Forum

One item our survey had was how to we deal with big FW lines. I had three questions around this (questions 2-4). #2 was a clear winner for 1 Fw. #3 had momentum for adjusting the Sw formula. #4 was a dead heat (16-16) in terms of adding the Sw to the Df area for determining how many shots the oppo Fw's should get.

BUT. Question #2 didn't address making 1 Fw work. For example. I could load up the Df area (60 Df). But to make that 1 Fw work I'd need to somehow get that Fw area to 20 to fit within the 3:1 rule.

Some in fact said: "I assume this would still be with the 3:1 rule". Other said: "I assume we'd relax this to a 4:1 rule for Df to Fw".

One person said: "What about a 2:1 rule".

I've been tracking "area totals" the past couple of seasons for potential integration into pre-game previews (for example). Anyway, I have 1666 records for those two season (I'm using MSWL U1 stats for this). Essentially 1 record per team per game per season.

I've just now looked at instances where, if we implemented a 2:1 rule, how many "violations" we would have had in that timeframe. Here's the breakdown:

Df > (2 x Mf) = 77

Df > (2 x Fw) = 110

Mf > (2 x Df) = 105

Mf > (2 x Fw) = 161

Fw > (2 x Df) = 475

Fw > (2 x Mf) = 544

This sort of reveals the loadup on Fw lines.

Anyway, my thought is that 2:1 could be an alternative approach to moving to the 1 Fw rule. I feel like if we implemented 1 Fw then it might not do much without allowing for 4:1 from Df to Fw (1 Fw maybe up to 17 or so at the high end; at 3:1 current rule that's a Df of 51 max which isn't necessarily a great Df). In the end I'm not sure that 1 Fw approach would be much of a change and just introduce more rules.

We could also go with the approach that the 2:1 rule is only enforced when calculating shots. I could play a 30 Df, 30 Mf, and 70 Fw line but only treat the Fw line as 60 for the purposes of calculating shots I would get (though use 70 if the oppo Df was 75 or something). That could get a little confusing but a "relaxed" 2:1 could allow you to violate the rule (as it might be tough to always follow) but NEVER allow you to get shots at higher than the 2:1 ration. It MIGHT allow your Df to get higher than the 2:1 too like a 70 Df, 30 Mf, 30 Fw...and in that case the Df could only get shots if the opposition Fw area was 60 or less, but if they were 70...the Df would stay at 70...a stalemate.

I'd prefer to just enforce the 2:1 rule in the same way we do the 3:1 rule (by not allowing you to violate it in your Orders page). But I'd be open to considering that since there might be times you need to (based on lineup choices) but you'd do so with the knowledge that the violation would not get you any extra shots.

I know you've probably fallen asleep by now...

This change would NOT be for the upcoming season, but would be for the one after that (to allow for some advanced notice).

Anyway...I've put up a new poll for this. Please vote and comment.

Readers Comments

Steve Turner on Sunday, Sep. 16th, 2012 at 12:48 PM

For me, it is the simplest solution and I think it probably levels the playing field a bit as well as making people have a re-think about MF. Give it a go and see what happens.

Craig Bucknall on Sunday, Sep. 16th, 2012 at 5:59 PM

ï»I'm not in favor of the general rule 2:1 as i think it will bring less divergence to team set ups. teams will become more similar and tactical strategies less important

Vick Hall on Sunday, Sep. 16th, 2012 at 6:58 PM

My phone wouldn't let me comment earlier - a blanket 2:1 might be easier to implement but I wouldn't be against 3:1 Df over Mf or Fx, or Mf over Fw

Steve Turner on Sunday, Sep. 16th, 2012 at 8:07 PM

You could always max the number of attacks each area can generate...

Andy Bate on Monday, Sep. 17th, 2012 at 3:18 AM

I don't like the 2:1 option. I agree with Vick - it would push a lot of teams to having the same exact makeup. The only way to promote diversity of lineups is to relax the ratio, not tighten it.

Rob Peterson on Monday, Sep. 17th, 2012 at 10:45 AM

ï»any rule that stops our goalie repeatedly picking the ball out of our net and not having him sit with the shrink both at half time and full time is great by me

Rob Lye on Tuesday, Sep. 18th, 2012 at 6:35 PM

We had a three different survey questions and then now one additional website poll on the topic of alternatives to the big Fw line which seems to be the primary tactic teams currently use to earn titles. The idea was to discuss and vote on options/approaches to provide methods to better counteract the above Big Fw line approach.

The voting on this poll which was something of a summary of the best alternative approaches was:

Make a change - 20 (74%)

Make no change - 7 (26%)

There's a variety of ideas on how to approach this. I read through all of them and my approach is to try to balance alternate strategies/tactics with simplicity

Based on that, while I initially liked the 2:1 idea I can see where it could be a little restrictive.

We're about to start seasons 4 and 14 for U2 and U1 respectively.

The season 5/15 rule changes will be:

a) A team must have a minimum of 1 Fw (rather than the current minimum of 2)

b) A team's Df area may not exceed 4 times the team's Fw area (rather than the current three times maximum)

c) A team's Fw area may not exceed 3 times the team's Df area (this is the current rule and will not change)

Al Sellers on Saturday, Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 6:03 PM