50s Retro Football Fantasy Draft

sajeev said:
its a good idea but too many games, and there is a likely hood of the interest dropping. however this does mean that all teams get a fair chance unlike previous drafts where it was a straight knock-out
Click to expand...

Brwned said:
I'm not sure how much I like the idea of 10 teams.

We could still go with the qualification process to the next round as Polaroid suggested, but with the top 4 of a 5-team group going through. It'd mean there'd be a much smaller pool of players to choose from when going into the quarter-finals though, whoever chose 1st and 2nd would essentially have already guaranteed themselves a place in the semis, surely? In which case wouldn't it just make more sense to make it the top two of each group going through to the semis? Otherwise you'd have to cut the number of players you get to choose from the eliminated team(s) from 2 to 1 so that there'd be enough quality players left for 3rd and 4th to choose from.

144 players to choose is definitely doable as far as I'm concerned, so if we get 12 players I see no problem.
Click to expand...

Crustanoid said:
That's what I had in mind - I think it would make it more interesting / less laborious
Click to expand...

Gio said:
Aye it's the cleanest approach, but possibly a bit on the heavy side. 37 games I think, 6 more than the 16-team version, and 12 more than Nani nana's suggestion.
Click to expand...

To reduce the number of games, we can go for 4 groups of 3 teams
Matchday 1 - Team 1 vs Team 2
Matchday 2 - Team 2 vs Team 3
Matchday 3 - Team 3 vs Team 1
With 4 groups, that would be 12 matches in total for the group stage
Top 2 in each group progress to the Q-finals
4 Q-finals, 2 S-finals and 1 Final will bring the total no of matches to 19
 
Brwned said:
Right so we've got two choices, we can either:

a) Start right away with 2 groups of 5 teams, with the top two of each going through to the semi-finals. Top two of each group pick one player from each of the 3 eliminated teams. 27 matches.

b) Start once we have two more players to make it 2 groups of 6, with the top four of each going through to the quarter-finals. Top four get to pick one player each from the 2 eliminated teams. 37 matches.

I vote a).
Click to expand...

Since we are stuck at 10 participants, I do not mind starting right away with 2 groups of 5 teams

Which do you all prefer?
1) taking players from direct opponents
2) drafting players from a common pool of players (from the eliminated teams)

Option 1 is quicker but one's luck could play a significant hand
Option 2 is slower but gives everyone access to the same pool of players
 
How would option 2 work in terms of priority order?

Brwned, option A looks best.
 
Gio said:
How would option 2 work in terms of priority order?

Brwned, option A looks best.
Click to expand...

As an illustration

Pre-tournament drafting
1st round pick starts in ascending order from Manager 1 to Manager 10
2nd round pick starts in descending order from Manager 10 to Manager 1
This continues until 12 rounds of picks are completed and each manager has a squad of 12 players

Say Managers 1-6 are eliminated after the group stage, leaving Managers 7-10 to contest the S-finals

The 72 players from the 6 eliminated teams will be amalgamated into a common pool for Managers 7-10 to draft from
1st round pick starts in descending order from Manager 10 to Manager 7
2nd round pick starts in ascending order from Manager 7 to 10
This continues until 4 rounds of picks are completed and each manager has added 4 players to form a squad of 16 players

Say Managers 7-8 are eliminated after the S-finals, leaving Managers 9-10 to contest the final
The 32 players from the 2 eliminated teams will be amalgamated into a common pool for Managers 9-10 to draft from
1st round pick starts in ascending order from Manager 9 to Manager 10
2nd round pick starts in descending order from Manager 10 to 9
This continues until 4 rounds of picks are completed and each manager has added 4 players to form a squad of 20 players
 
Right that's me, Gio, Crustanoid, TDon69 and Polaroid all going for option a), so let's get it started. Do we need someone neutral to create the list?

http://www.random.org/lists/
 
In response to the PM, I'd personally say wait for 2 more, but I'm happy either way...

Edit: Never mind, let's get going!
 
Brwned said:
Right that's me, Gio, Crustanoid, TDon69 and Polaroid all going for option a), so let's get it started. Do we need someone neutral to create the list?

http://www.random.org/lists/
Click to expand...

You can create the drafting order

Post group stage, are we going for
1) taking players from direct opponents
2) drafting from a common pool?
 
1. Jayvin
2. Duffy
3. TDon69
4. Gio
5. antohan
6. Interval Level
7. Crustanoid
8. Nani Nana
9. Brwned
10. Polaroid

Screenshot:
Randomorg.png

The draft starts when Jayvin starts.
 
Polaroid said:
You can create the drafting order

Post group stage, are we going for
1) taking players from direct opponents
2) drafting from a common pool?
Click to expand...

We can decide that as we go along, it doesn't need to be sorted out immediately. I vote for drafting from a common pool as you said, we'll see what the rest think.
 
Why not A but the Top 4 going through, picking one player each from the eliminated team and then making up for that by being able to pick two in the quarters?

I do like having an additional set of knockouts in the quarters. It also prevents a Group of Death scenario with some quality teams going out there. By pairing 1st and 4th, 2nd and 3rd, etc. you level out the teams quality wise.

It only adds 4 games but it should be more fun and make the teams reaching the final even stronger as you have more opportunity to pick the players needed to strengthen the team along the way.
 
If the Top 2 go through there is a large pool and two picks so the common pool is a better option.

If the Top 4 go through then it should be the case that winner picks first and so on. Small pool, only one pick, don't overcomplicate it.
 
I'm happy with 2nd, got my pick lined up, just got to hope he doesn't get picked 1st!
 
Been one of the last two in every one of these I've been a part of.

I think there's two that are in a class of their own, and then about 10 others in a variety of positions that are in the next class down. Might be a smart time to get the best player from one of the less populated positions. There's a decision to be made early on about whether to go for wingers, because it looks to be like there's a real dearth of them because of so many teams either going for the 4222-esque route or the 352 route. Even back in England you had Clough sticking Francis out wide, Arsenal, Everton and Liverpool playing with no wingers, even England sticking Hoddle out wide...it was only really us. The peak for this decade is '82 and at that World Cup you had the two most impressive attacking sides in France and Brazil, both with their own version of the 'magic square', and Germany and Italy lining up in the final with wingbacks.

It'll be interesting to see who goes with a sweeper actually.
 
Polaroid said:
4 votes for option 2 and 0 votes for option 1
Click to expand...

With the caveat that I agree with it in the first round, but not as much thereafter. There is a levelling virtue in picking from the team you knock out, particularly if we go for top 4 and not top 2.

I think we need to decide that pretty soon, definitely befre games start.
 
antohan said:
With the caveat that I agree with it in the first round, but not as much thereafter. There is a levelling virtue in picking from the team you knock out, particularly if we go for top 4 and not top 2.

I think we need to decide that pretty soon, definitely befre games start.
Click to expand...

Brwned has pointed out the cons in having the top 4 progressing from a group of 5. The approach should be a level and fair playing field as far as possible, where every team has access to the same pool of players and managers have equal opportunities to strengthen their team, where no team is advantaged or disadvantaged regardless of how strong or weak they are. If the 1st placed group winner can only pick players from their opponent that finished 4th in the other group, then it could be perceived as a relative handicap on the group winners. That may achieve the outcome of producing 4 more evenly matched S-finalists but it seems akin to pulling back the leading racehorses back in line for a photo-finish. In a nutshell, we aim for equal opportunities but there is no guarantee of equal outcomes
 
Brwned said:
Been one of the last two in every one of these I've been a part of.

I think there's two that are in a class of their own, and then about 10 others in a variety of positions that are in the next class down. Might be a smart time to get the best player from one of the less populated positions. There's a decision to be made early on about whether to go for wingers, because it looks to be like there's a real dearth of them because of so many teams either going for the 4222-esque route or the 352 route. Even back in England you had Clough sticking Francis out wide, Arsenal, Everton and Liverpool playing with no wingers, even England sticking Hoddle out wide...it was only really us. The peak for this decade is '82 and at that World Cup you had the two most impressive attacking sides in France and Brazil, both with their own version of the 'magic square', and Germany and Italy lining up in the final with wingbacks.

It'll be interesting to see who goes with a sweeper actually.
Click to expand...

Nice tactics Brwned, convince everyone to choose the weaker positions first, leaving you with a free run at the elite picks. I like your style. :p
 
Good pick Jayvin. Believe it's me, so I'm going for the first man that came to mind and a man I'm looking to build my team around. Captain Marvel himself, Bryan Robson...

C_71_article_1462994_image_list_image_list_item_0_image.jpg
 
Polaroid said:
Brwned has pointed out the cons in having the top 4 progressing from a group of 5. The approach should be a level and fair playing field as far as possible, where every team has access to the same pool of players and managers have equal opportunities to strengthen their team, where no team is advantaged or disadvantaged regardless of how strong or weak they are. If the 1st placed group winner can only pick players from their opponent that finished 4th in the other group, then it could be perceived as a relative handicap on the group winners. That may achieve the outcome of producing 4 more evenly matched S-finalists but it seems akin to pulling back the leading racehorses back in line for a photo-finish. In a nutshell, we aim for equal opportunities but there is no guarantee of equal outcomes
Click to expand...

It is indeed pulling the leading racehorses but I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, along the way a lot of us will learn how some of the players we pick are actually perceived on here and that allows for some adjustment to that element of bias.

You could also argue your multiple rounds of inverting the order are very unfair on those of us stuck in the middle and thus never being able to get first dibs. That is probably a more glaring inequality.

As said, if we go for two top teams then there's a large pool and then semis straight away so your format would be most appropriate.

If we go for four it wouldn't. It would be fair for the order to be inverted in picking from the two eliminated teams, but thereafter picking from the knocked out team makes teams converge rather than some increasingly running away with it.
 
Duffy said:
Good pick Jayvin. Believe it's me, so I'm going for the first man that came to mind and a man I'm looking to build my team around. Captain Marvel himself, Bryan Robson...

C_71_article_1462994_image_list_image_list_item_0_image.jpg
Click to expand...

Bugger, was hoping he would last until my turn :(

Scirea, excellent pick, was unsure what to do about him as I'm not clear on going for a sweeper yet. Thanks for sorting that out for me Jayvin :D
 
antohan said:
Bugger, was hoping he would last until my turn :(

Scirea, excellent pick, was unsure what to do about him as I'm not clear on going for a sweeper yet. Thanks for sorting that out for me Jayvin :D
Click to expand...

Lucky I got drawn out early, I have found though from a list of possible picks I'd like to make that there are alot of Central Midfielders available.
 
antohan said:
You could also argue your multiple rounds of inverting the order are very unfair on those of us stuck in the middle and thus never being able to get first dibs. That is probably a more glaring inequality.
Click to expand...

Picking first also means that one has to wait until everybody else has picked twice before one can pick again
If you feel that it is unequal/unfair to you being stuck in the middle, would you like to swap position in the drafting order with me?:D
 
Antohan, are you taking up my offer of swapping positions in the drafting order?
Given your feelings about being unfairly stuck in the middle and your perception of the glaring inequality, this would be an ideal solution for you as you would be in line to pick first in the Q-finals draft:)

If anyone has objections to the swap, please feel free to raise them
 
TDon69 said:
Nice tactics Brwned, convince everyone to choose the weaker positions first, leaving you with a free run at the elite picks. I like your style. :p
Click to expand...

It's true though! If you're going with wingers then you're almost certainly limiting yourself to playing without a sweeper, and vice-versa. Obviously Jayvin agrees given he went for the standout sweeper in the draft! Like yourself it'd have been a choice of Platini/Zico (Platini first every time!) for me, with Scirea the best defender an easy next choice and then probably a couple of the standout centre mids. After that it's really all down to choosing a position than choosing a standout player. Last time I went for the Savicevic-Stojkovic axis and this time I'm thinking I'll go for another partnership.
 
Should remind everyone to PM their next pick(s) to the person immediately after you in the draft order, if you could.
 
Brwned said:
It's true though! If you're going with wingers then you're almost certainly limiting yourself to playing without a sweeper, and vice-versa. Obviously Jayvin agrees given he went for the standout sweeper in the draft! Like yourself it'd have been a choice of Platini/Zico (Platini first every time!) for me, with Scirea the best defender an easy next choice and then probably a couple of the standout centre mids. After that it's really all down to choosing a position than choosing a standout player. Last time I went for the Savicevic-Stojkovic axis and this time I'm thinking I'll go for another partnership.
Click to expand...

Haha. No, you do make a good point. This will be an awfully difficult draft in terms of getting the blend right, thats what will make it exciting though!
 
Just a remember that at 2:30 UK time (6 hours after Gio's post, 3 hours from now) it will be Interval Level's turn to pick, in case antohan hasn't had a chance to make his pick.
 
Polaroid said:
Picking first also means that one has to wait until everybody else has picked twice before one can pick again
If you feel that it is unequal/unfair to you being stuck in the middle, would you like to swap position in the drafting order with me?:D
Click to expand...

I agree, the advantages of picking first are overdone and I argued as much in the last draft. But if in subsequent rounds it is always the extremes picking first there clearly is a case for that not being particularly fair.

No one seems to be too enthusiastic about quarters in which case I'm happy as is (and the picking order hasn't been agreed either). Otherwise I would seriously consider your offer. Getting to pick two in one go is quite handy as sometimes you have those cases where you would pick X but only if you are positive you can get Y (shape/tactics considerations).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.