Rate My Team thread

He's already said his strategy is to invest heavily in defence .

I invest in defence because overall the players there offer the best value imo, while the forwards offer the worst. A quick glance at the stats so far this season supports this idea. That said, Graham does look like a good choice, so I might twiddle things to accommodate him. Demel looks like a good sub too - is he likely to be regular starter, and to get 90+ by the end of the season? I'd probably keep Ivanovic though. I'd swap Rangel and downgrade Schwarzer instead I think.

carlcon wrote: »

Defenders give the best value when you look at those who scored in the last 2 weeks. That's not a fair use of stats at all. Those defenders who have scored thus far won't score likewise over a season. You're taking the best outliers over 2 weeks and predicting they'll keep form. They won't.

If you can manage to swap and change your defenders each week, regularly predicting which ones will score goals and get assists, that's the only way you'll get more value from defenders. But if you can do that, I'd focus on the bookies instead.

But seriously, they key is to find cheapish defenders who rotate home/away well and pick up clean sheets. You're much more likely to find a cheap striker or midfielder who scores or assists 4 or 5 times in 5 games than a defender who gets a clean sheet in 4 of those 5 games. You can get a maximum of one clean sheet per game - there's no limit on goals/assists.

I dont really want to be having this conversation, because I've already had it a few pages back on this very thread
Of course it's fair use of the stats - I said it supported the theory so far this season and it does.
The two seasons I played this game before, the end of season stats showed the same thing.
Whether or not you agree with the strategy, it's not a crazy approach. It's my opinion and how I choose to play the game. I've used it before, and been happy with the results. Not saying anyone else has to agree with me or do likewise.

qwabercd wrote: »

I think what he's trying to say is, two gameweeks is not a sufficient sample size to back up any stats. And it's not.

I understood what he was trying to say thanks. It's still fair use of the stats though. Unfair use of the stats would be to use them to misrepresent things. I didn't try to misrepresent anything.

It's correct that a two week sample isn't snough to prove anything one way or another, but I never said it was. Just that so far things support my opinion this season.

carlcon wrote: »

Nobody is trying to take away your opinion. "Investing so much in defenders is not worth it" is not just an opinion though, since we have seasons and seasons of evidence to prove it.

Of course it's an opinion. I'm not presenting anything as fact. I'm not even claiming any special expertise at the game, or great knowledge of soccer. I'm saying I choose to play this way, and I was happy with the results of playing this way before. Even if my opinion was 100% wrong, it is still an opinion. Get over it :P

As regards seasons and seasons of evidence, I played the game for two seasons, and the stats indicated my approach was a good idea at the end of both. Someone else already said that last season (when I didn't play) this wasn't the case at all. Fair enough. I still choose this strategy.

You've made a team with three 7m defenders, two 6.5m, and a 5m. That's 39m. 39% of your budget on 33% of your team, which is the lowest scoring part of any team. Throw in the keepers and you've got 10.5m more invested in the lowest scoring half of your team. Or to be more precise, 49.5% of your budget spent on the lowest scoring 46.5% of your team. Even though these players tend to come cheaper than the rest.

Yes the lowest scoring, but also the cheapest. My opinion is that they are the best value. Apart from needing a couple of candidates for captaincy, value is more important than sheer scoring in this game. Anybody could get massive scores if it was just a case of identifying the highest scoring players. It's not - it's about getting the highest score from limited funds.

To do that, you've thrown away a striker spot and made a MF with only 3 reliable players.

Klacinic is a designated sub in my setup - but one who might get a lot of game time since Dempsey has gone AWOL. Duff is definitely a gamble alright. However he's scoring well right now, and I'm gambling that is going to continue for a bit. He's more central to their attack when Dempsey is gone. I also whimsically fancy him to find a period of great form, like he did when a team mate disappeared before, back in Saipan in 2002. [I'm sensing annoyance that I have an opinion you disagree with, but is it ok for me to indulge whimsy? ]

Any half-competent player will beat you if they invest 10-13m less in defence by looking at some very nice defenders from Newcastle, Stoke, Swansea, etc, and have a 3rd striker and 4th midfielder.

I dont think they will. I won all my leagues before, apart from the boards one, and the national/overall ones. I was around the 95th percentile overall - I stated the exact score and position earlier in this thread if you feel a need to know it exactly. I was happy with that.

I know you think it's "just an opinion", but the truth is that some opinions are wrong, and the expensive defence route is the wrong route to take if it means losing a competent striker and midfielder.

Wrong opinions are still opinions. You've overstated that you think mine is wrong already lol. I dont mind you thinking mine is wrong. You shouldn't mind that I think I'm right. If I was presenting this as fact or something, I'd understand your reaction a bit better. But whatever, I put my team up on a thread inviting opinions on it - I can't be too irritated just because you choose to focus on aspects of it I didn't want to discuss.

If you're stuck in your ways and don't want to change things, that's 100% OK. Different ideas are a good thing to have on a discussion forum.

cool beans I'm not 100% set in my ways, but I think it will take direct experience to change (or cement) them.

But the "it's fair use of stats" line doesn't cut it. 38 weeks of stats last season are not blown away by 2 weeks this season. And even if we were going by this last 2 weeks, we'd see midfield is actually where most points have come from so far, not defence - both in totals and value. So why not 5 expensive MF's instead? Five 9m MF's will still be cheaper than your back 7. (I'm not saying anyone should do that, by the way, just showing how silly it is to think this way).

It is fair use of stats. I didn't play the game last season. I played it two other seasons [again the particular ones are specified in a previous post if you really want to know]. They both showed my approach was a good idea as I recall. I'm happy to take you and others at your words that last season was different. I dont think you're silly or crazy to base your strategies around that.

Investing in midfield is a good idea too. I think the best options aren't that expensive though (Michu, Hazard - maybe Kagawa...maybe even Duff though I acknowledge that is whimsy ) I still think defence is a bit better in the long run for bang for your buck.

I suppose 'silly' is an improvement on 'crazy'. I already know you think it's a bad strategy - you dont need to keep saying it's silly or crazy lol.

Anyway I think I've nothing more to add to talking about the defence-oriented strategy. Let's agree to differ

Shane732 wrote: »

What's your team name? Out of interest I'd like to see how you fair.

'I dont watch soccer'

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Swap Bale for Carzola
Keep yaya
Swap McClean for Michu

But wait and see howbale gets on this weekend first