Team database - bug reports
- Posts: 9187
- Thank you received: 122
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Synchronated
-
- Offline
- Elite Member
-
- Posts: 900
- Thank you received: 4
RW Doucoure
M Allan
LW Sigurdsson
A James
A Richarlison
A Calvert-Lewin
IRL or for functional player/tactical rearranging,
Doucoure is not a RW
Sigurdsson is not a LW
James is not an A
Richarlison is not an A
The data would be accurate like this (in their regular 20-21 formation, even if you are to leave it as "4-3-3 + Mozg"):
M Doucoure
M Allan
M Sigurdsson
RW James
LW Richarlison
A Calvert-Lewin
Once into the game you can't change those labels by fixing your tactics, and you won't be able to rearrange the team because of the player positions being wrong, and won't want to buy a "RW" that is like Doucoure (a central/defensive midfielder), nor buy James if he's an "A".
A similar correction can be applied to make any team that is currently 4-3-3 much more accurate, because this RW-M-LW-A-A-A thing is not found in real life.
Bernard (on the bench), while it's good/fine to include him and exclude Cenk Tosun, is also not an A.
[FYI the 5-3-2 in the SWOS 2020 loader's 'tactical comparison' shows the original 3-5-2, not 5-3-2. So there is no change when you switch from 5-3-2 to 3-5-2]
Of course SWOS 2020 is really fantastic work. Actually it's a thing of beauty. I am just suggesting a correction/improvement. For the reasons outlined it is not just superficial that teams use 4-3-3, nor does the tactic fix address all of its symptoms. Cheers
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Posts: 9187
- Thank you received: 122
Sure, it makes perfect sense what you say. And having to change all the player labels in order to have a fixed 4-3-3 on the shelf was just holding me off from doing that. Plus, that nobody really cared so far (apart from you, and maybe one other guy, obviously). So, that had zero priority.
In the future, when SWOS 2020's big follow-up game will shape, we might consider doing a complete workover (tactics and player-label correlating).
PS: 5-3-2 being the same as 3-5-2 is well known!


Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Synchronated
-
- Offline
- Elite Member
-
- Posts: 900
- Thank you received: 4
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Posts: 9187
- Thank you received: 122
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Synchronated
-
- Offline
- Elite Member
-
- Posts: 900
- Thank you received: 4
See attachments - big red cross indeed!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Posts: 9187
- Thank you received: 122
I just checked. 3-5-2 = 5-3-2 in all versions of SWOS ever released!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Synchronated
-
- Offline
- Elite Member
-
- Posts: 900
- Thank you received: 4
What I didn't know was that the 5-3-2 diagram didn't even correspond to itself! Explains everything about the 5-3-2.
You'll be pleased to know that if you switch from 3-5-2 to 5-3-2 in Sociable Soccer, the wing-backs remain the wing-backs. So it just works (and the wing-backs do move back!)
BTW the Inter example above (or any 3-5-2 or 3-4-3 team) is worth consideration too - 2 of the 3 CBs in these formations are listed as fullbacks, usually incorrectly (and variously, the wing backs might be better off being RB/LB than RW/LW, depending on the team/players). For example Bastoni here (a CB playing as a CB) is listed as LB and is a CB who has never played anywhere but CB (D). Much like 96/97 Jurgen Kohler/many others. I preferred to give all 3 CBs the D label, then you can buy/sell and rearrange well. If they are in a back 3 in the real-life formation, they can play and are playing CB/D, and no team in history goes out with only one CB/D in their lineup.
I should add that these problematic position labels (in 433, 352 and 343) are not a thing that has been done newly in SWOS 2020, the original SWOS data had the same problem and this just happens when we follow the same conventions. In my view it can be overcome with new conventions
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Synchronated wrote: I know about the diagram being fixed to whatever it started off as, when editing.
What I didn't know was that the 5-3-2 diagram didn't even correspond to itself! Explains everything about the 5-3-2.
You'll be pleased to know that if you switch from 3-5-2 to 5-3-2 in Sociable Soccer, the wing-backs remain the wing-backs. So it just works (and the wing-backs do move back!)
BTW the Inter example above (or any 3-5-2 or 3-4-3 team) is worth consideration too - 2 of the 3 CBs in these formations are listed as fullbacks, usually incorrectly (and variously, the wing backs might be better off being RB/LB than RW/LW, depending on the team/players). For example Bastoni here (a CB playing as a CB) is listed as LB and is a CB who has never played anywhere but CB (D). Much like 96/97 Jurgen Kohler/many others. I preferred to give all 3 CBs the D label, then you can buy/sell and rearrange well. If they are in a back 3 in the real-life formation, they can play and are playing CB/D, and no team in history goes out with only one CB/D in their lineup.
I should add that these problematic position labels (in 433, 352 and 343) are not a thing that has been done newly in SWOS 2020, the original SWOS data had the same problem and this just happens when we follow the same conventions. In my view it can be overcome with new conventions
then I have a question

since in 352 you placed D-D-D instead of RB-D-LB, will the team that has no RB or LB not have poor results ?? look at the original 96/97 structure for example Bayern. The players are there in the wrong positions and as I remember Bayern did not do good results, when I put them in good positions, they achieved much better results!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Synchronated
-
- Offline
- Elite Member
-
- Posts: 900
- Thank you received: 4
As I recall the 96/97 Bayern players were in very wrong positions, yes? Mario Basler at centre-back?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.