Black Sheep Draft QF - Raees vs. Enigma

With players at peak, who wins?

  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
Enigma_87 said:
As I said at the EURO 2008 Xavi was player of the tournament and played alongside a box to box Senna in midfield.
Click to expand...
What? Senna was the anchor man in the midfield, not a B2B. He allowed Xavi to play with more in his attacking game, which was why he became much more revered and rated than before.

I don't think Xavi is a luxury player or passenger, defensively. Far from it. I just don't think that, in this setup, he would be good enough alongside Tigana to stop do Stefano and Gerson from becoming influential.
 
Raees said:
For me to get best out of Ronaldinho you need an Etoo or a Ronaldo stretching the play for him.

For me Eusebio is definitely a striker so no issues with him up front but he definitely drops deep to pick up the ball and that is majority of his way of attacking which is different to Van Basten who can do that but knows when to stay out of the way and provide verticality to the attack.

Another thing which hasn't been spoken about is the goal threat of Gerson from long range which could be a decisive factor in a game like this (193 goals). That's brilliant numbers. Jairzinho also has proven goal threat and ability to destroy all time great full backs .. it is a very complimentary attack where every part fits together well.

My own perceived weakness is CB because I lack names which scan votes would know much about but in the context of the match up I don't think they would be found wanting as style wise I think the play will be in front of them a lot.

It's been consistently a difference of three votes all game - so frustrating! I will be unlikely to contribute for rest of game. So lads if you haven't put in your vote, no worries but your thoughts on the game would be appreciated!

@Joga Bonito @Gio @prath92 @Balu @oneniltothearsenal
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. I just couldn't decide really as I felt both sides were fairly equally strong and my minor concerns for both sides were discussed although (Xavi-Tigana wasn't as solid defensively for me but at the same time I didn't see Di Stefano and Gerson really being complementary either. Minor issues though really that canceled out.

I would have had to just flip a coin at that point. Condolences though, drafting that side after your poor start was superb. And congrats to Enigma
 
Moby said:
Hence proved that redcafe needs sarcasm and pisstake tags.

feck me to have taken those posts seriously
Click to expand...
I think the draft has been great really quality all across and like every sheep draft there is luck involved, do you mean the cards or the swap round that put you off?

oneniltothearsenal said:
I would have had to just flip a coin at that point. Condolences though, drafting that side after your poor start was superb. And congrats to Enigma
Click to expand...

cheers mate. Looking forward to your game against Pat, should be a cracker.
 
Enigma_87 said:
I think you are contradicting yourself a bit here. If he's well rounded surely that includes his link up game, which IMO is pretty good. What he brings is his movement(which is top notch btw), natural finishing ability(he's the best finisher in the side), pace and ability to stretch defences and pull CB's out of position.
Click to expand...

I didn't want to harp on this and hijack the match, but not every well rounded striker can be a good F9. A good F9 imo needs to have very good ability to bring others into play. Something which I think is not Eusebio's strengths. He's a direct player with strength and speed. I wouldn't put his strengths in drifting around the box, dragging defenders away, creating spaces etc. He's more aprt to beat CBs head on rather than drag them away and create for Best. He'll do so to an extent of any other decent forward but sub-optimal to be a good F9.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
I didn't want to harp on this and hijack the match, but not every well rounded striker can be a good F9. A good F9 imo needs to have very good ability to bring others into play. Something which I think is not Eusebio's strengths. He's a direct player with strength and speed. I wouldn't put his strengths in drifting around the box, dragging defenders away, creating spaces etc. He's more aprt to beat CBs head on rather than drag them away and create for Best. He'll do so to an extent of any other decent forward but sub-optimal to be a good F9.
Click to expand...

Agree to that notion of course but not every striker is Eusebio :) As Gio said if Eusebio played today I can see him in a 4-3-3 as a CF most of the time. His link up is quite good actually from the games I've seen in the EC against the top sides and the problem with him dropping too deep is that Benfica played as a unit attacked and dropped back at the same time but didn't have the creative talent some other teams of that time had in their ranks.
 
For me Eusebio is definitely a 9, just a different style of 9 to Fenom or MVB. He'd be great with a Kalle on one side and a Stoichkov on the other.
 
Raees said:
Gerson is a really well rounded CM.. only thing he lacks is pace but by CM standards he is in a different league to Scholes in the 07/08 side for example and would easily suit playing alongside Carrick in that side.
Click to expand...

Well, to point out the obvious, there was no Di Stefano in the 07-08 side. And using United as an example is often a bit dangerous. Central midfield wasn't the strongest part of that team.

The potential problem is that he'd end up getting in Di Stefanos way, not that he isn't well rounded enough.

But this - too - is an old debate: How many playmakers can you get away with, and would they cramp each other's styles? Et bloody cetera.

Anyway, this was a tight match, wasn't anything horribly wrong with your team - the Gerson thing is just something I, personally, don't fancy very much.
 
Moby said:
Let's not start listing the things you'll have to take back to return to sanity, as we only have one lifetime.

There's no going back after 'Keane with goals'
Click to expand...
Boy, that was over 5 years ago. And I stand by it, obviously not in defensive attributes (for instance) but in the drive and passion they put into each game and performance.

Lucho, like Keane, simply wanted it more than anyone else on the pitch. Always, invariably.
 
Šjor Bepo said:
pretty sad how underrated Scholes is...
Click to expand...

He's equally underrated and overrated, in my opinion.

Call him a great player and that isn't enough for some people.

Scholes was brilliant in areas where several other midfielders have been equally good or better. And he didn't fully emerge as that sort of midfielder before he was past his prime as a player in general.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Well, to point out the obvious, there was no Di Stefano in the 07-08 side. And using United as an example is often a bit dangerous. Central midfield wasn't the strongest part of that team.

The potential problem is that he'd end up getting in Di Stefanos way, not that he isn't well rounded enough.

But this - too - is an old debate: How many playmakers can you get away with, and would they cramp each other's styles? Et bloody cetera.

Anyway, this was a tight match, wasn't anything horribly wrong with your team - the Gerson thing is just something I, personally, don't fancy very much.
Click to expand...

Of course but thing with Gerson is that he played in a team jam packed full of play-making talent and was able to submit himself to the needs of the side as well as hold his own and showcase his own charisma and attributes if that makes sense. Being in a side where you've got Pele dropping deep, Rivelinho drifting off the flanks.. and Tostao also coming in to complicate things, and yet he was able to keep it simple, keep things ticking along without having to be the main man.

I think he has the personality and intelligence to allow Di Stefano to be the main man, not to mention.. he is more of a deep-lying CM, i.e. at his best around the centre circle and unlikely to get in Di Stefano's way who would be mostly operating in the number 9 to number 8 space in front of that double-pivot. For me he is a much better tactical and personality fit than Didi, who was more a I am the main man of my team ala Pogba and someone who would suffer if he is having to be a facilitating CM.. wheras Gerson is a good fit for top number 10's in front of him.

If you look at my side, the only two out and out playmakers I had in my team were those two.. and it makes sense to have at least two, in case one of them gets marked out of the game.
 
Šjor Bepo said:
pretty sad how underrated Scholes is...
Click to expand...

I love Scholes but Gerson is technically outstanding in terms of footwork (on par with likes of Pirlo/Redondo), better tackler too.. and ran the midfield for Brazil 1970 aka possibly the greatest side of all time. Yes you put Scholes into that side, and they'd still win the world cup.. but in terms of individual attributes, Gerson is one ridiculously talented CM.
 
@Raees @Chesterlestreet

What i targeted was his defensive game even though id say he is underrated in general as well. Scholes played most of his career in a midfield two rather then in midfield three as a lot of other midfielders, he never had a team built around him, was mostly part of a well drilled counter-attacking system(we still played some fantastic football under it) and never was the main guy in a fully possession styled team and his talents deserved that. Performance wise you can find players that are better then him, ability wise? Nah, the list is one hand long at best.
He has a reputation of being poor defensively because of his mad tackles yet people ignore his positioning sense and the good tackles he made, you cant be poor defensively and play at that level for so long in a midfield two. I love Gerson as well and obviously didnt watch him as much as Scholesy but from what i saw and i saw him at his absolute peak(1970 WC) i wouldnt give him advantage over Scholesy in terms of defensive capabilities.
 
Raees said:
I love Scholes but Gerson is technically outstanding in terms of footwork (on par with likes of Pirlo/Redondo), better tackler too.. and ran the midfield for Brazil 1970 aka possibly the greatest side of all time. Yes you put Scholes into that side, and they'd still win the world cup.. but in terms of individual attributes, Gerson is one ridiculously talented CM.
Click to expand...
Scholes had much better movement and he didn't need to stop the ball before hitting a long pass (like Gerson usually did before pinning an inch-perfect over the top ball). And I wouldn't call him a better tackler (although Scholes' tackling had become a bit of a myth around here, like Vidic' pace).

I'd say that Gerson is a significantly better dribbler, but other than that, I'd rate Scholes' all-round game higher, and his speed of thought too.
 
Šjor Bepo said:
@Raees @Chesterlestreet

What i targeted was his defensive game even though id say he is underrated in general as well. Scholes played most of his career in a midfield two rather then in midfield three as a lot of other midfielders, he never had a team built around him, was mostly part of a well drilled counter-attacking system(we still played some fantastic football under it) and never was the main guy in a fully possession styled team and his talents deserved that. Performance wise you can find players that are better then him, ability wise? Nah, the list is one hand long at best.
He has a reputation of being poor defensively because of his mad tackles yet people ignore his positioning sense and the good tackles he made, you cant be poor defensively and play at that level for so long in a midfield two. I love Gerson as well and obviously didnt watch him as much as Scholesy but from what i saw and i saw him at his absolute peak(1970 WC) i wouldnt give him advantage over Scholesy in terms of defensive capabilities.
Click to expand...

For me guys like Xavi/Scholes, are intelligent enough positionally to be part of a two man midfield at any level, and not be liabilities (as long as they have a DM next to them) and if up against an all time great AM i.e. Zico/Di Stefano (as long as you have a Rijkaard/Varela etc) then they won't be considered liabilities.

Nevertheless, Gerson too possesses that ability to position himself well.. but for me he has something else, which is that ability to snuff out danger and make tackles.. he isn't Van Hanegam by any means, but he is slightly up the ladder than Xavi/Scholes in the ball winning sense. For example do you remember Scholes vs Messi, now you could say well anyone can get ripped apart by Messi one v one, which is absolutely true but if they went up against Messi one v one 20 times, I'd back Gerson to nick the ball off him more than I would Scholes, because he reads the game better defensively.

It is a subtle advantage, we are not saying Gerson is defensive maestro, merely that in the battle of CM game dictating maestro's, he has an edge defensively out of that particular trio.
 
harms said:
Scholes had much better movement and he didn't need to stop the ball before hitting a long pass (like Gerson usually did before pinning an inch-perfect over the top ball). And I wouldn't call him a better tackler (although Scholes' tackling had become a bit of a myth around here, like Vidic' pace).

I'd say that Gerson is a significantly better dribbler, but other than that, I'd rate Scholes' all-round game higher, and his speed of thought too.
Click to expand...

id agree with this.
 
antohan said:
Boy, that was over 5 years ago. And I stand by it, obviously not in defensive attributes (for instance) but in the drive and passion they put into each game and performance.

Lucho, like Keane, simply wanted it more than anyone else on the pitch. Always, invariably.
Click to expand...
Of course, keep repeating the same old stuff about every single player for years and then wonder why the matches get boring.

You know what you were doing picking Keane's name ahead of anyone else's on this forum and you got your reaction. Good thing it's the internet and not a pub with glassware around
 
harms said:
Scholes had much better movement and he didn't need to stop the ball before hitting a long pass (like Gerson usually did before pinning an inch-perfect over the top ball). And I wouldn't call him a better tackler (although Scholes' tackling had become a bit of a myth around here, like Vidic' pace).

I'd say that Gerson is a significantly better dribbler, but other than that, I'd rate Scholes' all-round game higher, and his speed of thought too.
Click to expand...

Disagree there. Most of Scholes long range passes come from a quick close control with instep, shift it out of feet and hit that diagonal with the right. Both very similar in that respect.

We need to be wary of combining both forms of Scholes together into one hybrid. Scholes as the overall footballer, is a better all rounder agree.. but we are comparing Scholes 06-08 to Gerson of 1970. I don't think Scholes as a DLP/CM edges that battle as good as he was. Disagree also with speed of thought, Gerson when pressed.. never got phased, as he was always one step ahead and knew how to wriggle out of tight situations and find the right pass.

I will end it there as I don't want to come across like I am shitting on Scholes because I rate him extremely highly, but for me Gerson is one helluva CM, and I think if they went toe to toe, the side with Gerson would be more dominant as in my opinion, he and Xavi have that slightly higher level of class which enables them to completely control games at the very highest level aka World cup finals/champions league finals.
 
antohan said:
Boy, that was over 5 years ago. And I stand by it, obviously not in defensive attributes (for instance) but in the drive and passion they put into each game and performance.

Lucho, like Keane, simply wanted it more than anyone else on the pitch. Always, invariably.
Click to expand...
Who is Keane with goals? Lucho?
 
Chesterlestreet said:
he potential problem is that he'd end up getting in Di Stefanos way, not that he isn't well rounded enough.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I think Gerson on song is a fantastic player but he was very much a specialist, in that he required the ideal set-up and he was fairly static as a player (not neccessarily his speed or speed of thought for that matter, just seemed to play the game at his own pace somewhat). He definitely has his limitations and I don't rate his all-round game too highly to complement someone like di Stefano but as far as deep lying playmakers go (and in the right set-up), he'd be mint.

Do think the Brazil's final against Italy has slightly elevated his reputation more than it should have. Don't get me wrong, he ran the show in that game and was one of the driving factors behind Brazil's victory. However, he was given all the time in the world and was allowed to impose himself in the game with Italy playing an extremely defensive set-up, naturally, allowing Brazil possession. As far as I'm concerned, throughout the tournament he wasn't any more important than Rivelino or Tostao whilst the likes of Jairzinho, Pele and C.Alberto played more important roles in that side. Gerson was injured for 2 of Brazil's group games, one of them happening to be Brazil's toughest game of the tournament against England, and was ineffectual and marked out of the game against Uruguay in the semis (both were Brazil's toughest games in the tournament), although the entire Brazilian side seemed out of sorts in that game and one does have to praise his intelligence in dropping deep and allowing Clodoaldo freedom to get forward.

I'm definitely being harsh on him and I've never been a fan of him, so that has to be taken into account too :lol:.

harms said:
Scholes had much better movement and he didn't need to stop the ball before hitting a long pass (like Gerson usually did before pinning an inch-perfect over the top ball). And I wouldn't call him a better tackler (although Scholes' tackling had become a bit of a myth around here, like Vidic' pace).

I'd say that Gerson is a significantly better dribbler, but other than that, I'd rate Scholes' all-round game higher, and his speed of thought too.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I also really rate his mentality (which is generally unique relative to other midfield playmakers) rather highly too. A fair few have made remarks regarding how it isn't exactly a walk in the park going up against Scholes (Henry iirc). Think it'd be hard to man-mark Scholes out of the game like a Pirlo (Park) or a Alonso (against Dortmund and Welbeck too iirc).

Joga Bonito said:
You'd associate vision, ability to dictate play, awareness, technique, creativity and flair with most playmakers/metronomes like Xavi/Pirlo/Riquelme etc. However, Scholes had that mental edge where his grit, fieriness and tenacity made him truly special. Combine these qualities with the assured, calm and composed way in which he played the game, it was akin to controlled aggression and truly made him a special player.
Click to expand...
 
Moby said:
Of course, keep repeating the same old stuff about every single player for years and then wonder why the matches get boring.

You know what you were doing picking Keane's name ahead of anyone else's on this forum and you got your reaction. Good thing it's the internet and not a pub with glassware around
Click to expand...

Enigma_87 said:
Who is Keane with goals? Lucho?
Click to expand...

Enigma_87 said:
I know anto loves Lucho but... :lol:
Click to expand...

And this is how it gets repeated. I said it once, people keep banging on about it, so more people hear of it.

As usual, the fact that I was referring to their character and determination is lost on everyone.

Same goes for the poor man's Vieri ;)
 
Gio said:
There's been a few comments on Enigma's attack. I don't share the concern with Eusebio as a 9 in that set-up. The main reason he dropped deep for Portugal was because he had to often be the main creator and taker of chances. He'd be perfect leading the line in the modern game. The attack as a whole is potentially a little overly individualistic, but there's enough collaboration there between them to make it work IMO.
Click to expand...

Agreed. He'd probably be deployed as a super-mobile No. 9 if he was playing today IMO.

Edgar Allan Pillow said:
I didn't want to harp on this and hijack the match, but not every well rounded striker can be a good F9. A good F9 imo needs to have very good ability to bring others into play. Something which I think is not Eusebio's strengths. He's a direct player with strength and speed. I wouldn't put his strengths in drifting around the box, dragging defenders away, creating spaces etc. He's more aprt to beat CBs head on rather than drag them away and create for Best. He'll do so to an extent of any other decent forward but sub-optimal to be a good F9.
Click to expand...

Enigma_87 said:
Agree to that notion of course but not every striker is Eusebio :) As Gio said if Eusebio played today I can see him in a 4-3-3 as a CF most of the time. His link up is quite good actually from the games I've seen in the EC against the top sides and the problem with him dropping too deep is that Benfica played as a unit attacked and dropped back at the same time but didn't have the creative talent some other teams of that time had in their ranks.
Click to expand...

I'm with Edgar here. I know 'false 9' is quite a nedulous term at the best of times, but Eusebio is more direct and less of a playmaker than the type of player I'd typically associate with that role. It doesn't really make much a difference in terms of how I see your attack playing out, but I see the false 9 tag as somewhat distracting and unnecessary. If I was to assign any hipstery term to your attack I could see it playing out as the sort of 4-3-3-0 attacking set up that we often fielded around 2008, when we'd often end up with no-one really leading the line and all of the attackers roaming. Mostly though I'd prefer it to be designated as a plain old 4-3-3. Either way, I see it working pretty well, just like that Utd attack did, and it won my vote :).
 
Pat_Mustard said:
Agreed. He'd probably be deployed as a super-mobile No. 9 if he was playing today IMO.

I'm with Edgar here. I know 'false 9' is quite a nedulous term at the best of times, but Eusebio is more direct and less of a playmaker than the type of player I'd typically associate with that role. It doesn't really make much a difference in terms of how I see your attack playing out, but I see the false 9 tag as somewhat distracting and unnecessary. If I was to assign any hipstery term to your attack I could see it playing out as the sort of 4-3-3-0 attacking set up that we often fielded around 2008, when we'd often end up with no-one really leading the line and all of the attackers roaming. Mostly though I'd prefer it to be designated as a plain old 4-3-3. Either way, I see it working pretty well, just like that Utd attack did, and it won my vote :).
Click to expand...
Yes, that's my basic premise here, but if I depict it as a flat 4-3-3 most people would look at him as a target man, which is not the idea. And he's not the playmaker that I was trying to explain since the initial drafting, but seems that most people imagine Messi or Totti which is again not in the same direction. Will look into possible options to present him better as a central attacker in that 4-3-3 so it's more clear for the voters :)
 
Enigma_87 said:
Yes, that's my basic premise here, but if I depict it as a flat 4-3-3 most people would look at him as a target man, which is not the idea. And he's not the playmaker that I was trying to explain since the initial drafting, but seems that most people imagine Messi or Totti which is again not in the same direction. Will look into possible options to present him better as a central attacker in that 4-3-3 so it's more clear for the voters :)
Click to expand...

You did a very good job of explaining Eusebio's role throughout the thread, but I invariably associate the false 9 role with that Messi/Totti sort of player so the term was a bit distracting, but not a major issue at all.
 
Pat_Mustard said:
You did a very good job of explaining Eusebio's role throughout the thread, but I invariably associate the false 9 role with that Messi/Totti sort of player so the term was a bit distracting, but not a major issue at all.
Click to expand...
Thanks mate. I'll probably just leave the arrow and remove the false 9 with another description as it confuses more people than actually serving the purpose it has to do.
 
Fortunately, my vote hasn't been the decider as in hindsight I shouldn't have voted here.

At the beginning, I voted for raees because he has a better team on the tactical level: Deschamps is the right man to harass a player like Charlton. Then, I was tempted by the offensive trio of Enigma after watching Tigana a little bit.

I wish I followed the last passage and made my own opinion about Gerson for example.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.