All Time Chain Draft - QF2: antohan vs diarm

[antohan]

SCHIAFFINO – Il Regista del Diavolo (the Devil's Regista)​

​

“God has reserved the distribution of two or three small things which cannot be attained or countered by all the gold in the hands of the powerful ones: genius, beauty, happiness". When Gautier wrote these words in 1856 he could not know Juan Alberto Schiaffino, he could not know that this definition would fit perfectly. In the years of Liedholm the number ten is divided between the shoulders of the Baron and those, more slender and graceful, of "Pepe" Schiaffino.

God had given him a gift, a privilege: that of genius. Gianni Brera, still considered the greatest Italian football expert, thought as much:

There has never been a regista of greater value. Schiaffino seemed to have flashlights in his feet. He illuminated and invented the game with the simplicity that is typical of the great. He had an innate sense of geometry, he found the right position and pass almost by instinct.

Those who had the good fortune of seeing him play remember him, decades later and without a shadow of the slightest doubt, as the best player they have seen. Most of these refer to the final of the European Cup in 1958 as the game that settled it: Di Stefano, Puskas and Schiaffino were all on show and Milan lost 3-2 against Real Madrid, but it was Schiaffino, now thirty-four, who stole the show. Differently from the previous two, he had also won a World Cup, in memorable circumstances. After that game the Brazilian coach had only one thing to say: "Schiaffino was the unexpected that silenced all our ambition". From that day, Uruguayans had called him “el Dios del Futbol” (the God of Football).

He plays as if he were watching the field from the highest point in the stadium

He had a radar for brains

When I first saw Schiaffino I was 10... I was struck not only by his greatness when in possession of the ball, but also about how he had the property, the capacity, of being everywhere. He seemed to possess the gift of ubiquity

Schiaffino was a universal midfielder, he could do everything and read ahead the development of the game. He didn’t chase the ball, the ball ran towards him. Which brings us to another characteristic: he was silent, inscrutable but possessed an immense confidence in his own abilities, which often made him a bit stubborn and lippy. He was once suspended for five games after signalling at a ref with his hands that he was on the take, in front of the entire stadium.

He was also the only player known to talk back at captain Varela. The competitive tension between those two was the stuff of legend. One synthesised defensive play, the other synthesised attacking play, so it often resulted in orders/directives being barked in either direction. In 1950, during the final against Brazil and with the game still at 0:0, Varela demanded Schiaffino stopped fannying around the frontline testing defenders and made a more disciplined defensive effort by picking up a certain Brazilian player. “When you can pass the ball to me like I pass the ball to you I’ll take orders on my positioning”, he replied. Then against England in 1954, after Schiaffino moaned about poor service from the centrebacks Varela barked back “Take a woman” (basically, have a shag and chill the feck out).

Of course, there was nothing other than immense respect between the two, with Obdulio having overseen the formation and coming of age of the Death Squad. Schiaffino’s older brother, Raúl (NT and Peñarol forward) brought him to the club aged 16, and he tore up the reserves. As Raúl insisted he should be promoted, Varela argued the opposite: “they are very promising, but like a good wine we must let them come of age. Juan is ahead of the others, with the seniors he will be behind... and then they will be gone, and he will be alone. Let him stay with that frontline that’s forming around him and bring them all up when they are ready”. The outcome: he got his first cap aged 18, before even playing for Peñarol’s first team, but when he finally got promoted he no longer was a talented skinny little kid. He was boss, and went on to win five national titles and score 88 goals in 227 games.

From an early age he was considered a football intellectual, but one that didn’t only theorise, compute and resolve in an abstract way: he could also execute in practice. He was the tactical and technical conscience of the teams he played for. He was an enemy of football dogmas and conventional wisdom, like the one establishing the forwards should wait for the ball or that anticipation was only a defensive recourse. He was a pioneer of one-touch play, which better helped exploit the fact he was several seconds ahead of anyone on the pitch. His preeminence was based on his power of discernment, his serene impartiality that allowed him not to get dragged by the urgencies and pressures of the match. He wasn’t affected by temporary adversity, the importance of getting a result, the clock running or the urgency cascading from the stands. A footballing Spartan.

When in 1984 the Italian Federation’s Coversiano Technical Centre consulted the Serie A managers on who had been the greatest foreign player in Serie A all but two responded: Schiaffino. He left an indelible mark not just through his football, but other innovations he brought about:

1. Brera credits him as the one introducing the slide tackle in Italy. This must be some translation issue I suppose, it must be some very specific form of slide tackle surely. But he does mention how referees weren’t used to it so erroneously whistled foul.

2. He pushed for changes to how Milanello was run regarding admission of women and clearly defined schedules for training and resting.

3. Upon joining Roma, aged 35 and without the physical conditioning he used to possess, he applied his intact brain and football intelligence playing between the defence and the goalkeeper: and thus the role of libero was born. Rumour has it that he was impassable.

 

[Rado_N]

@Rado_N

Could you please help to add a poll? Thanks

With playes are career best, who will win the match?
Team antohan
Team diarm

Sorry for delay, that ok?

 

[Rado_N]

@Rado_N @Damien

I was at a lunch meeting, sorry mate.

 

[antohan]

I was at a lunch meeting, sorry mate.

No worries. Cheers!

 

[Marty1968]

This game is won (or lost in this case) with Diarm's defence. Campbell, G. Baresi and Neville all wonderful players but absolute world beaters like Facchetti and Scirea in the other side? Not for me.

 

[diarm]

When did I say I didn't rate them? I just don't think your setup brings the best out of them. Read above. First come the tactics and then the players best suited to execute them, you see that across my side, I don't see it in yours. Simple.

You said Tardelli and Baggio (for one tournament) are the only players you rate in my side. I can't think of a better set up than my formation for my front 3 and Schuster. Tardelli will do a great job as my all action midfielder (as he would do in any midfield position) and Scholes sitting deep to pull the strings with that movement up top is a no brainer.

You still haven't told me which Schuster it is. Maybe you don't know, or maybe you just want each voter to assume it is the one they would prefer. And then you talk of being fishy. I couldn't be more crystal clear with my OP, tactics and role definitions.

Again, I have literally said the role Schuster will be providing in my OP. Unlike a Scholes or a Giggs who totally changed the way they played the game, Schuster wasn't that different a player throughout his career. He was just used in different positions. His style on the ball and his inclination to cut defences and midfields apart with perfect slide rule passes remained pretty much constant throughout.

Here I'm using him in a slightly more advanced role and will look to have him link with Baggio in much the same way he did with Maradona at Barca during the first half of the 80's.

Scholes has never played that role, not without someone like Carrick pretty much permanently next to him. Yes, Tardelli can drop, but you also have him foraging into the flank so, on the counter, it's Cubillas vs. Scholes. Only one winner there, and Paul will probably get sent off for two yellows.

Scholes has played that role with players like Fletcher, Park or even Giggs beside him over the past half decade. Manys the time there was no Carrick beside him and he performed and provided without anything like the class of Tardelli and Schuster beside him.

 

[diarm]

This game is won (or lost in this case) with Diarm's defence. Campbell, G. Baresi and Neville all wonderful players but absolute world beaters like Facchetti and Scirea in the other side? Not for me.

There's no doubt he has a GOAT defence. But no defence is infallible and I have better pace and movement than he does up front with 3 world class attackers of my own.

Schiaffino is a wonderful no.10 but he thrived playing behind a beautifully balanced trio at Milan. He only has a third of that trio in front of him today and I'd argue that the influence of both players will be diminished as a result. Nordahl was a beast and a fine attacker but he was afforded space by the movements of his countrymen on either side. I'm not convinced he possesses that movement to truly benefit from Schiaffino's skills and their partnership looks a little one dimensional here for me.

In contrast, I have Baggio who wasn't so bad himself. And in front of him is a front two with exactly that balance, pace and movement.

 

[antohan]

No it would be Amoros. He has 30 caps as French captain.

Goes to show how poor your captaincy options are. As captain he presided over missing out on Euro 88, World Cup 1990 and a first round exit in Euro '92.

In the meantime, my captain is responsible for the single most influential captain performance in World Cup history. And I would struggle to choose a vicecaptain out of Facchetti (70 times Italy captain and legendary Inter captain), Elías Figueroa (captained Chile through their most successful era to date) and World-Cup and the other legend that is Gaetano Scirea. I'll take out Tito, who won far more trophies than most of your players, but given you don't know jack about him I won't abuse it.

 

[green_smiley]

Sorry for delay, that ok?

autohan

Edit: don't change anything if it will reset the poll. Thanks

 

[Gio]

This game is won (or lost in this case) with Diarm's defence. Campbell, G. Baresi and Neville all wonderful players but absolute world beaters like Facchetti and Scirea in the other side? Not for me.

It has to be the best defence conceived early in a draft. I mean it's almost impossible to improve on that back four.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Scholes has never played that role, not without someone like Carrick pretty much permanently next to him. Yes, Tardelli can drop, but you also have him foraging into the flank so, on the counter, it's Cubillas vs. Scholes. Only one winner there, and Paul will probably get sent off for two yellows.

It's an interesting thing, that.

Many United fans think Scholes would have excelled in a protected role (in a three, or in a diamond - a Pirlo role of sorts, yes), and that the late, DLP incarnation was largely wasted in Fergie's system.

I believe there's considerable truth to that, actually. Scholes was able to control matches from a deep position only against a certain kind of opposition, i.e. a fairly weak one or a fairly exhausted one: Against proper opponents he (and Carrick, or whoever partnered him) struggled, for the simple reason that he found himself outnumbered (rather obvious), and he wasn't quick enough or dynamic enough at that stage to compensate.

Here he has Tardelli alongside him - a superior player to Carrick, without doubt: A genuinely dynamic player, and one who is - all things said and done - just as good defensively as he is offensively. Box-to-box, certainly, but more of a defender than - say - Keano. He even played as a pure defender (full back, I think) occasionally.

So, I like that - as such. The question is, of course, how much freedom his manager can afford to give him here: If he is to actually protect Scholes to the extent which is necessary, he can't fly about on the wings or go on frequent walkabouts into enemy territory. Scholes is a liability as a "shield", i.e. as a DM protecting the back four. Not because he's an idiot who doesn't know how to position himself - but because he is incredibly rash one-on-one. You can't leave him actually defending against someone like Cubillas - that will end in tears. He's a terrible pure defender, in short - and hot headed to boot.

@diarm I'd also like to know which version of Schuster we're seeing here, as that will influence how one should regard your midfield set-up on the whole.

 

[diarm]

Goes to show how poor your captaincy options are. As captain he presided over missing out on Euro 88, World Cup 1990 and a first round exit in Euro '92.

In the meantime, my captain is responsible for the single most influential captain performance in World Cup history. And I would struggle to choose a vicecaptain out of Facchetti (70 times Italy captain and legendary Inter captain), Elías Figueroa (captained Chile through their most successful era to date) and World-Cup and the other legend that is Gaetano Scirea. I'll take out Tito, who won far more trophies than most of your players, but given you don't know jack about him I won't abuse it.

This is not a side lacking in leadership whatever way you want to paint it Anto. I have players all over the field who led by example and some tried and tested Campbell. It's quite telling that you're looking to use who was wearing an armband to deflect from the mismatch in midfield and possession and the weaknesses of your side up front.

As for my "ignorance" as to a couple of your players, I hold my hand up that I haven't watched them. I'm relying on what you're telling me and the very few images and clips I can find. But I'm in the majority of people who haven't seen them or heard too much about them. I'm not trying to slam them because I don't know enough about them to do so but there is a question as to why they weren't better known. There are many players from obscure areas of the world and from similar periods in time who are well known for their great ability.

 

[Gio]

Awesome to see Klinsmann and Völler reunited . Always loved watching them play together.

Yes, fine partnership. Kudos to Diarm for pairing them together.

 

[diarm]

@diarm I'd also like to know which version of Schuster we're seeing here, as that will influence how one should regard your midfield set-up on the whole.

Answered above. Schuster in the role he served often for Barca in the early to mid 80's. He's a little bit further advanced in my lineup because I wanted to give the side width and shape in the midfield but he's the same playmaker and will look to link with Baggio in the same way he did with Maradona.

 

[Rado_N]

autohan

Edit: don't change anything if it will reset the poll. Thanks

fixed!

 

[Chesterlestreet]

@diarm Nevermind - you posted the Schuster clarification while I wrote.

 

[Gio]

Campbell vs. Gunnar Nordahl, really? A five times Serie A top scorer and AC Milan's top scorer ever against... I am Sol Campbell. OK...

That's given me a chuckle. You are right this time of course.

 

[antohan]

You said Tardelli and Baggio (for one tournament) are the only players you rate in my side.

I was talking about leadership at this level.

I can't think of a better set up than my formation for my front 3 and Schuster. Tardelli will do a great job as my all action midfielder (as he would do in any midfield position) and Scholes sitting deep to pull the strings with that movement up top is a no brainer.

I think you are seeing things which aren't there. That's far from a great setup for your front trio. Frontal balls and minding Cubillas, Scholes is pretty wasted.

Again, I have literally said the role Schuster will be providing in my OP. Unlike a Scholes or a Giggs who totally changed the way they played the game, Schuster wasn't that different a player throughout his career. He was just used in different positions. His style on the ball and his inclination to cut defences and midfields apart with perfect slide rule passes remained pretty much constant throughout.

Here I'm using him in a slightly more advanced role and will look to have him link with Baggio in much the same way he did with Maradona at Barca during the first half of the 80's.

He absolutely didn't play like that throughout his career because his knee was butchered and he couldn't turn on it. He became a far less dynamic player. So you are playing the AM version then, i.e. not the midfield general spraying balls from midfield. Thanks for clarifying that. I'd argue @Joga Bonito was right then that a 4-2-2-2 would be more suitable.

Scholes has played that role with players like Fletcher, Park or even Giggs beside him over the past half decade. Manys the time there was no Carrick beside him and he performed and provided without anything like the class of Tardelli and Schuster beside him.

I'm not arguing against him being able to play those frontal balls to your multiple central players. I'm arguing YOUR DEFENCE HAS NO PROTECTION WHATSOEVER THEN.

 

[crappycraperson]

I like that diamond from diarm, it is a bit too attack minded I guess but he has recovered from last game pretty well.

 

[diarm]

He absolutely didn't play like that throughout his career because his knee was butchered and he couldn't turn on it. He became a far less dynamic player. So you are playing the AM version then, i.e. not the midfield general spraying balls from midfield. Thanks for clarifying that. I'd argue @Joga Bonito was right then that a 4-2-2-2 would be more suitable.

It was very unlikely I would be playing the banjaxed version of a player in an all time draft. I call it advanced playmaker rather than attacking midfielder. I have Scholes spraying balls from deep, Schusters role is to pick the more intricate passes and look to put Baggio, Voller and Klinsmann through. With the quite high line your defence is operating, I'm convinced we would have real joy with both Scholes looking to Voller in over the top, or Schuster looking to feed Klinsmann or Baggio in through the gaps. There will be space there and we have the pace and movement to exploit it.

I also have a relatively high line but I'm in no way convinced Nordahl has the speed to trouble it.

I'm not arguing against him being able to play those frontal balls to your multiple central players. I'm arguing YOUR DEFENCE HAS NO PROTECTION WHATSOEVER THEN.

As a fan of Tardelli, I know you don't believe this.

 

[crappycraperson]

You can continue with that angle all you want, it's just usual draft tactics when in a position of clear inferiority (the Nordahl stuff and what you are doing here too). There you have @crappycraperson making a complete u-turn on Henry, and Bergkamp as well...

There is a subtle but key difference between what you did in that Gio game or what all drafters do. Everyone is expected to big up their own players, different people indulge in different level of exaggerations, and no one is going to come out and admit that one of their players is a weak link or not as good as most might rate him. Nordahl stuff was a straightforward hatched job. I don't disapprove of that anyway but I can see why diarm would want to highlight that here.

 

[antohan]

This is not a side lacking in leadership whatever way you want to paint it Anto. I have players all over the field who led by example and some tried and tested Campbell. It's quite telling that you're looking to use who was wearing an armband to deflect from the mismatch in midfield and possession and the weaknesses of your side up front.

What?

I just made a very obvious point: my side is crammed with true leaders, in the right places, yours isn't. It's blindingly obvious. I'll drop it now because you are clearly using it to deviate from the crux of it all:

Schiaffino and Nordahl, supported by Facchetti, Cubillas and Abbadie and with a guaranteed outball from deep will absolutely murder Amoros (if he is there) - Cambell - Giuseppe Baresi and Gary Neville protected by Scholes and Tardelli running back to his rescue.

As for my "ignorance" as to a couple of your players, I hold my hand up that I haven't watched them. I'm relying on what you're telling me and the very few images and clips I can find. But I'm in the majority of people who haven't seen them or heard too much about them. I'm not trying to slam them because I don't know enough about them to do so but there is a question as to why they weren't better known. There are many players from obscure areas of the world and from similar periods in time who are well known for their great ability.

As everyone involved in these drafts knows, there are tonnes of superb players who can perform very well in a clearly defined role that suits them. I chose a very specific setup, which requires very specific players, so I drew on that.

Sure, nobody playing 4-2-3-1 is ever going to pick Abbadie when they have little knowledge or footage to show, but in this case I needed someone who had distinct periods in his career (like early and late Scholes/Giggs, for instance) and could be played as RW or RM depending on the oppo.

You will struggle to find many contenders for that role description who can perform at the same level. In fact, my original plan was getting to Conti eventually but even then I had misgivings about those games where I would actually need a proper RM.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Says the man who blocked my Boniek

No in all seriousness those are fair points. I did play with the idea of Tardelli deeper but while I can only do so much with those arrows, you have to bear in mind the engine on Tardelli. He is a true box to box midfielder and will cover the ground to sure up that midfield as well as providing width and running in both defence, and in more advanced areas. I wanted to show that width with the formation and hoped that his mobility and tenacity in the midfield battle would be acknowledged as given.

Fair enough but as it stands you are frequently going to get complaints of Scholes being stranded as the DM when it quite clearly isn't the case with Tardelli alongside him. He wasn't an attacking B2B ala Gerrard/Ballack but defense first and attack later type of a dynamic player., I can see him doing a fine job protecting Scholes and let Baggio-Schuster and the german front duo take care of business in the final third, whilst playing a fine supporting role himself. Also it just seems like Baggio and Schuster could be occupying the same areas whereas a 4-2-2-2 would be more defined with players being in clearer roles.

So, I like that - as such. The question is, of course, how much freedom his manager can afford to give him here: If he is to actually protect Scholes to the extent which is necessary, he can't fly about on the wings or go on frequent walkabouts into enemy territory. Scholes is a liability as a "shield", i.e. as a DM protecting the back four. Not because he's an idiot who doesn't know how to position himself - but because he is incredibly rash one-on-one. You can't leave him actually defending against someone like Cubillas - that will end in tears. He's a terrible pure defender, in short - and hot headed to boot.

@diarm I'd also like to know which version of Schuster we're seeing here, as that will influence how one should regard your midfield set-up on the whole.

I think it would have all fallen apart if it hadn't been for Schuster's presence in that midfield. You have a point about Scholes needing a 'shield' alongside him and he has the perfect one in Tardelli. However, Schuster's industry and dynamism, in tandem with his ability to drop into central midfield when needed gives Tardelli more room to work with here offensively. As it stands, I can't see Tardelli and Schuster being tactically naive enough to leave Scholes alone to protect the back 4 whilst they bomb forward together simultaneously. Schuster's role lends to a fluid and creative midfield but one that won't see Scholes isolated imo. You could substitute Schuster with most attacking mids and I think it would have fallen apart, with too much being asked of Tardelli defensively and offensively.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Well, my main issue with that midfield is that you simply cannot let Tardelli operate as a free flowing B2B (one who might, under different circumstances, provide some needed width too) here. You're playing old man Scholes: The player who fits the bill you're handing him here is one who is well past his prime in terms of the physical side of things. He needs protection, in short.

Tardelli can certainly offer him that - but it must necessarily shackle him to a great extent. He can't function as a DM protecting Scholes and as a B2B of the sort you imply. I don't think that's realistic, frankly. Scholes is sitting in front of a fairly underwhelming, in this context, pair of central defenders as it stands - he is nowhere near the player you want there if he actually needs to defend if/when you lose the ball and Tardelli is up the pitch.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I think it would have all fallen apart if it hadn't been for Schuster's presence in that midfield. You have a point about Scholes needing a 'shield' alongside him and he has the perfect one in Tardelli. However, Schuster's industry and dynamism, in tandem with his ability to drop into central midfield when needed gives Tardelli more room to work with here offensively. It lends to a fluid and creative midfield but one that won't see Scholes isolated. You could substitute Schuster with most attacking mids and I think it would have fallen apart, with too much being asked of Tardelli defensively and offensively.

I'm not actually saying that Scholes needs a shield as much as I'm saying that he IS the de facto shield whenever Tardelli isn't there to, well, defend.

And Scholes is a pretty terrible shield.

 

[Joga Bonito]

I'm not actually saying that Scholes needs a shield as much as I'm saying that he IS the de facto shield whenever Tardelli isn't there to, well, defend.

Exactly where Schuster comes in imo. Can't see both Schuster and Tardelli being reckless enough to bomb forward simultaneously leaving Scholes all alone.

 

[antohan]

It was very unlikely I would be playing the banjaxed version of a player in an all time draft.

I'd disagree, Pat was actually playing that "banjaxed version" because he was quite simply a superior midfielder better suited to control games.

As I said before, I think your team would be better off with Schuster deep, Tardelli right and some form of Zé Roberto-type player left (assuming you had a left back and Amoros was on the right).

I call it advanced playmaker rather than attacking midfielder. I have Scholes spraying balls from deep, Schusters role is to pick the more intricate passes and look to put Baggio, Voller and Klinsmann through. With the quite high line your defence is operating, I'm convinced we would have real joy with both Scholes looking to Voller in over the top, or Schuster looking to feed Klinsmann or Baggio in through the gaps. There will be space there and we have the pace and movement to exploit it.

You are making shit up again. Which part of "catenaccio inspired counter-attacking side" spells high line to you?

I also have a relatively high line but I'm in no way convinced Nordahl has the speed to trouble it.

So you have a high line? With Cubillas running at it and one-twoing with Schiaffino while Abbadie charges into wide open space for the pass? Never mind Nordahl (who would punish you) you are leaking goals left, right and centre here. Awesome.

As a fan of Tardelli, I know you don't believe this.

If he is protecting your defence centrally then he ain't tracking Facchetti. Awesome, since you are playing a high line. Facchetti one-twos with Schiaffino and Neville is left stranded as Facchetti leaves him for dead.

 

[antohan]

Fair enough but as it stands you are frequently going to get complaints of Scholes being stranded as the DM when it quite clearly isn't the case with Tardelli alongside him. He wasn't an attacking B2B ala Gerrard/Ballack but defense first and attack later type of a dynamic player., I can see him doing a fine job protecting Scholes and let Baggio-Schuster and the german front duo take care of business in the final third, whilst playing a fine supporting role himself. Also it just seems like Baggio and Schuster could be occupying the same areas whereas a 4-2-2-2 would be more defined with players being in clearer roles.

Either he is supporting Scholes in protecting that defence or he is tracking Facchetti. With a high line in place, Giacinto is getting a free run on goal and he wasn't too shabby one on one.

I think it would have all fallen apart if it hadn't been for Schuster's presence in that midfield. You have a point about Scholes needing a 'shield' alongside him and he has the perfect one in Tardelli. However, Schuster's industry and dynamism, in tandem with his ability to drop into central midfield when needed gives Tardelli more room to work with here offensively.

Sorry but you are mixing early Schuster and late Schuster here. diarm has been clear it's the advanced 1980 playmaker here, not the more industrious midfield general he later became.

 

[Annahnomoss]

There is a subtle but key difference between what you did in that Gio game or what all drafters do. Everyone is expected to big up their own players, different people indulge in different level of exaggerations, and no one is going to come out and admit that one of their players is a weak link or not as good as most might rate him. Nordahl stuff was a straightforward hatched job. I don't disapprove of that anyway but I can see why diarm would want to highlight that here.

Yup. In my eyes if you go on a hatchet job and you end up picking that player in a later draft then I surely won't rate the player higher than you did, there has to be some boundaries. If we all just ignore it and let it slip then it'll become the standard for draft games and it isn't my cup of tea.

 

[antohan]

Exactly where Schuster comes in imo. Can't see both Schuster and Tardelli being reckless enough to bomb forward simultaneously leaving Scholes all alone.

Wrong Schuster. Again. Christ, he is playing with twelve as far as you are concerned.

 

[diarm]

You are making shit up again. Which part of "catenaccio inspired counter-attacking side" spells high line to you?

The part where your graphic shows your backline midway between your goal and the halfway line. You're the one who's been telling everyone what my players will be doing based on where their circles are on the pitch. You can't have it both ways.

So you're not playing a high line? Fair enough, Schuster and Baggio will be delighted.

 

[diarm]

Sorry but you are mixing early Schuster and late Schuster here. diarm has been clear it's the advanced 1980 playmaker here, not the more industrious midfield general he later became.

I think it's you mixing up the player Schuster was throughout his career. At Barca in the early to mid 80's he played in a midfield quite similar to mine, with Maradona performing a role not at all dissimilar to Baggio here. During that time he played as both the central linchpin and the more advanced playmaker one either side. Usually he alternated in this role with Perico Alonso.

In both roles, he was able to dictate play with his array of accurate and intelligent passing. Just because he stopped playing the more advanced, higher octane role later doesn't mean he wasn't capable of being the midfield general earlier. Just that injury forced him into the one position later on.

 

[antohan]

There is a subtle but key difference between what you did in that Gio game or what all drafters do. Everyone is expected to big up their own players, different people indulge in different level of exaggerations, and no one is going to come out and admit that one of their players is a weak link or not as good as most might rate him. Nordahl stuff was a straightforward hatched job. I don't disapprove of that anyway but I can see why diarm would want to highlight that here.

You? Of all people?

I've been saying for ages now: I can't be arsed with drafts any more because I can't be arsed with the games. All the great stories and player appreciation going on during drafting goes out of the window during games. Which is fair cop, but no fun.

Yup. In my eyes if you go on a hatchet job and you end up picking that player in a later draft then I surely won't rate the player higher than you did, there has to be some boundaries. If we all just ignore it and let it slip then it'll become the standard for draft games and it isn't my cup of tea.

You are just sore because you don't get the difference between rating Mauro Ramos as a clear inclusion in a Bela Guttman homage and rating him as a defender. Different things.

It all sounds like sour grapes and people conveniently wanting to make a point/example. Go on then.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Wrong Schuster. Again. Christ, he is playing with twelve as far as you are concerned.

In fairness I think he means to suggest that even the earlier, more dedicated AM version of Schuster was hard working/back tracking enough to make the difference.

Which isn't an insane point of view, as he wasn't a luxury player (as they say) even as a young buck. But I take your point overall - and I don't actually agree with said suggestion, as the AM version would make less of an impact on the sort of "battle" we're talking about here, in this particular match.

The later version would be better, more reliable in terms of actually being there, more tactically aware of the requirements.

 

[antohan]

The part where your graphic shows your backline midway between your goal and the halfway line. You're the one who's been telling everyone what my players will be doing based on where their circles are on the pitch. You can't have it both ways.

So I said Schuster looks like an AM, you confirmed he was playing as an advanced playmaker, and I'm inventing stuff based on where circles are?

So you're not playing a high line? Fair enough, Schuster and Baggio will be delighted.

I'm not sure you understand how catenaccio works. All players (yes, all eleven) get compact in their own half as soon as possession is lost. Not sure what Schuster/Baggio will find enjoyable about that, they are working through a minefield while, upon recovery and courtesy of your high line I have an entire half of the pitch to play through balls into and hit you.

As simple as this really, through my proven Varela-Abbadie combo:

 

[antohan]

I think it's you mixing up the player Schuster was throughout his career. At Barca in the early to mid 80's he played in a midfield quite similar to mine, with Maradona performing a role not at all dissimilar to Baggio here. During that time he played as both the central linchpin and the more advanced playmaker one either side. Usually he alternated in this role with Perico Alonso.

In both roles, he was able to dictate play with his array of accurate and intelligent passing. Just because he stopped playing the more advanced, higher octane role later doesn't mean he wasn't capable of being the midfield general earlier. Just that injury forced him into the one position later on.

I'm not disputing the passing (mind, Maradona was on the left and Schuster on the right) I'm disputing that he will be two players from different periods at the same time. And no, I don't think he could do that in his early days. He had the mentality, but was more direct annd carefree. Career-threatening injuries have a way of getting players to reinvent themselves.

In fairness I think he means to suggest that even the earlier, more dedicated AM version of Schuster was hard working/back tracking enough to make the difference.

Which isn't an insane point of view, as he wasn't a luxury player (as they say) even as a young buck. But I take your point overall - and I don't actually agree with said suggestion, as the AM version would make less of an impact on the sort of "battle" we're talking about here, in this particular match.

The later version would be better, more reliable in terms of actually being there, more tactically aware of the requirements.

I'd agree he was never a luxury player and was always a determined character, certainly won't be a passenger. It's a question of how disciplined he would be and how mindful he would be about his midfield duties. As you say: discipline and awareness of the tactical requirements, the young one was more exuberant, fittingly.

 

[crappycraperson]

You? Of all people?

I've been saying for ages now: I can't be arsed with drafts any more because I can't be arsed with the games. All the great stories and player appreciation going on during drafting goes out of the window during games. Which is fair cop, but no fun.

You what? I have actually said I don't disapprove of it but you can't seriously expect diarm not to make an issue out of it. Ultimately it is up to voters if it matters or not, to some one like Gio it probably won't, to some one else on the fence it might.

The second statement is an odd one to make since you are definitely one of those who tries his hardest to win a draft game no matter what, nothing wrong with it since it adds more spice to the whole scene. I have only seen likes of Aldo, Cutch, Annah happily accept that their draft side won't win or should lose some game and not try to argue their way to a win.

Anyway this will derail the whole thread so I will stop now.

 

[diarm]

I'm not disputing the passing (mind, Maradona was on the left and Schuster on the right) I'm disputing that he will be two players from different periods at the same time. And no, I don't think he could do that in his early days. He had the mentality, but was more direct annd carefree. Career-threatening injuries have a way of getting players to reinvent themselves.

Maradona was actually used through the centre with that side. That he drifted out left to receive the ball was only natural for him in exactly the same way it was for Baggio. Like I said, Roberto will be used in a very similar style here because it's the style that comes naturally to him. Falling between the lines , drifting out to the left and then running at your defence with the ball, looking to bring Voller or Klinsmann into play or to simply keep going himself.

Schuster played centrally and on the right. A change I might look to make shortly.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Wrong Schuster. Again. Christ, he is playing with twelve as far as you are concerned.

Sorry but you are mixing early Schuster and late Schuster here. diarm has been clear it's the advanced 1980 playmaker here, not the more industrious midfield general he later became.

It was the correct decision to play the 80 Schuster here as far as I'm concerned

Firstly, I don't see the need for another dictating and less dynamic playmaker with the later version of Scholes in that side. It's just a pointless clash of styles and what you need is more directness, dribbling, breaking forward at pace, verve, goals etc in combination with the work rate and ability to link midfield and attack, which is exactly what the earlier version of Schuster offers. I can see him working excellently, linking up midfield with attack during build-up play and bombing forward to link up with Baggio who is a hybrid #9.5. Don't see any issue with the midfield whatsoever and can see it working a treat. As I said Schuster is the perfect glue to bring it all together and most other AMs would have failed at that.

Saying he lacked industry and work-rate during his earlier years is disingenuous. He offered truckloads of it despite playing as an AM and he never was the type to shy away from tracking back duties etc. I'd agree with you that the post-injury version was better at controlling the midfield and was more tactically disciplined one. However, those qualities are hardly required here with Scholes and Tardelli behind him, what that midfield needs is work-rate, directness and ability to connect midfield and attack, and Schuster brings just that to the table.

There were 1980 Euro match-day compilations by @harms which highlights what I'm talking about but they must have been taken down. He never lacked industry imo but was just less tactically refined earlier on.

You could play the later version of Schuster in a deeper role, and the earlier version of Scholes here in a more advanced role but it is a downgrade on the current formation. I love both versions of Schuster but Scholes reached his peak in the 06 deeper role.

 

[antohan]

You what? I have actually said I don't disapprove of it but you can't seriously expect diarm not to make an issue out of it. Ultimately it is up to voters if it matters or not, to some one like Gio it probably won't, to some one else on the fence it might.

The second statement is an odd one to make since you are definitely one of those who tries his hardest to win a draft game no matter what, nothing wrong with it since it adds more spice to the whole scene. I have only seen likes of Aldo, Cutch, Annah happily accept that their draft side won't win or should lose some game and not try to argue their way to a win.

Anyway this will derail the whole thread so I will stop now.

Yeah, no worries, I missed the "don't disapprove", thus the laughter.

As I said, it was a tactical job more than a hatchet job. It wasn't even aimed at Nordahl specifically but at keeping the discussion centred on him and Erico and not all the other match-winners in Gio's side.