MSWLUnited LeaguesThe ManagerTMBL
Match Due GMT    
BlogTablesStatsCoachesJournalsLogin Features
                        
 
 The Trade Window is currently open...
GK Proposal
All Topics
Allan (Memphis) - Saturday 08-04-07 14:25
Here's the proposal:

GKs can continue to play with any aggression. However, the following will apply:
1) GK will stop shots at their "normal/roster" SL rather than a higher/lower SL influenced by playing a/d or p. Note that a player playing out of position at GK WOULD continue suffer the out of position penalty, but not gain/lose SLs via a/d/p play like the GK playing "in position".

2) 25% of GK "marking" SL will be added to Goal Protection. The idea being that an "aggressive" GK will "rush out" and stop plays BEFORE they result in a shot. Likewise a passive one would not do this and have less of an impact on GP.

The logic here is that a shooter doesn't get the benefit of "aggression" raising his shooting SL...so why should GKs get their SL modified with aggression as they have in the past.

< a href='http://www.olmec.org/mswl/notebookDetails.jsp?subjectid=184&teamid=14'> This link will take you to lengthy discussion on the "GK aggression" topic from last season.

Please comment (and clarify if I'm missing the relevant points of this idea).
Steve (Asteria) - Sunday 08-05-07 17:31
I picked a game at random from last season - one with not too high stats:

ZAR  N  24.00 114.78 167.03
 MP  N  56.50 160.11 134.86
ZAR played SL 34 GK "n". MP had 7.38% chance of a shot, which works out at a little over 6 shots per game on a bell curve.

With .25 GK to GP this is reduced to 6.55%, which is a little under 5.5 shots. A top GK is only going to reduce the number of shots by 1 at the most, but I think this is enough.

In the game MP were unlucky in that the shots went to weaker players (only 3 of the 6 shots were on target) but if we take the average of their good players, ShSL 28, against Cedrun it is a 28% chance of a goal if he plays "n" and only 14% if he plays "a".

I think that top GKs stop too many shots when playing aggressive. And it's easy to play aggressive all the time if you have a couple of decent GKs (though penalties, red cards might stop this in the future).

I'm very much in favour of this idea.

Tim (Zaragoza) - Sunday 08-05-07 21:07

I'm honoured to be an example, Steve! :-) I'm fully in favour of the GK change. I think though that this needs to be incorporated with a tweaking of SW and DF contribution to GP. I don't really think we need more GP. Just a rearrangement of how it is produced. And no, I don't have any numbers at the moment, Al. ;-P

Maybe if 0.25 is coming from GK, then SW can be reduced to 0.25 as well, as they are both single player contributions. Fiddling with DFs when there can be anything from 2 to 5 would be rather difficult. Okay, start howling, all you people with big SWs. I, of course, don't have any, so am perfectly comfortable with this solution. ;-)

Dave (British Bull-Dogs) - Monday 08-06-07 16:48
HOWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!
Don't touch our Sweepers
I spent last season building mine up !
The New Rules will punish Aggressive GK's enough! As I have said before try telling Peter Schmicheal her could not play aggressively !
Steve (Asteria) - Monday 08-06-07 16:49
My example was poor because I forgot to work out the difference between a GK playing n or a with the 0.25 bonus to GP. So...

SL 34 GK playing n - 6.55%
SL 34 GK playing a (EffSL 42) - 6.35%

I think this gives the chances of at least the following number of shots as:

1  99.75	99.71
2  98.33	98.05
3  93.91	93.03
4  84.81	83.04
5  70.93	68.31
6  54.20	51.13
7  37.60	34.63
8  23.63	21.20
9  13.47	11.76
I'm not sure that GK aggressive is enough with 0.25 GP. Not enough of a benefit even with a star like Cedrun.

So maybe more GP needed from GK and, as Tim suggests, less from SW and DF to compensate.

Or simply ban GKs from playing a or d unless they're trying to cause more injuries.

Tim (Zaragoza) - Thursday 08-09-07 17:55

Phew! It isn't the end of the world after all. Dave disagrees with me again. :-)

Been thinking about this a little more. GK playing N, no effect on GP. GK playing A, 0.25 goes to GP, saves stay at normal SL. GK plays P, 0.25 reduced from GP, saves stay at normal SL.

I think that possibly covers all bases. There is an advantage/penalty to playing a/p in it's affect on GP, which should decrease/increase the number of shots faced, but the GK always saves at his/hers/its nominal SL (bringing GKs in line with rest of players). And no change is required to SW or DF or anyone else. Yes, you may lick my hand in gratitude now, Dave.

Robin (Ayers Rock) - Saturday 08-11-07 18:02
My personal feelings on GK's , is that they should not have the ability to play A or D. Based on real life where outfield players do kick/elbow/headbutt other players , also do occasionally misstime tackles (deliberately) and be somewhat aggressive.

Goalkeepers on the other hand just play as goalkeepers sometimes they are a little aggressive (down to Personality) but very unlikely to play dirty. A GK operates in the Penalty area ,so if a GK was to play like some of our outfield players A or D , then the game would be littered with Penalties.

Steve (Asteria) - Sunday 08-12-07 4:39
Aggressive and Passive are probably the wrong words to use. I think of them as how hard the player works (hence the SL change), and if he's aggressive he's more effective but more likely to foul as he rushes in to tackle for the ball - and he gets tired quicker.

I think Tim's idea about GKs altering GP by +.25/0/-.25 better than mine - it's simpler for a start.

Clive (Essex) - Wednesday 08-15-07 7:32
Sorry Robin, but I disagree with your statement that goalkeepers just play as goalkeepers. I was a goalkeeper for all my scholboy/teens/university life, and I certainly used to vary my agression depending on who I was facing. Sometimes it was enough just to keep goal, others I had to assert my authority against strikers who liked to get in my face and intimidate, occasionally I liked to really frighten some of the unsure forwards and force a mistake etc.

I feel that if a team really wants to put the effort in to building two good GK's then they will have to lose out in other areas so there is a balance of sorts. Not quite sure on the exact numbers, but I think the proposed is ood enough to try out for a season or two and see what effect it has.

Clive

Carl (Hollywood) - Saturday 08-18-07 15:06
All for keepers being able to play aggressive and like the builds on defense. Perhaps we could however rename aggressive as mad for the keeper and have agressive/mad keepers caught randomly, say once every 135 minutes with no GP. Might even want to reduce the outfielder attackers shooting by 25% has he thinks twice about missing an open goal. Then if on target it rolls into the open net, oh happy days but if not on target head is hung in shame.
Kevin (Kirksville) - Monday 08-20-07 14:46
I like the proposal, Al. Gives a reason to still use aggressiveness on the GK while removing what I saw as the biggest loophole/injustice in the stat manipulation department.
All Topics