I'd wait until drafting is done then rank them. It should give you a few days before the first game
Next Draft - Ideas and Discussions
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
I'd wait until drafting is done then rank them. It should give you a few days before the first game
Yes, I'll order them as they get picked and by the end will have them scored 1-16.
We all add our scores and only need to discuss those that draw on aggregate (or bump the one with the lowest of the highest individual score out of them to make it argument-free).
That's what I thought, I always go on what I know and don't research much at all. With a certain criteria, fine, it's a laugh, but don't want to go deep in the intricacies of where each player played and who with over their entire careers.
67-87 DRAFT
1. Tuppet
2. Aldo/prath92
3. Downcast
4. Joga Bonito
5. Physio
6. Gio
7. Mazhar/Enigma
8. OneNil
9. Raees/Invictus
10. P-Nut
11. VivaJanuzaj
12. Skizzo
13. DavidG
14. Pat Mustard
15
16
AM List: Šjor
Goalkeeping Council: harms, Antohan, Green Smiley, Balu
1. Tuppet
2. Aldo/prath92
3. Downcast
4. Joga Bonito
5. Physio
6. Gio
7. Mazhar/Enigma
8. OneNil
9. Raees/Invictus
10. P-Nut
11. VivaJanuzaj
12. Skizzo
13. DavidG
14. Pat Mustard
15
16
AM List: Šjor
Goalkeeping Council: harms, Antohan, Green Smiley, Balu
Great
Keeping the list secret until a draw will make it more interesting. Also it would be interesting to see the entire list after the final.
67-87 DRAFT
1. Tuppet
2. Aldo/prath92
3. Downcast
4. Joga Bonito
5. Physio
6. Gio
7. Mazhar/Enigma
8. OneNil
9. Raees/Invictus
10. P-Nut
11. VivaJanuzaj
12. Skizzo
13. DavidG
14. Pat Mustard
15. The Stain
16.
AM List: Šjor.
Goalkeeping Council: harms, Antohan, Green Smiley, Balu.
1. Tuppet
2. Aldo/prath92
3. Downcast
4. Joga Bonito
5. Physio
6. Gio
7. Mazhar/Enigma
8. OneNil
9. Raees/Invictus
10. P-Nut
11. VivaJanuzaj
12. Skizzo
13. DavidG
14. Pat Mustard
15. The Stain
16.
AM List: Šjor.
Goalkeeping Council: harms, Antohan, Green Smiley, Balu.
In between jobs at the moment so I've got a lot of time on my hands to research, so I'll throw my name in as the last man.
67-87 DRAFT
1. Tuppet
2. Aldo/prath92
3. Downcast
4. Joga Bonito
5. Physio
6. Gio
7. Mazhar/Enigma
8. OneNil
9. Raees/Invictus
10. P-Nut
11. VivaJanuzaj
12. Skizzo
13. DavidG
14. Pat Mustard
15. The Stain
16. Bleezy
AM List: Šjor.
Goalkeeping Council: harms, Antohan, Green Smiley, Balu.
67-87 DRAFT
1. Tuppet
2. Aldo/prath92
3. Downcast
4. Joga Bonito
5. Physio
6. Gio
7. Mazhar/Enigma
8. OneNil
9. Raees/Invictus
10. P-Nut
11. VivaJanuzaj
12. Skizzo
13. DavidG
14. Pat Mustard
15. The Stain
16. Bleezy
AM List: Šjor.
Goalkeeping Council: harms, Antohan, Green Smiley, Balu.
Awesome full list. I'll get the main thread set-up after the Vegas Final.
@Edgar Allan Pillow team blunder it is?
Team Blunder it is. Or is Viva Pillow better?
Last edited:
@antohan I'm quite worried about the research needed for it but I'm just going to go with players I know and are quite easy to check out.
Not really worried about the research but unsure as to whether the pool would be deep enough for the Billy no mate rule. It was just about right with the all time pool draft that was done earlier this year. Anyway, it just means more meticulous planning and less shiny players getting a run out, so I don't mind tbh
That was kind of the idea. Trying to limit the number of big names and having more realistic teams.
Fair enough then
That's precisely the issue. Given the DOB constraint they are all players from an era where everyone played in Europe for multiple teams which amassed talent with revolving door policies. I just can't be arsed really as I don't really learn anything particularly interesting in the process.
TBF this DOB range is the hardest one to draft with the No Mates rule because of that. Any earlier DOB range would be quite a bit easier
Whichever you prefer mate
Agreed.
Apart from the difficulty factor, was there any other reason you decided to ditch the earlier DOB cutoff? Personally think the 50s-70s (Mighty Magyars, Brazil 1958-62, catenaccio, Lisbon Lions, wingless wonders, Dutch and German Total Football) was the most interesting and tactically diverse era. Post 70s (after Cruyff's Dutch class), it's all been relatively more linear, with less radical tactical shifts and more specialized set-ups/roles etc imo. With the current cut off, most of Sacchi's men and a fair portion Cruyff's Dream Team don't make it either. Apart from Pep and the Spain side, there hasn't been much interesting/intriguing tactical stuff (the birth and death of 3-5-2 perhaps, but even then most of the playing personnel don't make it here) going on in the current timeline imo.
Oh yeah, 50 to 70 would be so much more interesting thank 67 to 87. Maybe a combination... 6 players each from both eras.
Team Brainfart? You can paint your faces and wear kilts to justify it as so some sort of spoof extravaganza.
The purpose of the draft was to confine the pool to an era so that comparisons would be relatively easier and fairer. Mixing timelines would defeat that. Either we move to an earlier era or stick to the current one. I'd prefer the former myself, obviously.
Indeed, the logic behind the gap is very powerful, and I like how it both ensures they are recent and easy to watch/assess and their careers have panned out enough to gage a defined peak.
The no mates format though fits better with the other earlier era. They are two different drafts, clearly.
Rarely regret going by my instincts. More fun that way, despite obvious loss.
It's not that I ditched the earlier dates I just think they'd work better in another draft to keep them broadly within the same tactical era. Also I like DOB rather than performances in a particular decade because outside say Euros/World Cups it's hard not to be influenced by performances in other time periods.
The other eras based on DOB I'd have would be:
46'-66'
25'-45'
Before '24
Now it is true that the earlier ones have more tactical variations but wanted a more modern draft since we've had quite a lot of All-Time drafts recently
Fire up the thread, the other final is done and dusted.
I tend to agree with the Billy no mates part being a nightmare in this draft. Maybe it should have been 14 different clubs or something to still have the mix but require less research?
That way once you pick one player from United no other player you pick can ever have played for them?
What do you all think?
That way once you pick one player from United no other player you pick can ever have played for them?
What do you all think?
This is a good idea in the right direction but how would you handle players that played for so many clubs? Does the manager pick the club that the player would represent (IE, I pick Breitner and he represents Eintracht Braunschweig) or would there be a simple rule like "Player counts for whatever senior club he played the most years at" (IE, I pick Breitner and he auto represents Bayern Munich).
I do think some modifications on the Billy No Maters rule should be discussed before starting the draft. Personally my goal this draft is to pick two different friend's favorite player in the mid rounds. I haven't even tried to map out all the people each one played with though and any more simple rule I would personally support.
Yeah either route works however in the interest of fairness I'd go with most appearances for a club counts as their club.
Otherwise you would have people using starting clubs to get some of the best players about. Also as most big players end up around the same teams we should still see some more obscure players like what is intended with the Billy no mates rule.
I would agree with this.
@Physiocrat
What do you say about modifying Billy No Mates as P-Nut suggests?
It opens things up a wee bit and makes it less research intense to some degree which is a plus in my opinion.
A team has to be built around 3 or 4 key players and I guess you know very well the first key players you want. After that, the pool is open in the sense that it's almost impossible for a manager to get more than 2 great players per citizenship. The South-America was probably more research intense.
I f I google 'Messi lequipe', I would get:
http://www.lequipe.fr/Football/FootballFicheJoueur21740.html
And if I google 'Cristiano ronaldo lequipe', I would get:
http://www.lequipe.fr/Football/FootballFicheJoueur19316.html
I did need 25 seconds to make sure they have never played together. Nothing complicated
I guess 67-87 was simply intended
1. to get a focus on 'modern players' and avoid battles like Zidane vs matthaus, maradona vs rijkaard... Now, if someone wants to build a Total Football team or a Catenaccio team, he could try to do that with recent players.
2. to avoid teams with proven partnerships: for example, a team with Cole & Yorke. On the other hand, the rules still offer flexibility as it would be possible to get United players like Keane, Falcao, Zlatan part of the same team.
The rule "Player counts for whatever senior club he played the most years at" means it would be possible to get some proven partnerships: Zlatan (PSG or Ajax label?) + Messi (Barcelona label). This rule would give more constraints: it would be impossible to get Zlatan (PSG label?) with David Ginola (PSG label).
I'm not the ruler but here you have my 2 cents!
I f I google 'Messi lequipe', I would get:
http://www.lequipe.fr/Football/FootballFicheJoueur21740.html
And if I google 'Cristiano ronaldo lequipe', I would get:
http://www.lequipe.fr/Football/FootballFicheJoueur19316.html
I did need 25 seconds to make sure they have never played together. Nothing complicated
I guess 67-87 was simply intended
1. to get a focus on 'modern players' and avoid battles like Zidane vs matthaus, maradona vs rijkaard... Now, if someone wants to build a Total Football team or a Catenaccio team, he could try to do that with recent players.
2. to avoid teams with proven partnerships: for example, a team with Cole & Yorke. On the other hand, the rules still offer flexibility as it would be possible to get United players like Keane, Falcao, Zlatan part of the same team.
The rule "Player counts for whatever senior club he played the most years at" means it would be possible to get some proven partnerships: Zlatan (PSG or Ajax label?) + Messi (Barcelona label). This rule would give more constraints: it would be impossible to get Zlatan (PSG label?) with David Ginola (PSG label).
I'm not the ruler but here you have my 2 cents!
I f I google 'Messi lequipe', I would get:
http://www.lequipe.fr/Football/FootballFicheJoueur21740.html
And if I google 'Cristiano ronaldo lequipe', I would get:
http://www.lequipe.fr/Football/FootballFicheJoueur19316.html
I did need 25 seconds to make sure they have never played together. Nothing complicated
Wow, you are a genius lolz
Have I missed another one?
That's fair enough and it's true that the WC and Euros had a lot more weight, or at times being the sole parameter, in the earlier DOB cut-offs. However, with the era being confined to a certain time period, the particular limitations, flaws, playing rules (backpass/offside) or privileges that a certain era carries, are more or less uniformly applied throughout the streamlined batch of players. In the sense that heavily relying on the WC to judge Didi might seem to be unfair, when comparing him to a modern midfielder, whom we have more comprehensive knowledge of. However, doing the same with another midfielder from that particular era or thereabouts (Gerson for example) would be fair, as the WC, Euros (and European Cup) were the bread and butter of these players. Still is, but yeah the point about them having more weight relatively, stands.
28-51 would be quite nice too with the timeline starting with the bulk of the Brazil 1958 4-2-4 free flowing bunch and ending with Cruyff/Beckenbauer's revolutionary total footballing 4-3-3s, with Pele, Beckenbauer, Cruyff, Eusebio etc being included amongst a raft of other midfield and defensive heavyweights. Think the Billy no mate rule would spice things up nicely and not make things easy but not too difficult either.
That being said, I can see the merits of the current timeline too as it would be easier to judge players with more comprehensive information on hand, but it would essentially be a fairly modern draft with fairly modern personnel (whom most of us know about in detail tbf, without much to learn about), without any unique tactical connotations or underlying themes etc. Maybe I'm just being biased towards the older generations, as usual
.I think that someone was happy to give his place up for anyone more interested iirc
@oneniltothearsenal @P-Nut0712
I think Downcast summarises my views quite well. I think we'll end up having four biggish name players and it will then be a task of trying to get the best out of them. It does require quite a bit of research although the All-Time South American took a lot. I spent ages trying to dig info about Guillermo Delgado for ages but couldn't find that much. Now if you try to micro manage your team from the start it could take ages but just using some basic rules of thumb in regards nationality and number of clubs played for I don't think it will be that time consuming. I have a general idea of what I want to do but will be quite reactive because if the wrong player goes the whole chain of picks disappears.
@Joga Bonito
That time period would be great although for the general theme of my draft ideas to spans a too wide a time period and doesn't allow the four time period split. I actually think the 46-66 time period would be the most popular round here but I fancied floating a more modern draft as it spans the time period I watched footbll- mid 90s onwards which I think is the same for many other posters.
I think Downcast summarises my views quite well. I think we'll end up having four biggish name players and it will then be a task of trying to get the best out of them. It does require quite a bit of research although the All-Time South American took a lot. I spent ages trying to dig info about Guillermo Delgado for ages but couldn't find that much. Now if you try to micro manage your team from the start it could take ages but just using some basic rules of thumb in regards nationality and number of clubs played for I don't think it will be that time consuming. I have a general idea of what I want to do but will be quite reactive because if the wrong player goes the whole chain of picks disappears.
@Joga Bonito
That time period would be great although for the general theme of my draft ideas to spans a too wide a time period and doesn't allow the four time period split. I actually think the 46-66 time period would be the most popular round here but I fancied floating a more modern draft as it spans the time period I watched footbll- mid 90s onwards which I think is the same for many other posters.
It's a challenging concept but that's not a bad thing IMO. And having already done much of the prep, it'd be a bit of a pain in the arse if the premise or era changed.
Yeah I understand the idea behind it I'm just thinking with lots of people saying it will be too research intensive wouldn't it be pretty much the same theme just without a lot of the research needed? Still going to have lots of lesser known players compared to the usual drafts.
Agreed. I opted out because the trade off with the kids wasn't worth it, not because the concept needs tweaking.
Just to confirm. The Billy No Mates Rule stays as originally stated.