That's a very good point actually. I'm afraid I don't know Sekularac well enough to tell if he breaks that pattern.
Behind the Curtain draft (Eastern Europe) | SF | Raees vs Gio 7:8
- Thread starter harms
- Start date
I agree with your point (no one would rate Romario higher than Muller - I was talking more about attacking attributes outside of goal scoring related ones) which brings me back to Kocsis. He too was a selfless forward with great movement and linkup play and team ethic.. but would you say Muller is a better fit with a Stoichkov and Blokhin type forward or a Puskas behind him?
I'm saying incisive passers is key to getting the best out of guys like Stoichkov not just good link up play. Stoichkov loved breaking through lines and getting on end of a good through ball and slotting it with that amazing left foot.
Both him and Blokhin can obviously go it alone but no doubt their threat would be more effective especially on the counter if there was a killer passer spotting their dangerous diagonal runs in behind a defence (between full back and CB).
Asparuhov can make runs knowing he has 4 top passers around him as well as full backs who can cross it to him, not to mention Kubala and Puskas were top notch crossers for inside forwards hence they would drift wide effectively.. Kocsis knows that all too well.
Last edited:
There's not a lot of footage of the Magyars to be honest, but from what I've seen I was fairly comfortable of Kocsis being capable of setting up others and banging them in himself. After all Puskas has over 700 career goals and didn't set them all up himself. Anyway a few elements of that side of his game which I feel would come in useful here:
With Puskas out injured in the crunch semi-final against Uruguay, Kocsis took on a more active creative role, dropping deep here to thread in the right-winger, then using his pace to get on the end of what should have been the return.
This is all getting a bit convoluted and IMO the criticism lacks any real balance.
Let's be clear here - Kocsis was a physically powerful centre forward with exceptional movement and finishing ability, so in that sense he has all of the credentials needed to lead the line in a 4-3-3. In terms of his all-round play I don't think we would ever try and sell him as a Totti or Sindelar style forward, but at the same time he thrived in a Magyar side known for their fluidity so I don't see him struggling to link with Blokhin or Stoichkov at all.
Where I would agree with you is that he doesn't have a dedicated winger hitting crosses into the box, which you could argue doesn't maximise his heading ability. I think that probably has some substance to it but it's not something we see as a problem - If you watch any compilation of Kocsis' goals it's clear he was just as much a threat on the ground as in the air, and more importantly I would argue that he does have an effective supply of crosses despite the absence of a 'traditional winger'.
Both Blokhin and Stoichkov were technical and well rounded enough to float crosses into the box for Kocsis to attack - surely that's a given. And we also have two of the most effective fullbacks in the draft attacking wise, Bezsonov in particular was someone we prioritised as our third pick primarily for what he brought moving forward.
In that sense I don't think that it can be argued that Kocsis has a far better supply of crosses than Asparuhov does in your team - he actually is playing in a side with no widemen and with fullbacks who are up against a pair of Ballon d'Or winners on their flank.
And for what it's worth I think Kocsis would absolutely bang them in for Real Madrid, he seems more suited to that team than as a false #9 in a Barcelona type of system (which seemed to be what you were getting at).
Also just as a brief point, if you watch games from that era the style of football was far more like that of a Madrid than a Barcelona, with quick transitions from back to front, direct passes and lots of dribbles from the forwards. So I don't agree with that point at all.
Well Theon I think we've argued enough on the point for the other guys to make their call on it. FWIW I still rate your attack but obviously we have to be over fussy in tight matches in this nature because differences between the sides are marginal and is these small details which can make the difference. I won't press the point any further.
Czibor is who we thought Raees would pick.
I disagree with the players you have mentioned being relatively weak links, bar maybe Sekularac when you take into account the sheer quality and depth the Eastern European pool has in the #10 position. But even then, I think that's mostly to do with Sekularac being somewhat of an unknown quantity and hard to sell without GIF's and match compliations (the way you would for a Hagi or Savicevic). His status as one of the five greatest payers from Red Star (a huge accolade given the players who have been at the club) and the 8th greatest attacking midfielder by France Football (ahead of Florian Albert no less) are testament to that.
Whilst I get the point to an extent with Sekularac, IMO he is at the very least as good a player as Asparuhov so I can't agree that he is in someway a weaker player. If Sekularac is a relataively weak link in a semi-final then Asparuhov certainly would be also. Also FWIW we had Sekularac 4th on our initial list of attacking midfielders/#10's, so he is someone who Gio in particular has always rated highly.
Now.. I've got nothing against pre-war players, but in terms of the midfields I don't hugely buy Pesek at this level against arguably the best destroyer in the draft (Pluskal) and the most well-rounded midfielder in the draft (Voronin). Football has changed massively from 1913 and particularly since the World Cup was introduced in 1930 to bring proper cross-continental competition and drive up global standards.
As a 10th round pick he seems to have flown under the radar but given the calibre of what he's up against I do think it's a push to suggest he's not a relative weakness at this stage of the competition given the developments that football went through in the mid-late twentieth century.
In terms of the compatibility of the attacks there surely isn't a debate here that we have a far more cohesive set up than you do - it's the most questionable part of your team and from a solely qualitative perspective you possibly do just edge it. But in my opinion that has come at the expense of balance, with the set up far less than the sum of the parts.
You have Puskas (second striker/striker), Asparuhov (striker), Kubala (second striker), Florian Albert (second striker/striker) and even Masopust in midfield whose most wonderful trait as a midfielder were his dribblers through the middle of the park... It's a completely cluttered area of the pitch and I think it will be very difficult for any of those players to operate at their maximum.
Gio and I had similar issues in the in the first round of the 40's draft (before we fixed it by adding Jairzinho) but IMO the problem is actually more significant here with firstly Albert being more of a second striker than the purer #10 we went with, and secondly the runs from Masopust from deep compound the problem by clogging the area further.
I've played with a fair few diamond formations so I'm not saying narrow = bad, but at the same time there needs to be some balance in order to get the most out of your best players. It goes without saying that forwards operate better when they have space, indeed a large part of offensive strategy is about creating space for your goalscorers.. Whereas here that isn't really happening (IMO).
And speaking of best players.. I imagine this may rile a few up but I genuinely think that Blokhin will be a bigger threat in this game than Puskas. Obviously Puskas is the better player, but I don't believe that being the bigger name automatically means that you'll be more effective in the match, regardless of tactics, set-up or teammates.
Blokhin was obviously our first pick in this draft and lest we forget he was a Ballon d'Or winner himself with a legitimate shout at being the best player in the pool for the left-inside left channel (along with Dzajic) - I think Puskas will still be a massive threat, but IMO the set up he has is far from perfect whereas Blokhin is playing in his natural position in a side built on pace and quick transitions.
Agree. On that point I've given you my vote. I think it's a more valid point that while in principle the attack looks more balanced there's a little "something" missing which you have truckloads off.
Do Masopust/Puskas/Albert/Kubala potentially clash centrally? Yes, but they are far too intelligent and -from what I gather observing them- team-oriented to make it an issue.
Looks to me like Asparuhov is better supported than Kocsis and more in his element. Gio's defence has a harder job and I don't see it being distinctly superior (albeit better shielded, which it absolutely needed).
I'm mulling over Vasovic though. That sweeper type job isn't what I expect of him.
Pesek was playing until 1930.. and renowned as best mid of 1920s and also played against likes of Sindelar and won. I don't get this 1913 thing? His career clearly is usually spoken about the 1920s.
Makes no sense if we are going to rate guys like Sindelar and someone like Pesek doesn't get rated. It's not like he is Billy Meredith he dominated the likes of the Austrian Wunderteam and Hungary sides of the late twenties.. and drew huge crowds across the world where he went to play.
In Czechslovakia he isn't seen as inferior to a Pluskal and operas were sang about him which says all you need to know about the esteem in which he was held.
Seems silly to use the old well he played in this era argument, Pesek captained a side which had likes of Antonio Puc. I highly doubt there was a huge physical evolution in the game pre war and post war when Sekularac played. I have no doubt a guy like Kada would handle him, he was fit as a fiddle and the pics do indicate he was lean and fit.. capable of almost winning two gold medals in two different sports in the same Olympic Games.
Invention, incisiveness and creativity are the three words that crop up the most in any description of Sekularac. His partnership feeding the great wing forward Milutinovic is renowned and could easily be replicated here with what he has to pick out. Not only that his Yugoslavia side were famous for their interplay, keeping the ball on the ground despite the horrific pitches, and playing a short possession game while most around were still launching kick-and-run. And he was at the hub of it, performing excellently in four consecutive major tournaments.
Mmmm... ffs, I had finally settled for not giving you the benefit of the doubt after reading @Raees depiction in the op. He is bound to be biased, but it does sound every bit like your typical Yugo/Balkanic hothead.
A shame I'm traveling as I know Diego Lucero wrote about him, but what sticks in my mind is a dribbler profile more than a playmaker.
Surely there's tonnes of footage of the 1962 World Cup? Have you guys plucked some clips off that which I've missed?
On Pesek, it's not to downplay his standing in the former Czechoslovakia or the fact he was a very good pick at round 10 of the draft. It's more about the fact we are now at the business end of a draft where every man on the park not only has that legend status but also has the globally proven credentials to back it up. My concerns with Pesek are two-fold. One that he started his career before many countries were even playing football so it's hard to qualify how good he was given the very raw state of the game at the time. For example, at this point goalkeepers were still allowed to handle the ball anywhere on the park while the offside rule was an entirely different beast. The game was progressing but clearly very embryonic and finding its feet.
The second concern is how he is only proven for Czechoslovakia within Europe at a time when European football clearly played second fiddle to the top South American teams. He could have tested himself against the best at the 1924 Olympics, but he and his Czechoslovakia side were knocked out in the first round. Uruguay cruised to that title and along with Argentina were miles superior to anything Europe could muster in 1928. It's the same story at the first World Cup in 1930 when the best European side Yugoslavia got destroyed 6-1 by Uruguay, while the other European teams France and Belgium floundered badly (with the Belgians well beaten 3-0 by the USA who themselves were hammered 6-1 by Argentina). And then from 1934 on European football starts to catch up as it benefits from proper organised international competition and never again does such a gap between the two continents exist.
It's not just about era as I've rode the likes of Andrade in the past. But it's equally about proving your credentials against the best and that's where IMO Pesek's CV falls short.
The second concern is how he is only proven for Czechoslovakia within Europe at a time when European football clearly played second fiddle to the top South American teams. He could have tested himself against the best at the 1924 Olympics, but he and his Czechoslovakia side were knocked out in the first round. Uruguay cruised to that title and along with Argentina were miles superior to anything Europe could muster in 1928. It's the same story at the first World Cup in 1930 when the best European side Yugoslavia got destroyed 6-1 by Uruguay, while the other European teams France and Belgium floundered badly (with the Belgians well beaten 3-0 by the USA who themselves were hammered 6-1 by Argentina). And then from 1934 on European football starts to catch up as it benefits from proper organised international competition and never again does such a gap between the two continents exist.
It's not just about era as I've rode the likes of Andrade in the past. But it's equally about proving your credentials against the best and that's where IMO Pesek's CV falls short.
Think I need to re-read this match a few times. But the two main questions seem to be:
Can Sekularac provide the type of playmaking to maximize players like Blokhin and Stoichkov?
and Does Raees' many central players hinder the over effectiveness of the team?
It seems like the full backs are really important here for both teams. Lovchev and Bezsonov can provide additional service for Kocsis and also supplement the swapping of flanks. Likewise for Raees, his full backs can provide the width and stretch play to ideally open more space for the central players. Ill probably try to look up the full backs later to get an even better idea.
Can Sekularac provide the type of playmaking to maximize players like Blokhin and Stoichkov?
and Does Raees' many central players hinder the over effectiveness of the team?
It seems like the full backs are really important here for both teams. Lovchev and Bezsonov can provide additional service for Kocsis and also supplement the swapping of flanks. Likewise for Raees, his full backs can provide the width and stretch play to ideally open more space for the central players. Ill probably try to look up the full backs later to get an even better idea.
I was wondering about that jyst now. The Santiago Bernabeu quote makes him sound like the dog's bollocks but it is largely inspired by his own experience playing against him. Bernabeu being a CF, he obviously was left with a lasting impression. But then, he never even played for Spain (which also means he was no Pelé) so you have to wonder what level of centrehalf he is setting that bar against.
BTW, I keep finding references to Sekularac being very much the sort Raees described.
How? His big red arrows are more 'in your face' but the exact direction can be achieved on Sharemytactics. Personally I think in these drafts everyone should be forced to use the exact same website for formations, it's unfair otherwise.
You can only add 2 directions on sharemytactics. Had to show how Masopust in addition to his box to box role can go out to the left and also Kubala will be important in getting back. I think they help build a accurate picture of their roles especially for those who are more unfamiliar with them although does seem scan voters have deserted this match.
It's not that Sekularac wasn't a fantastic and renowned dribbler. It's that he was also an impressive supplier of service to his forwards. I don't think it has to be one or the other and I really struggle to identify many examples of great central dribblers who couldn't also slip a clever ball behind the full-back. The vast majority of central dribbling kings were also exceptional passers (Maradona, Messi, Zidane, Iniesta, Laudrup, Ronaldinho) and even the less heralded and somewhat hipster ones like Valeron or Prosinecki were expert at shimmying around a challenge and then using that space to play in a colleague.
If we're thinking in terms of typologies, it's very difficult to identify any central dribblers in the 10 position who couldn't play a telling pass. There are plenty of examples of passers first and foremost who didn't have the dribbling ingenuity or agility - Fabregas, Sneijder, Scholes, even Xavi when deployed there nationally, Platini to an extent, Hoddle, etc. Crucially, any expert dribbler who couldn't pass - or didn't know when to pass - was shunted to the wing. Sekularac was unequivocally a central player, an inside-forward, who spent his entire career through the middle servicing strikers and wingers. His goal record isn't exceptional for the time, particularly for Yugoslavia where he still got huge plaudits - "wonders of control and construction" (Glanville) - which again strengthens the impression of him as a servicer of others. As an aside, we actually went for Sekularac ahead of Dobrin, because from the footage I watched of Dobrin he was very guilty of over-indulging and dribbling until he got tackled. Great player though, but Sekularac from his performances with Yugoslavia dovetailed better with his colleagues and knew how to adapt his game for the national team's more inter-connected style of play.
Clearly Raees has brought together an exceptional array of talent. But I think ultimately he is guilty of squeezing in too many big names at the expense of some basic tactical truths. Namely that when you have the ball, especially in the possession game Raees is looking to play, you try to make the park as big as possible to stretch the opposition. Whereas here we have a clusterfest through the middle characterised by the following flaws:
- Masopust's slaloming forward runs are limited by the various bodies in front of him
- Even in an inside-left gig, Puskas always had a winger - be it Czibor or Gento - on his outside helping to pull the full-back wide. He was never the sole provider of attacking width and is immense ability is better served in a central role - physically he is ill-suited to stretching the play on the outside.
- Full-backs facing such a penetrating pair of wide attackers, limiting their capacity to venture forward to provide any meaningful width
- Demyanenko has great energy and tenacity, but he too is right-footed which will ultimately see him cut inside to the clustered central area
- Big Asparuhov has no real crossing service.
- Albert, Kubala, Puskas and Masopust are all instinctively wanting to get into the hole and could all conceivably be jostling in that same area of the park.
Watching Masopust v Spain, he is very effective down the wings for a centre-mid.. abit like how you'd imagine a Davids sort of left-wing back style bombing down that wing, weaving in and out of bodies and supplyin effective width. It is one thing saying on paper, a central player can't provide width but the reality of a game is that any given player can provide width if they drift out to the flanks and Masopust is a maestro when he does drift out wide.. he's an effective width provider, hence why many people have used him out left in a 4-4-2 diamond or @Edgar Allan Pillow used a XMAS tree utilising a similar combo of Puskas, Masopust down the left and almost won the draft.. it would be a beautiful combination, both very clever footballers and passing and moving down that side, it would be majestic. Not express pace agreed, nor consistent width.. but enough to cause trouble to any winger/full back pairing, due to their intelligence and class on the ball.
Demyanenko is right footed, but he isn't Breitner or Schnellinger who were effectively playmakers who featured in a wide position. They needed to come in side to be effective as they weren't run down the line type full backs. Maldini, Fachetti, Nilton Santos and Brehme the four greatest left backs ever were all right footed and provided good width and could penetrate down the line and supply consistent width.. so that argument doesn't hold water for me.
Puskas, Kubala and Albert.. all like to drift wide as well as feature centrally, it is a natural feature in their game. None of them just stay centrally and that is absolutely proven in plenty of match footage. If they all stayed centrally, they would be less effective players whether it was under my management or anyone elses. It is their natural tendency to drift wide, and then move inwards when the opportunity presents itself. Kubala also has the discipline and actually some could argue can really do a job as an orthodox wide man as he is brilliant at dribbling down the line with those mazy powerful runs with step overs.
Final point, both Puskas and Kubala are cracking crossers of the ball.. that is undeniable fact. Kocsis has played with both of them and he got on the end of their crosses plenty of times.. so Asparuhov will not be found wanting in that regard. Stankovic is renowned for his crossing ability, and Demyanenko is obviously a strong crosser as well.. so the lack of crosses from my team doesn't make sense when I have superior crossers of the ball in my side compared to yours.
Last edited:
I got hammered 15-6 by @Joga Bonito, that tosserWhat a team that was!
So you did haha.. interesting that both your teams were pretty narrow. Cracking pair of sides.
We actually made an important point in the OP on the relevance of the fullbacks – basically that the threat Stoichkov/Blokhin pose on the flanks significantly limits the effectiveness of Demyanenko/Stankovic bombing forward.
Raees has a very narrow set up and the majority of the natural width needs to come from the fullbacks – now I am not saying they can’t get forward or that its guaranteed to lead to issues, but at the same time they are both facing a Ballon d’Or winner on their flank who were huge counter-attacking threats.
I think you have a situation where Raees’s fullbacks would ideally push forward in order to provide width, but the fact that they are up against two of the most dangerous wide-forwards in the draft means this is something with the potential to cause serious problems.
Also just to muddy the waters further, Raees has made a few comments about defending deep and denying space for Blokhin/Stoichkov to run into which conflicts with other instructions for the fullbacks to push up and provide width – I don’t think you can get the best of both worlds there, not against this caliber of opposition.
It's unfair in theory, but in practice I doubt many voters allow themselves to be won over by fancy graphics.
Plus, you can also argue - with some right - that putting an extra effort into your illustration is something you should get credit for if doing it actually makes it easier for voters to visualize how your team would function.
But, yeah, in the name of absolute fairness there should be a standard format.
Commiserations @Raees - that's a hell of a team you pulled together, probably a winger away from being completely unbeatable.
Going to get stick for not picking Czibor, but I just thought if I got through this one, I could get Stoichkov/blokhin/Dzajic.
Oh well, will learn from this one. Best of luck guys.. skizzo got one helluva side too, and both of you guys have good wings/siimilar midfielders.. so will be an interesting battle.
G/T more clear cut, that's about it. Nothing flawed as such, just less obvious who would operate in precisely what function in what potentially looks like a too congested central area behind the striker.
My reason, anyway. But I nearly didn't vote at all, thinking it was too close to call at first.
My reason, anyway. But I nearly didn't vote at all, thinking it was too close to call at first.
Yeah, it's striking that balance between the long-term plan of the final-ready team and what you need in the interim. I can see why you made that choice and I'd have been tempted to do the same given where you could feasibly end up. Overall though I think the strategy of getting that top banana defence in place early doors worked really well. It basically allowed you free reign to pick what you want from the deep pool of attacking talent, while the rest of us had to fight over defensive scraps in the first reinforcement round.
Wow, the comeback actually happened? Voted for Raees originally but changed to Gio/Theon later, mostly because I have a different view on Puskas and his fit here, but, to be honest, was still expecting the former to win, especially since he was ahead all game.
@Raees mindblowing team. Were you targeting Kocsis as your final reinforcement, if it's not a secret? The Hungarian quartet? Had you as my draft favorite.
edit: I see that you already answered that
Congratulations, @Gio @Theon. Another final for our most decorated drafter.
@Raees mindblowing team. Were you targeting Kocsis as your final reinforcement, if it's not a secret? The Hungarian quartet? Had you as my draft favorite.
edit: I see that you already answered that
Congratulations, @Gio @Theon. Another final for our most decorated drafter.
Kocsis was the original plan, but with everyone banging on about width.. I was tempted to bring a winger in.
I was very close to getting the team I initially envisioned from the outset which is a shame.. Kubala, Kada and Albert.. weren't in my original plan, but it would have been something like 7/11 players.
You did well. I voted and then got stuck dithering on switch or no switch. Was going to switch this morning but it looked like a devastating blow in such a tight game (would have left Raees 3 votes behind instead of one) and had no real conviction either way.
The feck. Raees lost.
There's not a lot of footage of the Magyars to be honest, but from what I've seen I was fairly comfortable of Kocsis being capable of setting up others and banging them in himself. After all Puskas has over 700 career goals and didn't set them all up himself. Anyway a few elements of that side of his game which I feel would come in useful here:
With Puskas out injured in the crunch semi-final against Uruguay, Kocsis took on a more active creative role, dropping deep here to thread in the right-winger, then using his pace to get on the end of what should have been the return.
Great post Gio, cheers. I'd agree that its reasonable to assume he's comfortable and competent in the build up, if not spectacular in that area. Voted for you and Theon largely because your attack seemed like it would function better, and I agreed with your critique of Pesek's credentials too.
Wow. What an epic game!
Maybe the most interesting game of this draft.
Maybe the most interesting game of this draft.
Aye, it was a great game with good discussion.
Well played @Raees - classy as always in the match thread so I wouldn't have begrudged you the win. I think in hindsight had you picked Czibor your team would have been unbeatable.
Czibor would have been great for him. Maybe a more collective player than Dzajic.