Like i said sjor, I'd definitely be up for it
Next Draft - Ideas and Discussions
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
Like i said sjor, I'd definitely be up for it
yeah, i was targeting your second part of the post....im sure we are not alone and there are plenty of regulars who would like to take a break of GOAT players and play with more average ones, they also deserve our love!
This is my point exactly change it up a bit and see some teams with obvious flaws. That way tactics would take on a bigger part in the matches
True that
I'll be honest. I have no interest in doing research or trying to sell Samaras. For effort, the player must be worth something..a legend, underrated genius, hidden gem etc. For reserves, the one we have currently is the best. As someone mentioned before we can extend the block to current picks and run one more 'Scraping the Barrel's bottom' draft and that may well include Samaras.
Tbf another round after the one currently running would be top as the players would still be class just they would also have flaws
Aye it's very open to dispute. The only way that idea would work would be to prescribe a small number of templated formations. Which seems a little boring to be honest.
I like the Nations idea, tbh. Though it needs to be flushed in detail. Just ban players from Italy/Brazil/Germany/Spain/England/Argentina and then run the nations draft maybe?
or just Italy, Germany & Brazil. Rest of countries can be split between multiple managers. Maybe 1 block round to chop off the usual suspects.
or just Italy, Germany & Brazil. Rest of countries can be split between multiple managers. Maybe 1 block round to chop off the usual suspects.
Spain and England are not that far ahead, if any, of Uruguay, Hungary and Netherlands.
We should ban Italy, Germany, Brazil and Argentina and then split the remaining teams into tiers - 5 players banned from Spain, England, Netherlands, Hungary and Uruguay; 3 players banned from France; etc. the tiers and the numbers of blocked players are debatable, of course, and should be decided by all managers together beforehand
I think that's right. There's a fair few players that I doubt would be picked who are quality, that said are there the 16x12 to make it interesting, possibly but I reckon the All-Time South American draft ought to be next
All-Time South American draft would be an excellent one for sure
Yeah I have nothing against the south American draft going first just remembered posting these ideas in the newbs and thought I'd get them out before I forgot all about them
Eastern Europe draft I think deserves to be ran on its own. The pool is huge IMO, not GOAT's mind(we can ban the GOAT's) but some really underrated players in it.Even with the current format there are players that still won't be picked which IMO is a shame.
Besides especially in countries with communist regime there are plenty of interesting stories along having quality options as well.
Besides especially in countries with communist regime there are plenty of interesting stories along having quality options as well.
Aye that sounds good as well, but combined with some country restrictions for sure, otherwise we'll have teams with 8 Brazilians and 3 Argentinians or something.
Eastern Europe vs South America draft, maybe?
8 managers for each region and get it heads on for R1. Gets mixed up after that.
8 managers for each region and get it heads on for R1. Gets mixed up after that.
SA has better depth, that won't work. Can only work if we ban Argentina/Brazil.
I agree that all time South American should be next. Infact it should be Latin American (as that includes Central American countries like Mexico etc).
Yes, this is interesting. Tiered Bans and maybe reverse Tiered criteria (you can only have 3 from Spain, England, Netherlands, Hungary and Uruguay etc) in your team to make it a tad more difficult.
Yes, this is interesting. Tiered Bans and maybe reverse Tiered criteria (you can only have 3 from Spain, England, Netherlands, Hungary and Uruguay etc) in your team to make it a tad more difficult.
Yes. There is plenty of quality to justify its own draft, especially in an all-time context. I'd just keep all the players in.
Would be odd to have a SA draft without the biggest and deepest pools
Just make it 2-3 players from each country max and will be ok. Well Puskas for example needs to be banned, he also featured a lot in these drafts so it would be refreshing. Couple of other names probably as well and you have a level field.
I'm so excited! Yeah, I definitely want this draft. Just created Russian and Ukraine teams and I don't know who would win. Russia is more balanced but Ukraine has three Ballon D'Or winners as a front three
Georgia should be nice too, even though not on the level of those two
I suppose Puskas is the standout, but beyond him it would hard to draw a line thereafter that would be meanginful. I'm all for freshening up the pool, but with 192 Eastern European players that would undoubtedly take place in any case.
Yugo, Hungary are the standouts especially the former in terms of depth. I'd want this one as wellI'm so excited! Yeah, I definitely want this draft. Just created Russian and Ukraine teams and I don't know who would win. Russia is more balanced but Ukraine has three Ballon D'Or winners as a front three
Georgia should be nice too, even though not on the level of those two
Well the other one I had in mind is Yashin and probably Stoichkov but even with them it won't be an issue.
Hungary is the East European favorite by a big, big margin.Yugo, Hungary are the standouts especially the former in terms of depth. I'd want this one as well
Yugoslavia had great players but I'm not sure if you can create a great team with them - I haven't tried though, it's just a gut feeling, so maybe I'm wrong.
think you are not wrong, didnt try to build any side but Hungary looks much better.
Probably CB and CM short of having one that will be comparable to the Hungarian one.
And of course a forward of Puskas rank.
I'd probably be most interested in a "bottom of the barrel" draft myself, as I think you don't really escape the usual suspect problem even with a pool like the one we're picking from in the current draft.
Well, problem...I suppose it depends on what one's expectations are, but if the ideal is to have lesser known players make a real difference in the matches, you need to introduce more drastic measures.
The way it is now, the lesser known boys may be showcased to an extent during the initial drafting process (which is a good thing, obviously), but when it comes to the matches, the focus is nearly always on the most obvious players on the park. It's impossible to avoid this, as the latter category are also (at least normally and per common opinion) the best players on the park, and the ones who would realistically impact the match the most.
In this current draft, in which a huge number of greats are blocked, you still have several ballon winners running around: It becomes a matter of stepping down a tier in terms of who is final worthy, but the mechanics of the thing essentially remains the same, and the central characters are very well known players (just not quite as shiny as the likes of Pelé or Platini).
Now, don't get me wrong – players will be picked here who don't normally feature, and some of them will be highlighted in ways which should be both entertaining and educational, which is brilliant. But if the goal is to shift focus from star men to water carriers – or from well known match winners to truly obscure gems, or from individual players to tactics – you have to, again, introduce stricter measures in one way or another.
Frankly, I'm not sure how deep you can actually dig in that barrel before it becomes a bit too lacking in terms of truly interesting players (it's easy to artificially fill up a pool of utter no-marks, but it seems a bit pointless) – but we could easily dig a level deeper than the present pool and still have plenty of excellent players to pick from.
However, if we want a draft with a truly different focus, my thinking is that we need to look at the format – not so much at the possible pools or themes.
Well, problem...I suppose it depends on what one's expectations are, but if the ideal is to have lesser known players make a real difference in the matches, you need to introduce more drastic measures.
The way it is now, the lesser known boys may be showcased to an extent during the initial drafting process (which is a good thing, obviously), but when it comes to the matches, the focus is nearly always on the most obvious players on the park. It's impossible to avoid this, as the latter category are also (at least normally and per common opinion) the best players on the park, and the ones who would realistically impact the match the most.
In this current draft, in which a huge number of greats are blocked, you still have several ballon winners running around: It becomes a matter of stepping down a tier in terms of who is final worthy, but the mechanics of the thing essentially remains the same, and the central characters are very well known players (just not quite as shiny as the likes of Pelé or Platini).
Now, don't get me wrong – players will be picked here who don't normally feature, and some of them will be highlighted in ways which should be both entertaining and educational, which is brilliant. But if the goal is to shift focus from star men to water carriers – or from well known match winners to truly obscure gems, or from individual players to tactics – you have to, again, introduce stricter measures in one way or another.
Frankly, I'm not sure how deep you can actually dig in that barrel before it becomes a bit too lacking in terms of truly interesting players (it's easy to artificially fill up a pool of utter no-marks, but it seems a bit pointless) – but we could easily dig a level deeper than the present pool and still have plenty of excellent players to pick from.
However, if we want a draft with a truly different focus, my thinking is that we need to look at the format – not so much at the possible pools or themes.
Considering the next draft would start around the Euros, why not a Euros draft with only players playing this Euros eligible and them to be judged on their performances this tournament. Would basically be a speculative draft and you could see reputations being made or destroyed
That would be funny as anything but really hard to implement.
We have tried it before and it didn't really work that well. People lose interest during the wait. Though when it was done I think the wait was much longer.
For this one you'd have to make sure the drafting ends about the time the tournament is starting and then have a Fantasy Football like points system for performances - though how you;d award points for defense and midfield is upto you. And then basically whoever has more points wins.
If you mean having the match ups with voting after the EURO based on those performances then that wouldn't be very interesting.
Bringing this post here to avoid a digression in the draft thread.
For me, I think subs can be implemented properly if there is some sort of an indication that the match does not start all over when a sub occurs. What I propose is that we keep track of when the sub happens in relation to the start of the draft and the length of the match (if the draft started at 2 p.m. GMT, the match goes for 24 hours, and a manager made a substitution at 3 a.m. GMT, then the match moderator/host should indicate that a substitution occurred at the 48th minute of the match ((3 a.m. - 2 p.m.)/24) * 90).
I think that, by indicating when this substitution happened, voters will be able to keep track of how the match would pan out at certain situations, but the timing of the substitution has to be made explicit for this to be effective, IMO.
From the other thread:
My take on it is that the basic format (of the match threads) has to be looked at first. As you suggest, including subs as part of your write-up could potentially backfire spectaculary with the present format. Some sort of standard would have to be introduced, I think - something that both managers have to adhere to. Mandatory subs is one idea * - though I'm not crazy about that as a permanent change.
Anyway, my main gripe isn't so much with the sub situation as such, but rather with the whole, basic way in which the draft matches are perceived in terms of "realism". One obvious example: Manager A gets his tactics/selection all wrong. He realizes this and makes a change. But such changes are hardly ever perceived as "realistic" substitutions, regardless of when they take place - they're nearly always taken as do-overs, and even the voters who have read the entire thread tend not to take the possible and "realistic" damage caused by the initial feck-up into consideration. Anto was a champion of this sort of realism - he used to factor in how much virtual match time had passed at the point when the change was made - but it has never caught on as something people do automatically.
And then there's the phenomenon mentioned above: People don't push for a win. Draft matches are like parodies of certain World Cup knockout affairs: Both teams clearly prefer penalties to taking even the tiniest risk which could cost them the match. And it's perfectly understandable - because your possible impact subs might very likely not be taken as such at all by the voters: They may only see an updated formation pic, and base their decision on that - without factoring in any sort of "realism".
But this is a discussion best carried on in the "next idea" thread.
* In other words, you make it mandatory to use subs and to include a description of how you intend to use them in your write-up-
My take on it is that the basic format (of the match threads) has to be looked at first. As you suggest, including subs as part of your write-up could potentially backfire spectaculary with the present format. Some sort of standard would have to be introduced, I think - something that both managers have to adhere to. Mandatory subs is one idea * - though I'm not crazy about that as a permanent change.
Anyway, my main gripe isn't so much with the sub situation as such, but rather with the whole, basic way in which the draft matches are perceived in terms of "realism". One obvious example: Manager A gets his tactics/selection all wrong. He realizes this and makes a change. But such changes are hardly ever perceived as "realistic" substitutions, regardless of when they take place - they're nearly always taken as do-overs, and even the voters who have read the entire thread tend not to take the possible and "realistic" damage caused by the initial feck-up into consideration. Anto was a champion of this sort of realism - he used to factor in how much virtual match time had passed at the point when the change was made - but it has never caught on as something people do automatically.
And then there's the phenomenon mentioned above: People don't push for a win. Draft matches are like parodies of certain World Cup knockout affairs: Both teams clearly prefer penalties to taking even the tiniest risk which could cost them the match. And it's perfectly understandable - because your possible impact subs might very likely not be taken as such at all by the voters: They may only see an updated formation pic, and base their decision on that - without factoring in any sort of "realism".
But this is a discussion best carried on in the "next idea" thread.
* In other words, you make it mandatory to use subs and to include a description of how you intend to use them in your write-up-
@Chesterlestreet
Agree with what you say. It's currently a fairly flawed system, and tricky in terms of how everyone currently approaches it differently.
I'm similar to Anto in terms of how I feel it could effect a match if a team is set up "incorrectly". I know that I've used that as the basis of an argument 3 times (against Edgar twice - British draft and the 3 year peak draft I think, and against Enigma last draft)
The current way, like you say, basically gives the manager a do-over. A get out of jail free card, if you will. 2 hours left in the draft match, and they throw something together, which sometimes spurns a slew of comments like "this is much better, now you have my vote" without considering the fact that the game is in its dying moments. As you say, there would be no point a manager throwing caution to the wind and going all out attack with an hour left in voting, because people will inevitably see the formation, and think it would be a suicidal to play the whole match like that, even though you wouldn't be.
Anyway, that's my incoherent rambling thoughts, that probably added nothing to the actual discussion.
Agree with what you say. It's currently a fairly flawed system, and tricky in terms of how everyone currently approaches it differently.
I'm similar to Anto in terms of how I feel it could effect a match if a team is set up "incorrectly". I know that I've used that as the basis of an argument 3 times (against Edgar twice - British draft and the 3 year peak draft I think, and against Enigma last draft)
The current way, like you say, basically gives the manager a do-over. A get out of jail free card, if you will. 2 hours left in the draft match, and they throw something together, which sometimes spurns a slew of comments like "this is much better, now you have my vote" without considering the fact that the game is in its dying moments. As you say, there would be no point a manager throwing caution to the wind and going all out attack with an hour left in voting, because people will inevitably see the formation, and think it would be a suicidal to play the whole match like that, even though you wouldn't be.
Anyway, that's my incoherent rambling thoughts, that probably added nothing to the actual discussion.
@mazhar13
That's a good suggestion. Shouldn't be too hard to implement either.
It would be a start if people began factoring in a "realistic" match clock when considering what impact changes would have.
Next step would be using subs also in situations where you haven't positively fecked up - or completely failed to win the voters over.
Realistically, you can sub off a star player and replace him with an obviously inferior player (in the same position or a completely different position), as part of a perfectly sound strategy. In a draft match, however, that move would be suicidal: People would simply focus on the fact that your star man is no longer on the pitch - and that his replacement is obviously an inferior player.
That's a good suggestion. Shouldn't be too hard to implement either.
It would be a start if people began factoring in a "realistic" match clock when considering what impact changes would have.
Next step would be using subs also in situations where you haven't positively fecked up - or completely failed to win the voters over.
Realistically, you can sub off a star player and replace him with an obviously inferior player (in the same position or a completely different position), as part of a perfectly sound strategy. In a draft match, however, that move would be suicidal: People would simply focus on the fact that your star man is no longer on the pitch - and that his replacement is obviously an inferior player.
IMHO, the sub factor would be taken into account by the voters if mentioned in the presentation of the team at the beginning of the game.
We could say: please find below my starting 11 but keep in mind X will be replaced by Y at the end of the match.
We could say: please find below my starting 11 but keep in mind X will be replaced by Y at the end of the match.
@Skizzo Yep, that's the very thing.
Two points:
1. To actually implement "realistic" subs may be too difficult. People would have to factor in real-life factors such as fatigue in order to properly assess how - or why - a given substitution would make sense, and that may be too much to ask.
2. But the do-over business is another kettle of fish. That's just plain illogical: If you go 20 hours with a formation/strategy that is flawed, it makes no sense that the voters should reward you very freely for finally getting it right in the dying minutes of the virtual match. It should be possible to do something about that: Instruct the voters more clearly - and introduce a "match clock" of sorts, maintained by the draft master, as mazhar suggests above.
Two points:
1. To actually implement "realistic" subs may be too difficult. People would have to factor in real-life factors such as fatigue in order to properly assess how - or why - a given substitution would make sense, and that may be too much to ask.
2. But the do-over business is another kettle of fish. That's just plain illogical: If you go 20 hours with a formation/strategy that is flawed, it makes no sense that the voters should reward you very freely for finally getting it right in the dying minutes of the virtual match. It should be possible to do something about that: Instruct the voters more clearly - and introduce a "match clock" of sorts, maintained by the draft master, as mazhar suggests above.
But here's the thing, though: the match dynamics will affect what sort of subs you would want to make. The idea of "match dynamics" has to be implemented in the draft matches as well, particularly given how the votes and discussions between managers can affect the state of the draft match.
Here is where a match clock can take us closer towards implementing "match dynamics". The match clock won't need to be shown constantly throughout the match, but it should be shown in key moments in the draft match (subs, formation changes, anything like that). Given that we may implement match moderators at some point, it will make it easier to implement the "match dynamics" concept to some extent, starting off with the match clock and subs.
This should make draft matches more enjoyable and immersive and not just a spar between two managers over a few petty arguments and a repetition of player profiles, essentially.
An Africa Draft could be also interesting in the future