blonde poker forum

Going to regularly post some questions in here that I'm unsure about.

First one..

Should you choose a team you think will win the match or choose your best first 11?

Pro Level: Wenger choosing Ospina yesterday over Cech, he clearly felt comfortable with him and assumed the team he chose would win the game

Amateur Level: 3 strikers, best striker misses training, other two do well together, best striker scored a hat trick in last match. Playing lower league team, play best and 2nd best guy or the two guys who came to training and did "enough to beat this team"

Depends what rules you have

If you are like a lot of manager stressing the importance of attending training regularly then just pick your best player anyway might as well give up.

Also a question of resource management. If star striker bloke can only give you 20 performances a season then why 'waste' one here.

Also developing other two guys in games like this is good succession/contingency planning for injury, star leaving, etc.

Horses for Courses.

No generic answer to this. Basic man management based on the personalities of the individuals, and the dynamic of the group.
Does letting the best striker play affect the rest of the group? e.g. do they perceive the rules are different for him? Does it make it more difficult, long term to enforce attendance at training.
Does dropping the best striker have a positive or negative effect on him in the medium term.
etc....
It helps if you think you will win the game with any 2 from 3, as you can remove the result of the game as a variable.

So why does Wenger get stick, Arsenal were still big favourite with Ospina in goal so why should he be slaughtered today for benching Cech, giving his young goalkeeper some experience and his older keeper some rest?

Wenger gets stick because they lost. If they had won there wouldn't be any criticism.

so everybody who complains is being very stupid/has no idea?

no, its a results business

playing Cech at leicester, playing ospina in two champions league losses, not adequately explaining the selection decisions in a background where he is the only player to join your team in the summer leaves him wide open to criticism

if cech was not on the bench, and was really injured, then fair dos

Not necessarily stupid. Just different opinions which are heightened after a defeat.  

Easy to argue that if the Champions League game was a must win game then he should play his strongest team which would include Cech assuming he was 100% fit. Also easy to argue that the selection of Ospina shouldn't have made any difference to the outcome. They were still expected to winn.

Hart was on the bench at Spurs. It is safe to assume he wasn't 100% because he hadn't trained all week apart from a return on the Friday. They would have risked him in an emergency or, no doubt, if it was a higher priority game.

The media view, which is a big driver behind lots of the criticism is skewed by many things. Primary amongst them; they simply aren't very sophisticated, they often don't actually understand but most importantly they just need a story. They will say whatever gains their "news" the highest profile, the truth for most is irrelevant. Intelligent people should have only contempt for most mainstream British media outlets, they've most certainly earnt it.

(This would probably be better off is some sort of Jeremy Corbyn/Politics thread but still has application here.)

Think the claim is Cech wasnt fully fit but couldve played if push came to shove.  Without that info people are wondering why get such a good goalkeeper when for years its been a problem position and leave him out of the big games.

For your teams situation it really depends, its not a professional team so there will be times players cant make training or even games.  If a guy shows up almost every week and has a good reason for missing a week then I think its harsh to leave him out of the team, especially if he is your best player.  If missing training is a regular occurrence, with or without a legit reason, then you need to have a think about how you want to manage the team and maintain discipline within the squad, what your goals and expectations are for the team and what is your motivation as manager.

Playing the best players even when they dont show up to training might lead to the better players also not showing to training when they dont feel like it, safe in the knowledge that they will still play on matchday and it can hurt morale amongst the squad for the guys that do show up every week and still dont play however the opposite approach might affect results and bad results bring along tons of other problems such as low morale/loss of confidence by the players and the manager, players losing interest or leaving to go to a more successful team etc

The thing with amateurs is if they aren't getting paid properly, then their is no incentive to fight for the place. If they are good and not playing they will look to leave and find somewhere to get 90 minutes. There is always the untrainables, the guys who are so blatantly above the level but haven't made it as they don't care. These guys are like unbroken stallions, you are never going to break them though, so you decide if their attitude can be tolerated. The team tend not to mind. People tend not to mind as they like winning and playing your best players promotes that. I used to have the task of finding our star player on a Saturday morning. Often pulling him out of crack dens with a can of cider in his hand. Scored 50 goals a season! So....he got a pass! We once had a player turn up blatantly wasted, with a can of beer, wearing a honey monster outfit. That was the line (we still put him on the bench)

I <3 amateur games

If it his 1st training session missed a quiet word is suffice if he keeps missing it then you will probably have to drop him.

think this one is quite interesting.

professional standard (premier league)

is it better for a team to play with 3-5 different formations and change every game, or one formation that the players know inside out.

Teams these days train all week to nullify the opposition, for example if a team play 3-5-2 they very rarely do it for long. Martinez at Wigan started with 3-5-2 which was amazing, but after a few months teams spent a lot of time working it out and were ready by Saturday and they eventually were relegated that season. Chelsea this season have struggled because teams have "worked them out" Mourinho in general has moulded teams from scratch, to an exact system he wanted to play and always seemed to fail in his 3rd season.

So is it better to have 4-5 formations that are changed with education random which the players are not 100% sure about, or have 1-2 formations that they AND the opposition know very well