Chairman/Commish,

Dear Sirs,

This is an official appeal against the 5-0 blowout just dealt to BUC at the weekend while visiting PET and trying to play some entertaining footie with a reasonable BUC team playin (initially) 4-2-4 N!!. While PET opted for a 5-4-1 stall for the whole game...and BUC did try & avoid a blowout by playiing stall after somehow going 3-0 down (I am learning from the previous 2 blowouts this season which maybe I deserved given the lineups & inept tactics I used)....but still PET managed to score another 2 goals & hey presto blowout !!!!. Granted I am a Newbie & that there is much work to be done at BUC to try & avoid relegation/prep for next season....but surely this result was not deserved & that BUC have suffered enough just by the scoreline!. I await your decision.

Dan (A disgruntled BUC manager).

http://www.olmec.org/sesl/teams.jsp?teamid=10&page=account

What did BUC actually lose here for blow out?

I looked at your team account (link above) and no money seems auto deducted.

Did you lose 2CP?

And is blowout not by 6 goals rather than 5? (I dont have rules handy to check)

I think BUC were unlucky, and score was a bit high.

However, 424 N ???

Clearly midfield was too weak.


If BUC learned that lesson, then blow-out served it purpuse to play a WG as a MF to help balance team next time?

I feel that Buckie were incredibly unlucky to lose 5-0. Peterhead were lucky to get five shots in the match, and then to score all five past an SL27 keeper who had a better than 50% chance of saving every shot.

Buckie's only possible mistake was that, when switching to stall, they didn't reposition two WGs or FWs to midfield, as the front four contribute nothing to DEF even in stall.

Blowout is 6 goals. If you go to the team page and click on account you can see that 120k was not decucted.

Nothing wrong with 4-2-4 N and 2 WG in my opinion - Deveronvale play that pretty much all the time.

I have to agree with you Steve, looking at the stats on the orders page when you do your lineups 4-2-4 N can be a better option than 4-2-4 E depending on if you are trying to attack or defend more.

Cheers for your thoughts everyone, I was 3-1 up at home against DUU this weekend B4 changing to stall (ended 3-3, again I did not change WG's to MF's!! ) so i think the 4-2-4 N can work. Furthermore, this is from season 16 rules...though no CP or cash appears to have vanished (yet!!).

[B 7.0] Blowouts
To discourage managers from fielding lineups that are too weak, whenever a club loses by 5 or more goals, that club is said to have been "blown out".

If the match was considered a blowout where a team lost by 5 or more goals, they lose some additional resources. If the team that was blown out has at least 2 CPs they lose 2 CPs. If they do not, they lose 125k. Either case should generally be a possibility as if a team uses all their CP early in a season, they generally have plenty of cash later in the season.

This function is now handled automatically by the program and will be executed at any time (including the league and Cups).

If the commish can see injuries/suspensions has weakened a team then the blowout rule may NOT apply.
A manager can also post on the forum with an appeal for the Chairman to consider: http://sesl.1.forumer.com

The program first checks to see if the match is a blowout. Then it determines if the losing team has the CP to deduct. If not, the money will be deducted.

In addition, code has been added to the software to prevent teams from winning by astronomical margins. During normal play each team has a chance to get a shot called a ShotChance. Once a team goes ahead by 4 or more goals, those chances are reduced as seen below:

Goal Difference Adjusted Shot Chance
Winning by 1, 2, or 3 goals ShotChance/1
Winning by 4 goals ShotChance / 5
Winning by 5 goals ShotChance / 10
Winning by 6 goals ShotChance / 15
Winning by 7 goals ShotChance / 20
Winning by 8 goals ShotChance / 25

http://www.olmec.org/sesl/matchreport.jsp?MatchId=17

Dan,
When you lost 7-0 in match above, did you lose 2 CP from team totals?
If so, then you know 7 is blowout while 5 appears not to be.
So conclusion would be 6 is the current Olmec blowout threshold.

As for 424 - this tactic was not the best choice with below average MF SL, and I suspect DEV and ALO play higher SL MF's when playing 424N, so careful.

Experiment with Early Cross if WG's high SL, but when looking at earlier 4-0, 5-0, 7-0 BUC loses it is your defence that appeared problem then.

My early games were anything but 4-2-4 but I only had 2 WG and 2 FW to shout about and something like 6 MF. Then I picked up a 3rd WG in an auction and traded away my star MF for a FW.

I've played 4-2-4 with 2 WG since the trade and have 4 wins and 1 defeat (the FW came with low EL so didn't play the first game of the session). My DF aren't too bad so I feel I can afford to play just 2 MF. My best 3 MF are 16, 14 and 13.

The only time it's worth me playing EC is if I play my no.1 and 2 WG and my no.2 and 3 FW and play the WG aggressive and even then the loss of OTF for DEF makes it not viable for me (don't hold me to this though).

Also with just 2 FW it's pretty hard to fall foul of the 2:1 rule, though I've just noticed that in one of my next lineups I was going to do that.

As for Blowout - I think the rules are wrong. BUC got a -120 for match 5, the 7-0. The rule quoted by Dan is the old Olmec rule from last season's code.