With the Premier League taking its annual deep breath in preparation for the New Year (also known as the January transfer window), many fantasy players are also taking stock and thinking about their needs for a Manchester United-like second-half surge towards their league title.
That is also true in the Times Football Writers' League, where time is running out for anyone hoping to catch leader Peter Lansley, our man in the Midlands, whose team name - "Lamentables" - seems to be poking fun at his pursuers. He has 97 points, 14 more than the team in second place.
Peter's success has been built on his defenders, who have put him at the top of the goals and assists and league points gained categories. And now that Jason Roberts looks like becoming a regular at a resurgent Blackburn Rovers, his forwards are likely to help keep him ahead.
The closest pursuer, on 83 points, is James Ducker, who is taking over from Oliver Kay as our supremo in the North-West now that Oli has been elevated to Chief Football Correspondent. His area of need is defence, in which he is bottom of the table, although his attacking players lead the way in successful passes, assists and minutes played.
In third place, with 80.5 points, is George Caulkin, whose relative success is surely a consequence of the fact that he has not selected many players from his patch in the North-East. Tony Evans, our Liverpool-supporting football editor, who has three Reds but also Mikel Arteta and Steven Pienaar helping him out, is fourth on 78.5. Two London-based reporters, Nick Szczepanik (76) and Tom Dart (71.5), have an outside chance of making a late run from mid-table, but after that comes a big gap of 16.5 points.
We'll spare the others the embarrassment of detailing their shortcomings as fantasy managers. All we'll say is that fifty percent had to be in the bottom half of the table!
Comments (4)
Hi...thanks for a great game again this year.
I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned this before - or maybe they already have, way back when on a previous thread - but in two of my leagues this year one single manager is running two separate teams. These two individuals are also transferring players between their two teams to create "superteams".
I realise that according to PTG rules managers are allowed to enter 2 teams in the same league and see no reason why they shouldn't, but I question whether the creation of "superteams" is really in the spirit of PTG.
I also realise that fellow managers can attempt to block these transfers, as indeed we have in both cases - but a high proportion of inactive managers coupled with incredible persistence on the part of the "offending" individuals has meant that the majority eventually go though anyway....due also to the fact that 48 hours is a relatively short waiting period and even active managers have normal lives to lead and can't log on every day to block them.
Many managers have also left their objections in comments on the league blogs but to no avail. Actually, in one case, the "superteam" manager actually ridiculed us.
Would appreciate some feedback on this.
PTG - We are sorry to hear that some managers in your league are spoiling your enjoyment and that there are managers who are not entering into the spirit into which the game is intended to be played.
There is not a lot we can do at this stage as no rules have been broken, however maybe we look at this for next year and restrict each person to only one entry per league.
Posted by Eddie | January 6, 2009 8:00 PM
Posted on January 6, 2009 20:00
I raised this same point when the leagues were first allocated and I had a manager with THREE teams in one of my leagues.
At the time the reply was this would not be allowed in future - the above reply says MAYBE it will be changed.
I have not had a problem in my league but Eddie has had exactly the problems I envisaged from this scenario.
Should be one team per manager per league - same owner can't have more than a controlling interest in the Premiership.
PTG - Hi Bob, you are absolutely correct for leagues created by the 'league matcher'. The league matcher had a technical issue on it's first day that allowed leagues to be created where a manager could have more than one team in a league. This was fixed immediately and didn't occur subsequently.
If users chose to find their own public league or to create their own private league then these leagues could still have a manager with more than one team. We will not comment on individual leagues in the blog and do not know what type of league Eddie is in, but to clarify our comment yesterday, maybe we should look at imposing a rule across all leagues that a manager can only have one team in a league.
Posted by Bob H | January 8, 2009 11:44 AM
Posted on January 8, 2009 11:44
Whilst I have not experienced the situations that Eddie and Bob have faced this season, I would like to suggest an idea for next season.
Rather than the current rule where more than 50% of managers are needed to block a transfer, instead I would suggest that: more than 50% of managers who log on into that league in the 48 hour notice period that reject a deal to prevent it from going through. This would help in league where there are a lot of inactive managers.
Still a great game though!
PTG - Thanks for the comment, will add it to our thoughts for next season.
Posted by Matt | January 12, 2009 9:16 PM
Posted on January 12, 2009 21:16
Further to my post on Jan 6 and in answer to PTG, I'm a manager in two public leagues.
As regards Matt's suggestion, I feel this is very viable. The majority of transfers between managers are 100% kosher and I have never seen an objection posted to them either (I've had teams in 7 different leagues in the last 2 years).
There should be a more practical way to stop unsporting managers from bending the rules.
Posted by Eddie | January 14, 2009 12:15 PM
Posted on January 14, 2009 12:15