Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Smartdoc last won the day on October 22 2010

Smartdoc had the most liked content!

About Smartdoc

  • Birthday 07/22/1976


  • Biography
    I'm just a big kid in a grown-ups body, The life and soul of any party ;)
  • Location
  • Interests
    All sports, SM, going out :D
  • Occupation
  • Favourite Football Club
  • Participating In Following Setups
  • Favourite Football Player
    Stevie G, Lionel Messi, Jan Molby, Kenny Dalglish (all the Liverpool legends really)
  • SM Honours Won
    Not many :(

Recent Profile Visitors

312 profile views
  1. Re: Who are you? - the forumers interviews Apologies to steve025 who must have been wondering what happened to his interview having sent it to me a month ago . A member who posts predominantly runs successful EC sides on SM and is usually up for some banter, here's his interview: So a Preston NE man through and through and very much a family man. Also hoping his conversational skills will earn him some good money in the future Unfortunately, time commitments mean I will be handing on the reins to another forumer, who will I'm sure be able to do a better job. Humble apologies to those few who I promised an interview to, your names will be sent to the forumer taking on the interviewing mantle. I'm sure the person taking over will be posting on here very soon
  2. Re: Official Cricket Thread I personally feel it's a very poor decision and the ICC have shown their true colours. For years they have been claiming they want the sport to be more global and spread the sport, but this is totally an opposite step. I'll admit at the start of the tournament, I felt the world cup was too long, the format of two groups of 7 was too much and that I felt their would be too mant one-sided contests. But, I was well and truely proven wrong. Barring Kenya, all the associates put up good performances. Canada certainly ruffled Pakistan and Australia's feathers. We all know what Ireland did and Netherlands were just short on a couple of occasions too. Add to all that the fact that arguably the strongest associate side of all (in recent times), Afghanistan, were not there (i think there associate status was not confirmed before the associates qualifiers), I think the associates have come on leaps and bounds. Excluding them is outrageous. There could quite easily have been a pre-tournament qualifying period (as has been suggested for 2019). Even if the money gods wanted to ensure that the likes of India, Australia, etc definitely made it, they could have said the top 4 or 6 automatically qualify (maybe through their ICC rankings) and then the others go into 2 qualifying groups of 5 and 2 from each group go through from a pre-main event tournament. Isolating the associates for 9 years to fend for themselves was definitely not the way to go
  3. Re: Constant Blocking of transfers by SMFA Didn't really want to get into this as we all know what the result of the poll is going to be obvious . But should probably justify my yes. The suggestion that cheating is rife in SM due to the existence of the SMFA is preposterous. While most would readily accept that the ability to report cheating has been compromised somewhat by recent changes and some may be getting away with it, cheating would be 100-fold more if the SMFA wasn't there. The problem in this instance is the reporting system not the SMFA. Removing the SMFA will mean 100 times more reports of cheating in an already stretched reporting system and the problem will just intensify. The only really excellent point (in my opinion) I've seen on here, is Simon's point on chairman values (which others have then re-iterated). If a CV bid is not going to be enough to satisfy the SMFA then it should be raised to a level that would be acceptable. Such a proposal would, however, maen that all CVs will have to be increased (especially at the top end) and this would then result in the prices being paid for external transfers also increasing. Most I guess would be against this, but I don't necessarily see it as a negative. The fact is that the SMFA I guess stops 1000s of cheating transfers every week, be it multiple accounts, 'mates rates' etc etc. The place it perhaps falls down is mainly on multi-transfers where several players are switching from one team to the other and vice versa. Be these single transfers or three separate transactions. SM should be happy to entertain helpful suggestions to tackle this issue and I'm sure they are contrary to some of the suggestions on here. They should, however, as the questions in poll asks, continue to use the SMFA to block the many dodgy transfers that many of the wider community and the devious amongst us try (yes we do have cheaters or rule-benders and stretchers who are forumers too ) and I would be firmly against a switching off of the SMFA as cheating will then increase exponentially and there's no way SM would be able to cope with the increased number of reports.
  4. Re: Squad Value Yes, it's quite normal. If you purchase a better player for any specific position, then the value of all the other players in that position drops e.g If you buy a 94 rated RB and had 3 RBs already in the squad, the value of these 3 RBs will drop. This is perhaps an over-simplification and things get more complicated where you have two positions for example RB/CB, but it gives an idea of how squad values can fluctuate with players brought in
  5. Re: Sergio BUSQUETS has handed in his transfer request from Barcelona - HELP ME ASAP I'm afraid the Concern level will not go down now, no matter how much you play him (level 5 concern is the point of no return) . The chairman will take the best bid within a few days of the first bid made. You'd be better off playing the other unhappy players.
  6. Re: Official Cricket Thread Have to say Bangladesh deserve it as they played the better cricket for 90% of the match. England have plenty to be embarassed about. The batting as a whole (thank goodness for Trott and the returning Morgan), the number of wides, Swann's moaning about the wet ball and his clash with the umpires, Anderson yet again is not the same man in ODIs as he is in test cricket etc etc. And how they could lose after having Bandladesh 169-8? Certainly have been the best team to follow in the World Cup in terms of drama, however...
  7. Re: Official Cricket Thread I guess they call that the commentator's curse
  8. Re: Official Cricket Thread Crazy game in Pallekelle today. New Zealand scored 92 runs in the last 4 overs . That's 92 runs in 24 balls. I've never even managed that in stick Cricket! Ross Taylor did most of the damage and looks like the only 100% record in the World Cup will go today. The highlights tonight will certainly be worth watching EDIT: Broad out of the world cup - huge blow
  9. Re: Soon, i shall be gone... I hope you can change your mind, as you speak your mind and give a different perspective to any topic you post. Always thought provoking, even if other people can't always understand your logic. I always appreciate your contributions and you've certainly made me sit up and re-assess my thinking on more than one occasion. All the best, whatever you decide
  10. Re: Official Cricket Thread Pathetic performance by the Bangladeshi players, but their supporters have behaved even more pathetically. Stoning is unacceptable full stop, but if you really want to take your anger out on someone, maybe it would have been better to take it out on your own players for that woeful showing West Indies are beginning to look a little menacing now with Roach on fire and Benn bowling great. Also yet to see Gayle really explode. England might need to win that game to ensure qualification
  11. Re: Squad Sizes Are you sure about that? I have a team currently with: 1* 98 rated player 2*97 rated players 3*96 rated players 3*95 rated players 3* 94 rated players 3*93 rated players 3*92 rated players 1*91 rated player 4*90 rated players ...and a whole host of rated 87-89 So basically 22 players rated 90 or above (2 whole teams in essence) and a first XI essentially of players rated 94 and above. Yet my wages for this side are £1.56m. Most of these are nor risers and are on a wage equivalent to their value. My takings for a home game with my Huddersfield town team are £1.2m. So even if my Huddersfield had the above players (i.e essentially Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Ribery, Pique, Vidic, Julio Cesar, Robben, Ferdinand, Rooney and Torres and then a great back up team and reserves), I would basically be losing a maximum of around £1.8m over the basis of two turns (home and away game). All that with almost the ultimate team in this game - the more real position is that I'm highly unlikely to assemble a club with such riches in an EC. I would love to know/see this squad with which you are losing 2/3/4m per turn . Perhaps you have more players than you need?
  • Create New...