British + Irish Draft : MJJ vs Edgar (Group D)
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
Sort of the same, though I will add Gazza to your list. His tactical set up in both game won me over rather than the personnel.
Agreed, although I like Gemmill alot too and McManaman has grown on me since he's fecked off into retirement.
Also, I'm going to have to go into hiding for admitting this, but for a Utd player I strongly dislike Styles from the little I've seen of him
. I keep hearing about his underrated ability on the ball, but I've personally seen little of it and he was truly a dirty bastard. Not even a Keane/Souness type who would throw in the odd brutal challenge, but just a consistently niggly, cynical player. Against Benfica he basically chopped down Eusebio the second he touched the ball, again and again. I'm not really denying his effectiveness and I'm sure there's alot more to him than what I've seen, but that's just my personal impressions.Also, I'm going to have to go into hiding for admitting this, but for a Utd player I strongly dislike Styles from the little I've seen of him
The sort of player you'd absolutely detest if he didn't play for your side, I imagine. Though it's hard to view him objectively in that regard - what he did was legal, as it were, back then, more or less. He'd been sent off after two minutes these days, of course.
He was relentless - ideally suited for staying on someone like a cheap suit. But I think that was that in terms of truly outstanding qualities. Not a very exciting player, to put it like that - I'd have him down as one of the purer destroyers in that role on the highest level myself. People complain that Makelele lacked footballing qualities when he shows up in drafts - but he was easily better on the ball and a better passer than Stiles.
Still, he did operate on the highest level - can't be overlooked - and if you need a bloodhound, he's definitely yer man.
Agreed, although I like Gemmill alot too and McManaman has grown on me since he's fecked off into retirement.
Also, I'm going to have to go into hiding for admitting this, but for a Utd player I strongly dislike Styles from the little I've seen of him
He played in a time where that was the norm. Argentina played so hard that Ramsey had to stop George Cohen from exchanging shirts due to dirty nature of the game. But that should not be a negative for his obvious talents. Both for England and United, he has been a defensive mainstay during successful years. Not sure where you got the idea on underrated ability on the ball. From what I read, he was a superb ball winner and was quite good at short and long passes to keep the game ticking. His positioning was also impeccable as he could sniff out attacks and destroy them even before they could mature. Yes, he was hard, but was a good footballer too.
See the quotes below from Busby and Fergie:
Sir Matt Busby said:
Think it's more on how the game was played and unlike Keane (as you mention him) he never went with intention of hurting anyone. This was what made Ramsey stick with him in the WC.
Sir Alex Ferguson said:
Brian Clough said:
Last edited:
Nobody got the Beardo joke, then?
That's Paul Beardsley - who works for Disney, so it says. Not the sort of man I'd rely on in a match of this magnitude, even as a sub.
That's Paul Beardsley - who works for Disney, so it says. Not the sort of man I'd rely on in a match of this magnitude, even as a sub.
Let's do this the modern draft style. PES wars!!!
I admit to being surprised myself, but Stiles is not that behind in short pass and fares better in long passes and shade it on overall accuracy.
Personally I still believe Makelele to be a better DM, but Stiles can pass!
Let's do this the modern draft style. PES wars!!!
I admit to being surprised myself, but Stiles is not that behind in short pass and fares better in long passes and shade it on overall accuracy.
Personally I still believe Makelele to be a better DM, but Stiles can pass!
Aha! See? Proven right by PES: Better short pass accuracy (which is what you need in that role, to be fair - I can't remember Makelele ever attempting anything which could be called a "long pass", so what they determine that stat on must be rather thin in terms of empirical evidence).
No idea how those stats compare to players who are/were properly good passers, though: Is 78 bad? Seems mediocre, at least - given that the default for something the player doesn't possess at all (see shot accuracy, for instance) seems to be around the sixty/mid sixties mark.
Properly good passers;
Scholes;
Short pass accuracy: 90
Long pass accuracy: 93
Blanchflower;
Short pass accuracy: 94
Long pass accuracy: 94
Pirlo;
Short pass accuracy: 90
Long pass accuracy: 98
Me neither. I think we can compare one aspect of a player to another, but as a overall package it surely is greater than the sum of these stas. My point was just on Stiles passing, not on who was a better player btw.
I love how you shoehorned Blanchflower into this conversation!
Stiles is very underrated on the ball. Quite nimble and very accurate simple passer. Plenty of footage about to support that.. no need for pes stats here!
Well, there we are - 78 is pretty shite, then.
No idea what precise logic is behind, though. As I said in an earlier thread, these parameters are what they are in order to make the players "behave" in a certain way within the context of a video game.
Still, those stats (Pirlo at 98 versus Makelele at 70) seem intelligent enough: They're based - it would appear - more on the player's highest level (for the category in question) than his actual passing accuracy in real life. Makelele, for instance, kept things as simple as possible - he didn't attempt many risky passes at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if he went through many matches without misplacing a simple pass. And the same would be true for any average-as-shit defender, for that matter. But you obviously can't give Mr Average Defender a passing accuracy of 95 (even though that was his factual percentage) - because it would make him as good as Xavi in the game. And that would be absurd - nobody would buy that game, for starters.
No idea what precise logic is behind, though. As I said in an earlier thread, these parameters are what they are in order to make the players "behave" in a certain way within the context of a video game.
Still, those stats (Pirlo at 98 versus Makelele at 70) seem intelligent enough: They're based - it would appear - more on the player's highest level (for the category in question) than his actual passing accuracy in real life. Makelele, for instance, kept things as simple as possible - he didn't attempt many risky passes at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if he went through many matches without misplacing a simple pass. And the same would be true for any average-as-shit defender, for that matter. But you obviously can't give Mr Average Defender a passing accuracy of 95 (even though that was his factual percentage) - because it would make him as good as Xavi in the game. And that would be absurd - nobody would buy that game, for starters.
Me neither. I think we can compare one aspect of a player to another, but as a overall package it surely is greater than the sum of these stas. My point was just on Stiles passing, not on who was a better player btw.
I love how you shoehorned Blanchflower into this conversation!
What the hell. I thought it was subtle and smooth as hell and would only be screened by the periphery and imprinted in the subconscious. And here you go and out me like that.
That's really it. I like more players than you listed, mind, but ultimately it boils down to the chemistry and how well I see them playing together. I do share Chester's view though that Sparky coming on would finally nail it for EAP, but would favour the way he started more conservatively keeping that extra gear in his locker. Still, I'm in two minds as to whether I would have started him to begin with, ahead of Owen.
The problem for Edgar going forward is that midfield is unlikely to win a final (however much I like it). Upgrading and getting better while not losing the chemistry will be tricky.
I was in the same dilemma yesterday. Then I decided that Owen's movement and pace in the box would be of more use than Hughes physicality outside. Either way it was a boder line differenceand I really can't say one is better than other with finality.
Yeah. Been giving it quite some thought, but one step at a time. If I go though and depending on the available pool...lets see. Have a few basic ideas....
I made it very clear that I was basing my comments from what I've personally seen, which isn't much and isn't supposed to be the final word on the player. The quotes you posted claim firstly he was a good passer, and secondly, he wasn't a dirty player. I haven't really seen enough to properly judge his passing, but from what I did see he did nothing in that regard that I wouldn't expect from a David Batty-level midfielder. Utterly unremarkable in other words, but not awful. As for the dirty player part, I'm confident I've seen enough to call bullshit on that. He was a persistent, cynical fouler, and while he mightn't have set out to seriously injure an opponent, he certainly wasn't shy about hurting them. But Chester pretty much nails it here:
and the bolded part makes it clear to me that he was probably a better and more useful player than my personal observations suggest. Its difficult not to give a fair bit of credit to a mainstay in teams that were truly successful on the international stage. Not to mention that he's tactically a great fit for your midfield.
Nope. It was a combination of unfortunate events. The week was relatively free at work, so did most of research there..and forgot to email my personal id when I left, so got stuck with some random options and couldn't be bothered to do the whole research again. (Next day was a holiday and so no chance of getting it back quick too). In hindsight Bill or Buchan would have been better.
It's not their reputations, you've said things like that a few times. Dalglish, Robson and Sir Bobby are just fantastic players - you can't get around that.
It's an incredible central threat and I think they would play some lovely football, with Hoddle's passing and technique there as well of course. Playing five men at the back and one up top, I think you're going to be sitting deep getting out played. Owen is an issue for you there as I said previously, as unlike Dalglish in particular Owen won't make things stick up top. Stiles is a limited footballer.
Disagree that those players are being misused as well really. If I was playing Dalglish and Charlton it would be with Bobby at #10 and Dalglish as a support striker which I think is their best roles. That leave a 3-5-2 or a diamond which is what he's gone for and I see no problems with Robson there either. Why couldn't Robbo play that role? You don't need to play a diamond midfield role like Steve McManaman would, which is actually the much rarer way of playing it as far as I can tell.
Robson would quite genuinely have no trouble playing there, he has the necessary workrate and stamina to play that role properly defensively and it also provides the security to let him get forward. I'd much prefer Robbo there than McManaman, by an absolute mile.
The biggest problem with that aspect of MJJ's side IMO is Whiteside who isn't the pure #9 that would best suit those wonderful deeper players. Ideally you would want someone quicker or more of a poacher, I think Chester suggested Rush which is on the money. Owen would be good in his side as well. But bar that I don't see a big problem.
. Love how you took Scholes's weakest passing ratings.Short Pass Accuracy: 92
Short Pass Speed: 87
Long Pass Accuracy: 95
Long Pass Speed: 93
Honestly think he is the best passer on this draft (and there is nothing that Pirlo can do on the ball that Scholes can't) but the likes of Haynes, Blanchflower and Brady aren't too far behind.
This'll be the game Pat mentioned, you can see Stiles hacking Eusebio down a fair few times.
Aye, that's the match Theon. Off topic, but despite some dodgy finishes in that game, Eusebio was such a beautifully balanced and explosive player. Charlton looked so silky on the ball in that game too.
Another possible way to look at this, for what it's worth, is this:
Without the poacher/top class finisher up there, the three foremost candidates for grabbing the necessary goal(s) here are Whiteside (not an ideal #9, as we've discussed plenty now, and not a great finisher), Kenny (your archetypal second striker - not a huge scorer/finisher) and the most dangerous finisher by a distance, Sir Bob. But Sir Bob is A) playing deep-ish and B) is being hounded by Stiles. The obvious point to make here, in regards to the discussion about Stiles' qualities as a player, is that there's one thing he is unquestionably capable of, namely to take a talismanic attacker out of the match.
If Stiles is instructed to shadow Charlton - and I don't see why he wouldn't be tasked with just that - then this significantly diminishes Charlton's impact on the match. That seems undeniable to me. It's 1) the main reason why I still don't see the necessity of fielding an extra man in defence - but 2) a huge blow to MJJ/mani's attacking threat and goal scoring prowess. It will be largely up to the awkward pairing of Kenny and Whiteside (neither of whom are goal grabbers as such) to decide this one - and I think it's reasonable to doubt whether they are capable of doing that.
Without the poacher/top class finisher up there, the three foremost candidates for grabbing the necessary goal(s) here are Whiteside (not an ideal #9, as we've discussed plenty now, and not a great finisher), Kenny (your archetypal second striker - not a huge scorer/finisher) and the most dangerous finisher by a distance, Sir Bob. But Sir Bob is A) playing deep-ish and B) is being hounded by Stiles. The obvious point to make here, in regards to the discussion about Stiles' qualities as a player, is that there's one thing he is unquestionably capable of, namely to take a talismanic attacker out of the match.
If Stiles is instructed to shadow Charlton - and I don't see why he wouldn't be tasked with just that - then this significantly diminishes Charlton's impact on the match. That seems undeniable to me. It's 1) the main reason why I still don't see the necessity of fielding an extra man in defence - but 2) a huge blow to MJJ/mani's attacking threat and goal scoring prowess. It will be largely up to the awkward pairing of Kenny and Whiteside (neither of whom are goal grabbers as such) to decide this one - and I think it's reasonable to doubt whether they are capable of doing that.
Fair enough then. How could you forget Foulkes though
. Anyway really used to rate Brown. He was pacey, strong, great in the air and on 1v1s and fairly decent on the ball. Pretty complete and could have become an excellent player had it not been for injuries. There were games when he was just unbeatable.Aye, the lack of a #9 is definitely an issue, it was poor planning really because Whiteside was never going to fit well with the rest of that front line. That said I think Charlton is far too good to be kept quiet in this game by anyone and he's still the biggest threat on the pitch here for either side.
But yeah, it ain't perfect. But saying that Edgar isn't free scoring himself. It's really only a solitary Owen up there and the rest of them aren't goalscorers. Moreover I don't think this set up suits Owen at all, he's in danger of getting isolated IMO and he doesnt have the technique to bring others into play.
But yeah, it ain't perfect. But saying that Edgar isn't free scoring himself. It's really only a solitary Owen up there and the rest of them aren't goalscorers. Moreover I don't think this set up suits Owen at all, he's in danger of getting isolated IMO and he doesnt have the technique to bring others into play.
Apologize if I'm getting you wrong, but I think you are taking the players and imagine how they would normally play not not how MJJ is playing it.
For example, Charlton and Hoddle drifting wide as mentioned in his OP is not where their strengths lay. If Charlton or Hoddle were instructed to drift wide, it would limit their efficiency greatly. They sure would 'do a job', but not would not be their peak. Same with Robson. He would do a world class box to box role, but in the side of a diamond he would be expected to drift wide and link with full back and that is not his peak. It's not just the players, but I really think in a side of a diamond McManaman is a better fit than Robson. Not that he is a better player, but much more suited to the job that is expected there.
The second point is his strategy on Wilson's surging runs forward. Sure he is capable of it, but against my team whatever he gains by those runs would have equal impact on a quick counter my team relies on. It's a battle that could go either way. I give you it's debatable, personally I think I can exploit that.
I'm glad you agree on Whiteside. Definitely a misfit there. Not a prolific goal scorer. Operates in almost same areas as Kenny. Charlton's drifting and lack of a good poacher dilute the effectiveness of that attack much. And sepaking of which, I have Stiles and McGrath watching Bobby and Kenny. Even if they manage to get past them (which I doubt would have that often), they still have Hughes and Brown to deal with.
I would agree, but it really is a big IF. Charlton is a legend and no matter how good Stiles was I was a bit unsure of voter reaction here. See Theon's point above, he still believes Bobby to cause trouble. I was expecting something of that sort and the extra man was a insurance just to make sure of the fact, that even if Bobby gets free, the extra man would even things up.
Owen is not tasked with bringing others into play here. He pace and movement in the box and scoring instincts are what I need and I have brady, McManaman and Gazza capable of providing the final ball to him. I need a poacher, not a hold up CF there and Owen does that for me.
Im going to bed now, but I don't see anything wrong with Charlton drifting wide at all. Why would he not do that? He's still playing centrally and drifting wide at times is a natural thing for any #10 to do, including those much worse at dribbling the ball than Sir Bobby.
But the quoted part is the main point I disagree with. I don't think it's even a little bit close between Robson and McManaman, there's literally no set of circumstances in which McManaman would be better for a midfield role than Captain Marvel himself.
I think you see a midfield role in the diamond as being a much more specific role than it actually is. As I said before the hybrid winger/midfielder way of playing it is rarer by a distance from what I've seen. To take an obvious example the hybrid way that Di Maria plays it (a better player than McManaman) isn't the standard way of playing a midfield diamond. So yeah, Robson would be worse at moving out wide and dribbling down the wing but he's far better at all of the other elements that the position requires.
He's a far better player than McManaman and it's still a midfield role. You're portraying it almost as if the most important aspect of playing central midfield in a diamond is whether you can drift out wide, when it reality that would be quite far down in a list of priorities. Most players who play a diamond are just midfielders - and Robson is as good as they come.
I think he suits the role quite well actually, better than someone like Keane who I always see as a deeper player than Robbo. You would probably need to have Keane at the base whereas Robson looks good breaking forward IMO.
It makes sense to go with Owen over Hughes in the counter attacking set-up that EAP has employed. Hughes would have been more influential in a possession based set-up and would have brought Gazza and Brady into the game better with his hold up and link play. Owen won't be influential throughout this match but you can see him grabbing a goal or 2 in a well executed counter attacking set up with few chances.
The Gascoigne and Owen pair could very well be deadly on the counter with Brady-McM and the wing backs providing the service.
The Gascoigne and Owen pair could very well be deadly on the counter with Brady-McM and the wing backs providing the service.
That's it from me too. The game would be over by the time I wake up.
@MJJ @manikandan nair Great game anyways. Loved the discussions!
@MJJ @manikandan nair Great game anyways. Loved the discussions!
That makes sense imo. Charlton can realistically be expected to have his moments against Stiles centrally and/or drag him out wide (where he was effective - he played as a winger for several seasons). McGrath centrally to help deal with the remaining threat from Hoddle/Whiteside/Dalglish is an excellent, and in my view necessary, defensive tactic.
Owen's lack of hold-up play is a problem in so far as it'll cost you a fair amount of possesion. I can still see Owen's pace and the passing quality of your mifielders carving MJJ open at least once though.
I think so too - because Gazza is in danger of being seriously hampered by Raisbeck. That's why I keep banging on about Hughes - not as a replacement for Owen, but as replacement for Brown.
Well, if you still edging towards me, I would appreciate the vote
I just can't make up my mind. I'm hopeless at voting on close games unless I'm drinking beer, which I'm not tonight. I'll give it an hour and see if I have a moment of clarity!
Thankfully I am. It is Coors Light, but rather that than staying sober
This is undeniable. And for what it's worth I have no doubt Robbo would do more than a fair job in that set-up, even it isn't (in my opinion) ideal for him. For me he isn't the problem - the problem is (as is usually the case) the overall balance. I don't think Robbo and Hoddle are a good combo in any set-up, to be honest - but that's less tangible, say, I can't explain it without writing an essay on the subject. And I don't think Hoddle, in particular, will work very well in this particular format.
The way I see it (and I have no problem with agreeing to disagree on this - it's just a personal opinion) Hoddle would have to play more of an auxiliary role here - because of Charlton's presence in that tip-of-the-diamond position. I don't think this suits Hoddle at all. He lacks the grit (and the pace) and he'd be better off in a more protected setting, as a sheer orchestrator. Again - this isn't gospel, it's just my personal opinion on what sort of role would suit Hoddle best. He isn't horribly out of place and he'll undoubtedly contribute something worthwhile - but it isn't anywhere near ideal. Balance - yet again.
Hoddle, Robbo, Dalglish - and Charlton himself. It sounds too good to beat - but I don't think they work well together in this set-up. Simple as that. And then it becomes a question of whether Edgar's poorer players (all is relative, but player-by-player there is no doubt MJJ/mani edges it) matters more or less than his better balance. And for me it has to be balance over individual quality - because the gap isn't that big in terms of the latter.
one vote in it.
just read up on the thread, am amazed that eap is going to outscore me since I am controlling the midfield and he is playing an extra man in defense.
he HD going to rely more on longballs but with Owen as a target man? how does that work.
the way eap is potraying it macca and brady are both wide and central at the same time, his wing backs are attacking and staying back at the same time.
its laughable.
he HD going to rely more on longballs but with Owen as a target man? how does that work.
the way eap is potraying it macca and brady are both wide and central at the same time, his wing backs are attacking and staying back at the same time.
its laughable.
Short Pass Accuracy: 92
Short Pass Speed: 87
Long Pass Accuracy: 95
Long Pass Speed: 93
Honestly think he is the best passer on this draft (and there is nothing that Pirlo can do on the ball that Scholes can't) but the likes of Haynes, Blanchflower and Brady aren't too far behind.
I took old Scholes for a rating. Didn't compare him within himself, thought that one should have been the best.
Good game @MJJ