@MJJ feel proud for running you as close as I did - looking well balanced now.
All time British/Irish fantasy draft, S-F: Chester vs MJJ
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
yours was a great side as well, think with the players available you would have done great as well.
to think all i needed was two wingers and no daglish
Substitution: Haynes on for Byrne, switching to an Italian style defence - instructing Edwards to keep close to Matthews when the latter is on the ball. Essentially the same tactics as used in the Q-F, but with an upgraded team (Blanchflower/Johnstone for Crerand/Jackson).
As hinted at in the main thread, this is a lopsided affair: Symmetry is for girls. The key role here is that of Duncan Edwards: He will be tasked with two things: A) To keep an eye on Johnstone, my worthy opponent's most dangerous player and cause problems for him whenever he's on the ball in my half. And B) To venture forward and combine with John Barnes (and Johnny Haynes, for that matter) when my team have the ball.
This means he'll have to run his arse off. Luckily the latter will be no problem for him. In terms of stamina, will, mental fortitude (and so forth), I doubt there will be a player on the pitch who can match him. His role? That of a defensive midfielder who ventures forward a bit – and who has a special, purely defensive assignment. A big role for a big player.
Defence: An Italian job, if you will. Three more or less central defenders and a side back. The easiest way to look at the three CBs is to regard Woodburn and Wright as stoppers and Franklin as a sweeper – or indeed a bit of a libero, because Franklin will have a bit of license here to push up (both in order to check the progress of runners/break up play and to carry the ball out of defence himself. His on-the-ball skills and his reading of the game makes him an ideal choice for this somewhat “un-British” sort of role. Pat Rice plays the side back role – and he will simply play his natural game, that of a well rounded right back: He will push forward at times to assist Jackson, but his main job will be to keep tabs on my opponent's left sided attacker.
Duncan Edwards has been mentioned already – the roles of Pat Crerand and Johnny Haynes remain the same as they were in my group matches: Crerand holds, passes (with high precision), keeps things relatively simple. Haynes is the playmaker, pure and simple. He pings it wide – to Barnes and Jackson – and he pushes up to attempt deadly through balls for Dean, Jackson and Barnes to work with.
My wingers are John Barnes and Alec Jackson. Their task is both to create (cross the ball for Dean and whoever has managed to get into the box, combine with Dean and Haynes in more of a short-ball game) and to finish (get on the end of a Haynes through ball, a cross or a short ball from Dean).
Up front: The man who once scored sixty goals in a single league season and who is as deadly with his head as he is with his feet. The part of Dean's game which is less obvious, but nevertheless important for me is his ability to combine with his fellow attackers, bring them into play by holding up the ball and release it with simple precision). Lastly I would also mention his mobility: He doesn't remain stationary in the box, like some robot waiting for the cross: He moves about constantly, even drifting wide (which makes combinations with Jackson and Barnes, who both like to cut inside, all the more effective – and harder to keep track on for my opponent's defenders).
Key word: Versatility.
This means he'll have to run his arse off. Luckily the latter will be no problem for him. In terms of stamina, will, mental fortitude (and so forth), I doubt there will be a player on the pitch who can match him. His role? That of a defensive midfielder who ventures forward a bit – and who has a special, purely defensive assignment. A big role for a big player.
Defence: An Italian job, if you will. Three more or less central defenders and a side back. The easiest way to look at the three CBs is to regard Woodburn and Wright as stoppers and Franklin as a sweeper – or indeed a bit of a libero, because Franklin will have a bit of license here to push up (both in order to check the progress of runners/break up play and to carry the ball out of defence himself. His on-the-ball skills and his reading of the game makes him an ideal choice for this somewhat “un-British” sort of role. Pat Rice plays the side back role – and he will simply play his natural game, that of a well rounded right back: He will push forward at times to assist Jackson, but his main job will be to keep tabs on my opponent's left sided attacker.
Duncan Edwards has been mentioned already – the roles of Pat Crerand and Johnny Haynes remain the same as they were in my group matches: Crerand holds, passes (with high precision), keeps things relatively simple. Haynes is the playmaker, pure and simple. He pings it wide – to Barnes and Jackson – and he pushes up to attempt deadly through balls for Dean, Jackson and Barnes to work with.
My wingers are John Barnes and Alec Jackson. Their task is both to create (cross the ball for Dean and whoever has managed to get into the box, combine with Dean and Haynes in more of a short-ball game) and to finish (get on the end of a Haynes through ball, a cross or a short ball from Dean).
Up front: The man who once scored sixty goals in a single league season and who is as deadly with his head as he is with his feet. The part of Dean's game which is less obvious, but nevertheless important for me is his ability to combine with his fellow attackers, bring them into play by holding up the ball and release it with simple precision). Lastly I would also mention his mobility: He doesn't remain stationary in the box, like some robot waiting for the cross: He moves about constantly, even drifting wide (which makes combinations with Jackson and Barnes, who both like to cut inside, all the more effective – and harder to keep track on for my opponent's defenders).
Key word: Versatility.
you are going to get destroyed down my right side flank, you need a dedicated full back to mark mathews, not give Edwards double duty.
he will be spending most of his time out wide or you lose the numerical advantage while defending. either way win win.
he will be spending most of his time out wide or you lose the numerical advantage while defending. either way win win.
Edwards is the player on the pitch most suited to such a double duty. He isn't a randomly selected mug - he is perfect for that sort of job. Matthews isn't Superman. He's a brilliant dribbler but he WILL be kept in check with both Duncan Edwards and a pure defender (Woodburn) patrolling his side of the pitch. And I won't lose the numerical advantage. When Edwards drops down to become a left back of sorts, I retain the five-at-the-back format.
You need to worry more about Haynes now. You can't have both Robbo and Souness operating freely in the middle with Haynes there. That is the biggest difference here, speaking in numerical terms.
if Edwards does move out wide you only have one centre midfielder I. e. blachflower and Haynes in the middle up against Charlton, Robson and souness. that is I will almost always retain possession.
not to mention that Edwards is only closing mathews down when he has the ball so he will always have a head start unless Edwards is playing wider than normal in which case your midfield is pretty weak with Franklin also having more responsibilities in your new system.
whichever way you look at it allowing one of the best dribblers in the history of football space to run onto isn't a good tactical decision.
Hehe. Sure. Having Duncan Edwards track him when he's on the ball isn't usually interpreted as such, though. It's precisely the same job he did on Johnstone (another of the best dribblers in football history) in my last match - and it's a huge job, I have never underestimated the size of the task: But I maintain that Edwards can perform it.
Franlin's responsibilities are pretty much the same, as I see it. He brings the ball out of defence and he pushes up to intercept/challenge (useful when Charlton is running with the ball, I should think).
Regarded in purely attacking terms I now have a four-on-four situation up front: You need to either leave it as such - or task either Robson or Souness with defensive responsibilities which will impact their influence in the middle of the park.
If we are to play the numbers game here, it appears perfectly even to me: You have four primary attackers against my four primary defenders: I have Edwards on Matthews which frees up one defender (playing that rather silly numbers game again). I also have the defensively staunch Blanchflower, who will certainly not stand idly by when you're on the attack. It's your four primary attackers assisted by Robson and Souness against my makeshift five-man defence (w/ Edwards on Matthews) plus Blanchflower. There is no obvious numerical advantage here.
And, which is a key point given my new line-up: I have Haynes drifting around in the space between your box and the half-way line. Can you afford to keep Robson/Souness in, say, unshackled roles here?
If you go all-out attack and commit both Souness and Robson offensively, the numbers are even (six on six). If you play a more sensible game and have one of them keep an eye on Haynes (who will deal with him otherwise? You can't expect either Rio or Raisbeck to do that unless you're willing to have Haynes drag his man absurdly deep), the numerical advantage is mine.
Anyway, I stress yet again that the numbers game is a bit silly – but it does at least illustrate that there is no real edge, balance wise, for either side here.
And, which is a key point given my new line-up: I have Haynes drifting around in the space between your box and the half-way line. Can you afford to keep Robson/Souness in, say, unshackled roles here?
If you go all-out attack and commit both Souness and Robson offensively, the numbers are even (six on six). If you play a more sensible game and have one of them keep an eye on Haynes (who will deal with him otherwise? You can't expect either Rio or Raisbeck to do that unless you're willing to have Haynes drag his man absurdly deep), the numerical advantage is mine.
Anyway, I stress yet again that the numbers game is a bit silly – but it does at least illustrate that there is no real edge, balance wise, for either side here.
the way I see is with your new make shift defense, you will always be a man light in midfield when Edwards goes to the left I. e. Charlton can drop deep to make it a three on two advantage.
when Edwards is playing in midfield mathews will be outwide and can always pass him the ball since no one is marking him .
if woodburn goes wide then you only have Franklin and Wright against Charlton and lofthouse,that's a mismatch as well.
so it's going to be very easy for me to retain possession unless one of Barnes or haynes drops deep constantly. with my side leading in the game I don't see how you will make a comeback when you will be starved off the ball.
Is there any practical examples of such a formation working against top quality wingers as am having a hard time imagining how it will go.
when Edwards is playing in midfield mathews will be outwide and can always pass him the ball since no one is marking him .
if woodburn goes wide then you only have Franklin and Wright against Charlton and lofthouse,that's a mismatch as well.
so it's going to be very easy for me to retain possession unless one of Barnes or haynes drops deep constantly. with my side leading in the game I don't see how you will make a comeback when you will be starved off the ball.
Is there any practical examples of such a formation working against top quality wingers as am having a hard time imagining how it will go.
This is a misunderstanding - I may not have been clear on this point: When I am not in possession, Edwards will stay close to Matthews. He will push up when I am in possession (making himself available for a pass or carrying the ball forward himself). Obviously, you can hit me on the counter should I lose possession - and in those cases Edwards will have to sprint back - but them's the breaks, surely. There's no such thing as a risk free approach when dealing with players this good.
Two of the best central defenders in British football history. Calling it a mismatch strikes me as misleading. Lofthouse is run-of-the-mill in this context. Both Wright and Franklin are top notch - as is Charlton, obviously.
Haynes certainly WILL drop deep frequently - that's part and parcel for him. Barnes is more than capable of playing a side midfielder game as well as a winger one. So, yes, he can conceivably drop deep-ish should it be necessary.
Heh - none that I can think of. It's a fantasy game, though. If you need historical precedents in order to back up every decision/tactical move, you're going to find yourself in trouble very soon. The question is whether Edwards can conceivably perform the task in question - in a fantasy game. I claim that he can, of course. You may claim he can't - and it's going to be hard for either of us to provide tangible evidence to back up our claims.
Still a close one this as it enters the final stretch. I can't vote for obvious reasons and it'd be a tough one to call in any case. I'm unconvinced by this Edwards dual role I must say. I see him spending far more time on the left wing than is ideal. Then again, Chester's got a point that one of Souness or Robson will surely have to curtail their natural game to deal with Haynes. I'd argue less so than Edwards has to change his though.
Seems most people are. And there's little I can do about that beyond repeating myself (and there ain't much to be gained from that at this stage).
The problem here is that I can't sell this role of his without making a huge song and dance about it - and the result is inevitable: People will focus on this and pretty much forget about the rest. What I lose from giving Edwards this assignment is part of his offensive game. This is obvious and I have never denied it either. The question is how much (I keep saying that Edwards is capable of doing this job - he is a special player whose attributes make this move on my part plausible) - and even if I lose a significant part of his offensive game, this doesn't render the rest of my attacking players useless. I have Haynes, Barnes, Johnstone and Dean up against his back four. This doesn't magically disappear as part of the equation just because Edwards can't bomb freely forwards.
I have two of the best passers (some would say THE two best passers) in the whole draft on the pitch. I have wingers who are capable of causing the same amount of trouble for his wide defenders as his are for mine. I have the best finisher on the park. I have Franklin in a libero role. Even if we consider Duncan as a pure left back for the sake of argument, I still have Franklin pushing up into DM territory to make the picture in the middle of the park less predictable and less obvious in terms of the numbers.
And yes - the question of how he intends to deal with Haynes remains unanswered.
Last edited:
Tbh, it's what needed to be done when trailing a game. Now he has more offence, albeit at cost of defence. What game is MJJ playing here? Same as what he started or conservatively defending a lead?
@Edgar Allan Pillow - not that it will make much of a difference, but for the sake of order and such, could you update the OP with the new formation pic?
Opps, totally forgot I started this thread. Done.
Congrats to @MJJ and @manikandan nair!
In my defence I would restate that setting up the team, I took into consideration the 15 man roster posted. Sherwood was not in that roster which led me to conclude they would play Dalglish up front in that same false nine-ish role (which I could have argued effectively against based on my own selection). Wasn't anything else I could do – the roster was posted and seemingly deemed final by my opponents: I thought it odd, needless to say, but there it was. And if I had been a proper bastard I could've made a huge deal out of MJJ/mani fielding an ineligible player – just sayin'. For future reference, lads, it's always a good idea to have your books in order – there are worse sticklers for rules out there than yours truly.
Anyway, if I had known what team they were actually fielding, I would have probably opted for the formation I ended up with, i.e. a repeat of the q-f approach.
That said, winning here would've meant selling the Edwards role – and it seems that simply wasn't on. So, I guess I was pretty much fecked from the onset.
All in all, pleased enough. Going out in the semi-final ain't bad.
In my defence I would restate that setting up the team, I took into consideration the 15 man roster posted. Sherwood was not in that roster which led me to conclude they would play Dalglish up front in that same false nine-ish role (which I could have argued effectively against based on my own selection). Wasn't anything else I could do – the roster was posted and seemingly deemed final by my opponents: I thought it odd, needless to say, but there it was. And if I had been a proper bastard I could've made a huge deal out of MJJ/mani fielding an ineligible player – just sayin'. For future reference, lads, it's always a good idea to have your books in order – there are worse sticklers for rules out there than yours truly.
Anyway, if I had known what team they were actually fielding, I would have probably opted for the formation I ended up with, i.e. a repeat of the q-f approach.
That said, winning here would've meant selling the Edwards role – and it seems that simply wasn't on. So, I guess I was pretty much fecked from the onset.
All in all, pleased enough. Going out in the semi-final ain't bad.
sorry had to go out(sunday evening and all) so missed the ending.
good game @Chesterlestreet, was expecting it to be a draw.
thanks for your help at the start of the draft as well.
good game @Chesterlestreet, was expecting it to be a draw.
thanks for your help at the start of the draft as well.
you were a real gent about it, me and mani really need to be more careful next time. in my defense the list was already missing Sherwood so I just discarded the number required to get to fifteen.
you were a real gent about it, me and mani really need to be more careful next time. in my defense the list was already missing Sherwood so I just discarded the number required to get to fifteen.
You're very welcome, my man - glad to be of service.
What next, then? As I understand it, there will be only one reinforcement. You have the edge money wise, no? It'll have to be one of two, I reckon: Either you go for Best to replace either Giggs or Matthews - or you seek to replace Lofthouse. The latter is a fine striker, but as I said before he isn't anything special in the context of this draft. Your opponents in the final have both Law and Charles - both of whom are a level above old Nat.
If I were you I'd probably stick with Stan and Ryan (an immense pair of wingers in any context, really) and pick up Dean. The best pure striker in this draft with Charlton behind him in what I would call his, Charlton's, best role - flanked by that pair of wingers, and with Robbo and Souness in the engine room: That ain't bad at all.
nope sadly pat and skizzo still have the money advantage the cnuts. have only got 9m left.
that's the plan anyway get Dixie and hope it will be enough to beat best plus law.
will be very hard but let's see.
I don't love the balance of Robson and Souness with Charlton there and then Matthews and Giggs. It is even more offensive than the '99 United midfield with Matthews being more of a proper offensive winger rather than a wide midfielder like Beckham. Beckham was of course not just a wide midfielder, he was notoriously great defensively in that role so the balance here would be very off.
Ah - yes.
Well, there it is. Seems obvious who will get who, then.
We'll see how it all goes down - I think it will be tight as hell. It should be tight as hell, at least. My weakness, as I see it myself, was a lack of goal threat: If I could have replaced Haynes with Charlton in my set-up, I could have torn anyone to shreds. And you have an even better winger combination than I did.
Charlton Edwards blanchflower with Dean upfront. that's would have been a sight to watch.
Well - yes. But if there is no clear weakness in the defensive set-up, this shouldn't be a big issue. Both Robbo and Souness are defensively sound, let's put it like that. For my money the ideal combination out of the players who featured in this game would be: Giggs - Charlton - Dean - Matthews, with Edwards and Blanchflower behind 'em, in the engine room. I doubt anyone would be able to withstand that assault. But as it stands, MJJ/mani will go a long way by replacing Lofthouse with Dean - it's a formidable offensive force and, again, Robbo and Souness make a dynamic CM pairing that is also defensively decent enough.
Agreed. Not that the likes of Johnstone and Barnes were incapable of scoring but it seemed like you were probably over reliant on Dean for goals. Tbf Dean was a top striker and would have thrived on the quality service but one or two more goalscoring threats in the team would have improved your chance immeasurably.
Great game by you though and a really impressive team, it has to be said.
For my money Blanchflower and Edwards would be in the draft XI as they'd be the best fit for Charlton who'd be the number two pick for my team after Best, who for obvious reasons would be great with Charlton too.
I think one of those two central midfielders are more of a necessity than a choice though. I don't like Keane/Souness behind Charlton, two offensive wingers and a striker. The only way that'd ever work would be if Keane/Souness were restricted to a more defensive job.
Disregarding voters completely I think a LVG type of 3-3-1-3 or a WM would have been ideal with Duncan in the Rijkaard role. Would have let you pick some of the best midfielders in history instead of, in this context, very very average full backs.
? Who is "you"? And when would this picking have taken place? There's no way anyone could have assembled the combo in questioned unchallenged.
You as in every manager, not Mr. Chester! It would have been challenged, but you've already assembled them yourselves and MJJ has three top CM's that wouldn't be a lot pricier if at all than Blanchflower.
Yeah, I - sort of - get that. But I assembled them very late - and it wasn't a conscious strategy which got me there either. It was money, more than anything. The biggest vote pullers here were always going to be the top United players in the draft - that's common sense. So, given the choice - trying to win as many votes as possible - I'd have gone for Best over Blanchflower easily. But that wasn't possible.
Great game guys. Really wasn't sure how this one would go. Two great teams put together here.
Good game @Chesterlestreet.You had assembled a spectacular team.This game was pure 50 -50 could have gone either way.
When draw was made one our plan is to man mark Haynes but surprised to see he was not in the playing eleven.
Anyway it wss close one you played well all along the tournament.
When draw was made one our plan is to man mark Haynes but surprised to see he was not in the playing eleven.
Anyway it wss close one you played well all along the tournament.
Well done lads, and as my gaffer says, it was hard to know how this would pan out. Moreover, both of you looked like ominous opponents in the final 
.
.