What can I say? I'm the Caf's big Sam.How many fecking assistants does @Gio have? Seems like loads arguing his case in this game.
Agree. The difference between winning and going out first can be as slim as Porto winning the CL in 2004 instead of United. It's all about the drafting. The result of votes can vary a lot. In the same game you might see a game go 12-8 and another 22-19. You can't be sure when certain people are online and bother to read the thread as there are some people that take more interest in this kind of stuff. There's the random generic vote that you can get because X is in the team. The vote that you get because you argued 10x more than your opponent.Personally, I don't think the voting aspect of it is all that important. I think most would agree that the real fun – for the managers – is the drafting. The matches are a bit of a chore more often than not, and if your main interest in the thing is to win, you're better off doing something else in the first place.
Then there's what appeals to both managers and neutrals: Talking about great and/or interesting football players. That's the core of it, surely. My main gripe with the match threads is that they tend to be repetitive – and they rather frequently turn into various shades of handbags. The latter really isn't all that entertaining or interesting, in my opinion.
The match part of the drafts could do with a reform or two. Something radically new, perhaps, to shake things up a bit. We're presently back to precisely where we were months ago. And everyone seems to agree that the match stage is practically an anticlimax compared to the initial stage. So, in short, I don't think we have anything to lose by experimenting more radically with this.
I agree. I don't see a general problem with neutrals saying what they think, it usually spices things up and add some extra debate, it doesn't need to be a showoff between two managers. I just think a neutral should be less aggressive in these things, they can say whatever they think about the sides but it doesn't need to go beyond it imo.What can I say? I'm the Caf's big Sam.
Seriously though it's pretty boring if it's just the managers slugging it out. The more the merrier. After all we need our respective arguments to be backed up or challenged. And let's be honest, it's a lot tamer compared to when Anto was around and he decided to plump for one side over the other.
I agree. I don't see a general problem with neutrals saying what they think, it usually spices things up and add some extra debate, it doesn't need to be a showoff between two managers. I just think a neutral should be less aggressive in these things, they can say whatever they think about the sides but it doesn't need to go beyond it imo.
