Jump to content

PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!


Glenn Hysén
 Share

PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!  

1 member has voted

  1. 1.

    • I want SM to reintroduce the rating schedule
      258
    • I think the new random rating changes are better
      37


Recommended Posts

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

I am pretty certin I mentioned that this new way will keep the game more up to date and more acurately reflect the real world.

How will it keep it more up to date. They can only do so many players in a day' date=' why is this faster than a schedule?[/b']

Surely that would reflect ratings changes either way?

How can it be both ways when people are only doing risers on SW (check the last few days, loads more risers than droppers).

I am pointing out that the only reason people want a schedule is so they can plan who to buy and when so it will suit their team.

No, its because we want teams to be done, not random players. This leads to imbalanced real life teams, how is this more accurate for the game?

I am not sure how my response is 'typical' at all and if it is that is because I understand why it would be better this way.

Then please explain how it is better, I said typical because all people defending the new system say is that they can get their players up to date quicker. They don't talk about how its quicker, how it makes all the database more accurate or how it will actually work in the future.

I have also pointed out on another reply how annoying it is when a player or two has been missed and offered a reasonable suggestion to help negate the whining.

I have read through this thread several times and have yet to see a logical argument as to why there should be a schedule other than to help people buy people just before they go up. The idea that a schedule will stop players getting missed is utter rubbish what we need is interaction with the people who run the game to understand more why certain desicions are made and to help rectify errors.

I will try to give you some logical reasons.

They can only do so many players in a day so why is doing random players quicker than a schedule?

We are only seeing the popular players rising obviously driven by players who have them in their teams, what about the others?

Imbalanced teams of: 1 player who has risen, others who haven't and some who should have dropped but didn't. Is this realistic?

Forumer's like to do league threads on who will rise, what do they think of random changes? Has this taken some fun/discussion out of the forum?

I see big clubs in game worlds blanket buying youth now because there is no schedule, is this good for the game?

Are as many people taking on managing the very small clubs? Now they cannot get a quick turn around of risers to gain cash to compete with the bigger clubs? They cannot afford to hang on to players indefinately because of wages. Is this good for game worlds or will we see only the top 5/6 clubs managed?

The majority of players don't know about the forum or SW, whats the difference of using the forum or using SW to get risers?

I could go on and on. I don't want an announced schedule, I just want a schedule that gives us an accurate and up to date database. The only way to be more accurate is to update quicker. This new system is not quicker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

No schedule stops the whole setup buying Mexicans one week then everyone buys Columbians the week after ect... We all know what that means ? People might have to decide who to buy all by themselves. Imagine that .
Agree' date=' it forces everyone to do their own scouting and not just bid on a player you know nothing about simply because 3 others teams bidded on him.[/quote']

I understand the point, but which players have risen lately that have not been mentioned on the forum? You can still see them being bid on when they have been mentioned. Why does it force you to do your own scouting? All it means is you don't know exactly when they will rise when you buy them. This is no problem for teams who can afford to hold onto players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

i agree with the new method as well' date=' People are complaining that not as many teams are getting done per day but i'm sure thats down to the teams having far more players nowadays.[/quote']

I have another question for you. If you believe so much in the new system, why were you on another thread a few days ago asking when Celtic would be updated? I find this confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

Can you and Dazzer please then explain how this system will keep it more up to date as you keep saying?

By 'blanket' rising players who deserve a substantial rating increase' date=' players are better reflected rating rise against real life. Its clear that the database is 'more' up to date than slowly going league to league taking nearly 2 years to get that nations players on a more realistic rating.[/b']

I have said on various threads many times that if SM cannot keep all the players up to date with a schedule, how does doing random players make it quicker? They can only do so many players a day so why is a random system quicker than a schedule?

is not, but it makes the DB more reflective of real life players ability as they can individually cherry pick those who require a substantial rise here and now over waiting 6 to 12 months to do so!

You say we are only moaning because we dont know when to buy risers, we say you only want it because it gives you the advantage because you can fast track risers to the detriment of an unbalanced database!

what evidence is there to show this???!!! the players rising are way way way overdue rises!

Who is going to go on SW and do the droppers?

Clearly some users are, more droppers again yesterday and today, and the percentage of risers in every single reivew i have ever seen in the last 3 years or so has always far outweighed droppers, you almost always get more players going up than falling

10 characters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Riferimento: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

how can you blame the schedule for selling a player ? Blame bad judgement.b:p

I blame no one but myself at 88 he wasn't getting in my first team so got sold, at 90 he would. It's not the first time I have done something similar and sure as hell won't be the last, my own stupid fault!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

I have another question for you. If you believe so much in the new system' date=' why were you on another thread a few days ago asking when Celtic would be updated? I find this confusing.[/quote']

How is that confusing? Just becuase he agrees with the way things are being done recently doesn't preclude him from asking when certain players/teams would be updated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

;2460706']a schedule doesnt work... 5 years on and its been scrapped. there are simply too many teams/leagues to have a 'schedule'

So' date=' you think that the schedule wasn't working????

;2460706']Even at a rate of 20 teams a week (4 teams a day), every week of the year (totalling 1040 teams), its still not time to complete that whole 'review' structure. And with teams getting 'bigger' as the demand for youth players/reserve teams has driven up squad sizes, the daily player rate would have to constantly exceed 150 player edits....its just to much to have a schedule on rotation.

Maybe the 150+ is too much, i think a rate of about 120-150 players a day would be more than satisfying. 120-150 players would mean more than 6 teams per day, so they would be finishing a league in 2-3 days.

But still, the average of 100 players who were reviewed with the old system, is much more closer to that than the 50 players per day that are being reviewed now!

It's as simple as that, with the old system we had MORE players updated, so the old system was better and more efficient! It wasn't perfect, it needed improvement, but still it was better than this joke we are having now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

;2463521']is not' date=' but it makes the DB more reflective of real life players ability as they can individually cherry pick those who require a substantial rise here and now over waiting 6 to 12 months to do so! [/quote']

I guess this is an admittance that SM/SW are incapable of doing their work right (= keep the whole DB updated), so they are going to... "cherry pick" only some players to review, probably the biggest risers and the most popular ones, leaving the rest DB not updated for even longer than before...

It's obvious that this is going to create a bigger imbalance in the DB, in most cases an imbalance even within teams. IMO this is going to end up very bad for the DB, if they continue the reviews at this speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

i agree with the new method as well' date=' People are complaining that not as many teams are getting done per day but i'm sure thats down to the teams having far more players nowadays.[/quote']

Not only teams, but PLAYERS getting done per day are now far less than before.

Now they are reviewing almost half the players they were reviewing with the old system.

I never said it was faster' date=' but im sure no matter what sm does there is always somebody moaning. Even with the old schedule people still complained.[/quote']

People were complaining with the old system too, because it wasn't perfect, it needed improvement. But this new system is even worse! They 've changed it and instead of an improvement, things are now worse, the reviewing rate is even slower!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

How is that confusing? Just becuase he agrees with the way things are being done recently doesn't preclude him from asking when certain players/teams would be updated.

My point was that people defending the schedule use statements like "it stops people coming on the forum to get risers when the league is announced" "it makes the game harder" "people have to do their own scouting" etc...

If people agree with the new system of random risers, and think there should be no announcement, why ask when a league will be reviewed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

;2463521']Can you and Dazzer please then explain how this system will keep it more up to date as you keep saying?

By 'blanket' rising players who deserve a substantial rating increase' date=' players are better reflected rating rise against real life. Its clear that the database is 'more' up to date than slowly going league to league taking nearly 2 years to get that nations players on a more realistic rating.

I have said on various threads many times that if SM cannot keep all the players up to date with a schedule, how does doing random players make it quicker? They can only do so many players a day so why is a random system quicker than a schedule?

is not, but it makes the DB more reflective of real life players ability as they can individually cherry pick those who require a substantial rise here and now over waiting 6 to 12 months to do so!

You say we are only moaning because we dont know when to buy risers, we say you only want it because it gives you the advantage because you can fast track risers to the detriment of an unbalanced database!

what evidence is there to show this???!!! the players rising are way way way overdue rises!

Who is going to go on SW and do the droppers?

Clearly some users are, more droppers again yesterday and today, and the percentage of risers in every single reivew i have ever seen in the last 3 years or so has always far outweighed droppers, you almost always get more players going up than falling[/quote']

We seem to be going round in circles with this debate, I am asking for a more accurate database. Germlad has answered your post exactly as I would.

The new system is slower, this means less updates, so obviously the database as a whole is more out of date. I would add the changes to Jairo and Lamb to the list, these were in the reviews a few weeks ago. How does this improve the speed of updates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

My point was that people defending the schedule use statements like "it stops people coming on the forum to get risers when the league is announced" "it makes the game harder" "people have to do their own scouting" etc...

If people agree with the new system of random risers' date=' and think there should be no announcement, why ask when a league will be reviewed?[/quote']

With the old system it would say, league been reviewed say Spain, then it would say next league to be reviewed Portugal, suddenly anybody with any money would suddenly buy lots of Portuguese youth ect. The new method prevents this, because no new leagues are announced.

Now because of my opinion it doesn't mean i am not allowed to ask when the Scottish teams get done, i've just taken a new Celtic team on so why shouldn't i know when the last review was. To be honest i still like the new method, two Celtic players have been done since i took over. With the old schedule these wouldn't have been done again for probably 6 months or so, i still dont see the big problem with the way SM have decided to do things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

With the old system it would say' date=' league been reviewed say Spain, then it would say next league to be reviewed Portugal, suddenly anybody with any money would suddenly buy lots of Portuguese youth ect. The new method prevents this, because no new leagues are announced.

Now because of my opinion it doesn't mean i am not allowed to ask when the Scottish teams get done, i've just taken a new Celtic team on so why shouldn't i know when the last review was. To be honest i still like the new method, two Celtic players have been done since i took over. With the old schedule these wouldn't have been done again for probably 6 months or so, i still dont see the big problem with the way SM have decided to do things.[/quote']

OK, just sounds a bit like having your cake and eating it. You don't want people to know when leagues are reviewed so they can buy risers, but you want to know when Celtic will be reviewed. You asked when will Celtic be done, not when were they done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

OK' date=' just sounds a bit like having your cake and eating it. You don't want people to know when leagues are reviewed so they can buy risers, but you want to know when Celtic will be reviewed. You asked when [b']will[/b] Celtic be done, not when were they done.

I'm sorry but i feel i have no choice but to say this.

My opinion is different than yours, get over it.

On the pretend football manager game you play, they have changed when they review players ratings, get over it.

If you feel you need to crucify me because i asked about Celtic ratings feel free but if i was you i'd look for something more meaningful to complain about .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

I'm sorry but i feel i have no choice but to say this.

My opinion is different than yours' date=' get over it.

On the pretend football manager game you play, they have changed when they review players ratings, get over it.

If you feel you need to crucify me because i asked about Celtic ratings feel free but if i was you i'd look for something more meaningful to complain about .[/quote']

I apologise most sincerely. I was mistaken that I was posting on a discussion forum where you can express your views with reasoned arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

Now because of my opinion it doesn't mean i am not allowed to ask when the Scottish teams get done' date=' i've just taken a new Celtic team on so why shouldn't i know when the last review was. To be honest i still like the new method, two Celtic players have been done since i took over. With the old schedule these wouldn't have been done again for probably 6 months or so, i still dont see the big problem with the way SM have decided to do things.[/quote']

Congratulations for the whole two players you own and have been reviewed.

Prepare yourself to wait much much longer for the rest 30+ players of your Celtic to be reviewed.

So you don't see any big problem just because you had 2 Celtic players reviewed again? Maybe you should take a look in the DB outside your own team, you will find there many players playing in Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Switzerland, Austria, Turkey, Denmark, Romania, Poland etc etc that haven't been reviewed for ages. Maybe you will then find a little problem there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

Congratulations for the whole two players you own and have been reviewed.

Prepare yourself to wait much much longer for the rest 30+ players of your Celtic to be reviewed.

So you don't see any big problem just because you had 2 Celtic players reviewed again? Maybe you should take a look in the DB outside your own team' date=' you will find there many players playing in Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Switzerland, Austria, Turkey, Denmark, Romania, Poland etc etc that haven't been reviewed for ages. Maybe you will then find a little problem there...[/quote']

Yes, that little problem is an imbalance of reviewed players for the lesser teams. Why should 1-2 players from an entire squad be reviewed and not the rest of the squad?

Are SM adopting a policy now where reviews are merely based on talent/hype for the lesser known clubs?

It appears so from what I've been seeing and it's not the right way to go about it in my opinion.

I'm going to give it a new description too, it's 'hype-ist'. No hype, no review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

I find it ironic that someone would criticise someone else for debating something on a FORUM, goodness me, this is where people are supposed to give their views and discuss their opinions :rolleyes:

Back to topic, would the system not benefit from, instead of reviewing random individuals, SM instead use their time to review players in a league by league way. For example, instead of SM reviewing 2 clubs from England and 40 odd random players, they could review the 2 clubs and 40 players from teams in the same league. This would make leagues reviewed much quicker. Reviewing random players from random leagues doesnt benefit the database, it just leaves it unbalanced. I would be fine with waiting for these more obscure players to be done if I knew individual leagues were being done quickly. Im fine with the idea of SW but would prefer it if people were only allowed to vote for players from the league that SM is currently reviewing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

So' date=' you think that the schedule wasn't working????

[b']No is wasnt ,at all. if you think waiting 18 months for a league to be review shows it was 'working, then your severely mistaken....even before Soccerwiki, Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, Malta, Slovenia, Slovakia....these reviews just hardly existed..[/b]

Maybe the 150+ is too much, i think a rate of about 120-150 players a day would be more than satisfying. 120-150 players would mean more than 6 teams per day, so they would be finishing a league in 2-3 days.

120-150 players = 6 teams? what teams have 20-25 players on the database these days? Manchester Utd has 46, City has 43...or random clubs like Shanghai Shenhua has 31, or Club America has 39...the list goes on and on pick any random clubs and check just how big squads are getting...

But still, the average of 100 players who were reviewed with the old system, is much more closer to that than the 50 players per day that are being reviewed now!

It's as simple as that, with the old system we had MORE players updated, so the old system was better and more efficient! It wasn't perfect, it needed improvement, but still it was better than this joke we are having now!

no you didnt though! 50 - 100 players is about 3-4 teams max. I proved it to you personally by taking the time to carefully count every single player data transferred by soccerwiki with this new method and it shows far MORE players are reviewed this way!!

I guess this is an admittance that SM/SW are incapable of doing their work right (= keep the whole DB updated)' date=' so they are going to... "cherry pick" only some players to review, probably the biggest risers and the most popular ones, leaving the rest DB not updated for even longer than before...

[b']So your defending that these players weren't way overdue such rises? biggest risers - why are they big risers? because they are severely underrated by the former league by league method....popular? really? they are popular because people have been waiting on there rises as ti is common knowledge said players will rise, and big rises as they were very underrated!!!! it defeats the argument of a less up to date database! instantly they are now up to date, rather than waiting 6 months then another 6 months and so on![/b]

It's obvious that this is going to create a bigger imbalance in the DB, in most cases an imbalance even within teams. IMO this is going to end up very bad for the DB, if they continue the reviews at this speed.

How will it? you have no evidence or proof it will. For example over the next month Portugal, Russia, Holland, Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria etc... could have all there squads gradually reviewed on a daily basis but over a longer time frame, therefore rejecting your imbalance theory...as you have seen many players who were very underrated in said leagues have all been reviewed over the last few weeks, therefore making the database far more up to date now, rather than systematically waiting for a whole league review...

We seem to be going round in circles with this debate' date=' I am asking for a more accurate database. Germlad has answered your post exactly as I would.

[b']And your getting a more accurate database, much quicker in fact.[/b]

The new system is slower, this means less updates, so obviously the database as a whole is more out of date. I would add the changes to Jairo and Lamb to the list, these were in the reviews a few weeks ago. How does this improve the speed of updates?

It is almost twice as fast. Far more amounts of data daily, its just a longer period of reviewing leagues but ultimtely in a longer timeframe you have the same result but with the main underrated players being up to date far more quicker than having to wait months for the same result...picking just 2 players from todays daily update (by the way sunday and monday reviews are a improvement that has come with SW as they never existed before) to based your arguement just doesnt stand at all...what about all the dutch player that rose Clasie, van Rhijn? And players from Russia that changed recently? How much longer were you prepared to wait for there eventual rises in the old method?

you like to pick out on there are far more risers than droppers, well today roughly 33% were droppers, plus players that SM'ers have tried to drop didnt ie Raul Meireles, legendary striker Raul, plus a bunch of players playing in the middle east..

getting bored now with the whole debate, i have continuously given proof it is an improvement and how it will work and benefit SW. The only way you can negate its an improvement is if you from today keep a record of the amount of players reviewed, rising, dropping etc and compare it against the past....but this would be impossible now as this data cannot be obtained.

players are rising and dropping. but on a far more efficient scale across the globe. One month from now, on a league by league system, we would have had 3-4 leagues max. On a daily player upload from leagues around the world, in one month we could have twice the leagues looking far more accurate bar the minor +1/-1s...therefore making the database IMO far more accurate/up to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

Yes' date=' that little problem is an imbalance of reviewed players for the lesser teams. Why should 1-2 players from an entire squad be reviewed and not the rest of the squad?

Are SM adopting a policy now where reviews are merely based on talent/hype for the lesser known clubs?

It appears so from what I've been seeing and it's not the right way to go about it in my opinion.

I'm going to give it a new description too, it's 'hype-ist'. No hype, no review.[/quote']

what a load of rubbish....have a look at the up dates from today. all these players 'hyped'?

Casey TOWNSEND...Garry MENDES RODRIGUES... Damián LIZIO...all must buys

MARCELINHO Nascimento... i edited him myself...he got +8 as he was unfairly stuck on his low rating. Not hype.

on Ludogorets, CHOCO got his re rating not long ago, id expect Juninho QUIXADÁ to get the same treatment shortly. Leagues are being 'reviewed' just not in the way as before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

I find it ironic that someone would criticise someone else for debating something on a FORUM' date=' goodness me, this is where people are supposed to give their views and discuss their opinions :rolleyes:

Back to topic, would the system not benefit from, instead of reviewing random individuals, SM instead use their time to review players in a league by league way. For example, instead of SM reviewing 2 clubs from England and 40 odd random players, they could review the 2 clubs and 40 players from teams in the same league. This would make leagues reviewed much quicker. Reviewing random players from random leagues doesnt benefit the database, it just leaves it unbalanced. I would be fine with waiting for these more obscure players to be done if I knew individual leagues were being done quickly. Im fine with the idea of SW but would prefer it if people were only allowed to vote for players from the league that SM is currently reviewing.[/quote']

this was used for 5 years......and doesnt work. waiting 18-24 months for a particular nation to be reviewed was absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

;2465208']this was used for 5 years......and doesnt work. waiting 18-24 months for a particular nation to be reviewed was absurd.

Well we had to wait almost a year for the big leagues to be reviewed again when before we had to wait about 4 months and we havent actually seen how long it will take for the more obscure leagues to be done again so we dont actually know it will be any quicker before they are done again. All we know is that the more popular players from these obscure leagues will be done more often, whereas at the moment it is looking likely that the rest of the players from these leagues will remain untouched for a long time still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

Well we had to wait almost a year for the big leagues to be reviewed again when before we had to wait about 4 months and we havent actually seen how long it will take for the more obscure leagues to be done again so we dont actually know it will be any quicker before they are done again. All we know is that the more popular players from these obscure leagues will be done more often' date=' whereas at the moment it is looking likely that the rest of the players from these leagues will remain untouched for a long time still.[/quote']

no we didnt. the top 5 were reviewed 3 times in 13 months since Dec 2011, as SM 'supposedly' promised 3 times a 'year'. It was late in regard there wasnt a 'summer' review, but there isnt any league football in the summer.....We had a review in April so what can you re review over 4-5weeks of games...

i have top 5 reviewed in June 2011, December 2011, April 2012, December 2012/Jan 13..i predict the next one will be in the summer, and the thoery of 3 times a 'year' will continue.....June 2013, Dec 2013 is still '3 times' in a 'year/12-13months'....i think maybe people get confused by the notion of 'a year' and see it as 'a season' - but August/Sept - May is the football calender of 9 months

Glenn Hysen (forumer) & myself have both logged every league review since about late 2009/2010 so can clearly see what was done when and how often and by looking at it it was a mess. Scheduled league by league reviews just dont work now the game has expanded. Leagues being neglected for years, that is just not fair.

You say the 'popular' players will be done more often? evidence on this?

the fact of the matter is these players arent 'popular' per se, but were way overdue a re-rating, hence appearing on SW already. Over time, the rest of the players due rises will follow suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PLEASE SM - Reintroduce the rating schedule!!

;2465243']no we didnt. the top 5 were reviewed 3 times in 13 months since Dec 2011' date=' as SM 'supposedly' promised 3 times a 'year'. It was late in regard there wasnt a 'summer' review, but there isnt any league football in the summer.....We had a review in April so what can you re review over 4-5weeks of games...

i have top 5 reviewed in June 2011, December 2011, April 2012, December 2012/Jan 13..i predict the next one will be in the summer, and the thoery of 3 times a 'year' will continue.....June 2013, Dec 2013 is still '3 times' in a 'year/12-13months'....i think maybe people get confused by the notion of 'a year' and see it as 'a season' - but August/Sept - May is the football calender of 9 months

Glenn Hysen (forumer) & myself have both logged every league review since about late 2009/2010 so can clearly see what was done when and how often and by looking at it it was a mess. Scheduled league by league reviews just dont work now the game has expanded. Leagues being neglected for years, that is just not fair.

You say the 'popular' players will be done more often? evidence on this?

the fact of the matter is these players arent 'popular' per se, but were way overdue a re-rating, hence appearing on SW already. Over time, the rest of the players due rises will follow suit.[/quote']

The EPL was reviewed mid-April and has finished mid-February which is 10 months which isnt good at all. Twice a calender year would do me fine but 10 months is far too much.

Im not too fussed about the schedule, it is true that with the amount of leagues now it wouldnt be possible. Thats not my problem, my problem is with the random players being reviewed. I would much rather SM focused on getting the leagues done quicker than reviewing random players. I would prefer whole leagues to be updated rather than lots of random players from random countries.

By popular players I mean players everyone has as they need to be given their rises, I dont mean hyped players necessarily. Again, I would much rather SM focuses on leagues being updated rather than players from here and there. This way leagues would be done quicker (which I would prefer) instead of the popular/higher rising players being done. You may disagree which I expect you to but that is just my preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...