The Fifth Redcafe Sheep Draft

oneniltothearsenal said:
Its not a loophole though. And in this case it really wouldn't allow any better pairs than we get already (plus not even sure why that is important). It literally just forces us to waste time looking for match line-ups.
Click to expand...

We've had cases before with mates/nomates whereby two players showed up in squads despite not playing together at all (e.g. joined/left at different points, etc). With no evidence you end up having situations where some other manager picks up on that, sometimes after the round is done. It gets very messy very quickly.

I can imagine it being an issue with oldies, but then, it's your choice to go in that direction. Flipside is, the bastard research improves your chances of not being blocked.
 
antohan said:
We've had cases before with mates/nomates whereby two players showed up in squads despite not playing together at all (e.g. joined/left at different points, etc). With no evidence you end up having situations where some other manager picks up on that, sometimes after the round is done. It gets very messy very quickly.

I can imagine it being an issue with oldies, but then, it's your choice to go in that direction. Flipside is, the bastard research improves your chances of not being blocked.
Click to expand...

But you literally said "words matter" :p

The word teammate is literally defined everywhere as simply fellow member of the team.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/teammate
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/teammate

And every single coach I ever had would never say "teammates are only people who shared the same pitch during the same match". Teammates are people on the same team, period. I doubt any captain or coach would ever say an injured player or the worst player on the team is not the "teammate" of the best player on the team simply because they never shared a pitch during a season.

If you want to make the category "Players who shared the same pitch in a match" that is fine but that category is not "teammates". Teammates shared the same team. Its never been a necessary condition for teammates to have played the same match together.

And if you expect us to spend extra time on that research its not unreasonable to expect you to spend a little more time writing accurate category descriptions ;)
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
But you literally said "words matter" :p

The word teammate is literally defined everywhere as simply fellow member of the team.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/teammate
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/teammate

And every single coach I ever had would never say "teammates are only people who shared the same pitch during the same match". Teammates are people on the same team, period. I doubt any captain or coach would ever say an injured player or the worst player on the team is not the "teammate" of the best player on the team simply because they never shared a pitch during a season.

If you want to make the category "Players who shared the same pitch in a match" that is fine but that category is not "teammates". Teammates shared the same team. Its never been a necessary condition for teammates to have played the same match together.

And if you expect us to spend extra time on that research its not unreasonable to expect you to spend a little more time writing accurate category descriptions ;)
Click to expand...

antohan said:
We've had cases before with mates/nomates whereby two players showed up in squads despite not playing together at all (e.g. joined/left at different points, etc). With no evidence you end up having situations where some other manager picks up on that, sometimes after the round is done. It gets very messy very quickly.
Click to expand...
Those in bold ain't teammates under your definition either.

In any case, they have been defined strictly as sharing a pitch together playing for the same side so as to avoid this kind of discussion.

Doesn't quite roll of the tongue as a title for the round thus the use of teammates, which is correct. Venn diagrams and all that.
 
antohan said:
Those in bold ain't teammates under your definition either.

In any case, they have been defined strictly as sharing a pitch together playing for the same side so as to avoid this kind of discussion.

Doesn't quite roll of the tongue as a title for the round thus the use of teammates, which is correct. Venn diagrams and all that.
Click to expand...

Then the accurate metric and the best compromise IMO would be to simply show the dates of the players at the clubs overlapped (far easier) rather than being forced to find a specific match.

The other flaw with your match requirement is its not even accurate reflection particularly for older players. In some older cases it defies all logic to assume two of the best players on the team never shared the pitch even if its not easy or even possible to find official match reports.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Then the accurate metric and the best compromise IMO would be to simply show the dates of the players at the clubs overlapped (far easier) rather than being forced to find a specific match.

The other flaw with your match requirement is its not even accurate reflection particularly for older players. In some older cases it defies all logic to assume two of the best players on the team never shared the pitch even if its not easy or even possible to find official match reports.
Click to expand...

Eh? If you want proof two players played together for two different teams there's no better way to prove it than match reports.

If they prove too much of an arse you are free to pick another pair. Tonnes of them out there.
 
antohan said:
Eh? If you want proof two players played together for two different teams there's no better way to prove it than match reports.

If they prove too much of an arse you are free to pick another pair. Tonnes of them out there.
Click to expand...

I started my first post with "And in the future " meaning that as a suggestion for the future any teammates rules should be defined based on overlapping dates at the club rather than trying to find match reports.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I started my first post with "And in the future " meaning that as a suggestion for the future any teammates rules should be defined based on overlapping dates at the club rather than trying to find match reports.
Click to expand...
Sure, if the point is them being in a squad that works. That said, we often use the more narrow definition -which is accurate, subset or not- as some players are on squads yet never play (particularly in international tournaments).
 
antohan said:
Sure, if the point is them being in a squad that works. That said, we often use the more narrow definition -which is accurate, subset or not- as some players are on squads yet never play (particularly in international tournaments).
Click to expand...

For me that makes sense if the category is something like played in a World Cup but if the category is just teammates then someone in the squad for a major tournament really should count as a teammate even if they weren't on the pitch together because they really were teammates for that tournament. Anyway enough legalese for me today, I'm off to pour a stiff scotch & soda.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
For me that makes sense if the category is something like played in a World Cup but if the category is just teammates then someone in the squad for a major tournament really should count as a teammate even if they weren't on the pitch together because they really were teammates for that tournament. Anyway enough legalese for me today, I'm off to pour a stiff scotch & soda.
Click to expand...
You are just getting too stuck on the label in the title. The criterion was defined as played together for two different clubs, it was only later that the title got added as a summary.

And, again, it's strictly correct: all those that played together are teammates, even if not all team mates get to play together officially.

Scotch & soda? Blasphemy.
 
1. Edgar Allan Pillow - FAIL (Alessandro Nesta, Jaap Stam)
2. Pat_Mustard - PASS
3. 2mufc0 - PASS
5. Gio - PASS
6. Enigma - PASS
7. Indnyc/crappy - FAIL (Liam Brady, Marco Tardelli)
8. Skizzo - PASS
10. Invictus/Ecstatic - PASS
11. harms - PASS
12. oneniltothearsenal/shrike - FAIL (Tardelli & Brady)
13. P-Nut0712 - FAIL (Alessandro Nesta, Jaap Stam)
14. Tuppet - FAIL (blocked teammate)
15. Lord SInister/Charly - FAIL (Tardelli & Brady)

BLOCKED LIST: José Leandro Andrade, Víctor Rodríguez Andrade, Valentino Mazzola, Sandro Mazzola, Lionel Messi, Pele, Sergio Busquets, Carles Busquets, Bernd Förster, Karl-Heinz Förster, Alfredo Di Stefano, George Best, Marco van Basten, Elias Figueroa, Marcel Desailly, Didier Deschamps, Romario, Adoni Zubizarreta, Ronald Koeman, Rivaldo, Lothar Matthaus, Andreas Brehme, Alessandro Nesta, Jaap Stam, Liam Brady, Marco Tardelli
 
8Wf1O2J.png
 
Could have been better, but quite happy with that.
 
Yey, really relieved. Could've been better certainly but pretty happy with my picks and the outcome.
 
antohan said:
Eh? If you want proof two players played together for two different teams there's no better way to prove it than match reports.

If they prove too much of an arse you are free to pick another pair. Tonnes of them out there.
Click to expand...
It's actually not that bad if you have a laptop in front of you, but if you are stuck outside on the phone it could be a real hassle going through the games in transfermarkd or other source, even though you identified the players in the same season playing 10-20 matches each.

It's a good rule tho as you can imagine going through 32 players and seasons to verify the data, not to mention it avoids potential mistakes in the draft, so I'm perfectly ok with it.
 
Picks sent. I await my sheep with baited breath.
 
Enigma_87 said:
It's actually not that bad if you have a laptop in front of you, but if you are stuck outside on the phone it could be a real hassle going through the games in transfermarkd or other source, even though you identified the players in the same season playing 10-20 matches each.
Click to expand...

I'm trying this now. Out with in-laws and risking apocalypse trying to look through games. :nervous:
 
What chances of getting the next round up tonight? Slim to middling?
 
Gio said:
What chances of getting the next round up tonight? Slim to middling?
Click to expand...

Couple of us have already submitted so can’t be waiting on too many. How many to go @antohan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.