Next Draft - Ideas and Discussions

All these themes are interesting, and should be run. I agree that the all-time theme should be given a rest - clearly so - after the present one (which, to be fair, isn't a standard all-time draft to begin with, but still).

However, I'm less worried about mixing up the eras than many seem to be. It's part of the charm of the thing for me. Of course, it's frustrating when you encounter someone who simply dismisses players based on purely historical factors (or players they don't know anything about), but that's part of the game and something you simply have to factor in when drafting a certain kind of player.

Also, unless you narrow the pool to a great extent d.o.b. wise, you'll always face the possibility of people dismissing the older generation. We've seen examples of this happening with players who were active in the 1980s and 1990s, so it's not just a pre-TV issue - it's much more a question of how different drafters perceive players and their historical, say, characteristics and limitations (in short, how a particular player, from a particular era, translates to a figure in an essentially timeless fantasy team). Even in a pre-40s draft you'll have a pool that covers several radically different stages of historical development, so if you want to truly level the playing field in terms of eras you have to be much more specific.
 
Gio said:
Yeah I'd agree on both points - to exclude Turkey - with the defined area for geopolitical and football reasons being:

eastern_europe.jpg
Click to expand...
I think we should include all Soviet republics - including the East ones, like Georgia, Armenia, Turkmenistan etc - there won't be much players from this countries anyway, but this way we won't need to check ten times was this particular USSR player born in the right republic or in the wrong one. There are four main themes in this pool, USSR, Balkans, Hungary (Aranycsapat + a few players here and there) and maybe Poland can be considered as an independent one - it would be a shame to limit one of them to just Russia+Ukraine+Belarus+Baltic.

The Warsaw pact map is another possibility (and it puts up an interesting question about GDR? should it be included or not?), but it excludes Croatia, Serbia etc, which is unacceptable, the Balkan flair should be one of the main things about this draft.

We would need to think really hard on this to put a bullet-proof list of the countries so that there would be no questions about it moving forward.
 
Stobzilla said:
We should do the "google hangout draft" where we get everyone who wants to play mic'd up and you do the drafting there and then in one group conversation. Throw in some rum and let hilarity ensue.
Click to expand...
With 30 seconds/1 minute on the pick :lol:
 
Stobzilla said:
We should do the "google hangout draft" where we get everyone who wants to play mic'd up and you do the drafting there and then in one group conversation. Throw in some rum and let hilarity ensue.
Click to expand...
Why not? It'll be fun, even if the time zone can become an issue.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
However, I'm less worried about mixing up the eras than many seem to be. It's part of the charm of the thing for me. Of course, it's frustrating when you encounter someone who simply dismisses players based on purely historical factors (or players they don't know anything about), but that's part of the game and something you simply have to factor in when drafting a certain kind of player.

Also, unless you narrow the pool to a great extent d.o.b. wise, you'll always face the possibility of people dismissing the older generation. We've seen examples of this happening with players who were active in the 1980s and 1990s, so it's not just a pre-TV issue - it's much more a question of how different drafters perceive players and their historical, say, characteristics and limitations (in short, how a particular player, from a particular era, translates to a figure in an essentially timeless fantasy team). Even in a pre-40s draft you'll have a pool that covers several radically different stages of historical development, so if you want to truly level the playing field in terms of eras you have to be much more specific.
Click to expand...
I am also all for mixing up the decades, but only after the WWII. The gap in footage is too big - so it's no wonder that the players like Sarosi, Sindelar or Meazza doesn't feature much and get "upgraded" by a modern players in case of going forward. The pre WWII (or pre-40) draft should be amazing because ALL of the footage and our perception of the players will be based on texts - articles, match reports, quotes - and it will be really fun to research and to follow through. And you can find those articles/reports/quotes even about Meredith or that obscure Liverpool halfback that captained them in the beginning of the century (L... something, to lazy to google), so the playing field is leveled.
 
I agree with @harms and @Gio

Having on the same pitch some players we can discover via Youtube with some players not broadcasted is odd.

Nobody is against the mixing of eras.
 
I've said this many times: If people can't handle comparisons between players who have highlight reels on YouTube and players who don't, then we can't have pools containing both categories. It's very simple. Just make the call: No players sans highlight reels are eligible.

I think it's utterly pointless myself, as the only thing that matters to me is whether the manager knows his players – and knows how to deploy them. If he can't back up his claims sufficiently, his opponent has the edge. What “sufficient” amounts to is largely a matter of common sense - and consensus among the people who play these things. The rest is up to the voters, as far as the actual game is concerned.

I have no issue with banning players for whom there is no footage, or limited footage, or whatever technical requirement is considered relevant – as long as this is what a majority of the people involved want.

In theory you could ban players for whom less than fifty full matches are available on-line. You could ban players your mum hasn't heard of. You could ban anyone on any grounds. It's simply a matter of making it clear what goes and what doesn't.
 
harms said:
I am also all for mixing up the decades, but only after the WWII. The gap in footage is too big - so it's no wonder that the players like Sarosi, Sindelar or Meazza doesn't feature much and get "upgraded" by a modern players in case of going forward. The pre WWII (or pre-40) draft should be amazing because ALL of the footage and our perception of the players will be based on texts - articles, match reports, quotes - and it will be really fun to research and to follow through. And you can find those articles/reports/quotes even about Meredith or that obscure Liverpool halfback that captained them in the beginning of the century (L... something, to lazy to google), so the playing field is leveled.
Click to expand...
Alex Raisbeck?
 
Chesterlestreet said:
I've said this many times: If people can't handle comparisons between players who have highlight reels on YouTube and players who don't, then we can't have pools containing both categories. It's very simple. Just make the call: No players sans highlight reels are eligible.

I think it's utterly pointless myself, as the only thing that matters to me is whether the manager knows his players – and knows how to deploy them. If he can't back up his claims sufficiently, his opponent has the edge. What “sufficient” amounts to is largely a matter of common sense - and consensus among the people who play these things. The rest is up to the voters, as far as the actual game is concerned.

I have no issue with banning players for whom there is no footage, or limited footage, or whatever technical requirement is considered relevant – as long as this is what a majority of the people involved want.

In theory you could ban players for whom less than fifty full matches are available on-line. You could ban players your mum hasn't heard of. You could ban anyone on any grounds. It's simply a matter of making it clear what goes and what doesn't.
Click to expand...

Without footage I think it's pretty pointless to have a quality debate. You will always have sources here and there, some more respectable, some less, but always they will be somehow biased. It's not only sufficient to know your players but also the voters to be familiar with all players as otherwise it's hard to make a call which, again, will be biased based on whether or not they've seen them and if they know anything about them.

Otherwise we'd need a moderator(who knows his stuff) to make the call if those players will work in that system and how they will fare against the opposition. Pre-war era is difficult as you're onto your aunt, uncle and other opinions that cannot be validated, besides having players that in the 20's played in 2-3-5 system and interpolate them having in mind their qualities in modern 4-3-3 seems vague to say at least. For example if you put inside left who also played in outside right position anywhere in the middle and expect him to be excellent there - there is no sufficient proof that you can disprove that logic because simply there is no sufficient info. This is for those without any footage, as if you have some examples of how your players would fit in seems fine, but to rely on reports and pieces here and there which are generally overly romantic is a bit of a moot point.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Old style half backs being portrayed as monsters in all of CB, FB, DM and CM simultaneously with little information and retrofit to modern formations makes me wary.
Click to expand...

Enigma_87 said:
Pre-war era is difficult as you're onto your aunt, uncle and other opinions that cannot be validated, besides having players that in the 20's played in 2-3-5 system and interpolate them having in mind their qualities in modern 4-3-3 seems vague to say at least. For example if you put inside left who also played in outside right position anywhere in the middle and expect him to be excellent there - there is no sufficient proof that you can disprove that logic because simply there is no sufficient info.
Click to expand...

Well, then argue against it - demand sources and evidence. If there is none, the player's manager is the one with the problem. It isn't a question of interpreting old runes whose meaning isn't known to mortal men. We don't rely on anecdotal evidence provided by family members in order to establish what sort of player NN was.

If you field a player whose actual characteristics is unknown to the extent that it isn't possible to either prove or disprove his suitability and/or quality - well, he's essentially a sheep and you're an idiot for picking him. The only possible problem with this that I can see is if the voters to a large extent allow themselves to be mesmerized by old wives' tales about these purportedly mysterious super players whose quality cannot be determined - but I suspect that is very far from being true. If anything, fielding old school players is a suicide move in terms of gathering votes.

But, to repeat the original point: This isn't complicated. If a majority of the people who play in these drafts don't want to mix the categories (sufficient footage versus non-sufficient or non-existent footage), well - scrap it. Don't allow such a mix - period. I have no issue with that.

What I do have an issue with is people who argue against a player who has been legitimately drafted solely on the basis of what we're talking about here. That's nothing but said person's private conviction that such and such should be the norm, which is irrelevant considered as an actual in-match argument. The manager can't be expected to do anything beyond providing reasons for his choices, and sources to back up his claims: If there are no sources, or insufficient sources, he has made a poor decision choosing the player in question. But the basic nature of the sources (whether it's YouTube clips or ancient pictograms) can't be used against the manager in a draft with no relevant restrictions.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Well, then argue against it - demand sources and evidence. If there is none, the player's manager is the one with the problem. It isn't a question of interpreting old runes whose meaning isn't known to mortal men. We don't rely on anecdotal evidence provided by family members in order to establish what sort of player NN was.

If you field a player whose actual characteristics is unknown to the extent that it isn't possible to either prove or disprove his suitability and/or quality - well, he's essentially a sheep and you're an idiot for picking him. The only possible problem with this that I can see is if the voters to a large extent allow themselves to be mesmerized by old wives' tales about these purportedly mysterious super players whose quality cannot be determined - but I suspect that is very far from being true. If anything, fielding old school players is a suicide move in terms of gathering votes.

But, to repeat the original point: This isn't complicated. If a majority of the people who play in these drafts don't want to mix the categories (sufficient footage versus non-sufficient or non-existent footage), well - scrap it. Don't allow such a mix - period. I have no issue with that.

What I do have an issue with is people who argue against a player who has been legitimately drafted solely on the basis of what we're talking about here. That's nothing but said person's private conviction that such and such should be the norm, which is irrelevant considered as an actual in-match argument. The manager can't be expected to do anything beyond providing reasons for his choices, and sources to back up his claims: If there are no sources, or insufficient sources, he has made a poor decision choosing the player in question. But the basic nature of the sources (whether it's YouTube clips or ancient pictograms) can't be used against the manager in a draft with no relevant restrictions.
Click to expand...

Do you have the sources to back this claim? ;)
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Well, then argue against it - demand sources and evidence. If there is none, the player's manager is the one with the problem. It isn't a question of interpreting old runes whose meaning isn't known to mortal men. We don't rely on anecdotal evidence provided by family members in order to establish what sort of player NN was.
Click to expand...
To me it's pretty hard to compare someone like Meredith who is a legend to some of the contemporary full backs for example and how they will stack up. There's not enough footage and while you know the other guy strengths and weaknesses is a bit hard to judge the credible source for the oldies as most of it is journo or other people opinions and columnist. Most of the time when something is posed it's answered with quotes like he's fast, but how fast really? 11s and under for 100m fast or generally fast for the era he played in? The war and pre war era is pretty hard to judge really, I haven't watched many games before the 60's and I don't think there are enough up to get a general idea of some of the oldies.

Chesterlestreet said:
If you field a player whose actual characteristics is unknown to the extent that it isn't possible to either prove or disprove his suitability and/or quality - well, he's essentially a sheep and you're an idiot for picking him. The only possible problem with this that I can see is if the voters to a large extent allow themselves to be mesmerized by old wives' tales about these purportedly mysterious super players whose quality cannot be determined - but I suspect that is very far from being true. If anything, fielding old school players is a suicide move in terms of gathering votes.

But, to repeat the original point: This isn't complicated. If a majority of the people who play in these drafts don't want to mix the categories (sufficient footage versus non-sufficient or non-existent footage), well - scrap it. Don't allow such a mix - period. I have no issue with that.

What I do have an issue with is people who argue against a player who has been legitimately drafted solely on the basis of what we're talking about here. That's nothing but said person's private conviction that such and such should be the norm, which is irrelevant considered as an actual in-match argument. The manager can't be expected to do anything beyond providing reasons for his choices, and sources to back up his claims: If there are no sources, or insufficient sources, he has made a poor decision choosing the player in question. But the basic nature of the sources (whether it's YouTube clips or ancient pictograms) can't be used against the manager in a draft with no relevant restrictions.
Click to expand...

I do believe that we shouldn't mix periods it's hard to compare a player from the 20's,30's with one from the 90's for example. Both in positional sense and also quality. We get again back to the original point as if you don't have some video evidence or actual games that you can get familiar with the player it's hard to imagine how playing in a 2-3-5 will translate into 4-3-3 or 4-2-2-2 or whatever. The game was so much different back then and while sure probably picking up a player that there is little source about him won't get you scan votes, but in the same time you can not address a weakness as there is not enough info, while on the other hand it's easy to find one in the modern players that are more popular and there is tons of highlights on the net.

No problem to have a separate pre 40's draft I think that would be interesting and educational a lot, but mixing up that generation with the contemporary one is a big no no for me at least.
 
The problem with the pre-war players in an all-time setting is that there is a couple of lines of argument which are inevitably played out in match threads and quickly become really tedious. The first is tactical and the prevalance of 2-3-5 and, while that isn't massively different from a modern 4-1-2-3 for instance, the application of that to a more modern set-up is always a drawn-out discussion point. Alongside that certain players can be painted as complete all-rounders where it becomes hard to identify what their weakspots are. That might be fair because we're generally talking about a handful of players there from a couple of decades worth of football - and I'm sure we can easily identify a handful of all-rounders from the last couple of decades. But that never really helps to decipher what kind of player they were and how they would fit into a new set-up.

The second is quality and the inevitability that only the legends of the European Cup era will ever be final-worthy. I'm not quite sure what our basis for that is. The cross-generational comparisons are easier and we've got the footage to make a judgement on. But that seems to be a little flimsy as some historical marker of quality. It's only really a historical marker of the evidence we can call upon. And that evidence isn't always necessarily better than the various written accounts from not long before.

I'm meandering off topic a little here, but that second point comes down to how we have seen the game evolve. There are rule changes and tactical advances in the 1920s and 1930s which make the pre-war game quite different to the post-war one. And from the late 1950s through the 1960s there was the introduction of four-man defences, four-man midfields and catenaccio. At the same time, professionalisation was continued across the board. And then from the 1990s and more clearly in the 2000s and 2010s we've seen a more attacking-friendly environment alongside some physical preparation improvements. What we have are different markers of evolution that should in theory be more influential in determining our cross-generational comparisons - or how we want to group the player pool for different drafts. But in practice it tends to be the quality of the evidence that makes the difference.

Where the all-time drafts have been particularly successful is either in ensuring a cross-generational split for all managers or by setting out specific voting criteria that equalises the passage of time. For instance, the all-time decades draft ensured everyone had two players from each decade and that type of approach can and has been used in the sheep draft series. And the other example would be the World Cup draft where the displays of Leonidas in 1938 carried similar weight to many of the goalscoring exploits from more recent tournaments.
 
Gio said:
And that evidence isn't always necessarily better than the various written accounts from not long before...

But in practice it tends to be the quality of the evidence that makes the difference...
Click to expand...

Yes - and yes.

And that is a problem. Because it makes no sense. You end up arguing on behalf of something else than the quality and suitability of your player, because your opponent doesn't actually address the latter - he simply focuses on the nature of the evidence, claiming (whether he believes it or not) that your man can't be judged properly at all (which turns him into a de facto invalid player, as far as your opponent is concerned).

The above is an example of extremely opposing views, of course - but it's a realistic example. We've seen plenty of discussion along precisely those lines.
 
Interesting to have different points of view regarding the "legends of the game"
 
What is it looking like the next draft is going to be along the lines of then? I threw several ideas out in the newbies just before being promoted, several of which would work better up here due to more participants. If anyone has access to the newbs forum it wouldn't be a bad idea to post the ideas up here if possible please.
 
Got the post copy and pasted to me.

Some draft ideas I've had currently that feedback and interest levels would be good to hear.

1. National team draft - Would start like a sheep draft with a nationality sent to me/AM and then the nation would either be yours if you was the only person picking them or if more than one person picked them the nationality would be blocked. Would them work in the way of a usual draft. Opposing managers blocking 1 or 2 players each for the team so with 8 players would be 14 players blocked. (Could always give more blocks if wanted)

2. Premier league auction draft. Much like the auction draft that was done some time ago in the mains the managers would have a set amount of money and would bid for a player until no raise has been completed for 24 hours. Limiting it to a specific league should minimise the risk of all time greats going for a minimum bid.

3. David G's 1-11 idea. Not too informed on the way it would work yet but would seem the player must have predominantly wore the specific number. Would probably work better as a sheep draft instead of rounds as the teams could become quite weighted with how the picks would fall.

4. Players born after or before a set decade only. This is to limit the pool more than anything and is possibly my least favourite out of the suggested drafts due to a number of same teams being possible that we have seen before.

Side note - I'm considering outlawing a couple of the typical formations, this would need to be a majority votehowever, but I feel it would make all participating managers think outside of the box and should make for good tactical discussions instead of the same old 433/4231 set ups widely seen. This might be sour grapes on my part though so as mentioned would need to be a majority vote.
 
1. The winner will be 90% decided it the first round
2. Already done
3. For decades number was given to a position and not a player, Best would for example be 7,8,9,10,11; Cuccureddu would be any from 2 to 11 etc.
4. Done multiple times

We also outlawed some formations before, it didn't work well, you can depict 4-3-3 as a diamond and vice versa for example
 
harms said:
1. The winner will be 90% decided it the first round
2. Already done
3. For decades number was given to a position and not a player, Best would for example be 7,8,9,10,11; Cuccureddu would be any from 2 to 11 etc.
4. Done multiple times

We also outlawed some formations before, it didn't work well, you can depict 4-3-3 as a diamond and vice versa for example
Click to expand...

1. Would be something you could limit by each picking a nation to block first. Would make some more unknown players used.
2. I know the auction draft was done but it turned out with world class players going for peanuts. (;)) Limiting to a league would minimise this.
3. From speaking to DavidG he seemed to think it would work if the player had to be known to wear a certain number and not constantly changing. Would again limit the pool quite a lot.
4. Is constantly being done hence being my least favourite idea.
 
P-Nut0712 said:
1. Would be something you could limit by each picking a nation to block first. Would make some more unknown players used.
2. I know the auction draft was done but it turned out with world class players going for peanuts. (;)) Limiting to a league would minimise this.
3. From speaking to DavidG he seemed to think it would work if the player had to be known to wear a certain number and not constantly changing. Would again limit the pool quite a lot.
4. Is constantly being done hence being my least favourite idea.
Click to expand...
1. Still, there would be countries with a better pool of players and it will be obvious after the countries are picked. It was similar in managers draft - though there was a possibility of multiple players picking the same manager and there were players who belonged to two/three picked managers at the same time - there won't be any in nations draft
2. https://www.redcafe.net/threads/all-time-british-irish-fantasy-draft.398422/ British-Irish Auction draft.
3. Who is DavidG? It will cause a lot of confusion. Who decides which number is "known" to associate with a player? It's completely unrealistic
 
P-Nut0712 said:
1. Would be something you could limit by each picking a nation to block first. Would make some more unknown players used.
2. I know the auction draft was done but it turned out with world class players going for peanuts. (;)) Limiting to a league would minimise this.
3. From speaking to DavidG he seemed to think it would work if the player had to be known to wear a certain number and not constantly changing. Would again limit the pool quite a lot.
4. Is constantly being done hence being my least favourite idea.
Click to expand...

1. Might be worth a try actually. I believe it'd end up with a Italian win going by the sheer size of the pool.
2. Tbh, not a big fan of auction drafts. The one's we had usually petered out during reinforcement rounds. The auction format needs more restructuring.
3. @Skizzo proposed something very similar. Is there actually any site which lists shirt numbers?
4. We'd done it by decades 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s plus modern one. Needs a bit more variation imo.

As for formations, it becomes very dicey as harms mentions. Difficult to discipline and monitor.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
3. @Skizzo proposed something very similar. Is there actually any site which lists shirt numbers?
Click to expand...

The quick looks I did were from the usual sites that listed position. Also using wiki would list certain teams from certain years with the squad number.

It would potentially need tweaking in terms of picking a player and "locking" him to a number. For example you pick Beckham as 7, but Cristiano becomes available, so you use Beckham as 23 going forward.

It may not work in the grand scheme of things, but was just an idea I had at one point.
 
Skizzo said:
The quick looks I did were from the usual sites that listed position. Also using wiki would list certain teams from certain years with the squad number.

It would potentially need tweaking in terms of picking a player and "locking" him to a number. For example you pick Beckham as 7, but Cristiano becomes available, so you use Beckham as 23 going forward.

It may not work in the grand scheme of things, but was just an idea I had at one point.
Click to expand...

Any different ideas have surely got to be a good thing it's just a way of finding it to work. The nationalities draft would obviously be extremely difficult but if you had 16 managers that's the top 16 countries blocked straight away and then the playing field would be quite a lot leveller
 
P-Nut0712 said:
Any different ideas have surely got to be a good thing it's just a way of finding it to work. The nationalities draft would obviously be extremely difficult but if you had 16 managers that's the top 16 countries blocked straight away and then the playing field would be quite a lot leveller
Click to expand...

Yeah it's a balance of finding ways to make it work, but also in a way that people will stick to.

For example if Beckham is picked as 23 now, should he only be judged on his time wearing 23? All his United games then become irrelevant, but will managers/voters keep that in mind? We've seen in other drafts (PL draft, Euro draft) how there can be a blur even from manager to manager.

I'm all for new things though.
 
P-Nut0712 said:
Any different ideas have surely got to be a good thing it's just a way of finding it to work. The nationalities draft would obviously be extremely difficult but if you had 16 managers that's the top 16 countries blocked straight away and then the playing field would be quite a lot leveller
Click to expand...
I wouldn't mind playing this draft but I'm sure there aren't many people who want to debate the better player between Kazuyoshi Miura and Georgios Samaras.
 
The nations draft for me has some mileage. It wouldn't necessarily be the most competitive because Annah's Sweden team would get papped out early doors, but there would be ways to mitigate the typical advantages. For instance, having multiple managers take control of the bigger nations, having much more limited reinforcements, etc. But the point wouldn't just be about who wins, it would be about celebrating a wider range of players and using them in that country's style of football. It's something that would be worth holding off until Anto was back, because his Uruguay team would be entertaining fare for the rest of us.
 
RedTiger said:
I wouldn't mind playing this draft but I'm sure there aren't many people who want to debate the better player between Kazuyoshi Miura and Georgios Samaras.
Click to expand...

nobody but managers/regulars comment in games and all the regulars want a change so why not, i would love a draft full with Georgios Samaras characters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.