Yeah you're right boys - all of that can be taken care of with a thorough and bulletproof opening post when kicking off the draft. Not easy to do because the odd problem will inevitably materialise even with the best of preparation. It's just about taking the time to get everything right when all the managers have got boners on as the draft is about to begin.
Ideas For Fantasy Draft Match Threads (New Ways Of Playing Out Matches)
- Thread starter Chesterlestreet
- Start date
- Status
Hopefully we can all (somewhat) agree on a defined "peak" before starting. And I'll be sure to mention it in the threads and throughout drafting also.
Coming up with some criteria for the draft now. Hopefully it can drum up enough interest that people will still be wanting to jump into it after the holidays.
Sheep is always fun.
Two suggestions:
- Specify a time period. All time XI's cause too much imbalance in rating of players vs positions.
- Have one or two player block round to begin with, so as to take the 'super stars' out of the game.
Two suggestions:
- Specify a time period. All time XI's cause too much imbalance in rating of players vs positions.
- Have one or two player block round to begin with, so as to take the 'super stars' out of the game.
The criteria I (hope) to include, will limit people's options on picking players. Plus there will still be the option of people blocking each other. But maybe we can do something similar to the other draft where everyone can nominate one player to block, like you suggested.
That should happen in a sheep draft anyway and it would take the fun out of some of the criteria. Remember when no one picked Messi at first and then he got blocked in the second round? It was beautiful. I'd just scrap the 'pick from the blocked players' criterion we had at the end of the last draft.
That's ideally the way I hoped it would go. It seems so much more fun to see everyone waiting anxiously to see if their pick went through...then scrambling for a replacement without knowing who is, or isnt, available.
As the definition of peak I'd go for the three best seasons of a player (otherwise Kevin Phillips, Michu etc would be incredible) , though not necessarily consecutively otherwise Fat Ronaldo wouldn't rated as highly. His peak would clearly be his Barca season and his first Inter then either his last PSV season or his 98-99 Inter season or his first Real season. Quality wise it would probably be his second Inter season but he only played 19 games. Which brings us to the problem of how we deal with injury in peak- does the fact they only played 20 games a season count against them?
A way round this would be for the drafter to declare which three seasons he is taking as peak but in each season he must have played at least 25 (other numbers could be used) league games. Declaring peak would avoid other posters arguing different eras were peaks and also the drafter arguing that the player is not just at his peak, but having his best ever game during his peak period. I remember one drafter basically saying that Zidane was a God and couldn't be stopped. Defining peak this way means an opponent could research a game in which a player was stopped and use it to defend his tactics as a way to deal with Zidane et al without the drafter claiming oh that wasn't his peak.
A way round this would be for the drafter to declare which three seasons he is taking as peak but in each season he must have played at least 25 (other numbers could be used) league games. Declaring peak would avoid other posters arguing different eras were peaks and also the drafter arguing that the player is not just at his peak, but having his best ever game during his peak period. I remember one drafter basically saying that Zidane was a God and couldn't be stopped. Defining peak this way means an opponent could research a game in which a player was stopped and use it to defend his tactics as a way to deal with Zidane et al without the drafter claiming oh that wasn't his peak.
The career of players will still be important as you can use different peaks to suit your team perfectly. Giggs early 90's in one game, then Giggs 99 in the next etc.
I think three seasons is quite good as a basis. Preferably they should be after each other as otherwise you can end up creating superheroes from the likes of Giggs by using one 99 season one early 90s season etc which means you magically get the best of two worlds.
So they really need to be consecutive, with injuries not counting. Or bring it down to two consecutive seasons if three makes too many unavailable.
I think three seasons is quite good as a basis. Preferably they should be after each other as otherwise you can end up creating superheroes from the likes of Giggs by using one 99 season one early 90s season etc which means you magically get the best of two worlds.
So they really need to be consecutive, with injuries not counting. Or bring it down to two consecutive seasons if three makes too many unavailable.
I know I'm not starting this for a while...But get your name down now if you're interested 
that way I can get a rough idea of numbers
1. Annahnomoss
that way I can get a rough idea of numbers1. Annahnomoss
Scooore. I think getting the numbers done and dusted and they spending quite some time researching every criteria and rule etc.
Agree with three years for a peak. Long enough to whittle out the purple-patch merchants like Marcus Stewart, Mido, James Beattie, Catanha, but equally not too long to make it unrealistic. Few players if any have a genuine peak lasting longer than three years in any case. It's also a good barometer for young emerging players - judge them on their last three years - rather than a convoluted 'how good are they now' measure. The Premiership all-time draft used 100 games, both as a necessary threshold to qualify plus as a measure of quality, which also worked well.
Very good point on the youth players who usually are rated for their current and last season at most usually.
I think seasons will be a lot easier to evaluate than 100 matches though. We'd end up having to dig up 12 consecutive matches from a new season and people won't remember that player for those 12 matches but rather for their average performance all season.
That's an interesting point. To make it more interesting I think the defined peak in the first game should last throughout the draft even the upgrades. So if a defeated drafter has played the early 90s Giggs if you were to acquire him in the reinforcement round it would be the early 90s one. Thinking about having three consecutive seasons is fine (the only situation in which you can move it over a longer period is if the player played less than 25 league games that season).
eg. 99/00- 37 games
00/01 - 32 games
01/02 - 15 games
02/03 - 12 games
03/04- 34 games
In this stylised case the peak would be 99/00, 00/01 and 03/04. Defining this period would be best done in the main thread not the game threads as it would produce unnecessary in thread arguments.
I think the '3 years' guideline for a player's peak is working okay really. Everyone will interpret the peak thing slightly differently anyway. Personally, while I try to some extent to adhere to the three year thing, I can't help but mark someone like Torres down a bit in comparison to an Henry, Shearer or RVN because his decline was so precipitous.
I don't think we should bother having any guidelines for peak. It should be up to the voter to decide what he considers peak, for it is his or her vote.
Peak is such a hard thing to define too. Using a post above, players like Michu it's clear to see his season was a purple patch. However there's also players like Aguero for example who have been injured a lot but you can tell after a matter of games that his peak is high, for example.
I just think peak should be what the voter wants it to mean, just like how every other facet is decided by the voter and reflected in his final vote.
Peak is such a hard thing to define too. Using a post above, players like Michu it's clear to see his season was a purple patch. However there's also players like Aguero for example who have been injured a lot but you can tell after a matter of games that his peak is high, for example.
I just think peak should be what the voter wants it to mean, just like how every other facet is decided by the voter and reflected in his final vote.
Ban all Manchester United players ? To much understandable bias, not that United's set of players aren't a match for anyone.
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.
No point defining a peak. A real life peak depends on position, strategy and sometimes on partnerships. Xavi Iniesta will be different from Xavi Scholes or Iniesta Scholes.
Anyway scan voters are not going to read. It'll be up to the playing managers to convince who ever reads that the player will make a difference in the team.
It'll just cause confusion trying to replace the game with stats.
Anyway scan voters are not going to read. It'll be up to the playing managers to convince who ever reads that the player will make a difference in the team.
It'll just cause confusion trying to replace the game with stats.
Won't change much to decide that a peak is three seasons. The only thing it will do is make a few new players viable picks as you can now argue for them without being worried about their reputation.
Players with great careers are already judged fairly, on a peak.
Players with great careers are already judged fairly, on a peak.
I think any definitions we use have to simple, or not used at all. Most voters probably won't consider it anyway, and we risk either alienating those voters, or confusing them.
Having multiple random years throughout someone's career could be hard for someone to think about with everything else going on in the discussions.
Having multiple random years throughout someone's career could be hard for someone to think about with everything else going on in the discussions.
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.
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.
Completely pointless exercise. I find it more relevant when looking at stats/scoring records, taking the top three seasons to avoid one-season wonders.
Hopefully we can all (somewhat) agree on a defined "peak" before starting. And I'll be sure to mention it in the threads and throughout drafting also.
Coming up with some criteria for the draft now. Hopefully it can drum up enough interest that people will still be wanting to jump into it after the holidays.
People's mental image of players is wide-ranging as well. We always seem to struggle with peak Scholes/Giggs due to longevity. Meanwhile, for most oldies people will base themselves on a few weeks in some World Cup a long time ago. Truth is, you can't expect to "normalise" that. You can't create rules around it, maybe suggestions, but never rules that would be expected to be adhered to.
Or keep it simple, make your case and people buy it or not.
And this is why you don't make peak rules, they turn into rocket science, trigger raging arguments and, frankly, nobody cares.
It's nuts to have a non-continuous peak selecting various parts of a player's career, they are usually very different players as well in each!
Which is why in the end I said either something simple...or not at all
Definitely interested in Sheep, but 2nd week of Jan is when people come back from leave and proper work begins. Let's see how things are at that time.I know I'm not starting this for a while...But get your name down now if you're interested
1. Annahnomoss
Aaaah, the sheep draft.
Gwan then, im in.
Gwan then, im in.
I miss Aldo
People should just make clear what peak they're referring to when drafting or in player profile before game starts. Its then up for ridicule and open to attack during the game.
Sure plonk me in.
If you have numbers, then drop me to AM, else I'll play.
If you have numbers, then drop me to AM, else I'll play.
1. Annahnomoss
2. Stobzilla
3. Edgar Allan Pillow
4. Cutch
2. Stobzilla
3. Edgar Allan Pillow
4. Cutch
Last edited:
Sheep draft is great fun. I'm in
Good lad
Not a bad idea.
Certainly much more sense in this than in introducing rules (which will be debated endlessly and pointlessly) regarding so-called peak.
I don't think there was a problem with bias regarding United players in all the other drafts. It's more the case that domestic rivals are often treated unfairly (has John Terry won a draft game yet?). In an all British draft it obviously became noticeable, but in comparison to Southamerican, Italian, French, German, ... players, a United bias was never really a problem and I doubt it will be in the future.
There still needs to be a Caf Grand Championship i.e. all the winners of past drafts go head to head to determine the Caf's draft king! This will probably never happen but it won't stop me from mentioning it every time there's a discussion on draft ideas.
why can't the peak be just a game or a season? Why do you need a peak at all? it is for the voter to decide the merits of the player and his contribution to the team. After all this is just an imaginary game about how people think the teams will play. Let the managers argue their case.
Ultimately the manager is playing with the hope of winning the game, and he would draft accordingly. So unless one wants to lose, no is going to try and argue for Michael Rickkets
Ultimately the manager is playing with the hope of winning the game, and he would draft accordingly. So unless one wants to lose, no is going to try and argue for Michael Rickkets
While we are on the topic of draft rules... Every draft should feature one of these. Let's be a little more pro!
This, no need to over complicate things again. Just set draft limits if you dont want players of the early 1900s included.
1. Annahnomoss
2. Stobzilla
3. Edgar Allan Pillow
4. Cutch
5. Raees
2. Stobzilla
3. Edgar Allan Pillow
4. Cutch
5. Raees
- Status