Subject: I.1

It might just not be possible for tactics or player ability to outweigh the so-called random factor quite yet.

I'd like to think that there is an explanation based on tactics though. Have you reviewed the actual play-by-play - does the other team make a lot of steals and blocks are do you have relatively weak shooting?

i get there is blocking, steals and all of this associated. but how can you explain a very close 1st half and a huge difference on 2nd when neither team changed anything on 2nd half? that is what i am struggling to accept. The only explanation is random factor playing big time in here. And if random plays that big, not sure about the future of handball ....

if you want to see yourself, check the one i am talking about.

handball.powerplaymanager...

same match intensity, both teams kept same tactics and formation the entire game.

My team played at home, "only" 4 players played all 60 minutes so there is less fatigue (if that exist in this game) factor against resovia who played all 60 minutes.

Theoretically 6-0 is best to defend against fast break, so my defense should have the edge and not allowing that many goals on 2nd half.

Just dont get why Resovia fast break didnt work on 1st half but worked on 2nd. And why their defense was much better on 2nd half. the only explanation is: random factor.

You are subbing out 2 players on a 6-0 defense against a fast break team. His Left wing was killing you as your Left Back Testa and Micheľ were constantly subbing out. That is the difference between the halves. Fast break was working in the second half with the 6 steals. Maybe you should look at working in a different system for your subs instead of a constant up / down sub system where 2 players are leaving the court. Speedy wingers with a good passing goalie will be hard to overcome with your system as time progresses.

then again i could be completely wrong on what I am thinking here

A few stats stick out:

1) Resovia had 6 steals to your one in the second half.
2) Resovia had 8 assists to your two in the second half.
3) Resovia had 11 attempted fast breaks to your 3 in the second half.
4) Resovia scored 50% to your 0% both out of 8 at 9m in the second half.
5) Resovia had 1 shot wide to your 7 in the second half.
6) Resovia had 17 more shots than you in the second half. Their shot total also increased by around the amount your shot total decreased.
7) You used up your timeout early in the second half.
8) You were both playing on high at the one fourth point for some reason (not really relevant to solving the problem - just surprising).

Primarily, it seems like they had momentum in the second half. Your timeout failed to break their momentum, and they were then able to continue to build momentum for the rest of the half.

The increase in successful fast breaks goes along with the momentum and the increase in assists.

The shots wide and missed might be attributable to your shooting ability if any of your player have weak shooting (perhaps a bad player could shoot, helping the other team to create momentum). Perhaps that is some sort of risk inherent in the balanced shooting strategy. I've definitely had success by focusing on giving my best shooter more shots.

The steals and shots wide both contributed to your low shot total at 6m.

Perhaps some of this coincided with whatever substitutions you made.

By looking at the pictures, the 4-2 looks better able to defend against 9m and 7m shots, whatever those are while the 6-0 looks better able to defend against 6m shots.

Overall: perhaps they were able to force you to take a lot of 9m shots, many of which were forced wide or stolen, allowing them to make more successful fast breaks (after all, the guide says that fast breaks should accompany the 4-2 or 3-2-1 formations). Their success with the fast breaks allowed them to quickly turn around and take more 6m shots and build momentum (perhaps it takes longer for you to get back into position for the 6-0 formation or something). Since you converted on your shots in the first half, you did not have this problem in the first half.

Suggestion? Perhaps 6-0 would work better with the slow transition. Perhaps the balanced shooting preference is not the most effective, though one would expect it to be more effective. Finally, you could probably have used the timeout more effectively, though I'm not sure how. Maybe you can come up with something else based on this wall of test.

as far as i know, i was subbing on 1st and 2nd half, so it does not explain neither.

he had 6 steals on 2nd but i had 6 on 1st. If you see, pretty much the steals and blocks we had on 1st half was the same on 2nd, but for opposite teams.

I had only 3 more TO on 2nd half, but 9 less shots at goal.

also i had almost 2x more wide shots on 2nd than 1st with 2x less attempts. the difference is ridiculous high.

tescasamoa also seems to have a good idea.

Have you double checked that you have the optimal players playing each position with regard to attributes (and not attribute qualities)? I changed the positions of some of my players a week or so ago and have generally had respectable results.

my "complaint" isnt necessarily if i had the best or worse strategy to the game. it is just that 1st and 2nd half were VERY different even though neither team changed tactics/formation on 2nd half.

that is what makes me believe it is hardly impossible to make any analysis and actually learn tactics as things just dont make any sense.

The best way to make sense of things would be to explain the result by the probability of momentum resulting from tactics.

A better inquiry might be whether you have had any similar results using the same formation (or a similar results to your opponent while using your opponent's formation).

I was playing the same tactics i think in the credit tournament. although the opponent not necessarily the same. I was among top team from most of time in the tournament but among the last in here.

Also, this was the only game i had a horrible half like this one.

also noticed i was able to beat almost any team when i had more shots than the opponent.

this match was not usual and i find it hard to get any explanation other then: random!!

like .. "random momentum" and he had won random several times.

Today I had this issue

I have Series of conceded goals set up like this
i42.tinypic.com/r21c1g.pn...

Yet in this game
handball.powerplaymanager...

This did not happen.

back up came in at 07:15
then at 45:16 the starter came back in and finished the game.

So they did not follow the rules at at.

i replied on reporting bugs what i remember vlad answering before...

todays match: 12!!! yeah, 12 un answered goals!!!!!

if teas are soooo close to each other, how can someone explain that?????
I scored 2 ..
then he scores 4 and i ask for time out
then I score 3 and he ask for time out
then he scores TWELVE !!!!!!! pretty much all goals u t the end of match. I only scored the last goal of half.

there is another example of very one sided ahlf for one team and a more balanced 2nd. there is no fast break here.

now i want to hear the fast break and sub theory again ....

handball.powerplaymanager...

More interesting stattisc to see how bizarre and wrong this is:

in the half i lacked scoring opportunity ...
8 TO against 6 TO. so I had 2 less opportunities to shoot.
3 steals agaisnt 2 steals .. one extra less opportunity.

so .. total 3 less opportunities.

he had 22 shots while i had 11. if I didnt lose the 3 opportunities, Id have 14 shots.

so, since usually is one shot (saved, goal or wide) per possession unless a TO, steal or block then what happened to the 8 possessions to equal to Mojo?????

and, if we consider a steal is a TO, then what happened to the 9 missing shots or TO ??

Now i am wondering if it is more than just random but broken match engine ...