Defense in Hattrick

[MikeVick7]

Every year around playoff time...whether it be the NFL or NBA...I get inspired by the idea of what it takes to win championships...or be successful....etc. So after watching the Suns run circles around the Mavs and then be made to look like chumps against the Spurs...I've become infatuated with the idea of defense. (These ideas stay with me for about a month and then I lose interest by the way. )

So now I'm trying to think of how this could be utilized in Hattrick. Looking at the breakdown on the Hattrick website about how defense is calculated in the midfield for example...is it even worth looking at the defensive category when purchasing future wingers or IM's?

Defence Left wing	Goalkeeping Goalkeeper Defending left wing back Defending left central defender Defending Left winger Defending left inner midfielder
Defence Centre	Goaltending goalkeeper Defending central defenders Defending left and right wing back Defending inner midfielders Defending left and right winger
Defence Right wing	Goalkeeping goalkeeper Defending right wing back Defending right central defender Defending right winger Defending right inner midfielder

Since the defense of wingers and IM's are considered last in their formula...is it even worth looking at this when making a player purchase if you want your club to be more defensive-minded? I'm guessing that not a lot of people consider defense when they are looking to make a midfield purchase so you could probably get one that was inad or passable defensively for not much more...but is it worth it?

[saintjo]

In my opinion, no. It does not seem worth the small rating increase you would see from buying a Inner Mid or Winger with defense. The price you would pay for those kind of secondaries would be better spent on a better keeper or defender.

Especially a winger. If you play your winger normal in order to take advantedge of his defense skill, you actually loose a bit of wing attack because he would normally be played offensive. So you are giving up attack for defense. In HT attack always wins over defense, so you want as much attacking as possible.

Now if you happen to have a midfielder with something like wretched passing and inad defense, it cant hurt to play him defensively. but dont expect much of a change in your ratings.

[MikeVick7]

Originally Posted by saintjo

In HT attack always wins over defense, so you want as much attacking as possible.

Now I give you this example where my opponent's attack had a decisive advantage over mine...but his porous defense allowed me to win easily 6-1. Now my advantage at midfield probably factored in here but was this kind of result an aberration?

Match ID: 45584030

Me.

Midfield:	inadequate (very low)
Right Side Defence:	inadequate (very low)
Central Defence:	inadequate (high)
Left Side Defence:	passable (very low)
Right Side Attack:	poor (very high)
Central Attack:	poor (very high)
Left Side Attack:	poor (high)

My opponent.
Midfield:	poor (very low)
RightSideDefence:	wretched (very high)
Central Defence:	poor (very low)
LeftSideDefence:	poor (very high)
RightSideAttack:	inadequate (low)
CentralAttack:	passable(verylow)
Left SideAttack:	inadequate (very high)

[Havok]

As much as i want to say defense is equal to attack, it just simply isn't. Midfield trumps all and then some, look at every dam team in Swedens top divisons. They all play at least 1 winger TM, alot of them play 2.

Then attack, if you have the midfield advantage and a good attack, you win 90% of the time.

Then defense..... defense is always nice to have and all the good teams have it, but you don't win anything with just defense.

A good friend of mine plays in and won a Div. III in sweden last season. Swedens divison III is like our div. II. His defense was a joke.... around brilliant (old ratings). He just had a good attack and a great midfield. Played wingers TM, offense CD's, everything.

One day the devs will give teams that only get say 40% possession 3-4 attacks per game or make counter attacking a viable option. But until then, midfield ownz, then attack and defense is a distant third.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by MikeVick7

Now I give you this example where my opponent's attack had a decisive advantage over mine...but his porous defense allowed me to win easily 6-1. Now my advantage at midfield probably factored in here but was this kind of result an aberration?

It's not an aberration, though not necessarily in the way you were thinking -- if you win the midfield handily and are in good shape with your attack vs. his defense, you can often afford to have a relatively weak defense. You'll get the lion's share of the chances and your offense will finish them for you, usually enough to overcome the fact that your opponent will bury most of their chances.

A defense-first strategy is tricky to pull off successfully (although I think MLFC shows that it can be done). At the same time, eventually you reach a point where your defense is leaking enough goals that it costs you games, so it can't be neglected entirely.

[saintjo]

Originally Posted by MikeVick7

Now I give you this example where my opponent's attack had a decisive advantage over mine...but his porous defense allowed me to win easily 6-1. Now my advantage at midfield probably factored in here but was this kind of result an aberration?

Match ID: 45584030

Me.

you won this match 6-1 because your midfield was 2 new levels higher than his. in the hattrick world and at lower midfield levels, that is a huge difference.
my point was what the other are saying in order of preference for building your team, as well as if you match up equal attack ratings against equal defense ratings, they will score more than 50% of the time in my experience.

i am a defense trainer. so trust me, its hard to win games if you are basing your team around it. its definately something you want for a well balanced team, but probably ranks towards the bottom of necessary to win in lower divisions.

also, i want to add that CA has become a pretty viable option. i have had descent success with it. obviously its a way to win a series championship, but its great for picking up a win here and there when you have a very good defense and descent attack but are going to loose midfield for sure.

[MikeVick7]

Originally Posted by Havok

As much as i want to say defense is equal to attack, it just simply isn't. Midfield trumps all and then some, look at every dam team in Swedens top divisons. They all play at least 1 winger TM, alot of them play 2.

This seems like a great strategy to use to increase possession so would the major drawback be wing defense? Would you also incorporate an AIM strategy to go long with this?

[MikeVick7]

Dola - Ok...using HT Rating Calculator it looks like my wing attacks went down drastically but it improved my midfield...central attack and it also improved my left/right/central defense. Does my left/right defense improve because the wingers aren't in offensive mode?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by saintjo

also, i want to add that CA has become a pretty viable option. i have had descent success with it. obviously its a way to win a series championship, but its great for picking up a win here and there when you have a very good defense and descent attack but are going to loose midfield for sure.

I have a CA team, and could win my series this year without ever winning the midfield. CA isn't a way to easily beat teams much better than you (which is the way it should be), but it's a viable winning strategy against teams as good or worse, most especially against midfield trainers (my last cup match is proof of that). I am a defense-heavy team and I have no problem winning.

[Havok]

if done right i think CA can be effective. Like a 4-3-3 with 2 very good middy's. But in the long run, if you really wanna win and advance to higher divisons.... get lots and lots of midfield, a good attack and some defense.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Havok

if done right i think CA can be effective. Like a 4-3-3 with 2 very good middy's. But in the long run, if you really wanna win and advance to higher divisons.... get lots and lots of midfield, a good attack and some defense.

Why is it that defensive teams would work at low levels but not at high levels?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Why is it that defensive teams would work at low levels but not at high levels?

Because you don't have to be all that good to be the 3000th best team in the USA, just have a decent training program. But to be the 100th, you have to be near optimal in both your training and your team.

Daed and I were talking about this last week. If they ever separated defenders from keepers so they aren't nearly worthless as they are now, I could almost see a defensive based team running a 4-4-2. You run a pair of devistating naked wingers offensively to make your wing attacks- they're cheap because they're naked wingers: something like a titanic wing. Then two offensive middies and two OCDs, since you have 4 defenders, playing them offensive isn't so bad so you can afford to run them offensively. Then you have two strikers and two wingbacks. Or maybe a 4-5-1 with an extra inner midfielder with the two OCDs.

Still, running a 3-4-3 or a 3-5-2 with similar team worth still wins most games with a team running a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1.

SI

[Havok]

^^^ what he said ^^^

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Because you don't have to be all that good to be the 3000th best team in the USA, just have a decent training program. But to be the 100th, you have to be near optimal in both your training and your team.

Daed and I were talking about this last week. If they ever separated defenders from keepers so they aren't nearly worthless as they are now, I could almost see a defensive based team running a 4-4-2. You run a pair of devistating naked wingers offensively to make your wing attacks- they're cheap because they're naked wingers: something like a titanic wing. Then two offensive middies and two OCDs, since you have 4 defenders, playing them offensive isn't so bad so you can afford to run them offensively. Then you have two strikers and two wingbacks. Or maybe a 4-5-1 with an extra inner midfielder with the two OCDs.

Still, running a 3-4-3 or a 3-5-2 with similar team worth still wins most games with a team running a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1.

SI

Asako Pako in the Spanish top league plays 5-3-2, was cup champion two season ago and finished #2 in the league last year. And Spain is one of the biggest HT countries.

But I'm still not getting how having a defensive team can leave you not "optimal in your training and your team", that was just kind of thrown out there without an explanation, like it is some kind of unassailable dogma that I am unaware of. If I can play against similarly rated teams and win at low levels, why can't I play against similarly rated teams and win at high levels?

[JAG]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Asako Pako in the Spanish top league plays 5-3-2, was cup champion two season ago and finished #2 in the league last year. And Spain is one of the biggest HT countries.

Well, Asako is somewhat the exception to the rule having 4 national team defenders and one former U-20 keeper to give them an unnatural defense. I don't think every defensive trainer can hope to accumulate that kind of talent.

[KevinNU7]

And $1.5M a week in salaries with only 1.9M in the bank

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Asako Pako in the Spanish top league plays 5-3-2, was cup champion two season ago and finished #2 in the league last year. And Spain is one of the biggest HT countries.

But I'm still not getting how having a defensive team can leave you not "optimal in your training and your team", that was just kind of thrown out there without an explanation, like it is some kind of unassailable dogma that I am unaware of. If I can play against similarly rated teams and win at low levels, why can't I play against similarly rated teams and win at high levels?

Because the defense market is so depressed right now, compared to the other two big markets. It has more trainees but training time is adjusted for that (6 weeks at 17yo for pm/sco but 8 weeks for def). So, while a defender trainer gets more trainees it's only by a small margin per season: 10 WC defenders in 5 seasons to 6 PM or 6 Sco in 3.5 seasons.

More realistically, you're doing 9 trainees anyways because you need better talent across the board with a 5-3-2 than someone running a 3-5-2 or 3-4-3 due to defense being the weakest onfield effect of the three so you're running a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 in off weaks. And then the training advantage is wiped out completely- you have about the same number of trainees per season (9/5 vs 6/3.5).

The problem comes in when it's time to sell- WC defenders don't sell for all that much, particularly when next to their middie or striker counterparts. Base price for a middie at that level is about 3.5 while defenders are about 3.0 and strikers split the difference. That's not that big of a difference, even across 6-10 trainees:

Hurting this even more is the lack of good secondary premiums on defense trainees. Winger is ok- you will get a little premium to your player. Playmaking gets nothing- that's why I have been getting OCD's for a while at the same price as a defender with no secondaries. Passing might get you a little to the CA trainees but nothing like having passable+ passing on strikers or middies where the premium cost at higher level is $500K+

While there are some scattered examples of teams that do pretty well, on the whole, defense is still the weakest of the three primary skills. That's why people will trot out titanic middies and good strikers and skimp on the defenders- maybe bril or mag, and choose to instead get a badass keeper who covers for all three. So on top of not getting as much in sales, your performance is likely worse (luck of the series you're in not withstanding) and you're losing crowd and sponsor money, too.

That said, because defense is the weakest and thus would incur the least damage to your team if you just kept churning trainees, I'd seriously consider doing it if the market were somewhat better. Run a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 in fixtures and a 5-4-1 training. You'd take a performance hit, but if there was a way to make it more worthwhile when selling and you have a mature team that can beat up on competition with your middies and strikers alone, then this would be a good way to keep your training cash flow running. Because, at higher levels, if you're training middie or striker, you're either badly hurting your team by having a weak attack or midfield or you're killing your cash flow by only training 3 or 4 trainees because you don't want to play weak starters.

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JAG

Well, Asako is somewhat the exception to the rule having 4 national team defenders and one former U-20 keeper to give them an unnatural defense. I don't think every defensive trainer can hope to accumulate that kind of talent.

We aren't talking about every defense trainer, just those in the top leagues (Tombstone has 4 current or former national players on its roster). And Asako accumulated that talent by training it. Two of those defenders were only trained by Asako, and the other two were bought two real life years ago at about brilliant.

[saintjo]

im a defense trainer and i run 3-5-2 in league matches. i only have 8 trainees, but i give up 2 spots to stay competitive. yes, i loose 2 spots and yes defense is the slowest, but i get 8 trainees at 100% which is still more than any other training program. but since stanima isnt required, i train defense in the offseason as well. so i get 5 slots with 2 extra weeks of training compared to playmaking that has to train stanima.

i love training defense. the guys sell for slightly less and it is a long process but...
1. the affects of selling your top guys is less. if i sell my 3 best defenders, i could still compete even if my back ups were excellents. try doing that as a midfield trainer.
2. tsi's are lower and thus wages are lower compared to equal skilled players in other training programs.
3. trainees are cheaper. i just got a 17 year old mid to high solid for 400k.
4. and best of all, it really really makes midfield trainers made when you pull off a huge upset running a 5-3-2 outstanding CA

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Because the defense market is so depressed right now, compared to the other two big markets.

You don't necessarily need to train defense to have a defensive team.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

...due to defense being the weakest onfield effect of the three...defense is still the weakest of the three primary skills.

This is something that is considered dogma, but something that I just don't agree with. I see people all the time complain about how they have great defense and still let up three goals. Then I look at the match and it is a set piece and two SE goals.

A 4-2 win last Sunday:

Communist Grass Killers 
Team Attitude:	Normal	
Tactic:	Counter-attacks	
Tactic skill:	magnificent	
 	
Midfield:	poor (high)	
Right Side Defence:	solid (very low)	
Central Defence:	excellent (high)	
Left Side Defence:	passable (very high)	
Right Side Attack:	passable (high)	
Central Attack:	weak (very high)	
Left Side Attack:	poor (very low)	

O Fire 
Team Attitude:	(Hidden)	
Tactic:	Attack in the middle	
Tactic skill:	excellent	
 	
Midfield:	weak (high)	
Right Side Defence:	poor (very high)	
Central Defence:	inadequate (very low)	
Left Side Defence:	inadequate (low)	
Right Side Attack:	inadequate (very high)	
Central Attack:	inadequate (very high)	
Left Side Attack:	poor (very high) 

A 3-1 win with some B teamers from the cup Wed:

Team Gambler 
Team Attitude:	(Hidden)	
Tactic:	Attack in the middle	
Tactic skill:	excellent	
 	
Midfield:	solid (very low)
Right Side Defence:	poor (very high)	
Central Defence:	weak (very high)	
Left Side Defence:	wretched (very high)	
Right Side Attack:	poor (very high)	
Central Attack:	weak (very low)	
Left Side Attack:	poor (very high)	

Communist Grass Killers 
Team Attitude:	Normal	
Tactic:	Counter-attacks	
Tactic skill:	outstanding	
 	
Midfield:	poor (very low)	
Right Side Defence:	solid (low)	
Central Defence:	solid (low)	
Left Side Defence:	inadequate (low)	
Right Side Attack:	poor (low)	
Central Attack:	weak (very high)	
Left Side Attack:	passable (low) 

A 5-1 win last season:

Communist Grass Killers 
Team Attitude:	Match of the Season	
Tactic:	Counter-attacks	
Tactic skill:	magnificent	
 	
Midfield:	poor (very low)	
Right Side Defence:	inadequate (high)	
Central Defence:	excellent (very high)	
Left Side Defence:	solid (high)	
Right Side Attack:	passable (high)	
Central Attack:	weak (high)	
Left Side Attack:	poor (very low)	

Mequon Kickers 
Team Attitude:	(Hidden)	
Tactic:	Normal	
Tactic skill:	(no tactic)	
 	
Midfield:	poor (high)	
Right Side Defence:	passable (very low)	
Central Defence:	inadequate (very high)	
Left Side Defence:	poor (very high)	
Right Side Attack:	excellent (very low)	
Central Attack:	solid (very high)	
Left Side Attack:	weak (very high) 

Yeah, I cherry-picked the match from last season, but the other two are my last two matches. In each I lost the midfield (one I gave up 75%), in one I had a better attack, in two a worse attack, in each I won by more than a goal. Each team is older than mine.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by saintjo

im a defense trainer and i run 3-5-2 in league matches. i only have 8 trainees, but i give up 2 spots to stay competitive. yes, i loose 2 spots and yes defense is the slowest, but i get 8 trainees at 100% which is still more than any other training program. but since stanima isnt required, i train defense in the offseason as well. so i get 5 slots with 2 extra weeks of training compared to playmaking that has to train stanima.

i love training defense. the guys sell for slightly less and it is a long process but...
1. the affects of selling your top guys is less. if i sell my 3 best defenders, i could still compete even if my back ups were excellents. try doing that as a midfield trainer.
2. tsi's are lower and thus wages are lower compared to equal skilled players in other training programs.
3. trainees are cheaper. i just got a 17 year old mid to high solid for 400k.
4. and best of all, it really really makes midfield trainers mad when you pull off a huge upset running a 5-3-2 outstanding CA

Don't get me wrong. I agree that there are ways to do it. There are ways to do any type of training profitably. But you have to stack it up against the *most* profitable types of training, otherwise you're getting passed up by the better of the 5000 teams out there. I could perpetually train natty team keepers like Netranger, and it's really cool we have a USA team like that. And, while he still turns a good profit in his training program, I think most people agree that his overall team performance has suffered because of it

I agree wholeheartedly with #1- this is what I was mentioning with changing over to defense training so that the performance hit you take isn't nearly as great when you turn over your trainees.

I would say #2 is a real non-factor. Until you get above about world class, we're only talking about a few K per week across your entire training program. Even across an entire season, it's less than $100K the first couple of seasons and if you sell at the end of the WC/SN season, then the big hit is never incurred. By that same token, if you train higher, wages become a bigger deal and something worth considering.

Trainees being cheaper is a big deal. If you can keep buy costs down, sell costs don't need to be nearly as high. I dunno. I got 6x 18yo exc sco/pass pass for about $1M each the middle of last year. I'd have to do a spreadsheet to look how that compared with early season 17yo solids for a growth chart vs buying and selling, but if defense trainees really are that cheap, then it makes up a ton of ground.

In separate conversations last week with daed and Hobbes- we were running through hattie economic theory and wanting to create some long-term team economic models (ie 10 year performance) and see what does end up being the best, all things being equal. Would it be best to go middie -> scorer -> defender, always churning one type, start with keeper to get initial cash quicker, more off the beaten path models like passing or set pieces training, etc. Problem was, it relies on the game engine being the same (no strength changes to any training type and no drastic market changes)- which will most likely not be true, and some assumptions that couldn't necessarily be backed up with statistical evidence. But, man, it would be one hell of a cool project.

SI

[saintjo]

with my point number 2 on salaries, i am considering taking one (at the moment) of my trainees to divine in defense. but im curious if the market value of a player that high wouldnt actually be lower than say a ET because of his salary. anyone have any experience with that?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

This is something that is considered dogma, but something that I just don't agree with. I see people all the time complain about how they have great defense and still let up three goals. Then I look at the match and it is a set piece and two SE goals.

To convince me, you'll have to more than anecdotal evidence on 3 games from the somewhat random hattie engine. Why is it then that a vast many teams have much weaker defenders than any other position- because a keeper can cover up for bad defense and a ton of people believe that is the more cost effective way to go.

I went to hatstats for the top players at each position in Div III and Div IV (I figure (MLS and II are too small of sample size). In Div III, there are 7 defenders at 8.0 stars or over and 11 midfielders. If you drop the standards to 7.5, it becomes 8 vs 29. On Top 30 Div III defenders, the list goes all the way down to 6.0/solid while the middie list is 7.0/inad. It's similar in Div IV: 2 defenders and 5 middies above 8 stars. But in that 7.5 range, you only add 2 more defenders and another 15 middies. The list ends at 6.0/pass for defenders and 7.0/solid for middies.

In short, there just isn't as large a market for high level defenders because they can be covered up by keepers. So you have a much lower base to sell to and it keeps the competition and thus prices down.

Also, you can choose to dismiss it as dogmatic and the ramblings of us old time oppressive dogmatic middie trainers but there are midfield/defense 22/14 and 23/13 splits for training in the world and us, respectively. So, despite a higher supply and lower demand, people still go toward middie training. Because they still sell for better? Why do they sell for better even with what should result in higher supply and lower demand curves, giving a lower price point? I'd wager it's because teams feel it is stronger.

SI

[saintjo]

also, you want proof that midfield is generally accepted as the most important rating...check out how they figure NSI ratings on hatstats and even here. it is all your stats added up but the midfield rating is multiplied by 3.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by saintjo

with my point number 2 on salaries, i am considering taking one (at the moment) of my trainees to divine in defense. but im curious if the market value of a player that high wouldnt actually be lower than say a ET because of his salary. anyone have any experience with that?

I don't know about defense but that's why I chose to stop where I did with middie training and switch to scoring (as well as acquire the talent I did). Above titanic, you actually lost sale value, particularly sale value per time spent. ET's actually sold for less than Titanic. Mythicals only sold for slightly more. You really start fighting diminishing returns because wages are obscene for only slightly increased performance and there just aren't that many people that can buy.

I found a nice break-even point to be at super/titanic. Wages are around 20-50K at that level versus the 60-100K at ET (and worse the higher you go). Also, at that point, it really starts getting critical to get Americans to save that 20%. My top wage guys are 82, 43, 34, 31, and 25. The 82 is an ET and likely to go. So let's replace him with a 50K for the purposes of this exercise. That's 183K per week. It's 219K if they aren't American- a good 30K a week difference which adds up to $500K per season.

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

To convince me, you'll have to more than anecdotal evidence on 3 games from the somewhat random hattie engine.

How about if I win two more games this week while losing midfield?

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Why is it then that a vast many teams have much weaker defenders than any other position- because a keeper can cover up for bad defense and a ton of people believe that is the more cost effective way to go...In short, there just isn't as large a market for high level defenders because they can be covered up by keepers. So you have a much lower base to sell to and it keeps the competition and thus prices down.

Also, you can choose to dismiss it as dogmatic and the ramblings of us old time oppressive dogmatic middie trainers...

My grandpappy used to tell stories of the days of Hattrick when defense and even attack didn't matter, and all you had to do to win was win 51% of midfield. I think the old fogies are still stuck in that mindset, even after CA was introduced. Since I've been in the game, wingbacks wing skill and defenders defense compared to keeper have gotten more important. All these changes have led to the increase of defense as a legitimate strategy. However, most higher level players have been around for a long time, and so they still have it ingrained in their brain that defense is worthless. So they don't train defense (which leads to not many 8* defenders) and they don't buy defenders (which leads to stagnated prices at higher skill levels). However, defender prices are HIGHER than middie prices at lower levels (until brilliant, see HAM defending and HAM playmaking). This could be because of the number of PM trainers, but it could also be because those in the younger Hattrick generation see defense as being more important than the older generation does.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by saintjo

also, you want proof that midfield is generally accepted as the most important rating...check out how they figure NSI ratings on hatstats and even here. it is all your stats added up but the midfield rating is multiplied by 3.

That's because there are three attack ratings and three defense ratings and only one midfield rating, so they triple it to balance it out. If I were doing ratings, they would be:

1x wing attacks and wing defenses
2x central attack and central defense
3x midfield

Also, as to training to divine, the value of training defenders goes down after ET.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Remind me sometime to compare the performance of your rating to CSI/Hatstats. I've already done that for someone else, finding that CSI/Hatstats was better, but not by a huge margin, and his rating avoided a few CSI/Hatstats wussy events as well.

2:1 for central vs. wing is too high, offhand... the difference in weight isn't that big. See www.hattristics.org for detailed analysis.

[Havok]

Find a defender trainer who's been playing HT roughly as long as i have, and i'll show you a team i can mop the floor with (daytraders not included)

you can argue it all day long, you can chose not to believe it, you can stand firm and train defenders forever!!!!!!!!

But out of the 3 major training programs (goalie doesn't count since it blows) defender training is the hardest to succeed with. Im not saying it isn't possible and i know SI isn't saying that either. Its just ALOT harder and usually takes a good bit longer.

Pulling one spanish team with wages higher then just about anyone in HT is a bad example.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

Remind me sometime to compare the performance of your rating to CSI/Hatstats. I've already done that for someone else, finding that CSI/Hatstats was better, but not by a huge margin, and his rating avoided a few CSI/Hatstats wussy events as well.

2:1 for central vs. wing is too high, offhand... the difference in weight isn't that big. See www.hattristics.org for detailed analysis.

Ooh. I love that site. Never seen it before. I think I'm going to have to set aside some reading time next week

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

Remind me sometime to compare the performance of your rating to CSI/Hatstats. I've already done that for someone else, finding that CSI/Hatstats was better, but not by a huge margin, and his rating avoided a few CSI/Hatstats wussy events as well.

2:1 for central vs. wing is too high, offhand... the difference in weight isn't that big. See www.hattristics.org for detailed analysis.

I haven't gotten the exact ratios down, I just know that comparing central to wing 1:1 isn't very indicative of how good a team is. BTW, what criteria did you use to decide which was 'better'?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Havok

Find a defender trainer who's been playing HT roughly as long as i have, and i'll show you a team i can mop the floor with (daytraders not included)

you can argue it all day long, you can chose not to believe it, you can stand firm and train defenders forever!!!!!!!!

But out of the 3 major training programs (goalie doesn't count since it blows) defender training is the hardest to succeed with. Im not saying it isn't possible and i know SI isn't saying that either. Its just ALOT harder and usually takes a good bit longer.

I think most people here are confusing two issues: winning with defense and profitability of defense training. I haven't done enough research on the latter to confirm or deny whether or not defense training at higher levels is profitable. What I do contend though is the thought that it is impossible, or even hard, to win with a team that is focused on defense.

Originally Posted by Havok

Pulling one spanish team with wages higher then just about anyone in HT is a bad example.

What does the higher wages have to do with anything? They were able to build up a team with high wages and be able to pay for it BECAUSE they are a good team.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I haven't gotten the exact ratios down, I just know that comparing central to wing 1:1 isn't very indicative of how good a team is. BTW, what criteria did you use to decide which was 'better'?

Number of wussy events according to the rating method (to use the technical term ), not considering ties.

It'll be immediately obvious, on a qualitative basis, if a change like that works, although if it's close I'm not sure that I can determine which is better with any statistical degree of confidence.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What does the higher wages have to do with anything? They were able to build up a team with high wages and be able to pay for it BECAUSE they are a good team.

Transfers for Asako Pako

Total Purchases: 264 752 559 US$
Total Sales: 305 923 411 US$
Difference: 41 170 852 US$
Number of transfers: 1171

Average (bought): 480 495 US$
Average (sold): 493 425 US$
Average (bought + sold): 35 159 US$


he isn't paying for it because he's a good team... he's paying for it because he's a daytrader.

Now i wish he'd take that team and play against similar teams with those wages. Like a 3-5-2 team like Inter Sthlm in sweden.

But anyway, like i said before, it is possible to win with a defensive formation. Its just alot harder and alot more time consuming. I respect anyone who 'Breaks away" from the norm and tries new stuff. So good luck with your defensive CA formation. My advice would be that next time you buy a winger, get one thats quick. That alone will get you a few goals every season. Also try to get a superstud SP taker.

[MikeVick7]

Looking at Asako Pako's roster...why does he have 46 players? I've seen a few rosters of the better teams where this is the case.

[MrBigglesworth]

I forgot about this, but Bjorn's USA team is a defense trainer that plays a 5-3-2 in league matches and is currently in the Major League.

Also, won another CA game this week while only getting 30% of midfield. It was against a team I should beat, but it was with my 'B' team.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I forgot about this, but Bjorn's USA team is a defense trainer that plays a 5-3-2 in league matches and is currently in the Major League.

Also, won another CA game this week while only getting 30% of midfield. It was against a team I should beat, but it was with my 'B' team.

and it took Bjorn how many 'YEARS' to get to the ML after he demoted out??? He's going to get slaughter this season and will demote.

[terpkristin]

FWIW, Bjorn quite often experiments with his team, seeing how changes he knows have been made affect his outcomes.

I'd hardly use him as a role model (not that I'm knocking defense, just a statement).

/tk

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Havok

and it took Bjorn how many 'YEARS' to get to the ML after he demoted out??? He's going to get slaughter this season and will demote.

What does that matter? He still won a II with a defensive team, showing that you can have success while training defense. Like I said earlier, I don't know how profitable defense training is at higher levels, but I know that you can win with a defensive team.

Same goes for Steaua Bucuresti in the top Romanian league. You aren't going to find many defensive teams in the top leagues, because the game used to be about midfield only and older teams built their teams around that principle. But there will be increasing numbers as the stereotype melts away.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What does that matter? He still won a II with a defensive team, showing that you can have success while training defense. Like I said earlier, I don't know how profitable defense training is at higher levels, but I know that you can win with a defensive team.

Same goes for Steaua Bucuresti in the top Romanian league. You aren't going to find many defensive teams in the top leagues, because the game used to be about midfield only and older teams built their teams around that principle. But there will be increasing numbers as the stereotype melts away.

well.... this is going around in circles,

You say you can win with a defensive team, then i say you can to, but its 3 times as hard and takes 3 times as long, then you bring up 1 example out of 785407362 teams, etc...... etc........ etc......

do whatever makes you happy in HT, thats the best way to play.

your in for a long, hard, frustrating road, ask GM - Apoc or Lytic (not sure if Apoc still comes around here). But maybe when you do win, it will make it all the more sweeter.

[MrBigglesworth]

Here is my cup match for this week, I was at home:

Communist Grass Killers
Player rating and Team formation

Team Attitude: Normal
Tactic: Counter-attacks
Tactic skill: brilliant

Midfield: poor (low)
Right Side Defence: excellent (high)
Central Defence: formidable (very low)
Left Side Defence: passable (low)
Right Side Attack: wretched (very high)
Central Attack: weak (high)
Left Side Attack: passable (low)

USC Trojans
Player rating and Team formation

Team Attitude: (Hidden)
Tactic: Normal
Tactic skill: (no tactic)

Midfield: passable (very low)
Right Side Defence: poor (very high)
Central Defence: weak (very low)
Left Side Defence: weak (high)
Right Side Attack: excellent (very low)
Central Attack: excellent (very low)
Left Side Attack: inadequate (very low)

I lost possession with only 33%. He had a much better offense than I did as well. He had a Hatstats rating of 178, I had 161.

I won 5-1. Had a 4-0 halftime lead. This now makes me 4-0 on the year with defense and CA.

[Havok]

starting with your first league game this season.

Your first win you won 4-2 over a pretty weak team with an amazing 4 SE goals. If i get 4 SE goals in 8 games im happy. it takes alot of luck to get that many in 1 game.

your second win came against a team with a good midfield, and everything esle was just terrible. you won 3-1 with 1 SE goal, 1 normal goal and 1 more SP goal. His pathetic offense couldn't score.

Your third win came against another team with an OK midfield and not much else. You got 2 goals, both on CA's and they both somehow went down your strongest attack side (which is rare when your strong side is a wing attack).

Your fourth win today was crazy. If i was the other team i'd be pissed. His defense was a joke, and they gave you 2 goals from defensive blunders(because his defenders are horrible). You got 1 normal goal, 1 ca goal and 1 CA/sp goal.


Now... the teams you are playing have all somehow had a worse defense then your attack(which is saying something because your attack is pretty weak). So your few CA's your getting... you are actually scoring on. You only have 1 decent attack rating and as luck would have it, most of your CA's have went down that flank. Another thing is you've played against alot of crappy goalie's. So your actually scoring some SP goals. When you move up a level and play against better goalie's, don't count on those. Solid SP's guys rarely ever score on outstanding and higher goalie's. Then once you move way way up... SP goals almost never happen (and getting a good SP guy with another decent skill is easier said then done)

Now the only team you played with a decent defense, you scored 4 freaking SE goals on which is just amazing. I've been playing for 2 years and i've never scored that many.

You've had a nice run.... and you've had quite a bit of luck. But its not like your knocking off very good teams or anything. Everyone you've played has had a massive weakness somewhere on they're team.


P.S. Im not sure how you held that team today to only 1 goal..... but 9 times outta 10, thats not gonna happen.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Havok

You've had a nice run.... and you've had quite a bit of luck. But its not like your knocking off very good teams or anything. Everyone you've played has had a massive weakness somewhere on they're team.

So, what you are saying is that I am winning games that I am supposed to be winning, but if I went up against a guy with excellent ratings everywhere I would lose? That is the point that I am trying to make, that teams with great midfields have a hard time beating me. Teams with great attacks need to win MF and have a decent defense. And if someone beats me on 2 of 3 of the areas, then they deserve to beat me. And occasionally even if they beat me on 2 of 3 I'll come out with a big win, like in my cup game.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

So, what you are saying is that I am winning games that I am supposed to be winning, but if I went up against a guy with excellent ratings everywhere I would lose? That is the point that I am trying to make, that teams with great midfields have a hard time beating me. Teams with great attacks need to win MF and have a decent defense. And if someone beats me on 2 of 3 of the areas, then they deserve to beat me. And occasionally even if they beat me on 2 of 3 I'll come out with a big win, like in my cup game.

hehe... not really what i said. But this is getting super old. You keep posting your wins and i guess your doing it to try to prove your point about winning with a defensive CA team. I honestly hope you keep winning. But i've been around awhile and i've seen plenty of CA teams fail.

Good luck!!! Mediocrity awaits!

[MrBigglesworth]

My win streak has come to an end with a 3-2 loss.

Communist Grass Killers
Player rating and Team formation
Team Attitude: Match of the Season
Tactic: Counter-attacks
Tactic skill: brilliant

Midfield: poor (high)
Right Side Defence: solid (high)
Central Defence: formidable (high)
Left Side Defence: solid (high)
Right Side Attack: passable (very low)
Central Attack: weak (low)
Left Side Attack: wretched (very high)


Sparrows
Player rating and Team formation
Team Attitude: (Hidden)
Tactic: Normal
Tactic skill: (no tactic)

Midfield: weak (very high)
Right Side Defence: passable (very low)
Central Defence: solid (low)
Left Side Defence: weak (high)
Right Side Attack: passable (very high)
Central Attack: passable (very high)
Left Side Attack: solid (low)

I was out-hatstatted 184-165. The team has a divine forward, is a year and a half older than me, and my best forward is in poor form (and didn't play) so I'm not too upset with the loss. If I had played a 5-4-1 instead of a 5-3-2 I may even have won. They only scored one normal goal against my defense (1 pk and 1 negative unpredictable event) despite the divine forward. I think it is also worth noting that my weak(low) central attack scored on the CA against a solid(low) central defense. It is my theory that CA chances are more likely to go in than normal chances, and I think that hattristics backs that up.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think it is also worth noting that my weak(low) central attack scored on the CA against a solid(low) central defense. It is my theory that CA chances are more likely to go in than normal chances, and I think that hattristics backs that up.

im 99% sure that isn't true.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Havok

im 99% sure that isn't true.

According to the information here:

http://www.hattristics.org/pub/statActionTypes.php

~59% of all reported regular chances turn into goals, and ~55% of all CA chances turn into goals. However, here is the section of the rules on CA:

Counter-attacks
With Counter Attacks, when your opponents fails to score on an attack, you get a chance to make a counter-attack. Only one of the teams can use this benefit, namely the team that is not dominating the midfield. If you dominate the midfield, then you will just suffer the disadvantage (see below) of this tactic.

On the other hand, this tactic can be very useful if you have a strong defense and a good attack but your midfield is bad. This is especially so if your opponent has the opposite situation, as a good midfield and ineffective attack is a way of ensuring that you give your opponent a lot of missed chances to counter-attack on.

The disadvantage of this tactic is that you lose 7% of your midfield capacity.

Your ability to counter-attack, assuming you lose the midfield battle, depends on the total sum of the defending and passing skills of the defenders on your team. Only defenders count, so if you play 5-4-1, you will have the defender and passing skills of 5 of your players contributing to your counter-attacking ability.

Passing skill is twice as important as defender skill when calculating your counter-attack ability!

When calculating your counter-attacking skill, experience bonus is added for each defender, as with everything else.

If you manage to make a counter-attack, it is reported as either a missed chance or a goal.

First off, it says that every CA is reported, as opposed to normal chances where only the close chances are reported. So even though a higher % of reported normal chances turn into goals, the actual conversion % of CA's could be much higher.

Secondly, nowhere in the write-up does it say that CA gives extra chances. It's my belief that your ability to score CA goals takes into account your CA skill and your attack ratings. Nothing in the write-up in the rules refutes any of this.

This is all my own conjecture, so I could be wrong, but it adds up with the experience that I have had with it.

[Havok]

I guess its possible since im no expert... but i've never heard anyone ever say anything about it other then you. And im sure if it were true then Bjorn would have said it in the rules section much more clearly, not just leaving us guessing on it.

I think if you REALLY wanna make a solid CA team, you need to try a 4-3-3 with a balanced coach. First off the balanced coach will just about make up for having 1 less defender since an offensive coach REALLY REALLY takes alot away from your defense.(you'll be surprised how much once you switch)

Then once you get some decent forwards, you will have 1 hell of an attack. Plus the one side that you have a winger on will also benefit quite a bit from have 3 forwards scoring skill adding to that sides attack rather then just 2.

The main problem i see with so many CA teams is that they think they can just neglect they're offense/midfield entirely. So they run around with a Divine defense, crappy midfield and horrible attack. Then they wonder why they lose so much. Sure they might get a few CA's a game, but if your offense is crap you ain't gonna score on any of them. Thats one reason i said you've been kinda lucky so far... your few CA's have mainly been down your only strong attack side, which is unusual since its a wing attack.

So, if your really really serious about making a badass CA team, you might wanna rethink your strategy alittle. Having 9 trainee's instead of 10 isn't that big of a deal. Especially when your winning more games because of it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

First off, it says that every CA is reported, as opposed to normal chances where only the close chances are reported. So even though a higher % of reported normal chances turn into goals, the actual conversion % of CA's could be much higher.

Secondly, nowhere in the write-up does it say that CA gives extra chances. It's my belief that your ability to score CA goals takes into account your CA skill and your attack ratings. Nothing in the write-up in the rules refutes any of this.

This is all my own conjecture, so I could be wrong, but it adds up with the experience that I have had with it.

It sounds like reasonable logic. However, keep in mind that a team is probably CA'ing because their attack and defense are strong but their midfield is weak. So, a sample of teams counter attacking will have a higher attack across the board then the average sample of teams so they should score on more of their chances. They just won't get nearly as many.

Would you rather score on 50% of 4 chances or 100% of 2? They both score the same number of goals but one is much more efficient because their attack is strong but they don't get nearly as many chances since the midfield is weaker. Of course, this is the type of challenge we face every day- "which way of doing things is best for my team in the long run"

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

2-1 victory with defense, even with no CA goals. Lost Hatstats 164-161.

Communist Grass Killers
Player rating and Team formation

Team Attitude: Normal
Tactic: Counter-attacks
Tactic skill: magnificent

Midfield: poor (high)
Right Side Defence: excellent (very low)
Central Defence: excellent (low)
Left Side Defence: passable (high)
Right Side Attack: inadequate (low)
Central Attack: poor (very low)
Left Side Attack: inadequate (high)

Syrens
Player rating and Team formation

Team Attitude: (Hidden)
Tactic: Attack in the middle
Tactic skill: outstanding

Midfield: weak (very high)
Right Side Defence: inadequate (very low)
Central Defence: solid (low)
Left Side Defence: weak (high)
Right Side Attack: inadequate (low)
Central Attack: passable (low)
Left Side Attack: inadequate (low)

I don't think 4-3-3 CA would work as well, I'd be giving up a ton more goals with the center attacks that I am facing, as well as giving up a training space. Plus it would be another spot that I would have to upgrade.