The Remake Draft

brazil-1958-team-photo-14-panini-1994-world-cup-story-sonric-s-football-sticker-45503-p.jpg


Iconic World Champions are a dime a dozen, one could say, but few can rival the most celebrated representatives of the 4-2-4 for flair and star quality. Another challenging Brazilian blueprint – and this one will be dealt with by @Kazi.


Blueprint: Brazil, 1958.
 
2ba9e2a13c04c6f149e8a97286a3fb87566862a4.jpg


Ed faces a proper challenge here, there is no doubt about that: How will he emulate the smooth skills of Magic Johnson? The allround magnificence of Michael Jordan? The brains and accuracy of Larry Bird? And how the feck is he going to find anyone tall enough to play Patrick Ewing's part?
 
Do the positions have to match up to the standard positions that everyone associates with the formation? I have brazil '82 and my left striker pretty much spends his full game on the left wing. If I set the formation up this way though it won't be the classical box formation everyone associates with it?
 
For those not familiar with basketball (or football - or both), we feel obliged to make it clear that the team @Edgar Allan Pillow is tasked with remaking is, in fact, the 1992 vintage of the late Johan Cruyff's Dream Team.

Blueprint: Barcelona, 1992.
 
Last edited:
1975.jpg


And finally, last but definitely not least, a tribute to one of the greatest managerial legends in the history of football: @MJJ and @VivaJanuzaj get the task of recreating Valeriy Lobanovskyi's 1975 Cup Winner's Cup side.

Blueprint: Dynamo Kiev, 1975.
 
ohh, metodo, interesting. I assume I'll receive a blueprint for this as there are a lot of possible modern interpretations on this one
 
Great! Was thinking of suggesting it in the next draft thread :drool: Lobanovsky!
 
Full list of managers/teams:

@Tuppet = Inter Milan, 1964.
@paulscholes18 = West Germany, 1972.
@crappycraperson = AC Milan, 1989.
@Downcast = Juventus, 1984.
@harms = Ajax, 1995.
@DavidG = River Plate, 1941.
@Šjor Bepo = West Germany, 1990.
@Gio = Hungary, 1953.
@Enigma_87 = Italy, 1934.
@P-Nut0712 = Brazil, 1982.
@Raees @anant = Austria, 1932.
@NoPace = Arsenal, 1931.
@Brwned = England, 1966.
@Kazi = Brazil, 1958.
@Edgar Allan Pillow = Barcelona, 1992.
@MJJ @VivaJanuzaj = Dynamo Kiev, 1975.

Pic.png

Pic_2.png
 
Last edited:
Is there an expectation to justify why the player picked will be able to fulfil the specific role ? Or is that just for voters to decide themselves ?
 
Enigma_87 said:
ohh, metodo, interesting. I assume I'll receive a blueprint for this as there are a lot of possible modern interpretations on this one
Click to expand...

Yes, all managers will get a particular blueprint, i.e. a formation graphic, to work from. I think the best way to do this is to post a list of all of 'em in the OP - but that's for Joga to decide.
 
DavidG said:
Is there an expectation to justify why the player picked will be able to fulfil the specific role ? Or is that just for voters to decide themselves ?
Click to expand...

Yes - that will be your main task here, in fact: Why did you pick Player X for Role Y - why would he fit the bill, what traits of his are comparable to those of his historical counterpart, and so forth.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Yes - that will be your main task here, in fact: Why did you pick Player X for Role Y - why would he fit the bill, what traits of his are comparable to those of his historical counterpart, and so forth.
Click to expand...

Just making sure that it wasn't only the explanation of the formation and its effectiveness . Thanks for clarification
 
P-Nut0712 said:
Do the positions have to match up to the standard positions that everyone associates with the formation? I have brazil '82 and my left striker pretty much spends his full game on the left wing. If I set the formation up this way though it won't be the classical box formation everyone associates with it?
Click to expand...

The magic square is one of the trickier formations out there (as suggested above). However, your remake won't be judged on an illustration alone - the main part is to understand what the roles actually are: You need to pick a player who can perform that striker part (which involves drifting wide and stretching the play, and so on).
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Yes, all managers will get a particular blueprint, i.e. a formation graphic, to work from. I think the best way to do this is to post a list of all of 'em in the OP - but that's for Joga to decide.
Click to expand...
Is that list above the snake order as well or just to decide the teams?
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
You really should have the no original player rule. Listing 11 outfield players from the teams is not that big a task. Would make things much more interesting.
Click to expand...

The d.o.b. cutoff takes care of 99%. The very few who remain will be a bonus * of sorts if you manage to get your hands on them. No players who truly matter to the tactics as such should be eligible here (I think).

* And hardly that. Put it like this: You may land a player or two who did feature, but will they be players you wouldn't want to upgrade anyway?
 
Enigma_87 said:
Is that list above the snake order as well or just to decide the teams?
Click to expand...

I'll leave that one for Joga.

When he comes around he'll decide when the clock starts ticking and so forth. Meanwhile, you can just start doing general research.
 
Enigma_87 said:
I think anto build pretty successful one before and won a draft (or was it in the final?)
Click to expand...

He won it with a 4411 which morphed into a 3-2-3-2 in possession. Sammer played as a proper libero in a back 4 with defensive full-backs who tucked in. Neeskens then pushed forward behind the strikers.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
The d.o.b. cutoff takes care of 99%. The very few who remain will be a bonus * of sorts if you manage to get your hands on them. No players who truly matter to the tactics as such should be eligible here (I think).

* And hardly that. Put it like this: You may land a player or two who did feature, but will they be players you wouldn't want to upgrade anyway?
Click to expand...
I can only think of the Ajax side for 2 players that would possibly get straight in.
Physiocrat said:
He won it with a 4411 which morphed into a 3-2-3-2 in possession. Sammer played as a proper libero in a back 4 with defensive full-backs who tucked in. Neeskens then pushed forward behind the strikers.
Click to expand...
aye, I think you are right:

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/the-reality-draft-finals-vivajanuzaj-vs-antohan.397526/
 
I eagerly await the players you guys will draft as well as well as the matchups that will happen soon. This is going to be such a great draft! :drool:
 
Chesterlestreet said:
The d.o.b. cutoff takes care of 99%. The very few who remain will be a bonus * of sorts if you manage to get your hands on them. No players who truly matter to the tactics as such should be eligible here (I think).

* And hardly that. Put it like this: You may land a player or two who did feature, but will they be players you wouldn't want to upgrade anyway?
Click to expand...
Hm. My side can pick one or two original players. It's boring though
 
I'm going to struggle to get my four midfielders. I've got an idea in my head but there's no doubt a couple will go early. I'm going to stick to the tactics of 82'82 though and have no thought for defense!
 
Chesterlestreet said:
1966-world-cup_1004921c.jpg


One classic English team followed by another: We all hope comeback kid @Brwned ain't too rusty as he goes to work on re-creating the wingless wondrousness of Alf Ramsey's World Champions.

Blueprint: England, 1966.
Click to expand...

Hmm. It's a very familiar team and quite a straightforward, functional setup, so in theory it shouldn't be too difficult. It's very reliant on the two Bobby's to elevate it from functional to formidable, though, and replacing them is a pretty tough ask...
 
harms said:
Hm. My side can pick one or two original players. It's boring though
Click to expand...

Yours is the only one, I think.

We did consider blocking those particular players, but it seemed like overkill. If the manager wants to use them, then fair enough.

It will be a case of drafting a more mature version of the player to play the same part - which means you won't actually be drafting like-for-like: It's a player who can clearly be upgraded - and if you choose to upgrade him with an older version of himself, well, that's what you do, but it's no different from upgrading him with someone else.

That's how I see it, anyway.
 
Brwned said:
It's very reliant on the two Bobby's to elevate it from functional to formidable, though, and replacing them is a pretty tough ask...
Click to expand...

True. But something similar will be the case for most teams: Replicating individual quality will be impossible in many cases, and the assessment (of how well you've done with the remake) will have to take that into consideration.

The upside to your team is that you can conceivably upgrade several (other) positions in terms of individual quality - and try to gain an edge that way.
 
Really struggling with one particular player (and not the one that I though would be a bigger problem, actually) and, looking for an inspiration, stumbled upon this beauty. I thought it was worth a share:

hqdefault.jpg
 
We have to make sure that voters don't just look at the teams otherwise the whole integrity of the draft is ruined . I'm not 100% sure how it works up here , but the one game I was part of in the newfies the voting was restricted to participating players only .

Too much scope for people to look at a 4-2-4 versus a 2-3-5 and just make a decision based on how nuts it would seem to have 2 defenders against 4 attackers
 
DavidG said:
Too much scope for people to look at a 4-2-4 versus a 2-3-5 and just make a decision based on how nuts it would seem to have 2 defenders against 4 attackers
Click to expand...

It will be stressed in all sorts of ways that we're not dealing with regular, draft style fantasy matches: What the voters are to consider is how well the original has been remade, NOT how the XI would fare against the other manager's XI.

If some voters ignore this, or fail to take notice of it - well, there's not much anyone can do about that: We'll see how it unfolds - the concept is experimental, part of the game is that it's uncharted territory. And another part of the game is that the actual "game" aspect is deliberately downplayed: The "who wins" part isn't all that important - the focus should be on discussing the teams on their own merit, as it were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.