40s Draft QF3 : Joga Bonito 13-12 Invictus

[Joga Bonito]

I think I voted prematurely

Any particular reasons for the change in vote?

 

[harms]

Any particular reasons for the change in vote?

I think that I'll change it a few more times before the end Too damn close, shouldn't have voted at all

 

[Chesterlestreet]

It's been a long long time since I watched that match but I could have sworn that Jose Torres was playing as the centre-forward in that match.

It's been ages since I've seen it too - so I won't swear on it. You could very well be right - but the point remains that Eusébio was, for all intents and purposes, the focal point of the attack in a - let's say - striker sense. He was never an in-the-hole sort of playmaking second striker.

He's quite similar to Pelé in that regard - as is often pointed out.

I see the potential problem - it ain't that. But you'd have to conclude that Mazzola and Eusébio would actually bump into each other, essentially playing the same role, to conclude that this setup would be detrimental. Or - alternatively - you'd have to conclude that Eusébio would have to suppress his natural game in order to make it work to the extent that he'd turn into some sort of...non-Eusébio. I don't see either of those things happening.

I rather see two immensely talented players working together - and...presto.

 

[Balu]

The question here - as always - is theoretical: Would this work, in theory (it never worked in practice for the obvious reason that it never happened on a real football pitch)?

I'd say 'would it work' is only part of the question. I agree that it would work, I just don't think you necessarily get the peak version of the players, which is a pretty big factor in my opinion.

In general I love it if someone builds a team with players, who offer different things and excel in the roles given to them. It's much more likely to work (in the sense of getting the best out of everyone, maybe even the famous 'more than the sum of its parts' thing) than a few versatile players put in the same side, whose best positions overlap and everyone is forced to do something that they can do but isn't necessarily what they were best at.

I've watched all their matches and I'm obviously biased here, so I'd tag neutrals who've probably watched those matches themselves @Brwned @Balu who I'm sure would back up my statements.

I'm not sure you can call me a neutral when it comes to Netzer, but yeah, I agree. But it's an odd comparison, van Hanegem/Mazzola are obviously different players to Netzer/Beckenbauer. Both teams have very different midfield set-ups in my opinion, which makes it a fascinating midfield battle. For what it's worth, I rate Wimmer higher than Haan, which is no slight on Haan, who I rate highly. Wimmer is just so so underrated and I've said that several times before.

 

[Joga Bonito]

I'm not sure you can call me a neutral when it comes to Netzer, but yeah, I agree. But it's an odd comparison, van Hanegem/Mazzola are obviously different players to Netzer/Beckenbauer. Both teams have very different midfield set-ups in my opinion, which makes it a fascinating midfield battle. For what it's worth, I rate Wimmer higher than Haan, which is no slight on Haan, who I rate highly. Wimmer is just so so underrated and I've said that several times before.

Meant neutral as far as the match is concerned and can anyone who watches Netzer be classified as a neutral when it concerns him? And yeah, Wimmer does tend to be underrated.

It's been ages since I've seen it too - so I won't swear on it. You could very well be right - but the point remains that Eusébio was, for all intents and purposes, the focal point of the attack in a - let's say - striker sense. He was never an in-the-hole sort of playmaking second striker.

He's quite similar to Pelé in that regard - as is often pointed out.

I see the potential problem - it ain't that. But you'd have to conclude that Mazzola and Eusébio would actually bump into each other, essentially playing the same role, to conclude that this setup would be detrimental. Or - alternatively - you'd have to conclude that Eusébio would have to suppress his natural game in order to make it work to the extent that he'd turn into some sort of...non-Eusébio. I don't see either of those things happening.

I rather see two immensely talented players working together - and...presto.

Well I wouldn't say it's that easy myself. There is a reason why both played behind a rather more traditional centre-forward-esque player - Jose Torres and Aguas when Eusebio is concerned, and Peiro, Milani & Cappellini when Mazzola is concerned although the Inter centre-forwards had more freedom but were still on average, ahead of Mazzola positionally. It was to provide Mazzola and Eusebio with all the freedom and tactical room to float around the pitch and decide where their presence would best be utilised. Would both Mazzola and Eusebio enjoy that freedom here without a more traditional spearheading forward ahead of them, who allowed them the freedom to be ubiquitous presences on the pitch and also feed off them when the occasion required it? No, imo. They'd both would be looking to do the same thing here. Eusebio was a more direct player and a phenomenal goalscoring player, granted but he absolutely loved dropping deep and charging forward from deeper areas. As too did Mazzola, albeit in a different manner, when connecting midfield and attack together for La Grande's Inter. Would their partnership work? Yes, but is it it optimal? No as far as I'm concerned but it's fair enough that you'd think it would function together.

Also an interesting comparison to Pele there. His partnership with Tostao worked wonders, only because Tostao was actively willing to take the back seat and play a tactical role and tailor his movements to Pele. Don't get me wrong, he was a brilliant individual and had a great 1970 WC, but Tostao's usual role was a second striker just like Pele, except for the WC 1970 where he willingly played a specialised role.

However, when you've got match-winners with the calibre of Mazzola and Eusebio - both of whom had their respective teams built around them - you don't want them to be playing tactical roles.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Well I wouldn't say it's that easy myself. There is a reason why both played behind a rather more traditional centre-forward-esque player - Jose Torres and Aguas when Eusebio is concerned, and Peiro, Milani & Cappellini when Mazzola is concerned although the Inter centre-forwards had more freedom but were still on average, ahead of Mazzola positionally. It was to provide Mazzola and Eusebio with all the freedom and tactical room to float around the pitch and decide where their presence would best be utilised. Would both Mazzola and Eusebio enjoy that freedom here without a more traditional spearheading forward ahead of them, who allowed them the freedom to be ubiquitous presences on the pitch and also feed off them when the occasion required it? No, imo. They'd both would be looking to do the same thing here. Eusebio was a more direct player and a phenomenal goalscoring player, granted but he absolutely loved dropping deep and charging forward from deeper areas. As too did Mazzola, albeit in a different manner, when connecting midfield and attack together for La Grande's Inter. Would their partnership work? Yes, but is it it optimal? No as far as I'm concerned but it's fair enough that you'd think it would function together.

Also an interesting comparison to Pele there. His partnership with Tostao worked wonders, because Tostao was actively willing to take the back seat and play a tactical role and tailor his movements to Pele. Don't get me wrong, he was a brilliant individual and had a great 1970 WC but he usually was a second striker just like Pele, except for the WC 1970 where he willingly played a specialised role.

However, when you've got match-winners with the calibre of Mazzola and Eusebio - both of whom had their respective teams built around them - you don't want them to be playing tactical roles.

That's what I'd call a very good response.

I think my stance on this boils down to a basic, and possibly flawed, idea: Eusébio - like Pelé - is a somewhat ambiguous figure. He isn't clearly this or clearly that. Which means that he's very appealing to someone like me - who favours "theory" * over "proven" in the context of these draft games.

Mazzola is problematic here, though, to a degree I may have underestimated. Your points about his particular style are well taken. He wasn't "just" an attacking midfielder slash second striker of the sort who excelled at orchestration more than being...direct. On the contrary he was pretty damn direct.

* Well, good theory - not wild or unsupported theory.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I'd say 'would it work' is only part of the question. I agree that it would work, I just don't think you necessarily get the peak version of the players, which is a pretty big factor in my opinion.

Sure, but what I mean by "work" isn't "work as some sort of makeshift solution". I mean "work" as in "work very well". And I maintain that Eusébio would work very well as the main striker, in front of an excellent AM. But upon further reflection I've now landed on the conclusion that Mazzola - the actual AM in question - is, as Joga argues, too direct, too much of a focal point (too much of a finisher, for that matter) for this to work as well as I imagined initially.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Anyway here are the gifs that I promised earlier @Edgar Allan Pillow . There is another of Wimmer's and one of Ball's that I'd edit in as soon as it's uploaded online - having some trouble with that. They are about 1 minute long though so let them load if possible.

Had some troubles with the gifs, so just uploaded them as videos.



Notice his movement off the ball catering to the players around him, supporting runs off the ball and his obvious direct ball carrying threat. He was a phenomenal all-rounder in addition to being a rock solid defensive player. In fact, he is famed for being the water-carrier to Netzer, but in fact the term water-carrier itself is actually bit of an insult to him. He would be right at ease playing alongside or against the likes of van Hanegem and Haan - just look at Balu's comment above

Likewise red-haired fire ball, Alan, who was always in perpetual motion and specialised in leaving players (some of his scalps include Der Kaiser & Schnellinger) on their arse, comically . He rapid swerves were nothing short of nightmarish to deal with.



As I stated in the OP - Ball's and Wimmer's dynamic gameplay, and ability to ramp up the tempo of the match in an instant with a quick turn, one-two or a lung busting run forward means that they are the perfect midfield complements to the uber-direct Netzer's play and also Der Kaiser's patient build-up play.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Already posted this in the OP but try and read it if you haven't already.

The impenetrable barricade - Der Kaiser & Katsche

Beckenbauer and Schwarzenbeck were quite simply, one of the greatest central defensive duos ever and arguably the most successful defensive combination of all time - 3 European Cups, 1 World Cup, 1 European Championships, 4 Bundesligas, 3 DFB Pokals, 1 UEFA Cup winners Cup and 1 Intercontinental Cup.

Whilst Der Kaiser's elegance, ability to orchestrate play and vision are unparalleled and well-renowned, his leadership qualities and off the ball work does tend to be overlooked a wee bit. Der Kaiser's reading of the game was phenomenal but so too was his ability to marshal and fortify the back-line whilst constantly providing defensive master-classes. Be it shackling one of the greatest players of all time in Bobby Charlton, in the form of his life,in a man-marking spectacle or even more impressively, commanding a three man defensive shield (with Vogts on man-marking duties) to an imperious display against Cruyff's Holland in the WC final, Der Kaiser was a shrewd tactician capable of shutting down the greatest forwards by one way or another.

Putting a man in hospital for having the temerity to try and nutmeg him, striding up to the referee in a World Cup final, after he's awarded a penalty against you, to nonchalantly claim "You are an Englishman" (an undeniably accurate statement - you could hardly be more English than Jack Taylor - but also a cunning piece of spontaneous footballing psychology designed no doubt to increase the pressure on the honest official should, say, Germany have a penalty claim in the near future) and influencing the referee in an European Cup final to chalk off a legitimate goal are anecdotes that you'd typically associate with Varela or Keane, but that's exactly what Beckenbauer was capable of. For all of Der Kaiser's elegance and Rolls Royce like smoothness, he was equally as ruthless, cunning and unyielding.

Schwarzenbeck was tough as nails and a brutally efficient defender but his tactical nous and his understanding with Beckenbauer was nothing short of remarkable. Be it defending in a high line when his side was dominating possession, setting the stall up in tight games, covering for Breitner when he went on his unpredictable runs forward or most importantly, single handedly covering for Beckenbauer, Schwarzenbeck was a terrific defender, who was more than your 'average' limited stopper. He was also a fine player on the ball and was capable of striding forward powerfully in a supporting manner, when the occasion called for it - scoring the equaliser in an European Cup final and assisting the second goal in the European Championship 1972 final.

 

[MJJ]

Any particular reasons for the change in vote?

'Cos he is a cnut who likes to ruin dreams #sonotbitter

 

[MJJ]

I thought you were going to vote for Skizzo when I saw this

Anyway, don't vote for me just because of my write-up/effort alone , that makes me feel bad and it's not like Invictus hasn't put in a lot of work too. Just vote for the better team mate.

Anyway @Invictus that's a fine team right there. Straight off the bat, I'm not quite sure whether that is an optimal role for Bonev in an outside left role, esp with the rather defensive minded Rildo as the left back behind him. From what I've seen of him, he seems like an elegant central playmaker with fine ball-carrying abilities and a keen eye for goal. Don't recall him playing a role akin to the one he is playing now. Ultimately, imo, that fairly narrow left side results in a fairly lopsided side which might prove to be slightly detrimental to the fluidity that you are trying to achieve overall.

nah, just apologized to him cos he tagged me a few times. There was a certain romanticism in your posts about netzer that swayed me.

I dont think there is a clearly better team here and too many unknowns so can justify my vote due to you having netzer on your side and selling him so well.

 

[Joga Bonito]

nah, just apologized to him cos he tagged me a few times. There was a certain romanticism in your posts about netzer that swayed me.

I dont think there is a clearly better team here and too many unknowns so can justify my vote due to you having netzer on your side and selling him so well.

Fair enough then.

 

[Joga Bonito]

That's what I'd call a very good response.

I think my stance on this boils down to a basic, and possibly flawed, idea: Eusébio - like Pelé - is a somewhat ambiguous figure. He isn't clearly this or clearly that. Which means that he's very appealing to someone like me - who favours "theory" * over "proven" in the context of these draft games.

Mazzola is problematic here, though, to a degree I may have underestimated. Your points about his particular style are well taken. He wasn't "just" an attacking midfielder slash second striker of the sort who excelled at orchestration more than being...direct. On the contrary he was pretty damn direct.

* Well, good theory - not wild or unsupported theory.

Tbf, even I initially thought that it could work (with Eusebio as the direct forward and Mazzola in a more supporting role) but having pondered on it further I could see certain flaws as to why it won't exactly be optimal.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Tbf, even I initially thought that it could work (with Eusebio as the direct forward and Mazzola in a more supporting role) but having pondered on it further I could see certain flaws as to why it won't exactly be optimal.

Yes - and the main reason is that Mazzola would, actually, grab too much of the pie Eusébio needs to grab in order for the thing to work. You could argue - as Invictus does - that they would dovetail rather than get in each other's way. And that isn't a hopeless argument by any stretch. It's the very thing I had in mind myself when I first looked at it.

But the particular nature of Mazzola makes the combo less plausible. Eusébio in that role isn't the problem - I still maintain that. And I don't think Bonev adds to the problem either, contrary to what you've pretty much suggested: He would work here, as an actual playmaker (neither Eusébio nor Mazzola are actual playmakers). It's a similar argument to what I kept banging on about in my own match: Corso had the actual playmaker role more than Pelé - who would, in practice, play the part of the general - but without being an actual according-to-Hoyle playmaker.

When you look at both teams in total, though, this is pretty feckin' close - as the scoreline currently reflects well.

For me, as it stands now, what edges it is your defence. You have enough up front to score a goal or two - and your defence will prevent him from outscoring you.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Gone for Invictus -- going by the write ups, as I've said earlier, I really don't think there's much between the two teams, but I think deserves to be level imo. If that's a crap reason for voting, then my bad.

 

[Invictus]

Haan is perfect for the role he's in.

Time and again he makes spaces for others around him, especially filling in for Ruud Krol.


Wim Van Hanegem in the 1974 World Cup Semi-Final vs Brazil.


Don't see any reason at all why Ball and Wimmer would provide an advantage here, we're talking about one of the greatest central midfielders of all time in Van Hanegem here. He is the standout central midfielder on the pitch. Not to mention Van Hanegem and Haan played for Holland.

Also think Jairzinho's presence is being under-rated here. Beckenbauer's patient build-up from the back is nice in theory, but with Eusébio at the throat of the defense, and Jairzinho (who again, is one of the absolute best wingers of all time) an ever-present threat, can Beckenbauer truly venture forward potentially leaving Eusébio marked 1 vs 1 vs Schwarzenbeck and Jairzinho vs Greig? Or is he purely going to build up from the heart of the defense.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Also think a lot gets made of Beckenbauer -- OK, he's probably the best defender of all time, but it's not like he's a god who can stop equally good attackers. Eusebio is one of the all time great attackers, I'd put money on him scoring in this game.

 

[Moby]

Our write up is with Aldo since day before. He should have had ample time writing a line by line counter to our tactics, huh @Aldo?

Check the PM.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Also think Jairzinho's presence is being under-rated here. Beckenbauer's patient build-up from the back is nice in theory, but with Eusébio at the throat of the defense, and Jairzinho (who again, is one of the absolute best wingers of all time) an ever-present threat, can Beckenbauer truly venture forward potentially leaving Eusébio marked 1 vs 1 vs Schwarzenbeck and Jairzinho vs Greig? Or is he purely going to build up from the heart of the defense.

Very valid concern. But - for my money - Beckenbauer wouldn't have to venture forward much , in true libero style, in order to make the clock tick here (that is very rarely the case in a fantasy setting, as his offensive contributions will be far less crucial given the quality of the other players). So, he could be more conservative and indeed limit his offensive influence to building up from behind.

That said, he is nevertheless SUPPOSED to venture forward a bit, according to his manager. But in a kindly interpretation I take this as meaning he would do so if and when a good opportunity to do so presents itself, rather than him being instructed to do his libero thing fully.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Gone for Invictus -- going by the write ups, as I've said earlier, I really don't think there's much between the two teams, but I think deserves to be level imo. If that's a crap reason for voting, then my bad.

Don't think it's a crap reason at all. I've done it myself on several occasions - simply to level the score in what I consider to be a bloody tight affair which is very hard to call.

 

[Invictus]

For me, as it stands now, what edges it is your defence. You have enough up front to score a goal or two - and your defence will prevent him from outscoring you.

This isn't a sales pitch to make you reconsider the vote mate, so I'll just spoiler it.

Spoiler

Have to disagree with the suggestion that the opposition team can chip in with one or two goals, while Eusébio, Jairzinho, Mazzola, Bonev, Van Hanegem fail to register a goal (either individually, or as a collective). That is hiiiighly improbable, if not downright impossible IMO. Do think the strength of the attack is being shortchanged here. Alright there's Beckenbauer in there, but will he venture forward and leave Bonev, Eusébio and Jairzinho upto Schwarzenbeck, Reany and Greig? And if he stays back, what is his influence on the game overall apart from the defensive aspect? Which then begs the question, is a midfield of Wimmer, Ball and Netzer truly superior to Van Hanegem, Haan and Mazzola as is being portrayed?

Also, I do think Mazzola is getting the short end of the stick here. He isn't some route one 'let's charge forward' kind of player that will botch things up for Eusébio. Mazzola came second in the 1971 Ballon D'Or playing as a withdrawn attacking midfielder that brought his magnificent creative skillset to the fore, rotating with Rivera for Italy. One might argue that he wouldn't have been rotated with Rivera is he couldn't create and was a forward threat.

So, will he truly be an impediment to Eusébio? And again, this isn't the inside right version of Mazzola. I don't believe that the year in which Mazzola came 2nd in the Ballon D'Or behind Cruyff isn't his optimal usage, and that he won't gel with Eusébio, who is also being construed as someone who'll be at sea without a #9 ahead of him, and who only drops in deep to be effective. That's about it I think.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Don't think it's a crap reason at all. I've done it myself on several occasions - simply to level the score in what I consider to be a bloody tight affair which is very hard to call.

Was my thinking too -- deserves to go to penos imo.

 

[Invictus]

Very valid concern. But - for my money - Beckenbauer wouldn't have to venture forward much , in true libero style, in order to make the clock tick here (that is very rarely the case in a fantasy setting, as his offensive contributions will be far less crucial given the quality of the other players). So, he could be more conservative and indeed limit his offensive influence to building up from behind.

That said, he is nevertheless SUPPOSED to venture forward a bit, according to his manager. But in a kindly interpretation I take this as meaning he would do so if and when a good opportunity to do so presents itself, rather than him being instructed to do his libero thing fully.

I've addressed a bit of that in the post above mate.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Also think a lot gets made of Beckenbauer -- OK, he's probably the best defender of all time, but it's not like he's a god who can stop equally good attackers. Eusebio is one of the all time great attackers, I'd put money on him scoring in this game.

He ain't a god - but he IS, as you say, probably the best defender of all time. That's not to be trifled with. And he's teamed up with an ideal partner - for him.

For me, as I've said, what tips the balance here is Joga's defence. But that does not mean I think he - or rather Beckenbauer and his cohorts - will shut up Eusébio. He could easily grab a goal here - as he was capable of grabbing a goal by virtue of his own damn brilliance against anyone you can think of on his day. But Joga - as I see it - doesn't rely on shutting up shop and riding out a 1-0 win here. He has attacking prowess in spades.

What I see, realistically (or rather "realistically") is that he comes out of it at, say, 2-1.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Also think Jairzinho's presence is being under-rated here. Beckenbauer's patient build-up from the back is nice in theory, but with Eusébio at the throat of the defense, and Jairzinho (who again, is one of the absolute best wingers of all time) an ever-present threat, can Beckenbauer truly venture forward potentially leaving Eusébio marked 1 vs 1 vs Schwarzenbeck and Jairzinho vs Greig? Or is he purely going to build up from the heart of the defense.

That was the genius of Beckenbauer (and you could very well add Scirea there), he rarely got caught up field, was so damn efficient on the ball and had excellent reading of the game, that he rarely got caught in possession. Neither did he require much if any, specialised cover, seeing as he always operated in 4 men defenses. What he had were industrious workhorses such as Roth, Zobel, Dürnberger, Hoeneß, Wimmer etc in midfield who were more than capable of providing him with the platform to be adventurous. Not to mention the crucial and balanced roles that Hansen, Vogts and Höttges played at right back allowing both Breitner and Beckenbauer to forage forward. That is exactly what Der Kaiser and John Greig enjoy here with industrious midfielders and Reaney playing a supporting right back role. Also neither Eusebio nor Mazzola were spearheading figures who are going to be 'occupying' my defenders, which does give Beckenbauer more liberty than usual in terms of determining his range of positional play. So the best player on the pitch most certainly isn't going to be just
building up play from the heart of the defense here .

Also keep in mind that he was playing a slightly more reserved role for Germany 1972, in tandem with Netzer, which meant that he could pick his opportunities more wisely instead of trying to force things to happen - which was the case at times for Bayern who didn't have another creative influence for Beckenbauer to combine with, or lessen his creative burden.

When you look at both teams in total, though, this is pretty feckin' close - as the scoreline currently reflects well.

For me, as it stands now, what edges it is your defence. You have enough up front to score a goal or two - and your defence will prevent him from outscoring you.

Aye, that's a fair appraisal.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I've addressed a bit of that in the post above mate.

Aye - addressed it well too. This is very much a matter of degrees, rather than absolutes. I don't vehemently disagree with your argument here - it's (much) more a case of not buying it entirely.

The main issue is, and remains, Mazzola. He was never, in his pomp, a provider and a "facilitator" (as people, or rather football nerds, have begun to say) MORE than he was precisely the sort of "focal point" (as this particular nerd has said) which Eusébio himself was.

As for Joga's offensive strength, I think - as I nearly always do - that Law is constantly in danger of being underrated. He was a deadly finisher and a well rounded striker to an extent which is - actually - overlooked, bizarrely enough given where we are. A player whose overall quality isn't far behind Eusébio himself.

You mention Rivera above - and that's...well, it's the THING here. Swap Mazzola for his famous rival - and there it is: Someone more prone to setting the thing up than finishing it, a playmaker by trade more than a direct (dribbler, finisher) hybrid type (which Mazzola ultimately is - in this context).

Degrees - and bloody fine ones too.

Precisely what role Beckenbauer is supposed to play here is a salient point, though. Based on the write-up one may argue that he is supposed to venture a bit too much (for comfort) forward. I repeat that my interpretation of his role may be too kindly.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Also think a lot gets made of Beckenbauer -- OK, he's probably the best defender of all time, but it's not like he's a god who can stop equally good attackers. Eusebio is one of the all time great attackers, I'd put money on him scoring in this game.

He isn't a god but he has faced plenty of all time great attackers and has stopped them right in the tracks. Like I've stated in the post above, he took out Sir Bobby Charlton in the 1966 WC final by man-marking him and has stopped Cruyff's Netherlands in the WC Final. Sure, there have been some games that he's lost, such as the famous Ajax-Real game but I've never seen a game where Beckenbauer was dominated or found wanting by an attacking great or by a specific type of attacker. Granted, he has had iffy games here and there, as do everyone, but he was a top notch defender on his day.

Like Chester said, I'm not purporting my side to shut down Invictus's attack. I'm just claiming that it isn't an easy defense to breach and that I'd back my side to outscore his. Both sides have tremendous goalscoring potential (albeit a slightly out of sync forward duo for Invictus imo) but I'd back my superior defense to give me the edge here and allow my side to outscore his.

As for Joga's offensive strength, I think - as I nearly always do - that Law is constantly in danger of being underrated. He was a deadly finisher and a well rounded striker to an extent which is - actually - overlooked, bizarrely enough given where we are. A player whose overall quality isn't far behind Eusébio himself.

Aye, the original King himself and the one who was initiated our post Munich revival. Seeing as he isn't getting much credit or mentions (partly my fault there too), will post my older write-up on him here.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

He ain't a god - but he IS, as you say, probably the best defender of all time. That's not to be trifled with. And he's teamed up with an ideal partner - for him.

For me, as I've said, what tips the balance here is Joga's defence. But that does not mean I think he - or rather Beckenbauer and his cohorts - will shut up Eusébio. He could easily grab a goal here - as he was capable of grabbing a goal by virtue of his own damn brilliance against anyone you can think of on his day. But Joga - as I see it - doesn't rely on shutting up shop and riding out a 1-0 win here. He has attacking prowess in spades.

What I see, realistically (or rather "realistically") is that he comes out of it at, say, 2-1.

Aye, but going by the write-ups, Invictus doesn't exactly have a bad defence, does he? If anything, Beckenbauer aside, you could argue there's little in it. I also think Invictus has the better attack with Jairzinho and Eusebio. It's very marginal, but I'd go with Invictus on this one because I think the game is balanced, but his attack just sneaks it. No defenders are going to be doing a job on Eusebio and Jairzinho -- like asking defenders of 5 years ago to shut down Messi and Pedro. Good in theory, but inevitably, they both scored bucket loads.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

He isn't a god but he has faced plenty of all time great attackers and has stopped them right in the tracks. Like I've stated in the post above, he took out Sir Bobby Charlton in the 1966 WC final by man-marking him and has stopped Cruyff's Netherlands in the WC Final. Sure, there have been some games that he's lost, such as the famous Ajax-Real game but I've never seen a game where Beckenbauer was dominated or found wanting by an attacking great or by a specific type of attacker. Granted, he has had iffy games here and there, as do everyone, but he was a top notch defender on his day. Like Chester said, I'm not purporting my side to shut down Invictus's attack. I'm just claiming that it isn't an easy defense to breach and that I'd back my side to outscore his. Both sides have tremendous goalscoring potential (albeit a slightly out of sync forward duo for Invictus imo) but I'd back my superior defense to give me the edge here and allow the side to outscore his team.

Fair enough, like I said, I think it's incredibly close to call. You have the slightly better defence by virtue of Beckenbauer alone imo, but I think Invictus has the better attack -- and I'm not underrating Law when I say that.

 

[Joga Bonito]

A LAW UNTO HIMSELF

Artiste and assassin, entertainer and executioner, showman and swordsman - Denis Law. The name simply shimmers and sparkles with charisma. It whisks you off to a golden, bygone era when football truly was the beautiful game. Performing for his country, he was the Dark Blue Pimpernel, a character with a rare and spectacular combination of elegance and menace; a debonair destroyer; a master of improvisation; a contortionist in the box.

Denis was the showman supreme. He was more than a mere goal scorer whose cavalier thrusts and menacing darts brought panic to opposing defences. Law was an inspiration to those around him at club and country level and to younger generations of fans everywhere. Team-mates adored him, opponents feared him and fans revered him. He was a free spirit, an extrovert, a complete one-off, a rare combination of impudence and intelligence, class and clout. Denis Law is, was and always will be The King.

Huddersfield Town and Torino

Law started off his career at Huddersfield Town where he established himself as one of the game's most promising young talents.

We heard about the lad, of course. He was making a name for himself at Huddersfield Town, but you could only go by what you read in the newspapers. There weren't television cameras at every ground as there are today, so we were still a bit in the dark about this teenager. Sometimes the press can go a bit overboard and exaggerate the player's skills. Professionals like to make up their own minds. We saw him at first-hand against the Welsh that day and, boy, could that lad play. Within minutes you instinctively knew you were in the presence of someone special, very special.

We were staying at the same digs when Denis arrived. Honestly, we thought it must have been some mistake. He looked about 12 years old** and he told us he would be training with us. The following day we saw what he could do with a ball. We realised then he was a player. And what a player

Spoiler: **Denis Law in all his glory

He is the bespectacled kid in the bottom right hand corner

At the age of 20, he moved to City, despite attempts from Liverpool and United, for a British record transfer fee of £55,000.

Although he enjoyed his time at City, he wanted to play for a less shite club who weren't hovering around relegation places, and thus after one season, he moved on to Torino for a whopping £115,000. For better context, 26 year old Luis Suárez - in his pomp, having won the Balon d'Or and several other trophies - moved to Inter Milan from Barcelona for a world record fee of £152,000 in the same window.

Law didn't have the greatest of times in Italy as he found the football there to be joyless and overly defensive, with him being subjected to violent man marking and heavy tackling on a frequent basis. It did prove to be an eye-opening experience for the young Scotsman though.

I have one thing to thank it for, though. It taught me all about man-marking. I hadn't encountered that before in English football. However, it was an accepted fact in Italy that you would be shadowed everywhere you went by an opponent; sometimes two. That sharpens your game

Although his time in Italy was mixed, Law was voted the best foreign player in Italy ahead of Kurt Hamrin and the legendary Luis Suárez.

Manchester United

Once Law was on the market once more, Matt Busby was keen to sign him once again, but Chairman, Harold Hardman, hesitated as it would require payment of a record fee. Busby persuaded him, and Denis Law signed in August 1962 for yet another new British record - £115,000 - all by the age of 22.


In the summer of 1962 Lawmania would hit Old Trafford as fans instantly recognised a player brilliant enough to win games almost single-handedly. Over the next six years, he proved the catalyst for Matt Busby's final push for European glory and, though he missed the final in 1968, few doubted his influence. As distinguished Manchester United historian Brian Hughes makes clear, Law, more than any other player, typified United's flamboyance in this period.

I was delighted the Old Man had made a signing of such quality - it worked against the idea that the club would never touch the levels of consistent brilliance and excitement, that were achieved in the years before Munich. I told Denis this when he arrived for his first training session. I said "It's very good to have you around,' and he gave me that sidelong, slightly quizzical smile that would become so familiar to me down the years. It was as though a lot of the magic and the aura of the old United had been conjured up at a single stroke.

Denis Law proved to be a pivotal figure in his first season, as Untied won their first trophy since post Munich, the FA cup. He came 4th in the Ballon d'Or voting as he notched 29 goals in 44 appearances. Law particularly had a great cup campaign, as he scored 6 goals in 6 FA cup games and would leave an indelible mark on the final.

I had travelled to Wembley to watch United in the 1963 final with my Dad and instantly fell in love with the Cup Final and wanted to be a part of it. The excitement was gripping right from the start as United took control and reversed the odds against a strong Leicester City.

Within thirty minutes, United took the lead when Denis Law cracked an unstoppable shot past Gordon Banks. Minutes later he almost made it two from an individual run that left three defenders trailing, and when he beat Banks his shot was cleared off the line... and a header from Law rebounded off the post (in the dying minutes of the game)...

Banks and Law would go on to have plenty of great duels for both club and country with Banks commenting "I thought Denis was a great competitor. The press often referred to him as the Electric Eel. I think Electric Heel would have been more appropriate. He had such fast reactions in the penalty box that it was as if he was plugged into the mains. I will always remember - with mixed feelings - his remarkable performance for United against Leicester in the 1963 FA Cup Final. He produced one of the greatest forward displays ever seen at Wembley and inspired United to a 3-1 triumph."

Law would then go on to bang in a stunning 46 goals in 42 games in the next season - an unprecedented feat which landed him the prestigious Ballon d'Or, making him the first ever Untied player to win it.

Law himself was surprised with the award - “Maybe there was a mistake in the mathematics,” he suggested humbly.

After all, Luis Suárez was the mastermind of Inter Milan’s 1964 European Cup and World Club Championship double. For good measure, he was the best player in the year’s European Nations’ Cup, which Spain won.

However, Law's stunning goalscoring exploits were too much to ignore, albeit it being in a trophy-less season and he won the Ballon d'Or over Luis Suárez by 18 points.

United fans absolutely adored him and idolised him. The King duly repaid their adulation with 237 goals in 404 matches during 11 seasons, which produced one FA Cup (1963), two League Championships under his captaincy (1965, 1967) and the European Cup (1968).

Matt Busby always said of all players he had, the greatest was Law. I’d have to agree with that. I was a teenager in those days, going along to watch matches with Father. To me, Denis from 1963 to ’67 was unbelievable. In the same way you could say Paul Scholes and Ruud van Nistelrooy did in 2003, or Cantona did in ’96, he won the League for us in ’65. He was just outstanding.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Continued...

One of his many personal highlights came when he was selected to play in a FIFA World XI, where he found himself rubbing shoulders with his hero Di Stefano.

I had watched Real Madrid on television beating Eintracht Frankfurt 7-3. I was enthralled by the quality of play, the goals and everything about this fascinating spectacle. Puskas scored four and di Stefano hit three. I watched that game in awe, little realising that only three years later, I would be playing alongside them in the Rest of the World side.

And so there The King was, poised to stride forth into the world stage ready to strut his stuff alongside the 'Black Panther', The 'Black Octopus', The 'Blond Arrow' and the 'Galloping Major'.

Spoiler: The Match

After the Wembley extravaganza, the much decorated Brazilian defender Djalma Santos, winner of two World Cup medals in 1958 and 62, was asked who he believed was the most accomplished performer in the game. In a hesitant combination of Portugese and English, he answered, 'Number eight. Law. Muchos'. Anyone who had ever witnessed Denis Law going through his unrivalled repertoire at his unsurpassable peak, would have known exactly what Santos meant. No translation was required.

The mid-sixties saw Denis rightly don the mantel 'King' of Old Trafford, for while Bobby Charlton was respected and George Best adored, Law was a fan's footballer, living out the dreams of his admirers before the Stretford End. Even his (non-existent) role in United's eventual fall from grace and relegation to the Second Division didn't dim the supporters' affection for him. Quite simply he remains 'the King'.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Playing Style

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. No. Law had much much more in his locker. Whilst Law was a goal-scoring supremo, do not make the mistake of underestimating his all-round game. As a player, Law had everything - flair, bravery, the ruthlessness streak, technique and the magical ability to keep fans right on the edge of their seats.

As Law himself said

My favourite player was Alfredo di Stefano, the great Real Madrid star. He could score goals, but he could also perform all over the pitch. That's the way I wanted to play. I liked to play inside-forward. But Matt felt differently and I wasn't happy. Of course, I was delighted to score a goal or two but, in that role, you could miss a lot of the game. I always wanted to be involved.

When Denis first arrived at Old Trafford he was all action, all over the pitch. He was, in my eyes, the complete inside-forward.

A perfect compilation which illustrates the multi-faceted game-play of the cultured, jet-heeled Scot. I advise anyone and everyone to watch it.




On his all-round game

Spoiler

It's no wonder that the fans of the Stretford End were quick to crown him as their 'King' when he moved to Manchester United from Torino in 1962. He was in the early years of his incredible career, but he had already stamped his mark on the game. Lightning quick, fearless, dynamic, good with both feet, spectacular - and sometimes unbelievably devastating - in the air, he was as near as damn it the perfect goalscoring individual.

Anyone who saw him in his halycon days was privileged in the extreme to see a total footballing craftsman in action and I'm immensely proud to say that he's a Scotsman.

He cost around £100 000, big money for a British player in those days. The speed and technical brilliance of Law reminded the supporters of their former hero, Valentino Mazzola. They had never seen anyone quite as quick-thinking as Denis. He was always two or three moves ahead. It was a pity he only stayed a year.

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 as a good team man with fine individual skills.

When I signed Denis I knew that we had the most exciting player in the game. He was the quickest-thinking player I ever saw, seconds quicker than anyone else. He had the most tremendous acceleration and could leap to enormous heights to head the ball with almost unbelievable accuracy and often the power of a shot. He had the courage to take on the biggest and most ferocious of opponents and his passing was impeccable. He was one of the most unselfish players I have ever seen. If he was not in the best position to score, he would give the ball to someone who was. When a chance was on for him. even only half a chance, or in some cases, no chance at all for anybody but for him, whether he had his back to goal, was sideways on, or the ball was on the deck or up at shoulder-height, he would have it in the net with such power and acrobatic ability that colleagues and opponents alike could only stand and gasp. No other player scored as many miracle goals as Denis Law. Goals which looked simple as Denis tapped them in, were simple only because Denis got himself into position so quickly that opponents just couldn't cope with him.

His first touch was very good, with your first touch, you control the ball, which gives you more time and space to play. The more touches, the more time and space. All the great players have this, and Denis had it to a very high degree, at speed, in competitive matches. I was with Denis for about a year at United, after his move from Italy, and I never heard him talk much about the game. He was just a great talent, who went out there and did it. He was a good header of the ball and reasonable on both sides, but the main thing about Denis was that he was the most dynamic player I have ever seen, and I'd include everyone in that, be they English, Irish, Italian or Spanish. He had this natural urgency and aggression which meant that if the ball broke loose, he would be the first onto it, smacking it into the back of the net. With his quick reflexes, he could not be stopped. If he was going to head it, he'd do that too, into the back of the net.

Denis was always full of enthusiasm for the game and full of awareness. He scored the goals that one should score. It sounds funny saying that. A lot of players score spectacular goals, but don't score the ones they should score. Denis didn't blast the ball or try to burst the net. All he wanted to do was get the ball over the line. If Denis was through on his own with only the goalkeeper to beat, you could get your tea out and drink it - it was going to be a goal. Every player should be taught what to do in any given situation; Law always knew what to do. If the keeper stayed on the line, he would take the ball right up to him and say: "Thanks very much," before slipping it into the net. If the keeper came out, he sidestepped him, angled himself and put it into an empty net. Law was quicker than most inside the box. NO keeper stood a chance when he had a sniff at goal.

On his fiery and competitive yet light-hearted nature

Spoiler

There are not a lot of years between Denis and myself, but I list him as one of my heroes, and a close friend.

He was my hero. He typified my idea of a Scottish footballer. He was dashing, he was mischievous. He was everything I wanted to be. There were occasions when you were just waiting for Denis to cause trouble. A lot of Scots can do that, you know. It was his way of telling the world, "You're not going to kick me." He had wonderful courage and daring. There is a lot in Denis Law that we Scots appreciate. He was pure theatre and knew how to work the crowd. I saw him make his debut against Wales at Ninian Park in Cardiff in 1958 and I watched him (as a 18 year old) in his next game against Northern Ireland when he kicked their captain Danny Blanchflower up and down the park! He was told to mark the great Spurs player, but he took it too literally. He was only 18 years old at the time, too, and Danny was one of the best players in Britain. I think it was Pele who said Denis was the only British player who could get into the Brazilian team. That says it all.

What the fans loved most about Denis, I believe, was his incredible aggression and self-belief. There were times when he seemed to define urgency on a football field and there was always a gleam in his eye. They never made a big centre-half who could induce in Denis, even a flicker of apprehension.

One of the most amazing things I witnessed was his decision to take on Big Ron Yeats, the man once described as the 'New Colossus' by his Liverpool manager Bill Shankly. Denis scarcely came up to the man's shoulder, but he was in his face throughout the game, chivvying, needling, always at the point of maximum danger. I remember thinking, "This is ridiculous, impossible," and for anyone else but Denis it certainly would have been.

Denis was a great competitor. I'll never forget going for a cross in a game at Elland Road and, as I went to volley the ball clear, suddenly Denis was diving over me and heading it into the net. I kicked Denis right in the mouth. I really walloped him - not deliberately, of course. Anyway, I remember Denis lying on his back and there's blood and everything coming out of his nose and mouth while the trainer was sponging him down. I was standing over him and he started to come to. He looked up at me and smiled, "Did I score, big fella?"

I remember one day in training at Manchester United when Bill Foulkes, our big, strapping, powerful centre-half, knocked Denis to the ground. Now, remember, Bill had been working down the mines and only quit at the age of 20, when he broke through in football. He was an authentic tough guy. What happened next? Denis got up and punched him. Bill hit him back and the next thing everyone was piling in. Denis gave as good as he got.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Continued...

Spoiler

Look, the best way to judge that is you've got to go to some places like Argentina, where you know it's going to be tough, or maybe behind the Old Iron Curtain. And you're playing for your life. Who are you going to pick?

Certain names would be mentioned straight away for such an assignment - there would be Norman Hunter, Dave Mackay, Cliff Jones, Bobby Collins and I would add John Robertson, though John wasn't exactly a killer either. And you will go for Denis Law rather than Jimmy Greaves, because Denis may be remembered almost entirely for his goal-scoring brilliance but he was also a very aggressive player, and in fact in some circumstances would take your head off. Yes, for such a trip to the wilds of Argentina, you would need these hard nuts, the gladiatorial types.

When it comes to strikers, there was none braver or more aggressive than Denis Law. My Scotland team-mate may have looked puny, but he had the heart of a lion and would have fought with his shadow. He was also deceptively strong and fought for every ball, but it was in the air that Denis really excelled. He seemed to have the capacity to hang in the air when he jumped for the ball. When I met him for the first time, Denis made an instant impression; he had an almost magical aura because of his personality. Denis is actually quite a private person but he was a truly great player.

Denis was a revelation when he played and he had few poor games for Scotland. His electrifying darts into the penalty box allied to his sharp reflexes were his strongest assets. He also had a wonderful sense of anticipation, which enable him to snap up half-chances when the ball broke off the goalkeeper or a defender, but perhaps people were less aware of how tough and durable Denis was, Denis as as hard as nails. He gave and took knocks without complaint. His incredible timing and his ability to appear to almost hover in the air meant he had to be brave when he jumped with a defender.

In fact, I will never forget when we clashed right in front of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth at Wembley. I know Denis blamed me for the incident, but I still have the bruises. Kick Denis first? I should be so lucky. He was a real will o' the wisp player, as sharp as a needle and lightning fast in his movements, with a brain to match. The advice I always used to give to anyone who had to mark him was track, mark and tackle.... and always weak shin pads!

Law was a showman on the pitch and there was never a dull moment on or off the field with Law around but beneath all the joking, Denis Law was a deadly serious footballer. Above all he wanted to win : it didn't matter if it was playing cards at the back of a bus or an FA Cup Final. He did not like to lose, and in the intensely competitive atmosphere of the game, it made him a good man to have on your side. Even in practice games, he liked to win. In training he might challenge you to, say, a series of three games at head tennis. But if he won the first two and therefore the rubber, he had no interest in playing out the third; he had won, and so off he went.

Playing alongside him

Spoiler

He was a fabulous guy to be around, a real man's man. I made my Scotland debut against Holland in Amsterdam in May 1959. Denis was playing that day, too, and we hit it off. He oozed charisma, but was far from being big-headed. He was just one of the lads and never came across as Billy Big-Time.

He was a dream to play alongside, too.Utterly unselfish. There was none of this superstar stuff with Denis. No chance. He was one of the boys and raced around and chased the ball all day. You watch some of the petulant prima donnas strutting around and preening themselves and I can tell you they haven't got a fraction of the talent of the ability Denis possessed. He was genuine class, no argument.

On my debut, it got a bit untidy at one stage and I can assure you Denis wasn't slow to get in there with some Dutch heavyweights. There were tackles flying around everywhere and the Dutch fans were baying for blood. There were over 55,000 in the ground, as I recall, and it couldn't have been more competitive if it had been the World Cup Final. You look at Denis and there isn't a pick on him. He certainly didn't take one of those Charles Atlas courses that were around at the time. You know the ones I mean. The advertisement of this muscle-bound bloke, posing in tight swimming trunks, saying, "You, too,can have a body like mine. No-one will ever kick sand in your face." Denis would have probably made mincemeat of him. It was only too easy to be impressed by Denis. There wasn't an awful lot of him, but he really got stuck in. It's rare that a guy who is so obviously gifted gets involved in the physical side of things. There are some blokes out there who can play football alright, but they couldn't tackle a fish supper. Not Denis. I never saw him shirk a challenge in my life.'

As my contribution to the side improved I felt more and more at home. I was "big" enough to even answer Denis Law back, and that was brave for me. When I was first came into the side, I hardly dared speak to him, and all that Law had said to me was, "How are you going, son?" accompanied, I might say, with a clip on the ear.

But I was lucky to start out alongside such a player. World class. Truly, not simply a figment of the media's imagination. I must say that my first reaction when I heard I was in the team, was not so much one of worry, as the feeling that with such skilful players around, I just couldn't go wrong.

Soon after I got established in the team, I found I was at outside left with Law my inside partner. Even in my first season, when I was on the right wing as all the forward places were being mixed and matched, Law was playing inside right. I think we hit it off quite quickly on the field, and off it for that matter, though we are very different people.

Denis Law was a livewire, always in a hurry, and despite his experience and achievements, he always got very nervous before a game. He also couldn't bear to watch the team if he was missing from a game and there was a lot at stake; he would rather sit it out in the dressing room. I was always asked at this time, what it was like to play alongside Law. It was the easiest question to answer: it was a dream, a tremendous experience because he did things so much faster than most other players. If a pass from Denis Law failed to reach you, it was odds on that you were not thinking fast enough to be in the right place for it.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Continued...

Funny anecdotes

Spoiler

The goalkeeper, Stepney. He's no good in the air and he's not much better on the ground,' Shankly said. He's so wee he's got to jump for the low balls. What's the difference between Stepney and Jesus Christ? Jesus saves. And the full-backs, Brennan and Dunne, a couple of clapped-out Paddies, that's what they are, should have been put out to grass years ago. Nobby Stiles, as blind as a bat, runs around the field like a headless chicken, not worth talking about, that lad. Foulkes? Ancient. Older than me. He wasn't even any good when he was young. Sadler needs watching, but no-one ever passes to him so no problems there. The boy Morgan can run a bit, but he can't beat an egg and the other lad, Kidd, can't hold the ball. Big girl's blouse. This team is a shambles. You'll take them apart. You'll run up a cricket score. No problem'.

The Liverpool captain, Emlyn Hughes, put up his hand up at the end of the team talk. 'Boss, you haven't mentioned Best, Law or Charlton,' he said. Shankly glared at him. 'Christ, Emlyn, you're worried that you can't beat a team with just three players?'

In a more reflective moment, Shankly would admit, 'If we were playing Manchester United, I'd never talk about Best, Law or Charlton. If we did, we'd frighten ourselves to death.'

Law's lightning reflexes did get him into trouble at times. He had acted in the past out of instinct more than anything else, with dire consequences for himself, although we did remind him that his two suspensions did allow him to spend two Christmases in succession at home in Scotland!

His first sending-off was before I was in the team. The squad was on the coach on the way down to play Aston Villa. Law had been planning to make a quick getaway after the match to catch a plane home to Scotland for a romantic rendezvous with his fiancee. His team-mates told him he would never make it to the airport on time. He said : "Perhaps I'll get sent off". He did.

He and fellow Scot Paddy Crerand made a comic pair. They would spend hours in slanging matches, arguing about who was the ugliest player in football, though in my view they were among the contenders. Often they would wave from the team bus so enthusiastically that they confused innocent passer-by into thinking they must know them.

Harry Gregg recalled Paddy Crerand being on the receiving end of a verbal salvo from Law before a European Cup game against Benfica in 1966. 'We had won 3-2 in the first leg at Old Trafford, so obviously, we were all a bit uptight at meeting this great Portugese side in front of their own fans at the famous Stadium of Light. Before the kick-off, we were all sitting there going through our usual routines. I recall it was a lovely dressing room and one wall was completely covered with a mirror. Pat Crerand was standing around juggling the ball from foot to foot.

The next thing we knew there was this tremendous crash. The mirror was on the floor, smashed to smithereens. Denis let rip at his fellow Scot. The language was choice. The last word was hooligan and I'll let you fill in the blanks before it. Some footballers can be a bit superstitious. What do you get for breaking a mirror? Sever years bad luck? Crerand had taken down an entire wall! What could we now expect when we ran onto the pitch to face Benfica? Almost straight away George Best scored with a header. At half-time we were 3-0 up and I'll never forget what Crerand said to the Lawman in the dressing room during the interval. He looked at him and, completely stone-face, asked, "Can someone else find another mirror?" The place just cracked up.

 

[Invictus]

Aye - addressed it well too. This is very much a matter of degrees, rather than absolutes. I don't vehemently disagree with your argument here - it's (much) more a case of not buying it entirely.

The main issue is, and remains, Mazzola. He was never, in his pomp, a provider and a "facilitator" (as people, or rather football nerds, have begun to say) MORE than he was precisely the sort of "focal point" (as this particular nerd has said) which Eusébio himself was.

As for Joga's offensive strength, I think - as I nearly always do - that Law is constantly in danger of being underrated. He was a deadly finisher and a well rounded striker to an extent which is - actually - overlooked, bizarrely enough given where we are. A player whose overall quality isn't far behind Eusébio himself.

You mention Rivera above - and that's...well, it's the THING here. Swap Mazzola for his famous rival - and there it is: Someone more prone to setting the thing up than finishing it, a playmaker by trade more than a direct (dribbler, finisher) hybrid type (which Mazzola ultimately is - in this context).

Degrees - and bloody fine ones too.

Precisely what role Beckenbauer is supposed to play here is a salient point, though. Based on the write-up one may argue that he is supposed to venture a bit too much (for comfort) forward. I repeat that my interpretation of his role may be too kindly.

Fair enough. But I'd have to respectfully disagree here mate. Sandro Mazzola's greatest hour came in the triumphant 1968 European Championship, I'd argue he was in his pomp in the late 60s and early 70s, rather than the Helenio Herrera inside forward era. In 1968, he was the orchestrator of Italy's attack from midfield (which doesn't really overlap with Eusébio's role who is a direct forward threat). Mazzola was far from a solely dribbling, finishing threat as he is unfortunately being portrayed here. Infact he didn't even record a single goal at the competition (set up a platform for the likes of Riva, Domenghini, Anastasi instead - who were all in more forward positions than Sandro).

http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/finals/news/newsid=1602162.html

There were two very distinct parts in Mazzola's career. The first was the Le Grande Inter era, where he was the direct, goalscoring threat that was the highest goalscorer in the European Cup, and Serie A. That was followed by the creative, playmaking, attacking midfielder era, where he took Italy to the Finals of Euro 1968, and the 1970 World Cup, not least to account for 30+ year old Luis Suárez Miramontes' natural decline at Internazionale (who himself was in his pomp in the mid 1960s with Spain and Le Grande Inter, pushing Mazzola further forward). This was also the time when he reached his zenith as an individual, evidenced by the Ballon D'Or listing second only to Johan Cruyff in 1971, and 8th in 1970.

One of his best performances for Italy kind of highlights that argument. Italy crashed out in 1974 unfortunately, but this is a good portrayal of Mazzola's play in the post 1968 era, where he finished 2nd in the Ballon D'Or, 8th, 14th, 15th in a span of 5 seasons, and made the 1968 European Championship team of the tournament, apart from guiding Italy for the 1970 World Cup final as a creative, attacking midfielder to was adept at pulling the string, and receding deep to control the match, sometimes even into his his own half. Which is why his presence collided with Rivera's. If Gianni was the pure playmaker and facilitator, and Sandro the dribbler and finisher, that begs the question, why wouldn't they start together? Their roles were really similar back then as creative orchestrators, with Mazzola having a slight edge in the final on the basis of his defensive awareness.



Fine margins, but it's kind of analogous to 2003 20+ goals a season Scholesy, vs the one he became later on. Of course, Mazzola didn't exactly drop down as far as Paul, but in terms of their playing style - caressing the ball, coaxing the opposition, prodding them with neat passes. I'd argue that this is highly complementary to Eusébio who was no playmaker to be honest; Mazzola is helping set up the base for the likes of Eusébio and Jairzinho to exploit here.

 

[Joga Bonito]

At the very least watch the video if you can't read the write-up.

Anyway, with service from the likes of Netzer, Beckenbauer, Ball and also the glorious crosses from Gadocha, I'd back Law to have a good game here. The key point being that, he doesn't necessarily need to score to have a good game, although you most certainly wouldn't back against him scoring but his all-round game and ability to facilitate others means he could very easily amplify the goalscoring potential of those around him. A point that I made in the OP and is worth repeating here. There isn't another complete forward that I'd want to spearhead this fluid total footballing side. Only Müller could lay claim to being a superior centre-forward than Law in this draft.

3) Goalscoring threat

The side boasts a remarkable goalscoring threat, with every outfield player bar Schwarzenbeck and Reaney being legitimate goalscoring menaces. Greig holds a record 13 goals from the FB position, being voted as the Scottish player of the year (no mean feat given the quality of Scotland back in the day with Bremner, Baxter, Law, Johnstone, Mackay, etc) and reached double figures a total of five times in his career, despite playing from defensive positions. Beckenbauer too was a notable goalscorer despite primarily being a creative presence.

Netzer scored 108 goals in 297 appearances for Gladbach whilst Wimmer had a cracking long range shot and boasted a respectable 51 goals in 366 appearances for Gladbach, despite predominantly being a rather defensive presence. Ball scored a ridiculous 67 goals in 156 league games during 1965-69 despite being an all-purpose midfield player.

Gadocha is the 4th highest goalscorer in Legia Warsaw history and had a one in three goalscoring record for them, in spite of being primarily the creative presence on the left. Law's goalscoring exploits are the stuff of legend and his 46 goals in a single season were so good, that he stunningly pipped Euro 1964 Player of the Tournament and European Cup 1964 Final's MOTM Luisito Suárez to the ballon d'Or. Had it not been for pesky knee injuries later on in his career, his goalscoring average would have been even better. Byshovets finished as top scorer for Dynamo Kiev thrice and scored 49 goals in 139 appearances for Maslov's Kiev whilst scoring 4 of USSR's 6 six goals in the 1970 WC campaign. His notable goals, notwithstanding the WC ones, include 2 great solo efforts to knock out defending champions Celtic in a 3-2 victory in the European Cup, a winner in the Euro 1968 quarter final and an overhead kick that was voted as the goal of the season in Europe. Unfortunately, he was a bit like Hoeneß in that his career ended early when he was 27 due to injuries but at his peak, Byshovets was an electrifying goalscorer for both USSR and Dynamo Kiev.

 

[Gol123]

Invictus front four has over 1000 goals between them. That's ridiculous and makes his attack impossible to nullify completely.

The best bet Jog has is to stifle Invictus attackers by dominating the ball and pressing his midfielders off of the ball. Essentially starving his attack of any service. The problem here is that with Van Hanegem in midfield (Netherlands best passer of the ball during the 70's) I cant see Joga dominating the game enough to cut out that service.

On the other hand, I can see Beckenbauer and Netzer working like a charm in this game and those two are probably the two best players on the pitch when on the ball.

How was Invictus allowed to get both Van Hanegem and Jairzinho?

 

[Chesterlestreet]

If Gianni was the pure playmaker and facilitator, and Sandro the dribbler and finisher, that begs the question, why wouldn't they start together?

That argument is spurious, mate - and I think you know it. What do you opt for in the space we're talking about? Someone who is mainly a "facilitator" (but not necessarily devoid of more direct qualities) - or someone who is mainly something else (but not necessarily a non-facilitator)?

The decision to go with Mazzola was controversial - and still is. But the idea of playing both of 'em simply wasn't on. For good reasons. They were distinctly different in terms of what they brought to the table - at the highest level, in the shape of their A game - but they were similar in terms of what general role (among the ten outfield players you can sport in any given match) they played.

Shades, degrees - that's what it comes down to.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Invictus front four has over 1000 goals between them. That's ridiculous and makes his attack impossible to nullify completely.

The best bet Jog has is to stifle Invictus attackers by dominating the ball and pressing his midfielders off of the ball. Essentially starving his attack of any service. The problem here is that with Van Hanegem in midfield (Netherlands best passer of the ball during the 70's) I cant see Joga dominating the game enough to cut out that service.

On the other hand, I can see Beckenbauer and Netzer working like a charm in this game and those two are probably the two best players on the pitch when on the ball.

It is a formidable attack no doubt, but it largely hinges on whether you can buy the premise of Mazzola and Eusebio working together seamlessly - a rather divisive topic it has to be said. Anyway, you are right about me needing to possess the edge in the possession stakes and deprive Invictus side of the ball as much as possible. I've got the best player in Beckenbauer and arguably the best playmaker on the pitch in Netzer doing just that.



A fairly simple video but one that highlights the chemistry and also the mutual respect that these two German giants had for each other. Their combination resulted in football which struck the ideal balance between direct, incisive and hard-hitting brand of football and patient, probing possession football. Also notice how they drag markers away and create space and openings for each other.

The key aspect about their partnership was that they were both complete playmakers which made it hard to deal with them (it was already hard to handle just one of them but both of them together was really a herculean task). They weren't exactly pure passers ala Koeman or Pirlo for example, whom you could try and shut down by denying them time on the ball, vigorously closing them down and being physical etc. They weren't exactly pure ball-carriers either, whom you could try and deny space by being compact. They were both complete playmakers who were genuine and multi-faceted threats on the ball.

Netzer is arguably the greatest long-range passer of the ball and Beckenbauer's vision and nonchalant outside of the boot passes are stuff of legend. There was no way you could stand off them and let them exhibit their passing prowess, it was akin to committing footballing suicide. Needless to say, Der Kaiser was one of the most elegant dribblers of the ball, alongside Sir Bobby, gliding past hordes of players with inimitable panache and grace. Whilst Netzer on the other hand was comparable to a tornado ripping through a straw hut, with his unstoppable rampages forward. He had such magnificent close control, breath-taking pace and a sturdy frame, that it was damn near impossible to get the ball off him when he went on his trademark runs. I think you've already watched the video that I posted on Netzer so you'd know just what I'm talking about. So ultimately, it was as deadly a playmaking partnership as it possibly could be.

I've also highlighted the vital roles that the likes of Wimmer and Ball would play off the ball in the earlier posts, toiling away ceaselessly and looking to stifle and limit van Hanegem's time on the ball as best as possible. Be sure to check out their short videos on post 48 on this page, if you can.

If anything, Beckenbauer aside, you could argue there's little in it.

You have the slightly better defence by virtue of Beckenbauer alone imo,

I'd have to disagree with that. Invictus sports an excellent defense but I'd say that my defense is better than his, with or without Beckenbauer. Schwarzenbeck is arguably the best stopper in this draft and he's proven at just about any footballing level - domestic, European, International and what not. People tend to underrate (or perhaps even overrate) him due to his association with Beckenbauer - a rather controversial and divisive topic. I'd say this though, if you ask just about any defender if they'd prefer to defend alongside a Baresi/Moore/Figueroa or a Beckenbauer/Scirea, they'd probably go with the former class of defenders. Simply because it is an extremely exacting role, both physically and tactically, to play with an adventurous libero and it carries with it, it's own set of unique demands and there is no denying that Schwarzenbeck excelled at it.

Also keep in mind that I have the greatest Rangers player of all time in John Greig - a legend who managed to shine through in a Scottish vintage which boasted the likes of Bremner, Mackay, Johnstone, McNeill, Law, Jardine, Gemmell and other Lisbon Lions. His impeccable credentials speak for themselves - Scottish & Rangers captain in a great era, winner of three domestic trebles and an European Cup Winner Cup, twice Scottish Footballer of the Year, 44 caps for Scotland (only George Young, Bremner and Law gained more caps during the thereabouts of his era) and of course the accolade of being the Greatest Ranger Ever.

Last but not least, Reaney was voted as the 9th greatest Leeds player ever and into their greatest XI of all time. He was ever present during the halcyon days of Revie's Leeds team and was their best defender after one Jack Charlton. Reaney was a defensive behemoth who was considered to be George Best's kryptonite and likewise Greig was frequently entrusted to dealing with one Jinky Johnstone - things that I've already stated in the OP. I'd say this, only Suurbier was a better individual than Reaney and even then, he wasn't renowned for his defensive prowess and Reaney is easily the better defender. So whilst you are justified, to a certain extent, in claiming that he has a better attack than mine, it's fair of me to say that I have the better defense than his, with or without Beckenbauer.

 

[Joga Bonito]

I have to go off soon and probably won't be back for some time. Hopefully, discussions pick up by then, but it's been a great match thus far with some great exchanges anyway.