Subjek: Canada U20 NT Discussion

Interesting.

There are 6 guys from the U17s that look like they might be worth looks (Terry Hatty, Theodore Brydon, Cortney Brochu, Michael Dublin, Brandon Johnson, Antony Irwin, basically the 5/6s that are over 900OR right now). Is there any way to see what their chemistry from the U17 team was/is? Or perhaps you remember them? As well, is there a definite known time for when it drops to 0? If they had little or no chemistry in the first place or the drop happens before week 3, I'd probably just go with the best 30 players of the top-50 ORs, scout the 18-year-olds and deal with the 0 chemistry.

Nope. Once gone I have no idea.

How hard is it to build chemistry on NTs, anyway? I know it took at least a few seasons before my club players made it to 100. Not a really big fan of Doiron and Tanner, but both have mid-teens in chemistry which could boost their relatively low ratings to be better than a 0 chem newbie who is slightly better.

Also, thoughts on Darren Oginski? Chemistry is 0, he's a 4/6 and he's barely over 1000 OR at 18. Still worth keeping?

You're the GM. I'd say no but lickings are slim.

Leafsdude, maybe, you can observe players you want... But it will take time.
For the next session I will say you best players of NT U17 who will be 18 y/o.

Added a few players this week, including 4 18-year-olds, to bring the roster to 30 players. 5 spots open still. Looking for a good CF with at least 350 OF and 250 Shot (3 of the 18-year-olds were solid strikers, but they're not ready, obviously). Probably isn't one available, but worth putting out feelers anyway, I think. Going to leave the other 4 spots open for 18-year-olds. Have a list of 5 at 920-950 OR that I'll scout later and choose the 4 best. Hopefully they aren't all strikers. Could use some young defenders.

Going to go vlow/high for this weekend's game to build some chemistry. Only going to have one player who is both likely to play during competitive games and already has good chemistry in the line up by then, so it shouldn't hurt in the long run.

Well, that was more successful than I expected. Got 5 points of chemistry for everyone who played 90 minutes today. Will probably leave everything the same for next weekend, except swap the center-backs (testing to see who plays better at that position) and see where everything stand at that point. Hoping energy doesn't drop and I can do it for 4 games to get the newcomers to 20 chemistry.

So not as good a day for chemistry as I hoped. Energy didn't suffer, but I think that experiment is over. Will play vlow over both halves for at least the next few weeks.

Also decided on my options on defense. With no good 3rd forward option available, I've decided to go with a 4-4-2 setup. Boring, but I think it fits our team the best right now.

A little curious with Darrel Hutchison after these two games. I figured he'd just be a tag-along guy who might get into a competitive game or two as a sub, but probably would more likely just sub in during friendlies to give the regs a breather, but he's put up a pair of 32 ratings, higher than the 26 and 27s put up by the guys I expected to be our starters. Wonder if playing time and game importance factors into ratings that much or not. Perhaps I'll find out next week.

Play him if he's better, but I'm totally bias on this one. I'm so deep with left defenders he's been lost in my back round.

Well, he's definitely got better secondary attributes, but he gives up 45-50 points in defense and I don't think the difference is that big.

That said, one of the guys I expected to play ahead of him makes a better wingback than centre back, so if he puts up a good number next Sat I might shift that guy over and stick Hutch in.

Of course, our two wingbacks got 31s, so he'd need to put up some solid numbers there, too.

Easy to tell by in game ratings

Yes, but what does (and doesn't) game rating consider?

It considers how good the engine sees each player. It considers energy chem exp and attys. Good enough for me.

So would it show the same number if the player plays 1 minute as it would if they play 90?

Correct, as far as I know. It is for the first moment they play not the last.