Lovely stuff there. Cheers.To celebrate the semi-finals lets have a brief look at one more almost forgotten legend who was unpicked. River Plate's first superstar. Bernabé Ferreyra.
El Mortero de Rufino.
His nick name wasn't mortar for nothing. His record transfer fee to River earned them the Millonarios moniker. He had one of the most powerful shots of the era and indeed all-time. In an interview he said "My brothers kept telling me I had to have the strongest shot in town. They made me kick the ball from morning to afternoon every day".
River tried to maximize this strong shot even further by soaking their ball in water the night before matches to make it heavier. The heavy ball combined with the Mortar's rocket shots gained a dangerous reputation. Boca keeper Juan Yustrich fainted after taking one of Ferreyra's shots to his stomach. Independiente's keeper Fernando Bello saved a Ferreyra penalty but it broke both his wrists. People have talked about how Di Stefano learned from José Manuel Moreno, its important to also note that Moreno and Pedernera's mentor was el Fiera Ferreyra. If we look at footballing mentors as like martial arts master lineages then its:
Ferreyra -> JM Moreno -> Di Stefano
more:
http://www.elgrafico.com.ar/2013/12/31/C-5026-las-cartas-de-bernabe.php
http://xenen.com.ar/2015/09/01/el-mito-bernabe-ferreyra/
Angels with Dirty Faces - Jonathan Wilson
The Americas Draft
- Thread starter Chesterlestreet
- Start date
What was the concept there? I look at the teamsheet and struggle to see a pattern other than different countries. Oh wait... you mean Reserves as in those who didn't get picked in my original All-time draft?He was supposed to be our second pick in the Reserves Draft after Seeler, but it became clear most teams were sorted for a playmaker so we kept on delaying it. Things opened up perfectly for a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 instead, and Bochini somehow ended up not getting picked by anybody. That's another team I really liked, but we got dumped out in the first round by an even better Joga team:
It says something about your side that I was royally pissed off that Uwe and Lerby weren't picked in that draft. With Ruggeri and Conti I could understand Argentina and Italy being prioritised for other roles, but these two... In fact, I think those four would be among the very best players in the pool, how the hell did Joga manage to do better than that?
River? As far as I know he did it himself and it didn't just consist of soaking but also opening up the balls, putting the bladder inside another bladder, stitching everything back together again and then soaking it. There's always been an argument over whether he or Perucho Petrone (the CF of the 1924 and 28 team) had the more potent shot, but all this football tampering business blurs it.
The results were similar though, it was Perucho at Nacional that first came up with what would later be a trademark Uruguayan modus operandi: first free kick of the game just whack it straight at someone's face. Result: a groggy rival, leaving his team effectively playing with 10 and ducking at free kicks for the rest of the game. Nowhere near as effective with modern balls though.
Thankfully these things aren't practiced much anymore. No need to try and physically hurt someone especially in ways that could permanently damage him e.g. damaging the eyesight to win a game in a sport.
As far as I can tell its both. Ferreyra trained early first inspired by his brothers then by himself. But also River tried to use this in advantage in matches. Direct quote from Angels with Dirty Faces:
"River, it was said, would stitch one casing inside another and then soak the resulting double ball in water for up to forty-eight hours before matches to try to make it as weighty as possible so as to take full advantage of the fearsomeness of his shooting..."
Yeah, that's what I've heard, although for some reason I have this lasting impression of him stitching them up. It makes more sense someone at River did it for him obviously.
BTW, Scarone is out now, isn't he? My grandfather used to tell me how after training he stayed behind and just practiced all day long just armed with a ladder. He would just recline the ladder on a wall and shoot from distance. Third step? Bang. Fifth step? Bang. In between the 6th and 7th step? Bang. He never saw him miss. Lunchtime break at work and no ladder around? No problem, he would hang his beret on a tree branch and aim for that.
I know, we are used to all these crossbar challenges, etc. but those balls were nowhere near as easy to place accurately.
Yeah, all those plus an additional 16 blocks. It made for a brilliant drafting process. Still tonnes of quality to pick from, but it was very challenging to know who to prioritise so it was totally different from a standard all-time draft where you pretty much know who the first 5-10 picks are going to be.What was the concept there? I look at the teamsheet and struggle to see a pattern other than different countries. Oh wait... you mean Reserves as in those who didn't get picked in my original All-time draft?
It says something about your side that I was royally pissed off that Uwe and Lerby weren't picked in that draft. With Ruggeri and Conti I could understand Argentina and Italy being prioritised for other roles, but these two... In fact, I think those four would be among the very best players in the pool, how the hell did Joga manage to do better than that?
Here was RedTiger and Joga's team, that I had pegged as favourite after drafting:
with Wimmer being subbed in for Boban about halfway through. It finished as a draw, but Greaves' pace vs our fairly slow CBs was a problem for us.
@Enigma_87 @Joga Bonito I've sent my stuff to Chester so I'm fine with our match being started whenever you're ready.
Our stuff is in as well mate.
Starting it presently.
That team was a work of art.I'm glad we got Bochini anyway, as I've had a slight obsession with him for ages. He was supposed to be our second pick in the Reserves Draft after Seeler, but it became clear most teams were sorted for a playmaker so we kept on delaying it. Things opened up perfectly for a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 instead, and Bochini somehow ended up not getting picked by anybody
What we might discuss a bit now is how the EPA rule has worked: My verdict is thumbs up and clearly so - and it would seem like a natural precedent to set for future snake drafts. The only exception I can imagine are cases where the pool as such is uncommonly obscure (unlikely enough, but possible).
However, what may be debated is whether one should stick to EPA all the way. It strikes me as a possibility - not necessarily in this draft, mind - to open up the final reinforcement pool to include all eligible players from losing teams: Simply in order to allow for a more dramatic boost (defensively or offensively) for each of the finalists. Depending on the pool - and on luck - one could end up with an anticlimactic final in the sense that neither team is able to upgrade to any considerable (or interesting) degree.
Again, this is general - I'm not saying it necessarily applies to the present draft.
However, what may be debated is whether one should stick to EPA all the way. It strikes me as a possibility - not necessarily in this draft, mind - to open up the final reinforcement pool to include all eligible players from losing teams: Simply in order to allow for a more dramatic boost (defensively or offensively) for each of the finalists. Depending on the pool - and on luck - one could end up with an anticlimactic final in the sense that neither team is able to upgrade to any considerable (or interesting) degree.
Again, this is general - I'm not saying it necessarily applies to the present draft.
I suppose at this stage in the reinforcement we are now in the place where managers are making sideways maneouvres and might even take steps back if it's change for change's sake. So do we need 5 reinforcements when R1 and R2 aren't available? The point about interest is an important one though, there needs to be something new for the voter to engage with. Equally I don't really like drafts where wholesale changes can be made as it largely defeats the purpose of drafting well from the outset. It's just about fine-tuning the balance. For example, R2 picks could be opened up at all or part of the reinforcement process.
It's been a fine addition though and probably doesn't need much if any tweaking.
It's been a fine addition though and probably doesn't need much if any tweaking.
It's an interesting notion there @Gio . I'd agree with you that with a open pool with the R1 and R2 options not available you get to pick 8 more excluding the keeper. It's borderline dubious whether you can upgrade your team that much each round with the top picks blocked, but on other hand with no subs it does give you a tactical option and variation to choose from, which IMO is positive in a format that also has other restrictions - like this one.
I think Boris picked Kaka and never used him, but it did leave him with a bit of tactical maneuver and also makes it tougher for the other manager to guess his tactical layout.
I agree that R2 picks could be opened for reinforcement pool, but IMO this draft has some really nice innovations and has had positive effect as a whole.
Yeah it has been positive, you build on the foundations that you laid in your initial formation and you have to follow your plan throughout.
It is down to luck as I've said as well. For example if mazhar has picked Ruggeri in the last reinforcement round it would've been a bit of a bummer as the other top choices for CB's wouldn't be that much of an upgrade, or wouldn't fit very well in our tactical approach. The same with Vidal really and the first round with Zizinho and Erico. If those two were picked we most likely wouldn't have the best tactical fits for us, albeit better players in certain positions.
But in the same time we have followed our initial tactical approach and not many tactical/formation changes has been made, more of a like for like changes. One could say that's either good or bad, because fresh ideas and approaches for each round brings variety and more excitement, but there's the other option - you get to build the team in the formation you wanted from the off with the best/right personnel in it.
The suggestion of opening the last round or two for the final is also good one which I have no objections to it - it's like those finals that you get your star man back just in time for the final
100x this
I'm actually an advocate of occasionally revisiting the "reinforce from rival", which was a bit mean at times and often helped one side more than another (e.g. their R1 and R2 were great but in a position you are sorted in), but ultimately the finalists were well drafted sides. Without a good first draft there was no way you could get there and there's some merit in that.
I like the rule to block R1 and R2 from reinforcements. By definition, it only ever applies to a SNAKE DRAFT. It adds another important factor to consider with your first pick (much like nationality did in the all-time one) in that you may prioritise a certain player just because no substitute for him would ever become available. The more factors are introduced in decision-making in the first draft the better.
If some teams seem to go sideways and have piled up unusable players tough shit, it's part of the outcome of the decisions and risks taken along the way. Also, this draft in particular had depth issues in some roles which may have been underestimated (again, tough shit!).
The best solution would be a tiered approach. Assuming there are 2 reinforcement picks,
Starting Round of 16 - Initial Drafting
QF Round of 8 - R2 picks can be opened up during the 2nd reinforcement pick (as in only 1 R2 player can be picked)
SF Round of 4 - R1 picks can be opened up during the 2nd reinforcement pick (as in only 1 R1 player can be picked)
Though this depends upon the type of draft. For all time, I'd stick with both rounds banned all through (maybe first 3 rounds too). The more restrictive the draft theme, the more flexible the reinforcement.
Cheers Gio. I love a well-executed 4-4-2, and that's the best one I've been involved with.
Based on the discussions we've seen, it has worked very well - it's not a scientific conclusion, obviously, as said discussions have obviously been shaped by what players/systems have been involved too. But in general, I'm very positive about the way things have played out.
Aye - the main problem with doing a "non-visible" (before voting) and "change vote" combo is precisely that the latter could easily undermine what the former aims to achieve.
As for subs, my stance on this is clear: No subs until we've agreed on some kind of "realistic" model where subs actually work as subs. A "match clock" would be the first step - but this isn't enough in itself (in my opinion). I'd like a format which allows you to use subs tactically - regardless of whether you're doing well or not, in other words a format which allows for making subs as part of your overall tactic (not just as an emergency measure).
For that to work you probably need to make sure that the voters will take certain factors into consideration - factors that aren't part of the equation at all presently: Fatigue, not least. You throw X on against a tired defence with twenty minutes to go. That sort of thing. We don't do that at the moment - and I think we have to implement it in some form or other in order to make subs work in a good and interesting way. It could be tricky: You don't want to overly complicate things.
I'm not sure voters (myself included) will consistently have the time and motivation to engage with match threads to a sufficient degree to make a more complex subs system work, unfortunately. A shame, as it would be a nice addition to draft the likes of Chicharito and Ole, players with a well above average record from the bench, specifically as super subs.
Its been mooted before, but only allowing subs with 12 (even 8) hours to go, and only threadmarking them rather than updating the OP, might be worth a shot as a compromise. That would allow for a match clock to be implemented along with the threadmark (ie; a sub with 8 hours to go = sub happens at the 60 minute mark). People that are actually following the thread would presumably be much more likely to take into account things like fatigue. Could be a worth a shot in the upcoming monopoly draft. Given that it shouldn't be excessively serious it wouldn't matter so much if it all went tits up.
Do we actually need a match clock with the current format? To me is pretty "realistic" model - you can't change your vote and you can't see the score now. If we limit the subs to be made after 12 hours or so, the team that has the tactical advantage could very well be up the scoreline with 7-8 votes, thus the "punishment" will be in place, as you will have to face an uphill battle to turn around that score after making a sub.
After 12 hours you make a sub and you have a whole new layout so it makes sense that the table could turn, as in real life. Based on how the game goes you can tune up your team and bring new face that could change the outcome(if it is not too late). I think non visible votes, no changing of vote + subs only to be made after 12 hours is very realistic "match clock".
Aye, agree with Pat there. Pretty much like the current forum match thread - subs, goals, all is threadmarked and you follow it chronologically.
I think we are complicating this too much. It's hard to envisage a peak Maldini "getting fatigued" in a important match.
That's the problem, indeed. I don't see it as realistic either - not with everything else remaining the same, as it were.
Which means that - realistically - subs will be a measure taken by struggling managers. Which is fair enough, as such - but we have to make sure that tactical blunders (or poor selections) are punished. Not allowing subs before the 12hr (or 16hr) mark and not updating the OP would certainly go some way towards that.
Couple of points may be added:
1) Any kind of threadmark/match clock system requires the draft master/thread starter to be pretty active if it is to work properly. He has to monitor the matches pretty closely if he's to react quickly to changes (and accordingly add threadmarks and whatnot).
2) The question remains how important it is to allow managers to (possibly) bounce back from a tactical blunder or a poor selection - what does it actually add in terms of making the matches, as such, interesting? You could argue that if it can be done with a minumum of effort, it certainly doesn't hurt - but then again if it poses any kind of problem (practical or otherwise), is it actually worth bothering with?
3) The only thing I'm truly interested in is keeping the match threads interesting - meaning that it is what works best for the voters and the neutrals we should go for. To the managers having the opportunity to throw on subs to save a match is obviously preferable - but that isn't a heavy argument for me. The managers want to win (naturally - that instinct kicks in for most of us) - but the main purpose of these drafts is, well, some kind of infotainment: Learning about players (and teams, systems, managers, etc.), enjoying a bit of football discussion, laughing at the odd meltdown, etc.
While we are on weather delay, a brief look at my squad:
FORWARDS
MIDFIELD
DEFENSE
@antohan thanks for the pic!
FORWARDS
MIDFIELD
DEFENSE
@antohan thanks for the pic!
Last edited:
A dumb question...how do you resize all pics to same size? 
Still waiting for @mazhar13 @Marty1968.
Giving 'em an hour - after which I have to get some work done before calling it a night.
If so, you'll have to reschedule.
Giving 'em an hour - after which I have to get some work done before calling it a night.
If so, you'll have to reschedule.
I use Edit>Transform>Scale in Photoshop. Adobe offered a free download of CS2 for a while but I am not sure if that is still available.A dumb question...how do you resize all pics to same size?
I believe it is, but it's a limited trial deal, AFAIK.
You can easily resize multiple images using any number of image editing programs, though, but it won't work very well if they're not that sophisticated (i.e. it looks bad if the originals aren't all roughly the same dimension - you need something more sophisticated if you want some kind of crop + resize function).
A dumb question...how do you resize all pics to same size?
http://www.laststicker.com/cards/
This website offers the same size.
Otherwise, Paint is an easy tool: you copy paste some pictures, select a picture & resize it
GIMP is also a free but very useful app for images. It can do everything you would need for fun personal use like this.
Interesting read that, thanks for sharing it. In terms of playing style though, surely Sastre has to be the precedent or model for likes of di Stefano, Moreno and Pedernera's complete playing style? Probably the first 'total footballer' in the history of the game as far as I know, and we came real close to picking him too, but at that point of time it was just too hard to pass up on Kempes.
Will just quote a message from my PM with Enigma.
Been doing more reading into Sastre and all of the sources seem to be in agreement that he was a brilliant all-round total footballer and a quality playmaker to boot.
Considered a legend for Independiente where he formed a deadly trio with de la Mata and Erico and was successful leading them to two league titles and a few runner-up finishes. Was also successful for the Argentinean national team where he won two Copa Americas. His tactical nous and all-round ability is in particular, hailed by many sources as he played a fantastic role on the right wing against an in-form Brazilian left wing of Tim and Patesko, nullifying them significantly in an important fixture in the Copa America 1941. After this Copa America tournament, he was approached by Sao Paulo. It seems he (along with Leonidas) was pivotal to turning the fortunes of Sao Paulo when he went there, and guided them to several trophies. Prior to Sastre's arrival they had only won one Campeonato Paulista and weren't the club they are today. Under Sastre's leadership, they'd won 3 Campeonato Paulistas and would go on to win 2 more in the late 40s after he retired. Tbf they did spend a signifcant sum of cash on Sastre, Leonidas and also bought some good Brazilian footballers during this period (Bauer, Noronha etc) and were nicknamed the "Steam Roller".
On Sastre, he was rated really highly by the Brazilians too which is quite something, given that he is an Argentine great.
Some quotes that I came across
Brazilian coach Oswaldo Brandão, who in 1947 won the Paulista title in Palmeiras commented - "Argentines often want to copy to us Brazilians, but they very often forget that this is an Argentinian came 20 years ago who taught us football. His name was Antonio Sastre."Jonathan Wilson said:
1958 WC winning coach Feola who was the coach of Sastre at Sao Paulo said:
Poorly Google translated quote by teammate said:
Don't know how legit this quote is but I found it here
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.arquibancadatricolor.com.br/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=665&prev=search
(Article compares his versatility to Ruud Gullit BTW)
A great pic of him and it seems he even played in goal twice and kept clean sheets
Spoilered some of the better sources on him
http://esporte.uol.com.br/futebol/biografias/384/sastre
http://lucarne-opposee.fr/index.php...enteur-du-football-moderne-en-amerique-du-sud
http://www.elgrafico.com.ar/2015/05/19/C-8134-antonio-sastre-el-hombre-orquesta.php
http://recuerdosrojos.blogspot.in/2015/04/antonio-cuila-sastre.html
https://tardesdepacaembu.wordpress.com/tag/antonio-sastre/
http://spfc.terra.com.br/forum2.asp?nID=335160
http://www.pasionfulbo.net/antonio-sastre-el-primer-polifuncional/
@mazhar13 @Marty1968 Please settle on a new match date/time with @oneniltothearsenal - preferably as soon as possible.
Losing momentum in the last stages is always a killer.
Losing momentum in the last stages is always a killer.
Im okay with starting whenever they want. You dont have to confirm with me, can just start match
Very good, thanks.
Hopefully, we can get it started today. I'd like to wrap it up while we're on a roll of sorts - I think there's a danger of the final becoming a bit meh, as they say, if things move too slowly leading up to it. So, with that in mind I'm inclined to be a bit brutal - by which I mean that I won't hesitate to send you through to said final if we don't see some movement soonish.
Meanwhile, I'd like some more feedback on what was briefly discussed above: Should R1/R2 picks be freed up for the final reinforcement pick?
I like the focus this draft brought on new players and I doubt opening R1/R2 would in any way enhance that. For example, the focus on Pavoni last match was interesting, Erico in my match and Joga's comments on Sastre etc and these might have been lost if Nilton/Carlos or more popular attackers were available.
Just my opinion...but I'd like for this to continue as it is now.
Sorry about the delay, lads. Marty and I are swamped at work, and even I was barely able to finish up my write-up today.
Go ahead and start the match. I'll try my best to get involved.
Go ahead and start the match. I'll try my best to get involved.
I agree with the above. What I also like is that teams have a clear theme from the beginning and you only add to the puzzle. It's nice to see different approach for each team and this generates quite interesting discussions as well as what Edgar says above - putting more light on players that would be barely mentioned.
By the way, I would prefer if the match starts before the Europa League match starts so that I can avoid being spoiled by the Caf.
No problem, mate - I'll start it very shortly.
Again, my apologies to you and @oneniltothearsenal for delaying the start. My players and our staff were eager to get this started, but our plane couldn't take off due to bad weather.