40s Draft QF2 : harms 7-5 Chesterlestreet

[Chesterlestreet]

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)

A goal scoring wing-forward IS a traditional British winger, unless you think a "traditional British winger" is some mug who can run a bit and then whack a cross in. That's a traditionally poor winger, not a winger of the sort British (both English and Scottish - and Irish and Welsh, for that matter) football was blessed with for much of its history.

But whatever.

I'm calling it a night. Doesn't seem to be much interest either from voters or debaters.

Hey, mate - don't take this argumentative and generally cnutish attitude as anything it's not. It's just the game, as I see it. If we're going to be all polite and nice about it, it's no fun. You've a grand team - and I wish you all the best.

One final observation, though: What you've gone for here is something many go for - a team based on a historical blueprint of sorts. That's not only very plausible, but also potentially very interesting, since it lends itself to more facts, anecdotes and whatnot which people who are interested in the history of football might find interesting.

However, it does - by its very nature - come at a price. Firstly, it's patently absurd to even suggest that an actual, historical side would stand a chance against a fantasy side comprised of nothing but top notch player...in a fantasy match. Secondly, it means that, taken as a formula, it limits the scope of the thing: A follower of this scheme will essentially seek to reconstruct something already given, rather than explore something not given (but still plausible, still fact based, if done right).

Thirdly - and this is the pertinent point in this particular case - it has to mean that anyone who follows that script has to (as a said above) a) improve the actual side he bases his fantasy side on (because even the greatest historical side in history didn't face an opponent sporting multiple GOATs running about the place), and b) field players he can argue is a natural fit for the system he seeks to emulate. Personally, I don't think you've done either a) or b) here to a sufficient degree.

Just sayin' - as they say. But no hard feelings, man - I'm off to bed and wish you the sweetest of dreams.

 

[harms]

One final observation, though: What you've gone for here is something many go for - a team based on a historical blueprint of sorts. That's not only very plausible, but also potentially very interesting, since it lends itself to more facts, anecdotes and whatnot which people who are interested in the history of football might find interesting.

However, it does - by its very nature - come at a price. Firstly, it's patently absurd to even suggest that an actual, historical side would stand a chance against a fantasy side comprised of nothing but top notch player...in a fantasy match. Secondly, it means that, taken as a formula, it limits the scope of the thing: A follower of this scheme will essentially seek to reconstruct something already given, rather than explore something not given (but still plausible, still fact based, if done right).

Yeah, tried to explained this in the managers draft final. Didn't work Although I agree about it

I made the Bedin video, I'll wait until it's uploaded and then I'll go to bed myself. Good night!

 

[harms]

Okay, @Theon @Edgar Allan Pillow and everyone interested, here's some footage of Bedin (№4) against Eusebio (№10). Inter won that game 1:0. I tried to highlight off the ball movement but it's hard to show it in those videos. I'm also half asleep, so don't judge me!

Here's Bedin asked to play against a clearly superior player and athlete (the same with Pele). Eusebio is another GOAT specimen that combined out of the world technique with bags of pace and physical strength. Look at how Bedin plays against him - it's not "Gentile's murder" style, it's more sophisticated - he knows that he will lose to that burst of acceleration if he'll get too close so he keeps his distance until the very last moment.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Just a minor point which I forgot to address yesterday: While I certainly agree that Hughes' Liverpool aren't a truly great team, if "great" is the standard set by Beckenbauer's Bayern or Michel's Ajax, it can't simply be brushed aside that a player like Hughes has two ECs to his name - on the trot, no less. Credentials wise, it's impossible to ignore this. And argument wise it's a bit like saying that Hughes himself, while being a top class player, was no Beckenbauer. Well, he wasn't - but then again who was?

Well, it's a minor point - but credentials are important, as we all know.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Final thought on the Pelé/man marker thing:

It is possible to man mark even a great player out of the match. History provides plenty of examples. But to slap a marker on a great player is no GUARANTEE that the latter won't influence the match. If it were that simple - well, there goes the glory of football.

Now, to us this should be of particular interest: We're always (or usually, at least) fielding extremely good players who are imagined as being on the top of their game. Is it really sufficient to slap a marker on Pelé and, hey - look at that, problem solved? Remember, in order for the actual argument to work here, Bedin has to stifle Pelé. He has to take him out. It's not enough to simply bother him a bit. Like I said above, if he loses him once - he could get away with it. If he loses him twice - that's a goal right there. We're talking about losing arguably the greatest player in the history of the game here - in his pomp, on the top of his game. Think about that for a moment.

That's, let's say, general - the principle of the thing.

More particularly:

Look at the Euesebio example above. Bedin does a marking job on him (as he has done on other occasions, also on the very Pelé we're talking about here ) - good. Now, what sort of side does he play for? Answer: The most notoriously cagey club side in history. A side that were more than content to stifle their way to a 1-0 win. What's harms doing here? He's fielding a catenaccio style man marker in a side allegedly based on Michel's Ajax. That's something of a contradiction, one might say - but I don't mind contradictions, as such. If it works, it works. But the effect of this Italian job is that one of his three midfielders is permanently taken out of the equation. It's Roth and Muhren - with Cruyff dropping down, and the Scots on the wings. Not bad at all. But I have a fairly conservative bank of four AND my two central midfielders who are good-to-excellent defensively against that set-up. I don't see any numerical advantage here. Sacrificing a midfielder to this marking scheme is not compatible with the Dutch synergy my opponent claims to offer. There's a serious flaw with the plan here.

 

[harms]

4:5 now. You are definitely doing something right and I've already said everything that I wanted.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

4:5 now. You are definitely doing something right and I've already said everything that I wanted.

Heh - you've equalized.

I've said my piece too - no point in repeating oneself. Up to the voters now. Poor turnout, though - would be a bit ridiculous if it went to penalties after just ten votes.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Well, at least there won't be penalties - got my wish there.

A couple of points can be made clearer here, just as a final effort:

* harms depends on the man marking job being highly successful. This can't be overemphasized. It will do him but little good to have Pelé bothered a bit. The marker needs to effectively take him out. And I maintain that it's not likely that he'll be able to do that.

* I don't play a 4-4-2, nor a 4-2-4. I do not have two midfielders stuck in utter isolation in the middle of the park. Both my wide men are prone to drift inside. As stated explicitly both in the OP and in the last match thread, I'm fielding four midfielders here more than anything: Two centrally, two out wide. And to add to this, Pelé isn't a second striker stuck in the hole. He's effectively more of an attacking midfielder than a striker. That makes it FIVE midfielders, not TWO, if we're playing the silly old numbers game. More crucially, though, Pelé will be dragging Benetti all over the shop - and the latter simply vanishes from the synergy harms sells as his main asset.

* In the middle of the park there's Roth and Muhren, two fine players who featured for legendary sides - but hardly more than that. That pair obviously needs the added presence of Cruyff in order for his central strength to become anything to truly boast about. And Cruyff, legend that he is, can't be a threat in two places at the same time. When he drops down to involve himself there, harms has no striker. Period. In terms of goal scorers, he has Lennox - and that's it. You need to score goals in order to win football matches - just ask old Aloysius Van Gaal.

 

[harms]

Good game, @Chesterlestreet
Sorry if I was overly harsh at times.

Kicked out Beckenbauer and Pele

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Good game, @Chesterlestreet
Sorry if I was overly harsh at times.

Kicked out Beckenbauer and Pele

Likewise, my friend - and no, if anything I was probably harsher than you.

I think the man marker business was worth debating a bit, since the situation comes up now and again in these drafts. As a final note, while I certainly stand by what I said in that regard, I probably would have done exactly what you did myself if I were in a similar position. The main problem with your move was that you did leave yourself open to criticism in the sense that fielding a pure man marker really isn't in line with the rest of the "project" (as Louis would say).

Congrats! And good luck further.

 

[Joga Bonito]

A real shame that I missed most of this match, being busy preparing for mine. Think the overall unit that Chester assembled didn't get the credit that it deserved, esp that midfield combination. Corso really was a cracking player for La Grande Inter and in his LCM role he had the freedom to influence play centrally and venture out wide occasionally to great effect. Likewise Bremner and Jansen was a top notch and a complementary midfield pairing, with Lorimer being a nice overall foil as a RAM. Bremner's on the ball work does tend to get underrated to a certain extent and he was a brilliant dribbler and a passer on the ball. So there was no want for creativity in Chester's side imo. Nothing much needs to be said about Pele-Greaves too.

The only slight concern I had was the slight lack of width on the right with Lorimer being more of an RAM and Smith being a rather conservative RB. Lorimer had Reaney as an overlapping FB and the potent Cooper-Gray partership on the left and thus he had the freedom to play a tucked in role. Likewise, Corso at Inter had Facchetti on the left and Jair on the right which suited him brilliantly. So that was the only tiny aspect which bothered me but other than that it was spot on tactically and individually.

Also kudos to Chester because he could have easily gone with Giles instead of Jansen (both criminally underrated) or Jairzinho/Rivelino for that matter but decided to try something different.

It was a brave move by harms to drop Albert but it was a wise one in the end. I like the looks of his team overall, apart from one or two elements here and there, which I'm sure will be rectified in the coming reinforcement round.

Would have probably chickened out of voting myself as it really is too hard to call.