Anything else then that would have been a certain defeat. I think that all people in this thread agrees to that except you at this point.
You part of the 0% club now too? Should I remind you what you wrote at the beginning of this thread? If you don't think it's 0% then assign probabilities to all the rounds and show me that the higher probability of winning the Italy game combined with a lower probability of winning the remaining 4 is a superior strategy compared to a much lower probability of winning the Italy game and much higher of winning the rest.
You can't have it both ways Manon. You can't say anyone has a chance to win a game, then say trying to win the tournament is an invalid strategy because they had 0% chance of beating Italy. It's illogical, I'm sure you understand that.
CT is the only correct strategy if you don't look past R32, you have no ambition and you settle for mediocrity.
If they used less effort in the games against Poland and Belgium they would have let in more points and lost by a larger marginal, and would have won easier. The question is what would have given the most though as they only was ~20 points ahead of Belarus to grab the last playoff spot.
Poland was their second game. There is no justification whatsoever for losing on a Normal v TIE the second game. If they TIE that, the PD will be worse in that single game and better in
every other game after that. Do the math. If they TIE that game they would have avoided Italy in the first round, it's actually fairly obvious. This is just a short-sighted way to manage a team, which is fine if you have no ambition, you think you're bad and will not get anywhere anyway and you put in place actions that will actually make that result more likely.
The manager of the Dutch U21 team may not have distributed their ent in the best way during the season, but he sure did the right thing to CT Italy.
I disagree. They could have beaten Serbia with more Ent, the CT ensured that their tournament was much less likely to progress further.
In Buzzerbeater you're not betting your own money. It makes no sense to be so risk adverse in designing the strategy, it makes no sense to settle for mediocrity at the U21 where the players change from one season to the next. It makes a lot more sense to go 100% or bust unless your chances are very very low since the start (i.e. if you're a micronation). The Serbia game showed Holland sold themselves very short and bad coaching put them in a position not to succeed.
I think we just have to agree to disagree. We can't possibly continue to rehash the same points.
Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/22/2017 6:56:14 AM