Karma for owning Sydney Roosters? :eyesT: Why doesn't this sadness end
Karma for owning Sydney Roosters? :eyesT: Why doesn't this sadness end
It didn't happen overnight but it wasn't noticeable because I used to be a part of like 6-7 leagues maybe more at once! Here it's different we have one of the best squad that just won't fire together!Karma for owning Sydney Roosters? :eyes
Peshawar Zalmi almost released all its squad with retaining just 5 players. Yet we are quite happy with the current squad we have built this season with the current releases and current draft rulesA polite suggestion for @Na Maloom Afraad:
Next season onwards, you should look towards enforcing a certain number of releases before the draft for all teams, because this current method isn't the fairest one where the teams themselves decide on how many they want to retain and release.
Let's say Team A selects a formidable side in their first draft, they then automatically have the luxury to retain that formidable side for as many seasons as they want. In the current method, all someone needs hypothetically is one outstanding draft to form a monopoly for God knows how many seasons. He will not release the players, and nobody else would be able to pick them. Although the players' performance won't remain the same forever, the current method does have a technical loophole. Imposing a specified number of releases, no matter how big or less it is would ensure more equality and fairness, in my opinion.
I would be really interested in everyone's, and most importantly NMA's opinion on this.
Fair enough, but on another day, you could be entirely disappointed if the other teams retained 80% of their players. You'd have none of your desired players, especially local ones left to pick.Peshawar Zalmi almost released all its squad with retaining just 5 players. Yet we are quite happy with the current squad we have built.
If other teams would have retained 80% of their players, we would have gotten superb lead in the drafts and would have picked top-level new players as well as best ones from 20% of released players, which the other teams will miss out on. So it will again balance it out I guess.Fair enough, but on another day, you could be entirely disappointed if the other teams retained 80% of their players. You'd have none of your desired players, especially local ones left to pick.
Oh yep, that's a good point, a very good one, in fact. I didn't think that way. Your POV makes sense tooIf other teams would have retained 80% of their players, we would have gotten superb lead in the drafts and would have picked top-level new players as well as best ones from 20% of released players, which the other teams will miss out on. So it will again balance it out I guess.
I don't mind the current method because it keep some realism. But it's a good point that one good draft (which depends on IRL factors allowing you to be timely with your picks) can leave you with a strong core for years.A polite suggestion for @Na Maloom Afraad that has popped up in my head since a few days:
Next season onwards, you should look towards enforcing a certain number of releases before the draft for all teams, because this current method isn't the fairest one where the teams themselves decide on how many they want to retain and release.
Let's say Team A selects a formidable side in their first draft, they then automatically have the luxury to retain that formidable side for as many seasons as they want. In the current method, all someone needs hypothetically is one outstanding draft to form a monopoly for God knows how many seasons. He will not release the players, and nobody else would be able to pick them. Although the players' performance won't remain the same forever, the current method does have a technical loophole. Imposing a specified number of releases, no matter how big or less it is would ensure more equality and fairness, in my opinion.
I would be really interested in everyone's, and most importantly NMA's opinion on this.