Well that was Embarrassing... (Player naming)

[Cardiovascular]

Well, Saudi Arabia are obviously good enough to have beaten most of Asia to qualify, therefore entitling them to be as strong as Bayern Munich. My first point comes back into play.

[SnakeXe]

Well, Saudi Arabia are obviously good enough to have beaten most of Asia to qualify, therefore entitling them to be as strong as Bayern Munich. My first point comes back into play.

Well, a more accurate analogy would be someone like Slavia Prague. Good enough to get to the party, not quite enough to trouble the contenders.

But still, this is the only example of a crazy late comeback by a vastly inferior (in terms of individual talent) team against a decent side that these entire boards have come up with in the year that FM09 has been out.

All it takes is for this to happen once in the next million years of football for it to be proven accurate (going by my rough statistics in my earlier post). Not that long a shot is it?

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Well, Saudi Arabia are obviously good enough to have beaten most of Asia to qualify, therefore entitling them to be as strong as Bayern Munich. My first point comes back into play.

Lol, you seriously think a team is entitled to be as strong as some other team because of qualification? By your thinking then Non league teams who qualify for the thrid round of the FA Cup are as strong as PL teams. You are either good enough or you aren't, you don't become entitled to be good enough lol. What a ridiculous thing to say, cheered me up no end though, thanks.

Any more jokes?

[Cardiovascular]

Lol, you seriously think a team is entitled to be as strong as some other team because of qualification? By your thinking then Non league teams who qualify for the thrid round of the FA Cup are as strong as PL teams. You are either good enough or you aren't, you don't become entitled to be good enough lol. What a ridiculous thing to say, cheered me up no end though, thanks.

Any more jokes?

Are you casually missing the point? Saudi Arabia beat some good teams to qualify. Non league teams beat other non league teams.

How about France 0-1 Senegal? There's one where you can say "didn't see that one coming!"

[SnakeXe]

Are you casually missing the point? Saudi Arabia beat some good teams to qualify. Non league teams beat other non league teams.

How about France 0-1 Senegal? There's one where you can say "didn't see that one coming!"

Already used the France/Senegal evidence, he doesn't buy it

Can anyone think of a lower league side having a comeback victory over a top division team in the last few minutes of the game? Best example I could come up with was the Levski/Royal Antwerp example on the last page

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Are you casually missing the point? Saudi Arabia beat some good teams to qualify. Non league teams beat other non league teams.

How about France 0-1 Senegal? There's one where you can say "didn't see that one coming!"

You said it not me pal! All I have done is quote you, 'Saudi Arabia are therefore entitled to be as good as Bayern Munich' - Possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

You obviously realised this as you have clung on to someone elses point which was made earlier in sheer desperation in your last post, I dont wish to discuss anything further with you if you can't see how utterly ridiculous your post about 'entitlement' is.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Already used the France/Senegal evidence, he doesn't buy it

Can anyone think of a lower league side having a comeback victory over a top division team in the last few minutes of the game? Best example I could come up with was the Levski/Royal Antwerp example on the last page

Lol Snake, at least you are trying, unlike the above chap who is saying teams are entitled to be good.

I don't mind discussing the point with you cos you get it

[SnakeXe]

Lol Snake, at least you are trying, unlike the above chap who is saying teams are entitled to be good.

I don't mind discussing the point with you cos you get it

Has to be one of the more interesting discussions I've had on here

[Taytaz]

Ha fail, 'don't be influenced by the Aussie'

I'll have you know I do understand football, I also hold Irish citizenship, and the fact that you have to personally degrade me to prove a point is a bit sad. Also a field goal is worth 3.

As for Saudi Arabia, and Asia, being crap, is a bit unfair. The Arabic leagues are competitive if not actually that great, and the players are talented. Just because they don't have megastars in Europe does not mean they can't play quality football.

Enland is not the holy Grail of footballing excellence, and at the end of the day, a Saudi team who have most likely been playing together for years (there is little depth in the squad) could beat a team of relative champions who are playing together for the first time.

[Rushers82]

Jesus is this still going on?

[Dekker2]

IRL, if Saudi Arabia left 4 players sitting on the offside line, the England full backs wouldn't decide to bomb forward anyway.

"They've got a four on two, but luckily their four are crap" is not reliable reasoning.

In the game, if they've got farrows, they do this anyway, even if every Saudi attack is a through ball back over their head.

IRL, if there were only two Saudis scampering around in midfield, then England, being 2-0 up, would just knock the ball around for a few minutes on every attack, drawing out the defence, before attempting to strike a killer blow.

In game, if the mentality's high and the time wasting's low, then they will attack like they're against the clock, regardless of the real score.

Judging from the OP's description, Saudi didn't suddenly become all-action superstars in the last 10 minutes. They got a lucky punt over the top (as Holland will testify, England defenders' attention can easily slip)

One was off a throw-in, which is always risky because the marking gets all messed up - since many players are standing in positions that they don't occupy in open play.

One was an unmarked man on the far post - less improbable than say, a postman scoring off a corner, which ahs happened against England in a competitive match.

Play the game again and you might win 5-0 - with 3 easy goals in the last ten as SA over expose themselves. It's only a bug if it happens constantly.

The real difference from real life is that if they were 2-0 down in the last few minutes, SA would still not go on an all-out attack: they'd go into damage limitation mode to save their pride, since they wouldn't really be expecting to get through to the second round anyway.

That's part of the reason why bad teams rarely make comebacks (though I'm surprised no one's mentioned Heresford vs Newcastle 1972)

FM doesn't really factor in "pride." in the ME - if they need goals to go through, teams will attack. THAT's unrealistic.

[Suzie MUFC]

How about this: Saudi Arabia were playing England.

I rest my case.

[Wijnand fens]

last 10-15 minute chance to SUS tac

[Serdar]

I assume you do want realism in the game? Do you think if England lost to Saudi Arabia with 3 mins + injury time to go the press would say 'no big deal' or 'expected'? I really, really doubt it.

Both of these would never happen. Not now or for the next 30 years or so, it simply wouldnt happen.

Clearly what has happened is a bug in the game yet again. Because the user hasn't gone to defensive tactics he has been punished, which if he was playing against Brazil, Argentina or Spain fair enough, but against SA? Ridiculous. Where is the reality in this game? It's not reality it's a bunch of ridiculous freak occurrences so people can say, "hey that could happen in real life you know!, remember 1957 when my local team was playing and a horse ran on the pitch and scored a hat trick and it was allowed..........". A little over the top granted but you get the idea.

This is the most annoying thing ever when you are trying to play a 'realistic' game. The most realistic thing should be the results and the manner in which the results are achieved. Fair enough if SA had clung on to a lead but the odds of them banging in 3 with so little time left? I think the quote above of a million to one are good odds...

I do not agree that it is a bug. This is a very unlikely outcome for sure but not impossible. England were playing with reserves and had not do any tactical adjustment, he mentioned 2 goals come with long passes suggesting that he was still playing with high defensive line. S.Arabia is not a match to England in many ways but they are not bunch of sunday league players. They are trained and disciplined team and with a little motivation and luck they can provide a decent performance.

[DougyMarshall]

I cannot fathom why Leeds Leeds Leeds hasnt been warned by a mod or even banned from the thread yet..

Hes done nothing bar sit and drudge up the same old rubbish since his first post, and when someone actualy gives him a decent explination he just resorts to calling them idiots or insulting whatever nation he thinks they are from.

Booo freaking hooo your precious England team got beat in a game by 3 late goals, the OP himself stated he wasnt playing his strongest XI and didnt change his tactics....

Here ive got an idea... lets make a new FM just for Leeds here....

It basicly just plays out the exact results that happened last season in world football, and then just does it all again season after season after season.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

I cannot fathom why Leeds Leeds Leeds hasnt been warned by a mod or even banned from the thread yet..

Hes done nothing bar sit and drudge up the same old rubbish since his first post, and when someone actualy gives him a decent explination he just resorts to calling them idiots or insulting whatever nation he thinks they are from.

Booo freaking hooo your precious England team got beat in a game by 3 late goals, the OP himself stated he wasnt playing his strongest XI and didnt change his tactics....

Here ive got an idea... lets make a new FM just for Leeds here....

It basicly just plays out the exact results that happened last season in world football, and then just does it all again season after season after season.

Pot, kettle black?

I have been discussing the topic since the start. If people want to come in half way through with their points without reading the entire thread first they don't deserve my respect.

As for your post you have added nothing but utter drivel. Thanks

[abfc]

Pot, kettle black?

I have been discussing the topic since the start. If people want to come in half way through with their points without reading the entire thread first they don't deserve my respect.

As for your post you have added nothing but utter drivel. Thanks

Personaly I think you are keeping this going, not to prove a point but because you are enjoying the debate:D

But I think we can all agree that results arent always set in stone- otherwise bookies would never get rich lol

I think we can also agree that the factors that are given to the ME (from CA, formation, tactics to motivation, stamina and other phsycological factors) can sometimes lead to too many last minute goals, super keepers and 2 legged comebacks.

Apparently the FM10 ME, which is getting beta tested in FML, is even better and plays down alot of these faults, but I will have to wait and see for when it gets released in FML's 1.3 update.

[av3ry]

Bayern Munich must of thought the United comeback was embarrasing in 1999.

Thats about the only time I can remember a team coming back so late in a game.

This must of been embarrasing for Nottm Forest aswell...

[huggormen]

I think its daft that u have to tweek tactics when ur comfortable in the lead and short time to go, like this example, or else you will be punished. doesnt matter who ur facing

[Jops14]

I tyhink if you;re going to moan about this, you have to point out Havant and Waterlooville reaching the 4th round of the FA cup a couple of years ago

THESE SORT OF THINGS HAPPEN, GET OVER IT, ITS A GAME

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

I tyhink if you;re going to moan about this, you have to point out Havant and Waterlooville reaching the 4th round of the FA cup a couple of years ago

THESE SORT OF THINGS HAPPEN, GET OVER IT, ITS A GAME

Thanks for the rant, I love a seeing a good old bucket of crap appear on here every now and then.

Apart from the words you randomly put on the screen I don't see what you are saying, can you explain please?

Why do you have to mention that H & V got to the 4th round? Did they play PL teams all the way and score 3 goals in the last 3 mins + injury time to win each previous match? Or even one previous match?

Oh and no need for any capitals today thanks, I have my glasses on

[SnakeXe]

I think its daft that u have to tweek tactics when ur comfortable in the lead and short time to go, like this example, or else you will be punished. doesnt matter who ur facing

You don't. If you have a balanced tactic you can leave it going for 90 minutes and be fine. This sort of thing usually happens when the opposition start to pick a way through your tactics and the player doesn't adapt them.

For example, they realise a ball over the fullbacks gets their winger in, so they keep doing it. If the opposition manager doesn't drop the fullback deeper or get him to man mark the winger, then they're going to create chance after chance.

As for an example of a team that low down winning, how about this.

And actually, if we're going to think about this empirically, England are 7th in the world rankings, whilst Saudi Arabia are 64th (source)

Going by last season's league tables in England, that's the equivalent of Fulham being beaten by a 3 goal swing in added time by Oldham Athletic (20 Premiership clubs + 24 Championship clubs + 10th club in League One).

Far-fetched still, but not quite Real Madrid v Bognor is it?

[Dekker2]

I think its daft that u have to tweek tactics when ur comfortable in the lead and short time to go, like this example, or else you will be punished. doesnt matter who ur facing

I play 3 at the back with my midfield and attack's mentality on 17, and I don't change my tactics for the last ten minutes.

If your tactic is really vulnerable in the last ten minutes, then it means that your tactic is vulnerable to direct attack, and you're lucky that the AI didn't figure this out earlier - presumably because your rep led them to play defensively.

My tactic fares better against extreme directness than against slow build-up, so I'm generally pretty comfortable in the last ten minutes - the lack of midfielders in a 4-2-4 makes it really easy to keep possession.

As for an example of a team that low down winning, how about this.

I mentioned that one earlier - I don't think this is the kind of debate where he changes his mind if you supply him with examples and constructive argument. I think it's the kind where everyone leaves with the same opinion they came in with, but we all get to have a good bitch and moan.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

I mentioned that one earlier - I don't think this is the kind of debate where he changes his mind if you supply him with examples and constructive argument. I think it's the kind where everyone leaves with the same opinion they came in with, but we all get to have a good bitch and moan.

There have been another two examples of this happening in the last week. I was going to post them on to this thread to kind of back me up that these things are all too often in this game which makes the explanation of, a freak result or a one off - it can happen, a bit weak really. I couldn't be arsed however to post them as I thought this thread was dead but it popped back up again!

Did anyone else see the other examples? One was Vauxhall vs er.......can't remember and I can't remember the other one! You have to be convinced by the accuracy of my argument

My point is, and has always been, these things can happen IRL. But not with the teams which FM chooses do it with and not so frequently as FM does it, all because you dont change tactics to a more defensive formation/mind set.

For this type of thing to happen three times in little over a week is ridiculous IMO. Just shows how 'freak' they are, not at all, they are common place in the crazy game that is FM09. I still don't have an explanation for the 7-6 game I explained either lol.

[18-WATP-73]

Saudia Arabia 1-1 England 1988

Denmark 4-1 England 2005

Northern Ireland 1-0 England 2005

England 1-5 Scotland 1928

England 1-3 Australia 2003

Norway 2-1 England 1981 "a hell of a beating"

England 1-4 Wales 1980

England 3-6 Hungary 1953

England 0-1 USA 1950

[fonz]

Hmm, a wrote about a fairly long post there then the computer decided I wasn't logged in and deleted it. So I'll surmerise, basicly I was reiterating my last post, which reiterated something someone else had said you never really addressed. You said "the number of matches played is irrelevant." Its not. Across the world, over the course of a year, FM probably simulates the England-Andorra match 2-3 million times (guess)-if England played Andorra 2-3 million times, Andorra would probably win one or two at least. Yes?

As for the comeback thing, if a team is still attacking as it did when it established the 2-0 lead, full backs bombing forward, centre midfielders pushed up, it is very possible even the worst oppistion could launch a counter-attack and maybe with the aid of a lapse in concentration (understandable at such a point)/basic error/poor refering decison get a goal. Now if the leading team still doesn't alter their tatics whilst defending a one goal lead in last few minutes of a game, after just conceding a goal to a team who would now be looking for a result, I would say that is unrealistic. If they continue to attack whilst the other team begins to attack more with boosted morale (to use FM terminology) of course they could get another. And another. Watch Match of the Day any week and you'll see teams trying to exploit the same tatical weakness over and over again. Realism is, I'm afraid, changing tatics now and again.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Saudia Arabia 1-1 England 1988

Denmark 4-1 England 2005

Northern Ireland 1-0 England 2005

England 1-5 Scotland 1928

England 1-3 Australia 2003

Norway 2-1 England 1981 "a hell of a beating"

England 1-4 Wales 1980

England 3-6 Hungary 1953

England 0-1 USA 1950

This post is irrelevant, thanks though. None of them compare to this.

[18-WATP-73]

France 1-2 Bulgaria 17 November 1993 last minute goal

A last minute stunner by Emil Kostadinov gave Bulgaria an incredible 2-1 win over an illustrious French team in front of a packed Parc des Princes, in a result that astounded world football and left a nation in mourning.

Gerard Houllier had overseen a squad that included David Ginola, Eric Cantona and Jean-Pierre Papin, and their attempt to reach America appeared to be going smoothly, with the French requiring just one point from their final two fixtures to secure a place at the finals.

However, somehow Houllier’s side contrived to lose 3-2 to Israel in their penultimate game, but even until the last minute of the clash with Bulgaria they appeared to have done just enough.

However, they reckoned without the power of Kostadinov, who unleashed an exocet off Bernard Lama’s crossbar and into the net to leave the stadium breathless and the Bulgarians joyous.

They took the place of the French at the tournament in America, and only a Roberto Baggio-inspired Italy halted their charge to the final itself.

[Dekker2]

I still don't have an explanation for the 7-6 game I explained either lol.

You still don't have any proof for the 7-6 result that you mentioned. Screenshot would be nice.

I read an SI guy elsewhere saying that they toned down the effectiveness of all-out attacks - so it has been viewed as a problem. I still believe that the main issue is one of motivation - all but the most driven of sportsmen would have capitulated at 3-0 down with 10 minutes to go. Their motivations should all be "total loss of confidence" and that's what would scupper them more than anything.

I just don't think people should throw a hissy fit over every strange result - because crazy stuff happens in football, and there are far more FM seasons in existence than there are historical real-life football seasons, many thousands times more. When people are snaffling top-quality Brazilian 18 year-olds for their Coventry side, or scoring off corners, you hear far fewer complaints about FM's eccentricities.

[RBKalle]

The most unlikely thing isn't the result in itself (after all, Italy lost to Egypt just 3 months ago...), but the amazing comeback in the final 10 minutes of the game.

THAT'S the point that would have made me mad... Bad games happen every once in a while, those where your stars don't seem to do a thing right, while mediocre opponents are all over the place.

But honestly, going from 2-0 to 2-3 in a matter of minutes is a bit too much, no matter how many variables you take into account: fatigue, morale, loss of concentration etc.

We've talked a lot about the "scheduled upset result syndrome" in FM, so I think that particular match may be one of those... Me, I would have tried to play that game again, like 10 times, without altering a thing, to see if it was just an odd loss or if there was a better explaination.

P.S. speaking of embarrassing results, top that!

[Ceching You Out]

Here's a summary of the legitimate arguments that have been presented:

(1) England was not playing a full strength side. Were they terrible? No, but the team that earned the title of the world's 7th best team was not on the field.

(2) England had already advanced so the importance of the game was low besides pride. When you're playing a game with a lot to lose and little to gain, mental lapses start to pop up. Especially when you're talking about players who are generally younger and less experienced on the international level.

(3) There was no tactical shift by the human team. Clearly the SA team threw everyone forward with little to lose and likely shifted to a more direct style. In reality, the winning team's players would naturally shift more defensively especially in regards to forward runs and marking depending on their coaches wishes; in FM09, this requires changing your tactics, especially if you're vulnerable to the long ball to begin with.

(4) Freak results happen. Others have added specific examples, some of which are quite substantial in terms of upsets. France vs Senegal, England botching games against weaker opponents, Bolivia 6-1 over Argentina in a meaningful game, etc. Have these happened frequently? No, but they do occur more often than anyone realizes.

(5) Late comebacks happen. Again, others have added specific examples, some of which are quite substantial in the number of goals required. Do these happen frequently? No, but they do occur.

(6) Finally, how many people play FM09 and play on these forums? Let's conservatively estimate 10000. How many seasons do they typically play over a year combined? Let's conservatively estimate 10 each. How many games do they play per season? Let's conservatively estimate 50. You're looking (conservatively) at 5,000,000 games. That's 5 million.

Compare that to reality -- say a top league team (1 of 20) plays 50 games as well over the last century; that's only 100,000 games. Include the top leagues from the highest ranked 20 countries and you're still looking at less than a 2,000,000 games. Could we find an example of the situation described by the OP if we scoured the last century of every game played by every team in the top 20 world-wide leagues? I'd bet 99% we could. So to see it happen once in more than (conservatively) twice as many games is not unheard of. Even twice, three, four times would be statistically insignificant.

(CONCLUSION) When you combine those factors, you can't make any sort of argument that it's unrealistic without disregarding basic logic. One game of such an extreme nature is hardly evidence. The next time you encounter an extremely unlikely game like this, replay it repeatedly and record the results. If it happens even once out of a 100 I will mail you a check.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Here's a summary of the legitimate arguments that have been presented:

(1) England was not playing a full strength side. Were they terrible? No, but the team that earned the title of the world's 7th best team was not on the field.

(2) England had already advanced so the importance of the game was low besides pride. When you're playing a game with a lot to lose and little to gain, mental lapses start to pop up. Especially when you're talking about players who are generally younger and less experienced on the international level.

(3) There was no tactical shift by the human team. Clearly the SA team threw everyone forward with little to lose and likely shifted to a more direct style. In reality, the winning team's players would naturally shift more defensively especially in regards to forward runs and marking depending on their coaches wishes; in FM09, this requires changing your tactics, especially if you're vulnerable to the long ball to begin with.

(4) Freak results happen. Others have added specific examples, some of which are quite substantial in terms of upsets. France vs Senegal, England botching games against weaker opponents, Bolivia 6-1 over Argentina in a meaningful game, etc. Have these happened frequently? No, but they do occur more often than anyone realizes.

(5) Late comebacks happen. Again, others have added specific examples, some of which are quite substantial in the number of goals required. Do these happen frequently? No, but they do occur.

(6) Finally, how many people play FM09 and play on these forums? Let's conservatively estimate 10000. How many seasons do they typically play over a year combined? Let's conservatively estimate 10 each. How many games do they play per season? Let's conservatively estimate 50. You're looking (conservatively) at 5,000,000 games. That's 5 million.

Compare that to reality -- say a top league team (1 of 20) plays 50 games as well over the last century; that's only 100,000 games. Include the top leagues from the highest ranked 20 countries and you're still looking at less than a 2,000,000 games. Could we find an example of the situation described by the OP if we scoured the last century of every game played by every team in the top 20 world-wide leagues? I'd bet 99% we could. So to see it happen once in more than (conservatively) twice as many games is not unheard of. Even twice, three, four times would be statistically insignificant.

(CONCLUSION) When you combine those factors, you can't make any sort of argument that it's unrealistic without disregarding basic logic. One game of such an extreme nature is hardly evidence. The next time you encounter an extremely unlikely game like this, replay it repeatedly and record the results. If it happens even once out of a 100 I will mail you a check.

I love this post....

Lets look at all the facts, from your point of view LMAO. Where was the fact that SA are 2-0 down and are probably demoralised? The fact that England don't care about the game means the would be more relaxed and less prone to errors surely?

I could go on and on countering this post and every argument it suggests, but it is nothing we haven't seen before on this thread and discussed.

If you are going to do a post like this in future at least work on two sides of an argument, don't just put everything that will try to influence us in to thinking your conclusion is correct, thats generally how a summary works, you take good and bad points of the debate, you haven't done this.

I think someone pointed out earlier in this thread that SI are looking at this as the importance of all out attack has too much of an effect on the latter stages of a match. I rest my case.

[charlo116]

(CONCLUSION) When you combine those factors, you can't make any sort of argument that it's unrealistic without disregarding basic logic. One game of such an extreme nature is hardly evidence. The next time you encounter an extremely unlikely game like this, replay it repeatedly and record the results. If it happens even once out of a 100 I will mail you a check.

For how much?

[Ceching You Out]

For how much?

I didn't specify an amount, have to leave myself room to maneuver if through some horrible coincidences I'm proved wrong!

Leedsx3, if you read the first sentence of my post, I use the phrase "legitimate arguments". Your points have all been simple dismissals of the arguments presented with little counter-reasoning. If you wanted me to include what you've said, I'd simply add "Leedsx3 says this isn't true" after each of the numbers.

By your reasoning, the American presidential election three cycles ago was "unrealistic" because in 200 previous years nothing like this had happened. The leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world was decided by a mere 537 votes. That's .0001748% changes the outcome of a highly significant event. Nevermind the fact that it's "unrealistic" that for the only time in history a president won the election while losing the popular vote.

I'm sure you'll come back and try to argue that presidential elections are completely unrelated to football matches, blah blah blah, but the truth is you have no handle on probability. You're suffering from both availability and confirmation bias. Specifically (6) points this out. If you're at all intellectually curious, check out the term "black swan"; I could recommend a few authors who do a decent job at explaining the phenomenon but then again, I'm instead left wondering how you'll dismissively wriggle out of confronting that point directly.

In retrospect I should've known better from your posts than to reason with you, but at times I'm a bit of an optimistic fool when it comes to people's natures.

**EDIT** On a side note to anyone else reading this thread, I would say SI should perhaps modify player's decisions towards the end of the game based on the situation. There's possible knock-on effects from this, but that would be an entirely different debate than whether this result was "unrealistic".

[SnakeXe]

Oh this old chestnut again!

Right, I've come up with a new (well not new, just a new way of presenting it) argument - the one where infinite monkeys mashing on infinite typewriters for an infinite amount of time will eventually produce the entire works of Shakespeare.

If you saw one monkey sat on a typewriter churning out Hamlet you'd say "That's rubbish it must be fake". This is exactly what's happening. It is physically possible in real life for Saudi Arabia to come back from 2-0 down in the last few minutes to beat England 3-2 (just as it is possible for the monkey to type out Hamlet), thus it is possible in FM, thus with enough games (enough monkeys) played it will happen.

And it has.

QED.

[Ceching You Out]

Oh this old chestnut again!

Right, I've come up with a new (well not new, just a new way of presenting it) argument - the one where infinite monkeys mashing on infinite typewriters for an infinite amount of time will eventually produce the entire works of Shakespeare.

If you saw one monkey sat on a typewriter churning out Hamlet you'd say "That's rubbish it must be fake". This is exactly what's happening. It is physically possible in real life for Saudi Arabia to come back from 2-0 down in the last few minutes to beat England 3-2 (just as it is possible for the monkey to type out Hamlet), thus it is possible in FM, thus with enough games (enough monkeys) played it will happen.

And it has.

QED.

FTW!

Summed up what I was rambling about in almost a quarter of the space. Well done!

[earmack]

Given the way the game works getting 3 goals in 5 minutes after being 2 down is normal, this is the most broken part of the game in my mind. Ive conceeded 5 goals in 20 minutes to a team with very poor morale and 1 point in 20 games before, 4-5 end score. In real life thats as close to an impossible result as you'll get - a team with awful morale, been beaten almost every game for 4 months, 4-0 down and they score 5 goals? Like hell that would happen.

[earmack]

Oh this old chestnut again!

Right, I've come up with a new (well not new, just a new way of presenting it) argument - the one where infinite monkeys mashing on infinite typewriters for an infinite amount of time will eventually produce the entire works of Shakespeare.

If you saw one monkey sat on a typewriter churning out Hamlet you'd say "That's rubbish it must be fake". This is exactly what's happening. It is physically possible in real life for Saudi Arabia to come back from 2-0 down in the last few minutes to beat England 3-2 (just as it is possible for the monkey to type out Hamlet), thus it is possible in FM, thus with enough games (enough monkeys) played it will happen.

And it has.

QED.

This is a fairly valid point for real life, however not for FM, SA won because the game calculated it was so after the last tactical change was made. The weighting of the impact of being 2-0 down even for a poorly united team is so far from reality its not even funny. Comebacks from this deficit in real life are very rare (as in most team will do it less than once a season) yet ingame they are frequent between A.I and user and A.I and A.I (egardless of detail level).

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Well said earmack, I totally agree with everything you said. Still I'm sure your posts will be declared invalid because this guy who can quote presidential election material is clearly more intelligent than anyone who can counter his arguments. I won't even bother replying to his post because he has clearly missed the point of my post, poor chap, must have been filling out his application to Eton whilst reading my post lol.

[bean824]

Because it was 2010. They would have to develop at an amazing rate.

Also all the other factors which have already been discussed/debated which it seems you have chosen to ignore and just skimmed to the end of this debate to add your points, factors which I can't be bothered to explain again as judging by your first point your argument is pretty weak.

Been reading this thread and thought it was needed to explain why this isn't as unrealistic as you think.

Any team can beat any team - fact. Calais, a non-league French team - won their league cup one time. I don't know the results, but I can imagine they must've beaten some pretty good teams to do that. I've had plenty of results where teams have come back from behind to beat me, or I've done the same to them. It's not unusual for this to happen - in fact, in this latest version of FM, it's pretty common.

Many people have said this is because SI have made the effects of stamina etc much more proclaimed. When your players get tired, they tend to make more mistakes etc - as they do in real life. Now, I'm not sure if the OP made any substitutions of these tired players or not - but being such an important game, I'm guessing the players would be tired enough as it is anyway. SA would've made some more attacking options possible by subbing their tired strikers. So now, England have tired defenders and SA have fresh strikers. You can see where this is going.

I suppose now you're thinking - well, SA still aren't good enough to score 3 goals in 5/6 mins against such a good team. Well, this is where the term FREAK RESULT comes into play. It IS possible against any team, by any team. Hence the Calais cup win I mentioned above. It may not happen often, but these types of results can take place.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Been reading this thread and thought it was needed to explain why this isn't as unrealistic as you think.

Any team can beat any team - fact. Calais, a non-league French team - won their league cup one time. I don't know the results, but I can imagine they must've beaten some pretty good teams to do that. I've had plenty of results where teams have come back from behind to beat me, or I've done the same to them. It's not unusual for this to happen - in fact, in this latest version of FM, it's pretty common.

Many people have said this is because SI have made the effects of stamina etc much more proclaimed. When your players get tired, they tend to make more mistakes etc - as they do in real life. Now, I'm not sure if the OP made any substitutions of these tired players or not - but being such an important game, I'm guessing the players would be tired enough as it is anyway. SA would've made some more attacking options possible by subbing their tired strikers. So now, England have tired defenders and SA have fresh strikers. You can see where this is going.

I suppose now you're thinking - well, SA still aren't good enough to score 3 goals in 5/6 mins against such a good team. Well, this is where the term FREAK RESULT comes into play. It IS possible against any team, by any team. Hence the Calais cup win I mentioned above. It may not happen often, but these types of results can take place.

All been said before, SA are out of world cup, 2-0 down against one of the best teams in the world. Clearly they are thinking, hang on lads, 5 mins to go here lets push on and get the win....go ahead and say what you like, if SI have said it's a problem, then it is a problem. Simple.

[bean824]

Yeah, but... you're wrong. Them being out of it surely means that they'd just throw caution to the wind and just push forward into attack???

Please think about this logically.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Yeah, but... you're wrong. Them being out of it surely means that they'd just throw caution to the wind and just push forward into attack???

Please think about this logically.

So they would leave it until the 87th minute to throw caution to the wind?

If you're going to use comments such as you're wrong then I won't respond, simple. If you wanna discuss it I will. So calm your emotions please, it's just a game remember.

How do you explain the fact SI have said it is a problem in the game then?

[bean824]

What emotions?!?! I'm trying to help you, why would I get any emotions over it? If I get bored over it, I'll just leave...

Anyway - just because they scored in the 87th minute, doesn't mean they started then. They could've been attacking constantly since the 60th minute, when a fresh striker and a change of tactics to become more offensive took place. As I said, the defenders would've been getting more tired, and were already relaxed due to them already being through - which you yourself said. SA then get 1 or 2 lucky goals and it's game on again.

And the SI quote in question was them saying that these types of results take place too often, not that they take place at all. It doesn't mean that its impossible for them to happen.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

So the fact they take place too often means that this instance shouldn't have happened perhaps? Or doesn't that compute because you want the game to throw in 'freak like' 'realistic' 'one in a million' results like this?

I know it doesn't mean they only started in the 87th, but f they started in the 60th, and as you say the defenders are tired, don't you think the attackers would be tired too? Or are they super human? After all it is the all conquering SA we are talking about here and they are renowned for their last gasp come backs, or are they? Hey but even if they aren't thats the game isn't it again, making SA produce a one in a million result, Wow this game is great!

[bean824]

Tell me why this shouldn't happen. What PHYSICAL attribute is there that stops this result from taking place? All the factors leading up to it make it even more possible. I'm not saying that these factors make it common - hell, they don't - but they do make that little bit more possible of taking place.

And where did I say I want results like these to happen? Of course I don't - I go mental when I lose after being ahead. But then I remember matches such as Liverpool vs AC, Man Utd vs Bayern, the Calais cup victory, and remember that it can happen.

Also, just to make a point, the attackers would be less tired than the defenders, having played 60 mins less football. I'm sure you know this, you see it all the time in football. New striker comes on, gives defenders hell for the last 20 mins of the game. They don't have to be super human for them to be able to use energy that they already have.

[Ceching You Out]

I'll give this one more shot, because I'm a glutton for punishment.

Well said earmack, I totally agree with everything you said. Still I'm sure your posts will be declared invalid because this guy who can quote presidential election material is clearly more intelligent than anyone who can counter his arguments. I won't even bother replying to his post because he has clearly missed the point of my post, poor chap, must have been filling out his application to Eton whilst reading my post lol.

You've made the argument that was impossible for Saudi Arabia to ever score three goals on England in 7 or so minutes, nevermind that England wasn't playing a first rate squad in a match whose outcome didn't matter and the English coach made no tactical alterations as his squad tired at the same time Saudi Arabia threw his whole team forward.

Earmack made the argument that such comebacks happen too often in FM09. Do you really fail to see the difference between those two statements? If so, you're probably beyond reasoning with.

Numerous people have posted clear examples of less likely situations occurring in real life. What do you think the odds of a non-league team winning the French Cup (finishing first over 3+ divisions of more talented teams) compared to this scenario?

So they would leave it until the 87th minute to throw caution to the wind?

If you're going to use comments such as you're wrong then I won't respond, simple. If you wanna discuss it I will. So calm your emotions please, it's just a game remember.

How do you explain the fact SI have said it is a problem in the game then?

Irony. Hypocrisy. That statement has composed your entire argument, followed by comments to the effect that you can't be bothered to explain why.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Had that discussion before, you are now bringing nothing new to this, read the thread for answers.

[bean824]

And I suppose you said that exact same statement to everyone else who brought up the exact same arguments as I did, yeah? So by that, I suppose these people also had the same thoughts as me - so they must be pretty easy to see and work out. So why can't you? Why can't you just see what EVERYONE else in this thread can, and accept that at least some of them are very valid and reasoned thoughts to make???

You're starting to be beyond help here. I'm getting bored of this now.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

You need to calm down cech boy lol, everything you said is just plain rambling! Clear examples? Where? Oh yes I forgot, you hav probably looked at someone stating something then totally ignored what I put afterwards to counter what they said.

Feel free to state where the examples are cech.

Bayern vs Man Utd? Don't make me laugh - 2 teams of equal class, same with Liverpool example. This isn't.

If you have nothing more to bring to this debate than the inane chatterings you come up with I suggest you pack your bags for Eton and leave this thread now.