Fantasy Tournament: World Cup All-Time All-Stars

It really depends on what you would want (and could get) in between defence and Muller. You do look well set for five at the back if you want to go that way, but could do four. I'd look into the midfield, since you will need it either way, and then make up my mind on whether to get wingers or not and thus 1 or 2 CBs.


Yeah, thats what i was thinking. Trying to keep my options open and then see what i'm left with. When you're waiting 28 picks each time theres probably not much point planning too far ahead. Everyone you have in mind seems to get snapped up.
 
Extremely nervous about my next pick. I have two players I really want and I'm sure one will go. Being at the bottom or top is defiantly the better placement.

Yeah I tend to agree because there are more opportunities for getting the first dibs of the best available player in the pool. That said, when there's a run of defenders like there has been, you are powerless to do anything about it.
 
It's very different IMO. What Cruyff was doing in 74 was not far away from playing someone as an AM. It's not characteristics, it's the nature of his performance and how he played overall.

You can see Thuram could be a CB, but his peak performance is not as CB but RB and, in fact, what made him stand out was eminently RB stuff. It's funny because people usually see Thuram as a "defensive" fullback but if I take his 98 performance in isolation that is not the case at all. His outstanding/defining contribution in that World Cup was against Croatia, doing nothing like what a CB would be doing, marauding down the flank and scoring two goals. So no, play him at RB and I'll think 98, play him at CB and it's 06.

So you think Thuram was just about that single game? That does not make sense. One game does not make a player, even over a tournament.
 
Extremely nervous about my next pick. I have two players I really want and I'm sure one will go. Being at the bottom or top is defiantly the better placement.


I think the middle. I'd prefer to be picking every 15 than every 30. The bottom is useful for 2nd round reinforcements though, but with the constraints it could be hard to get the right player that suits
 
I actually agree that you should be faithful to world cup positions for these players. What I don't agree with is that -

false 9 ~= AM but RB can not be equal to CB.
 
Where the feck is Pol? There was great momentum building up with the picks, he has ruined that.
 
I really don't understand why something so simple has been made so complicated. Peak performance, in what position? Play him there, simple. Play him anywhere else and peak performance goes out of the window. Otherwise you could argue Matthaus was up there with the best defenders of all time as he played in defence and if you bring his 1990 attributes into it + his later tactical/defensive awareness he would be something else. Or that Messi's lesser WCs would set the world alight if he had actually displayed his peak attributes.

Why? Seriously, why does assuming stuff come into it? If you don't want Thuram as a RB then you pick another RB, simple.


That is clearly not the same thing. If a player displays great tactical awareness of a position BEFORE reaching his peak physique/technical ability - one can assume he still has that tactical awareness he showed when he was less experienced.

It is another thing to go the opposite way, if a player had his peak in his first WC as a striker, then later played as a defender. That means when he was in his peak physical/technical level he had not yet proven the needed tactical awareness.

If Messi was a defender 4 years ago, but now has improved physically and technically - we can assume Messi would still be able to play as a defender considering he also now has better attributes for it. Would it be his peak position? No. Would he handle it at a high level? Yes, most certainly.
 
I actually agree that you should be faithful to world cup positions for these players. What I don't agree with is that -

false 9 ~= AM but RB can not be equal to CB.

I'm not even playing him as a traditional centre half, he's going to be on the right of a central three. He has similar responsibilities to a full back defensively, which is his greatest strength.
 
I'm not even playing him as a traditional centre half, he's going to be on the right of a central three. He has similar responsibilities to a full back defensively, which is his greatest strength.


I agree with you, you'll have been reading the thread so will have seen this is what I have suggested all along - others haven't see it that way though and it doesn't appear to be the way we're doing things. I prefer your way.

Anyway, I raised this exact question with Pol because I was thinking Thuram in centre defence or in a back three. This is what he said,

Me - "Thuram - Had an absolute stormer of a world cup in 98 playing as a RB, his best position however was always RCB at Parma in a back three. Do we just ignore his ability to play that position, as if it never happened, because he played RB internationally?"

Pol "Thuram played RCB at Germany 06, I will go by his performances there if he is played at RCB. Does that help?"


As I said before everyone has interpreted this draft differently, you've got huge swings in how people are gonna approach the voting in this. I won't knock you at all for Thuram at RCB but others will see it differently.
 
So you think Thuram was just about that single game? That does not make sense. One game does not make a player, even over a tournament.

Cases like Maradona are the exception to the rule (at the very peak throughout). Most cases will be decent/good performances and showing up at the right time with a tournament defining one, in those cases that performance will be the focus, it's only natural. Of course there will be people who are crap and have an odd match, in that case I wouldn't look at that single match obviously.
 
I agree with you, you'll have been reading the thread so will have seen this is what I have suggested all along - others haven't see it that way though and it doesn't appear to be the way we're doing things. I prefer your way.

Anyway, I raised this exact question with Pol because I was thinking Thuram in centre defence or in a back three. This is what he said,

Me - "Thuram - Had an absolute stormer of a world cup in 98 playing as a RB, his best position however was always RCB at Parma in a back three. Do we just ignore his ability to play that position, as if it never happened, because he played RB internationally?"

Pol "Thuram played RCB at Germany 06, I will go by his performances there if he is played at RCB. Does that help?"


As I said before everyone has interpreted this draft differently, you've got huge swings in how people are gonna approach the voting in this. I won't knock you at all for Thuram at RCB but others will see it differently.

I knew about his club position but with 'rijkaardgate' thought it unwise to say much :lol:
 
I actually agree that you should be faithful to world cup positions for these players. What I don't agree with is that -

false 9 ~= AM but RB can not be equal to CB.

The false 9 Cruyff played was different to the one you are used to with Messi. Cruyff kept swapping places with Neeskens and dropping into midfield, Messi at Barca has a clearly defined role, Cruyff didn't. I think RB and CB are very clearly defined roles, particularly when a player's best performance was in the attacking side of the fullback role. A Gentile for instance could easily slot RB and CB (in fact played both) without any major difference in terms of how he went about things, but Thuram definitely wasn't doing or contributing anything even remotely like what Blanc was.
 
The idea that thuram shouldn't be judged as a defensive full back because of one game (the only international game he ever scored in) is mental, he was a world class defender consistently and definitely is player you want defending for you.

I didn't mean I would assume he can't defend. Very much the opposite, that while most usually assume he doesn't contribute jack going forward, in this draft I certainly would.
 
I knew about his club position but with 'rijkaardgate' thought it unwise to say much :lol:


:lol: Aye

I think the best thing is just to take it lightly and have fun with it, I think/expect the debates to be much lighter in this one and just more focused on reminiscing about great world cup moments. It shouldn't be as competitive I don't think, there is too little certainty in the rules for that to happen - not Pol's fault of course who is always great at running these, it is just the nature of the draft.
 
That is clearly not the same thing. If a player displays great tactical awareness of a position BEFORE reaching his peak physique/technical ability - one can assume he still has that tactical awareness he showed when he was less experienced.

It is another thing to go the opposite way, if a player had his peak in his first WC as a striker, then later played as a defender. That means when he was in his peak physical/technical level he had not yet proven the needed tactical awareness.

If Messi was a defender 4 years ago, but now has improved physically and technically - we can assume Messi would still be able to play as a defender considering he also now has better attributes for it. Would it be his peak position? No. Would he handle it at a high level? Yes, most certainly.

I'm bored, something so simple has turned so theoretical purely as a result of 4-5 cases which could be easily resolved by playing people where they actually played. It's a massive pool, I really don't see the point at all.
 
The false 9 Cruyff played was different to the one you are used to with Messi. Cruyff kept swapping places with Neeskens and dropping into midfield, Messi at Barca has a clearly defined role, Cruyff didn't. I think RB and CB are very clearly defined roles, particularly when a player's best performance was in the attacking side of the fullback role. A Gentile for instance could easily slot RB and CB (in fact played both) without any major difference in terms of how he went about things, but Thuram definitely wasn't doing or contributing anything even remotely like what Blanc was.


Was Thuram in 98 playing the RB role same as someone like Cafu? No. Only reason someone would want Thuram as a RB would be to counter someone's ;eft wing with a strong defensive right back.
 
I knew about his club position but with 'rijkaardgate' thought it unwise to say much :lol:

Maybe you should have as you seem to be the most controversial manager around! Only just realised you are basically at the centre of "Platini vs. Zidane", "Rijkaardgate" and "FullbacksthatmagicallyturnintoCBsgate" :lol: Going back to Rijkaardgate, he wasn't particularly good but also played half his games as CB. Mindfeck.
 
Maybe you should have as you seem to be the most controversial manager around! Only just realised you are basically at the centre of "Platini vs. Zidane", "Rijkaardgate" and "FullbacksthatmagicallyturnintoCBsgate" :lol: Going back to Rijkaardgate, he wasn't particularly good but also played half his games as CB. Mindfeck.

feck da rulz.
 
I'm bored, something so simple has turned so theoretical purely as a result of 4-5 cases which could be easily resolved by playing people where they actually played. It's a massive pool, I really don't see the point at all.


All the rules states is "We judge players by their WC prime.". I haven't seen the admin of the draft define these rules, has he done so? If so, do you care to guide me to the specific posts.
 
:lol: Aye

I think the best thing is just to take it lightly and have fun with it, I think/expect the debates to be much lighter in this one and just more focused on reminiscing about great world cup moments. It shouldn't be as competitive I don't think, there is too little certainty in the rules for that to happen - not Pol's fault of course who is always great at running these, it is just the nature of the draft.

Of course it's not Pol's fault, the rules are crystal clear, it's not the nature of the draft but the nature of the managers trying to convert people into what best suits them. Baffling and unnecessary, there are hundreds of players to choose from.
 
Was Thuram in 98 playing the RB role same as someone like Cafu? No. Only reason someone would want Thuram as a RB would be to counter someone's ;eft wing with a strong defensive right back.

Of course you would prefer Thuram to Cafú in that scenario. Doesn't make him a CB at France 98 though.
 
Of course it's not Pol's fault, the rules are crystal clear, it's not the nature of the draft but the nature of the managers trying to convert people into what best suits them. Baffling and unnecessary, there are hundreds of players to choose from.


I think it is the nature of the draft, that is why everyone is interpreting it differently. You've read four or five different views and that isn't a coincidence
 
Of course it's not Pol's fault, the rules are crystal clear, it's not the nature of the draft but the nature of the managers trying to convert people into what best suits them. Baffling and unnecessary, there are hundreds of players to choose from.


I agree with this.
 
All the rules states is "We judge players by their WC prime.". I haven't seen the admin of the draft define these rules, has he done so? If so, do you care to guide me to the specific posts.

Maybe because that was obvious enough but we don't do obvious, we even had a debate over whether Baresi was a WC winner!

Briefly scanned through earlier posts

As per the OP, it is WC prime not WC average
On the position issue, I would say this tourney is based on actual WC performances so we go by what the player has done in the WC. Doing it at club level does not guarantee replicating the same level at the WC - plenty of players failed to bring their club form to the WC even when playing in the same position within similar set-up. This is something voters might consider.
 
You don't see the issue in defining prime? That it is all up to the manager to decide exactly how they define prime.

Also he says "I would say this tourney is based on actual WC performances so we go by what the player has done in the WC.".

That means if a player has shown his ability to play as a CB in a WC, then he will be regarded as capable of it as he has proven it at a WC level. Which clearly defines that Thuram can be played as a CB, albeit with some minor complications of course.
 
Thuram's prime was in 98, there's no question about it. He was still excellent and second best CB in 06 WC, that's not the point though. Point is sacrificing the monster he was in 98. That's blasphemy. Absolute blasphemy!
 
You don't see the issue in defining prime? That it is all up to the manager to decide exactly how they define prime.

Also he says "I would say this tourney is based on actual WC performances so we go by what the player has done in the WC.".

That means if a player has shown his ability to play as a CB in a WC, then he will be regarded as capable of it as he has proven it at a WC level. Which clearly defines that Thuram can be played as a CB, albeit with some minor complications of course.

If you consider Thuram's WC prime to be 06 by all means, play him at CB, if you consider it to be 98 then he is a right back. It's not difficult.

Maybe one difference is you weren't around in the last draft when we discussed starting this one. I even floated the idea of people putting the year next to a player's name so that all this positional nonsense was avoided.

Edit: Unfortunately I went too far and suggested someone could pick, in this case, Thuram 98 at RB and another manager Thuram 06 as CB. Was considered fecking confusing, which I agree seeing as we can't grasp simpler rules.
 
Thuram's prime was in 98, there's no question about it. He was still excellent and second best CB in 06 WC, that's not the point though. Point is sacrificing the monster he was in 98. That's blasphemy. Absolute blasphemy!

:lol: You can tell the difference between me upholding the rules and you being sore you missed out!
 
If you consider Thuram's WC prime to be 06 by all means, play him at CB, if you consider it to be 98 then he is a right back. It's not difficult.

Maybe one difference is you weren't around in the last draft when we discussed starting this one. I even floated the idea of people putting the year next to a player's name so that all this positional nonsense was avoided.


I am not discussing Thuram. But there are players who have shown they tactically master position X 4 years before their actual physical and technical prime.

Then it means that the player still has the tactical awareness of 4 years ago - combined with the new-found peak physical and technical ability.

The opposite is of course a no brainer. Thuram was in his peak in every way at 98 and had by then not shown that he had it in him to be a CB at all.
 
I am not discussing Thuram. But there are players who have shown they tactically master position X 4 years before their actual physical and technical prime.

Then it means that the player still has the tactical awareness of 4 years ago - combined with the new-found peak physical and technical ability.

The opposite is of course a no brainer. Thuram was in his peak in every way at 98 and had by then not shown that he had it in him to be a CB at all.

I don't care what they had in them or not, that's the route to endless pointless arguments like Rooney being turned into a midfielder or Cristiano having the attributes to play as an out and out striker later in his career.

WC draft, WC peak performance, where did he play? Right back. Simple.
 
I think that's his point Theon, half the problem is people not understanding what each other is getting at!


How is it? He said that he hadn't shown that he could play the position when had for his club
 
I don't care what they had in them or not, that's the route to endless pointless arguments like Rooney being turned into a midfielder or Cristiano having the attributes to play as an out and out striker later in his career.

WC draft, WC peak performance, where did he play? Right back. Simple.


Same for cryuff then.
 
If I see Thuram at CB I'll be thinking of him at WC 2006.

I don't think what a player had done or what position he played for his club should come into this at all.