Next Draft - Ideas and Discussions

[Chesterlestreet]

btw think it would be better if we judge who created a better team ie. which squad is more suited to play that style rather then judge who would won a game between the two.

Yes, for my money you need to actually instruct the voters to consider which team is best drafted, based on the premise, and NOT to consider which team would likely win a fantasy match.

No sane (draft) manager would opt for any particular formation regardless of opposition (and certainly not if the formation in question is archaic), so insisting on the manager not deviating from that blueprint only makes sense if the fantasy match aspect is ditched completely: It's simply a matter of recruiting players who fit the bill, given the system you're supposed to recreate or emulate – not about trying to compose an XI that is best suited to the opponent you're actually facing.

I think the idea as such is a good one – will no doubt generate interesting discussions, and will be educational as to both systems and roles (within the systems).

Considered as a draft game, however, it will be a whole different kettle of fish from what is presently the standard: I maintain that you simply can't retain the old match format for an idea like this – that doesn't work for several reasons, but mainly because it would be more or less random how well your team suits the opposition.

 

[Balu]

btw think it would be better if we judge who created a better team ie. which squad is more suited to play that style rather then judge who would won a game between the two.

Yes, for my money you need to actually instruct the voters to consider which team is best drafted, based on the premise, and NOT to consider which team would likely win a fantasy match.

Yeah, we had the same idea for the matches. Some of the comments on it from the conversation with Joga:

I think the interesting part would be to vote for who did a better job in replicating the team, not who'd win the match. In theory the 'weaker' team could go through to the next round. That way oldschool formations like WW have the same chance of winning even though they're clearly at an disadvantage right now. It should change the discussions in the match thread quite a bit. Hopefully for the better.

Yeah, hopefully it makes people more open minded and more receptive to each formation's unique strengths, instead of just solely focusing on their flaws.

 

[Pat_Mustard]

Yes, for my money you need to actually instruct the voters to consider which team is best drafted, based on the premise, and NOT to consider which team would likely win a fantasy match.

No sane (draft) manager would opt for any particular formation regardless of opposition (and certainly not if the formation in question is archaic), so insisting on the manager not deviating from that blueprint only makes sense if the fantasy match aspect is ditched completely: It's simply a matter of recruiting players who fit the bill, given the system you're supposed to recreate or emulate – not about trying to compose an XI that is best suited to the opponent you're actually facing.

I think the idea as such is a good one – will no doubt generate interesting discussions, and will be educational as to both systems and roles (within the systems).

Considered as a draft game, however, it will be a whole different kettle of fish from what is presently the standard: I maintain that you simply can't retain the old match format for an idea like this – that doesn't work for several reasons, but mainly because it would be more or less random how well your team suits the opposition.

Couldn't agree more. In fact, a draft like this is tailor made for trying out a new match format.

 

[Balu]

Considered as a draft game, however, it will be a whole different kettle of fish from what is presently the standard: I maintain that you simply can't retain the old match format for an idea like this – that doesn't work for several reasons, but mainly because it would be more or less random how well your team suits the opposition.

I think you can still use the usual match format actually, you just need to make it clear that it's not about winning against each other, but about who did a better job with the tactics. Works just as well if voters stick to it and that should be possible. Of course if anyone has an idea for a better format, it would be great to hear it.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I think you can still use the usual match format actually, you just need to make it clear that it's not about winning against each other, but about who did a better job with the tactics. Works just as well if voters stick to it and that should be possible. Of course if anyone has an idea for a better format, it would be great to hear it.

Well, if we're talking voting format, I agree - you don't have to change that (and it's limited what can be changed about it, for that matter). But the "match" would have to be completely different. It's not a fantasy match at all, in fact - but a comparison between two different teams that aren't actually facing each other in the normal draft style.

In other words, it's imperative that the voters know what's going on: If they just swing by and drop a scan vote based on formation pics, well - they'd be missing the point completely.

 

[Balu]

Well, if we're talking voting format, I agree - you don't have to change that (and it's limited what can be changed about it, for that matter). But the "match" would have to be completely different. It's not a fantasy match at all, in fact - but a comparison between two different teams that aren't actually facing each other in the normal draft style.

In other words, it's imperative that the voters know what's going on: If they just swing by and drop a scan vote based on formation pics, well - they'd be missing the point completely.

Yeah, that's obviously true. Fully agree. We simply have to make it clear in the op of the threads what the poll is about. I kinda believe in the voters to understand it though. And if a few slip through and just vote for whatever picture they like better, well, so be it. Not much you can do about it.

 

[Gio]

I like the premise. Although I think there are some potentially big issues which might scupper it. The first is going to be the idea that players can't be deployed in any tactic they've been part of in the past. That could quickly become a minefield of disputed formations and differing interpretations. The second is that in some of the suggested formations certain roles are quite vague and can again be interpreted in different ways. Brazil's 4-2-4 in 1970 (or is it 1958?) is another man's 4-2-3-1. Some of those distinctions are quite blurry which won't be a problem from a replicating perspective but moreso from a player pool side of things.

You could alternatively relax the choice of tactical systems and change the voting question to "which is the most tactically cohesive/pure/etc team?" and enable managers to go balls deep in different formations. A bit less prescriptive, but a potentially similar outcome. Equally though important to put in some sort of provision to prevent some Total Voetball cnut hoovering up the likes of Haan in the drafting process.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

The first is going to be the idea that players can't be deployed in any tactic they've been part of in the past. That could quickly become a minefield of disputed formations and differing interpretations. The second is that in some of the suggested formations certain roles are quite vague and can again be interpreted in different ways. Brazil's 4-2-4 in 1970 (or is it 1958?) is another man's 4-2-3-1. Some of those distinctions are quite blurry which won't be a problem from a replicating perspective but moreso from a player pool side of things.

Yes, I'm thinking along these lines too.

I don't think there's any very practical way to enforce a “not played in the system” rule, as the systems themselves are open to considerable interpretation – and any system will by necessity be quite similar to other systems (both precursors and successors, as it were).

However, the key question the managers should be asked is simply: Does your man actually fit the bill? And that should be enough to generate interesting discussions. I don't think you need all that much in the shape of more formal/set restrictions – beyond outlawing anyone who actually played for Manager X in System Y, that is.

You could give each manager an actual formation (from a famous or otherwise relevant match) and task him with replicating that team, role wise. No players featured in the actual formation can be drafted – but other than that, go nuts and try to come up with players whose skills and traits would be suitable.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Love the idea @Joga Bonito

A couple of questions though: with the DOB cut off do you mean the players has to be born before or after 1975.

After 1975 like Balu stated, with Ronaldo and Messi blocked.

Also when you say the player can't have played in that system do you mean for example you can't recruit any of Sacchi's Milan to play in that system or have any players who have played in a similar set-up? My main thought here is Cruyff's Dream Team and a few of Bielsa's teams.

The first is going to be the idea that players can't be deployed in any tactic they've been part of in the past. That could quickly become a minefield of disputed formations and differing interpretations.

Essentially the idea is to rebuild specific tactics of former decades with modern players (born from January 1st 1975 onwards).

Edited that post, was in a hurry when making that post but yeah, none of the players from the same tactic stuff, as it's essentially modern players in 'older systems' as Sjor put it.

btw think it would be better if we judge who created a better team ie. which squad is more suited to play that style rather then judge who would won a game between the two.

Yes, for my money you need to actually instruct the voters to consider which team is best drafted, based on the premise, and NOT to consider which team would likely win a fantasy match.

Yeah, as Balu once again stated, that was something we considered too and would be perfectly fine with implementing it.

The second is that in some of the suggested formations certain roles are quite vague and can again be interpreted in different ways. Brazil's 4-2-4 in 1970 (or is it 1958?) is another man's 4-2-3-1. Some of those distinctions are quite blurry which won't be a problem from a replicating perspective but moreso from a player pool side of things.

Good point and that popped up in our discussions. Hopefully, people can delve further into the tactical aspect of their set-up and focus further on the players roles to further bring about the distinction. It's the 1958 4-2-4 for what it's worth, with Zagallo and Garrincha playing distinctive roles, as opposed to the 1970 Brazilian side which was more of a 4-2-3-1 - with Pele playing a more all-round role as opposed to the clear second-striker role he played in 1958.

Also open to any suggestions on other tactical set-ups that I might have missed.

 

[Ecstatic]

Just throwing this out there for the next draft idea, after discussions with @Balu

Simple premise really, each team gets a tactical set-up (catenaccio, Brazilian 4-2-4, total footballing 4-3-3 etc) and they have to assemble a side fitting the tactical brief of their respective set-ups. The player DOB cut off date would be 1975 with Ronaldo and Messi blocked.

Ultimately the challenge is to recreate your set-up as best as possible with an 'alien' player pool, maximise your given tactical set-up's advantages and minimise the extent of its flaws as much as possible - without compromising on the basic tenets, formation and core ideology of the tactical set-up. Having 'new' players in that set-up makes it more interesting and decreases the ease of recreating the set-up, and also opens up the scope of potential discussions etc. Goes without saying that whilst a balance between tactical fit and personnel quality should be maintained, tactical chemistry takes precedence given the theme of the draft. So try your best not to use controversial players/features which isn't staying true to your set-up, unless you have a really great case for the said move. There will be a draft committee overseeing proceeding to minimise such occurrences.

Thought the drafts have been a bit dull with the same old 4-3-3 & 4-2-3-1s and with the same overblown emphasis on individual battles (something which I'm guilty of too), so maybe this could freshen it up a bit from a tactical perspective. And also be educational, hopefully.

So yeah, it's kind of like the manager draft, but just harder to execute in terms of personnel and with a bit more leeway given, tactically. The fundamentals and the core ideology of the set-up should remain intact but slight tactical tweaks can be made within the system to counter certain weaknesses perhaps. Like totalvoetball/overloading football has known to be the cure for catenaccio, so the one assigned the catenaccio tactics can make a tweak or two (whilst sticking to the basic set-up and theme by and large) to potentially lessen/counter this weakness. Something simple like just boasting better counter attacking potential or something more complicated tactically. Or the manager of a 4-2-4 could employ a tactically versatile side attacker - ala di Maria being capable of contributing to both attack and solidifying midfield (no different to Zagallo) etc. Or utilise a libero who is capable of influencing midfield better.

To reiterate, the tactical set-up and the player fits, chemistry etc have to be at the fore here. Needless to say, player quality does matter but lesser than the usual drafts.


List of tactical set-ups (not confirmed yet and would welcome feedback)

1) Catenaccio
2) Dutch Total Football
3) Zona Mista
4) LVG's Ajax 3-3-1-3
5) Cruyff's Dream Team 3-4-3
6) Sacchi's 4-4-2
7) Pozzo's metodo
8) Brazil's 4-2-4
9) German 4-3-3 (German 1972 side)
10) England's wingless wonders
11) Austrian Wunderteam
12) Bilardo's 3-5-2
13) Mighty Magyars
14) France's Carré Magique
15) Chapman's WM

Certain tactics are easier to execute (4-4-2) but perhaps harder to strike perfection with. So yeah, keep an open mind and also, whilst it might be harder to execute certain tactics, the pay-off would also be significantly higher.

Modern systems such as Simeone's 4-4-2, Guardiola's tiki-taka, Toppmöller's Dortmund tactics, Fergie's 4-4-2 have been left out due to clashing with the timeline of the player pool - thus increasing the recreation ability of said tactical set-up etc.




The write-up would preferably be really tactical and less player descriptive with the same template for each manager

Philosophy/Ideology of tactical set-up
...

Slight Tactical Tweaks/Variations if any
...

Style - Possession/counter attacking/Wing-Play/Flank overload/etc


Defense

Defensive Line - Deep/Normal/High
Marking - Zonal/Man-marking/offside-trap/custom (man-marking CBs & a sweeper) etc
Off the ball - Aggressive closing down/standing off/tucking in defenders to form compact defense etc
On the ball - Build up Play/Rapid transitions through sweeper/Basic & risk-free passing to midfield etc

Midfield
...

Attack
...

Specific Tactical Manoeuvres

Diagrams, gifs or in depth explanations of certain moves - wing-men swapping/false 9 dropping deep to form triangles/wide midfielder tucking in etc

I like this idea because

- we won't all have the same boring tactical system with only one CF with a few exceptions
- it brings a little bit of History of the Game.
- it rewards the managers who tries to build the best team instead of the one who just accumulates big names.

If someone plays in a Total Football configuration, then he would have a good starting point here:

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/reserves-draft-downcast-6-7-tuppet.416598/

Other ideas if needed

4-4-2 Liverpool (Paisley, Fagan) --- 81/85
2-3-5 River Plate -- 41/47
4-2-4 Celtic Glasgow the 'Lisbon Lions' -- 67
5-2-3 Milan Ac - 63/69

I guess the idea to make a draw to attribute the 16 tactical set-ups to the 16 managers.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Don't like the 1975 DoB cut off. Better as all time. Maybe add stipulation that no member of the original team could feature in the re-creation. Excellent idea though.

 

[Enigma_87]

I think if we have a DoB cut off it would make sense to have systems that are comparable to the time frame from which the cut off is valid. For example if we have a cut off at 75, we can put systems from 95 and onward like Mourinho's Chelsea, Del Bosque Real Madrid, Fergie's 4-4-2 etc...

 

[Šjor Bepo]

i like the original idea + its been a long time since we played a draft with modern players. We can then make a sequel and create a draft with modern formation and old players.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Don't like the 1975 DoB cut off. Better as all time. Maybe add stipulation that no member of the original team could feature in the re-creation. Excellent idea though.

Yeah, we thought of going with an all-time draft whilst blocking players who featured in the team or in the same school of tactics - Rijkaard/Gullit for Total Football for example but like Chester & Gio aptly stated, it can become descend into a clusterfeck really fast, as it's hard to be absolute with the rules and police them and there will be quite a few controversial picks - who are just in the team for their individual quality as opposed to their tactical fit.

We then decided to go with the modern DOB cut off date, to put some distance between the tactical set-ups and the player pool - firstly because it would be interesting to see 'alien' players (whose eras would be quite distant from those when these set-ups were influential) fitting into these systems and ultimately, it would also increase the difficulty in recreating the specific set-up and also pave way for some interesting teams. Catenaccio would be fairly easy to replicate with a plethora of teams using less drastic but man-marking systems back then. Likewise, you could very well nab a few Germans/Russians from that era for your Total Footballing side and 'easily' create an excellent side for what it's worth. Less room for your own input and interpretation as such imo.

Think a DOB is crucial in adhering to the key facet of the theme - tactical chemistry over personnel quality. We've also ensured a better balance is maintained by pushing back the date to 1975 (the initial one was 1980) with a few more quality players squeaking in for what it's worth.

Other ideas if needed

4-4-2 Liverpool (Paisley, Fagan) --- 81/85
2-3-5 River Plate -- 41/47
4-2-4 Celtic Glasgow the 'Lisbon Lions' -- 67
5-2-3 Milan Ac - 63/69

La Maquina is a fantastic shout, will add that to the list.

I think if we have a DoB cut off it would make sense to have systems that are comparable to the time frame from which the cut off is valid. For example if we have a cut off at 75, we can put systems from 95 and onward like Mourinho's Chelsea, Del Bosque Real Madrid, Fergie's 4-4-2 etc...

Cut off was players born after 1975 as there are more interesting and diverse systems in the older era imo. Player familiarity also helps with visualising their roles and the side as a whole better, as we (and voters) should be relatively better informed on the modern player pool. We could have an inverse draft later on, like Sjor suggested though.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

shall we make a list for @Joga Bonito draft?

 

[Tuppet]

shall we make a list for @Joga Bonito draft?

yeah, think there is plenty of interest. I am in btw.

 

[Joga Bonito]

shall we make a list for @Joga Bonito draft?

The draft committee is in the process of making and finalising the rules. We should have the draft by sometime next week or sooner if possible.


Meanwhile let's get the sign-up sheet rolling

1) Sjor Bepo
2) Tuppet

People who've voiced interest or posted in between

@Physiocrat
@DavidG
@Pat_Mustard
@Edgar Allan Pillow
@Downcast

Please refer to the content on post 1474 (subject to change) for the gist of the draft.

Also a few things to keep in mind before sign-up,

1) Tactical set-ups will be randomly allocated to managers
2) As a tribute to historically great and influential classic systems, the tactical systems have to be replicated/recreated on a strict basis, with the core ideology of the system remaining intact, and only the personnel fits is left to the manager's interpretation. No tactical tweaks/variations allowed. Managers would have their own unique input into their respective sides, with their very own unique selection of players, which should make for some intriguing and thought-provoking discussions
3) Draft matches would be decided based on who has crafted/recreated the more coherent and cohesive tactical set-up and not who might win in a fantasy encounter.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Tagging other managers

@crappycraperson
@harms
@The Stain
@Skizzo
@Enigma_87

 

[Joga Bonito]

@Marty1968
@P-Nut0712
@green_smiley
@VivaJanuzaj
@MJJ

 

[Joga Bonito]

@Invictus
@diarm
@RedTiger
@Isotope
@NM

 

[Joga Bonito]

@Cutch
@BBRBB
@ctp
@The Red Viper
@MDFC Manager

 

[Joga Bonito]

@Theon
@NoPace
@Raees
@Stobzilla
@PedroMendez


Sorry if I left out anyone

 

[Joga Bonito]

@Fortitude
@Brwned
@Kazi
@Mani

 

[MJJ]

Put me down as a reserve, will confirm participation after seeing the criteria.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

happy to play

 

[The Stain]

No thanks, not after the shambles of a draft the last one was. I know the voters were voting against Aldo and not me but still. #inaldoshonor

 

[NoPace]

I'm interested. Post-1975 born players mean I'll have actual opinions on them.

Seems like this exercise, in the real world, would be the job of a director of football choosing players for a manager with a specific plan, so maybe instead of match threads just a top to bottom vote, like a job interview for another mythical director of football job we're all competing for.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

Love the idea of having a pre-determined formation to base your players on. Will they be assigned randomly or will the first draft pick essentially be picking what formation one wants? apologies if thats already been covered just been skimming through

 

[Šjor Bepo]

1) Sjor Bepo
2) Tuppet
3) DavidG
4) NoPace?
5) P-Nut0712

 

[Balu]

Love the idea of having a pre-determined formation to base your players on. Will they be assigned randomly or will the first draft pick essentially be picking what formation one wants? apologies if thats already been covered just been skimming through

We discussed both options but decided that it'll be more fun to randomly allocate the tactics instead of letting the managers pick one. Joga had it in his post as well:

1) Tactical set-ups will be randomly allocated to managers

So you can end up with tactics from the 30's up to the 90's. You won't know until after the draw.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

We discussed both options but decided that it'll be more fun to randomly allocate the tactics instead of letting the managers pick one. Joga had it in his post as well:


So you can end up with tactics from the 30's up to the 90's. You won't know until after the draw.

roger.

Any chance of making the cut off 1973 so I can at least attempt to draft zanetti?

 

[Balu]

Any chance of making the cut off 1973 so I can at least attempt to draft zanetti?

. Nope.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Any chance of making the cut off 1973 so I can at least attempt to draft zanetti?

Nope, sorry. The 1975 was the ideal cut-off point, given some of more relatively recent set-ups in the list. The cut-off was initially planned to be 1980 but we've decided to push it back to 1975 to just widen the player pool a wee bit more.

 

[Enigma_87]

Sounds like fun idea but I'm not sure I fully understand the premise behind the drafting.

For example total football is an ideology rather than a system on its own. Yes, it resembles 4-3-3, but it's very fluid system with interchanging roles. It could easily change to 4-1-3-2 or you can make it 4-2-3-1 with the DPL next to the more defensive box to box midfielder and the "central winger" in the #10 position.

I don't think you can define it into a straight 4-3-3. It's very difficult to replicate in modern time as you have to have a team of 10 versatile players(like 10 Alaba's and 1 Messi in the false nine) but in the same time a system based on triangular play and every player covering for his team mate when he moves forward(or back) is hard to define as a plain 4-3-3. You can easily depict it even as a diamond or the modern alternatives, or even the mighty Magyars 3-2-5.

In other words we have some systems that are pretty easily to replicate (especially the modern ones) and some that are very hard to do so given that most of the born in 75 and after will not give you the same versatility as for example players like Neeskens, Zebec, Cruyff, etc.

Probably that system has to be restricted to have a false 9(Cruyff) a DLP and high defensive line, but other than that it's pretty fluid and up to the manager to decide the actual depiction of the formation.

 

[Physiocrat]

I'm out as I'm examining A-level papers. Will though keep a close watch on proceedings.

 

[P-Nut]

I'm in.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

I'm in.

Are you gonna get me lynched from this too!?

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Are you gonna get me lynched from this too!?

Already admitting to being a wolf?

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Sounds like fun idea but I'm not sure I fully understand the premise behind the drafting.

For example total football is an ideology rather than a system on its own. Yes, it resembles 4-3-3, but it's very fluid system with interchanging roles. It could easily change to 4-1-3-2 or you can make it 4-2-3-1 with the DPL next to the more defensive box to box midfielder and the "central winger" in the #10 position.

I don't think you can define it into a straight 4-3-3. It's very difficult to replicate in modern time as you have to have a team of 10 versatile players(like 10 Alaba's and 1 Messi in the false nine) but in the same time a system based on triangular play and every player covering for his team mate when he moves forward(or back) is hard to define as a plain 4-3-3. You can easily depict it even as a diamond or the modern alternatives, or even the mighty Magyars 3-2-5.

In other words we have some systems that are pretty easily to replicate (especially the modern ones) and some that are very hard to do so given that most of the born in 75 and after will not give you the same versatility as for example players like Neeskens, Zebec, Cruyff, etc.

Probably that system has to be restricted to have a false 9(Cruyff) a DLP and high defensive line, but other than that it's pretty fluid and up to the manager to decide the actual depiction of the formation.

That's a major issue and one which has to be ironed out somewhat more.

However, each manager will be given a blueprint of one kind or another - so it will be more definite/specific than simply "total football".

 

[Balu]

In other words we have some systems that are pretty easily to replicate (especially the modern ones) and some that are very hard to do so given that most of the born in 75 and after will not give you the same versatility as for example players like Neeskens, Zebec, Cruyff, etc.

All the tactics/teams we choose will be unique in a way and interesting to replicate. And yes, if you draw a total football team, you need to find versatile players to pull it off. But there are more than enough in the playerpool. Cruyff is a bit of a problem, but finding similar players to Neeskens or Zebec isn't a big problem (in terms of style, of course in terms of quality they're rare but that's not the main focus of this draft). I could think of various players from the playerpool who could play Neeskens' role in a total football theme. Again not as well as Neeskens did, but none of the teams will be as great as the original sides we're trying to rebuild anyway.