International peak draft

If someone likes a good research drop me a pm for AM spot, going for a specific theme so the pool will be very limited:nervous:
 
Annahnomoss said:
Sounds interesting!
Click to expand...

yeah, decided against it....idea had more cons then pros unfortunately, it would ruin my drafting process but the end product would be nice and as im playing this for the first part it doesnt make sense to go that route.
 
We may copy/paste a reminder when we submit a pick

International Peak Draft

  1. EAP ...
  2. Sjor ...
  3. Isotope
  4. 2Mufc0
  5. Tuppet
  6. Pat Mustard
  7. Skizzo
  8. P-Nut/Enigma
  9. Onenil
  10. Mazhar
  11. Joga Bonito
  12. Gio
  13. Raees/Invictus
  14. Annahnomoss
  15. Moby
  16. DownCast
  17. Harms
Reminder: Please don't hesitate to leave your pick to somebody if you expect to be busy while your turn is coming soon
 
Annahnomoss said:
Everybody alright with the rules?
Click to expand...
I might be a bit picky about this, but if we're including the Africa Cup of nations, why not the AFC Asian Cup as well? It's not like there were poor Asian footballers playing in those tournaments.

Other than that, I'm satisfied with the rules.
 
mazhar13 said:
I might be a bit picky about this, but if we're including the Africa Cup of nations, why not the AFC Asian Cup as well? It's not like there were poor Asian footballers playing in those tournaments.

Other than that, I'm satisfied with the rules.
Click to expand...

Are you interested in picking anybody there? Was the only reason I didn't include it. I don't mind adding it at all of course if there is a genuine interest to pick some players there too.

I added it. Won't hurt if someone wants to pick a player who had a great run there as well after a major tournament too, it shouldn't harm them.
 
Last edited:
Annahnomoss said:
Everybody alright with the rules?
Click to expand...
Might be worth clarifying this point in advance:

1.3 If you want to pick a player from an odd tournament setup like the Euro of 1960 which just included four teams then ask me and I will help set out a more fair rule for it. For the Euro '60 it would most likely be to include the qualifying rounds as well which in total saw the teams play a round of 16th a quarter and then "the final tournament" of the semis and the final.

Fully agree with the principle that a 7-game World Cup should be more persuasive than a 3-game Euro for example, but useful to clarify whether qualifying rounds are in or out in the case of those tiny pre-1980 Euros.
Annahnomoss said:
We won't for the following reasons. 1. The eastern block completely dominated the Olympics, and have so many exceptional performances there from Yugoslavia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Soviet, Poland etc etc. And the best of these sides faced of in the Olympics together against other sides as well. 2. The tournament was played for up to over five years to decide a single winner.

Italy and Austria also played in the olympics.

We'd then have to include the Nordic Football Championship and 30 other tournaments like that in the world.
Click to expand...
Think this is fair. From recollection a lot of the CEIC performance justification got a little murky for any non-strikers.
 
Gio said:
Might be worth clarifying this point in advance:

1.3 If you want to pick a player from an odd tournament setup like the Euro of 1960 which just included four teams then ask me and I will help set out a more fair rule for it. For the Euro '60 it would most likely be to include the qualifying rounds as well which in total saw the teams play a round of 16th a quarter and then "the final tournament" of the semis and the final.

Fully agree with the principle that a 7-game World Cup should be more persuasive than a 3-game Euro for example, but useful to clarify whether qualifying rounds are in or out in the case of those tiny pre-1980 Euros.
Click to expand...

Yes, the tiny tournaments like the one mentioned will include the qualification tournament as well. Please send me or GS a pm in case you wonder about a situation like this.
 
Annahnomoss said:
1.1 Players has to have played in one of the available tournaments. Managers must before every game specify which tournament version of their player that they are using. Their peak will be rated solely on what they did in that specific tournament. There is no rules on exactly how many matches the player has to have played, but obviously the more the merrier and the primary goal is impact to the teams performance overall in the tournament.
Click to expand...

I do agree with specifying a tournament for each player, but personally I'd prefer a little leeway to factor in their overall body of work at international tournaments. If for example, there was a hypothetical Italian gentleman with a pony tail who had an incredible WC '94, and also scored the best goal of the tournament in 1990 and impressed in 1998, it seems too limiting to disregard the latter two completely. A more extensive body of work should be allowed to elevate a player's standing IMO.
 
Pat_Mustard said:
I do agree with specifying a tournament for each player, but personally I'd prefer a little leeway to factor in their overall body of work at international tournaments. If for example, there was a hypothetical Italian gentleman with a pony tail who had an incredible WC '94, and also scored the best goal of the tournament in 1990 and impressed in 1998, it seems too limiting to disregard the latter two completely. A more extensive body of work should be allowed to elevate a player's standing IMO.
Click to expand...

Agree with that usually but it has been named international peak draft so the entire theme is to look at a players individual peak.
 
Pat_Mustard said:
I do agree with specifying a tournament for each player, but personally I'd prefer a little leeway to factor in their overall body of work at international tournaments. If for example, there was a hypothetical Italian gentleman with a pony tail who had an incredible WC '94, and also scored the best goal of the tournament in 1990 and impressed in 1998, it seems too limiting to disregard the latter two completely. A more extensive body of work should be allowed to elevate a player's standing IMO.
Click to expand...
Think that's fair and goes with the principle of a 7-game tourney from Pele being more valuable than a 3-game stint (everything else being equal of course).
 
My understanding is only the performances with the NT matter.

If a player is fantastic with his club but disappointing/average with his NT: he won't be considered as a fantastic player.
 
@Annahnomoss The peak, the chosen tournament and the position played should all be related. For example, if a player has played as a striker in the chosen tournament, but in draft match he's shuttled to a winger or a #10 role, then it's considered not peak, right (Even if the player has played as a winger/AM at club level very well)?
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
@Annahnomoss The peak, the chosen tournament and the position played should all be related. For example, if a player has played as a striker in the chosen tournament, but in draft match he's shuttled to a winger or a #10 role, then it's considered not peak, right (Even if the player has played as a winger/AM at club level very well)?
Click to expand...

Yes. But if it is a case of a nominal position and the player actually played wide as much as he played in his nominal position then there is a good case to use him in a role like that. But yeah, club form and what they displayed there means nothing. Also you can't say that you are using player X from his peak in 72, but you are using him in his position from 78.
 
Pat_Mustard said:
I do agree with specifying a tournament for each player, but personally I'd prefer a little leeway to factor in their overall body of work at international tournaments. If for example, there was a hypothetical Italian gentleman with a pony tail who had an incredible WC '94, and also scored the best goal of the tournament in 1990 and impressed in 1998, it seems too limiting to disregard the latter two completely. A more extensive body of work should be allowed to elevate a player's standing IMO.
Click to expand...

There is already a lot of leeway in that regard. You pick Pele and you can use him as a striker or AM etc. And of course the biggest players always get more votes naturally than a one tournament wonder so you also have that going for them. No need to give them further advantages. Even a striker may have shown different qualities from the same position in two different tournaments.
 
Impact is a tricky category in itself. Pelé's impact on the '58 WC looks stellar compared to most, regardless of the fact that he didn't start every match. But the real reason why this is the case is - of course - that we know how bloody good he was. He wasn't a one hit wonder who shone brightly over a small sample of matches.

In other words, to completely separate overall status and performance in particular tournaments, is pretty much impossible.

Anyway, I'd say his impact on the tournament wouldn't have been any greater (his performance in the final alone blew people all over the world away) if he had played more initially, whereas his impact on the team, as such, was clearly greater in '70.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
@Annahnomoss The peak, the chosen tournament and the position played should all be related. For example, if a player has played as a striker in the chosen tournament, but in draft match he's shuttled to a winger or a #10 role, then it's considered not peak, right (Even if the player has played as a winger/AM at club level very well)?
Click to expand...

You are free to start the draft with your pick mate!
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Anyway, I'd say his impact on the tournament wouldn't have been any greater (his performance in the final alone blew people all over the world away) if he had played more initially, whereas his impact on the team, as such, was clearly greater in '70.
Click to expand...

I would have thought if he plays striker it's the 16yo from 58 and if he plays 10 it's the 1970 one. No?
 
Ah, ok then.

Back to esoteric formation drawing board....

world-cup-1974-johan-cruyff-in-action.jpg
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Did you just add a . between the names? The same . that I purposely left out since there's one already after 1.

:lol:
Click to expand...
The rules said:
6. All names should be spellchecked before posting. Names should be posted in a format like this: L. Messi, Z. Ibrahimović, M. Fellaini. This is done to make ctrl+F search more effective, considering the amount of unforced mistakes in the last drafts. For that reason, officially there isn't any difference between, say, "c" and "ć", as the search engine sees them as one. The aesthetic preference is to make everything authentic though.
Click to expand...
:angel:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.