It's just like a normal draft, but instead of voting, which is easily the worst part of a draft, we run the draft on the game Football Manager to find the winner. We can set up a tournament, and each week the contestant send in their starting lineup and tactic. That way, you actually get to USE your team rather than just see it on paper and have other people judge it.
We could agree to it, pre-draft. The thing with FM draft is its transparent. It's not like you'll be picking the players blind, not knowing how the players are rated in the game. No, you would be given a link to a database, where you can see every player who's available for you to pick, and how they're rated. In any case, even if the rating is different from what you would agree, you can react accordingly. Ronaldo is overrated in the database? Pick Ronaldo! The problem with usual voting is, when you pick players, you have no idea how he's rated in the minds of all the other participants. With the FM draft, what you and others think don't matter, we all work off the same database. My favourite part is that there's actually something FUN to do after the drafting is done.
@PDG1978 We could use my current database, and anyone who joins the draft can propose changes up to the point of the draft starts? That should give us like a week to make the changes. I could do another run with the attributes this weekend first, and get it updated.
Sounds good mate - just to confirm any reply I made on your database thread this morning was made before I saw this post. I guess we'd go for a straight draft with just the edited players eligible then, rather than a themed draft (like my idea or wm's) where people might be selecting players not yet edited (even with my idea that seems feasible I think, and also for the All-Time World Cup one as for some nations I guess not enough players would be edited and sometimes people might want to include some different players). But I'd be up for being involved if enough others were anyway. If people gave enough views about many players I guess hopefully they wouldn't be flagging up who they wanted to draft lol (obviously in normal drafts there is a rule about not mentioning undrafted players). It's possible I guess that any recommendations could be sent to you by PM, but then I suppose that wouldn't allow for counter-opinions to be read necessarily before deciding whether to go with recommended changes. Maybe you could even have a panel of ratings judges (probably I'd prefer to take part in the game myself, but I don't know perhaps comme or lanman for example - not trying to say they should do it but they'd be examples of people you could ask perhaps - maybe PuckvanHeel if he didn't want to be in a draft this time could be consulted too, or Peru FC although mostly he takes part in drafts and I suppose you don't want too many ratings-helpers and not enough actual drafters lol!). The PES stats page ratings aren't perfect in every case I'm sure, but perhaps double-checking those (if you don't already) is not a bad idea so that if you spot seemingly significant differences between what you currently have for an attribute and what the relevant PES attributes are on one of the ratings forums for that, then you could instigate investigation/debate at least. I know there are bound to be some differing opinions and even views on physical attributes let alone technical/mental/positional.
Although I suppose for an All-Time World Cup tournament (like msioux's 1950 version) the squads could be submitted first and then profiles added/completed and perhaps amended on request if agreed. Maybe that particular idea, just like msioux's, would work best with free votes on scorelines etc anyway though. So perhaps indeed a straight all-time draft, picking from a large database (with more players in than will be eventually needed) would be best for the FM idea....?
This would be my preferred choice. It's straightforward, which I think it has to be for our first FM draft here. The drafting can be less complex because the post-draft phase is so much more engaging than the usual drafting anyway. Right now, there's about 450 players in my custom database. I don't think we'll need more than 500. If we get 16 players (that's a big if in and of itself) and we allow a generous 18 players squad, that's still less than 300 players.
Yeah, maybe you could even run 11 vs 11 games with no subs I guess using the right mode (with no injuries?)? So that it would literally be a case of using the game to decide the results of a 'normal' all-time draft like has been run in the past a couple of times (not since 2011 though).
Nah, injuries and suspensions will still be in the game. I think it has to, although I usually replay any game where one team gets a red card in the first half. Injuries make subs count, although a bigger squad is mostly useful for tactical variations as this game rewards well constructed tactics and suitable players over overall talent level.
I don't think it's a problem discussing players. 1. The rules are usually in place so you don't give away players, encouraging people to do the research. However, when we're working off the same database, there's no secret to be found. Everyone can see everything. 2. It's very difficult I think to figure out what other people want to draft based on their comments during the rating phase. Lets say its obvious you want to draft Laudrup, it's not like others don't know about him. 3. Not getting the players one want is normal in a draft anyway. It's also important to make sure that there's sufficient depth of players of different types. For example, Laudrup can't be the only mobile playmaker in the database. Raymond Kopa is another. There should be at least 4-5 players of each type so that there isn't a monopoly of style, but we also can't have too many, otherwise, there's no incentive for players to rush to a certain type of player. For example, there's only a handful of truly great wingbacks in the database. There's enough that you don't have to make them your first pick, but not so many that all 16 teams can have truly great pair of wingbacks. 4. I don't think we should do PMs or Panel, as I would prefer the conversation to be transparent, and I'd prefer people participating in the draft.
There's an interim one here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3S2cmjqIgJZWmZkem9XQ0JmVmM It's being updated. So the one we actually play on will be improved version, but it'll be based on this one, for the most part.
It'll take a bit of work inviting everyone in the play a draft game, I would imagine. We need at proper 16 team tournament imho. That would be great.
Somebody interested to travel in a time-machine to another WC retconned? Maybe, 1998 with a full Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, USSR taking part of it
You could definitely put me on stand-by to take a team or two mate again, like last time (assuming we didn't do a full World Cup maybe but limited to the main contenders like last time - not sure I'd really want to be naming the team for outsiders as it'd either take more research or I'd just be replicating the actual line-ups actually picked I guess - at a push I wouldn't mind a team like Switzerland or something though I suppose in a 'bigger' tournament, even as 2nd team, as my memory would be good enough for that!). I haven't given it a load of thought, but while 1998 could be a cool choice (and one where a lot of people will feel able to be involved - maybe more than for the 1950 one), I'm wondering initially if 1994 could be a good alternative even (whether Yugoslavia is then even better, whether having non-qualified France involved would be a nice bonus etc etc - an alternative to the non-qualified England squad might be interesting too and selecting teams for Italy would probably be quite intriguing even though they made the final - lots of options for them probably; anyway your choice of course but just adding a few initial thoughts). I guess 1998 would have it's own added appeal/variation, like Redondo added to Argentina, Romario to Brazil and suchlike potentially...plus Portugal being a good option that didn't qualify....
Yeah, I'm really open to make any WC, I think a modern one, could have more posters interested to being part of it. A few changes that I'm thinking: - Start the countries selection at a specific time, i.e on a monday 13:00 GMT. This way, all managers have the chance to pick the stronger NTs, in a first come, first served method. - Votes for banning 1 player for next match (except the final). Or just, leaving the rule, to not lining up the same XI more than two times. - The format, depending the number of teams, will have groups, with at least, 3 games for each team. And a final group of 4 teams (in the 1950 one, I guess, it would have been good, to have two groups of 6 each, with the top two qualifying for the final group)
I can make sure Italy get past France in the Quarters... then get their revenge against Brazil in the final (with or without Romario!) (Note: Vieri wins the Golden Boot too)
Yeah, not only managing Italy 1998. For those interested in take part, can manage an Argentinian full side, or Brazil, France, Netherlands, Germany, or a Yugoslavia unified. Also some underdogs in 1998 as Czechoslovakia, USSR, Spain, England, etc. The last WC, we played with 8 managers.
If there was enough interest, I'd be willing to run an all-time version too, with secret submission of line-ups and some general tactics by PM. I could perhaps have a team, or even two again, myself, but would just need a trusted volunteer to receive my tactics and line-ups and then copy them into the thread (or verify them at least). Either somebody not taking part, or otherwise different people whose teams were not playing mine in the game concerned! I was thinking 16 or even 32 all-time national teams (if it was 24 we could work it out too), with 23 player squads. Perhaps some random injuries or just specified amounts of necessary team rotation again like we had in the 1950 version didn't we? Perhaps even half-time, and second half, substitutions being allowed but I'm not sure as voting on half a game could be complicated and make the whole thing take more time and pre-determined substitutions (irrespective of game situation) might not be ideal or realistic.
At this moment my idea would be that the manager of the team has to use at least 16 players in the group stage, including at least 2 goalkeepers. Two subs a game - one at half-time, and one with 20 minutes to go, would be my suggestion too (pre-planned, mandatory, ones). Then if the team progresses to the knockout stages, two of the rest of the squad must be introduced in each game (feasibly as subs of course). So that a team making the Final (or 3rd place game) uses all it's squad eventually. But it can use all 23 in the group stages if the manager desires (or between 16 and 23 of course)...and if the manager dares! So for example, if 21 are used in the group stage, the remaining two players have to play some part in the round of 16 game. If necessary we could have two squads from the same country, either picked by the same person, or via a snake draft between the two managers. So Italy A, and Italy B for example (but not with A>B necessarily, unless the same manager controls both and wants it that way). Or France A and France B etc... But if people can make a good attempt with lesser known football nations that is great too, and if we even got to 32 that way then no need for B squads - it's just an idea that might be feasible since some nations have a lot of well-known and highly rated all-timers.