Selecciona un país: |
![]() |
Argentina |
Pd: ya me lo va a reponer el laburo again jaja
No hay apuro igual. Los 2 para esta tempi de 16y ya estan. Lo q necesitamos es algo para jugar la proxima tempo asi no salimos 5-5-0 jaja
Pd: un flaco q tiene al 2do arquero de la u17 le dije hoy q lo entrene al 70% cab (rateo 2ptos menos el suyo) y me tiro todo esto
It's very hard to compare them based on the ratings as it could be very near 12,5 and 13,5 and if that is the case Medina is not better trained but slightly worse. With such low ratings the calculation can be 7% off. The strengths, which for Conde in an instant challenge match is 62, would be much more accurate to compare them.
It would be very easy to compare them if we knew their strengths in a whole match for both goalies.
50 experience points is 10% in strength so the 3 experience points is +0,6%, which is negligible. But the ratings could give a 7% error, which is why you can't use them...strength points would be 1,6% off only (like 62,5/61,5).
I have a complex excel table calculating the better traing methods. I use it for years to know the best training ratios. To compare any two players you only need to eliminate 2 things, chemistry and experience (energy is a simple linear factor, easy to correct) and then you can easily compare any player to any other. In our case it would be VERY simple if we knew both goalie strength, but ratings are no good because of the huge 7% error possibility as above explained.
It's very hard to compare them based on the ratings as it could be very near 12,5 and 13,5 and if that is the case Medina is not better trained but slightly worse. With such low ratings the calculation can be 7% off. The strengths, which for Conde in an instant challenge match is 62, would be much more accurate to compare them.
It would be very easy to compare them if we knew their strengths in a whole match for both goalies.
50 experience points is 10% in strength so the 3 experience points is +0,6%, which is negligible. But the ratings could give a 7% error, which is why you can't use them...strength points would be 1,6% off only (like 62,5/61,5).
I have a complex excel table calculating the better traing methods. I use it for years to know the best training ratios. To compare any two players you only need to eliminate 2 things, chemistry and experience (energy is a simple linear factor, easy to correct) and then you can easily compare any player to any other. In our case it would be VERY simple if we knew both goalie strength, but ratings are no good because of the huge 7% error possibility as above explained.
Es un delirante . 7% de error en la u17 lo banco.
Pero de ahí a decir esa estupidez , no tiene sentido.
Si no cree que cabeza sea la habilidad más importante en un arquero , mándale link a los dos arqueros viejos de Eslovenia
Mismo HT, misma exp, uno ratea 65 y el otro 77. La única diferencia entre ambos, es CABEZA
Pero de ahí a decir esa estupidez , no tiene sentido.
Si no cree que cabeza sea la habilidad más importante en un arquero , mándale link a los dos arqueros viejos de Eslovenia
Mismo HT, misma exp, uno ratea 65 y el otro 77. La única diferencia entre ambos, es CABEZA
Ya le mande banda de ejemplos. Es un idiota.
Le mostre a niño.
Le mostre a Alaniz vs Idiarte.
Los 2 de la u17 ahora...
Es cabeza dura.
Le mostre a niño.
Le mostre a Alaniz vs Idiarte.
Los 2 de la u17 ahora...
Es cabeza dura.
veo que hablan de arqueros y del tenma cabeza, pregunta cual es el porcentage que conviene con referencia a la principal?
Ya me lo reponen de laburo la semana que viene. Ni siquiera mando el chip claro aun.
Tranka amego
Tranka amego
Temas favoritos
Ultimos comentarios