Star Players?

[ak47]

Originally posted by Los Lover@Feb 2 2006, 11:21 AM
any thoughts on this AK?

anyone know the star amounts for the bigger teams compared to New Zealand?

in advance...

i like the idea of the stars

but 6 for 1 team could be a bit rich......in multiplayer this will incurr bannings of the AB's or AB's v Ab's only.

not sure how many aussie have, but its gotto be atleast 3

Lote
Waugh
Smith
Morts or Larks

but wont hold my breath over that coz we suck anyway these days.........although with Eddy gone, everyone in SANZAR should be prepared for a reversal of form

 

[esoj]

I don't know really even in mutliplayer i think it willd be fine. most teams like england that are close to the abs will surely have at least 3 if not maybe even 4. and 6 star players can't win a game by themselves. there are 9 other guys that have to be used correctly to take advantage of the star players.

 

[Los Lover]

Originally posted by esoj@Feb 2 2006, 02:55 PM
I don't know really even in mutliplayer i think it willd be fine. most teams like england that are close to the abs will surely have at least 3 if not maybe even 4. and 6 star players can't win a game by themselves. there are 9 other guys that have to be used correctly to take advantage of the star players.

ak kinda avoided the point of what I was saying, which is:

the sides outside ofthe top five mightn't have many star players...and so be it!!!

the rest seem like they would have at least four, maybe five....

while with Umaga gone NZ will have five....

4 or 5 plays 5!?

how is that lop-sided......plse compare apples with apples...

come on AK!!!

 

[ak47]

Originally posted by Los Lover+Feb 2 2006, 02:04 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Los Lover @ Feb 2 2006, 02:04 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-esoj

@Feb 2 2006, 02:55 PM
I don't know really even in mutliplayer i think it willd be fine. most teams like england that are close to the abs will surely have at least 3 if not maybe even 4. and 6 star players can't win a game by themselves. there are 9 other guys that have to be used correctly to take advantage of the star players.

ak kinda avoided the point of what I was saying, which is:

the sides outside ofthe top five mightn't have many star players...and so be it!!!

the rest seem like they would have at least four, maybe five....

while with Umaga gone NZ will have five....

4 or 5 plays 5!?

how is that lop-sided......plse compare apples with apples...

come on AK!!!

[/b]

Ireland have 1 - BOD
Wales have 2

Thus England shoud NOT have anymore than these teams

Thus Australia SHOULD have less - we lost to Wales and England last time

Thus SA perhaps may have 4 if you are lucky

I'll compare apples with apples when HB do

As it stands now the 6 nations champions have 2 star players
And the AB's have 6

ur comment "the rest seem like they would have at least four, maybe five...." - is another rash assumption coz we already know the 6 nation champs have only 2.

of course this post means nothing if HB have again screwed around with team rankings

Wales > THAN ANY OTHER NH TEAM...........yet have 2 stars??? WTF

Lora - time to speak up.

 

[esoj]

aye but tha was a good year ago now times in the rugby world have changed since then and wales aren't that great atm. I do think though that 2 is pretty harsh for wales. they proabbly should have at least 3. ireland only have 1 is reasonable as bod really is the only decent player they have. the rankings may not matter so much as you will proabbly be able to edit the stats anyway which you can't seem to do in rc2006

 

[Los Lover]

Originally posted by ak47+Feb 2 2006, 03:37 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ak47 @ Feb 2 2006, 03:37 PM)</div>

Originally posted by Los Lover@Feb 2 2006, 02:04 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-esoj

@Feb 2 2006, 02:55 PM
I don't know really even in mutliplayer i think it willd be fine. most teams like england that are close to the abs will surely have at least 3 if not maybe even 4. and 6 star players can't win a game by themselves. there are 9 other guys that have to be used correctly to take advantage of the star players.

ak kinda avoided the point of what I was saying, which is:

the sides outside ofthe top five mightn't have many star players...and so be it!!!

the rest seem like they would have at least four, maybe five....

while with Umaga gone NZ will have five....

4 or 5 plays 5!?

how is that lop-sided......plse compare apples with apples...

come on AK!!!

Ireland have 1 - BOD
Wales have 2

Thus England shoud NOT have anymore than these teams

Thus Australia SHOULD have less - we lost to Wales and England last time

Thus SA perhaps may have 4 if you are lucky

I'll compare apples with apples when HB do

As it stands now the 6 nations champions have 2 star players
And the AB's have 6

ur comment "the rest seem like they would have at least four, maybe five...." - is another rash assumption coz we already know the 6 nation champs have only 2.

of course this post means nothing if HB have again screwed around with team rankings

Wales > THAN ANY OTHER NH TEAM...........yet have 2 stars??? WTF

Lora - time to speak up. [/b]

again AK - FOR f***S SAKE maaaaaaate!!

fair dinkum!!

your behaving in such an argumentative way to suit slagging this game - it is unbelievable...

read carefully and PLEASE...don'y post...just sit with your thoughts on a few things...

thanks

(see below)





THE POINT IS NOT THAT THE RANKINGS ARE WRONG BECOS WALES ARE THE SIX NATIONS CHAMPIONS......FIRSTLY, IT IS PROBABLY MORE LIKELY BASED ON COMMONSENSE....SO WALES WILL NOT BE TOO HIGH, BUT FRANCE, ENGLAND WILL BE (WHAT WAS THE RESULT BETWEEN ENGLAND AND nz VERY RECENTLY? ABOUT FOUR POINTS DIFFERENCE? WE BEAT WALES AND IRELAND, WHEN THEY WERE TRULY TESTED FOR ONCE, BY MAMMOTH FORTY - YES FORTY - POINT MARGINS....END OF DISCUSSION).

NEXT PLEASE!!

OKAY - AOUTH AFRICA ARE GREAT AND AUSTRALIA HAVE PEDIGREE AND CLASS - AUSTRALIA WERE RACKED WITH INJURIES WHEN THEY JUST LOST AWAY TO WALES - IN AUS THEY WOULD MOW THEM AY FULL STRENGTH BY 20 POINTS...SORRY, BUT THAT IS HOW IT IS.

THE TOP FIVE TEAMS ARE/WILL BE NEW ZEALAND, SOUTH AFRICA, FRANCE, ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA....SIMPLE.

NOW FOR THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT YOU HAVE AVOIDED...

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT STAR PLAYERS...NOT WHINGING ABOUT RANKINGS WHICH ARE COMPLETELY SAMEY IN wcr2 B/C nz HAVE 5 AND EVERY OTHER HALF DECENT TEAM AHS FOUR OR LESS...GIVING THEM A COMPARATIVELY MUCH, MUCH LARGER ADVANTAGE THAN THE SO-CALLED DISPARITY OF TEAMS IN RUGBY 06 WHEN YOU COMPARED APPLES WITH ORANGES.....NZ ARE IN ANOTHER DIMENSION TO WALES AND IRELAND...SYOP BEING TOTALLY RIDICULOUS!! YOU NEED A MORE SOLID ARGUMENT IF YOU DON'T WANNA GET RIPPED LIMB FRIM LIMB IN CROSS-EXAMINATION. (AS JUST OCCURRED)

I AM SURMISING THAT THESE TEAMS THAT WILL RIGHTFULLY COMPETE WITH THE ABS WILL HAVE BETWEEN 4 AND 5 IN A COUPLE OF CASES - LETS WAIT AND SEE - TO GO AGAINST nz'S 5....THAT IS SWEET AZ IN MY BOOK. SO STOP CLUTCHING AT STRAWS! LOL! IT'S EMBARRASSING BRO! HELL, i AM BLUSHING.

YOU WANNA START A THREAD ABOUT HB NOT GETTING THE 'RANKINGS' RIGHT (WHO SAID IT WAS BASED ON THOSE, OR THOSE FROM A YEAR AGO EITHER) THEN GO AHEAD...WE WERE DISCUSSING STAR PLAYERS AND ME, SPECIFICALLY, ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF STAR PLAYERS IN THE BEST TEAMS IN THE GAME....READ: IN THE GAME NOT YOUR MIND.....FOR WHEN THERE ARE CLASHED BETWEEN THAM AND THE AL BLACKS. IT WILL NOT BE ONE OR TWO...YOU ARE WRONG. WE DON'Y KNOW EXACTLY YET, BUT YOU CAN HAZARD A GUESS AS i HAVE DONE. PLEASE STOP TALKING HYSTERICALLY AND MISSING THE POINT. IT IS HIGHLY FRUSTRATING FROM A NORMALL LEVEL-HEADED GUY. CHEERS AK.

UH-UH. DON'T REPLY....RELAX

SORRY FOR CAPS, BUT THIS HAS TO SINK IN BEFORE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT 06 STAR PLAYERS CONTINUES COS YOU ARE WAY OFF POINT AND WAY OFF TRACK.

cheers bud

 

[esoj]

lol los firing on al cylinders.

I think it is safe to assume that france england aussie and sa at worst will have 3 players compared to nz's 5 that is not too bad at all.

and if we are going down this track aboue wales only having 2 and ireland 1 what will the pi nations have none at all maybe so how is that fair. wales could have 2 star players compared to fijis none.

and also remember the star players are not the entire team either the rest of the guys still have to be used right and could be worse off compared to another teams non-star players.

 

[Los Lover]

Originally posted by esoj@Feb 2 2006, 07:56 PM
lol los firing on al cylinders.

I think it is safe to assume that france england aussie and sa at worst will have 3 players compared to nz's 5 that is not too bad at all.

and if we are going down this track aboue wales only having 2 and ireland 1 what will the pi nations have none at all maybe so how is that fair. wales could have 2 star players compared to fijis none.

and also remember the star players are not the entire team either the rest of the guys still have to be used right and could be worse off compared to another teams non-star players.

actually not EVERY cylinder - but, yes, it was brutal..

but not as brutal as being right AGAIN...

see below from a revuew I found....

well looky, looky AK........I guess I can expect some more excuses and no one giving it up again.....SFW!!!

BOOhYAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

"Also new this year is the addition of impact players, which are denoted by gold stars floating over their heads. At the club level, these studs are few and far between, and are your go-to backs when it's time for a quick score. At the international level, great teams like England, South Africa and the All Blacks of New Zealand are absolutely stacked with stars and can absolutely wreak havoc on wimpy team like Japan."

Read it and weep AK....read it and weep...

'stacked'

mmmmmmmm

 

[kaftka]

AK, that is not how it works and you know it...

The players as individuals does not reflect on the team... If that makes sense...

For example. Real Madrid have the best players in the world, but they constantly fail to impress... Howver, theres no denying their star power, and their ability...

If Rugby 06 has something like FIFAs Team Chemistry dealy, then combined with the star players then this could be great...

Australia could have about 4 star players, but their team chemistry could be down to around 35-40...

Whereas Argentina could have one no star players but have a Team Chemistry of around 60-70...

New Zealand could have 5 star players with a team chemistry of around 90...




The Lions could have 7 star players but have a team chemistry of around 1

 

[lazy_chesnut]

That Team Chemistry thing was a load of ******** - a gimmick.

PES has "Team Chemistry" but in a much better way. It has "Player Chemistry", where each player interacts with each other player in a different way. Now that has to be better.

 

[davidson]

that is kind of the same thing tho isnt it?

team chemistry is all about the way a team interacts with each other.
im not too bothered about going into player detail.
im not too fussed if ben kay cant take a pass off neil back cos ones going out with the others ex bird or something.

 

[THE CHIROPRACTOR101]

anyone whos played the game got a list of starplayers from memory?...

rupeni's gonna be the man in this game!...

 

[sambãd5]

Originally posted by .:kaftka:.@Feb 2 2006, 11:31 PM
The Lions could have 7 star players but have a team chemistry of around 1

team chemistry? i thought I was the team.

 

[Bullitt]

The Chemestry system only became worthwhile in the manager mode of Fifa, it doesn't count for **** in friendlys.

 

[woosaah]

Originally posted by sambad5+Feb 3 2006, 10:43 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sambad5 @ Feb 3 2006, 10:43 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-.:kaftka:.

@Feb 2 2006, 11:31 PM
The Lions could have 7 star players but have a team chemistry of around 1

team chemistry? i thought I was the team. [/b]

There is no "I" in team Sam
but then again there is no "U" either

.... read my sig for rest of quote

 

[richllew]

theres a me though

 

[woosaah]

that doesnt count

tEaM

its backwards

there is also EAT

MEAT

EA

TEA

AT

meh the list goes on...

 

[kaftka]

Theres a Mate in team...


Now let that go down in history as one of the truly great meaningful proverbs...

 

[THE CHIROPRACTOR101]

there is a met in team...which is the route word of...meet..in which indirectly is MEanT to MEan somthing..but i dont kno..

i just do not know....

 

[lazy_chesnut]

Originally posted by davidson@Feb 3 2006, 12:46 AM
that is kind of the same thing tho isnt it?

team chemistry is all about the way a team interacts with each other.
im not too bothered about going into player detail.
im not too fussed if ben kay cant take a pass off neil back cos ones going out with the others ex bird or something.

HAHAHAHAHA