Confused about result

So I lost against the strongest team in my league. That's not that big a thing: he does have an avg.CSR about 25k more than me, but then I took a look at the stats...

http://www.blackoutrugby.com/game/tools.live.scoring.php#fixture=12824794

The Reporters Summary suggests he was slightly better than me. However, the match stats tell a different story.

I had more possession and more territory. While I lost the scrum battle, I wasn't hammered. Surprisingly, I dominated the l/o. I had more phases, won more rucks and conceded 1/3rd of the penalties.

Apart from finishing chances, I'm not sure what I can do better. Would you say I should therefore buy a winger instead of a lock/flank? Is finishing more important than the scrum, the l/o or the breakdown?

It could be tactics? Perhaps he just called you out on the defense types.

Could you perhaps expand upon that, please.

basically he might have just beat you in 4 different games of rock paper scissors at the same time

although in this game its pick and go drive expansive creative rush drift man on man

so not quite rock paper scissors

what may of happened is he called all the correct defence types to nullify your most prominent attacking option

and you at the same time may have chose the wrong defence types to combat his most prominent attacks

in which case you have either a positive versus a negative by which i mean you attacked him well but defended badly

he defended badly but attacked well (less likely)

or he defended well and beat you in attack (double negative)

if you chose to drift and he used driving plays for example thats a win for him more often than not

if he chose to drift defend your expanive dominant percentages then he would also win more often that not

if the above two statements are remotely true then its what i would call a double negative and everything or most things don't go your way in attack or defence

there are things which can change this like a dominant scrum ruck or lineout for example but if those are fairly matched then your in toruble.

by 4 games of rock paper sciccors i mean in every area of the park

but eve winning 3 of those areas is enough

It's either bad luck or he has scouted you and guessed correctly. Either you are predictable or unlucky.

Right, I understand. Cheers.

Yet I still feel a niggling problem: even if I'd got the defense right, my lack of finishing/his defense would have been a problem. Are better players the only way to rectify this?

yeah i'm afraid so. You are about 25% behind in CSR per player. Thats not always insurmountable but in this case with this manager and this team a influx of better players seems a necessity.

Well half an influx plus different tactics might work

OK, cheers. I need to get as close as possible tactically, as my player influx won't happen for a while. I need to save money to buy.

Switching some players around, and using different tactics can certainly help. The training you have in place too, especially if that marries up with future tactical bias. CSR is also there to be referred to, but not taken as gospel, much like the reporter's stars it can at times mislead and sometimes flat out lie.

Investment is a good way to bring a team up that said, but typically it also raises ongoing costs which limits future potential to improve by such method. So be careful of raising the spend in player wages (which is the big cost for all the talk of lvl 4/5 training costs) and don't spend more if it'll see you end up in the same position anyway. And have some idea of what you want the investment to achieve, if you want to set foundations for the next 5-6 seasons you might buy a very different player to if you want to win the play-offs starting next round. Or put another way it's cheaper to buy old players, and if they come with much higher experience then they're much better for a similar wage cost, but of course they might also need replacing somewhat sooner.

Jading wrote:Switching some players around, and using different tactics can certainly help. The training you have in place too, especially if that marries up with future tactical bias.  CSR is also there to be referred to, but not taken as gospel, much like the reporter's stars it can at times mislead and sometimes flat out lie.

Investment is a good way to bring a team up that said, but typically it also raises ongoing costs which limits future potential to improve by such method.  So be careful of raising the spend in player wages (which is the big cost for all the talk of lvl 4/5 training costs) and don't spend more if it'll see you end up in the same position anyway.  And have some idea of what you want the investment to achieve, if you want to set foundations for the next 5-6 seasons you might buy a very different player to if you want to win the play-offs starting next round. Or put another way it's cheaper to buy old players, and if they come with much higher experience then they're much better for a similar wage cost, but of course they might also need replacing somewhat sooner.

I understand, too. I'm in the middle of adapting my team for the future. I have a 33y/o SH and 35y/o FH, both of whom have younger replacements. The FH has already lost his spot and he is now (as of 4 games ago) my first choice FB (the younger guy is slower, but has better attack). The SH is just being switched to 13, with the guy who would have been his replacement coming in at 9. However, I'm not sure about his skills, in hindsight...

I'm not spending any more money now, though. I may even get rid of some higher earners over the next year, to reduce my wages and save me more to spend on the transfer market when I need to. Lvl3s are coming shortly, so that will have an impact on my young talents, too.

Lvl 3s are a huge boon as they grant that 4th TT slot, which in conjunction with a squad that benefits from training is a big fillip