Posts from Forum

Due to some concerns regarding EURO 2012.

In print publications (like Dyukov's blog and many others), there's a tendency to criticize D. Advocaat.

I completely disagree. Out of all the participants in this "fiesta" (the team, players, staff, RFU, fans), Dick turned out to be the MOST predictable. He did exactly what he was SIMPLY OBLIGED to do (money, the game, the atmosphere – everything coincided with the most obvious predictions). The national team players – Kerzhakov, Pavlyuchenko – could have played like that. Or they could have played better. Or worse. There was a range of possibilities. Fursa also showed variability; he could have behaved differently. But it turned out the way it did. But only Dick was locked into a predetermined course, with his LEARNED and predictable approach, and HE DID EVERYTHING exactly as he was OBLIGED to do according to the PLAN (for example, according to higher powers).

Well, if the plan only included the opponents. The national team players were completely unprepared physically; they had enough energy for the games against Italy and the Czech Republic, but then they faded. Against the Greeks, they just shot from a distance and couldn't even accelerate to penetrate the penalty area. And the poor physical condition is a direct fault of the coaching staff.

Poor physical conditioning is a direct result of the coaching staff's negligence.

The national team's coaching staff should not be responsible for the players' physical training. This is the responsibility of the club coaches.

Due to some concerns regarding EURO 2012. In print media (like Utkin's blog and many others), there's a tendency to criticize D. Advocaat. I completely disagree. Out of all the participants in this "fiesta" (the team, the players, the staff, the Russian Football Union, the fans), Dick turned out to be the MOST predictable. He did exactly what he was SIMPLY OBLIGED to do (money, the game, the atmosphere - everything coincided with the most obvious predictions). The national team players - Kerzhakov, Pavlyuchenko - could have played like that. Or they could have played better. Or worse. There was a range of possibilities. Fursa also showed some variability; he could have behaved differently. But things turned out the way they did. But only Dick was locked into a predetermined course, with his WELL-REHEARSED and predictable approach, and HE DID EVERYTHING exactly as he was OBLIGED to do according to the PLAN (for example, according to higher powers). In contrast, I'll highlight Oleg Blokhin. I just don't like him as a coach. Sometimes his approach to the game is too simplistic, and sometimes the Ukrainian national team just turns into a team from a backwater town (for example, when they lost to the Greeks). But look at how he transformed the team for the match against the English! There are no words, only admiration. And what should the Ukrainian national team players, who left a part of themselves on the football field, think of our pathetic clowns, who, apparently, were given a TOO EASY opponent?

Pasha, your opinion is valid, but the national team's failure is 90% the fault of that lousy Dick!!!!! And the rest is due to our players, half of whom should be removed from the national team altogether. Arshavin should be the first - a spoiled, pink pig. There's a lot more that could be written about this national team, but in principle, everything has already been said about them, and everyone knows everything. Specifically regarding the game against Greece, our national team was, to put it mildly, a bunch of IDIOTS!!!! Unfortunately, there's nothing more to say. I'll continue to support CSKA!!!!!

Yura, maybe it would have been better to put the effort into accusing the Chinese guy instead of the bedsheets? You're quite good at that. So far, the Chinese players' response in the neighboring thread has been discouraging; it's not even clear how to counter it. In my own circles, I've often encountered the position of an artist who has vomited out absolute garbage—"that's just how I see it." Such people are practically invincible.
Maybe you'll look at the saves? And Rebel's as well; he has far more grounds than the Chinese guy to claim "that's just how I see it."

Too lazy. This is your war, not mine. I can explain general words and methodologies, and I do, but I have no interest in applying them to specific situations.

For example, here is another thought. I've heard arguments several times along the lines of "he has an unusual way of thinking," "he/they don't play like others," etc. This applies to both Rebel and the Chinese players.

Imho, it's all nonsense. During my time in "Alaska" and at various club champs, I've watched dozens of games from the perspective of top players and others. And I haven't noticed any particularly unusual thinking in anyone; most actions were logical and understandable. And if they were unusual or incomprehensible, they were usually blunders, which is why people lost.

My strict imho is that top players differ from non-top players in that they blunder less than others in calculable situations. Plus, they have a better gut feeling in 50/50 situations.

You guys look at obviously suspicious actions, like not taking the Pandora's box with magic, etc. But you understand that a smart, experienced cheater won't get caught on something like that. This means you need to look at something else.

The thought is this—the higher the player's level, the more predictable their actions are for players of equal skill. That is, if a medium-weak player might make a difficult choice almost every turn, a strong player has significantly fewer such choices. Quality gameplay is usually divided into several segments; at the junction of these segments, there are non-obvious branches, but within a segment, events proceed more or less forcibly.

This can be seen in the history of any gaming sport—at its inception and development, many brilliant players emerge, creators who play originally and in violation of established norms. Simply because the norms are crooked and the opponents are mostly noobs. But when the sport becomes more or less studied, and strategies and tactics settle, there is far less room for Creation, and poor knowledge of the "mandatory program" usually leads to losses regardless of the player's level of brilliance.

So, returning to Heroes—this game is quite well studied, so if a player constantly "creates" in forced situations, it means they are either a noob or a cheater. That is, in a game between two high-level players, there is a certain fate—in most situations, a completely unambiguous and predictable decision will be made. Exceptions occur either due to mistakes or insights, in a ratio of at least 3 to 1, likely even more.

I remember conducting a simple experiment in the analysis of some controversial saves—I gave several strong players a save just before a strange decision and suggested they play from it for 1-2 days. And surprisingly, their actions aligned with my assessment of the position; if they diverged, it was only at the branches, not on the forced section.

Conclusion—if when analyzing games of medium-weak players you need to look for obviously suspicious moments, then for a strong player, it is enough to simply note a poor knowledge of optimal development/scouting/movement strategies to ask the question—"dude, how did you become such a strong player then?". And conversely—if a player has few or no situations where they made the strongest positional decision and it turned out to be a fail, then something is also wrong.

Analyzing games of strong players (which almost all World Championship participants undoubtedly are) is actually much easier than analyzing a noob season. A champion's game should evoke a reaction like "Wow!!!" rather than "what the hell?".

Added after 40 minutes
I was corrected here that different players play in different styles. Yes, that exists, so one person's decisions should not be mechanically transferred to another.

To determine the validity of a comparison, you first need to see how the player behaved previously in similar situations. For example—if he from time to time grabs scholars with his hero, messing up his own build, then he can be forgiven for luckily grabbing a scholar with log. But if he usually doesn't take them, but suddenly in a non-critical situation took one and got a prize, then you can start wondering. That is, before analyzing a suspicious match, it makes sense to study the weak points of his style, sources of possible mistakes and insights.

I remember I had a game where I found a utopia with control at the end of a path through the wilderness, and with my hero (!). They would have definitely pinned it on me if there were a case. But the secret was simple—I have a weakness for running the hero to upgrades, even when I need to push somewhere for tempo. Sometimes in the 1st week I might veer slightly off the road to visit an upgrade. Or in the 2nd week, let the minions beat something, while the hero on an angel runs through the respawn to collect upgrades. I remember Alex and Vasya scolded me for this in Kingisepp. So in that game—I went to one upgrade, saw a stadium, then another one behind it, and ended up hitting the utopia.

In this regard, the analysis where the guys studied how Tinker takes or doesn't take skills on level-ups is absolutely correct. That is, an adjustment for playing style is immediately made, and based on that, a decision is made about the strangeness or reasonableness of certain actions.

No, Vic, you're wrong here. Many players have their own style; the devil is in the details. For example, I almost always take a Peasant to become a Scholar, even though I know that most players would never do that (because it's considered a useless skill). But I'm hoping that the Scholar will give me +1 skill (according to probability theory, this is very likely). And in the game where someone was criticized for taking Tactics at level 4-5 instead of Air Magic, I would have taken Tactics too. As practice shows, it's almost impossible to 100% prove that someone is cheating (even remember the case with the great Alex), but the details and nuances help us, as well as the intuition of many players.

Hehe, I just wrote about that :)

I'm reading your mind...

What is this topic about?! Or, Yuri, are you organizing another training session for yourself?

What is this thread about?! Or are you organizing another training session for yourself, Yur?

And good morning to you too :)

The coaching staff of the national team cannot be involved in the physical training of the players. This is the responsibility of the club coaches.

One of the most important tasks of the national team's coaching staff before a major tournament is to prepare the players physically in such a way that they reach their peak during the decisive stages. This is exactly what Hiddink and Verheijen did with the Russian national team in 2008. So, you're wrong.

Before this championship, Advocaat introduced single training sessions (all other national teams trained twice a day); thanks to their freshness, they convincingly defeated the Italians and the Czechs, and in the second half against the Poles, they were already crawling...

scorpWhat is this topic about?! Or are you organizing another training session for yourself, Yur? :)

And may you have a good morning :)
and may you stay healthy :D

I highly doubt that it's possible to achieve adequate physical conditioning in just two weeks. It might be possible to organize physical training in a way that at least maintains the players' current fitness levels, and that would be the best-case scenario. Therefore, the primary focus of the national team's coaching staff should be on tactical and psychological preparation of the players. By the way, when does the Russian championship end?

I remember, a couple of years ago, there were two high-profile cases of cheating. One was handled normally, and the other was like a bomb exploding in a toilet.

Yura, is the second one the case when the player was banned from FB-2? If so, I disagree. The punishment that was given was, in my opinion, the minimum possible. The decision was justified, and history, I believe, confirms this.

Yes, in terms of preparation and motivation, Dick is significantly inferior to Gus. And with our players, there's no other way. I strongly disagree with the statement about "jerks." They play as best they can. But some fans (that politician and the Gazprom employee) should be put on a stake! And also, Furse should be kicked out, along with his brother.

I remember that a couple of years ago there were two high-profile cheating cases. One was handled normally, and the other caused quite a stir.

As history shows, the decision made was correct, perhaps even too lenient.

I’m not an expert in football, but it seems to me that young players who are eager to prove themselves should be given a chance (like Sychev and Arshavin did in their time, and now Dzagoev). When people receive astronomical salaries, they have no motivation. IMHO.