Premiership Draft - Knockout Stage Round 1 Discussion Thread

Frisbee

eagle eye wrote: »

I never said that. :rolleyes:

places on ignore list.

Fantastic, now he won't make arguments using selective facts against things I say.

LuckyLloyd

Cut it out lads.

Frisbee

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Cut it out lads.

He couldn't see my reply there so that's the end of it.

Cheers Lloyd

Mr.Nice Guy

eagle eye wrote: »

On my own team, well I believe that it was one of the best teams but I stood no hope of getting any votes after the thread exploded. I still don't believe that Mr Nice Guy should win it, if he does it makes a complete joke of the whole thing imo. And yes I'm talking about the injury prone players. Nothing personal Mr Nice Guy.

Wow talk about sour grapes.

I think it's fair to say I had two very tough contests prior to this round and to get through them shows I'm not the only one that feels I have a strong team. Therefore I don't see how me winning would make a "complete joke" of the contest.

I also don't believe the thread 'exploding' had any bearing on your loss although it should be pointed out if anyone poured gasoline on, it was yourself.

At the end of the day you lost because I made a better case for my team than you did for yours. I don't know why you can't be dignified in defeat as most people in the game seemed to have been.

PS I've had a word with Arjen and Wes and they tell me they're feeling fine.

eagle eye

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Wow talk about sour grapes.

I think it's fair to say I had two very tough contests prior to this round and to get through them shows I'm not the only one that feels I have a strong team. Therefore I don't see how me winning would make a "complete joke" of the contest.

I also don't believe the thread 'exploding' had any bearing on your loss although it should be pointed out if anyone poured gasoline on, it was yourself.

At the end of the day you lost because I made a better case for my team than you did for yours. I don't know why you can't be dignified in defeat as most people in the game seemed to have been.

PS I've had a word with Arjen and Wes and they tell me they're feeling fine.

Look Man, its not sour grapes. I just believe that you picked a lot of players who are very injury prone. I do believe that this makes your team very weak. Its clear to me now, not just with the result in our game but in other games as well that people are not taking that into account.
I took the whole thing with a bit more realism than that, I picked players who I believed would be fit for a whole season based on their previous records. I admit I slipped up in that department with Martin Laursen, but he had just completed a 38 game season and was ever present in the Villa side this season up to that injury which was after I had picked him.
I just don't think that your team based on their records in the Premier League would have any hope of seeing out a season due to injury. You kept saying that I was hoping for injury to your players, I was going on the actual career stats which said they would miss that many games.
I really believe that its a very valid argument.
I do feel that you picked players that others were unwilling to pick due to their injuries, myself included. I thought about Henze and decided against him due to his injury and form after injury. I never considered Duff or Robben at any stage due to those reasons. I never considered Zenden but wouldn't have chosen him for the same reasons. I didn't consider Wes Brown either, but if I had it would have been for right back and certainly not as a centre back. And Geremi was on my mind for right mid but injuries ruled him out too.
As I said I could have picked a totally different team if I'd known that injuries would not count against me.
Of course I was never going to admit in the thread how good some of these players were when they did play, such as Robben who was wonderful to watch and a serious operator, same with Geremi but in right mid, and Wes Brown at right back.

Edit to add, I do believe I had you on the back foot and losing up until the cavalry arrived into the thread.:)

Bubs101

In all fairness what happened in the Eagle Eye vs. MNG thread was out of order considering the rules set out at the beginning of the tournament. Regardless of how ridiculous most people felt his rankings were I was under the illusion that at the beginning of this thread it was made clear that those match threads were only for official anouncements by the people in charge or those involved in the match, not for everyone else.

By the time the **** had hit the fan there was nothing I could do because A) I'm not a mod of this forum (nor would I want to be) and Lloyd, the person who's still in charge of this game, who came up with the rule and is a mod of the forum joined in in the thread. MNG is well able to defend himself and he has more draft experience than most and I would prefer not to see that again. The game is as much about your ability to debate your selections as picking them and his ability to debate them was taken away when everybody joined in on the thread. MNG was winning beforehand, but not by that much

As for the criticism of Eagle Eye, he has opinions, so what, everyone here should have and it makes for more entertaining threads. Doesn't give everyone the excuse to gang up on him in a thread. As for his character, all I can really say about him is that when I ****ed up the Mitch vs. Titan thread he was the only on to inform me via PM that I could fix it and how to do it.

Draw will be up tommorow

Xavi6

I'd just like to say that prior to that thread 'kicking off', MNG's team was already significantly ahead in the voting so any suggestions of 'the cavalry arriving' are nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

Bubs101 wrote: »

As for the criticism of Eagle Eye, he has opinions, so what, everyone here should have and it makes for more entertaining threads. Doesn't give everyone the excuse to gang up on him in a thread.

Nobody has a problem with people having different opinions but there's a difference between expressing that and moaning that the whole world is against you because they simply don't like your team in comparison to the opposition.

Completely biased ratings don't do yourself any favours either. Had those ratings been even slightly realistic and fair then I doubt the outside participation would have been nearly so strong.

LuckyLloyd

Bubs101 wrote: »

MNG was winning beforehand, but not by that much

That is incorrect.

astrofool

Why wasn't a new thread created for each round? It makes it very hard to follow all the matches when you have to trawl through the pages for the links to each match.

Mitch Connor

The injury proneness of MNG's team was a consideration for me, but overall I still thought his team had that bit more. People will know I have been most vocal on the issue of considering injuries in the voting process - i'm all for it to be taken into account.

whatawaster

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The injury proneness of MNG's team was a consideration for me, but overall I still thought his team had that bit more. People will know I have been most vocal on the issue of considering injuries in the voting process - i'm all for it to be taken into account.

Everything that affects the players impact has to be taken into account: injuries, off-field antics, disciplinary issues . . .

Mitch Connor

whatawaster wrote: »

Everything that affects the players impact has to be taken into account: injuries, off-field antics, disciplinary issues . . .

yeah - and I have done in my voting, but i'd say having injury prone players doesn't, and shouldn't, automatically mean I would vote for the other side.

If I come up against MNG in this, I will argue the injury proneness of his player, certainly, and I would hope for it to be taken into account by the people voting, but i would understand that it would not mean an automatic victory for myself.

One issue I do have is that a lot of comments I have read in the threads lately idicate people are voting on a one off match basis, talking about how one team would match up directly against the other, or change their style/formation to counteract the opposition in that round, which is the incorrect way of doing it imo. I hope it is not having an affect on the outcome of the rounds as it would be unfair to those who picked their team with a view to a full season and those who have based their arguments on the premise too.

whatawaster

Mitch Connor wrote: »

yeah - and I have done in my voting, but i'd say having injury prone players doesn't, and shouldn't, automatically mean I would vote for the other side.

If I come up against MNG in this, I will argue the injury proneness of his player, certainly, and I would hope for it to be taken into account by the people voting, but i would understand that it would not mean an automatic victory for myself.

One issue I do have is that a lot of comments I have read in the threads lately idicate people are voting on a one off match basis, talking about how one team would match up directly against the other, or change their style/formation to counteract the opposition in that round, which is the incorrect way of doing it imo. I hope it is not having an affect on the outcome of the rounds as it would be unfair to those who picked their team with a view to a full season and those who have based their arguments on the premise too.

It seems there's still confusion over this. I know it's over a season, but i think there has to be an element of matchups between the two sides (formation, tactics etc) otherwise what is the point of matchups? We could have just had one big poll to decide the winner.

Mitch Connor

whatawaster wrote: »

It seems there's still confusion over this. I know it's over a season, but i think there has to be an element of matchups between the two sides (formation, tactics etc) otherwise what is the point of matchups? We could have just had one big poll to decide the winner.

Well yeah - i though a poll would make more sense given the process is to be decided over as season but the knockout rounds were decided on.

I don't see how there can be an element of one vs one in the matchups, for me you either vote one way or the other, i don't understand how you could vote both ways, or how you could use a change in formation in one game as a judge for the entire season.

My team, for instance, was selected with a view to versatility for changing formation. Now, whether people rate the team I have selected, or agree with my opinion that it can change formation and style quite well, my team was selected with that in mind, and the overview of my side states this. Now, I would expect my teams ability to change style to be taken into account - but I wouldn't go stating how I would match up against one team in particular as the basis for how my team would go over an entire season. It can be discussed, but I think the merits of the oppositions winger against my fullback should not be the basis for whether my side or the opposition is selected.

Bubs101

astrofool wrote: »

Why wasn't a new thread created for each round? It makes it very hard to follow all the matches when you have to trawl through the pages for the links to each match.

All you have to do is click one or two lumps of threads back on the soccer forums and look for the ones with the polls, not too hard

Bubs101

New draw up. Can all discussion be kept here from now on please

eagle eye

I think thats a little unfair at this stage.

Bubs101

eagle eye wrote: »

I think thats a little unfair at this stage.

It never should have happened in the first place as far as I'm concerned but two mods involved in the thread had already posted in yours by the time I saw it so there's not much that I could have done

eagle eye

I was looking at the MNG vs LL match and I actually believe that despite all his injury prone players I am gong to vote for him in this round. The reason is that LL's team has a couple of players who I would rate very badly. While Andy Hinchcliffe was a fine player in his day, he was very injury prone over his career.
Brian McBride doesn't rate among beside all the other forwards in this draft.
But the main reason is a player I would be hard pressed not to give a minus rating to and thats Harry Kewell, Kewell was decent for his first few years but he went down hill rapid. He lost his place on the right to Jason Wilcox at Leeds despite a Leeds fan denying this in my last match thread. O'Leary tried to play him in the centre of midfield after Wilcox had arrived and he was used in a variety of positions. His move to Liverpool was catastrophic and he was terribly injury prone and his form was horrific for most of his time there. Its hard to give someone a minus rating or a zero rating but I think Kewell is justs like a piece of old furniture sitting in the corner, not much use and all its good for is the local dump.

LuckyLloyd

Wilcox joined Leeds in 1999. Harry Kewell left Leeds at the end of the 2002 / 3 campaign. During the four years they played at the club, they respectively made:

- WIlcox 81 league appearances
- Kewell 111 league appearances

On top of this, Kewell made 44 appearances in Cup and European competition.

Going a little deeper into the facts, the first season Wilcox was at the club Kewell started 36 league games on the left, scoring 10 goals. The following season he was injured for much of the season. In 2001 / 2, Kewell played 27 league games and scored 8 goals - mostly from the left.

It was in 2002 / 3 that Kewell was moved to an attacking midfielder and sometimes out and out striker role. From which he scored 14 goals in 31 games. Not too shabby.

His first season at Liverpool he was primarily used on the left / in the center and performed decently. Returning 7 goals from 36 games, and 4 from 13 in European competition. Which is a good contribution from a midfielder by any standard. Obviously I watched a lot of Kewell that season, and while not hitting previous heights - he was still very good.

For the next three seasons under Benitez Kewell struggled for form wracked with injuries and an apparent lack of confidence. Again though, those three years make up a minority portion of a league career in which he broke through to the Leeds first 11 in 1997.

So, you may still be moved to give a 'minus rating' to Kewell. But if you do, you're doing something incredibly stupid.

---

Forwards taken in the final two rounds of the draft:

Tony Cottee
Brian McBride
Fabrizio Ravanelli
Alen Boksic
José Antonio Reyes

Boksic and Ravanelli were more prolific, but gave nowhere near the same level of all round contribution to their teams; played with better attacking talents around them; and had a very low average of games per season because of major injury problems for that portion of their careers.

Reyes had a lower goalscoring ratio and brought a negative energy to his team on and off the pitch.

Cottee still scored goals, but against poorer defences (the premiership being weaker in terms of overall quality between 1992 - 1996) and is nowhere near as much of an all - round presence as big Brian.

As such, in relation to the players picked around where he went I am satisfied that McBride was good value. One only needs to look at Fulham's respective fortunes last season during the portion of the season that he was available and unavailable to see how much of a positive force he was.

astrofool

Bubs101 wrote: »

New draw up. Can all discussion be kept here from now on please

New draw up where? Is there a whiteboard behind your desk that no one else knows about?

Are you really implying that making a topic on a busy message board implies that it is "up".

It's not bloody rocket science to stick some links in your post, or make a thread for the subject.

Frisbee

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Reyes had a lower goalscoring ratio and brought a negative energy to his team on and off the pitch.

I'm out so I know it doesn't really matter, but how so?
I'll agree his goalscoring ratio was very low but I don't know about negative energy, he always tried his hardest and when he left there was no ill-feeling.

LuckyLloyd

astrofool wrote: »

New draw up where? Is there a whiteboard behind your desk that no one else knows about?

Are you really implying that making a topic on a busy message board implies that it is "up".

It's not bloody rocket science to stick some links in your post, or make a thread for the subject.

"The customer is unhappy! What will we do?"
"But he hasn't paid."

Semi Finals:

Whatawaster vs Mitch Connor

Mr. Nice Guy vs LuckyLloyd

I for one thank Bubs for taking over the entire thing and making the effort to see out the final stages. I had lost interest. So we should be appreciative imo, rather than being in a mood to pick some nits.

LuckyLloyd

Frisbee wrote: »

I'm out so I know it doesn't really matter, but how so?
I'll agree his goalscoring ratio was very low but I don't know about negative energy, he always tried his hardest and when he left there was no ill-feeling.

Well, your an Arsenal fan so would be a better judge than I. One of the games that stick in my head is the one where you lost your unbeaten record at Old Trafford. I remember him being completely ineffective, complaining about not getting enough protection, etc. Not contributing anything positive when his team really needed it.

I also remember a lot of speculation of will he / won't he leave before he eventually was dispatched to Spain. Then you look at his record and, well, he seems to have had a pretty poor time.

But that is my perception, and I obviously could be wrong. And would have to bow to your superior knowledge of what goes on at Arsenal.

Frisbee

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well, your an Arsenal fan so would be a better judge than I. One of the games that stick in my head is the one where you lost your unbeaten record at Old Trafford. I remember him being completely ineffective, complaining about not getting enough protection, etc. Not contributing anything positive when his team really needed it.

I also remember a lot of speculation of will he / won't he leave before he eventually was dispatched to Spain. Then you look at his record and, well, he seems to have had a pretty poor time.

But that is my perception, and I obviously could be wrong. And would have to bow to your superior knowledge of what goes on at Arsenal.

I was fairly unhappy to see him leave. However he was 'homesick' something that really annoyed me, however if he wasn't going to live up to his potential then it was best we shipped him out.
I was very excited when we signed him, and was sad to see him go.
But he would never live up to his potential in England unfortunately, however he did score some very important goals for us. I remember that Chelsea match fondly...

Mr.Nice Guy

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If I come up against MNG in this, I will argue the injury proneness of his player, certainly, and I would hope for it to be taken into account by the people voting, but i would understand that it would not mean an automatic victory for myself.

I don't see the logic of bringing up injury proneness when none of us have squads beyond our first XI. The point of the game was to judge the best XI over the course of a season. It wasn't to see whose team was the fittest. This isn't Survivor.

whatawaster

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I don't see the logic of bringing up injury proneness when none of us have squads beyond our first XI. The point of the game was to judge the best XI over the course of a season. It wasn't to see whose team was the fittest. This isn't Survivor.

The point of this is to find out which team has had the greatest impact on the premier league, and so would be statistically more likely to do well in a premier league season. The players ability, if they reached their full potential and how long they peaked for are obviously very important. But things like injuries (Owen), attitude problems (Anelka) and disciplinary issues (Barton) would obviouly lessen the positive impact on the premiership of those players.

The fact that we don't have squads is irrelevant. No actual matches are being played.

Robben is a perfect example. One of the most talented wingers ever to grace the premier league.
The start of his first season, and at other times he was breathtaking for Chelsea, probably as good an attacking player as was in the league. But injuries and the inconsistencies of form that went with them severely reduced his overall impact in his few years at Chelsea.

whatawaster

so the polls are closed. When do the results become visible?

LuckyLloyd

Polls fixed so that the results are now visible. gg Mr. Nice Guy.

whatawaster

Mitch 4-2 Whatawaster

MNG 5-2 LuckyLloyd

Well played lads, two great teams in the final.

Curse the low turnout. Just couldn't get my support out on the day!

Necronomicon

Sorry for not voting on that one guys, went completely out of my mind. It'll be a good final.

Mitch Connor

"Absent votes count, absent votes count!" .

Seriously, unlucky Whatawaster, i reckon it would have been very close and maybe have swung with a bigger turnout.

whatawaster

Mitch Connor wrote: »

"Absent votes count, absent votes count!" .

Seriously, unlucky Whatawaster, i reckon it would have been very close and maybe have swung with a bigger turnout.

There's always next season.

Well played you deserve to be in the final. I'll do a Hillary Clinton and jump on your bandwagon now i guess.

Frisbee

I think the whole 'wait three days' things drove it from people's minds.
If we're going to do that for the final I'd suggest whoever's running it to post in the thread that voting can now commence?

Mr.Nice Guy

Frisbee wrote:

I think the whole 'wait three days' things drove it from people's minds. If we're going to do that for the final I'd suggest whoever's running it to post in the thread that voting can now commence?

How about we set a date for the opening of the final thread so that others in the contest know when they can vote? Say Thursday for example.

Anyway I'm pleased to come through a difficult semi-final to meet Mitch in the final. I admire his team and I think it should be a good match-up.

Bubs101

I'll leave the final thread til Wednesday. I completely forgot to vote because i don't like voting before people have made there case and then I just went out drinking til now. If Mitch and MNG agree we could leave the thread open for everyone to maintain interest. MNG vs Eagle Eye did get alot of votes

astrofool

It might be cool if the final came down to the popular vote (if you can get enough publicity for it).

eagle eye

Its a pure joke either way with a team that are more likely to need crutches for half their players.

Iago

eagle eye wrote: »

Its a pure joke either way with a team that are more likely to need crutches for half their players.

jesus build a bridge and get over it.

I know there was a lot of strange voting going on, I mean there were people arguing that Essien had a bigger impact than Butt on the premiership

I think with the long delays between posts and picks, and then the draws from round to round that the original point of the draft was lost along the way.

That being what it may, the common opinion for the two teams that have made the final is that they would perform best over the course of the season. Therefore they deserve to be there.

eagle eye

Iago wrote: »

jesus build a bridge and get over it.

I know there was a lot of strange voting going on, I mean there were people arguing that Essien had a bigger impact than Butt on the premiership

I think with the long delays between posts and picks, and then the draws from round to round that the original point of the draft was lost along the way.

That being what it may, the common opinion for the two teams that have made the final is that they would perform best over the course of the season. Therefore they deserve to be there.

I don't agree. The injury prone nature of MNG's team just makes it a farce.

Wes Brown is a joke of a pick, firstly he is not a regular centre half and secondly he is so injury prone its beyond a joke, same with Geremi playing at right back. Zenden was never great in the PL and was injury prone as well. Robben was a class player when fit but again he missed far too many games. Henze has been terrible since he got injured.
If you take their best moments then this would be a wonderful team but as far as overall impact is concerned I'd expect that if I met any of the guys I mention above that they are jsut as likely to be injured as fit and in some guys more likely to be injured.

I'll come back to this again in 12 months time or so for the fun of it. I'll pick a date and see how many of those players are fit to play on that date just to show how typical it is for them to be injured.

Bubs101

eagle eye wrote: »

I'll come back to this again in 12 months time or so for the fun of it. I'll pick a date and see how many of those players are fit to play on that date just to show how typical it is for them to be injured.

You could just get over it

Mr.Nice Guy

Wow, nice to see eagle eye's bitterness knows no bounds.

Could I actually make the point that whilst the contest was taking place none of us in fact knew for quite a while how we would actually determine the winner. If I recall correctly I was the one that suggested we be paired up against one another in a knock-out format (although my idea was more of a cup-based knockout system than what end up taking place).

But my point is, none of us actually knew we would end up judging a team over an entire league campaign from the start so I'm a bit fed up of dealing with this issue of my players not lasting an entire season. The ultimate point of the game was to see who could pick the best XI, not the fittest XI.

If I am to lose to Mitch in the final that's fair enough but if that does happen I honestly hope it's because people think he has a better team than mine rather than because they think his players are fitter than mine, which I would regard as a really lame way to lose this game.

That's all I'll say on the matter. :cool:

eagle eye

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Wow, nice to see eagle eye's bitterness knows no bounds.

You mix up my straightforwardness with bitterness.

Just to clear it up, there is no bitterness.

Mitch Connor

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Wow, nice to see eagle eye's bitterness knows no bounds.

Could I actually make the point that whilst the contest was taking place none of us in fact knew for quite a while how we would actually determine the winner. If I recall correctly I was the one that suggested we be paired up against one another in a knock-out format (although my idea was more of a cup-based knockout system than what end up taking place).

But my point is, none of us actually knew we would end up judging a team over an entire league campaign from the start so I'm a bit fed up of dealing with this issue of my players not lasting an entire season. The ultimate point of the game was to see who could pick the best XI, not the fittest XI.

If I am to lose to Mitch in the final that's fair enough but if that does happen I honestly hope it's because people think he has a better team than mine rather than because they think his players are fitter than mine, which I would regard as a really lame way to lose this game.

That's all I'll say on the matter. :cool:

I'm not sure what the wording was, but personally I was always under the impression that a history of injuries would be a big mark against players picked, and thus avoided some of the more talented injury prone players in favour of players who while maybe not as talented, would be more consistent due to availability.

While I would not say my team should win simply because of the injury proneness of some of your players, I would still hope people take this fact into account when deciding who the winner is, not to do so would, imo, be wrong.

Mr.Nice Guy

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I'm not sure what the wording was, but personally I was always under the impression that a history of injuries would be a big mark against players picked, and thus avoided some of the more talented injury prone players in favour of players who while maybe not as talented, would be more consistent due to availability.

While I would not say my team should win simply because of the injury proneness of some of your players, I would still hope people take this fact into account when deciding who the winner is, not to do so would, imo, be wrong.

Well if I may remind you of the sign-up thread here, this is what Lloyd stated in the opening on the rules:

After each participant has selected eleven players they are obliged to put one more post in the draft thread which provides a final formation and discusses the tactics that would be ideally employed in an imaginary game;

So when we began the game it's fair to say none of us expected this to run over an entire league campaign. This rule was added during the game when suggestions were being offered on the best way to decide an overall winner. Most of us were picking to try and come up with the best overall XI.

I would also like to remind you of this page from the Draft discussion thread where you asked Lloyd directly the following question.

Mitch Connor wrote:

Was there a ruling on player injuries, for guys like Dyer, or Rosicky - players with massive injury problems. Does injuries count or do we judge the players purely on the games they did play?

This was Lloyd's response:

This is a very difficult question. We aren't playing a league but instead a maximum of five cup games for which we will have to assume each player is fit and able to play. As such, I think everyone should accept that every player will stay fit throughout all of their ties in the competition - so a voting rationale along the lines of team x > team y because team y is sure to end up with nine players is not a valid form of reasoning.

Where I think injuries have their impact is in so far as they have limited a player's overall impact on the premiership throughout their career. As such, there will be question marks of how good Kewell and Dyer are because a significant portion of their career has been blighted by injury. And they have often been playing at a reduced capacity on the return from a long layoff and ultimately have not dominated for long stretches in the way a Scholes or Keane figure has. So injuries are just another part of the equation of assessing a player's overall worth.

I'm open to questions and opinions on this topic by the way.

I note you did not take issue with this post after that.

Can you see then why I'm a little cheesed off that this issue of fitness has once again reared its head?

eirebhoy

Went for MNG's team here. Nowhere near enough bite in Mitch's team imo. Alonso is by far and away the best player off the ball in that team and even he needs a combative player beside him to get the best out of him. Lampard and Arteta don't fancy defending too much.