Transfer fantasy draft

Second Round Auction

Finished transfers
RVN - 15m - VivaCrappy - 17.00
Dunga - Chesterlestreet - 17:00 - 15m
Desailly(TP) - Isotope - 17:00 - 15m
Zanetti(TP) - Annah - 17:00 - 15m
Brehme(TP) - Annah - 17:00 - 25m
Lizarazu - VivaCrappy - 15m - 17.00
(from team VivaCrappy Luis Enrique - 20m - Annah
Effenberg - Rpitroda - 18:29 - 20m
Seedorf - Cutch - 20.16 - 20m
Thuram(TP) - Isotope - 18:00 - 15m
Amoros - NoPace- 19.05 - 40m
Costacurta - rpitroda - 20:22 45m
Koeman - Aldo - 20.56 - 40m
Baresi(TP) - Isotope - 22:00 - 35m
Di maria - Aldo - 15m - 22.47
Ferdinand(TP) - VivaCrappy - 22.55 - 15m
Gheorghe Popescu - Chesterlestreet - 08:04 - 15m

Transfer listed from teams
(From team Annah) Paul Scholes(TP) -
(From team Rpitroda) Vieira(TP) - PM to discuss
(From team Rpitroda) Gascoigne - PM to discuss
(from team Isotope) David Villa
(from team Isotope) (TP) Rivaldo


Strikers/Finishers:-

Wingers/Side midfielders:-
Thomas Muller - NoPace - 15m - 05:25

Trequartistas/Attacking midfielders:-

Wingers:-

Playmakers:-

Defensive/Central midfielders:-
Redondo(TP) - VivaCrappy 35m- 15.46

Full-backs:-


Centre-backs:-
(TP) Jürgen Kohler - Trippy - 16:18 - 20m @crappycraperson @VivaJanuzaj

GKs
 
A pint to anyone who spots what sort of edit I just did. It pertains to one hell of a central defender.
 
VivaJanuzaj said:
Intersting that Kohler is going for more expensive than Rio or Thuram, when all of them are TP.
Click to expand...

Yes - but I think that largely depends on the different managers' distribution of TP points. Plus, Kohler is actually better than both of 'em - a little better at least.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Yeah, I know - it is. Not much between them. I'd put Kohler over Thuram and Thuram over Rio. But it's close - they were all absolutely top class, obviously.
Click to expand...
Rio was a monster. Very complete. I'd take him over Kohler, maybe even over Thuram but Thuram's ability to play RB adds very much to him.
 
VivaJanuzaj said:
Rio was a monster. Very complete. I'd take him over Kohler, maybe even over Thuram but Thuram's ability to play RB adds very much to him.
Click to expand...

Well, it's margins - no more. Thuram's versatility is a plus, sure - but it's strictly speaking irrelevant if we're talking about who was the best in his prime and in his best position.
 
Not much between Kohler and Thuram in terms of quality but Thuram was incredibly all round and complete, and that helps as he's comfortable against a lot of different types of opponents.
 
crappycraperson said:
Presumably to replace Gattuso, he will drop a defender as well I guess to play

--------Kaka----------
-Seedorf----Redondo--
--------Pirlo----------
Click to expand...

What did you guys expect after all that anti-proven partnerships ranting? Hedging his bets. I was surprised he wasn't pushing for that option.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
These are pretty sharp, I feel:

2nqtngw.jpg
2v1u7wp.jpg
Click to expand...

Masterpiece. As Pisarro put it: "It took me a few years to paint like an artist, but my entire lifetime to do it like a kid"
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Yeah, I know - it is. Not much between them. I'd put Kohler over Thuram and Thuram over Rio. But it's close - they were all absolutely top class, obviously.
Click to expand...

If you have a back three Thuram as RCB, if you have a pair it depends on the partner. There's no definitive X>Y at that level, only contextual caveats.
 
antohan said:
What did you guys expect after all that anti-proven partnerships ranting? Hedging his bets. I was surprised he wasn't pushing for that option.
Click to expand...

It'll be interesting to see how much credit will be given to some of the defences we'll be seeing in the quarter finals. For my money this particular upgrade is a no-brainer, regarded in isolation. Redondo is on a different planet compared to Gattuso, who was, after all, a limited player. Very good at what he did - I rate him highly enough - but compared to Redondo he's a work horse and a water carrier. So, I personally would definitely drop a TP defender to accommodate Redondo - no question about it. But, again, it will be interesting to see how much you actually profit from sporting a TP studded defence.
 
Alongside Pirlo I'd much rather have Gattuso than Redondo, no? You need immense work rate to compliment Pirlo and it doesn't come better than Rino for that, who was a proper bulldog. Redondo and Pirlo would combine beautifully when on the ball and can take the piss out of the opponent, but Redondo's an holding midfielder, so I'm not really sure how easily he will fit on the side of a diamond. Bigger name though, obviously.
 
Aldo said:
Alongside Pirlo I'd much rather have Gattuso than Redondo, no? You need immense work rate to compliment Pirlo and it doesn't come better than Rino for that, who was a proper bulldog. Redondo and Pirlo would combine beautifully when on the ball and can take the piss out of the opponent, but Redondo's an holding midfielder, so I'm not really sure how easily he will fit on the side of a diamond. Bigger name though, obviously.
Click to expand...

Fair point - indeed. I didn't take the diamond into account, to be honest. I'd probably be looking at tweaking that a bit myself - but if the aim is to stick to the theme you definitely have a point.
 
crappycraperson said:
Presumably to replace Gattuso, he will drop a defender as well I guess to play

--------Kaka----------
-Seedorf----Redondo--
--------Pirlo----------
Click to expand...
I'd jettison Seedorf for Gattuso there. The midfield needs some pragmatism.
 
Could very well go for:

Kaka

Redondo Gattuso

Pirlo​

That doesn't look too shabby if you want to stay with the diamond.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
That is a very fair point. If the proven partnership argument is brought to its logical conclusion, the ideal fantasy team is...a real, historic side down to the last water carrier. Which is absurd, given the very concept itself. It should be about using players in roles which are plausible - and come up with combinations and partnerships which make sense. If not, what's there to prove for any manager? We all know who actually played alongside each other - replicating a historical set-up isn't much of a challenge.

So, yes - in principle a proven partnership shouldn't be rated more highly than a hypothetical partnership which makes sense - er, if that makes...sense.
Click to expand...

It gets down to the simple fact that we have no definition of "how long is a peak" and "how long the team has got to practice their tactics and partnerships".

Someone like Crappy assumes the teams assembled here gets a 6 months-2 years to form new partnerships while someone else may assume the team plays together for a month rather.

As there is no defined right or wrong, people will rate proven partnerships differently.

If one assumes they just have 1-3 months together at most, which I think makes most sense - then proven partnerships are worth a lot.

How long did it take for Vidic before they reached their level in that partnership? 7-8 months? So anybody saying Kohler is the better choice probably considers all teams to have a year or two to play together.

I think it is dumb to not define it, I forgot about it in this draft otherwise I would have wanted any sort of definition. Doesn't matter if it was 2 years or 2 months as long as we are all on the same page. Whatever definition you have you will alienate a certain group of voters.
 
Annahnomoss said:
I think it is dumb to not define it, I forgot about it in this draft otherwise I would have wanted any sort of definition. Doesn't matter if it was 2 years or 2 months as long as we are all on the same page. Whatever definition you have you will alienate a certain group of voters.
Click to expand...

AFAIC they are like All-Star teams, they just get together on the day. Let's face it, you chaps completely overhaul teams from one game to another, should we assume they got two months or years between both games? Nope. That's why I value 1. proven partnerships, 2. roles consistent with the ones they peaked in, 3. playing styles that suit the players, 4. how good the player is individually, if all else fails and they are just a bunch of individuals.

In that order.
 
Annahnomoss said:
It gets down to the simple fact that we have no definition of "how long is a peak" and "how long the team has got to practice their tactics and partnerships".

Someone like Crappy assumes the teams assembled here gets a 6 months-2 years to form new partnerships while someone else may assume the team plays together for a month rather.

As there is no defined right or wrong, people will rate proven partnerships differently.

If one assumes they just have 1-3 months together at most, which I think makes most sense - then proven partnerships are worth a lot.

How long did it take for Vidic before they reached their level in that partnership? 7-8 months? So anybody saying Kohler is the better choice probably considers all teams to have a year or two to play together.

I think it is dumb to not define it, I forgot about it in this draft otherwise I would have wanted any sort of definition. Doesn't matter if it was 2 years or 2 months as long as we are all on the same page. Whatever definition you have you will alienate a certain group of voters.
Click to expand...

I take your point, Annah - but to my thinking you're overplaying the "realism" aspect here. At no point in history was it ever possible for Scirea and Hummels to form a decent CB partnership. It must be a matter of judging these players, based on what you know about them, and then to give them a role in a hypothetical XI that looks plausible - it can't be based on historical reality. We're in the business - not in this draft, but generally - of debating whether Friedenreich, or Dixie Dean, would pose a bigger threat in a given set-up than Luis Suarez, or Benzema. That's the point of it - and the fun of it - surely.

And what we surmise will make sense to some voters - and will be judged as utter bollocks by others. That's the nature of the game. But if the "proven partnership" argument is given too much credit - well, then the very idea behind the game surely crumbles. Doesn't it? All of us know what sort of XI Sacchi or Fergie or Rinus Michels put out there - and if the object of the game is to replicate such an XI most accurately...then, well, it becomes an entirely different game.
 
For all those bored out there waiting for your bids to come through. @Chesterlestreet this is the mumbo jumbo of clips I told you about in your matchthread. @Gio and @Cutch will likely enjoy seeing the likes of Mauro or Dunga hacking him down, or the las half hour which is just :drool: highlights from River '96, one of the most exciting sides in the last couple of decades, you could just feel that generation would tear the world apart. Shame they peaked early on the road to WC '02. @Balu, so you don't feel left out, there's also some Augenthaler hatchet stuff.

For those who didn't check the Chester game again:

Watched it last night and it has everything in there:
  • Enzo the striker,
  • Enzo the orchestrator,
  • Enzo the indefatigable warrior (the NTs doctor told me once he used to lose 7 kg every time he played for Uruguay, and he wasn't exactly podgy)
  • Enzo the unfortunate chap surrounded by Celeste NT dogshit (there are a few moves which don't end up in goals or anything in particular, but you can clearly see what his problem was, everyone gave him the ball and left it all up to him, movement from other players was non-existent, anyone with a man on would pass it back to Enzo and he would have 2, 3, 4 men on him and no one giving him options. The only triangle on the pitch was usually the three chaps around him. Also some truly terrible finishing to what should have been glorious assists.
  • Enzo the target for cynical recurring fouling, since all you needed to do was get him out of the game and Uruguay collapsed. But he would stand up and keep coming for more. It was unreal, can't understand how he managed it with those stick thin legs, must have been made of rubber.
  • Then the last half hour is purely the goal highlights from his last season at River, with Goooooool running for minutes, etc. But it's fun watching Crespo, Ortega, Salas, all in their teens or early 20s. I was watching it yesterday and wondering why the hell he retired, at his age he could no longer do the one-man team job he did for Uruguay, but River just asked him to go back to his mediapunta/support striker roots and he was scoring for fun.
Oh, and for the Zidane lovers, there's a snippet of his interview between the Matra and Marseille stuff, with subtitles.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
I take your point, Annah - but to my thinking you're overplaying the "realism" aspect here. At no point in history was it ever possible for Scirea and Hummels to form a decent CB partnership. It must be a matter of judging these players, based on what you know about them, and then to give them a role in a hypothetical XI that looks plausible - it can't be based on historical reality. We're in the business - not in this draft, but generally - of debating whether Friedenreich, or Dixie Dean, would pose a bigger threat in a given set-up than Luis Suarez, or Benzema. That's the point of it - and the fun of it - surely.

And what we surmise will make sense to some voters - and will be judged as utter bollocks by others. That's the nature of the game. But if the "proven partnership" argument is given too much credit - well, then the very idea behind the game surely crumbles. Doesn't it? All of us know what sort of XI Sacchi or Fergie or Rinus Michels put out there - and if the object of the game is to replicate such an XI most accurately...then, well, it becomes an entirely different game.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying the attempt should be to replicate an XI perfectly as all sides has weaknesses in them. But the complexity in these games is completely gone if we assume that all players has 3 years experience in the system and with the team mates - as then we can all just pick the "best" 11 players and whoever has the best 11 players win.

If we assume that all partnerships per automatic will work, then we might as well assume that Ronaldo would also convert himself in to a LB perfectly.

The harder we are when we judge teams, the more thought and effort will go in to them and the funnier it will be.
 
Annahnomoss said:
Nobody is saying the attempt should be to replicate an XI perfectly as all sides has weaknesses in them. But the complexity in these games is completely gone if we assume that all players has 3 years experience in the system and with the team mates - as then we can all just pick the "best" 11 players and whoever has the best 11 players win.

If we assume that all partnerships per automatic will work, then we might as well assume that Ronaldo would also convert himself in to a LB perfectly.

The harder we are when we judge teams, the more thought and effort will go in to them and the funnier it will be.
Click to expand...

What an odd comparison to mate. Saying Ronaldo could have converted to LB is no where near the same as saying Kohler-Rio is better than Vida-Rio. Only reason why partnerships are helpful in drafts is you do not have sell your combos them. Trippy ran into trouble with Laudrup-Vieri for some, if he had Romario he would not have faced any questions. Similarly combine Boniek with Iniesta and some may still think it may not work, with Platini no such issues.
 
Annahnomoss said:
Nobody is saying the attempt should be to replicate an XI perfectly as all sides has weaknesses in them. But the complexity in these games is completely gone if we assume that all players has 3 years experience in the system and with the team mates - as then we can all just pick the "best" 11 players and whoever has the best 11 players win.

If we assume that all partnerships per automatic will work, then we might as well assume that Ronaldo would also convert himself in to a LB perfectly.

The harder we are when we judge teams, the more thought and effort will go in to them and the funnier it will be.
Click to expand...

This simply isn't the case, though. Because your example would be an extreme case of "not plausible at all". To me the way to judge any given team is to assess how the selected players would perform, hypothetically, in the set-up presented. And I would base my assessment on my knowledge of these players - how they played, how they interacted with their team mates, what sort of roles they were comfortable with in the teams they played for - and so forth.

I agree fully with your premise - judge 'em hard! But it seems to me that you - again - put an undue emphasis on historical facts here. In my opinion what I said - and what I propose, in wide terms, as a way to assess players and teams - does no harm to the complexity of the game. We don't assume that any partnership would work - we don't deem an XI of the biggest names available unbeatable. Quite to the contrary - we look at the players and the teams closely and determine which partnerships are plausible and which teams are balanced and well functioning - based on what we know about said teams and players. You seem to suggest that downplaying historically proven facts is tantamount to - simply - accepting that the manager with the biggest names on his team sheet wins the match. That is not what I'm advocating at all. If anything I stress the importance of knowing your players - their strengths and weaknesses, who they might work well alongside, who they might combine well with - in short, to have an idea of what a well balanced fantasy team should look like.

You have to presuppose something in terms of the hopelessly vague category of "experience" - in this context. It's hypothetical - it's fantasy, it goes with the territory. How on earth do you factor in "experience" when determining whether Rossi would do well on the receiving end of a Thomas Müller pass?

You can't reconcile the aspects of this game which are purely hypothetical with the ones which are historical - it's an inherent "weakness" of the concept itself. I could claim that no matter how many months Garrincha was given to acclimatize, he would still look terribly out of place as a right winger meant to serve Robin Van Persie in the box. I wouldn't even have to point to the fact that Garrincha wore combat boots and didn't know the meaning of "neuromuscular co-ordination" - it would be enough to say that he is, sadly, dead.
 
crappycraperson said:
What an odd comparison to mate. Saying Ronaldo could have converted to LB is no where near the same as saying Kohler-Rio is better than Vida-Rio. Only reason why partnerships are helpful in drafts is you do not have sell your combos them. Trippy ran into trouble with Laudrup-Vieri for some, if he had Romario he would not have faced any questions. Similarly combine Boniek with Iniesta and some may still think it may not work, with Platini no such issues.
Click to expand...

Like said, Vidic was a perfect fit for Rio which the future said - they complemented each other absolutely perfectly but still it took more than half a year of training to reach a high level.

Before that, despite theoretically being perfect for each other, they played well below the sums of their individual parts and were actually very poor. In the end they instead played well above their individual sums.

Kohler with Rio would then also play well below their individual abilities, even if the theory is there for them to click. So considering Vidic is not much worse than Kohler individually, there is no way Kohler-Rio would be better unless they have the time to forge a great partnership.

Like I said, in your eyes these draft teams has had some years experience and there is nothing wrong with that as you don't rate proven partnerships to actually perform above their abilities.

But taking that route of players getting year/years to handle a new role we ought to apply it to every player on the pitch. A CB who never played in a three man line would learn to go wide for example, a RWB could be turned to a RB and the opposite.

It removes all the intricacy in the drafts, all that is left is trying to assemble the 11 best players. One stopper, one ball playing CB - perfect match per default.
 
Annahnomoss said:
Like said, Vidic was a perfect fit for Rio which the future said - they complemented each other absolutely perfectly but still it took more than half a year of training to reach a high level.

Before that, despite theoretically being perfect for each other, they played well below the sums of their individual parts and were actually very poor. In the end they instead played well above their individual sums.

Kohler with Rio would then also play well below their individual abilities, even if the theory is there for them to click. So considering Vidic is not much worse than Kohler individually, there is no way Kohler-Rio would be better unless they have the time to forge a great partnership.

Like I said, in your eyes these draft teams has had some years experience and there is nothing wrong with that as you don't rate proven partnerships to actually perform above their abilities.

But taking that route of players getting year/years to handle a new role we ought to apply it to every player on the pitch. A CB who never played in a three man line would learn to go wide for example, a RWB could be turned to a RB and the opposite.

It removes all the intricacy in the drafts, all that is left is trying to assemble the 11 best players. One stopper, one ball playing CB - perfect match per default.
Click to expand...

No in my eyes there is nothing. I don;t think this deeply about this as you and anto.

You again keep going into the bizarre route of training someone to change his position. If someone can actually argue that a player who may have never played in a certain position, has atrributes to do so then there is no issue with that. See my usage of Martinez as free defender role in last draft, as Balu pointed out, he was actually used in same exact role by Pep in the cup final. Even if he had not played that role, my usage of him there was perfectly fine since he had all the qualities to make it work. Did he under go an year of training before playing that position in the final? I mean someone can play Rio at right back if he wants, he just won't be able to convince people that he can work there and will suffer as a result.

According to your logic, it can be argued that Rio-Vida are better than a combo like - Kohler-Baresi since the latter pair may not develop an understanding at all.

I think it is more fun in drafts to assemble players and then argue they can work together rather than get in proven partnerships. Like we had to do with Matthaus - Tigana. What Cutch has done is good but takes the fun out of it, I mean everyone knows how Milan diamond plays, what is left there for him to tell anyone? Even if he was going to change their tactics, no one would buy it.
 
Last edited:
Chesterlestreet said:
......
Click to expand...

The issue with that system is that the best players would be used always. If Kohler is a better stopper next to Rio than Vidic, then so would the other top stoppers at that level be as well? We leave no room and freedom for a bigger pool of players who can be potential draft winners.

I get your POV though, I used to be of a similar idea but after playing a couple of drafts I went very bored of just trying to field the best stopper with the best sweeper, the best LB and the best RB and so forth. Personal opinion, with no right and wrong, Crappy seems to be of the complete opposite idea and he has played a lot more drafts than me.
 
crappycraperson said:
No in my eyes there is nothing. I don;t think this deeply about this as you and anto.

I think it is more fun in drafts to assemble players and then argue they can work together rather than get in proven partnerships. Like we had to do with Matthaus - Tigana. What Cutch has done is good but takes the fun out of it, I mean everyone knows how Milan diamond plays, what is left there for him to tell anyone? Even if he was going to change their tactics, no one would buy it.
Click to expand...

Then I get why nobody has defined peak and how long the team gets to play together. Half the people consider it funnier in one way and the other half in the other.

It is usually very clear in the voting who does what, not sure how much sense it makes for the game but as long as people are entertained it is good.
 
Annahnomoss said:
The issue with that system is that the best players would be used always. If Kohler is a better stopper next to Rio than Vidic, then so would the other top stoppers at that level be as well? We leave no room and freedom for a bigger pool of players who can be potential draft winners.

I get your POV though, I used to be of a similar idea but after playing a couple of drafts I went very bored of just trying to field the best stopper with the best sweeper, the best LB and the best RB and so forth. Personal opinion, with no right and wrong, Crappy seems to be of the complete opposite idea and he has played a lot more drafts than me.
Click to expand...
You need to come up with restrictions to make the drafts more interesting though. Assuming that Rio-Vidic are a better centerback pairing in a fantasy draft than Baresi - Kohler, because they played with each other makes no sense. I mean, the word fantasy is in there for a reason :lol:.
 
Annahnomoss said:
The issue with that system is that the best players would be used always. If Kohler is a better stopper next to Rio than Vidic, then so would the other top stoppers at that level be as well? We leave no room and freedom for a bigger pool of players who can be potential draft winners.

I get your POV though, I used to be of a similar idea but after playing a couple of drafts I went very bored of just trying to field the best stopper with the best sweeper, the best LB and the best RB and so forth. Personal opinion, with no right and wrong, Crappy seems to be of the complete opposite idea and he has played a lot more drafts than me.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're WRONG, man - in capital letters - I just think your focus is a bit off here. I get what you're saying - and I believe that I understand your actual concern. But I also believe that the logic you're - in one way or another - espousing here would end in the death of "fantasy" in the very concept itself if taken to extremes.

But - and this, I suppose, is the core of what crappy is saying too - we won't end up there: because people do regard these matters differently, which means that they will put more - or less - emphasis on tried and tested partnerships, just as they will put more - or less - emphasis on untried ones, based on how well the manager in question states his case.
 
Balu said:
You need to come up with restrictions to make the drafts more interesting though. Assuming that Rio-Vidic are a better centerback pairing in a fantasy draft than Baresi - Kohler, because they played with each other makes no sense. I mean, the word fantasy is in there for a reason :lol:.
Click to expand...
That's a surprising post. I always thought of you as the flag bearer of the historical evidence side in the evidence vs fantasy battle. :p
 
Balu said:
You need to come up with restrictions to make the drafts more interesting though. Assuming that Rio-Vidic are a better centerback pairing in a fantasy draft than Baresi - Kohler, because they played with each other makes no sense. I mean, the word fantasy is in there for a reason :lol:.
Click to expand...

I would consider Baresi and Kohler the better pairing, like I said I consider the teams getting a chance to form an understanding, but months rather than years which some use.

Of course the partnership of Vidic and Rio would be a bonus still, but it wouldn't make up for the skill-gap.

I would consider Maldini-Nesta better than Baresi and Kohler, even if I'd say the latter two are better individually.
 
Was thinking about this earlier but this whole discussion has made up my mind. I will have the main restriction in my draft as 'None of the players selected in the 11 should have played with any other at club or international level (exhibition matches not counted)' :)
 
Aldo said:
That's a surprising post. I always thought of you as the flag bearer of the historical evidence side in the evidence vs fantasy battle. :p
Click to expand...
I think proven partnerships should get a bit extra credit for what they achieved. But I'm certainly not dismissing the potential brilliance of a fantasy partnership with two players who complement each other perfectly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.