Next Draft - Ideas and Discussions

Physiocrat said:
@Marty1968


Also in the present draft I had an idea of tiers for goal keepers to give them some a boost in penalties although since I never established the tiers after initial drafting standard penalties ensued in a draw.

If anyone has any developed thoughts on how a better keepers could practically be rewarded in penalties I'd like to hear them.
Click to expand...

At the same time as someone votes for which team to win, he also has to vote for the best keeper in the match. In the event that the game end a draw, the 'keeper' votes are counted. Whoever has the most keeper votes then has an advantage in the shootout as follows:

Team A Keeper = 7 votes
Team B Keeper = 12 votes

Team B's manager will select his left, right, centre for each of his five pens.
Team A's manager, who has the inferior keeper, can only choose left or right for his penalties.

As a result, Team B have 66% chance of scoring every pen against the worse of the two keepers whilst Team A have a 50% chance.

Makes it more relevant to the match itself rather than a big list of keepers and grades for each.

Any system whereby you gained extra votes for the best keepers would just result in the first pick of every draft being Zoff just to bank the extra votes straight away (where he's eligible of course)
 
Marty1968 said:
At the same time as someone votes for which team to win, he also has to vote for the best keeper in the match. In the event that the game end a draw, the 'keeper' votes are counted. Whoever has the most keeper votes then has an advantage in the shootout as follows:

Team A Keeper = 7 votes
Team B Keeper = 12 votes

Team B's manager will select his left, right, centre for each of his five pens.
Team A's manager, who has the inferior keeper, can only choose left or right for his penalties.

As a result, Team B have 66% chance of scoring every pen against the worse of the two keepers whilst Team A have a 50% chance.

Makes it more relevant to the match itself rather than a big list of keepers and grades for each.

Any system whereby you gained extra votes for the best keepers would just result in the first pick of every draft being Zoff just to bank the extra votes straight away (where he's eligible of course)
Click to expand...

I like the principle here, mate - but is it possible to do this in practice? I'm not sure if the programming allows for registering multiple votes per voter.

Another thing is that if we stick with the new basic scoring/voting system, there will be very few penalty shootouts (one in the entire present draft, IIRC) - meaning that in practice you'll still gain very little from having the best keeper on the park (or in the draft).
 
Something i've thought a bit strange is; in case a game draws, the team that has more votes on 2/3 goals wins. Why isn't it just; if a draw, whatever alternative has the most votes wins?

So if A has 7 votes on 1 goal, 1 vote on 2 goals, 0 votes on 3 goals and B has 6 votes on 1 goal, 1 vote on 2 goals, 1 vote on 3 goals then A wins. Logic being whatever result has the most votes, wins.
 
The Stain said:
Something i've thought a bit strange is; in case a game draws, the team that has more votes on 2/3 goals wins. Why isn't it just; if a draw, whatever alternative has the most votes wins?

So if A has 7 votes on 1 goal, 1 vote on 2 goals, 0 votes on 3 goals and B has 6 votes on 1 goal, 1 vote on 2 goals, 1 vote on 3 goals then A wins. Logic being whatever result has the most votes, wins.
Click to expand...

In nearly everly case so far (I'm pretty sure) the wins-by-one option has been the most popular one.

So, there's a chance this would simply become the winner by default in your proposed model. And that would - arguably - go against the very idea of letting some sort of virtual "goal difference" decide the outcome.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
In nearly everly case so far (I'm pretty sure) the wins-by-one option has been the most popular one.

So, there's a chance this would simply become the winner by default in your proposed model. And that would - arguably - go against the very idea of letting some sort of virtual "goal difference" decide the outcome.
Click to expand...
I suppose so.
 
Right, so I'm looking for some input here regarding my upcoming “water carrier” draft. To sum up the basics, each manager will be allocated the bare bones of a historical side (see above for an example). The managers are then tasked with finishing an XI within a certain framework (limitations and criteria).

My intention is that none of these teams should be star studded after the initial drafting, and that nothing like super teams should emerge until the last knockout stages (as suggested above, the idea is that a manager may end up with the equivalent of a historically great side, but not with an outlandish fantasy XI).

The question is, of course, how one goes about this in practice: What sort of limitations should be in place, what criteria may be announced, and so forth.

One key feature of this draft should be noted straight away: There is no limit, in theory, to what reinforcements may be had. In other words, the managers will not be limited to a standard pool of knocked-out players. Rather, new criteria and limitations will be announced for each reinforcement round, opening up a unique pool of possible players that can be recruited all the way to the final. The idea is very much that it should be possible to gradually build a truly great side.

With this in mind, which initial criteria/limitations do you think are suitable, given the premise? Nationality limitations? D.o.b. limitations? Criteria pertaining to caps? Trophy haul? Something else?

Lastly, which era should the historical sides be limited to? My initial thought is that the present marks the upper limit – but where do we begin? 1970? 1980? 1990? Your thoughts are very much appreciated.
 
I think 1970's is the best. Below that we have vague sources that spur much controversy. From the 70's onwards you have a lot of videos/data info for those who are not familiar with the squads, set ups and so forth.
 
Enigma_87 said:
I think 1970's is the best. Below that we have vague sources that spur much controversy. From the 70's onwards you have a lot of videos/data info for those who are not familiar with the squads, set ups and so forth.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. Ideally, as I see it, the range should be as large as possible while the basic nature of the players (in terms of roles, positions - and what you mention, source material for research) should be similar. So, 1970 seems like the extreme at the bottom end. The question is whether I should go with a narrower scope, excluding the great vintages of the 70s, for instance, and go with - say - the grand Juve of the early 80s as the earliest "backbone" in the mix.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
With this in mind, which initial criteria/limitations do you think are suitable, given the premise? Nationality limitations? D.o.b. limitations? Criteria pertaining to caps? Trophy haul? Something else?
Click to expand...
I'd reference the sheep and criteria drafts that used all of these things to whittle down a pool to something more realistic. Any spin on those ideas would work.

Chesterlestreet said:
Lastly, which era should the historical sides be limited to? My initial thought is that the present marks the upper limit – but where do we begin? 1970? 1980? 1990? Your thoughts are very much appreciated.
Click to expand...
Either TV age (post-1950s) or new money age (post-1992). Those are the dividing lines IMO in the cross-generational comparisons.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Rather, new criteria and limitations will be announced for each reinforcement round, opening up a unique pool of possible players that can be recruited all the way to the final.
Click to expand...

Not a big fan of this tbh. Reinforcements are when a manager is looking for a specific (type of) player to fit in his side and a tough criteria may well ruin a good side. I'm OK with having all the criteria in drafting but nothing new in reinforcements, except for a overall draft theme.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
I agree with that. Ideally, as I see it, the range should be as large as possible while the basic nature of the players (in terms of roles, positions - and what you mention, source material for research) should be similar. So, 1970 seems like the extreme at the bottom end. The question is whether I should go with a narrower scope, excluding the great vintages of the 70s, for instance, and go with - say - the grand Juve of the early 80s as the earliest "backbone" in the mix.
Click to expand...

I think there are plenty of sources for the 70's. should be pretty much ok. 60's will be a problem. For the 70's you got footage from actual games(full games) over youtube without much hassle.

Doing it only club level or national teams?

In the 70's there are some great choices as well to miss out on- you have a gladbah side in the mid 70's which IMO is really good but not well known. Ajax 70-74 obviously, Nottingham in the end of the decade, Bayern one obviously and so forth.
 
I'll repost my suggestion here:

The Battle of the Leagues Draft:

16 teams will be randomly assigned to 1 of 4 leagues - Seria A, Bundesliga, La Liga, Premier League, and from that point on represents solely this league.
Drafting procedure will go in a normal snake draft 1-16, with every player born post January 1st 1960 will be eligible for this draft, except 16 players who will be blocked - 1 by each manager from an opponent league(Seria a will eliminate from Bundesliga, Bundesliga from La Liga, La Liga from Premier League and the PL from Seria A).
Besides the 16 blocked players, all post 1960 born players will be eligible. A player who played in multiple leagues will be judged solely on his years in that league.
Each team will need players from at least 4 nationalities in their XI at all time.

Order of Drafting:
The draft will be normal 1-16, than we will still have managers from different leagues contesting for the same player, add the spice of tactical picks etc.
After assigning 16 players to 4 leagues, we will have a draw inside the league to determine the order of voting inside the league, and another draw to decide the order by leagues.
For example(with 3 teams in 3 leagues to keep it simpler): Teams 1,3,5 are in PL, 2,4,6 in Seria A & 7,8,9 in Bundesliga. Inside PL the draw order came 5-1-3, in Seria A it came 2-6-4, in BuLi it came 9-7-8. The draw of the order by leagues is Seria A, than BuLi, than PL. So the drafting order will be: 2-9-5-6-7-1-4-8-3(1st ones of each draw inside the league, than second ones, than 3rd ones etc.)

Draw:
In the first round, 2 teams from the same league can't meet, from QF onwards they can.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
...but nothing new in reinforcements, except for a overall draft theme.
Click to expand...

Building "realistic" teams is very much a part of the overall draft theme. The idea is to keep the managers from building super teams, and to keep them from building great teams too soon.

What this means, specifically, is that the reinforcement pools should contain players that will - indeed - strenghten the teams, but within reason. In other words, the criteria for the reinforcement rounds can't be too hard in the sense you imply (as I take it): I wouldn't announce criteria that would force managers to draft in water carriers (they are already in place at this stage), but said criteria would - say - make it hard to draft in GOATs.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Doing it only club level or national teams?
Click to expand...

That's another consideration here. I'm a bit torn on that at the moment. To give the thing a proper feel, I'm leaning towards using only club sides: My original idea was to use CL/EC winners.
 
Gio said:
Either TV age (post-1950s) or new money age (post-1992). Those are the dividing lines IMO in the cross-generational comparisons.
Click to expand...

Yes...but you could also make a case for the "modern fullback" as the watershed figure, so to speak: None of the potential ambiguity of old school fullbacks and halves. 1970 seems like a nice, round year in that respect.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Yes...but you could also make a case for the "modern fullback" as the watershed figure, so to speak: None of the potential ambiguity of old school fullbacks and halves. 1970 seems like a nice, round year in that respect.
Click to expand...
Colour TV - I like it.
 
Gio said:
Colour TV - I like it.
Click to expand...

Aye, colour TV is great. For football, at least.

I watched some sort of De Luxe edition of The Third Man the other day, though - and there is no way that would've worked in colours.
 
What do you reckon to my idea?

Everyone PMs me their starting 11, any unique picks are kept and all duplicates are blocked. By doing this, everyone should have at a minimum about 5 players to start the draft with. From there we do criteria draft for 7 other players in a criteria draft format (anyone needing more than 7 players will be awarded sheep to make up their squad numbers).

That's the simple explanation, I can elaborate more if you're interested.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
That's another consideration here. I'm a bit torn on that at the moment. To give the thing a proper feel, I'm leaning towards using only club sides: My original idea was to use CL/EC winners.
Click to expand...
I think that would be best IMO as well.

I think if you can limit it to club level would be better, international sides might be an option later on for another draft.

There are some great sides to take into consideration. I'm not sure if you can sneak in a South American side - like Santos, Penarol or Independiente but you have to probably assign it to someone with deeper knowledge in South American football so that he can present the concept better.
 
Enigma_87 said:
There are some great sides to take into consideration. I'm not sure if you can sneak in a South American side - like Santos, Penarol or Independiente but you have to probably assign it to someone with deeper knowledge in South American football so that he can present the concept better.
Click to expand...

I'd like to do that - very much. But it's problematic for the reason you suggest: The water carriers from those sides are likely to be considerably more obscure than their European counterparts for most of us.

It could turn into a case of unfair allocation - and the idea is to allocate teams randomly.
 
@Chesterlestreet

What you mentioned recently in the LL/SA/BL draft is something we can use to form a new matchday approach.

Instead of letting the drafters control the flow of the match, we can let a match master take control of the match and ask a series of questions depending on the situation. To start off, the match master can ask 2-3 starting questions that both teams can answer and discuss through, and after some time, the match master can assess the situation and ask questions accordingly.

I believe that this can make matches as interesting as, if not more interesting than, the drafting process itself, especially for the scan voters and other enthusiasts. Also, we might not even need initial write-ups from the drafters as the match master can replace that with the initial couple of questions.

Pros:
  • Focused, varied discussions
  • Concise write-ups and responses rather than long, endless essays
  • Easier to understand a team's setup and how the players fit into it
  • More time for drafters to learn about their players and create better player profiles
  • Scan voters will become more engaged
  • Easier for new drafters to settle into the drafting process.
The only drawback that I see to this is that the match master can become innately biased towards a team and form questions that can favour one team over another. We can probably do something about this issue, but I cannot think of anything for now.
 
@mazhar13

Yep, I'm all for testing this. It's essential that people are on board with the idea, of course - if the majority hate it, it's a no-go.

What I had in mind initially was something quite simple - just some basic moderating in the match threads, if you will: Someone who steps in and says: "Alright, we've heard enough about this - let's move on." Or, for that matter: "Alright, this is going nowhere: Let's hear a concise argument for why X would/would not happen here, both managers will present their arguments - and then it's up to the voters."

In most match threads the problem isn't that interesting hypothetical situations aren't brought up, but rather that they aren't debated properly - or that they get completely overshadowed by things that can be dealt with swiftly, without endless bickering. What such a moderator could do - for instance - is to force the managers to discuss players X, Y and Z - who have hardly been mentioned. Or demand a more detailed description of certain tactical choices if and when this is appropriate.

If the moderator sticks to something like the above, I don't think bias will be too great a problem - but it is a potential concern, no doubt. Then again, a basically free discussion is still the core concept - so anyone can still chip in: If the moderator is biased or otherwise makes an arse of himself, other neutrals can get on his case.
 
@Chesterlestreet i think it will be better if we have a closed poll in the voting during the games. It would be worth testing imo and will probably have more interesting and independent of current score results.
 
Enigma_87 said:
@Chesterlestreet i think it will be better if we have a closed poll in the voting during the games. It would be worth testing imo and will probably have more interesting and independent of current score results.
Click to expand...

You mean that the results won't be revealed until the voting closes?

That's clearly also something we could test - no issue with that.
 
We should switch usernames.
067.gif
@Šjor Bepo
079.gif
 
Enigma_87 said:
@Chesterlestreet i think it will be better if we have a closed poll in the voting during the games. It would be worth testing imo and will probably have more interesting and independent of current score results.
Click to expand...
Is there such an option in caf polls?
You can disable viewing the voters list so at best you won't know who voted for who, but I don't think there's any way of hiding the vote count in the poll.
 
Aldo said:
Is there such an option in caf polls?
You can disable viewing the voters list so at best you won't know who voted for who, but I don't think there's any way of hiding the vote count in the poll.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I think we can ask @Niall or @Damien about this I guess?
 
Aldo said:
You can disable viewing the voters list so at best you won't know who voted for who, but I don't think there's any way of hiding the vote count in the poll.
Click to expand...
You can hide the vote count for people who haven't voted yet. That along with not allowing to change votes would mean that people don't know the result before voting. But you're right, it's impossible to hide the result for everyone.

Those are the 4 options we have when creating a poll:

Options:
  • Allow voters to change their votes
  • Display votes publicly
  • Allow the results to be viewed without voting
  • Close this poll after:
 
So I had an idea for draft game sometime ago and I couldn't decide if its a good one or not. So just gonna put it here and see how people think about it. Basically the idea is to have a secret auction draft. The pre requisite for this would be to have a fixed pre determined pool of (16 X 12) 192 players. To achieve this we can basically use any of the drafted teams from one of the previous drafts.

Now each player is allocated a budget and has to draft team inside that budget. But you don't draft one player at a time. Instead all managers draft all 12 players (the full team) at the same time. Everybody selects his 12 players and slaps price over each of the player and send it to the draft master. Again the sum of all of the prices has to be under the budget. Draft master than look at the player's prices given by different managers and allocate the player to the highest bidder. After this phase it would be announced which manager's got which players.

The managers whose bid did not succeed must now send second round bids, selecting different players (again all the players) putting prices on them and rinse and repeat, until everybody got players.

Ex:

EAP Sends - Rooney - 30M, Martial - 70M, Lingard - 10M, Depay - 20M, Mata - 30M, Schneiderlin - 25M, Carrick - 20M, Shaw - 30M, Jones - 20M, Smalling - 30M, Darmian - 20M, DDG - 50M. Total = 355 M (Budget = 500M)

SkizzoPat sends - Rooney - 20M, Martial - 90M, Lingard - 20M, Depay - 10M, Mata - 40M, Schneiderlin - 30M, Carrick - 10M, Shaw - 40M, Jones - 10M, Smalling - 20M, Darmian - 10M, DDG - 60M. Total = 360 M (Budget = 500M)

So EAP gets - Rooney, Depay, Carrick, Jones, Smalling, Darmian
SkizzoPat gets - Martial, Lingard, Mata, Schneiderlin, Shaw, DDG

The money they have bid would be subtracted from their budget and both would need to send 6 players in next time.

So thats the idea, I am not decided on what to do in case of ties. We can probably ask only those managers who have tied at highest prices to send bid for that player again.

The biggest cons I think of this idea would be, the amount of work the Draft master would have to do. Also it might take away the fun of drafting, as you are drafting all the players at the same time. So what do you guys think ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.