I think so, yes. Along with Cruyff the top 5 attackers ever.
But then we've previously had drafts like the WC one where someone like Pele or Maradona are a cut above other attackers and still had them.
Next Draft - Ideas and Discussions
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
But then we've previously had drafts like the WC one where someone like Pele or Maradona are a cut above other attackers and still had them.
Yes - but not with the EAP model. The latter is what makes me most skeptical about allowing those big hitters to feature here. The basic idea is to build teams around 'em - and that can be done in a more or less level playing field if you have a full GOAT pool available. Which we don't have here: At worst the Messidona edge is something you gain once and for all - and which only three other managers can possibly overcome.
I'm leaning more and more towards blocking them, even though I don't really like it.
It should be a democratic call, though - whatever people want is fine by me.
I don't mind whatsoever in showing those four feckers the door. They've shone enough, time for others now.
All future drafts need to have " The passive aggressive _____ Draft" as the title . It really is the most polite place to be on redcafe
Absolutely - it's not that. More of a principle, I suppose: If the theme of the draft is - simply - a continent, or a league, or a tournament, then I do think there's something artificial about blocking players (even though they're boring as hell).
But what works - or not - is what matters. If they feck up the balance, they have to go - that much is clear. And that is what people need to consider: Would they feck up the balance? Simple question, really. I tend to think "yes, they would" myself - provided that we go with the EAP model (and I really think we should).
Please no pre draft blocking. I don't mind the disadvantage if I don't land them 4.
Not in a American themed draft.
Not in a American themed draft.
Those 4 certainly feck up the balance, they are some levels above whoever you can put up in attacking sense in that pool. 2 of them especially(Pele and Messi) are worth gold in a limited pool since you can field them in several positions and will work well with others around them. Maradona and Di Stefano are bit harder to incorporate but both of them will be quality above the rest as well.
I'm not sure if Figueroa should feature as well on that basis - he's easily better than any other defender and also you can easily pair him with pretty much any other top central defender.
The other option is just put them available to managers seeded between 8-11 in the snake order as they are always a bit unlucky with the draw.
Could do some tweaking and messin' around with that sort of thing - yes. As long as it doesn't get too complicated, that might work.
However, the danger here (as several seem to think) is that the edge simply is too considerable: There isn't anything you can do to compensate, really - without introducing borderline ridiculous measures (e.g. you get Pelé, so you sit out the next two rounds).
Remember, there is also a precedent for this sort of thing. The draft with players born in the 60s had Maradona banned. I think Messi and Ronaldo have been banned in at least one draft with younger players. There are two things here - a) they are in their own league on a team sheet and b) without Europe we don't have most top quality defenders who would give you a chance against them. SAM has produced several excellent technical and flamboyant defenders but 2-3 names aside I can't see anyone with a hope against those names in a 1v1. Anyway, cool either ways.
That's different. This is like Man Utd legends without the trinity.
That's the thing.
You don't get that counter measure you have with a non-specific pool. S-A is generally top heavy with Europe being the opposite.
Agreed.
Yeah, I get that - and I agree on principle. But, realistically - if they actually feck up the balance, surely that has to be the main concern. There's no sense in running a draft where four managers get handed a free pass to the semis unless they do something outrageously stupid.
That's an exaggeration, of course - but still, even if it's close to the truth, it's a considerable problem.
It could turn into "The let's celebrate the greatness of Pelé and chums - with, perhaps, a bit of time given to...whoever Draft".
Indeed.
The other draft from other forum I keep plagiarising had a tournament as well, and as good as all teams were, you can guess which players reached the finals (no reinforcements so basically just revolving around one GOAT, but that GOAT happens to be...).
Yeah. Aldo's points on quality of defenders does ring true. Ban them cnuts.
I think it's one out of two:
Either we ban the cnuts - or we scrap the new reinforcement idea.
Can't have that cake and eat it, I think.
You get Messi (or a chum), you don't do anything outrageously stupid, and you progress to the q-f. You draw someone who doesn't have Pelé (or a chum).
He's basically fecked - there's no way he can catch up with a 4-12 upgrade pool.
Either we ban the cnuts - or we scrap the new reinforcement idea.
Can't have that cake and eat it, I think.
You get Messi (or a chum), you don't do anything outrageously stupid, and you progress to the q-f. You draw someone who doesn't have Pelé (or a chum).
He's basically fecked - there's no way he can catch up with a 4-12 upgrade pool.
Can't guarantee that. It has good chance someone may luck into Pele and Messi and that'd end the draft at QF itself. Too big a risk, imo.
What about Figueroa?
Enigma has a point, for my money. He's rated above everyone else. Hard to see anyone matching a Figueroa + very good partner combo. You have to prioritize getting in the best possible combo - and nobody's going to do that.
It's a much lesser concern, though - we could just leave him be. But - again - there is a pretty marked gap between him and the rest in terms of how highly rated he is.
And - not least - how entirely unproblematic he is. You never get any of the questions asked about Passarella or Chumpitaz or Whoever, depending on exactly how you deploy them. He's just - unquestionable to an extent nobody else can match.
Enigma has a point, for my money. He's rated above everyone else. Hard to see anyone matching a Figueroa + very good partner combo. You have to prioritize getting in the best possible combo - and nobody's going to do that.
It's a much lesser concern, though - we could just leave him be. But - again - there is a pretty marked gap between him and the rest in terms of how highly rated he is.
And - not least - how entirely unproblematic he is. You never get any of the questions asked about Passarella or Chumpitaz or Whoever, depending on exactly how you deploy them. He's just - unquestionable to an extent nobody else can match.
All players who a) were born in or b) have represented a nation that is a current CONMEBOL or CONCACAF member are eligible, with the exception of those listed as BLOCKED below. If a player has represented multiple current CONMEBOL or CONCACAF members, his country of birth will determine which pool (see below) he belongs to. Players not born in any nation that is currently a CONMEBOL or CONCACAF member are eligible as long as they have represented a current CONMEBOL or CONCACAF member, and if such a player has represented multiple current CONMEBOL or CONCACAF members, the national team he has the most caps for will determine which pool (see below) he belongs to.
14 players to draft.
Pool 1: Argentina, Brazil.
Pool 2: CONMEBOL (minus Pool 1) and CONCACAF.
All XIs must include min. 4 players drafted from Pool 2.
All starting GKs must be drafted from Pool 1.
BLOCKED: A. Di Stefano, E. Figueroa, D. Maradona, L. Messi, Pelé.
Draft format: Snake.
Reinforcements: The reinforcement pool consists of all losing teams, but only those players who were drafted in rounds 3-14.
To discuss:
- Blocks
- Squad size
- Misc.
14 players to draft.
Pool 1: Argentina, Brazil.
Pool 2: CONMEBOL (minus Pool 1) and CONCACAF.
All XIs must include min. 4 players drafted from Pool 2.
All starting GKs must be drafted from Pool 1.
BLOCKED: A. Di Stefano, E. Figueroa, D. Maradona, L. Messi, Pelé.
Draft format: Snake.
Reinforcements: The reinforcement pool consists of all losing teams, but only those players who were drafted in rounds 3-14.
To discuss:
- Blocks
- Squad size
- Misc.
Last edited:
Surely CONCACAF can be included too?
That's' the only thing I was about to comment on. Round 3 onwards should be fine.
Rest looks spot on. Wouldn't mind CONCACAF either, won't really make a huge diff.
Yeah, CONCACAF can be included as we won't have a draft based on that pool 
And a few (a very few) of them deserve to be picked
And a few (a very few) of them deserve to be pickedCONCACAF it is, then.
Reinforcement pool: Losing teams, picks 3-14.
Any objections to a 14 man squad? My thinking is that if there is to be any point to it, there has to be room for picking alternatives in multiple positions (see above - the basic idea being that you can, in theory, make it a bit unpredictable which exact XI people go for).
Reinforcement pool: Losing teams, picks 3-14.
Any objections to a 14 man squad? My thinking is that if there is to be any point to it, there has to be room for picking alternatives in multiple positions (see above - the basic idea being that you can, in theory, make it a bit unpredictable which exact XI people go for).
Yes - I'll write up a separate part with match thread rules and guidelines.
I suggest that we allow tactical changes at halftime (after 12 hrs) but no substitutions. I also suggest that "no changes to the OP - threadmarks if requested by manager" becomes a rule.
Why scrapping tactical changes tho? Makes sense to do that even initially in the early stages, like you do in actual game?
They aren't scrapped - tactical changes are allowed, but no substitutions (you can't introduce new players, only tweak what you already have).
The halftime rule (and scrapping subs) makes sense for the following reason: These changes aren't perceived "realistically" by the people who follow the match (thread). Nothing indicates that the latter is the case - in fact, pretty much everything indicates the opposite: The changes are in practice regarded as a do-over, not as something the manager has been forced to do because he has been found out tactically.
As mentioned above, a likely enough scenario in the match threads is that a manager who has fecked up may benefit from making purely defensive changes to his setup - which is completely unrealistic: If you feck up completely in an actual match, you will in all likelihood find yourself behind - which means that shoring up at the back is an unlikely step to take. Just one example - but the point is that subs and other tactical changes aren't remotely realistic given the current match format: So until we come up with something closer to an actual simulation, it makes sense to keep these changes to a minimum (and to do something to prevent that managers are actually rewarded for fecking up).
No, I agree on subs, but scrapping tactical changes (or op changes for that matter) for the first 12 hrs makes no sense IMO. You can put an arrow or two or even change your CB's to mark/cover the opposition forward depending on where he's playing - stuff like that I mean.
Otherwise I'm ok with banning subs and having bigger squad.
Well, it's simply a question of where to draw the line. If you don't allow it before the 12 hr mark, you make feck-ups more costly - I don't see it as more or less logical, if you will, it's more a question of how strict you want it to be.
The biggest problem, as I see it, is that the way it works now managers are often directly encouraged (by neutrals) to make changes - which is a) not very realistic and b) not very fair on the opponent.
The halftime principle makes it less likely that someone gets away with tactical blunders: Sure, the downside is that an honest Joe who simply realizes that he should tweak things a little bit (an arrow here or there) can't do this straight away - but there are upsides and downsides to everything.
Plus, purely technical changes are obviously allowed - so if you have simply forgotten an arrow or two, this can be arranged.
As for changes to the OP, I consider that perfectly logical: You want the original to weigh more heavily than the change (to reflect the fact that the manager has fecked up to some extent). You also want informed voters (rather than so-called scan voters), so it makes sense to encourage the readers to - well - read the thread rather than simply glancing at the OP.
To me that part should be the least controversial - to put it like that. And the changes will be threadmarked too - so they'll be a click away, the only difference is that the voters aren't positively encouraged to regard the thing as a do-over.
To me that part should be the least controversial - to put it like that. And the changes will be threadmarked too - so they'll be a click away, the only difference is that the voters aren't positively encouraged to regard the thing as a do-over.
When do we do a draft where you can only pick a player that has played a match for Manchester United. People could do with some research of history and it would make for a interesting balancing act.
Not bad.
Would be interesting to see the various teams people come up with. Might attract some new drafters too. The pool is certainly big enough - would see a whole lot of players in precisely that "interesting" bracket I keep banging on about. And it should be pretty much ideal for putting together fairly realistic teams (some proper stars, some water carriers, some fan favourites, etc.).
On that note, I've felt for a long time that the original team sheet should remain visible in the OP and the updated team sheet including substitutions should be the one that's spoilered.
i was suggesting united draft back in the newbies but the older drafters there(cant remember who) were against it as there is no enough players...i think there is and would love to play it. Would love to see fans of other clubs play(balu, downcast etc.) in it as well, their teams would be interesting.
Would it be that different than a United draft which was done a while back and seemed a bit of a stretch with 8 drafters?
@Šjor Bepo - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/man-united-legends-fantasy-tournament.347468/
will check it out....btw some legend picked Schmeichel with the first pick
looks like back in the day they valued gk very highly in drafts!How about an alphabet Draft? We all draft in a snake format but the players you pick must be in alphabetical order. Example, my first pick is Charlie Adams, my next pick is Kevin Doyle, my 3rd pick HAS TO BE WITH A LETTER AFTER D, no players allowed with a, b, c, or d.
yeah probably something more flexible would suffice. Where you draw the line I guess depends on the one running it.
IMO tactical changes shouldn't have limit, especially with lopsided formations which aim to put some players in particular roles.
What if it's a tied match and one manages does it to gain an advantage?
Without subs, the chances of recovering from a feck up is minimal. Prefer to have it open and allow changes as needed.