Biggest All-Time Draft - R1 - Fortitude vs Eden

Who will win this game?


  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .

Šjor Bepo

Wout is love, Wout is life; all hail Wout!
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
16,198
Screenshot-2024-08-14-210612.png


vs

c05QVcvl.jpg



Team Fortitude

It could be seen as pulling the short straw landing a Messi-infused team, but I believe I have constructed one of the best defences in the draft with a level of cohesiveness and intelligence to really make Messi work for every gained yard. There's no way to absolutely shut down some of the players in this draft, but there are plenty of ways to curtail them and really affect the flow of the game, which is what my team's defensive unit is set out to do.

Looking at eden10's attack, Henry is likely to go off to his natural left position with Mane going to the right side - I feel putting Henry as a centre-forward is suboptimal, especially so against Nesta and Moore, so it's hard to envisage a logical line-up that doesn't have Messi going through the middle with the aforementioned flanking. For me, the problem with Messi in the middle is it renders Rivera redundant and a spectator, as Messi will gobble up all of the central area as he roams and does whatever he wants, but again, putting Messi on the right and Henry through the middle makes a sacrificial pawn out of Henry and really funnels the attack through too few players. Messi can do it all on his own, but this calibre of defence, with Mascherano at his terrier-like best and Toninho Cerezo's robustness and tactical acumen, is going to stifle and supress and bearing in mind Messi's stamina levels, particularly up against either Cole or Nesta, you really don't want him running like a battery as he isn't built for it.

I feel eden's side is unbalanced and that he can't get the best out of his all of his attack all at once - Messi through the middle compromises both Mane and Rivera; Henry through the middle compromises Henry, so I believe the bottleneck is more likely than not.

By contrast, my attack is aggressive, balanced and tenacious. All around Greaves is dribbling ability, sharp, sudden movers with tonnes of aggression and ball carrying ability. Every one of them can go it alone or suddenly involve teammates with a quick pass, cross or 1-2. Greaves is intended to use his cunning, movement and ridiculous finishing ability to steal in at any given moment and slot home - I don't believe Hansen has the pace or acceleration to cope with darting players all around him as well as Greaves making optimal runs at any opportunistic angle. Chumpitaz is the guy you want on Greaves, but with Greaves intelligence and both Kubala and Johnstone constantly driving with or without the ball, there's no way to keep eyes on Greaves for a full game, and in split-second moments, Greaves has the beating of both these CB's.

Lahm is an exceptional player, but Jinky Johnstone has the ability to put any full back on the backfoot, or at least fully occupy them for the entire game. I don't believe Suurbier can contain Vinicius for two halves of football. Vinicius gets better and better as the game goes on and he conditions his man. In a battle of attrition I'd put my money on Vinicius every time between the two. Wim wants to bomb forward, not contain a tireless winger all game, but doing so verses Vinicius would be suicidal as it would break the entire shape of a defence that is already slowed on account of Hansen - that backline needs to remain tight and compact at all times vs my attack as their tenacity and pace on the break is already excessive, let alone with open space to run into.

Midfield itself is an interesting battle ground here; Masopust and Tardelli are excellent drivers with the ball. They both have a lot of qualities you want in battling midfielders, but in terms of direct, individual quality, I don't believe they go into a tussle with midfield unit and come out on top. As a pair, they are better at ball carries than my pairing, but in terms of actual ball-winning and using, Toninho's skill factor is huge here and Mascherano is adept at passing to a member of his own team with something perfunctory that keeps the shape of midfield intact at all times - the Mascherano of 2014, who carried Argentina to the World Cup final, is the imperious player on display here.

Jimmy Greaves warrants a paragraph because I'm not sure how highly regarded he is in terms of drafts despite being one of the superstars of the 60's and every bit as good as players like Law, Charles and other greats of the era. The guy was a lethal finisher and mover in and around the final third. Fast, mobile, cunning with deft technique and a stunning array of finishes. Greaves can be the pre-cursor to a Romario in some ways, and is in that ballpark as a finisher too. I fell like he needs praise reserved because he isn't a run of the mill striker and I'm very happy to have him spearheading my team.

I'm not really going to talk about the rest of my attack in great detail in terms of individuals as they are a total unit who will move and attack as one, as well as defend the ball. I don't have the star quality in attack, but I have the better cohesion, aggression, stamina and no bottlenecking or problematic suiting of the unit as their roles are defined and nobody steps on another's toes. That, and a better defensive unit are good bets for me in this game, I feel.
 
@Fortitude I disagree that putting Henry in the center makes him a "sacrificial pawn" and is suboptimal. His best years came from playing from the center with Pires as the left winger. Sure, he loved to roam and interplay and liked the left more than the right but I would absolutely describe peak Henry as a CF who liked to drift left rather than a left forward who liked to drift center. I think he can do that in this formation with Mane on the left, Messi on the right and Rivera as the AMC. I don't think eden could have set up that attack any better.
 
Love seeing Cerezo as b2b. In his first season (1983/84 season) in Roma and under Nils Liedholm it was Di Bartolomei at the base as number 6 while Falcao and Cerezo had a freedom to move around the pitch causing havoc in number 8 position being creative hubs of the team. All 3 of them in their absolute peak as well. It was some of best football produced in Europe that season with Roma going all the way to the European Cup final where they lost against Liverpool on penalties.

Cerezo was playing so high up that at times he was the furthest player forward. Liedholm tactics (becuse of its dynamism/interchanging) was known as spider-web tactic. In that season, playing as a more advancing midfielder he scored 14 goals in all competitions. He gets picked here often, but I still think he is underrated. Refreshing to see him in a more advanced role here because as a midfielder he could do it all. Underrated in defensive sense as well, the man could ran for two players.



giphy.webp


giphy.webp



As for the match, will be difficult to stop that trio (if you include Rivera four of them) upfront even for a defence good as Fortitude. But, if anyone can do it, it would be that defence. The problem for me is further upfront, Greaves is fine as a lone striker imo, but trio Kubala/Jimmy/Vini all love or they loved ball in their feet and to dribble their way into the penalty box.
 
fort defence is spectacular and midfield is fine until you get to the front 4....not the biggest fan of jinky, dont rate kubala at all and greaves isnt a lone striker, if anything he should play where kubala plays.

would have voted eden but then i saw that tardelli is a holding mid :lol:
 
In short, that trio is likely to play in a way that's not suited to b2b version of Cerezo. At least if we are talking about Roma version where team attacking ethos were based on quick passing and constant moving.

would have voted eden but then i saw that tardelli is a holding mid :lol:

Yep, same here. Tardelli as a holding midfielder (although this kind of stuff regularly happens here) is far from perfect to say the least.
 
@Fortitude I disagree that putting Henry in the center makes him a "sacrificial pawn" and is suboptimal. His best years came from playing from the center with Pires as the left winger. Sure, he loved to roam and interplay and liked the left more than the right but I would absolutely describe peak Henry as a CF who liked to drift left rather than a left forward who liked to drift center. I think he can do that in this formation with Mane on the left, Messi on the right and Rivera as the AMC. I don't think eden could have set up that attack any better.
Agree. It's a beautiful attack.
 
@Fortitude I disagree that putting Henry in the center makes him a "sacrificial pawn" and is suboptimal. His best years came from playing from the center with Pires as the left winger. Sure, he loved to roam and interplay and liked the left more than the right but I would absolutely describe peak Henry as a CF who liked to drift left rather than a left forward who liked to drift center. I think he can do that in this formation with Mane on the left, Messi on the right and Rivera as the AMC. I don't think eden could have set up that attack any better.
Can't agree. Henry actually got a lot of criticism as an actual centre forward - all his best work comes in off left even if you were to class it as inside forward.

Pires was a deep sitting LM, not like Mane, which means he was never in Henry's way, plus Pires cut inside as Henry went out. That's not Mane's game.

It's not like for like with Arsenal's attack and triple threat down the left, plus Henry on the inside has to contend with My CB's, which isn't where you want Henry to be. It reduces Henry, not optimises him or his game.

The guy was a marvel at what he did, but that wasn't traditional centre-forward play, nothing like it even, as what Henry did is almost bespoke and unique to him.
 
Can't agree. Henry actually got a lot of criticism as an actual centre forward - all his best work comes in off left even if you were to class it as inside forward.

Pires was a deep sitting LM, not like Mane, which means he was never in Henry's way, plus Pires cut inside as Henry went out. That's not Mane's game.

It's not like for like with Arsenal's attack and triple threat down the left, plus Henry on the inside has to contend with My CB's, which isn't where you want Henry to be. It reduces Henry, not optimises him or his game.

The guy was a marvel at what he did, but that wasn't traditional centre-forward play, nothing like it even, as what Henry did is almost bespoke and unique to him.

He's not a typical traditional striker but I don't see him being asked to play like one here either. He'd definitely excel in this attack not be a sacrificial lamb.

Henry would often take the ball from deep and dribble up the middle to score or assist. He was superb at adjusting his position, roaming based on team movement and weakness in the opponent, and even scored and assisted from inside right even if left was more preferred. Having him depicted as the CF in this formation doesn't mean he's being asked to play like Inzaghi. I see a lot of movement and interplay in @Eden10
attack and he mentions that in his post.

Agree. It's a beautiful attack.

Yes. From what I saw Mane certainly liked cutting in from the outside left and shooting centrally a lot which would fit for Henry playing his peak game here.
 
Can't agree. Henry actually got a lot of criticism as an actual centre forward - all his best work comes in off left even if you were to class it as inside forward.

Pires was a deep sitting LM, not like Mane, which means he was never in Henry's way, plus Pires cut inside as Henry went out. That's not Mane's game.

It's not like for like with Arsenal's attack and triple threat down the left, plus Henry on the inside has to contend with My CB's, which isn't where you want Henry to be. It reduces Henry, not optimises him or his game.

The guy was a marvel at what he did, but that wasn't traditional centre-forward play, nothing like it even, as what Henry did is almost bespoke and unique to him.

I'm with @oneniltothearsenal here in that Henry's peak was at CF. I don't even think it's debatable really, albeit he clearly interpreted the position in a unique way. I think that's to Eden's benefit in that Messi would actually thrive off Henry dragging defenders to the far flank, as well as benefiting from Henry being an assist machine as well as a prolific goalscorer himself.

I do agree that the rest of the attack doesn't seem ideal though. Mane brings a tonne of energy and workrate which is always welcome, but I can't quite envisage how he and Henry work together, and tend to see him wanting to pick up the ball in the same areas as Henry and making similar runs rather than complementing him. Rivera, as brilliant as he was, just seems outright superfluous with Masopust there, so much chance-creation ability in the front three, and Tardelli being such an uneasy fit there as the deepest midfielder. It's crying out for a DM instead of Rivera, with Masopust as LCM and Tardelli as RCM.

Giving it to you on the strength of that great defence.
 
I don't see a major issue with Henry and Messi but do find myself wondering what value Mané and Rivera are adding relative to their strengths. That's two players not used to the best of their abilities in my opinion. The midfielder's strong points further compound the imbalance.

On the other side I would prefer a Di Stefano or Charlton in that #10 role. With Kubala there, it's really a team cut in half and playing an old-fashioned 4-2-4 if we are honest.

Basically, all I see there is a game with Eden throwing the kitchen sink in a rather disjointed way, relying on individual brilliance, while Fortitude has a sound and resilient defensive setup to weather the storm and bank on Toninho occasionally unleashing some electric counters.

Play a defensive pivot instead of Rivera (however much I like him as a player) and I would favour the individual brilliance prevailing, but as it is I reckon Fortitude would score a few.
 
He's not a typical traditional striker but I don't see him being asked to play like one here either. He'd definitely excel in this attack not be a sacrificial lamb.

Henry would often take the ball from deep and dribble up the middle to score or assist. He was superb at adjusting his position, roaming based on team movement and weakness in the opponent, and even scored and assisted from inside right even if left was more preferred. Having him depicted as the CF in this formation doesn't mean he's being asked to play like Inzaghi. I see a lot of movement and interplay in @Eden10
attack and he mentions that in his post.



Yes. From what I saw Mane certainly liked cutting in from the outside left and shooting centrally a lot which would fit for Henry playing his peak game here.
We're never going to agree on Henry straight through the middle. He may have nominally started there for Arsenal, but there he was allowed to roam mightly and at the collective best, had one of the most synergistic entire left flanks in history, the difference told for France where he wasn't allowed to roam and had to play the role more conventionally, which just isn't his forte nor what I'd ever set Henry up to do. He had his moments directly through the middle, but true vintage Henry is in that pocket of space where his signature bended, right foot finish to the far post is a formality.

Bear in mind I am talking about optimisation here - getting the best out of Henry, and there's no way where he is, with who he has flanking the left is not suboptimal; they're going to be in each other's way more often than not because Mane takes up that same space Henry organically wants, where he isn't jousting with CB's all game and has his snap finish available at all times, further emboldening his game and increasing the threat to try and prevent him even shaping up for attempts from there.

@Pat_Mustard makes a good point in terms of sway; if Henry just does what he wants (kinda ruining Mane's purpose), opening up easier running lanes for Messi, but it's still not synergistic because at least one of that forward line is reduced to spectatorship at nearly all times, and that will obviously be Mane, as the lowest on the totem. Problematic at this level against such a staunch defence, who are not sitting around idly observing, with a forceful pair of midfielders who are not just going to twiddle thumbs whilst Henry jostles for position - it's two bottlenecks that take away from the attack and midfield. Henry should have been set up to be used optimally, as too Messi, even dumping Mane in the middle, out of the way if needs be, in my opinion.

Henry is a very specialised player, and for me, if you pick him, it has to be catered for. Even if nominally written to start in the middle, I think anyone interpreting the play is looking at what's to his left all the way into midfield to see iff he's impeded in any way, and in that line up, he clearly is, and that immediately curtails aspects of Henry's game that makes him so special in the first place.

I'm supposed to be getting ready to go to the airport... I'm getting scolded for playing on my phone... :lol:
 
I'm with @oneniltothearsenal here in that Henry's peak was at CF. I don't even think it's debatable really, albeit he clearly interpreted the position in a unique way. I think that's to Eden's benefit in that Messi would actually thrive off Henry dragging defenders to the far flank, as well as benefiting from Henry being an assist machine as well as a prolific goalscorer himself.

I do agree that the rest of the attack doesn't seem ideal though. Mane brings a tonne of energy and workrate which is always welcome, but I can't quite envisage how he and Henry work together, and tend to see him wanting to pick up the ball in the same areas as Henry and making similar runs rather than complementing him. Rivera, as brilliant as he was, just seems outright superfluous with Masopust there, so much chance-creation ability in the front three, and Tardelli being such an uneasy fit there as the deepest midfielder. It's crying out for a DM instead of Rivera, with Masopust as LCM and Tardelli as RCM.

Giving it to you on the strength of that great defence.
I take the point you made on board, but another caveat to having Messi is wherever he is or goes, everyone and everything has to cater to his game and defer to his decisions, and by proxy, if Messi is going on a signature dart from right diagonally towards centre, and even potentially left, you need the centre-forward to have a superfluous instinct to go right (or otherwise cunningly exploit the distraction) and that guy is never Henry.

Henry is never willingly going to make runs or darts to the right side of the pitch. His heat map would be lobsided because his preferred wheelhouse is you know where.

For me, Henry through the middle in a team with Messi creates a bundle of problems and detracts from the names that precede them.

The guy has to be vacant of the areas Messi is in or drives toward, and that so happens to be what Henry is bad at through the middle-middle (pseudo or nominal position on paper notwithstanding).
 
We're never going to agree on Henry straight through the middle. He may have nominally started there for Arsenal, but there he was allowed to roam mightly and at the collective best, had one of the most synergistic entire left flanks in history, the difference told for France where he wasn't allowed to roam and had to play the role more conventionally, which just isn't his forte nor what I'd ever set Henry up to do. He had his moments directly through the middle, but true vintage Henry is in that pocket of space where his signature bended, right foot finish to the far post is a formality.

Bear in mind I am talking about optimisation here - getting the best out of Henry, and there's no way where he is, with who he has flanking the left is not suboptimal; they're going to be in each other's way more often than not because Mane takes up that same space Henry organically wants, where he isn't jousting with CB's all game and has his snap finish available at all times, further emboldening his game and increasing the threat to try and prevent him even shaping up for attempts from there.

@Pat_Mustard makes a good point in terms of sway; if Henry just does what he wants (kinda ruining Mane's purpose), opening up easier running lanes for Messi, but it's still not synergistic because at least one of that forward line is reduced to spectatorship at nearly all times, and that will obviously be Mane, as the lowest on the totem. Problematic at this level against such a staunch defence, who are not sitting around idly observing, with a forceful pair of midfielders who are not just going to twiddle thumbs whilst Henry jostles for position - it's two bottlenecks that take away from the attack and midfield. Henry should have been set up to be used optimally, as too Messi, even dumping Mane in the middle, out of the way if needs be, in my opinion.

Henry is a very specialised player, and for me, if you pick him, it has to be catered for. Even if nominally written to start in the middle, I think anyone interpreting the play is looking at what's to his left all the way into midfield to see iff he's impeded in any way, and in that line up, he clearly is, and that immediately curtails aspects of Henry's game that makes him so special in the first place.

I'm supposed to be getting ready to go to the airport... I'm getting scolded for playing on my phone... :lol:

Henry at his best is in the middle drifting left when it worked in the moment not starting at the left. Its why Wenger played him the way he did and it's where Henry is at his best. I watched Henry's entire development live and that was obvious. No Arsenal fan ever said in that era that Henry's "natural" position was on the left. He was a CF that liked drifting left but also liked picking up deep amd running through the middle, inside right as well when it worked. As you seem to acknowledge he roamed but he was never better starting on the left flank over center.

If you have a problem with Mane that's an issue you have with Mane not where Henry is starting. Feels odd for you to focus so much energy on this weird point when Edens midfield poses an actual tactic issue with Tardelli as holding.
 
I don't see a major issue with Henry and Messi but do find myself wondering what value Mané and Rivera are adding relative to their strengths. That's two players not used to the best of their abilities in my opinion. The midfielder's strong points further compound the imbalance.

On the other side I would prefer a Di Stefano or Charlton in that #10 role. With Kubala there, it's really a team cut in half and playing an old-fashioned 4-2-4 if we are honest.

Basically, all I see there is a game with Eden throwing the kitchen sink in a rather disjointed way, relying on individual brilliance, while Fortitude has a sound and resilient defensive setup to weather the storm and bank on Toninho occasionally unleashing some electric counters.

Play a defensive pivot instead of Rivera (however much I like him as a player) and I would favour the individual brilliance prevailing, but as it is I reckon Fortitude would score a few.
Idea with Kubala is a driving force straight at the heart of the team that forces Tardelli and Masopust to track and run rather than focus on offensive motions, especially ball carriage; I'd rather they are forced to pass than run as that has the greater margin for error.
 
Henry at his best is in the middle drifting left when it worked in the moment not starting at the left. Its why Wenger played him the way he did and it's where Henry is at his best. I watched Henry's entire development live and that was obvious. No Arsenal fan ever said in that era that Henry's "natural" position was on the left. He was a CF that liked drifting left but also liked picking up deep amd running through the middle, inside right as well when it worked. As you seem to acknowledge he roamed but he was never better starting on the left flank over center.

If you have a problem with Mane that's an issue you have with Mane not where Henry is starting. Feels odd for you to focus so much energy on this weird point when Edens midfield poses an actual tactic issue with Tardelli as holding.
It is all the same thing - he goes left. Doesn't matter how it's dressed up or down, if you think I'm doing him a disservice, which I'm not.

I don't feel this has anywhere to go as we're miles apart in assessment and you seem to think it a slight for him to have a specialist slant/niche. Suffice it to say I'd never start Henry in the middle, except for it being nominally written as such - he's going to be on the left side of the inside and outside channel regardless, or thoroughly underutilised.
 
Henry isnt a lone striker, if anything at Arsenal he was almost a second striker alongside another second striker in Bergkamp so yeah fort is right, this is far from ideal but also it can work as Mane would make shitloads of runs and there will be time and place for Henry to drift out left but yeah, its not ideal.
 
In my mind the only way this works remotely well is Mané is the CF interchanging with the other two. Can peel wide right or left or attack the box centrally subject to the other two. Henry isn't a "left winger" there but the forward he works with alternating in the left, inside left and central channels (likewise with Messi out right). I'm not sure I rate Mané's football brain highly enough to make that interaction click, he has got the attributes for it though.

There's no getting away from the midfield looking completely imbalanced.