Big Soccer World Draft????

Calm down child. When things are ready, the relevant people will be informed.

 

We did it in Spring last season. The tournament actually ended not so long ago.

 

It began in March last year. I tried to see if anybody wanted it to kick off a little earlier this year, since last time around I found it seriously got in the way of my exams where it REALLY started to drag out after the group stages.

Anyway, just using this opportunity to throw my name in the hat as early as possible while I'm at it.

 

After Xmas would be better....

 

It's an annual event now and as such it's smart to keep it in the same time-frame (March) comme is a busy man these days and I'm also not able to orchastrate a draft until things settle down, which will be ironically in March.

Whilst we're at it and this thread is here it would be nice to hear from people who took part in the last draft about what they would like to see implimented in the new one. What can be done to improve the draft? Should the long term injured players be allowed and if so in what regard should they be held? etc. should we expand the number of entrants (obviously those who took part last year have an automatic reentry slot) but there have been quite a few quality posters emerge this year some of whom I'm sure would like to take part.

Should we expand the number of judges or alter how the judging is done?

It would be great to collate the thoughts of people ahead of the draft so that when it IS time we get it rolling with absolutely no fuss or stalls and EVERYONE who takes part knows all the rules so myself and comme do not get assanine PM's from people who were informed of the rules x amount of times. Fire away fellas

 

I personally think that players out injured for the vast majority of the season that the draft starts in should be discounted. If players have returned or missed a small part of that season, then they should be included but more emphasis put on their post-injury performances.

Judging should be more open, as last time it was apparent that there was a lack of consistancy in how some players were valued (either due to lack of knowledge or personal bias). It also doesn't help that a particular judge could fundamentally disagree with your tactical system and player selection, but you would not know due to the lack of feedback. That puts you at a distinct disadvantage if you continue down that route.

Also, you cannot continually mark one player down due to a small flaw in their nature. I picked Totti and immediately everyone harped on about his discipline issue. Considering his consistantly good performances for a poor Roma side, I find it very unfair that a few incidents can seemingly negate all of the good aspects to his game. Besides, it is very easy to find a flaw in most players that can be exploited, but that doesn't mean they get the same sort of abuse that Totti (and I) somehow received in the last draft.

 

Yeah, but Totti at what was it... 4? That was just upside-down face crazy. I got far better value with Lampard at number 10 (or was it 11?) .

I agree about the list of injured players. There should be a 'banned list' agreed upon beforehand for reasons such as injuries or possibly long suspensions. It won't take too long to argue out in a thread of it's own a week or two prior to the draft, I reckon. Comme/DS/somebody comes up with a criteria, all those taking part name people who could be left out due to their injury/suspension issues, as many as they can think of. That way there will be a DEFINITE list of banned players beforehand, and a such, no arguments during the draft.

If a player is picked that should have been excluded due to injury problems, etc but was somehow overlooked than I personally think that the pick should be allowed stand. My reasons for that are that it would partly be ude to the negligence of ALL those taking part, and if the player slipped everybodies minds, then he probably isn't a very big name or talent, so it won't make much odds.

One other gripe: Squad sizes... should they be 16, 18, or 23? And should a sub keeper a necessity? My personal preference would be an 18-man squad, for more versatility... 23 just takes too long, and 16 is too limiting. As long as the squad is 18 or over, I don't care about the sub keeper issue, tbh.

 

I loved the draft last year. Maybe this year, we should also be allowed to pick Coaches, for instance, as a strategy, somebody might want to pick Mourinho or Capello higher than they'd pick a player. I disliked the way some people forgot to post. I think dedicated posters are a must, or maybe we should assign a couple of people to gather Draft Choices from each participant and pick for them if they are not available. In reference to the judging, I think they should PM comments back to you telling you what they think is wrong with your tactics/formation and such. In the last edition, you really didn't know why the judges disliked your tactics/formation/etc. Otherwise, the draft is a great thing and I can't wait until March!

 

Here are my thoughts for the next draft.


1. Fewer teams.
2. More posters involved.
3. More feedback from judges. For instance, will brilliant tactics be enough??? or can a team w/ so-so tactics glide through on talent.


Here is my plan.

How about we pick 16 teams. Easy to set up a tournament for that. No group stages necessary. Or, if we like a group stage w/ a random draw to decide groups and then based on that, judges provide seeds via an at-a glance evaluation of the teams in each group. Once the seeding is done. We set up a tournament w/ brackets.

Here's the catch... at least 2 posters per team. I'd actually like 3 or 4. But a 2 poster minimum. There are a few good reasons for this. 2 heads better than one. you can share knowldege and learn from each other, and not miss the obvious player that you somehow missed. more posters per team mean less delays and demands on the time of one person are less.

W/ the tournament format there will be far fewer matches to judge (the at a glance seeding won't need much thought just I think out of these 4 randomly grouped teams, team c is the best and team a is the worst). As such, judges will be able to spend more time on each match up and provide detailed answers and responses.

As a side note... if we do chose 24 or 32 teams we can use the seeding process whereby if we group all the teams in 4's then the last two or the last team is eliminated from the tournament and again... focus the judges time on matches that matter. A way to work out who the top seed in a group might be is to have the judges all have a conversation real-time via a chat room or a special offsite forum or maybe by PM I don't know. But that's just an option.

 

Looking back it would probably have been best to post thoughts on the games - not only would it be slightly easier than PMs, it would also make the judging more accountable and help spice up the tactics for the later games. After all, in any tournament you would have a chance to scout out future opponents so why make this any difference.

 

Group stage would be best for 16 or 32 teams, but nothing more than 4 teams per group - there were just too many games in the larger groups last time round. I'm not sure on seedings (I don't particularly like them in any tournament), plus I could see it leading to all sorts of arguments. A simple random draw would suffice.

 

I like this idea. If one person can't post, the other can, and like you said, 2 heads are better than one.

 

I liked the format last year, the only problem I had was with judging - as we never really heard much from them.
If the draft starts in March, I think only the players that played at some point in 2006 should be considered.
Agree with having 2-person teams. It'll get more people involved, and it'll speed up the process.

Here is the most important thing: I think originally there should be 10-12 different judges, so that there would 3 judges per group. They would only have to evaluate results in that group and write a complete and detailed analysis of their decisions. Then, after the group stage is completed, participants select the best 4-5 judges (based on how fast they answer, the depth of analysis, etc.), who then judge the play-off games and also write analysis of all games.

 

yes, the group stage would be best suited to 16 or 32 but the seedings were just a way to make it easier on the judges and w/ a field of 32 it shouldn't be too hard to pick the best two out of a group of 4 teams.

I think it was pretty obvious in the last one. We don't need absolute seeds either... just 1's and 2's for each group... A1 vs B2 and so forth.

 

I must point out that 2people per team will remain optional to those involved. Newbies and those seen as less reliable may have to have a mandatory 'second' but it is not going to be a universal rule to have to team up.

 

I know u are only saying that because you want your own team and don't want to buddy up w/ someone else. Essentially I've got no problem w/ that except that if everyone has a buddy then that means we get to involve more posters and that is for the better I think.

I've got a remedy for this though... If we set up 2hr time windows again then I'll say that if you miss your window even by 10mins, once another team has chosen you have to wait until the end of the current round (ie, if you go missing for a round and a half, u get to make 2 picks when it gets to the end of the order and then resume your regular place).

I really like being in a team and its not a hamper on autonomy really and it certainly helps when u are in a jam and can't think of someone or u can't be at the computer at a certain time. Of course w/ 16 teams of 2 we still have 32 competitors and the draft and tourney won't take an eternity each.

 

The newbies were a minor problem last time. We have a few poster who disappeared during the draft. They got players such as Henry.

mtkillamanjohno, I prefered to be alone.

 

I'm just sayin don't knock it till u've tried it. Its not like we'll force a parnter on u... u'd be free to choose a parnter... hell.. I was flirting w/ setting up a ManU all time draft where there'd be 4 person teams of drafters and just 4 teams. As long as personalities don't clash being part of a team is usually more fun than doing it on your own... but anway, to each his own.

 

It'd all depend on who my second person was. And Teso, are you still whining about your team? You picked a notorious flake with your first choice and then actually chose Materazzi, trying to argue far and wide (and to Azzurri fans!!) that he was good. You drafted a ************ team, give it up.

 

yeah... that's what I'm saying... u'd be able to chose your teammate.

for instance, me and JonPall are a pretty good team. DS definitely sees things different to me as does Billy (as did JP at times too obviously) but I'd sure as hell team up with them and at times defer and other times press hard for something I thought was necessary. It ads a whole new dimension to the draft process. Almost like a manager convincing the owner to shell out the cash for a certain player. Or a fan trying to convince the manager to swap formations.

 

Hmm, You're partly right. I'd much prefer my own team for this kind of draft, but that is not why I made the post. There are numerous posters in the draft who prefer to work alone EG is one of many and it'd be wrong for them to have to team up. We most definitly need a screening process because as has been mentioned certiain newbies and/or socks had no intention of staying with the draft and took some of the very best players for their embryonic teams, which will not be allowed to happen this time around.

For me, if I miss my window of drafting I would rather miss the round then have a 'second' draft for me. Again, I'm sure I'm not alone in my thinking.

 

points taken ds, but this isn't having a second draft for you... prior to your pick you and your second, just like if u were by yourself, have come up w/ a list of players that u want or need to draft at various positions, as well as contingencies if a certain type of player becomes popular.

but anyway... u da boss, I can't make u a team player if u dont want to be.

 

I've got no issue with it, just as long as it's not a pre-requisite. I agreee a contigency plan has to be put in affect this time rather then just asking if anyone is around after you though.