Fantasy Tournament: World Cup All-Time All-Stars

[Moby]

The guy who passed did so because he avoided the obvious and went Beckham 98. Some picked up Maradona 82 or Zidane 98 (the years are a nightmare with that one) but by the third round some ended up with the likes of Igor Chislenko to avoid a sheep

I usually like taking risks in first attempts. That's how I managed to get Cruyff 74 in a round where he was the absolute glaring obvious stand out name.

 

[Moby]

Where's the difference between Igor Chislenko and a sheep ?

They didn't play any games at the end of that draft, or am I missing something? It looks like they just voted who drafted the strongest team in the end?

Yep, we just ranked everyone else from 1 to 17 and 1st ranked team got 17 points, and so on and the points were added and the final rankings were announced.

 

[Balu]

Yep, we just ranked everyone else from 1 to 17 and 1st ranked team got 17 points, and so on and the points were added and the final rankings were announced.

Are we doing the same? Or do we play games at the end? And if we play games, are there reinforcements?

 

[Moby]

Are we doing the same? Or do we play games at the end? And if we play games, are there reinforcements?

I'm always in favour of a tournament. Much more entertaining than the dull rankings. Also, doing rankings is a farce because comparing 15 teams on the same scale is virtually impossible for anyone.

We all here enjoy tournaments so I don't think we should remove that. And yeah reinforcements as well.

 

[VivaJanuzaj]

@AldoPaine18 when are you planning to get this thing started?

 

[Moby]

@AldoPaine18 when are you planning to get this thing started?

In a couple of days? Whenever everyone is ready. I don't have any problem starting when you guys are ready.

 

[antohan]

Where's the difference between Igor Chislenko and a sheep ?

That's my point! There's no way you would ever list him as your third pick if you submitted three in advance, is there? At that stage you have to ask yourself: will I ever play this fecker? And if the answer is no you may as well have a stab at the obvious ones and see if you hit the jackpot!

 

[antohan]

We all here enjoy tournaments so I don't think we should remove that. And yeah reinforcements as well.

I think you should strongly consider the setup I had suggested, all eliminated players in a pool and apply the same logic as for the banned list: everyone gets a pick and a block (three stages as well, although those who have picked already can carry on blocking). Max 1 player reinforcement per round. High stakes shit

BTW, my understanding is no one player can block the same player consecutively in that banned player fest, right?

fecking minefield. Awesome.

 

[antohan]

This fcuk thing is pissing me off now, I hadn't realised how much I said feck until it started autocorrecting all my posts and I couldn't edit them back

 

[Balu]

In a couple of days? Whenever everyone is ready. I don't have any problem starting when you guys are ready.

Is there a theme at all? Like the worldcup theme in the draft you linked to? Or is it completely random throughout the whole draft and basically another alltime draft?

 

[VivaJanuzaj]

@Balu I believe random one is the best one to start with for a first timed sheep draft.

God I'm eager as hell to get this going!

 

[Annahnomoss]

When does it start?

 

[antohan]

Aldo, eager as we all are, I'd suggest we only start after the weekend, maybe get the signup thread up during it?

There's a delicate balance between number of managers, theme and breadth of questions you need to manage there. All-time probably needs a bit of a rest though.

 

[Balu]

Aldo, eager as we all are, I'd suggest we only start after the weekend, maybe get the signup thread up during it?

There's a delicate balance between number of managers, theme and breadth of questions you need to manage there. All-time probably needs a bit of a rest though.

Any suggestions for a theme then? It looks like we're going to have 16 managers again (if we go by the list of interested participants Aldo posted earlier), so the player pool must be big enough and it needs to give Aldo enough options for the draft rounds. Most of the big names will most likely be blocked out, so maybe it'll lead to some interesting teams with less known players anyway?

 

[crappycraperson]

@AldoPaine18 I am in. I prefer the first option not the second one BTW.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

I'm in. We can have a negative theme for this. Example, no 4-2-3-1 formation for the whole draft or something like that. Eliminates the obvious!

 

[Annahnomoss]

I'm in. We can have a negative theme for this. Example, no 4-2-3-1 formation for the whole draft or something like that. Eliminates the obvious!

This is a brilliant idea!

 

[VivaJanuzaj]

@Edgar Allan Pillow Maybe it could be a penalty, if you miss 3 picks or something you get a penalty such as not being allowed a 4-2-3-1..

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

@Edgar Allan Pillow Maybe it could be a penalty, if you miss 3 picks or something you get a penalty such as not being allowed a 4-2-3-1..

The penalty of missing 3 picks is a sheep player. The theme sould apply to all managers involved.

 

[VivaJanuzaj]

The penalty of missing 3 picks is a sheep player. The theme sould apply to all managers involved.

Yeah I know that, I mean to think of an idea to make this a penalty and not apply it to everybody.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

@AldoPaine18

Couple of points to clarify:

- In the Bigsoccer link OP, I see Maradona 86 and Maradona 90 being considered as different (and so valid) choices for 2 different drafters.
- This also applies to the same player in differnt position, Beckenbauer as DM and CB.
If we do play this as a tournament, Maradona 86 vs Maradona 90 or Kaiser DM vs Kaiser CB, it will be bonkers. Both should not be allowed.

So what is see happening in Option 2 is:

Day 1 - Aldo announces criteria
Day 2 - Deadline for all 16 managers bombard him with pm.
Day 3 - Aldo announces the 'failed' managers (not the picks) in the forum (visble to all). Failed managers repeate Step 2
Day 4 - Aldo announces the 'failed' managers (not the picks) in the forum (visble to all). Failed managers repeate Step 2
Day 5 - Aldo announces the 'failed' managers (not the picks) in the forum (visble to all). Sheep chosen for still failed plonkers. Day 1 repeated for Round2.

Am I getting this right? If so, it is just too cumbersone and takes way too long!

 

[antohan]

I'm in. We can have a negative theme for this. Example, no 4-2-3-1 formation for the whole draft or something like that. Eliminates the obvious!

What people have asked about re: theme is whether there's some sort of POOL theme/definition. E.g. World Cup players and peak, or Champions League players, etc.

A negative theme of "no 4-2-3-1" is a bit ridiculous if you ask me, let alone as a penalty. The sheep draft already has enough interesting twists and turns as it is. If you have the right players for a 4-2-3-1 then that's what you should be playing. There's also of course the minor issue of establishing what a team is really paying, e.g. where's the line between 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 or 4-4-1-1, etc. It can get a bit daft really.

 

[antohan]

@AldoPaine18

Couple of points to clarify:

- In the Bigsoccer link OP, I see Maradona 86 and Maradona 90 being considered as different (and so valid) choices for 2 different drafters.
- This also applies to the same player in differnt position, Beckenbauer as DM and CB.
If we do play this as a tournament, Maradona 86 vs Maradona 90 or Kaiser DM vs Kaiser CB, it will be bonkers. Both should not be allowed.

That was a World Cup draft and the pool wasn't considered large enough to allow for interesting questions such as "pick players sent off" or "pick player who scored in a final", to broaden it a wee bit more versions of one player were allowed. I agree, I don't like it, but it won't be another WC draft so I doubt it will be in scope.

So what is see happening in Option 2 is:

Day 1 - Aldo announces criteria
Day 2 - Deadline for all 16 managers bombard him with pm.
Day 3 - Aldo announces the 'failed' managers (not the picks) in the forum (visble to all). Failed managers repeate Step 2
Day 4 - Aldo announces the 'failed' managers (not the picks) in the forum (visble to all). Failed managers repeate Step 2
Day 5 - Aldo announces the 'failed' managers (not the picks) in the forum (visble to all). Sheep chosen for still failed plonkers. Day 1 repeated for Round2.

Am I getting this right? If so, it is just too cumbersone and takes way too long!

No, wrong. Three stages of 24 hours can't take 5 days, it takes three and spreads over four. Has been like that since the beginning of time (literally).

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

No, wrong. Three stages of 24 hours can't take 5 days, it takes three and spreads over four. Has been like that since the beginning of time (literally).

3 picks of 24 hours + one more day for sheep picks and Aldo to announce the results of R1 picks, right?

 

[Moby]

I will fire up the thread in some time.

 

[Moby]

Any suggestions for a theme then? It looks like we're going to have 16 managers again (if we go by the list of interested participants Aldo posted earlier), so the player pool must be big enough and it needs to give Aldo enough options for the draft rounds. Most of the big names will most likely be blocked out, so maybe it'll lead to some interesting teams with less known players anyway?

It won't be something as concentrated as the World Cup one was, won't be all time either.

Since it is the first type of this draft I have to make sure the players' pool is sufficient in size.

@AldoPaine18

Couple of points to clarify:

- In the Bigsoccer link OP, I see Maradona 86 and Maradona 90 being considered as different (and so valid) choices for 2 different drafters.
- This also applies to the same player in differnt position, Beckenbauer as DM and CB.
If we do play this as a tournament, Maradona 86 vs Maradona 90 or Kaiser DM vs Kaiser CB, it will be bonkers. Both should not be allowed.

So what is see happening in Option 2 is:

Day 1 - Aldo announces criteria
Day 2 - Deadline for all 16 managers bombard him with pm.
Day 3 - Aldo announces the 'failed' managers (not the picks) in the forum (visble to all). Failed managers repeate Step 2
Day 4 - Aldo announces the 'failed' managers (not the picks) in the forum (visble to all). Failed managers repeate Step 2
Day 5 - Aldo announces the 'failed' managers (not the picks) in the forum (visble to all). Sheep chosen for still failed plonkers. Day 1 repeated for Round2.

Am I getting this right? If so, it is just too cumbersone and takes way too long!

Don't worry about the first doubt. That was a World Cup Draft and the mod in there allowed people to pick different versions of the players for different World Cups. No duplicates based on anything over here.

As for the second, no it won't be like that. Let's say we fix 2000h UK time.

Day 1 2000h: I announce the criteria, and you have 24 hours to send me your first attempt for that round.
Day 2 2000h: I announce the results for the first attempt. The blocked players and the managers who got their picks successfully. And the ones who failed have 24 hours to send the second attempt.
Day 3 2000h: I announce the results for the second attempt. The blocked players and the managers who got their picks successfully. And the ones who failed have 24 hours to send the last attempt.
Day 4 2000h: I announce the results for the last attempt. Now the round is over. The players who were drafted successfully over the three rounds would be announced and those who couldn't get anything in 3 attempts would be marked to get a sheep. AND I give the next round's criteria - this cycle starts again.

The sheep pick shouldn't need an extra interval. We can start the discuss them while the next round has started.

How to choose the sheep?

1. The manager who needs the sheep pick will tell us the position in which he needs it.
2. Rest of the managers come up with a name. While it should be someone who would be a clear weakness, please don't go really low. We don't need to hit the levels of Bebe and Taibi. Just someone who would be a clear weakness and nowhere at the level of other players. Any mediocre player basically.
3. Unless someone has a problem thinking the sheep is "way too good/bad for being a sheep" the manager gets the sheep pick.

Either this, or we just wait till the end of the draft, and managers can tell which positions exactly they are missing as they would have the complete squads and we can complete the sheep in a day or two in the end.

 

[Balu]

How to choose the sheep?

1. The manager who needs the sheep pick will tell us the position in which he needs it.
2. Rest of the managers come up with a name. While it should be someone who would be a clear weakness, please don't go really low. We don't need to hit the levels of Bebe and Taibi. Just someone who would be a clear weakness and nowhere at the level of other players. Any mediocre player basically.
3. Unless someone has a problem thinking the sheep is "way too good/bad for being a sheep" the manager gets the sheep pick.

Either this, or we just wait till the end of the draft, and managers can tell which positions exactly they are missing as they would have the complete squads and we can complete the sheep in a day or two in the end.

I liked Crappy's idea for the sheeps a lot. The managers create a criteria for the position and force the manager with the sheep to pick a bad player himself, for example 'Pick a striker who played more than 10 worldcup games but didn't score' or something like that. If we choose the sheeps that way at the end and several players have a sheep in the same position, we can use again the 3 attempts draft thing (or even more attempts if they fail and block the few decent players available within that criteria).

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

I tihnk it will take more time for the sheep manager to get someone and heavens forbit if any of the others dipute that!

I think Aldo's idea is much simpler. Aldo + 2 neutral managers can get the list of sheep position to be filled, come to a consensus and make the choice for the sheep themselves. Quicker. Also gives a final strategic option for the sheep managers to choose their sheep positions.

Either this, or we just wait till the end of the draft, and managers can tell which positions exactly they are missing as they would have the complete squads and we can complete the sheep in a day or two in the end.

 

[Balu]

Fair point, let's not make it even more complicated.

 

[Thisistheone]

@AldoPaine18 Do you have an idea set for the theme or can I pm you some ideas?

 

[antohan]

Aldo, from what I saw in BS

Day 1 2000h: I announce the criteria, and you have 24 hours to send me your first attempt for that round.
Day 2 2000h: I announce the results for the first attempt. The blocked players and the managers who got their picks successfully. And the ones who failed have 24 hours to send the second attempt.
Day 3 2000h: I announce the results for the second attempt. The blocked players and the managers who got their picks successfully. And the ones who failed have 24 hours to send the last attempt.
Day 4 2000h: I announce the results for the last attempt. Now the round is over. The players who were drafted successfully over the three rounds would be announced and those who couldn't get anything in 3 attempts would be marked to get a sheep. AND I give the next round's criteria - this cycle starts again.

The bit in bold is actually done in Day 2 after announcing the result of the first stage. Allows people (including those who haven't got a successful pick) to get started on research early, which should make it very manageable.

The downside is those who missed the first pick have a notion of what they could be targeting next while those successfully picking didn't. Don't think it's a big deal myself, after all, they got a first round pick, bound to be better than the others usually and likely someone who was wanted regardless. I think the upside of people having three full days to spread their research over is far greater. No excuses in terms of "been busy at work and had no time to think about it".

How to choose the sheep?

1. The manager who needs the sheep pick will tell us the position in which he needs it.
2. Rest of the managers come up with a name. While it should be someone who would be a clear weakness, please don't go really low. We don't need to hit the levels of Bebe and Taibi. Just someone who would be a clear weakness and nowhere at the level of other players. Any mediocre player basically.
3. Unless someone has a problem thinking the sheep is "way too good/bad for being a sheep" the manager gets the sheep pick.

Either this, or we just wait till the end of the draft, and managers can tell which positions exactly they are missing as they would have the complete squads and we can complete the sheep in a day or two in the end.

I've seen it done a few different ways and the best seems to be one of the first round pass managers (RNGd) gets selected to pick a sheep and just picks it.

The only "quality constraint" is the sheep must follow the same criteria as those picked, i.e. answer the question (e.g. someone red carded at a World Cup is still, ultimately, someone who made it to a World Cup and not some complete randomer from the third division).

The manager asking for a position is not on IMO, I've seen people missing three pops at a #10, then ask for a fullback. feck that, you get a sheep #10 or thereabouts then IMO. If you don't like it get your act together and pick another #10 and send the sheep to the bench.

At the latter stages what they need should be sufficiently obvious and I guess we can rely on sportsmanship there to help finalise an XI (e.g. don't pick a goalie for someone already having a top one, for example). It's a sheep after all, the point is in getting the sheep, not unbalancing the side. If you are not sure about whether we would all be good sports, no worries, the veto option should be enough to ensure it's all reasonable.

Note to Edgar: the reason the sheep doesn't need an extra round is no one in their right mind would consider them a pick for the next question, thus the decision can be made in parallel.

 

[antohan]

Just for reference, I think sheep should get picked as you go along, not at the end where it is most convenient. The squad drafting should be managed in full knowledge of who the sheep is already.

Also, in the later rounds the difference between players and sheep can be unrecognisable, particularly if you don't want them to be god awful ones.

 

[Pippa]

I think it's interesting that in a draft where much of the points centred on positions and "how to get the best out of your players", not a single word was brought up about Stoichkov being played out of position through the entire draft; he of course played as a second striker for Bulgaria in 1994.

And hello everyone.

 

[Thisistheone]

Ah the famous Pippa.

Welcome up!

 

[Moby]

Aldo, from what I saw in BS



The bit in bold is actually done in Day 2 after announcing the result of the first stage. Allows people (including those who haven't got a successful pick) to get started on research early, which should make it very manageable.

The downside is those who missed the first pick have a notion of what they could be targeting next while those successfully picking didn't. Don't think it's a big deal myself, after all, they got a first round pick, bound to be better than the others usually and likely someone who was wanted regardless. I think the upside of people having three full days to spread their research over is far greater. No excuses in terms of "been busy at work and had no time to think about it".



I've seen it done a few different ways and the best seems to be one of the first round pass managers (RNGd) gets selected to pick a sheep and just picks it.

The only "quality constraint" is the sheep must follow the same criteria as those picked, i.e. answer the question (e.g. someone red carded at a World Cup is still, ultimately, someone who made it to a World Cup and not some complete randomer from the third division).

The manager asking for a position is not on IMO, I've seen people missing three pops at a #10, then ask for a fullback. fcuk that, you get a sheep #10 or thereabouts then IMO. If you don't like it get your act together and pick another #10 and send the sheep to the bench.

At the latter stages what they need should be sufficiently obvious and I guess we can rely on sportsmanship there to help finalise an XI (e.g. don't pick a goalie for someone already having a top one, for example). It's a sheep after all, the point is in getting the sheep, not unbalancing the side. If you are not sure about whether we would all be good sports, no worries, the veto option should be enough to ensure it's all reasonable.

Note to Edgar: the reason the sheep doesn't need an extra round is no one in their right mind would consider them a pick for the next question, thus the decision can be made in parallel.

Nah the next criteria was given after the round was over. Always the case in both formats of the sheep draft.

As for the sheep, the sportsmanship part is what I meant. The idea is to give a rubbish player, yes, but it should not conflict with the positions of the players the manager already has. Specially since we have a tournament to follow and it will be a real farce if someone has to field a side with a couple of right backs and no centerback, for example. As a mod I will reserve the final rights to assign the sheep picks and if it happens that the sheep picks being suggested are being done to intentionally screw the manager who needs it I will change it.

This is the first sheep draft so let's go a bit easy and let people be familiar with the concept.

 

[Annahnomoss]

I think it's interesting that in a draft where much of the points centred on positions and "how to get the best out of your players", not a single word was brought up about Stoichkov being played out of position through the entire draft; he of course played as a second striker for Bulgaria in 1994.

And hello everyone.

Welcome Pippa!!

Ronaldinho played as a "third forward". The reason why nobody questioned it was because they played free roles in '94 and '02 and had a certain role to play which their "position" does not reflect.

Stoichkov played out wide on both sides during matches as much as he played centrally. Quite naturally as Bulgaria was a counter-attacking team which allows a bigger freedom for the offensive player.

 

[Moby]

I think it's interesting that in a draft where much of the points centred on positions and "how to get the best out of your players", not a single word was brought up about Stoichkov being played out of position through the entire draft; he of course played as a second striker for Bulgaria in 1994.

And hello everyone.

Welcome up, mate.

 

[Gio]

I think it's interesting that in a draft where much of the points centred on positions and "how to get the best out of your players", not a single word was brought up about Stoichkov being played out of position through the entire draft; he of course played as a second striker for Bulgaria in 1994.

And hello everyone.

Well there was double standards with that. Ultimately there was a relaxing of approach from the managers as the tournament grew on, especially compared to the strictness of the Thuram debate beforehand.

As for Stoichkov, I suppose one of Annah's arguments would be that a left-footed attacker on the right flank will naturally drift infield into the territory typically occupied by a second striker. Then again there was the same issue with Ronaldinho on the left, so it was a wee bit of a stretch.

 

[Moby]

I think I have 11 entries so far :

antohan
Balu
TITO
crappy
Chesterlestreet
VivaJanuzaj
Annahnomoss
Gio
Cutch
Edgar aka Fruit Cake
@Polaroid said he would play in the PM from what I remember.

 

[Gio]

I'm in. We can have a negative theme for this. Example, no 4-2-3-1 formation for the whole draft or something like that. Eliminates the obvious!

I'm not too sure about this, given one man's 4-2-3-1 is another's 4-4-1-1 and another's 4-2-1-3.