Quote Originally Posted by khris View Post
No no, and it is not the same, 50 than 50. Because one 50% attending, allow you to see the scenario. Same time attending, as you mention, give you a 8% + 5% home... but, in the practic sense, these options are not the same in practice, but in the theory, yes. xD

The 50-50 exact that I mean, is the posibility of a good/bad scenario. What I mean in the counters case is that the game always will give options with what one have, it doesnt matter the allocation of players -unless penalizations for OP - is 50-50 counting the effect of the internal programming really... fixed counters giving advantage would be "ovbious". As advantadge when one attend, would be obvious, thats what I say that in the "theory" the base is the same. Not in the practice.
Yes. I know what you are saying. The mathematical probability is 50/50. So in theory 2 identical teams would see an equal share of wins over a given number of matches if neither or both managers attend and no other support is present. Roll the dice enough times and an average will emerge.
It's all the internal programming and calculations that happen behind the scenes during a match that screws with some managers heads. "I had plus 15% possession, I was 20% stronger, I won the 1st leg 3-0 and lost the 2nd 1-5 etc, etc.
Perhaps the question that needs to be asked by these managers is "how many would I have lost by if I hadn't been present?" Or "if I hadn't made this change, or that change to tactics, player positions during the match?"
When your time comes to lose a game, it's time to lose. Watch, don't watch. Make changes, don't. Cry "troll", or just get on with it.
There is and always will be too much happening that we don't know about.
But one thing is for sure. The odds of me making a comeback from a 1-4 home defeat in the Champions League today are not 50/50. Lol.