What a way to start season

[FC-Helsinki]

Here we go again. I do NOT need any bs about tactics as I cannot be asked to listen the lame excuse for the troll game.

Lähetetty minun SNE-LX1 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

[SuperDunk]

................................
Maybe NORDEUS seen you have your 9* player and programmed the game like this: No, mate, you re not winning this round.
Just curious, what is your and his ratings?

[Max]

Here we go again. I do NOT need any bs about tactics as I cannot be asked to listen the lame excuse for the troll game.

Lähetetty minun SNE-LX1 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

That shot efficiency, had a similar experience in the CL Round Of 16 in Late October, I drew 3-3, he had about 13-23 in that game, a 3-3 draw was the score.

He had 75% shot efficiency and I had a reasonably high 60% but it irritated me although we went through and won our back to back CL’s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FC-Helsinki]

That shot efficiency, had a similar experience in the CL Round Of 16 in Late October, I drew 3-3, he had about 13-23 in that game, a 3-3 draw was the score.

He had 75% shot efficiency and I had a reasonably high 60% but it irritated me although we went through and won our back to back CL’s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I ve noticed that when ever Nordeus trolls you. The opponent Who should NOT be making it in any way or form has a very high **** efficiency

Lähetetty minun SNE-LX1 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

[FC-Helsinki]

*shot lol

Lähetetty minun SNE-LX1 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

[theclubofwins]

Here we go again. I do NOT need any bs about tactics as I cannot be asked to listen the lame excuse for the troll game.

Lähetetty minun SNE-LX1 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

is it a stronger team

[Max]

is it a stronger team

Just curios how do you know? Are you on his friends list?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeavensAAA]

Here we go again. I do NOT need any bs about tactics as I cannot be asked to listen the lame excuse for the troll game.

Lähetetty minun SNE-LX1 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Just want to have a more objective look on this.

Stats means absolutely nothing at all if there are no formations and player quality available to show that how the 2 sides are lined up. These 2 setups determine the majority of games. Having better players bound to have better ratings, and that would not reflect proportionately on how the actual game panned out.

And to concede 4 goals in a competitive match is something unimaginable (and something I never experienced in close to 250 competitive matches) if you have the right man to close the space down at the right place. The high shot efficiency of opponents’ occasionally is the indication of a troll result, but you must have got some of the setup very, very wrong to let your opposition shooting 20 times if your side is supposedly the favourites with ‘only’ 25 shots. Tough luck if he shoots 10 times, 6 on target and 4 goals, but what we could do is minimise the shots against us to overcome the troll.

1 obvious flaw is that you played with short or mixed passing, as indicated by the very high 89% passing success rate (apologies if you did play long and still achieved 89%). Your team was not taking enough risk for more chances, while your opponent did a at least play mixed or long ball to create and score. In these high-scoring games, it’s all about creating and taking as many chances as possible if GKs were taking naps, so always long passing for more chances.

For you to also score 4 as well probably means both sides are set up to be ultra-attacking as there are a total of 45 shots. If I were right about the setup of these teams (prove me wrong there if you have the images, though I doubt it), then you were practically playing fire with ‘Russian roulettes’ by trying to outscore your opponent without any proper defending.

If you were losing by some 3 or 4 goals then have a comeback, then you indeed did very, very well; if not, then in-game you should have switched to playing defensive, counter and long ball. The chance is you would concede less and win by taking chances via counter.

My stat. Matches played: 249; Scored: 1369; Conceded: 75. The scored stat is icing on the cake with some high 7 or 8* attackers, but goals conceded shows how good a team is set up to ensure a tight game could be fought when we are having a very bad dice.

[Max]

Just want to have a more objective look on this.

Stats means absolutely nothing at all if there are no formations and player quality available to show that how the 2 sides are lined up. These 2 setups determine the majority of games. Having better players bound to have better ratings, and that would not reflect proportionately on how the actual game panned out.

And to concede 4 goals in a competitive match is something unimaginable (and something I never experienced in close to 250 competitive matches) if you have the right man to close the space down at the right place. The high shot efficiency of opponents’ occasionally is the indication of a troll result, but you must have got some of the setup very, very wrong to let your opposition shooting 20 times if your side is supposedly the favourites with ‘only’ 25 shots. Tough luck if he shoots 10 times, 6 on target and 4 goals, but what we could do is minimise the shots against us to overcome the troll.

1 obvious flaw is that you played with short or mixed passing, as indicated by the very high 89% passing success rate (apologies if you did play long and still achieved 89%). Your team was not taking enough risk for more chances, while your opponent did a at least play mixed or long ball to create and score. In these high-scoring games, it’s all about creating and taking as many chances as possible if GKs were taking naps, so always long passing for more chances.

For you to also score 4 as well probably means both sides are set up to be ultra-attacking as there are a total of 45 shots. If I were right about the setup of these teams (prove me wrong there if you have the images, though I doubt it), then you were practically playing fire with ‘Russian roulettes’ by trying to outscore your opponent without any proper defending.

If you were losing by some 3 or 4 goals then have a comeback, then you indeed did very, very well; if not, then in-game you should have switched to playing defensive, counter and long ball. The chance is you would concede less and win by taking chances via counter.

My stat. Matches played: 249; Scored: 1369; Conceded: 75. The scored stat is icing on the cake with some high 7 or 8* attackers, but goals conceded shows how good a team is set up to ensure a tight game could be fought when we are having a very bad dice.

You have 240 wins and lost 2, and yes I conceded an average of 0.53 goals per game in over 900 matches, I played in stints as it said in my signature, well, all the info is in my signature, also,I played hard defending and scored around 3.4 goals average per game in that amount of game time, Hard defending suited my team well. And it was the first thing I used when I stated my first team in early 2017.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeavensAAA]

You have 240 wins and lost 2, and yes I conceded an average of 0.53 goals per game in over 900 matches, I played in stints as it said in my signature, well, all the info is in my signature, also,I played hard defending and scored around 3.4 goals average per game in that amount of game time, Hard defending suited my team well. And it was the first thing I used when I stated my first team in early 2017.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@Max Yes, each different team has its basic strengths and it is up to us managers to take the most advantage of it. When we have a few very good defenders, plus 1 top ST or AML(R), then just do hard defending and counter. The chance is we will concede only a few and score 2 or 3 to win most games. You had a very good record of typically about 10-1-1, and that means you were fighting for all trophies until the last stage at least and are bound to win a trophy or 2 with that very low losing ratio.

Until now I concede about 0.33 goal per match in 249, and scores about 6.5 goals per game, and there is always a balancing act that we have to take on about 60th minute if we keep attacking aggressively with hard attacking and high pressing for a few more goals at the risk of conceding 1. Some of those few goals were conceded because I simply want my attackers to get their 10.0 ratings for motm improvements, instead of a defender who still should have got motm until my side somehow concedes a goal just because the team is on ultra-attacking mode with all wing-backs up arrows too.

What I want to say is a team should be set up to limit the number of shots the other side could have, and utilise our attackers to focus their attacks on opponents’ weakness. Then games like 4-4 would not have happened (well, maybe 1 in 500 to 1000 games), and if it does happen, our bench players are there to turn up to take the chances to turn the game around. And if all fails, then that would have been a troll result of 1 out of 40-50.