So close yet so far!
The 4th Sheep Draft - R16 Voting - Thread 2
- Thread starter The Stain
- Start date
I have the least likable team ever 
Cheers, @P-Nut0712, at least I've got you!
Cheers, @P-Nut0712, at least I've got you!
At least I'll show everyone what it was supposed to be in the first place. Gento/Giggs/Czibor on the left, Cabrini/Brehme/Schnellinger at left back, Kocsis/Seeler instead of Kluivert and one of the great libero's to pair with Vidic or Thuram
+ later the option to switch towards 3-5-2, if I'd get Maradona
@harms I like your spine a lot. Considered going for you but the wing backs in an all time sense considering who you are up against are a bit underwhelming. The spine however is one of the best in the draft.
The above formation with Buttner in it IMO is much better. I like the synergy between Vidic and Thuram and Falcao/Rijkaard midfield. I think with that you'd gain more votes rather than the Chelsea remake which requires a bit of fantasy to see how it will work.
I'm surprised @Tuppet 's team getting so little love - the defence is great and complimentary. Love Breitner going into midfield while possibly Monti dropping in the hole anchoring with the ball and Muller/Del Piero combo is mouth watering. Orsi has played either side and is a wing forward rather than outside winger which makes the transition easier (although he predominantly played on the left). Czibor is obviously class on the left.
Moby and Downcast teams are really excellent and couldn't separate them apart. Both have tremendous potential if they reinforce couple of positions would have great teams.
The above formation with Buttner in it IMO is much better. I like the synergy between Vidic and Thuram and Falcao/Rijkaard midfield. I think with that you'd gain more votes rather than the Chelsea remake which requires a bit of fantasy to see how it will work.
I'm surprised @Tuppet 's team getting so little love - the defence is great and complimentary. Love Breitner going into midfield while possibly Monti dropping in the hole anchoring with the ball and Muller/Del Piero combo is mouth watering. Orsi has played either side and is a wing forward rather than outside winger which makes the transition easier (although he predominantly played on the left). Czibor is obviously class on the left.
Moby and Downcast teams are really excellent and couldn't separate them apart. Both have tremendous potential if they reinforce couple of positions would have great teams.
Yeah, not necessary defensive midfielders as they weren't per se but I agree that at least one should have been more robust. It was often a fairly attacking duo those right/left half back combinations. But at least one defensively great and better would have been ideal.
Team Skizzo/Annah is interesting. More aggressive defensive midfielders would have been the welcome.
@Annahnomoss
I thought you would have tried to take Gunnar Gren and Hamrin
It would work in any case.
Kudos for presenting your tactical system that isn't familiar to most of us.
Stan Cullis
Can't see the image mate.
Still can't.
How annoying to sit down to make the tactics. i like almost everyone in your teamI have the least likable team ever
You are Stan Cullis who was the manager of the Wolves that has beaten Puskas & co!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...x-1954-inspired-today-s-Champions-League.html
His team was:
--- Stuart -- Wright ---- Shorthouse
-------- Slater ---- Flowers
-------- broadbent --- wilshaw
-- hancoks -- swinbourne---- smith
Last edited:
Thanks mate. Had Slater once. https://www.redcafe.net/threads/british-irish-draft-annah-vs-sir-af-group-b.399012/Cmon lads, give my side one shot at the next round and it can go places!
It's already equipped to obliterate any defense and outscore teams and and has excellent potential!
One last push.
It's already equipped to obliterate any defense and outscore teams and and has excellent potential!
One last push.
Someone voted for me and changed their minds. Own up mofo..
Finished above two non sheep teams and gave a decent chase to the 4th placed.
Only 'objective' classification way based on no. of sheep my fecking arse.
Only 'objective' classification way based on no. of sheep my fecking arse.
I don't think you understood the point.
For one person to select 5 sides you need an objective (i.e. not subjective) basis. That was the only one available.
This is a poll adding up subjective views.
Different things.
Not really interested in banging my head against a brick wall. Your draft, your (stupid) rules.
Fact is a team you wouldn't allow to participate in this stage based on your made up 'objective' criterion almost made it to the next one and performed better than those that qualify your 'objective' standards. Could have been a different story had it been a 1v1 with a favourable draw, as it happens time and again in any tournament.
The elimination voting that happened before this and these two threads were, honestly, as feckall as expected. I know you and a couple of others have been less interested in the knockouts perhaps because you lost a game and are still bitter about or whatever and you tried your whole shadow crap earlier that fell on it's arse and now this but the fact is that a tournament, however fecking similar the players are, is fecking miles better than looking at 8 teams in a list and literally randomly putting them in order.
But hey, it was.. fun!
Fact is a team you wouldn't allow to participate in this stage based on your made up 'objective' criterion almost made it to the next one and performed better than those that qualify your 'objective' standards. Could have been a different story had it been a 1v1 with a favourable draw, as it happens time and again in any tournament.
The elimination voting that happened before this and these two threads were, honestly, as feckall as expected. I know you and a couple of others have been less interested in the knockouts perhaps because you lost a game and are still bitter about or whatever and you tried your whole shadow crap earlier that fell on it's arse and now this but the fact is that a tournament, however fecking similar the players are, is fecking miles better than looking at 8 teams in a list and literally randomly putting them in order.
But hey, it was.. fun!
The only thing I don't get is that this was done to partially eliminate the luck of the draw and there's still luck of the draw.
Who rattled your cage?
I never said objective=best. Fact is, as the best of the lot, you would have survived that, which was the point of ranking them.
Wow. I'm outtie.
Luck, chance and accidents are the essence of a sheep draft. In any draft, a traditional game implies a draw and so the 'luck of the draw'.
You had a great team, maybe viewed by voters as 'overly defensive' compared to other teams. Luis Suarez and Robben (to a lesser extent) can score a lot, which is less frequent for the other players: Yaya Touré (not a beloved star here btw), Iniesta, Masopust... Yaya Touré at the heart of the game, between the offensive and defensive players isn't guaranteed success from my own experience
Ramos seems to be a controversial player.The rationale was rather 'We all know very well these super stars, let's limit the # of games that tend to be repetitive'. It's the privilege of a draft master to choose the rules because it's time-consuming for him to follow the whole process.
Regarding the rules, nothing is set in stone.
Less games also means this draft will finish quickly... and a new draft will start sooner. Other drafts will follow with diverse focuses and new opportunities.
Last edited:
Oh yeah I much prefer this way to the traditional games I'm just saying I don't think this way is perfect and could still do with some improvement going forward.Luck, chance and accidents are the essence of a sheep draft. In any draft, a traditional game implies a draw and so the 'luck of the draw'.
You had a great team, maybe viewed by voters as 'overly defensive' compared to other teams. Luis Suarez and Robben (to a lesser extent) can score a lot, which is less frequent for the other players: Yaya Touré (not a beloved star here btw), Iniesta, Masopust... Yaya Touré at the heart of the game, between the offensive and defensive players isn't guaranteed success from my own experience
The rationale was rather 'We all know very well these super stars, let's limit the # of games that tend to be repetitive'. It's the privilege of a draft master to choose the rules because it's time-consuming for him to follow the whole process.
Regarding the rules, nothing is set in stone.
Less games also means this draft will finish quickly... and a new draft will start sooner. Other drafts will follow with diverse focuses and new opportunities.
Imagine my game against Cal. Pretty much all modern players with the same arguments over and over would have been boring as hell. The problem is I don't think ranking teams works too well either.
The idea of a league based format where you would be determining which teams are likely to finish top 2 if they all played against each other seems like the ideal balance to me.
It has the degree of matches where you are comparing teams, speeds up the process due to one thread per group and it adds a different tactical point for which team wins a league instead of a 1 off game.
I think Onenil was the first one suggest it in the next draft thread
We can discuss forever whether one sheep (versus none for the other guy) would be fatal or not in a given match-up. It obviously depends on the circumstances. If the other guy sets his team up foolishly it probably wouldn't - or shouldn't.
Or, for that matter, if you have Messi, you may get enough votes regardless.
Anyway, you weren't eliminated based on the objective factor in question. People were free to nominate as they pleased. Some counted sheep, others didn't. A team with no actual sheep was eliminated - and yours went through.
So, you seem to be raging at the possibility that more people might have voted your team out, based on sheep count (it never happened, because The Stain never ordered anyone to count sheep - it wasn't a rule, merely something certain people took into account, whereas others didn't).
As for the format, it needs tweaking, IMO, as expected. We'll see what people have to say when it's all over. If a majority think it doesn't work at all, it will go down as a failed experiment. Worth trying out new things, though - or so I think.
He was talking about the original vote (which was pick 1 team out of 5 losers), not about the definition of sheep or it's importance during the actual vote
I agree with anto that there were no better criteria if we wanted to minimize the amount of options but I thought that we shouldn't have done that in the first place
Done what in the first place? Again, it wasn't set down as a standard or a rule at any point.
I know that he was referring to the initial elimination, as was I. He was not eliminated, whereas mazhar (who had no proper sheep at all) went out.
Why? Because some people didn't count sheep. They weren't instructed to do so - and they didn't.
I understand your pain
But then this was to a experiment on this mode of elimination and whether people like it or not. Some experiments will have good outcomes and some won't but unless we test, we'll never refresh the drafts.
Relax, the next one will be up soon.
Relax. This is not the first draft meltdown and neither will it be the last. It was a fun draft and a refresh on Sheep's from before. Despite the experiments, I liked the drafting.Did you miss the "pick one kill other four" round? It was revoked due to a public reaction, I guess, but it still happened.
anto put 5 teams with most sheep to a contest, and Aldo was arguing that it shouldn't have been teams with most sheep, but the weakest teams, which aren't synonymous. And I believe that they are still talking about that
I ranked on that very basis.
And yes, we were bound to have boring games so we thought this was needed. In fact, just watch how a new one has already started and think how painful it would be to have two weeks of pointless games scheduled and rescheduled instead.
Wasn't the original idea, people didn't want to publish all teamsheets or assess all teams so we put forward a way to cut to the chase.
Then everyone moaned it wasn't the best way so we went with the longer route to the same place: we spent an extra day or two getting mazhar to replace harms who was ill-equipped to advance in R16 anyway (Moby was always going to make the cut and have an outside chance IMO).
I didn't miss it, no - but it wasn't carried out, which is surely the point.
Anyway, there will always be two sides to this: What's the «weakest» team? Couple of GOATs and a sheep or two versus no sheep but zero GOATs? Who's done the best drafting job - the guy with a 14 man squad with no duds, or the guy with enough star quality in his XI to impress the voters?
In a sheep/bamboozle draft the above is of very little importance, as there's too much randomness involved - but if the «quick elimination» idea is something to be looked at for future drafts, it's a very relevant issue.