[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

While I understand and partially agree with most of your concerns, I think Lunacy was one of the most strategy-oriented FIRST games in recent memory. You had to think 20 seconds ahead the whole time to win. I mean, it's certainly better than 2008 strategy wise, which was pretty much equivalent to Nascar in terms of strategy required.

Theres always a strategy regardless...but was their really a strategy you had to execute during the match, or was it more of a gameplan you tied to follow?

Maybe the terms gameplan and strategy can be used interchangeably, I'm not sure. However, you say you need to think 20 seconds ahead...but is that really possible? I mean you can anticipate something is going to happen based on scouting, or experience, but can you really follow the same "strategy" through the entire match?

I don't think you can. Some of the best teams had a "gameplan" they executed wonderfully. I saw 121 execute the same general gameplan, match in and match out all year...yet they dominated, rightfully so. They would simply collect balls by driving in a loop towards the middle of the field, find a target and dump...rinse and repeat. Is this a strategy that changed a lot for them? nope...and it didn't matter..they still did extremely well, regardless.