Billy No Mates Draft QF: Aldo vs Joga Bonito/Gio

[Joga Bonito]

By the way, I don't get why anyone would think that Joga lacks creativity. It's easy to imagine the Breitner - Stoichkov pair to work like Breitner - Rummenigge did and that's certainly a damn brilliant back-up plan for Maradona. I also think that Tardelli's ability on the ball is a bit underrated.

Aye, I think Breitner was seriously a brilliant passer of the ball and I've always felt that B2Bs midfielders tend to get their creative/technical aspect underrated a wee bit.



Likewise of course, Stoichkov who had a lovely peg and could most certainly deliver a defense splitting ball or curl in a beauty from out wide but is perhaps also a wee bit underrated creatively.

I don't think that's true for Puskas. I'd class him as a well rounded number 9, even at his peak for Hungary. It's difficult to pinpoint who played what role between him, Kocsis and Hidegkuti, because all three were well rounded forward who played as number 10s, number 9s and inside forwards at some point in their career depending on what their team needed. They excelled in all those roles. I get your point though, if you want to argue that he might not get to use his full strength.

He was certainly a clear number 9 for Real though. I don't think he can be classed as anything but that and the player who excelled next to Di Stefano would also excel next to Maradona in my opinion.

If you just wanted a number 9, why pick Puskas? Face value?

Let's put this to bed shall we. Balu was spot on there and I wanted to post these but I didn't want the debate to get muddied up and descend into a discussion about the positions and technicalities of the olden era.

As Balu stated Puskas played as a #9 for Real and even if we take his Mighty Magyars role, one could very well construe it to be a centre-forward role as much as it was a second-striker in fact.

Hidegkuti was almost universally referred to as a withdrawn centre-forward, but the term is misleading, derived largely from his shirt number. He was, in modern terminology, simply an attacking midfielder. ‘I usually took up my position around the middle of the field on [József] Zakariás’ side,’ he explained, ‘while [József] Bozsik on the other flank often moved up as far as the opposition’s penalty area, and scored quite a number of goals, too. In the front line the most frequent goalscorers were Puskás and [Sándor] Kocsis, the two inside-forwards, and they positioned themselves closer to the enemy goal than was usual with … the W-M system… After a brief experience with this new framework Gusztav Sebes decided to ask the two wingers to drop back a little towards midfield, to pick up the passes to be had from Bozsik and myself, and this added the final touch to the tactical development.’

As you can see, he wasn't playing as an inside left behind a battering ram of a centre-forward, playing off him - which was usually the case back then. Kocsis did play slightly further than him, but I'd say Puskas was playing a left centre-forwardesque role and not really as an inside left. That role could very well be interpreted as a centre forward or a second striker imo.

Anyway, he CLEARLY played as a #9 for Real ahead of di Stefano, and dovetailed beautifully with him. Will just post this bit again as you might have missed it earlier on.

How great was Ferenc Puskas? Such things, necessarily, are subjective - and, particularly when you're going on video footage, almost impossible to judge - but for me he stands alongside Johan Cruyff as one of the two greatest European players of all time.

It is not just his technical ability. Other players have had that. It is not even the fact that he had key parts in two of the most celebrated games ever played on British soil - Hungary's 6-3 victory over England at Wembley in 1953 and Real Madrid's 7-3 victory over Eintracht Frankfurt in 1960. It is the fact that that ability was allied to a brain that understood how best to use his ability for the team.

That is why his nickname, the 'Galloping Major', was so appropriate - even if he hardly galloped and, at the time it was bestowed, was only a lieutenant - because he was so good at marshalling his side towards a common goal. "If a good player has the ball, he should have the vision to spot three options," the full-back Jeno Buzanszky said. "Puskas always saw at least five."

Team-mates complained about Puskas's influence over coaches and about his constant hectoring on the pitch, but nobody ever accused him of being selfish. Along with everything else, he was a hugely astute leader. In his first season at Real Madrid, for instance, he and the notoriously difficult Alfredo di Stefano were joint leading scorers going into the final match of the season. Late on, Puskas had a chance to score but opted instead to wait and square it for Di Stefano, recognising the problems it could cause for morale if the Argentinian did not finish as top scorer. He showed similar selflessness after that 1960 European Cup final, handing the match ball to Erwin Stein, who had scored two of Eintracht's three goals. Puskas had scored four.

There are those who carp that Puskas was very left-footed. He was, but it hardly diminished him. "You can only kick with one foot at a time," he once said. "Otherwise you fall on your arse." As an example of how his turned a weakness into a strength, you only have to look at that game against England in 1953.

With Hungary leading 2-1, a cross from the left found him at the back post. He took the ball down and it seemed that he had to hit it with his right foot. Billy Wright, England's captain, went flying in to make a challenge, "rushing," as Geoffrey Green put it in the Times, "like a fire-engine going to the wrong fire". Puskas, slipped the ball back with the sole of his left foot, leaving Wright sprawling and, with barely any backlift, thrashed his finish past Gil Merrick. The Hungarian radio commentator Gyorgy Szepesi remembers walking on to the pitch after the game and examining the spot. "They should have laid down a plaque," he said.

 

[Enigma_87]

He has Ronaldo in close attendance, who plays more as a forward than a winger. Secondly he has Schuster as the more advanced playmaker, and whose natural game always leaves him near the box in attack, and he is a damn good creative playmaker in that area. Thirdly, there's Garrincha, who's not a typical wide player in 4-3-3, and is a proper creative wide man who would constantly providing service to Romario and Ronaldo.

All players while in their natural game are going to complement each other here.

I think an arrow for Schuster for that #10 position will solve that and be very good to depict that role. As it stands with a deeper defensive line and Ronaldo/Romario/Garrincha unlikely to track back Schuster occupying that gap would make things more clear. Otherwise they seem to play in a line occupying left and right inside midfielders.

 

[Moby]

Puskas is not my only credible goalscorer here btw. I've got someone in the team who is Napoli's top scorer of all time - 81 goals in 188 games - in the ridiculously strong Italian Serie A, where he had to come up against the likes of Rijkaard, Scirea, Baresi, Passarella, Matthäus, Bergomi, Brehme, Maldini etc (that's probably 5 of the top 10 defenders of all time there, in addition to arguably the greatest B2B and defensive B2B midfielder of all time ) and even finished as a top scorer once in Serie A. That too in addition to someone who scored 109 goals in 5 years for the 'Dream Team' in his first stint, bagged the European Golden Shoe and a World Cup Golden Shoe. Let's look at the supplementary goalscoring threats my team has - Breitner someone who banged in 66 goals in 146 games (an almost 1 in 2 record) for Bayern as a midfield general and of course Giacinto Facchetti who is a great goalscorer for a FB and I've highlighted his clutch goalscoring exploits in post 17.

Romario, who is up against Krol who is perfectly suited to dealing with him - with his impeccable reading of the game, pace, agility, speed on the turn/over the first few yards. None of the weaknesses that could perhaps be exploited by Romario against a more stopper-ish keeper. There isn't anyone better suited to dealing with Ronaldo than one Lilian Thuram and of course Facchetti against Garrincha. So which one of your attackers is going to have a good game here as Puskas/Maradona or Stoichkov or going to have?

So yeah, I wonder who is going to score for my team . Would be quite the task guessing which one of Puskas, Maradona, Stoichkov, Breitner or heck even Facchetti are going to be on the scoresheet here.

The amount of hyperbole in there.

Indeed, Facchetti is gonna score for you while Romario and Cristiano just keep watching each other while receiving key passes from Garrincha, Xavi and Schuster.

 

[Moby]

I think an arrow for Schuster for that #10 position will solve that and be very good to depict that role. As it stands with a deeper defensive line and Ronaldo/Romario/Garrincha unlikely to track back Schuster occupying that gap would make things more clear. Otherwise they seem to play in a line occupying left and right inside midfielders.

Well, I trust people who know their natural game to guess what roles they will be playing. Can do an arrow of course but it is understood that both of them were very different types of playmakers, and operated in different areas. Schuster would naturally be going forward much more while Xavi controls the game from the middle.

 

[Joga Bonito]

He has Ronaldo in close attendance, who plays more as a forward than a winger.

And how is that going to help Romario? He isn't going to offer much creatively nor is he the selfless type who Romario would prefer playing alongside.

Romario was best served by someone in close proximity who he could feed off. Romario always had a partner in crime during his time at the very top. He forged magical partnerships with: Stoichkov, Bebeto, Edmundo, Ronaldo and in all of them the common denominator was the tight one and two touch play and the fact every single one of them did more work than he did.

I think an arrow for Schuster for that #10 position will solve that and be very good to depict that role. As it stands with a deeper defensive line and Ronaldo/Romario/Garrincha unlikely to track back Schuster occupying that gap would make things more clear. Otherwise they seem to play in a line occupying left and right inside midfielders.

Right now Schuster is playing a midfield role where he would go forward with the ball as opposed to being more of a defined #10. Sure he could do both these roles in balance, helping with the midfield play and being a direct supplier for Romario in fine balance but Romario would much rather have him at a relatively more fixed #10 to dovetail with, instead of as an AM driving forward.

 

[Enigma_87]

Well, I trust people who know their natural game to guess what roles they will be playing. Can do an arrow of course but it is understood that both of them were very different types of playmakers, and operated in different areas. Schuster would naturally be going forward much more while Xavi controls the game from the middle.

yeah I meant informative for those who doesn't as I saw you drew the arrows on the others.

BTW I know you are not playing tiki taka, but seeing your middle trio I think that's probably the best ones to incorporate that style given player styles if they wanted to. (I'm not a big fan of it, prefer more fluid and direct approach but just noticed)

 

[Moby]

This is how it's more likely to be though thought it would be understood.

@Invictus can you please change this in the OP? Thanks.

 

[Invictus]

This is how it's more likely to be though thought it would be understood.

@Invictus can you please change this in the OP? Thanks.

Done.

 

[Moby]

Romario would much rather have him at a relatively more fixed #10 to dovetail with, instead of as an AM driving forward.

Why? He has enough creative presence in Schuster and Garrincha behind him, unless you think Laudrup sat in the hole the whole time? Laudrup played precisely the same role Schuster would here, except Laudrup had a better final ball while Schuster works harder at the back.

 

[Joga Bonito]

The amount of hyperbole in there.

Indeed, Facchetti is gonna score for you while Romario and Cristiano just keep watching each other while receiving key passes from Garrincha, Xavi and Schuster.

No more than 'who the hell is scoring all the goals for Joga'. The basic premise still stands though, both attacks are bloody brilliant and both midfields are evenly matched and maybe yours might have an edge, but one defense is considerably better than the other imo. That could very well explain those 2 vote losses which you seem to be puzzled with

 

[Moby]

As Balu stated Puskas played as a #9 for Real and even if we take his Mighty Magyars role, one could very well construe it to be a centre-forward role as much as it was a second-striker in fact.

You mean when he was 31 years old?

What's more concerning is how is Puskas going to play in a counter attacking setup? Where's the drive, the heart that Maradona and Stoichkov share? Where is the evidence that Puskas was a lone man up front with three defensive minded midfieders in a diamond formation behind him?

For someone who's nitpicking Schuster's attacking contribution, you need to answer a few questions there. You want Romario to play in the exact same setup he did, and I oppose that approach in general, why would I recreate an exact setup when I have the entire history of the sport at my disposal and I know that the skillsets well correspond to the setup that I have created? And here you have Puskas playing as a number 9 in a 4-4-2 diamond, and a winger playing as the second forward. Did Stoichkov play in a diamond up front?

Where are the goals? Where is the evidence of these players playing in the EXACT same setup that you have? Answers on a postcard.

 

[Moby]

one defense is considerably better than the other imo.

One defence doesn't have to deal with Romario in the box, Cristiano probing across the frontline, Garrincha stretch play, taking on defenders and opening up gaps with Schuster joining from midfield and Xavi controlling the tempo. A multifaceted attack, that leaves no bases uncovered and has backups if one of the players are not playing as expected.

Willi Schulz is a World Cup finalist who was chosen as the sweeper ahead of a young Beckenbauer and is generally regarded as one of the best defenders of his generation, a man of steel who guarded his nation at the biggest stage.
Antonio Cabrini won World Cup, European Cup, Serie A all while manning an entire flank. Who's he up against here? Stoichkov?
Javier Zanetti is one of the most complete and consistent fullbacks of all time who performed at multiple positions throughout his career and was world class be it at right back, left back or defensive midfield. Who is he up against? No one?

Context, please. Your defense is better, but you never exposed mine the way you could have while I have taken every measure to ensure that the wrath of ten thousand suns will fall upon that backline in 90 minutes.

 

[Moby]

Anyway, for some reason the team that lacks goal threat (relatively, before someone bangs about Maradona being Napoli's top scorer, well yeah Schuster clocked 18 in an season but you don't see my cock out for that) and is playing an inside forward up front (in an attempt to cover up for that lack of goal threat when they could have just as well picked a proper number 9 who's used to playing in a counter attacking setup or a diamond and would be useful off the ball as much as on it) is going to score loads, when their only creative outlet is manned by Frank Rijkaard. It is a hilarious scenario, both Maradona and Stoichkov would run the length of the pitch to defend and get the ball while there's Ferenc Puskas all the way across the pitch waiting for them?

But yeah, they'll score two more goals than the team who has allowed Garrincha to take on players the whole time. It doesn't even matter who the defender is when talking about Garrincha, he will dribble past his man in a 1v1, simple as that. A drilled cross from Garrincha with a Cristiano tap in is such an obvious way one can see a goal coming from. Both were absolutely deadly on those things, respectively. Thuram is not going to read Cristiano's runs inside the box, as good as he was.

Just looking at the names and not what they are up against, and how they fare up against those qualities is just lazy. This seems over, so good luck @Joga Bonito @Gio .

 

[Moby]

maybe yours might have an edge

Suddenly Schuster (supported by Xavi and Frank Rijkaard) isn't good enough to win you games, eh?

Funny how people change tunes. I wouldn't have bothered talking about any right winger against Facchetti, but I happen to have one who never gave two shits about who he was up against, could be a WC winner or a pub level player, Garrincha does what Garrincha does. Where's your better defense making a difference except on paper at being more popular?
What about Facchetti's attacking game and what was equally responsible in making him great? How much of that will be curbed?

Apparently Facchetti is scoring at one end while stopping Garrincha at the other. Clearly, I can't do much against that.

 

[Enigma_87]

Just looking at the names and not what they are up against, and how they fare up against those qualities is just lazy. This seems over, so good luck @Joga Bonito @Gio .

2 votes difference at the moment or something with 2 hrs to go I'd think it's pretty much in the air at the moment.

 

[Moby]

2 votes difference at the moment or something with 2 hrs to go I'd think it's pretty much in the air at the moment.

Well, there's still the GD. Quite disappointing that after putting this much effort into explaining how the team works all you get is 'you'll conceded two more goals because you have John Charles at CB, not to mention though that the other team is playing without a striker and with all the scoring burden on one inside forward, as if Charles would shit himself at the sight of .... no one! Charles at his peak was faster than Puskas, stronger than Puskas and a better tackler than most of the defenders Puskas scored all those hat tricks against. But yeah, gotta love the hyperboles.

 

[Moby]

@Enigma_87 @Balu @Joga Bonito etc. Look what I found.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2011/nov/17/the-forgotten-story-ferenc-puskas-merseyside

The names of Puskas and Liddell were the only ones to feature in the pre-match adverts, and when the story is retold these days – there was an exhibition about it in Garston five years ago – the Hungarian is the one who dominates. So it has been all but forgotten that one of Britain's finest ever footballers also played that day – Puskas was marked for most of the game by the brilliant Welshman John Charles, who had retired the previous year. "When Puskas walked in they recognised each other immediately and embraced affectionately," Taylor tells me. "It was nice to see these reunions. These were two of the all-time greats."

"but on the field his duel with Charles was a feature until Big John decided to move upfield in order to have his own name on the score sheet.

Still getting battered, is he?

 

[Enigma_87]

Well, there's still the GD. Quite disappointing that after putting this much effort into explaining how the team works all you get is 'you'll conceded two more goals because you have John Charles at CB, not to mention though that the other team is playing without a striker and with all the scoring burden on one inside forward, as if Charles would shit himself at the sight of .... no one! Charles at his peak was faster than Puskas, stronger than Puskas and a better tackler than most of the defenders Puskas scored all those hat tricks against. But yeah, gotta love the hyperboles.

I can see having more creativity in the middle and having a bit more balanced middle of the park and I like the look of the formation now. Little things but has a better outlook so far.

I really like, JB/gio's side and hard to vote against them as I think they really got the right balance and the right players in it.

4-3 or something in this game, I still see Puskas scoring a couple, but probably Garrincha/Romario/Ronaldo can outscore him.

Having that midfield really edged it for me, despite Charles at CB.

 

[Moby]

despite Charles at CB.

See above.

If Puskas acknowledges him to be a great defender, why don't we!

 

[Gio]

You mean when he was 31 years old?

What's more concerning is how is Puskas going to play in a counter attacking setup? Where's the drive, the heart that Maradona and Stoichkov share? Where is the evidence that Puskas was a lone man up front with three defensive minded midfieders in a diamond formation behind him?

For someone who's nitpicking Schuster's attacking contribution, you need to answer a few questions there. You want Romario to play in the exact same setup he did, and I oppose that approach in general, why would I recreate an exact setup when I have the entire history of the sport at my disposal and I know that the skillsets well correspond to the setup that I have created? And here you have Puskas playing as a number 9 in a 4-4-2 diamond, and a winger playing as the second forward. Did Stoichkov play in a diamond up front?

Where are the goals? Where is the evidence of these players playing in the EXACT same setup that you have? Answers on a postcard.

It's not about playing in the exact same set-up. It's about playing in a set-up your players fit. You've got a trio of individuals up top who are all brilliant individually - but are not getting the benefit of what made them tick up top. Ronaldo needs a back-to-goal foil, Garrincha needs a left-sided disciplined foil, Romario needs a selfless partner in crime to do the legwork. The trio has consistently needed those elements in place to shine, but none of them are present here.

The Puskas criticism is a bit odd frankly and Joga has been very clear about his qualities as a centre-forward. 700 goals, 84 in 85 international games, 7 goals in 2 European Cup finals. He's reprising the very same dynamic he had with Di Stefano at Real Madrid. I daresay you'd be making the same complaints had Law been on the park ('but he was so good at dropping deep and playing as a support striker'). Well most of the great strikers - Eusebio, Ronaldo, Puskas, Law, even Pele to some extent - were so talented that they not only played as a 9, they could also do the 10 stuff as well. But in an all-time context, they'd specialise in a single role - just the way Puskas did when he had Di Stefano inside him.

@Enigma_87 @Balu @Joga Bonito etc. Look what I found.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2011/nov/17/the-forgotten-story-ferenc-puskas-merseyside

The names of Puskas and Liddell were the only ones to feature in the pre-match adverts, and when the story is retold these days – there was an exhibition about it in Garston five years ago – the Hungarian is the one who dominates. So it has been all but forgotten that one of Britain's finest ever footballers also played that day – Puskas was marked for most of the game by the brilliant Welshman John Charles, who had retired the previous year. "When Puskas walked in they recognised each other immediately and embraced affectionately," Taylor tells me. "It was nice to see these reunions. These were two of the all-time greats."

"but on the field his duel with Charles was a feature until Big John decided to move upfield in order to have his own name on the score sheet.

Still getting battered, is he?

Nice find. But they were about 40 then.

 

[Balu]

I remember that story, pretty sure I posted it first back in the manager draft .

Still getting battered, is he?

You realise that Puskas was 40 when that happened, had retired a year before and still scored a hattrick in that charity match? I'm not sure why you're so desperate to prove that Puskas is 1. in the wrong position and 2. not capable of scoring a shitload of goals. It's just wrong.

 

[Enigma_87]

See above.

If Puskas acknowledges him to be a great defender, why don't we!

Was it 1967, tho? Puskas should be 40 at that year.

From what I know of Puskas peak was at Honved and the first years at Real(basically when his physical peak was around that time as well). Later on he gained a few pounds, was still prolific striker but not at the same(peak) level.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Nice find. But they were about 40 then.

Hehe, yeah.

Puskas would've been 40 exactly, I think. Charles a few years younger.

Considered as evidence, it has to be classed if not inadmissable, then certainly highly unconvincing.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Indeed, Facchetti is gonna score for you while Romario and Cristiano just keep watching each other while receiving key passes from Garrincha, Xavi and Schuster.

The problem here is that they're both supposed to do the very same thing from different starting points: Being relentless goal machines, in a word. That's your argument, isn't it? The question is to what extent they both can operate as relentless goal machines when neither of them is likely to lift a finger to grease the other goal machine's...machinery.

Sure, ideally you get two relentless goal machines in stead of one - and you become practically invincible. But there's a reason why people bring up the dreaded "balance" word here.

 

[Moby]

onaldo needs a back-to-goal foil, Garrincha needs a left-sided disciplined foil, Romario needs a selfless partner in crime to do the legwork.

And Puskas needs to play in an 5 man attack then? You keep on talking about looking at the skills in evaluating the roles and then go back to the exact setups they played in. Garrincha played with Zagallo, he's playing with Xavi and Schuster here, what's the big deal? Is it about work rate? Balance? Atheleticism? Any shortage of that in my supporting midfield unit? Cabrini is a tireless wide presence on that flank if you really want that.

 

[Moby]

Considered as evidence

I'm not trying to say a repeat will happen, I won't bring up Baresi-Romario for such an evidence. Ask @Balu and how I react when people bring specific games to take an advantage in a match duel. It doesn't happen. I can play Maradona against Gentile and be absolutely sure Maradona will batter him, despite whatever happened in that one game. You need to average out the career in some way.

That incident merely shows the respect the community including Puskas had for Charles and his defensive nous. He'll be fine in this game against a withdrawn attack.

 

[Gio]

And Puskas needs to play in an 5 man attack then? You keep on talking about looking at the skills in evaluating the roles and then go back to the exact setups they played in. Garrincha played Zagallo, he's playing with Xavi and Schuster here, what's the big deal? Is it about work rate? Balance? Atheleticism? Any shortage of that in my supporting midfield unit? Cabrini is a tireless wide presence on that flank if you really want that.

Garrincha's not so much of an issue. But it was compellingly clear from 1958 and 1962 that Zagallo's role as a tucked-in midfielder helped to compensate for the right-winger's anarchic free spirit. That was the only way to balance out the attack and midfield unit.

But it's more of an issue with Romario and Cristiano Ronaldo. As devastating they both are as goalscorers, I can't see either of them supporting the other. Neither have shone without the presence of foils. They'll be less than the sum of their parts. It's similar to why any classic 4-4-2 worth it's salt wouldn't pair two out-and-out goalscorers together. Because as great as it looked on paper, it rarely worked as a partnership. The best example off the top of my head would be Robbie Fowler and Michael Owen, and they had to actually bring in someone like Emile Heskey to do the donkey work and - voila - the no9 reached the top of his game. The quality is much higher obviously but the principles are the same.

 

[Theon]

I think it would be a close game but I've gone for Aldo by one - primarily because of that Xavi / Rijkaard partnership in midfield.

I also do agree with some of his comments on Puskas who IMO isn't ideal in this set up. I don't think its a massive deal, but when we had Puskas with Platini it didn't feel quite right either and I think it's the same here.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

You keep on talking about looking at the skills in evaluating the roles and then go back to the exact setups they played in.

I don't see that as very relevant here. For me, what's potentially flawed with your set-up is not that any of your players are fielded in unfamiliar or experimental roles as such. Ronaldo would appear to be instructed to play as he normally would - in the role he has excelled in for Real over the years. Romario would appear to be instructed to go about his business as he normally would as well - be a constant threat in the box, get on the end of anything anyone happens to serve up.

This is top level stuff - hardly any room for improving a single position in any of these teams. What you lack here, distinctly, is top-level interplay between your two goal machines. That is the problem: Romario won't offer much to Ronaldo - and vice versa. Will they cancel each other out, because none of them are likely to positively support the other (at the level required here, in terms of passing and whatnot)? No, I think that has to be regarded as a worst case scenario, not as a likely one.

But what is implied by this is nevertheless a flaw, as I see it: You'd be better off with a player capable of providing some of the finishing quality (goal threat) but significantly more of the interplay and the support. This wouldn't be a problem of note if you were up against a weaker opponent. But you aren't.

To put it in extreme terms, what you have are three front men who offer the following (at this level, all-time fantasy, etc.):

Goal threat/finishing:

Garrincha: Considerable
Romario: Extreme
Ronaldo: Extreme

Interplay/support/playmaking:

Garrincha: High but unpredictable
Romario: Negligible
Ronaldo: Limited

I realize, of course, that you put your trust in other sources (as well) for the supply and the actual playmaking, so I'm not pretending Schuster and Xavi don't exist. But considered as an attacking trio, your boys are unbalanced in the sense illustrated above. Compare it to known trios and both the individual traits and the overall dynamics of these.

 

[Moby]

That was the only way to balance out the attack and midfield unit.

The only way? With those players and those tactics maybe. They played 4-2-4 I'm not playing that which is why I don't need my attacking player to work hard. Pretty obvious. I have way more defensive ability in front 6 than that team who had a lone Zito holding the midfield. Yet somehow I have less balance.

Clutching at straws and frankly you can take the win here if this is what it has come down to.

 

[Gio]

The only way? With those players and those tactics maybe. They played 4-2-4 I'm not playing that which is why I don't need my attacking player to work hard. Pretty obvious. I have way more defensive ability in front 6 than that team who had a lone Zito holding the midfield. Yet somehow I have less balance.

Clutching at straws and frankly you can take the win here if this is what it has come down to.

It's not a personal criticism, or something invented for the purposes of this game. I just hold a belief that there needs to be a complementarity in any trio. There needs to be balance between individuality/teamwork, provider/finisher, craft/graft. A little anal, but hey-ho.

 

[Moby]

It's not a personal criticism, or something invented for the purposes of this game. I just hold a belief that there needs to be a complementarity in any trio. There needs to be balance between individuality/teamwork, provider/finisher, craft/graft. A little anal, but hey-ho.

That's a pretty rigid point of view, one should evaluate based on that setup not whatever happened in history unless there's contradiction on the skillset or a particular instruction.

What you've done here, it's basically bordering at cliched in these drafts and people resort to it when they've got nothing else. Did you see me banging the drum about where are the outside right and outside left who stretched the play for Puskas to get that room in the middle or anything? At least look at the formation and when it's nothing similar to what Brazil played in 58, how is them having a hard working winger at all relevant? It's such a weak argument compared to playing Puskas in a high intensity counter attacking setup, which literally makes zero sense.

You made a mistake in dropping Law for this game, no question. I didn't have much to say against that at all and would have happily conceded that you'd score with that against my CBs, but you removed any apparent weaknesses that I had in my defense with your starting XI. Anyway still I don't have any issue if you try to bring up valid points, but it was obviously disappointing to see someone who's been in this for such a long time resort to such lazy arguments.

 

[Fergus' son]

This talk of having a 'pure 9' instead of Puskas is bollocks - he's a better goal scorer than most of the very best 9s out there and his time with RM and Di Stefano shows how brilliant he would be.

 

[Moby]

This talk of having a 'pure 9' instead of Puskas is bollocks - he's a better goal scorer than most of the very best 9s out there and his time with RM and Di Stefano shows how brilliant he would be.

Cristiano is a better goal scorer than any number that has played in the last 10 years, should I play him up front then? Remember what happened when Fergie tried?

 

[Fergus' son]

Cristiano is a better goal scorer than any number that has played in the last 10 years, should I play him up front then? Remember what happened when Fergie tried?

Forget Cristiano, how did Puskas get on upfront for RM?

 

[Enigma_87]

For Puskas debate I'm not sure there's any better position to put him rather than that 9'ish role that he's at the moment with Maradona and Stoichkov.

If JB/gio played Law with Puskas(probably at the expense of Stoichkov) that would've made the whole team unbalanced. There will be no support on the right and while Gerets is a world class player on his own, he won't be sufficient on that right wing and will be targeted and clear weakness in that team.

On the other hand put another CF there alongside Puskas and Maradona and you have at least 2 that would get in each others way most of the time(if not a target man but I don't think that will work particularly great either).

Maradona himself at Argentina played at trequarista spot off a forward/striker type with similar qualities to Puskas(Valdano) and Burruchaga a little behind him. So I can see Puskas and Maradona both being in their natural positions here and playing their best game.

With Law or someone else centrally I can see the three of them clutter the area and making it a bit easier for CB/DM to counter them as there will be less space.

I think where Aldo had his advantage was the midfield which is better balanced and more creative and having excellent flanks/wide players. Where he lost the game probably(and most probably the 2 goals difference) is the central defence that will be up against JB/Gio's trio.

 

[Pat_Mustard]

@Enigma_87 @Balu @Joga Bonito etc. Look what I found.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2011/nov/17/the-forgotten-story-ferenc-puskas-merseyside

The names of Puskas and Liddell were the only ones to feature in the pre-match adverts, and when the story is retold these days – there was an exhibition about it in Garston five years ago – the Hungarian is the one who dominates. So it has been all but forgotten that one of Britain's finest ever footballers also played that day – Puskas was marked for most of the game by the brilliant Welshman John Charles, who had retired the previous year. "When Puskas walked in they recognised each other immediately and embraced affectionately," Taylor tells me. "It was nice to see these reunions. These were two of the all-time greats."

"but on the field his duel with Charles was a feature until Big John decided to move upfield in order to have his own name on the score sheet.

Still getting battered, is he?

You left out the part where Puskas scored a hat trick

On 8 May 1967, an otherwise miserable day for Merseyside (Gerry and the Pacemakers split up), the Liddell XI beat the Puskas XI 5-3, the guest of honour scoring all of his side's goals including one, reported the Echo, "from his famous banana shot".

 

[Gio]

Anyway still I don't have any issue if you try to bring up valid points, but it was obviously disappointing to see someone who's been in this for such a long time resort to such lazy arguments.

It's nothing to do with resorting to lazy arguments. I thought the defence and midfield were perfectly designed, but that the attack was too heavily individualistic to fully click. And that view seemed to be shared with a couple of other draft regulars. When Physio tried Zico as a false 9, I was open-minded about it and we both agree it's boring just to assume player X cannot carry out a new role purely because they've never done it. It's all about the why. I was pretty clear that Cristiano and Romario needed foils to shine - because they are such pure and direct goalscorers and have little interest in creating or doing the selfless hard running for others. And together they might not maximise one another's qualities. For example, in Cal's set-up here with Cristiano, Pele and Messi as his front three, you'll see no criticism from me (even though this was a lost cause for Theon and I) because Pele would gel it all together so brilliantly, while Messi is a master of the through ball in behind the right back, furthering Ronaldo's likely success. It's a similar set-up but with Pele's selflessness and link-up play making all the difference.