Football World Draft (20 years)

Discussion in 'Association Football Discussion' started by mouse, Oct 11, 2012.

Page 3 of 27

  1. mouse MJ Edwards

    I'll make a decision tomorrow...

    Wasn't expecting a night out in notts till I got a message earlier.
     
    mouse, Oct 12, 2012
    #41

  2. cloughie09 TJ Clough

    I'd be interested in this if still a spot
     
    cloughie09, Oct 12, 2012
    #42

  3. Himannv LV Himann

    Personally prefer an all-time thing. It isn't really done as often and I reckon it'll be interesting to see the kind of teams people come up with. Too many good options available with it though.
     
    Himannv, Oct 12, 2012
    #43

  4. mouse MJ Edwards

    Looks like Im going to disappoint someone with any option I pick...

    Sorry but I'm going to leave it like it is. I just think too many people will be missed out if thet debut in 1992
     
    mouse, Oct 13, 2012
    #44

  5. Eds E Ames

    Don't make it debut post-1992 then. Just make it that they made >50% of their appearances post-1992 and then let us judge them on their entire career. Or, if you want it slightly more modern (ie. more players from the last 20 years) make the cut off 1998 or so and have half the games before, etc.

    Judging people based on how they performed before and after 1992 is nigh on impossible to do.
     
    Eds, Oct 13, 2012
    #45

  6. mouse MJ Edwards

    So players must have played at least 50% of their career past 1992?

    Would that be better?
     
    mouse, Oct 13, 2012
    #46

  7. Eds E Ames

    Yeah. That'd be lovely.

    As long as we can judge players on the entirety of their careers I don't actually care what we do tbh. I just don't think we'll get a fair result (based on our ages - how many of us were avid football fans pre-1992?) if we judge players on your previous criterion.

    If you want more 'modern' teams maybe make it 50% after '95/'96, as well. Includes people like Bergkamp/Giggs/etc. still. I don't mind about that, though.
     
    Eds, Oct 13, 2012
    #47

  8. mouse MJ Edwards

    Okay, will think about it and make a final decision when I get home

    Draft will start tonight, the order will be sorted again when I get home.
     
    mouse, Oct 13, 2012
    #48

  9. Weeman27bob BE Force

    Good stuff.
     
    Weeman27bob, Oct 13, 2012
    #49

  10. Cevno IV Narang

    In, if there's space.

    Should have enough time to do this, i guess.
     
    Cevno, Oct 13, 2012
    #50

  11. Eds E Ames

    :laughing: DWTA.
     
    Eds, Oct 13, 2012
    #51

  12. mouse MJ Edwards

    1. Mouse
    2. Eds
    3. MrPrez
    4. Mariner
    5. Weeman27bob
    6. HeathDavisSpeed
    7. Cabinet96
    8. Benny
    9. Alex
    10. Jager
    11. Speirz
    12. Himannv
    13. KATA
    14. Veri
    15. Julian
    16. Baxter
    17. Cloughie
    18. Cevno

    Is that everyone?
     
    mouse, Oct 13, 2012
    #52

  13. Cevno IV Narang

    Seems a simple format, so should be able to do this off my phone.
     
    Cevno, Oct 13, 2012
    #53

  14. Baxter MJ Deane

    For the 50% is it years or matches? Doesn't really work as a rule for mine.
     
    Baxter, Oct 13, 2012
    #54

  15. mouse MJ Edwards

    If I do change it, it'll be years because it'll be a lot easier to check this than check appearances
     
    mouse, Oct 13, 2012
    #55

  16. HeathDavisSpeed HT Davis

    Look, I'm going to pick guys who played at the '94 or '98 World Cups regardless of how much they played before or after 1992. One of the players I would like to pick played 9 years before 1992 and 9 years after. Then what do I do? I really don't see the problem anyway. How you want to 'judge' the teams is entirely up to you and if someone has a player you don't know anything about, it's hardly the end of the world.
     
    HeathDavisSpeed, Oct 13, 2012
    #56

  17. mouse MJ Edwards

    I've decided to make it easier, members can judge the players/formation etc the way they like, not just judging them after 92, so again, this is on the members to judge.

    However, players now must have played at least 50% of their career after 92, by this I means years and not appearances because that'll take too much to research...

    So Heef, if you've got a player that has played 9 years before 92 and 9 years after that's fine, because he he played 50% of his career afterward the 92 benchmark

    For the record, I didn't expect it to take this long to start, I just wanted to start asap with no concerns. Draft order will be done now and we'll get started very soon

    I've edited the front page for people to look at again
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2012
    mouse, Oct 13, 2012
    #57

  18. HeathDavisSpeed HT Davis

    Fuck it. Count me out, this just isn't as interesting to me as the original premise. Wanted to pick Gary Mabbutt at some point, and he's no longer eligible. I just don't get the problem. I wouldn't want to miss out on a player because they played a couple of games across two seasons at some tin-pot little shithole like Tranmere in 1980/81.

    I'm guessing you picked 1992 as the formation of the Premier League, but this'll rule out a number of the early stars. It's bollocks.
     
    HeathDavisSpeed, Oct 13, 2012
    #58

  19. mouse MJ Edwards

    I picked 92 because its 20 years from now and does fit in nicely with the 'Premiership' and 'Champions League' era

    If you had picked Mabbutt with the rules before, then he would've only been judged between 92-98 anyway. And I'll be honest, I don't know how good he was in them final 6 years of his career and this is what I'm guessing Eds concern is about judging players

    I know there is going to be a lot of players being missed out, so tempted afterwards to do an all time draft

    I still want you to participate in the draft
     
    mouse, Oct 13, 2012
    #59

  20. HeathDavisSpeed HT Davis

    Yeah, and I could pick someone who played for Galatasaray or Red Star Belgrade from 1992-2005 and you'd all have no fucking idea how good they were either. Gheorghe Hagi was a star in the 90s, and he's not eligible for this. It's farcical.
     
    HeathDavisSpeed, Oct 13, 2012
    #60
Page 3 of 27

Share This Page