MSWL UNITEDMSWL U2 TMBL MSWL The Manager
Tuesday, December 18th, 2018 - 01:50:14 PM (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

Allan Sellers
4 Comments
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
 
2:1 Rule - Poll
Posted by Allan Sellers on Saturday, Sep. 15th, 2012 at 8:15 PM

 

One item our survey had was how to we deal with big FW lines.   I had three questions around this (questions 2-4).  #2 was a clear winner for 1 Fw.  #3 had momentum for adjusting the Sw formula.  #4 was a dead heat (16-16) in terms of adding the Sw to the Df area for determining how many shots the oppo Fw's should get.
 
BUT.  Question #2 didn't address making 1 Fw work.  For example.  I could load up the Df area (60 Df).  But to make that 1 Fw work I'd need to somehow get that Fw area to 20 to fit within the 3:1 rule.
 
Some in fact said: "I assume this would still be with the 3:1 rule".  Other said: "I assume we'd relax this to a 4:1 rule for Df to Fw".
 
One person said: "What about a 2:1 rule".  
 
I've been tracking "area totals" the past couple of seasons for potential integration into pre-game previews (for example).  Anyway, I have 1666 records for those two season (I'm using MSWL U1 stats for this).   Essentially 1 record per team per game per season.  
 
I've just now looked at instances where, if we implemented a 2:1 rule, how many "violations" we would have had in that timeframe.  Here's the breakdown:
Df > (2 x Mf) = 77
Df > (2 x Fw) = 110
 
Mf > (2 x Df) = 105
Mf > (2 x Fw) = 161
 
Fw > (2 x Df) = 475
Fw > (2 x Mf) = 544
 
This sort of reveals the loadup on Fw lines.  
 
Anyway, my thought is that 2:1 could be an alternative approach to moving to the 1 Fw rule.  I feel like if we implemented 1 Fw then it might not do much without allowing for 4:1 from Df to Fw (1 Fw maybe up to 17 or so at the high end; at 3:1 current rule that's a Df of 51 max which isn't necessarily a great Df).  In the end I'm not sure that 1 Fw approach would be much of a change and just introduce more rules.
 
We could also go with the approach that the 2:1 rule is only enforced when calculating shots.  I could play a 30 Df, 30 Mf, and 70 Fw line but only treat the Fw line as 60 for the purposes of calculating shots I would get (though use 70 if the oppo Df was 75 or something).   That could get a little confusing but a "relaxed" 2:1 could allow you to violate the rule (as it might be tough to always follow) but NEVER allow you to get shots at higher than the 2:1 ration.  It MIGHT allow your Df to get higher than the 2:1 too like a 70 Df, 30 Mf, 30 Fw...and in that case the Df could only get shots if the opposition Fw area was 60 or less, but if they were 70...the Df would stay at 70...a stalemate.
 
I'd prefer to just enforce the 2:1 rule in the same way we do the 3:1 rule (by not allowing you to violate it in your Orders page).  But I'd be open to considering that since there might be times you need to (based on lineup choices) but you'd do so with the knowledge that the violation would not get you any extra shots.
 
I know you've probably fallen asleep by now...
 
This change would NOT be for the upcoming season, but would be for the one after that (to allow for some advanced notice).
 
Anyway...I've put up a new poll for this.   Please vote and comment.

Readers Comments

ï»I firmly believe that the guys who invented this game understood exactly what they were doing.Changing the rules based on a majority decision of a bunch of us who do not really understand the game as fully as the inventors did does not really make sense.

ï»As we have United and United 2 should we not at the most tweak one game whilst leaving the other as it is in case  the changes reduce the playability/fun levels of the game.

Alon Atie on Sunday, Sep. 16th, 2012 at 8:58 AM
 

i play in a few united league postally with variations and they have lone striker when the defence can play four times the level of the forward, or at least that is what my memory is telling me, but must investigate further, but anything to change things up is good by me, just playing the same old 20 20 60 regime doesnt do it for me, so bring on the changes.


United is hear to evolve and the original inventor Alan Parr has made many changes along the road.

Simon Compton on Sunday, Sep. 16th, 2012 at 12:57 PM
 

I agree with Alon, but not entirely - I would like to see the game evolve where different teams have different tactical options. I'm not sure that is possible, but even so, if we're going to tweak, it should not be here.

John Holden on Sunday, Sep. 16th, 2012 at 1:01 PM
 

You could always max the number of attacks each area can generate...

Andy Bate on Monday, Sep. 17th, 2012 at 3:06 AM
 

I do not like maxing the number of attacks... it penalizes managers who put out great lineups - and then you have the random number generator come along and throw 1 or 2 lucky rolls the other team's way, and bam, that maxed-attack concept becomes a major penalty instead of just a level-setter.

Rob Peterson on Monday, Sep. 17th, 2012 at 11:05 AM
 

Agree with Rob on this, do NOT max attacks.

Dave Dohm on Monday, Sep. 17th, 2012 at 1:42 PM
 

I still think, and I will admit wrongly so, that this should be addressed from the opponent's side.  I think the 1 Sw 2 Df 2 Mf, aka the 5 Fw, lineup should have THEIR defense impacted or their opponent's off target% improved.  A high SL Sw stops an extraordinary amounts of shots and then also benefits from off target % after the Sw calculation.  Opponent's off target should be improved to 25% - this would "reflect" that team's ideology that "defense doesn't matter".  Why should that affect a characteristic of offense you might ask?  Well, I think any footballer could have an off target of nearly 0% if not "bothered" by a defensive player... with less defense around, the off target % lowers.  I also agree with the 4:1 Df:Fw ratio. I also think a team should be allowed to play one Mf!  Yup, I said it.  4:1 ratio for Df:Mf but maintain the 3:1 for Fw:Mf  Lots written here but I think it is only 5 additional checks for [all] my suggestions

Rob Baptiste on Tuesday, Sep. 18th, 2012 at 3:51 AM
 

Rob B. brings up an interesting side topic as an idea...

What if off-target percentage were directly proportional to the # of defenders playing?  Sweeper doesn't count, since they get their own stop % check.  10% per Df would mean a base off-target chance between 20% and 50% depending on the lineup, before adding % for goals scored.  If that's too much variation, or too easy for any team to play for a draw with, you could reduce to 15% base + 5% per Df (25%-40%), or any other variant until the #'s look good.  To heighten the impact, and not also penalize a 2-5-2 OST lineup, you could include MF/2 in those numbers.

The end result of this line of thought is that if a team isn't bothering to play defense because the greatest numerical advantage outside a top Gk (as measured by increase in odds of winning a match per CP spent in team development) is exploitable through the 1:1 scoring chance ratio of the forwards, then the other team should have an easier time getting shots on goal because there aren't as many defenders getting in the way.

Kevin Martin on Friday, Sep. 21st, 2012 at 9:17 PM
 

Interesting thought, but do we have to be careful we don't push it too far so that 4-2-4 becomes the norm, the SW not being needed because the DF and MF players make up for that with an off target percentage increase.

Andy Bate on Saturday, Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 6:51 AM
 

 

We had a three different survey questions and then now one additional website poll on the topic of alternatives to the big Fw line which seems to be the primary tactic teams currently use to earn titles.  The idea was to discuss and vote on options/approaches to provide methods to better counteract the above Big Fw line approach.

The voting on this poll which was something of a summary of the best alternative approaches was:

Make a change - 20 (74%)

Make no change - 7 (26%)

There's a variety of ideas on how to approach this.  I read through all of them and my approach is to try to balance alternate strategies/tactics with simplicity

Based on that, while I initially liked the 2:1 idea I can see where it could be a little restrictive.

We're about to start seasons 4 and 14 for U2 and U1 respectively.

The season 5/15 rule changes will be:

a) A team must have a minimum of 1 Fw (rather than the current minimum of 2)

b) A team's Df area may not exceed 4 times the team's Fw area (rather than the current three times maximum)

c) A team's Fw area may not exceed 3 times the team's Df area (this is the current rule and will not change)

 

Allan Sellers on Saturday, Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 6:02 PM
 

I like that the, well 'a', change is being instituted here.   The change itself is fine too.  However, will anyone use it?  Even with 4+ Df - while it may offer a way to slow down the 5+ Fw line - won't the offense be anemic?  The following is not a realistic array of players but the net result might be realistic: 

A: (14), (14), (14 + 14), (14 + 14), (14+14+14+14 +14)

vs.

B: (13), (13), (13 + 13 +13 +13 +13), (13 +13 + 13), (13*)

(I guess I am assuming Week 1 Cup Match as there is no Home bonus nor fitness yet.)  The number of attacks should be:

A: 5 + 0/2 + *15/3 = 10- attacks going up against a SL 13 Sw [and Gk]

B: 0 + 11/2 + 0/3 = 6 attacks going up against a SL  14 Sw [and Gk]

So a team that is a full point lower in T-11 *DOES* seem to have a fighting chance with the new rule...

IF it were allowing 5:1 for Df:Fw but at 4:1 where do you put your "5th Df"??  T-11 of 14 and 13 are actually rather high for Week 1 but I just wanted the math to be easy.  Maybe this is too extreme of an example?  I do not think so.  I think it will be tough for someone to choose to enter a 1 Fw lineup.  *One can use GPP, HD or Home bonus to meet the requirements.  Maybe that's enough.

Altering team B above by just making 1 Df SL 12 and 1 Fw SL 14 (only need +2 to satisfy 4:1 rule)... team A now has 6 + 0/2 + 12/3 = 10 attacks

 

 

A: (11), (11), (11 + 11), (11+ 11), (11+11+11+11+11) 

vs. 

B: (11), (10), (11 + 11 +10 +10 +10), (11 +10 + 10), (11*)

(I guess I am assuming Week 1 Cup Match as there is no Home bonus nor fitness yet.)  The number of attacks should be:

A: 3, 0/2, 9/3 = 6 attacks going up against a SL 13 Sw [and Gk]

B: 0, 9/2, 0/3 = 5 attacks going up against a SL 14 Sw [and Gk]

#@$%^!  This is what Alon was referring to about "others" messing with the game or interpreting it.  Forgot I typed it unless it makes some sense to you.

Rob Baptiste on Sunday, Sep. 23rd, 2012 at 1:59 AM
 

The other tactic that a coach can try is the 4-5-1 formation, with offside trap.  Provided the FW is big enough, of course.

Andy Bate on Friday, Oct. 12th, 2012 at 5:12 PM
 

Yes, I think we'll start seeing some more varied tactics once this rule change takes effect. 

Rob Peterson on Sunday, Oct. 14th, 2012 at 3:14 PM
 
 
 
Terms and Conditions