RBKalle

Members
  • Content count

    5,871
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RBKalle

  • Rank
    Youth Team

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Rosenborg BK - Odds BK
  1. I assume it's applicable on newgens only for legal reasons... Real life players only have positive or generic labels, like "Fairly professional" or "Balanced", even though IRL they're complete nut cases or would sell their mother for a bigger paycheck..
  2. Well, the odd goal from a miskicked cross CAN happen, but in FM16 these are way too common and come from a much deeper position than Gerrard's... Unless it's very windy or the keeper has fallen asleep, no cross should hit the back of the net from 25 yards out.
  3. It's all about what kind of career you're playing. If you start with low reputation and are set for a long rise to the top, having as many lower tiers as possible is a better short-term choice, because you get more chances to get hired, even as a complete unknown. Also a full league pyramid is useful to find new cheap signings for your team. On the other hand, loading many Top Divisions (depending on your PC specs and on how much you're willing to sacrifice the game's speed) will give you a more balanced gameworld once you're close to the top of the ladder. Ideally, you'd start with a LLM setup and alter it in favour of the Top Leagues as you go. Not sure about how well the Add/Remove Leagues works in FM16, but despite some bugs I remember reading about, it should do its job.
  4. The format with the absurdity of "best 3rd placed" teams didn't help promote attacking football, but Portugal's lucky win should at least promote a debate about how to avoid that the eventual Champions have won only ONE match in regulation time in 7 attempts... And it wasn't only Portugal, with a PATHETIC 1-6-0 record, but in general the knockout stage had way too many "stalemate" games that required extratime and/or penalties. There probably isn't a "solution" to such games, but the current format is almost asking for negative football. If it wasn't calamitous for the event itself, a draw (especially 0-0 ones) should count as a "double DQ", with no team advancing...
  5. 8 for the many underdog stories that also provided respectable football. 4 for the level of football provided by some alleged Top Sides All in all, I rate it 4 anyway, as all those feel-good stories and those valliant displays by weaker sides couldn't have happened had the best teams performed at least adequately... Rubbish football almost all across the table, with a very fitting final.
  6. I have to partly retract my pre-tournament statement about Conte. He did have a plan for a very mediocre side: of course it couldn't be a plan based on attractive attacking football, but it was the best he could do with what he had. My opinion on most players doesn't change though, and it'll be a real taks for Ventura from now on, as the next generation doesn't look much more promising than the current bunch of barely-adequate filler.
  7. I have never seen such a poor series of penalties... Still, the slightly less undeserving side went through, albeit it was really a poor game, probably courtesy of Italy's uber-defensive style... Not that Germany did a lot more, further proof than boring possession-oriented football is useless against a well-organized defense, and it's a "fad" that won't die down soon enough! P.S. the downside of such a close game is that Italy will now rely on the "penalties are a lottery, we can be very proud of ourselves" excuse, failing to address the huge flaws in the squad, both technical and mental
  8. Not at all! As a semi-neutral, plenty of matches have provided, if not great football, at least decent excitement of "stories". Sure, a certain amount of dross had to be expected in a 24-teams tournament, but the surprising part is most of that came from relatively strong sides. In comparison, I found Copa America much more boring and predictable, with some truly atrocious games in the (shorter) group stage and a fair amount of uninteresting matches even in the knockout stage. Speaking of WC/Euros, it doesn't get worse than Italia 90... and Euro2004 wasn't that great either, but Greece winning it at least made it for a good underdog tale.
  9. Well, instead of the traditional 8x Winner v Runner-up, we got: 4x Winner v 3rd placed 2x Winner v runner-up 2x Runner-up v Runner-up That's, by definition, a rather unbalanced tree... and in fact, even under "ideal" circumstances, two nations would have had an easier route to the semis, by facing only 3rd placed and runner-ups... I maintain there ARE balance issues, but it's of course easier to judge now that we've seen some "big" sides crash and burn, while designated whipping boys have proven many people wrong. If anything, strong teams being weaker than expected and weak teams ending up stronger has levelled the playing field, meaning the gap between most runner-ups and 3rd placed wasn't was noticeable. But in a less "surprising" tournament, the format would have provided for a lot of one-sided games and a lopsided tree in favour of Winners of group A and D.
  10. No matter how you spin it, the 24-teams format will always produce unbalanced playoff trees due to the presence of the best 3rd placed teams. Top Dogs underperforming and not winning their group was just a marginal factor, but the main issue remains. That doesn't mean I'm against "teams that shouldn't be there" and actually I think those sides have been a bit of a saving grace, considering some of the traditionally stronger teams have sucked badly... And underdog stories are always more compelling to tell than the boring Top Side v Almost Top Side formula. While there's no denying every team that qualified deserved to be in France, albeit some collapsed in a very disappointing way, 24 is simply an odd number and it should be revised in the future... Frankly, if UEFA don't want to revert back to 16, just go off the deep end and go for 32! Crap for crap, at least the Round of 16 will make sense again and we won't have "lucky losers" around for the knockout stage.
  11. I couldn't disagree more... U21 football is almost pointless because it currently features: a) overage players who are more than ready to play with the senior team (and who likely already have considerable first-team playing time for their club) b) mediocre players who stand little or no chance to ever make it for the actual NT but who are in the U21 setup because they're the less awful option for the team and same goes for most Top nations, while smaller nations have it even tougher, as the few hot prospects are promoted directly to the senior NT. The problem with England isn't they hotshot every decent talent into the NT, but that said players are, often, either vastly overrated or don't have enough maturity to handle the extra pressure of being portrayed as the Next Big Thing in English football. And anyway in the current squad, the biggest disappointment came from players who should have been ready to lead the team... Actually, the lack of leadership is what has held England back for all those years... alongside an disporportioned belief in a squad that often featured many good players who bought into their own hype and believed they'd win only by showing up. Whoever will take the job over, his top priority should be rebuilding the squad's confidence without turning it into cockiness. Basically what Conte did with Italy. There's the root of all your problems! England were NEVER as good as they thought they were... That's more or less a myth from back when England basically refused to compete with the rest of the world on the (false) pretense that having invented modern football, they were the best at it by default and by divine right. It can't be a coincidence England's only triumph came at home and under questionable circumstances, while the list of failures is a mile long... Then the success of the EPL has reinforced that weird sense of superiority, despite the league having become what it is thanks to foreign players and managers (and owners). England's whole football world MUST move on and accept that illustrious (and mostly fictitious) past is long gone and start from scratch, like other countries did.
  12. Does it really matter who takes over? England have changed many managers and none was able to shake off the perennial underachiever vibe the NT has developed. It's not just a tactical problem, it's a general mental frailty that has become endemic. I thought it could have been "gone" along with the failed Golden Generation, but it's still there, even worse if possible, as the current squad looked even softer and almost resigned to the inevitable early exit.
  13. I just don't understand what's SO wrong with England... Every major tournament, they show up with solid ambitions and with decent players (forget the insane media hype), then they collapse against much weaker opposition... It can't just be the managers' fault... They've tried pretty much every kind of solution and the final outcome has never changed...
  14. I have to admit I probably have underestimated Conte's management skills... Italy have a rather mediocre side in midfield and attack, but they've been instructed to play in the only logical and productive way, even outplaying both Belgium and Spain, two much stronger sides on paper. Kudos to Conte and to the players... As an extra bonus, maybe tiki-taka's time is up and direct football is ready to make a comeback?
  15. With some exceptions, group stage has provided decent games, while the Round of 16 has been disappointing so far... Third-placed teams advancing though has created an unbalanced playoff tree and has given the chance to advance to sides that could/should have been either eliminated or has provided a second (even third) chance to disappointing sides that knew they could advance by phoning it in or despite playing awful football. Unfortunately, there isn't much they can do as long as it's a 24 teams format, which are too many anyway. Back to the old 16 would be fine... but it's not going to happen.