As already explained we have plenty of width from the forward , we don't need wingbacks in this system
Auction-Trade Madness Draft - QF: crappy/Indnyc vs 2mufc0/Theon
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
Wow, that’s.. unexpected. Given their probably the two purest exponents of total football. I think they’d work wonderfully well. Don’t see a problem when Cruyff ‘drops deep’. It’s not as if that’s a regular occurrence anyway, he’ll be on the wings or through the middle as often as he’s dropping deep.
But yeah, the whole Dutch philosophy was based on the collective and teamwork, so I don’t really see a problem. Cruyff was the best player and the heartbeat of the team, but everyone contributed.
As for Gullit I’d have him as the GOAT as a supporting, auxiliary forward (obviously he was more than good enough to be the star man as well) purely because he was so well rounded and complete as a player.
Sorry but with the likes of Cruyff, Wilkes, Gullit, Stoichkov and Neeskens in attack the thought of Alaba making the difference here is ridiculous.
Umm.. Rivaldo, Riva, Lerby, Keane and the GOAT?
The question was on the role of wingbacks.. I said maybe Irwin may not be the best fit but Alaba would definitely make a difference
Don’t see a problem when Cruyff ‘drops deep’. It’s not as if that’s a regular occurrence anyway, he’ll be on the wings or through the middle as often as he’s dropping deep.
But yeah, the whole Dutch philosophy was based on the collective and teamwork, so I don’t really see a problem. Cruyff was the best player and the heartbeat of the team, but everyone contributed.
As for Gullit I’d have him as the GOAT as a supporting, auxiliary forward (obviously he was more than good enough to be the star man as well) purely because he was so well rounded and complete as a player.
Is Cruyff's false 9 role the 74' one or the Laudrup dream team one? Cause if it is the former, he definitely dropped deep a lot. He even defended as deep as part of a regular defensive line.
Gullit's best form came when van Basten got injured and he himself dragged Milan to the title. As a star man he's no doubt a very elite player.
Have no problem of him playing an auxiliary role really. He can play pretty much anywhere and won't hold against him if he's not the star man here.
You guys thought of dropping Wilkes and line up as Stoichkov --- Cruyff --- Gullit?
Perhaps would've been easier on the eye, but then again don't really known much about Wilkes and his playing style so I'd need to read up a bit to comment on him
Is Cruyff's false 9 role the 74' one or the Laudrup dream team one? Cause if it is the former, he definitely dropped deep a lot. He even defended as deep as part of a regular defensive line.
Gullit's best form came when van Basten got injured and he himself dragged Milan to the title. As a star man he's no doubt a very elite player.
Have no problem of him playing an auxiliary role really. He can play pretty much anywhere and won't hold against him if he's not the star man here.
You guys thought of dropping Wilkes and line up as Stoichkov --- Cruyff --- Gullit?
Perhaps would've been easier on the eye, but then again don't really known much about Wilkes and his playing style so I'd need to read up a bit to comment on him
It's interesting you say that because that's how i thought they would line up with Haan in the back 4 with Jansen coming in.. Crappy predicted the formation they went with though..
I like Gulitt a lot and though he isn't out of place here i do feel he would have been more effective on the right.. In this role i do feel he and Cruyff will get in each others way because of the congested midfield
When both teams are about equal in quality, I just prefer team with potent attack, and midfield domination.
My last set of arguments as I go to bed
a) We have an excellent attack with Maradona, Rivaldo and Riva who you would back to score against any defense
b) Keane and Lerby are excellent b2b players that will keep it tight and ensure the opposing players are kept in check
c) The opposition attack is mainly through the central areas where it is incredibly congested and they will find it difficult to breakdown a 3 man defense with Keane and Lerby in front of them
d) Alaba will have a free role to provide width on the left
e) Montero and Burgnich are not the best players for the formation the opposition is trying to play
f) Cruyff and Gullit will be in each other’s way and will find it difficult to breakdown the congested central areas
I’ll leave the rest to @crappycraperson to argue
a) We have an excellent attack with Maradona, Rivaldo and Riva who you would back to score against any defense
b) Keane and Lerby are excellent b2b players that will keep it tight and ensure the opposing players are kept in check
c) The opposition attack is mainly through the central areas where it is incredibly congested and they will find it difficult to breakdown a 3 man defense with Keane and Lerby in front of them
d) Alaba will have a free role to provide width on the left
e) Montero and Burgnich are not the best players for the formation the opposition is trying to play
f) Cruyff and Gullit will be in each other’s way and will find it difficult to breakdown the congested central areas
I’ll leave the rest to @crappycraperson to argue
There’s been a lot of pretty weak criticism and questioning of our team from the opposition (most of it easily dismissed), so it’s probably worth highlighting a few of the opposition flaws:
1. Poor wing backs not up to the job with Alaba (no where near ready for an all time draft quarter final) and an out of position Dennis Irwin (literally never played as a right wingback). Going forward they won’t be able to stretch the game and defensively they’ll struggle to contain two dynamic, inside forwards in Wilkes (35 goals in 38 games) and Stoichkov (Ballon d’Or winner in his Dream Team role under Cruyff)
2. As another example of misplaced tactical decisions, we love Roy Keane but this is nothing like the non-stop box to box role he played in Fergies 4-4-2. Here he seems to be playing as some sort of pivot behind Maradona, with Hierro pushing up and entering midfield from behind. Complete waste of his metronomic playmaking ability, where he would probe and spray passes out wide. Secondly it was claimed earlier that they have the better midfield, which is nonsense quite frankly, with Neeskens arguably the GOAT midfielder behind Matthaus imo. Added to the mix is Van Hanegem, who is actually considered by many in Holland to be even better than Neeskens, which is testament to his credentials.
3. As mentioned several times Riva was a great player but preferred operating on the left hand side, which you can see for yourself in the videos harms posted and it’s not controversial to say that he doesn’t mesh well with Rivaldo.
4. Overall quality of their defence, Thiago Silva, Abidal, Alaba and an out of position Irwin lack the pure defensive quality to deal with a dynamic and multi-faceted attack. Hierro is probably their best defender, but he lacks anywhere near the sort of agility required to deal with a free-flowing Johan Cruyff, Stoichkov or rampaging Gullit. While unlike the opposition we are not claiming we would shut the opposition out, it's the attacking philosophy of the team, but their defence is far more incoherent.
1. Poor wing backs not up to the job with Alaba (no where near ready for an all time draft quarter final) and an out of position Dennis Irwin (literally never played as a right wingback). Going forward they won’t be able to stretch the game and defensively they’ll struggle to contain two dynamic, inside forwards in Wilkes (35 goals in 38 games) and Stoichkov (Ballon d’Or winner in his Dream Team role under Cruyff)
2. As another example of misplaced tactical decisions, we love Roy Keane but this is nothing like the non-stop box to box role he played in Fergies 4-4-2. Here he seems to be playing as some sort of pivot behind Maradona, with Hierro pushing up and entering midfield from behind. Complete waste of his metronomic playmaking ability, where he would probe and spray passes out wide. Secondly it was claimed earlier that they have the better midfield, which is nonsense quite frankly, with Neeskens arguably the GOAT midfielder behind Matthaus imo. Added to the mix is Van Hanegem, who is actually considered by many in Holland to be even better than Neeskens, which is testament to his credentials.
3. As mentioned several times Riva was a great player but preferred operating on the left hand side, which you can see for yourself in the videos harms posted and it’s not controversial to say that he doesn’t mesh well with Rivaldo.
4. Overall quality of their defence, Thiago Silva, Abidal, Alaba and an out of position Irwin lack the pure defensive quality to deal with a dynamic and multi-faceted attack. Hierro is probably their best defender, but he lacks anywhere near the sort of agility required to deal with a free-flowing Johan Cruyff, Stoichkov or rampaging Gullit. While unlike the opposition we are not claiming we would shut the opposition out, it's the attacking philosophy of the team, but their defence is far more incoherent.
Was Abidal pre-illness during this game? If so, very poor against a top elite Dutch winger here.
No one is providing natural width in your system. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. In Barca dream team, Cryuff actually played wingbacks from time to time who would double up as MFs if necessary and then go out wide when needed. Not to mention proper wingers like Txiki played too.
Neeskens and Van Hangem are comfortable going outwide to cover the pitch but you don't want that as their primary roles here as would be needed in 343 without proper wingbacks. In 74, Krol and Suurbier provided the width allowing Neeskens to occupy central spaces and attack the box (something he can't do here with Gullit playing that role).
Don’t see a problem when Cruyff ‘drops deep’. It’s not as if that’s a regular occurrence anyway, he’ll be on the wings or through the middle as often as he’s dropping deep.
But yeah, the whole Dutch philosophy was based on the collective and teamwork, so I don’t really see a problem. Cruyff was the best player and the heartbeat of the team, but everyone contributed.
As for Gullit I’d have him as the GOAT as a supporting, auxiliary forward (obviously he was more than good enough to be the star man as well) purely because he was so well rounded and complete as a player.
To be honest you have not provided any proper tactic argument as to why Cryuff and Gullit must work together as you keeping claiming.
It's just a constant rehash of - Total football + Cryuff+ Gullit = Must be an all time great partnership.
Evidence across their playing careers suggests otherwise
- Cryuff does not need another attacking midfielder of an sorts to play with him. Yes Gullit, is not a typical AM but he does like to occupy similar spaces. Only avenue for him when Cryuff drop deep is to go out wide or make a forward run. Why limit his role to these 2 facets only? If you want a presence in front of Cryuff it is better to let 2 wide wingers do that with Neesekens chipping in as he did 74. No need for Gullit in there at all.
- Gullit played great for Milan behind Van Basten who is a proper 9. No such forward exists here for that similar role in fact it seems Gullit is being asked to play that kind of role in front of cryuff if as per your claim Cryuff is going to play the Laudrup role from Barca team.
Verstality of Cryuff and Gullit has allowed you to escape "too many cooks" criticism from draft regulars with this kind of set up when the same principle applies here. No way both Cryuff and Gullit are functioning at their best in this formation.
There is a different here though. For starters he is not playing in Barca set up but a packed 5 man line where he would also have Alaba for support.
Maradona keeps getting ignored in these draft games which seem bizarre to me. At least @harms claimed Van Bommel could try to stop him, here there is no focus on his at all by the opposition. He showed during his time with Argies and Napoli that he need not necessarily be in a team that dominates play.
- First he was as much a midfielder as a forward. People assuming he won't be part of midfield battler here are dead wrong. He would be right in the mix with Keane and Lerby against the opposition MFs.
- Now, do I really need to post dribbling videos of 'effin Maradona. Any break in their possession play and ball landing at Maradona's feet would be a great counter opportunity for us. Haan is not capable of stopping Maradona in anyway.
I can understand if the opposition had an all time great DM like Rijkarrd in there, for voters to ignore Maradona as a persona non grata but against this kind of set up he is the best weapon for a team playing deep defensive line with a lot of bodies to stop a possession based football.
- First he was as much a midfielder as a forward. People assuming he won't be part of midfield battler here are dead wrong. He would be right in the mix with Keane and Lerby against the opposition MFs.
- Now, do I really need to post dribbling videos of 'effin Maradona. Any break in their possession play and ball landing at Maradona's feet would be a great counter opportunity for us. Haan is not capable of stopping Maradona in anyway.
I can understand if the opposition had an all time great DM like Rijkarrd in there, for voters to ignore Maradona as a persona non grata but against this kind of set up he is the best weapon for a team playing deep defensive line with a lot of bodies to stop a possession based football.
A question about the 3-4-3 diamond. Why is it called that? I understand that's the broad shape in possession but formations tend to be described by their shape without the ball, in which case it should just be a variant of a 523 (well that's how van Gaal's version worked without the ball)
Edit- If the high possession level means you take the offensive shape then Pep shouldn't be described as a 433 manager but rather a 235 or 325 one.
Edit- If the high possession level means you take the offensive shape then Pep shouldn't be described as a 433 manager but rather a 235 or 325 one.
Last edited:
Disagree there mate, formations reflect average shape of the team both in and out of possession. If the formation is more defensive in nature i.e. those flank players are prioritising defensive work over attacking duties as you'd expect say even if it is Alves/Marcelo out wide (they're still defenders first and foremost) then you're more likely to describe it as a back 5, though in reality considering their attacking nature it would mostly likely be described as a 3-5-2 and they're seen as part of the midfield unit in terms of average positions through the game.
The 3-4-3 diamond, gets its name from the fact that those 4 players are predominantly going to be performing midfield functions and generally be proactive and mostly in possession. Yes Neeskens and Van Hanegam will also have to act as auxiliary full back at times, but their average heat map (if the game goes well for them) should ideally involve them mostly operating slightly inwards from the flanks and in that right and left inside channel (from the edge of their own box to the opponents). Taking into account their offensive/defensive average position through the game, that is where their managers would expect to see them.
I get your point about Pep and yes in offence it is how you described, but for me describe a formation should reflect both average offensive shape and defensive shape. When Pep's team has to defend, they do have to drop back into a 4 and not just a 2.
This was quite a straightforward one before the game became so imbalanced between the elite clubs and the rest. Up to then the formation was about your shape on transition. Which you then used to form a default shape for defending off the ball. But now you've got the imbalance and a greater focus on ball retention which means that defending off the ball isn't something that an elite club has to do very often for 90% of their games against 90% of their opposition.
We obsess a lot over formations on here, but probably the next stage is to break down how that looks in different phases of play, because a one-size-fits-all formation is less relevant than it used to be.
Some interesting points made here re: the growing imbalance and greater emphasis on possession.
Voted 2/T. Koeman will score the winner from a Bonhof-esque free kick that Clemence will be too scared to save
I do think we get caught up on the formation pictures too much and see things set in stone, in certain systems ridgid positions are expected but in the system we are playing it's built on players interchanging positions. This argument has manifested into the Cruyff-Gullit argument which the opposition are now clutching on.
Cruyff himself said this system works with these types of players yet here we are trying to argue otherwise? Stylistically Gullit possesses all the traits Bakero had and much more. Gullit is the definition of selflessness, he's the last player that would ever cause a system not to work.
This issue also falls back on the point i made above, this system is based on the premise that players interchange positions and we have specifically picked players who can do this. Cruyff and Gullit won't be in the same areas at the same time, it's not their style and they are far more intelligent to let that happen. This system is based on pass and move, no one will be static in the same spot all game.
Apart for trying to divert the game with these bizarre arguments, i've yet to hear any sound tactical insight from the opposition on why they would beat us. All i've heard is Maradona and Alaba destroying us, you'd think we were facing upto Giacinto Facchetti, not a modern full back who's only had a few top seasons under his belt. I won't deny Maradona is a threat - he would be against anyone, but he's operating in the most congested part of the pitch (even opposition have agreed to this), he won't find as much space as normal to operate.
Also if they want to play they Maradona card we would also point to Cruyff (top 5 player of all time) who can be equally destructive.
Cruyff himself said this system works with these types of players yet here we are trying to argue otherwise? Stylistically Gullit possesses all the traits Bakero had and much more. Gullit is the definition of selflessness, he's the last player that would ever cause a system not to work.
This issue also falls back on the point i made above, this system is based on the premise that players interchange positions and we have specifically picked players who can do this. Cruyff and Gullit won't be in the same areas at the same time, it's not their style and they are far more intelligent to let that happen. This system is based on pass and move, no one will be static in the same spot all game.
Apart for trying to divert the game with these bizarre arguments, i've yet to hear any sound tactical insight from the opposition on why they would beat us. All i've heard is Maradona and Alaba destroying us, you'd think we were facing upto Giacinto Facchetti, not a modern full back who's only had a few top seasons under his belt. I won't deny Maradona is a threat - he would be against anyone, but he's operating in the most congested part of the pitch (even opposition have agreed to this), he won't find as much space as normal to operate.
Also if they want to play they Maradona card we would also point to Cruyff (top 5 player of all time) who can be equally destructive.
Last edited:
Split on the outcome of this game. On one hand I love the Dutch theme - the midfield is superb - and I like how Montero and Burgnich have been chosen to support Koeman despite not necessarily being total voetballers themselves. On the other, it's a really strong spine and the Maradona/Rivaldo axis would cause a lot of carnage through the middle. Can see that tandem working well together with Maradona skipping past one or two, then getting tackled or laying it off onto Rivaldo's left peg. Think the Brazilian would dovetail well with Riva too, in the same way he did with Kluivert.
That makes sense about average position. In regards draft games I know deliberately draw the formation as to how it looks out of possession with arrows showing where players would move when in possession. I went for an average position pic https://www.redcafe.net/threads/billy-no-mates-draft-r1-physiocrat-vs-mazhar.414476/ see spoilered pic in the OP but no-one really got it.
Maybe in future drafts we should submit three team sheets: defending, attacking and average, and use the latter as the main formation pic but have the other two sets spoilered. It should give a better idea of how the team will play. Thoughts @Gio ?
I tended to in my OP writeups always say in offence we will be in terms of formation and then also say what formation we will be in defence. I agree that in reality, you take up two formations on and off the ball but for presentational purposes, we tend to go for the one overall formation for ease of reference. Think Harms or Anto has demonstrated the various transitions via a Gif (and it isn't hard to do. quite a few sites let you do it easily).
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/surveillance-draft-r1-invictus-raees-vs-sirscholes.424482/
The gif thing always looks good, I've never tried it as I thought it would take too much work. You have a good idea of writing the formation in possession and out of it but given your example in possession you'd be more of a 334 or 325 than 433 as most teams have four or five players forward with a slowish build up in attack. So I think three team sheets is probably best still as you can see where each player would be in each phase. I'd still have one average position one as the main one, but have the other two sets (with a more fluid set-up you could supply more to show various attacking permutations) spoilered in the OP. I think we'd have more informed discussions this way.
I don't know if I'm allowed to join in on this discussion, but as a big Cruijff fanboy, and someone who's tried to study his tactics at Barca often these past two years, and who grew up surrounded by his ideas on football, I'd like to contradict some of the points you made, but also highlights some other concerns I'd have about this team.
I can't comment on the choice of defenders. I will say that Cruijff's 3 man defence ideally consisted of a ball-playing dm-cb hybrid, a la koeman, with besides him two fullbacks who were ex wingers. In his famous diamon explanation video, he mentions this and gave the examples of Sergi and Reiziger. I can't comment on how the chosen outer defenders fit this mould. What I can say is that Van Gaal's Ajax in 95 played an identical system on paper, but in his case the centreback was similar, though slightly more defensive, in Blind, but the fullbacks' role was more as wide ball playing centrebacks. they didn't maraud, but instead looked to play in the midfield and striker (tip of the diamond) from around the wide areas of the halfway line. this video shows the use by Van Gaal of De Boer and Reiziger's passing as a way to start the attacks (in an equally successful, CL dominating team):
So even if the two chosen defenders aren't marauding, they can still function in this set-up if their passing is top-class.
I don't see how it matters whether Neeskens is in the exact same role as in '74, because I'd say his role as half in this system is perfectly suited to his abilities.
Van Hanegem on the other hand is not. Van Hanagem does't in my eyes have the legs or dynamism for the role as left half. In fact, he'd be far better suited to Haan's role in this team.
Haan works there, unlike what you said. Haan was exactly a ball playing centreback who moved into midfield later in his career. However, I do think this team would be better with Van Hanegem on his position, leaving no place for Haan.
That brings me to Cruijff and Gullit. Your comments that Cruijff as a false 9 doesn't work in this system, or clash with Gullit in this formation, are misplaced imo. Cruijff played Romario and Laudrup there. Both were given a free role to roam around, and off Bakero. Laudrup in particularly was expected to fall back into midfield to create a dominance there.
Gullit, while I think capable of playing there, is not someone I'd ideally want playing with his back to the goal. His power in running forward, and ability to force an attacking surge is something that won't be utilised in a role at the top of a diamond midfield.
Instead I'd like to see him on left half, with Van Hanegem moved back to Haan's position. I don't know huge amounts about Wilkes, but I question Stoichkov's ability to keep the pitch wide enough, even though he played there under Cruijff.
All draft threads are open for comments by anyone. So feel free to chip in future too.
Cheers mate, can assure you we felt the same way. We've faced 2 of the toughest teams so far. Good game.
@Ajaxsuarez thanks for the insightful post. And yes anyone is welcome to get involved, hope you stick around and get more involved.
Good post. Fully agree with this in particular. While he fits on the ball, off it he's far too heavy to do the serious ground coverage to meet the demands placed on the left and right halves in this 3-4-3.
Hmm, can't make my mind up on whether I agree with that. Van Hanegem was certainly industrious enough in terms of pressing and tackling for the role and did a lot of his best work in the left channel in '74. He was certainly never quick off the mark but his mentality and physical strength made him an effective presser out of possession.
The part that is giving me pause is just how much of that was enabled by Krol (who obviously provides way more width than Montero).
I'd have to agree with @Ajaxsuarez and @Gio — there are few better players for the left side of 4-3-3 than van Hanegem, but he's not ideal for a side role in 3-4-3 (you'd have someone more energetic like Davids or Netto there)
don't you feel Gullit would equally work in that role?
To be fair 3-4-3 is very hard to pull and very fragile system if not all players are on the same wavelength. Cruyff's philosophy was making the pitch small, press and also make those triangles all over the pitch where a more proactive and energetic approach all over the pitch would mean working a lot on and off the ball with high energy.
Have to agree with what @Ajaxsuarez said above in regards to van Hanegem who would be better fit as a DLP for couple of reasons:
- His Barca team depended on the build up from deep where he had not only Koeman but also Guardiola who started the possession from the back whereas Koeman was usually the one distributing long balls to the wing.
- as a LCM in that 3-4-3 and without a proper LB to support if the team faced a proper wing back or a winger he could prove to be a liability given the team mechanics(playing 3 at the back) and also him lacking a bit of pace and dynamism when covering that side.
A good explanation of the 3-4-3 by Cruyff himself:
Notice the #4 role (Haan here) and how Cruyff explains that he shouldn't be allowed to leave the center circle at all. You'd need a highly dynamic B2B on that side, instead of van Hanegem when playing in a 3-4-3 and without a proper LB support, otherwise a winger/wing back could easily stretch him and Montero.
Have to agree with what @Ajaxsuarez said above in regards to van Hanegem who would be better fit as a DLP for couple of reasons:
- His Barca team depended on the build up from deep where he had not only Koeman but also Guardiola who started the possession from the back whereas Koeman was usually the one distributing long balls to the wing.
- as a LCM in that 3-4-3 and without a proper LB to support if the team faced a proper wing back or a winger he could prove to be a liability given the team mechanics(playing 3 at the back) and also him lacking a bit of pace and dynamism when covering that side.
A good explanation of the 3-4-3 by Cruyff himself:
Notice the #4 role (Haan here) and how Cruyff explains that he shouldn't be allowed to leave the center circle at all. You'd need a highly dynamic B2B on that side, instead of van Hanegem when playing in a 3-4-3 and without a proper LB support, otherwise a winger/wing back could easily stretch him and Montero.
Yeah I get the point and have previously emphasised the dynamism in potential side midfielders for a diamond (Gattuso / Davids being the templates I had in mind there) although this is slightly different given the presence of wide forwards.
I'm just not sure I agree with the problem given 1. Van Hanegem was a huge asset defensively (albeit not quick he made a load of tackles) 2. The Dutch defended as a unit and they pressed a team (which mitigates the lack of pace) 3. Significant part of his best football came from the left hand channel.
I do think Montero makes it a bit more of a problem, as he's not a natural left back and there probably is a greater requirement to cover that part of the pitch.
Nah, that's irrelevant given the superior ball playing across the park when compared with the Dream Team. If there's one thing this team doesn't need its Guardiola.
The above is a great video, the way Cruyff speaks about the Laudrup role emphasises how well Cruyff fits in that set up.
Yeah, my comment was more directed to the way the dream team played in that 3-4-3 and the "double pivot" roles of his 4 and 6. You can see Pep using the very same ideology with Busquets dropping to defence to receive the ball and start the circulation like he did 20 years ago.
Cruyff's 3-4-3 definitely used Pep as a DLP and based the possession game on him and Koeman first and foremost.
Laudrup was great in that role dropping to the left and receiving the ball facing the goal looking for the killer pass or start a dribble himself.
Tough luck lads. To me Irwin was the tipping point. A more potent wing back in the final third and you'd probably got this one.
The front five was excellent and well build around Maradona.
Yeah absolutely, he’s tried to implement a version of the 3-4-3 at Barca, City (and I wanna say Bayern?). I think similar to Cruyff it’s the formation Pep probably considers the purest representation of his philosophy.
Though his 4-1-4-1 he has now is fantastic imo. I think tactically it’s such a wonderful side.
Thanks.. We knew Irwin was our weak link which is why we wanted Alves but he became too expensive very quickly