40s Draft Final: Gio&Theon vs Joga Bonito

[Balu]

Those matches include the qualifiers for Euro '72, when Poland were drawn in West Germany's group (as well as the Olympics which the Eastern European teams once took a lot more seriously).

Wasn't that because of the amateur status of the players and the weird olympic rules? Germany took the 1972 Olympic tournament as seriously as we could, playing many, many friendlies with the amateur side over the 3 years prior to the Olympics, trying to find a great team. But as far as I know players who had already featured at a World Cup weren't eligible and I think amateur status was still necessary to take part, which ruled out all the players on real contracts. A young Uli Hoeneß and a few sub appearances by a very young Manni Kaltz were the only big names that played for Germany despite the fact that it was played on home soil. Ottmar Hitzfeld was leading the line for us for example and he certainly wasn't a quality player.

It gave the Eastern European teams a huge advantage because the leagues in all the communist states were mostly amateur leagues, at least on paper, not necessarily in quality.

I'm not arguing the quality of the players, I've barely seen any footage of the Olympic tournaments and Anczok missed the 74 WC due to injures if I'm not mistaken, but I think it's wrong to say the Eastern European teams took it more seriously. They could play full strength teams, which the big Western European countries couldn't, so it's not a surprise that the top 4 were all from communist nations (Poland, Hungary, Russia and East Germany).

/edit:
just to make sure, I'm not trying to downplay your player, no clue about that and it's certainly a good sign that he excelled against quality full strength Eastern European teams at the Olympics, just wanted to talk about the reasons why Eastern European sides were more successful at the Olympics back then.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Gio/Theons team is insane.

Yeah, if you ignore their fullbacks.

 

[Gio]

@Balu Aye definitely. The point was really that the tournament meant something to the Eastern Europeans and some other parts of the world, which is hard to reconcile with how we look at it nowadays. I'd also add to what you wrote above that there was a certain pride in Olympic sport that the Communist countries took and that was backed up by systematic organisation, preparation and support.

 

[Gio]

Where I believe we'll have a real advantage is in the quality and synergy that the four above have on the ball. That four were the hub of Brazil's 1970 team and should dictate and decide the game here. I'd fancy Jairzinho to get the better of Greig over the course of the match. Even accounting for the graft in Joga's midfield, the central triangle of Gerson, Clodoaldo and Pele should be too hot to handle. While Jairzinho, Muller and Cubillas are such devastatingly ruthless outlets to capitalise on that level of service.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Gio/Theons team is insane.

You might have voted wrongly then mate , seeing as you voted for me. Anyway, there is no denying the quality that Gio's team possesses and I've already alluded to that in the write-up. However, both teams are fairly even in the grand scheme of things and I do believe I have the more balanced set-up and one that should better exploit Gio's weaknesses. Ultimately it depends on whether people buy Gio's firepower against a great defense featuring one of the greatest CB partnerships of all time & C.Alberto as opposed to me exploiting their weaknesses better (three man midfield with two proper dynamos, meaning a harder time for Gerson; a better and a free-er platform for Netzer; better playmakers overall in Netzer, Der Kaiser, Carlos Alberto; more advantageous match-ups in Best vs Shalamanov and Ball-C.Alberto vs Anczcok).

In fact, in the interest of fairness, I've actually held my hands up and admitted that Jairzinho should have the edge here against Greig, but it's just slightly unnerving watching Gio paint out Anczok and Shalamanov, to a lesser extent, to be right at home here untroubled. Keep in mind that they barely have any defensive support as well and leaving Best alone with Shalamanov for 90 minutes, with Netzer free in the middle is seriously asking for trouble.

The Brazil '70 quartet are reunited. Instead of Rivelino we have Cubillas who, in my view, is a similar but tidier tactical fit with his ball-carrying ability, foraging and preference to defer to a central playmaker (Cueto/Gerson).

I really don't see how Cubillas is in anyway similar to Rivelino at all nor how his ball carrying it foraging would be optimal here. Now I've watched all of Brazil's 1970 matches just recently, right from their group games to the final, during the process of making the Carlos Alberto video, and Rivelino played a great and an underrated tactical role. He frequently dropped into midfield to aid Gerson and Clodoaldo and provided nice balance to the directness of Pele and Jairzinho, as too did Tostao to a certain extent. In fact during the final, he assiduously stuck to the left flank to provide balance, as Jairzinho was instructed to play a more tucked in role than usual, to provide C.Alberto the room to rampage forward.

Cubillas on the other hand, is an extremely direct player and a similar player to Pele, who actually proclaimed him to be his successor, and it hardly a creative
playmaking midfielder like Rivelino but rather an extremely direct second-striker. Now Pele was pretty good at playing the facilitatory glue role for Brazil 1970 but he was still predominantly a direct player, as opposed to being a purely playmaking facilitator and you have the uber-direct Cubillas and Jairzinho at either side of him. Also you've effectively compromised supplementary midfield support for Gerson in playing a more direct player there in Cubillas, whilst also depriving Gerson of C.Alberto's presence down the right who helped him immensely during the build-up phase (just watch the C.Alberto video and the number of times they link up together). With Jairzinho on the right and Pele in the middle, you'd much rather have a Rivelino or a wider presence like Dzajic.

In fairness to
joga he has dibs on Carlos Alberto. As much as we'd like to have him on board, fortunately this match, with Best the likely opponent, calls for a less expansive full-back focused primarily on their defensive responsibilities. We have that in Alexsander Shalamanov, a double Olympian sportsman whose physicality and pace made him one of the shining defensive lights of the 1966 World Cup.

Really? I'm sorry but Best, Shalamanov and fortunate, simply do not get to go together in the same sentence

 

[Gol123]

Yeah, if you ignore their fullbacks.

George Best will feck shit up in this match.

 

[Gio]

Netzer is as free as Pele is Joga. You can't have it both ways there.

 

[Gio]

The very qualities you describe in Cubillas are why this works. He's less of a traditional playmaker than Rivelino. He's more direct and more adept at cutting into the inside-left channel. We've already got plenty of playmaking with Gerson and, to a lesser extent, Pele.

Basically that sounds like an effort to distract from the only major tactical issue on the park - Eusebio and Law.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Netzer is as free as Pele is Joga. You can't have it both ways there.

Nope Netzer is in a midfield trio with two dynamos in in Wimmer and Ball against a midfield duo with the static Gerson. It is a bizarre comparison anyway, as it's Eusebio whom you should be comparing Pele with and not central midfielder Netzer whose counterpart is Gerson.

 

[Gio]

Gerson will hold his own defensively. Especially with his proven foil Clodoaldo. He won't harry around chasing lost causes, but he'll be positionally disciplined and aggressive. He had no trouble dominating plenty of hard-working European midfields in 1970. Even amid the heat and altitude of mid-summer Mexico.

 

[Gol123]

Gio's attacking quartet has over 2000 club goals between them. In comparison, Liverpool have only scored 1470 goals since the Premier League started.

 

[Joga Bonito]

The very qualities you describe in Cubillas are why this works. He's less of a traditional playmaker than Rivelino. He's more direct and more adept at cutting into the inside-left channel. We've already got plenty of playmaking with Gerson and, to a lesser extent, Pele.

Why would you want more directness from a player operating in the inside left channels when you already have the uber-direct Jairzinho cutting into the right hand channels and Pele who was a fairly direct player who was more likely to exchange positions with Tostao than drop deep. Granted he dropped deep and helped the midfield occassionally but with Cubillas there, instead of Rivelino or a wider presence, you are asking him to do that much more often than he likes. The real playmakers of that Brazilian side were Gerson, Carlos Alberto and Rivelino, with Pele who was still really direct but had added some elements of playmaking as a de facto playmaker. Chester was saying the same exact thing for example and outlined the sheer tactical importance of having the likes of a Corso/Rivelino in that forward line if you want to make claim to having a Brazil 1970 replica.

Basically that sounds like an effort to distract from the only major tactical issue on the park - Eusebio and Law.

I've already addressed this and it's curious how it's only you and Theon who've brought this up from the semi-finals when even the opposing manager from the semi-final didn't even mention it.

I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Actually it's because of my midfield set-up that I chose to go with Eusébio instead of reuniting the fabulous duo of C.Alberto-Jairzinho and of course the prospect of the Law-Eusébio partnership was just too good to pass up on. Wimmer is playing a defensive and a positionally reserved role and Netzer* was a central midfielder who always had the play in front of him - more akin to a deeper central midfielder than a #10.

Whereas Alan Ball is playing a RAM role, where he would almost exclusively be drifting onto the right flank/channels, in a similar vein to the role that he fulfilled for the wingless wonders.

What it ultimately means is that there is plenty of space in the opposition's central half waiting to be exploited. That was one of the prime reasons why I went with Eusébio instead of Jairzinho (of course being a bigger name played its part too). I've always banged on about Law's tendency to drop deep and influence play etc. However, it is essential to note that even when dropping deep, Law wasn't so much a selfish ball-hogger, always looking to go on mazy runs (he was capable of doing so but only did so occasionally and only when the opportunity was absolutely right), as to being a selfless facilitator - linking-up play, aiding the midfield/strike partner and spreading play etc. In the sense he was more of an all-round forward ala Seeler than a Messi/Sindelaar- playmaking false nines. Do keep in mind that, given the large area and tactical room that both Eusébio and him have to manoeuvre in, due to my specialised midfield set-up, Law would have the freedom to drop deep.

Also there is absolutely no denying his body of work in and around the penalty box - capable of spear heading the attack? - check; aerial presence - check; hold-up play - check; poaching goals - check etc. I've never claimed that Law shouldn't play as a centre-forward but rather that he shouldn't be stranded up top and should be provided with the tactical freedom to drop deep as he saw fit. He has just that here. Perhaps in another midfield set-up with a more #10 like midfielder instead of Netzer, then your point about Eusébio & Law not clicking well due to not having enough room, might have been valid. With this specific midfield set-up though, I don't see that being the case at all.

Anyway if all that fails to convince you, there is always the FA centenary match where both of them dovetailed fantastically well.

I admired Denis as a player because he was exceptional and very different from a lot of British players from his era. Then British football was characterised by stamina and determination of the players, who had excellent physical fitness. This is true, too of other European countries - including the Germans, who are superbly prepared physically. But the British and the Germans, generally, both lacked technique. I have played against Denis Law quite a few times and have also played with him for FIFA and UEFA representative teams.

Law is a very fine footballer and thoroughly deserved the European Footballer of the Year award he gained in 1964. He is a good team man with fine individual skills.

*In fact Netzer's playing style played a significant role in me going for Eusébio too. I've always stated that Netzer absolutely loved playing alongside direct players and would much rather play with a Neeskens rather than an Iniesta. He wasn't a playmaker who would have been peeved off at forwards individuality but rather someone who actively encouraged it. He wasn't your typical playmaker who loved to hog the ball, expecting, nay demanding everything should go through him, playing those one-twos ala Xavi etc. What Netzer really was about was pure directness and fiery football. Netzer was the anti-thesis of a ponderous playmaker, needing things to revolve around him, dictating play, but rather he was a high octane playmaker who let the play 'flow' through him and was more of a 'dispatcher' as opposed to a 'dictator'. His flawless between the line passing would be a dream come true for Eusébio, who would be prowling around in between the lines and channels, waiting for the opportune moment.

Gerson will hold his own defensively. Especially with his proven foil Clodoaldo. He won't harry around chasing lost causes, but he'll be positionally disciplined and aggressive. He had no trouble dominating plenty of hard-working European midfields in 1970. Even amid the heat and altitude of mid-summer Mexico.

Nope he was suspect defensively and he most certainly won't hold his own defensively against Netzer nor Alan Ball or heck even my defensive midfielder whose nickname arose from his dribbling abilities. Taking a few gifs and portraying him as someone who can hold his own defensively or dominate midfields is disingenuous to say the least. He most certainly wasn't dominating plenty of hard-working midfields off the ball. In fact, it was due to the phenomenal strength of the Brazilian 1970 vintage and the quality differential that existed between most teams, that allowed him to excel and not be exposed. He was a brilliant player on the ball though and you won't hear me say a word against that.

He actually didn't play in two of the toughest games that Brazil had in that tournament - against England he was out injured (out injured for two group matches) and his limitations came to the fore when he was marked out of their next toughest battle against Uruguay in the semi-final. Although he had Clodoaldo capable of playing a slightly more adventurous role to make up for his anonymity. In the final Italy sat off him and gave him much more freedom and space to manoeuvre in.

Here he faces an imposing midfield trio, with Eusébio capable of dropping deep as well. Also keep in mind that neither Cubillas nor Jairzinho are going to be providing much graft here as opposed to Law and Best for example (you do have Muller in all fairness). It's simply a herculean task that Clodoaldo faces here, esp as he faces a midfield trio and has to carry the defensive burden for Gerson whilst having to keep an eye out for two full-backs who are fighting a losing battle as well. Pele could be relied on to do his fair share of defensive work but no more so than Eusébio for example.

Gerson's work off the ball was a hotly debated topic in the draft thread. You could claim he won't be a liability etc but to claim he would 'dominate midfields' or hold his own defensively ala van Hanegem or Overath is simply going over the top.

Yes, I suppose the main problem with him is that he requires more protection/lifting from others than most players who are comparable in this context (drafts, I mean). You can't play him in a conventional/modern set-up when facing another conventional/modern set-up and realistically claim that he'll pull his weight.

It's like having a so-called luxury player of the sort you usually associate with a purely attacking role - only you have him significantly deeper on the pitch, in an area where you'd normally want someone who will at least chip in a little bit with off-the-ball stuff.

That said, it would be completely unfair to simply write him off as liability per default - as he can easily shine if you're willing to give him the right protection. Will be very interesting to see how he fares here.

Brwned - It's true, in fairness. You can't get away from the fact he was a chain smoker who didn't run much and relied on his parter to carry the defensive burden. If you so, however, his passing range can be devastating. I don't think that's really up for debate. There's few players that are as dangerous from the halfway line as he is.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Anyway I have to go off now and won't be back for some time. Hopefully there is more input and discussions by then.

 

[Gio]

Nope he was suspect defensively and he most certainly won't hold his own defensively against Netzer nor Alan Ball or heck even my defensive midfielder whose nickname arose from his dribbling abilities. Taking a few gifs and portraying him as someone who can hold his own defensively or dominate midfields is disingenuous to say the least. He most certainly wasn't dominating plenty of hard-working midfields off the ball. In fact, it was due to the phenomenal strength of the Brazilian 1970 vintage and the quality differential that existed between most teams, that allowed him to excel and not be exposed. In fact he didn't play in the toughest game that Brazil had against England being out injured (was out injured for two group matches) and his limitations came to the fore when he was marked out of their next toughest battle against Uruguay in the semi-final. Although he had Clodoaldo capable of playing a slightly more adventurous role to make up for his anonymity. Here he faces an imposing midfield trio, with Eusébio capable of dropping deep as well. Also keep in mind that neither Cubillas nor Jairzinho are going to be providing much graft here as opposed to Law and Best for example (you do have Muller in all fairness). It's simply a herculean task that Clodoaldo faces here, esp as he faces a midfield trio and has to carry the defensive burden for Gerson whilst having to keep an eye out for two full-backs who are fighting a losing battle as well. Pele could be relied on to do his fair share of defensive work but no more so than Eusébio for example.

Gerson's work off the ball was a hotly debated topic in the draft thread. You could claim he won't be a liability etc but to claim he would 'dominate midfields' or hold his own defensively ala van Hanegem or Overath is simply going over the top.

Nobody is presenting Gerson as a box-to-box workhorse. His off-the-ball role is to be positionally disciplined and snuff out danger when it arises. That's exactly what he did in 1970. And I've provided actual proof of countless occasions when he's done that - not just resorted to myth. One thing that surprised me hugely when watching the 1970 tournament was the fact that, despite the myth, Gerson wasn't a lazy Pirlo type who left everyone else to it when he didn't have the ball. He actually got stuck in, won the ball back and tracked his runners. If you can give me some video proof of him seriously neglecting his defensive duties, then be my guest. Having watched the tournament recently, you should be able to provide those - if they do actually exist.

 

[Gio]

As for Law and Eusebio - I don't think they are perfectly complementary. There is a clash in how they both preferred to play off a central focal point, be it Herd or Agusto. There is a clash in how they loved to both drop into the hole and attack from there. As you said yourself previously:

Denis Law mainly played as an inside right/left for United and it was his primary position with the centre-forward position being his secondary one. It was Herd or Sadler who were mainly our spear-heading centre-forwards and although Law can play that role to a high level, he stated that this was his preferred position.

In fact this is what I wrote in my write-up. I labelled it as shoehorning Law up top. Must be surprising and it was to me as well, when I started watching the 60s United exclusively. I was surprised to see Law barely playing as a centre forward in the 10 or so matches (a fair few being the MOTD condensed 45 mins vids) that I watched him in. I even PM-ed Moriarty, a United fan who grew up watching the 60s and he confirmed my suspicions.

Law was much much more than a pure centre-forward and he would do a great job there of course, but why not use his full skill-set when it presents itself. The most astonishing thing was me was how deadly he was despite playing in such an all-round role, trying to involve himself in play as much as possible. Really does make his already phenomenal goalscoring record all the more remarkable.

So that's Law, who prefers to play as a second striker, can still do a great job, but isn't playing to his full potential? Against defenders of the standard of Bobby Moore and Elias Figueroa? While the opposition is sporting Pele and Gerd Muller up front?

The point is - in a draft final, you really need to be tactically bang on and maximising the qualities of your players. Against Invictus you were making the very same and justified points about the clash between Eusebio and Mazzola.

 

[Gio]

The other player not playing in their favourite position is John Greig - who is one of the weakest on the park*. His greatest ever Ranger award is a deserved reward for his longevity (our all-time league appearance record holder) and for his overall commitment to the cause (particularly following the Ibrox disaster in 1971). But it's not so much a reflection of his quality as there were many more talented players at both ends of the park to have won the Blue shirt. As for his role here, his best position is central midfield or right-half. His track record at left-back is fine enough, often shifted there to man-mark Jimmy Johnstone as he was Rangers' best defender at the time, and Jimmy was good enough to justify it. However, Jimmy did still generally get the better of Greig and made a habit of getting above him (yeah Jimmy was about 3 feet tall) to score headers.

He now faces Jairzinho, a real athlete and one of the greatest right-sided goalscorers of all time. And that's Jairzinho with the impeccable service he received time and time again from Pele and Gerson.

It's a mismatch and it's likely to be a decisive one.


*Forgive me John, but this is some company you're in.

 

[harms]

The other player not playing in their favourite position is John Greig - who is one of the weakest on the park*. His greatest ever Ranger award is a deserved reward for his longevity (our all-time league appearance record holder) and for his overall commitment to the cause (particularly following the Ibrox disaster in 1971). But it's not so much a reflection of his quality as there were many more talented players at both ends of the park to have won the Blue shirt. As for his role here, his best position is central midfield or right-half. His track record at left-back is fine enough, often shifted there to man-mark Jimmy Johnstone as he was Rangers' best defender at the time, and Jimmy was good enough to justify it. However, Jimmy did still generally get the better of Greig and made a habit of getting above him (yeah Jimmy was about 3 feet tall) to score headers.

You should've posted it in the semis

 

[Theon]

Ultimately, I believe the key to gaining the edge here, is to asserting dominance in midfield.

Their primary playmaker is Gérson, who had a cracking left peg and a glorious pass on him but was a notoriously static player. Gérson also doesn't really have supplementary playmakers to dovetail with as he did in '70 (Rivelino and Carlos Alberto). That is not to downplay Pelé who played a great role as a 'facilitatory glue' but was still a fairly direct player and not exactly a genuine playmaker.

I'd say in I'm also well poised in winning the midfield battle, esp with the best playmaker on the pitch in Netzer, who is relatively unshackled and has the room here to exhibit his unrivalled and sublime passing range. It is essentially a midfield trio against a midfield duo - a pretty good one at that if I'm to be honest - but one that features the static Gérson and wouldn't be able to reduce Netzer's influence on the game.

Can't agree with any of this and find some it genuinely mental (Carlos Alberto was a playmaker for Brazil but not Pele... What the hell??..)

The idea that Gerson has no one to dovetail with when he's literally playing in a team with four of the five midfielders from Brazil 1970 is absolutely nuts - The only one missing is Rivelino and Cubillas is no downgrade there at all. We've also added Bobby Moore and Elias Figueroa to the team - two technical ball players amongst the most influential ever from the position alongside Beckenbauer.

I know see any way in which you're winning a "midfield battle" Joga - whatever that is. There is quite clearly a gulf in both quality and proven credentials between Wimmer/Ball/Netzer and Clodoaldo/Gerson/Pele - the latter widely regarded by many as the best midfield ever to play international football, with Jairzinho reunited with them to boot.

Ball in particular is being significantly overstated, he was a good player for England but he wouldn't get close to an All-Time England XI yet by the sounds of it you somehow have him as the most influential player on the pitch - Rinsing Anczok on the right wing, whilst also pressing Gerson, quelling Pele and winning the "midfield battle". It's nonsense.

 

[Theon]

And I'm sorry Joga but there is no getting around the fact that the Eusebio/Law partnership isn't particularly complimentary - They're two great players so of course they'll still be dangerous, but they would both clearly be better paired with a pure #9 in the vein of Romario or Gerd Muller. There is absolutely zero doubt about that.

As you have said yourself numerous times Law consistently dropped deep to get on the ball whilst others maintained that #9 presence up front - Which is exactly the same role that Eusebio played for Benfica and Portugal.

Fundamentally I think you're open to the same criticism that you banged on to Invictus about - There is a significant overlap between Law and Eusebio, particularly in terms of the their movement, runs and disinclination to provide that constant presence up front.

Many seem to have this warped conception that Law was a speedy and pure goalscorer in the mould of a Greaves or a Romario, who primarily operated on the shoulder of the last man and solely focused on putting the ball into the net.

Denis Law mainly played as an inside right/left for United and it was his primary position with the centre-forward position being his secondary one.

In fact this is what I wrote in my write-up. I labelled it as shoehorning Law up top. I was surprised to see Law barely playing as a centre forward in the 10 or so matches (a fair few being the MOTD condensed 45 mins vids) that I watched him in.

Anyway the debate seems to be around whether Eusebio is being played in his peak role here, which is the free roaming second striker role where he had all the freedom in the world. Unfortunately, Mazzola too played in that EXACT SAME role for La Grande's Inter, so would they complement each other well and tailor each others movements etc?

 

[mazhar13]

This is a good final with both teams close and tough to decide from. Both also have some glaring weaknesses that I'd like to pick up on.

The point regarding Law and Eusebio being too similar to be complementary is true. In this case, Joga tried to make it out so that Law and Eusebio can rotate with each other, but how long do both really spend up front in their matches? Not often enough to occupy the central defenders, mind you. Having said this, the fact that there is no recognised front man is a plus in my book. How will Moore and Figueroa decide on who to go after? How committed will both be to sticking to their man? What will Gerson and Clodoaldo do when they become outnumbered in certain areas? How will the defence deal with the constant runs between the lines by Joga's attacking players? (With regards to the last question, Gio's lucky that Joga doesn't have 4 players who are all equally capable of running through the defensive lines, with Ball and Netzer not as willing to go past the defensive lines as Pele, Cubillas, or Jairzinho would be. Plus, Eusebio and Law don't spend enough time up front occupying the central defenders).

With Gio's team, there's too much work that Gerson and Clodoaldo have to do. They are badly in need to a 3rd midfielder to help them out, but Pele isn't the sort to really help out defensively (not as much as Netzer, at least). I can see many situations where that midfield pairing will get outnumbered, and Gerson simply doesn't have the energy levels to cover the ground and contain Joga's attacking threat. Ball will also be a wildcard in this case as he wouldn't really be sticking to the right wing, so Anczok will have a difficult time dealing with the threat on his side (similar to Facchetti vs. Jairzinho and Carlos Alberto). This is before I even consider how good Anczok really was when compared to other left backs of the time. In this case, I do rate him highly, but I wouldn't really put him at the upper echelon of full backs where Facchetti, Krol, Brehme, etc., belong. In fact, I'd even say that he's not overly better than Dietz (doesn't mean that Dietz is better than Anczok, mind). Shalamanov will also have a difficult time against Best. The only way to really stop Best is to have someone stick tight to him and not give him time on the ball at all, and I don't see Shalamanov capable of doing that.

I certainly see Joga's team having more control of the game. Wimmer, Ball, and Netzer have more energy, tenacity, and aggression to keep control of the midfield and the whole game. The Law-Eusebio problem can be offset by the rotational capability of Joga's attack as well as Ball not being a proper right winger in this game.

Moore and Figueroa will definitely be more tested than Beckenbauer and Schwarzenbeck. Gio & Theon need to change their tactical approach to this game in order to stand a good chance of beating Joga.

 

[Theon]

With Gio's team, there's too much work that Gerson and Clodoaldo have to do. They are badly in need to a 3rd midfielder to help them out, but Pele isn't the sort to really help out defensively (not as much as Netzer, at least).

I'm not trying to get you to change your vote, but in terms of being accurate about the player this part here isn't true at all - Pele had a significantly higher work rate than Gunter Netzer.

Pele's workrate was excellent and that's not an exaggeration.

In contrast, the criticisms that Joga has levelled at Gerson are actually more applicable to Netzer who wasn't known for having a great work rate at all.

 

[mazhar13]

I'm not trying to get you to change your vote, but in terms of being accurate about the player this part here isn't true at all - Pele had a significantly higher work rate than Gunter Netzer.

Pele's workrate was excellent and that's not an exaggeration.

In contrast, the criticisms that Joga has levelled at Gerson are actually more applicable to Netzer who wasn't known for having a great work rate at all.

Would Pele be one to drop back into midfield, though, to prevent midfield disadvantages? He may have a better work rate, but unlike Netzer, I'm not sure Pele would be one to drop back and contribute to the midfield battle, defensively.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Would Pele be one to drop back into midfield, though, to prevent midfield disadvantages? He may have a better work rate, but unlike Netzer, I'm not sure Pele would be one to drop back and contribute to the midfield battle, defensively.

Not needed actually, Gerson can run games as good as Netzer. When they have the ball Pele will make up for far more. I think he'll drop enough to be a threat on break, but as a extra midfielder is too much to expect of any #10 far less Pele.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Yeah, midfield battle...schmattle. Not too keen on getting into that, as such.

But what we have here is an orchestrator (Gerson) protected by Clodoaldo and a Pelé dropping deep (but who isn't a "midfielder" in any meaningful sense) versus an orchestrator (Netzer) working with two very industrious midfielders, one of whom is a designated DM in this match. The advantage in terms of protection has to go to Netzer and Joga.

However, this only becomes truly significant if there's a danger of Gerson being snuffed out. Gio/Theon need him as a playmaker here for my money. If he doesn't get to contribute much (because there's not enough room for him to do so), he becomes borderline useless in this setting.

In itself, the Gerson/Clodoaldo combo is clearly not a problem when the general approach is just as offensive as the Brazil '70 blueprint. Overall the team is a clear upgrade on that team, after all. The central areas have been strengthened...dramatically - with arguably the greatest pure striker in history and an insane CB duo.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Sorry for the late replies, was really awfully busy unforutnately. Sorry @Theon @Gio but I simply don't have time to play against both of you here and would prefer it if I played one of you.

As for Law and Eusebio - I don't think they are perfectly complementary. There is a clash in how they both preferred to play off a central focal point, be it Herd or Agusto. There is a clash in how they loved to both drop into the hole and attack from there. As you said yourself previously:

So that's Law, who prefers to play as a second striker, can still do a great job, but isn't playing to his full potential? Against defenders of the standard of Bobby Moore and Elias Figueroa? While the opposition is sporting Pele and Gerd Muller up front?

The point is - in a draft final, you really need to be tactically bang on and maximising the qualities of your players. Against Invictus you were making the very same and justified points about the clash between Eusebio and Mazzola.

Perhaps I went slightly overboard there in my attempts to portray Law's all-round game and in my attempts to fit him into the total footballing set-up that I had in my earlier drafts.

Also in the match against Invictus I was claiming that he was playing Eusebio in an alien position which he has never played with before and likewise Mazzola who was an extremely direct ball-carrying second-striker for La Grande Inter, which obviously meant there was an overlap there, unlike Law who is as selfless as they come and has played with the likes of Best and Charlton behind him. Does Law provide presence in the box, hold-up play etc. Obviously. When he drops deep does he look to go on direct pacy runs, jinxing past player after player and unleashing a shot outside the box ala Eusebio or does he drop deep and facilitate play and link-up with players? The answer is pretty clear cut isn't it?

Actually it is an interesting debate, as when Law arrived at Old Trafford he wanted to be all over the pitch ala di Stefano his idol, but MATT BUSBY made him a more all-round goalscoring forward as opposed to a playmaking influence who roamed all over the pitch.

It was Matt Busby who revolutionised Law's role in football. 'When Denis arrived at Old Trafford he was all action, all over the pitch,' said Harry Gregg. 'He was in my eyes, the complete inside forward. Matt Busby, though, had other ideas and I remember the day he transformed Denis into a purely attacking weapon. We had been going through a rough patch, our performances did not match Matt's expectations. Then, during one team talk, he announced, "From now on, Denis Law doesn't come back over the halfway line." I thought to myself, "That's a waste, this guy has so much to offer all over the pitch." In the end Matt was right. Denis went on to become even more of a prolific goalscorer - his 236 goals in 393 games is all the evidence you need".

Well obviously Law wasn't too pleased with this change as he himself states here



but it worked wonders for him in terms of turning him into an all-round potent goalscoring weapon.

Anyway it shouldn't really be so much the POSITION that you should be looking at, so much as the role that he is playing. For instance when @Pat_Mustard was sporting him as a centre-forward in the chain draft I wasn't jumping in and claiming 'no you must play him at second-striker and what not', nor do you see people say what's Law doing up front in an all-time United or Scotland XI (for whom he mostly played as a pure centre-forward btw).



In this set-up there is plenty of space in the opposition's central half waiting to be exploited. That was one of the prime reasons why I went with Eusébio instead of Jairzinho (of course being a bigger name played its part too). I've always banged on about Law's tendency to drop deep and influence play etc. However, it is essential to note that even when dropping deep, Law wasn't so much a selfish ball-hogger, always looking to go on mazy runs (he was capable of doing so but only did so occasionally and only when the opportunity was absolutely right), as to being a selfless facilitator - linking-up play, aiding the midfield/strike partner and spreading play etc. In the sense he was more of an all-round forward ala Seeler than a Messi/Sindelaar- playmaking false nines. Do keep in mind that, given the large area and tactical room that both Eusébio and him have to manoeuvre in, due to my specialised midfield set-up, Law would have the freedom to drop deep.

Also there is absolutely no denying his body of work in and around the penalty box - capable of spear heading the attack? - check; aerial presence - check; hold-up play - check; poaching goals - check etc. I've never claimed that Law shouldn't play as a centre-forward but rather that he shouldn't be stranded up top and should be provided with the tactical freedom to drop deep as he saw fit. He has just that here. Perhaps in another midfield set-up with a more #10 like midfielder instead of Netzer, then your point about Eusébio & Law not clicking well due to not having enough room, might have been valid. With this specific midfield set-up though, I don't see that being the case at all.

Anyway if all that fails to convince you, there IS ALWAYS THE IRREFUTABLE REAL LIFE EVIDENCE of the FA centenary match where both of them dovetailed fantastically well.

I admired Denis as a player because he was exceptional and very different from a lot of British players from his era. Then British football was characterised by stamina and determination of the players, who had excellent physical fitness. This is true, too of other European countries - including the Germans, who are superbly prepared physically. But the British and the Germans, generally, both lacked technique. I have played against Denis Law quite a few times and have also played with him for FIFA and UEFA representative teams.

Law is a very fine footballer and thoroughly deserved the European Footballer of the Year award he gained in 1964. He is a good team man with fine individual skills.

That's exactly what he did in 1970. And I've provided actual proof of countless occasions when he's done that - not just resorted to myth.

If that's how you want to play it...



Watch the last minute or so of this video, here you can see the defensive behemoth Netzer at his prime, dominating players off the ball and tracking players etc. Am I doing this right?

One thing that surprised me hugely when watching the 1970 tournament was the fact that, despite the myth, Gerson wasn't a lazy Pirlo type who left everyone else to it when he didn't have the ball. He actually got stuck in, won the ball back and tracked his runners.

That clearly isn't true though and I'm sure I can find 6 gifs or so from Pirlo and paint him out to be a defensively astute Bozsik/Luisito Suarez like figure when he was anything but that.

The other player not playing in their favourite position is John Greig - who is one of the weakest on the park*. His greatest ever Ranger award is a deserved reward for his longevity (our all-time league appearance record holder) and for his overall commitment to the cause (particularly following the Ibrox disaster in 1971). But it's not so much a reflection of his quality as there were many more talented players at both ends of the park to have won the Blue shirt. As for his role here, his best position is central midfield or right-half. His track record at left-back is fine enough, often shifted there to man-mark Jimmy Johnstone as he was Rangers' best defender at the time, and Jimmy was good enough to justify it. However, Jimmy did still generally get the better of Greig and made a habit of getting above him (yeah Jimmy was about 3 feet tall) to score headers.

Seriously though, what's the matter with posting a gif or two and making it seem as though you've irrefutably proven your case. That quite clearly wasn't the case though and I really do wonder why you didn't state that in the semis like harms aptly stated, when you were called upon to give your opinion on the Greig vs Johnstone battle.

Not that I've lived through it, but from what I've heard it was often Lennox who caused the greatest problems for Rangers during the late 1960s. He was great at getting in behind and finishing off through-balls. Johnstone though was obviously top class and, again from what I've heard, caused Facchetti a load of problems in the 1967 final, no doubt due to his low centre of gravity.

Nice to see Greig get some recognition though. In fairness the Greatest Ranger ever award is as much due to his contribution off the park for the club and particularly following the Ibrox Disaster in 1971, but he was evidently a great all-rounder who'd likely get into an all-time club XI.

You didn't offer anything of note when asked about the Johnstone vs Greig in the semis but here you are in the final with a single gif and presto, Jmmy generally got the better of Greig. Oh and btw, it was Burgnich man-marking Johnstone in the 1967 final and not Facchetti who squared up against Lennox.

Neither Greig nor Johnstone were particularly known to get the better of each other.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Also I very much doubt the chemistry of your attack as well, as I stated above.

I really don't see how Cubillas is in anyway similar to Rivelino at all nor how his ball carrying it foraging would be optimal here. Now I've watched all of Brazil's 1970 matches just recently, right from their group games to the final, during the process of making the Carlos Alberto video, and Rivelino played a great and an underrated tactical role. He frequently dropped into midfield to aid Gerson and Clodoaldo and provided nice balance to the directness of Pele and Jairzinho, as too did Tostao to a certain extent. In fact during the final, he assiduously stuck to the left flank to provide balance, as Jairzinho was instructed to play a more tucked in role than usual, to provide C.Alberto the room to rampage forward.

Cubillas on the other hand, is an extremely direct player and a similar player to Pele, who actually proclaimed him to be his successor, and it hardly a creative
playmaking midfielder like Rivelino but rather an extremely direct second-striker. Now Pele was pretty good at playing the facilitatory glue role for Brazil 1970 but he was still predominantly a direct player, as opposed to being a purely playmaking facilitator and you have the uber-direct Cubillas and Jairzinho at either side of him. Also you've effectively compromised supplementary midfield support for Gerson in playing a more direct player there in Cubillas, whilst also depriving Gerson of C.Alberto's presence down the right who helped him immensely during the build-up phase (just watch the C.Alberto video and the number of times they link up together). With Jairzinho on the right and Pele in the middle, you'd much rather have a Rivelino or a wider presence like Dzajic.

Cubillas played alongside Cesar Cueto and, again, they dovetailed beautifully. Fundamentally Cubillas was more of a dynamic support striker than a chin-scratching ball-sprayer.

So you essentially sport an extremely direct Jairzinho who loved cutting into the right hand channels, the uber-direct Cubillas whom Pele anointed his successor, operating in the inside left channels and Pele (who was still a predominantly direct player with some playmaking elements, and was a hardly a facilitating playmaker ala Deyna for example) in the same area. How do you expect that to function cohesively?


Anyway, the WORST MATCH-UP ON THE ENTIRE PITCH IS GEORGE BEST vs SHALAMANOV.



90 minutes on the pitch with barely any defensive cover with Netzer being free to pick out the greatest wing-forward/winger (alongside Garrincha) time and time again. That's just screaming for trouble.

Yeah, midfield battle...schmattle. Not too keen on getting into that, as such.

But what we have here is an orchestrator (Gerson) protected by Clodoaldo and a Pelé dropping deep (but who isn't a "midfielder" in any meaningful sense) versus an orchestrator (Netzer) working with two very industrious midfielders, one of whom is a designated DM in this match. The advantage in terms of protection has to go to Netzer and Joga.

However, this only becomes truly significant if there's a danger of Gerson being snuffed out. Gio/Theon need him as a playmaker here for my money. If he doesn't get to contribute much (because there's not enough room for him to do so), he becomes borderline useless in this setting.

In itself, the Gerson/Clodoaldo combo is clearly not a problem when the general approach is just as offensive as the Brazil '70 blueprint. Overall the team is a clear upgrade on that team, after all. The central areas have been strengthened...dramatically - with arguably the greatest pure striker in history and an insane CB duo.

Agreed with everything on here. I do think that Gio/Theon have managed to upgrade the team really well, apart from their full-backs who stick out like sore thumbs, but they clearly do miss a Rivelino like presence in attack/midfield and I do think I have the perfect midfield with plenty of graft and an extra man to best stifle Gerson's influence on the ball, whereas his countepart on the pitch - Netzer is poised to have a great game with Best running riot against Shalamanov, and likewise Ballie against Anczok.

 

[Joga Bonito]

The other player not playing in their favourite position is John Greig

Also you do realise that John Greig won the Scottish Player of the Season TWICE playing as the full-back and has the record number of goals scored from that position? Strange that a Scottish and a Rangers fan doesn't seem to know this.

 

[Joga Bonito]

I certainly see Joga's team having more control of the game. Wimmer, Ball, and Netzer have more energy, tenacity, and aggression to keep control of the midfield and the whole game.

George Best will feck shit up in this match.

This.

The rotational capability of Joga's attack as well as Ball not being a proper right winger in this game.

Just to reiterate the sheer influence of the extra man in midfield and his brilliant all-round game.



(From hounding players, carrying the ball forward, providing defense splitting balls, making an inordinate amount of ball recoveries and of course, tormenting the left backs, the video goes to show you what a complete and ubiquitous phenomenon Ballie was.)

Ball played as a RAM for Alf Ramsey's wingless wonders and delivered a MOTM performance in the final, where he drove one of the greatest LBs of all time in Schnellinger, to the ground in brutal fashion. It was a fiercely competed match with both Germany and England, two heated rivals, refusing to concede an inch of space and were laying everything on the line. When just about every single player on the pitch was sapped of every last iota of their energy reserves, it was Ball who was still zipping about, like as though the match had just started.

Just an insight into the gruelling conditions of the final.

The darkness came when, with the score at 3-2 for us in the second half of extra-time, I ran ahead of the ball and took a pass from Bally in the outside right position. The roar of the crowd swelled as I raced on the overlap. I looked up and said to myself, 'Yes, near post, I'll go for that.' But when I came to make contact with the ball something shocking and terrifying happened. I felt everything go. The sensation was of 'whoosh,' and everything had left me. The ball trickled off the toe of my boot and over the line. I just stood there, empty, and one concern was that my bowels had emptied, which would have been a terrible embarrassment because unlike by team-mates I did not wear a jock-strap or a slip beneath my shorts. But if my worst fear proved to be unfounded, I still had a dreadful problem.

In the last desperate minutes of a World Cup final, and at a time when the fresh legs of substitutes were not available, it took a tremendous effort just to move. Bally had run to take a return pass and he came past me, rooted to the spot where the breakdown had come, my socks around my ankles, his eyes were blazing. 'Move, you bastard, move,' he screamed. Bally was on fire and prepared to run forever. Before the mist came, I knew the best I could do was drag one foot in front of the other.

The German great Karl-Heinz Schnellinger, a star in the Italian league but, in the most important match of his life, was left absolutely ragged and demoralised in the wake of the red-haired young Lancastrian with the squeaky voice. Whilst Ball's performance in the final is well-renowned, his master-class against another great in Marzolini, in the quarter finals is criminally overlooked.

They’ve got a very attacking left fullback called Marzolini who, if not stopped, will cause us problems; and you’re the best person in this squad to stop him.

And boy, did he put a stop to the best left back of the tournament. Ball once again made mince meat of a defensive great and completely nullified his influence on the game, at times hounding the measured Marzolini and winning possession off him or emphatically forcing him into uncharacteristically giving the ball away.

Arguably the most important tactical component of the wingless wonders team (probably the first ever to employ such a narrow diamond like system in an era where the W-M and 4-2-4 ruled the roos), Ball was quite simply indispensable for the WC winning team of 1966.

The key to the system was probably Ball, whose tremendous energy meant he could operate both as a winger and as a midfielder - just as Zagallo had for Brazil in 1962.

Alan Ball was making his way as possibly the most important player in the side, a man who could do creative and defensive work in midfield, double as a winger, would run himself daft for an England cap.

 

[Gio]

Sorry for the late replies, was really awfully busy unforutnately. Sorry @Theon @Gio but I simply don't have time to play against both of you here and would prefer it if I played one of you.

I've had 18 posts in the thread, Theon's had 3. You've had 21. It's hardly a two against one scenario. Never mind the fact your posts are generally a lot longer than any of ours. Or the fact you've made a range of assertions that don't really stack up and need to be challenged.

Perhaps I went slightly overboard there in my attempts to portray Law's all-round game and in my attempts to fit him into the total footballing set-up that I had in my earlier drafts.

Well you can't be right both times when you're claiming two opposing things.

Seriously though, what's the matter with posting a gif or two and making it seem as though you've irrefutably proven your case. That quite clearly wasn't the case though and I really do wonder why you didn't state that in the semis like harms aptly stated, when you were called upon to give your opinion on the Greig vs Johnstone battle.

Given you're not allowed to vote in the semi, my comments were deliberately balanced and watered down. Anyway this is Jairzinho, a man who scored in every game in a World Cup finals, a man whose game ratcheted up two or three notches in the presence of Gerson and Pele, against a midfielder-cum-full-back who never even played on the highest stage. My comments on Greig were balanced regardless, recognising the greatest ever Ranger award he rightfully received.

 

[Gio]

Agreed with everything on here. I do think that Gio/Theon have managed to upgrade the team really well, apart from their full-backs who stick out like sore thumbs, but they clearly do miss a Rivelino like presence in attack/midfield and I do think I have the perfect midfield with plenty of graft and an extra man to best stifle Gerson's influence on the ball, whereas his countepart on the pitch - Netzer is poised to have a great game with Best running riot against Shalamanov, and likewise Ballie against Anczok.

I'm not buying the Rivelino angle. He did a fine job suppressing his natural playmaking ball-hogging instincts in 1970. But earlier in the tournament you called us on having too many playmakers in the side, asking for a more genuine wide presence (which we've since sourced in Jairzinho) - now we've not got enough. It sounds like distraction to try and get away from the Eusebio/Law conundrum.

 

[Joga Bonito]

I've had 18 posts in the thread, Theon's had 3. You've had 21. It's hardly a two against one scenario. Never mind the fact your posts are generally a lot longer than any of ours.

It isn't so much the fact that both you guys posted together and I never have anything against that. It was the fact that both of you posted 6 consecutive posts together in the period that I was away. Now obviously it was my fault that I took longer than usual in coming back but even if I had come back on time after 6-7 hours, the point still stands. Anyway, I would prefer it if only one of you posts on this thread from now on and that happens to be you, so let's carry on.

Given you're not allowed to vote in the semi, my comments were deliberately balanced and watered down. Anyway this is Jairzinho, a man who scored in every game in a World Cup finals, a man whose game ratcheted up two or three notches in the presence of Gerson and Pele, against a midfielder-cum-full-back who never even played on the highest stage. My comments on Greig were balanced regardless, recognising the greatest ever Ranger award he rightfully received.

Yup, you have that going in your favour but the margin is nowhere near as significant as George Best, the greatest wing-forward/winger of all time up against a decent defender who is in way over his head here. Nor Ball-C.Alberto vs Anczok with barely any defensive support for that matter.

As Gol123 perfectly summed up,

George Best will feck shit up in this match.

That is the most glaring mismatch on the entire pitch and the one which is bound to leak goals with Netzer free to pull strings in the middle. And that's before we take Ball-C.Alberto vs Anczok into account on the other flank. Both flanks barely have enough defensive support too which only serves to exacerbate things further. I would much rather have Greig vs Jairzinho than any of those horrendous match-ups.

But earlier in the tournament you called us on having too many playmakers in the side, asking for a more genuine wide presence (which we've since sourced in Jairzinho) - now we've not got enough.

It was a trio of Cubillas-Rocha-Deyna which was obviously not the greatest of fits. It's fairly straightforward though, you have two uber-direct players in Cubillas and Jaizinho (the former occupying the inside left channels and the latter looking to cut into the inside right channels) and you'd much rather have a more playmaking midfielder like presence there, than the predominantly direct Pele who possessed elements of playmaking but that alone isn't enough to accommodate for the sheer directness of Cubillas & Jairzinho and that's without compromising some of Pele's (your best player) directness as well.

 

[Gio]

Yeah, midfield battle...schmattle. Not too keen on getting into that, as such.

But what we have here is an orchestrator (Gerson) protected by Clodoaldo and a Pelé dropping deep (but who isn't a "midfielder" in any meaningful sense) versus an orchestrator (Netzer) working with two very industrious midfielders, one of whom is a designated DM in this match. The advantage in terms of protection has to go to Netzer and Joga.

However, this only becomes truly significant if there's a danger of Gerson being snuffed out. Gio/Theon need him as a playmaker here for my money. If he doesn't get to contribute much (because there's not enough room for him to do so), he becomes borderline useless in this setting.

In itself, the Gerson/Clodoaldo combo is clearly not a problem when the general approach is just as offensive as the Brazil '70 blueprint. Overall the team is a clear upgrade on that team, after all. The central areas have been strengthened...dramatically - with arguably the greatest pure striker in history and an insane CB duo.

This is key really. It all comes back to this concept of the midfield battle. As if it's two armies squaring up on the battlefield until the grizzliest survives. What we've seen in recent years is that Barcelona and Spain have re-written the book on midfield dominance, in the same way that Brazil did in 1970. With the 1960s dominated by Catenaccio and a fairly defensive tournament in 1966, where the four semi-finalists were all European, there was perhaps an expectation that the attacking ways of Brazil 1958-1962 or the Real team of that era were on their way out. On that basis, plenty of teams went to the 1970 World Cup looking to outgraft and get in about the Brazilians. A very strong England team took on a similar approach to Joga's midfield here, with Mullery, Ball and Charlton in the 'mixer'. They did well to quell Brazil, who lacked a little spice in midfield with Gerson's injury, and were hugely inspired by an imperious performance from Bobby Moore at the back, but ultimately it was Pele who teed up Jairzinho to make the difference. Others tried the same but there was no touching the Brazilians.

Let's be clear: the finest central midfield partnership in the World Cup since 1958 is Gerson and Clodoaldo. No other pair has married that level of quality on the ball with the physical protection and disciplined positioning to back it up. There's an argument for Holladn 1974 and Spain 2010, but the latter lacked the thrust that this duo called upon when it was required (Clodoaldo taking matters into his own hands in the semi / Gerson doing the same in the final).

 

[Gio]

Basically Gerson is well placed to run this match. We have the compelling evidence of what happened in 1970. When Brazil and England met, Brazil still controlled the game despite having fewer 'midfield runners'. In that game Bobby Charlton didn't run the game and win it for the English. Not because he wasn't good enough (in the same way that it's not that Netzer isn't good enough), but essentially because his England boys came up against a technically superior team and his influence on the game was limited.

Similarly, when Brazil and Italy met in the final it was regarded as the clash of two cultures. Guile against Graft. Silk against Steel. Yet despite coming up against such an apparently lightweight midfield, Sandro Mazzola didn't run the game. He barely featured in fact. Instead it was Gerson who ran the show with a barnstorming performance, grabbing a deadlocked game by the balls, rifling one in from 25 yards and setting up one more for Jairzinho.

Gerson to Pele (who gets above Greig) to Jairzinho (who bursts past Schwarzenbeck) - looks quite feasible to me.

And when they tried to press Clodoaldo, he danced around them on the way to one of the greatest goals of all.

 

[Joga Bonito]

A very strong England team took on a similar approach to Joga's midfield here, with Mullery, Ball and Charlton in the 'mixer'. They did well to quell Brazil, who lacked a little spice in midfield with Gerson's injury, and were hugely inspired by an imperious performance from Bobby Moore at the back, but ultimately it was Pele who teed up Jairzinho to make the difference. Others tried the same but there was no touching the Brazilians

Well that was the toughest game that Brazil had to face in the entire tournament and whilst they managed to nab a win, England could have quite easily have gotten a win with Astle missing a sitter and Francis Lee coming close on a couple of occasions. Uruguay managed to put the screws on Brazil in the semi-final and Gerson's limitations were exposed when he was marked out of the game (although kudos to him that dropped deep and allowed Clodoaldo to get further forward). In the final, Italy sat off them and allowed Gerson to play his natural game. Throughout the whole tournament (barring the England game which even the Brazilians themselves claimed was their toughest in 1970) Brazil's midfield duo were never seriously challenged or were being tried to be 'outgrafted' like you've stated. Most teams simply didn't have the quality in midfield and rather relied on being defensive and exploiting Brazil's shaky centre-back duo as opposed to 'waging a midfield battle', apart from England.

Anyway Gio still hasn't shown how his attack will function here, apart from claiming he sports the replica of the 1970 attack when Cubillas was absolutely nothing like Rivelino whatsoever - an explosive direct second striker who burst forward vs a creative playmaking midfielder who was capable of tucking into midfield. He hasn't said how he will deal with the worst mismatches on the entire pitch - Best vs Shalamanov, Ball-C.Alberto vs Anczok and the best playmaker on the pitch in Netzer being unshackled. Probably because he has negligible, or non-existent to be precise, defensive cover for his flanks (which effectively spells death for Shalamanov, not that any amount of defensive cover will be able to bail him out of his predicament here) and nor does he have a way to stifle Netzer' influence here as I can claim to have done so to a certain extent with Gerson. Whereas he only has Jairzinho, in a fairly fragmented attack, against Greig going for him - an encounter which I'd take over the three significant mismatches (one of them being monumental) that his team has to face here.

 

[Gio]

Anyway Gio still hasn't shown how his attack will function here, apart from claiming he sports the replica of the 1970 attack when Cubillas was absolutely nothing like Rivelino whatsoever - an explosive direct second striker who burst forward vs a creative playmaking midfielder who was capable of tucking into midfield. He hasn't said how he will deal with the worst mismatches on the entire pitch - Best vs Shalamanov, Ball-C.Alberto vs Anczok and the best playmaker on the pitch in Netzer being unshackled. Probably because he has negligible, or non-existent to be precise, defensive cover for his flanks (which effectively spells death for Shalamanov, not that any amount of defensive cover will be able to bail him out of his predicament here) and nor does he have a way to stifle Netzer' influence here as I can claim to have done so to a certain extent with Gerson. Whereas he only has Jairzinho, in a fairly fragmented attack, against Greig going for him - an encounter which I'd take over the three significant mismatches (one of them being monumental) that his team has to face here.

It's self-evident how Pele and Gerd Muller will play. They are the ultimate 9 and 10 combo. It's a devastating partnership and one which, in any company, is worth at least a goal or two. Muller will score - he always does. It's also very clear that Jairzinho brings a wide threat to the attack, equally adept at going round the outside of Greig or overpowering to score on his inside. Cubillas works the inside-left channel, dropping into the left of midfield to take it short before bursting forward. He's a complementary presence. Pele glues it all together as only Pele can. Gerson is the creative hub in the centre of midfield, doing what he does and has done so many times in the past against similar European midfields.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Similarly, when Brazil and Italy met in the final it was regarded as the clash of two cultures. Guile against Graft. Silk against Steel. Yet despite coming up against such an apparently lightweight midfield, Sandro Mazzola didn't run the game. He barely featured in fact. Instead it was Gerson who ran the show with a barnstorming performance, grabbing a deadlocked game by the balls, rifling one in from 25 yards and setting up one more for Jairzinho.

You do realise that it is a catenaccio defense which was fine with sitting deep and letting the opposing midfield have the ball.

I don't get all these irrelevant comparisons between teams which quite simply weren't on the same level as mine (as is the Brazil 1970 to yours tbf) nor sport similar set-ups or personnel.

Anyway, Gerson isn't well-placed to run this match squaring up against two physical and tigerish midfielders who feature in a midfield unit which has a man up, and it isn't just me claiming that anyway.

I certainly see Joga's team having more control of the game. Wimmer, Ball, and Netzer have more energy, tenacity, and aggression to keep control of the midfield and the whole game.

When they have the ball Pele will make up for far more. I think he'll drop enough to be a threat on break, but as a extra midfielder is too much to expect of any #10 far less Pele.

But what we have here is an orchestrator (Gerson) protected by Clodoaldo and a Pelé dropping deep (but who isn't a "midfielder" in any meaningful sense) versus an orchestrator (Netzer) working with two very industrious midfielders, one of whom is a designated DM in this match. The advantage in terms of protection has to go to Netzer and Joga.

However, this only becomes truly significant if there's a danger of Gerson being snuffed out. Gio/Theon need him as a playmaker here for my money. If he doesn't get to contribute much (because there's not enough room for him to do so), he becomes borderline useless in this setting.

The last sentence being absolutely pertinent to this debate. And it's Netzer who is perfectly poised to run this match.

 

[Theon]

Best running riot against Shalamanov, and likewise Ballie against Anczok.

Sorry Joga but I'll say it again - this stuff on Ball is complete nonsense.

You've repeatedly stated that Gerson is pressed out of the game here - an absurd comment in itself given the absolute fact that Gerson has dominated midfields significantly better than Wimmer and Ball.

You've then stated that Pele's influence is also quelled as he's denied space and hounded out of the game - another ridiculous comment. I mean let's be blunt here - next to Messi and Maradona Pele is literally the best player to ever kick a football. Yet here he's apparently quelled by Wimmer and Ball.

And lastly Ball is also 'running riot' against Anczok on the right wing - literally tearing a world class left back up apparently.

Matthaus himself wouldn't stand a chance in hell of dominating arguably the best deep lying playmaker in history, stopping arguably the best footballer in the history of the game - all whilst rinsing a left back over on the right flank.

Yet apparently Alan Ball can. It's mental.

 

[Gio]

Anyway, Gerson isn't well-placed to run this match squaring up against two physical and tigerish midfielders who feature in a midfield unit which has a man up,

Ah 12 against 11. I forgot Alan Ball is playing in two positions, single-handedly owning the midfield to snuff out Gerson whilst dominating by the corner flag.

England played a very similar set-up against Brazil in 1970 and still lost. They did well, had a good chance, defended superbly thanks to Moore, but it was widely felt the 1-0 win for Brazil was a fair reflection of their dominance.

Uruguay tried a similar midfield tactic in the semi-final. It worked for a bit, then Clodoaldo burst forward to win the game.

 

[Joga Bonito]

It's self-evident how Pele and Gerd Muller will play. They are the ultimate 9 and 10 combo. It's a devastating partnership and one which, in any company, is worth at least a goal or two. Muller will score - he always does. It's also very clear that Jairzinho brings a wide threat to the attack, equally adept at going round the outside of Greig or overpowering to score on his inside. Cubillas works the inside-left channel, dropping into the left of midfield to take it short before bursting forward. He's a complementary presence. Pele glues it all together as only Pele can. Gerson is the creative hub in the centre of midfield, doing what he does and has done so many times in the past against similar European midfields.

I'm asking for more clarification between the trio of Cubillas-Pele-Jairzinho. 'Pele glues it all together as only Pele can' is extremely simplistic and missing the point entirely.

In the Brazil 1970 vintage, they sported plenty of centrally oriented players or the 5 #10s as they label them. It was Pele's all-round game and ability to play together with other central geniuses which brought him much acclaim. However, it was Tostao and Rivelino who were really playing the self-sacrificing tactical roles and excelled at them to a certain extent. They had Rivelino playing a LAM/LCM role, providing the perfect balance to the directness or Pele and Jairzinho.

Don't get me wrong, like I've claimed an umpteen times before, Pele had elements of playmaking to his game, occasionally dropping deep, playing some nice flicks or one-twos extra. However, that alone simply isn't enough when he has the uber-direct Cubillas occupying the inside left channels, looking to carry the ball forward/forage or whatever you want to label it. Likewise, Jairzinho occupying a more wider position but driving forward into the inside right channels and being an extremely direct player on the ball. Pele too whilst being more all-rounded, loved driving forward with the ball in a direct ball-carrying manner and frequently interchanged positions with Tostao for example. Pele all-round game alone isn't enough to accommodate for the sheer directness of Cubillas & Jairzinho and he also has to compromise some of his directness on the ball playing alongside those 2. Jairzinho and Pele's directness struck up the perfect balance with Rivelino complementing them brilliantly, but here Cubillas's inclusion there has thrown it off balance imo. Simply put, a wider presence on the left or a more midfielder-ish presence would have been much more optimal as opposed to Cubillas who is surplus to requirements on the inside left, and isn't a suitable complement to the direct Pele-Jairzinho duo.

 

[Joga Bonito]

@Theon I already said I'm only willing to play against the one of you. So could you please stop posting in the thread, thank you.