p-cnut
Next Draft - Ideas and Discussions
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
p-cnut
Thanks.
Lack of football knowledge (and time) so will stick to watching, voting. Good luck.
You don't need help getting a R1 exit, I'm sure you can manage that yourself
Pat needs help not me.
Ne bi reka
Thanks for the tag, but taking a backseat for the meantime.
Ok, I'll play if this is not that complicated.
Skizzo/EAP’s 4 way ludo draft sign up
1) P-Nut
2) Himannv
3) Mjj
4) 2mufc0
5) GSTQ
6) Michaelf
7) Moby
8) Indnyc
9) Sjor
10) Zlatan7
11) willhse456
12) harms
13) Isotope
14) onenil
15) Beam, Jim Beam
16) green_smiley
@Skizzo @Edgar Allan Pillow
1) P-Nut
2) Himannv
3) Mjj
4) 2mufc0
5) GSTQ
6) Michaelf
7) Moby
8) Indnyc
9) Sjor
10) Zlatan7
11) willhse456
12) harms
13) Isotope
14) onenil
15) Beam, Jim Beam
16) green_smiley
@Skizzo @Edgar Allan Pillow
Ok I have a theme we can start
Looking for an AM, if anyone wants to help out.
I’ll try and get the OP up tomorrow before I’m out of service at the baby shower.
I know some of you are gonna be chomping at the bit already.
I know some of you are gonna be chomping at the bit already.
Funny, me and Jack just spending some time.
Can assist you in the drafting process/tactics etc but am on a break from matches debates.
Great, going to try something a bit different to usual so would be good to get a second brain involved!
Sure mate, I'm on board
Stone Age Draft
1. Drafting of players born from 1940
2. Only tactics allowed are 2-3-5 (half backs, not wing backs), 3-2-5
Gotten a little boring with the same tactics/formations and eventually same discussions.
Might be a breathe of fresh air with newer formations to explore with all teams having the same weaknesses and same strengths.
Basically, old tactics, but with modern players who never played in those tactics.
1. Drafting of players born from 1940
2. Only tactics allowed are 2-3-5 (half backs, not wing backs), 3-2-5
Gotten a little boring with the same tactics/formations and eventually same discussions.
Might be a breathe of fresh air with newer formations to explore with all teams having the same weaknesses and same strengths.
Basically, old tactics, but with modern players who never played in those tactics.
The Stone Age draft should be for players born prior to 1925, those with little or no full TV games. This way the true oldies will be best recognised. Also it should be called the Dinosaur Draft in honour of Golden Blunder who mocked us saying we'd eventually have such a draft.
I should finish my No Mates series however. I had a 1967-87, 1946-66 so it should be 1925-45. I'm thinking though would No Mates between 25-45 be too restrictive?
Think people will not get a chance to be creative enough if its restricted to pre war players. Besides, not everyone is arsed or excited about them.
Mixing up old formations with modern players sounded better to me.
Not at all.
There are so many unexplored teams and players. Germany 1954 for example.
Again, not sure if very many people would be excited about the era. I'd definitely be the first one to sign up.
Actually a pre war draft would be great. With the standard full game evidence rule in place now, most prewar players are excluded. Having something just for them would be great even if it would need intensive research.
perfect for running two drafts, one normal one and one with fossils.
Yeah shame you couldn't really have a game between the 2 winners as the eras would be far too different.
I think there's probably mileage for GSTQ's restricted formation idea (eg 235 or 325) with an all-time pool in one draft and a pre-TV pool in another draft. In the latter you could keep it limited to 8 teams to make it easier to research and, in turn, to vote on.
In for both.
In for both.
I would also be interested in competing in both drafts
I'll do the all time old formations one. Pre-war players don't appeal to me
second time we would have the same person debating against himself in the final
in this case it would be gio.You can expand this to WW, 4-2-4 and maybe even a 3-3-4.
Dont mind all of WM/WW/3-3-4.
4-2-4 would be a no though. Was considered a break through formation which shaped up future formations. Most teams would end up with 4-2-4's
It would be important to be prescriptive around the layout of the players. A 2-3-5 isn't that dissimilar to a modern 4-3-3 depending on the presentation. A standard formation template would help in ensuring voters weren't choosing one over the other for purely tactical / presentational reasons.
4-2-4 is too similar to 4-4-2.
WW and WM is the way to go.
Would be in provided it's not limited to the dinosaurs