All Time Premier League Fantasy Draft: QF - MJJ/Crappy vs Stobzilla | Voting closed

[Chesterlestreet]

To be fair it was Yaya's partner in this game, who was the problem.

Undoubtedly. It's a question of drafting AND tactics, this thing.

People simply dismissing Gullit (the DM version who was actually very decent for Chelsea once he was moved up the pitch) as such would be unfair: Given the "peak" standard applied to others, Gullit was a decent pick.

But he was not more than that. And this is a second round match. If you look at it in terms of sheer quality, he clearly stands out negatively in the company of Yaya, Scholes and Keane. He isn't on that level - clearly not.

The extra credit Scholes and Keane - together, in a 4-4-2 - are bound to get is an obvious factor in this match. But it's not the only one, nor the most important one.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

another indicator that we should have a dedicated forum for drafts, with people being allowed to vote on the scoreline.

this is a farce. i was going to vote for mjj/crappy, then saw the scoreline which is grossly unfair.

maybe you could have the voting on an invite only-basis or ensure voting is only on the basis of at least a 1-line comment

The scorelines will be grossly disproportionate at times, though. It happens. And we all know it's not "fair" in the sense of reflecting a realistic outcome for an actual match.

That said, I agree we should try out a scoreiine voting system - next draft should be partly about testing out such a system, IMO.

 

[sajeev]

The scorelines will be grossly disproportionate at times, though. It happens. And we all know it's not "fair" in the sense of reflecting a realistic outcome for an actual match.

That said, I agree we should try out a scoreiine voting system - next draft should be partly about testing out such a system, IMO.

the scoreline can be averaged out, but yeah that might make things too complicated. but the scoreline will at least be more realistic and respectful

 

[Chesterlestreet]

the scoreline can be averaged out, but yeah that might make things too complicated. but the scoreline will at least be more realistic and respectful

Yes - to clarify: I meant that the simple vote count (the present system) can be grossly disproportionate. A system with actual (realistic) scorelines will clearly be much less so.

But this match is rather typical of what can easily happen: You have two teams that aren't miles apart at all, but one of these teams have a clear and easily identifiable edge (in this case, the Keane/Scholes factor). Result: Murder. But only apparently so, because if you ask the people who voted MJJ/crappy here what the likely result would be in an actual match, the grand majority wouldn't go for 10-0 but rather - say - 3-1.

Then again, the managers know this - it's not an uncommon phenomenon.

 

[mazhar13]

I see that some have talked about Gullit being the weak point with some even suggesting that we would have been better off with Butt, but I don't see how much better off we would have been.

If we went with Butt, we'd be forced to have everything go through Yaya, and we'd be easier to close down. Whilst Butt is decent on the ball and a good supporting player, playing against Keane & Scholes, you need two midfielders good on the ball to face them and cause them problems. Butt, with all of his tenacity, energy, and aggression, won't do much going forward. Plus, his more aggressive playing style could open us up to Scholes' late runs into the box.

With Gullit, we have a good ball-playing midfielder who was one of the more progressive midfielders in his time and who had the intelligence to take up spaces and take away their options. Again, I'm disappointed that people saw this as two classic 4-4-2's against each other, but I guess that's what happens when Keane and Scholes are around.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I see that some have talked about Gullit being the weak point with some even suggesting that we would have been better off with Butt, but I don't see how much better off we would have been.

The obvious move for my money would've been to play both. A three comprised of Gullit, Butt and Yaya - Rooney up front alone. Sacrifice Evra for Riise and drop Keane, in other words.

In terms of winning the ever popular "midfield battle" simply swapping Butt and Gullit wouldn't have done you much good.

 

[mazhar13]

The obvious move for my money would've been to play both. A three comprised of Gullit, Butt and Yaya - Rooney up front alone. Sacrifice Evra for Riise and drop Keane, in other words.

In terms of winning the ever popular "midfield battle" simply swapping Butt and Gullit wouldn't have done you much good.

But then you have Riise vs. Ginola, and I'm sure that would have fared well. There's no way a winger-like full back would have had the better of Ginola with his trickery, movement, and ability.

 

[MJJ]

The obvious move for my money would've been to play both. A three comprised of Gullit, Butt and Yaya - Rooney up front alone. Sacrifice Evra for Riise and drop Keane, in other words.

In terms of winning the ever popular "midfield battle" simply swapping Butt and Gullit wouldn't have done you much good.

that's how I had thought they would line up, a 4-3-3 with pires, evra murdering us on the left flank but had forgotten about the united restriction.

 

[Gio]

Butt was the problem and the solution. Could probably have substituted him for Deschamps or Townsend without losing much in the way of credibility.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

But then you have Riise vs. Ginola, and I'm sure that would have fared well. There's no way a winger-like full back would have had the better of Ginola with his trickery, movement, and ability.

Yeah, well. There's that. But you can't get away from the basic fact that Keane and Scholes will outshine just about any other pair of midfielders in a Caf draft. There's only one realistic way to set up against them - and that is to field an extra body in the middle. That is a proven strategy against the Fergie style 4-4-2 as well. You can make a case for your team with that starting point. Riise against Ginola is a weak point, but there will always be weak points.

 

[crappycraperson]

I see that some have talked about Gullit being the weak point with some even suggesting that we would have been better off with Butt, but I don't see how much better off we would have been.

If we went with Butt, we'd be forced to have everything go through Yaya, and we'd be easier to close down. Whilst Butt is decent on the ball and a good supporting player, playing against Keane & Scholes, you need two midfielders good on the ball to face them and cause them problems. Butt, with all of his tenacity, energy, and aggression, won't do much going forward. Plus, his more aggressive playing style could open us up to Scholes' late runs into the box.

With Gullit, we have a good ball-playing midfielder who was one of the more progressive midfielders in his time and who had the intelligence to take up spaces and take away their options. Again, I'm disappointed that people saw this as two classic 4-4-2's against each other, but I guess that's what happens when Keane and Scholes are around.

I think your problems started with the reinforcements. Getting Yaya and Evra seem a bit odd when others are picking up likes of Henry, Scholes, Vieria etc.

Your team in last match was -


Anelka
Rooney
Pires--Butt--Guilt--Beardsley
Risse- Radebe - Carvalho --Babbel

I personally would have gotten Henry to replace Anelka upfront ( you have that link up with Pires sewn up for starters) but that would have left few options for CMs .. so may be Scholes first and then on second go a striker to play u front instead of Anelka.