I think Balu's assessment is accurate. I really dislike the idea of putting too much emphasize on their "big game ability". In my eyes I assume the player will perform at an average level of the "peak" we are looking at. Zidane in the WC draft would perform an average of his best tournaments all matches included - not just the big matches he stepped up in.
For me the only time it matters if someone is a big match player is if the match is incredibly even and I can't see a clear winner. Then I give all the credit in the world to a big game-player and would probably be almost certain to vote for them over abstaining to vote.
In terms of deciding who to vote for;
1. Evaluate how well the players are suited for their roles and teammates.
2. Evaluate which tactic, with these players and match-ups, would have the tactical advantage.
3. If it is still even, who has the ability to perform above/below the level I gave them credit for?(Big match players time to shine)
Can be any player in any position too.
For me the only time it matters if someone is a big match player is if the match is incredibly even and I can't see a clear winner. Then I give all the credit in the world to a big game-player and would probably be almost certain to vote for them over abstaining to vote.
In terms of deciding who to vote for;
1. Evaluate how well the players are suited for their roles and teammates.
2. Evaluate which tactic, with these players and match-ups, would have the tactical advantage.
3. If it is still even, who has the ability to perform above/below the level I gave them credit for?(Big match players time to shine)
Can be any player in any position too.