Question about Pat's side. Will Kocsis receive many good crosses in the game? Hamrin was more of a scorer than a provider and Best played more like a roaming forward when played on the left. It just looks like he won't get as much service as he would like
2021 Sheep Draft QF - Edgar Allan Pillow vs. Pat_Mustard
- Thread starter Michaelf7777777
- Start date
A few other thoughts:
- Vierchowod has quite a stellar record in defending against Batistuta, limiting him to 3 goals (2 from open play) in 11 Serie A games. It's worth pointing out that Pietro was about 200 years old and playing for Piacenza for several of those matches. On the contrary, I disagree with Edgar on Hierro being a particularly good fit against Kocsis. He was obviously excellent on the ball and big, strong brute, but I don't think facing a player as nimble and elusive as Kocsis really plays to his strengths.
- Not sure if Edgar's system or personnel are equipped to stop Leandro overloading his left wing when I'm in possession.
No doubt Gilmar will have the higher historical standing if we go by lists and the like, but personally I thought Toldo was the dog's bollocks and I have my doubts that Gilmar was actually a better goalkeeper than him. Interested to hear what others think here.
- Vierchowod has quite a stellar record in defending against Batistuta, limiting him to 3 goals (2 from open play) in 11 Serie A games. It's worth pointing out that Pietro was about 200 years old and playing for Piacenza for several of those matches. On the contrary, I disagree with Edgar on Hierro being a particularly good fit against Kocsis. He was obviously excellent on the ball and big, strong brute, but I don't think facing a player as nimble and elusive as Kocsis really plays to his strengths.
- Not sure if Edgar's system or personnel are equipped to stop Leandro overloading his left wing when I'm in possession.
No doubt Gilmar will have the higher historical standing if we go by lists and the like, but personally I thought Toldo was the dog's bollocks and I have my doubts that Gilmar was actually a better goalkeeper than him. Interested to hear what others think here.
Anyway - voted for Mustard.
But this is very close for me - much closer to a draw than a clear win.
But this is very close for me - much closer to a draw than a clear win.
Excellent question - and something I considered too.
Neither Best nor Hamrin is an obvious super crosser.
Leandro is a player I don't know nearly enough about, to be honest - but he's regarded as offensively solid, with a decent foot, played as more of a wing-back at times, etc. So he's a plausible source for crosses (for Kocsis).
In Kocsis' case, though - this is a player who was extreme in the air. He wouldn't need pin-point crosses to be a threat.
Individually, Pat arguably has the two weakest points here: and that would be Leandro and Furino.
Considering the overall standard in this draft (which has turned into a GOAT heavy one, and so forth), I mean.
So, that goes in favour of EAP - for me. But the overall (individual) quality of the sides is nevertheless very close, possibly even going to Mustard when you consider every player on the pitch.
Considering the overall standard in this draft (which has turned into a GOAT heavy one, and so forth), I mean.
So, that goes in favour of EAP - for me. But the overall (individual) quality of the sides is nevertheless very close, possibly even going to Mustard when you consider every player on the pitch.
As suggested above, I'd rather put Desailly on the Kocsis detail - so, yeah, I agree with that.
I think we're going off on a tangent here, since we're talking about United now, but I don't really agree with that. When we play a diamond off the ball, sure, Bruno will step up and press now and then, but he's not exclusively playing up there and normally his starting position is deeper and behind the front two when we play a diamond. If you compare this will a more standard front 3, you'll notice that all three players who play upfront will actually hold their positions up the pitch and press the backline directly without anyone dropping deep unless the opposition change their possession line or are about to do so.
In the attacking phase, United are not 4-4-2, they usually are 3-2-5 or 3-3-4 or a similar variant. A back 4 doesn't happen in attacking phases of modern football and definitely not at United. Here, one of Matic, McT, or Fred drop back in line with the CBs, and play out, with the fullbacks pushing forward into midfield (or attack depending on the game) with Bruno and the other midfielder (usually Pogba or Fred/McT) playing as the two.
If it's a WM, it is basically a back 3. For the backline to work as per that tactic, you need CBs who can also defend as fullbacks from time to time in those wide roles, but for most part, they will be closer to the keeper than the wide areas in a typical WM. Saying they will operate like a back 4 just blows the whole formation out the water.
My point is that Edgar has the right personnel for a WM the way it is meant to be played. This back 4 tweak that completely breaks the tactic isn't even needed. Desailly will track Pele's runs and Stilike will shield the back 4 and keep an eye on Neeskens. Best and Hamrin will have the ball when on the flanks during buildup but they'd meet resistance when cutting in centrally as is intended by the system. The only question mark is around whether Hierro will be able to deal with Kocsis - but that would be the question in a back 4 tactic as well.
Tbh I wasn't averse to the idea of replacing Hamrin for this round in favour of a more classical provider after picking up Kocsis, but it didn't happen. In fairness I think he'll be invaluable in this match in terms of pulling Maldini away from the centre. As regards crosses, Leandro will play an important role here - a proper attacking RB with excellent delivery.
Just seen the thread. Seems like a lot of interesting stuff to read.
WM isn't played for a reason today, you need to have wide attackers tracking back or DM who will be able to operate between the lines switching it from back 3 and back 4 imo which is happening here. That is the only way you can defend defensive solidity against modern formation which is why I think Edgar did the right thing opting for one.
Some fair points, although I don't agree with United 4-4-2 diamond. It is clear and obvious switch in formations. We didn't played it often though and Bruno only once played in such way for example. Also, you go about United not playing flat 4 ever in the offensive phase but 3-3-4 or 3-2-5 while here in the very thread go about us not playing WM because our DM if necessary will go down making back 4 which is a bit confusing and contradictory as it is excatly what this team is doing. General team shape is one thing, movement and some player instruction inside of it another.
Edgar and me went into a bit of a rabbit hole here, but realistically your chances of winning and having defensive solidity against modern formation should be covered either by DM dropping down in defensive phase (not immediately once the ball is lost and in transition which is a big difference) or by outside forwards tracking back. If you don't do that, you can only win points in a sense that bepo already explained. "oh wow, it is WM, looks lovely and players fit". Basic WM can't do shit against any modern formation.
Okay, finally managed to read most of it.
My thoughts on Edgar's team -
1. You can't play a WM every round. As much as the fits in your own team matter w.r.t the WM, unlike other modern formations, the WM simply can't work against some systems.
2. The opponent formation is important as your own while choosing the WM.
3. The exception to the above point being having exceptional fits in the front 5 who can all contribute defensively (Giggs/Nedved/Figo/Charlton/Gullit/Littbarski/Conti/Muller/Seeler).
4. The front 5 hardly offers any cover here and the likes of Leandro and Best will run riot IMO.
5. That being said, the back 5 is incredibly well built although I am not a fan of Hierro there. Has to be someone more agile there IMO who can match any forward when left 1 vs 1. Doesn't even have to be a Baresi, even someone like Tresor would work much better
On the back 3 vs back 4 debate (in my eyes) -
1. No, its not supposed to transform to a back 4 by default.
2. The wide CBs should not ideally have to constantly drift wide and worry about wide men constantly putting the ball in.
3. Hence the choice of opponent and the defensive contribution from the front 5 is important.
4. The extra DM should drop into defense only in the rare scenarios when the wide CB has to run outwards when the opponent wide man (ideally fullback/wingback and not orthodox winger) has escaped his tracker and not throughout the game.
5. Its more of a back up worst case option in which case the team should be able to transform to a 4-3-3 to support numbers in midfield (which I cant see Cruyff and Rivellino doing too well here)
You'd want your WM to remain as narrow as possible in the defensive phase with the back 5 being well organized in proper shape while being supported by the front 5.
Voted for Pat here because -
1. Its a well built WM that would be really great on the ball, but...
2. Its a WM built to face a WM and not a modern formation.
My thoughts on Edgar's team -
1. You can't play a WM every round. As much as the fits in your own team matter w.r.t the WM, unlike other modern formations, the WM simply can't work against some systems.
2. The opponent formation is important as your own while choosing the WM.
3. The exception to the above point being having exceptional fits in the front 5 who can all contribute defensively (Giggs/Nedved/Figo/Charlton/Gullit/Littbarski/Conti/Muller/Seeler).
4. The front 5 hardly offers any cover here and the likes of Leandro and Best will run riot IMO.
5. That being said, the back 5 is incredibly well built although I am not a fan of Hierro there. Has to be someone more agile there IMO who can match any forward when left 1 vs 1. Doesn't even have to be a Baresi, even someone like Tresor would work much better
I tend to agree here. I'm the first to admit that my understanding of the WM is sketchy at best, but repeatedly pointing out that it can effectively revert to something very close to a standard back four suggests that it would have been better to just go with a back four from the outset. Against wingers as great as Best and Hamrin, surely you'd want Burgnich and Maldini playing as FBs from the get-go rather than geing pulled out wide anyway and hoping a DM can plug the gap seamlessly?
On the back 3 vs back 4 debate (in my eyes) -
1. No, its not supposed to transform to a back 4 by default.
2. The wide CBs should not ideally have to constantly drift wide and worry about wide men constantly putting the ball in.
3. Hence the choice of opponent and the defensive contribution from the front 5 is important.
4. The extra DM should drop into defense only in the rare scenarios when the wide CB has to run outwards when the opponent wide man (ideally fullback/wingback and not orthodox winger) has escaped his tracker and not throughout the game.
5. Its more of a back up worst case option in which case the team should be able to transform to a 4-3-3 to support numbers in midfield (which I cant see Cruyff and Rivellino doing too well here)
You'd want your WM to remain as narrow as possible in the defensive phase with the back 5 being well organized in proper shape while being supported by the front 5.
Voted for Pat here because -
1. Its a well built WM that would be really great on the ball, but...
2. Its a WM built to face a WM and not a modern formation.
Last edited:
On team @Pat_Mustard , I'd really hope to see a well defined role for Passarella in the next game. I am still not sure if he is being used well.
Not sure if things can be changed a bit going ahead but I do see some options (maybe a 4-3-3 with Pele left - Best right, Robson and Neeskens with complete freedom with a DM covering them and then Passarella has the freedom to jump in).
Not sure if things can be changed a bit going ahead but I do see some options (maybe a 4-3-3 with Pele left - Best right, Robson and Neeskens with complete freedom with a DM covering them and then Passarella has the freedom to jump in).
Like Socrates and Sivori as AM with Bratseth as LCB. With Finney on the side?
I don't mean this in a rude way at all. It is all about selling and you sold that one quite brilliantly ignoring most of the points you raised against this team.
Like Socrates and Sivori as AM with Bratseth as LCB. With Finney on the side?
I don't mean this in a rude way at all. It is all about selling and you sold that one quite brilliantly ignoring most of the points you raised against this team.
It obviously wasn't an ideal WM but the difference being I wasn't facing a team filled with GOATs. It was the virgin draft after all.
More importantly -
1. I had Littbarski to track Marcelo. Who is tracking Leandro here?
2. I had Heynckes and Mbappe running at my wide men neither of whom can be seen similar to Best to trouble from the touchline.
3. Which is why I said Leandro and Best will simply take away the game here and run riot.
That WM wasn't a great one (maybe well sold but not excellently well built to be considered flawless).
A much better one would be the below one and even it has its flaws (the left side is defensively weak). But the right side is absolutely flawless with Gullit/Figo/Bastian/Thuram. (Add Muller centrally as an excellent option as well)
Managed to dig up that match thread and below is one of my comments from that game, so I am at least being consistent
Last edited:
Will take that, thanks.
Leandro shouldn't run more then 30 yards forward considering that the team is set up for Gento in transition. I would argue it is also a biggest one on one mismatch here, but I know you rate Leandro defensive game. Aside from me thinking he is no more then solid, the conditions are also far from ideal for him here.
As for 2nd question you had Mbappe running at Bratseth as LCB of all people. Maybe even bigger margin then Best at Burgnich.
But all credit as I said. You went in it (aside from good selling) with a fresh and new formation which is always nice to see and worth few points. I always appreciate that part.
Anyway, think we covered most parts in any case. That is a lovely WM, fully agree.
I think it’s a good WM. Ticks all the boxes around side CBs who can cover wide, DMs who have defensive instincts and can play in defence, AMs who can graft, etc. Was it Cruyff and Gullit in the AM roles in the first round because that was a gorgeous partnership? I think Gento would get the better of just about every full-back too, even though Leandro would be heavily influential in the middle third here.
Ultimately it’s just really difficult to defend against GOAT dribblers like Pele and Best when you are light on bodies in certain areas and give up a lot of space, which is basically how the WM is set up. That 20 minutes or so Pep’s Bayern played against Barcelona in the semi-final with that isolated back 3 against a front 3 is the closest example to how I imagine it might go in a modern context.
Ultimately it’s just really difficult to defend against GOAT dribblers like Pele and Best when you are light on bodies in certain areas and give up a lot of space, which is basically how the WM is set up. That 20 minutes or so Pep’s Bayern played against Barcelona in the semi-final with that isolated back 3 against a front 3 is the closest example to how I imagine it might go in a modern context.
Good game @Pat_Mustard.
Every instinct warned me to go 4-2-3-1 and use my fullbacks to balance out your wingers. But I came into this draft for WM and so stuck with that.
............................Batigol......................
Gento................. Cruyff............Amaro
................ Desailly........ Stielike.............
Maldini....Maldini.... Hierro...... Burgnich
All the best way forward!
Every instinct warned me to go 4-2-3-1 and use my fullbacks to balance out your wingers. But I came into this draft for WM and so stuck with that.
............................Batigol......................
Gento................. Cruyff............Amaro
................ Desailly........ Stielike.............
Maldini....Maldini.... Hierro...... Burgnich
All the best way forward!
Jesus Edgar, you even had two Maldini's!!
Best of luck going forward mad dog <3
Best of luck going forward mad dog <3
Well plyed lads! I thought I was likely to lose this early on as the voting was so close, you were arguing your case very well, and I was too drunk to retort last night
. I agree with @GodShaveTheQueen that the four man defence was the pragmatic way to go for you in this match but there's a real satisfaction in sticking with the plan and going out on your shield too. Strangely enough if reinforcements had panned out properly for me you'd have been facing a more narrow, aesthetically unpleasing asymetric job that would have played into your strengths.Aye, first round they were able to field that imposing Cruyff-Gullit combo
Agreed that an opposition with top-notch wingers is very difficult for a WM to overcome, and that Gullit would have made a big difference in mitigating against their vulnerability out of possession.
I was pretty happy with my use of Passarella here (fairly defensive LB, dedicated DM), but granted I was appallingly lazy with my write up and made little effort to elaborate on his role and conditions. In general in terms of my star players, I was very happy with the conditions for Passarella and Best in this match, and pretty content with Pele's environment too. Kocsis was fine but clearly not optimum, Hamrin in isolation seems redundant but was useful vs the WM. Neeskens had a good degree of freedom positionally with Furino beside him but would have benefitted from a bit more guile and passing quality to mitigate against his relative weaknesses.
The 4-3-3 was my ultimate goal until I got Passarella at the end of the initial drafting, but it's going to require a bit more thought now, and depending on injuries and reinforcement luck it may well be that Passarella ends up being a bit under-utilised next match.
Both teams are upgraded in terms of #9.
A random suggestion - what do you think about the following team?
A random suggestion - what do you think about the following team?
@Edgar Allan Pillow Kuddos for proposing a not so popular WM in terms of vote. Gullit injured is a big loss.
@Pat_Mustard Congrats
@Pat_Mustard Congrats
True that Stielike is better in midfield but the public ennemy is Pele: so a duo Hierro/Desailly in front of Stielike *** Thinking loudly ****
Unsure about Burgnish in managing the flying Best and Furino in this galactico game.
The unpicked Sammer instead of Stilieke and the outcome and Maldini deployed on the right side and the outcome could have been very different.
2 pages of discussion, nice
Unsure about Burgnish in managing the flying Best and Furino in this galactico game.
The unpicked Sammer instead of Stilieke and the outcome and Maldini deployed on the right side and the outcome could have been very different.
2 pages of discussion, nice
Both teams are upgraded in terms of #9.
A random suggestion - what do you think about the following team?
That is a really great shout, Like this defense a lot keeping the opposition in mind.
Isn't that pretty much just a disguised WM or how it would look normally in the defensive phase? It looks better as it seems more compact.
Its not a change in formation. Just a change in the sides of the wide CBs
Ah, nice move then.
Hope it's not too annoying, but still trying to get behind the WM in drafts. Replying to Beam.
Obviously, say, a modern 4-3-3 can change to a flat 4-4-2 against the ball, or to a 3 man backline in possession. And do on. Different ways to control spaces in different situations.
In older games I watched, formations were shifting as well, but for another reason: markers could be all over the place, as their marking target defined their movement, Ffee players like the libero fixed the holes. Of course there's some zonal aspect to man-marking as well, and vice versa. But the principles are different, and I don't think you can capture defensive movement with numerical formations like 3-5-2, but rather with which defending player tracks which opponent, and who fills the gaps.
I see the WM as a case of the latter principle (the back five basically mirroring the opposition's WM, lots of 1 on 1 defending), and am not convinced when the defensive phase is portrayed as a shift to a modern zonal defense, instead of specifying marking assignments.
That said, I don't have much of a clue about the mechanics of the WM, and am thankful for any explanations/corrections. There's also a possibility I'm just thick.
My question would still be: if draft WM wingers are supposed to act like wingbacks against the ball, why not portray it as a 3-4-3 right away? After all, the WM in the OP doesn't look too different from a 3-4-3 in possession, with both wingbacks extremely high. Also, why not play actual wingbacks there, who are better suited to the two-way job than most wingers?
The main problem I have with this is that we're talking zonal system vs man marking.
Obviously, say, a modern 4-3-3 can change to a flat 4-4-2 against the ball, or to a 3 man backline in possession. And do on. Different ways to control spaces in different situations.
In older games I watched, formations were shifting as well, but for another reason: markers could be all over the place, as their marking target defined their movement, Ffee players like the libero fixed the holes. Of course there's some zonal aspect to man-marking as well, and vice versa. But the principles are different, and I don't think you can capture defensive movement with numerical formations like 3-5-2, but rather with which defending player tracks which opponent, and who fills the gaps.
I see the WM as a case of the latter principle (the back five basically mirroring the opposition's WM, lots of 1 on 1 defending), and am not convinced when the defensive phase is portrayed as a shift to a modern zonal defense, instead of specifying marking assignments.
That said, I don't have much of a clue about the mechanics of the WM, and am thankful for any explanations/corrections. There's also a possibility I'm just thick.
Not sure if you really mean 3-2-3-2, but assuming you rather mean 3-2-2-3 (= WM). If not, ignore the following.
My question would still be: if draft WM wingers are supposed to act like wingbacks against the ball, why not portray it as a 3-4-3 right away? After all, the WM in the OP doesn't look too different from a 3-4-3 in possession, with both wingbacks extremely high. Also, why not play actual wingbacks there, who are better suited to the two-way job than most wingers?
Didn't read the whole post but the quoted impression is wrong
Beam's line or my understanding of what he said?
(If the former, I understand he didn't mean the historic WM, but a modern adaption.)
Last edited:
@Synco my point was that in such a narrow formation and against 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 you need to either pull your wingers down like 3-2-3-2 formation does (Barcelona example) or pull one of DM's in the backline. So, I just used Barcelona modern tactics as an example.
I just can't see any other way for a team to not get killed on the flanks. Well, unless it is GOAT heavy.
In WM, 2 wingers or outside left and right are way too high though to draw them back and still have the same threat in the attacking phase imo (you pretty much also don't play WM by doing that) and because of that I liked Edgar option here more. I just see it as more pragmatic way in the defensive phase. The question of when do they switch, do they do it all the time is another matter and I can understand people having hard time to envision that part also which is why I went about constant change of formations in the modern game. Maybe the solution is if one of DM helps defending wide. Am not sure as mechanics of WM are a bit difficult for me also. I just don't see it being near enough compact to be successful in modern game whatever you do.
WM isn't played for a good reason today. It is pretty much suicidal. That doesn't mean you shouldn't play it in the draft. If WM is built in a manner that all players look like a brilliant fit then I would often still vote for it as it is really hard to pull that off successfully. For example, I would vote more often then not for that team of GodShave above.
I just can't see any other way for a team to not get killed on the flanks. Well, unless it is GOAT heavy.
In WM, 2 wingers or outside left and right are way too high though to draw them back and still have the same threat in the attacking phase imo (you pretty much also don't play WM by doing that) and because of that I liked Edgar option here more. I just see it as more pragmatic way in the defensive phase. The question of when do they switch, do they do it all the time is another matter and I can understand people having hard time to envision that part also which is why I went about constant change of formations in the modern game. Maybe the solution is if one of DM helps defending wide. Am not sure as mechanics of WM are a bit difficult for me also. I just don't see it being near enough compact to be successful in modern game whatever you do.
WM isn't played for a good reason today. It is pretty much suicidal. That doesn't mean you shouldn't play it in the draft. If WM is built in a manner that all players look like a brilliant fit then I would often still vote for it as it is really hard to pull that off successfully. For example, I would vote more often then not for that team of GodShave above.
Sorry, was busy and just reading these.
It's just looking at part of the story when looking at defensive frailties of a WM and ignoring the offensive advantages. Even against a 4 man defence players like Best and Pele will have their influence, so against a 3 man D, even with astute DM's like mine, I would be crazy to argue I can keep them out. Yeah, they will score....but as importantly...so would have my team!
+ You have 2 DMs vs 2 AMs and that always going to tilt in my favor. Cruyff vs Furino is a advantage (You can see in video Gio posted on how influential Cruyff was in a real match facing Furino).
+ 4 midfielders to 3 against gives me dominance in the middle.
+ Gento vs Leandro. let's be honest, Gento will own this. Gento is probably the best pure left winger after Best in all time list imo.
My team was as likely to score as his.
The point is both teams have same number of players. If I have one less in defence then means I have one more in offence. this game was never to be a 0-0 game (as is common in modern football thinking) but likely to be a 1-1 or 2-2 at best. My superiors sidebacks might have been the key factor.
I find difficult to assess players like Furino and Hamrin.
Hamrin is - I guess - "simply" a brilliant (goal scoring) winger: quick, agile, excellent dribbler - very good finisher. Similar in style of play to any number of players, I suppose - above some, below others, in terms of quality in an historical context (but clearly someone who deserves to be mentioned in an historical context).
Furino is harder to pin down in the sense that he's "just" a fairly standard Italian style defensive midfielder who doesn't really possess any obvious standout traits you could easily highlight in a YouTube compilation. Plus - his prime was the 70s, which wasn't a great period for Italian football compared to what came before, and what happened later.
17 full matches featuring Furino available at Footballia.
10 for Hamrin - including one against United, actually.
Re: Furino
It's interesting to compare him to players like Oriali and Bonini - who were arguably very similar in style, but who won major trophies and are recognized as important cogs in historically great teams (Italy '82 and Juve '85).
Or - for that matter - someone like Ambrosini, perhaps.
I'm sure you could make a case for Furino being better, individually, than those players * - say, in terms of leadership, mentality, etc.
But those qualities are hard to display in a highlight video - and he never featured in a major (international) trophy/classic final.
* I'm not prepared to do that myself - but it seems plausible enough. He captained Juve to eight Scudettos (or Scudetti, more precisely).
It's interesting to compare him to players like Oriali and Bonini - who were arguably very similar in style, but who won major trophies and are recognized as important cogs in historically great teams (Italy '82 and Juve '85).
Or - for that matter - someone like Ambrosini, perhaps.
I'm sure you could make a case for Furino being better, individually, than those players * - say, in terms of leadership, mentality, etc.
But those qualities are hard to display in a highlight video - and he never featured in a major (international) trophy/classic final.
* I'm not prepared to do that myself - but it seems plausible enough. He captained Juve to eight Scudettos (or Scudetti, more precisely).
Last edited:
@Chesterlestreet
Thanks for your answers. The comparison with Oriali/Ambrosini/Bonini is interesting.
I have Oriali in my squad: I would need to watch a full game to start to have some solid views about him.
Thanks for your answers. The comparison with Oriali/Ambrosini/Bonini is interesting.
I have Oriali in my squad: I would need to watch a full game to start to have some solid views about him.