Good suggestion. Just a wee bit of effort from the moderator or even a neutral would make that work well.
Next Draft - Ideas and Discussions
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
Personally I'd take out substitution in entirety. Too much hassles for minor upside.
If they're in this current format, sure, I would be okay with that. However, if we treat them as proper substitutions that occur during a match, it should make things much more interesting. This should also make versatile players more useful in the team as well. Imagine using John Charles as a striker and then, towards the end, putting him at the back if your team's leading. Or using Luis Enrique as a central midfielder in place of a more defensive central midfielder in order to catch up on the votes and put the pressure on the opposition.
Re: match dynamics.
One also has to factor in that some voters (and usually involved ones at that, i.e. people who actually follow the discussion in the match thread) purposely wait a good while before casting their vote, even though they have a fair idea about who should win.
In other words, the relationship between the vote (as it stands at any given time before the poll closes) and a virtual (that is, a "realistic") score isn't an obvious one - not necessarily.
I think some pretty drastic changes are necessary in order to achieve anything resembling actual match dynamics - and as suggested above, this may be too much to ask: I think the most viable route to take, at this stage, is probably to run a purely experimental draft - in which all sorts of changes to the format are tested, including ones seeking to make the matches more realistic, more like simulations of actual matches (including subs and whatnot).
If this is a success, fully or partially, one can then consider running two draft variations in the future: A "regular" one and a "new" or "experimental" one.
As for the particular sub issue, I wouldn't mind simply scrapping subs altogether for the "regular" variation. The problem, even if we manage to implement a match clock feature, is that you can't force the voters to consider what is essentially a discussion (about which team is better) as a 90 minute, "realistic" match. There are several reasons why it doesn't even make sense to do so, given the current format.
One also has to factor in that some voters (and usually involved ones at that, i.e. people who actually follow the discussion in the match thread) purposely wait a good while before casting their vote, even though they have a fair idea about who should win.
In other words, the relationship between the vote (as it stands at any given time before the poll closes) and a virtual (that is, a "realistic") score isn't an obvious one - not necessarily.
I think some pretty drastic changes are necessary in order to achieve anything resembling actual match dynamics - and as suggested above, this may be too much to ask: I think the most viable route to take, at this stage, is probably to run a purely experimental draft - in which all sorts of changes to the format are tested, including ones seeking to make the matches more realistic, more like simulations of actual matches (including subs and whatnot).
If this is a success, fully or partially, one can then consider running two draft variations in the future: A "regular" one and a "new" or "experimental" one.
As for the particular sub issue, I wouldn't mind simply scrapping subs altogether for the "regular" variation. The problem, even if we manage to implement a match clock feature, is that you can't force the voters to consider what is essentially a discussion (about which team is better) as a 90 minute, "realistic" match. There are several reasons why it doesn't even make sense to do so, given the current format.
@Chesterlestreet makes a good point (as usual).
Lots tend toto vote later after reading discussions. And it's very subjective to ascertain the impact of subs per se. Match clockclock is a good addition butbut without proper way to gauge it's effectiveness it's be a bridge half crossed.
If the next draft isn't decided yet i'd like to run a modern draft with focus on younger players (think olympic rules). It would have a lot of criteria to make drafting even more interesting, making it hard to put together a side with "proven partnerships" etc.
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
South American 
Last edited:
If people want that or a East Europe draft or whatever has been discussed then i can wait.South American
I was worried about getting people addicted to it before bringing it here.
I have a different style of sheep draft in mind and I can do that in June or afterwards, so perhaps one or two drafts later.
Feel free to go ahead if anyone else has something in mind.
Could we have a really large number of teams in the next draft. Seems the appetite is massive up here in the mains
We usually fill up 16, but never 32. Anything interim would make progression table complex.
Could do a group stage in order to thin out the teams early on but allowing more people to play. 24 with 6 groups of 4 would make it interesting whilst not too difficult to organise.
I don't like the idea but I would probably sit out the next one anyway (if it won't be SA or EE one)
When was our last youth players draft? We did a current players draft a year or so back, but can't quite remember the last time the kids got a run out. It's a worthy topic if the pool is refreshed and not a repeat of what went before.
Like Harms I'll probably sit the next one out unless it's a South American or Eastern European effort. I'd also be keen to see some development in how we do the drafts, I'm thinking potential thread moderation, match clocks, sorting out keepers once and for all, etc.
Like Harms I'll probably sit the next one out unless it's a South American or Eastern European effort. I'd also be keen to see some development in how we do the drafts, I'm thinking potential thread moderation, match clocks, sorting out keepers once and for all, etc.
We tried Group Stages in MJJs British/Irish Draft. Didn't get much traction. Though I personally prefer this, doubt we can do it that large a scale. But then 24 managers will be difficult to get. We fill up 16 with some people backing off or unable to play due to last minute time constraints. Filling up 24 will be a big ask.
Eww! @harms with full access to the EE pool doesn't sound like a good idea.
Personally I'd prefer to cut the total managers to 12 and run it as 4 groups of 3. So total matches of 15 does not change from current 16 team format.
Each team will have 2 shots to qualify instead of current instant elimination after match 1.
Increasing drafting to 13 players at start will give so much flexibility to field two different types of teams tailored to both opponents in R1.
Each team will have 2 shots to qualify instead of current instant elimination after match 1.
Increasing drafting to 13 players at start will give so much flexibility to field two different types of teams tailored to both opponents in R1.
It's definitely due. I feel like we have enough youngsters available to make a decent pool out of it.
Regarding the next draft, I'll be sitting out of it regardless of what it is. I want to take a bit of a break from drafts especially since I'm getting more work to do now.
I'm personally not that interested in a youth draft, tbh. For and against for most players have already been argued in various threads and for many since their careers have not matured/finished, the anticipation/guesswork of peaks will play a bigger role.
Will probably sit out.
Will probably sit out.
Let's have a concrete discussion on this. Some ideas are scattered over this thread, perhaps someone can collect all of them in one place.
From the last few days @Chesterlestreet 's change in how subs are used and also his I believe the moderator one in the game threads are ones I remember. Perhaps the latter is slightly demanding of the mod in question, as he would have to monitor all games in the draft? That could be highly demanding, time wise. But the former, we can surely implement I think. Make sure it is agreed upon before the start of the next draft so this is a great time to settle something like that.
I remember @Balu previously in a draft recommending a much stricter approach regarding the participants in the match threads. I think it was to limit the number of posts a manager can make, I think the number was 5, but whatever it is, didn't look like a bad option at the time.
I'd say don't make any universal rules. A lot depends on the type and pool of the draft. In this draft for example, in a few games the thread would have been empty had it not been for the managers. That's of course different in a more widely known pool and an active manager pool where you can shut the managers up after they've made their point and let others join in, which they would automatically. It can be considered whenever we go ahead with a draft of a lot of famous players, and this kinda points towards a moderator if a standard limit can't be agreed upon (5 is a bit less in my opinion).
Really though, the managers need to become less prone to getting caught in a circle and repeating the same. It's often a bit too late by the team we realise it and the thread is 2-3 pages in it's course, so non participating managers shouldn't hesitate to point it out to the managers who can get a bit too engrossed in making their argument heard.
I'd say don't make any universal rules. A lot depends on the type and pool of the draft. In this draft for example, in a few games the thread would have been empty had it not been for the managers. That's of course different in a more widely known pool and an active manager pool where you can shut the managers up after they've made their point and let others join in, which they would automatically. It can be considered whenever we go ahead with a draft of a lot of famous players, and this kinda points towards a moderator if a standard limit can't be agreed upon (5 is a bit less in my opinion).
Really though, the managers need to become less prone to getting caught in a circle and repeating the same. It's often a bit too late by the team we realise it and the thread is 2-3 pages in it's course, so non participating managers shouldn't hesitate to point it out to the managers who can get a bit too engrossed in making their argument heard.
Your idea shoud be tested. Unfortunately, I don't think the lack of interest of non participating managers is explained by the number of posts a manager can make.
What is sure is that we should innovate.
Maybe, a game should be subdivided in many distinct parts. An example:
- 8 hours: the "offensive strategy"
- 8 hours: the "defensive strategy"
- 8 hours: other considerations
The last part of your post would be impossible to implement unless voting wasn't taking place until the end of at least the first 16 hours, as the other manager may have the perfect defensive strategy to deal with your attacking strategy.
Yeah I've no problems with ideas, just saying why I don't think it could work mate
Yeah, but that was years ago? I once suggested that each manager get a limited number of tactical posts in which he can criticise the other team and/or discuss his own tactics, something like 5 overall and not more than 3 in each half (first 12 hours/second 12hours). But every manager can make as many posts as he likes to sell his own players, tell their stories, use their matchhighlights and all that. The idea was to get rid of the tedious and repetitive discussion of my midfield will outnumber you and my fullback will make it 2vs1 on the wing and back and forth and back again. Those things only need to be said once and usually are fairly obvious from the write-up/formations anyway for every football fan. Telling the stories of players, especially when we do drafts with lesser known players, is much more interesting to me.
The voters can of course still discuss the teams with each other, but shouldn't take over the tedious discussions. Just state your opinion on how the game would play out once and leave it at that.
As mentioned before the match thread in its current form is – simply – a discussion. And you can't put too many restrictions on a discussion before it becomes tedious – not least to neutrals. Nor can you expect people to “translate” the discussion to some sort of “realistic” match development. The format doesn't support anything like that: People come and go, some read the threads carefully, others don't read them at all, some vote early, others late – some change their mind, some don't. And so forth.
In other words, while some of the ideas brought up recently are interesting – and could be good fun – most of them strike me as being unrealistic given the current format. They don't jibe with the basic discussion format. Which is why I think they should be tested out in a completely different format: An alternative draft format, if you will, where a plain (and free) discussion between the managers is less central, and the focus is on various set factors with the intention of creating something like a match simulation.
Whether the above would be interesting/worthwhile beyond the novelty stage remains to be seen, but it couldn't hurt to try it as an experiment.
As for the discussion format (which clearly remains the best one, all things said and done), moderation could be tried out. Seems like an obvious thing to do, really, and it will become obvious soon enough whether it works or not.
In other words, while some of the ideas brought up recently are interesting – and could be good fun – most of them strike me as being unrealistic given the current format. They don't jibe with the basic discussion format. Which is why I think they should be tested out in a completely different format: An alternative draft format, if you will, where a plain (and free) discussion between the managers is less central, and the focus is on various set factors with the intention of creating something like a match simulation.
Whether the above would be interesting/worthwhile beyond the novelty stage remains to be seen, but it couldn't hurt to try it as an experiment.
As for the discussion format (which clearly remains the best one, all things said and done), moderation could be tried out. Seems like an obvious thing to do, really, and it will become obvious soon enough whether it works or not.
Generally the more posts and the more participation the better. Let's not lose sight of that. I wouldn't want to stifle debate - just get away from the repetitive stuff that's horrible to play in and boring to read. Think Question Time without Dimbleby or any debate without some sort of chair or moderation: it would quickly descend into farce.
We need to fix the voting system. Limiting it to managers and ex-managers will restrict interest and could damage future draft participant. Also a sub-forum would have a worse effect of reducing traffic; moving it to another part of the forum would too. I just check the football latest updates section on my phone which I imagine many do.
The best change I can think of is to require voters to post an explanation as to why they voted for a particular team. It could be as simple as "No-one can stop Messi". This extra effort would hopefully prevent some posters from taking the piss.
The best change I can think of is to require voters to post an explanation as to why they voted for a particular team. It could be as simple as "No-one can stop Messi". This extra effort would hopefully prevent some posters from taking the piss.
good idea, the ones that are obviously taking the piss we can put on some kind of block list and not count their votes.
I know that it was already tried but i liked the double vote of managers. I would even do a triple vote for managers, double for ex managers and normal vote for regulars. In that way the regulars are still participating but the impact of "scan" votes is minimal.
The problem is that this cannot be enforced. Unless you are counting on disregarding votes where poster has not replied in the thread. Too unwieldy.
I piloted this in Reality Draft and still think it's a good compromise. Not just managers, but a list of interested people list can be added to OP who all get double votes. It kinda puts scan votes to a less priority buckets, but sadly I do not see any other alternative.
The very concrete problem in the present draft is that we've had several matches effectively ruined - whatever the reason may actually be - by what can only be called outside factors.
The managers have abandoned one of the current matches, in which virtually no actual discussion (about the match) has taken place.
Anyway - I'll throw in this old idea of mine (which seems relevant to the present situation):
You start the match without a poll. Then let it run for X hours. Then add the poll and let it stand for a shorter amount of time than the current standard.
Hopefully, you'll then get a decent discussion between the managers - with comments and criticism from neutrals - before any votes (whether they be pisstakes or not) can possibly influence the discussion. And then you wrap it up, as it were, with a poll.
For me, as mentioned many times, the voting/scoring/winning/losing aspect of it isn't all that important - but obviously you have to call a winner in order to move the thing forward.
The above idea also opens for voters actually taking the nature of the debate into consideration - i.e. letting how well the managers argue their case (at least partially) influence how they vote.
The managers have abandoned one of the current matches, in which virtually no actual discussion (about the match) has taken place.
Anyway - I'll throw in this old idea of mine (which seems relevant to the present situation):
You start the match without a poll. Then let it run for X hours. Then add the poll and let it stand for a shorter amount of time than the current standard.
Hopefully, you'll then get a decent discussion between the managers - with comments and criticism from neutrals - before any votes (whether they be pisstakes or not) can possibly influence the discussion. And then you wrap it up, as it were, with a poll.
For me, as mentioned many times, the voting/scoring/winning/losing aspect of it isn't all that important - but obviously you have to call a winner in order to move the thing forward.
The above idea also opens for voters actually taking the nature of the debate into consideration - i.e. letting how well the managers argue their case (at least partially) influence how they vote.
If "outsider vote" is that much of a concern, just let them vote for their "people choice" team, but in the end, only managers' votes count as winning votes
That is the whole point of assigning more weight to manager's votes, but if we put x2 and there are still more votes from "outsider" that determine the winner, what's next? x3, x4?
That is the whole point of assigning more weight to manager's votes, but if we put x2 and there are still more votes from "outsider" that determine the winner, what's next? x3, x4?
The match format (including the voting system) has remained pretty much unchanged ever since I began taking an interest in this thing. And people have never been 100% pleased with it - if anything, the notion that the match stage is decidedly less interesting than the drafting stage has been there all along.
What we've seen lately only highlights this problem - for me, at least.
As I see it, we've got little to lose from trying something radically different.
As for "outsiders", that isn't the problem. You can decide the outcome of these matches in any way you want - doesn't matter to me, flipping a coin would do the trick in some cases. It's the format itself (an often interesting discussion, at least partways, between managers and neutrals, but often enough also a less than interesting pointscoring-fest - combined with a voting system that isn't directly linked to the former part in any logical or necessary way) which needs looking at.
If you want to actually reward the managers for a) drafting well, b) setting up well and c) arguing well - it seems obvious that the current system/format is lacking.
ETA:
The current one has turned into a farce, that much is clear. Shame for Aldo who has done a great job running it.
I feel like a vacation, to be honest. We'll see what happens next, but I won't be taking any active part in anything which just keeps rollin' along the same track - just my personal stance, don't mean to discourage anyone from doing something in the old format: Whatever floats your boat, as they say - it's just a bit of fun, after all.
What we've seen lately only highlights this problem - for me, at least.
As I see it, we've got little to lose from trying something radically different.
As for "outsiders", that isn't the problem. You can decide the outcome of these matches in any way you want - doesn't matter to me, flipping a coin would do the trick in some cases. It's the format itself (an often interesting discussion, at least partways, between managers and neutrals, but often enough also a less than interesting pointscoring-fest - combined with a voting system that isn't directly linked to the former part in any logical or necessary way) which needs looking at.
If you want to actually reward the managers for a) drafting well, b) setting up well and c) arguing well - it seems obvious that the current system/format is lacking.
ETA:
The current one has turned into a farce, that much is clear. Shame for Aldo who has done a great job running it.
I feel like a vacation, to be honest. We'll see what happens next, but I won't be taking any active part in anything which just keeps rollin' along the same track - just my personal stance, don't mean to discourage anyone from doing something in the old format: Whatever floats your boat, as they say - it's just a bit of fun, after all.
Last edited:
I don't get whats wrong with the sudden influx of newer voters in general. Yeah, there are some jerks who try to troll us, but I actually like how there are more people coming in to get involved. None of the QF's have gone through what I and GS have gone through, which was a proper sabotage what with the voting mechanism being changed during the match.
Isn't that what we wanted anyways? More people getting involved in matches? If they vote, then managers can get more involved and even ask them of their opinions (not as bad as it seems, at least not as bad as looking at the voting distribution before voting).
Ultimately, though, as long as there is no obvious sabotage to the matches (like GS and my match at the first round), then we managers honestly don't have much to complain about besides the trolls.
Isn't that what we wanted anyways? More people getting involved in matches? If they vote, then managers can get more involved and even ask them of their opinions (not as bad as it seems, at least not as bad as looking at the voting distribution before voting).
Ultimately, though, as long as there is no obvious sabotage to the matches (like GS and my match at the first round), then we managers honestly don't have much to complain about besides the trolls.
I agree with @mazhar13
The long-term goal should be to have a large number of consistent voters to avoid controversies and make sure we have fair results.
The long-term goal should be to have a large number of consistent voters to avoid controversies and make sure we have fair results.
List of Drafts:
Draft I: Cal?'s - New Fantasy Draft (Winner: Cal?)
Draft II: Polaroid's - Retro Fantasy Draft - all players born in 60s (Winner: Polaroid)
Draft III: Cal?'s - 70s Fantasy Draft (Winner: Cling Bak)
Draft IV: Brwned's - 50s Fantasy Draft (Winner: Brwned)
Draft V: Polaroid's Premier League 20 Season Draft (Winner: Gio)
Draft VI: antohan's All -Time Fantasy Draft (Winner: antohan)
Draft VII: Theon's - Champions League Draft (Winner: Gio)
Draft VIII: Aldo's - Decades Draft (Winner: Theon)
Draft IX: Future Stars Draft (Winner: NM/Snow)
Draft X: World Cup Peak Draft (Winner: Annahnomoss)
Draft XI: Aldo's - Sheep Draft (Winner Gio)
Draft XII: Polaroid's - Transfer Muppet Draft (Winner: MJJ)
Draft XIII: Annahnomoss's - Auction Draft (Winner: Cutch/Annah)
Draft XIV: rpitroda's - Criteria Draft (Winner: Aldo)
Draft XV: EAP's - Reality Draft (Winner: antohan)
Draft XVI: Annahnomoss's - Managers Draft (Winner: EAP)
Draft XVII: crappycraperson's - British Irish Draft (Winner: MJJ)
Draft XVIII: EAP's - Modern Era Draft (Winner: Theon)
Draft XIX: Skizzo's - Second Sheep Draft (Winner: Cutch)
Draft XX: Balu's - Euro Draft (Winner: Joga Bonito)
Draft XXI: Annahnomoss's - All Time Auction Draft (Winner: Cal?)
Draft XXII: Skizzo's All Time Premier League Draft (Winner: Skizzo/Pat)
Draft XXIII: EAP's Chain Draft (Winner: The Stain)
Draft XXIV: Aldo's 40s Retro Draft (Winner: Gio/Theon)
Draft XXV: Gio's Third Redcafe Sheep Draft (Winner: Stobzilla)
Draft XXVI: Physiocrat's Billy No Mates Draft (Winner: Joga Bonito/Gio)
Draft XXVII: Marty1968's Three Leagues Draft (Winner: Enigma87/Snow)
Draft XXVIII: Aldo's Reserves Draft (Winner: RedTiger/Joga/Balu)
Thoughts for the next draft guys? I think a break of at least 2 weeks or so would be preferable, unless the interest is overwhelming of course. I'd suggest a more expansive draft, with the past 2 drafts featuring fairly restrictive pools. Unless, of course there is some interest in a SA or EE draft. Maybe an auction format to mix things up?
Draft I: Cal?'s - New Fantasy Draft (Winner: Cal?)
Draft II: Polaroid's - Retro Fantasy Draft - all players born in 60s (Winner: Polaroid)
Draft III: Cal?'s - 70s Fantasy Draft (Winner: Cling Bak)
Draft IV: Brwned's - 50s Fantasy Draft (Winner: Brwned)
Draft V: Polaroid's Premier League 20 Season Draft (Winner: Gio)
Draft VI: antohan's All -Time Fantasy Draft (Winner: antohan)
Draft VII: Theon's - Champions League Draft (Winner: Gio)
Draft VIII: Aldo's - Decades Draft (Winner: Theon)
Draft IX: Future Stars Draft (Winner: NM/Snow)
Draft X: World Cup Peak Draft (Winner: Annahnomoss)
Draft XI: Aldo's - Sheep Draft (Winner Gio)
Draft XII: Polaroid's - Transfer Muppet Draft (Winner: MJJ)
Draft XIII: Annahnomoss's - Auction Draft (Winner: Cutch/Annah)
Draft XIV: rpitroda's - Criteria Draft (Winner: Aldo)
Draft XV: EAP's - Reality Draft (Winner: antohan)
Draft XVI: Annahnomoss's - Managers Draft (Winner: EAP)
Draft XVII: crappycraperson's - British Irish Draft (Winner: MJJ)
Draft XVIII: EAP's - Modern Era Draft (Winner: Theon)
Draft XIX: Skizzo's - Second Sheep Draft (Winner: Cutch)
Draft XX: Balu's - Euro Draft (Winner: Joga Bonito)
Draft XXI: Annahnomoss's - All Time Auction Draft (Winner: Cal?)
Draft XXII: Skizzo's All Time Premier League Draft (Winner: Skizzo/Pat)
Draft XXIII: EAP's Chain Draft (Winner: The Stain)
Draft XXIV: Aldo's 40s Retro Draft (Winner: Gio/Theon)
Draft XXV: Gio's Third Redcafe Sheep Draft (Winner: Stobzilla)
Draft XXVI: Physiocrat's Billy No Mates Draft (Winner: Joga Bonito/Gio)
Draft XXVII: Marty1968's Three Leagues Draft (Winner: Enigma87/Snow)
Draft XXVIII: Aldo's Reserves Draft (Winner: RedTiger/Joga/Balu)
Thoughts for the next draft guys? I think a break of at least 2 weeks or so would be preferable, unless the interest is overwhelming of course. I'd suggest a more expansive draft, with the past 2 drafts featuring fairly restrictive pools. Unless, of course there is some interest in a SA or EE draft. Maybe an auction format to mix things up?
Last edited:
I'd definitely be interested in being in the next one....an Auction draft perhaps?