Sanchez wasn't 5'9, was he? I'd have thought he was shorter than that.
EDIT: 1.75 meters, it says. Which is...5'7.
EDIT: 1.75 meters, it says. Which is...5'7.
British + Irish draft : MJJ vs Barney (Group D)
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
He was a leftie - so was old Marvel, though. But yeah, could easily swap 'em.
But the point was holding up any balls from the deep midfielders, which Keegan would comfortably and, by virtue of him being closer to midfield, Charlton is nowhere near him.
If he is playing near the top(when he would need to hold up the ball from deep midfielders) then charlton will be close to him, if he is playing in midfield then he can hold the ball but again will probably have to pass it on closer to the halfway line. Raisebeck is patrolling that area as well so I dont think keegan will be able to play to the best of his ability and raisebeck from all reports was a very physical player as well so will probably say it will be an even match.
If you get crappy to edit the OP (getting rid of that formation pic), you may want to instruct him to do something about that Disney bloke on your bench too. He's been sitting there since the last match.
Scratch that, I thought he was more one-footed than Robbo (which he was) and that would make him more comfortable on the left, but looking through a few clips to refresh that... it's clearly better to have him shooting coming in from the right!
Given the average height was 5 ft 6, I doubt there were too many defenders who were taller than 6 ft but will agree to disagree on this point as neither of us have sufficient data about the defenders back then.
Luckily am playing with two old-fashioned defnders
Fair enough let's agree to disagree then.
I'll let you know that it was against these old fashioned defenders that he managed to score a ridiculous amount (almost a third of his total)of headed goals though
Are you playing a high line? I wouldn't think so.
Paul beardsley right. Blame @manikandan nair for that as well, I meant to correct that but am swamped(moving to a new house and important project due on tuesday so forgot).Am not but both his midfielders are deep so am naturally assuming keegan will be dropping back to fill the space between his midfield and forwards. If thats not the case, then he will be relying even more on high balls which will surprise me.
He wasn't bad at that, was he?
We need this now, I think (can't be shown too often, in fairness):
I liked Quasimodo. Shame he is English too
Brilliant player - no doubt. He adds further bodies to this second strikery/attacking midfieldery conundrum, though. Questions must be asked about the logic of the drafting here, methinks.
@crappycraperson can you change my formation to this please. With special thanks to chester for suggesting it.
It won't necessarily take high balls. Souness and Scholes both have the passing range to be able to quickly get the ball forward along the ground or put the ball in a place where only our player will be able to get it. Keegan will be dropping deep, but he's much more a forward than a midfielder.
Voted Barney. I don't like this new formation, neither Charlton or Dalglish are in their best role
Depends on how you look at it. It's quite possible to see Dalglish's role as his customary one: He plays behind the striker, essentially. Charlton has a free role, roams out wide plenty (which he certainly liked to do), operates in a fairly large area (which he liked to do too).
The question remains whether Dalglish and Charlton would work well together, in the same team (regardless of how you set up), but that problem was just as acute (more so, I'd say) with the old formation.
The question remains whether Dalglish and Charlton would work well together, in the same team (regardless of how you set up), but that problem was just as acute (more so, I'd say) with the old formation.
@crappycraperson can you change my formation to this please. With special thanks to chester for suggesting it.
Not sure whether you want to correct Dag's spelling, or if it's a cunning plan to get brownie points with @sajeev
Agreed, not sure why Charlton must 100% be a tip of the diamond player. He was remarkable in 1962 playing on the left, and here he pretty much has the space to do either, at will.
I think I mentioned before I have this WC collection based on the writings of a Uruguayan football reporter who went to every World Cup since 1930 up to 1990 (no idea what happened after that, that's when it was published) and he profiled him as one of the very best players in the tourno. You have to understand this is someone who was baffled at the isolationism and the air of superiority emerging from England as inventors of football, when what he had seen at World Cups so far didn't support the arrogance. In short, his take was that he had finally seen what gave credence to it all, the sort of player that justified the arrogance, while not being at all arrogant but exemplary as a player and gentleman. Something along those lines, can't be arsed to look it up, but if you read his views on him you would have him up there as one of the best in the tourno and one to look out for in 1966. The guy was actually pretty remarkable, today we get a lot of hoo-hah over players that come and go and leave nothing in their wake, but his tournament picks -current and rising- were invariably the ones that to this day are household names.
Think that's better. The left side of your team looks very good with Wilson overlapping, Robson bursting through, Charlton drifting in the inside-left channel. Not sure how capable Sherwood would be of providing natural width on the other flank? The narrow 4-3-3 or 4-3-2-1 does tend to be heavily reliant on top-end attacking wing-backs.
@crappycraperson can you change my formation to this please. With special thanks to chester for suggesting it.
He would have better game making it a 4-3-2-1 and forgetting the flanks.
Whiteside can do it and it puts Bobby and Kenny in best positions and a lethal attack.
Whiteside can do it and it puts Bobby and Kenny in best positions and a lethal attack.
Whiteside is not a great striker to have in this situation. It is an attack with brilliant individuals, but little balance.
He would not be able to, especially if he wants to cope with Barnes. If he has Sherwood bombing on, Barnes will destroy him.
It wasn't any different with the diamond, tbf. I think this is much better overall, more robust and with a more varied and attractive gameplan going forward.
Whiteside is no longer playing striker. I think EAPs point was Whiteside could stretch the defence drifting wide if needed. At least he can do that as much as Hoddle used to be able to, but now there's a striker in the box and more graft in midfield.
I know, I was referring to EAP's point.
.............. Lofthouse...............
.... . Bobby............ Kenny........
Robson.. Raisbeck.. Whiteside
Ahh, right. Misunderstood you.
Well, 'tis the season, innit?
Two problems with it, though:
1. Robbo and Whiteside both look better as and ARE better as central midfielders, rather than anything which implies that they're tasked with providing width to any significant degree. You end up with the same flaw which characterized the diamond format previously.
2. Raisbeck has to be classed as a pure, very much defensive sort of...defensive midfielder. For my money he should be doing a Nobby here, keeping close to Keegan, etc. That's where he would be at home - and even excel - here. Not as a "normal" midfielder in a three (or should I say tree) of that sort.
As I said in original post, forget width. He does not have the players and no matter who plays, it will be makeshift. This formation Let Robbo and whiteside do their box to box job and Raisback as DM.
What it achieves is putting Bobby and Kenny in a free role behind Lofthouse....which is quite deadly. Bobby is the best player on pitch and he is in his best role.
Er...yes. And the current formation does not? You do realize they have updated the formation, right?
I agree with every word you say - I just don't see why a Christmas tree would illustrate the roles we're talking about any better. Nay, I say, quite to the contrary, the Christmas tree suggests some sort of wide-ish burden on the pair of midfielders either side of Raisbeck (in this particular case). Same as the diamond does. Hence my point above.
You are both talking aboout the same updated formation and violently agreeing with it. You just haven't picked that up yet. Is it the booze or the lack of sleep striking again?
The latter, I think. I'm dreadfully sober - and have to remain so for the time being.
Still, he's more out of it than I am at the moment - obsessed with bloody Christmas trees, he is.
7 2 scoreline
7 2 scoreline
Well you've got my vote now at least!
I'm not at all sure how this match would turn out in all honesty, but it does seem absurd that a team with arguably the finest collection of attackers in the draft could go out this early, even with some issues regarding team balance. A couple of other reasons why I opted to vote for you:
- Hoddle is easily amongst the most talented playmakers in the draft, but the new formation looks far more balanced.
- Charlton and Dalglish will thrive playing off a proper centre forward.
- I fancy your midfield three to be very competitive with, and even edge, Barney/Joga's two. Robson/Whiteside had good head to head records vs Souness iirc?
- I don't rate your defence particularly, but Charlton is strong enough physically and in the air to give a decent account of himself vs McGrory.
I'm still baffled that after spending ~60M on Charlton + another thick wad of cash on Dalglish he went out and bought Hoddle and Beardsley. Great players, love the two of them, but there's nowhere for them to play + nationality restriction. There's some logic in signing them on to avoid others having them, but it's risky when the money could have been handy elsewhere.
I voted pro Barney/Joga last time and con MJJ/mani. My reasons for doing so were quite similar: I reckoned EAP didn't have sufficient quality to overcome a well balanced Barney/Joga side with a match winner in the shape of Barnes - and then I reckoned an imbalanced MJJ/mani side wouldn't be able to capitalize on their superior players against EAP's tactically sounder set-up.
This time it's much closer. Barney/Joga have the edge in terms of balance - even with the new formation, MJJ/mani aren't ideally balanced and I think their side is poorly drafted, to be brutally honest: The quota problem could have been avoided and they simply shouldn't have gone for both Dalglish and Charlton anyway. But they have just about the best player in the draft here - and now he can do some proper damage. That has to count for something.
So I'm going to vote for 'em here nevertheless. In actual fact I think it's more of a draw, but I'm exercising my right to push the result in that direction by voting as I do.
This time it's much closer. Barney/Joga have the edge in terms of balance - even with the new formation, MJJ/mani aren't ideally balanced and I think their side is poorly drafted, to be brutally honest: The quota problem could have been avoided and they simply shouldn't have gone for both Dalglish and Charlton anyway. But they have just about the best player in the draft here - and now he can do some proper damage. That has to count for something.
So I'm going to vote for 'em here nevertheless. In actual fact I think it's more of a draw, but I'm exercising my right to push the result in that direction by voting as I do.
by all accounts Sherwood was very quick and a decent crosser of the ball so think he will do fine here.
Another reason why I was reluctant to vote against him, lest I be accused of skulduggery. He's managed to hog at least two players that would complete our side amongst his No. 10 grab-fest!