Billy No Mates Draft: R1 - Enigma_87/MJJ vs Gio

[Gio]

Tactical flaws that will undermine the Enigma/MJJ gameplan:

• Effenberg and Gerson as a central midfield partnership. I get the Brazil 1970 comparison. But the crucial difference there was that Brazil dominated the ball because of their superior technical quality all over the park. You can get away with a lighter midfield when you have 60-70% of the ball. When it's 50/50 or 40/60 as it will be here, you've got a big problem.
• Big Head Oscar Ruggeri excels in the air. He'd be in his element up against Vieri or Shearer. But against Zico? It's hard to envisage a player he'd less want to come up against. Zico drops in the hole - does Big Head follow him out of his comfort zone? Or does he hold firm on the back line and hope Zico doesn't bend one in, slip one through for Greaves or just dribble around him?
• Henry shines when he gets to peel, unobstructed, to the left flank. But Giggs is hitting the very same space. Sure they're both great players and can both do other things at times, but it certainly isn't optimal. I struggle to think of a single left-footed left-winger Henry has played well with.

 

[Gio]

I don't see Greaves passing through our defence I just don't. Baresi shut Romario/Bebeto for 120 mins and at his peak he's the best defender about.

It's not really about Greaves. If he gets a chance he'll almost certainly put it away. It's more about what carnage Zico can cause, particularly with Iniesta's support, to pull Baresi out to cover for someone else's mistake and create some space.

I love Baresi to bits so I won't criticise. But on that 1994 final performance Romario did miss an absolute sitter at the back post, just to put some balance into your description. Anyway, shutting out their opposing men in major international finals is what the likes of Baresi and Andrade do.

 

[Enigma_87]

Tactical flaws that will undermine the Enigma/MJJ gameplan:

• Effenberg and Gerson as a central midfield partnership. I get the Brazil 1970 comparison. But the crucial difference there was that Brazil dominated the ball because of their superior technical quality all over the park. You can get away with a lighter midfield when you have 60-70% of the ball. When it's 50/50 or 40/60 as it will be here, you've got a big problem.

Wow. Baresi, Henry, Cruyff, Figo, Amoros, Giggs are not like that? Show me a superior technical player on the pitch rather than Cruyff? Is Henry not a better technically than Greaves? Baresi? He's like a defender playmaker who also happened to have goal in him. Giggs is not one of the best in terms of pace and dribble?

• Big Head Oscar Ruggeri excels in the air. He'd be in his element up against Vieri or Shearer. But against Zico? It's hard to envisage a player he'd less want to come up against. Zico drops in the hole - does Big Head follow him out of his comfort zone? Or does he hold firm on the back line and hope Zico doesn't bend one in, slip one through for Greaves or just dribble around him?

way to undermine a WC winner and finalist and one of the best south american defenders. So due to excelling in the air he can't be good on the ground?

• Henry shines when he gets to peel, unobstructed, to the left flank. But Giggs is hitting the very same space. Sure they're both great players and can both do other things at times, but it certainly isn't optimal. I struggle to think of a single left-footed left-winger Henry has played well with.

Henry is dead center in that formation. He can drift out of position to free space, but doesn't mean that Giggs can't cut in.

I'm really surprised Giggs is considered as touchline hugger on United forum. He can't attack the space? Are you serious with that?

Look at the Dutch and Ajax formations where Cruyff was the main man and compare the personal with Giggs/Figo/Henry and you'll see the similarities.

 

[Enigma_87]

Now let's have my issues with the opposition:

• Andrade at RB or right wing back as most sources including Gio's claim at his peak he played inside role. He's also not man marking Giggs in this formation at least those are not his instructions.
• Souness alone watching for Cruyff - he'll annihilate him.
• Facchetti on his own against Amoros/Figo.
• Nesta/Chumpitaz pace against Henry
• Tom Finney's role. What is he supposed to do? He's not allowed to cross the ball and cutting in is that really his game?
• Iniesta in defensive formation - he's expected to track back like his Barcelona/Spain days which I don't see how it will happen.
• Souness/Bozsik being too similar in qualities and game.
• Who is the second man who will cover for Cruyff when(not if) he beats Souness? Bozsik who is not fast and known for lack of pace? Iniesta who is not a defensive minded midfielder? Or we'll have Henry/Cruyff 2 on 2 against Gio's CB's?

I can see the two midfield share the possession and cancel each other out. If Iniesta is with the ball Amoros/Figo can tuck in and also watch for Facchetti (there's no advantage there). Zico won't contribute defensively that's not his game. Finney is free role and not reknown for his defensive shift. I can see in the course of the game our side having more numbers where the ball is.

When they are off the ball I don't like Iniesta as defensive left winger of sorts and Finney as well won't contribute. Then we have two brilliant passers in the middle to find either a winger with a chance for one on one or Cruyff to dribble past Souness.

 

[Gio]

Why would Finney not be allowed to cross the ball? He can service Greaves any way he pleases. He is a "surging, swerving" dribbler who can provide or finish off either foot.

Is Iniesta going to lose all his stamina and pressing ability because we're not playing in red and blue? That is nonsense.

Who is going to stop Zico if and when he skins Ruggeri?

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Souness alone watching for Cruyff - he'll annihilate him.

Tbh, this is your most strong point, yet it's getting lost in all the clutter.

I think you should leave Andrade alone. Most who read will have made an opinion by now. I made the same mistake in a previous draft.

 

[Enigma_87]

Why would Finney not be allowed to cross the ball? He can service Greaves any way he pleases. He is a "surging, swerving" dribbler who can provide or finish off either foot.

Is Iniesta going to lose all his stamina and pressing ability because we're not playing in red and blue? That is nonsense.

Who is going to stop Zico if and when he skins Ruggeri?

I thought you would not cross the ball as you stated couple of pages back

As for Iniesta, I don't say that he can't play outside Barca/Spain setup, just I don't see him playing the same role

Baresi is our last line and should cover for whoever breaks through, however Effenberg will also cover for Zico.

Tbh, this is your most strong point, yet it's getting lost in all the clutter.

I think you should leave Andrade alone. Most who read will have made an opinion by now. I made the same mistake in a previous draft.

yeah I think I've made my point. I was a bit agitated because just being a great player doesn't mean that he should be playing everywhere and basically being the same class.

I agree with your Cruyff point. Gio will need at least 2 players to handle Cruyff and that advantage in midfield is gone.

From two evenly matched sides the top players should be able to put a MoTM performance and the best players on the pitch are Baresi and Cruyff.

 

[mazhar13]

Agree on all your accounts. I also have issue with Souness handling Cruyff on his own. Cruyff was always followed by at least 2 opposing players, if you are leaving him one to one usually it's him who will beat his marker create advantage and at full speed with face towards the goal he can finish on his own like he has done most of the time.

This is the big one for you. However, I still struggle to see how your team can take control of the match in the midfield. It's 4 vs. 3, Effenberg isn't positionally astute and disciplined enough, and Figo will remain pegged back for much of the match.

I think our midfield is fine in the sense that we have players like Effenberg and Gerson who are positionaly excellent. Bozsik/Souness is not the most mobile midfield either I think they will cancel each other out. I'm not buying the pressing Iniesta would do or tracking back in this set up as well.

How will they cancel each other out if Effenberg will keep an eye on Zico? You can't afford to let Bozsik have space, you just can't. Then, if Effenberg goes after Bozsik, Zico will have more space. How will Gerson deal with Zico when there's Iniesta around? How will the defence react to all of this?

Also, I don't really consider Effenberg to be positionally excellent. He was more effective as an aggressive ball-winner who would hassle ball-holders and win the ball. Plus, his driving runs forward and passes were what made him who he was along with his energy and bite. His positional game is only as good as Vieira's at best.

Figo doesn't have to play as a wing back, he can however cover if we're off the ball, Figo's stamina is well known and when he's up for it he can put a shift in.

I don't see Greaves passing through our defence I just don't. Baresi shut Romario/Bebeto for 120 mins and at his peak he's the best defender about. And as Gio said he won't cross the ball so that makes Finney role a bit of a question mark.

Baresi did also struggle against Napoli in that famous 1988 match when he was at his peak, and that was against Careca (not discrediting him, but he's no Romario), whose movement along with Maradona's was causing him some trouble. Here, he's facing Zico and Greaves. How can Baresi be able to sweep up effectively when the midfield won't effectively shield the defence?

Honestly, the winner of this match is the team that gets control of the midfield first. Enigma/MJJ has the Cruyff factor along with Effenberg's driving runs forward. Gio has a 4 midfielders vs. 3 of other team, especially since Enigma/MJJ's midfield is more attack-oriented than Gio's. If you have the ball, I can see Iniesta pressing Gerson, though I don't think he'd do a good-enough job of closing him down. Effenberg can be a great outlet for Gerson and Cruyff as well, but Bozsik is very good at positioning himself off the ball, so he won't make it as easy for Effenberg to be an outlet though that doesn't mean that he completely nullifies him. Defensively, Andrade will have a tough time against Giggs, particularly his dribbling, and Henry-Giggs can be a great partnership that can break down Gio's right side, adding onto the Cruyff factor. Also, as Enigma's pointed out all the time, I don't see how Facchetti can deal with Amoros and Figo by himself.

However, Enigma/MJJ's strengths only apply if they can get control of the midfield, and I don't think Cruyff-Effenberg-Gerson is good enough to control the midfield given that they aren't defensively strong enough.

 

[MJJ]

@mazhar13 if it's 4 vs 3 in midfield then it's also 2 vs 1 outwide which means our team will always have an out ball.

Figo will make loads of runs from deep as facchetti won't come up to cover him to the half way line I imagine. That will ensure we retain possession and build attacks.

Furthermore let's analyze the midfield more closesly. You have souness trying to mark Cruyff, something that is not his natural game. I can see Cruyff easily getting the better off him and souness won't be able to contribute a lot in midfield outside of that.

So it's iniesta zico and boszik vs gerson and effenberg. Given zico's work rate I don't think my side is losing possession very quickly or letting gio's side to dominate possession. Not to mention you need atleast 2 players to stop Cruyff which isn't the car here, he gets past souness and who stops him ?

Amoros can also tuck in as he has no lefy winger to deal with at times and ensure we have a numerical advantagr in defense.

Amoros picks up greaves, baresi zico, Camacho Finney and ruggerti, effenberg are still free to help out. ( showing what happens when gio sides tries to attack)

And who is going to stop gerson from taking his time and picking out passes to henry,figo and giggs?

 

[mazhar13]

if it's 4 vs 3 in midfield then it's also 2 vs 1 outwide which means our team will always have an out ball.

Figo will make loads of runs from deep as facchetti won't come up to cover him to the half way line I imagine. That will ensure we retain possession and build attacks.

In order to get the ball to the wide players, you need to somehow control the match. If your team has no control over the match, how can the wide players get on the ball to do the damage?

Furthermore let's analyze the midfield more closesly. You have souness trying to mark Cruyff, something that is not his natural game. I can see Cruyff easily getting the better off him and souness won't be able to contribute a lot in midfield outside of that.

So it's iniesta zico and boszik vs gerson and effenberg. Given zico's work rate I don't think my side is losing possession very quickly or letting gio's side to dominate possession. Not to mention you need atleast 2 players to stop Cruyff which isn't the car here, he gets past souness and who stops him ?

Zico and Iniesta won't do much of the defensive work, and if your team can get the ball, then I don't think it'll be easy for Gio's team to get the ball back, but if Gio's team has the ball, then there's no way your team will get control of the match. Bozsik being left free is suicidal for your team. Give him freedom, and he'll cause lots of problems for you. Try to close him down with one player, and there'll be space for other dangerous players to get on the ball.

Amoros can also tuck in as he has no lefy winger to deal with at times and ensure we have a numerical advantagr in defense.

Amoros picks up greaves, baresi zico, Camacho Finney and ruggerti, effenberg are still free to help out. ( showing what happens when gio sides tries to attack)

So you're playing Amoros as more of a central defender-ish player? That doesn't suit him at all, particularly if Iniesta drifts out to the left channel to combine with Facchetti.

 

[MJJ]

In order to get the ball to the wide players, you need to somehow control the match. If your team has no control over the match, how can the wide players get on the ball to do the damage?

Not really, baresi passes the ball to amoros(free as no right winger) he can run up with it, which will either draw iniesta out of the mid or leave a 2 vs 1 situation with figo. If iniesta goes to cover amoros, then you have gerson-effenberg and cruyff against bozsik and souness. Souness will be staying deep to mark cruyff(provided he hasnt roamed from position) and its only boszik vs gerson and effenberg.

How can you say we wont have enough possession of the ball to make it work?

Another scenario, the ball is in midfield with either gerson or effenberg. They see bozsik and iniesta closing(again souness is sitting in front of the defense), one of them passes the ball outwide where figo is standing free along the halfway line. His lopsided formation is cleverly designed to give the illusion that he will be in control but his players cant be in two places at once.

Zico and Iniesta won't do much of the defensive work, and if your team can get the ball, then I don't think it'll be easy for Gio's team to get the ball back, but if Gio's team has the ball, then there's no way your team will get control of the match. Bozsik being left free is suicidal for your team. Give him freedom, and he'll cause lots of problems for you. Try to close him down with one player, and there'll be space for other dangerous players to get on the ball.

If we are agreed on this, then how are you expecting bozsik to win every single ball back by himself? Souness is sitting, zico wont help out in defense at all, iniesta will be less of a help defensively then gerson. Its only bozsik really who is tasked to win the ball back from gerson/effenberg.

And boszik wont have the space or time as cruyff will be patrolling that area defensively. And that gio's formation is so narrow works to our advantage as effenberg can close him too.

So you're playing Amoros as more of a central defender-ish player? That doesn't suit him at all, particularly if Iniesta drifts out to the left channel to combine with Facchetti.

Nope, am playing him as a offensive fullback. Am sayign that when gio's side is attacking, he will naturally drift in to help as he has no winger to mark.

 

[mazhar13]

My point here is that both of you don't really have that strong of a midfield. However, on the ball, Gio's midfield is more capable of keeping control of the midfield than yours is. Both Bozsik and Souness are capable of dictating the game from the midfield, and both can't really be closed down at the same time whilst preventing Zico and Iniesta from having an influence as well. Otherwise, there's no other way for Gio to really get at you.

In every other area, your team beats his. Your wingers will cause his defence lots of problems. An out-ball from the back by Baresi/Gerson will be tough for them to defend against. However, Bozsik and Souness will mean that Gio's team will have more of the ball, making Zico and Iniesta more influential.

So far, though, I can see that this isn't really a win for either team. I'm slightly leaning towards Enigma/MJJ now, but I'll wait for Gio's counter-responses to his team's weaknesses.

 

[MJJ]

My point here is that both of you don't really have that strong of a midfield. However, on the ball, Gio's midfield is more capable of keeping control of the midfield than yours is. Both Bozsik and Souness are capable of dictating the game from the midfield, and both can't really be closed down at the same time whilst preventing Zico and Iniesta from having an influence as well. Otherwise, there's no other way for Gio to really get at you.

In every other area, your team beats his. Your wingers will cause his defence lots of problems. An out-ball from the back by Baresi/Gerson will be tough for them to defend against. However, Bozsik and Souness will mean that Gio's team will have more of the ball, making Zico and Iniesta more influential.

So far, though, I can see that this isn't really a win for either team. I'm slightly leaning towards Enigma/MJJ now, but I'll wait for Gio's counter-responses to his team's weaknesses.

I agree with your first comment that on ball he is more capable of keeping control only because he has overloaded the midfield with four players. If he just wants to retain possession without scoring then yes he would fair better.

But the problem is that you can't overload one area without weakening other, his attack has only greaves,Finney (if zico is part of midfield ) or greaves,zico and Finney against baresi,amoros,camacho,ruggari(and effenberg depending on zico and boszik position).

So while a night have less possession we will be able to hurt him more due to having a variety of attacking options and no signficant weakness in one area of the pitch.

Counter attacks are going to be very effective as well, giggs,cruyff (figo) and Henry speed and dribbling and figo(Cruyff) gerson supplying the passes.

 

[Gio]

Fundamental issues undermining team enigma / mjj:

1. Conflicting match strategies. Enigma expects the team to control possession. Mjj wants a counter attacking set up. The result? Total confusion. No clarity over whether to sit in or hold or take the game to the opposition.
2. Unbalanced central midfield with both Gerson and Effenberg performing unfamiliar roles. Both players have always needed the support of a dedicated DM. Even in the gung-ho set-up of 1970 Gerson had the converted centre half Clodoaldo to be the natural anchor. And that only just worked because Brazil had 60% of the ball every game. Effenberg has always played with a more defensive minded midfielder to allow him play his more natural pressing and attacking game. Together they are a bad fit and it's compounded by the superior quality of the opposing midfield.
3. Zico against Ruggeri - a bad match-up both positionally and in terms of contrasting qualities.
4. Henry ploughing a central furrow up front - a job he's not hugely suited for. His influence has always been diluted when there has been a left-footed left-winger occupying his space. He has therefore been asked to play a more centrally constrained role that plays into the hands of Nesta and Chumpitaz. He's not Romario or Ronaldo and he is less suited to making that work.
5. Amoros tucking in to pick up Greaves. Again hard to imagine a poorer fit to pick up a player who has scored over 400 goals. Amoros shone as the attacking wing back in France's 4-2-2-2 in the 1980s and in the 3-5-2 of the early 1990s. He is no Bergomi or Burgnich and using him in such a manner is lunacy.

What we have is a series of bad fits and poor tactical choices that are fundamentally undermined by a conflicting and incoherent strategy.

 

[mazhar13]

Henry ploughing a central furrow up front - a job he's not hugely suited for. His influence has always been diluted when there has been a left-footed left-winger occupying his space. He has therefore been asked to play a more centrally constrained role that plays into the hands of Nesta and Chumpitaz. He's not Romario or Ronaldo and he is less suited to making that work.

Not true at all regarding Giggs. Giggs never really even stayed on the left wing whenever he played there, even when Ruud van Nistelrooy was around demanding supply from all areas. He always drifted infield and rotated positions with the left-sided striker/second striker whether that was Cantona, Hughes, McClair, Cole, Sheringham, or Rooney. Henry will still be fine with Giggs on the left as Giggs was comfortable drifting infield if the striker moved out wide. Besides, Henry as a striker had more vertical movement than horizontal anyways, preferring to drop deeper to get on the ball and then run at the defence with his speed and dribbling.

 

[Gio]

Not true at all regarding Giggs. Giggs never really even stayed on the left wing whenever he played there, even when Ruud van Nistelrooy was around demanding supply from all areas. He always drifted infield and rotated positions with the left-sided striker/second striker whether that was Cantona, Hughes, McClair, Cole, Sheringham, or Rooney. Henry will still be fine with Giggs on the left as Giggs was comfortable drifting infield if the striker moved out wide. Besides, Henry as a striker had more vertical movement than horizontal anyways, preferring to drop deeper to get on the ball and then run at the defence with his speed and dribbling.

Henry and the right-footed inside-left Pires played Le Sex. His performances were always diluted when with Malouda for instance for France. Not limiting Giggs to 'just a winger', but none of those strikers ever peeled to the left flank with the same frequency of Henry and none were as reliant on that move to play their best.

 

[mazhar13]

Henry and the right-footed inside-left Pires played Le Sex. His performances were always diluted when with Malouda for instance for France. Not limiting Giggs to 'just a winger', but none of those strikers ever peeled to the left flank with the same frequency of Henry and none were as reliant on that move to play their best.

Yes, he won't do it as frequently as he did with Pires, but that doesn't stop him from being effective. He was still dangerous for Monaco as a striker, and even at Arsenal, he demonstrated more vertical movement than horizontal. He dropped deep as often as he drifted out wide, linking up/rotating with Bergkamp and Vieira whilst creating spaces for Pires/Ljungberg to run into. Plus, he preferred to drop deeper to pick up the ball and run at players with his speed and agility. Having Giggs on the left won't hinder his game significantly because of that. He still has Effenberg to be his "Vieira" and Cruyff to be his "Bergkamp" albeit much, much better.

 

[crappycraperson]

Not convinced that Engima/MJJ has the right kind of set up for Cryuff to shine here. I can see him and Henry working very well together, don't think Giggs fits in there. Better off with front 3 of Henry-Cryuff-Figo with another midfielder added in place of Giggs. But still I like their set up better than Gio's. He seems to be playing a magic square masquerading as a diamond. Fachetti would well up for the battle on the right against Figo +Amoros but that does ensure that Gio's attacking outleft from the left will be minimal. Most important I can see Baresi doing a job on Greaves ala Romario in 94 final, Zico should have some joy but the more pressing issue if Gio's right defensive flank which tilts the game in Engima's favor for me.

 

[Enigma_87]

Henry and the right-footed inside-left Pires played Le Sex. His performances were always diluted when with Malouda for instance for France. Not limiting Giggs to 'just a winger', but none of those strikers ever peeled to the left flank with the same frequency of Henry and none were as reliant on that move to play their best.

Love it how you are trying to underrate Giggs. Young Giggs was nothing like you are trying to describe him, he was cutting in dribbling past opponents for fun. He is no different to Piet Keiser but an upgrade on him.

I don't get the comparison of Giggs to Malouda either.

Conflicting match strategies. Enigma expects the team to control possession. Mjj wants a counter attacking set up. The result? Total confusion. No clarity over whether to sit in or hold or take the game to the opposition.

also this is simply not true ^^ where did I say that? I said that I expect a pretty even midfield battle given the players we have in the center and their roles.

Unbalanced central midfield with both Gerson and Effenberg performing unfamiliar roles. Both players have always needed the support of a dedicated DM. Even in the gung-ho set-up of 1970 Gerson had the converted centre half Clodoaldo to be the natural anchor. And that only just worked because Brazil had 60% of the ball every game. Effenberg has always played with a more defensive minded midfielder to allow him play his more natural pressing and attacking game. Together they are a bad fit and it's compounded by the superior quality of the opposing midfield.

that's also bollocks. Effenberg and Gerson performed similar roles in their career to they are asked here. They are not like Souness who is supposed to act like an anchor and at the same time mark Cruyff in his zone.

Zico against Ruggeri - a bad match-up both positionally and in terms of contrasting qualities.

You are massively underrating Ruggeri here and trying to make him out to be some kind of a bum. Also why do we forget about Effenberg in the middle, he'll also offer protection when up against Zico?

Henry ploughing a central furrow up front - a job he's not hugely suited for. His influence has always been diluted when there has been a left-footed left-winger occupying his space. He has therefore been asked to play a more centrally constrained role that plays into the hands of Nesta and Chumpitaz. He's not Romario or Ronaldo and he is less suited to making that work.

Have I missed something? In our formation he's dead center?

Amoros tucking in to pick up Greaves. Again hard to imagine a poorer fit to pick up a player who has scored over 400 goals. Amoros shone as the attacking wing back in France's 4-2-2-2 in the 1980s and in the 3-5-2 of the early 1990s. He is no Bergomi or Burgnich and using him in such a manner is lunacy.

Again Amoros or Figo will tuck in sometimes to cover for Iniesta, not Greaves. Why would he cover for Greaves and where did you get that idea from?


I just don't see Gio's side being effective enough:

Baresi can put a 94 performance and keep Greaves as he has done with much better strikers.
Ruggeri and Effenberg will cope with Zico's threat.
Camacho will chase like a hound Finney and I don't like his chances against him either and close him down.

^^ Those are Gio's attacking outlets. Iniesta forward role is a bit limited due to defensive responsibilities he's instructed to cover and Bozsik and Souness will have their hands full with Cruyff.

I just can't see Gio's side scoring in this game.



^^ here's European cup tie between Cruyff's Ajax and Beckenbauer's Bayern Munich.

Ajax dismantled them 4-0 with. Yet here Souness is expected to be the only one who can cover for him in Gio's side.

 

[Gio]

And there are bunch of sites that have Ruggeri on top in those rankings. They are a bit useless if you compare them like that.

I'd be surprised if you can fund any decent source that would place Ruggeri ahead of Chumpitaz, far less a bunch of sites.

 

[Enigma_87]

I'd be surprised if you can fund any decent source that would place Ruggeri ahead of Chumpitaz, far less a bunch of sites.

http://discusssoccer.myfreeforum.org/archive/the-greatest-defenders-of-all-time__o_t__t_44
^^ just as an example here he's 47th, Chumpitaz is 49th.

But I find these rankings a bit stupid, it's down to preference and everyone will favor one before the other it's not something to be considered a relevant point either way.

Chumpitaz and Ruggeri are on the same level it's down to preference who is better.

Also Baresi-Ruggeri is an excellent pairing they fit like glove. I'm not sure attacking our central CB pair is the way for you.

Not true at all regarding Giggs. Giggs never really even stayed on the left wing whenever he played there, even when Ruud van Nistelrooy was around demanding supply from all areas. He always drifted infield and rotated positions with the left-sided striker/second striker whether that was Cantona, Hughes, McClair, Cole, Sheringham, or Rooney. Henry will still be fine with Giggs on the left as Giggs was comfortable drifting infield if the striker moved out wide. Besides, Henry as a striker had more vertical movement than horizontal anyways, preferring to drop deeper to get on the ball and then run at the defence with his speed and dribbling.

Exactly that. I started to wonder how Giggs is considered a winger that only hugs the line. First time I hear this and on United forum as well.. Also Henry will drop into space on the left when Giggs dribbles in. I don't think either will get into each other's way. Both are very intelligent players and as you noted Henry dropped vertically in his prime most of the time, not horizontally.

 

[Gio]

also this is simply not true ^^ where did I say that? I said that I expect a pretty even midfield battle given the players we have in the center and their roles.

You said up the page that you have the players to replicate Brazil's possession-dominant approach of 1970. After all that's the only realistic way to get the best out of Gerson who certainly isn't suited to a defensive counter-attacking shift. But that seems impossible to me given the almost sure control of the midfield we will have.

that's also bollocks. Effenberg and Gerson performed similar roles in their career to they are asked here.

I've found plenty of evidence to back up why Effenberg is used to playing with watercarriers or defensive anchors. The same goes for Gerson. Prove they can play without those support acts and we can have a discussion. Otherwise you're just making stuff up.

I just can't see Gio's side scoring in this game.

With our control of the midfield to support a strike partnership that has 1000 goals between them in the professional game? I mean really?

 

[Gio]

Chumpitaz and Ruggeri are on the same level it's down to preference who is better.

Nobody who knows their salt about South American football would make that claim. It's like claiming Sol Campbell is as good as Alessandro Nesta. I rate Campbell and I rate Ruggeri, but the likes of Chumpitaz, Nesta, Figueroa, Passarella and Baresi are a different breed.

The important thing though is that Ruggeri is ill-suited to dealing with Zico. He'd struggle with his movement and sharpness on the ground. In the air I'm sure he'd win every header, but against someone as brilliantly talented as Zico, following him into midfield where he'll be a fish out of water, he'll get pulled apart.

 

[Enigma_87]

You said up the page that you have the players to replicate Brazil's possession-dominant approach of 1970. After all that's the only realistic way to get the best out of Gerson who certainly isn't suited to a defensive counter-attacking shift. But that seems impossible to me given the almost sure control of the midfield we will have.

Nope. I was replying to your post regarding the technical quality of our side.

I've found plenty of evidence to back up why Effenberg is used to playing with watercarriers or defensive anchors. The same goes for Gerson. Prove they can play without those support acts and we can have a discussion. Otherwise you're just making stuff up.

Effenberg/Gerson is very similar to Bozsik/Souness in terms of defensive cover, let's not make stuff up. You pretty much know and used as evidence in previous drafts that Gerson can put a defensive shift. Both pairings are pretty similar. Then you have Zico who will provide no defensive cover, while we have Cruyff to even things up with your Iniesta defensive instructions. We also have Figo who is capable of putting a defensive shift and Amoros to track Iniesta off the ball as well.

With our control of the midfield to support a strike partnership that has 1000 goals between them in the professional game? I mean really?

[/QUOTE]
Romario alone scored 1000 goals yet he was shut down for 120 minutes by Baresi, is he not better than Greaves?

Baresi has put several masterclass performances throughout the years against the best strikers in history, can anyone of your CB pair have the same claim?

Also I didn't understand the role of Tom Finney at all in this game? What is he supposed to do? Cross or no cross cause there Ruggeri most likely will pick everything up. Cut in or not? Did he have a history of cutting in or rather delivering crosses? Wouldn't Finney and Andrade(depicted as attacking RWB) get in their way?

If you still bang on Iniesta making a CM defensive shift(which I don't think he can carry out) you still have 2 on 1 disadvantage on the left wing..

Nobody who knows their salt about South American football would make that claim. It's like claiming Sol Campbell is as good as Alessandro Nesta. I rate Campbell and I rate Ruggeri, but the likes of Chumpitaz, Nesta, Figueroa, Passarella and Baresi are a different breed.

The important thing though is that Ruggeri is ill-suited to dealing with Zico. He'd struggle with his movement and sharpness on the ground. In the air I'm sure he'd win every header, but against someone as brilliantly talented as Zico, following him into midfield where he'll be a fish out of water, he'll get pulled apart.

Ruggeri is excellent on the ground as well, he's known for his positional sense and being a great marker, I suggest wathing some of the 86 and 90 WC games so you can see his quality.

Zico has to cope with Effenberg first then to get past Ruggeri.

Also Zico relied a lot on his technique and positioning, he was never as fast as Cruyff, as explosive as Cruyff. We can cope with Zico with Effenberg and Ruggeri putting a shift.

On the other hand you have Souness, who btw is very similar in his role to Effenberg - box to box, defensive hardman and you have Bozsik who is limited for pace. That pairing is exactly what I'd want to see for Cruyff to excel.

 

[Gio]

Tbh, this is your most strong point, yet it's getting lost in all the clutter.

I think you should leave Andrade alone. Most who read will have made an opinion by now. I made the same mistake in a previous draft.

Ah Zebec-gate. That was not fun.

Let's boil it down to the impact made by the two stars, Zico and Cruyff. It's a fairish assumption to make that mostly across the park players will cancel one another out. But these two have the greatest chance of overcoming their opposite number.

We deal with Cruyff positionally by placing Souness directly onto his position. As probably the greatest British central midfielder of all time, Souness has the calibre. He led his team to 3 European Cups (obviously they don't count as much as Johan's ) as their standout midfielder and overcame some giants of the era in Breitner and Falcao. He relished a battle and had the strength and will to impose himself physically. He anchored a 4-4-2 as the most defensive minded midfielder and had the cunning and know-how to shut out top players. He was also class on the ball and could dictate the game. Cruyff's standing in the game is superior than Souness', but it's a decent and natural match-up both positionally, mentally, physically and in terms of their respective positions.

Enigma/MJJ deal with Zico by asking Ruggeri to track him. They have no designated defensive midfielder so it's a bad match-up positionally from the off. It's also a bad match-up in terms of their respective qualities - Ruggeri an aerial machine, strong, robust, would relish coming up against a traditional target-man. But Zico is nothing of the type: he's diminutive, nimble, spins on a sixpence, shimmies past big centre-halves like they're not there.

And whether you rate Cruyff higher than Zico, or Zico higher than Cruyff (like I do), it's really a side issue. What matters is who they are up against and how their opposite number - if they've got one - can handle them. It seems glaringly obvious to me that Zico has a better chance of deciding the game.

 

[Moby]

as their standout midfielder and overcame some giants of the era in Breitner and Falcao.

Wasn't Falcao injured in the previous game and not fully fit for the final?
Anyway, handling Falcao is one thing, handling Cruyff is another. Had it been someone courageous there who played with more heart and determination there could have been a case of there been a possibility of Cruyff being overcome by a one-in-a-lifetime shift, e.g. someone like O. Varela, who maybe a lot inferior technically to Souness but never gave up in a fight, even then it would have been an off chance of that happening, here it's simply a lost cause on both fronts - technique and desire.

 

[Gio]

Romario alone scored 1000 goals yet he was shut down for 120 minutes by Baresi, is he not better than Greaves?

Baresi has put several masterclass performances throughout the years against the best strikers in history, can anyone of your CB pair have the same claim?

Right because Baresi's Italy held Brazil to a 0-0 draw in the 1994 final, nobody will ever score against him ever again. That's a ridiculous assumption yet one you have repeatedly made. And Nesta's pedigree here is absolutely top drawer, he's the closest thing we've had to Baresi since the great man retired. And as @Aldo says, Chumpitaz is basically the South American Nesta equivalent.

Also I didn't understand the role of Tom Finney at all in this game? What is he supposed to do? Cross or no cross cause there Ruggeri most likely will pick everything up. Cut in or not? Did he have a history of cutting in or rather delivering crosses? Wouldn't Finney and Andrade(depicted as attacking RWB) get in their way?

The great Tom Finney was the complete attacker who excelled across the front line. His job here is to provide with, stretch the play and create space for the onrushing Zico and Greaves in the middle.

 

[Moby]

Zico higher than Cruyff (like I do)

I'm possibly the biggest Zico fan you'll come across here, but that's a really bold claim you'll likely not make once this game is over. The Brazilian may even catch up to the Dutchman in technique and ability but he, or no one else, can manage to catch Cruyff's speed of thought.

 

[Enigma_87]

For me overall is down to this:

1. We have more players to put in a defensive shift as everyone including Henry can press and get the ball back. Gio's team has Zico, Finney, Greaves who don't have a history of putting in defensive shift.
2. Iniesta carrying out defensive responsibilities and he's not that kind of a player while on the same time losing numbers out wide.
3. We have the better flanks I think that's inarguable.
4. We also have the best attacker on the pitch(Cruyff) and the best defender on the pitch (Baresi).

 

[Gio]

Wasn't Falcao injured in the previous game and not fully fit for the final?
Anyway, handling Falcao is one thing, handling Cruyff is another. Had it been someone courageous there who played with more heart and determination there could have been a case of there been a possibility of Cruyff being overcome by a one-in-a-lifetime shift, e.g. someone like O. Varela, who maybe a lot inferior technically to Souness but never gave up in a fight, even then it would have been an off chance of that happening, here it's simply a lost cause on both fronts - technique and desire.

Sorry Aldo but I don't think you get Souness if you're questioning his desire, attitude or commitment to the cause. That was he was all about. Effectively you're assuming the only way to stop Cruyff winning any game is through a once-in-a-lifetime shift - well the rest of the managers may as well just step aside and let Enigma and MJJ take the title.

 

[Moby]

And as @Aldo says, Chumpitaz is basically the South American Nesta equivalent.

Aye, possibly the most complete defender to come out of the continent.

 

[Gio]

I'm possibly the biggest Zico fan you'll come across here, but that's a really bold claim you'll likely not make once this game is over. The Brazilian may even catch up to the Dutchman in technique and ability but he, or no one else, can manage to catch Cruyff's speed of thought.

Nah, I'd stand by it. I had the choice of either Zico or Cruyff in the first round of the draft. But I'm very aware that there a number of Cruyff fans on the site who'd vote against me purely on that premise, so it's probably best to keep schtum to keep the peace.

 

[Moby]

Sorry Aldo but I don't think you get Souness if you're questioning his desire, attitude or commitment to the cause. That was he was all about. Effectively you're assuming the only way to stop Cruyff winning any game is through a once-in-a-lifetime shift - well the rest of the managers may as well just step aside and let Enigma and MJJ take the title.

If we are talking peak Cruyff, or peak Messi for example, that is what a defender, who would attempt to curb their influence single handedly, would need. Luckily, not many managers would attempt to deal with them with a single player, and have a more convoluted tactic.

 

[Enigma_87]

Ah Zebec-gate. That was not fun.

Let's boil it down to the impact made by the two stars, Zico and Cruyff. It's a fairish assumption to make that mostly across the park players will cancel one another out. But these two have the greatest chance of overcoming their opposite number.

We deal with Cruyff positionally by placing Souness directly onto his position. As probably the greatest British central midfielder of all time, Souness has the calibre. He led his team to 3 European Cups (obviously they don't count as much as Johan's ) as their standout midfielder and overcame some giants of the era in Breitner and Falcao. He relished a battle and had the strength and will to impose himself physically. He anchored a 4-4-2 as the most defensive minded midfielder and had the cunning and know-how to shut out top players. He was also class on the ball and could dictate the game. Cruyff's standing in the game is superior than Souness', but it's a decent and natural match-up both positionally, mentally, physically and in terms of their respective positions.

Enigma/MJJ deal with Zico by asking Ruggeri to track him. They have no designated defensive midfielder so it's a bad match-up positionally from the off. It's also a bad match-up in terms of their respective qualities - Ruggeri an aerial machine, strong, robust, would relish coming up against a traditional target-man. But Zico is nothing of the type: he's diminutive, nimble, spins on a sixpence, shimmies past big centre-halves like they're not there.

And whether you rate Cruyff higher than Zico, or Zico higher than Cruyff (like I do), it's really a side issue. What matters is who they are up against and how their opposite number - if they've got one - can handle them. It seems glaringly obvious to me that Zico has a better chance of deciding the game.

I'm glad you posted that. Between Zico and Cruyff I think there's only one winner. Cruyff also can make a bigger impact on this game compared to Zico. Souness was never known for his man marking attributes. He's also not a match technically, speed of thought or speed and explosiveness compared to Cruyff. It's a big mismatch.

Souness is a s much defensive midfielder as is Effenberg - both are box to box hardman, very similar.

Ruggeri is known to be one of the best markers in defence his attributes on the ground are excellent. Being aerially great doesn't change that.

Nah, I'd stand by it. I had the choice of either Zico or Cruyff in the first round of the draft. But I'm very aware that there a number of Cruyff fans on the site who'd vote against me purely on that premise, so it's probably best to keep schtum to keep the peace.

Cruyff blocks a lot of players, hence the format. Zico was a bit "safer" choice that won't block anyone for other picks.

Have an all time 11 and see how many will pick Zico in front of Cruyff.

 

[Gio]

If we are talking peak Cruyff, or peak Messi for example, that is what a defender, who would attempt to curb their influence single handedly, would need. Luckily, not many managers would attempt to deal with them with a single player, and have a more convoluted tactic.

It's an all-time draft and there are two worldies on the park and there will be plenty more. The standards rise IMO and the individual influence is not as pronounced as in a typical club match.

 

[Moby]

Nah, I'd stand by it. I had the choice of either Zico or Cruyff in the first round of the draft. But I'm very aware that there a number of Cruyff fans on the site who'd vote against me purely on that premise, so it's probably best to keep schtum to keep the peace.

I can understand if someone chooses Zico ahead of Pele or Maradona, but Cruyff brings something very unique and different. Completeness, versatility, tactical acumen and commitment to total football. Fair enough if you don't need those qualities, and are interested in the #10 doing what every #10 does, but I for one welcome such uniqueness to my team.

 

[Enigma_87]

If we are talking peak Cruyff, or peak Messi for example, that is what a defender, who would attempt to curb their influence single handedly, would need. Luckily, not many managers would attempt to deal with them with a single player, and have a more convoluted tactic.

I agree with this. I don't see any of Souness or Bozsik having the qualities to stop Cruyff. Varela and Coluna for a midfield pair is another matter for example.

Some quotes on Cruyff which I think would be interesting:

Cruyff is the greatest player ever, he revolutionized football, he organized his team, he timed passes perfectly like nobody else did, he read the game better and faster than anybody else in history, he was an underrated long range shooter, if he wanted to he could be a legendary scorer like his younger days, but he opted to be unselfish, the best passer in football history, and the total footballer. #14

As some of you have rightfully pointed out both Pelè and Maradona were better (but just barely) individual players, but they did not bequeath anything as as revolutionary or enduring as Cruyff's vision of "Total Football". Cruyff modernized the game of football. He not only possessed outstanding tactical ability, he also had an unparallelled vision of the game that no other football player could match.
For his superior visionary skills, his technical and tactical abilities, as well as For his titles and legacies, Cruyff deserves to be recognized as the greatest player of all time.

The worlds only total football player ever play any position on pitch except goal keeper the most tactically astute football player ever also proved it in management no one else as ever done this

A dazzling dribbler, a master in his passes, a second to none strategist and he invented moves in football. The Cruyff move is now taught in the football schools.

Simply the best. He was the best striker, midfielder, defender and keeper. The man was born with a ball at his feet and insight in his head. Amazing. Compared to the other famous players Cruijff is the most complete player ever.

The most complete soccer player ever. Intelligent, technically brilliant, physically strong and a true leader on the pitch.

The thing about Cruyff is that he really elevated anyone around him a level above.

Before he came to Ajax they were amateur side. What Michels ideas off the pitch were Cruyff was translating them on the field. He always instructed his team mates where to position themselves and at the end he was always right.

Even in management he laid the foundations of what Barcelona is today with his approach to the game.

and some on Baresi:

“At 18, he already had the knowledge of a veteran.” — Nils Liedholm

“Franco was the best player I have ever played with. The guy was world class to his core. He had everything – pace, two feet, and he was a leader of men. I remember the first time I trained with him at Milan, I couldn’t believe my eyes; I thought, “Christ, he is unbelievable.” He was a joy to play with.” — Ray Wilkins

“Franco Baresi was one of the all-time great defenders: he read everything, made everything look so easy and at the same time he was brilliant going forward and would supply passes for the rest of that great Italian side.” — Gary Lineker

“A leader at the back, very strong and quick, with an excellent understanding of the game. As a defender, he could do everything. A lot of the time, he would know what the attacker was going to do before they knew themselves! How do you get past someone like that?” — Ruud Gullit

“After a game against (Baresi), your feet need loads of ice and anti-inflammatories.” — Gianfranco Zola (when asked about the toughest defender he’d ever faced)

“What more words are there to describe this man? Simply the best defender of the last three decades, and the last great libero. He always seemed to know in advance where the ball would go and there was no centre-forward on the planet who was capable of surprising him. He also had very good technique when it came to playing the ball, and when he attacked, he was always dangerous. A real icon.” — Marcel Desailly

“Franco Baresi is my idol. The way he ran his back-line, what a player. You can’t begin to imagine to what a high level he took the art of defending. Impeccable. Class.” — Marcel Desailly

 

[Gio]

I agree with this. I don't see any of Souness or Bozsik having the qualities to stop Cruyff. Varela and Coluna for a midfield pair is another matter for example.

That's a serious under-estimation of what Souness brought to the table defensively.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Some odd remarks about Souness here, I must say.

For one thing he was much better defensively than Effenberg, and playing as an actual holder was much more a part of his natural game. So, saying they're both box-to-boxers of largely the same ilk is very misleading.

You can question Gio's specific choice here, but you can't claim Souness is unsuited to the role he's given. Effenberg, on the other hand, would look out of place in a role with such a defenensive remit. *

* Which isn't very relevant, but I mention it to highlight that they were indeed very different players in that regard.

 

[Enigma_87]

Some odd remarks about Souness here, I must say.

For one thing he was much better defensively than Effenberg, and playing as an actual holder was much more a part of his natural game. So, saying they're both box-to-boxers of largely the same ilk is very misleading.

You can question Gio's specific choice here, but you can't claim Souness is unsuited to the role he's given. Effenberg, on the other hand, would look out of place in a role with such a defenensive remit. *

* Which isn't very relevant, but I mention it to highlight that they were indeed very different players in that regard.

Nothing against Souness, think he's a great player as well. I would also pick him in an all time draft.

Like Aldo tho I think that he's not the man to stop Cruyff reach his very top. At the right setup he can be brilliant but IMO in this one he would fail in that task.