Manager Draft Final - Harms VS Edgar

[Balu]

Field it, field it!

Something like:

Müller Rummenigge
Maradona
Schuster Matthäus
Stielike
Brehme Schwarzenbeck Beckenbauer Vogts
Maier
​

@Joga Bonito or @Skizzo probably know better what their final line-up would have been.

 

[VivaJanuzaj]

Congrats @Edgar Allan Pillow . Well played and what a final, love both teams here because it's not all filled with Ronaldos and Messis and Maradonas.

 

[Annahnomoss]

Congrats @Edgar Allan Pillow . Well played and what a final, love both teams here because it's not all filled with Ronaldos and Messis and Maradonas.

Yup, my favorite final so far. One of the first time two teams played each other in a draft final. Congratulations both managers for making it so far!

 

[harms]

Congratulations @Edgar Allan Pillow
And my eternal gratitude to @Annahnomoss

 

[The Red Viper]

Hard Luck, @harms .

No shame losing to a side like that one assembled by @Edgar Allan Pillow . Congrats on the win, Edgar!

 

[Annahnomoss]

Congratulations @Edgar Allan Pillow
And my eternal gratitude to @Annahnomoss

Will be exciting to see how Crappy's draft will be!

 

[harms]

14 harms - 23 EAP - 16 draw, I believe.

 

[The Red Viper]

Something like:

Müller Rummenigge
Maradona
Schuster Matthäus
Stielike
Brehme Schwarzenbeck Beckenbauer Vogts
Maier
​

@Joga Bonito or @Skizzo probably know better what their final line-up would have been.

Probably could have Breitner in for Stielike just for having a bigger name in the team. Probably could have then played a three man central midfield of Breitner and Matthaus as box-box with Schuster in the Pirlo role?

 

[harms]

Probably could have Breitner in for Stielike just for having a bigger name in the team. Probably could have then played a three man central midfield of Breitner and Matthaus as box-box with Schuster in the Pirlo role?

He never played as a midfielder for Lattek.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Look, who's already celebrating!

Spoiler: Fabio

Just woke up. My first ever draft win!

Great game @harms
Thanks @Annahnomoss fo the draft!

 

[Annahnomoss]

Look, who's already celebrating!

Spoiler: Fabio

Just woke up. My first ever draft win!

Great game @harms
Thanks @Annahnomoss fo the draft!

Thank you for having the idea so I could steal it!

 

[Balu]

Probably could have Breitner in for Stielike just for having a bigger name in the team. Probably could have then played a three man central midfield of Breitner and Matthaus as box-box with Schuster in the Pirlo role?

I'd just replace Matthäus with Breitner if midfield Breitner was available, but that seems a bit wrong, Lattek never managed Breitner after '74 and Brehme is in my opinion the stronger leftback.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

He never played as a midfielder for Lattek.

The last formation was near your best, I thought. But the one I really liked was the one you started with. I would have used Gentile to man mark Gullit (bigger goal threat) and then swapped Tardelli to the other side to hold off Nedved. You'll have the voting edge in Matthaus/Rijkaard too.

 

[antohan]

Probably could have Breitner in for Stielike just for having a bigger name in the team. Probably could have then played a three man central midfield of Breitner and Matthaus as box-box with Schuster in the Pirlo role?

I would stick to Stielike and play Matthäus and Breitner behind Schüster, do away with Maradona. Seriously, there's nothing Lattek's Maradona does which Schüster and Kalle aren't jointly covering.

EDIT: Breitner has to be LB

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Thank you for having the idea so I could steal it!

Nah mate, it's yours through and through!

 

[Balu]

I would stick to Stielike and play Matthäus and Breitner behind Schüster, do away with Maradona. Seriously, there's nothing Lattek's Maradona does which Schüster and Kalle aren't jointly covering.

EDIT: Breitner has to be LB

I'd actually prefer to go 433 and play Hoeneß left wing and leave Maradona out of the team, but there's no way that team would win against EAP.

 

[harms]

The last formation was near your best, I thought. But the one I really liked was the one you started with. I would have used Gentile to man mark Gullit (bigger goal threat) and then swapped Tardelli to the other side to hold off Nedved. You'll have the voting edge in Matthaus/Rijkaard too.

I don't think that Gentile can mark Gullit, to be fair. He isn't as good as he was, but I think that the pure physicality of Gullit will be an important factor - Gentile wasn't a giant.

 

[antohan]

Look, who's already celebrating!

Spoiler: Fabio

Just woke up. My first ever draft win!

Great game @harms
Thanks @Annahnomoss fo the draft!

The first truly beautiful thing you've posted in the entire draft.

Congrats, although it turned out to be child's play to assemble that side once you drafted accordingly staright off the bat. Told you you had nothing to worry about re: Stobzilla having Gullit and Marco.

Great game both managers. @harms, I gave you a hard time sometimes along the way, largely because I loved these boys and wouldn't have them misused or turned into a fantasyfest. You did an admirable job of building that side in a much harder context and with more competition for players in your pool. Unlucky.

 

[harms]

Great game both managers. @harms, I gave you a hard time sometimes along the way, largely because I loved these boys and wouldn't have them misused or turned into a fantasyfest. You did an admirable job of building that side in a much harder context and with more competition for players in your pool. Unlucky.

Thanks, it was frightening at times Though mostly your criticism was fair, especially on that Boniek sub.
I can't call myself unlucky though, it would've been harder for me if Gio/Theon weren't eliminated in the first round

 

[antohan]

The last formation was near your best, I thought. But the one I really liked was the one you started with. I would have used Gentile to man mark Gullit (bigger goal threat) and then swapped Tardelli to the other side to hold off Nedved. You'll have the voting edge in Matthaus/Rijkaard too.

I don't think you've realised yet what a beastly physical difference there was between your midfield and his, which is one reason why he couldn't/shouldn't by design have gone for matching you in midfield or "winning battles" but simply outplaying you. You never saw Barca/Spain engaging in physical contests, did you? Also, while your defence is unmatched in terms of shutting out teams, his wasn't far behind while being superb at supporting attacking play. With Platini, Baggio, Boniek, Cabrini, Matthäus, Tardellli and Scirea he really should have been able to just twat you.

 

[Annahnomoss]

The last formation was near your best, I thought. But the one I really liked was the one you started with. I would have used Gentile to man mark Gullit (bigger goal threat) and then swapped Tardelli to the other side to hold off Nedved. You'll have the voting edge in Matthaus/Rijkaard too.

Was contemplating it too but at the end I think that man marking Gullit would have been a worse option. It would have meant Bergomi would have played pretty much as a true right back trying to handle Nedved out wide - leaving Kohler-Scirea inside the box with van Basten and Gullit entering it as he wished.

By man marking Nedved, Gullit had to be the one dropping out of the box to do all the playmaking - which would mean van Basten alone up against Bergomi and Kohler with Scirea sweeping. A battle which the defenders would be as comfortable as you can possibly be while facing a top striker.

Overall the match up was bad for him as he had the spine of that Italian defense which had the only shortcoming of not being top quality in the air(Except for Brio). As they were a team who played a very deep defensive line without a lot of pressure, the early crosses would have been really hard to stop.

I love the fact that the Dutch trio finally got their fair dues, they really deserve it. If they didn't outplay you, they outbullied you and if they didn't outbully you they'd nick one on a corner/cross.

 

[antohan]

Thanks, it was frightening at times Though mostly your criticism was fair, especially on that Boniek sub.
I can't call myself unlucky though, it would've been harder for me if Gio/Theon weren't eliminated in the first round

True, but it makes it all the more remarkable that with another great competing side being built up you didn't go on a big name collecting frenzy and stayed true to a theme.

If there's one thing you wouldn't want here is to be competing for players with Gio/Theon, complete and absolute pain in the arse and you got through that admirably well. EAP on the other hand... I remember telling him "Don't worry, Stob will dig himself a hole sooner or later, then you just push him ever so slightly into it and your future reinforcements are all nicely lined up" @Stobzilla

 

[Stobzilla]

True, but it makes it all the more remarkable that with another great competing side being built up you didn't go on a big name collecting frenzy and stayed true to a theme.

If there's one thing you wouldn't want here is to be competing for players with Gio/Theon, complete and absolute pain in the arse and you got through that admirably well. EAP on the other hand... I remember telling him "Don't worry, Stob will dig himself a hole sooner or later, then you just push him ever so slightly into it and your future reinforcements are all nicely lined up" @Stobzilla

You are a dick bag.

But also correct.

 

[sajeev]

meh, the caf disappoints me with its taste

 

[Joga Bonito]

Something like:

Müller Rummenigge
Maradona
Schuster Matthäus
Stielike
Brehme Schwarzenbeck Beckenbauer Vogts
Maier
​

@Joga Bonito or @Skizzo probably know better what their final line-up would have been.

Would have played Hoeneß instead with Maradona being an impact sub like you've stated. Makes for a more fluid team and no Desailly on someone option for EAP.

Maybe Lerby instead of Stielike as well. Would have fiddled with the idea of Brehme on the right(did he play there for Lattek?) with Breitner on the left with Vogts replacing Schwarzenbeck as a CB if I needed to be more attacking but it just seems wrong to split that CB partnership.

 

[Annahnomoss]

We need to discuss the draw option for future drafts. It is clearly something that the more "careful" voters would opt for, seeing as out of the 14 votes, 2 are managers - 10 or 11 are consistent participators.

That means that the draw option got most "regular" votes of all, above both Edgar and Harms and pretty much equal as both of them together. In this draft the draw option had absolutely no effect rather than cancelling out votes - leaving the regulars with a vote that didn't really count for anything.

So how do we proceed with this? One solution would be to have four vote options;

Edgar
Harms
Draw(Adv. Edgar)
Draw(Adv. Harms)

So if the two draws added together wins, it is a draw and it goes to penalties. But if the draw option doesn't win, we still don't lose the "regular" votes importance - and we just count them together with the team who they thought had the adv.

Say;
Edgar - 10
Harms - 8
Draw(Adv. Edgar) - 3
Draw(Adv. Harms) - 4

Overall score; would be 13-12 to Edgar as the draw only had 7 votes in total compared to Edgars 10. This would also mean that the old draw could still happen where after the draw votes are included - both teams has the same amount of votes. Or we simply remove the vote option, as it will always be primarily used by regulars.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

I think a simple draw would suffice. Win condition would be for the manager to have highest votes, incl the draw option. If draw has highest votes at the end, it goes to penalties.

 

[Annahnomoss]

I think a simple draw would suffice. Win condition would be for the manager to have highest votes, incl the draw option. If draw has highest votes at the end, it goes to penalties.

Issue with it is that it leaves the entire draft in the hands of the scan voters. Rendering the draw option negative overall and then it is better to just exclude it all together. I love it in theory, but it does need some sort of adjustment to actually turn useful.

 

[antohan]

Would have played Hoeneß instead with Maradona being an impact sub like you've stated. Makes for a more fluid team and no Desailly on someone option for EAP.

Maybe Lerby instead of Stielike as well. Would have fiddled with the idea of Brehme on the right(did he play there for Lattek?) with Breitner on the left with Vogts replacing Schwarzenbeck as a CB if I needed to be more attacking but it just seems wrong to split that CB partnership.

You mean like this?

Yeah, I suppose you can do away with Stielike with Kaiser there, and the relative roles of Lothar-Kaiser are easier to work out here seeing as the attack is brilliant and doesn't really need any Roy of the Rovers stuff from the latter.

 

[MJJ]

We need to discuss the draw option for future drafts. It is clearly something that the more "careful" voters would opt for, seeing as out of the 14 votes, 2 are managers - 10 or 11 are consistent participators.

That means that the draw option got most "regular" votes of all, above both Edgar and Harms and pretty much equal as both of them together. In this draft the draw option had absolutely no effect rather than cancelling out votes - leaving the regulars with a vote that didn't really count for anything.

So how do we proceed with this? One solution would be to have four vote options;

Edgar
Harms
Draw(Adv. Edgar)
Draw(Adv. Harms)

So if the two draws added together wins, it is a draw and it goes to penalties. But if the draw option doesn't win, we still don't lose the "regular" votes importance - and we just count them together with the team who they thought had the adv.

Say;
Edgar - 10
Harms - 8
Draw(Adv. Edgar) - 3
Draw(Adv. Harms) - 4

Overall score; would be 13-12 to Edgar as the draw only had 7 votes in total compared to Edgars 10. This would also mean that the old draw could still happen where after the draw votes are included - both teams has the same amount of votes. Or we simply remove the vote option, as it will always be primarily used by regulars.

Please dont complicate it too much, keep it nice and simple.

 

[antohan]

You are a dick bag.

But also correct.

The thing is you are very predictable, particularly in terms of priorities (certainly not which players you will pick). You always prioritise the attack and big defenders, leaving the question of width and creativity in central midfield for later, which makes you vulnerable to surgical tactical picks in this sort of limited pool setup. Particularly with a manager like Capello, the problem was never going to be finding good defenders or DMs, or even forwards, the problem was creativity and width.

Here's how it happened so you can see where it all went wrong for future reference.

02. AngeloHenriquez/Stobzilla:- Fabio Capello- 1. F. Baresi 2. Gullit 3. Van Basten 4. Hierro 5. Totti 6. Samuel 7. Emerson 8. Boban 9. Tassotti 10. Candela 11. Sebastiano Rossi 12. Weah.

12. Edgar Allan Pillow:- Fabio Capello - 1. P. Maldini 2. Nedved 3. Redondo 4. Desailly 5. Savićević 6. Costacurta 7. Albertini 8. Donadoni 9. Panucci 10. Suker 11. Casillas 12. Montero.

1. P. Maldini
1. F. Baresi 2. Gullit
2. Nedved 3. Redondo
3. Van Basten 4. Hierro - First slip, you don't need Hierro when you have Baresi. Desailly would be a better defensive partner and holding midfielder.
4. Desailly 5. Savićević - EAP wanted Billy and planned to get Savicevic later, but I thought he was a Stob pick if I ever saw one and completed his midfield while having the sort of creativity and wide played you needed to be starved of
5. Totti 6. Samuel - I truly have no idea what you were thinking. You already had Marco-Gullit, Baresi and Hierro. I think EAP had an orgasm.
6. Costacurta 7. Albertini - At this point EAP has his shape and plan sorted. Time to push you into the hole you dug taking the only proper creative CM left.
7. Emerson 8. Boban - You are now in reaction mode, with EAP dictating who you pick and these being poor-man's substitutes of those he takes away.
8. Donadoni 9. Panucci - You still hadn't sorted width, looked like a back five, so take away Panucci and leave you with Tassotti and no RW to make up for it
9. Tassotti 10. Candela - Presto, Baresi, Gullit and van Basten nicely lined up
10. Suker 11. Casillas - EAP paying the price for screwing with you, Buffon gone
11. Sebastiano Rossi 12. Weah
12. Montero - Insurance in case Desailly was needed in midfield instead of Albertini

The draft side is where the fun is, no doubt

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

You mean like this?

Yeah, I suppose you can do away with Stielike with Kaiser there, and the relative roles of Lothar-Kaiser are easier to work out here seeing as the attack is brilliant and doesn't really need any Roy of the Rovers stuff from the latter.

Forget the likes of Lattek, think of what @Raees could have done if he got the right breaks

Bench: Figo, Makelele etc...

 

[antohan]

Please dont complicate it too much, keep it nice and simple.

This, the double votes already make it hard enough to keep track of who is winning and by what margin, this way it turns into rocket science.

@Annahnomoss just have a plain draw option. If managers/regulars voting for a draw see it's going to be a "useless vote"resulting in an unfair outcome" they can always vote for a win from either side. We sure as feck have voted "wins" to engineer draws before, don't see why they can't carry on doing it if needs be.

 

[antohan]

Forget the likes of Lattek, think of what @Raees could have done if he got the right breaks

Bench: Figo, Makelele etc...

That looks horrendous to me, I would rather what TRV had in the semi than this.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

The Tiki-tacticos !!

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Issue with it is that it leaves the entire draft in the hands of the scan voters. Rendering the draw option negative overall and then it is better to just exclude it all together. I love it in theory, but it does need some sort of adjustment to actually turn useful.

I still think the double votes ensure that managers are not overwhelmed. Scan votes are usually split and if many managers think and vote for a draw, it should change the dynamic.

I think these changes should be catalogued. Let me bump up the discussion thread and add it in a standard format for ease of use for all game masters.

 

[Raees]

That looks horrendous to me, I would rather what TRV had in the semi than this.

Yeah I don't think it would have been strong enough personally. Tbh I should have read the draft rules carefully, I would have picked a different manager in hindsight.. I was robbed of a lot of my players right from the off or many were unavailable due to NT rule, and it isn't safe to give me loads of attacking players because I don't have the balls to not select them. I'd probably have ended up with something stupid like this and been kicked out sharpish.

 

[harms]

Forget the likes of Lattek, think of what @Raees could have done if he got the right breaks

Bench: Figo, Makelele etc...

What Alves is this? Am I missing something here?

 

[harms]

Yeah I don't think it would have been strong enough personally. Tbh I should have read the draft rules carefully, I would have picked a different manager in hindsight.. I was robbed of a lot of my players right from the off or many were unavailable due to NT rule, and it isn't safe to give me loads of attacking players because I don't have the balls to not select them. I'd probably have ended up with something stupid like this and been kicked out sharpish.

Makalele? Again?

 

[antohan]

What Alves is this? Am I missing something here?

Seems to me you aren't