Sheep draft - Stobzilla vs kps88
- Thread starter Balu
- Start date
Edited.
I could easily say the same for my team.
There's not going to be chances galore or glaring overloads at this level; both teams are too well balanced and organized for that. For me, it comes down to being able to capitalize the most when chances do pop up. It just so happens my best route to goal is more direct than yours. If Del Piero or Eto'o get away, it's a shot on goal. If you overload against Carboni, Robben is naturally shown onto his right and, best case scenario, it's a cross from either him or Stankovic which I'd expect Cannavaro-Bergomi to deal with.
And this is a bit dead, huh? I swear it was like this the last time I played Stobz as well. At least he's not drunk though
...... yet.
I don't even care that Careca has an errant arrow.
"Get it to Robben... Careca .... Back post lad."
"Get it to Robben... Careca .... Back post lad."
Can't you just take a look at whatever the difference is, and change it for them?
done.
Problem for Stobzilla is that both teams are playing very similar systems, and kps has the edge man for man.
This isn't just related to this thread, but Blanc is comfortably one of the most underrated players from that decade. He was every bit as good as Desailly in terms of ability.
Anyway, too close to call this one I think. Love the look of Kps's midfield base with Redondo/Tigana, it's the type of set up I usually go for when looking at these things. It lacks a pure holder but I don't see that as a significant issue and prefer it when Redondo is given that remit.
Laudrup is the best player on the park though and it's not hard to imagine him slipping passes through to Robben as the Dutchman cuts inside.
Two really good sides and I don't think there is many flaws for either.
Anyway, too close to call this one I think. Love the look of Kps's midfield base with Redondo/Tigana, it's the type of set up I usually go for when looking at these things. It lacks a pure holder but I don't see that as a significant issue and prefer it when Redondo is given that remit.
Laudrup is the best player on the park though and it's not hard to imagine him slipping passes through to Robben as the Dutchman cuts inside.
Two really good sides and I don't think there is many flaws for either.
After more drinking and less thinking, I've gone for Stobz here.
With Cerezo and Ince, his defence is as solid as it could get. Don't think Blanc is any kind of weakness here.
With Redondo and Tigana, kps88 will have the advantage over midfield and maybe a edge in possession, but I think in a quick counter Carboni would not be enough to stop a Laudrup to Robben pass.
Not much, but just so slim.
With Cerezo and Ince, his defence is as solid as it could get. Don't think Blanc is any kind of weakness here.
With Redondo and Tigana, kps88 will have the advantage over midfield and maybe a edge in possession, but I think in a quick counter Carboni would not be enough to stop a Laudrup to Robben pass.
Not much, but just so slim.
No disrespect to KPS, because he has a great team...but a bit surprised Stobz is losing this one. Think his team is well crafted, and can see it posing much more of a threat, rather than the other way around.
Maybe it's my bias to Charles
Was just thinking about this. Anyone knows why the a vote by a fellow manager counts for 2 rule scrapped or ignored after EAP's draft?
Personally thought it was a good one as it helped overcome some of these problems. Esp since fellow managers have followed the drafting process and have a general idea about the lesser known players in other teams or at least make an effort to.
Also helps with the overwhelming impact of teams which just have big names and aren't so cohesive overall, as most managers tend to look at it from a tactical perspective and generally provide the reasoning behind their vote instead of just voting for the 'bigger' team.
Obviously some are against it and I'm not downplaying the non manager voting pool. There are many really knowledgeable ones out there but I think on average, a fellow manager puts more thought into a vote rather than a 'scan' voter. At least I hope so. Lots of sweeping generalisations in there but it's just my opinion.
@Stobzilla I love the changes
Back on point, though, I'm surprised kps' team is this far ahead. I honestly thought that it would be closer than this, but oh well.
Unless we have a miraculous comeback, good game @kps88.
Back on point, though, I'm surprised kps' team is this far ahead. I honestly thought that it would be closer than this, but oh well.
Unless we have a miraculous comeback, good game @kps88.
No disrespect to KPS, because he has a great team...but a bit surprised Stobz is losing this one. Think his team is well crafted, and can see it posing much more of a threat, rather than the other way around.
Maybe it's my bias to Charles
It is something I have noticed as well. I guess the lesser-known players aren't as appreciated as the better-known ones. I also think that we could have done more with providing profiles for those players, though some will remain forever underrated.
I piloted that rule for this reason and thought it worked splendidly. Though it would have buried me this game, I feel it should become a draft standard.
As Joga says, the managers will be more knowledgeable about the particular players on display, having followed the drafting process. It's not a question of underestimating the so-called scan voters (many of whom are no doubt very knowledgeable) as much as it is common sense: It's obvious that a random voter who swings by won't have as good an idea about what manager X is going for, his players (some of whom may be relatively obscure) and so forth - as a fellow manager, who has seen the teams take shape, step by step.
So, yes - why not make it a draft standard? I don't see any huge downside to it. At worst it makes no difference, at best it does provide a counterweight to complete random/uninformed votes.
I too am in favour of the rule.
I agree, and I'm pretty much any manager/AM will be happy with this idea as well. Plus, the managers would have done more research into the players selected, so they wouldn't be unsure over some of the more obscure picks in the draft.
Like the switch, would have avoided the arrow orgy as it got a bit lost at first sight.OK. Slight tactical switch.
Stankovich tucks in to make himself an auxillary RCB type of RB, another role he was comfortable in. We may lose something going forward on occasion but it limits how productive Del Piero and Eto'o (the main threat) can be.
@Balu
This helps deal with my primary concern, and this game should be closer to a tie so voting accordingly.
Seconded (or fifthed?).
The manager votes was something I thought about... But not until after the first match started. At that point I didn't want to try and implement it again since it may cause problems if one game was already underway, or finished etc.
Wow, just saw @Damien has voted. Is this the first time you are voting in a draft match? Any words of wisdom from the mighty modmins on the playing teams, Damo?
In favor. I've also thought of another way to play, that I saw on another site. In that, there were no "matches", but teams were simply rated, 1-16, quarters 1-8 etc.. That always results in the best advancing. It takes away some of the drama though!
Aye - plus, I reckon you lose the aspect of the thing which I personally like best, namely the player discussions which revolve around particular, realistic situations and constellations on the pitch.
Seems to me that the team rating system would be even more vulnerable to pure "name rating", if you know what I mean. Count the GOATs and vote, er...no rhyme intended.
It wasn't an indirect dig at you or anything, before you get me wrong. It was more of why the following two drafts after EAP's excellent draft, failed to follow up with that rule. Perhaps it slipped their minds but more importantly, I want to know if there is anyone against it.
Anyway lets not derail this match thread. We can always discuss it before the next draft begins in the draft ideas thread, just like we did the peak definition discussion before this.
What I saw was a little different. It saw the defense/midfield/attack rated as units, which kind of eliminated the name power a little bit. I'm ok with this, but I hate getting into a match with say antohan or EAP, because it will be lots of bullshit. They are good at it and enjoy it - fair play to them.. I simply don't.
Moved here:
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/ide...aying-out-matches.393557/page-9#post-17038167
(Not to derail this thread).
@NM
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/ide...aying-out-matches.393557/page-9#post-17038167
(Not to derail this thread).
@NM
Last edited:
I think this is the first time every team I vote for seems to lose - Stobz, NoPace, even Raees.
same thing is happening to me. I've voted for every loser!!
It's really boring. Aldo used to play a lot there and brought ideas such as the sheep draft but when I asked him about it he wouldn't entertain it at all. Absolutely hated that system.
Very much so, because you aren't really comparing Team vs. Team with its ups and downs but relative standing among 16 which is necessarily more generic and shiny name-based.
Yeah what's the point of drafting football teams when you're not even going to play against each other
AFAIK only crappy is against it. His being one of the following two drafts didn't help continuity.