My exact same reaction.
British + Irish Draft (Skizzo/Pat vs Chester) Group C
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
My exact same reaction.
Fair enough. I think the opposite, obviously.
As for passengers - really? Your CB pairing is superior because Moore edges it over Wright (many would say these two are the best central defenders in the draft, by the way) - and only because of that. Lawro is nothing special in this context and has nothing on Woodburn in my opinion. Rice and Neville are much of a muchness - and Byrne is better than Dunne.
I can match every point in your description of routes-to-goal here - apart from the free kick threat from Beckham. Jackson was a free kick specialist, by the way - but I hardly think this is a major point:
Murdoch setting up Lennox isn't more dangerous than Haynes setting up either Jackson or Bastin (or Dean) - quite to the contrary, I should say. If you stage Murdoch as your playmaker, two points can be raised immediately: 1. He has to orchestrate from a position in a midfield duo format which is crucial to the overall balance of the side (meaning, he has defensive duties here too, presumably), whereas his opposite number as a playmaker (Haynes) is free to orchestrate, having Edwards and Crerand behind him. 2. He simply isn't on Haynes' level as a playmaker.
Charles in the air isn't more dangerous than Dean in the air. The latter is considered the greatest header of the ball in history by many. And he wasn't bad with his feet either - part of my offensive register here is Dean's ability to play the so-called link-up game: And he is better suited for that (flanked by Jackson and Bastin) than Charles is for you. In Dean I have the best finisher on the pitch AND a player who is very useful in an assisting capacity as well.
But feck it - I shouldn't be up anyway, really have to get some sleep now.
Good match-up, I reckon - a wealth of great players in action and that's the main thing.
I think he was referring to the players further upfront as defensive passengers, not your defenders themselves being passengers.
You are right, should get some sleep
I think he was referring to the players further upfront as defensive passengers, not your defenders themselves being passengers.
You are right, should get some sleep
Always the sweetheart.
Bingo!
I think he was referring to the players further upfront as defensive passengers, not your defenders themselves being passengers.
You are right, should get some sleep
I did get a couple of hours - and now it's off to work again. Bloody slave existence, this.
But nevermind that now - yes, well, it makes more sense if we're talking that sort of passengers, sure.
It's not much of an argument against an explicitly offensive set-up, though, is it? I don't expect any of the front three to do much defensive work - and I don't expect Haynes to do much of it either - but I don't think they have to. If I had thought it necessary to field defensively sound players in all positions, I'd have gone for something completely different, as John Cleese would say.
As it stands I field four dedicated attackers, four dedicated defenders, one holder in midfield who is defensively solid (for a midfielder) and one colossus who is capable of causing considerable trouble for anyone who happens to be around him, whether he's defending or attacking.
I reckon that's enough - given that I, again, intend to win this match by outplaying and outscoring the other team, not by being defensively superior.
Which a better defence would help you do. Scoring 5 is great unless you're conceding 7. We both have different "clear goal threats" but both still offer a similar route to goal in other ways.
The biggest difference is we are more defensively capable of quelling your offensive threat...giving us a better chance to take advantage of that.
Keep in mind too, if we score first, we can shut up shop with Charles back there too..then you're S.O.L
ps. sorry I haven't been in here much. I didn't realize this was going on until I randomly saw it
and Pat was discussing with you, I didn't want to jump in and make it a 1vs2 kind of argument/match. I'll be off again now, just wanted to address quickly while he's not around.good luck btw. Belatedly
Which a better defence would help you do. Scoring 5 is great unless you're conceding 7. We both have different "clear goal threats" but both still offer a similar route to goal in other ways.
The biggest difference is we are more defensively capable of quelling your offensive threat...giving us a better chance to take advantage of that.
Keep in mind too, if we score first, we can shut up shop with Charles back there too..then you're S.O.L
ps. sorry I haven't been in here much. I didn't realize this was going on until I randomly saw it
good luck btw. Belatedly
Same to you, mate - I'm off now too, so I doubt there will be more arguing from me before the poll closes.
As a final point I would say that what you claim is very easily turned on its head: It won't do you any good to have a slightly stronger defence if it's not strong enough to keep me from scoring. And it's not. And it won't. Your slightly stronger defence will keep me from scoring three - but I will score two. Your slightly weaker offence will get you a goal - but just the one. And so on.
If my defence had been downright shabby, you'd have a point. But my defence isn't shabby. Unless what I claim above is pure folly, the back fours are actually about even. Neville and Rice are similar players in many ways, unspectacular but highly reliable fullbacks who are there to do a job. Lawro and Woodburn are both top CBs in their respective eras, both regulars for top teams at the time, both well matched with their partner. And then you have Moore who edges it over Wright (who is arguably the second best CB in the whole draft) - and I have Byrne who edges it over Dunne. Well, I'm being polite there, actually - I would say Byrne is a notch above Dunne, pure and simple, but still: It's fairly even all things said and done.
Right, I'll leave it in the hands of the voters - I'll check in some time tonight I guess to check out the damage.
We'll be arguing over handbags anyway mate. Obviously we'll both edge our respective players/teams, and understand the opposition poses a threat that we feel able to contain.
The only folly i'll make to your argument, is that while you say player X > player A, and so on and so forth, we aren't set up to play man to man over the field. We built a team with solid partnerships and complementary pairings. Becks and Neville, Murdoch and Lennox, both goal threats and key pieces of our team that you downplay, that have been proven not only individually, but in similar set ups, and with each other. That gives an advantage over "My fb > your fb" kinds of arguments.
I'll be in and out but probably won't be around too much more either. Good game either way!
In regards to other points about Chester having three clear goal threats in the form of Bastin, Dean, and Jackson with a fantastic playmaker to outscore us.
Well, Murdoch is our playmaking maestro who was been proven alongside Lennox...who outscores Bastin in his career.
We have Lampard playing in his ideal role off a dominant, powerful CF...who outscores Jackson in his career.
And a CF who is only 20 goals shy of the career scoring record of Dean...while he spent plenty of his career playing CB.
So even if we ignore the proven partnerships and pairings throughout our team...even just comparing his three best goal threats against ours, they come up short.
Not to mention all of ours came in a more modern era where the game is more physically demanding, at a faster pace, and they've done it at a continental level.
And that's not even when you consider chester's players being up against (arguably) the best CB pairing in the draft in Moore and Lawrenson.
Well, Murdoch is our playmaking maestro who was been proven alongside Lennox...who outscores Bastin in his career.
We have Lampard playing in his ideal role off a dominant, powerful CF...who outscores Jackson in his career.
And a CF who is only 20 goals shy of the career scoring record of Dean...while he spent plenty of his career playing CB.
So even if we ignore the proven partnerships and pairings throughout our team...even just comparing his three best goal threats against ours, they come up short.
Not to mention all of ours came in a more modern era where the game is more physically demanding, at a faster pace, and they've done it at a continental level.
And that's not even when you consider chester's players being up against (arguably) the best CB pairing in the draft in Moore and Lawrenson.
Aye - I generally downplay the "partner" angle, because I don't really think it should be a heavy consideration in a fantasy draft, where the focus should be (in my opinion) on setting up an "organic" looking team consisting of players who aren't historically proven as partners.
That said, it certainly doesn't hurt to have combinations out there which obviously work - and yours obviously do. I'm not dismissing either of those combos - far from it. And the player-by-player comparison was simply an attempt to demonstrate that there is no immense difference between our respective defences in terms of quality - for any other purpose it would be pointless: Byrne isn't playing against Dunne, nor Moore against Wright - we all know this.
The question remains whether your routes to goal are more effective than mine. I don't think they are, of course - and so I maintain that I would nick a win here, in an even match.
Hehe. Alright. Bit hard to do it on a continental level before there WAS a continental level. Those of my players who had the chance to feature on the European scene didn't do too badly, if memory serves. As for the rest of it - you realize that you're setting yourself up for a nasty fall if you intend to stick to that logic.
This is quite even, I see a slight edge for Skizzo/Pat, posssibly. The issue is the difference boils down to how good much of Chester's front four really were and I know very little about them. It makes or breaks it really, but I don't think it is fair or right to cast votes based on ignorance. Ignorants should never vote, then we would have better politicians.
Brilliant teams. I think that I won't vote on this one, I really can't decide. Chester's midfield is mouthwatering
This was page 1 of "Anto's guide to drafts" volume 1
But I was under the impression managers couldn't vote in their own groups games. I think chester was under the same assumption. If otherwise, then fair enough though
If was brought up by Chester earlier tbf, so everyone knew
This was page 1 of "Anto's guide to drafts" volume 1
But I was under the impression managers couldn't vote in their own groups games. I think chester was under the same assumption. If otherwise, then fair enough though
They can't, absolutely not, standard rule is you can't vote on games that determine your next opponent (i.e. in a semi, or one time we actually used a pre-defined fixture so the keys were known). This isn't exactly the same but obviously affects your own fortunes/interests, pretty sure we didn't count them last tiem we did group stages.
I'm not accusing him, I'm celebrating it! I fully support gamesmanship and mindgames of all sorts, it's part of football so why not drafts?
No, of course, I get it, but it's a tactic/mindgame when your opponent had not noticed this illegitimate vote right before the end, which isn't the case - Chester was the first one to spot it when he was losing (but it was a draw in the poll). So it's not really sneaky, even in a positive way (I'm all for it too).
A draw's a fair result given the similarity between the teams both tactically and from a quality perspective.
I believe this should be enough to see us through to the next round also.
The lads will be off to Scarborough for a bit of rest and relaxation. Blew the rest of the travel budget on all the players.
The lads will be off to Scarborough for a bit of rest and relaxation. Blew the rest of the travel budget on all the players.
Fat Frank and Bobby Murdoch will come back twice the size after they've filled up with ice cream lazing around on the beach.
Yes this is a draw.
I don't think either side can feel too hard done by with a draw. It always looked like a close match.
If I am correct, Skizzo/Pat are the first team through to the next round.
Not that I think it would've made any difference in this match - which was always going to be tight - but I'll add some more info about certain players in the write-up for the next match (I won't change anything tactically, just add a bit more meat to the bone): I had planned on doing something pretty comprehensive in that department but I just don't have the time.
Anyway, a draw strikes me as a very decent result for me here - and I reckon Pat and Skizzo are alright with it too.
@Chesterlestreet When should I expect to receive my payment for voting for you?
A draw is probably a fair result. similar teams and personnel.
Still don't think your "multiple routes to goal" are any better than ours though
good luck in your next match.
Lawrenson isnt talking to you anymore.
Half now, half when I'm safely through - one more match to go, y'know.
A draw is probably a fair result. similar teams and personnel.
Still don't think your "multiple routes to goal" are any better than ours though
good luck in your next match.
Thanks, man - my multiple routes are clearly better, though, as you know in yer heart