Next Draft - Ideas and Discussions

Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Announce publicly, unless you can prevent anyone from picking him in the snake order. Would just cause delays in someone picks a hidden player and needs to re-pick again.

And no double dip. Let's keep it even for all.
Click to expand...

All 16 players will be placed on the block list so there wont be any delays.....as for double dip, you will have 100+ on the block list so if you guess the player after 5 or 6 picks you did something special and your reward is crap compared to what you did.
@mazhar13 and edgar, crap it looks like its not in the rules, i had the whole post on 3 separate places and was editing while committee was having discussions so i guess i edited the wrong post. No teammates of central figure allowed thats final, it makes it a lot more tricky and fun, will add that.

As for subs, i used the remake template so i just used what they used....i can change it if majority wants a change not a big deal.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Wasn't the same for the remake draft?

Think if you do get criticized for the use of your best player a sub later on would be too late to recuperate anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't think it needs to be a criticism. It could be minor enhancements like, CBs or CMs can be swapped. arrow on FB can be removed etc. It's not really important, but I just don't see the necessity to ban that.
 
Šjor Bepo said:
@mazhar13 and edgar, crap it looks like its not in the rules, i had the whole post on 3 separate places and was editing while committee was having discussions so i guess i edited the wrong post.
Click to expand...

Well, amend it to include and post a final version again.

It's your draft after all and your call should be final irrespective of discussions above.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Well, amend it to include and post a final version again.

It's your draft after all and your call should be final irrespective of discussions above.
Click to expand...

there is still time until the final version(second SF of the current draft) so im just gathering your thoughts and ideas.
Btw what you think about group stage idea?
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
I don't think it needs to be a criticism. It could be minor enhancements like, CBs or CMs can be swapped. arrow on FB can be removed etc. It's not really important, but I just don't see the necessity to ban that.
Click to expand...
yeah, probably on that account you are on to something - like putting an arrow to show the player movement etc.

Edgar Allan Pillow said:
I'm not clear on what is proposed. If it's something like ranking team without matches (like recent Sheep draft), I'm dead against it.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. There could be 12 hour poll or something if it takes a lot of time for initial rounds, but always in favor for games rather than rank it based on numbers.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
I'm not clear on what is proposed. If it's something like ranking team without matches (like recent Sheep draft), I'm dead against it. Can you explain what you have in mind?
Click to expand...

that :lol:
It solves the problem though,you quickly get rid of the weak links, think both you and chester had concerns how other tactical areas wont be as important nor will player quality be important(and you can only get there if you assume people dont to a good job). So in QF everyone should have a very good team so other 2 areas becomes important.
Im still in favor of "normal" matches where you rate tactical fits rather then the outcome of the game but that group stage thing isnt a bad idea if you have the concerns you guys have.
 
Šjor Bepo said:
that :lol:
It solves the problem though,you quickly get rid of the weak links, think both you and chester had concerns how other tactical areas wont be as important nor will player quality be important(and you can only get there if you assume people dont to a good job). So in QF everyone should have a very good team so other 2 areas becomes important.
Im still in favor of "normal" matches where you rate tactical fits rather then the outcome of the game but that group stage thing isnt a bad idea if you have the concerns you guys have.
Click to expand...

Despite the arguments in the Sheep draft, Stain/anto had it easy as # of sheep was a easy criteria to identify the weak teams. It'd be far more difficult to get a 'weaker' side in a Snake draft.

There's always noise on need to refresh match formats, but unless we have a implementable proposal it is what it is. Recently I build teams for my liking and not to win, but still I'd rather lose in a match than getting ranked out.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Despite the arguments in the Sheep draft, Stain/anto had it easy as # of sheep was a easy criteria to identify the weak teams. It'd be far more difficult to get a 'weaker' side in a Snake draft.

There's always noise on need to refresh match formats, but unless we have a implementable proposal it is what it is. Recently I build teams for my liking and not to win, but still I'd rather lose in a match than getting ranked out.
Click to expand...
It was the worst idea to have ever entered a draft, by far.
 
I get the general idea of weeding out obvious crap teams without having to put up pointless matches - and I'm always in favour of trying something else every now and then.

However, the above looks better on paper than it did in reality.

Also, I don't quite see how these CBs and whatnot (players who are neither here nor there when it comes to judging how well the star man has been used) will work if people (and voters) aren't supposed to consider them. This will be true for the latter stages as well, surely?

I mean, we aren't supposed to vote out 8 teams based on overall appearance - and then have q-fs where nothing but the star man thing is considered? That would be crazy. So, people will presumably vote out the 8 who have done the worst job based on the star man thing - in which case it's theoretically possible that the 8 most poorly constructed back lines make it into the q-fs.

I'm probably missing something here. But it seems to me that if you aren't supposed to consider player quality, only tactical suitability, the managers will - necessarily - be fielding several players who are without any interest whatsoever.

It would be a huge stretch to claim that Generic Stopper 1 is a worse tactical fit for Star No 10 than Generic Stopper 2 - unless one argues, generally, that having a first rate defence will benefit any player in some way or other (but that seems like a different discussion).
 
I agree with you chester, the group stage idea was only even considered because we were trying to find a solutions for the ever mentioned problem.
Chesterlestreet said:
It would be a huge stretch to claim that Generic Stopper 1 is a worse tactical fit for Star No 10 than Generic Stopper 2 - unless one argues, generally, that having a first rate defence will benefit any player in some way or other (but that seems like a different discussion).
Click to expand...

Obviously CB will be less important at first stage of rating the team as they have little to do with offensive players but what im trying to say is that they are not meaningless.
When 2 teams are really close and you cant decide who did a better job then you look other tactical angles, pairings etc. and after that if both teams are close you look at quality of the players. On paper it might look that those positions are not important but when you take into considerations how well were remake teams built those positions will be very important and player quality in general, specially after the first round.
 
If the players are quite similar in quality then I see no problem in having regular matches.

The rest of the pool is significantly weaker than the player you get given at the start so if someone manages to get more or less out of their gifted player is most likely going to be what decides the match.
 
Šjor Bepo said:
Obviously CB will be less important at first stage of rating the team as they have little to do with offensive players but what im trying to say is that they are not meaningless.
Click to expand...

This is where it gets too vague. It's very difficult to break down a team into pieces and just compare 2 parts ignoring the whole.

Assuming you are providing attacking players for the build, every single teams will go for attacking players in earlier rounds and rest of the positions will get ignored completely. The first 32 or even 48 players will predominantly be strikers and wingers. It will be a very imbalanced draft. I think this takes away much from having multiple strategies (some depedning on sweeper/midfielders etc) and most teams get shoehorned into the same tactics.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
This is where it gets too vague. It's very difficult to break down a team into pieces and just compare 2 parts ignoring the whole.

Assuming you are providing attacking players for the build, every single teams will go for attacking players in earlier rounds and rest of the positions will get ignored completely. The first 32 or even 48 players will predominantly be strikers and wingers. It will be a very imbalanced draft. I think this takes away much from having multiple strategies (some depedning on sweeper/midfielders etc) and most teams get shoehorned into the same tactics.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is my problem.

Say I get a flying winger and want to leave him sat on the last line of defence. A sweeper to spray the ball over could be key but wouldn't draw as many votes as a silky AM using the current theme
 
Moby said:
I don't about stars but each of those great teams would have won sweet feckall without him.


And that needs to change, absolute rubbish. As far as his contribution to the team goes it's technical offensive brilliance (dribbling, control at pace, vision, link up play, goalscoring), physicality and then work rate. He didn't win the Ballon D'or in THAT era because he was able to cover more ground than others!

There was a period in the late-’80s when Ruud rivalled Diego Maradona as the world’s best player, and in virtually any position – centre half, winger, centre-midfield or up front. But for injuries, Ruud would’ve achieved even more than he did.” — Ronald Koeman

Gullit was a legend. He was more powerful than Van Basten, so it was almost impossible to get the ball from him. But he had a different style, and was Van Basten’s perfect partner: every coach’s dream is to have a technical player partnered with a physical one.” — Gheorghe Hagi

“Ruud Gullit is a great player by any standards. He has all the skills. He’s not afraid to do things with the ball. And he looks as if he’s enjoying every second of it. By my reckoning that’s what makes him an even better player than Maradona. Both have the key quality you will find in all the best players: balance. You just can’t knock them off the ball. It was the same with Pele, Beckenbauer and Cruyff.” — George Best

You know what, scrap the random allocation. I'm calling dibs on my man right now!
Click to expand...
You got Blokhin.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
This is where it gets too vague. It's very difficult to break down a team into pieces and just compare 2 parts ignoring the whole.

Assuming you are providing attacking players for the build, every single teams will go for attacking players in earlier rounds and rest of the positions will get ignored completely. The first 32 or even 48 players will predominantly be strikers and wingers. It will be a very imbalanced draft. I think this takes away much from having multiple strategies (some depedning on sweeper/midfielders etc) and most teams get shoehorned into the same tactics.
Click to expand...

tbf its only CBs(as wingers connect fullbacks) and even those are not in every case as some will maybe have to build a 3 man defence....
and its imposible that everyone will be shoehorned in the same system, if that happens you all fecked up not us. Everyone has a different player to build around so we should see a decent variety of tactics and formations which would also mean different tactics in the drafting process
 
I dont know it seems to me that you guys are making this way more complicating then it actually is. I mean how do you compare two teams(and people are doing that since football started), first you see who is the main player of that team and where does he stands to his counter part, after that you are looking if the team is getting the best out of him or not and then you watch other things as the other players qualities, tactical pairings, fits etc.
 
The main problem for me is that it gets - as EAP said above - too vague.

Consider the star player in light of how well he'd connect with X number of players around him - no problem.

Judge the team as such (including those players who aren't factors in the star player equation) in cases where there's nothing between the managers as far as the star man equation is concerned - much more problematic. And for several reasons:

* There could be many tight matches in terms of how well the managers have done with their star man. So you could end up doing this secondary assessment all the time.

* The secondary factor is radically different from the first. If you are to meaningfully separate the teams on the whole, you almost certainly have to consider player quality - which means that part re-enters the picture. If not, you could draft any old dross and claim - rightly too - that your defence as such, or your CB pairing (and GK) as such, makes sense, i.e. that it isn't poorly constructed (just a bit shite compared to the other guy).

* It seems inevitable that nobody will go after non-crucial parts of the equation until they've sorted the actual star man equation - which could easily, as suggested above, lead to a bit of an odd drafting dynamic. (Which could be fun, by all means - that shouldn't be overlooked).

I don't mean to sound overly negative here, @Šjor Bepo - it's just that I essentially agree with EAP and P-Nut: I think you can get an interesting draft going, with the basic theme intact, without insisting on the remake style format.
 
I love the discussion @Chesterlestreet, thats why i went early with rules so we can all discuss it together, keep up the good work :)

There could be many tight matches in terms of how well the managers have done with their star man. So you could end up doing this secondary assessment all the time.
Click to expand...

Thats a good thing IMO, and it should be seen as a good thing from you guys as well as then there are no less important parts of the team.

The secondary factor is radically different from the first. If you are to meaningfully separate the teams on the whole, you almost certainly have to consider player quality - which means that part re-enters the picture. If not, you could draft any old dross and claim - rightly too - that your defence as such, or your CB pairing (and GK) as such, makes sense, i.e. that it isn't poorly constructed (just a bit shite compared to the other guy).
Click to expand...

quality does matter, but only if and when you cant separate the two sides tactically. So unless someone thinks he is Helenio Herrera in the pool of 15 David Moyes characters he should absolutely target the best player available that fit his team.

It seems inevitable that nobody will go after non-crucial parts of the equation until they've sorted the actual star man equation - which could easily, as suggested above, lead to a bit of an odd drafting dynamic. (Which could be fun, by all means - that shouldn't be overlooked).
Click to expand...

With that i cant argue, it is what it is but it might be fun as you said(to me it would as id love the drafting part even if we picked position after position)....but as i said, its only CBs that will be pushed a bit down in pecking order so its not that bad actually.
 
Gio said:
I think there's mileage in that concept.
Click to expand...

Yes, it could be tried at some point.

Could go down different routes:

1. The water carrier model, where you get the non-shiny parts of historical teams, and add whatever you like to that.

2. You simply get half the team, including shinier parts - and then complete it, ending up with something like a variation on the original theme (you will probably keep the basic tactics and such, and add players who could work well within the given setup). Could lead to some interesting teams.

Would take some work getting the balance right, and would probably be a draft best run by a commitee.
 
Enigma_87 said:
@Šjor Bepo out of curiosity what level of a star man are we looking at? More Laudrup or more like Hagi for example?
Click to expand...

id say leaning towards Laudrup, its a pool of players that are either very rarely used for some reason or when they are used they are "forced" into the side rather then having a major role in the team.
 
Šjor Bepo said:
id say leaning towards Laudrup, its a pool of players that are either very rarely used for some reason or when they are used they are "forced" into the side rather then having a major role in the team.
Click to expand...
I'd say Hagi based on that same definition. Players that usually get ill-fitted when they deserve better. Should be fun to draft, research, get to grips with them and work out what makes the team tick, etc.

The post-draft challenge is that the nuances will likely be lost on a scan voter so, while the basic premise is rewarding an accomplished setup, there's no escaping the fact that if you field Cygan and Henchoz in defence you will probably lose.

Let's put it this way: most will vote for a winner but regulars should focus on the star setup so just keep it balanced.

It's not rocket science.
 
Šjor Bepo said:
id say leaning towards Laudrup, its a pool of players that are either very rarely used for some reason or when they are used they are "forced" into the side rather then having a major role in the team.
Click to expand...
antohan said:
I'd say Hagi based on that same definition. Players that usually get ill-fitted when they deserve better. Should be fun to draft, research, get to grips with them and work out what makes the team tick, etc.

The post-draft challenge is that the nuances will likely be lost on a scan voter so, while the basic premise is rewarding an accomplished setup, there's no escaping the fact that if you field Cygan and Henchoz in defence you will probably lose.

Let's put it this way: most will vote for a winner but regulars should focus on the star setup so just keep it balanced.

It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...

Sounds good either way. I don't recall someone building a side around Laudrup and he absolutely deserves it.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Sounds good either way. I don't recall someone building a side around Laudrup and he absolutely deserves it.
Click to expand...
I tried in the All-Time one player per country draft. He was my R1 pick.

Unfortunately, back then you picked reinforcements from your rival got matchups against Pelé and Maradona instead of the ones I wanted to pick (Romario and Messi) so he ended up on the bench when the idea was to build a Dream Team (without the draft-suicide back three) around him.

All-Time-formation-tactics.png


A much better side than the one that won the final.

648072_Championship_Manager_Team.jpg
 
antohan said:
I tried in the All-Time one player per country draft. He was my R1 pick.

Unfortunately, back then you picked reinforcements from your rival got matchups against Pelé and Maradona instead of the ones I wanted to pick (Romario and Messi) so he ended up on the bench when the idea was to build a Dream Team (without the draft-suicide back three) around him.

All-Time-formation-tactics.png


A much better side than the one that won the final.
Click to expand...

That would be spot on dream team attack with the inclusion of Messi and Rijkaard/Beckenbauer balancing it out. Would love to see them going forward with that defensive/midfield base and Messi to top it.
 
harms said:
Yeah. I also noticed that Dassaev performs better when you put additional "s" in his name
Click to expand...
It's the way it was spelt in my Mexico 86 Panini mate. I only came across Dasayev later.

Now you have me wondering, what is the correct one?
 
antohan said:
It's the way it was spelt in my Mexico 86 Panini mate. I only came across Dasayev later.

Now you have me wondering, what is the correct one?
Click to expand...
To be honest, I don't know. Probably with one - at least in Russian it's "Дасаев".
 
Enigma_87 said:
Right up there with the Bessonov/Bezsonov all time conundrum.
Click to expand...
Nope. This one is based on two different languages (Bessonov in Russian, Bezsonov in Ukrainian).

While Dasaev - I don't really know. Probably still with one s, as I don't see the reason of doind otherwise (considering that there is no such conundrum in Russian)
 
Downcast said:
No update regarding the rules?
Click to expand...

I have the final version but reckon no point of posting as final is yet to be played....we changed most things that got suggested(not all) so everything is ready and waiting.
 
Skizzo said:
Count me in for it mate :)
Click to expand...

Will open the thread tomorrow after final so just confirm it there :) Same goes for everybody that applied here for the draft, spots are reserved but please confirm in the main thread as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.