Ideas For Fantasy Draft Match Threads (New Ways Of Playing Out Matches)

[Annahnomoss]

Playing a game without rules on the absolute keywords is just downright pointless.
Just put a figure, any figure, whatever it is doesn't really matter and then go with it.

So if someone can provide proofs that Adriano had a peak for 3+ years and we stated that 3 years of a peak is what counts then that is it, no discussion - his peak is viable and puts him up there as a good pick.

The quality of discussion in this draft has been extremely low bar the first round or two, when people introduced their players.

 

[Physiocrat]

The issue is that we constantly end up in childish discussions where two people disagree purely based on having different definitions of peak.

Especially as people assume that everybody else has the same definition as them.

It also means that people draft together completely different teams. And will obviously support the managers who has the same definition of peak as them.

If I define peak as 10 years, then me and 2 others who does the same would all vote for each other because all other teams would be absolutely shit with that definition of peak.

All arguments in the entire thread will come down to the definition of peak so it is important that it is defined.

Exactly. If we can define peak as their best ever game Alvaro Recoba could be the greatest player of all-time. Looking at Aguero's caps per league season it is only last season it dipped under 30, to 23. With that in mind we could say a minimum of 20 league games a season, as Aguero was clearly quality last season; then use a three year consecutive peak. Clearly, as Balu points out we couldn't have the '98 and '06 but I don't see it as a huge problem as he was seriously good '98-'00. Also as I mentioned before it would stop Giggs been a storming winger one game and a clever LCM in another. Obviously not all voters will stick to this rigidly but would provide agreed upon parameters for the debating drafters.

On a slightly different note, I think should discourage proven partnership and position arguments, and base arguments purely on ability. That's not to say you can't use it to buttress an argument but not to win one- based on all the evidence a John Charles and Bobby Moore centre-back partnership would be better than Terry and Carvalho even though it is not proven. Further, if you play a play a player in a position they did not play in their peak we should look kindly on the reasons why his skill set would work in there. To my knowledge Messi has not played as 10 behind a single striker. To argue against it on his best "proven" position is as a false 9 would not be in the spirit of the draft. Obviously if a player such as Henry played alongside a proper 9 in Trezeguet and it didn't work such an argument against would be. Operating in such a way would keep the fantasy spirit but within some good parameters.

 

[Annahnomoss]

Defining the peak is a bad idea. It'll lead to even more ridiculous discussions and I don't really understand why longevity shouldn't count for something. Even great players don't necessarily have 3 standout seasons in a row, but often have several of them over the course of their career. For example, if you pick Zidane, why would you want to take his World Cup performance in 2006 out of the discussion just to pick a stupid peak period like 1998 - 2000? That's just sad.

Voters don't seem to have a problem to seperate one hit wonders from quality players, at least that's the impression I have. I'm all for clearly outlined rules for the draft, but defining how players should be judged doesn't make any sense. It's perfectly normal that we disagree on the quality of players all the time.

You would be able to play the 03-06 Zidane if you wanted to. Obviously nobody would ever do that, which does show that he wasn't quite as magical in those years and when discussing a peak those years are quite irrelevant.

If you play the 04-07 Ryan Giggs then referring to matches from 93 where he was a completely different player makes no sense. That the '93 version of Giggs beat X and Y over and over doesn't mean anything to prove that the 04-07 Giggs would do it.

Same goes for players who played in the same positions as well. You can't pick Ibrahimovic and show his dribbling compilation from Ajax which was at a legendary level - then you show his goalscoring and playmaking ability from PSG which was incredible as well - then you show his workrate from Barcelona.

It is irrelevant what a player did outside of that peak as to a draft environment. You can't boost Zidane's peak at 97-2000 by linking to videos of him in 92 when he was one of the fastest dribblers(he wasn't) - then to 2006 where he was incredibly experienced and try to merge a player.

 

[Annahnomoss]

This is the entire issue though. Every player has a preset bias for/against them and as there is no defined rule then every voter validates this bias by changing their opinion from game to game.

In one game Zidane's achievements until 06 are always merged together with his achievements from 96 creating a super human. Then you have the Giggs/Ronaldos who is in the same situation, but people are forced to choose whether you want the young Giggs the "99" Giggs or the old Giggs. Earlier Giggs was also one to be merged and superheroed.

Then you have the normal players who if you try to argue that way, you'd be labeled a retard.

Follow the stream type of drafting where you just have to accept completely irrational reasons as ultimate proofs as the voters can't be questioned.

 

[MJJ]

But all of that is reflected in the draft already. Players with united bias, a long and illustrious playing career with different peaks either go for more money or are picked earlier than their contemporaries. So getting favourable reaction is balanced by either sacrificing a higher pick or more money which is fair imo.

 

[Pat_Mustard]

Ban all Manchester United players ? To much understandable bias, not that United's set of players aren't a match for anyone.

I'm not sure that we're not necessarily all that biased towards Utd players as a rule. I could see people thinking that we overrate Rio, Stam and maybe Irwin, for example, but Ronaldo hasn't always got much love in all-time drafts, and I'd argue that Vidic has been underrated badly at times. Balu makes a fair point about rival players though, most infamously Gerrard and Terry who have most likely barely won a draft game between them!

 

[RoadTrip]

The issue is that we constantly end up in childish discussions where two people disagree purely based on having different definitions of peak.

Especially as people assume that everybody else has the same definition as them.

It also means that people draft together completely different teams. And will obviously support the managers who has the same definition of peak as them.

If I define peak as 10 years, then me and 2 others who does the same would all vote for each other because all other teams would be absolutely shit with that definition of peak.

All arguments in the entire thread will come down to the definition of peak so it is important that it is defined.

I can see your point. It is annoying in that situation. But, what I would say is:

- I don't think people's definition of peak varies that wildly that it becomes the only factor affecting who they vote for. Your example is worst case, I don't think people's definitions are THAT different.

- I think part of improving draft matches and draft discussions is an acceptance by the participants and people who post that it's an opinions thing. I know it'll never happen and it's impossible to change but the only way to really improve things is if the people themselves stop rambling on about the same things and they make their points then move on.

 

[Pat_Mustard]

This is the entire issue though. Every player has a preset bias for/against them and as there is no defined rule then every voter validates this bias by changing their opinion from game to game.

In one game Zidane's achievements until 06 are always merged together with his achievements from 96 creating a super human. Then you have the Giggs/Ronaldos who is in the same situation, but people are forced to choose whether you want the young Giggs the "99" Giggs or the old Giggs. Earlier Giggs was also one to be merged and superheroed.

Then you have the normal players who if you try to argue that way, you'd be labeled a retard.

Follow the stream type of drafting where you just have to accept completely irrational reasons as ultimate proofs as the voters can't be questioned.

Fair points, but they're all issues that can and should be brought up in the match threads. There's no way that I can think of to enforce how voters judge peaks/players/teams anyway, so all you can do is argue your points based on the three year peak and hope that it seeps through to the voters. And sometimes it does, the Giggs and Scholes examples being cases in point.

 

[Joga Bonito]

1. Annahnomoss
2. Stobzilla
3. Edgar Allan Pillow
4. Cutch
5. Raees
6. Joga Bonito

 

[Annahnomoss]

These discussions are purely for the "draft-community". Any voter who refuses to read anything will of course stick with his own opinion completely.

But most people read the OP/Thread, for example in my game against EAP only two people in total were "randoms" while the rest were people who either posted or were regulars.

If we set a peak to be 3 years/seasons then there won't be any room for discussion. @rpitroda I think "accepting" opinions and just moving on is a bad way to learn more about the players, change the view of them to a more fair one and so forth.

I think we can all agree that the opinions on Gerrard/Terry/Lampard are very unfair and biased and shows just how far off us voters can be.

With a two-three year/season peak defined, it would be a lot easier to go in depth about it and provide factual arguments on stuff. I would then be able to go through these matches and show that Terry was fantastic between X-Y.

Right now that isn't possible as everybody just goes by the "feel" of a player and people won't change their mind on how good Terry's career was in their eyes. Nobody will be able to put forth an in depth argument over the course of a career - it would take a week to create that.

But an in depth factual argument to his best 2, or 3, years would be very doable.

We would obviously have to look in to the amount of years to decide what we'd call a peak. 3 years is exactly what would allow Ronaldinho in I believe?

 

[Raees]

I don't think the United bias is too much of a problem, the Best and Law combo being on the losing team is a case in point from the recent draft.. amazing result in all honesty. Only time I have seen bias is in relation to the modern day United legends... Giggs in particular gets overrated for me, even if you watch his 99 semi performance v Arsenal, it is so poor apart from his legendary goal, yet some would have you believe he was a menace.. yet Beckham was the more influential footballer during that season.

 

[Raees]

The Terry thing in particular irks me, I remember having a defence with Terry and Scirea, but you'd have thought it was a defence with Scirea and Titus Bramble, the way Terry was ridiculed by United fans.

I have read somewhere that Terry played alongside King and a few others in a junior team 'Senrab FC' and he was always seen as being head and shoulders above the rest. He was always destined to make it at the very top. The fact that Mourinho, Capello.. rate him so highly.. Carragher for instance calls him the best, I really think he is underrated on this forum, considering how long he has been at the top despite not being at his physical peak for years. His distribution and leadership, anticipation is top top notch.

Gerrard at his peak? quality in a free role, b2b role but he's not in the same class as a Terry was in his position.

 

[antohan]

Playing a game without rules on the absolute keywords is just downright pointless.
Just put a figure, any figure, whatever it is doesn't really matter and then go with it.

So if someone can provide proofs that Adriano had a peak for 3+ years and we stated that 3 years of a peak is what counts then that is it, no discussion - his peak is viable and puts him up there as a good pick.

OK, @everyone , let's write down it's 3 years so Annah can carry on living happily in the fantasy world where that will make feck all difference.

The quality of discussion in this draft has been extremely low bar the first round or two, when people introduced their players.

I don't think the quality was bad, it was better than I expected with many players being sold/put across very effectively. It's always difficult with these themes because "outsiders" rarely vote, let alone provide an opinion/commentary.

 

[antohan]

But all of that is reflected in the draft already. Players with united bias, a long and illustrious playing career with different peaks either go for more money or are picked earlier than their contemporaries. So getting favourable reaction is balanced by either sacrificing a higher pick or more money which is fair imo.

It's bizarre. We just had an auction draft in which Gordon Banks went for the same money as Joe Hart. It's pretty bleeding obvious consideration of how players are rated make them more or less attractive does costing you more or less money, or prioritisation in a draft pecking order. That's when you pay "the price" of people's opinions not necessarily reflecting reality.

It is then your job to make your players look better than they cost, be it by putting them in the right setup, with the right partners, etc. EAPs midfield, for instance, performed better than the sum of parts, while Hoddle looked a liability throughout despite evidently being a very good player. Peak never even came into it with any of them.

 

[VivaJanuzaj]

So Sheep draft it is? What are the criterias? I'll probably make a comeback for it.

 

[Annahnomoss]

So Sheep draft it is? What are the criterias? I'll probably make a comeback for it.

 

[harms]

I'd like to participate but I don't know how busy I would be at the start of new year. I expect to be rather busy, yet it might be possible to play anyway - I'd know better later. Can you reserve me a place?

I hate no-shows as a follower, so frustrating, I want to be sure that I won't be another one.

@Skizzo

 

[harms]

On the topic of a peak and longevity - longevity should be a bonus for a manager as he can pick different variations of the player throughout the draft (not in a single game, of course). Otherwise it's not a plus, it's a minus - Giggs, particularly, isn't rated in the eyes of the neutral fans as highly as he should be because of his freakishly long career - everyone remembers that he was a blistering winger, yet the image of a decent aging AM/CM comes to mind more often than not, as he was around too long, and he is, in the end, remembered not for his amazing talent, but for his freakish longevity. And when you take Scholes you should be able to field him as an energetic goalscoring AM and as a brilliant world-class deep-lying playmaker - because he was both. Just don't claim that he is both of this things simultaneously.

 

[MJJ]

It's bizarre. We just had an auction draft in which Gordon Banks went for the same money as Joe Hart. It's pretty bleeding obvious consideration of how players are rated make them more or less attractive does costing you more or less money, or prioritisation in a draft pecking order. That's when you pay "the price" of people's opinions not necessarily reflecting reality.

It is then your job to make your players look better than they cost, be it by putting them in the right setup, with the right partners, etc. EAPs midfield, for instance, performed better than the sum of parts, while Hoddle looked a liability throughout despite evidently being a very good player. Peak never even came into it with any of them.

keepers are an exception though, otherwise Hart or given would never have been picked.

 

[Gio]

Should we re-open the debate about how to better value keepers in these drafts? Or is their current status a fair reflection of their worth in such company? I'm not one for complicating the process unnecessarily so perhaps what we have now is the best and only pragmatic option.

 

[antohan]

Should we re-open the debate about how to better value keepers in these drafts? Or is their current status a fair reflection of their worth in such company? I'm not one for complicating the process unnecessarily so perhaps what we have now is the best and only pragmatic option.

It's certainly a more worthy point of discussion than defining peak. Just look at De Gea for us this season

 

[Raees]

Should we re-open the debate about how to better value keepers in these drafts? Or is their current status a fair reflection of their worth in such company? I'm not one for complicating the process unnecessarily so perhaps what we have now is the best and only pragmatic option.

I think we should. Seemed such a shame that Banks and Clemence for instance barely had anything of note written about them for the entire draft.

 

[Raees]

On the topic of a peak and longevity - longevity should be a bonus for a manager as he can pick different variations of the player throughout the draft (not in a single game, of course). Otherwise it's not a plus, it's a minus - Giggs, particularly, isn't rated in the eyes of the neutral fans as highly as he should be because of his freakishly long career - everyone remembers that he was a blistering winger, yet the image of a decent aging AM/CM comes to mind more often than not, as he was around too long, and he is, in the end, remembered not for his amazing talent, but for his freakish longevity. And when you take Scholes you should be able to field him as an energetic goalscoring AM and as a brilliant world-class deep-lying playmaker - because he was both. Just don't claim that he is both of this things simultaneously.

I agree with this approach. Utilising a specific snapshot in time albeit in this instance a period or phase of a players career to best serve your match tactic.

 

[Skizzo]

So Sheep draft it is? What are the criterias? I'll probably make a comeback for it.

The criteria will only be posted at the beginning of each round. Don't want to ruin any surprises

 

[Skizzo]

1. Annahnomoss
2. Stobzilla
3. Edgar Allan Pillow
4. Cutch
5. Raees
6. Joga Bonito
7. Harms

@harms added you in for now mate.

 

[Annahnomoss]

The criteria will only be posted at the beginning of each round. Don't want to ruin any surprises

 

[Skizzo]

 

[VivaJanuzaj]

The criteria will only be posted at the beginning of each round. Don't want to ruin any surprises

Yeah I meant like timetable or eligible players etc.

 

[VivaJanuzaj]

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Peak: Not really an issue, in my opinion. I think most reasonable people are...reasonable about this. Nobody would try to sell the Recobas of this world in an all time draft, for instance - and if they did, they'd be laughed out of the room.

That said, what might have been a relevant debate in this particular draft is, say, what impact a particular, small sample size makes on a player's in-draft status: A moment of European glory, a World Cup win - damn impressive as such, but it can easily lead to overrating if the player's full career is pretty much ignored.

Keepers: Certainly worth debating again. It remains a headache what can be conceivably done about this, though. Some sort of precedent must be set, I think - you can't just force people to take keepers seriously when most debates hardly mention 'em even in cases where there's a small chasm in quality between the two sides' keepers.

 

[Skizzo]

Yeah I meant like timetable or eligible players etc.

Still narrowing down the timetable
Possible time limit per pick of 24 hours a round so it keeps it moving, but is fair for everyone in different time zones. Everyone needs to make am effort to be on to PM their pick...or have an AM who can.
As for era...no restrictions. Some of the criteria will need more of a pool since they will be obscure

 

[Raees]

Peak: Not really an issue, in my opinion. I think most reasonable people are...reasonable about this. Nobody would try to sell the Recobas of this world in an all time draft, for instance - and if they did, they'd be laughed out of the room.

That said, what might have been a relevant debate in this particular draft is, say, what impact a particular, small sample size makes on a player's in-draft status: A moment of European glory, a World Cup win - damn impressive as such, but it can easily lead to overrating if the player's full career is pretty much ignored.

Keepers: Certainly worth debating again. It remains a headache what can be conceivably done about this, though. Some sort of precedent must be set, I think - you can't just force people to take keepers seriously when most debates hardly mention 'em even in cases where there's a small chasm in quality between the two sides' keepers.

Make it an obligation to write one post in a game about the keeper debate? It'll at least make people take notice of a keepers background. Might even sway some votes.

 

[Annahnomoss]

Peak: Not really an issue, in my opinion. I think most reasonable people are...reasonable about this. Nobody would try to sell the Recobas of this world in an all time draft, for instance - and if they did, they'd be laughed out of the room.

I think the important of defining peak is that currently arguments are way to influenced by individual matches and match ups. If it is stated in the rules that peak is 3 years, then the person would have to bring up evidence of a way longer and realistic time perspective.

It would allow for people to research these 3 years in depth and portray it and it would be very helpful when you have an underrated player at your hand. "He did have a 3 year peak even if the misconception said he had a short peak" etc.

Pippa is such a great example of it. He chose Adriano and was completely slated for it even if he brought forth great arguments for his case.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

It's only in penalties that Keeper importance is really felt and celebrated. So I suggest:

Add Keeper names to the poll. Something like :

Who will win at players peaks?

Team A
Team B
Keeper 1 (Team A)
Keeper 2 (Team B)

I see from poll options that you can set that voters can vote for "maximum 2".

Every voter should choose two winners, (1) the winning team and (2) the best keeper. Can mix and match, like voting for Team A and Keeper 2.

Winners are decided by normal team votes. Keeper votes disregarded.

IF it goes to a draw the keeper with most votes gets a 1 penalty save bonus . His first miss is converted to a save.

This also gives importance to not pushing games for a draw. As even a draw may give advantage to a team who has drafted better.

Opinions?

 

[harms]

Some sort of a penalty bonus is a great idea, but this double voting... doesn't feel right

 

[sajeev]

when is the next draft starting? If it is after 4th Jan, I might consider joining

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

when is the next draft starting? If it is after 4th Jan, I might consider joining

It will definitely be after 4th. It'll be a sheep draft by Skizzo, the most fun of all draft formats. Welcome!

PS: I hate you for voting against Capello. lol

 

[sajeev]

PS: I hate you for voting against Capello. lol

I hate Capello more than you can hate me for voting against him

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

I hate Capello more than you can hate me for voting against him

Just kidding mate. Welcome aboard.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I think the important of defining peak is that currently arguments are way to influenced by individual matches and match ups. If it is stated in the rules that peak is 3 years, then the person would have to bring up evidence of a way longer and realistic time perspective.

It would allow for people to research these 3 years in depth and portray it and it would be very helpful when you have an underrated player at your hand. "He did have a 3 year peak even if the misconception said he had a short peak" etc.

Pippa is such a great example of it. He chose Adriano and was completely slated for it even if he brought forth great arguments for his case.

Which could be interesting and enlightening and all sorts of nice - but it could also be boring as feck, having to sift through (no doubt handbaggy) posts in which the managers attempt to "prove" their man was in fact consistently grand for three years.

If a player's consistency at a high/peak level is in question to begin with, it's going to be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he WAS, in fact, consistently very good/great - it's in the nature of the thing itself. You can always bring up this or that to discredit this or that - see the Adriano thing. The bottom line will remain that Adriano's status is tainted because he declined dramatically - and nothing is going to change that. Having someone insisting that he's wrongly labeled will serve no purpose beyond pissing people off. In my opinion nothing very good or interesting will come from such an exercise in futility.

EDIT

Just as an example to illustrate the difficulty in "proving" that someone was consistently better than he's given credit for (from a pro player perspective): The debates over Nani's actual level have raged on here for years. His detractors maintain that he's always been on and off, that...something (lack of football brains, deficient mentality, innate propensity for blowing hot and cold, etc.) has always held him back, preventing him from becoming a truly top player. His apologists, on the other hand, will point to stats: For the seasons X to Y he grabbed more assists than A or B, had more "key passes" than C or D, played in so-and-so many crucial matches, getting the man of the match award in so-and-so many of them...and so forth.

Nobody is ever going to let go of that former impression (of a generally inconsistent player) once it's formed - and no amount of statistics will ever change it. It all depends on what the expectations are, where the bar is set, etc. You can't prove or disprove that someone is or is not at the level of X - which is what we're talking about here in practice: It will always come down to a comparison. Who fields the strongest team? Who has the best pair/trio/quartet of attackers? Is NN a "top, top player" or is he merely a "top" one? Forget it. Look at the Stevie G debates.

In short, it makes no sense to introduce hard criteria in an area which will always remain soft by its very nature. That, at least, is my opinion.