The name of the pdf that models true random outcomes is the Uniform distribution. If transfer success does not remotely resemble that, them there must be a different more precise pattern. Rating transfer success on a scale of 1 to 10 (ie 10 histogram "bins" ) is IMHO most likely to conform to the Normal distribution.
The obvious thing with the FM games is they're not 100% accurate, for example here's some key players in my FM12 Spurs save Yaya Sanogo Carlos Fierro Mateo Kovacic Souleymane Coulibaly Steven Caulker Jack Butland Kyle Walker Lenny Nangis Joel Valencia Aly Cissokho Giuseppe Prestia Robbie Cotton With the exception of Kovacic and Walker, none of the players came close to fulfilling what FM12 predicted for them
Interesting points but surely there ought to be an objective standard for players that allows for a different mix of skills. Why I can see that it might be hard to judge whether Lukaku is better than say Werner and you might play one against our defence and tye other against Man City's for example, surely a decent coach given either could use their strengths rather than continually pining for the other one.
For me the transfer issue is two fold. 1. We take too many gambles. 2. We do not seem to have a consistent transfer structure. Many of our signings fall into one or both categories. Examples of 1. Bale, Bergwijn and Fernandes were all gambles for different reasons but have not paid off. Going further back Janssen, Sanchez, Aurier, Foyth, Lo Celso, Ndombele and Sessegnon were all gambles that did not pay off. Excluding wages that is around £200m spent on gambles in the past 5 years that have not worked. Examples of 2. Sessegnon, Bale, Bergwijn, Vinicius, Llorente, Jack Clarke, Fernandes, Njie and Rodon were simply ignored or sparingly played....excluding wages that's £65m plus pretty much wasted. We either get in a manager who agrees to work with who ever he is given or we get players the manager wants that fits with what our transfer budget is.
A versatile manager would, yes. They seem to be in very short supply at the moment, though. The current thing seems to be endlessly drilling players into one way of playing and hoping that works or that's it. How many of the top managers in England have a formation and system that they use for virtually every opponent? You can pick the team of most of them as soon as you know who's available. Guardiola rotates, but he sticks with the same system and has at least two good players in every position.
It's not very imaginative is it. So few Venables in the game, so few managers prepared to change and adapt as the players and opposition change. Maybe too much fear in the game as the pressure on managers increases. I suppose teams are far more drilled nowadays and as a result more difficult to beat. Physical conditions no longer play such a part as they used to with sanded pitches and mud. Older posters will remember how cramp was often an issue in Wembley cup finals because players were unused to lush grass pitches.
System above player has long been a thing in Serie A, and I mean as far back as the 70s, meaning it was dominant in European football in the 80s and 90s before the bubble burst in the early 2000s The thing is that it's not necessarily wrong, as it means there's a reliability in the team and it means the floor of the players rarely drops below 6/10, and in terms of players it's a case of replacing or upgrading components rather than having to tear up the tactical plan if a player is injured or leaves The obvious problem is there's a very narrow profile of players for every system, which would require an expensive and time-consuming overhaul to get the players in place, which wasn't an issue for Poch as plenty of the squad had the attributes he wanted anyway so just trimmed what didn't fit and installed players he needed, but was an issue for the ubermensch as we didn't have the players his system required especially at CB or DM yet he persisted anyway
So much is down to the manager, and whether the owner/chairman trusts them to buy their targets. How many failures were there at Utd under Fergie or Woolwich under Wenger? Now at £ity under Pep? Get a top manager and then give him a few seasons to build. None of the above immediately succeeded. Chelsea struggle to a certain extent because they keep changing managers, hence they have more failed transfers. Klopp built his team and only when he was able to buy the two final pegs ( GK plus VDV ) did he fully succeed. It's true for the lower divisions as well. Howe, Wilder, etc.
Just wanted to say something about the game, as I haven't up to now. I was very disappointed obviously, but moreso because I thought that Mason got the subs wrong. Lucas was about the only player they had a problem with, with his direct runs at them. In fact if you want entertainment from your team, they were about the most entertaining things we did. Mind you, also liked Toby's block that directed a shot onto the post. Having said that I cannot fathom why you would replace Lucas. In recent weeks as we've retreated into a shell, it doesn't take a football genius to see that Lucas and Lamela have been among the only players who are actually trying to do something. And "trying to" puts them high up in my estimation, almost regardless of end product (which only Kane has anyway). Lucas was the only player that Citeh had a problem with, hence they two yellow cards they picked up for fouling him. Oh wait a minute, it was one. But the one they didn't get was one of the most obvious yellows I've seen. No I'm not arguing that Laporte would then have been sent off for the second, and hence couldn't have been on the field to score, just that he couldn't have risked the second challenge, and hence Lucas might have got away and who knows what would have happened. Deserve it? No, but I'll take anything I can get. It's another point but been said before, Citeh regularly do this, and it's almost as if it's written in the football rules (just under the bit where you must award a penalty to United) that the first bookable offence that Citeh do in a match is not to be yellow carded. It happens often, but is more subtle than penalties or dodgy offsides so is never discussed. The main point is that Lucas should never have gone off. Not sure if Lamela was available, but he should have been on. I would have taken off Son at half time he was so awful - was it his worst game for Spurs? But Mason didn't have the confidence (or the insight) to do this.
The minority always has to lead. It's always been the case. The majority play follow the leader. We always have valued PowerSpurs and vimhawk on this site because they are never afraid to plough their own course and never fail to produce interesting debates and get people thinking. It helps to make the Spurs site one of the more interesting sites on not606.
I tend to agree with Ryan's assessment of the yellow card situation. It is disingenuous to argue that he 'shouldn't have been on the pitch'. The most that would have happened is that he wouldn't have made the second foul if he was already on a yellow, Lucas would have broken clear and the move probably wouldn't have led to a goal anyway. The bigger issue is how refs set a very clear 'tone' for a game in the opening stages, making it clear through their conduct where the boundaries are. I think it was PNP who mentioned quite correctly that a ref who allows Laporte's first challenge to go unpunished basically grants carte blanche to City's other defensive players to 'tackle' in the same manner with impunity. As long as they don't do it twice, you'll find that a team will get away with 6 or 7 really bad fouls before any action is taken. Whichever way you look at it, that impacts the game in a massive way as those fouls are likely to be spread across a period of at least half an hour - possibly the entire first half - and effectively kill any attacking momentum the team on the receiving end is trying to build. I know we weren't building much momentum as it was but my point is a general one and goes some way to explaining why certain teams who are already more talented than most opposition are able to make games look like a training match. Thanks to the ref, the first 40mins basically is and if they can grab a goal or two in that time, it's basically game over. This started with Clattenburg permitting first degree murder at Stamford Bridge and has continued much in the same vein ever since.
I hate it. It comes from the officials being told to "manage the event" and leads to complete inconsistency and a massive advantage to certain teams. Tierney's **** at the best of times and it's no surprise that we haven't won a game with him in charge since 2018. We've won one league game with him as the ref and we had to score 6 to do it.
think he was signed because we needed some central midfielders (we bought bakayoko who was injured) and we sold matic and i believe we were lacking numbers. HG might have been a factor but it was dumb as he was old, overpriced, a plodder, INJURED and i'd rather not have that HG player and be down 1 squad member (who needs such a large squad anyway). dumbest signing ever
Son has been really poor for a while. Might be because he is weighing up his future for the first time since joining. Might be because he has been run into the ground this season. But i am inclined to argue based on previous years' evidence that sadly he hasn't quite broken the mould of being a purple patch player. Brilliant for a dozen games then invisible for half a dozen. Until he breaks that ceiling and achieved the same robotic relentlessness as Kane, he'll never be truly world class. We are lucky in that the purple patches are getting longer and better, but they remain patches.
Carragher was brutal in his assessment of Aurier. Just watching SSN and he said "He's one of the biggest liabilities in football. He's a player that would put you off of football management". Ouch!
Do not watch this if you're someone that likes Aurier or Winks...Brutal yet honest assessment. He's probably being a bit lenient on Mason (which is understandable to be fair) as I don't particularly agree with how Mason set us up (nor his subs) but he makes some valid points that there was seemingly a plan but the players didn't carry it out well enough.
