MSWL UNITEDMSWL U2 TMBL MSWL The Manager
Thursday, May 24th, 2018 - 09:51:07 AM (gmt)
 
ball MSWL UNITED ① - Landing
 
Home Auctions Blog Forum History Login Rules Scores Stats Tables Teams
 
Coaches Directory Donate Guest Rankings Schedule Updates Waitlist Wall
 

Join
MSWL
UNITED!

Recent Entries

Mike Parnaby
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Tim Batth
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Rob Baptiste
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Brian Beerman
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Paul Cockayne
3 Comments
Paul Cockayne
3 Comments
Dave Dowson
4 Comments
Roy Rolsten
2 Comments
Dave Dowson
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Dave Dohm
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Brian Hayes
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Rob Baptiste
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Rob Peterson
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Graham Wilkes
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
19 Comments
Brian Beerman
20 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Andy Bate
1 Comment
Kevin Martin
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
21 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Graham Wilkes
1 Comment
Jose Freitas
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Dave Dohm
10 Comments
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Rob Baptiste
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Graham Wilkes
6 Comments
Graham Wilkes
5 Comments
Dave Dohm
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Rob Peterson
5 Comments
Brian Beerman
11 Comments
John Holden
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Kevin Martin
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
19 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Rob Baptiste
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Rob Baptiste
5 Comments
Mark Stretch
5 Comments
Jake Hanny
1 Comment
Andy Bate
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
25 Comments
Graham Wilkes
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Brian Beerman
7 Comments
David Blair
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
12 Comments
Brian Beerman
5 Comments
David Blair
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
18 Comments
Graham Wilkes
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Mark Stretch
17 Comments
John Holden
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Rob Peterson
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
25 Comments
Allan Sellers
30 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
15 Comments
Andy Bate
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Mike Cabral
4 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Kevin Martin
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
26 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
23 Comments
Kevin Martin
6 Comments
Dave Dohm
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Brian Beerman
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
14 Comments
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
3 Comments
Dave Dowson
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
John Holden
4 Comments
Mike Cabral
9 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
23 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Simon Compton
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Abe Hamdali
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Roy Rolsten
6 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Roy Rolsten
2 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
20 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Andy Bate
7 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Andy Lewis
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Simon Compton
4 Comments
Kevin Martin
12 Comments
Simon Compton
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Simon Compton
1 Comment
Simon Compton
1 Comment
Dave Dowson
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Rene Wilkens
5 Comments
Trevor Taylor
3 Comments
Rob Peterson
17 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Trevor Taylor
7 Comments
Trevor Taylor
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
27 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Dan Fitzgerald
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Alon Atie
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Rob Peterson
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
 
Scoring Discussion
Posted by Brian Beerman on Wednesday, Mar. 9th, 2011 at 9:06 PM

The recent 11-0 drubbing endured by Lincoln City at the hands of Tranmere begs the question: Should the shot chances rules be reviewed?

Certainly scores like that above are few and far between in this league (though I believe C-Ball has been on the losing end of at least two lopsided contests since season 3).  However, perhaps the following rule does not go far enough to prevent such excessive stat lines:

 

 

 

 

 

v) Each shot has a 35% chance of being off-target. If a side has scored 2 goals this rises to 40%, then by a further
   5% after each goal scored, to a maximum of 75%. This is to curb ridiculous scorelines (with luck!)

Would it be more beneficial to advance the chance of a shot being off-target from 40% to 50% after two goals have been scored, then increase the percentage by 5% for each subsequent goal?  Or maybe even advance the percentage by 10% (instead of 5%) for each subsequent goal?

Another beneficial change might be to increase the maximum from 75% up to 90%.

I don't think ridiculous scores like last week's 11-0 bashing of poor old Lincoln City are common place here, but I felt it warranted some discussion to see if a change was necessary...or if consensus dictates we maintain the status quo.  

Let the cheers and jeers and toasting of beers begin!

Readers Comments

You do get the occasional mad scoreline like that in real life too. I recall when my beloved Reading lost to Portsmouth a few years ago now...

Mark Stretch on Thursday, Mar. 10th, 2011 at 2:43 AM
 

I don't think we need a change. These scores are extrememly rare. I wouldn't want to eliminate a team's chances to score altogether at anypoint because Goal Differential can decide who advances and who does not, who gets promoted and who gets relegated sometimes.

Rob Peterson on Saturday, Mar. 12th, 2011 at 6:27 PM
 

Its a fair question from Dr. Beerman.  I would concur that outrageous scorelines are fairly rare in our league.  I'm thinking what we have in place is pretty good now.  In the regular Olmec leagues we tried to do something about blowouts...but in the end it seems to have resulted in both byzantine rules/code and seems over-emphasized for the fairly rare occurrence that is a major blowout.

Allan Sellers on Saturday, Mar. 12th, 2011 at 7:13 PM
 

Surely a simple deterrent to fielding a weakened lineup is to have a penalty of 1CP lost for every goal you lose by more than, say, five, to reflect loss of morale.

Not that I'm sure a rule is necessarily required, but this one is at least simple and attacks the main benefit that clubs have for fielding weakened lineups, which is to increase the chances of earning CPs in the other games.

Andy Bate on Sunday, Mar. 13th, 2011 at 12:24 AM
 

Unfortunately, by requiring significant playing time for youth players in this league and being unable to use subs, there are plenty of times each season where a team with just two matches has to play a mostly youth lineup to keep development going.  And sometimes they run into a team still alive in the youth cup or having 3 or 4 matches to spread youth in, so the other team can come out with a whole lot more of the big guns in the match.  Blowout likely, and all-but-guaranteed in some cases.

As much as we'd like a system where teams could play their top lines and be punished for throwing matches, that would require an entirely different league that the youth played in to develop.  And no EL, so everyone could play at least a T14 every match, as the pro leagues usually do. Because most starters play in most matches all season long except for injury and the rare international game stealing a player for a match or two, there are contract clauses for membership that require every team to make a good faith effort to compete in every game under possible penalty of fines, loss of league points, etc.  Of course, fines in these leagues don't cost people jobs.  500k in the real world and heads are rolling somewhere...

With this league, the downside is that blowouts heavily skew the goal differential.  GD is the first tie break for league play.  All other things being equal, teams with identical records and points should have equal chance to win based on how they played.  When one team wins primarily because another team threw a match and gave up 10+ goals, the "fairness alarm" starts vibrating if not actually clanging yet.

The financial rewards for winning the Golden Boot are so minimal as to be inconsequential over the course of a season or two.  So the only real argument I can see in favor of further diminishing of goal scoring chances is because it could hurt some other manager's chances of winning the league solely because of some third manager's game play choices.

All that being said, the scenario worth worrying about requires two teams to finish identical on points in league play while having one of those teams win the goal differential on the strength of a blowout win vs. one team that then turned around and played the other team substantially harder. I don't see that scenario coming up often enough to make any new rules or changes to existing ones at this time.

Kevin Martin on Monday, Mar. 14th, 2011 at 6:07 PM
 
 
 
Terms and Conditions