I'd have another 4 or 5 ahead of him tbh and some hardly block anybody of note.
Billy No Mates Draft
- Thread starter Physiocrat
- Start date
I'd have another 4 or 5 ahead of him tbh and some hardly block anybody of note.
I'd have another 4 or 5 ahead of him tbh and some hardly block anybody of note.
What's Batigol doing in that tier? He doesn't belong anywhere near those names.
Yes. Certainly in Batigoal's tier
Batigol is awesome and my hero. He is the best striker I've seen growing up.
Not sure why my post was added three times....stupid t'internet.
Can think of three at least on Batigol's level.
Can think of three at least on Batigol's level.
Not disrespectful to Vieri I think he was one helluva player but IMO he wasn't the best striker in the world at any time. His peak years were 02-03 and he wasn't top three striker in those years(some may even consider even 5 strikers better than him). But again it's more of being the right man for your system rather to being the best individual
I agree. At least to me
Batigol is one of my favorite strikers when growing up, but IMO he's below Henry's level, hence we went for the latter.
Probably not, but then again not many have been the undisputedly best striker in the world at any time: It's usually a matter of horses for courses, after all. Vieri was a different player than his best rivals during his peak years: What he excelled at, they couldn't match - so you could argue that he was the best striker in a certain category in the world.
That sort of sums up his draft value as well: He brings something to the table you won't find many others who will provide to the same extent - and if that something is what you need, he's a golden pick.
As for unpicked strikers on Batistuta's level, I can think of a handful. But none of them are obvious picks at this stage, given blocks and whatnot.
A bit down to preference to be honest but yeah I agree with you he can be a better player in a system where he's a better fit, rather than better individual.
well one is pretty obvious IMO and doesn't block anyone worth of note that is not already taken..
Well, of course there are alternatives.
At this stage, though, it's not so much a question of who Player X blocks among other unpicked players, but rather which managers have no players who block Player X. Er, so to speak.
I was thinking of several earlier today, just looking through the rosters - but they all turned to be non-starters for the teams I had in mind (unless you wanted to bench 'em, that is).
Yeah that's the other part. Probably 2 or 3 strikers can be starters for some teams at a push(of course there is whether they will fit in the system), but with 9-10 players already in it's hard to have that viable option.
I can't agree with that, he's certainly not below Henry. They're very different players and both exceptional (Henry wouldn't have worked in my system, Batigol may not have been quite right for yours), but I'd have them in the same bracket, possibly Batistuta slightly higher due to his all round game.
Not joining any sort of 'Stuta debate here (that can wait), but one might remark that both him and Henry tend to split opinions to some degree in these drafts.
Of course, the question isn't whether they were brilliant players - but rather precisely how brilliant they were. Others seem to escape the same scrutiny - which is arguably a bit random.
Of course, the question isn't whether they were brilliant players - but rather precisely how brilliant they were. Others seem to escape the same scrutiny - which is arguably a bit random.
Have to disagree on both accounts mate. Henry linked pretty well with both Zidane and Ronnie. I think without the restriction he'd be a perfect fit especially with C.Ronaldo besides him. Henry would stretch the defence leaving space for C.Ronaldo and Ronnie.
Batigol is one of my favorite strikers and he's quite unique, but can't agree he had better all round game or was the better player. Maybe in a big team he would have developed even further but as it stands I don't think he would be the better all round player. Henry at his peak had 5 seasons with 30+ goals, 3 seasons 40+ goals for club and country. 80 assists for Arsenal in 7n half seasons, holds the record for assist in one season, while also being Arsenal's top scorer.
I'd argue that who is the better finisher out of the two as well, apart from having a lot more pace, dribble, technique and passing range. Henry was also taking the corners and his long range passing is quite better.
Here's an interesting comparison for the best seasons Henry/Ronaldo and Messi had:
..................................Thierry Henry 2003/04:..Cristiano Ronaldo 2011/12:..Lionel Messi 2011/12:
Matches Played:........................51.............................55............................57
Goals:...................................39.............................61............................69
Minutes Played:........................4452..........................5099..........................5175
Minutes/Goals %:......................114.153......................83.590........................75
League Goals:..........................30.............................46............................50
Cup Goals:..............................3..............................3..............................3
Supercup Goals:........................1..............................2..............................2
UEFA Champions League Goals:......5..............................10.............................14
Shots:...................................175............................369...........................315
Shots on Goal:..........................106...........................148...........................153
Shots/Shots On Goal %:...............0.605.........................0.401.........................0.485
Shots/Game %:.........................3.431.........................6.709.........................5.526
Shots on Goal/Game %:...............2.078.........................2.690.........................2.684
Goals/Game %:.........................0.764.........................1.109.........................1.210
Goals/Shots %:.........................0.222.........................0.165.........................0.219
Goals/Shots on Goal %:...............0.367..........................0.412.........................0.450
He was more efficient than both in their best respective seasons.
Henry also brought something in the defensive part as well, that's the reason why he picked so many yellows during his career. If you remember that Spurs goal, there was a reason why he was in the 6 yards box before running through the whole pitch and scoring it
This is not taking away anything from Batistuta as well. For me both are one of the best strikers, just below the GOAT level but they are quite different in terms of style and some may like one better than the other.
The only thing I can't agree tho is that Batistuta is the better all round player.
yeah they don't have anything in common, apart from being great players that is...
I'll save the long winded debate for the matches! But I think Henry was an out and out striker while Batigol was an all round centre forward. Goals were only part of what he brought to a team and his harrying of defenders and domination of the box was sensational.
Yeah, it's useless here, maybe there or at a separate thread? Will be interesting what people think. They are quite different and bring different qualities to the team.
I had Batistuta poster above my bed like 15 years ago, really liked him
It's not a surprise of course why I didn't have a Henry one Would people be interested in reading a small write up on De Vecchi in here or will I wait for the matches? I'm finding it impossible to find video from back then but I have some good reports and commentary on him, even if I have to translate a lot of it from Italian!
Imo, there is a distinct first tier of centre forwards which features van Basten, Romario, Ronaldo, Müller and Puskas, followed by an excellent second tier and third tier, with most having nothing much between them. Ultimately for most of these second/third tier forwards, it will be how they fit their teams tactically that would matter and not their quality differential as there really isn't much there in most cases.
Put it up.
I'd be interested in reading it now mate. Its a real challenge selecting players from the pre-TV era and even more so from the pre-WC era. Even as a voter I flip-flop between wanting to give these players due credit and having doubts about the lack of information and the general quality of those eras.
Renzo De Vecchi
Left Back
Milan 1909-1913
Genoa 1913-1929
Italy 1910-1925
Left Back
Milan 1909-1913
Genoa 1913-1929
Italy 1910-1925
Renzo De Vecchi was the first of the great Italian, superstar defenders. He is widely recognised as the worlds finest defender of the 1910’s and early 1920’s, and was among the very first players to feature on the cover of magazines or to be used in product advertising, such was his status at the time.
De Vecchi remains the youngest player ever to debut for AC Milan and the youngest player ever to play for the Italian national side. This is a defender. In Italy. Who first played for Milan aged 15 and then the national side at just 16 years of age.
Known by Milan fans as "Il Figlio di Dio" or The Son of God, De Vecchi was small in stature but possessed blistering pace, great strength and superb technical ability. He was first given his nickname by Gazette della Sport journalist Emilio Colombo who watched the youngster in 1909, before he had even turned 15. Reporting after the match that his movement and trickery on the field had moved him to tears, Colombo penned the famous line: “But that child is the Son of God!”.
Adored by the Milan faithful, De Vecchi excited the football public with his technical skill, pace and agility in attack, even if his true art was always defending. It was commonly believed that he was impossible to dribble against. His quick feet and quicker mind were simply too much for even the finest attackers of the day.
In stark contrast to the better defenders of his era, De Vecchi was also known and admired for being a clean and efficient player. He relied on his speed, awareness and keen defensive understanding, instead of throwing himself into challenges or roughhousing. As such, he very rarely conceded free kicks or cards.
Italian football remained strictly amateur until 1926 although this did not prevent Genoa paying 24 thousand lira to sign De Vecchi in 1913 when he was still only 19 years old. This was almost certainly a world record transfer, and likely stood for a number of years, although the fee plus his large playing fee, were hidden as travel expenses and payment for his phony role as a bank clerk at the Banca Commerciale di Genova.
At Genoa, De Vecchi developed from a young, brilliant superstar to become the leader, captain and talisman of their great 3 time Scudetto winning side. His peak came after the war as he led Genoa to the second of their three titles in 1923, going the entire 28 match season unbeaten. It was at this time that the wonderful Bologna forward, Giuseppe Della Valle publicly complained that in dozens of performances against De Vecchi, he had never once managed to get past him! He was also Italy’s best player throughout this time, captaining the national side for 26 of his 43 caps and performing at Olympic games in 1912, 1920 and 1924.
I've included some of my source material and some extra background reading for anyone who's interested. The last two links are entirely in Italian and will need google translating for most!
http://memim.com/renzo-de-vecchi.html
http://milanlegends.com/first-ac-milan-legend-de-vecchi/
http://gottfriedfuchs.blogspot.sg/2013/09/renzo-de-vecchi-figlio-di-dio.html
http://www.magliarossonera.it/protagonisti/Gioc-Devecchire.html
http://generazioneditalenti.forumfree.it/?t=40646396
Last edited:
1. Joga Bonito - 1. Maradona 2. Krol 3. Thuram 4. Breitner 5. Stoichkov 6. Monti 7. Tresor 8. Law 9. Gerets 10. 11. 12.
2. Sjor Bepo/Viva Januzaj - 1. Messi 2. Keane 3. Charlton 4. Djalma Santos 5. Schnellinger 6. Hansen 7. Makelele 8. Sivori 9. Schwarzenbeck 10. 11. 12.
3. harms - 1. Pelé 2. P. Falcão 3. Rummenigge 4. Ferdinand 5. Lahm 6. Netzer 7. Bossis 8. Vierchowod 9. Busquets 10. 11. 12.
4. mazhar13 - 1. Beckenbauer 2. Nilton Santos 3. Desailly 4. Conti 5. Gullit 6. Rivera 7. Förster 8. Xabi Alonso 9. Del Piero 10. 11. 12.
5. Tuppet - 1. Alfredo Di Stéfano 2. Gerd Muller 3. Passarella 4. Jairzinho 5. Boniek 6. Junior 7. Hierro 8. Coluna 9. V. Andrade 10. Nasazzi 11. 12.
6. Physiocrat - 1. Best 2. Neeskens 3. Luis Suarez Miramontes 4. Rivaldo 5. Vogts 6. Marzolini 7. Schweinsteiger 8. Thiago Silva 9. Ricardo Carvalho 10. Vieri 11. 12.
7. The Stain - 1. Luis Ronaldo 2. Džajić 3. Kohler 4. Nedved 5. Robson 6. Scholes 7. Obdulio Varela 8. Shesternyov 9. Dani Alves 10. Ricardo Zamora 11. 12.
8. Balu/crappy- 1. Eusébio 2. Scirea 3. Masopust 4. D. Edwards 5. Czibor 6. Lizarazu 7. Burgnich 8. Costacurta 9. Beckham 10. Gordon Banks 11. 12.
9. Stobzilla - 1. Maldini 2. Moore 3. Carlos Alberto 4. M. Laudrup 5. Kubala 6. Hamrin 7. Blokhin 8. Didi 9. Domingos Da Guia 10. Popescu 11. 12.
10. RedTiger/Marty1968 - 1. Puskas 2. Matthaus 3. Gentile 4. Matthews 5. R. Carlos 6. Neymar 7. Suurbier 8. Vieira 9. Sanchez 10. Ayala 11. 12.
11. diarm - 1. C. Ronaldo 2. Zidane 3. Ronaldinho 4. Batistuta 5. Santamaria 6. Bergomi 7. Koeman 8. Ocwirk 9. Voronin 10. De Vecchi 11. 12.
12. Gio - 1. Zico 2. Facchetti 3. Nesta 4. Bozsik 5. Iniesta 6. Souness 7. Andrade 8. Chumpitaz 9. Greaves 10. Finney 11. 12.
13. Aldo - 1. Garrincha 2. Romário 3. Rivelino 4. Zanetti 5. Xavi 6. Schuster 7. Cabrini 8. Tigana 9. Schulz 10. John Charles 11. 12.
14. EAP/Pat/Skizzo - 1. Figueroa 2. Rijkaard 3. van Hanegem 4. Brehme 5. Cafu 6. Baggio 7. McGrath 8. Yashin 9. Kopa 10. Eto'o 11. 12.
15. Enigma_87/MJJ - 1. Johan Cruyff 2. Baresi 3. Figo 4. Henry 5. Amoros 6. Giggs 7. J. A. Camacho 8. Effenberg 9. Gerson 10. Ruggeri 11. 12.
16. Invictus/Theon - 1. Platini 2. Van Basten 3. Sammer 4. Redondo 5. Gento 6. Cannavaro. 7. Briegel 8. Stam 9. Meazza 10. Neuer 11. 12.
@mazhar13
@diarm Nice little write-up, thanks for posting it.
He's reminiscent of certain other old school defenders who went beyond the normal remit - and the usual style - of contemporary defenders. Someone like Hapgoood, for instance, who relied on technique and footballing ability much more than brute strength and "rough housing" (as you say).
In fact, practically all defenders who are now remembered as great players from the pre-war era share this characteristic: They were ball players, were rarely physically imposing, relied on wits and speed more than muscles - and so forth. It's practically cliche, you could say - but it's significant, not least in a draft context, because it does indicate a player type much more suited to the modern game than the rough housing standard defender of the era.
He's reminiscent of certain other old school defenders who went beyond the normal remit - and the usual style - of contemporary defenders. Someone like Hapgoood, for instance, who relied on technique and footballing ability much more than brute strength and "rough housing" (as you say).
In fact, practically all defenders who are now remembered as great players from the pre-war era share this characteristic: They were ball players, were rarely physically imposing, relied on wits and speed more than muscles - and so forth. It's practically cliche, you could say - but it's significant, not least in a draft context, because it does indicate a player type much more suited to the modern game than the rough housing standard defender of the era.
That was my thought as I was reading up on him as well. I felt that both himself and Ocwirk had the qualities to show they would be important players in modern football, just as they were back then.
There should be a way to classify pre-video or pre-1950 players. Ot at least we should agree to a modern equivalent.
Take for example Renzo here. With almost nothing to go by except for a few lines that lack proper context (as in difference strategy/playing style/formation between era's) it's very difficult to get a grasp of his abilities..
1. Was he a Left Back as in current fullback? or a 2-3-5 left back which may equate to a modern (left) CB? or a left Halfback/Left DM/CM?
2. Assuming he would be classed as a modern fullback, it gets even more vague
- Was he an attacking fullback? If so in Nilton/Facchetti class or slightly below in Cabrini/Lizarazu class or even below in Branco/Jarni class?
- Was he an defensive fullback? If so in Maldini class? Or below that?
- Was he a playmaker LB like Breitner/Junior?
I haven't done so myself, but the profile should give us an idea of the above. Just 'excellent dribbler' or 'great ball player' is insufficient.
Take for example Renzo here. With almost nothing to go by except for a few lines that lack proper context (as in difference strategy/playing style/formation between era's) it's very difficult to get a grasp of his abilities..
1. Was he a Left Back as in current fullback? or a 2-3-5 left back which may equate to a modern (left) CB? or a left Halfback/Left DM/CM?
2. Assuming he would be classed as a modern fullback, it gets even more vague
- Was he an attacking fullback? If so in Nilton/Facchetti class or slightly below in Cabrini/Lizarazu class or even below in Branco/Jarni class?
- Was he an defensive fullback? If so in Maldini class? Or below that?
- Was he a playmaker LB like Breitner/Junior?
I haven't done so myself, but the profile should give us an idea of the above. Just 'excellent dribbler' or 'great ball player' is insufficient.
@diarm that was not a criticism of you or your pick. It's something which I have not done myself in drafts till now. Not a blame or a criticism post. Just something I think we should consider for future drafts so that we understand players better.
Brilliant post.
Not something you usually credit Edgar with. 2016 is a new year indeed.
Just kidding, new Overlord
I'm very, very surprised that no one's picked him yet, so thank you very much for this amazing striker!
Sándor Kocsis
@harms
Also, if anyone is around to take my next pick, PM me very quickly. I'm going to an interview very soon.
Sándor Kocsis
@harms
Also, if anyone is around to take my next pick, PM me very quickly. I'm going to an interview very soon.
Isn't it up to the manager to sell the player to the voters during the game and answer all those questions if they come up? And people will believe him to varying degrees. Some will buy into the story and give the player fair credit, some might even overrate the player because they're hopeless romantics and others might just think, feck that, football was shit before the 80's.
There's no way we'll all agree to a modern equivalent or anything like that.
Last edited:
You can send it to me, I'm around for the next 4-5 hours.
Well, I'm going to the interview now. No one replied, so you'll have to wait 4 hours before my next pick.
I did reply
Me too. You should have let them squirmI did reply
Sent my pick and backups to @The Stain and @Balu. Please tag them when my turn comes up.
Well,he obviously wasn't the former - none of them were that - so the question is always whether you can use them as (modern) fullbacks.
Using him as an LCB should be the least controversial: A ball playing CB, if you will. He'd clearly be suited for that.
However, the characteristics of the particular man have to be considered. He was known as a fast, skillful player. And he started out further up the pitch - as an inside forward. That should indicate that he would indeed be plausible as a fairly offensive left back (more or less modern style).
An old school defender who was skillful and fast could probably do a decent job as a DM as well.
However, with players who suffer from a lack of proper evidence, it could be a slippery slope: They could become some sort of all-purpose monsters. I see what you're getting at, and it's a fair point to raise. However, my stance has always been simple: The onus is on the manager to provide sufficient evidence to back up his claims and his tactical choices. If he can't do that, the relative obscurity of the player should count in favour of his opponent. That - the obscurity - should be a calculated risk when picking such players.
Not just selling it, but the other manager should know to fix his own strategy. If the type of player itself is determined in the match thread, then the arguments will not even match far less able to be countered. Imo, it'll just hijack the match thread with one manager arguing he's a CB, other arguing he's a LB, and might put off anyone who reads the thread. These profiles should be agreed beforehand so that we can stick to in-game dynamics in match thread.
Not just that, I don't believe we can get a accurate profile at all.
Two examples come to mind immediately.
- Pirlo started off as a very good #10 before becoming a brilliant DLP.
- Sammer started off his career as a striker before becoming a sweeper.
But try playing them in any other position apart from DLP or CB and it'll get rubbished in the match thread or at least treated as 'not peak position' and rightly so.
Here we should at least be able to get a consensus that x is his best position, but he can do a decent job at y or z positions. That should at least be a bare minimum imo.