from you! :thup: Will respond in more detail when I have a spot more time.

Emm

You're not wrong Amaroq.

I don't know what's been wrong with GQ this week, but the standard of posts has improved enormously. Despite that, isafm wins the award for post of the week with that last one:thup:.

leftfoot

*doffs his cap and says in a poor impression of a Victorian era Englishman*

Thank you, kind sir

I'm new to this whole forum business and wasn't sure about how to respond. The manners my parents knocked into me compelled me to respond to every reply to my original post. But not sure about the whole 'forum etiquette' thing and whether or not people would look at the length of the post and go 'next'

leftfoot

Because of my crap intermittent internet connection I missed your post while I was thanking Amaroq for his praise. Hopefully you didn't take offense at me failing to thank you for your praise (though I suspect you've thicker skin than that).

I'm just glad it hasn't been hijacked by the warring factions of the forum(fingers crossed).

timothyopiel345

isuckatfm is correct.

Tempo should only affect the creation of a chance at goal. Once the chance has been created, tempo should have no bearing on the capability of the player to convert the chance.

Composure, Decisions, Finishing, Technique and Morale can all argued for playing a part, but tempo, no.

SoundsGood

exactly- chances going in are far too much to do with your formation- i can get an entirely reasonable shots(good chances)/goals ratio with some formations and an entirely unreasonable one (misses) with others.

retired_e_fores

isuckatfm: You put all this far better than I did in my thread in the T+T forum. It must be coincidence that we posted the threads at about the same time.


I completely agree with everything you said here. Tempo should affect passing, not shooting.