Θέμα: US Under 19 Team

Nice work.

Let me know if you'd like to see any training tweaks from my players that you mentioned.

Marty Geese is about 85 points away from the "base" training ratios. He needs roughly 30 pts on TEC and SPE and 25 on PAS.

I'm interested to see what your analysis finds (if anything), but in the meantime I can't justify adding him when several of the other guys are ready to go now and don't need to "catch up" ... especially since he'd only be on the team for 1 season anyways.

Your responses are appreciated, but I think each national team manager has their own style too. I'm not the type to be a baby sitter. I posted a very deep guide on 7/21/2015 in this thread of my desired training ratios. It hasnt been a mystery and all managers have had plenty of time to rework/tweak things with their players.

So... perhaps it's different from the way other managers run things, but the way I see it, having a player on the national team(s) is a privilege that managers should have to work for... it's not the responsibility of the national team managers to manage everyone's player training for them.

Hey! No problem! I've been waiting years (or so it seems) for these youth teams to get started. I love how dynamic they are from season to season.

Will do! There were a few gut feelings I had regarding training for coming seasons (mostly in regards to SHO and BLK) but I need to check on where we're at with (current) 15-16 year olds before recommending anything.

We do have a very stout crop of offensive backs who will only be 18 in the coming season, while all of the defensive ones I looked at will be gone after next season. Depending what the younger class looks like (guys who will be 16-17 year olds in the coming season), it might be prudent to have one or two of the more offensive guys emphasize a bit of defense so we aren't completely deficient there in season 10.

But like I say, we'll see once I look at the younger guys. Don't change anything you're doing unless I message you directly.

My scouting queue empties out so damn fast. I'm completing 3 scouts every 2 days.

Although, the nice thing is that I'll be able to spend the vast majority of my scouting resources on our opponents as soon as the coming season starts and I know what their rosters look like.

Can lanky and brightside present in private message who they are looking at to come down, please cc
xalthos

So U21 is 21,20,19 ???

I agree with bulls4ever, generally - I'm not weighing in on Marty Geese as much as I am on adding players that are projects. Succinctly said, failing to consider them can lead to significant missed opportunities, decreasing the team's (and possibly the U21 team's and senior team's) potential. Of course, the risk associated with a project needs to be sufficiently outweighed by the potential improvement to the depth of the team.

While the national team manager should ideally not be required to play babysitter and take responsibility for the training of other teams' players, refusing to [try to] do so can result in missing out on some great players. In the case where an 820 OR player is well-trained and an 840 OR player is poorly trained, other things equal, I'd say that the 820 OR player is the clear choice, however, if the 840 OR player were instead a 940 OR player, it might be worth adding that player to the team. There should be enough space that, should the player fail to improve, the national team would have a replacement ready. You might end up wasting a little chemistry, but you could also end up with a much stronger player.

There have been numerous players that were poorly trained that became key players for the U18 hockey team. I once added a defenseman that was trained 1:1:1 for some reason - Drew Gallant became a key player trained at the ideal 2:1:1 ratio. He is now a member of the senior national team in hockey. All I have had to do was send a quick message, and the majority of managers have easily agreed to fix their player. Only once did I add a really promising 900 OR player (800 OR was about average for U18 18 year olds) that failed to improve - once it became clear that the player's manager was reverting the player's training ratio back to its initial training ratio, I replaced the player instead of continuing to badger the manager to change his training scheme to the one I preferred. Based on this experience, I've been less likely to consider projects from this team, though I still scout ~10 players from the team each season, just in case. On the other hand, another one or two particular managers have on occasion had training ratios different from what I would like, but I know that I can count on them to fix them by the end of the season from experience.

Another thing to consider is that many of the best players could be from foreign teams who are very unlikely to read the United States forums. Realistically, there are probably only tens of U.S. managers that will read the handball NT forum (though interest in the handball NT has actually been surprisingly large, at times, in my opinion).

In any case, it is not unreasonable to exclude some extreme project that is clearly worthless without improvement, though another manager might opt to take a risk on the project. Considerations of chemistry, limited roster space, and the risk that a player won't improve or will subsequently revert need to be weighed against the potential of a project. Hockey is also somewhat different in that I have the luxury of 14 weeks without a competitive match before the World Championships at the end of the season. Even so, there is at least the possibility that taking the initiative with these projects, however irritating it may be to have to do so, can substantially improve the team.

Another thing to consider - I can almost guarantee that at least a few of the well-trained players that make the team will start to train poorly over the course of the season. These players can become worthless without a quick reminder to the player's manager.

Finally, for something completely different, I noticed that a few players listed had particularly bad facilities. I didn't check everyone, but Carl Schmidt stuck out in particular with his level 9 training facility and OR that already looks relatively average compared to the rest of the depth chart. Carl Schmidt can probably still be salvaged by being sold or by increased investment in facilities by his manager, but it seems like he will train poorly for the foreseeable future.

i was trying to explain that... not really talking about my goalie but in general ..

the youngster team is the one that will be responsible to develop players for future NT teams. babysitting is almost a must, specially when we start to see teams not playing their youngster till they are older. most managers just neglect them but are often wiling to work with NT managers

as far as my goalie, all i said is that i could manage to fix him if he wanted to add to the team. if he is not added (since there are other better ones i guess he wont) them i will continue to my experiment

Done.

I believe u19 is all players 19 and under. Players that are 17-18 this season are 18-19 next season.

I'll respond to the rest tomorrow when I'm at a computer. Phone sucks for forum posts.

I'd honestly love to have Marty Geese on the team, and were this any other season, I'd probably have reached out to Bulls to make sure that he was properly trained in time for his call up. This is the inaugural season though, so things have been a little bit different.

All of this discussion is moot though anyways, because Marty Geese wouldn't be the one getting prime play time even if he DID have proper ratios. He'll be the 1st backup AT BEST. I'll be leaning on Nathaniel Cunningham the most. He's a year younger, has similar OR and eQ, trains at similar level facilities, actually plays games, and is one of the best goalies in the U19 age bracket (as judged by OR and eQ).

Nathaniel Cunningham is the goalie the senior national team should want me to pay attention to, and that is exactly what I'm doing.

I appreciate the feedback, and it is all duly noted.

Just a couple of notes in response:

- I have no problem contacting managers about the player's training. I'm less likely to be concerned about players who are aging out of the u19 bracket in less than 3 months though. I view that as the u21 coach's job at that point (to tell the managers of the 19 year olds how he wants them trained for the coming seasons).

My focus is moreso on the training of the 16-18 year olds.
1) because managers actually have time to fix their training in time for them to be of interest for the U19 team.
2) I view anything beyond that as the responsibility of the coaches of the other national teams (who may have different training preferences than I do).

- The listed players that were considered for slots was based on eOR when I ran the filter (as of the date of that post). Carl Schmidt was the lowest eOR of the players listed for consideration, and was largely considered because he's got good ratios, and is Universal. You'll note that just because I consider players, doesn't mean that they have made the team. Facilities were absolutely one of the larger considerations (as evidenced by the number of players that will likely come from Mojo, Emus, and McGees.

As I conduct my analysis of younger players, i'll have a full idea of which guys should be on the team solely because of their possible future impact for the u19, u21, and senior national teams.

Marty Geese could very well get a nod due to his potential future value, but these spots are definitely fewer in number than the spots available for players who can make the u19 team as competitive as possible.

Given the structure of the NT schedule in handball, that seems reasonable to me, since you have to start competing much sooner than the hockey national teams have to do so. I might still push for players that could catch up and be sufficiently better within 1-3 weeks, if such a player might be excluded, but it seems like a reasonable policy, assuming that the U21 manager will follow through.

I don't think there's really any disagreement over Carl Schmidt; I just considered facilities sooner after noting that Schmidt isn't likely sufficiently better than the average player under consideration to outweigh having weaker facilities. As long as facilities are given weight, I have no complaint.

In any case, you seem to have done a great job planning for the team starting next season and should do a good job running the team next season.