MSWLUnited LeaguesThe ManagerTMBL
Match Due GMT    
BlogTablesStatsCoachesJournalsLogin Features
 The Trade Window is currently open...
NMR program
All Topics
Steve (Asteria) - Sunday 06-25-06 4:24
These comments apply to SESL as well as MSWL. It would apply to PSFA and Flatnz as well but they are out of date :-P

I know that Mark Creasey will disagree with me here, but I wonder if players should play "n" rather than "p" when the manager NMRs. This isn't for the benefit of the NMRing team but for other teams in promotion or relegation battles.

The names of the teams aren't important but here but in SESL we had the following situation with two games to go.
Team A 51
Team B 49
Team C 42
Team D 41
Team E 40

Team A was in 4th spot, the last automatic promotion place, with 5th and 6th playoff spots. With two games to go A had to play C and D, and B had to play E and next to bottom. C and D had to play relatively easy games and E had to play a team that couldn't come anywhere but 3rd. So you would expect tough games all round between these teams. They were all similar enough in strength that no result was anything like certain.

Unfortunately (for Team B) Team C NMRd which handed an easy 3 points to Team A who held on to 4th place. If I'd been manager of Team C I would have played T11 all aggressive (they were at home with a homer ref) and Team B might have had a chance.

In the end Teams A and B won both games, D lost both, E drew with the 3rd placed team and C won it's other game to hold on to 6th place.

I realise that if an NMR program put "n" in for Team D and they got two wins then they would be in 6th place, and that one reason Team B wasn't already promoted was that they NMRd earlier in the season (against decent clubs though). But I think it's more frustrating for a manager to lose out because another team won against an NMR team than if they didn't beat an NMR team themselves.

Phil (Missouri) - Sunday 10-08-06 21:47
Now, if we only had a program in place to force non-NMR teams to play a decent line! :-)
Mark (Scotland) - Wednesday 12-27-06 9:00
I know that Steve Turner will disagree with me here, but I agree with PARTS of his post above!

I agree it's more frustrating for a manager to lose out because another team won against an NMR team, than if they didn't beat an NMR team themselves.
However, SCO won a game vs NMR team in the last MSWL session, and the victory meant almost nothing to me, even though I went top of the division for 1st time ever.

Essentially there has to be a big disadvantage to go NMR, and passive tends to deal with this a bit. The NMR team also loses a CP and TP slot. I'd still rather the NMR's teams were set to play Stall for 90 mins so a draw is best they could get, and avoid a blowout too so they do not get weaker.

The solution is to minimise NMR's in the first place. After 2 NMR's in a row I'd offer the team to a waiting list manager on a caretaker basis, and let the manager return once his busy time at work/home allows.

Robin (Ayers Rock) - Wednesday 12-27-06 18:41
Yes I agree it is a sickner for a manager to lose out on promotion because another manager went NMR. Two things spring to mind ,; the other managers do not know that a team is going to go NMR , so still play their best possible rather than coast to victory.

2. You have highlited a situation at the end of the season , but as you also pointed out a team had gone NMR during the season. IT is MORE significant obviously at the end of the season where Promotion/relegation issues are at stake, but we tend to forget the points teams have aquired during the season through NMR.

NMR is not as bad as you make out , I have seen teams WIN going NMR. We have to stick with NMR and just hope it does not happen too often.

When I ran a league a while back , I would do a lineup for an NMR team , (mainly to ensure CP/TP were used) but I would advise the other manager of my tactics eg. 4-2-4 Long, or 4-3-3 Normal, just to ensure that I had NO ulterior motive for selecting a team. I had no desire to win these games but I gave the NMR team a decent chance also they did not fall behind on Coaching.

Phil (Missouri) - Thursday 12-28-06 22:03
The real kicker with NMR, as we discovered recently in FLATNZ, can be the Normal tactic selected by the program. When playing Ball Control against a pure L team, our lineup was calculated to be strong and competitive. However, the NMR program actually assisted the absent manager by avoiding the L tactic for N, playing 5 midfielders, and, with the help of OMLEC, completely nullifed any advantage the Ball Control team had. We lost in a disappointing and disgusting manner. Ugh.


Clyde & Calvin
Steve (Asteria) - Sunday 04-29-07 5:20
NMR cropped up on SESL again and it made me think (uh-oh).

I'm still in favour of an NMRing team playing n rather than p for the way it affects other teams; the NMRing team losing when they might not have done can hand promotion to your rival, or save one from relegation. Also the next team to play the NMR team might be facing a stronger team due to less EL used.

Maybe having the NMR team stall rather than normal so they're less likely to win is an idea.

But there has to be a penalty apart from the missed coaching and training slots. So how about a fixed cash penalty or no gate receipts for that game?

Phil (Missouri) - Sunday 04-29-07 23:05
Since the inception of the NMR program many moons ago, there has been a constant tug of war between two priorities (and nearly every manager shares these two priorities): If the NMR program is too strong, teams fear losing to an absent manager and managers fear that there will be a proliferation of NMR managers; if the NMR program is too weak, or fines too stiff, then a team with poor management is punished in terms of TP/CP or money, and the next manager is left with a mess. Moreover, no one likes to miss out on promotion or suffer relegation where a rival faces an NMR lineup.

In the case at bar, it should be noted that the SESL team had a fresh T-11 for the NMR to draw from, and the result was a 0-0 draw. In that case, the lineup even on passive was somewhat forceful.

An NMR program should be neither an automatic win nor an automatic loss for the offending team. If we're talking about fines, bear in mind that we don't want to impair a team's long term hopes. Also, it's a little harsh when the NMR could be legitimate. Should a manager's team suffer because of a major storm shutting off internet connections? What about a death in the family? Or just a situation at work that ties you up? Then, where do you draw the line between valid NMR's and invalid. They all impact the game the same.

My vote would be to leave it as is.
Steve (Asteria) - Monday 04-30-07 9:35
Point taken about valid NMRs, Phil. The reason I brought the topic up again was a manager complaining that the NMR program was too strong recently in SESL.
Tim (Zaragoza) - Thursday 05-10-07 17:25

I find that the longer I've run FLATNZ, the more relaxed I am about NMRs. Something that Al tries to tell people, and I'm learning it too, managers come and go, but the team goes on. And the second thing is that this is about having fun. When people stop having fun, they leave. So rather than making it as painful as possible when a manager doesn't send orders, I've moved much more towards it being as painless as possible. There is already a rule for those who are absent too often, so for the rest of the time, why be Hitler? When I started FLATNZ, an NMR got you an automatic loss. The match would still be run for income sake, but the match was registered as a loss regardless of the outcome. Stopped that after the first season.

That's from the NMR manager side of things. From the present manager side, sure it sucks when the NMR program throws their T11 at you, and it sucks when your nearest championship rival gets gifted a B11 NMR lineup, but when you get right down to it, the aim is to try and balance the best outcome for both parties in the match, and I reckon (as Phil says) that the balance is pretty good.

Graham (Barcelona) - Monday 08-06-07 7:00
I'd like to say that I vote to retain the splinters in my rear from fence sitting.

I can see both sides of the argument and I think we've probably got about the right balance at the moment, since we are seeing that NMR programs can both win and lose.


Carl (Hollywood) - Saturday 08-18-07 14:28
I'm firmly in the let's leave well enough alone. Having never been a victim of an NMR defeat in a critical game I'm happy to leave it as it is. My sense is we don't have too many NMRs in MSWL and I'm with Phil on the legit occasional NMR suffering to much. I also don't like the idea of a habitual NMRers squad being weakened to the point that when the enevitable happens and a new manager comes in the side is so weak it isn't enjoyable.
All Topics