All Time Premier League Fantasy Draft: SF - MJJ/Crappy vs diarm

[Chesterlestreet]

we talked about this before the draft, lets just stop whit suggestions....

If we're on the same page, the issue was particular suggestions/advice pertaining to tactics (who to play where/in what role and so forth) not general suggestions about what upgrades to go for. The latter simply can't be avoided, I reckon - and I see no point in doing so either: Neutrals would lose interest in the drafts very soon if they couldn't comment on who should go for who and such.

Point being, there's a great difference between general suggestions and particular, tactical ones. What several of us had a problem with was people posting their line-ups/tactics before the match in order to get feedback - which is, well, a bit boring that's all. Takes away something from the match and so forth.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

When did that happen? Is that a rule now? Shit one if so.

i suggested that in the draft ideas thread and some agreed with me, dont think its in the rules yet.

If we're on the same page, the issue was particular suggestions/advice pertaining to tactics (who to play where/in what role and so forth) not general suggestions about what upgrades to go for. The latter simply can't be avoided, I reckon - and I see no point in doing so either: Neutrals would lose interest in the drafts very soon if they couldn't comment on who should go for who and such.

Point being, there's a great difference between general suggestions and particular, tactical ones. What several of us had a problem with was people posting their line-ups/tactics before the match in order to get feedback - which is, well, a bit boring that's all. Takes away something from the match and so forth.

not sure that many people are into suggesting, if anything it makes it more interesting for them as there is a bigger chance for a feck up if we all keep our ideas for ourself, if 5 people suggest that you pick Rijkaard for example, you pretty much know what you need to do and which position you need to upgrade.
We need more feck ups and wtf picks because thats what makes this interesting, cal? picking Carlos before the last draft final is the best example.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

we talked about this before the draft, lets just stop whit suggestions....

I don't think it's a good idea tbf. This is not just for the managers...but needs to be interactive so that people who follow this also have a chance to interact. Surely suggestions are given to both managers and kinda balance out any advantage either gets. It is a flaw, but one I think we can live with.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

tough luck dude. your team was brilliant!

@sajeev 's brain will explode if Given ends up winning this for MJJ and Crappy

Was thinking the same @sajeev is this enough to change your opinion on Shayviour Given!

 

[VivaJanuzaj]

Jesus, exciting penos. Could've enjoyed doing them

 

[diarm]

Only if you come aboard as our carlos quieroz

You'd have to sign a Bebe for my bank account first!

 

[Chesterlestreet]

not sure that many people are into suggesting, if anything it makes it more interesting for them as there is a bigger chance for a feck up if we all keep our ideas for ourself, if 5 people suggest that you pick Rijkaard for example, you pretty much know what you need to do and which position you need to upgrade.
We need more feck ups and wtf picks because thats what makes this interesting, cal? picking Carlos before the last draft final is the best example.

Yeah, but this is a pro and con deal:

Pro: Somebody picking poorly with ensuing consequences (which may or may not be entertaining for the neutrals).
Con: The neutrals need to shut up about upgrades - and what else is there to talk about at a late stage of the draft?

Con clearly outweighs pro. If this had been a private thing, with only the participating managers taking any interest in it, then yes. But it isn't. And we clearly need to keep it that way. If the neutrals aren't into it, the drafts as such will die quickly.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

Yeah, but this is a pro and con deal:

Pro: Somebody picking poorly with ensuing consequences (which may or may not be entertaining for the neutrals).
Con: The neutrals need to shut up about upgrades - and what else is there to talk about at a late stage of the draft?

Con clearly outweighs pro. If this had been a private thing, with only the participating managers taking any interest in it, then yes. But it isn't. And we clearly need to keep it that way. If the neutrals aren't into it, the drafts as such will die quickly.

they have games where they can comment and they can comment on players when they are picked.....since i started playing here i think its only antohan that is suggesting reinforcements along with us managers so i dont think its such a big deal for the neutrals, at least thats my impression on the 3 drafts that i played here. Will back down now, it was only a suggestion which obviously didnt went through, time to move on

 

[Chesterlestreet]

they have games where they can comment and they can comment on players when they are picked.....since i started playing here i think its only antohan that is suggesting reinforcements along with us managers so i dont think its such a big deal for the neutrals, at least thats my impression on the 3 drafts that i played here. Will back down now, it was only a suggestion which obviously didnt went through, time to move on

I can see where you're coming from - it ain't that. But I don't think this is a major problem. At least not in terms of - actually - influencing the outcome of the draft. If a manager blindly follows what some vocal neutral or other claims is the only rational upgrade - that can easily backfire.

 

[antohan]

We need more feck ups and wtf picks because thats what makes this interesting, cal? picking Carlos before the last draft final is the best example.

There's plenty of feck ups in any draft anyway, not sure what is the fun of seing a finalist feck up his pick and then having to sit through a one-sided final.

And for that fun of yours, what you take away is everyone who has followed a draft for a month or so being able to go all transfer muppet and suggest signings, what to improve, etc. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that is more fun for more people than the potential of some hilarity because a manager goofed his pick.

In any case, all you would do is shift the same conversations to PMs, making it a poorer experience for everyone involved.

 

[sajeev]

@sajeev 's brain will explode if Given ends up winning this for MJJ and Crappy

Was thinking the same @sajeev is this enough to change your opinion on Shayviour Given!

Not going to give him credit for the opposition manager turning his players to lead just before the penalties

have to admit i am quite disappointed but @MJJ and @crappy had a great team apart from the back 5. they have to work really hard to strengthen it

 

[antohan]

they have games where they can comment and they can comment on players when they are picked.....since i started playing here i think its only antohan that is suggesting reinforcements along with us managers so i dont think its such a big deal for the neutrals, at least thats my impression on the 3 drafts that i played here. Will back down now, it was only a suggestion which obviously didnt went through, time to move on

You are right that there's less suggesting going on these days. I'm still not sure whether it's a pro or con of the various restrictions. In the past, when we had just decade drafts and you only picked from your opponent it was the inevitable end of game discussion for everyone. In fact, many people would start telling you halfway through the game who the guy you should pick is, and it made it really hard because you wanted to diss X or Y but knew full well you would be singing his praises next E.g. in this game MJJ/Crappy would just have to accept Beckham is perfect for that rather odd midfield setup because after all they would want to sport the same Beckham int he next game.

There was a downside too, of course, which is what the whole Gary Kelly story comes from. I was told by numerous people Rivaldo was my obvious pick "to get at Gary Kelly" and I just sat there and thought "what can Rivaldo do to Gary Kelly that Zidane and Forlán can't?". Most important, will Rivaldo and Zidane really work? So, faced with a surprisingly overrated Vieira and an underrated Mendieta I seem to rate higher than most, I chose Davids, who also happened to be a dream fit with my star man. I think every guy who suggested Rivaldo, to a man, had voted against me inside the first ten minutes of the game. And then another who wanted me to get Rio to partner him with Nesta instead of having Nesta and Montero. He also did.

So actually, there's an upside in less people (or less randomers) commenting as it could very well put a manager in a situation where they HAVE to oblige even if they disagree. But rules have taken care of that, casual scanvoters don't have any time to think through them and the pool isn't the rival team but an unknown pool, so only those who have followed the main thread pay any attention to that side of things and they typically wouldn't vote rashly in a final over pet peeves.

 

[Gio]

If we're on the same page, the issue was particular suggestions/advice pertaining to tactics (who to play where/in what role and so forth) not general suggestions about what upgrades to go for. The latter simply can't be avoided, I reckon - and I see no point in doing so either: Neutrals would lose interest in the drafts very soon if they couldn't comment on who should go for who and such.

Point being, there's a great difference between general suggestions and particular, tactical ones. What several of us had a problem with was people posting their line-ups/tactics before the match in order to get feedback - which is, well, a bit boring that's all. Takes away something from the match and so forth.

Aye, I'm not sure if the difference was purely just about tactical v individual, but really about achieving a happy medium that kept the discussion going without having full teamsheets clinically vetted by everybody long before the match takes place. Obviously if you're competing against Cal, you don't want somebody to tell him that Carlos is a shit pick and he should be grabbing Baresi or Beckenbauer. But if you're a neutral you're quite happy to get involved and impart your wisdom. Again trying to achieve the balance there is key.

 

[antohan]

@Šjor Bepo it also has other silver linings like, in this case where I goofed up the rules, leading me to wonder how wise a pairing Scholes/Keane are in a 4-4-2 and whether it isn't better to have, say, Modric or Vieira, but securing Beckham. Those are all interesting brainwaves that result from such discussions. The more I think about it the more I'm convinced Beckham was the most important player in that midfield.

 

[antohan]

Nah, feck it, it was Keano.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

@antohan i can see that there are pros and cons but im probably only taking a view from manager perspective....lets leave it the way it is, its really not a big deal for me and if others like it then there is no need for a change

 

[antohan]

@antohan i can see that there are pros and cons but im probably only taking a view from manager perspective....lets leave it the way it is, its really not a big deal for me and if others like it then there is no need for a change

The thing is, all managers know they can PM anyone and get their feedback. If anything, having those discussions on the thread makes it all more transparent. The rival manager also gets an advantage in that he gets an X-ray/SWOT of what others think of his soon to be rival. Zero harm really. I've no idea what was the exceptional incident that triggered it all, but it certainly isn't an issue requiring action.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Aye, I'm not sure if the difference was purely just about tactical v individual, but really about achieving a happy medium that kept the discussion going without having full teamsheets clinically vetted by everybody long before the match takes place. Obviously if you're competing against Cal, you don't want somebody to tell him that Carlos is a shit pick and he should be grabbing Baresi or Beckenbauer. But if you're a neutral you're quite happy to get involved and impart your wisdom. Again trying to achieve the balance there is key.

Yes, that was the thing - posting your team sheet, declaring pretty much how you intend to play, etc. in order to get feedback. That should simply be outlawed. It serves no purpose beyond, well, serving the manager in question - and allowing some neutral or other to act as assisting manager (which isn't - or shouldn't be - in the spirit of the thing).

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Nah, feck it, it was Keano.

Of course it was. In that team - with all three of them. Easily too.

Sensitive flowers don't like to hear this. But it's a facht.

In overall terms, it's Keano > Beckham > Scholes.

1. Keano: One of the best central midfielders ever. He was better technically than he's often given credit for. He was better in terms of "football intelligence" (as I like to call it: "knowing when to do what when and where") than he's often given credit for. And he had heart (which he IS usually given credit for) to an extent you rarely see.

2. Beckham: A specialist. Better at the sort of game he played than any player I've ever seen. And I actually struggle to dig up any historical counterparts (among those I haven't seen, up close and personal).

3. Scholes: A brilliant attacking midfielder with an eye for a pass which is rare but not unprecedented, a passing range which is top of the line, even historically (but not unprecedented by any means, and not really a feature of his game as an AM), a wicked long range shot - and a general propensity for scoring, i.e. an obvious penchant for finding himself in or around the box when it matters).

...and to add the fourth one: Giggs was a brilliant, very fast winger of the sort you don't see every day (but you do see 'em, historically speaking). He wasn't technically outstanding enough to give him access to the GOAT club in that department. Nor was he a goal scorer, although he certainly scored some memorable goals. He had a drive (a quality not reflected in any stat) which was - and is - rare. An ability to influence the match, crucially, through his movements with the ball. Not many players have that drive (though great wingers always have it).

He also had - which made him stand out in his own era (but it doesn't make him stand out in an historical context) - a great ability to whip in quickly delivered low-ish crosses which led either to goals or to a sufficient amount of confusion and disarray to create chances in the second movement (as it were).

 

[antohan]

Agree @Chesterlestreet. One of the things I really liked about diarm's team was how well it fully utilised all its players, and Beckham's unique traits in particular. You wouldn't want any other right midfielder in that setup, no one would come close. I try thinking of any team that relied so heavily on someone doing such a tactically significant role out right in high stakes situations and the one that comes to mind is Camoranesi in 2006, who did his job well enough, but was light years away from being anywhere near as good as Beckham. He pretty much did the job of a water carrier, while splitting up defences with his passes, destroying defences with his crosses and goalkeeppers with his set pieces. The combination of both is unique indeed.

But all said and done, Keano was magnificent, whenever people bang on about Vieira in the same breath it makes me cringe. He was much more than that, the gap being almost as significant as that between Beckham and Camoranesi when you factor in how he made things happen out of sheer will. My profile has Turin 99 as my favourite United moment, and it still is, so I try take off my rose-tinted glasses. But no, it's nothing to do with glasses, it was just a visceral thing with him. He cared more than anyone could possibly care, and had the skill to channel it into something fruitful. Once that ability to channel it was removed we got the crazy bearded lunatic.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Agree @Chesterlestreet. One of the things I really liked about diarm's team was how well it fully utilised all its players, and Beckham's unique traits in particular. You wouldn't want any other right midfielder in that setup, no one would come close. I try thinking of any team that relied so heavily on someone doing such a tactically significant role out right in high stakes situations and the one that comes to mind is Camoranesi in 2006, who did his job well enough, but was light years away from being anywhere near as good as Beckham. He pretty much did the job of a water carrier, while splitting up defences with his passes, destroying defences with his crosses and goalkeeppers with his set pieces. The combination of both is unique indeed.

But all said and done, Keano was magnificent, whenever people bang on about Vieira in the same breath it makes me cringe. He was much more than that, the gap being almost as significant as that between Beckham and Camoranesi when you factor in how he made things happen out of sheer will. My profile has Turin 99 as my favourite United moment, and it still is, so I try take off my rose-tinted glasses. But no, it's nothing to do with glasses, it was just a visceral thing with him. He cared more than anyone could possibly care, and had the skill to channel it into something fruitful. Once that ability to channel it was removed we got the crazy bearded lunatic.

Aye. Agreed on all points, or counts.

Turin - that match was something else. And, yes - it has nothing to do with the tint of anyone's glasses. It was a performance not many players are capable of, simply put. In the context of this draft, hardly anyone. If anyone at all.

 

[diarm]

But all said and done, Keano was magnificent, whenever people bang on about Vieira in the same breath it makes me cringe. He was much more than that, the gap being almost as significant as that between Beckham and Camoranesi when you factor in how he made things happen out of sheer will. My profile has Turin 99 as my favourite United moment, and it still is, so I try take off my rose-tinted glasses. But no, it's nothing to do with glasses, it was just a visceral thing with him. He cared more than anyone could possibly care, and had the skill to channel it into something fruitful. Once that ability to channel it was removed we got the crazy bearded lunatic.

This inspired me to go back and watch that game in full again for the first time in years. Cheers because it's been an absolute treat!

I've just finished the first half and god you'd miss some of the football. Becks, Cole and Yorke were brilliant in that 45 minutes. It sounds mad but I feel like I'd actually forgotten how good Beckham was. Keane, Stam, Neville and Irwin as well, just brilliant.

Deschamps, Davids and Zidane wasn't too shabby a midfield either!

Off to watch the second 45 now.

 

[harms]

I've just finished the first half and god you'd miss some of the football. Becks, Cole and Yorke were brilliant in that 45 minutes. It sounds mad but I feel like I'd actually forgotten how good Beckham was. Keane, Stam, Neville and Irwin as well, just brilliant.

Deschamps, Davids and Zidane wasn't too shabby a midfield either!

Off to watch the second 45 now.

I love to rewatch that game. So much class on both sides of the pitch

 

[diarm]

I love to rewatch that game. So much class on both sides of the pitch

Absolutely, so many great players. Inzaghi could have been one of the greatest of all time if he wasn't such a whingey, diving, offside fanny. His movement was sublime.

If Beckham had buried that volley after Irwin had done his Maradona impression down the left, I think it would have been my favourite United goal ever.