40s Draft QF2 : harms 7-5 Chesterlestreet

Who will win based on all the players at their respective peaks?

  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .

Moby

Dick
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
51,356
Location
Barcelona, Catalunya
Team harms​

3gxblYS.png

PLAYER PROFILES


This is my homage to 70’s Ajax side which is considered by many to be one of, if not, the best club sides in history. They won three back-to-back European titles while dominating domestically against very strong Feyenoord and PSV sides. And, of course, you all know the team that was built on its foundation, the great Netherlands of 1974.



My team is all about the synergy - I may have overlooked some shinier names because of it, so here we go:

  • We have 4 players from Ajax (and Van Beveren who played with most of them in the NT). They all were the definitions of a «total footballers» so the interplay on the left flank will be drool-worthy.
  • On the right side of my defense there is a proven pairing of Kaplychnyi and Dzodzuashvili, who managed to get to the EURO 1972 final (with Revaz making it into the all-stars team) and to the bronze medals of the same year Olympics together and successfully shut down the likes of Best and Dzajic;
  • On the wings I have a pair of the Lisbon Lions, Bobby Lennox and Jimmy Johnstone. Playing on the different sides of the pitch they developed an almost uncanny understanding, with Jimmy being more of a creative outlet and Bobby more of a goalscorer. The results are well-known - they were the first British team to win the European Cup, Johnstone was voted the best Celtic player ever and Lennox, despite being a winger, is still a second highest goalscorer in Celtic’s history


Now I only have two players that I haven’t talked about earlier - Gianfranco Bedin and Franz «The Bull» Roth.

Bedin was the defensive fulcrum of one of, if not the best, defensive sides in history - Herrera’s La Grande Inter. He held midfield on his shoulders and was also a terrific man-marker, usually assigned to the best player of the opposition team. The list of his victims includes Rivera, Eusebio, Pele and Di Stefano - not a bad CV.



Franz Roth, nicknamed «The Bull» because of his immense physical presence and looks was one of the best midfielders of his generation. Midfield enforcer who played both in the centre and on the right he was a crucial part of Bayern’s three consecutive European Cups, scoring 2 winners in two of the finals.



Tactical approach:

A classic, vintage 4-3-3. 2 fast, agile and creative wing-forwards with the best centre-forward imaginable for this scheme supported by three midfielders, one of whom is a purely holding player and two others are completely comfortable in both central and wing positions. I trust my defenders to do an offside-trap, they are all intelligent and fast enough to fix their mistake if needed.



You all know a vintage Dutch philosophy - everyone works their socks off, defending as a team and attacking as a team too. Soviet players also fit the bill perfectly with the renowned Soviet discipline and graft. The only one with the special task is Bedin - he will man-mark the great Pele. No, I don’t expect Bedin to put him in his pocket, but he will be a constant pain in his arse. He already did the same job on him anyway. Just a little stat - Pele played total of 8 games against Internazionale, 5 of them before Bedin was introduced to the first squad and 3 after. He scored an astonishing 9 goals in those first 5 games and after Bedin became his direct opponent he scored only once in three games.



Why I will win:

  • It’s easy to say that Pele is the best player on the pitch. He is. But if we are talking about peaks here and not about overall careers then I would argue that the difference between him and Cruyff is, if any, minimal. Pele obviously beats him on longevity but in his Ajax days Cruyff was as good as anyone ever. My point being - there isn’t much between our star players.
  • Cruyff is playing with his beloved Dutch in the system that he understands perfectly. I’m not sure that Pele would feel as comfortable in a old-school British team with Liverpool/Leeds foundation that Chester built here. Pele will shine even in a pile of sheet, no doubt about that, but I still feel that he could’ve been used better.
  • With Pele being heavily marked I feel that there is a slight problem with creativity here and, especially, a problem with the first pass from the defense, which is pretty important when you play against high-pressing team like mine. I, on the other hand, have Blankenburg and Krol, a brilliant on-the-ball players and a fantastic defenders to boot.
  • Cruyff's turns, intelligent runs and overall tactical awesomeness will prove worthy against two typical English defenders who are used to play against a pure №9. This is the biggest mismatch here, imo.
  • Bremner, Chester’s star man in midfield already faced Roth in European Cup final. The result? Roth won the midfield battle and scored a winning goal while Bremner cost his team a disallowed one.
  • My usual point - I feel that even with Pele on the other side my team has better individualities and is better balanced - not even to mention my Ballon D’Or bench option. But this is, well, a biased view, of course.


TL/DR

A high-pressing total football-esque side based on the great Ajax team of the seventies. Overall - a free-flowing attacking football with mind-blowing Cruyff, devastating flanks and very smart midfielders who know when to support the attack, when to create a numerical advantage and when to help the defense. Pele, Chester’s main creative outlet is man-marked by Bedin, who faced him three times already and knows his style.






TEAM HARMS
CbJ8fpu.png



TEAM CHESTERLESTREET
QF-formation-tactics.png
​
 
Team Chesterlestreet​

Tactics: Balanced, I would say, though it sounds rather generic, not to say non-specific. Put it like this: Last time I went gung-ho light – I will not do that here in the sense that the fullbacks will be more conservative. I'm fielding a man who needs no further introduction on the left (that would be Marzolini) – and a right back of the highest order. Defensively, that is. I won't try to sell Tommy Smith as a wing back here, he certainly wasn't that. Clearly better defensively than offensively – but he was capable of pushing up a bit, and he was much better on the ball than his somewhat grim reputation would suggest. But the move on my part here is obvious: I do sacrifice something going forward in order to boost my defensive steel and nous (which I do to a great extent, be it said). Replacing Smith in the middle is a bit of a forgotten man – though he certainly shouldn't be. Mike England was among the very best defenders in the top flight for years – some would even say he was THE best when he was in his absolute pomp (for Spurs in the late 60s/early 70s). He was a brilliant defender, in short – and an aerial specialist, something I will benefit from both defensively and on corners (he was hell to deal with in that regard). Marshalling the bunch is, as before, Emlyn Hughes – who shouldn't need an introduction. If needed I refer to the link below. And at the back, of course, Ray Clemence – team mate of Smith and Hughes and one of the best (only one is obviously better) British keepers of all time.

There's a downside to my fullbacks being more conservative, and it means that both Lorimer and Corso will have to operate with less offensive assistance from behind. How do I compensate for this? Well, I don't – not fully. That isn't realistic given my more “balanced” approach. But I do have an upgrade in the middle of the park – and not a small one either. With Jansen in place, I can unleash Bremner to a greater extent. He will be able to combine more freely with Lorimer – which is a great benefit. Bremner will operate box-to-box here, with Jansen “holding”, by which I actually mean that he will make sure to hold back when Bremner is on the prowl. There's a cliché in football called “attack the space”. Jansen defended the space. And he did so better than most in the history of the game. He was an absolute expert at sniffing out danger and moving about to occupy the right space – at the right time. Meanwhile Corso will play his natural game on the left, which includes setting up plays. There are two primary playmakers here: Pelé and Corso, with Lorimer third in line, one could perhaps say. Corso will both attempt to beat his man (he is a formidable and fast dribbler) to gain an immediate advantage – and seek to pass it long/cross it in his trademark style. He will also, naturally, keep the flow rollin' when needed, combining with Jansen (who is a very good passer), Pelé and Marzolini (who will have his defensive duties to take care of, but if anyone was ever a perfectly balanced fullback in terms of offense/defence, it was Silvio M., so I wouldn't be surprised if he'll actually contribute a bit going forward too). Once again I mention, in conclusion (of the midfield ramble), that Corso may also drift somewhat inside (a natural move for him): This accomplishes two things. 1) It makes it harder for his man to keep tabs on him and 2) It enables him to combine (more) directly with the central players, hitting it short – and also long, across the pitch, to put the right flank into play with a single move.

Péle and Greaves will operate as they did last match. I refer to that description here:

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/40s-draft-r1-chesterlestreet-10-3-crappycraperson.410649/

But the main thing to keep in mind is that I'm not playing with two strikers. Pelé is operating in a hybrid role similar (but not identical) to the one he played for Brazil in '70.

Player profiles here:

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/40s...t-quarter-finals.409846/page-47#post-18283380
 
Think harms has a tactical advantage here. Chesters 2 man midfield will be against numbers and high press tactics will add you their discomfort. Cruyff in particular will be drifting all over and get into interesting positions.

On the flip side, how well can Bedin mark Pele? If Pele gets free Chesters attack will be devastating.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
On the flip side, how well can Bedin mark Pele? If Pele gets free Chesters attack will be devastating.
Click to expand...

Well, Bedin was - as my honoured opponent correctly states - an excellent man marker. So, if his designated task is to follow Pelé around the pitch, I'm sure he'll shackle the great man to some extent - and possibly to a great extent. That's the thing about marking, though: If it was a fool proof tactic, the likes of Pelé wouldn't be the likes of Pelé.

What do we presuppose here - and in any given match - if we presume anything at all? That players are in their pomp and on song. So, I'm not fielding a Pelé who is liable to have an off day, thus being in any shape or form easy to mark out of the match. Pelé (like Maradona or Zico or whohaveya) had more good days at the office than bad ones - and more often than not he wasn't devastatingly hindered by attempts at putting shackles on him.

A marking scenario can play out in many different ways:

1. The marker is extremely successful, virtually silencing his man.
2. The marker is reasonably successful, thus cramping his man's style to a significant (but not necessarily fatal) degree.
3. The marker is fairly unsuccesful, only managing to cramp his man's style to a lesser degree.
4. The marker isn't succesful at all, really, unable to keep up with his man unless he resorts to dirty tricks - and even then he "gets" little but a free kick (or worse) for the opposition as his due reward.
5. The marker is sent off.

Now, given that Pelé is in his pomp here and presumably having a pretty good day on the job - which scenario is most likely? Given, of course, that Bedin isn't any old mug but a very good marker - I'm not forgetting that.

Anyway, if he's to run about after Pelé (who operates in a fairly large area as part of his task here), the numerical midfield advantage is gone. Bedin (the most defensively sound of his midfielders) won't bother the box-to-boxin' Bremner at all.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
A marking scenario can play out in many different ways:

1. The marker is extremely successful, virtually silencing his man.
2. The marker is reasonably successful, thus cramping his man's style to a significant (but not necessarily fatal) degree.
3. The marker is fairly unsuccesful, only managing to cramp his man's style to a lesser degree.
4. The marker isn't succesful at all, really, unable to keep up with his man unless he resorts to dirty tricks - and even then he "gets" little but a free kick (or worse) for the opposition as his due reward.
5. The marker is sent off.

Now, given that Pelé is in his pomp here and presumably having a pretty good day on the job - which scenario is most likely? Given, of course, that Bedin isn't any old mug but a very good marker - I'm not forgetting that.
Click to expand...

1. We are playing in the 40's draft so it's fair to assume that we are playing by 60-70's rules - a rules where the likes of Vogts and Gentile (well, he a little bit later) successfully man-marked a lot of opponents without getting sent off. It was quite hard to get sent off those days tbf.

2. Numerical advantage in midfield would still be there because of my fluid system - will it be Cruyff, Blankenburg or Krol, it doesn't matter. The beauty of the system is about creating numerical advantages all over the pitch
 
I'm actually more worried about his fullback + winger combo on the left, to be honest. Lorimer might have to put in a shift at times there - but then again he isn't lazy (none of those Leeds lads were particularly lazy). And I have, as mentioned in the OP significantly strengthened my purely defensive power by fielding Smith at RB. But it's clearly a worry.

As is Jinky on the other side - Marzolini will have his work cut out for him.

As I see it, though, I can say with a fair degree of confidence what I said in the last match: I'm not worried about conceding here. I certainly don't depend on not conceding. If it turns into an open affair, I have the sort of players who can win this one 3-2 or 4-3.

Worth pointing out (which I haven't done so far) that Lorimer has well over 200 goals to his name. Bremner scored a decent amount for a defensively sound b2b'er too. And Corso knew how to hit the back of the net as well (he played as a striker at earlier stages of his career). So, I don't depend solely on Greaves and Pelé - which sounds a bit odd, to say the least. If I were in a flippant mood, I could even say that the other goal threats are practically overkill.
 
The main point for me is this - Pele is heavily marked by an opponent who was known to be a difficult opponent for him (Pele had only 1 goal in 3 games against Bedin's Inter, while scoring 9 in 5 games without Bedin), while Cruyff, a player of the same quality (I would argue that there isn't much between them in their retrospective peaks, Pele's was much longer though), is running free in a system that is perfect for him.
 
harms said:
The beauty of the system is about creating numerical advantages all over the pitch
Click to expand...

Sure, I get that. And I think your boys are well suited to the task.

However, I would point out that my system isn't a straight, old school 4-4-2 with two chalk licking wingers and two - in this context - isolated central midfielders. As stated in the profile post, both Lorimer and Corso are capable of functioning as wide midfielders more than wingers (meaning a narrower, less wide spread formation, particularly without the ball) - and Pelé is effectively more an AM than a striker. If I were to label it 4-5-1 (which I wouldn't do, but for the sake of argument) I could get away with that.

So, your fluidity isn't entirely unmatched.
 
harms said:
You haven't read the write-up, have you?) Bedin's effect is showing on Pele vs Inter stats
Click to expand...

I have. Grande Inter were playing Catenaccio with a sweeper and compact back line (except Facchetti ofc). A system that far suits defensive players imo.

Here Bedin in playing in a high press system, something which was a antithesis to Catenaccio completely.

I'm just trying to see how much success Bedin would have in totally different systems.,esp against Pele.
 
harms said:
1. We are playing in the 40's draft so it's fair to assume that we are playing by 60-70's rules - a rules where the likes of Vogts and Gentile (well, he a little bit later) successfully man-marked a lot of opponents without getting sent off. It was quite hard to get sent off those days tbf.
Click to expand...

True, of course. To be honest I added that one more because it looked like a good punch line than anything.

But Pelé built his reputation on doing battle with teams that tried to mark him out of the match - most of them tried that in one way or another. And if you look at the sum total - they weren't very successful. Part and parcel of the greatness of such players is precisely that they overcame this seemingly fool proof tactic.

You're dealing with the most athletic player (taking the evolution in training methods, equipment and - who knows - drugs, into consideration) in football history. A man who, when on fire, would be extremely hard to simply man mark to the extent that he won't influence the match. Perhaps even impossible to man mark - when he was on fire.

I'm not saying I can logically argue that Pelé WILL be on fire here - that would be ridiculous. But I CAN argue that he - logically, given the premise of the draft - most likely won't turn up in poor form.
 
When I a) build up from deep (starting from Hughes, like as not, who was good at that) or b) intercept the ball (which I can very plausibly do almost anywhere on the pitch - and in particular on either flank, from the efforts of my fullbacks, and in the middle, through the efforts of the defensively more than sound, and aggresive-as-hell Bremner - and Jansen, who is a DM specialist in addition to his other attributes), our man Bedin better stay sharp.

My opponent will NOT gladly face a forward rushing Pelé (either with the ball or without) and a certain goal poacher extraordinaire in the box. I won't say a bad word about harms' central defenders, but they'll be dealing with two of the most formidable goal threats in the history of the game.
 
To clarify in the name of fairness: I certainly don't mean that I'm bound to regain possession for fun - far from it. What I'm saying is that I have the players in place to do so often enough - which is the only thing that matters.

I maintain - as a key point here, in fact - that I don't have to win this one 1-0. I'm not even looking to do that. I can concede a goal here without breaking a sweat. Well, without sweating bullets anyway. I'm not living in fantasy land - yet. So, Cruyff - among others - is still on the pitch.
 
I'm at work for a few hours, will reply later
 
harms said:
I'm at work for a few hours, will reply later
Click to expand...

Aye, same here - have to take a break.

Before leaving I thought I'd mention some international credentials some of my less conspicuous (as I take it, thinking on the average passer-by) players can brag of. Leaving domestic glories out of it, I can present the following list:

Mike England: Won the UEFA Cup in '72 with Spurs.

Tommy Smith: Won two UEFA Cups and one European Cup with Liverpool.

Ray Clemence: Won two UEFA Cups and three European Cups with Liverpool.

Billy Bremner: Won two UEFA Cups with Leeds. Was a runner-up of in the Cup Winner's Cup once – and a runner up in the European Cup once (see Peter Lorimer).

Peter Lorimer: Won two UEFA Cups with Leeds (once a runner-up too). Runner-up in the Cup Winner's Cup once and in the European Cup once. The '75 European Cup final is worth a note in its own right. Leeds were up against Bayern Munich. At 0-0 with less than half an hour left on the clock, Lorimer scored. Or so he thought. The ref seemingly allowed the goal – but a certain Kaiser intervened and convinced the ref to consult with his linesman, after which the goal was disallowed. A controversial decision to this day – and one which made the Leeds faithful go mental. The match was interrupted – and when play was resumed Bayern hit Leeds twice on the counter (once through Roth, whom harms fields in this match) and won the Cup. Leeds were later banned for four (later reduced to two) years from European football due to the behavior of their fans – a ban which had no actual effect, since Super Leeds were essentially over and done with after this match (which could have been their crowning achievement). As a side note, I also mention that only a great save from Maier kept my man Bremner from putting Leeds ahead only minutes before Lorimer's goal – or non-goal, depending on who you ask.

Mario Corso: Twice (on the trot) winner of the European Cup with the grand Inter side of the 60s – and, one might very aptly mention, twice winner of the Intercontinental Cup (both triumphs against Independiente, the first of which settled by a Corso goal).
 
A few points:

Saying that Pelé is my "main creative outlet" is misleading. He's my go-to guy, obviously, as he would be in any team - but he isn't a pure conductor orchestrating all the moves, without whom the team would have no creative spark. Far from it, in fact. If anyone remembers the last match (I think it was the last match, anyway) and the discussion about Eusebio - there's a clue right there. Pelé isn't a traditional playmaker. He's a focal point more than an actual playmaker. What makes him so bloody dangerous is his more tangible qualities: His speed, his athleticism, his skill on the ball - and his finishing. His ability to function as a de facto playmaker, his natural proneness to dropping deep and involving himself, comes on top of this - and makes him a leader on the pitch more than an according-to-hoyle playmaker. My "true" playmaker is Corso - not Pelé. Just as Rivelino was more of a true playmaker for Brazil '70 than the man himself was.

The idea that my British defenders are unfamiliar with continental attackers is a nice fantasy - but it falls crushing to the ground when we look at the unmerciful facts. Two of my defenders are European Cup winners (and winners of other European tournaments as well). My least merited central defender is a UEFA Cup winner and his function in this particular game is twofold: To defend like a stopper (which usually comes in handy, regardless of how fancy the opposition is) and to dominate in the air both defensively and offensively (on corners), which I think an excellent technical header of the ball who stands at 1.90 meters would handle, er...excellently. My opponents' libero (is he playing like a libero, by the way - he's barely mentioned in the write-up) is six inches shorter - for one thing. To round it off my left back is Silvio Marzolini. He should be well known - and also free of any stigma attached to British defenders (who excelled in European club football in the 1970s, go figure).

Pelé isn't marked out of the match just because that is the intention. It could happen - sure. If Pelé is on fire (and why wouldn't he be?), it won't happen. If Pelé is playing reasonably well (and why in Garrincha's name wouldn't he be?) it may shackle him, but there's no reason to think it would prevent him from having an influence. Pelé is not playing as a second striker lurking in the proverbial hole. He is roaming, up and down, like he did - way down, to get involved. His marker needs to tail him, then, if he's to stay on him like a cheap suit. Which leaves the - always somewhat ridiculous - "midfield battle" to Wim Jansen and Billy Bremner versus Roth/Muhren. And, yeah - Cruyff dropping down, which is nice - but he can't drop down and remain a target up front at the same time. Jinky is no goal scorer to reckon with - Lennox better in that regard. But with Cruyff as part of the midfield trio - how does the numbers game look when applied to harms' actual attackers versus my actual defenders?

I've addressed the '75 final - and unlike my honoured rival also mentioned Maier's save, which kept Bremner from killing the match. *

* Yeah, yeah - I'm allowed some room, surely. Especially now that I'm officially off work - and on the beer.
 
Last edited:
One more thing which may be pointed out here explicitly - it has been touched upon, one might say, before - is that my team isn't an "old school British" one by any stretch of the imagination. Firstly, what the hell IS an "old school British team"? The grand Queens Park?

My team is built around Pelé - of that I make no secret, and I'd be an idiot to do so ('cause it's pretty obvious). And an idiot to build it around anyone else.

He is playing a version of his '70 role here - we can more or less safely call that a fact. Firstly: What is the '70 role? Well - it's a pretty free role. An immensely important free role. He's the one who brings the whole thing together. That sort of thing. And it's true - both for the '70 team and for this one. He's the main man - couldn't be anything else.

But he is NOT a "playmaker" as such (see above). He is surrounded by players who are more than capable of chipping in with creativity. In '70 he had the languid mastery of Gerson and the...lazy-ass brilliance of Rivelino...and the explosiveness of Jairzinho and the all-purpose...all-purposiveness of Tostao.

What does he have here? He has the sheer playmaking ability of Corso, who is also a trickster when called on - a speedy, technical winger who happens to have a Beckham style foot for passing, and a general tactical awareness, which means he doesn't actually have to play as a speedy technical winger (unlike my opponent's main candidate for praise in that position, who is a pure winger - a pure dribbler and trickster and by no means a top level play maker, nor much of a scorer).

He has one of the most subtly brilliant "wingers" (but in actual fact more of an attacking midfielder on the right) in British football, who will be waiting out wide for that simple pass when it's coming - but who will also drift inside when that is called for, and who will - lest we forget - launch insanely powerful shots at the poor bastard who happens to be in goal, shots even Eder would be jealous of.

He has, in the middle of the park a) Billy Bremner, who is what one might call a "defensive" box-to-boxer in the sense that he is defensively sound (like Roy Keane, if you will), but mainly - that would be his standout attribute, according to some, in this context, a skilled fighter. Not a moronic fighter whose only "skill" is that he will fight (like some sort of pit dog), but an actual footballer who's both a very good passer and a goal threat to boot who happens to be a fighter, the sort of bastard who keeps on going regardless of the score (if that be a "British" trait, then I'd say it's one of the better ones without further complicating the question). Bremner, then - in the quasi Gerson role if we're stuck on the '70 idea. A Gerson without the genius (long) passing (but that is taken care of by Corso, if we're playing that game) and blessedly without Gerson's immobility and general lack of anything anyone would call steel.

Next, Wim Jansen. One of the best defensive midfielders who ever played the game of football. The prototype of the under-appreciated cog who made the clock go round. My opponent would kill to have him in his team - he'll tell you so himself if he's half honest. Clodoaldo role, if we're still sticking with the analogy? Yeah, sure - whatever. I'd take Jansen over Clodoaldo myself, much as I like the latter. My man certainly is no downgrade on Clodoaldo (if we're still playing the game).

Jairzinho over Lorimer? Sure. But Jairzinho is perfectly incapable of playing as a de facto attacking midfielder in a faux winger role - heyhey, look at these terms being flung about! I'm almost blushing behind my proverbial laptop screen (in actual fact I'm not using a laptop - I'm using an insanely powerful desktop computer with a 50" TV for a monitor *) but it's true nonetheless. Which, as it happens, further undermines the notion of an "old school British" set-up. I don't use traditional wingers. Not on either side. I use a playmaking winger type, who is also prone to drifting inside (and prone to attacking the box) in spite of possessing classic winger traits such as being a trickster, a speedster and an exceptional crosser, on the left. And I use Lorimer, who has been dealt with already, on the right.

Pelé's greatest strength, both in real life and in the draft world, is that you can play him in that hybrid role of his most anywhere - and he'll probably do just fine, at worst. But I haven't drafted completely blindfolded here. I have actually provided him with players I contend he would thrive with - the right mixture of graft and creativity (and pure finishing power, to an extent he never enjoyed anywhere else) that would allow him to play his game (which is, as I said in the last match, a bloody demanding one) as it should be played.

Now I've rambled on for so long - interrupted by a bloody woman who lives next door and who claims there are rats in the cellar (there aren't) - that I've forgotten what I actually addressed, if I addressed anything.

But the last couple of paragraphs are at least true - as far as Pelé and his role in the team is concerned.

* Actually true. Among the few things posted that are, actually, true.
 
Last edited:
Chesterlestreet said:
Aye, same here - have to take a break.

Before leaving I thought I'd mention some international credentials some of my less conspicuous (as I take it, thinking on the average passer-by) players can brag of. Leaving domestic glories out of it, I can present the following list:

Mike England: Won the UEFA Cup in '72 with Spurs.

Tommy Smith: Won two UEFA Cups and one European Cup with Liverpool.

Ray Clemence: Won two UEFA Cups and three European Cups with Liverpool.

Billy Bremner: Won two UEFA Cups with Leeds. Was a runner-up of in the Cup Winner's Cup once – and a runner up in the European Cup once (see Peter Lorimer).

Peter Lorimer: Won two UEFA Cups with Leeds (once a runner-up too). Runner-up in the Cup Winner's Cup once and in the European Cup once. The '75 European Cup final is worth a note in its own right. Leeds were up against Bayern Munich. At 0-0 with less than half an hour left on the clock, Lorimer scored. Or so he thought. The ref seemingly allowed the goal – but a certain Kaiser intervened and convinced the ref to consult with his linesman, after which the goal was disallowed. A controversial decision to this day – and one which made the Leeds faithful go mental. The match was interrupted – and when play was resumed Bayern hit Leeds twice on the counter (once through Roth, whom harms fields in this match) and won the Cup. Leeds were later banned for four (later reduced to two) years from European football due to the behavior of their fans – a ban which had no actual effect, since Super Leeds were essentially over and done with after this match (which could have been their crowning achievement). As a side note, I also mention that only a great save from Maier kept my man Bremner from putting Leeds ahead only minutes before Lorimer's goal – or non-goal, depending on who you ask.

Mario Corso: Twice (on the trot) winner of the European Cup with the grand Inter side of the 60s – and, one might very aptly mention, twice winner of the Intercontinental Cup (both triumphs against Independiente, the first of which settled by a Corso goal).
Click to expand...

All those UEFA cups and runners-up are not that impressive when half of my outfield players have won three European Cups back-to-back (4 with Ajax and 1 with Bayern) and three others were crucial parts to some legendary teams like the Lisbon Lions (who won European Cup in 1967) and Le Grande Inter (who won it in 1965). In fact, the only players that haven't won it are from USSR, which held them back, but they are a proven combination on the highest level, playing against the likes of Best and Dzajic (and Corso is not on their level).

Plus I personally don't rate that Liverpool team that high, despite their obvious success, I think that it were bad times for European football. While 70's Ajax is considered by many as one of the best club sides ever (along with 90's Milan and Guardiola's Barca).

And then you have a filler in Emlyn Hughes, who played mostly at left back iirc ("His versatility was noticed too – he filled in at left back and central defence, a trait which was spotted by England coach Alf Ramsey in 1969" - wiki).
 
You keep saying that Pele is not a playmaker here but I don't see the point - I man-mark him as he is, obsiously, the best player in your side and his influence needs to be reduced. You're saying that Corso is your main creative threat? Very well, I have one of the best right-backs in the draft handling (with fantastic games against Best and Dzajic in his CV) him plus Johnstone, who was a surprisingly hardworking player. And you don't have an elite passer from the back, like Blankenburg or Krol.
 
It's hard not to talk bad about your players when half of them are from Liverpool and Leeds and we are on United forum, you have to understand that, @Chesterlestreet. Nothing personal :devil:
 
Playing such a high pressing game against Pele and Greaves looks like a risk to me - Greaves had fantastic movement and acceleration to get in behind that defence, particularly with Pele of all people supplying him.

Aldo said:
Bedin was the defensive fulcrum of one of, if not the best, defensive sides in history - Herrera’s La Grande Inter. He held midfield on his shoulders and was also a terrific man-marker, usually assigned to the best player of the opposition team. The list of his victims includes Rivera, Eusebio, Pele and Di Stefano - not a bad CV.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind some further information on this part @harms

Calling Bedin the defensive fulcrum in a side with Facchetti, Burgnich and Picchi seems excessive IMO but he's not a player I know too much about. Is there a reason he didn't play more games for the Italy national team?
 
harms said:
And then you have a filler in Emlyn Hughes, who played mostly at left back iirc ("His versatility was noticed too – he filled in at left back and central defence, a trait which was spotted by England coach Alf Ramsey in 1969" - wiki).
Click to expand...

Wiki? That's yer game?

He filled in at left back and central defence - but he actually was the tea lady? Or a midfielder?

Hughes played as fullback (side back) AND as a central defender AND as a (defensive) midfielder for Liverpool at various stages of his career. For England he was primarily used as a left back. I'm not replicating England - nor Liverpool, for that matter. I'm using him in a role he excelled at - as a centre half, winning the greatest European club honour in said role. I'm not sure what you're even arguing here - he was genuinely versatile, so that...counts against him?

What about yer libero back there - what's his actual function here? Is he free roaming much, to a lesser degree - or not at all? Bearing in mind that he undoubtedly excelled - as they say - as an actual libero.
 
harms said:
You keep saying that Pele is not a playmaker here but I don't see the point - I man-mark him as he is, obsiously, the best player in your side and his influence needs to be reduced. You're saying that Corso is your main creative threat? Very well, I have one of the best right-backs in the draft handling (with fantastic games against Best and Dzajic in his CV) him plus Johnstone, who was a surprisingly hardworking player. And you don't have an elite passer from the back, like Blankenburg or Krol.
Click to expand...

No, I don't say Corso is my main creative threat. I say that he is my "true" playmaker. Pelé is my main threat both creative and otherwise, but he isn't an according-to-Hoyle playmaker. Just a point I thought it worthwhile to mention.
 
Theon said:
Playing such a high pressing game against Pele and Greaves looks like a risk to me - Greaves had fantastic movement and acceleration to get in behind that defence, particularly with Pele of all people supplying him.



I wouldn't mind some further information on this part @harms

Calling Bedin the defensive fulcrum in a side with Facchetti, Burgnich and Picchi seems excessive IMO but he's not a player I know too much about. Is there a reason he didn't play more games for the Italy national team?
Click to expand...
Maybe something is lost in the translation - I use fulcrum as something on which the whole team stands, the defensive foundation if you may and as it certainly were for Bedin who was a holding midfielder for Suarez and Mazzola. I'm not inclining that he was more integral or a better player than Facchetti, Burgnich and Picchi.

There is something about defensive midfielders in Italy, too much is based on personal relationships - for example, imo, the greatest pure destroyer in Italy's history has what, 5 or something caps (I'm talking about Furino here). Same situation.

For Inter he was their man to man-mark the best opposition player, to win the ball and to give it to more gifted partners. It's what he excelled in - I wasn't making up all those names, he did a job on all of them - and a pretty good one.

Here's a little video of him as he is included in Inter's Hall of Fame



High-line and pressing are always seem like a losing tactics in the draft and I'm trying to prove that it's wrong. Kaplychnyi, for one, had a great pace and was used to clear up after Shesternyov and Khurtsilava's bursts forward. Blankenburg and the whole Ajax team played like that for year and nobody figured them out - did they just not met the striker of Greaves calibre? I very much doubt so.

Like Chester, I'm not saying that I won't concede here. It will be a highly entertaining game with a lots of goals but I'm sure that I have what it takes to outscore the opposition.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Wiki? That's yer game?

He filled in at left back and central defence - but he actually was the tea lady? Or a midfielder?

Hughes played as fullback (side back) AND as a central defender AND as a (defensive) midfielder for Liverpool at various stages of his career. For England he was primarily used as a left back. I'm not replicating England - nor Liverpool, for that matter. I'm using him in a role he excelled at - as a centre half, winning the greatest European club honour in said role. I'm not sure what you're even arguing here - he was genuinely versatile, so that...counts against him?

What about yer libero back there - what's his actual function here? Is he free roaming much, to a lesser degree - or not at all? Bearing in mind that he undoubtedly excelled - as they say - as an actual libero.
Click to expand...
I'm too lazy to see Liverpool games just for that, so I used wiki, guilty. Still, I know of him mainly as a left-back and at this stage, against that opposition, is he playing at his best?

Blankenburg plays the same role he played for Ajax, that's obvious - a centre-back with a license to go forward; and, like in Ajax, it never was a liability, because he had Krol and Mühren on his side (like he does now) who covered the space for him. Total football
 
I struggle to understand one thing - why Bedin on Pele is questioned while Cruyff runs between the lines totally free?
 
"Filler" is a overly harsh description for Emlyn - he was an excellent all-rounder who isn't going to be like Harry Johnston bamboozled over this Hidegkuti fella dropping into midfield all the time.
 
harms said:
I struggle to understand one thing - why Bedin on Pele is questioned while Cruyff runs between the lines totally free?
Click to expand...

You mean in the sense that I haven't wasted a man marker on him? Yeah, that's true. He can run wherever he wants to. He won't find himself alone there, though.
 
harms said:
For Inter he was their man to man-mark the best opposition player, to win the ball and to give it to more gifted partners. It's what he excelled in - I wasn't making up all those names, he did a job on all of them - and a pretty good one.

High-line and pressing are always seem like a losing tactics in the draft and I'm trying to prove that it's wrong. Kaplychnyi, for one, had a great pace and was used to clear up after Shesternyov and Khurtsilava's bursts forward. Blankenburg and the whole Ajax team played like that for year and nobody figured them out - did they just not met the striker of Greaves calibre? I very much doubt so.
Click to expand...

I just hadn't heard very much about Bedin at all and knew that he didn't play for the Italian National side. Is there any information on those games against Di Stefano etc as I would love to read them.

On the second point - I disagree with most of that whole paragraph. You don't have the whole Ajax side for one so I don't think it's as simple as saying that because it worked for them, it will work for your side - Having someone of the quality of Neeskens in that midfield would make a big difference IMO.

I'm not going to argue about that though as my point wasn't even really about your team, it was more just that a high line would surely work in Greaves' favour particularly considering the quality of supply he has.
 
Gio said:
"Filler" is a overly harsh description for Emlyn - he was an excellent all-rounder who isn't going to be like Harry Johnston bamboozled over this Hidegkuti fella dropping into midfield all the time.
Click to expand...

It's not even overly harsh - it's blatant rubbish. If he "filled in" as a centre half for Liverpool, he did so for seasons on end, being moved there purposely and forming a partnership with the odious Thompson (who pushed Smith out right), winning the greatest prizes in the process.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
You mean in the sense that I haven't wasted a man marker on him? Yeah, that's true. He can run wherever he wants to. He won't find himself alone there, though.
Click to expand...
"wasted a man-marker"?
I provided stats from before Bedin's time in Inter (when Pele scored 9 goals in just 5 games against them) and after his introduction to the first team and to this role of Pele's personal handler. 1 goals in 3 games. So that's from 1,8 gpg to 0,3 gpg just by "wasting a man-marker".

With Bedin I always have three players on your pairing of Pele and Greaves.
 
harms said:
"wasted a man-marker"?
I provided stats from before Bedin's time in Inter (when Pele scored 9 goals in just 5 games against them) and after his introduction to the first team and to this role of Pele's personal handler. 1 goals in 3 games. So that's from 1,8 gpg to 0,3 gpg just by "wasting a man-marker".

With Bedin I always have three players on your pairing of Pele and Greaves.
Click to expand...

Yes, sure - you've made that point.

My reply was tongue-in-cheek. Well, overly sharp tongue-in-cheek, but there you go - comes with the territory. You seemed to imply that unlike you I haven't dedicated any single player to fondling Cruyff's balls - and that would somehow leave him free to kill the world.

I don't think it will - nor do I think putting a man marker on Pelé will negate him to the extent you need.

You need goals, my friend - regardless of all other factors. I play with the prototype of a complete fullback on the left (who will have his hands full with Jinky, but who is easily a match for him, if anyone is), a defensively rock solid right back - and two of the best defenders British football had to offer in the period relevant to our draft in the middle. I furthermore field one midfielder who is as defensively sound as box-to-boxers come and one who is an expert in, well, defensive midfieldery (without being a hatchet man or a Makelele). They're not going anywhere needlessly. You can have Bedin shadow Pelé all over the park as much as you like - that leaves him entirely out of the equation.

What you propose is, in effect, that Cruyff - the phenomenon that is Cruyff - will win you this match. That's how I read it. I think you're wrong. I have more strings to play on offensively than you have even if Bedin manages to shackle Pelé to a significant degree - and I don't think he will. If he slips once, he might survive the slip - if he slips twice in a critical phase, that's a goal

One goal in three, you say? Under what circumstances? With Jimmy Greaves lurking in the shadows? Don't think so.
 
A fairly obvious point to make is - given your general line of argumentation here - that you're actually playing two pretty damn "traditional" British wingers either side of Cruyff. Not a bad word said about that - as "traditional" British wingers of that ilk are usually very good (and yours are, indeed, just that). But why should anyone accept either Johnstone or his pendant as a natural fit for the sort of "synergy" you profess to offer here? Not least, one might add, after you've played the "British = not very progressive" card against me.

And the same goes for your midfield choices. Why should a Herrera style defensive midfielder (and now appointed man marker of Pelé) fit seamlessly into some sort of total football scheme?

You can't just say that the idea is to play like Ajax (who won three European Cups on the trot, which you point out in the manner of an actual non sequitur) and expect people to believe the players you have at your disposal would actually do it.

Not least when your version of Ajax never faced a fantasy team which is - if I say so myself - a fairly solid one. In draft terms, I mean. In real-life terms they would slaughter most sides. But we're in fantasy land here - lest we forget. We field top class players in their prime, at the top of their game, etc. You're not fielding the Ajax side that conquered either Inter or Juve here - or should I say Panathinaikos, a side most people would agree have gone down in history more due to their manager than to anything else? Not trolling you, mate - nor simply playing the expected oneupmanship game (well, partly, of course - but that's what we do, and it would be boring if we didn't): It's fantasy. Which means all sorts of things. But in this particular context it means - relevant to the present argument - two things in particular:

1. Even given my inept management, you're facing a better team than any Ajax vintage faced.
2. You need an upgrade on the actual Ajax team in order to play the Ajax card - not just a blanket "I play like Ajax" statement. Meaning, even more particularly, that you need to explain how the likes of Bedin, Roth, Johnstone and Lennox would fit the Michels/Kovacs template and how they would be upgrades on the historical players who filled those roles.
 
Gio said:
"Filler" is a overly harsh description for Emlyn - he was an excellent all-rounder who isn't going to be like Harry Johnston bamboozled over this Hidegkuti fella dropping into midfield all the time.
Click to expand...

Aye. He's a frequent inclusion in all-time Liverpool XIs at centre back, was a regular there at his peak, and the consensus is that he was much better at centre back than left back imo.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
A fairly obvious point to make is - given your general line of argumentation here - that you're actually playing two pretty damn "traditional" British wingers either side of Cruyff. Not a bad word said about that - as "traditional" British wingers of that ilk are usually very good (and yours are, indeed, just that). But why should anyone accept either Johnstone or his pendant as a natural fit for the sort of "synergy" you profess to offer here? Not least, one might add, after you've played the "British = not very progressive" card against me.
Click to expand...
Lennox is hardly a traditional british winger, he is more of a goalscoring wing-forward and Johnstone is a great Swart replacement (and an upgrade).

I'm making a video of Bedin vs Eusebio for all you doubters (can't find any footage of him against Pele, obviously)
 
harms said:
High-line and pressing are always seem like a losing tactics in the draft and I'm trying to prove that it's wrong.
Click to expand...

It's not. I think your high line in this draft is an advantage. Chester is playing a midfield 2 and you have strength in numbers to pull it off in this match. It's more of Bedin's qualifications against possibly the top player in this draft that is being analysed here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.