How to resolve draws?

[Physiocrat]

Scrappy raised the problem with GK rankings in the Virgin Drafting thread: it makes picking keepers very mechanical unless you have a specific system that requires a proper sweeper keeper.

There was some support for penalties making a return too (if it was the choices need to be submitted before hand with the OP to speed up the process) think the lowest seed to go through would make sense although that has problems with ranking after reinforcements.

What does everyone think?

Edit - By lowest seed I mean the team ranked the worst from 1-15.

 

[Himannv]

I think picking a better keeper is important and the current system has addressed that issue somewhat. However, penalties is probably the best (and most fun) way of deciding it.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

I was for this gk system but scrappy made a great point.
Think we should stay with keepers but move back to neutral ratings from the non playing committee.

 

[harms]

I was for this gk system but scrappy made a great point.
Think we should stay with keepers but move back to neutral ratings from the non playing committee.

How would that make it better? They'd still rank them in order without any correlation to their importance to the system. Is it simply so that the managers didn't know the order?

 

[Šjor Bepo]

How would that make it better? They'd still rank them in order without any correlation to their importance to the system. Is it simply so that the managers didn't know the order?

Yes. If they fit to the system or not should be solved during the game.

 

[Enigma_87]

How would that make it better? They'd still rank them in order without any correlation to their importance to the system. Is it simply so that the managers didn't know the order?

I'm with @Šjor Bepo on this one.

When 3-4 neutrals ranking keepers who we can switch through drafts you have as you mentioned change in GK rankings which will remove the picks in accordance to the list.

Despite some shortcomings IMO still the best way to decide and puts an incentive for managers to pick better keepers, as without it they are picked usually last without second thought either.

 

[harms]

Personally, I never was a fan of the best keeper thing. From the pre-determined options the lowest time is the only one that makes sense as it, at least, moves the drafting stage forward. Otherwise, it should be either penalties (as managers can actively influence the result), or coin-toss if no one wants to bother.

Neutrals probably haven't voted for a reason and it doesn't make sense to essentially give someone's opinion a right of deciding the game.
Not sure about the lowest/highest seed, as both managers would have different arguments for and against. If we're going with the lowest (better?) seed, you can argue that another manager did better with an inferior squad, which usually means that he was better prepared for the game. And the opposite argument of doing better at drafting is also applicable.

 

[harms]

Yes. If they fit to the system or not should be solved during the game.

Their quality also should influence the game's outcome. You can't have it both ways – either keepers matter in the game, or they don't and hence why they are used as a game-deciding mechanic.

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

Think we should stay with keepers but move back to neutral ratings from the non playing committee.

Yea, I agree with this as well.

Let a non playing committee decide it rather than leave it to a pre-decided list where you know before hand if a draw is enough.

Also the deciding should not be just based on who had the better keeper. It should also be based on who utilized their keeper better, who sold their keeper better etc. For example, having Zoff in a possession based team should lose even if against Ederson in a possession based team.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

Their quality also should influence the game's outcome. You can't have it both ways – either keepers matter in the game, or they don't and hence why they are used as a game-deciding mechanic.

They matter but they dont, i mean you play drafts long enough to be aware of the situation and that since day 1 until today they make feck all difference in 99% of the matches.

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

I have a few more ideas -

1. Who ever has voted on more games in the last X number of games wins. (I think this would be great for our voting numbers)
2. Who ever more actively participated in the debate or won the debate wins. (decided by a neutral committee)

 

[Gio]

Not really a fan of using seeding, picking times, most active manager, etc. They don't bear much resemblance to what happens on the 'park'. Don't mind penalties as it least tries to mirror an actual draw to some degree.

Their quality also should influence the game's outcome. You can't have it both ways – either keepers matter in the game, or they don't and hence why they are used as a game-deciding mechanic.

Well you could have it both ways if we felt that their role wasn't adequately appreciated by the voters. Keepers can matter to some extent in the game, but we may feel that they don't matter enough so we throw a little extra weight behind them in the case of a draw.

Makes sense to move away from using the list as a deciding mechanism anyway, it's too robotic. I don't mind a freshly convened panel to resolve draws, keeps some of the intrigue about the process. One of the beauties of the current draft is that it's not been as list-led as some all-time snake drafts we do. There's maybe 1-2 standouts in a few (but not all) positions, and there's much of a muchness between the rest, which has generated more unpredictability and variety.

 

[Physiocrat]

Not sure about the lowest/highest seed, as both managers would have different arguments for and against. If we're going with the lowest (better?) seed, you can argue that another manager did better with an inferior squad, which usually means that he was better prepared for the game. And the opposite argument of doing better at drafting is also applicable.

By lowest seed I mean the worst ranked side. I think if we were to mix it with a seeded draw, that would reward good drafting in that the better side would have an easier game. The worst ranking team winning in a game would reward good performance in the draft match itself - as you mentioned, being better prepared etc.

Although it would make it more complicated, it would be good if the rankings could be re-voted each round after reinforcements because one player can make all the difference. Ideally all 16 crafters would continue to do it and it shouldn't be difficult after the first ranking as there would then only be 8 sides. Whilst a little cumbersome this would be the best solution IMO.

On keepers, they're clearly important in real games but if you have a keeper say of Pfaff's quality do you really need focus on getting Buffon or is it better to upgrade Ashley Cole to Maldini? I reckon really life managers would choose the latter (use your own examples of relatively quality if you disagree with mine)

 

[Physiocrat]

Looks like penalties are the most popular. For those who voted for other options, what would you think of penalties if the options were submitted with the OP so they could be concluded soon after the voting closed? This should speed it up . In the past the slowness of them was really quite annoying

 

[Himannv]

Looks like penalties are the most popular. For those who voted for other options, what would you think of penalties if the options were submitted with the OP so they could be concluded soon after the voting closed? This should speed it up . In the past the slowness of them was really quite annoying

Sure. Can be submitted as part of the match tactics. Something like:

1. Left
2. Right
3. Straight ahead
4. Duck
5. Bend over

Can see that working.

The biggest problem I see is that it's a bit of a pain for the game organizer.

 

[harms]

You don't have to do a whole spectacle if you don't have the time, you can just post results.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

You don't have to do a whole spectacle if you don't have the time, you can just post results.

feck that, id rather wait for a spectacle because without that penalties are a utter crap solution

 

[FrankDrebin]

Dance off.

 

[Himannv]

Dance off.

 

[FrankDrebin]

 

[Ecstatic]

By choosing 5 random posters and asking them to discover the game

Random voters of today are the new voters and participants of tomorrow.