Subject: National Team

I totally agree we should find someone who very good in soccer and has won at it.

I agree. My point was that managing a NT is completely different then managing your own. Even an assistant like Ziggy who has helped with the NT and knows its in and outs should lead.

Let me know if Im wrong but theres a lot of work and commitment to running NT.

Here are the players I think will have a shot at NT

Arnold Monroe 320 OR Mid at 65 and climbing

Charlie McCain 290 OR Def at 80 Tec at 48

Both are 6/6 AVG Q are in 70's... I have a few more but not the studs that these 2 are.

The first one probably but the 2nd probaby not

i got 4 americans with 290 OR and above. 1 is 351 OR and the other 1is around 320 OR. I thiink The min.OR would be 320 Or so just think bout that

agreed. separate managers would be best. and i also think american managers should have preference for the job.

Why 320 OR as a min Vextor? You just trying to make sure your 2nd guy makes the team?

it depends where the OR is placed... the combination is very important... so it could be a 290 and better then the 300 if the stats are well balanced...

100% corect

"Requirements" would probably vary a bit based on position. Also, I assume that the OR requirement would be over 300 if the team was put together today. I have a player at 299 OR who is 90th in the US in OR. I assume quite a few of these players above him have balanced (or close to balanced) attributes and are US born players.

"Balanced" could mean different things for different managers right now. As we find out more about what works for attribute distribution, it'll be easier to compare players with different setups.
For example my 299 player at right defender is 60/30/35/48/25 (D/P/T/S/H). He has some MF, OFF, and SHO as well, but those are (or should be) less significant for defenders. I consider him balanced, but other managers may think his primary is to low (or too high).

I see everyone here keep talking about balance of the stats but remember soccer is not like hockey where the universally accepted 2:1:1 is known to all. Here there are so many balanced variations that the players accpeted will be up to who ever we elect. So yes a 290 may have a better chance then a 320. No sense to being to try to put OR limits on players.

The thing to these players & I like that Runny mentioned it is the AVQ. That plays a part in if they are NT worthy or not. I would rather a 290 70AVQ vs a 320 55AVQ. Again all will be up to our future NT coach.


Perosnally I have been looking through everyone in league I.1 and putting into my scouting que any player that is a 7 rating or better regardless of OR. After I finish out all the 7+ I may do some 6's.

LOL..... The second guy has higher stats and more experience. And look at HOCKEY and there are some CRAPPY higher OR rating guys. We need to base it off of the att'ys for each specific position.

true your not just going to hand it someone with 100 offense with no technique or speed

I agree that there is no universally accepted ratio or balance in soccer. That was the point of my second paragraph.

I also agree on AQ playing a role. No since in choosing a player for the team that is going to be surpassed by another candidate in a season. (Should say qualities for the position, not straight AQ however)

I also like the idea of scouting players for the team based on match ratings, but I've noticed that the ratings vary between home and away games. I assume you're looking at home games for I.1 teams. I'll add some players from II.4 meeting the same criteria to my scouting list.

Actually I haven't noticed a major diffence between home & away as much as I have seen a difference between low & normal for game importance.