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

[Chesterlestreet]

People are really underrating Stanley Matthews here. He made completely dominated and created 4 goals in one match against him. But Gemmell is expected to keep him in his pocket here?

I don't think Gemmell is capable of that at all - nor is Cohen capable of taming Best. You have an obvious edge there. The problem is that in this context, given the quality of Edgar's defence (there are no outright weak defences at this stage, they're all loaded with quality players) you can't expect an attacking trio to overpower a solid back four AND Nobby Stiles - that isn't realistic. Which means that you need - in my opinion - someone else in the mix in order to bother Edgar's defenders (plus Stiles, I say again) enough to create that wee imbalance which is necessary for your predators to become truly lethal.

Keane is capable of playing such a role - but it comes at the expense of something, given that he has a defensive task to perform here too. Not saying he can't do it, mind. But I am saying that in my opinion it's crucial that he involves himself offensively as something more than a neat short passer alongside Blanchflower: There is a divide between your lines, as I see it - it may not be an ocean, but it's still there. Keane isn't operating on the edge of the box - and that is where he needs to be at times (not all the time, obviously) in order for this to work: Edgar can put a man on Mortensen and have Stiles fall back as a fifth defender here. That limits your options dramatically. You need something or rather someone to loosen that grip by causing distractions and worries for Edgar's defenders.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

On a similar note - and on the flip side - it's a bit hard for me to see how Edgar's admittedly well enough balanced attacking quartet will have much of an edge over Annah's back four unless one decides that the latter is so hopelessly unbalanced that it would practically fall apart (and that would be incredibly harsh in my book): The near-maligned Slater will, if nothing else, certainly fall back when Edgar puts Annah under pressure: He won't be idling around, watching Edgar's faux wingers plus Gazza trying to unlock the defence - he'll join in. As will Keane, for that matter. And Blanchflower isn't a lazy sod either.

A latter day, playmaking Scholes is practically useless considered as an actual attacker - and Stiles isn't even worth mentioning in that regard. The most obvious move would be to send up one of the side backs - but then Annah's counter attacking capability comes into play: With either Cohen or Gemmill up the pitch, all it takes is one precise long ranger from Blanchflower to Best or Matthews and the wee imbalance I'm referring to is a fact.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Yeah, it seems like it's one of those games were a small comment is completely blown out of proportion and interpreted in a very extreme way again and again. It doesn't matter how often Annah repeats that it's not how he set up his team, it goes back to others telling him how his team plays and how it leads to significant flaws, which obviously aren't there if you don't make them up. It's a bit silly in my opinion.

am not parking the bus or anything like that, complete misunderstanding. He has a great set of players for keeping possession and less dangerous routes towards goal so he is likely to have more of it that is all.

Exactly, he then alluded to the workaholic nature of Matthews and Mortenson which is obviously going to aid his team defensively and then he's accused of parking the bus

I don't think Gemmell is capable of that at all - nor is Cohen capable of taming Best. You have an obvious edge there. The problem is that in this context, given the quality of Edgar's defence (there are no outright weak defences at this stage, they're all loaded with quality players) you can't expect an attacking trio to overpower a solid back four AND Nobby Stiles - that isn't realistic. Which means that you need - in my opinion - someone else in the mix in order to bother Edgar's defenders (plus Stiles, I say again) enough to create that wee imbalance which is necessary for your predators to become truly lethal.

Keane is capable of playing such a role - but it comes at the expense of something, given that he has a defensive task to perform here too. Not saying he can't do it, mind. But I am saying that in my opinion it's crucial that he involves himself offensively as something more than a neat short passer alongside Blanchflower: There is a divide between your lines, as I see it - it may not be an ocean, but it's still there. Keane isn't operating on the edge of the box - and that is where he needs to be at times (not all the time, obviously) in order for this to work: Edgar can put a man on Mortensen and have Stiles fall back as a fifth defender here. That limits your options dramatically. You need something or rather someone to loosen that grip by causing distractions and worries for Edgar's defenders.

Keane will be playing his regular game here -

I think this is the perfect way to utilize Keane and I'm sure he won't be caught wanting defensively or offensively. He's playing alongside a holding mid in Slater and a playmaker who can hold his own defensively in Blanchfower. It's just the ideal condition for Keane to thrive in his box to box role.

He isn't going to be gung ho as he's up against a great midfield but he's got more than enough support defensively to bomb forward effectively more often than not. He will be needed defensively but I reckon he's got enough freedom to make an effect offensively esp when he's got a fantastic forward trio in front of him to link up with. So don't think his forward trio are going to be isolated here or that the team will be sacrificing too much defensively with Keane bombing forward.

 

[antohan]

You do realize this means a diagonal pass will leave your side expose?

I can see Scholes looking up and thinking, "where do I want all these tards to run now?" Would add insult to injury (THAT poll) if we had Scholesy reducing Keane to a village idiot.

 

[Annahnomoss]

@Chesterlestreet Blanchflower and Mackay helped Tottenham score 115 goals in their peak 1960 season. Keane was a huge part to our never say die attitude and ability to score goals when he was here.

In '99 we were mainly about outscoring out opponents scoring 80 goals but conceding 37.

So adding a defensively minded midfielder in Slater behind that was logical considering that my front three are already so strong and they are supported by two midfielders who knew how to make sure their teams scored goals in Blanch and Keane.

Blanch and Keane will be playing the roles they did in these seasons - the defensive stability comes from Slater - an extra midfielder rather than Keane and Blanch being limited to do a defensive job.

People often forget that someone with the passing range of Blanchflower was equally adept at finding through balls, beating a man and creating space and being very mobile.

Mackay-Blanchflower was very similar of a partnership as Keane-Blanchflower would be.

 

[Gio]

A couple of points coming out of the debate. First, no problems with how Annah's midfield is set up - the three complement each other well enough and should enable one another to do their job well. Second, recognise the relative 'lack of goals' in Edgar's set-up, but Hughes is a great striker in getting midfielders into good positions. And in Scholes, McManaman, Gascoigne and Brady, Edgar has a number of players who are unlikely to squander an opportunity should it come their way and all of whom have previous in scoring goals in big games.

 

[antohan]

Exactly, he then alluded to the workaholic nature of Matthews and Mortenson which is obviously going to aid his team defensively and then he's accused of parking the bus

In my defence, I did say I wasn't keen on reading either wall of text, but instead focused on the bolded one-liner which implied he was sitting back and soaking. And yes, mentioning Mortenson's defensive contribution sounded like parking the bus or, more to the point, Best being rather isolated.

TBH, both managers have been rather confusing in how they say one thing here and a different one there, have-your-cake-and-eat-it style.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

In my defence, I did say I wasn't keen on reading either wall of text, but instead focused on the bolded one-liners which implied he was sitting back and soaking. And yes, mentioning Mortenson's defensive contribution sounded like parking the bus or, more to the point, Best being rather isolated.

TBH, both managers have been rather confusing in how they say one thing here and a different one there, have-your-cake-and-eat-it style.

Classic problem, that. And, yes - I would agree to an extent that this has been the case here too.

But in Annah's defence some of his points were clear enough to begin with - only to be either ignored or twisted out of shape. For my money Edgar has tried to sell his own interpretation of both what Annah's players ARE doing and what they SHOULD be doing, at the same time, and contrary to what is clearly stated in the write-up.

Annah's main flaw, in terms of the debate, would be that he hasn't really addressed Edgar's criticism of his defence/defensive balance.

Both have dodged certain issues, one could say - but that's what anyone would try to do, in fairness.

 

[Annahnomoss]

Classic problem, that. And, yes - I would agree to an extent that this has been the case here too.

But in Annah's defence some of his points were clear enough to begin with - only to be either ignored or twisted out of shape. For my money Edgar has tried to sell his own interpretation of both what Annah's players ARE doing and what they SHOULD be doing, at the same time and contrary to what is clearly stated in the write-up.

Annah's main flaw, in terms of the debate, would be that he hasn't really addressed Edgar's criticism of his defence/defensive balance.

Both have dodged certain issues, one could say - but that's what anyone would try to do, in fairness.

I quit reading what he said after he called Blanchflower a box to box midfielder, I replied and said he wasn't one and then he made a new post about how Blanchflower was a box to box midfielder and that wasn't Danny's best role.

That kind of conversation went on repeatedly and won't go very far.

My defense isn't by any means malfunctioning here. As said in the last match and here, my defense is a three man centre back line - McCracken playing similar to Abidal in Barcelona. Hardwick was most commonly played on the left, but also centrally(which is how he'd play here and McCracken would be a RCB like stated before.)

Sansom on the other side is blistering fast and is well set up to face McManaman - the only real "outside threat". Brady is more of a playmaking wide midfielder who will be drifting inside and he won't be attacking the space towards the corner flag by beating McCracken so a right centre back is a good choice there especially with Stanley working hard down that flank too.

Keane is a monster defensively and he'll play behind Best and next to Samson - together they have acceleration and pace from Samson and Keane providing leadership, a fearsome never ending work rate and organization.

My back line like I mentioned in an earlier post combines the ball playing brilliance/Steel of Hardwick with one of the finest defenders in terms of intelligence, reading the game and positioning in McCracken.

On the other side Hopkins who is "quick and tenacious, strong in the air, a perceptive passer and a brisk tackler.".

My two paciest and best defenders in 1 vs 1 are up against McManaman which is ideal for me. On the other side my smartest defenders are up against Brady - also a great match up for me.

Not to add that I have three extremely solid central midfielders in front of that then Stanley Matthews and Mortensen who were great defensively as well. Scholes is the defensively weakest central midfielder on the pitch and the sum of all parts is what matters.

Having Keane, Slater and Blanch centrally means that they'll let less chances through and Keane and Slater will definitely pull a weight above their own role and have time to make some great saving defensive runs/tackles/interceptions as well.

Slater's best year saw him rewarded as the PWA player of the year, Blanchflower was a double PWA player of the year, Keane won it to in 99-00. None of my opponents central midfielders(including Gazza there) has won it.

That doesn't mean my midfielders are better than his, but it does mean Slater was a massively talented player more than just man marking Didi brilliantly and doing great against Puskas. Not two odd occasions there by any means.

 

[antohan]

Classic problem, that. And, yes - I would agree to an extent that this has been the case here too.

But in Annah's defence some of his points were clear enough to begin with - only to be either ignored or twisted out of shape. For my money Edgar has tried to sell his own interpretation of both what Annah's players ARE doing and what they SHOULD be doing, at the same time and contrary to what is clearly stated in the write-up.

Annah's main flaw, in terms of the debate, would be that he hasn't really addressed Edgar's criticism of his defence/defensive balance.

Both have dodged certain issues, one could say - but that's what anyone would try to do, in fairness.

that's actually the fun part as I don't think there's a single punter agreeing with any of that "4-3-3 must have 2xB2B, it follows Blanchflower is playing B2B, no matter what he did or what you tell him"

My gripe with Annah is precisely that I think his team and midfield ARE good enough to take the initiative themselves, but that bolded line right under his teamsheet indicated otherwise at a very convenient time. "Don't bother that you don't know my defenders or whether they are potentially a cack back four, nope, it's an impregnable back 7 once you lay on the other three (and apparently Matthews and Mortensen as well). And he only has Hughes...". That at least was my instant reading of it: "I'm not playing on an equal footing because then people may start asking questions about my defence".

It reminded me of how in the group stages I just kept overlooking the defence and presuming it was OK. Well, at some point you do have to ask questions, don't you? Solid, proper, defenders for all defensive roles didn't get picked. Loads went for 10M: Miller, England, Pearce, Bruce, Thompson, Wilson, Dixon, O'Leary, Wes Brown, and the legendary John O'Shea (who has more medals than his entire backline )... In some of those cases they became their sides' weakness, targeted all game long... How is it fair to just assemble a bunch of untractable nobodies for 10M and avoid that altogether? One we have to make allowances for, fair enough, but this is an entire backline where the only player we have the first clue about is Kenny Sansom and if Pearce gets the stick he got, then by all means Sansom should, let alone the other three.

 

[crappycraperson]

It reminded me of how in the group stages I just kept overlooking the defence and presuming it was OK. Well, at some point you do have to ask questions, don't you? Solid, proper, defenders for all defensive roles didn't get picked. Loads went for 10M: Miller, England, Pearce, Bruce, Thompson, Wilson, Dixon, O'Leary, Wes Brown, and the legendary John O'Shea (who has more medals than his entire backline )... In some of those cases they became their sides' weakness, targeted all game long... How is it fair to just assemble a bunch of untractable nobodies for 10M and avoid that altogether? One we have to make allowances for, fair enough, but this is an entire backline where the only player we have the first clue about is Kenny Sansom and if Pearce gets the stick he got, then by all means Sansom should, let alone the other three.

The reason I voted for Edgar. Annah has done a very smart job assembling this particular ack 4 rather even picking likes of Keown etc. But ultimately I don't buy that this defense would be able to handle Edgar's attacking threat

 

[antohan]

As said in the last match and here, my defense is a three man centre back line - McCracken playing similar to Abidal in Barcelona.

But Abidal isn't just an LCB in a three but a competent and proven out and out leftback.

Brady is more of a playmaking wide midfielder who will be drifting inside and he won't be attacking the space towards the corner flag by beating McCracken so a right centre back is a good choice there especially with Stanley working hard down that flank too.

This I'm more in agreement with, which is why Gemmell's role was important too.

Slater was a massively talented player more than just man marking Didi brilliantly and doing great against Puskas. Not two odd occasions there by any means.

I keep seeing this but have no basis for it, could you provide any links to read further on that? All I keep finding is the Brazilians thinking he was a thug and his claim to fame being that they opted for preserving Garrincha. Result.

 

[Annahnomoss]

I think you are doing an extreme to compensate another extreme Anto. If you read my posts about my defenders or do your own research you'll see that they are fine defenders. Are they anywhere near Maldini, Cafu, Nilton Santos? No, not anywhere close.

But there is certainly no reason to hold them lower than Cohen/Gemmell. His central defenders are slightly stronger but that doesn't mean mine are bad. Just like my wingers being two of the greatest in history doesn't make Brady and McManaman bad either.

Or how Mortensen being a pacey, all round historically great goalscorer doesn't make Hughes a useless player. It doesn't have to be extremes all around the pitch. One defense can be stronger but it is unlikely that an all time defense like this would be bad at all.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

I quit reading what he said after he called Blanchflower a box to box midfielder, I replied and said he wasn't one and then he made a new post about how Blanchflower was a box to box midfielder and that wasn't Danny's best role.

I take responsibility for that. It was more of my conviction that a a 4-3-3 needed 2 b2b mf's to function (which you did not have) or conversely play Blanchflower as b2b (which you are not doing) as both flaws in your strategy.

It was not my intention to make light of your write up, but then I still believe 4-3-3 needs twp b2b mf's. But that that is a conversation for main thread if only just to enhance my knowledge. I've not mentioned it further and will not.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I keep seeing this but have no basis for it, could you provide any links to read further on that? All I keep finding is the Brazilians thinking he was a thug and his claim to fame being that they opted for preserving Garrincha. Result.

I've seen his performance described both as a perfect shadow job (he stayed glued on Didi) and as the most perverse (or words to that effect) the Brazilians had ever seen (he kicked the shit out of Didi and hung on to his shirt for 90 minutes). The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. But he did stifle Didi in that match - whatever means he availed himself of - there's no reason to doubt that.

So, if we acknowledge Stiles' job on Eusebio as a piece of fine man marking combined with methods which would've gotten him sent off today, I don't see why we shouldn't rate Slater's job on Didi in a similar light.

 

[Annahnomoss]

I've seen his performance described both as a perfect shadow job (he stayed glued on Didi) and as the most perverse (or words to that effect) the Brazilians had ever seen (he kicked the shit out of Didi and hung on to his shirt for 90 minutes). The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. But he did stifle Didi in that match - whatever means he availed himself of - there's no reason to doubt that.

So, if we acknowledge Stiles' job on Eusebio as a piece of fine man marking combined with methods which would've gotten him sent off today, I don't see why we shouldn't rate Slater's job on Didi in a similar light.

Yup. I don't want to sink to name calling levels myself too but clearly both Slater and Stiles were considered to tough men. They'd both be sent off if they played like that today, no doubt about it.

Slater had a much more all rounded game though, he was capable of going from a man marking job on Didi one week to playing offensive wing half for Wolves in the league the next.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Slater was a versatile player - in modern terms he played as a defender, a midfielder and a highly offensive winger over the years. And he was known as a good passer - of that there is no doubt: A precise diagonal long ball from half (right or left) to winger (right or left) was an often used weapon in them days - and Slater was known to do this well.

So, he certainly wasn't a pure thug.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Wasn't Slater part of the Wolves team which beat the likes of Honved and went 3 games unbeaten against THAT Real side. Not in competitive fixtures mind but these weren't the dead rubber friendly fixtures of this age either.

Some interesting reads for those interested on Cullis's Wolves.

Edit: Some exaggeration is bound to be there esp after the English being humiliated by the mighty Magyars and anto's point about the prevalence of misplaced English arrogance in that era is also going to be reinforced as well and rightly so.

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2014/12/12/the-legacy-of-wolves-famous-win/

http://www.expressandstar.com/edito...en-wolves-were-conquering-the-football-world/

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/...night-wolves-beat-the-best-club-in-the-world/

 

[Gio]

Slater was a versatile player - in modern terms he played as a defender, a midfielder and a highly offensive winger over the years. And he was known as a good passer - of that there is no doubt: A precise diagonal long ball from half (right or left) to winger (right or left) was an often used weapon in them days - and Slater was known to do this well.

So, he certainly wasn't a pure thug.

Useful to hear that perspective, he's the one player in the draft I didn't know anything about beforehand.

 

[Annahnomoss]

Wasn't Slater part of the Wolves team which beat the likes of Honved and went 3 games unbeaten against THAT Real side.

Some interesting reads for those interested on Cullis's Wolves.

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2014/12/12/the-legacy-of-wolves-famous-win/

http://www.expressandstar.com/edito...en-wolves-were-conquering-the-football-world/

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/...night-wolves-beat-the-best-club-in-the-world/

Yup. Won FWA footballer of the year for his performances and that midfield pairing was often considered their greatest strength too.

 

[antohan]

I've seen his performance described both as a perfect shadow job (he stayed glued on Didi) and as the most perverse (or words to that effect) the Brazilians had ever seen (he kicked the shit out of Didi and hung on to his shirt for 90 minutes). The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. But he did stifle Didi in that match - whatever means he availed himself of - there's no reason to doubt that.

So, if we acknowledge Stiles' job on Eusebio as a piece of fine man marking combined with methods which would've gotten him sent off today, I don't see why we shouldn't rate Slater's job on Didi in a similar light.

I agree, was just interested, particularly re: Puskas as I couldn't figure out when he played him at all. Wolves friendly it turns out, Annah sent me some links by PM.

 

[antohan]

Wasn't Slater part of the Wolves team which beat the likes of Honved and went 3 games unbeaten against THAT Real side. Not in competitive fixtures mind but these weren't the dead rubber friendly fixtures of this age either.

Yups, I'm pretty sure Billy Wright wouldn't treat Honved as just another friendly!

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Wasn't Slater part of the Wolves team which beat the likes of Honved and went 3 games unbeaten against THAT Real side. Not in competitive fixtures mind but these weren't the dead rubber friendly fixtures of this age either.

Line up against Honved, 1954:

Spoiler: Wolves '54

Wolves won 3-2 in a rather controversial affair (the pitch was a nightmare - and there were rumours it had been watered down on purpose).

 

[antohan]

Wolves won 3-2 in a rather controversial affair (the pitch was a nightmare - and there were rumours it had been watered down on purpose).

I suspected as much when I read the Express article insisting "it wasn't that muddy, Honved certainly can't use that as an excuse". Ergo, it was probably completely waterlogged.

 

[Annahnomoss]

I suspected as much when I read the Express article insisting "it wasn't that muddy, Honved certainly can't use that as an excuse". Ergo, it was probably completely waterlogged.

The quality of pitches back then weren't good in general either - so imagine what a "bad pitch" would be.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I suspected as much when I read the Express article insisting "it wasn't that muddy, Honved certainly can't use that as an excuse". Ergo, it was probably completely waterlogged.

Gamesmanship of the highest order, no doubt.

That said, they didn't go to such lengths against Real - not to mention they played them multiple times - so, Cullis' Wolves were a bloody good side, dirty tricks notwithstanding.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Yups, I'm pretty sure Billy Wright wouldn't treat Honved as just another friendly!

. That failed tackle on Puskas was described (by some journalist or Wright himself, not sure) as a fire engine rushing to the wrong fire. That drag back was sublime to say the least.

Apparently they both became friends and appeared for one of their autobiography unveilings. Not too sure, watched it in a documentary a long time ago and my memory is a bit hazy.

 

[Annahnomoss]

Considering how Matthews tooled and absolutely dominated the very best full backs in history he'd have a great match against Cohen here. He could create 3-4 goals on his own, regardless of being up against Nilton Santos or playing in a FA Cup Final.

He played with Stan "Electric heels" Mortensen who has the the fourth best goals per game ratio for England. Morty had the combination of lightning explosive speed, being capable of shooting with both feet, explosive dribbling to earn himself space and being great at finding his wingers behind the defensive line with perfectly weighted through balls.

Together with Best that front line has every box ticked, two of the best wingers and dribblers in history. Two incredible goalscorers in Best and Mortensen and two hard working team players in Mortensen and Matthews.

Behind them I have Blanchflower and Keane who were the best players and captains for teams that created goals for fun. Blanchflower already proved that this particular partnership would thrive offensively when he and Mackay had Tottenham scoring 115 goals in one season.

Slater was also a brilliant mobile player both in possession and here in the defensive midfield role. I think my team will create more chances than my opponent and I can easily see him score a goal here, but overall my team will produce more chances and I have by far the best goalscorers.

 

[antohan]

Matthews is up against Gemmell, not Cohen. Not that it makes a huge difference to the argument. It is a good side, no two ways about it, but you face a sturdy defence with a very strong core of Crazy Horse-God and Nobby to boot. EAP certainly has less firepower, but he may well be facing a domino lineup at the back. Cue I'm exaggerating.

Probably, I always do, but you mentioned yourself back in their days they largely man-marked players and I can't see man-marking being the best way to go about things here, and if the answer is they aren't man-marking then you have a bunch of out of somewhat out of position defenders not even resorting to their strongest suit. Whichever way you look at it, it's makeshift and makeshift is worrying.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

I would disagree.

- I will have the bulk of possession, so will deny you time and opportunity on the ball consistently.
- No denying the capabilities of your wingers, my superior defensive line can counter that. The top 3 defenders (I would even say top 4) are McGrath, Hughes and Gemmell. Cohen is no pushover and when he has a player of the caliber of McGrath behind him, it will not be that easy for Best to score.

Consider the lack of possession coupled with facing stellar defenders....I don't claim to shut you down here, but it will not be easy goals.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

On the other hand, my attack may not be as direct or overt as yours, but given possession..the creativity of Scholes initiating and Brady/Gazza/McM orchestrating can unlock any defence.

I've already made my opinion on opponents defence clear. I'm not doubting the ability of the players, but the positions they are played in. I really think they are not peak as a defensive unit. The sublime brilliance of Brady and Gazza supported by the physicality of Hughes should get me on the scoresheet.

 

[Annahnomoss]

I don't ignore the fact that you can get on the score sheet. Considering how many chances Matthews would create by beating Gemmell over and over through out the game(like he did with the much. much better Nilton Santos.) with Best challenging the defense and Cohen there'll be several times when those dribbling runs are successful and when they are I have the two best goalscorers on the pitch by a mile in Best and Mortensen.

Mortensen is also the perfect foil for Best and Matthews here, he has the pace and acceleration to make runs behind the defense and as soon as Hughes/McGrath steps up on the dribbling Best he'll sneak a through ball past to Mortensen which they have no chance on.

 

[harms]

I don't understand what's happening here. Annah midfield is being named not defensively solid enough and, in the same time, not threatening enough. What the hell? You can argue that it can be midfield 3 in draft XI (well, Slater won't be there, but Blanchflower and Keane certainly can). It's perfectly balanced, Keane and Blanchflower can contribute to attack without the risk of being exposed and it's defensively better than EAP's midfield (even with the best pure DM in the draft in Stiles). Non-arguably the best part of Edgar's team isn't much better that Annah's midfield, the gap is in quantity, not quality (I don't rate Gazza as much as you lots here though, he was a special player, but I don't like Maradona comparisons).

And than Annah has fantastic genuine match-winners - you can say that Keane was more of a match-winner than Scholes and than you have Best and Matthews on the wings, supported by Mortensen and Keane/Blanchflower. We all can saw in the last few weeks what difference can world-class attacking personnel make - and it would. No doubt that EAP's defensive line is better - individually and as a unit, but he isn't well-equipped to beat Annah unbalanced back-line, which is shielded by a pure DM, one of the best defensive b2b in history and a brilliant deep-lying playmaker, who will contribute defensively. And no line can hold it against Best-Mortensen-Matthews with the support of Blanchflower and Keane, especially when you don't park the bus and is relatively vulnerable on the counter.

I have no doubt that Edgar can nick one, but I think this will end 1:2 or 1:3.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Based on your views, there's no defender in this draft capable of stopping Matthews (or Best for that matter). If Nilton Santos can't stop him, who can, eh?
Well, I disagree. Stiles would do a good job on Mortensen. Your best bet is for one of Matthews/Best to dribble past both of my defenders facing them to score. They certainly are capable of doing that, but with lack of possession, the probability of that happening are quite slim, imo.

And no line can hold it against Best-Mortensen-Matthews with the support of Blanchflower and Keane,

I don't know mate. If that's the case, we might call of this draft and award the win here!

 

[antohan]

I don't understand what's happening here. Annah midfield is being named not defensively solid enough and, in the same time, not threatening enough. What the hell?

In fairness, it's largely EAP arguing that.

What most others have argued was that it could hold its own and there's two stances there: 1) that sitting deep hampers how fluidly he can go about things and/or 2) that sitting back may be a function of his defence requiring constant protection.

The way I see it, he is better off riding his luck and banking on his superior firepower, as you say.

 

[harms]

I don't know mate. If that's the case, we might call of this draft and award the win here!

Well, Annah's team is really looking a lot like Draft XI, I don't think that you will argue with me on that. And he does look like a sure favorite in the whole thing for me (though you are winning anyway and kudos to you for that)

You can neglect their influence and try to outscore him, which you are doing, but I'm just not sold on Hughes/Brady/Gazza/McM being potent enough to do that.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Well, Annah's team is really looking a lot like Draft XI, I don't think that you will argue with me on that. And he does look like a sure favorite (though you are winning anyway and kudos to you for that)

Tbh, it's more even that. Let me argue some points in your previous post...

shielded by a pure DM, one of the best defensive b2b in history and a brilliant deep-lying playmaker

Best DM in the draft: Stiles. Slater was all over the place as Inside Forward, Left Half, Centre Half, Left Back. I still could not discern where he peaked in. I can understand versatility, but no one be a peak in all those positions in their career. Maybe it a DM, not saying otherwise. But in Stiles case it is far more clearer. Has played and proven himself in that position at top level. No argument on that.

Brilliant DLP: I would argue for Scholes. Imo, Blanchflower has better defensive capabilities and Scholes as better offensive capabilities from that position. As a DLP, I'll go for Scholes to pull strings from midfield.

Best b2b: Keane. No denying that. But then Keane fits his direct strategy and Bardy/McM fits my possession based one. Don't think they are a weakness at all.


The key difference is the defensive line. I've made my points on the efficiency of his back 4 as a unit. Personally I think it is not a smooth functioning back 4 and I'll have a better share of chances. And their effect will be felt in his midfield too.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Best DM in the draft: Stiles. Slater was all over the place as Inside Forward, Left Half, Centre Half, Left Back.

Stiles clearly is not the best DM in the draft unless by "DM" you understand "rather limited destroyer".

And Slater's best position was RIGHT half. I've told you that ten times now.

Not that this matters as far as your argument is concerned. But what you seem to propose here is that Slater had no peak because he played in various positions over the years - and that makes absolutely no sense.

You can't hold it against him that he was versatile - it's absurd. If you feel that he is being used incorrectly - or played in a position which is not his best - then you need to back that up with something, if not it only serves to taint your reasoning.

 

[harms]

even with the best pure DM in the draft in Stiles

Best DM in the draft: Stiles

Why did you need to specify that, when I literally said that in the quoted post?

I choose to believe that Slater can do it - and what Annah and Chester (I think, or someone earlier) posted backs that opinion. The games against Didi and Puskas proves you wrong - he certainly can play the role at the highest level.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Stiles clearly is not the best DM in the draft unless by "DM" you understand "rather limited destroyer".

And Slater's best position was RIGHT half. I've told you that ten times now.

Yes, I read that 10 times too. Permit me to disagree here. I'll quote below some excerpts from the book 'Three Lions vs the World'.

"with Left Half Slater tightly marking Didi"
Quote from Slater himself "I enjoyed playing as attacking wing half normally, but I had to discipline myself not to let..."

Yes, He has played on the right. But I'm still leaning towards his best position as a box-to-box/left sided MF, not a defensive pivot.

Can understand if you disagree, but lets just agree to disagree.