EAP VS Onenil - NT Peak Draft

[Annahnomoss]

I agree that if you take the Pelé example (in the OP) in isolation, it doesn't make sense not to devaluate Schuster. But Annah has clarified that the Pelé thing isn't a rule, and that people are free to interpret «impact» as they please.

The Pelé example isn't a good one, in my opinion. There's no doubt about his impact, just as there's no doubt about Schuster's. But bad example or not, it clearly doesn't mean what you thought it did - again, Annah has clarified this.

Anyway, trying to imagine how a generally sub-par player would work in a fantasy match is difficult enough. Trying to figure out how a 50% X would work with a 70% Y - and so forth - would be hopeless.

Well, Pele 1958 wasn't the player of the tournament because of that reason. Had he played from the start he would have been possibly challenging up there so I don't think it was a bad example. He already suffered from not playing every game and if someone says that Didi/Rahn/Hamrin were better than him in '58 they wouldn't be wrong. Can you sport Pelé from 1958? Obviously. Is he going to have the competitive advantage over Muller? Surely not.

Also @oneniltothearsenal I think you believe people rate Schuster higher than they do. I think almost everybody takes it in to account already as you've made that point.

 

[Moby]

Can you sport Pelé from 1958? Obviously. Is he going to have the competitive advantage over Muller? Surely not.

This.

Plus, for me, playing more games and achieving success should give you an advantage over someone who played less games and achieved the same. For one thing, you proved yourself against more no. of opposition who would possibly provide different challenges while performing in that tournament. Now, it can obviously be looked into further and performing against 3 great teams would be better than performing against 4 shite ones for example but overall, usually if one played less games, then we have to lower his impact on this game. Also must differentiate a player who played all games for his team but the competition structure as such that he had play less than someone else as opposed to someone who missed the games in a tournament due to whatever reason.

 

[Annahnomoss]

This.

Plus, for me, playing more games and achieving success should give you an advantage over someone who played less games and achieved the same. For one thing, you proved yourself against more no. of opposition who would possibly provide different challenges while performing in that tournament. Now, it can obviously be looked into further and performing against 3 great teams would be better than performing against 4 shite ones for example but overall, usually if one played less games, then we have to lower his impact on this game. Also must differentiate a player who played all games for his team but the competition structure as such that he had play less than someone else as opposed to someone who missed the games in a tournament due to whatever reason.

Yup. Obviously any player can be great in just two games. Schuster was beyond that and showed it with absolute top tier performances so him being a part of this draft is self explanatory. But he won't have the sort of credentials in a final where suddenly everybody not only beasted as much as he did in two games but also faced more opponents like you say and had a far higher impact on their teams overall performance. Helmut Rahn in 1958 for example who with his two goals secured the victory against Argentina which would have ended in a draw otherwise, then one goal in the matches Czechoslovakia and Northern Ireland to make those games a draw to clear the Germans for the knock out stage.

Then he scored the only goal against Yugoslavia to take them to the semifinals and he also scored against France in the third place match. Then you have Fontaine, Hamrin and Didi on similar runs as well. I used the Pele explanation because he has the 1970 WC to rely on and isn't damaged by me talking down his '58.

 

[Enigma_87]

The guideline doesn't establish a steadfast rule for dilution, you just made up your own.



The bolded bit is crucial, particularly with Schuster. Without Schuster Germany wouldn't have won Euro 1980, simple as.

He actually said as much himself. Not to big himself up but out of the ongoing rift with Matthäus:



Such a shame we never saw them together in midfield in 82/86/88/90

Schuster was really instrumental in that EURO run, it's true that he didn't start in half of the games, but that was the format at the time. In those two games he was by far the best player on the park and without him it was a different team. So depending on the impact and his level, probably if he could started more games it should/could be bigger in the draft essentially, but compared to Messi for example who started all his games I'd say Schuster impact is bigger, especially delivering in the biggest game of the tournament.

It's hard to evaluate and probably I'm slightly overrating him in this game(based on two games rather than missing in the others) but it's probably due to the impact on those games. It's hard to separate what "percentage" of the player per say Edgar is fielding here, so it's always subjective I guess.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Well, Pele 1958 wasn't the player of the tournament because of that reason. Had he played from the start he would have been possibly challenging up there so I don't think it was a bad example. He already suffered from not playing every game and if someone says that Didi/Rahn/Hamrin were better than him in '58 they wouldn't be wrong. Can you sport Pelé from 1958? Obviously. Is he going to have the competitive advantage over Muller? Surely not.

Also @oneniltothearsenal I think you believe people rate Schuster higher than they do. I think almost everybody takes it in to account already as you've made that point.

He wouldn't have anything on Müller, no, because we're talking about a 17 year old prodigy, not arguably the grestest #9 ever in his prime.

But that has nothing to do with how many games he played, which remains irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. He played enough to make an assessment of his level possible, and for him to have had a proper impact on the tournament.

Was he as good in '58 as the «normal» version of - let's call him - Early Pelé? Yes. So, not sub-par then. Beyond that, I'm not going to calculate exactly how much less he's worth because someone else stacked up more minutes, that just strikes me as ridiculous.

But I think we've all made our points here, no big deal anyway, people will go with their own takes on these things.

 

[antohan]

Schuster was really instrumental in that EURO run, it's true that he didn't start in half of the games, but that was the format at the time. In those two games he was by far the best player on the park and without him it was a different team. So depending on the impact and his level, probably if he could started more games it should/could be bigger in the draft essentially, but compared to Messi for example who started all his games I'd say Schuster impact is bigger, especially delivering in the biggest game of the tournament.

It's hard to evaluate and probably I'm slightly overrating him in this game(based on two games rather than missing in the others) but it's probably due to the impact on those games. It's hard to separate what "percentage" of the player per say Edgar is fielding here, so it's always subjective I guess.

Exactly. I rate his impact highly on that two-game sample. The other two games would more likely elevate him more: the dilution from his absence is already built in.

Fact is he wasn't in the XI for the first game. Can't help that. The extraordinary thing is how someone not considered a starter transformed his side into winners.

Parallels with Pelé there, to me the way a 16-year-old Pelé seized the opportunity in 58 makes him a greater player, not a lesser one because he was initially a sub.

The other missed game he would have had a ball. It was fecking Greece, the easy game in the group, he could score 5 and we would hear "quality of opposition" invoked. The fact he missed it and it was the only game Germany drew actually helped highlight it had nothing to do with a German revival but Germany being a different side with and without him.

Questioning his Euro 80 is absurd any way you look at it.

 

[antohan]

Can you sport Pelé from 1958? Obviously. Is he going to have the competitive advantage over Muller? Surely not.

Of course not. It's like asking if Zidane has the advantage over Maradona. Müller simply was a better 9.

Plus, for me, playing more games and achieving success should give you an advantage over someone who played less games and achieved the same. For one thing, you proved yourself against more no. of opposition who would possibly provide different challenges while performing in that tournament. Now, it can obviously be looked into further and performing against 3 great teams would be better than performing against 4 shite ones for example but overall, usually if one played less games, then we have to lower his impact on this game. Also must differentiate a player who played all games for his team but the competition structure as such that he had play less than someone else as opposed to someone who missed the games in a tournament due to whatever reason.

I agree with the first bit, not the last one.

What makes Maradona the gold standard is how he consistently turned in match-winning performances in the knockouts against the Copa America champions, then England with THAT goal (and the other ), then a great Belgian side which was coming off a legendary game against USSR, and then the Germans to boot.

In fact, it will never be repeated again because international tournos no longer put you through the wringer like that.

Would I dilute Maradona if he had been rested against South Korea? Nah, not really. Not at all. I don't even remember how he did against Italy, nor do I care as it would change nothing.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I agree that if you take the Pelé example (in the OP) in isolation, it doesn't make sense not to devaluate Schuster. But Annah has clarified that the Pelé thing isn't a rule, and that people are free to interpret «impact» as they please.

The Pelé example isn't a good one, in my opinion. There's no doubt about his impact, just as there's no doubt about Schuster's. But bad example or not, it clearly doesn't mean what you thought it did - again, Annah has clarified this.

Anyway, trying to imagine how a generally sub-par player would work in a fantasy match is difficult enough. Trying to figure out how a 50% X would work with a 70% Y - and so forth - would be hopeless.

For me I find 2 matches far too small a sample size to really give an accurate "international peak" - especially considering neither opposition team was equal to German side. I believe even the old magazines that rated tournaments like France Football would often have a minimum of 3 matches for someone to make their teams of the tournament. Whatever, I clearly read Annah's post different than many.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Also @oneniltothearsenal I think you believe people rate Schuster higher than they do. I think almost everybody takes it in to account already as you've made that point.

Some people pretty vocally are not taking into account with how they spammed the thread. You did a good job with this draft but the rules really should have been worked out and more clearly defined before everyone rushed to start this one.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Plus, for me, playing more games and achieving success should give you an advantage over someone who played less games and achieved the same. For one thing, you proved yourself against more no. of opposition who would possibly provide different challenges while performing in that tournament. Now, it can obviously be looked into further and performing against 3 great teams would be better than performing against 4 shite ones for example but overall, usually if one played less games, then we have to lower his impact on this game. Also must differentiate a player who played all games for his team but the competition structure as such that he had play less than someone else as opposed to someone who missed the games in a tournament due to whatever reason.

So, even if Schuster played 4 games, he'd be still be considered less then Vieira who played 6 games?

I think the intention behind the rule was for voters to justify the impact on a holistic basis considering games, quality of opponents, impact of player etc. Trying to break it down to statistical formula and comparison is definitely the wrong way to go about this.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

So, even if Schuster played 4 games, he'd be still be considered less then Vieira who played 6 games?

I think the intention behind the rule was for voters to justify the impact on a holistic basis considering games, quality of opponents, impact of player etc. Trying to break it down to statistical formula and comparison is definitely the wrong way to go about this.

True but I feel just blindly ignoring the fact he only played two matches is also illogical.

but time to move on, congrats on the win and good luck in the future! If this was FM you would be one of my Rivals!

 

[Annahnomoss]

Some people pretty vocally are not taking into account with how they spammed the thread. You did a good job with this draft but the rules really should have been worked out and more clearly defined before everyone rushed to start this one.

In general rules in these drafts are always vague. Even the most important word of all, the peak, has no written down rule ever. Hence why some people rate some players higher than others does. Also in this draft there isn't an easy way around it by any means.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

In general rules in these drafts are always vague.

That has absolutely not been my experience but cheers

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

but time to move on, congrats on the win and good luck in the future! If this was FM you would be one of my Rivals!

Yeah, good game onenil. MvB has bunch of fans, but I've always had a soft spot for Gullit.

.

Played at least 1 game - check
Had controversies - check
Had some 'friendly' gauntlets thrown - check

Objective achieved!

 

[Annahnomoss]

That has absolutely not been my experience but cheers

Regarding peak it always is. We've had one draft where it was specified as 3 years but it didn't catch on.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Yeah, good game onenil. MvB has bunch of fans, but I've always had a soft spot for Gullit.

.

Played at least 1 game - check
Had controversies - check
Had some 'friendly' gauntlets thrown - check

Objective achieved!

I love Gullit too obviously, I think I saw someone mention Gullit sometimes get underrated in drafts? If so, I'll definitely have to use him again.

 

[antohan]

For me I find 2 matches far too small a sample size to really give an accurate "international peak" - especially considering neither opposition team was equal to German side.

Netherlands had been twice WC runner-ups, on the wane, but touch and go with a German side in transition. Belgium were arguably the most entertaining side in the tourno.

Again, say Schuster started against Greece. Would it make any difference? It was the one game they were supposed to win anyway. If anything the way Germany suddenly struggled again in his absence gives a more relevant reading.

You will always struggle with the sample size when you used to have 8 team Euros and now there are 24 teams. Has the quality improved? Are teams tested more? Not really.

If you go further back most of us haven't even seen 2 games, some will have 4 or 5 game samples out of which we've only seen 20-30mins of highlights, mostly goals, or not even that and just going on stats. There's clear evidence Schuster was phenomenal at Euro 80, more so than for a fair chunk of the selected players.

It's a shame it sort of took over when many of your guys had equally outstanding or even better performances. Rijkaard-Gullit-MvB is a higher tier of tourno greatness, that should have been the focus and everyone would have agreed.

 

[antohan]

Regarding peak it always is. We've had one draft where it was specified as 3 years but it didn't catch on.

Eh? I think most of us go on that unless otherwise stated. At least two great seasons on the trot and an assumption the two at either end are roughly at that level.

Of course, with oldies it's more tourno performances and an assumption that was their level and not an exception. E.g. people pick Jairzinho, post clips of Mexico 70 and everyone assumes he sort of played at that level regularly (which he didn't).

 

[Chesterlestreet]

It's very difficult to define «peak» in a way that won't split opinions.

Nailing it down to something measurable becomes absurd very quickly, like this no of games business. You could end up with a stringent «rule» which declares that X trumps Y because Y was rested, or injured, or kidnapped by aliens. You risk awarding picking players with good numbers, which is plain wrong, imo.

Better to leave it somewhat vague. Those who feel X no of games is necessary can then judge accordingly, whereas others can go with «impact» regardless of pure numbers.

Inevitably, any draft involving any sort of peak, or performance in a limited context, will see debates over technicalities. The only way to avoid this is to get absurdly specific, which nobody really wants.

 

[antohan]

I love Gullit too obviously, I think I saw someone mention Gullit sometimes get underrated in drafts? If so, I'll definitely have to use him again.

Sometimes it seems like people punish the absence of a regular midget #10 pulling strings and regard Gullit in the hole as a better Fellaini.

It's mental. A bit like the other day when I was saying Tuppet needed someone like Ceulemans or Gullit and in no time Baggio was getting suggested instead.

 

[Ecstatic]

I did want Cruyff 1974 as a false 9.

 

[Enigma_87]

I love Gullit too obviously, I think I saw someone mention Gullit sometimes get underrated in drafts? If so, I'll definitely have to use him again.

Picked him before and I do think he's slightly underrated around here.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Sometimes it seems like people punish the absence of a regular midget #10 pulling strings and regard Gullit in the hole as a better Fellaini.

It's mental. A bit like the other day when I was saying Tuppet needed someone like Ceulemans or Gullit and in no time Baggio was getting suggested instead.

Ah yeah, Cuelemans was actually my backup plan if Ruud got selected first.

 

[Moby]

I love Gullit too obviously, I think I saw someone mention Gullit sometimes get underrated in drafts? If so, I'll definitely have to use him again.

You'll have to fight me for his services.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

You'll have to fight me for his services.

Don't you have enough Inside Rights in your team already?

 

[Moby]

Don't you have enough Inside Rights in your team already?

In fact, none of Meazza, Suarez or Gullit are inside rights.

 

[Enigma_87]

In fact, none of Meazza, Suarez or Gullit are inside rights.

Meazza is. That's his best position

 

[Moby]

Meazza is. That's his best position

Not in the world cup I picked him for, though.

From the book "A History of World Cup: 1930-2014"

 

[Enigma_87]

Not in the world cup I picked him for, though.

From the book "A History of World Cup: 1930-2014"

He was inside right by trade at Inter. In 1938 he was inside right in his traditional position playing behind Piola.

In 1934 I agree that he was inside left that's why I used RvP in the remake draft in his place in that side(1934). It doesn't really matter the nominal position in the side as he formed a triangle with a striker and another inside right/left. He could play either of those positions as the difference is marginal for me.

Considering the formation at the time and the metodo he's a central player flanked by outside left/right and behind CF.

You have the option of going with inside right/left like Suarez and Meazza in a more attacking line up.