aye, don't really see how anyone could ever question your voting/arguments, always very honest and upfront which is surprising of course for a man of your club allegiance
The Road Trip Draft QF - Enigma vs Pat/Skizzo
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
aye, don't really see how anyone could ever question your voting/arguments, always very honest and upfront which is surprising of course for a man of your club allegiance
This is actually a good thing because it means big names are less worth and tactics, cohesion and balance are starting to mean more in the eye of the voters. 2 of those "surprising wins" have been by Jim Beam, who built a fantastic pressing side build around Cruyff. He also followed the previously established idea of how to build a great Cruyff side:
1. pick Cruyff
2. pick Gullit
3. profit
There is another tendency where managers draft high quality in many positions and have 1 or 2 weak spots left in the hope of getting by the first few rounds and reinforce those positions afterwards. We have seen this to become a disadvantage in Gio's match with Gamarra vs Stoichkov/Cruyff, and also in this match with Muller vs Ferrara. I thought Moby's match was a bit similar, where he drafted Zidane who he didn't need and still had Gerets in fullback position defending against Stoichkov or Cruyff.
@oneniltothearsenal @Gio I didn't want to address this during the match, but I obviously disagree with your rating of Vieira and instead of discussing individual names, I want to put forward a general explanation. It was mentioned many times that I can't compare these midfielders like Kroos, Scholes etc to Vieira because of their different playing style. I think this has been a general trend of midfield play in recent years, where your midfielders need to be fantastic passers with great strategic vision. Those are the ones considered to be the best in the world today and the reason is that "Superteams" like Barca, Real, City, Bayern have like 70% possession every match and they need the midfielders to open up tight defences.
This is obviously different to the requirements of earlier days and you can see a trend where good players with less "playmaking/passing" technique are looking worse in possession sides. See Kante under Sarri, see Khedira at Madrid being replaced by Modric and Kroos gradually. Arturo Vidal was championed big time during his time at Juve, but at Bayern he had to play in a possession side and he was a disappointment. The same at Barcelona, where he has to sit on the bench and Arthur plays, despite Arthur being inexperienced and very shit defensively. Arthur is preferred because of his technique and passing ability. Busquets replacing Yaya at Barcelona is another big example of this.
This tendency for sides with 70% possession, where the pressing tactics had the same effect as having a physical ball winner in midfield, really started to take off under Guardiola in the late 2000s and at the same time there were some outstanding CMs in the PL like Essien, Ballack, etc., playing a much more physical style, but it was never in question that Xavi and Iniesta were the best midfielders in the world because of what they could do with the ball. Barcelona struggled to reach their previous greatness in recent years because they couldn't find 2 midfielders with the same playmaking quality like Xaviesta, despite Rakitic being a great CM himself. Box-2-Box-CMs are less worth today and the "playmaking" ones are the better midfielders, that is what I am trying to say.
I have shat on Kroos in another match for being bad defensively and the easy solution for managers would be to take him out and replace him with someone more physical and less lazy. Au contraire, managers at Madrid and Germany try to reshuffle the midfield to have him play his role because of what he gives to the side is so much more than what any physical Box-2-Box CM could offer instead. This is not restricted to having just 1 "playmaker/passing CM" in the side, managers want to have as many as possible and make it work (Zidane 's Madrid has been at his best in 16/17 because of the diamond formation with Kroos-Modric-Isco in the same side worked beautifully).
If this logic transpires to All-Time encounters is a whole nother debate
Still remember the P&G draft when you voted in the last 3 or 4 mins for us, saw the score and switched back which eliminated us with Joga.
Maybe my perception and all but in tight matches I always count it as 0-1 down as this one turned out to be. Either way it's over now so no point discussing it.
This is actually a good thing because it means big names are less worth and tactics, cohesion and balance are starting to mean more in the eye of the voters. 2 of those "surprising wins" have been by Jim Beam, who built a fantastic pressing side build around Cruyff. He also followed the previously established idea of how to build a great Cruyff side:
1. pick Cruyff
2. pick Gullit
3. profit
There is another tendency where managers draft high quality in many positions and have 1 or 2 weak spots left in the hope of getting by the first few rounds and reinforce those positions afterwards. We have seen this to become a disadvantage in Gio's match with Gamarra vs Stoichkov/Cruyff, and also in this match with Muller vs Ferrara. I thought Moby's match was a bit similar, where he drafted Zidane who he didn't need and still had Gerets in fullback position defending against Stoichkov or Cruyff.
@oneniltothearsenal @Gio I didn't want to address this during the match, but I obviously disagree with your rating of Vieira and instead of discussing individual names, I want to put forward a general explanation. It was mentioned many times that I can't compare these midfielders like Kroos, Scholes etc to Vieira because of their different playing style. I think this has been a general trend of midfield play in recent years, where your midfielders need to be fantastic passers with great strategic vision. Those are the ones considered to be the best in the world today and the reason is that "Superteams" like Barca, Real, City, Bayern have like 70% possession every match and they need the midfielders to open up tight defences.
This is obviously different to the requirements of earlier days and you can see a trend where good players with less "playmaking/passing" technique are looking worse in possession sides. See Kante under Sarri, see Khedira at Madrid being replaced by Modric and Kroos gradually. Arturo Vidal was championed big time during his time at Juve, but at Bayern he had to play in a possession side and he was a disappointment. The same at Barcelona, where he has to sit on the bench and Arthur plays, despite Arthur being inexperienced and very shit defensively. Arthur is preferred because of his technique and passing ability. Busquets replacing Yaya at Barcelona is another big example of this.
This tendency for sides with 70% possession, where the pressing tactics had the same effect as having a physical ball winner in midfield, really started to take off under Guardiola in the late 2000s and at the same time there were some outstanding CMs in the PL like Essien, Ballack, etc., playing a much more physical style, but it was never in question that Xavi and Iniesta were the best midfielders in the world because of what they could do with the ball. Barcelona struggled to reach their previous greatness in recent years because they couldn't find 2 midfielders with the same playmaking quality like Xaviesta, despite Rakitic being a great CM himself. Box-2-Box-CMs are less worth today and the "playmaking" ones are the better midfielders, that is what I am trying to say.
I have shat on Kroos in another match for being bad defensively and the easy solution for managers would be to take him out and replace him with someone more physical and less lazy. Au contraire, managers at Madrid and Germany try to reshuffle the midfield to have him play his role because of what he gives to the side is so much more than what any physical Box-2-Box CM could offer instead. This is not restricted to having just 1 "playmaker/passing CM" in the side, managers want to have as many as possible and make it work (Zidane 's Madrid has been at his best in 16/17 because of the diamond formation with Kroos-Modric-Isco in the same side worked beautifully).
If this logic transpires to All-Time encounters is a whole nother debate
I get what you are saying for Kroos being a better ball playing midfielder than Vieira but i would still say it is unfair to judge him by his ball playing skills or his goal scoring record because that's not what he made his name on.
Look at the invincible team for example.
Neither Vieira nor Silva are new world ball playing midfielders but what they offered was great balance. Both of them were comfortable on the ball and helped Arsenal counter attack through the wide midfielders and forwards.
In essence, Vieira brings a lot of stability to the midfield. In the current set up Breitner provides goal scoring prowess, Vieira the steel and Redondo deep lying playmaking ability. It is perfectly balanced
Haha.
I guess.
Probably that way we would have had more fire-power and match-winning ability. But we didn't want the entire debate to be overshadowed by how Messi and Robben won't gel and how Messi and Ronaldinho won't get click etc.
@oneniltothearsenal @Gio I didn't want to address this during the match, but I obviously disagree with your rating of Vieira and instead of discussing individual names, I want to put forward a general explanation. It was mentioned many times that I can't compare these midfielders like Kroos, Scholes etc to Vieira because of their different playing style. I think this has been a general trend of midfield play in recent years, where your midfielders need to be fantastic passers with great strategic vision. Those are the ones considered to be the best in the world today and the reason is that "Superteams" like Barca, Real, City, Bayern have like 70% possession every match and they need the midfielders to open up tight defences.
This is obviously different to the requirements of earlier days and you can see a trend where good players with less "playmaking/passing" technique are looking worse in possession sides. See Kante under Sarri, see Khedira at Madrid being replaced by Modric and Kroos gradually. Arturo Vidal was championed big time during his time at Juve, but at Bayern he had to play in a possession side and he was a disappointment. The same at Barcelona, where he has to sit on the bench and Arthur plays, despite Arthur being inexperienced and very shit defensively. Arthur is preferred because of his technique and passing ability. Busquets replacing Yaya at Barcelona is another big example of this.
This tendency for sides with 70% possession, where the pressing tactics had the same effect as having a physical ball winner in midfield, really started to take off under Guardiola in the late 2000s and at the same time there were some outstanding CMs in the PL like Essien, Ballack, etc., playing a much more physical style, but it was never in question that Xavi and Iniesta were the best midfielders in the world because of what they could do with the ball. Barcelona struggled to reach their previous greatness in recent years because they couldn't find 2 midfielders with the same playmaking quality like Xaviesta, despite Rakitic being a great CM himself. Box-2-Box-CMs are less worth today and the "playmaking" ones are the better midfielders, that is what I am trying to say.
I have shat on Kroos in another match for being bad defensively and the easy solution for managers would be to take him out and replace him with someone more physical and less lazy. Au contraire, managers at Madrid and Germany try to reshuffle the midfield to have him play his role because of what he gives to the side is so much more than what any physical Box-2-Box CM could offer instead. This is not restricted to having just 1 "playmaker/passing CM" in the side, managers want to have as many as possible and make it work (Zidane 's Madrid has been at his best in 16/17 because of the diamond formation with Kroos-Modric-Isco in the same side worked beautifully).
If this logic transpires to All-Time encounters is a whole nother debate
Just having playmakers means feck-all if there is no balance though.
You need playmakers but you need the engine as well otherwise you would get overrun.
Real Madrid need Casemiro otherwise without him, they are so easy to penetrate. As for Barca, they have had the luxury of having so much possession but what happens when you are up against teams who counter. It worked fine when Xavi and Iniesta were there because they would have 70% odd possession but one of their major issues in UCL has been, they get shredded easily on counters in the UCL KOs because Busquets alone isn't enough to hold off the opposition attack. Now compare it with the all the great attackers that we have at that display here. That tactic won't work and is far more riskier.
You mention about Kante under Sarri but Kante is technically quite limited. So, when he is playing in an advanced role his weaknesses get exposed further because he requires to do a lot more with the ball. Vieira is so much better and more complete than Kante. The late 90s and early 2000s Arsenal were elite on the break but they were really good when they had the possession as well. And Vieira was a key component to that. Vieira was a very good passer and was brilliant in tight spaces. Evades pressing so well using his technique and that massve frame of his.
And, its not like we didn't have any playmakers. We did. Redondo is one of the best DLPs of all time. And with Messi and Ronaldinho ahead, you had players who had the tendency to drop deep to get the ball and dictate games.
Good game @The Red Viper @Enigma_87 hell of a team you had, no two ways about it.
I changed my vote in that one because of being swayed by the debate. After all, there were almost 200 posts of it, even though some of the back-and-fore was admittedly repetitive with managers losing the plot en route. I mean why else hammer home points and have that discussion if you're not trying to influence the voters and particularly those hovering either way. It was nothing to do with the score, and my vote - whichever way it went - did not matter in any case.Still remember the P&G draft when you voted in the last 3 or 4 mins for us, saw the score and switched back which eliminated us with Joga.
Maybe my perception and all but in tight matches I always count it as 0-1 down as this one turned out to be. Either way it's over now so no point discussing it.
Frankly I find that one a little unfair when I'd ranked your and Joga's team as the best drafted of the 16. And here again when I told Theon at the outset that, although we'd drafted well, I thought we'd be beaten come the final by the fine drafting job both you/TRV and Harms had done when bolstered by the higher level you could both reinforce to with the inability to pick up P1/P2 reinforcements.
Mate, you voted 5 mins for us before the vote closed and changed immediately within a minute. It was odd as feck to process 200 posts and then change your mind within 60 seconds.
It was the deciding vote as well, we were through before the switch.
Tbh on general note I don’t think we should have the option to change votes when the score is hidden, makes no sense as you can be influenced by it.
aye, no shame to lose to yours as well mate good luck in the final rounds - happy to see Beckenbauer receiving some recognition
As some one who lost a semi due to three last min vote changes, I do understand your sentiment but disagree with it. That game theon's arguments convinced the voters to switch to his side and you should always allow for that to happen otherwise whats the point of a match thread.
Err, I'm talking about this one mate:
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/p-g-draft-r1-team-beam-vs-enigma-bonito.440654/
Theon had 1 post in it.
You can always vote late if you aren't sure about the sides but the whole reason to hide the scores is not be able to see it and being influenced by it.
I am talking about my game, sorry if that wasn't clear enough.
I do agree with you in parts but there is no ideal solution. Leaving it late means not enough people will get to vote.
To be fair I don’t think that game should have been that close - 6 of your 12 votes were from Tuppet (
) who was trying to knock me out due to having Maradona.To be fair I don’t think that game should have been that close - 6 of your 12 votes were from Tuppet (
 and here I thought it was my marinho arguments
Well generally if you can switch on late, you still have time to vote, but of course no ideal solution either way
He took it to a new level.To be fair I don’t think that game should have been that close - 6 of your 12 votes were from Tuppet (
Browsing trough the newbies drafts he single handedly provided 90% of the votes in some games.Couldn't you have made one more account? @Tuppet
Some of us only get a quick window on the Caf to make a decision. Not that it really matters when the vote comes in, as I vote late on fairly regularly to hear all the arguments. Indeed, a few folk used to get pissed off with it, although nobody ever accused me of being dishonest about it. And 99% of the time I'll stick a post in when I get the chance to justify my position, even though you usually get less hassle from scorned managers if you keep schtum.
I'm sure Gio is waiting for the last minute to vote as usual.
anto is a loose cannon here.
Gio + Aldo double vote for Cutch seconds before the final whistle?
Anyway, I look forward to your scrutiny of everbody else who didn't vote for you today.
Fair point.aye, don't really see how anyone could ever question your voting/arguments, always very honest and upfront which is surprising of course for a man of your club allegiance
Mental note - must vote against Arbi and that other big Celtic sympathiser Pat in the future.
Some of us only get a quick window on the Caf to make a decision. Not that it really matters when the vote comes in, as I vote late on fairly regularly to hear all the arguments. Indeed, a few folk used to get pissed off with it, although nobody ever accused me of being dishonest about it. And 99% of the time I'll stick a post in when I get the chance to justify my position, even though you usually get less hassle from scorned managers if you keep schtum.
Anyway, I look forward to your scrutiny of everbody else who didn't vote for you today.
It's not about voting in the last minute it's voting for us then changing your vote within a minute (when seeing the score) that didn't make sense. It's not the problem itself the late vote but rather changing it literally within a minute.
I went through the last 20 games you voted in and you always voted for the opposition when the score was tight (less than 5 votes difference). The only time you voted for me was when the score was probably 10-15 votes difference
Either way I'm already used to it in tight games so it doesn't really make a difference.
Enigman getting a bit off his chest here.
Your name is also up there mate in a 4 years old post as wellEnigman getting a bit off his chest here.
Either way @Gio you vote for whoever you want. I replied to your earlier post of today when you did that last 10 games count which is also not correct by the way.
The game is over so no need to continue with this discussion.
If I changed my vote within a minute - and I'll take your word for it that is what happened - it's either because I've seen something in the thread that tilted me the other way (and you should reflect on why you lost that match), or I've accidentally voted for the wrong team and then corrected it (quite easy to do on the phone and I've done that a couple of times). If it was a change within a matter of 10-30 seconds, then that is the likeliest outcome. If it was longer than that, it's more likely to be based on something in the thread. I certainly remember my first look at that match thinking you looked stronger, but being persuaded by the case made by Sjor and Beam.It's not about voting in the last minute it's voting for us then changing your vote within a minute (when seeing the score) that didn't make sense. It's not the problem itself the late vote but rather changing it literally within a minute.
I went through the last 20 games you voted in and you always voted for the opposition when the score was tight (less than 5 votes difference). The only time you voted for me was when the score was probably 10-15 votes difference
Either way I'm already used to it in tight games so it doesn't really make a difference.
But if you're going down the Machiavellian route, I really ought to have voted for you because we had identified potential upgrades in Romario/Redondo (and not C Ronaldo/Neeskens). But if you're not voting based on what you see in front of you, this whole thing of ours falls apart.
As for your second point, you have to remember that you have become probably the most consistent drafter in securing strong teams. It's very rare that you put together a team that gets pumped. Usually, any defeats you do suffer are marginal ones. And I'm going to be more inclined to vote in the games at the business end of the draft, which are typically tighter. Checked the last 10 games, it's 5-5 for/against. Boo-fecking-hoo.
Still not correct, but you will have the chance to fix it in next drafts
Either way my last post on the topic as I don't really want to hijack this anymore taking off credit of Skizzo/Pat team here.
Just to reiterate nothing in direct relevance to this game mate. You've won fair and square and deservedly are through
Enigma guilt tripping Gio hard to ensure his vote in the upcoming drafts as some sort of balancing act. Proper long term strategy.
This is why I never check who votes for who. I go on tilt enough anyway so don't need to wind myself up more by checking votes
Still not correct, but you will have the chance to fix it in next drafts
Either way my last post on the topic as I don't really want to hijack this anymore taking off credit of Skizzo/Pat team here.
Just to reiterate nothing in direct relevance to this game mate. You've won fair and square and deservedly are through
No harm taken mate, I was just commenting in jest
Still not correct, but you will have the chance to fix it in next drafts
Either way my last post on the topic as I don't really want to hijack this anymore taking off credit of Skizzo/Pat team here.
Just to reiterate nothing in direct relevance to this game mate. You've won fair and square and deservedly are through
To be fair mate I remember you voting and posting pretty vigorously against Gio on a number of occasions (the Stoichkov example being one that stands out in my mind). There probably is truth in what you say, but I think it probably goes both ways - which these things typically do.
It’s really a pointless road to go down, it literally happens all the time. I’ve had a load of people who consistently vote against me, at one point it was like starting 5-0 down (cnuts like Skizzo etc
) and there’s nothing you can do about it - so ultimately it’s not worth worrying or moaning about.Personally I felt the voting pattern in Gio/my game vs Beam was absolutely mental, 6-0 down in less than an hour with lots of ‘neutral’ managers sticking the boot in during the comments. I think everyone has games like you’re mentioning, so not worth stewing over.
I can see why it’s a problem though, I think the drafts have lost a lot of credibility anyway with this Tuppet nonsense. And imo moving to a smaller forum where there are significantly less votes doesn’t help either, as those types of issues have a bigger impact as they become proportionally more influential.
To be fair mate I remember you voting and posting pretty vigorously against Gio on a number of occasions (the Stoichkov example being one that stands out in my mind). There probably is truth in what you say, but I think it probably goes both ways - which these things typically do.
It’s really a pointless road to go down, it literally happens all the time. I’ve had a load of people who consistently vote against me, at one point it was like starting 5-0 down (cnuts like Skizzo etc
Personally I felt the voting pattern in Gio/my game vs Beam was absolutely mental, 6-0 down in less than an hour with lots of ‘neutral’ managers sticking the boot in during the comments. I think everyone has games like you’re mentioning, so not worth stewing over.
I can see why it’s a problem though, I think the drafts have lost a lot of credibility anyway with this Tuppet nonsense. And imo moving to a smaller forum where there are significantly less votes doesn’t help either, as those types of issues have a bigger impact as they become proportionally more influential.
Well you can easily check the games in which Gio took part and I'm pretty sure he won some games with mine being the decisive vote. Can't say the same from my experience when the situation is reversed.
Just checked some of the game threads and I rarely have more than 1 post in his games..
I usually always give my reasoning when I vote. Stoichkov on the right is something I always had problem with and have dissed it on every occasion regardless of which manager tries him out there. Worth mentioning is that game was when we faced off each other so not really taking part as a neutral is it
That and Charles of CB are some examples that I really vehemently had my say against.
Everyone has probably some personal agenda from time to time and as you said it's pretty normal so I'm not really complaining but we opened that can of worms tonight so here we are
Well that escalated quickly.
To get back to this, it's obviously not a controversial take in itself. The point I'm getting at is what does Facchetti having the upper hand over Johnstone actually mean in practical terms? Does it just mean he neutralises/minimises Johnstone's attacking impact? If so does it require a man-marking job as he generally carried out against top wingers, or can he do it in a modern, zonal system? Does he neutralise Johnstone and still get forward effectively, and if so to what level?
Most managers on here have benefitted at some stage from Facchetti's superman status (I know I have), but I don't think the evidence really supports his current status of being a Maldini-esque presence in defence and a Marcelo in attack, all in the same match against all-time great wingers.
It was a toss-up between Rivaldo and Joya for this match mate. We liked the idea of having two orthodox wingers to peg back the opposition full backs, but tbh we knew this was likely to be a hectic debate between the managers and just took the path of least resistance to avoid getting bogged down in loads of discussion on asymmetry in our lineup, Rivaldo being positioned on the left wing etc. Neither of them are really valid critiques but we just went with the easier route for this match. There was also the highly successful Joy/Goncalves partnership to factor in. We're strongly considering bringing Rivaldo back in for the next match though.
To get back to this, it's obviously not a controversial take in itself. The point I'm getting at is what does Facchetti having the upper hand over Johnstone actually mean in practical terms? Does it just mean he neutralises/minimises Johnstone's attacking impact? If so does it require a man-marking job as he generally carried out against top wingers, or can he do it in a modern, zonal system? Does he neutralise Johnstone and still get forward effectively, and if so to what level?
Most managers on here have benefitted at some stage from Facchetti's superman status (I know I have), but I don't think the evidence really supports his current status of being a Maldini-esque presence in defence and a Marcelo in attack, all in the same match against all-time great wingers.
It was a toss-up between Rivaldo and Joya for this match mate. We liked the idea of having two orthodox wingers to peg back the opposition full backs, but tbh we knew this was likely to be a hectic debate between the managers and just took the path of least resistance to avoid getting bogged down in loads of discussion on asymmetry in our lineup, Rivaldo being positioned on the left wing etc. Neither of them are really valid critiques but we just went with the easier route for this match. There was also the highly successful Joy/Goncalves partnership to factor in. We're strongly considering bringing Rivaldo back in for the next match though.
As regards the Gio inquest, I had a look at the last 10 of Enigma's matches that he voted in and by my count he voted for him 4 times and against him 6 times. There's simply no case to answer based on that ratio, and in general I've found Gio to be as fair as they come in these drafts.
My point was the tight matches mate. He voted for me in the one sided affairs. That and of course that last minute switch after he voted for us with 5 mins to go in one of the drafts. Especially since in the same draft he voted our team as the best drafted one.
Check the 10 before from the auction one till the NT peak one - it's something like 10 against and 1 for.
In any case just expressing my feelings on the matter, not necessarily trying to prove something here.
Personally think you should bring Rivaldo back. Like Joya a lot, as you said picked him before in drafts, but players like Rivaldo and Ronaldinho bring that X factor that can boost your attack and add another dimension to it.
Him and Carlos also worked pretty well and in this way he will occupy more of the inside channel with Carlos overlapping - hence not shunted on the wing which could create controversy in balance/voting perspective.
There are times you feel someone is voting against (or for you for that matter) time after again but that is very much as likely to do with people having similar preferences in football. I find harms, Joga, Sjor for example usually rating each other's teams highly and seem to share similar opinions. That's pretty normal in any group. Some people prefer flair, possession, ability on the ball around the park. Some like fast paced United style transition play. Some loons like anto get wet by watching Luis Enrique run up and down the pitch for 90 minutes or teams just countering relentlessly while sitting back. That's a lot more subconscious than anything else.
Only cases I would say any suspicions should arise is if you think you've had a spat with someone outside the draft circles strictly speaking and think they are intentionally taking the piss by voting in your games etc. Doubt there's any such case in here if any.
Think being a small community and playing each other numerous times over and over sometimes impacts decision making. It's normal to carry a beef from time to time.
Since I started those we clashed probably 5-6 times in the first 7-8 drafts or something. I haven't gone through the full stats but the discrepancy is too big not to catch my eye. It's not like we don't rate most of those players the same as we have picked the same lads over and over again.
I think the same thing happened to both Gio and Theon when they began winning these things and probably due to some heated debates from time to time, so it is pretty much normal, you can't remove personal feelings from tthe equation.
The only thing I'd probably propose to change is the vote change as when the score is revealed you could have some tactical voting and that defies the point of hidden scores, otherwise nothing personal against Gio and I think we agree on many points around here and the voting process is part of the game.
PS: what is with this, we can't use abbreviations now?
Sorry, you cannot use the word 'f.w.i.w' in your message. If it is text speak, please write the word or phrase fully.
Even "m.a.n.u" is now automatically converted to Man Utd. What if that is a person's name?