Season 28 Week 1 processing...

Phil@fulham wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Thanks Paul - very interesting week.

One question I did have - and might be a slight bug here - is that Mahrez came off injured and was replaced by Xhaka who ended up playing LW as apposed to DR (which Mahrez was playing) - is there a reason for this at all as seems slightly strange given the tactic I was playing?

Thanks

Ben

Was 5 goals not enough! 

Lol, true although thought it might be affecting a few more people than just me?

Rob@Inter wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Thanks Paul - very interesting week.

One question I did have - and might be a slight bug here - is that Mahrez came off injured and was replaced by Xhaka who ended up playing LW as apposed to DR (which Mahrez was playing) - is there a reason for this at all as seems slightly strange given the tactic I was playing?

Thanks

Ben

I had the same thing with Inter.  Dybala came off injured at TM and was replaced by Lo Celso which makes sense but as a LW. Lo Celso has TM as a position and I play FAS with no wingers.

Same happened at Roma - TM for LW...

Hi Paul,

Can you take a look at the Villa v Plymouth game please.  None of the Villa players seem to tackle and get dispossessed almost as soon as they touch the ball. There seems to be an issue as no player gets a single point for AE for the whole game but loses out every time. Not sure but this seems to have left us unable to tackle or head the ball.

Thanks,

Rob

Charlton made no tackles throughout the whole game either?  Compared to Fulham's 15?

Henderson didn't make one successful pass either I don't think.

Check your AE scores for your team.

Some of my players had AE scores but didn't make a single tackle?  Agression for both sides were 5.

Nantes made tackles but had no AE scores whatsoever??

I'm confused.

Tom@Charlton wrote:

Some of my players had AE scores but didn't make a single tackle?  Agression for both sides were 5.

Nantes made tackles but had no AE scores whatsoever??

I'm confused.

Rob and I have been discussing this - what's your squad effectiveness?

Both 100%

It seems as though we have had an issue with over enthusiastic ballwinners in this week's games.

Ballwinners are supposed to patrol the central area of the pitch with their tackling but it seems like they have also been tackling the target man in the fast tactic which would have adversely affected any teams playing fast this week where the opposition played a ballwinner.

And the situation is made more complex because some of the tackles on the target men are legitimate tackles when the target man comes back into midfield to get the ball from a defender or the goal keeper. But there have certainly been a percentage of ballwinner tackles that shouldn't have happened.

This wasn't an issue in games where ballwinners were told to manmark.

I am now going through each match involving the fast tactic to see if the result was adversely affected by this issue.

I'll list up the affected games here as I find them...

Plymouth vs Villa with Villa adversely affected.
Charlton vs Fulham with Charlton adversely affected.
Dresden vs Bochum with Bochum adversely affected.
Wolves vs Man United with Wolves adversely affected but they still won.

Paul - I think I benefitted with Dresden against Bochum as I had a BW.

I can only find 4 games that were affected by this, but I'll check through again, just to make sure.

Looks like I will have to rerun the three affected games.

Paul Hemmings wrote:

It seems as though we have had an issue with over enthusiastic ballwinners in this week's games.

Ballwinners are supposed to patrol the central area of the pitch with their tackling but it seems like they have also been tackling the target man in the fast tactic which would have adversely affected any teams playing fast this week where the opposition played a ballwinner.

And the situation is made more complex because some of the tackles on the target men are legitimate tackles when the target man comes back into midfield to get the ball from a defender or the goal keeper. But there have certainly been a percentage of ballwinner tackles that shouldn't have happened.

This wasn't an issue in games where ballwinners were told to manmark.

Hi Paul,

I thought I had Delph MM someone (Demble?) in the game and one of the CB's MM Bony here? Or did they not do that in the end?

Thanks

Ben

Okay, the new results are...

Charlton 1 Fulham 2
Plymouth 4 Villa 0
Dresden 2 Bochum 1

I've updated the tables and I'll resend the 6 effected turns now.

Delph wasnt man marking anybody because player 9415 wasnt playing which is what I entered although on reflection you may have meant 9915 which was Dembele. Dembele is a dynamo anyways so Delph would have picked him up even though I didnt specifically convey your order to manmark him.

Sorry Ben but it defo looks like 9415, when i'm entering the man marking I dont have access to player names, but for the future I'll put in a check to make sure this doesnt happen again.

Your CB did manmark Bony.

Sincerest apologies for all that but these things happen sometimes, hopefully not too often though.

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Delph wasnt man marking anybody because player 9415 wasnt playing which is what I entered although on reflection you may have meant 9915 which was Dembele. Dembele is a dynamo anyways so Delph would have picked him up even though I didnt specifically convey your order to manmark him.

Sorry Ben but it defo looks like 9415, when i'm entering the man marking I dont have access to player names, but for the future I'll put in a check to make sure this doesnt happen again.

Your CB did manmark Bony.

Hi Paul,

No worries at all - I certainly need to work on my handwriting thats for sure lol - esp as tried to fit in mm in the box too!

Did you happen to look in to the sponsorship issue at all btw?

Thanks as ever for a great week!

Thanks

Ben

Ben@Plymout wrote:

2: Also wondering if Stadium Sponsorship is paid over the season or immediately as didn't receive any cash this turn for the new sponsorship arrangement negotiated.

Stadium Sponsorship is paid in one lump sum the week it is agreed. You didnt ask for stadium sponsor this week ( you already have one and money was awarded in week 23 ). You did ask for a new shirt sponsor and they did pay you this week.

Replacement emails all sent out.

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymout wrote:

2: Also wondering if Stadium Sponsorship is paid over the season or immediately as didn't receive any cash this turn for the new sponsorship arrangement negotiated.

Stadium Sponsorship is paid in one lump sum the week it is agreed. You didnt ask for stadium sponsor this week ( you already have one and money was awarded in week 23 ). You did ask for a new shirt sponsor and they did pay you this week.

Sorry Paul - meant shirt sponsorship - this is now paid per turn if am correct here then?

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymout wrote:

2: Also wondering if Stadium Sponsorship is paid over the season or immediately as didn't receive any cash this turn for the new sponsorship arrangement negotiated.

Stadium Sponsorship is paid in one lump sum the week it is agreed. You didnt ask for stadium sponsor this week ( you already have one and money was awarded in week 23 ). You did ask for a new shirt sponsor and they did pay you this week.

Sorry Paul - meant shirt sponsorship - this is now paid per turn if am correct here then?

yes always been paid per turn.

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymout wrote:

2: Also wondering if Stadium Sponsorship is paid over the season or immediately as didn't receive any cash this turn for the new sponsorship arrangement negotiated.

Stadium Sponsorship is paid in one lump sum the week it is agreed. You didnt ask for stadium sponsor this week ( you already have one and money was awarded in week 23 ). You did ask for a new shirt sponsor and they did pay you this week.

Sorry Paul - meant shirt sponsorship - this is now paid per turn if am correct here then?

yes always been paid per turn.

Thanks Paul - I thought there were 2 which paid £10m upfront - have been out of the loop so long I think I've got myself all confused!

Think the other issue is the LW subs issue but that might have to wait for another day...

Hi Paul,

Just a quick question with regards to the rerun games, Theo was injured in the original game but not the rerun. Yet still classed at Inj on team sheet. Will he be available for the up coming game or not ?

Phil@fulham wrote:

Hi Paul,

Just a quick question with regards to the rerun games, Theo was injured in the original game but not the rerun. Yet still classed at Inj on team sheet. Will he be available for the up coming game or not ?

Unfortunately the "stats" from the original game have to apply, all the rerun does is change the result, so injured players are still injured.

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymout wrote:

2: Also wondering if Stadium Sponsorship is paid over the season or immediately as didn't receive any cash this turn for the new sponsorship arrangement negotiated.

Stadium Sponsorship is paid in one lump sum the week it is agreed. You didnt ask for stadium sponsor this week ( you already have one and money was awarded in week 23 ). You did ask for a new shirt sponsor and they did pay you this week.

Sorry Paul - meant shirt sponsorship - this is now paid per turn if am correct here then?

yes always been paid per turn.

Thanks Paul - I thought there were 2 which paid £10m upfront - have been out of the loop so long I think I've got myself all confused!

Think the other issue is the LW subs issue but that might have to wait for another day...

I'll sort the injury subs over the weekend, although I was sure I'd done this one already.