Skizzo
Full Member
Can't you just take a look at whatever the difference is, and change it for them?*sigh* if you edit the new one with Kahn in the post above, I edit the new one in the op.
g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });
Can't you just take a look at whatever the difference is, and change it for them?*sigh* if you edit the new one with Kahn in the post above, I edit the new one in the op.
...... yet.I could easily say the same for my team.
There's not going to be chances galore or glaring overloads at this level; both teams are too well balanced and organized for that. For me, it comes down to being able to capitalize the most when chances do pop up. It just so happens my best route to goal is more direct than yours. If Del Piero or Eto'o get away, it's a shot on goal. If you overload against Carboni, Robben is naturally shown onto his right and, best case scenario, it's a cross from either him or Stankovic which I'd expect Cannavaro-Bergomi to deal with.
And this is a bit dead, huh? I swear it was like this the last time I played Stobz as well. At least he's not drunk though
Can't you just take a look at whatever the difference is, and change it for them?
done.Edited.
Was just thinking about this. Anyone knows why the a vote by a fellow manager counts for 2 rule scrapped or ignored after EAP's draft?No disrespect to KPS, because he has a great team...but a bit surprised Stobz is losing this one. Think his team is well crafted, and can see it posing much more of a threat, rather than the other way around.
Maybe it's my bias to Charles but I think some of the other names Stobz has in the team are hurting him here. Which is a shame really. Although there is about 5 or so underwhelming/underappreciated/unknown names so I can see how that would effect some voters against, and some just avoiding it all together.
It is something I have noticed as well. I guess the lesser-known players aren't as appreciated as the better-known ones. I also think that we could have done more with providing profiles for those players, though some will remain forever underrated.No disrespect to KPS, because he has a great team...but a bit surprised Stobz is losing this one. Think his team is well crafted, and can see it posing much more of a threat, rather than the other way around.
Maybe it's my bias to Charles but I think some of the other names Stobz has in the team are hurting him here. Which is a shame really. Although there is about 5 or so underwhelming/underappreciated/unknown names so I can see how that would effect some voters against, and some just avoiding it all together.
I piloted that rule for this reason and thought it worked splendidly. Though it would have buried me this game, I feel it should become a draft standard.Was just thinking about this. Anyone knows why the a vote by a fellow manager counts for 2 rule scrapped or ignored after EAP's draft?
Personally thought it was a good one as it helped overcome some of these problems. Esp since fellow managers have followed the drafting process and have a general idea about the lesser known players in other teams or at least make an effort to.
As Joga says, the managers will be more knowledgeable about the particular players on display, having followed the drafting process. It's not a question of underestimating the so-called scan voters (many of whom are no doubt very knowledgeable) as much as it is common sense: It's obvious that a random voter who swings by won't have as good an idea about what manager X is going for, his players (some of whom may be relatively obscure) and so forth - as a fellow manager, who has seen the teams take shape, step by step....I feel it should become a draft standard.
I too am in favour of the rule.As Joga says, the managers will be more knowledgeable about the particular players on display, having followed the drafting process. It's not a question of underestimating the so-called scan voters (many of whom are no doubt very knowledgeable) as much as it is common sense: It's obvious that a random voter who swings by won't have as good an idea about what manager X is going for, his players (some of whom may be relatively obscure) and so forth - as a fellow manager, who has seen the teams take shape, step by step.
So, yes - why not make it a draft standard? I don't see any huge downside to it. At worst it makes no difference, at best it does provide a counterweight to complete random/uninformed votes.
I agree, and I'm pretty much any manager/AM will be happy with this idea as well. Plus, the managers would have done more research into the players selected, so they wouldn't be unsure over some of the more obscure picks in the draft.As Joga says, the managers will be more knowledgeable about the particular players on display, having followed the drafting process. It's not a question of underestimating the so-called scan voters (many of whom are no doubt very knowledgeable) as much as it is common sense: It's obvious that a random voter who swings by won't have as good an idea about what manager X is going for, his players (some of whom may be relatively obscure) and so forth - as a fellow manager, who has seen the teams take shape, step by step.
So, yes - why not make it a draft standard? I don't see any huge downside to it. At worst it makes no difference, at best it does provide a counterweight to complete random/uninformed votes.
Like the switch, would have avoided the arrow orgy as it got a bit lost at first sight.OK. Slight tactical switch.
Stankovich tucks in to make himself an auxillary RCB type of RB, another role he was comfortable in. We may lose something going forward on occasion but it limits how productive Del Piero and Eto'o (the main threat) can be.
@Balu
Seconded (or fifthed?).I too am in favour of the rule.
Aye - plus, I reckon you lose the aspect of the thing which I personally like best, namely the player discussions which revolve around particular, realistic situations and constellations on the pitch.In favor. I've also thought of another way to play, that I saw on another site. In that, there were no "matches", but teams were simply rated, 1-16, quarters 1-8 etc.. That always results in the best advancing. It takes away some of the drama though!
It wasn't an indirect dig at you or anything, before you get me wrong. It was more of why the following two drafts after EAP's excellent draft, failed to follow up with that rule. Perhaps it slipped their minds but more importantly, I want to know if there is anyone against it.The manager votes was something I thought about... But not until after the first match started. At that point I didn't want to try and implement it again since it may cause problems if one game was already underway, or finished etc.
What I saw was a little different. It saw the defense/midfield/attack rated as units, which kind of eliminated the name power a little bit. I'm ok with this, but I hate getting into a match with say antohan or EAP, because it will be lots of bullshit. They are good at it and enjoy it - fair play to them.. I simply don't.Aye - plus, I reckon you lose the aspect of the thing which I personally like best, namely the player discussions which revolve around particular, realistic situations and constellations on the pitch.
Seems to me that the team rating system would be even more vulnerable to pure "name rating", if you know what I mean. Count the GOATs and vote, er...no rhyme intended.
Well I know who your next "random" opponent will beWhat I saw was a little different. It saw the defense/midfield/attack rated as units, which kind of eliminated the name power a little bit. I'm ok with this, but I hate getting into a match with say antohan or EAP, because it will be lots of bullshit. They are good at it and enjoy it - fair play to them.. I simply don't.
Well I know who your next "random" opponent will be
same thing is happening to me. I've voted for every loser!!I think this is the first time every team I vote for seems to lose - Stobz, NoPace, even Raees.
It's really boring. Aldo used to play a lot there and brought ideas such as the sheep draft but when I asked him about it he wouldn't entertain it at all. Absolutely hated that system.In favor. I've also thought of another way to play, that I saw on another site. In that, there were no "matches", but teams were simply rated, 1-16, quarters 1-8 etc.. That always results in the best advancing. It takes away some of the drama though!
Very much so, because you aren't really comparing Team vs. Team with its ups and downs but relative standing among 16 which is necessarily more generic and shiny name-based.Seems to me that the team rating system would be even more vulnerable to pure "name rating", if you know what I mean. Count the GOATs and vote, er...no rhyme intended.
Yeah what's the point of drafting football teams when you're not even going to play against each otherIt's really boring. Aldo used to play a lot there and brought ideas such as the sheep draft but when I asked him about it he wouldn't entertain it at all. Absolutely hated that system.
AFAIK only crappy is against it. His being one of the following two drafts didn't help continuity.It wasn't an indirect dig at you or anything, before you get me wrong. It was more of why the following two drafts after EAP's excellent draft, failed to follow up with that rule. Perhaps it slipped their minds but more importantly, I want to know if there is anyone against it.