Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

JD nawrat

Members+
  • Content Count

    41,316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

1 Follower

About JD nawrat

  • Rank
    International Star Player

About Me

  • About Me
    Scotland

Interests

  • Interests
    Gaming, Music, TV & Film

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Manchester City

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Hansa Rostock

Recent Profile Visitors

7,048 profile views
  1. Someone said they are using a 41212 narrow diamond and not seeing a lot of shots into the side netting, my presumption is their FBs aren't on an attack duty. I use a 41212 narrow diamond and my two FBs (both WB/A) slam at least 2-3 shots each into the side netting. It was so bad that on my beta save after my top scorers with 8 apiece (both STs), my 2 next top scorers were my fullbacks - RB with 6, LB with 4. They were also my top assisters, particularly the LB with about 8.
  2. @roykela hiya pal, I know you asked me to provide some stuff for this thread and I haven't done so yet. I've been busy with work the last couple days so will do my best to contribute in the coming days. I'm not working on Sunday so hopefully by then I'll be able to share some info/PKMs
  3. To counter this point, I dislike that when negotiating with players they often demand to be more involved in future years. I signed someone who was happy to be a squad player in his first season, in the 2nd wanted to be first team, and 3rd wanted to be a key player. I guess that can be a real life situation but I wasn't able to negotiate and have him as a squad player for 2 years then first team etc. I guess when I get further into the save I'll find out if he is unhappy with still being treated as a squad player. It's only a minor thing and might not even be that important but it still seemed a bit strange.
  4. You're correct, in that it is more difficult. And I have misread your response, so I apologise for stating it is nonsense. My bad. I agree with what you are saying. And I now see that you also agree that through balls aren't attempted enough (successful or otherwise).
  5. Are you using the name fix from FMScout? I've done so for years and that particular name fix does not include nicknames and never has.
  6. The second part is true, tbf. But the first part is nonsense. It might be a harder pass to pull off technically but it doesn't mean players don't try it, which is exactly what we see in the current ME. I'm not advocating through balls creating great chances every single time this position arises. I just want to see my players attempting the killer pass. Right now they have a heavy, heavy tendency to spray the ball wide, almost never opting to even attempt the through ball.
  7. You're doing nothing wrong. Known issue with the match engine right now.
  8. Well right now the striker is completely irrelevant to the situation
  9. Well it wouldn't be an attribute that is a combination of other attributes...it would be a new attribute giving a specific value to a player in a 1v1 situation. And yes it does feel completely random, hence my suggestion. If it can be coded that a player with 20 1v1s is 95% likely to score a 1v1 whereas a player with 5 is only 10% likely, then it would presumably lead to an increase in 1v1 goals scored.
  10. No. Finishing is a player's ability to shoot/score. 1v1s take a lot of different attributes into account - or they should at least - such as finishing, anticipation, dribbling, composure, technique. I am suggesting an attribute specifically stating how good a player is when 1v1 against a goalkeeper. As someone on the past page said - when Kane is 1v1 you feel he is going to score, but with Lukaku not so much. The difference in their actual finishing attribute is negligible.
  11. SI should introduce a new attribute specifically for 1v1s.
  12. Ditto. I generally ignore his advice but good to see what he thinks in terms of poor form/good training/injuries and I do sometimes use his suggestions (or part of them at least).
  13. Surely the penalties issue is an ME issue though? Which may well have a knock on effect to something else, given the delicate nature of coding.
  14. Now that you've mentioned it, you're actually bang on with this. In the 5 games I've played, I've won 4 and drawn 1. For context I am Werder Bremen. 2-0 at Nordhausen (Pokal) - 7.28 avg rating*. Only players above a 7.0 were my RB who assisted, ST who scored and assisted, CM who scored. My CB got a 7.1. 2-0 vs. Dusseldorf - 6.96 avg rating. Only players above a 6.9 were my ST who scored a brace and my LB who got assist (7.3). 1-1 at Hoffenhein - 6.70 avg rating. Only players to get above a 6.7 were my LB who got an assist (7.2) and CM off the bench who scored a worldie for an 8.2 and MOTM. 2-0 vs. Augsburg - 7.16 avg rating. 5 players above 7.0, 2 of which scored, two got a 7.2 and one got a 7.6. 1-0 at Union Berlin - 6.98 avg rating. 3 players got above a 6.9 - CB who assisted (7.1), LB (7.6) and CM who scored the only goal (7.9). *- post-release hotfix, but not the hotfix released a few hours back. Maybe I'm way off here but on the beta save I had, I had 3 of the top 5 players in the Bundesliga, notably my FBs who were averaging 7.5+ and my ST who was just below 7.5. Right now the top performers in the Bundesliga are the players getting all of the goals and assists - if you don't contribute to a goal you get a bad rating. Which doesn't seem right to me. I mean I have 4 clean sheets in 5 games and my GK is averaging a 6.85, my CBs a 6.92 (only because he assisted!) and a 6.85
  15. Hmmm, anyone finding CMs to be getting poor ratings with the latest hotfix? I am using a 41212 that I used on the beta. My two starting CMs averaged 7.11 and 7.08 in 20 games, but now after 5 games they are averaging 6.45 and 6.50. My back-up CM is averaging 7.65 but only because he has 2 long range wonder goals off the bench - he has been getting poor ratings prior to his goals. Maybe just my tactic but like i say, using this exact same system was yielding reasonable ratings, whereas they are now just outright poor.
×
×
  • Create New...