I ALWAYS have to think in absolute terms,because to be a smart manager I have to have the players with the lowest possible and the highest performance possible,and I have to obtain players with skills that has a good value when I want to sell these players to make my team younger
More on the 2nd point, 2-3 should 100% NOT be the best defense available to stop a LI. M2M is always and will always be better, same when comparing 3-2 and M2M against outside offenses, M2M is better.
On the 2nd point,2-3 HAD to be the best defense to stop inside tactics,or it just wouldn't have sense to have it as option,because if M2M can stop LI better than 2-3,then I'll never chose 2-3 for any game(as it yet happen in the reality
I dont really think either of these two statements make sense. You don't win your league by having the lowest cost with the highest performance ratio, or by having people that sell later. You win by beating your leaguemates, and once you are in a league where you dont promote or demote, that is all there is.
On the second, just because 2-3 is around does not mean it has to be the best against an inside offense, that is a logical fallacy. 2-3, much like 3-2, is around for certain circumstances. You run a 3-2 only if you dont have the outside defense to run m2m (which works better due to a number of factors). You run a 2-3 if you dont have guys with inside defense, rebounding, and shot block substantial enough to slow the other team down.
The thing about a zone is, there are always weaknesses because you are not defending a player, you are defending an area. So, assuming you have all the needed skills, man to man will always be better. If you are deficient such that you cannot run man to man, you run a zone.
1)Even if you are going to spend more of your adversary to try to win a league,you ALWAYS have to search the players with best salary/performance ratio,because if you just buy 5 400k guy in every role with 20 in all the main skills,your team is going to be in bankrupcy soon.Your statement is just ridicoulous
2)if 2-3 shouldn't be the best defense against a LI,then why it exists?And then why 3-2 should exist?You just play every game M2M and the strongest team wins.2-3 and 3-2 should be made to help you to boost inside/outside defence ->they end to be the best defensive tactic for inside/outside offense.It's just logic.If 2-3 can't be better than M2M to face an inside offense,then just change it.Obviously,if your defense is stronger than adversary offense playing M2M,you don't use zone defense exposing your outside/inside defense if your adversary changes tactics.But if you need a boost for inside defense,you need to have an efficient 2-3 tactic,while actually 2-3 sucks