Session 10 orders deadline in 25 hours and 17 minutes
MSWL UNITEDMSWL U2 TMBL MSWL The Manager
Friday, May 25th, 2018 - 04:42:21 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

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
 
Poll - Should we add a Team Captain?
Posted by Allan Sellers on Sunday, Sep. 16th, 2012 at 12:29 PM

The concept is as follows:

1) Each team could select a captain.

2) The captain must be a Df, Mf, or Fw

3) The captain must be age III or higher

4) The captain provides 3 additional levels for each match they play in.

5) A team can only choose a captain once a season.  So if your captain gets injured and can't play, you lose the chance to get the effectiveness of your captain.

Please vote and discuss.  

Readers Comments

I like this idea, everyone has the same bonus so every team has the same ability to add those 3 extra levels.

Mike Parnaby on Sunday, Sep. 16th, 2012 at 3:26 PM
 

ï»Dont mind this one again as it wont throw game out of balance.

ï»Not really seeing how it changes game much-everyone essentially gets a +3 to 1 player.

ï»Probably say go for it so that those who like change have something happening.

Alon Atie on Monday, Sep. 17th, 2012 at 2:40 AM
 

Like this, since it will add to the choices you have to make as to which players play in which game whenever you have a three (or four) game session.

Andy Bate on Monday, Sep. 17th, 2012 at 3:12 AM
 

I've always thought teams should have captains !

Dave Dowson on Monday, Sep. 17th, 2012 at 8:57 AM
 

ï»I'm with Dave i love captains

Graham Wilkes on Monday, Sep. 17th, 2012 at 10:59 AM
 

I quite like the idea of the bonus being the captains age rather than a set 3. ie the bonus represents their experience.  Of course if you play the captain every game it costs more to keep his fitness up.

Mark Stretch on Monday, Sep. 17th, 2012 at 12:44 PM
 

I am for the idea but do believe that goalkeepers can be captains as well.

Abe Hamdali on Tuesday, Sep. 18th, 2012 at 12:01 AM
 

Al...What's the logic behind not allowing GK's to be the team captain?

Brian Beerman on Tuesday, Sep. 18th, 2012 at 1:04 AM
 

I like Stretch's idea about the Age being the bonus! This could/should allow for ANY player being selected. I think Gk's should be included.  If you pick your age I SL 15... you'd only get a +1; won't tip the scales that much.  If you choose an Age IV (typically SL 11 ~ 13), then you get the +4.  Maintain the Gk/Sw +5 limit and you have no problem there.

Rob Baptiste on Tuesday, Sep. 18th, 2012 at 3:32 AM
 

I'm not a fan of the Gk as captain as it seems like teams are already able to get very high Levels in the Gk area when you add the +5 they could go even higher.    There will be III/17 Gks next season.

Currently these Gk's are often SL 17 + FIT 2 for 19 in the game.

Add 5 and now they are at level 24.   That's a 94% chance of blocking a shot on goal.

Add 3 more and now they are at level 27.  That's over a 100% chance of blocking a shot on goal.

And frankly I've begin to become less of a fan of adding 5 to the Gk/Sw area (maybe 3 should be the max).   But that's another discussion for another time.  

Allan Sellers on Tuesday, Sep. 18th, 2012 at 4:38 PM
 

Definitely against GKs as captain, not just for the reason Al said, but also because they can play three games without losing fitness, so they'd be out there every game, rather than a manager having to choose when to play their captain.  (And Al, I like the max idea, but I'd have a max level for SW and GK to even the playing field a little.)

Andy Bate on Wednesday, Sep. 19th, 2012 at 3:51 AM
 

I'm always a fan of my own idea (although technically this is Mark's idea)... I think it'd be boring/automatic that each team will just assign the captain title to his best player, most likely an Age I SL 15 (session 6+) or Age II SL 16 (session 4+) to add the +3 SL [per match].  If you institute Mark's idea, it should spur a little more creativity and/or strategy.  If it is out of the realm of possibility to even code such an idea then just skip to the bottom.  I do not have a good solution for Gk usage under this model.  It is rare to use a Gk past Age III so perhaps it doesn't matter [if they get to play in 3 matches] or maybe it can be assessed similarly as the GPP.

 IF there is going to be a hard-coded value of 3, just hard-code the Gk value at 2. 

Rob Baptiste on Thursday, Sep. 20th, 2012 at 3:29 AM
 

I'm against GKs or Sws being captain because they have a much harder time controlling the pace of play throughout a match and communicating effectively with the offense during the flow of play.  I'd prefer if the Captain gave a +1 to each area total (Df, Mf, Fw) or +2 to their area and +1 to the other two, instead of +3 to their area.  That seems more in the spirit of a team-wide impact that Captains are supposed to be able to bring about instead of just being more superman-like because someone pinned a C to their shirt for a season.

Kevin Martin on Friday, Sep. 21st, 2012 at 9:42 PM
 

 

For the Team Captain concept, well it morphed a little bit (as it always does) based on the initial concept and poll.

The poll results are overwhelmingly in favor of the concept.

Andy Bate and then Mark Stretch added the idea of basing the bonus on experience.   Rob Baptiste further said "why not expand it down to Age I as well".   

I've decided to implement this rule immediately for the upcoming season (rather than wait one season).

The new rule is:

1) Each team may select one captain at the beginning of a season

2) The player must be age level I or higher

3) The player must be a Df, Mf, or Fw

4) A captain's total level in a match will be:

   SL + FIT + Age

5) If the captain has been chosen and he becomes injured or is traded/sold a new captain may not be selected for the current season.  

Again this rule will be effective for the season we are about to start.  Once the coding is done for you to select a captain (in 1-2 weeks) you will be notified.

Allan Sellers on Saturday, Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 6:24 PM
 

The reason for not including Age I players was that they often played three (or even four) matches a session, since they were so cheap to coach for a fitness gain.  I'd have preferred them not to be eligible, but guess we'll see whether they get used most often.

Andy Bate on Friday, Oct. 12th, 2012 at 5:07 PM
 

The reason for not including Age I players was that they often played three (or even four) matches a session, since they were so cheap to coach for a fitness gain.  I'd have preferred them not to be eligible, but guess we'll see whether they get used most often.

Andy Bate on Friday, Oct. 12th, 2012 at 5:08 PM
 

Ah, that's what happens when I click the back button.  LOL

Anyway, I'll add another thought on Age I captains - they are easier to get back to fitness if they are captain and get injured.  An older captain would give a coach more pause for thought about whether to coach for fit for those lost levels.

And the original idea was Age III or older, which seemed much more sensible to me.

Andy Bate on Friday, Oct. 12th, 2012 at 5:10 PM
 

But Andy, the appeal of having an Age III player as captain over an Age I is the guaranteed +2. Both players are susceptible to injuries at the same rate. Once level on SL, it costs the same in CP to get them to SL 15. Yes, it costs 4 more CP to get the Age III player to Fit +2, and then an extra 2 CP for each level of Fit lost compared to the Age I player, but overall, your Age III superstar is going to be in more matches than your Age I superstar-to-be. You want that consistency in your lineup.

However, you do make a good point with the Age I being able to play 3 matches and only costing 1 CP to keep at the same Fit level. 

I wonder what the distribution looks like amongst teams... How many Age I, II, III players... how many FWs?

Rob Peterson on Sunday, Oct. 14th, 2012 at 3:10 PM
 

I think I went for Age II players myself.  Cheaper to coach for fit, but give two extra levels.  Still think Age III plus was a better proposal.

Andy Bate on Monday, Oct. 15th, 2012 at 2:28 PM
 

I went with the Age II as well. Typically the same SL as an Age III, but costs less to maintain the Fit.

Rob Peterson on Tuesday, Oct. 16th, 2012 at 5:14 PM
 
 
 
Terms and Conditions