MSWLUnited LeaguesThe ManagerTMBL
Match Due GMT    
BlogTablesStatsCoachesJournalsLogin Features
 The Trade Window is currently open...
GK Red Card Code...
All Topics
Allan (Memphis) - Sunday 03-04-07 15:22
The code has been enhanced to better handle the GK Red Card scenario.

Previously the highest SL SW/DF would reposition to GK after a GK was sent off.

With the enhancement, the following shall occur:

1) All players on the pitch and the subs are evaluated to determine the player that would have the highest SL should the player reposition to GK.

2) If that player is a sub and a sub is available he will enter and the lowest SL MF/WG/FW is removed.

3) if that player is a player already on the field then he shall reposition to GK.

Does this handle every possible scenario a coach would want to do? No. The simple goal here is to get the highest SL in the GK slot after this rare event occurs. Aspects like repositioning other players around who has moved to GK or who may have come off are very difficult to apply.

If the guys in MSWL/SESL come up with a design though that would work, we can discuss enhancing this further.
Steve (Asteria) - Sunday 03-04-07 18:54
That seems to be the best/simplest solution.

The only thing I might add is if number of MF = 2 then don't take off a MF.

Oli (C. Iceland) - Monday 03-05-07 3:55
and FW = 1
Rob (Boston) - Monday 03-05-07 9:38
I would recommend an initial check to see if a GK sub is listed. If one is available, then there is no need to find the best fit to reposition to GK. Just move straight to the part where the lowest SL player is subbed off (keeping the minimum req's in mind - DF>=2, MF>=2, FW>=1).
Mark (Scotland) - Monday 03-05-07 14:12
I agree with Rob. Condition 1 should be to see if a GK sub is listed and bring sub GK on for lowest SL player going off (keeping minimum position requirements).

Only if all 3 subs are used, or no GK is listed as a sub (unlikely), then condition 2 would be repositioning. Perhaps SW considered first, then a GK.

The strategy planning element of condition 1 could mean teams plan to make just 2 sub conditionals rather than the usual 3 players on after 45 min we sometimes see. Perhaps managers may want to keep one sub spare for GK replacement after a red card.

Additional point: the more shots the opposition have could mean the more times a FW is in the box and possible GK foul and red card. Maybe add to code "team shots > 9 = 25% increase chance of oppGK being red carded" or whatever. Just a thought.

Robin (Ayers Rock) - Monday 03-05-07 17:31
In EVERY game I always list my No.1 sub as my non-playing GK. This is in case an injury occurs to my GK.

I would like to see the Olmec chk the subs bench 1st ,(if all 3 subs have NOT been used) then remove the lowest sl player and replace him with res. GK..
Robin (Ayers Rock) - Monday 03-05-07 17:44
I am a bit concerned as to where we are heading, with the GK situation and possibly more RED cards. Are we making the game too real , bearing in mind, we as managers (unlike the real ones) are not on the spot to make decisions. Are we going to end up with truckloads of conditions.

I would also like to point out :- which is the 1st player managers put on "A" when they spot a weak REF? - You guessed right GK!!!!!.

Don't get me wrong all Credit to Big Al for being so innovative , but are we in danger of letting the game run away with us , and bear in mind we need this game to get bigger and more people to create other OLMEC leagues. We in MSWL other than Jay (he doesn't read the rules :-) are all fairly experienced with the way the game works.
Paul (Bristol) - Monday 03-05-07 18:34
The two cases here are:

1. There's a GK on the bench and not all subs are used.
2. All subs are used or no GK on the bench.

Situation for case 2 is presumably as per if the GK is injured and all subs are used.. Not sure how this works now, to be honest.

In case 1, there would be an enforced substition (case 2 not), and then there's an algorithm to decide who to bring off. Suggestions so far is lowest SL player who wouldn't result in an invalid team. That's probably simplest. Ideally, the sub would depend on the game situation - if you're losing you maybe take off a DF, but if you're winning / drawing you take off a WG first. However, that starts to get way too complicated, depending on preferred tactic and the context of the game etc. - so it's best just to have a simple well understood rule.

I agree with Robin that maybe GK's should be sent off less than outfield players, but I'm not sure that I agree that 'change is not good'. Ultimately, the game needs its element of unpredictability, and that doesn't just apply to the match engine, but to changes from season to season, no?
Allan (Memphis) - Monday 03-05-07 19:02
This thread is getting some mileage. :-)

Here's my 'devil's advocate' against just bringing on the GK sub rather than the highest SL at GK. What if you have a REALLY BAD (hello ZAR?) 2nd GK? Would you want an SL 5 GK on? Or would you want an SL 26 SW to reposition and play at SL 13? I mean, I'm sure Conde Luis Garcia is a great person and all. But at SL 5 he's not going to stop many FWs...unless Tim is playing against the BBD FW line and then of course, the GK SL really doesn't matter...I mean Tim may as well be training a 0/0 apprentice in GK when he plays Wavey Davey.

But I digress....

I'm looking at the percentages here. How often does a GK get sent off? 1 in 100 games? Beyond often would the GK sub NOT be the best player to come on? 10% of the time, probably less? So the percentages start getting low. This design does account for those percentages because for some reason, whether its MSWL cup draws or software code, I always go out of my way to do what's best for Tim's team. :-)

Here's where I'm coming from...I have something coded, working, and reasonably well tested...that's more than I have time for typically. :-)

Is changing it to go for the GK only first going to make that much of a difference? Or is it better, to have the best possible player at GK to deal with this rare and 'difficult to deal with in a game' scenario?

I realize there's a desire to be logical here and I'm often not. Did I say I already had this coded and tested? Ideally I should have discussed design with you guys first...but Sunday mornings are often the only time I have to do this stuff...

With the above said, you can still debate your case and weigh pros/cons...feel free to do so...I just want you guys to understand where I'm coming from.

Finally, relative to my good friend Mr. Dewar's comments on red cards and the game getting out of control...yes it is! :-)

But I wonder...should we not allow GKs to play a/d anyway? What does that mean? Are they throwing their water bottle at oncoming FWs?

We DO NEED straight red cards though...not as a way to disrupt Robin's 5-year plan, but as a counter to teams like MP thinking they can trot out their best players at 'a' each match and not be punished. How's that for self-identifying?

I REALLY WANT to see the other thread on red cards (thanks Paul) start to take off more...I need more info on 'best ratio' of first yellows to straight reds in a match.

Am I too demanding?

Big Al
Oli (C. Iceland) - Monday 03-05-07 20:10

I have been looking at those conditions you have been working on. I am sorry but I do not have such a great understanding of the coding so I wanted to ask a few questions.
1. What does the code: IF team1=AYR and team2=MP, then Team1 GK = 1 Straight Red Card
2. And even more what does this mean: IF team1=BOA and nextopponentofteam1=MP Then GK = 1 Straight Red Card and subGK = 1 Straight Red Card

I guess that I will never understand the many magical things in this game....
Oli (C. Iceland) - Monday 03-05-07 20:20
I looked in my only Rothmans football yearbook which is from the 91-92 season. That year there were 242 sendings offs in the league, FA and League Cup. The games total was ??? (Premier league 38*10=380, others 3*46*12=1656 which gives 2036 league games plus the cup games)
Hope this helps.
Oli (C. Iceland) - Wednesday 03-07-07 21:16
When will this enhancement take place ?
Tim (Zaragoza) - Thursday 03-08-07 14:40

One of the amazing benefits of having a 2nd GK of just 5SL is that whoever goes in is alright. :-)

I do think that most of us would prefer to have a GK brought on first (if one is available) rather than a DF moved in, even if the DF would give us a higher SL in goal. The reason being that we'd rather have our attack diminish at that point than our defense. So take off an MF or FW, but don't reduce the DF.

Slightly on topic, when the GK is injured out and there is still a sub available, does the software check the sub bench first or reposition first. I seem to remember the hideous situation where the top DF went to GK, the GK came on at DF, and an entire player contribution was effectively lost.

And thanks for running this game, Al! :-) I'm very happy with v10! ;-)

Oli (C. Iceland) - Thursday 03-08-07 17:49
I am happy as well, although I dont have a clue what v10 is ;)

Dont misinterprate my ramblings, but I was shocked to see that, what I thought would happen, didn't. I was more annoyed then when what I wished would happen didn't either. Understand me, No, I guess not, but I assumed that my reserve GK would come on and when that didn't happen, I wished that it would stay 0-0.

I admit to being disappointed, but it just serves me right, selling big players just to keep the fun element in this game going. My fun will hopefully begin next season.

Or the one after that

Or the one after that

I'll stop now, I am starting to sound like Phil.....
Paul (Bristol) - Thursday 03-08-07 18:17
The simple way to do this is to replace the red carded GK with a GK from the bench if possible. Given the odds of the situation occurring, and the chances that the best GK won't be the sub SK, I'd say that if this isn't what an on the spot manager would've done, given the choice, just has to count as tough

However, if Al's already got something coded and working that arranges for the best GK (irrespective of natural position) to go in goal, then so long as it's clear, that's fine as well. It's certainly not worth trying to be over-clever and try to second guess what an on the spot manager would do, given the current game situation etc. - just have a clear rule that results in a decent GK in goal. I'd say that an equally clear rule about who to take off (starting from the front) is much better than something complex, depending on the game situation.
Robin (Ayers Rock) - Sunday 03-11-07 17:36
Following a discussion with Al , two points were raised.

1. It is a fairly rare occurance in a season (real life) that a goalkeep gets sent off;- having said that , then should we not bother to Red Card GK?

2. When the circumstances are favourable we tend to play our GK on "A" or "D". In the real world a GK does not play "A" or "D" , so in our game should we take this option away from our GK ? - which would then satisfy option 1.

Oli (C. Iceland) - Sunday 03-11-07 19:35
I think it is more common than we tend to think. I dont have stats to prove it with, but since keepers were red carded for fouling a player about to score a goal, the amount has increased.

Sorry for thinking out loud here, but I believe that when a GK gets red carded, especially if it is a straight red card, we should also see a penalty awarded. Seems more logical than having him red carded, and then just: "play on", but I guess the coding would be a little difficult/unecessary.
Phil (Missouri) - Sunday 03-11-07 20:05
I think that taking the "a" or "d" option away from the keepers raises a fairly major issue. The current setup allows teams on occasion to field GK's well beyond "normal" SL abilities, which sometimes creates a practically impenetrable defense. While this is a fair strategical response to the high SL aggressive FW, there must be some concern for the "impenetrable goal." Wouldn't a GK always play aggressive in terms of SL and GP only? Just thinking, not proposing.
All Topics