Do we need two goalkeepers?

[magic3]

Illegal formation is only if you don't have a player in a GK position but not if MC plays GK.

[Razz]

It wouldnt be an illegal formation, merely a player not playing in his natural position

Illegal formation is only if you don't have a player in a GK position but not if MC plays GK.

OK. If you say so. Do let us know how that works out for you, k?

[herdo]

OK. If you say so. Do let us know how that works out for you, k?

Let me explain it to you. Lets say i set my team up 4-4-2, this is a legal formation, yes? Now lets say i play a MC in goal, still keeping it a 4-4-2, a legal formation with a player out of position, playing the wrong role or what ever you want to call it. Playing an MC in goal wont do you any favours but you wont incur the 80/20 penalty you would if you played an ACTUAL illegal formation.

I even went to the bother of testing this in a friendly, played a 4-1-2-1-2 (W), with a DMC in goal. I had 50% possession, won 1 nil and the dmc in goal scored a 6.

I aslo consulted this thread, http://forum.topeleven.com/formation...ion-rules.html
I noticed YOU wrote it, you may want to go and change the topic from "definitive" because it clearly isnt, you may also want to amend the line which reads "Goalkeeper (Must be player's natural position i.e. a GK)".

If your going to try and be a smart arse at least know what the **** you are talking about, KKKKKKKKKKKAAAAAYYYYYYY????

Also, i think people shouldnt be allowed to compose "difinitive" guides when they clearly dont know what there talking about

[Razz]

xxx

While that may have changed (how about some screenshots?), the indicators were still there as recently as last week. I have encountered this situation quite literally dozens of times: An otherwise legal formation with 80/20 possession invariably has a player other than a GK playing keeper.

In case it escaped you, that thread was a community effort that I started to try and definitively nail down the rules of what we refer to as an "illegal formation." Since the thread was started, there have been several modifications to what we know. Either we, collectively, had it wrong, or something changed in the game engine.

Please feel free to start, continually test, and maintain your own version of the thread. Since I only have one team and I prefer to actually play the game rather than continuously test, the thread as it is now relies entirely on the community to post evidence of any new developments. You know, something YOU could have done instead of resorting to expletives and personal insults. I fully support and encourage your version of the the thread. When can we expect it? And will you commit to maintaining, testing, and updating it?

[herdo]

While that may have changed (how about some screenshots?), the indicators were still there as recently as last week. I have encountered this situation quite literally dozens of times: An otherwise legal formation with 80/20 possession invariably has a player other than a GK playing keeper.

In case it escaped you, that thread was a community effort that I started to try and definitively nail down the rules of what we refer to as an "illegal formation." Since the thread was started, there have been several modifications to what we know. Either we, collectively, had it wrong, or something changed in the game engine.

Please feel free to start, continually test, and maintain your own version of the thread. Since I only have one team and I prefer to actually play the game rather than continuously test, the thread as it is now relies entirely on the community to post evidence of any new developments. You know, something YOU could have done instead of resorting to expletives and personal insults. I fully support and encourage your version of the the thread. When can we expect it? And will you commit to maintaining, testing, and updating it?

Im not putting up screen shots, im hardly going to make my results up (though looks like you did). Its your name on the post on the definitive bla bla bla thread or did someone else write that n you stole it? I new youd blame a change in the game engine, seems to be par for the course when you really meant to say "i dont know". Ive also only one account and played one game to disprove what you said and prove what i already knew (which was backed up by another forum member). Ive absolutely no intention of making my own thread about illegal formations, the "collective " one is generally fine. "smart arse" personal insult, really lol??

Basically, dont try and scoff at/belittle people on here when infact what you are saying is a load of tripe!

[Razz]

Im not putting up screen shots, im hardly going to make my results up (though looks like you did). Its your name on the post on the definitive bla bla bla thread or did someone else write that n you stole it? I new youd blame a change in the game engine, seems to be par for the course when you really meant to say "i dont know". Ive also only one account and played one game to disprove what you said and prove what i already knew (which was backed up by another forum member). Ive absolutely no intention of making my own thread about illegal formations, the "collective " one is generally fine. "smart arse" personal insult, really lol??

Basically, dont try and scoff at/belittle people on here when infact what you are saying is a load of tripe!

I CAN post screenshots from last week, from a game I watched.

Again, this is a situation I have personally seen dozens of times, and others brpoght up in the illegal formation thread - an otherwise legal formation, with 80/20 possession. Invariably there's a non-GK playing keeper. Does that matter to you? No. Because after all, I'm just "making things up", right?

If a non-GK at keeper is not the reason for the possession penalty in the above case, and the dozens of others like it, then either a) there's some other explanation and the fact that every time it comes up there's a non GK at keeper is sheer coincidence (several dozen times???) or b) there's been a change in the game.

Have a nice day. I hope things get better for you. It must really suck to have to live with your attitude.

[cracicot]

I CAN post screenshots from last week, from a game I watched.

Again, this is a situation I have personally seen dozens of times, and others brpoght up in the illegal formation thread - an otherwise legal formation, with 80/20 possession. Invariably there's a non-GK playing keeper. Does that matter to you? No. Because after all, I'm just "making things up", right?

If a non-GK at keeper is not the reason for the possession penalty in the above case, and the dozens of others like it, then either a) there's some other explanation and the fact that every time it comes up there's a non GK at keeper is sheer coincidence (several dozen times???) or b) there's been a change in the game.

Have a nice day. I hope things get better for you. It must really suck to have to live with your attitude.

I played against 2 teams yesterday that played legal formations but were playing with non-GK in the GK position and I was awarded 80% possession in BOTH games.

I KNOW that when you play a non-GK in the GK position you will have only 20% possession. This is fact.
It goes to say that when you play a player out of position, you will not be penalized with 20% possession. I would assume that you could conceivably play both GKs and as long as one of them is playing the actual GK position, you should have normal possession with the GK playing out gets penalized.

[herdo]

I CAN post screenshots from last week, from a game I watched.

Again, this is a situation I have personally seen dozens of times, and others brpoght up in the illegal formation thread - an otherwise legal formation, with 80/20 possession. Invariably there's a non-GK playing keeper. Does that matter to you? No. Because after all, I'm just "making things up", right?

If a non-GK at keeper is not the reason for the possession penalty in the above case, and the dozens of others like it, then either a) there's some other explanation and the fact that every time it comes up there's a non GK at keeper is sheer coincidence (several dozen times???) or b) there's been a change in the game.

Have a nice day. I hope things get better for you. It must really suck to have to live with your attitude.

Heres my screens, im not arguing about this anymore and how i live or my attitude is no concern of yours. Im just happy ive proved you wrong.....what did you actually prove? a striker cant play in goal and that your a hypocrite about personal insults

[shwanko07]

Let me explain it to you. Lets say i set my team up 4-4-2, this is a legal formation, yes? Now lets say i play a MC in goal, still keeping it a 4-4-2, a legal formation with a player out of position, playing the wrong role or what ever you want to call it. Playing an MC in goal wont do you any favours but you wont incur the 80/20 penalty you would if you played an ACTUAL illegal formation.

I even went to the bother of testing this in a friendly, played a 4-1-2-1-2 (W), with a DMC in goal. I had 50% possession, won 1 nil and the dmc in goal scored a 6.

I aslo consulted this thread, http://forum.topeleven.com/formation...ion-rules.html
I noticed YOU wrote it, you may want to go and change the topic from "definitive" because it clearly isnt, you may also want to amend the line which reads "Goalkeeper (Must be player's natural position i.e. a GK)".

If your going to try and be a smart arse at least know what the **** you are talking about, KKKKKKKKKKKAAAAAYYYYYYY????

Also, i think people shouldnt be allowed to compose "difinitive" guides when they clearly dont know what there talking about

same results in my tests ..

[herdo]

same results in my tests ..

Its been that way for at least three months, cheers for backing it up though