Teema: I.1

What do you mean by total player build that is the most important? If blocking doesn't count in offense and shooting doesn't matter in defense then those skill points are "wasted" because you could use the time to train those into skills that specialize the player in one role.
When I scout and see how the national teams are composed I never see "dual purpose" players. I guess to have the best team you can, you have to go with 6 different players in offense and 6 different players in defense?

If you have the time, scout the following players on my team (Thunder Stealers...Can 1.1) and give me your opinion on their performances.
Resmer
Franklin
Gillett
Revie (NT player)
I would be interested in your observations.

From an article in the PPM magazine under the "information" tag, authored by canucks357 and dated 18.04.2014.
"For those of you who do not want to read on further, let me summarize my findings now. Chemistry adds a 25% bonus and experience adds a 20% bonus. These bonuses are added to the energy-modified player build. For those of you who want to see the numbers and equations on how this works to test it on your own, read on."
I have assumed 100% chemistry, and 100% energy in my example.
Player build refers to the player's total OR. It seems to me, that training should occur on all the high percentage aptitudes that could apply to the position regardless of whether it is offense, defense, or both. If a player has a low training percentage on shooting say, but high on blocking, I would train him more on the blocking, thus making him a defensive player, but I may not totally ignore the shooting aspect if it were around the 50 mark. Recently in U19 handball World Cup play, I was questioned about using a two-way player in an offensive roll. It was done because we were weak offensively at that position, and using him there allowed for an energy savings at the corresponding defensive position. He ended up being the first star of the game, with more goals than any of the offensive players he was with. Maybe an aberration, but maybe not.

I prefer to have specialists, but mixed players could work if you want a speedy formation that focuses on fastbreaks.

one thing to keep in mind is that the NT doesn't have to take into account the cost of keeping these players around. As one of very few teams in canada with top facilities, I frequently have to pay over 1M in fees every day just for having extra players on my roster (because I'm trying to develop some talent for the younger NTs, and the FAs are almost bankrupting me and I don't even have that many older players).

And in a league with as little competition as canada's I.1, it actually makes more sense on a team-building perspective to have as little players as possible playing on the team, since it won't actually make a difference in your league standing at the end of the season (although it does mean letting players go that could be useful to the NT, but they end up on team with lousy facilities and lost in the shuffle).

That, unless you're one of the top 2 teams and trying to do well in the champion's league or cup winner's cup. Which tbh I suck at both anyway so maybe I should go with less players haha. But I like my guys

I tend to use that tactical approach on the league team.

So it seems like having dual purpose players (off-def) is better for the team from the economical perspective (scenarios mentioned above), but if someone is going to have the "best team ever" you have to use the two line ups (off & def). The fact that all the top teams (both clubs and NT) do that, makes me think that there is no in-game benefit of not doing the subs.
Do you all agree?

I'd say there is also an energy component to take into consideration here. By the end of the season, a player who's been playing 60 minutes per game (some at at high-very high) for the whole season won't have much of it left.

I don't often go above normal as far as intensity goes (and often dial down if I'm ahead at half time), and the guys that played full games during the training camps are barely above 70 energy now. I would expect playing the entire season would look like 50 energy at this point? You certainly have to be more careful if you have mostrly 2-way players.

Given the great disparity between team strengths, even in Div.I, energy savings and experience for younger players can both benefit by using the extra formations available. A delicate balance between the use of formations and game energy can minimize the effects on individual player energy without jeopardizing your chances of winning. You may sacrifice the chance at individual player awards, but it is a team sport!

Yeah, different formations when you are way ahead or loosing a lot is what comes to my mind as well, so energy component isn't really an issue here. Especially if you have a league (like ours) that have only a few strong teams and the rest is much weaker.

true, but those individual player awards are what's keeping me afloat atm! xD

Why do you have so many staff? Those salaries look like your biggest problem right now.

Keeping the roster size to 25 or less players so you can keep staff size to the minimum required will save you a lot of unnecessary expense.

As a followup, my staff salaries are 1,198,032 per day. Compare that with what you're paying over the course of a season and ask yourself if you're really getting your money's worth out of the extra spending.

True, I haven t done much cleanup in the staff department lately. 2.7M per day *is* a lot.

But yeah, that's part of the problem, I'm in such a place where I can't keep my players to a minimum, because otherwise our NT will suffer immensely. So I need 3-4 staff for most categories + training replacements for the ones that will retire (I've had such crap luck with the staff market and cannot be on to do bidding wars most of the time, so I train one up and sell the older guy as soon as the other one can fill in so I never have a gap).

The facilities and staff make a pretty big difference in how players train and we only have like 4 or 5 teams left with top facilities in canada now, so it's a very small sample size. I'm having to cut my veterans each season to make roster space for the youngsters (which I end up selling when they're 20-21 unless they're amazing in which case I keep until they're like 28-29 so they get most of their best training, and then just redo the cycle all over again) which means I'll never compete for first place, but now I'm pretty much always 2nd even with a team comprised mostly of youth prospects. However, if I was to let half of that roster go, then we would also lose potential senior NT players to likely teams with lousy facilities who have an influx of cash atm (because it costs so much to keep a good roster unless you're top of your league you can't afford it very often).

I mean, it's a choice I'm making to "waste" my ressources, but I can't say the game mechanics are helping me in this situation.

Yeah, I suppose trying to prop up the national teams so heavily yourself will lead to financial difficulties.