Hi,

I would like to reply first post. Firstly, bad luck, dude, sorry for that match.

Secondly, even in reality matches are not always determined by players skills. I mean, obviously, it is expectable that ManU wins Swansea, or Juventus to Mantova. But I remember a Celta of Vigo 4 – Real Madrid 0 in the 90s, 4 or 5 shots from Celta, plenty of opportunities of Madrid. Champion of league in Spain already was Madrid, Celta was near to release. This things happen

Thirdly, hopefully, not only numbers must determine a match result, a little randomness is expected, I think. It would be a bit boring if not

Sorry, I continue.

But I agree on the thing that a minimum reality in formation should implemented. I mean, never 2 low mids would triumph over a courtain of quality midfielders. It should be required (I have always though) a minimum of 3 deffenders and 3 midfielders, and 1 GK. Attackers are not always needed. Scotland is playing sometimes with a 4-6-0 formation

Hi there,

In regards to your first post, I would say it’s a bit irrelevant. :)

-Given the performance on the pitch, the game wasn’t bad luck. True, the score was a bit out of place, but, speaking just from the stats point of view, Sh. United deserved to win. In the same way, a draw or even e C. City win would have been quite acceptable. Indeed, If I had outscored Sheffield 20-5 shots, and had lost 0-5, I would have said it was bad luck. The thing is, they made more shots than me, which I can’t see how.

-But of course, the ball is round, anything can happen, you should have seen Liverpool losing to Stoke this weekend: UNBELIEVABLE…but my post was not about this

-Again, sure thing, randomness is perfectly acceptable, even more so in a game :)

In regards to your second post:
Now you are talking :) My main point about the whole post is the tactical ineptitude of the situation. My main argument was indeed that such tactic used by Sheffield should have not been as successful against my midfield (Cardiff’s midfield is easily one of the top 5 in the game).

Why the tactic shouldn’t have worked
1. As you pointed out, 2 low mids vs a curtain of quality midfielders would fail any given day
2. Those 2 midfielders (Sheffield’s) were not even real midfielders. Those two players were the very key of the tactic, meaning, they should have been exceptional players to make the whole thing work. However, their skill base was completely nonexistent to the requirements of their positions, with the exception of the tackle skill of one of them.
3. One of those midfielders never entered the game basically, which makes the whole tactic and its outcome even more ridiculous. This kid had the 3d lowest tackle skill out the 20 outfielders on the pitch, he was no more than an academy players, skills wise. lol

Which basically brings us to some very dissapointing conclusions:
- the correlation between individual skill and tactical efficiency is extremely low.
- For some reason, the engine privileges one variable over the others…tackle (this is very important for strikers, many of whose chances are created by tackling the defenders of the opposing team, rather than from passing from open play).
- In the same way, passing ability is the skill with the least impact. A 75 passer can be as efficient as 95 passer!
- and much, but not worth discussing here.

Anyway, we all adapt…and sometimes..we make a call for a bit change ;-)

cheers
D

Hehe, ok :)

Yeah, L’pool defeat was unveliable, especially for that 5-consequtive-shot occasion.

That’s curious the tackle dependence of attacking, and that’s not really cool. Football is a team play, where anyone needs to his other 10 mates. Well, maybe 3-4 players do not need, as for example Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Aguero and 2 or 3 chosen more.

Anyway, Ruby Soccer is a great island in a plain sea of good football games, with a couple of island in the world. So, long life to Ruby Soccer, but the importance of passing and team block performance should be improved.

true, this is a lovely game, no matter what. :)