The UEFA Euro Fantasy Draft

Big red123 said:
amancio.jpg
Click to expand...
Already picked by @The Stain in the 3rd round.
 
VivaJanuzaj said:
It might. I don't see any issues with Campbell, agreed - he was a beast at his prime. As for Pepe.. Look, I watch RM almost every week and I don't think the criticism he usually gets in England is deserved. I mean, I agree he is a nasty nasty player but he does his job really well most of the times and a very good partner for Ramos. But, maybe I don't remember him good enough on Euro 2008 & 2012, but I don't recall any amazing performances by him that will, for me, earn him a definite spot in TotT. Sometimes these awards are full of shit, just like Ballon D'or doesn't really represent the player who was the best in the world that season or the UEFA team of the season is huge bullshit too.
Anyway, I do have my soft spot for Pepe unlike most people, but I don't buy him as the right defender there because he got in both TotTs, and I bet that most voters will be much more critical of him than I would, so yeah, it's a bigass gamble.
Click to expand...

Very few CB's picked actually had "amazing" performances. Sammer, Kh Forster are obvious standouts, but the rest are almost evenly rated. The TotT is more of a indication that they are not in any way a liability (as players like Pepe get classed in all time drafts), but within the context of form for this draft, would do a competent job.

And the voting for Balon d'Or may be fixed, but was there ever a deserving winner? The 3rd and 4th place are the ones I find to be highly disagreed upon, but the winners on average have earned them, imo.
 
harms said:
I rate both Pepe and Campbell (even if I dislike the latter), but you shouldn't overestimate TotT inclusions since 1996, when they figured that they should pick not 11, but more players. So 2 Pepe's inclusions are not equal in any way to, say, K.H.Förster's. Yes, there are more players in the tournament too, but still.
Click to expand...

:lol: Agree. See my reply above.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Very few CB's picked actually had "amazing" performances. Sammer, Kh Forster are obvious standouts, but the rest are almost evenly rated. The TotT is more of a indication that they are not in any way a liability (as players like Pepe get classed in all time drafts), but within the context of form for this draft, would do a competent job.

And the voting for Balon d'Or may be fixed, but was there ever a deserving winner? The 3rd and 4th place are the ones I find to be highly disagreed upon, but the winners on average have earned them, imo.
Click to expand...
Yeah I guess that's fair. For me it's all about his role, I wouldn't mind seeing him man marking someone out of the match with his aggression and power if that player is the right fit for him, still he'd be a gamble - some might see it as a move of a tactical genius but usually most won't see past the "surely get carded" stigma he has all over him.
 
Harms is right about the team of the tournament nominations. It's still a decent accolade. But ever since UEFA lost their bollocks and made it a 23-man squad, it's pretty difficult to go into a tournament as a top player, perform half decently, and not come out in the 'team' of the tourney. And it's also one of these areas that will no doubt be up for debate because there will be certain inclusions and awards that us managers don't agree with based on our own recollection of each tournament.
 
1. crappycraperson - 1. Platini 2. Figo 3. Tigana 4. Tardelli 5. Krol 6. Antonin Puc 7. Planicka 8. Ceulemans 9. Vogts
2. Edgar Allan Pillow & MJJ & coolredwine - 1. Puskás 2. Masopust 3. Gullit 4. Breitner 5. Deschamps 6. Sol Campbell 7. Schweinsteiger 8. Durkovic 9. Pepe
3. Paolo Di Canio - 1. Cristiano Ronaldo 2. Blanc 3. Lev Yashin 4. van Nistelrooy 5. Gentile 6. Domenghini 7. Ballack 8. Bergkamp 9. Camacho
4. The Stain - 1. Zidane 2. Czibor 3. Amancio 4. Förster 5. Zagorakis 6. Shearer 7. Wimmer 8. Puyol 9. Combi
5. Skizzo & Pat_Mustard - 1. van Basten 2. Netzer 3. Monti 4. Popluhár 5. Bonhof 6. Suker 7. Sergio Ramos 8. Olivella 9. Jarni
6. Stobzilla - 1. Beckenbauer 2. B.Charlton 3. Bican 4. Gascoigne 5. Brian Laudrup 6. Kuznetsov 7. Capdevila 8. Branko Stanković 9. Pešek
7. Joga Bonito - 1. Maldini 2. B.Moore 3. Sindelar 4. Bergomi 5. Effenberg 6. Pluskal 7. Hoeneß 8. Villa 9. Elkjær
8. harms - 1. Dragan Džajić 2. Sárosi 3. Schuster 4. Voronin 5. Brehme 6. Ondruš 7. Bezsonov 8. Van Moer 9. Khurtsilava
9. Aldo - 1. Xavi 2. Iniesta 3. Nedved 4. Lahm 5. Albert 6. Carvalho 7. Cocu 8. Bossis 9. Kaltz
10. Raees & Gio - 1. Rijkaard 2. Facchetti 3. Kohler 4. Henry 5. Zebec 6. Hanappi 7. Beara 8. Hässler 9. Pirlo
11. Theon & NM - 1. Matthäus 2. Bozsik 3. Davids 4. Desailly 5. Kocsis 6. Burgnich 7. Stielike 8. Luigi Riva 9. Vukas
12. The Red Viper - 1. Gerd Müller 2. Sammer 3. Vieira 4. Shesternyov 5. Cannavaro 6. Piola 7. Rui Costa 8. Alonso 9. Rooney 10. Alba
13. big red123 - 1. Cruyff 2. Baresi 3. Stoichkov 4. Michael Laudrup 5. Koeman 6. Buzánszky 7. Grosics 8. Ladislav Novák 9. Guardiola 10. Djorkaeff
14. Šjor Bepo & Physiocrat - 1. Luis Suarez 2. Nesta 3. Hidegkuti 4. Ivanov 5. Giresse 6. Stam 7. Briegel 8. Busquets 9. G. Neville 10. Zoff
15. ctp - 1. Rummenigge 2. Scirea 3. Ocwirk 4. Mazzola 5. Gerets 6. Lizarazu 7. Nausch 8. Iribar 9. Couto 10. Kluivert
16. PedroMendez - 1. Meazza 2. Thuram 3. Schmeichel 4. Netto 5. Bene 6. Schwarzenbeck 7. Silva 8. Smistik 9. Pires 10. Frank De Boer
 
VivaJanuzaj said:
Yeah I guess that's fair. For me it's all about his role, I wouldn't mind seeing him man marking someone out of the match with his aggression and power if that player is the right fit for him, still he'd be a gamble - some might see it as a move of a tactical genius but usually most won't see past the "surely get carded" stigma he has all over him.
Click to expand...

Lets be honest, no one is going to give Pepe a fair shot come the latter stages.
 
Gio said:
Harms is right about the team of the tournament nominations. It's still a decent accolade. But ever since UEFA lost their bollocks and made it a 23-man squad, it's pretty difficult to go into a tournament as a top player, perform half decently, and not come out in the 'team' of the tourney. And it's also one of these areas that will no doubt be up for debate because there will be certain inclusions and awards that us managers don't agree with based on our own recollection of each tournament.
Click to expand...
How many matches has Cruyff played in the Euros, again? :wenger:
 
coolredwine said:
How many matches has Cruyff played in the Euros, again? :wenger:
Click to expand...
He wasn't in the team of the tournament. It is, if you are criticizing Gio's logic somehow, and not just bantering bigred123 (I'm not really sure).
 
I suggest we be allowed to use the qualifiers to talk about what the contribution was of a certain player. This is close to changing a rule midway so it's fine if Balu doesn't want to, just that the 4 that went to the "finals" did play an actual bigger tournament, just that most of it went by the name of the "qualifiers". The "qualifiers" were an actual tournament, not like the current group format.
 
Aldo said:
I suggest we be allowed to use the qualifiers to talk about what the contribution was of a certain player. This is close to changing a rule midway so it's fine if Balu doesn't want to, just that the 4 that went to the "finals" did play an actual bigger tournament, just that most of it went by the name of the "qualifiers". The "qualifiers" were an actual tournament, not like the current group format.
Click to expand...

The only issue with that is that some people based their picks on actually following the stated rules. Seems a bit unfair on the managers who passed up on "star names" for the players who actually performed in the stated matches which were to be judged.

Just my .02
 
Skizzo said:
The only issue with that is that some people based their picks on actually following the stated rules. Seems a bit unfair on the managers who passed up on "star names" for the players who actually performed in the stated matches which were to be judged.

Just my .02
Click to expand...

this
 
Skizzo said:
The only issue with that is that some people based their picks on actually following the stated rules. Seems a bit unfair on the managers who passed up on "star names" for the players who actually performed in the stated matches which were to be judged.

Just my .02
Click to expand...
Yeah that's true. What I meant was just not discard players who played one important game, basically lost the semi, by saying one game isn't enough. Even if you don't want to keep the qualifications completely as a part of your judgement of these performances then at least remember that it was not just one game.

Because otherwise given the fact there were 4 teams in the finals till 76, a lot of players would have gone out after one game naturally.
 
Aldo said:
I suggest we be allowed to use the qualifiers to talk about what the contribution was of a certain player. This is close to changing a rule midway so it's fine if Balu doesn't want to, just that the 4 that went to the "finals" did play an actual bigger tournament, just that most of it went by the name of the "qualifiers". The "qualifiers" were an actual tournament, not like the current group format.
Click to expand...

It's not close, it is literally changing a rule in a midway

Skizzo said:
The only issue with that is that some people based their picks on actually following the stated rules. Seems a bit unfair on the managers who passed up on "star names" for the players who actually performed in the stated matches which were to be judged.

Just my .02
Click to expand...

This. If the priorities were on the final performances, it's one thing. If not, some picks would've been different, I'm quite sure.
 
Aldo said:
Yeah that's true. What I meant was just not discard players who played one important game, basically lost the semi, by saying one game isn't enough. Even if you don't want to keep the qualifications completely as a part of your judgement of these performances then at least remember that it was not just one game.

Because otherwise given the fact there were 4 teams in the finals till 76, a lot of players would have gone out after one game naturally.
Click to expand...
Cruijff is not "discarded" because one game isn't enough, he is "discarded" (and, again, he isn't yet, let's see what reception he would get in an actual game) because he wasn't good enough in that game and didn't create anything (and he was a little half-arsed if you ask me, which, maybe, was his main problem on that day).

Most players played 2 games (the 3rd place game was always played, Cruijff just wasn't picked/arsed to play in it) and if they were great in it, it should be enough.
 
Aldo said:
Yeah that's true. What I meant was just not discard players who played one important game, basically lost the semi, by saying one game isn't enough. Even if you don't want to keep the qualifications completely as a part of your judgement of these performances then at least remember that it was not just one game.

Because otherwise given the fact there were 4 teams in the finals till 76, a lot of players would have gone out after one game naturally.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's harsh on some players that their appearances in the "judged games" is sometimes limited to one. I think that should be a focus of the managers to mention in the games though. I don't think the qualifying games should be included in the main judging, but if (and just using him as an example) big red wants to argue that Cruyff had a great game even though his team lost...then he can certainly try. I think the draft favours other picks, rather than the usual suspects, and that could make for some great discussions.
 
Aldo said:
I suggest we be allowed to use the qualifiers to talk about what the contribution was of a certain player. This is close to changing a rule midway so it's fine if Balu doesn't want to, just that the 4 that went to the "finals" did play an actual bigger tournament, just that most of it went by the name of the "qualifiers". The "qualifiers" were an actual tournament, not like the current group format.
Click to expand...

No. That changes the criteria completely Aldo. The picks would have been very different.
 
Yeah I didn't mean to change the reputation of a player completely and as harms mentioned, if someone didn't perform in that one game it's fair to hold that against him, I was rather more concerned about players who played well in that one game, but get discarded saying "just one good performance" when they probably did a lot of work before as well. In any case it should be nothing more than a "back of the mind" thing than an actual argument.

I guess it's just weird to judge people on single games.
 
Aldo said:
I suggest we be allowed to use the qualifiers to talk about what the contribution was of a certain player. This is close to changing a rule midway so it's fine if Balu doesn't want to, just that the 4 that went to the "finals" did play an actual bigger tournament, just that most of it went by the name of the "qualifiers". The "qualifiers" were an actual tournament, not like the current group format.
Click to expand...

No.. that would completely change everything. There are a number of players we haven't selected because of the original rule.
 
I guess it's a no @Aldo . I do agree with your point and would like to include it, but we should have done it before the draft started. Now it's too late, unless every manager agrees with it. Which is clearly not the case.
 
Aldo said:
Yeah I didn't mean to change the reputation of a player completely and as harms mentioned, if someone didn't perform in that one game it's fair to hold that against him, I was rather more concerned about players who played well in that one game, but get discarded saying "just one good performance" when they probably did a lot of work before as well. In any case it should be nothing more than a "back of the mind" thing than an actual argument.

I guess it's just weird to judge people on single games.
Click to expand...

It comes across as a bit of a "risk vs reward" decision for some picks. The reward of picking a name like Cruyff (sorry to keep picking on him :p ) gets balanced out quickly when you look at the risk of picking him with the criteria in mind.

Same with other picks, but the opposite. Players you might not expect to get picked up, suddenly being huge players in terms for Euro performances. If it was only one game, then that's something the managers can discuss (and argue about ;) ) in the match threads as to whether their performance would mean they would impact the game they're currently playing in.
 
Balu said:
I guess it's a no @Aldo . I do agree with your point and would like to include it, but we should have done it before the draft started. Now it's too late, unless every manager agrees with it. Which is clearly not the case.
Click to expand...
Nah don't include it formally, that would be unfair right now.

I just meant that if someone knows that the player he picked did also perform quite well before player those one or two games that are actually being judged, maybe he can be allowed to talk about it, even if it is not taken into consideration formally.
 
Skizzo said:
It comes across as a bit of a "risk vs reward" decision for some picks. The reward of picking a name like Cruyff (sorry to keep picking on him :p ) gets balanced out quickly when you look at the risk of picking him with the criteria in mind.

Same with other picks, but the opposite. Players you might not expect to get picked up, suddenly being huge players in terms for Euro performances. If it was only one game, then that's something the managers can discuss (and argue about ;) ) in the match threads as to whether their performance would mean they would impact the game they're currently playing in.
Click to expand...
Yeah it will get tricky in the matches. It's just these bunch from 60-76 that had two rounds of finals to play for. Went up from there. I was just thinking how to go about when you have a player that probably had a couple of excellent tournament with playing a handful of games in each, both in groups and KOs, versus someone who excellent in one/two games. Is there a fair way to do this?
 
Aldo said:
I just meant that if someone knows that the player he picked did also perform quite well before player those one or two games that are actually being judged, maybe he can be allowed to talk about it, even if it is not taken into consideration formally.
Click to expand...
I suggested the same earlier in the thread, but no one liked the idea.

Balu said:
I didn't include the qualifications, because it would have changed the playerpool quite signficantly and I didn't want players in the draft who never actually played in one of the final tournaments. I wouldn't mind if someone used the qualification games to further underly the quality of performances from the eligible players between 1960 and 1976 though, because 2 games really isn't much to go by. But every manager would have to agree to do that, because it wasn't part of the game when I started it. It would make sense to give it a bit more depth and I don't think it would take anything away from the standout performers in semifinals and finals.
Click to expand...
 
Aldo said:
Nah don't include it formally, that would be unfair right now.

I just meant that if someone knows that the player he picked did also perform quite well before player those one or two games that are actually being judged, maybe he can be allowed to talk about it, even if it is not taken into consideration formally.
Click to expand...
That's fair - especially with less known players, when you need to introduce a new name to the voters. Just as far as their pick is based firstly on a great performance in the finals and their qualification performances only highlight the qualities that they had already shown in the finals and not showing us a different (maybe better) player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.