¿BIG O BIG EASY?

[rising star]

3v3 pls

[Ghost]

If we left it up to polls we'd still be playing 3v3.

Sure if the poll was at 70/30 in favour of big then we'd really not have much of a leg to stand on, but seeing as how we, and approximately half of the community want it, then it's likely what's going to happen.



On the subject of creating a new league for it. Why? There are countless other 4v4 big leagues you can play in, yet no big easy leagues within decent ping distance. If you want to play big then go to YeS, if you want to play big easy, come to us. Seems a fair deal doesn't it? Why can't two leagues like that live next to each other in perfect harmony? Why does everything have to be the same?

[dooms]

think we shud do next vote wins tbh

[s.signorelli]

If we left it up to polls we'd still be playing 3v3.

Sure if the poll was at 70/30 in favour of big then we'd really not have much of a leg to stand on, but seeing as how we, and approximately half of the community want it, then it's likely what's going to happen.



On the subject of creating a new league for it. Why? There are countless other 4v4 big leagues you can play in, yet no big easy leagues within decent ping distance. If you want to play big then go to YeS, if you want to play big easy, come to us. Seems a fair deal doesn't it? Why can't two leagues like that live next to each other in perfect harmony? Why does everything have to be the same?

exactly, or they could play in the reserve league. :thumbup:

[mlfaijati]

erry1 exposed

<><

[☮ ☆ noob ☆ ☮]

but seeing as how we, and approximately half of the community want it, then it's likely what's going to happen.

lol pls!!! 76 out of the 1099 is not merely enough to call it or say approximately half of the community want it. u need more votes!! make this a must vote thread admins. so when ppl come to the forum they need to vote before doing anything ells.

[mlfaijati]

implying

but seeing as how we, and approximately half of the community want it, then it's likely what's going to happen.

lol pls!!! 76 out of the 1099 is not merely enough to call it or say approximately half of the community want it. u need more votes!! make this a must vote thread admins. so when ppl come to the forum they need to vote before doing anything ells.

u wot m8

I guarantee you more than half of those people have not logged on to FM in the last few months, if any more were actually part of the 'community' then they would have been active enough to already have voted.

[Ghost]

but seeing as how we, and approximately half of the community want it, then it's likely what's going to happen.

lol pls!!! 76 out of the 1099 is not merely enough to call it or say approximately half of the community want it. u need more votes!! make this a must vote thread admins. so when ppl come to the forum they need to vote before doing anything ells.

... we barely even have 100 active members. The rest are people who register, realise it's stupidly hard to get a team and then go away never to return, or people who register just to play but never contribute anything.

[☮ ☆ noob ☆ ☮]

am just saying we could use a few more votes...

[Maddude]

It seems quite futile arguing. Admins made their choice already

So guys you may as well start practicing

its not only admins who play in league matches lol, there are others. currently big is winning in the poll, so we should continue with big?

if its up to the admins, no need for a poll and the result of the poll is pointless...

And 3v3 won the poll but we still changed...
and people prefer it now.

You peepol don't know what's good for you smh

[Jai]

bring back the draft

[te][o]

it's very simple my gosh..


in def rule, you attack 3 vs 3 defenders. or you take the risk of going 4v3 if you're good enough with the box offense. risk > reward kind of thing, good stuff.


in big easy, you attack 3 vs 4 defenders and if you try to incorporate a 4th player you are punished in the counter (anti football)

there is not one single argument for the change other than "we are bored out of our minds". if you really think big easy offers more tactical depth you're just putting words together and hope they fit and make an argument, reality is, everyone defends with 4 and expects a counter.

This is why, in cup, there are so many "strange" results and why so many teams lose or draw even when dominating the game. There's only so much you can do 3v4 in offense regardless of how skilled you are, all this does is make the competition ground more even at the expense of making the game simpler.

[mlfaijati]

Stopped reading at

in big easy, you attack 3 vs 4 defenders and if you try to incorporate a 4th player you are punished in the counter (anti football)

[te][o]

Stopped reading at

in big easy, you attack 3 vs 4 defenders and if you try to incorporate a 4th player you are punished in the counter (anti football)

to be honest that's far more into the text that I figured you'd manage to understand.

it's a very simple concept to get either way, I can chew it off for you:
if you attempt to do a 4 man offense in big easy you're only making it even, therefore you're taking a big risk for very little reward, specially since an unpredicted bounce is a goal against.

in 3def it's balanced around the fact that if you're good enough to pull a box offense you're assuming the same risk but the reward if much more because you have the number handicap in offense versus their defense.

But I'm not very confident you're going to be able to understand the theory when you can't understand it in practice.

[mlfaijati]

Stopped reading at

in big easy, you attack 3 vs 4 defenders and if you try to incorporate a 4th player you are punished in the counter (anti football)

to be honest that's far more into the text that I figured you'd manage to understand.

it's a very simple concept to understand, I can chew it off for you, if you attempt to do a 4 man offense in big easy you're only making it even, therefore you're taking a big risk for very little reward, specially since an unpredicted bounce is a goal against.

in 3def it's balanced around the fact that if you're good enough to pull a box offense you're assuming the same risk but the reward if much more because you have the number handicap in offense versus their offense.

But I'm not very confident you're going to be able to understand the theory when you can't understand it in practice.

What are your Big Easy experiences? If a team is defending with 4 players then of course you can have all of your players attacking, if you get into your opponents corner your GK isn't exactly doing much good not trying to aid the attack. And if you didn't know, the goals are bigger which means that even if the 4th attacker cannot participate as much there is more of a target for the 3 remaining attacking players.

But if you start and end your argument by just insulting me then maybe you can't see how big easy works.

[Girgensons]

Stopped reading at

in big easy, you attack 3 vs 4 defenders and if you try to incorporate a 4th player you are punished in the counter (anti football)

to be honest that's far more into the text that I figured you'd manage to understand.

it's a very simple concept to get either way, I can chew it off for you:
if you attempt to do a 4 man offense in big easy you're only making it even, therefore you're taking a big risk for very little reward, specially since an unpredicted bounce is a goal against.

in 3def it's balanced around the fact that if you're good enough to pull a box offense you're assuming the same risk but the reward if much more because you have the number handicap in offense versus their defense.

But I'm not very confident you're going to be able to understand the theory when you can't understand it in practice.

"changing the order of factors does not change the product"
<c> primary school maths

[te][o]

"changing the order of factors does not change the product"
<c> primary school maths

Yes, I can see why TMB would want a change to Big Easy.

Just wish people would stop voting on what they think would improve their winning chances, because there's always going to be far more losers than winners in a league. Obviously big easy would make it all more unpredictable in terms of the standings, which I guess is a great alternative for those with nothing to lose

[Girgensons]

"changing the order of factors does not change the product"
<c> primary school maths

Yes, I can see why TMB would want a change to Big Easy.

Just wish people would stop voting on what they think would improve their winning chances, because there's always going to be far more losers than winners in a league. Obviously big easy would make it all more unpredictable in terms of the standings, which I guess is a great alternative for those with nothing to lose

Great analysis. Great insight. The only thing you forgot was that no one's planning any changes mid-season. It's going to be implemented in s7.

[dora da gora]

ooo he burned you there girg...

[noj]

in big easy, you attack 3 vs 4 defenders

You might, however others will attack with 4, so the fact that you have a different opinion on the best way to attack in big easy is surely a plus point as it leads to variation.

As for tactical depth, here is the tactical depth of 3 man def on big:

Defence:
Gk on post, 1 in corner
Decide whether 3rd defender covers passback to DM or cross to FWD

Attack:
initiate triangle formation