All time British/Irish fantasy draft, Q-F: Edgar Vs Annah

Based on the players' peak, who will win this match?

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
I'm going purely by Wiki here. Feel free to correct if wiki is wrong:

Mel Hopkins: was a Wales international football player. He played at left back.
George Hardwick: was an English football player and coach. During his time as an active player, he was a left-sided defender for Middlesbrough.
.
and McCracken's claim to fame was as a CB who was instrumental in changing the offside rule.


Here we have 2 left defenders playing CB and a CB playing RB.

Again, they might have played in that position...but that is not what they peaked in. Personally I don't think this is a balanced defence at all!
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
I'm going purely by Wiki here. Feel free to correct if wiki is wrong:

Mel Hopkins: was a Wales international football player. He played at left back.
George Hardwick: was an English football player and coach. During his time as an active player, he was a left-sided defender for Middlesbrough.
.
and McCracken's claim to fame was as a CB who was instrumental in changing the offside rule.


Here we have 2 left defenders playing CB and a CB playing RB.

Again, they might have played in that position...but that is not what they peaked in. Personally I don't think this is a balanced defence at all!
Click to expand...

A full back in the days was one of the two(or three) players furthest back - known today as defenders. So Mel Hopkins/George Hardwick(didn't need to play on the left) usually played on the left side of a CB pairing. McCracken played on the right side of it - which is why I say I have a three man centre back line - then Sansom on the left as a full back.
 
We've discussed that kind of stuff in the thread plenty of times, just seems like a poor attempt to win votes really. I've not said a bad word about your players, only mentioned the fact of how often they scored(forgot Gazza's results for Rangers).

Just turns sour.
 
Annahnomoss said:
We've discussed that kind of stuff in the thread plenty of times, just seems like a poor attempt to win votes really. I've not said a bad word about your players, only mentioned the fact of how often they scored(forgot Gazza's results for Rangers).

Just turns sour.
Click to expand...

Tbh, it's not. I'm just trying to it in the old 2-3-5 to your current formation. Again, nothing bad was said about your players...just debating on the positions they peaked in.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Tbh, it's not. I'm just trying to it in the old 2-3-5 to your current formation. Again, nothing bad was said about your players...just debating on the positions they peaked in.
Click to expand...

Only McCracken played in a 2-3-5 with Hardwick and Hopkins playing for a 3-2-5 more often. The centre backs back then had to handle the wingers in every attack - that was their main match up.

In the 3-2-5 the central player became the first real center back in terms of defending primarily centrally. Hopkins and McCracken are very all round defenders.
 
Spurs line-up from '61. Hopkins would have played in Henry's role (he was out for two full seasons due to a serious injury):

abIaODcaeT.png
 
With the two best goalscorers on the pitch, two of the best dribblers in history in Matthews and best, and Blanchflower and Keane in the midfield I think I will have a great chance of scoring here.

Best


Matthews
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Tbh, it's not. I'm just trying to it in the old 2-3-5 to your current formation. Again, nothing bad was said about your players...just debating on the positions they peaked in.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with questioning the suitability of the player for the role he's given. But in terms of actual positions it's obvious that a player who was around roughly when the pyramids were built did not ever play in a position which is commonly used in modern formations. So it has to be a matter of interpreting whether the player's qualities make him suitable or not - not a question of what historical position he actually peaked in, as you say.

If we go with the latter, you can't field anyone who played his football in what is today a completely outdated formation (like the pyramid). And what's the point of having an all time draft then?
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
I was more about Hardwick on right here. Did he play right side often?
Click to expand...

Mainly known as a left back, as far as I know - but an old school left back, that is part of a pair of defenders who for the most part sat deepest of the outfield players. In other words, plausible to field him as a CB. Ideal to play him as a right sided CB? Probably not, but you could argue that it's not a bigger deal than fielding a modern CB who normally plays on the left on the "wrong" side of his partner. It certainly is not like fielding a modern left back as a right sided CB.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Mainly known as a left back, as far as I know - but an old school left back, that is part of a pair of defenders who for the most part sat deepest of the outfield players. In other words, plausible to field him as a CB. Ideal to play him as a right sided CB? Probably not, but you could argue that it's not a bigger deal than fielding a modern CB who normally plays on the left on the "wrong" side of his partner. It certainly is not like fielding a modern left back as a right sided CB.
Click to expand...

Yup. With the added factor that the CB's at the time did an all round job and weren't "holding positions" anything like we see these days.

Man marking was common place as well which had you playing wherever the opponent brought you.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
If we go with the latter, you can't field anyone who played his football in what is today a completely outdated formation (like the pyramid). And what's the point of having an all time draft then?
Click to expand...

That was not my argument here. Take Bill Slater for example, I considered him to be a defensive box-to-box player and not a midfield destroyer type. Fair enough if anyone disagrees, it still is a opinion.

On other points:

Strategy:
- The strategy he is employing here is quite unique. Deep line in a pro-offensive formation. The effectiveness of which I question.
- 3 CM's playing a deep line is not geared for quick counter. With 2 players in front of my defence, his CM's would just add to the crowd with little effectiveness.

Creativity:
- Blanchflower is played as a box-to-box rather than a DLP is my take from his midfield. And (not purely on player peaks), but in the employed formation/strategy, Scholes will have a far greater impact in controlling the game, than Blanchflower. Simply put, I think Scholes-Stiles will complement each other as a duo far better than his midfield 3. Add in that Keane is not on his strong side too.

Possession:
- The direct attack route. With me having bulk possession, I don't think he will have much opportunities to score. I still rate my defence to be superior to his, so even in those non-regular attacks, I think I'm geared up to handle his, far more than he is to mine.
 
My offense has every threat one can wish for. A Ballon winning goalscoring winger who is one of the greatest players of all time in Best - a lightning quick goalscorer who was appreciated for playing brilliantly with the other ballon winning winger Stanley Matthews who is ranked as one of the greatest dribblers of all time.

In the midfield I have Roy Keane and Danny Blanchflower - a hard man with infinite work rate yet a good offensive game and a playmaking genius yet a good defensive game.

Behind them I have Slater covering and making sure it stays defensively ticking too. My defenders will have an edge on Hughes as they were used to physical players even if Hughes won't be threatened by them either.

Hughes just isn't enough of a goalscorer to find the space centrally and I have a backline then Slater and Keane who were great in the air too.

Brady and Mcmanaman are not going to be as effective as Matthews and Best. He is relying a lot on Gascoigne here who is a a great player of course but he never won as many games through moments of magic as George Best, Stanley Matthews and Stan Mortensen.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Mainly known as a left back, as far as I know - but an old school left back, that is part of a pair of defenders who for the most part sat deepest of the outfield players. In other words, plausible to field him as a CB. Ideal to play him as a right sided CB? Probably not, but you could argue that it's not a bigger deal than fielding a modern CB who normally plays on the left on the "wrong" side of his partner. It certainly is not like fielding a modern left back as a right sided CB.
Click to expand...

This is what I do not get. The old full backs seem to be capable operating anywhere across the back line with equal effectiveness. Seems that a 'left sided defender' can operate with equal effectiveness all across the defensive line except Right Back. Surely there must be a speciality and a peak position? In this case, either in a Back 2 or a Back 3, a left defender should ideally be more comfortable left side. Not supporting a Right Back, as played here.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
That was not my argument here. Take Bill Slater for example, I considered him to be a defensive box-to-box player and not a midfield destroyer type. Fair enough if anyone disagrees, it still is a opinion.

On other points:

Strategy:
- The strategy he is employing here is quite unique. Deep line in a pro-offensive formation. The effectiveness of which I question.
- 3 CM's playing a deep line is not geared for quick counter. With 2 players in front of my defence, his CM's would just add to the crowd with little effectiveness.

Creativity:
- Blanchflower is played as a box-to-box rather than a DLP is my take from his midfield. And (not purely on player peaks), but in the employed formation/strategy, Scholes will have a far greater impact in controlling the game, than Blanchflower. Simply put, I think Scholes-Stiles will complement each other as a duo far better than his midfield 3. Add in that Keane is not on his strong side too.

Possession:
- The direct attack route. With me having bulk possession, I don't think he will have much opportunities to score. I still rate my defence to be superior to his, so even in those non-regular attacks, I think I'm geared up to handle his, far more than he is to mine.
Click to expand...

Are you fecking kidding me? For the 10th time - you're the one claiming I have an extremely deep defensive line which completely ruins my game.

You are the one who claims Blanchflower is a box to box even after I reply and say he isn't - he's a playmaker.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
This is what I do not get. The old full backs seem to be capable operating anywhere across the back line with equal effectiveness. Seems that a 'left sided defender' can operate with equal effectiveness all across the defensive line except Right Back. Surely there must be a speciality and a peak position? In this case, either in a Back 2 or a Back 3, a left defender should ideally be more comfortable left side. Not supporting a Right Back, as played here.
Click to expand...

Like how McManaman and Brady are either not used in their ideal position in this game or in the last game. :lol: I have Hardwick "out of his peak" you have McManaman and Brady out of their peak for being played "out of position"(drama.)
 
Annahnomoss said:
Like how McManaman and Brady are either not used in their ideal position in this game or in the last game. :lol: I have Hardwick "out of his peak" you have McManaman and Brady out of their peak for being played "out of position"(drama.)
Click to expand...
Think McManaman would be fine in that role. Not sure about Brady as I've not seen him to the same extent, but it looks reasonable.
 
Annahnomoss said:
Are you fecking kidding me? For the 10th time - you're the one claiming I have an extremely deep defensive line which completely ruins my game.

You are the one who claims Blanchflower is a box to box even after I reply and say he isn't - he's a playmaker.
Click to expand...

:wenger:

Would help if you could clarify the point in your OP.

Tactic: Defend deep - win the ball back and attack very directly.
Click to expand...

I took it to playing a deeper line.
 
Tactics
With Edgar insisting on playing with his full backs in a deep line by his corner flags I will have acres of space to take advantage of in front of them. This means that Best and Stanley will receive ball after ball in the best of areas with the full backs in a weird position by the corner flags.

Objective:
Use this to score goals.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
This is what I do not get. The old full backs seem to be capable operating anywhere across the back line with equal effectiveness. Seems that a 'left sided defender' can operate with equal effectiveness all across the defensive line except Right Back. Surely there must be a speciality and a peak position? In this case, either in a Back 2 or a Back 3, a left defender should ideally be more comfortable left side. Not supporting a Right Back, as played here.
Click to expand...

That stands to reason, sure. The question would be how much worse he'd be on the right side. It all depends on the player in questions: Like I said above - let's say you have a modern CB who normally plays on the left side of his partner: How would he fare on the opposite side? Just as well? A bit worse? Considerably worse? Depends entirely on the player - and for that matter what his precise task (on the left or right) happens to be.
 
Annah's got a great midfield. That said, I'm not convinced about the reactive approach - that trio are capable of taking the initiative - and you don't want to rely as a gameplan on a defence that's looking a little weak at this stage of the draft. As Anto said, the likes of Scholes, Gazza, Brady and McManaman will win the match if handed the initiative.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
That stands to reason, sure. The question would be how much worse he'd be on the right side. It all depends on the player in questions: Like I said above - let's say you have a modern CB who normally plays on the left side of his partner: How would he fare on the opposite side? Just as well? A bit worse? Considerably worse? Depends entirely on the player - and for that matter what his precise task (on the left or right) happens to be.
Click to expand...

Yup. And to add again, the central defenders(aka full backs) of this era weren't stuck in their position. Sometimes the left back(left centre back) had to be all the way out right and defend against a winger etc.

The defensive line consisted of two defenders and they were the "first defense" before the half backs got back to defend.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
That stands to reason, sure. The question would be how much worse he'd be on the right side. It all depends on the player in questions: Like I said above - let's say you have a modern CB who normally plays on the left side of his partner: How would he fare on the opposite side? Just as well? A bit worse? Considerably worse? Depends entirely on the player - and for that matter what his precise task (on the left or right) happens to be.
Click to expand...

A modern CB is geared to operate more centrally as he always has 2 full backs on either side. A old style back 2/3 full back has far more responsibility in defending on their wings too (and drifting wide), so I concluded they will be far more handicapped playing on the wrong side as opposed to their modern counterparts.
 
Annahnomoss said:
Yup. And to add again, the central defenders(aka full backs) of this era weren't stuck in their position. Sometimes the left back(left centre back) had to be all the way out right and defend against a winger etc.
Click to expand...

Total defensive football, huh? Any old school player can play anywhere across the back line with equal effectiveness. Sorry I really am sceptical about that!
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
That was not my argument here. Take Bill Slater for example, I considered him to be a defensive box-to-box player and not a midfield destroyer type. Fair enough if anyone disagrees, it still is a opinion.
Click to expand...

Yes - but like I asked you above, what do you base this opinion on? Why do you consider him to be a box-to-box player? And why do you consider Danny Blanchflower to be a box-to-box player?

If what you're doing here is to simply presuppose that all halves were box-to-boxers that isn't so much an opinion as an absolute and unsupported generalization.
 
Gio said:
Annah's got a great midfield. That said, I'm not convinced about the reactive approach - that trio are capable of taking the initiative - and you don't want to rely as a gameplan on a defence that's looking a little weak at this stage of the draft. As Anto said, the likes of Scholes, Gazza, Brady and McManaman will win the match if handed the initiative.
Click to expand...

I am not giving away the initiative by any means. It is likely to assume that he will keep possession more as he doesn't have the flair to break me down like Best/Matthews can do to him or the pace and poaching to do so like Mortensen provides for me.

My entire team will be fighting to win the ball back as soon as it is lost and if he has 10% more possession that won't change the outcome of the game. It just means that Matthews and Best are much more penetrative players than his and the same goes for Mortensen.

I won't be rushing things, it will be natural that Best goes on a burst towards goal with Mortensen making a deceptive run and dragging a CB away or Stanley beating his full back and entering the box to find Mortensen/Best or a late run from Keane.

I will be playing similar to Real Madrid, with Best making sure he's in a great position when I regain the ball. With so many strong players defensively, the leadership of Blanchflower and Keane - and Slater in there who is brilliant defensively as well it is strong.
 
Annahnomoss said:
Tactics
With Edgar insisting on playing with his full backs in a deep line by his corner flags I will have acres of space to take advantage of in front of them. This means that Best and Stanley will receive ball after ball in the best of areas with the full backs in a weird position by the corner flags.

Objective:
Use this to score goals.
Click to expand...

I thought this was a funny parody. :nervous:
 
By the way, I'm wondering about whether I should abstain from voting in these Q-Fs (well, until I get knocked out by Stobz, that is).

It could clearly be an advantage at this stage to have X or Y knocked out. Not saying I suggest this as some sort of rule - it's every man for himself as far as I'm concerned. But to me, at least, I don't feel entirely unbiased when considering how I could benefit from grabbing X's players if I go through, or from not having to worry about Y.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
By the way, I'm wondering about whether I should abstain from voting in these Q-Fs (well, until I get knocked out by Stobz, that is).

It could clearly be an advantage at this stage to have X or Y knocked out. Not saying I suggest this as some sort of rule - it's every man for himself as far as I'm concerned. But to me, at least, I don't feel entirely unbiased when considering how I could benefit from grabbing X's players if I go through, or from not having to worry about Y.
Click to expand...

Making a post like that I think makes you one of those who are the most honest about it and least likely to be affected much by bias.

EDIT: Heading to sleep.
 
Last edited:
Chesterlestreet said:
Imagine the scenes here: Scholes with an atrocious tackle on Keano, who then proceeds to pay him back with a Haaland number. It'll be ugliness on a brand new level.
Click to expand...

And Gazza will probably get in on it... and injure himself :annoyed:
 
Annahnomoss said:
Only McCracken played in a 2-3-5 with Hardwick and Hopkins playing for a 3-2-5 more often. The centre backs back then had to handle the wingers in every attack - that was their main match up.

In the 3-2-5 the central player became the first real center back in terms of defending primarily centrally. Hopkins and McCracken are very all round defenders.
Click to expand...

Not at all in the 2-3-5. If you mean the 3-2-5, yeah, sort of, except the wingers were often expected to do some of the early and line-hugging work and the outside backs usually met them around the edge of the box. TBH, they were more like RCB-LCB in a back five than a modern fullback.

EAP does have a point in so far as both your CBs were actually LCBs in a three, and your RB was a CB in a two. I think you know what he is getting at, seeing as you placed Sansom on the right in a previous game. I've no problem with a back three of CB types and no fullback on one side, the problem is you probably needed a RB more than a leftback, both considering the other three being a better fit for that, and also which side EAP is likely to target the most.

No actual RB and Danny Blanchflower trying to stop Gemmell-Brady and Scholes. You really are in all sorts of trouble on that flank, even if Matthews helps them a bit with Gemmell.
 
Annahnomoss said:
Tactics
With Edgar insisting on playing with his full backs in a deep line by his corner flags I will have acres of space to take advantage of in front of them.
Click to expand...

You two are getting ridiculous now. They aren't fecking lamp-posts!
 
Chesterlestreet said:
That stands to reason, sure. The question would be how much worse he'd be on the right side. It all depends on the player in questions: Like I said above - let's say you have a modern CB who normally plays on the left side of his partner: How would he fare on the opposite side? Just as well? A bit worse? Considerably worse? Depends entirely on the player - and for that matter what his precise task (on the left or right) happens to be.
Click to expand...

It's hard to tell really with players we've hardly seen, if at all. That's where I have sympathy for EAP, it's almost as if it is better to have relative unknowns, chuck them in there and say it will work, since no one can prove otherwise. Well, it's not right, is it?

A defence could theoretically cope with a player out of position or in an unfamiliar position, but it seems to be the entire backline which is makeshift bar Sansom... who wasn't an organiser. Usually you would have a leader of the defence barking orders and making sure it's alll orderly, particularly the "misfit(s)". Who is really in a position to do that in that back four? Nobody.

In the meantime, at the other end you have Gemmell, Crazy Horse, God De Greenwall and Cohen.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.