Mind made up - no changing it. No u-turn. Here is my answer...

Regarding the Poll - I don't think the voting options match the question.

I think OTF is effective but I do not use it as I play EC but by not using OTF, that does not make it ineffective.

So my response to the question does not really match the two options available. I could have selected other - I know.

There will be an abundance of pies for the travelling support as SRA are riding high and DUM are, well, not. As such, most Dumbartonians are chosing to watch paint dry on a Saturday afternoon than attend the footy. I say footy but... well, there will be plenty of silky soccer on display from the away team who have been showing the diddy teams (DUM included) how it's done.

Our only chance is that SRA are distracted by our lucky mascot, Spotted Jim the pigeon. To be fair, Jim is not having much of a season with just two wins under his wing so far.

Most tactics have MF at 1.25 spread between DEF and OFF but BC has 1.5 (0.75 to each). Increasing the OFF part to 1.25 was way too much. The total for MF contibution to the team was a staggering 2.0. Huge.

Probably 1.0 to OFF would be enough to make BC attractive, but you need the resouces to invest. That would be a total of 1.75 to DEF and OFF. A WG in EC adds 1.75 to OFF but you can only play 2 WGs. In BC you can play 5 MFs. No other position has that much power.

Summer 2013 - was the return of Ball Control as a viable team tactic option.

Ball Control is an openly aggressive tactic that requires a heavy duty midfield, enough DF SL to push the ball into the MF area, and as high an OTF as possible. Even with all that, Ball Control can be awfully wide open at the back. Like Barcelona today, a Ball Control team tries to keep hold of possession, but rather than using clever 1 on 1 skills, they tend to use physical play, and create a Wall of Force across the middle of the field. Also all that MF and DF development doesn’t leave much for FW and GK training and coaching. Ball Control teams could in theory have both a solid defence and a crushing offence, but it seems to require an extra 40+ SL MINIMUM advantage over the opponent to get away with it. The weakness at the back and in goal will likely bring them up short in the final analysis against the best. This is probably the least used tactic of all due to its difficult nature.

SESL season 31 will tweak OFF MF from 0.75 to 1.25 for Ball Control. This brings B closer to P as an attacking option, as P is OFF MF 1 currently. B will be changed to OFF MF 1 to match P at end of S31 review as tweak too strong.

Ball Control DEF OTF is 0.75 and OFF OTF is 2.0 SESL season 36 will be same as season 35 for Ball Control, but the numbers that are on database are noted here to clarify:-

Before I started to use BC, a lot of teams were dropping OTF and just playing EC. Two massive wingers and little or no investment in MF.

I thought I could exploit that with BC and so started to give it a go. My prefered lineup was SW, 2 DF, 5 MF, WG and FW. There is a multiplier for every extra MF you have over the opposition which includes your OTF. Mine was always 10. Against EC, I always had 3 extra MFs.

Not many others were using this tactic at the time for various reason - those reasons are not known to me but I suspect they would include one or more of the following - easier to play EC, no need to invest CP in OTF, not fully understanding how BC works and perhaps a few others.

It was loooong time ago but from memory, I believe Mark (DUU) played BC for a while. Anyway, some discussion was had as to why it was not used and the decision was made to tweak BC to make it more powerful and therefore more viable.

I felt this was a good idea but the tweaks that were made, IMO, made BC too powerful and I said so at the time - even though I was using BC. If I remember correctly, the main tweak was the increase of the mulitiplier used to workout how much extra OFF was created using the combination of extra MFs and OTF.

Even with the new Tactics, not many took up BC, and I found it difficult to maintain a MF of the size required - around 7. It took up a huge amount of CP, 6 for OTF before you add in players. When I was very active on SESL, I just about got by, but when RL got in the way and participation dropped then the ability to buy CP also dropped.

I now find it easier to play EC. Let's face it, playing EC may only fear (other then OLMEC being a dick) is playing against BC and who would do that...

I had to check Steve...

Sorry, to report that DEV only has one CECIL Cup Final appearance and it was a defeat in Season 38 to... DUM

Now, now Steve. I didn't say everything but it probably was when you weren't around ;-)

When DUM were winning Titles and Cups it was with a very powerful BC set up, but as Roy is finding, it is very difficult to keep the level of SL needed in the middle of the park for it be effective over several seasons. I would recommend persevering, if you can, as BC can be very rewarding.

Shooting ability - agreed Andrew. That is the benefit.

So a DM shoots as a MF. Play him in DEF to get the benefit. Played as a MF, no benefit. MA in midfield shoots like a FW but played as a FW - no benefit. Therefore, UT is a defender.

Just my view.

Work got in the way and I could not make the draw. Interestingly, I have never been present for any of the previous draws and have never had a Superstar. Coincidence...?