I agree.
Next Draft - Ideas and Discussions
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
I think you're more inclined to do yourself more damage than harm when picking players whose reputation far exceeds their contribution to the draft theme, as voters can often vote against you out of protest at your perceived abuse of the spirit of the draft. I think we've had that with Messi and Ronaldo in World Cup drafts before. From personal experience, we picked Veron in a PL draft once as a 12th round pick - accepting that he was watered down and wasn't expected to be Serie A Veron, but it was still divisive, a distraction as chesterlestreet put it.
You can let it be self-policed, set minimum game number (but then people might conflate that number with the peak performance period which isn't the same thing), ban certain players or use a DoB restriction (problem though that you design that to rule out Best and create a lot of collateral damage for other more disciplined players of the same age).
My own view is I don't see much value in being too prescriptive in setting a peak definition as voters will self-define and we'll never agree on something that neatly captures peak and longevity together.
You can let it be self-policed, set minimum game number (but then people might conflate that number with the peak performance period which isn't the same thing), ban certain players or use a DoB restriction (problem though that you design that to rule out Best and create a lot of collateral damage for other more disciplined players of the same age).
My own view is I don't see much value in being too prescriptive in setting a peak definition as voters will self-define and we'll never agree on something that neatly captures peak and longevity together.
I'd give an arm and a limb to be as articulate and precise as you. Excellently put as always.
The distraction element is what worries me, actually.
If you block a small handful of obvious candidates, you don't have to deal with it. Trying to pull a fast one with Best will likely be counter productive, as you say, but it could nevertheless turn into a distraction.
You obviously don't block every player who was past it in '72 - just a small handful of GOATs and vote pullers.
I'm easy either way, to be clear - self policing is fine too. Just warning the boys running the thing - as EAP says above, drafters are crafty (or silly, in some cases).
After a committee review (a handful of PMs).....
Appearances or not, excluded players or not..... I think there's pros and cons of both sides but overriding this is aim of it being simple so will just keep to original draft criteria. Pick who you want (as long as they played between 71/72 and 91/92).
The actual draft thread will make it clear to drafters (and voters in match threads) that you should rate the the player on performances in that period ONLY. Sure voters will get it and your opponents (come match time) will make their views clear too?
Appearances or not, excluded players or not..... I think there's pros and cons of both sides but overriding this is aim of it being simple so will just keep to original draft criteria. Pick who you want (as long as they played between 71/72 and 91/92).
The actual draft thread will make it clear to drafters (and voters in match threads) that you should rate the the player on performances in that period ONLY. Sure voters will get it and your opponents (come match time) will make their views clear too?
dont know who ran that draft but the one where we were divided in 4 groups(nation, club, decade and managers) was one of the best and most interesting drafts we played, at least in my opinion. We should do something like that again.
That was interesting in regards variety but it wasn't very balanced
Not an expert on the subject, but did Britain have that many good or interesting players in the 20 year period? Would need some serious research. Maybe extend it to post war till pre PL.
Yeah. British teams won lots of European trophies in that period.... over a dozen? (and several losing finalists) and remember it's not just UK players, it's players in the UK during those dates. I'd also say there were more mavericks and a better spread of top players which makes the period more interesting... loads of different English champions.
I'll be doing research too, same as any draft needs. I guarantee neither I or say .... @Gio can do this off the top off our heads.
I can't be the only person here over their 30sThis draft is basically a trip down memory lane for @BeforeKeanetherewasRobson
Welcome to the Pre Premier League draft. It is a fantasy football draft where players are picked based on their playing time in the United Kingdom from 14/08/1971
(Start of 1971/72 season) to 02/05/1992(End of 1991/92 season). Here are the rules
- There are 16 manager spots in all
- All managers pick 12 players. Picking is based on a standard snake format, i.e. Manager 1 picks first, manager 2 second etc. until we reach manager 16. The picking order then reverses so manager 16 will pick again and so forth.
- Players eligible to be picked are as follows
- Having played for a UK based club (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) between the dates 14/08/1971 (Start of 1971/72 season) to 02/05/1992(End of 1991/92 season)
- Player peak is defined as the period in which the player played during these 20 seasons. So for example a player who played from 1989-90 season to 2000-01 season would have his performances for only seasons 1989-90 to 1991-92 counted
- All managers have 8 hours to decide their pick, if not they can pick whenever they are ready while the draft continues. If you know you wont be online please PM somebody so as to keep the draft moving
- Please note the time taken for each pick. In case of ties, teams with the lowest time taken to draft will win
- In case you leave your pick with another person the default time allocated is 30 minutes or time taken by the person to post your pick whichever is higher
- Please do not name unpicked players. Repeat offenders will be punished
- Once the player in named by the manager or assistant, it is considered final. No changes to the player is allowed. Please be careful before picking
- There will be 12 rounds of drafting
- After round 1, reinforcements are available to the managers
- First Reinforcement round; 2 Picks per manager; Open Pool; Standard Snake format; Picks to be made in the order of lowest time goes first
- Second Reinforcement Round; 1 Pick per manager; Open Pool; Lamb Style
- Final Reinforcement Round; 1 Pick per manager; Pool is restricted to your semi final opponents squad
- BeforeKeanetherewasRobson
- Skizzo/Pat Mustard/Edgar
- Indnyc
- Gio
- Moby
- Tuppet
- Arbitrium
- Onenil
- Raees
- Cal?
- Oaencha
- The Red Viper
- Green Smiley
- Chester The Man of the crowd
- Youngrell
- TBD
Nice OP. Good job with the reinforcements logic removing the biases involved in some earlier processes.
We've done PL drafts with a similar timeframe. Obviously they had more flashy foreigners to call upon who are fresher in the memory, but the quality should be at least on par. If you compare the respective European achievements (even accounting for the ban in 85-90):
- 7 European Cups versus 4 Champions Leagues for British sides
- 5 UEFA Cups in '72-92 versus 2 UEFA Cups in '92-13
- 4 ECWC in '72-92 versus 2 ECWC in 92-98
Come on, stick your name down. You've got a 1 in 15 chance of getting me so basically a bye into the QFs.
I'll partner someone if they want me.
Still looking for the last player.. Think we’ll start the new draft by end of this week..
Spilt up the Skizzo/Pat/Edgar dream team?
I'll play alone if nobody else signs.
Put him/her with EAP?
Edit. PS, with semis and finals to come, will be a few days. Then Easter and people maybe have days off. Maybe have a short gap to allow research and start 3/4/18 (after Easter Bank Hols)?
An idea for match threads. Require managers to submit three formation pictures - one of their players average position used for the main picture as normal, formation in possession and formation without the ball (the last two should be spoilered in the OP). This should give a simple visual idea of the tactical approach of each side in the major phases hopefully clear up some confusions as to how the teams are playing and so lead to better discussions
That’s fine.. Will give a few days for research and start the draft accordingly
Any thoughts on this anyone?
I have no problem with trying it if others like the idea but I don't think it'll add much value tbh. For the 'formation in possession' in particular each team will have too many permutations to really sum it up in one picture. It'll look different depending on what wing they're attacking down, or if they're hypothetically leading they'll commit fewer players forward etc. And how would you account for a player like Sammer or Passarella at libero for example? He might only burst forward 2 or 3 times in a match, so do you add him to the attacking phase picture or not? If you do, how do you account for the full back or midfielder who otherwise supports the attack but in these instances drops in to cover for Sammer/Passarella? Similarly in the defensive phase, your shape will partly be dictated by how your opponents are attacking, as generally the whole team shape will shift to their left for example if the opponent is attacking down their own right wing.
The whole topic does raise questions about the limitations of team sheets and formation notations. Jonathan Wilson touched on it in one of his articles, with reference to uber-attacking full backs still being viewed as part of the defensive line:
Don't like it to be honest. Usually it's quite straight-forward and if the team isn't moving as expected, the managers will do an explanation picture/post.
I quite like the idea @Physiocrat being a tactics geek, and generally that stuff interests me more than another mega-post on a superstar we know plenty about. However, practically it's already hard enough to get games played and creating extra requirements on managers may only delay things further. Pat makes some pertinent points about potentially requiring a bundle of images to show the different ways of building up or transitioning from different areas of the pitch.
That's all true Pat but the main reason for suggesting it was for precisely the reason Wilson notes for the limitations of formations by showing them in various phases. Clearly they'd have to be interpreted as representative not exhaustive which is of course the problem. I just find visual representation a better way of thinking about how the team will actually play. With regards liberos I'd show them up the pitch in possession but it could give the idea of them being uber attacking.
If anyone would have me I would love to Am for someone. Participated in the newbie draft but had to withdraw as I had a nasty car accident but had loads of fun and would love to be involved again.
Aye, I do see the appeal of the idea but I suspect it would end up offering less clarity rather than more to be honest. That said, there's only one way to find out so I'd have no problem at all with trying it out. Maybe in the next all-time draft though rather than a research-heavy one like the upcoming British Draft.
If you had the accident while researching your next pick, you were a hero.
If you had the accident while typing 18 colour coded paragraphs about your left back a la @Ecstatic, you were not a hero.
An all-time one would probably be a good test bed
It can be done even now. If a manager wants to visually explain stuff, he is free to post any number of formation pictures in the thread. We have seen managers submit positional overlap pictures, situational (attack vs defend) pictures etc in draft threads.
I'm not sure on value add to make it mandatory in OP. 6 formation pictures in OP would be a bit too much, imo.
Or even just a couple of managers who are both up for it. Worst case scenario is that one manager goes to all of that effort and inadvertently exposes themselves to tactical criticism as a result.
*I may or may not have been that vulture in the past.Standard draft opportunistic vulture* said:
I suspect that attack and defense mode formation pics would serve no very different purpose than the current ones, which cover both modes: It would still be a matter of average positions, which says little about the actual shape in particular (hypothetical) situations. If you want to visualize the latter (how would your players deal with mine in scenario X?), the current format allows you to post specific illustrations in the match thread (as EAP says above).
I'd personally propose a template (not an overly restrictive one with room for flexibility) with the tactical aspect of the game being highlighted over the descriptive aspect. I should be one to talk after my overly descriptive essays for match-threads 
.
I'd say certain tactical elements have to be mandatory though -
1) Defensive line for starters - More often than not we just judge the defensive line from the line up itself and it's not really an accurate indicator and there have been games where you think the team is playing a high line till the manager comes out halfway through the game to clarify that he's playing a deep line and that the formation pic isn't too clear.
2) General Defensive approach - Just a basic description on the defensive plan - play it compact and 'crowd' out the middle/a more aggressive closing down approach/FBs tucking in and wingers dropping back etc.
3) Attacking Approach - We tend to use terms such as 'fluid and dynamic' attack (or at least I do) and leave it at that but perhaps it could be elaborated upon - wingers switching flanks (Czibor-Budai)? CF dropping to the flanks and letting the inside forward cut in (Benzema-CR7) and how it impacts the opposition's defense etc? Also of course the emphasis on the general approach - #10 dictating play/focus on wing-play/counter-attacking etc. Counter attacking strategies could also be expanded upon instead of leaving it to imagination with just a 'speedy forward line' - CR7 and how di Maria carried out the defensive duties for him on that flank with CR7 staying high up etc.
Also another inclusion that I'd propose is a separate and exclusive segment on the opposition - their predicted approach, plans to deal with it and their particular weakness and how you plan to exploit it etc.
Just a vague outline off the top of my head.
. I'd say certain tactical elements have to be mandatory though -
1) Defensive line for starters - More often than not we just judge the defensive line from the line up itself and it's not really an accurate indicator and there have been games where you think the team is playing a high line till the manager comes out halfway through the game to clarify that he's playing a deep line and that the formation pic isn't too clear.
2) General Defensive approach - Just a basic description on the defensive plan - play it compact and 'crowd' out the middle/a more aggressive closing down approach/FBs tucking in and wingers dropping back etc.
3) Attacking Approach - We tend to use terms such as 'fluid and dynamic' attack (or at least I do
) and leave it at that but perhaps it could be elaborated upon - wingers switching flanks (Czibor-Budai)? CF dropping to the flanks and letting the inside forward cut in (Benzema-CR7) and how it impacts the opposition's defense etc? Also of course the emphasis on the general approach - #10 dictating play/focus on wing-play/counter-attacking etc. Counter attacking strategies could also be expanded upon instead of leaving it to imagination with just a 'speedy forward line' - CR7 and how di Maria carried out the defensive duties for him on that flank with CR7 staying high up etc. Also another inclusion that I'd propose is a separate and exclusive segment on the opposition - their predicted approach, plans to deal with it and their particular weakness and how you plan to exploit it etc.
Just a vague outline off the top of my head.
Those are some good ideas. Just need to work them into more of a descriptive template format.I'd personally propose a template (not an overly restrictive one with room for flexibility) with the tactical aspect of the game being highlighted over the descriptive aspect. I should be one to talk after my overly descriptive essays for match-threads
I'd say certain tactical elements have to be mandatory though -
1) Defensive line for starters - More often than not we just judge the defensive line from the line up itself and it's not really an accurate indicator and there have been games where you think the team is playing a high line till the manager comes out halfway through the game to clarify that he's playing a deep line and that the formation pic isn't too clear.
2) General Defensive approach - Just a basic description on the defensive plan - play it compact and 'crowd' out the middle/a more aggressive closing down approach/FBs tucking in and wingers dropping back etc.
3) Attacking Approach - We tend to use terms such as 'fluid and dynamic' attack (or at least I do
Also another inclusion that I'd propose is a separate and exclusive segment on the opposition - their predicted approach, plans to deal with it and their particular weakness and how you plan to exploit it etc.
Just a vague outline off the top of my head.
we did something similar in one draft but then everyone was playing with a normal line and with a balanced approach so it was pointless if my memory serves me correct.
I reckon the best thing is to use examples but the problem is that people take everything literally so the second you mention a certain tactic/team/philosophy you are pretty much fecked as your team will be fully compared to the original even though you only used them as example.
I reckon the best thing is to use examples but the problem is that people take everything literally so the second you mention a certain tactic/team/philosophy you are pretty much fecked as your team will be fully compared to the original even though you only used them as example.
Odd formations and tactics are not the recipe to win. But it panders to your draft ego to build your own fantasy side. Don't let losing stop you.
Actually FM's instructions is a good place to start — deep/normal/high line, active (high/middle) pressing or the lack of it, wide/narrow, free-flowing or stricter attacking system etc.
cm > fm