The Double Draft

[harms]

Legacy - Hans Tilkowski

GK? Makes the challenge to fit the legacy player in your team, well, non-existent

 

[Invictus]

FFS, John Charles and Ibra DoF? And here was I, nominating Erico as legacy...

EDIT: Perhaps the criterion for nominating the DoF players should be more lucid - with less room left for subjective interpretation: a player who won't look out of place in the final XI - I guess the objective of the DoF picks is to make them marquee player you can build around? And from that standpoint, neither player has a case here.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Yeah, didn't notice that.

It doesn't say specifically that the legacy player can't be a keeper, but it strikes me as problematic for obvious reasons.

There are no signs that the general keeper situation in these things has changed, so in practice it will be a freebie: You get a keeper you probably don't have to worry about for the remainder of the draft, rather than a potentially pesky outfield player you will definitely need to upgrade if you progress.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Also, without meaning to sound like a moaning gimp, I'd prefer a non-goalie for the legacy pick (Tilkowski). I don't want to start another debate on the importance of goalies in this draft but it's supposed to be an tactical impediment of sorts and imo, getting a goalie doesn't relatively affect the team as much as an outfield player.

Also there are better players (more defined greats) in the pool than Ferdinand, Scholes, Henry and Cannavaro imo. Sounds ridiculous but as Chester said the key to these lists are maintaining the personnel quality at more or less the same level, and it would be unfair for a manager to get Henry when someone else gets Messi; or Ferdinand when someone else gets Figueroa etc - esp since there are still some great players left in the pool who are yet to be nominated. Also Charles is a legend, without a doubt but barely gets any plaudits and isn't necessarily in the top tier in his position imo -which is the criteria. Last one is definitely a controversial opinion and I'm willing to concede that I could be way off there.

 

[Invictus]

Also Charles is a legend, without a doubt but barely gets any plaudits and isn't necessarily in the top tier in his position imo -which is the criteria. Last one is definitely a controversial opinion and I'm willing to concede that I could be way off there.

Don't think that's a controversial opinion at all. Not only would I nominate a dozen (at the very least) unpicked #9s over him, as a striker he presents the conundrum of being the abhorrent 'target man' type - which necessitates a certain style of play, and building around him, which might not yield desired desired results in that he's not THAT BIG of a name - and no matter how you sugarcoat things, he will have to be upgraded before QF/SF, at the latest. Then there's the CB malarkey - in that you could also put him there, which doesn't bear fruit either.

Also there are better players (more defined greats) in the pool than Ferdinand, Scholes, Henry and Cannavaro imo.

Agreed. And blatantly obvious ones, at that.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Perhaps the criterion for nominating the DoF players should be more lucid - with less room left for subjective interpretation: a player who won't look out of place in the final XI - I guess the objective of the DoF picks is to make them marquee player you can build around? And from that standpoint, neither player has a case here.

My suggestion would be that neither the DoFs nor the legacy boys are finally confirmed until the full lists have been scrutinized, with people being allowed a chance to comment on picks they consider problematic. Given the stated rule, I'd say this is reasonable. If a significant number of managers claim that X simply isn't among the greatest ever in his category, this should be taken into consideration. As I understand it, the DoF thing isn't meant to be a curve ball - it's simply a matter of providing everyone with three unquestionable, historically great players.

 

[harms]

Also, without meaning to sound like a moaning gimp, I'd prefer a non-goalie for the legacy pick (Tilkowski). I don't want to start another debate on the importance of goalies in this draft but it's supposed to be an tactical impediment of sorts and imo, getting a goalie doesn't relatively affect the team as much as an outfield player.

Also there are better players (more defined greats) in the pool than Ferdinand, Scholes, Henry and Cannavaro imo. Sounds ridiculous but as Chester said the key to these lists are maintaining the personnel quality at more or less the same level, and it would be unfair for a manager to get Henry when someone else gets Messi; or Ferdinand when someone else gets Figueroa etc - esp since there are still some great players left in the pool who are yet to be nominated. Also Charles is a legend, without a doubt but barely gets any plaudits and isn't necessarily in the top tier in his position imo -which is the criteria. Last one is definitely a controversial opinion and I'm willing to concede that I could be way off there.

Agreed on everything

 

[Invictus]

My suggestion would be that neither the DoFs nor the legacy boys are finally confirmed until the full lists have been scrutinized, with people being allowed a chance to comment on picks they consider problematic. Given the stated rule, I'd say this is reasonable. If a significant number of managers claim that X simply isn't among the greatest ever in his category, this should be taken into consideration. As I understand it, the DoF thing isn't meant to be a curve ball - it's simply a matter of providing everyone with three unquestionable, historically great players.

Agreed. Even though this is supposed to be a fun draft, being stuck with a Zlatan while a Maradona or Cruyff falls into the lap of your opponent would be anything but fun for the former manager.

And on a similar note - not that it matters anymore, because the moving finger writes (...), but it might have been better to hold the Auction first, followed by the Reality part. That way every manager would've had access to the unanimous GOATs - and could build the bare skeleton of the team with players of their choice, and the Auction phase would've been more engaging - in that people would be bidding for the same players in an attempt to outdo the opposition. Then, in the Reality phase - the fringe great players would've been divided - with the difference in quality being minimal (because what separates the borderline 100, really?). In the current format, certain managers will be handicapped from the get go (if the nominations stand), and the auction phase will be relatively straightforward (instead of the slaughter-fest it's supposed to be), given that there'll be a plethora of options to choose from, all at roughly the same diminished level.

 

[Enigma_87]

I agree with everything Joga said, especially on Charles, Cannavaro, etc. I rate Henry right up there with the best but he's a tier below the other suggestions in that pool. I think the best player pool should be level field as well and it's much easier to come to a conclusion. The legacy pool is tricky tho. I rate almost everyone above a Wes Brown level. I nominated Briegel as from an all time pool I don't think he'll be picked in his position he comes I the next tier, but surely he's much better than the other options.

Wanted to nominate Signori but dunno if he's ok with you guys as well as he is again excellent player, not picked that often(I think only I have picked him in drafts before)? @Edgar Allan Pillow

 

[Marty1968]

I'll make our picks for me and @RedTiger

Legacy - John O'Shea
DoFI: Defender - Passarella
DoFI: Midfielder - Didi
DoFI: Forward - Di Stefano

 

[P-Nut]

I definitely think some of the legacy players are a step above what they should be. They are meant to hamper your side as I see it and not just be a player that can be skimmed over.

 

[Ecstatic]

John Charles is capable to play as a CF or CB depending on your preference

 

[Chesterlestreet]

John Charles is capable to play as a CF or CB depending on your preference

Yep. And there you have the main reason why he's rathed as highly as he is, even in an all-time context. He's unique, I should say, in terms of the level he offers both in defence and attack. But - and this is the relevant point here - he is neither one of the 16 greatest defenders nor one of the 16 greatest forwards in football history.

The issue is further complicated by the fact that "defenders" are all kinds of defenders and "forwards" all kinds of forwards, which means that his rank is even lower in each category than it would've been in pure CB and CF categories.

 

[Enigma_87]

1. Legacy 2. DoFI Defender 2. DoFI Midfielder 3. DoFI Forward

Mazhar13 - 1. Tilkowski, 2. Ferdinand, 3. M.Laudrup, 4. Henry
Joga bonito - 1. Hottges 2. Krol 3. Breitner 4. Romario
Cal? -
harms - 1. Wilfried van Moer 2. Facchetti 3. Rijkaard 4. R Baggio
RedTiger/Marty - 1. O'Shea, 2. Passarella, 3. Didi, 4. Di Stefano
Tuppet - 1. Matt Le Tissier 2. Scirea 3. P R Falcao 4. Pele
P-Nut - 1. Solskjaer 2. Vogts 3. Scholes 4. Puskas
Chesterlestreet - 1. Carrick 2. Figueroa 3. Neeskens 4. Cryuff
DavidG 1. Angelo Di livio 2. Cafu 3. Iniesta 4. G Muller
Sjor - 1. Scholl 2. Moore 3. Xavi 4. C. Ronaldo
Invictus - 1. Butragueño 2. Maldini 3. Matthaus 4. Messi
Enigma - 1. Gallas 2. Baresi 3. Ronaldinho 4. Van Basten
Raees - 1. Ince 2. Nesta 3. Zidane 4. Maradona
Skizzo/Pat - 1. Kuyt, 2. Cannavaro, 3. Platini, 4. J. Charles
ctp - 1. Bernd Schneider, 2. Lahm, 3. Bozsik 4. Best
Downcast - 1. Ginola 2. Beckenbauer 3. Keane 4. L. Ronaldo

Updated the list with
@P-Nut0712 Puskas choice. Let me know if this is ok mate

Changed my pick to Gallas, given what the other choices are from O'Shea to Butrageno he's ok.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I definitely think some of the legacy players are a step above what they should be. They are meant to hamper your side as I see it and not just be a player that can be skimmed over.

Well, I guess that's a matter of interpretation - you could also say that a legacy player should be just about alright for a first round match, but nothing beyond that. In a wide open pool, even very good players will become liabilities in the later stages.

What's clear here, though, is that we have too much variation in terms of level. If Sheasy's a legacy player, the rest of 'em look out of place. Sheasy is below Brown as far as peak level is concerned.

 

[RedTiger]

@Marty1968 @Joga Bonito Sorry was sleeping

 

[Ecstatic]

Yep. And there you have the main reason why he's rathed as highly as he is, even in an all-time context. He's unique, I should say, in terms of the level he offers both in defence and attack. But - and this is the relevant point here - he is neither one of the 16 greatest defenders nor one of the 16 greatest forwards in football history.

The issue is further complicated by the fact that "defenders" are all kinds of defenders and "forwards" all kinds of forwards, which means that his rank is even lower in each category than it would've been in pure CB and CF categories.

I have discovered this British player...today

Surprising choice when we know a certain British forward successful with United and England in 66!

 

[Joga Bonito]

I'd rank the legacy picks in a few tiers. It's subjective so it's not definitive by any means.

1 - Hottges, van Moer, Butragueno
2 - Ginola, Schneider, Ince, Scholl, Carrick
3 - Solskjaer, Le Tiss, di Livio, Gallas
4 - Kuyt
5 - O'Shea

There's definitely some discrepancy there which needs ironing out. Perhaps we should stick with players from the 2nd-3rd tier range? I'd change my Hottges nomination to Camoranesi if that's the case.

 

[Joga Bonito]

@Marty1968 @Joga Bonito Sorry was sleeping

No issues mate.

 

[Enigma_87]

Well, I guess that's a matter of interpretation - you could also say that a legacy player should be just about alright for a first round match, but nothing beyond that. In a wide open pool, even very good players will become liabilities in the later stages.

What's clear here, though, is that we have too much variation in terms of level. If Sheasy's a legacy player, the rest of 'em look out of place. Sheasy is below Brown as far as peak level is concerned.

That was my biggest concern in terms of picking legacy players. I went through the old draft(didn't take part of it) and there was Francescoli as a legacy pick who IMO smokes everyone so far in the pool.

If we compare to the last draft:
Solskjaer
Angelo Di Livio
Miguel Angel Nadal
Mascherano
Ljungberg
Brolin
Zambrotta
M. Senna
Enzo Francescoli
Fernando Morena
Gallas
Cocu
Puyol
Prosinečki
Camoranesi
Keown

I'd say Briegel ranks somewhere around Masch, Francescoli and Zambrotta level hence picking him at the first place.

Masch if used well can be even a second round pick, same goes for Puyol and Francesoli really. But then Keown is several levels below.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Perhaps we should stick with players from the 2nd-3rd tier range?

I think that makes sense. The idea has to be that everyone must field a relative no-mark in the first round - and "relative no-mark" obviously has to be seen in light of this being an all-time draft with no blocks.

So, a good player who can bring something to the table, but who will be well below the standard of what you expect to see if the manager progresses.

Those currently in 2-3 strike me as fitting that bill reasonably well.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

...and there was Francescoli as a legacy pick who IMO smokes everyone so far in the pool.

Yeah, easily so - doesn't strike me as a legacy player in any kind of context, really. But speaking of context, I'm not sure the legacy players had precisely the same function in that draft. We had them in another draft too, and in that one they weren't mandatory - i.e. you didn't have to field them.

What's clear, however, is that the average level of that lot above is pretty high - plenty of players there with extreme qualities.

 

[Enigma_87]

Yeah, easily so - doesn't strike me as a legacy player in any kind of context, really. But speaking of context, I'm not sure the legacy players had precisely the same function in that draft. We had them in another draft too, and in that one they weren't mandatory - i.e. you didn't have to field them.

What's clear, however, is that the average level of that lot above is pretty high - plenty of players there with extreme qualities.

I think that's the key here. In terms of this draft you have the best possible players (no blocks) and in the same time you have to field a legacy player. For example you have to field O'Shea as a right back against Best. You'll pretty much be guaranteed to lose the game. You have the best forwards in the game against a player that has been used as a rotational for United.

IMO with no blocks the legacy players should be 1-2 tiers below the best in the game, otherwise they'll look as a sheep in terms of context.

 

[Ecstatic]

A typical 'legacy player' would be someone like Robert Pirès: good player with credentials/stats generally ignored in the previous drafts because he isn't a GOAT.

 

[P-Nut]

1. Legacy 2. DoFI Defender 2. DoFI Midfielder 3. DoFI Forward

Mazhar13 - 1. Tilkowski, 2. Ferdinand, 3. M.Laudrup, 4. Henry
Joga bonito - 1. Hottges 2. Krol 3. Breitner 4. Romario
Cal? -
harms - 1. Wilfried van Moer 2. Facchetti 3. Rijkaard 4. R Baggio
RedTiger/Marty - 1. O'Shea, 2. Passarella, 3. Didi, 4. Di Stefano
Tuppet - 1. Matt Le Tissier 2. Scirea 3. P R Falcao 4. Pele
P-Nut - 1. Solskjaer 2. Vogts 3. Scholes 4. Puskas
Chesterlestreet - 1. Carrick 2. Figueroa 3. Neeskens 4. Cryuff
DavidG 1. Angelo Di livio 2. Cafu 3. Iniesta 4. G Muller
Sjor - 1. Scholl 2. Moore 3. Xavi 4. C. Ronaldo
Invictus - 1. Butragueño 2. Maldini 3. Matthaus 4. Messi
Enigma - 1. Gallas 2. Baresi 3. Ronaldinho 4. Van Basten
Raees - 1. Ince 2. Nesta 3. Zidane 4. Maradona
Skizzo/Pat - 1. Kuyt, 2. Cannavaro, 3. Platini, 4. J. Charles
ctp - 1. Bernd Schneider, 2. Lahm, 3. Bozsik 4. Best
Downcast - 1. Ginola 2. Beckenbauer 3. Keane 4. L. Ronaldo

Updated the list with
@P-Nut0712 Puskas choice. Let me know if this is ok mate

Changed my pick to Gallas, given what the other choices are from O'Shea to Butrageno he's ok.

Yeah fine by me mate.

Well, I guess that's a matter of interpretation - you could also say that a legacy player should be just about alright for a first round match, but nothing beyond that. In a wide open pool, even very good players will become liabilities in the later stages.

What's clear here, though, is that we have too much variation in terms of level. If Sheasy's a legacy player, the rest of 'em look out of place. Sheasy is below Brown as far as peak level is concerned.

Yeah I agree to be honest. It's got to be seen as a weakness though and not just another player.

 

[mazhar13]

GK? Makes the challenge to fit the legacy player in your team, well, non-existent

I really wasn't taking the time to think of players to block. I just picked players just like that, but if most are not happy with them, I'll make changes to my picks.

 

[mazhar13]

@Edgar Allan Pillow

Please update my choices to the following:

Legacy - Oliver Bierhoff
DoFI Defender - Domingos da Guia
DoFI Forward - Oleh Blokhin

I'll keep Michael Laudrup for the midfield pick though.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

some of this legacy players.....jesus, either dont rate or hate them. Hopefully the best draft master of all time will bring me luck

 

[Deleted member 101472]

some of this legacy players.....jesus, either dont rate or hate them. Hopefully the best draft master of all time will bring me luck

Agreed . Some of them would be nowhere near my top 50 for the position never mind top 16

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

NOTE:

Lads, A Legacy player is one who is mediocre and at best can be described as decent. They should in no way be an unpicked or underappreciated gems.
The purpose was to put in a player that definitely needs support in an all-time context and should be a challenge for the managers to build around to.

Just ask yourself the question,

Do you consider the player good even if underrated/underappreciated? DO NOT NOMINATE
Is he neither a weakness nor a standout player? YOU'VE GOT HIM!
Is he a sheep/outright weakness in all time context? DO NOT NOMINATE

 

[Šjor Bepo]

can we change the players? because some of the players(Butragueno, Carrick, van Moer, Scholl) are at least class above the rest.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

I'd rank the legacy picks in a few tiers. It's subjective so it's not definitive by any means.

1 - Hottges, van Moer, Butragueno
2 - Ginola, Schneider, Ince, Scholl, Carrick
3 - Solskjaer, Le Tiss, di Livio, Gallas
4 - Kuyt
5 - O'Shea

There's definitely some discrepancy there which needs ironing out. Perhaps we should stick with players from the 2nd-3rd tier range? I'd change my Hottges nomination to Camoranesi if that's the case.

Tbh, I wanted someone in tiers 3 & 4. There's not much separating 2 & 3 above, so don't mind if they are clubbed together.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Here you go: I've highlighted players who I don't think fit the spirit of the criteria or have much better prospects out there.

Can you please make new nominations?

@mazhar13 @harms @RedTiger @Marty1968 @DavidG

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

@Invictus @Enigma_87 @Raees @Skizzo @Pat_Mustard

 

[Marty1968]

Swap O'Sea for McManaman

 

[Raees]

@Invictus @Enigma_87 @Raees @Skizzo @Pat_Mustard

Tell me what you want changed..

 

[Deleted member 101472]

Here you go: I've highlighted players who I don't think fit the spirit of the criteria or have much better prospects out there.

Can you please make new nominations?

@mazhar13 @harms @RedTiger @Marty1968 @DavidG

I already changed mine to di livio

 

[Invictus]

So not changing the Butragueño pick until major chinks with the DoF pool are sorted out. Call it being obstinate, or whatever - but from what I gathered, in the spirit of the draft, and keeping the playing field relatively balanced - the 3 DoF should fit into most systems, or tactics - on top of offering immense quality, and are final ready, so to speak. You get either one of Maldini, Matthäus, or Messi - and they're eminently rock solid - from Round 1 all the way to the final - in terms of resume, skillset, and name value - the latter's more relevant for scan voters.

If certain managers are bent on nominating obviously not top at their position picks for the DoF pool (while the obvious ones remain unpicked - everyone knows who these players are, given that they're snapped up within the first 2 rounds of all-time drafts), then maybe we should be making changes to our DoF nominations too (and not just the legacy picks). Just think that it's unfair (even in a random draft) that some DoF picks aren't realistically going to last till the SF (most of us know who these are) - which will affect managers in auction reinforcement: in that one guy has the DoF picks set, and another might have to make 1 or 2 or even 3 changes to the DoF in favor of better players, on top of plonking for other changes.

There are certain handicaps that no amount of good drafting through the snake/auction phase can overcome, and the 2nd guy just can't compete because of a lack of uniformity from the get go.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

Why maradona ?

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

So not changing the Butragueño pick until major chinks with the DoF pool are sorted out.

Butragueno is nominated as Legacy not a DoF. The existing DoF defenders pool is perfectly fine as it is now.