Aye, it's possible. Other than Matthäus, i had 4 other germans on my list. I'm sure there are more, albeit lesser quality.
The Third Redcafe Sheep Draft
- Thread starter Gio
- Start date
The one I'm talking about was 35 years of age when he featured heavily.
FWIW, I had the se occurrence in my sheep draft, where it was a "pick two players from one match" round. If blocked, they had to pick players from the same match. In some cases, a match only had three eligible players, so if managers blocked each other, they screwed themselves a bit because they would block each other again on a second pick before opening up the pool again.
That would seem fair, mainly because the managers went for a GOAT player, one of the best in the draft, and there's a risk associated with that.
Otherwise some kind of "middle ground" could be found, in which they don't get the whole pool, but only players from the same WC that their other pick was from (if there are any?) but that's just an example.
Take the evil route, committe.
Did you knew about him mate, or missed him? Cause at first got only the one who didn't feature at all and was going for it..
Yes, that sounds right. But that's just one player. There is no other player except Figueroa who is actually eligible - the other possible one didn't play, and isn't eligible (even though he's the right age).
The only question is what Gio mentions above, i.e. whether the managers in question should be forced to pick the same guy (the only one they can pick), and then be moved on to the last round.
For my money they shouldn't: There is no actual pick to be made, i.e. they can't pick an eligible player who would also be a successful pick - and as such, they should be allowed to pick from the full pool.
Are you stating that there is one single player besides Figuroa or two others? If it's the one alternative that you are referring to, then Gio already knew about it, as did I and probably Invictus too.
Well we thought about the same while encountering the second one and I thought that there are couple of choices if for example are 2 or more that picked Figeroa, like picking the other one or passing the vote or invalid vote, etc. But it's up for the committee
Did you knew about him mate, or missed him? Cause at first got only the one who didn't feature at all and was going for it..
Participation in the World Cup[edit]
World Seat Result Matches Goals
1962 FIFA World Cup
Chile Third Place 6 2http://www.planetworldcup.com/CUPS/1966/groupd_chi_v_nko.html
http://www.planetworldcup.com/CUPS/1966/groupd_ita_v_chi.html
http://www.planetworldcup.com/CUPS/1966/groupd_chi_v_nko.html
We went for Figueroa specifically because the rule said we could choose players from the remaining pool as Chile didn't have anyone apart from Jaime who didn't play, and Escuti who qualified for 34 and above in 1962.
I think this situation is somewhat different, to be honest: Research into relatively obscure factors plays a far greater part here. In the example above all the cards are very visibly on the table - and the managers are punished for losing out on a gamble (which is how it should be). In this instance, however, it's much more a question of rewarding the managers for doing the research (several managers here were clearly not aware of this Figueroa factor).
Just my opinion, of course - but I do think there's an essential difference here.
no 2 in total - Figeroa and the other one.
The criteria was:
If there are insufficient players remaining in that country, you will be free to choose your second or third picks from another country.
with Figeroa blocked you have one more player from that country eligible. Which you can go or make an invalid pick in the next round. But of course this is how I interpreted it, so don't take my opinion as granted. Just so that it's clear for the next rounds.
Tbh, ctp proposed Figueroa for the same reason. I also rejected it for same reason as not wanting to get stuck in R2. Had we known of this interpretation Figueroa would have been our pick.
Yup, that's what I meant in that post with the one alternative to Figueroa - could have been phrased better though.
Anyway, I'm fine with whatever Gio and the committee decides to do here.
I agree, there is a bit of a difference, mainly in that in that draft, the situation arose after one manager picked player A and C and the other manager picked player A and B, so they both only had D available. I think. Obviously different as they could have potentially avoided each other with the picks, but were unlucky.
Just giving my 2 cents either way. I'm expecting some change back from it
I didn't want to end up with a sheep in R2 if the other manager we got stuck in decided to make a cheeky pass.
yeah me too, just so that we know for the next rounds. Either way it makes it even more interesting.
Yeah, if you go by the criterion as stated it depends on how "insufficient" is to be interpreted.
A one-man pool is sufficient to make a pick - but insufficient to make a valid/successful pick.
Well depends. If I pick say Baresi(already blocked) will make my pick invalid and the other manager can make the valid and successful pick. Then I'll have the whole pool in R3. If both go for it they'll both have the whole pool in R3. If both make invalid pick then in R3 they have to either pick him (the one left) or just make another invalid pick.
That's at least how I interpreted it last night, but of course just my .02
It just means insufficient cannot be interpreted properly at the beginning of the round at all. We'd have no clue of how many managers are going to get stuck and so no means to measure pool is sufficient or insufficient before the results are out. A core criteria being un-definable before round starts is not the right way for any round, imo.
Yep - and you could say that precisely that luck factor was part and parcel of the thing: You factored in the possibility of getting stuck with another manager IN THE SAME LIMITED POOL* to a different degree than what goes here.
That, plus the research factor, makes this different - IMO.
* Players featuring in one, particular match - compared to, potentially, any player over 34 in any WC in history.
Anyways whatever Gio and team rules, is OK with us.
Yeah whatever the team decides I'm perfectly fine with it.
Looking forward to see us with EAP blocking each other in the next round cause I pretty much sense what will happen
Looking forward to see us with EAP blocking each other in the next round cause I pretty much sense what will happen
if there are 2 players left with 34+ then they should pick between them, if there is only one then they have a free pick.
Yes, but in this particular case there is no chance of either manager picking an invalid (because already picked) player. The entire pool of eligible players consists of two names - and one of them is already picked (and blocked).
So, unless the managers are positively daft, they'll have no option but to pick the ONE eligible guy. You can make them do so, as a form of punishment - sure. But then again you can argue that "insufficient" means "no chance of picking anyone", in which case they should have access to the full pool in R2.
Yeah whatever the team decides I'm perfectly fine with it.
Looking forward to see us with EAP blocking each other in the next round cause I pretty much sense what will happen
Please don't. I've already picked that player you have in mind. So go away!
Well kinda depends. What happens if the manager misses the deadline? Isn't one way not to pick and get a fail? And the other picks the eligible pick. I mean you surely can try to outsmart the other manager because the other pick is a sheep and have the whole pool only for yourself in R3.
This is what prevented me to go for Figeroa as I didn't want to be caught up in those chances as you have like even more chance to end up with a sheep. Otherwise Figeroa was one of the best picks this round - you either get a potential GOAT or have 7-8 other managers locked to countries.
Trouble is I have two players in mind that you could pick from.
10/10. Would read again.
Prisoners' dilemma. Love it.
Yes, well...in theory Invictus can go ahead and pick Player X (who is an eligible pick), like he's supposed to - whereas the devious Joga picks Morgan Freeman (who isn't Chilean, and never played in a World Cup, although he is definitely older than 34), thus outsmarting Invictus (who ends up with a de facto sheep).
It would be the draft equivalent of unsporting behaviour, though - clearly. And as such Joga would find himself at Gio's mercy. I doubt he'd get away with it.
There's nothing in the rules against unsporting behaviour, and you can't really start adding additional punishment for "missing a deadline".
Well he's right to be fair, in this case is kinda obvious.
I think any alternative would take away all risk of entering into a smaller pool. If few others enters, you get your player. If lot of manager enter, then the pool becomes insufficient and gets opened up. Win/Win either way.
True, but still, it'd be very harsh if you add some kind of punishment if someone misses a deadline and the committee assumes they did it on purpose.
It's a similar case to those time-wasting yellow cards in CL group games, so difficult to prove...
Unless you are Busquets.
Sent my pick to Gio.
Hmm, which makes me wonder then if you have 2 other players eligible in the pool but for example 3 managers to pick from is the pool insufficient or?
True. There's no law against acting like a twat in my house either - but I'll slap you all the same if you do.
Again, it would be up to Gio (and his henchmen) how to react if blatant gamesmanship was suspected. So, the question would be whether it'd be worth it for whoever tried such a trick.
So glad I got a pass on this one.
They wouldn't have to, as such.
They could simply call the circumstances exceptional and deem it unfair on the other manager, allowing him a R3 pick to replace his de facto sheep.
I agree, if someone picks Morgan Freeman and blatantly takes the piss (like those Real players time-wasting in that CL game under Mourinho), he/she should get punished.
But if someone misses the deadline, it'd be hard to prove it was done on purpose and punish them.
Any, let's see what Gio & co decide.