Pre Premier League Draft

Cal?

CR7 fan
Joined
Mar 18, 2002
Messages
34,942
This is the drafting order
  1. Onenil
  2. Green Smiley
  3. BeforeKeanetherewasRobson
  4. Edgar
  5. Frank Grimes
  6. Enigma_87
  7. MJJ
  8. Youngrell
  9. Cal?
  10. Gio
  11. Skizzo/Pat Mustard
  12. Tuppet
  13. Oaencha
  14. Indnyc
  15. KM/Invictus
  16. Chesterlestreet
In the middle. :(

Don't like.
 

oneniltothearsenal

Caf's Milton Friedman and Arse Aficionado
Scout
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
11,082
Supports
Brazil, Arsenal,LA Aztecs
In the middle. :(

Don't like.
I'd trade you spots, my strategy I planned works far better at the bottom of this draft, going first is causing me issues
 

oneniltothearsenal

Caf's Milton Friedman and Arse Aficionado
Scout
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
11,082
Supports
Brazil, Arsenal,LA Aztecs
No trading :nono: I would have loved to go first though
When is the draft officially starting? With the pick times its important to know the exact time the clock starts ticking.
 

Oaencha

Full Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
2,237
Random generators hate me. I have been near the bottom of the picking list in six of my seven drafts.
 

Pat_Mustard

I'm so gorgeous they want to put me under arrest!
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
13,785
Location
A never-nude? I thought he just liked cut-offs.
Random generators hate me. I have been near the bottom of the picking list in six of my seven drafts.
It mightn't be too bad of an outcome this time mate. There's not the usual band of untouchable GOATs in this pool as we get in the all-time drafts, so being closer to the bottom and getting two picks in quick succession might be better for team-building.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,505
It mightn't be too bad of an outcome this time mate. There's not the usual band of untouchable GOATs in this pool as we get in the all-time drafts, so being closer to the bottom and getting two picks in quick succession might be better for team-building.
Yes, quite pleased with that drafting order, tbh.

Can't build a team around anyone in the standard manner but then again the pool doesn't really contain an awful lot of players who fit that bill to begin with (arguably none I would like to build a team around in the standard manner, if I can put it like that).
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,505
I'm considering some left field moves to begin with myself, actually.

There are some non-obvious feckers out there if you want to go down a certain route - but I don't know how smart it is if you want to impress the voters.

A basic question - for me - will be whether to go for anything but an obvious setup/formation as per the draft theme. If you decide to abandon that - obvious - format, you can probably manage to squeeze in some players who'd otherwise be, well, non-obvious picks.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,505
Yeah - it's difficult.

Could be done, though. Not necessarily 3 at the back, mind - that seems a stretch. But something other than a bog standard 4-4-2.
 

Pat_Mustard

I'm so gorgeous they want to put me under arrest!
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
13,785
Location
A never-nude? I thought he just liked cut-offs.
Yes, quite pleased with that drafting order, tbh.

Can't build a team around anyone in the standard manner but then again the pool doesn't really contain an awful lot of players who fit that bill to begin with (arguably none I would like to build a team around in the standard manner, if I can put it like that).
Aye, from my dozen or so candidates for first pick there's really only one that you'd need to indulge significantly to get the best from them.
 

Pat_Mustard

I'm so gorgeous they want to put me under arrest!
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
13,785
Location
A never-nude? I thought he just liked cut-offs.
Non 442 setup's? I was thinking of this, but you really lack players for a back 3. Only scattering if wide forwards etc. Very few #10s too. Quite difficult. Lots of CMs.
I think you could put together a back three okay, but the wing backs would be a real difficulty. Not too many Cafus knocking about in this pool. There's one left field pick that comes to mind who has a cracking skill set for wing back, but it would probably be poorly received by the voters. I may air the idea to @Skizzo and immediately make him regret teaming up with me again :D
 

Invictus

Poster of the Year 2015 & 2018
Staff
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
15,230
Supports
Piracy on the High Seas.
  1. Onenil
  2. Green Smiley
  3. BeforeKeanetherewasRobson
  4. Edgar
  5. Frank Grimes
  6. Enigma_87
  7. MJJ
  8. Youngrell
  9. Cal?
  10. Gio
  11. Skizzo/Pat Mustard
  12. Tuppet
  13. Oaencha
  14. Indnyc
  15. KM/Invictus/Šjor Bepo
  16. Chesterlestreet
@Indnyc
 

Pat_Mustard

I'm so gorgeous they want to put me under arrest!
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
13,785
Location
A never-nude? I thought he just liked cut-offs.
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
21,608
Location
Behind the right goal post as "Whiteside shoots!"
Onenil and I won't pick you-know-who, then we can proceed :)
Pick who you want ..... it's not like I'd get my I.T. mate to hack your account, find out your personal details and come round to your house. Honest :angel:

12-16 are probably the sweet spots in this drafts.
Agree, which is why a non-GOAT draft balances things out a bit.

Non 442 setup's? I was thinking of this, but you really lack players for a back 3. Only scattering if wide forwards etc. Very few #10s too. Quite difficult. Lots of CMs.
I'd be ok(ish) for a back three as a couple of players I can think of who could sit between two more standard CHs but wingbacks harder to pick - fullbacks were fullbacks.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,505
Yeah - you could probably construct a decent enough 5-4-1 of some kind, but it would likely be a very conservative one, i.e. something you'd use in bus parking job more than anything.

However, as Mustard suggested above, you could dig up a player here and there who should - as per playing style - work well as a de facto wingback even if they didn't actually play as such (British teams didn't really buy into the 5-3-2 thing that was popular elsewhere in the 1980s).