Asunto: Season 69

Apart from lack of time and the above....the other thing I had been waiting for is my own youths because of the change in training, the fact my last good youth was Freedman and he is 23 now has really made it difficult to change things up. In the past I had Miller (correct striker) that I could not change and brought back once the change in training system was implemented. So no good youths in 5/6 seasons has really hurt me, and the ability to change things around. Thats another big part of why I kept training older players already here. I also trained older English trainees here to help the NT, I will continue to train the 24 yr old defender I have to aid England.

That not 'how it works'. That's how you see it working. Again, you're just speculating.

Again, how am I speculating...? That's literally how it works, that's the cycle of most successful teams. Make money, buy young players, train them till 27, play for results, sell with huge loss, start over. Where's the speculation part?

Of course many don't take part in this cycle. Some don't make money on training, always have roughly the same marks, with their transfer budget coming mostly from tickets & sponsors income. Always similar team strength and similar league level. For me it's pointless to play that way and never improve, but if some people like to play like that then great...

Somehow you agree that the game is losing its magic by having so many pointless games.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with it. I might not like the cycle thing and would prefer it to work in another way, but we're talking about what actually happens, not what we would like.

And if we're talking about imagination... yeah you could break that cycle, for example by making training disconnected from playing time, by improving incomes at top levels, end of season prizes etc. Would that be good though, if people would be able to get most money and still train youngsters at highest level, while having the best players? That could lead to the top being out of reach for anyone else and we'd end up with what we have in real football - a small % of teams being the best and always staying the best.

With current system, flawed as it is, at least you can't be at the top forever and you needs some time to reset and start over, so other teams get their chance to compete.

The way around this awful situation [lesser teams beating higher ranked teams because of bull averages that mean nothing because of form! ] is have lower averages, i bet if i had 65 averages I'd of won my last game.

But if you had rating lower by ~8 points you don't know if you'd actually be the better team on the pitch, performance-wise. You had 20:6 in shots because you fielded a much better team, with a worse team the whole performance would be worse... so more chances for opponent, less for you.

You'd have to play that way to win in Poland as there are that many more teams but it's certainly possible in England to long term sustain a team at the top level in England. Less likely to win international trophies though. Inevitably all top sides will have a bad season and relegate in the end though but possible to stay up with multiple generations of players.

Well yeah, Wdp won 10 in a row I think so he has proven that to be the case, it always depends on the level of opponents / league strength.

Definitely doable at this level, as Wdp has shown. Without maximising the potential (and playing for 81-85) but with regular 77+ and I guess that's where the details come into play. If there were others playing for 80+ then Wdp's approach probably wouldn't suffice and he'd have to adapt and try to maximise on short term more in order to get trophies. But since there was nobody bigger or as big as him, he was able to do it slow and steady.

He got his timing bang on with training and purchases especially with changes to the game. Piotr could quite easily overtake him though as a huge quantity of money in the bank.

I mean, I managed 13 years in the top division consecutively first time around.

But the averages don't mean anything because of form, the reason i did not win is because i really got 68 averages but form dosn;t change a players score! like it should!
then i would of won because the game realizes i'm not so good, ha ha ridiculous game
Musk 13 shots in that 0-0 was a draw record amount of shots he's had in the Premiership as well, some of them were superb, he was in at least Magical form as well, just one of those days.... again......again.......again.
You must understand how this result totally does me up, big trouble now
(editado)

Thamesmead has won 12 premierships and 12 cups in a row

I like reading that lol

But the averages don't mean anything because of form, the reason i did not win is because i really got 68 averages but form dosn;t change a players score! like it should!

yes, it does change... I will show you on 2 example of players I had in Germany last season and their form changed

Olivier Reitermaier - had mostly [14]-[18] form last season during World Cup, now dropped to form [9]
ratings before: 80-88
ratings now: 72-81

Orlando Haller - had mostly form [4]-[8] last season so I didn't use him, now improved to form [17]
ratings before: 70-80
ratings now: 84-89

Form impacts the ratings a lot.
(editado)

The number of (outfield) players with ratings over 80 is insane. I only checked the Group A of the World Cup and there's about 10 of them. Like I said, it's like having hundreds of Messi in real football. This isn't normal.
Needless to say that most of them are 30+ years old.

I really hope that your 'logic' is true. But I am ready to bet it isn't. We will still see 30+ years old averaging 80+ ratings.
(editado)

Why would 80 be a "Messi level" when there are players (outfield, not GK) who are able to play for 90+?

You can just assume that rating 80 is an equivalent to high level players from top clubs / strong NT level player, like Palmer, or Rice.

90+ is world breaking, like peak Messi, Ronaldo etc.

Ok. 90 it is. So Poland have a few Messi, right? And then other countries have at least a Messi. So it's not hundreds, it's tens.
Still normal?

By the way, Palmer or Rice would be at 70, if you ask me.

If you want a literal Messie, then tere was only one, from Lietuva - 5x superdivine [18], best player ever, nobody like him in the history of game, nowadays nobody is even close to him (barely any 5x 17 in the game, literally single digits). So by Messi/Ronaldo standards - that was Miasojedovas, one of a kind in 20 years of this game.

90+ can be the absolute top of generation. It's just scaling/attributing virtual average rating to real-life level, so I don't see what the fuss is about to be honest.

And I wouldn't say Poland has "a couple of those" at all, last game nobody got close to 90+. Against Nederland two players got 90+, but only because they were subbed (being subbed increases the rating a lot), if they played whole game - nobody would get 90 as well.