OK, well he last viewed the thread....1 minute ago
He's been doing that for 2 hours now!
The First Redcafe Sheep Draft
- Thread starter Moby
- Start date
He's been doing that for 2 hours now!
So long as he isn't a trrrrific player...
Well it's interesting because he's been logged several time since..
But I guess that's his privilege, that just goes to show a good thing about this rule, even though we're all rushing him he wants to take his time and he's got the right to do that so he just does.
Nah the authentication is the issue, I would need to provide everyone with a secret personal ID which just seems unnecessary.
The only thing it would have helped me in was while double checking but it's not worth it. Present way is better.
Just changed my pick again.
Ha, sorry for the delay. I was on earlier but didn't have the time to search for players properly. I'm on it now, I'll be as quick as I can.
Impatient bastards.
Impatient bastards.
Just changed my pick again.
You're making me nervous.
You are making me nervous. So is he, and so is Chesterle. And VivaJ.
You made me think about changing my pick with your one red card talk. Was sure you were going for the powerhouse but now I'm not sure....
I've came to realize that this game has way too much luck in it, a lot more than a normal draft
In a normal draft you can take clear calculated risks and there's the luck of the draw, both in order and teams. The teams part will remain here, the rest has been substituted by pure gambling.
Which stats are you guys using? There's only one guy on a single red in my top 30 picks (can't be arsed to go and recheck them all but when 1 or 0 showed up I took notice).
Seems like I'm the only one NOT playing mindgames here: 1 red in the DFB-Pokal, 509 club appearances according to wiki. How can that make anyone nervous? Go check, same guy? Yes or no. Simple.
Sully buggered off 22 mins ago 
553 appearances for my new pick. Again, only one documented red card.
He's back!
And apparently the footballer in question had to pay a 10 million (currency) fine for his red card.
And apparently the footballer in question had to pay a 10 million (currency) fine for his red card.
Funny money mate, probably about ten quid
It is obviously a fair amount of luck involved - but that mainly applies to the big names in the pool. Beyond those names it becomes very interesting - at least potentially. I would even go as far as saying that this format allows more room for building original teams once certain huge names are gone.
And the problem with these huge names is that they will - this seems to be a pattern wherever people play fantasy drafts - sway the vote too much. They take the focus away from whether a manager's team is actually well balanced, built around the true strengths of certain key players, etc. The big shiny name will count more than the team as such - it's inevitable, it seems, even though most sensible people who play these games will acknowledge that it shouldn't be so.
End of digression - carry on!
And the problem with these huge names is that they will - this seems to be a pattern wherever people play fantasy drafts - sway the vote too much. They take the focus away from whether a manager's team is actually well balanced, built around the true strengths of certain key players, etc. The big shiny name will count more than the team as such - it's inevitable, it seems, even though most sensible people who play these games will acknowledge that it shouldn't be so.
End of digression - carry on!
Proof that it's easy to become completely blinkered when one speculates and schemes too much. I just realized that all my calculations as far as this round goes are actually based on the assumption that everyone will go for a player in the position I'm after myself...which obviously isn't very likely.
Good news, in other words.
Good news, in other words.
They do, whoever gets 2-3 big names will walk this. I would make a caveat there though in that maybe rightly so as you can build a balanced team and have those three taking you up a notch, while usually the problem is when you see teams that probably wouldn't work but look irresistible when you look at the individual component parts.
You are actually making calculations? Based on what exactly?
Calculations? I'm just picking randomly. Probably why I ended up with a sheep
Just bumped into Chesterle
They do, whoever gets 2-3 big names will walk this. I would make a caveat there though in that maybe rightly so as you can build a balanced team and have those three taking you up a notch, while usually the problem is when you see teams that probably wouldn't work but look irresistible when you look at the individual component parts.
There you go, yes: Custard, jam and meat teams ain't good. The problem is that they're very hard to resist - and you won't get punished for indulging in this sort of thing either. I've thought about a certain format for which I'm sure there are precedents - something involving a ranking system of one kind or another. Five star players to one star players, say - and clear restrictions as to how many of each kind you can sport in your line-up. Then add further restrictions too - a good amount of restrictions but not a ridiculous amount.
There are problems with this, obviously, and they key must be to find a good balance - but I would definitely be interested in trying something like this out on here at some point.
You were very unlucky with Sheva. Giggs was manic though, particularly after pippa banged on about hairy chests before half of you picked an already picked player. One of them was bound to have been calling his bluff.
I haven't been reading the thread. No time. sheva really was unlucky. I don't think Giggs was manic at all - when was his peak?? Consistent as hell, but he was probably never even United's top player.
Calculations ain't the term, though. More like deliberations. Based on more or less intangible factors. Metaphysics, man.
Done
I've thought about a certain format for which I'm sure there are precedents - something involving a ranking system of one kind or another. Five star players to one star players, say - and clear restrictions as to how many of each kind you can sport in your line-up. Then add further restrictions too - a good amount of restrictions but not a ridiculous amount.
There are problems with this, obviously, and they key must be to find a good balance - but I would definitely be interested in trying something like this out on here at some point.
It's difficult indeed and I wouldn't be very keen on drafting off a given pre-assessed list (which is what everyone having a star pre-assigned requires). Both controversial (we can't even agree sheep!) and boring (no hidden gems to be pulled out of left field).
There is however a case for saying no one can field more than a couple out of [LIST of the draft spoiling buggers everyone would know full well anyway]. It's a given list and you know you can get two of them max, period. No room for controversy, if you don't think X should be there feck it, don't pick him then and go for those who you agree are that good. If someone should have been there, shut up and pick him then. Simple.
The manic part is in the context, not his standing relative to some of the others. I thought he was a good option for round 2 but round 3 was asking for it. Again, particularly after someone who had gone through kept talking about hairy chests. I thought he was bluffing, even told him he was being obvious (
) but at the third attempt I wouldn't have tested it.Go on Aldo!
The manic part is in the context, not his standing relative to some of the others. I thought he was a good option for round 2 but round 3 was asking for it. Again, particularly after someone who had gone through kept talking about hairy chests. I thought he was bluffing, even told him he was being obvious (
Did not read thread. I can't read all the pages.
Or should that be ?
?Yeah, I gathered that, was just explaining as you went on to explain why he wasn't manic.
To me, and others will disagree, Giggs peak was the blistering, unstoppable 18-21 year old that was inconsistent with hamstring injuries but an absolute breath of fresh air. Nothing in football beats a flying winger running with the ball, feet seemingly not touching the ground, twisting defenders inside out.
I can watch his early goals all day long.
Absolutely, I'm in that camp as well. Great as he has been throughout his career, and with all the due credit for reinventing himself once he couldn't be that player, he looked like he would completely take the world by storm. Which he did, occasionally, but never with the consistency and continuous mesmerising performances one would have looked forward to then.
Completely agree, the young, flying winger was certainly the best Giggsy
I agree with NM as well though, his peak was never actually that high in the context of all time greats. That is a very relative comment though.
Yep the young Giggsy particularly it seemed on European nights under the lights was a sight to behold. He used to tear the top teams like Juventus and Inter a new one everytime he played