@Physiocrat more details on that one?
Next Draft - Ideas and Discussions
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
Sounds good to me to try to something fresh and see if it works out alright.
I also support the suggestion of Physio as far as I'm concerned
@Edgar Allan Pillow
Rules
The reasoning behind the dates was trying to get as many of the GOATs together who played in a definable era so easy comparisons could be made I originally looked at Di Stefano's birthday and went from the there looking mainly at the Euros and World cup squads. The end date of 1987 was to make Messi eligible - calendar years are used for ease. It then carved up well to have a 21 year gap between eras which essentially a generation. This draft is essentially a mid 90s to today draft. Given the time period it should have a lot of interest.
As to match threads I intend to return to the win by 1, 2 or 3 but keeping the votes hidden until voting which will add a little spice and will avoid penalties in most cases (goals scored are only taken into account when there's a draw). I also fancy trailing MJJ's idea (IIRC) of getting a neutral committee to rank the keepers picked into three tiers. So if you had Taibi in one side and Schmikes in the other, the latter would get two additional win by one goal votes since it would be a tier 1 vs tier 3. This is to encourage picking of good goalkeepers. We would though have to voluntarily restrict discussion of keepers to their distribution and their contribution to the attack.
In regards a match clock I think there's a simple way of introducing it. No subs or major tactical changes before 12hrs and then a manager (or anyone he contracts not necessarily the draft master) can post a change once (max of three subs and any number of tactical changes) but he has to convert the time change to a real clock. So if it was at 12 hrs it would be at 45mins. This relieves the burden for the draft master to be omnipresent. That said the manager should tag the draft master in the post so he can threadmark it when he returns (no changes to the OP). This way those who are intently following the match can see the developments and vote accordingly whilst avoiding any errors made from completely revamping the OP.
Tactics for the OP will be the template that Aldo pioneered with an option of a single paragraph highlighting major points (I feel in this draft he OP's have been too long). Player profiles should be linked to.
Reinforcements for the quarters will be the reverse snake and thereafter lamb style. No-one from picks 1 and 2 can ever be used as a reinforcement.
Having a vote for the best drafter after initial drafting is a great idea which I'd run with.
Rules
- The draft will be snake for any players born between the 1st January 1967 and 31st December 1987 (inclusive).
- Snake-Style: The teams will be put in a random order then the first on the list gets first pick going down to 16 but then drafter 16 gets two picks then drafter 15 picks working back up the snake until we've finished all the squads.
- Initial squads will be formed of 14 players
- The only limitation is that none of the starting 11 can ever have played with each other at club or international level (the subs however can have played with one of the other starting 11 but can only be used as a sub if he replaces the player he played with, and obviously never played with anyone else).
'Played together at club level' will be defined as sharing at least one season with another player at the same club; if they did not move prior to the start of the league season e.g 15/16, they will have shared the season 14/15 as well as 15/16. They do not need to have been on the same pitch at the same time.
'Played together at international level' will be defined as being in the same squad for a major tournament; again they need not have been on the pitch at the same time nor on the pitch at all. If they played together but were not in any of the competitions below they can both be picked and be played together in the same draft side.
Major Tournaments include only the following:
The World Cup (1930-2014)
The Euros (1960-2012)
Copa America (1916-2015)
African Cup of Nations (1957-2015)
The Asian Cup (1956-2015)
The OFC (1973-2012)
'Played together at international level' will be defined as being in the same squad for a major tournament; again they need not have been on the pitch at the same time nor on the pitch at all. If they played together but were not in any of the competitions below they can both be picked and be played together in the same draft side.
Major Tournaments include only the following:
The World Cup (1930-2014)
The Euros (1960-2012)
Copa America (1916-2015)
African Cup of Nations (1957-2015)
The Asian Cup (1956-2015)
The OFC (1973-2012)
The reasoning behind the dates was trying to get as many of the GOATs together who played in a definable era so easy comparisons could be made I originally looked at Di Stefano's birthday and went from the there looking mainly at the Euros and World cup squads. The end date of 1987 was to make Messi eligible - calendar years are used for ease. It then carved up well to have a 21 year gap between eras which essentially a generation. This draft is essentially a mid 90s to today draft. Given the time period it should have a lot of interest.
As to match threads I intend to return to the win by 1, 2 or 3 but keeping the votes hidden until voting which will add a little spice and will avoid penalties in most cases (goals scored are only taken into account when there's a draw). I also fancy trailing MJJ's idea (IIRC) of getting a neutral committee to rank the keepers picked into three tiers. So if you had Taibi in one side and Schmikes in the other, the latter would get two additional win by one goal votes since it would be a tier 1 vs tier 3. This is to encourage picking of good goalkeepers. We would though have to voluntarily restrict discussion of keepers to their distribution and their contribution to the attack.
In regards a match clock I think there's a simple way of introducing it. No subs or major tactical changes before 12hrs and then a manager (or anyone he contracts not necessarily the draft master) can post a change once (max of three subs and any number of tactical changes) but he has to convert the time change to a real clock. So if it was at 12 hrs it would be at 45mins. This relieves the burden for the draft master to be omnipresent. That said the manager should tag the draft master in the post so he can threadmark it when he returns (no changes to the OP). This way those who are intently following the match can see the developments and vote accordingly whilst avoiding any errors made from completely revamping the OP.
Tactics for the OP will be the template that Aldo pioneered with an option of a single paragraph highlighting major points (I feel in this draft he OP's have been too long). Player profiles should be linked to.
Reinforcements for the quarters will be the reverse snake and thereafter lamb style. No-one from picks 1 and 2 can ever be used as a reinforcement.
Having a vote for the best drafter after initial drafting is a great idea which I'd run with.
Sounds good. So international players who played together in friendlies and qualifiers are eligible? Or do the qualifiers count as well?
Good detailed Draft OP mate. Few questions.
Banning discussions on keepers runs counter to what you are trying to solve. Keepers are -wrongly- an afterthought, so if a manager wants to bang on about how great his keeper is fair enough.
Every time I bolded something, I was investing 7 characters. I once switched teamsheet site because the URL was shorter
I've always found it was enough to follow the basic structure of
1. One line overview
2. Brief tactics description
3. Key battles
4. Why I win
5. Predicted real life scoreline
6. Link to player profiles
7. Teamsheet
8. Subs
The more standardised the better. There were managers that I knew how they constructed their ops so knew where to quickly find certain info. These days I just scroll down and if it looks long and convoluted I ignore it and just go with what I gather from the teamsheet.
Don't understand this. A handicap is created, people will be aware of it (bar scan voters, but they don't read the thread anyway) and that should be enough to help "rebalance".
Banning discussions on keepers runs counter to what you are trying to solve. Keepers are -wrongly- an afterthought, so if a manager wants to bang on about how great his keeper is fair enough.
I don't know what that suggestion was, but it's been a problem for some time. Back in the old caf with PMs instead of convos, PMs were a bit longer than Twitter (2500 character limit). Anything you wanted to say had to fit in one PM, including the teamsheet.
Every time I bolded something, I was investing 7 characters. I once switched teamsheet site because the URL was shorter
I've always found it was enough to follow the basic structure of
1. One line overview
2. Brief tactics description
3. Key battles
4. Why I win
5. Predicted real life scoreline
6. Link to player profiles
7. Teamsheet
8. Subs
The more standardised the better. There were managers that I knew how they constructed their ops so knew where to quickly find certain info. These days I just scroll down and if it looks long and convoluted I ignore it and just go with what I gather from the teamsheet.
It's a great way to trial it too.
Not a fan of standardizing OPs, to be honest. People think differently, express themselves differently, put a slightly different emphasis on presentation, etc. That should be allowed - I don't see the benefit of some kind of FM style template everyone has to follow.
What should be standard, though - and enforced much more strictly - is character limit. Keep it as short as possible. For my money you don't need anything beyond a basic description of what your players are supposed to do. The details should be left for the thread itself - state your actual case as part of the match, the OP should be nothing but the bare bones.
What should be standard, though - and enforced much more strictly - is character limit. Keep it as short as possible. For my money you don't need anything beyond a basic description of what your players are supposed to do. The details should be left for the thread itself - state your actual case as part of the match, the OP should be nothing but the bare bones.
In order to include young players, would you like 67-97?
I had some thoughts on doing another WC draft as well though in a different fashion than yours.
I've played at times on other forums where you have different incarnations of the same player. For example, doing a WC based one you will have Zidane '98 and Zidane '06 as separate picks and so forth. So say someone picked Beckenbauer 1974, you can still pick Beckenbauer 1966. Of course there has to be a rule that no team can have the same player twice in their team regardless of the incarnation.
In a tournament specific draft that works well as you focus on the specific role the player played that tournament and how that fits in your team. It is pretty easy as far as match discussions.
Of course to make it more difficult we can add your rule of having 1 player per WC as well as the tough restrictions Polaroid had when we did the original WC one - having certain amount of WC winners and certain amount of Europeans/South Americans. He also had a restriction of having certain amount of pre/post 1970 WC players.
Someone should collate all these suggestions and put them in the pipeline for future purposes. Cannot think of anyone better than @Edgar Allan Pillow for this honourable job.
Not a big fan of either change.
- Having goal difference did not add any value to the drafts we tried that in except for making polls bigger. Random odd votes may tend to skew a close game.
- GKs should not be rated as a standlone outside of the defensive setup. For example, a weaker GK but a superior defensive line should not be penalized. I would suggest tiering GK and giving advantage only in penos (tied match).
I'd like 57-87 more.
Been discussed before too. Cannot stop anyone from playing a not peak but still good version of the player...unless we qualify ever player peaks during drafting. Also teams may look very similar with same players at either end.
.
A variation could be a 1 player build draft. I.e. we pick a difficult to build player like Pirlo, or more nuanced player like Netzer. All 16 managers get their first pick as Pirlo/Netzer and proceed to build a team around them. Whoever gets the best setup around the main player wins the match.
Agreed. I liked the goal difference in a way that it prevented penos from being a more common result of a game, but with the new voting system and hidden votes it kinda solves that problem.
Agree here as well.
Didn't get that properly.
Maybe although that wasn't the experience I had. I think I have player 3-4 such drafts, one was the one I just told, others were 'club careers' one where you could have United Ronaldo and Madrid Ronaldo etc. Not a lot of players had different incarnations picked and them coming against each other wouldn't be very likely, though definitely possible - which I would welcome myself as it would be a nice fresh change to the match threads - having an argument between say Pelé 58 and Pelé 70. In fact most GOATs in these scenarios don't clash that much in terms of style but of course you can have the same player in both teams at times. Depends on whether people mind it or don't.
Yes to both.
Definite yes to the first one, think most people didn't find the scoreline that much useful - however no one can deny that - with the addition of not looking at scores - it did minimise the possibility of ties and ties suck balls.
For the second didn't mind 67-87 either and I think Physio chose that as he wants to run the same draft for different eras. I see the rationale as well as 67-87 born players fall largely under similar tactical schemes which I think is the biggest theme of this draft - to have players who played in similar tactics and eras compared with each other. Would say I marginally prefer that to 57-87 as that would also have some nice new names due to being a smaller pool. Well not new as such but not the core regulars.
Most of the major partnerships that are rated at international level only come about because of performances at major tournaments so including qualifiers is unnecessary. Also finding the squads is very easy whereas including the friendlies and qualifiers makes the job much more difficult. One change I'm thinking of making is to allow players who shared a season with another player if one of the players missed the entire season with injury I'm thinking of Fat Ronaldo here when he was at Inter. Thoughts on that anyone?
The way I see it there are broadly four eras of football. Pre-war (2-3-5, WM etc), post-war until the mid 70s (424, 3232 relatively tactically naive), mid 70s to early 90s which heralded tight defenses, sweepers etc) then the mid 90s until now (relaxed offside rule, more protection for forwards, more attacking game).
I then looked at diffferent birth dates as it makes it much cleaner to draft rather than saying only performances in the 1950s etc. I started by wanting Di Stefano in with Pele's pool so initially started in '26 but it missed Djalma Santos amongst others. I then looked at say the Brazil 82 side and Platini's France's 84 side amongst others to decide where the age dates should be cut off. I had then a hard look at Laudrup, Romario and Sacchi's Milan plus Baggio and Batigol to determine where the next line fit. I then realised that a standard 21 year gap made sense and was uniform. I don't want to go past '87 as it is relatively difficult to rate players who have not completed most of their bulk career- if we were to do a draft with young players I'd prefer it to be a specific youth players draft. Players who are born in '87 will be at their youngest 29 so they've had a lot their career to fairly rate them (plus Messi had to make the birth date cut). The players born in '57 really belong in the mid 70s to early 90s period.
I don't remember any outliers apart from Akash but if anyone else does please tell me- I also liked it in so far as it was clear that it was a close match even if you lost by 20-1 since 15 of the voters said your opponent would win by just one goal. I'm all ears for a peno modifier but I have yet to hear a practical way of doing it well. If you have ideas I'm all ears.
@antohan I wasn't meaning to reduce keeper discussion just provide a way to make them make more of a difference.
The consensus on goal difference/multiple scorelines was pretty clear - and pretty negative, as I recall.
So, I wouldn't do that - unless it's a brand new concept, i.e. something different from what we've already tried out.
Penalties should simply be scrapped, by the way. They've outstayed their welcome. Just flip a coin in the event of a draw - call it "won on penalties" for the sake of form, but scrap the whole business of PMs with takers and whatnot.
So, I wouldn't do that - unless it's a brand new concept, i.e. something different from what we've already tried out.
Penalties should simply be scrapped, by the way. They've outstayed their welcome. Just flip a coin in the event of a draw - call it "won on penalties" for the sake of form, but scrap the whole business of PMs with takers and whatnot.
This I completely agree with. And that's from someone who introduced the damn penalties to redcafe drafts.
Flip a coin is the clear easy solution unless someone comes up with something else. Can't think of much. We've tried having a neutral vote in it. Tried three neutrals as well. Tried penalties. If it wasn't separated at the end of 24 hours then just leave it to the coin.
I wasn't meaing to make out it was a new idea more that I'd like it to return with the hidden voting. What do you think of the subs and tactics change rules?
@antohan I think the 2500 character limit is a really good idea as it gives each poster a set limit but they can work it as they wish.
As for keepers, that's a tricky one. As EAP suggests, there's a danger of ending up with an unrealistic scenario - in which an otherwise inferior defence gets undue credit for having a top tier GK behind 'em.
I can see the tier system (ranked by a neutral panel) working with certain pools, but not - to make the obvious example - in an all-time draft. What should make a difference is sporting a clearly sub-par GK, but with an all-time pool this is rarely an issue: You could end up sporting, say, Van Der Sar - and having him defined as a bottom level GK (out of the 16 starters), which is borderline absurd.
And we have seen a tendency in recent drafts to punish sub-par GKs - people have not been able to get away with sporting any kind of shite between the sticks (it has effectively decided several matches, nothing less), so based on that the need for boosting GK status is arguably less pressing than it used to be.
I can see the tier system (ranked by a neutral panel) working with certain pools, but not - to make the obvious example - in an all-time draft. What should make a difference is sporting a clearly sub-par GK, but with an all-time pool this is rarely an issue: You could end up sporting, say, Van Der Sar - and having him defined as a bottom level GK (out of the 16 starters), which is borderline absurd.
And we have seen a tendency in recent drafts to punish sub-par GKs - people have not been able to get away with sporting any kind of shite between the sticks (it has effectively decided several matches, nothing less), so based on that the need for boosting GK status is arguably less pressing than it used to be.
@Physiocrat
I'm a big fan of associating tactical changes and subs with a match clock, so I am in great favour of your approach with regards to that.
Regarding keepers, well, I remember those discussions coming up regarding van der Sar in his Juventus reincarnation, and I think that did have some influence in the matches (I don't remember what draft it was from, sadly). To be honest, most keepers are fairly decent behind a great defence, and all keepers are prone to silly mistakes and what not, plus not all goals can be prevented (see Nelinho vs. Zoff 1978). In that sense, I don't think it's a great idea to handicap a team with votes. Let the voters decide how much of an influence a keeper can have in a match. The farthest I'll go is to give 1 vote to the team with the obviously better keeper (i.e. P. Schmeichel vs. Taibi).
Regarding a write-up template, I think it's better to combine a character limit with specific points that need to be highlighted/certain restrictions like no videos or player profiles in the match write-up. What I mean by that is that we can enforce certain points to be highlighted like what Aldo did previously and then let people write about whatever as long as they are within the character limit.
Regarding the birth date restriction, I'm happy with that. I'd love to have some more obscure players come through and be exposed in these drafts, players who are really great at what they do but just aren't highly rated in general.
Finally, I'd love for there to be a "best drafted team award" along side the draft winner, but how will we gather the votes for the best-drafted team? Will we have to create a separate thread for that? Can a poll even hold 16 options? Should we also allow multiple votes (i.e. each voter gets 3 votes to distribute to teams), or leave it to 1 vote per voter?
I'm a big fan of associating tactical changes and subs with a match clock, so I am in great favour of your approach with regards to that.
Regarding keepers, well, I remember those discussions coming up regarding van der Sar in his Juventus reincarnation, and I think that did have some influence in the matches (I don't remember what draft it was from, sadly). To be honest, most keepers are fairly decent behind a great defence, and all keepers are prone to silly mistakes and what not, plus not all goals can be prevented (see Nelinho vs. Zoff 1978). In that sense, I don't think it's a great idea to handicap a team with votes. Let the voters decide how much of an influence a keeper can have in a match. The farthest I'll go is to give 1 vote to the team with the obviously better keeper (i.e. P. Schmeichel vs. Taibi).
Regarding a write-up template, I think it's better to combine a character limit with specific points that need to be highlighted/certain restrictions like no videos or player profiles in the match write-up. What I mean by that is that we can enforce certain points to be highlighted like what Aldo did previously and then let people write about whatever as long as they are within the character limit.
Regarding the birth date restriction, I'm happy with that. I'd love to have some more obscure players come through and be exposed in these drafts, players who are really great at what they do but just aren't highly rated in general.
Finally, I'd love for there to be a "best drafted team award" along side the draft winner, but how will we gather the votes for the best-drafted team? Will we have to create a separate thread for that? Can a poll even hold 16 options? Should we also allow multiple votes (i.e. each voter gets 3 votes to distribute to teams), or leave it to 1 vote per voter?
I'm still of the opinion that subs don't work properly in these drafts - so for me, I'd vote no on subs period. But if you want 'em, what you propose sounds good - it's essentially the model I've advocated in the past: No changes to the OP, threadmarks, no early changes, etc.
Yeah this.
You can tier the keepers here. If during a draw one team sports a better tier keeper they get the win. Toss a coin in both keepers are of same tier.
Interesting. Can try this.
In your example, if someone picks Beckenbauer of 1974 and 2 others pick him at 1973 and 1975, it'd bee too close and we'd end up arguing on the players peak more than the impact on the game. Even if it's 3 years and Beckenbauer's peak is 1973-75 (to say) and a manager picks Beckenbauer 1971-73 which is not peak, but still a world class player. How to differentiate?
I would love to participate in this next draft but I am not sure how much free time I will have in the coming weeks.
Does anyone want to co-manage a team? I'd love to do research and help draft but not sure I can be on consistently enough through the day for match threads. Plus I just go on tilt anyway
Does anyone want to co-manage a team? I'd love to do research and help draft but not sure I can be on consistently enough through the day for match threads. Plus I just go on tilt anyway
No no... I was talking about a World Cup specific draft, not a general one. So you only have Beckenbauer 66, Beckenbauer 70 and Beckenbauer 74. The different versions will at least be 4 years apart and absolutely tournament specific. Which is why I brought it up in the WC draft discussion. Wouldn't have it in a normal draft myself, that would be a bit too vague.
So you'll have 2 or max 3 versions of the same player. I don't know many players who had three GREAT world cups so usually it would be two or less, unless someone is picking based on reputation and we are all knowledgable enough to mark that down.
Would work nicely really.
I can only see it working with distinctly different incarnations of the same player, e.g. Beckenbauer '66 and '74 (or Zidane '98 and '06): In other words, you need two clearly different players, not debatable shades.
Can't say I'm a huge fan of the concept, to be honest - but sure, it could work if the distinctions are obvious. I don't know how many players out there are genuinely interesting in that sense, though - or to put it like that, who are interesting enough to warrant being featured multiple times at the expense of others.
Can one pick the three versions of him then?
Would come in handy to have him in midfield and CBNo, that would be the basic restriction, you can never have the same player in different versions in your team.Can one pick the three versions of him then?
Do you think keepers are properly regarded yet or do we need a way to differentiate them?This I completely agree with. And that's from someone who introduced the damn penalties to redcafe drafts.
Flip a coin is the clear easy solution unless someone comes up with something else. Can't think of much. We've tried having a neutral vote in it. Tried three neutrals as well. Tried penalties. If it wasn't separated at the end of 24 hours then just leave it to the coin.
A general alternative to penalties could come from the best drafter vote. Whoever is higher up in the best drafter poll could go through.
Regarding specific keeper benefits I'm thinking it's worth leaving alone and I'm in agreement with you as to how to go about the OP restrictions.
With the best draft vote the first question is do we leave it just to participating managers or to everyone? I reckon the former as it is administratively easier and no potential for mates to skew the votes. As to voting style I reckon each manager should rank a top three drafted teams with 1st receiving three points, 2nd two points etc. This allows some breadth in voting but also shows intensity of preference. Which team has the most points wins. In the event of a tie whichever team had the most 1st places wins. If even, then number of 2nd places etc. If still even the drafter who picks between 8-14 wins given that in a snake this is generally considered the toughest position. If both drafters are in the same part of the draw, then a coin toss.
The slight innovation on my part (I think) was that the manager could make the change after half-time rather than going through the draft master to avoid the draft master having to be around loads.
Any thoughts on the rationale for the eras which determines the birth year criterion?
A football-related trivia!This I completely agree with. And that's from someone who introduced the damn penalties to redcafe drafts.
Flip a coin is the clear easy solution unless someone comes up with something else. Can't think of much. We've tried having a neutral vote in it. Tried three neutrals as well. Tried penalties. If it wasn't separated at the end of 24 hours then just leave it to the coin.
I think having ranking of the keeper is the best idea yet to decide the tie. It generally gives you a one vote advantage and is a good way to break the tie. If the keepers are in the same tier we can have 3-4 votes to decide which one is better and give the nod.
As for rating teams it's a bit tricky especially with 14 players in the squad. You have to post line ups which generally is not recommended given there will be games played as well.
We'd have 4 Zmudas. So entertaining!
I think @Physiocrat mentioned that the rating will happen after the first round, once everyone's played their games. That way, the issue that you raised won't come up if we post our best line-ups.
Must have missed that, but then you have another issue - you field the first round team in accordance to the opposition, it might not be the best team that you have on paper.
He did mention that each manager will be allowed to post their best possible team, so it won't go according to the first-round team.