Jump to content

enigmatic

Members+
  • Posts

    10,923
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by enigmatic

  1. Have to admit that whilst I can see Concentration playing a significant role in regular shot stopping (and handling/punching), I'm struggling to imagine a situation in which a penalty is taken and a goalkeeper isn't entirely focused on saving it! Would have thought it was more simply Anticipation (choice of dive) and Reflexes (speed of dive) with maybe a bit of Agility (how far does he get across the goal) thrown in. Tbh considering how much of a specialist skill penalty saving is there probably ought to be an attribute or at least a PPM associated with it. Acceleration playing a role in saving as well as sweeping is a new one to me too...
  2. Yeah, this is the sort of level of detail that's missing. It's been suggested in the past that knowing too much will lead to exploity behaviour but I think the opposite is true. People have no idea why their playmaker isn't picking the passes they want, but all they can find out is that if they download a formation created by Knap with a "set piece bug" and use a hacky trick to sign 5* players they can stop worrying about attributes and start winning. Knowing what the attributes do in more detail and giving instructions or trading players accordingly is playing the game properly. IRL a coach doesn't have to worry about whether a player's long shots ability affects their free kick shots in a small or large way, they just see who executes them better in training (and take a lot longer to notice who has mental difficulties with them in match situations) Other than that, I'd settle for info not being contradictory (SI saying on here that "jumping reach" refers purely to keepers' ability to win headers and not used at all in actual goalkeeping calculations, and yet it being CA-weighted for keepers and an in game tip [once?] suggesting it was important for them)
  3. In theory they are. In practice, they're calibrated towards expecting attacking players to have goals or assists or to score >6.8 in a close game even if they link the play superbly all game, and penalising them harshly for not completing crosses or winning headers even if that's all down to a 6'5 centre back (and have lots of weirder quirks than that!)
  4. tbh if you're getting results, don't worry quite so much about meaningless match ratings. Soucek/Rice isn't a midfield especially inclined to take risks just to get the ball a bit further up the pitch, and if you want Zaniolo on the ball more you've got the option of encouraging him to roam more to come and get it and/or giving him a playmaker role
  5. Depends what you mean by "no hoper" as most players start off looking rubbish, most players seriously underestimate how good a 3* player actually is, and there's a pretty big margin for error in what staff think. The Youth Challenge thread is a good place to look at what players who have no choice but to develop unremarkable youngsters can do
  6. Of all the sides the AI could break transfer records with.... Hertha Berlin?!?!
  7. I believe SI have confirmed that height can give players a marginal advantage where headers can be won without maximum jump height I'm curious as to whether natural body height plays any role for goalkeepers (logically it should do for one-on-ones with the ball blasted from close range at head height, and theoretically it could for saves where reflexes/agility/anticipation both allow the player to dive to the same point, but the 6'8 keeper ought to get there earlier than the 5'10 one)
  8. The definition of being taught a lesson in attacking football is getting spanked, not Italy shooting from all angles until they earn an equaliser and then playing it safe (but ironically the two chances they did have in the last 53 minutes were the best open play chances all game, because more gaps at the back). They scored the same number of goals as us. And no, our shots weren't all in extra time, and Italy didn't look vulnerable once we added Grealish and a winger Mourinho might get trashed all the time, but he's also won a **** ton of trophies, despite penalty shootout record that's nearly as bad as ours. Pretty sure Gareth wouldn't mind a Mourinho comparison...
  9. What? I've said you were great in the opening rounds, I've said your tactics against Spain were perfectly justified before and after you won when even some of your own fans were less happy, I've said you did enough to deserve an equaliser our defence made your forwards work hard for, I filled my team of the tournament with Italian players, I just think it's total bollocks to act like Italy (and frankly any other nation) would never stoop to defending without the ball or pretend that only England had any luck. Frankly, I think it's far more insulting to the Italian team to insinuate the only reason they equalised and England didn't carve them open was Gareth. You won a tournament by getting the big moments right. Well done. If we won the shootout all the people lining up to suggest Mancini and your forwards were clueless and cowardly bottlers would also be wrong.
  10. You're... not making any more sense. I said "England didn't lose because..." to rebut this forum's weird fondness for reframing the match (and tournament) as England losing by being taught a lesson in attacking football rather than the actual shootout finale to a team that hasn't conceded a second goal to anyone else in the last five years either, not because I'm obsessed by not losing or have any connection at all with what the England team think. Enjoy the 19th hole, sounds like you've been there a while
  11. No, what's embarrassing is your insistence that two managers who took their teams from total failure to tournament finals are both too cowardly to succeed... (Interesting choice of manager for the graphic by the way. Not the man I'd be picking to make the "sitting on a lead never works" argument ) lol, you mean you went to all that effort to link bad grammar, pop psychology and a bunch of England players that have never met me and it was just a troll? And I thought I had too much time on my hands
  12. I mean, I'm not framing it as WIN it because we didn't win, and saying "we didn't not win it" is just terrible grammar. There's not much insight you can get into my psyche from that, never mind England players'. Same applies in reverse. Italy didn't win it by scoring more goals or having more shots across the tournament or by the semantics of winning/losing, they won it by missing one fewer penalty. Two games in a row actually, including the occasion they had considerably less possession and shots than their opponent. They deservedly got the applause for their stylish wins in the group stages, but they won the tournament by avoiding defeat and playing the percentages against strong teams, not by extra goals scored in early games or missing more shots from distance. It's pointless to pretend that there is something uniquely wrong with England's approach because it was the one the tournament winners used their last game. Which is a completely normal route to winning a tournament, and one which very nearly worked out for England instead of Italy.
  13. Greenwood should be a lot more ready by then and I can't see Trent being left out unless his form's horrible, especially not given Gareth still likes wingbacks for big games. Joe Gomez and Ezri Konsa might have moved a long way ahead of Mings too. 18 months is a long time in football though. Walker could lose a yard of his pace, Alli could look like a proper footballer again, Mount could be stuck on the bench at Chelsea and Stones could have slipped behind Laporte in the City pecking order, Barnes/Maddison could be lighting up the Premier League, and someone like Toney could come from nowhere
  14. And yet when it came to games and moments that were tight as opposed to bombarding weak teams it took a long time to score against in the group stages he did exactly the same as Gareth. I mean, he sat on 1-1 with a possession advantage against an a nervy England, anybody that thinks he (or most managers) wouldn't have relied on their strong defence more than attack if they'd scored in the second minute of a final against a good side is crackers And who gives a **** about the group stages? I mean, yes Italy were vibrant there unlike their other tournament wins, but surely we're not going back to "it's no accomplishment because we had a bad game against Scotland"? We didn't lose by scoring fewer goals than Italy, we lost because we missed one more penalty.
  15. Think Mount was a lot more effective than he was given credit for, but had a poor game in the final. But I don't think even Baptista would bring on Grealish to defend a lead
  16. Italy vs Spain and England vs Italy. Spot the difference.... Italy weren't actually defending a lead for very long either. Either sitting back and giving up a lot of mostly non-threatening shots is perfectly sensible against a packed midfield (my view) in which case surely it's fine for Gareth to do the same, or Mancini isn't a good manager, he's a very lucky boy
  17. If your youth setup is anything like it was in FM17, a couple of sales to big European clubs should sort the finances out
  18. Mancini who produced 7 shots in 120 minutes in a semi final won on pens is "in a league of his own" and Gareth who produces 6 is too passive? Fine margins...
  19. It's a stupid petition, but then we also have a petition to change the name of London to Sterlingrad
  20. tbh teams of the tournament usually drag forwards all over the pitch to create space for lots of them: sticking someone in his natural position is relatively sensible If you want something genuinely weird, here's Whoscored's algorithm's attempt to pick the best players in the final. Maybe Southgate didn't pick enough fullbacks (and where is Chiesa?) Their team of the tournament is a bit less illogical, but Meunier is a weird call
×
×
  • Create New...