Yeah, but think it was an odd game, not really suited to a position like Schnellinger or Krol for example who played wide and centrally?
Auction-Trade Madness Draft - R1: 2mufc0/Theon vs Moby
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
FRANCO BARESI
AC Milan 1977-97
719 apps - 6 Serie A - 3 European Cup
719 apps - 6 Serie A - 3 European Cup
It is hardly controversial to call Baresi the most complete – and perhaps even the best – defender of all time. The greatest attacking players have the ability to manufacture time, a combination of vision and first touch affording them vital fractions of a second to compose play. If they created time, Baresi did the opposite. Such was the Italian’s masterful reading of the game, he would be first to every through ball, snuffing out danger like a psychic fireman.
“A lot of the time, he would know what the attacker was going to do before they knew themselves,” Ruud Gullit once said of his former teammate. There is no exaggeration there for effect. Baresi had a greater anticipation and understanding of attacking strategies than perhaps any other defender in the game’s history.
Despite that defensive excellence, Baresi’s role was at least two-fold. Within seconds of winning back the ball, he would be looking forward. Next came either the clipped pass into feet, or the run forward out of defence. With his shirt untucked over inexplicably short shorts, Baresi played the part of playmaker with consummate ease.
It would be foolish to think that Baresi was an effortlessly polished player, however, for you don’t survive and thrive in Serie A’s 1980s without being able to handle yourself. The word ‘hard’ has become increasingly synonymous with obvious displays of aggression, but Baresi’s toughness was more understated, a latent threat. In the Milan derby of 1989, Baresi played for over an hour with a broken arm after getting a kick from Jurgen Klinsmann, Milan’s captain only revealing the true extent of his pain after the final whistle. After keeping a clean sheet, of course.
Not content with being one of the greatest defenders, Baresi’s name has also become a byword for loyalty, the ultimate one-club man. Milan may have become the greatest team in the world under his captaincy, but he twice stayed after relegation to help the Rossoneri rebuild. The second of those Serie B campaigns came after Baresi was a (non-playing) member of Italy’s World Cup-winning squad of 1982, with the defender named Milan captain at the age of 22. Fifteen years later, as Baresi retired, he had won five Serie A titles, three European Cups and nine other domestic honours. Black, white and red all over.
Milan’s three greatest servants run like the aorta through the club’s modern history: Gianni Rivera, Franco Baresi, Paolo Maldini. Between them, these three players spanned a 49-year period between 1960 and 2009. Not only does that account for almost half the club’s lifespan, but it covers 38 of their 47 major trophies.
If this trio are Milan’s lifeblood, there is no doubt who belongs in the centre spot on the podium. In the eyes of the Milanese, there is only one. ‘There is only one captain, Baresi,’ is the banner still passed across the San Siro’s Curva Sud. He was, is, and always will be Milan’s greatest: Il Capitano.
Last edited:
Wouldn't play him there in a draft. But it was Lobanovsky, with his obsession with versatility, so it's not surprising that he used his players in different roles
DANNY BLANCHFLOWER
IF THE 20TH century is going to throw up a more original, eloquent, free-thinking football man than Danny Blanchflower, then it has little time to lose. The intellectual Ulsterman played the game as inspiringly as he spoke about it, making him a priceless asset in a field not noted for such heady combinations.
Blanchflower left an indelible mark on the history of British football with his often innovative captaincy of Tottenham Hotspur in 1960-61, the season in which the north London club became the first since Victorian times to achieve the coveted League and FA Cup double. It was a fittingly glorious zenith to a remarkable career.
For all his excellence, Blanchflower was not a spectacular footballer, more a subtle, all-pervasive influence from his position of right- half (a 'midfielder' in modern parlance). In his prime, between 1957 and 1962, he was one of the most creative players in the game, capable of dictating the tempo of a match like few others.
Neither quick nor muscular, though endowed with a wiry strength, Blanchflower had an instinct for slipping into space at crucial moments. Having seized the initiative while less thoughtful performers milled around unproductively, he would impose his presence with his remarkable passing skills. One moment Blanchflower was shackled, the next free and bellowing for possession; then, an instant later, the ball was nestling in the opponents' net, deposited there by Jimmy Greaves, Bobby Smith or Cliff Jones, but all courtesy of their skipper's exquisite vision.
Though his mother played for a local ladies' team, the Belfast-born Blanchflower did not hail from a sporting family. But he fell in love with football at an early age, excelled at junior level and in 1945 signed for a leading Irish side, Glentoran. Four years later he crossed the water to sign for Barnsley, and before long was celebrating his first full international cap. Blanchflower did well for his new club and attracted the attention of the more fashionable Aston Villa, whom he joined in 1951. At the age of 25, and maturing into a very fine player, he seemed ready-made for stardom. But before long he became disenchanted with the unimaginative, inflexible tactics employed at Villa Park and, in typically outspoken manner, made his feelings known. Come 1954, he seemed set to break the British transfer record with a pounds 40,000 move to Arsenal. But Arsenal appeared to get cold feet over the fee and instead Blanchflower joined Tottenham Hotspur for pounds 30,000. It was the turning- point of his professional life.
At White Hart Lane he was managed by Arthur Rowe, whose exhilarating 'push-and-run' Spurs side of the early 1950s was in need of rebuilding. Together the two men set about the task of creating a team in a traditionally stylish Tottenham mould, but the partnership was split when illness precipitated Rowe's retirement in 1955. The new Spurs manager, Jimmy Anderson, though he made Blanchflower his captain, was not on the same wavelength and the pair clashed after Blanchflower made tactical changes during an FA Cup semi-final and the side lost. The fact that similar enterprise had paid dividends before was overlooked.
However, despite being deprived of the captaincy, Blanchflower grew ever more influential and in 1957-58 completed what was arguably his most brilliant individual campaign, which he climaxed by leading Northern Ireland to the last eight of the World Cup. Deservedly, he was named Footballer of the Year (an accolade repeated in 1961).
Yet still Spurs were not winning trophies and their new manager, Bill Nicholson, dropped Blanchflower, whom he described as being invaluable in a good side but a luxury in a bad one because of his inadequate defensive input. By now Blanchflower was 33 and the end might have been imminent, but the astute Nicholson had none of it. He turned down a transfer request and reinstalled his elder statesman as captain - to fabulous effect.
With wonderful new players, such as the Scots Dave Mackay and John White, added to the team, Spurs improved markedly during the following term, the prelude to the all-conquering exploits of 1960- 61. In 1961-62 they let the League slip away to the unfancied Ipswich Town, but retained the Cup, then became the first British team to claim a European trophy, lifting the Cup Winners' Cup in 1963.
By this time, Blanchflower was at the veteran stage, often playing through the pain of a debilitating knee injury, but his overall contribution seemed ever more important. By now he was taking an increasingly prominent role in training and as liaison between manager and players. When a combination of injury and age (he was 38) forced him to quit in 1964, Tottenham lost a guiding light.
Many, including Nicholson himself, reckoned that Blanchflower would be ideal as Spurs' next manager, and when Nicholson stepped aside in 1974 he recommended Blanchflower as his successor. But the board of directors, presumably cringing at the prospect of appointing such a forthright character, refused the advice and Blanchflower continued the successful journalistic career - he wrote an incisive column for the Sunday Express, frequently railing in articulate fashion against what he saw as unjust authority - that he had begun after hanging up his boots.
In fact, Blanchflower did sample management later, taking charge of Northern Ireland and briefly running a poor Chelsea team at the end of the Seventies. By then, perhaps, he had been absent from day-to-day involvement in football for too long and the results were poor; in any case, he professed himself disillusioned with values in the modern game.
Blanchflower - whose brother Jackie played for Manchester United until he was seriously injured in the Munich air crash in 1958 - continued with the Sunday Express until 1988. After that his slide into infirmity grieved all who had known him as a superb player, canny tactician, incurable romantic and maverick sage, a magnetic personality who dominated any room into which he walked.
True, he was never 'one of the lads', preferring to go his own way, as on the day he dismissed Eamonn Andrews by refusing, on live television, to take part in the This is Your Life programme. Indeed, there were times when his undeniable ego upset people around him. But every successful man must know his own worth - and Danny Blanchflower's was immense.
JIMMY GREAVES
With 44 strikes in just 57 appearances, Greaves has the best average strike rate of any player with more than one cap since making his debut in 1959. He signed on as an apprentice at Chelsea when he was 15 — and become of ‘Drake’s Ducklings’. The name came from manager Ted Drake, in response to the ‘Busby Babes’ at Manchester United.
Greaves scored in Chelsea’s 1957 Youth Cup defeat and turned professional that summer. Though, he spent eight weeks working at a steel company to supplement his
income. Ironically, his first Chelsea goal came against his future employers, Tottenham.
Greaves was phenomenal at Stamford Bridge — and netted 132 goals in 169 games over four seasons. And, 1961, moved to Italian giants AC Milan, where is often accused of being a ‘flop’. He made just 12 appearances for the Rossoneri — bagging a respectable nine goals. He even left Italy with a league title. Greaves then moved to Tottenham where he really made his name He won the FA Cup in 1961-62 — and added the Cup Winners’ Cup the following season.
The ferocious forward would go on to score a staggering 268 goals in 381 games before moving to a third London club with West Ham in 1969. He was at the centre of an amusing incident in 1962 World Cup, when he had to get down on all fours to get a stray dog off the pitch.
And Greaves was a key member of England’s 1966 World Cup-winning squad. He played all three group games against Uruguay, Mexico and France — although an injury against the European side saw him replaced by Geoff Hurst, who scored the winner in the Three Lions’ quarter-final match against Argentina. Hurst — as everyone knows — kept his place in the starting XI for England’s finest hour, and Greaves missed out. His impact in the winning of the home tournament should not be overlooked.
He never won a league medal in this country, and often tops any polls about the greatest player never to be crowned champion. Greaves is now ranked fourth in England’s all-time top scorers list. But, surely, when it comes to the best centre forward, he would be ranked first.
Greaves is fantastic as well as KHR, but I think we really restrict their influence by cutting off their supply , we have pure defenders in Burgnich and Kuznetsov and also Koeman who's defensive contribution gets under rated.
But our primary mechanism will be keeping the ball, Van Hanegem and Neeskens who no one has mentioned are two of the best central midfielders of all time. Imo Neeskens is in the elite tier, and will have a major influence. They not only will create but also put a shift in defensively. The whole team work hard and his attackers won't get a breather or any space when on the ball, from what I remember Hagi wansn't great under pressing .
Whilst his defence is a tough nut to crack Cruyff, Gullit, Van Hanegem, Neeskens, Wilkes having the lions share of the ball in the game will create and score, there is too much quality for them not to. There also doesn't appear to be anyone watching Cruyff here , with the midfield already overloaded he will be deadly .
Going without a proper #9 blunts their attack.
Against a defense comprising of Baresi, Krol and Ferri, the last thing you need to do is allow them the comfort of always keeping shape and shutting all channels to the goal. There is no designated number 9 in the opposition to stretch the defense and occupy the centrebacks. Given the intelligence and tactical excellence of that defense, they will be comfortable at the back watching the opposition pass around the 30 yard mark with no penetration. Think Spain 2010.
Baresi is a perfect defender for Cruyff.
In Cruyff we have a false 9 who would roam around the central areas and often drop deep trying to pull defenders out of shape and create spaces. Here, we have possibly the greatest defender of all time in Franco Baresi, who was absolutely at home in stepping into midfield and winning the ball before there's any danger. Not only would he be fantastic in cutting out any service to the runners, he would make sure Cruyff never gets a lot of time on the ball and would be an unbreakable wall right in his face. Taking his most important attacker out of the game would be a huge advantage for us.
The lack of goal threat.
Sure Cruyff and Gullit are neat scorers and can pop up on their day, but it is an absolute farcry from the duo of Greaves and Rummenigge who have insane goalscoring records and would be unstoppable in front of goal. 2mufc team simply don't have a reliable goalscorer to trouble our team. Especially with the kind of defenders at show here. All foreplay, no penetration.
Against a defense comprising of Baresi, Krol and Ferri, the last thing you need to do is allow them the comfort of always keeping shape and shutting all channels to the goal. There is no designated number 9 in the opposition to stretch the defense and occupy the centrebacks. Given the intelligence and tactical excellence of that defense, they will be comfortable at the back watching the opposition pass around the 30 yard mark with no penetration. Think Spain 2010.
Baresi is a perfect defender for Cruyff.
In Cruyff we have a false 9 who would roam around the central areas and often drop deep trying to pull defenders out of shape and create spaces. Here, we have possibly the greatest defender of all time in Franco Baresi, who was absolutely at home in stepping into midfield and winning the ball before there's any danger. Not only would he be fantastic in cutting out any service to the runners, he would make sure Cruyff never gets a lot of time on the ball and would be an unbreakable wall right in his face. Taking his most important attacker out of the game would be a huge advantage for us.
The lack of goal threat.
Sure Cruyff and Gullit are neat scorers and can pop up on their day, but it is an absolute farcry from the duo of Greaves and Rummenigge who have insane goalscoring records and would be unstoppable in front of goal. 2mufc team simply don't have a reliable goalscorer to trouble our team. Especially with the kind of defenders at show here. All foreplay, no penetration.
Our transition - lightning quick.
We have not set up to park the bus and let the opposition keep the ball for ages - and 2mufc description of the Michels' Holland is completely off the mark - they weren't the Guardiola Barcelona who would keep the ball for ages, they played at a high tempo who moved the ball around but also constantly took it forward looking for creating chances. The game would be a high tempo affair that completely suits our strategy of forcing constant turnovers.
In Baresi, Krol and Blanchflower we have elite outballs from deep. In Demyanenko, Zanetti, Rummenigge and Greaves we have a unit of hard working and lightning quick runners who would fly off at the drop of the hat and will be catching the defenders off guard constantly creating 1v1 situations. We will be hitting the opposition on direct breaks, they have a decent defense but nothing special - they cannot withstand the enormous goal threat and all round ability of Greaves and Rummenigge with the kind of service from deep as well as their own ability to create and score - neither were limited at all and had everything in their lockers especially dribbling and acceleration to get away from defenders. Once they are through on goal, they will score. The same cannot be said of the toothless opposition attack.
We have not set up to park the bus and let the opposition keep the ball for ages - and 2mufc description of the Michels' Holland is completely off the mark - they weren't the Guardiola Barcelona who would keep the ball for ages, they played at a high tempo who moved the ball around but also constantly took it forward looking for creating chances. The game would be a high tempo affair that completely suits our strategy of forcing constant turnovers.
In Baresi, Krol and Blanchflower we have elite outballs from deep. In Demyanenko, Zanetti, Rummenigge and Greaves we have a unit of hard working and lightning quick runners who would fly off at the drop of the hat and will be catching the defenders off guard constantly creating 1v1 situations. We will be hitting the opposition on direct breaks, they have a decent defense but nothing special - they cannot withstand the enormous goal threat and all round ability of Greaves and Rummenigge with the kind of service from deep as well as their own ability to create and score - neither were limited at all and had everything in their lockers especially dribbling and acceleration to get away from defenders. Once they are through on goal, they will score. The same cannot be said of the toothless opposition attack.
Aye, I guess. It’s ultimately an upgrade on the ‘74 defence though. Each position in the back five is bettered besides left back and we’ve designed it specifically to get the best out of Koeman.
In terms of the opposition attack a front three of Cruyff / Gullit / Wilkes is comfortably a level above Rummenigge / Greaves / Hagi (particular given the complimentary set up our forwards are playing in which is getting the best out of Cruyff - the best player on the park).
There’s been a lot of tactical discussion around our side, which is fair enough, but very little on the opposition. Frankly I don’t particularly rate Hagi hugely in this context and I don’t think he’s at all suited to a defensive, containing 3-5-2 side. Is he going to track Neeskens? Or Van Hanegem? Will he help in the midfield when Cruyff drops in the zone? Hagi is a passenger off the ball at the best of times and he’s up against the most dynamic midfield in the history of the game. It's a tactical misfit.
He’s also pretty much the anti-thesis of the Dutch footballing philosophy which was based on teamwork, movement and tactical intelligence. In order for him to perform the team played for Hagi, as opposed to Hagi playing for the team. He required the team to be built around him and frankly he’s not good enough for that to wash at this level.
There’s a reason he was provided with that platform at Steaua Bucharest and Galatasary, but not at Barcelona and Madrid.
We will be keeping a clean sheet.
With the strength of the defense, not only do we completely outnumber them in our area, we also have a tremendous partnership at the back that could withstand Normandy - Franco Baresi and Riccardo Ferri. They formed the backbone of one of the greatest defenses ever seen on the International stage, while being the mainstays of the two Milan clubs for ages. Similarly, the CM pair of Mackay and Blanchflower was a mainstay of the great Spurs team of the 60s, this only enhances our ability to close any gaps and not let anything through.
That combined with the fact that the opposition has not got a single reliable goalscorer as a striker in the team would make it a really easy task for us.
The midfield battle - no nonsense allowed.
The opposition has an excellent midfield no doubt, but they are facing a bunch of absolutely gritty and no nonsense unit of the uncompromising Dave Mackay and the metronomic genius of Danny Blanchflower - constantly supported by the likes of Baresi, Krol and Zanetti who would the freedom to step forward given the lack of striker in the opposition. We won't be allowing to move the ball around seamlessly, especially the likes of Mackay who would putting in crunching tackles and ruthless blocks - constantly breaking their rhythm. That midfield actually never won anything together, and when it comes to steel and determination, they won't be able to match what is in front of them.
With the strength of the defense, not only do we completely outnumber them in our area, we also have a tremendous partnership at the back that could withstand Normandy - Franco Baresi and Riccardo Ferri. They formed the backbone of one of the greatest defenses ever seen on the International stage, while being the mainstays of the two Milan clubs for ages. Similarly, the CM pair of Mackay and Blanchflower was a mainstay of the great Spurs team of the 60s, this only enhances our ability to close any gaps and not let anything through.
That combined with the fact that the opposition has not got a single reliable goalscorer as a striker in the team would make it a really easy task for us.
The midfield battle - no nonsense allowed.
The opposition has an excellent midfield no doubt, but they are facing a bunch of absolutely gritty and no nonsense unit of the uncompromising Dave Mackay and the metronomic genius of Danny Blanchflower - constantly supported by the likes of Baresi, Krol and Zanetti who would the freedom to step forward given the lack of striker in the opposition. We won't be allowing to move the ball around seamlessly, especially the likes of Mackay who would putting in crunching tackles and ruthless blocks - constantly breaking their rhythm. That midfield actually never won anything together, and when it comes to steel and determination, they won't be able to match what is in front of them.
@Theon yeah, i agree with most of what you said. Why i decided to comment only about your team is because im more familiar with your players and Total Football in general as i watched their every game of that WC at least 2 times, some even more.
This is absolutely laughable.
Playing Cruyff in his favoured false #9 role blunts an attack
. If voters lap this nonsense up then good luck to you.Cruyff is the best player in the history of European football - he's playing in his favoured position, in his favoured formation, with complimentary wide forwards from the same Dutch philosophy and his '74 teammates in midfield of Haan-Van Hanegem-Neeskens. He couldn't ask for a better set-up and he's primed to win the match, as he typically did.
Saying that he would blunt the attack is frankly absurd.
Now, our attack vs their defense.
Not only have we packed an insane goal threat comprising of two legendary forwards for England and Germany respectively, we have a duo up front who packs a tremendous punch with their pace, power, acceleration, close control and the ability to strike the ball from anywhere. They are not facing a quality defense here, and given the nature of the game, they will be getting to run at them plenty of times to not make it count.
Burgnich looks completely out of place here, I cannot see him getting on the same sync level especially as the managers want their team to emulate total football, where Burgnich would be a fish out of water. Not to mention, he will be tasked with minding Demyanenko out wide who is pacier and more dynamic in attack. Koeman was never known for his physicality or pace, and here he is set up against two forwards who would easily burn him on pace and leave him for dead especially on counters.
Not only have we packed an insane goal threat comprising of two legendary forwards for England and Germany respectively, we have a duo up front who packs a tremendous punch with their pace, power, acceleration, close control and the ability to strike the ball from anywhere. They are not facing a quality defense here, and given the nature of the game, they will be getting to run at them plenty of times to not make it count.
Burgnich looks completely out of place here, I cannot see him getting on the same sync level especially as the managers want their team to emulate total football, where Burgnich would be a fish out of water. Not to mention, he will be tasked with minding Demyanenko out wide who is pacier and more dynamic in attack. Koeman was never known for his physicality or pace, and here he is set up against two forwards who would easily burn him on pace and leave him for dead especially on counters.
Last edited:
You probably don't understand what the word blunt means.This is absolutely laughable.
Playing Cruyff in his favoured false #9 role blunts an attack
Cruyff is the best player in the history of European football - he's playing in his favoured position, in his favoured formation, with complimentary wide forwards from the same Dutch philosophy and his '74 teammates in midfield of Haan-Van Hanegem-Neeskens. He couldn't ask for a better set-up and he's primed to win the match, as he typically did.
Saying that he would blunt the attack is frankly absurd.
Is this the same Cruyff who would constantly drop deep, as deep as the half way line often to pull defenders with him and then dribble past them? Or is that the same Cruyff who would be the primary creative force in his teams often making use of players running into space and picking them out? That would have worked against light backlines, but you are against an absolute army of a defense here and there isn't a hope of him getting any space whatsoever behind our defense.
You won't score if this game was played ten times over.
The midfield 'battle' isn't a battle at all. It's a white-wash.
You have two and half players in there (Hagi doesn't count as a whole) who are outclassed numerically, tactically and in terms of quality. You have no cohesive philosophy in your team, it's a mis-mash of styles whilst your players face arguably the best midfield in European football... with the added bonus of Cruyff dropping in, Koeman moving up and Gullit roaming centrally.
You'll be chasing shadows. Blanchflower and Mackay are decent enough players in a UK context but they're outmatched in the extreme.
And Hagi is a blunt instrument here, he's not suited to this level (as he wasn't suited to Madrid or Barca). Van Hanegem would chew him up.
What a load of tosh Theon.
DANNY BLANCHFLOWER
IF THE 20TH century is going to throw up a more original, eloquent, free-thinking football man than Danny Blanchflower, then it has little time to lose. The intellectual Ulsterman played the game as inspiringly as he spoke about it, making him a priceless asset in a field not noted for such heady combinations.
Blanchflower left an indelible mark on the history of British football with his often innovative captaincy of Tottenham Hotspur in 1960-61, the season in which the north London club became the first since Victorian times to achieve the coveted League and FA Cup double. It was a fittingly glorious zenith to a remarkable career.
For all his excellence, Blanchflower was not a spectacular footballer, more a subtle, all-pervasive influence from his position of right- half (a 'midfielder' in modern parlance). In his prime, between 1957 and 1962, he was one of the most creative players in the game, capable of dictating the tempo of a match like few others.
Neither quick nor muscular, though endowed with a wiry strength, Blanchflower had an instinct for slipping into space at crucial moments. Having seized the initiative while less thoughtful performers milled around unproductively, he would impose his presence with his remarkable passing skills. One moment Blanchflower was shackled, the next free and bellowing for possession; then, an instant later, the ball was nestling in the opponents' net, deposited there by Jimmy Greaves, Bobby Smith or Cliff Jones, but all courtesy of their skipper's exquisite vision.
Though his mother played for a local ladies' team, the Belfast-born Blanchflower did not hail from a sporting family. But he fell in love with football at an early age, excelled at junior level and in 1945 signed for a leading Irish side, Glentoran. Four years later he crossed the water to sign for Barnsley, and before long was celebrating his first full international cap. Blanchflower did well for his new club and attracted the attention of the more fashionable Aston Villa, whom he joined in 1951. At the age of 25, and maturing into a very fine player, he seemed ready-made for stardom. But before long he became disenchanted with the unimaginative, inflexible tactics employed at Villa Park and, in typically outspoken manner, made his feelings known. Come 1954, he seemed set to break the British transfer record with a pounds 40,000 move to Arsenal. But Arsenal appeared to get cold feet over the fee and instead Blanchflower joined Tottenham Hotspur for pounds 30,000. It was the turning- point of his professional life.
At White Hart Lane he was managed by Arthur Rowe, whose exhilarating 'push-and-run' Spurs side of the early 1950s was in need of rebuilding. Together the two men set about the task of creating a team in a traditionally stylish Tottenham mould, but the partnership was split when illness precipitated Rowe's retirement in 1955. The new Spurs manager, Jimmy Anderson, though he made Blanchflower his captain, was not on the same wavelength and the pair clashed after Blanchflower made tactical changes during an FA Cup semi-final and the side lost. The fact that similar enterprise had paid dividends before was overlooked.
However, despite being deprived of the captaincy, Blanchflower grew ever more influential and in 1957-58 completed what was arguably his most brilliant individual campaign, which he climaxed by leading Northern Ireland to the last eight of the World Cup. Deservedly, he was named Footballer of the Year (an accolade repeated in 1961).
Yet still Spurs were not winning trophies and their new manager, Bill Nicholson, dropped Blanchflower, whom he described as being invaluable in a good side but a luxury in a bad one because of his inadequate defensive input. By now Blanchflower was 33 and the end might have been imminent, but the astute Nicholson had none of it. He turned down a transfer request and reinstalled his elder statesman as captain - to fabulous effect.
With wonderful new players, such as the Scots Dave Mackay and John White, added to the team, Spurs improved markedly during the following term, the prelude to the all-conquering exploits of 1960- 61. In 1961-62 they let the League slip away to the unfancied Ipswich Town, but retained the Cup, then became the first British team to claim a European trophy, lifting the Cup Winners' Cup in 1963.
By this time, Blanchflower was at the veteran stage, often playing through the pain of a debilitating knee injury, but his overall contribution seemed ever more important. By now he was taking an increasingly prominent role in training and as liaison between manager and players. When a combination of injury and age (he was 38) forced him to quit in 1964, Tottenham lost a guiding light.
Many, including Nicholson himself, reckoned that Blanchflower would be ideal as Spurs' next manager, and when Nicholson stepped aside in 1974 he recommended Blanchflower as his successor. But the board of directors, presumably cringing at the prospect of appointing such a forthright character, refused the advice and Blanchflower continued the successful journalistic career - he wrote an incisive column for the Sunday Express, frequently railing in articulate fashion against what he saw as unjust authority - that he had begun after hanging up his boots.
In fact, Blanchflower did sample management later, taking charge of Northern Ireland and briefly running a poor Chelsea team at the end of the Seventies. By then, perhaps, he had been absent from day-to-day involvement in football for too long and the results were poor; in any case, he professed himself disillusioned with values in the modern game.
Blanchflower - whose brother Jackie played for Manchester United until he was seriously injured in the Munich air crash in 1958 - continued with the Sunday Express until 1988. After that his slide into infirmity grieved all who had known him as a superb player, canny tactician, incurable romantic and maverick sage, a magnetic personality who dominated any room into which he walked.
True, he was never 'one of the lads', preferring to go his own way, as on the day he dismissed Eamonn Andrews by refusing, on live television, to take part in the This is Your Life programme. Indeed, there were times when his undeniable ego upset people around him. But every successful man must know his own worth - and Danny Blanchflower's was immense.
Where is @Annahnomoss ?
However, in this universe...
Hagi, the same player who made light work of Fernando Redondo, who is better than any of your midfielders?
You can move the ball around the half way line as much as you want, possession isn't the same as goals as we saw under van Gaal.
You haven't a hope in getting near our penalty area with our back 7, who would nick the ball from your feet the second you dare to look towards goal and reply at a level of pace and power you team wouldn't know what hit them. Koeman against counters? Like playing against 10 men.
For anyone who is interested here are the goalscoring records of Cruyff vs Rummenigge:
Cruyff - 368 in 661 = 0.56 per game
Rummeingge - 293 in 587 = 0.50 per game
Cruyff - 368 in 661 = 0.56 per game
Rummeingge - 293 in 587 = 0.50 per game
Greaves - 422 in 602 AND 44 in 57 for England. 70% hit ratio, gtfo.
The fact your primary goalscorer barely matches up to my secondary goalscorer says it all.
Not to mention which one is facing by far the superior defense.
In Baresi we have the ideal measure against someone like Cruyff, there's no way he'd let him past.
Who is minding Greaves and Rummenigge?
Not sure what you're being a dick for.
Saying that playing Cruyff as a false #9 blunts the attack is completely ridiculous. I get that you want to win but it defeats the points of these drafts. What's annoying is I can feel myself getting sucked into it.
You should be called out by neutrals for comments like that.
Do you have a #9 on the pitch? No.
Did I say playing Cruyff blunts the attack or did I say not playing a #9 does?
Against my defense your centre forward would be likely dropping deep, and you have no one to stay constantly in the box to occupy my CBs, and that would only allow Baresi to easily step out into midfield and nip everything in the bud. With no one being there in the box to provide an outlet. That IS blunt.
Gullit is a terrible choice for a wing forward - when has he ever played that? A proper workhorse who at his prime was a tremendous force in carrying the ball himself and contributing both in midfield and behind the striker. In what way does that mirror anything here when he's shunted out wide taking out most of the qualities that made him great?
Sorry but your team is outclassed tactically here, partly due to the natural tendencies of your players and partly due to the choice of players given the roles that they are.
Greaves - 422 in 602 AND 44 in 57 for England. 70% hit ratio, gtfo.
Wilkes scored 35 goals in 38 games for Holland. That's a 92% hit rate internationally and he was around 1 in 2 at club level.
Ruud Gullit is also a goalthreat but obviously offers a lot more to the side.
From the left wingforward role?
Bit of a clear case of shoehorning big names in roles that they barely ever played just to win easy votes.
Can think of better unpicked players who would be suited to the role of an outlet that Gullit would be here. Cheap vote winning tactics while ignoring the tactical fit, nothing more.
Can think of better unpicked players who would be suited to the role of an outlet that Gullit would be here. Cheap vote winning tactics while ignoring the tactical fit, nothing more.
Expanding on the Hagi point above (which is actually a genuine tactical problem, as opposed to the nonsense Moby is spouting about Cruyff as a false #9) this video was posted on the first page but shows exactly the type of style to combat a luxury player like Hagi.
He was a fine player in the right set up when a team was built around him (as it was in Turkey and Romania) but this type of pressing is literally his kryptonite.
He was a fine player in the right set up when a team was built around him (as it was in Turkey and Romania) but this type of pressing is literally his kryptonite.
6 players in midfield with no one in the box up front or minding the counter at the back.
Balance.
The beautiful game seems to have gotten dirty. Play nice lads
6 players in midfield with no one in the box up front or minding the counter at the back.
Balance.
Another silly comment. You're embarrassing yourself.
Haan played in a back four as a sweeper in '74, he's perfectly capable of minding a counter attack. Faas Wilkes was an inside forward, so he won't be 'in midfield'.
And as you well know, whilst Cruyff and Gullit were total footballers who contribute to all phases of the game, they were primarily offensive attackers/forwards.
The beautiful game seems to have gotten dirty. Play nice lads
both need to learn how to lose with a smile, if they are interested im willing to give them free lessons every friday night.
The beautiful game seems to have gotten dirty. Play nice lads
He has a tendency to do this. What's annoying me is I'm getting sucked into it.
Just sours the game threads.
To be honest though neutrals should be picking him up on this stuff.
It is both of you.
Precisely the case here.
The heart of the creative engine here, playing behind two explosive goal machines who would allow him to pull the strings beautifully here. An absolute asset in quick transitions as showcased the great Romania team performances at the 1994 World Cup. His job is fairly clear cut - receive the ball from the back, run into spaces, use his control to skip past the opposition (he will be doing that regularly vs Arie Haan) and playing the killer ball as quickly as possible to the front two and watch them score.
GHEORGHE HAGI: THE MARADONA OF THE CARPATHIANS
The Maradona of the Carpathians, Gheorghe Hagi is a complex character. There is a dividing line between the hero of the masses he undoubtedly was in Romania, and the wilting flower he so often appeared to be at the Santiago Bernabéu and the Camp Nou.
There is an unfairness to the paragraph above. In 1991/92, Real Madrid should have won the La Liga title. They instead stumbled on a final day trip to Tenerife, one act of a peculiar two season run where Los Blancos fumbled the title on the final day, on the most pre-emanate Canary Island.
Lost within the blur of Johan Cruyff’s blossoming Dream Team, 1992 should have belonged to Hagi. His brilliance that season is forever lost within the pain of that defeat in Tenerife. Real Madrid led La Liga from late October, until they handed the top spot to Barcelona on the final day.
When Real Madrid repeated the very same feat 12-months later, Hagi was in Italy, with Brescia,suffering once more. Despite his own outstanding performances, he could only despair as his new club succumbed to relegation, losing to Udinese in an end-of-season relegation playoff in Bologna. At the peak of his powers, a year before the World Cup finals, and with several attractive options on the table, Hagi elected to stay at Brescia. He stayed and he led the Rondinelle to an immediate return to Serie A. From devastation, Hagi had mended the broken hearts of the city.
In the summer of 1994, he led Romania to the World Cup finals. A Mark Bowen missed penalty away from not being there at all, Romania became one of the most hypnotic teams at USA 94. Hagi was at the peak of his powers. Infused by the feeling of a job well done at Brescia, the World Cup was his reward.
Playing a brand of football that was far removed from the bleak, Ceaușescu-shrouded nation the world had viewed them as, prior to the Romanian Revolution of December 1989, Hagi and Romania produced a style that was bathed in artistry. This wasn’t Iron Curtain football.
Having had the stomach to defeat the host nation in Pasadena – in front of over 96,000 spectators – to top their group, Romania had beaten a shell-shocked but counter-punching Argentina in the last-16. Hagi was key to everything Romania achieved. In the quarter-finals, it was a meeting of two contrasting ethos. Sweden, strong, physical, with a mild sprinkling of flair, against a passionate and artistic Romania, with Hagi as the conductor. They couldn’t be split; 2-2 after 120 minutes. Romanian hearts were broken in a penalty shoot-out, and the intriguing prospect of a Brazil vs Romania semi-final was gone.
For three successive seasons, Hagi had been a close witness to footballing heartbreak. From Tenerife to Bologna, and finally Stanford.
Ten years earlier, Hagi had travelled to Euro 84 as an impressionable 19-year-old. A cameo role against Spain, and the first 45-minutes against West Germany, had given him a taste of something he wanted more of. Between 1984 and 1994, his nation had only managed to qualify for Italia 90. Not fully fit, Hagi tentatively worked his way into the tournament, but by the time he was reaching peak condition, Ireland were knocking them out in the last-16. USA 94 was his time, his moment, and it was prised from him by the narrowest of margins.
The following two years should have been the best of his career. Signed by Cruyff for Barcelona as the natural heir to Michael Laudrup’s throne, he endured a stop-start spell with the Catalans. Often injured, and occasionally omitted tactically, the power in the Spanish game shifted once more to the capital.
A poor Euro 96 was followed by his departure from the Camp Nou to an unexpected new destination, as he headed to Istanbul and Galatasaray, where he once again fell in love with the game, winning a vast array of domestic silverwear, and also collecting a UEFA Cup winners medal in 2000. It was here that the world finally came to appreciate his talents for the first time since the summer of ’94.
After one final season in 2000/01, Hagi waved farewell to his playing days, reappearing as a coach, predominantly in Turkey, a nation he fell in love with. Despite his many blows and near-misses at the top of the gamne, Hagi remains unequivocally the greatest Romanian player of all-time, capable of moments of magic that few could ever dream of replicating. In a national game that is now stagnating, how Romania could do with an icon as talented and passionate as Gheorghe Hagi
Meh, well he's frankly not good enough to warrant that in this context.
There's a reason Barcelona and Real Madrid were both unwilling to build a team around Hagi. He wasn't quite good enough or consistent enough to warrant that.
At Galatasary he was excellent and I like him as a player, but he's a cut below what's required as a #10 in an all time context.
It's absolutely spot on.
Cruyff and Gullit will be dropping into midfield as per your instructions as well as because they literally played those roles, leaving little for my defenders to do, when I have a defensive line that could take on a lot more than that.
How is that converting that midfield into goals? You don't win games for keeping the ball.
You've literally set up to play like Spain 2010 who couldn't create constant chances and had to rely on set pieces to win the big games. They got rinsed on the counter by Robben in the final and he was better at finishing they'd be goner - no such worries in my team.
I just don't think you have the quality spread out in the team. Good midfield yes, but it is not complimented well enough at either end to convert it into a result. Your defense isn't well suited to contain my counters - Burgnich being out of place in the backline included.
Koeman played a great high line at Barca, how will Burgnich ever be able to keep up with that? You can't keep an offside track there and it would actually lead to a few 1v1s for my front two. The lack of cohesiveness in the backline is alarming.
He's absolutely fine against your defense.
And like I said, he isn't expected to create, score and constantly break a tough defense. That is where you need an elite player.
He showed in the 1994 WC that if the game is fairly open and he has spaces to work behind the opposition, he's simply deadly. That's the player I have here. He has decent pace and control to skip past a player or two and play that final ball with the two forwards running into space. I can see that happening a lot here against your disjointed defense with Burgnich playing my players onside.
To be fair to Hagi, I don't rate him as low as Theon seems to be doing here. In fact, his work rate was decent if not great.
But in a 3-5-2, you would want someone to be the star of the team in that position. Hagi just doesn't inspire confidence in me to lead a 3-5-2 attack.
In an all time context, anything below the Platini/Zico level is going to leave so much more to be desired.
Hagi is no where near that level sadly no matter how good he was.
But in a 3-5-2, you would want someone to be the star of the team in that position. Hagi just doesn't inspire confidence in me to lead a 3-5-2 attack.
In an all time context, anything below the Platini/Zico level is going to leave so much more to be desired.
Hagi is no where near that level sadly no matter how good he was.
I'd agree if he was facing a massive defense or a quality defensive midfield. He is physically more gifted than Haan which matters on counters, as well as has the technical ability to get past him with the ball.
He doesn't need to keep the ball for ages. Get the ball, head up, see two sprinters running into space, release them. Period.
Not to mention that both Greaves and Rummenigge are excellent all round forwards themselves, and would be able to create chances for themselves from the edge of the box, especially Kalle who was elite at that. Against that defense, I don't see anyone stopping them from doing that.
I know we are supposed to sell our teams but some of the things being said are getting out of hand.Scorers - Cruyff's stats have already been posted but Wilkes goalscoring record is up there with the very best. Then you got contributions from midfield and Haan and Koeman with their long shots, not to mention Koeman's free kick ability. The team has plenty of goals.
Cruyff - apparently Baresi will be man marking and following him around , this isn't his game and will pull his defence all over the place, it's actually what we are setup to do.
Midfield - now I have a lot of time for Blanchflower and Mackay but seriously they are not on the level of Neeskens and Van Hanegem. And I'm certain any neautral would agree with that. There's no way he controls the midfield esp with Hagi who is a liability defensively, not only outnumbered but outclassed .
Cheap shots - our midfielders never won anything,
domestically won everything. But national I agree but came very very close, if we want to use this stupid argument there are some players in his team which also fall under this criticism.But I prefer these silly arguments weren't in the draft as it ruins the game and puts unccessary animosity into the game.