Futbolmetrix vs. Mark V. (Miniger matchday 1 match 2)
in [World Football]
|
From: Mark V. on 19 Mar 2010 20:04 On Mar 19, 3:04 pm, milivella <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 7. RAM: Duff, Damien 67 - 67 Barnes, Giles I don't get this. Is it because Barnes has played more matches recently on the right than Duff? Or some very recent strong run of form for Barnes? Oh, well. It looks as though Duff would have needed to have had 35 to 45 more points than Barnes to produce a different overall result
From: milivella on 19 Mar 2010 20:42 Mark V.: > On Mar 19, 3:04 pm, milivella <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 7. RAM: Duff, Damien 67 - 67 Barnes, Giles > > I don't get this. Is it because Barnes has played more matches > recently on the right than Duff? Or some very recent strong run of > form for Barnes? I don't want to go into detail (should I?), but I can say that FM thinks that Duff's best days are gone (i.e. his potential ability is way higher than his current ability) and that, while you have played Barnes in his preferred position, Duff would have given more points played on the left (actually, he would have been the best player on the virtual pitch). -- Cheers milivella
From: Mark V. on 19 Mar 2010 20:54 On Mar 19, 5:42 pm, milivella <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't want to go into detail (should I?), but I can say that FM > thinks that Duff's best days are gone (i.e. his potential ability is > way higher than his current ability) and that, while you have played > Barnes in his preferred position, Duff would have given more points > played on the left (actually, he would have been the best player on > the virtual pitch). That makes sense, though in reality I'm sure there is not a manager in the world who would take Barnes before Duff on the ANY position. It was dumb like on my part, too, placing Barnes there. I read on Wikipedia that he was an "attacking midfielder" and figured I had to slot him in at either CAM or RAM as I'd already had an identified LAM. Good game, F-metrix. I was quite lucky! Onto the next one.
From: futbolmetrix on 20 Mar 2010 01:39 On Mar 19, 6:04 pm, milivella <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Scroll down to check how the result develop... (is this layout OK?) Layout is OK... > Final result: Futbolmetrix 51 - 55 Mark V. But the result is not! Aaaargh! I wikipedia'ed everyone except for Duff, for whom I forgot to check whether he plays on the right or on the left. Still, probably wouldn't have helped me. Those aging South Americans killed me. I wonder what would have happened had I picked Celep instead of Ascencio in my final round. And I expected more from Garner and Tiffert (evidently midfielder with a very low goalscoring rate = mediocre attacking midfielder, not good defensive midfielder). Good game, Mark. I'll get you next time. And thanks milivella for running this. This is a lot of fun. D
From: milivella on 20 Mar 2010 11:17
Mark V.: > On Mar 19, 5:42 pm, milivella <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I don't want to go into detail (should I?), but I can say that FM > > thinks that Duff's best days are gone (i.e. his potential ability is > > way higher than his current ability) and that, while you have played > > Barnes in his preferred position, Duff would have given more points > > played on the left (actually, he would have been the best player on > > the virtual pitch). > > That makes sense, though in reality I'm sure there is not a manager in > the world who would take Barnes before Duff on the ANY position. So it's OK, because they were *tied* by FM... ;) > It > was dumb like on my part, too, placing Barnes there. I read on > Wikipedia that he was an "attacking midfielder" and figured I had to > slot him in at either CAM or RAM as I'd already had an identified LAM. So it seems you were lucky, because he actually is a "right/centre offensive midfielder" :) http://www.footballdatabase.eu/football.joueurs.giles.barnes.18789.en.html (disclaimer: I've checked just this source... but at least it has been an happy coincidence) -- Cheers milivella |