MSWL UNITEDMSWL U2 TMBL MSWL The Manager
Sunday, February 25th, 2018 - 04:06:26 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
2 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
 
Rules Discussion - Sw & Fw Changes
Posted by Allan Sellers on Friday, Jul. 20th, 2012 at 6:33 PM

 

This is a discussion.   

It seems as though the best teams are taking the BIG Gk and BIG Fw approach to show up and win.

What if we:

a) Changed the calculations to add the Sw to the Df when determining how many shots the opposing Fw area gets?  (and perhaps adjusting the Sw stop rate down a little).

or

b) Allowing only 1 Fw in a lineup provided they are at least 1/4 of the Df and Mf area.

Just some ideas.  I'd like to see some more strategies to win other than the Big Gk/Fw combo. Thoughts?

Readers Comments

This type of discussion is LONG overdue. The league needs this type of change to allow for more strategy when creating line ups.

At first glance of the two options noted by Al, I would agree with the latter (i.e. allowing only FW in the lineup) as the better approach.

If SW values were added to DF without dropping the SW stop rate, I might be interested more.

Will wait for Dr Martin's analysis before commenting further.

Brian Beerman on Friday, Jul. 20th, 2012 at 6:56 PM
 

Working on a piece with stats included on the SL 23 Gk (SL 16 + 2 Fit + 5 hardness, which can be replicated every match as opposed to +5 GPP).  Will post when worked up to a more coherent form than current version.

Kevin Martin on Saturday, Jul. 21st, 2012 at 11:50 AM
 

I am probably missing something here but doesn't OST allow one to combat the big Fw aspect?  The big Gk is going to be there no matter what strategy is employed.  So what really is the issue? 

Rob Baptiste on Saturday, Jul. 21st, 2012 at 1:02 PM
 

ï»Without comenting on any specific changes I think we must be very carefull when tweaking as this game was incredibly well designed. Almost everything is in balance ,even the way the 10 sessions work is very well thought out.

ï»If we were making a change the 1st thing I would do is to make the game more true to the original and allow players to acclimate(if that is the correct word) to a different position.

Alon Atie on Sunday, Jul. 22nd, 2012 at 4:59 AM
 

It is difficult to regularly combat the 1-1-2-2-5 format and win consistantly with a different lineup.  While I agree with Alon's thoughts on how this games was designed, I believe some change should be considered that would allow for more flexibility in line ups.

Brian Beerman on Sunday, Jul. 22nd, 2012 at 12:45 PM
 

A little bit of a follow-up as the "what are we trying to fix" question is always a fair one.

Here's my perspective:

1) The teams that win the 1st Division always do so with a BIG Fw model.  In the past I had tried a BIG Df/BIG Mf model and was unsuccessful.  In the end just not enough shots to make the numbers work.

2) As the commish I'd like to see more variety in tactics in our game.   If its truly a just go for the Big Fw/Gk approach and hope the random numbers like your 50 shots over your opponents 45 then that seems a little pedestrian.

3) If I as a manager know that the opposition has a little more capability to stop my Nuclear Fw line I might be more inclined to either develop a Mf or move some of my Fw players to the Mf for certain games.  The "matching wits" with another manager aspect interests me.   The 72 Fw line versus the other teams 71 Fw line is often what we are left with it seems (and not in all games, but for certain teams).

In summary, the two ideas I have at the start of the thread come from the original Alan Parr United rules.   Our version of the game does have some differences so its not like we should just incorporate these without considering the consequences.   

At the same time I feel like the trend/results are there to show that the main strategy is to just focus on the Superpower Fw line and then play it each game.  Those are the teams that win the 1st Division (in my opinion; and admittedly I have a team like that this season though I won't win because Dave Dohm always injures my players; but I digress).  I'd like to see a little more variety in the options available so that I can either throw in a big Sw and stop the oppositions Fw's better.  Or perhaps load up my Df to do so with a small Fw line.  Doing that may open back up the need to build better Df and Mf lines and play them more. 

I think that's a better game.

This is a discussion, no decision has been made.  Hopefully this helps with the questions that Comrade Rob and Alon asked.  We may continue to disagree and that's fine, but I'd like to get thoughts on this (or other ideas) to ensure we have a successful forward-looking game.

Allan Sellers on Monday, Jul. 23rd, 2012 at 6:55 PM
 

Why not put a maximum on the FW's (max 4) a team can enter in his lineup, just like there is a minimum on the DF's, MF's and FW's

Rene Wilkens on Thursday, Jul. 26th, 2012 at 3:59 AM
 

Hmmm... this past weekend I played versus a light big Fw line and submitted my own light big Fw line. The lineups were nearly identical with Gk, Df, Mf and Fw all being equal.  The difference came from the Sw/tactic position and the amount of Hardness utilized.  My opponent played a Sw with a SL of 13. Crewe was favored to win this match and possessed a 5-1-0 [division] home record vs. TRA since being coached by Bobby Baptiste. 

TRA = 22 13 22 22 66 (5)

CRE = 22 O 22 22 66 (10)

The "O" at Sw is incidating that I played offside trap (OST). Each of us calculated out to 44 Fw attacks via the raw numbers, no rules applied.  With the OST applied, the attacks were CRE = 44 and TRA = 22.  The total shots were 19 for Crewe and 22 for Tranmere. Neither team drew Red Cards nor suffered injuries.  Crewe was the beneficiary of being awarded a Pk and scoring.  The end score was 4-2 TRA over CRE. I thought I escaped with 13 pts. taken away from the scoring positions but while the latter was true the escape portion was not.  Crewe's tactics lead to his opponent amassing more than twice as many shots on target (and probably not coincidentally twice the scoring).  At this point since I had half the SOTs but had 1 goal one (that one being me) might think there is a good chance for draw as a result or a one goal loss for either team.  The aforementioned 4-2 loss occurred as the number of SOTs and goalkeeping were the determining factors. Superstar Wim Tenbrook (SL 17+ FIT 2 + HD 3) stopped 7 of 8 (87.5 SV%) while his rookie (to United anyhow) counterpart  (SL 15 + FIT 2 + HD 5) was pelted with 17 shots an stopped 13 (76.5 %).  Most of the preceding detail had little to do with this discussion and more to do with me stewing over a home loss.  All 5 of my shots after scoring my 2 goals (a PK and non-PK) were off target!  TRA's 3 shots after his first 2 goals were on target with the last resulting in his 3rd goal.  Finally at the 45% stop rate, TRA was limited to 6 on targets yielding his 4th and final goal.

Well all the statistics are above - the major difference was a Big Fw+Sw vs. a Big Fw, no Sw but OST.  Are we concerned about all Big Fw lines or just the line that Brian referenced which is the dreaded 1+1+2+2+5 line?  My inferior T11 didn't allow we to play my classic 90+ Fw lines nor a Sw.  It seems to me that it is smart to limit via 50+% stop rate Sw as you will still benefit from 1/3 of the non-stopped shots being off target.

Rob Baptiste on Sunday, Jul. 29th, 2012 at 10:11 AM
 

maybe we should be looking at the effectiveness of MFs in United - at the moment it looks like you're saying that coaches try to get their MF value as high as they can so they can field a higher FW value. If they contributed more than just Mf v MF for shots created they could impact tactics more. Say for example one team has 2 MF at  value total 25 and another 4 MF with value 36 - take the difference and add it to the FW or DF values (maybe with a modifier) MFs in real life do after all create and defend not just shoot. (the shot allocation would possibly need tweaking to allow this though)

Another option would be to amend the 3-1 outfield ratio allowance - this would reduce the FW values, but wouldn't have any real impact on tactics.

Roy Rolsten on Sunday, Jul. 29th, 2012 at 6:31 PM
 

I don't think anything needs to change. The powerful 5-2-2-1-1 line can be stopped but you have be able to field a big DF area to do it while having enough offense yourself. The issue is alot of teams neglect building their defensive players up therefore they are not equipped to stop the Tranmere's of the world. There is a strong bias by most teams to build and acquire forwards, just look at prices paid and how hard it is to make a deal acquiring a forward. I can only think of one team in United that is dedicated to a top defense. If you balance your roster and can field a really good defense you can stop the top offenses. 

Dave Dohm on Saturday, Aug. 4th, 2012 at 3:56 PM
 
 
 
Terms and Conditions