All Time Premier League Fantasy Draft: R1 - Gio vs Sjor Bepo

With players at peaks in the teams indicated, who will win?

  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
Annahnomoss said:
Well justified to pick Welbeck for a role like this where he has proven himself at a level not many others had that were available as a late pick.
Click to expand...

He hasn't really done that, though. Not for me anyway. He was good for United in a grafter-ish wide role, but he never played in anything resembling a fluent trio behind a striker. There are easily more proven players who could have a filled a left sided role here.

Plus the main problem, arguably, is that the idea of a fluid trio behind a pure finisher doesn't jibe all that well with the midfield pairing of Carrick and McAllister to begin with.

That said, I certainly agree that this wasn't a one sided affair. For me it was a draw, actually, based on both teams' strengths and shortcomings.
 
MJJ said:
Cant I say the same for di maria? He just wasnt at home in a team which didnt play manic box to box football.
Click to expand...
It's not something I'd apply across the board for everyone that underwhelmed. Veron's the clearest case of someone who didn't fit the normal system, and, as a result, did not meet expectations.

antohan said:
Yes, somewhat. We've seen good and bad performances from him, if you break that down and we find conensus that it all boils down to that and that when played in a more direct setup he shone, well... fair enough, it would be a well thought out and analysed case for a player. Tricky, risky (clearly since we've been discussing this for two days now), but fair.
Click to expand...
Much like Veron's spell at OT, I knew it would split the Caf in two. Anticipated we'd reach a consensus somewhere between the brilliance of Veron-Parma-Lazio-France '98 and the crapness of Alan-Smith-in-midfield. Which was good enough for the task in hand.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
He hasn't really done that, though. Not for me anyway. He was good for United in a grafter-ish wide role, but he never played in anything resembling a fluent trio behind a striker. There are easily more proven players who could have a filled a left sided role here.

Plus the main problem, arguably, is that the idea of a fluid trio behind a pure finisher doesn't jibe all that well with the midfield pairing of Carrick and McAllister to begin with.

That said, I certainly agree that this wasn't a one sided affair. For me it was a draw, actually, based on both teams' strengths and shortcomings.
Click to expand...

Yup, can't see him having a lot of success offensively but defensively he's a very very good player nevertheless. Here is up against Tevez/Petrescu which is a pair I rate very highly so having Welbeck doing a defensive job but not much more seems like a good use of him to me.

Also agree that it smelled like a draw to me too.
 
Aldo said:
I guess I completely misunderstood the theme and spirit of the draft if that's considered fair. My bad.
Click to expand...

Theme/spirit of the draft:

Player was great for at least a season at the given role, in the PL: good pick

Player was absolutely shite beyond redemption or ill-suited to the job required of them: crap pick

Player had good and bad games and there's a clear rationale behind the difference (directness over possession with Di María, space and time on the ball and not being required to fulfill box-to-box duties in a midfield pair with Verón). If you play Di María in a possession side or Verón in a 4-4-2 against an energetic midfield, you get the poor performances. If you play them in the setups they performed well in against players who can't exploit their weaknesses then there's a case for the player on the pitch not being the poor one.

Simple, if risky in the latter case.
 
Annahnomoss said:
Yeah, I was feeling sad for him in the beginning. No way was it a landslide victory. Congrats to Gio and bad luck for Sjor. Well justified to pick Welbeck for a role like this where he has proven himself at a level not many others had that were available as a late pick.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it wasn't a landslide, looked very much a close game. We have to remember "landslides" are just an aggregate of people opting for the one side more likely to win, has nothing to do with scorelines. That's one @Physiocrat was keen on introducing and one worth considering.
 
antohan said:
Theme/spirit of the draft:

Player was great for at least a season at the given role, in the PL: good pick

Player was absolutely shite beyond redemption or ill-suited to the job required of them: crap pick

Player had good and bad games and there's a clear rationale behind the difference (directness over possession with Di María, space and time on the ball and not being required to fulfill box-to-box duties in a midfield pair with Verón). If you play Di María in a possession side or Verón in a 4-4-2 against an energetic midfield, you get the poor performances. If you play them in the setups they performed well in against players who can't exploit their weaknesses then there's a case for the player on the pitch not being the poor one.

Simple, if risky in the latter case.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I certainly won't be evaluating with that method. I don't see any sense in giving the same credit to someone who gave 5-10 good performances in a season and those who had multiple seasons of the same. Anything less than a good thorough consistent season is going to be downmarked no matter how shiny the name is. I was even advising sjor to go against picking phillips who has one unquestionable brilliant season. ItsIts common sense really.
 
Aldo said:
Fair enough, I certainly won't be evaluating with that method. I don't see any sense in giving the same credit to someone who gave 5-10 good performances in a season and those who had multiple seasons of the same. Anything less than a good thorough consistent season is going to be downmarked no matter how shiny the name is. I was even advising sjor to go against picking phillips who has one unquestionable brilliant season. ItsIts common sense really.
Click to expand...

Of course, I would rate Verón even higher if he had that. The fact is, everyone who watched him knows that there was one setup in which he worked and one in which he didn't. Unfortunately "theme-wise" there are scant EPL examples, but we KNOW that in the very same seasons he didn't work in a four man midfield he did work in midfield threes.

I'm not calling for him being regarded as the best player on the park, just think he suits the role and will do just fine in this setup and against Michael Carrick (a player with much better credentials but who doesn't exactly possess the qualities that troubled Verón).
 
antohan said:
Of course, I would rate Verón even higher if he had that. The fact is, everyone who watched him knows that there was one setup in which he worked and one in which he didn't. Unfortunately "theme-wise" there are scant EPL examples, but we KNOW that in the very same seasons he didn't work in a four man midfield he did work in midfield threes.

I'm not calling for him being regarded as the best player on the park, just think he suits the role and will do just fine in this setup and against Michael Carrick (a player with much better credentials but who doesn't exactly possess the qualities that troubled Verón).
Click to expand...
Game's over so there's no point dwelling in it now but he was precisely where Silva operates, Carrick would never venture that far and Vertonghen would be dealing with Zabaleta's overlapping a lot more than he would ever find Silva on the flank. That was a glaring mismatch there, as others commented as well that was a very weak left flank defensively and it came up with one of the best right flanks the PL has seen. Anyway.

For the rest, the discussion has gone for far too long without anything new being added, the reason I carried it for that long was simply because it was unfair, to put it in simple words. It was clear as day that one guy had sincerely put together PL proven performers, who did their job at a top level day in day out, not in 5 games a season while being anonymous in the rest while the other picked a shiny name and hoped that people will assume he will bring his class forward, which he never did. Why he didn't, doesn't matter 1% for me, he didn't, rest is nothing but conjecture, and quite simply, excuses and convenient arguments manufactured to justify a poor pick. Those kind of arguments, or rather excuses, can be made for countless players who disappointed. Anyway, I don't have anymore time for this, I don't need such twisted arguments to tell me who performed well in the PL and who did not, which is what this draft is about, appreciating the players who performed the best in this league, not those who would have if this and if that, full stop.
 
The Veron affair is mainly an argument about standards and precedents if you ask me.

Drafts are played with restrictions and limitations. How good they are, ultimately, has to depend to an extent on how these restrictions and limitations work, and how they're adhered to.

If you can't argue effectively against a player like Veron (who was only good in flashes in the league for United, and who was - as any reasonable person would agree - mediocre on the whole) on the "peak" basis, then the former (the bloody peak thing itself) isn't working properly.

As suggested above, the fact is that you can't - it's simply not realistic - introduce a standard in these drafts which is so subtle that it can be abused (not consciously, necessarily, but that too is clearly a possibility). Because nobody really considers the "just about good enough" version of Veron when they vote. The only argument a manager can make, which might conceivably have an impact on the result, has to be far more clear cut: Veron wasn't good enough in the league for United. It's unlikely that the United/league version of Veron would be able to perform according to the plan of the manager. If that argument is considered flawed - because of..whatever - then the very restriction/limitation aspect arguably doesn't work as it should.

Here, Veron's passing/passing range is quite obviously a part of the tactics. He isn't a passenger who can "do a job" in the sense that thousands of other players can. It is, to a significant degree, the actual Veron (not the largely shite Veron) who plays here, according to the managers. And, again, if you can't argue effectively against that premise, based on Veron's actual performances for United in the league - then questions have to be asked.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
The Veron affair is mainly an argument about standards and precedents if you ask me.

Drafts are played with restrictions and limitations. How good they are, ultimately, has to depend to an extent on how these restrictions and limitations work, and how they're adhered to.

If you can't argue effectively against a player like Veron (who was only good in flashes in the league for United, and who was - as any reasonable person would agree - mediocre on the whole) on the "peak" basis, then the former (the bloody peak thing itself) isn't working properly.

As suggested above, the fact is that you can't - it's simply not realistic - introduce a standard in these drafts which is so subtle that it can be abused (not consciously, necessarily, but that too is clearly a possibility). Because nobody really considers the "just about good enough" version of Veron when they vote. The only argument a manager can make, which might conceivably have an impact on the result, has to be far more clear cut: Veron wasn't good enough in the league for United. It's unlikely that the United/league version of Veron would be able to perform according to the plan of the manager. If that argument is considered flawed - because of..whatever - then the very restriction/limitation aspect arguably doesn't work as it should.

Here, Veron's passing/passing range is quite obviously a part of the tactics. He isn't a passenger who can "do a job" in the sense that thousands of other players can. It is, to a significant degree, the actual Veron (not the largely shite Veron) who plays here, according to the managers. And, again, if you can't argue effectively against that premise, based on Veron's actual performances for United in the league - then questions have to be asked.
Click to expand...

Precisely and the reason why I carried on with it, little to do with the game itself (@Aldo).

What you are presenting there is binary, black or white scenarios, I just think there are various shades of grey and it's interesting to gage where people stand on these.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Plus the main problem, arguably, is that the idea of a fluid trio behind a pure finisher doesn't jibe all that well with the midfield pairing of Carrick and McAllister to begin with.
Click to expand...

I can see that but I don't think it's a huge issue. We needed goals- Zola, Mac and Silva don't scream goals. Our options at this stage was a target man or smaller goal scorer. We didn't want a target man for obvious reasons. We considered Saha but his goal return is actually quite poor, as was Sparky's for the EPL for that matter. Sturridge was an option but he only had one good season and was injured for the rest. Phillips had one excellent season and one other decent one.

Obviously though, a Suarez or Aguero would be best suited to this system
 
antohan said:
Precisely and the reason why I carried on with it, little to do with the game itself (@Aldo).

What you are presenting there is binary, black or white scenarios, I just think there are various shades of grey and it's interesting to gage where people stand on these.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is binary - to an extent which makes me uncomfortable, actually. I don't like to defend any sort of black/white model when it comes to understanding football - or even (which in fairness is more relevant here) when it comes to outlining rules for a game, but the main concern is, I suppose, setting a precedent for our drafts, here at the old Caf.

There should be a logic to it.

Actually, I don't give a feck about logic - and the only sort of upcoming draft I'd consider participating in would be a bamboozle one - but if the drafts as such are supposed to be fair and logical, then this sort of questioning is necessary.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
I agree. It is binary - to an extent which makes me uncomfortable, actually. I don't like to defend any sort of black/white model when it comes to understanding football - or even (which in fairness is more relevant here) when it comes to outlining rules for a game, but the main concern is, I suppose, setting a precedent for our drafts, here at the old Caf.

There should be a logic to it.

Actually, I don't give a feck about logic - and the only sort of upcoming draft I'd consider participating in would be a bamboozle one - but if the drafts as such are supposed to be fair and logical, then this sort of questioning is necessary.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to lure me out of retirement? ;)
 
Aldo said:
Game's over so there's no point dwelling in it now but he was precisely where Silva operates, Carrick would never venture that far and Vertonghen would be dealing with Zabaleta's overlapping a lot more than he would ever find Silva on the flank. That was a glaring mismatch there, as others commented as well that was a very weak left flank defensively and it came up with one of the best right flanks the PL has seen. Anyway.

For the rest, the discussion has gone for far too long without anything new being added, the reason I carried it for that long was simply because it was unfair, to put it in simple words. It was clear as day that one guy had sincerely put together PL proven performers, who did their job at a top level day in day out, not in 5 games a season while being anonymous in the rest while the other picked a shiny name and hoped that people will assume he will bring his class forward, which he never did. Why he didn't, doesn't matter 1% for me, he didn't, rest is nothing but conjecture, and quite simply, excuses and convenient arguments manufactured to justify a poor pick. Those kind of arguments, or rather excuses, can be made for countless players who disappointed. Anyway, I don't have anymore time for this, I don't need such twisted arguments to tell me who performed well in the PL and who did not, which is what this draft is about, appreciating the players who performed the best in this league, not those who would have if this and if that, full stop.
Click to expand...
The draft is also entirely about building a team and I stand by Veron as the best man at turn 9/10 to round off that midfield. However you viewed him in this game, whether he'd do a decent job in a complementary system, or whether he'd have a quiet game because he had a number of those in the Premiership, we always acknowledged it wasn't peak Veron. It certainly didn't merit the foaming at the mouth that the bare mention of his name seemed to generate for a player who had the same number of Premier League Player of the Month awards as either Silva or McCallister (again not claiming he has their Premiership credentials, but the black-and-white hyperbole here isn't helpful).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.