Random story but i was chattin an old guy tonight in the pub and I asked him who the best player he ever seen was. His answer....Rivelino
Decades Draft Tournament : Cutch vs Theon
- Thread starter Moby
- Start date
Nah, we still have a dead rubber ahead, or so will Aldo want us to believe
It really is. I love my team and wouldn't swap it for any other but it just isn't getting more votes, pretty sure.Right now the German nationalteam seems very likeable to me, anyone playing regular for Germany who's considered a cnut? And the team in the 70's was likeable as well, the 80's and 90's were pretty annoying though.I think we can all agree a lot of German players are cnuts
Had completely forgotten about the Klinsmann stuff. I used to root for that Inter side (the underdog, as ever
I don't think it was as bad early on, but post World Cup it seemed Matthaus was somewhat worried about Klinsmann looking good at all. He seemed hellbent on ensuring he would forever be remembered as the starman who had won it for Germany with the rest as supporting cast, i.e. to be to Germany at Italia 90 what Maradona was to Argentina at Mexico 86. Good luck cunto!
I haven't watched Inter back then regularly, was it really that bad on the pitch? I don't think the tension between him and Klinsmann hurt Bayern in 95-97 when both played together again (but we had a lot of other fights going on within the team, so one more didn't really matter). In the end, after finishing 6th in the league before Klinsmann arrived, we finished 2nd and 1st against a strong Dortmund side and won the UEFA cup (with Klinsmann scoring 15 goals in 12 games) during his time together with Matthäus at Bayern. Not much to complain about.
If Matthäus wanted everyone to remember him as the sole starman in 1990 he really shouldn't have chickend out of the penalty in the final
. He was overall our best player, but there are quite a few others who had a great tournament and remarkable games. Klinsmann had the standout game of his career against the netherlands for example.The current crop is a bit too nice, don't you think? I see them as technically better but not as strong and tough mentally that we have seen the previous German teams to be.
Not sure if the players are too nice. We went from totally shit 98-2004 over at least a few good young players and Ballack (2006 - 08) to incredibly talented but also incredibly young (2010 - 2012). I think we've overperformed a lot in the past. 2002 was because of lucky draws, but 2006 was the usual Germans do better than they should, 2008 and 2010 as well, imo. Only in 2012 we looked too nice and that's got more to do with Löw as the manager. We probably need one Bender in the team, but I'd call that adding steel and not adding cnuts, no one needs cnuts, imo. It only happens way too often that great players are cnuts and therefore end up playing regular for the great football nations.
No not adding a cnut, but it is always good to have a great leader who is vocal and intimidating. Great characters basically who bring a lot more to the game with their mental toughness and demanding attitude from the team. I don't see someone like Sammer as a cnut, but he had a great presence on the field and you knew that this guy would put every last ounce left in him to get the win and never say die. Somehow I find the current German crop a bit too easy going.
The same questions were asked in Germany again and again over the last years, especially after Bayern lost the 2nd CL final and Schweinsteiger and Lahm got a lot of stick for being failures at the biggest stage. Sammer himself said - he was in charge of the German youth teams as director of football at the German FA before he went to Bayern - that we all will be surprised about Sven and Lars Bender and what they'll bring to the team in terms of mentality in the future. I don't think it's really a big problem. Lahm and Schweinsteiger grew a lot last season after they lost the CL final at home and neither of the foreign players at Bayern or Dortmund are that type of player, but it worked very well in the CL. A missing leader wasn't the reason why we lost to Italy in 2012 anyway, so I doubt that's the problem. The way other players and great managers talk about our more quiet leaders, tells a lot, so I'm not worried. Müller, Hummels and Neuer have shown in the past that they can push a team forward, the team just needs a few more years to gain experience, this generation will probably peak in 2016-18.
It's tricky though. We'd never know what a great leader capable of raising everyone's game would have done in that game. Germany's associated a lot with such leaders, like Kaiser, Sammer etc taking the whole team to another level. Moreover a leader's true strength is only known when the chips are down and you need someone to not let the shoulders drop. Bayern never really were in the situation last season so I can't judge Lahm's or Bastian's leadership and character properly. We look at what Keano did at Turin in 99, that for me is great character, leadership and grit. Maybe someone of that ilk could have changed Germany's fortune in the Euro, maybe not, but the team is definitely missing that and it could be a bit of a problem IMO. With such a talented bunch of players you need a captain of the ship to make it clear to everyone what the importance of the occasion is.
Next year the WC is in Brazil and no European country barring Spain in 10 have won the WC outside Europe, so it is not really an easy ride and you do need someone to keep the team motivated at all times.
Agree on playing the Benders completely.
Next year the WC is in Brazil and no European country barring Spain in 10 have won the WC outside Europe, so it is not really an easy ride and you do need someone to keep the team motivated at all times.
Agree on playing the Benders completely.
I don't think you can blame the team for not trying in that game against Italy last summer. We created chances, we went forward, we scored a goal in extra time. Mentality wasn't a problem, we hadn't given up at all. We needed a lucky break but didn't get it. We love to tell those great stories about leaders, about fighting spirit to find reasons why close games are decided in one way or another. If United lost that game in 99, hardly anyone would talk about it even though your players still had tried to do the same, the player's effort would have been exactly the same. Most of the time when games like that happen luck is heavily involved, because if United tried to turn around a game like that in Turin 100 times, they would't succeed more than I don't know 3 times, 5 times at best. But yeah, Matthäus was stupidly subbed off in 99 (so much about great leaders and their mentality) and your team took what looked like a once in a lifetime chance, fair enough. But saying one game in which the team really tried could have been different with an all time great leader who had that lucky break once, sounds a bit naive to me.
Before starting, this isn't a random rant, Aldo was testing a new concept for reinforcements so it's worth analysing this stuff.
He did too (Stoichkov and Mauro Silva clearly weren't picked to start all the way to the final as the 60s picks).
I did as well (even got Campbell as my sub to replace Desailly if I had the chance early on).
You got him because you went first. Cutch got Iniesta.
It does sort of make up for him getting Messi while you got Xavi, as you say.
But you were jammy in that you got Ronaldo to last 14 picks. I can imagine the tension as you realised it was actually a possibility...
The thing is going first in the second reinforcement round is no huge advantage, very much the opposite.
In the first one the pool is much deeper and the flexibility across decades much greater so you can pick a player like Maradona and just leave your second man to chance. You certainly don't run out of quality when the likes of Redondo and Cafú go unpicked, or Pelé and Facchetti in the second round.
But the further you've gone the more likely it is that a lingering issue will require two moves. e.g. He couldn't pick Zanetti because he needed to ALSO source a CB to replace Ayala if he were to do that. No chance he could count on that so he had to pick his fave and hope a good upgrade was left over.
The second reinforcement round isn't about getting big names but putting the finishing touches to your team and having your two picks as close as possible is absolutely huge because there are less options that will work now and the pool is narrower (leftovers from 4 teams instead of 8).
He got a couple of nice upgrades, while you basically went from having a badly protected leaky defence to having a solid defence that allayed concerns over your midfield.
That is very helpful indeed, no question. Missing out on the key names tends to focus the other managers though, while the ones at the top get a bit complacent at times.
As said, it does matter because we are trialling a different reinforcement method here. It wasn't an easy draft and a lot has gone down to the individual decisions made in the first draft, luck in terms of who was drawn with who, etc. You would have probably been sent packing had you not got paceme in the first round!
On paper, the second round of picking from a pool seems to skew things a bit. My take though is that much of its impact is down to the decades constraint. If that weren't at play the relative advantage of picking two players in one go or as close as possible isn't as relevant. I think it is probably a bettter/fairer way to remove the element of "luck of the draw" and, ultimately, if the constraint ties managers up in knots it's not like they didn't have the opportunity to plan for that.
All in all, good change IMO. Maybe one adjustment would be to keep the eliminated player pool enlarging rather than discard those that went unpicked. Same for the "picking from the opponent in the semi". Maybe you should be able to have first dibs at one player from your opponent but the other winning semifinalist can look at other players? E.g. Cutch getting Carlos Alberto from Theon would have allowed Aldo to pick Maradona. He he, I could see Cutch starting the final still with Suurbier then
Good analysis. In light of the fantastic array of talent that Cutch and Theon collected, I'd say there was a clear advantage in being located at either end of the draft order, particularly once the reinforcements got underway as it offered multiple opportunities to both grab a super-marquee player and double-pick. In fairness there is the disadvantage most apparent during the first draft of being suspectible to a run of picks in any given decade or position. It's been a good experiment and fairer than 'luck of the draw', but the perfect solution is still to be found.
It's probably just me and I believe that you create your own luck instead of getting it, and saying they tried the best they could is to me the talk of a defeatist and essentially giving up. That's the role of a leader more than anything, to tell the team that whatever you are doing, you can do better. I won't trivialize the role of a leader by saying there's not much that can be changed in the performance of a team and hence the result by the presence of someone who thinks of the game as a matter of life and death. You take the example of Sir Alex and he's made plenty of average players play out of their skins making them believe they can be world class even when he knew they are well average and that brought out something from them that would have not been the case had the manager just said you've tried your best, tough luck, move on.
It makes a huge difference if you ask me. We have seen Giggsy and Scholesy say how scared they were of Keano on and off the pitch as well as Sir Alex and knew they cannot get away after a bad performance. The final in 99 is a rare case and doesn't really fall into the category of leadership or anything, that indeed was lucky, but Turin wasn't. It was a man on a mission and that showed in the game.
It makes a huge difference if you ask me. We have seen Giggsy and Scholesy say how scared they were of Keano on and off the pitch as well as Sir Alex and knew they cannot get away after a bad performance. The final in 99 is a rare case and doesn't really fall into the category of leadership or anything, that indeed was lucky, but Turin wasn't. It was a man on a mission and that showed in the game.
If we judge the general mentality of a team, I agree. But I don't think you can question that for the German nationalteam today. I know a lot of people in Germany who always questioned Bayern's mentality in the last years because we lacked someone like Effenberg or Kahn, yet those guys lost that final in 99 as well. You need leaders, you need a hierarchy within the team, but they don't need to be like Matthäus or Keane. Xavi and Casillas showed that for Spain and Lahm and Schweinsteiger did fine for Bayern last season (and the CL final was far from easy, Dortmund were clearly on top in the beginning and Schweinsteiger's decisions against the manager's tactics changed the game according to Sammer). It doesn't need to be fear like with Keane. I doubt anyone feared Beckenbauer for example.
Not quite. Though it helps, there have been numerous teams who don't have/need a Keano type character. Balu mentions Beckenbauer, Steven Gerrard's liverpool and recent Spain/Barcelona teams. Even after Keane left, United has a history of never giving up and scoring in the last minute (Fergie time, maybe).
Team don't need that sort of a character as long as things are going their way (Spain/Barca falls into this category) but you need one to drive the team out of a dire situation through sheer will and determination.
I really miss these sort of characters in the modern game.
I really miss these sort of characters in the modern game.
I think those characters exist in the modern game as well, there's just no need to act like a cnut and shout as much to do it, therefore someone like Xavi isn't rated as big a leader as Keane even though the teams he played in showed determination like few teams before.
Neither do I want people to be cnuts but shouting and being vocal is very important for a leader, not only to intimidate his player or the opponent but also to get the message across clearly. You cannot let players take the fact that they are playing for the club for granted, and you need to set that straight. I'd love someone to send a kick up Ashley Young's arse for what he did against Liverpool and let him know it can't go for long. In fact that should have been done right between the game. Xavi's okay, Barca's determination was more because of Pep than any player IMO and he kept them hungry despite winning everything. People say Barca lack plan B when they start losing, they also lack a proper leader to get them back on track. I don't consider Sammer a cnut, but a great influential leader in the team who got things done.
Spain showed the same determination since 2008, before Pep took over at Barca. They didn't play that insane pressing, but there's more to determination than just that. And I still believe that lack of a plan B is nonsense. Up until last year, there were hardly 5 games in 4 years in which Barca didn't create enough chances to win the games they lost or drew. It's so weird when they miss sitters, hit the post several times, miss a penalty and afterwards people say they lacked a plan B against Chelsea in 2012. That doesn't make sense at all. And Sammer wouldn't have changed the style of the team as a player and the way he talks about Guardiola right now, I'm sure he'd disagree with you.
No one's doubting Xavi's and other Spanish players' determination and hunger, of course you cannot win all they did without that but the run they had for Barca for largely due to Pep IMO. Going through a 50+ game domestic season like a juggernaut is a lot bigger feat than winning a 6 game tournament. Not saying it is a small feat but not the biggest advert for showing a team's determination when the QF was won on penalties, and the best team of the tournament was eliminated thanks to Arshavin before they could face them. Sammer needn't change the style of the team to influence the performance and the result, as I said he needs to raise the levels of the ones around him, that is what great leaders do and have done.
Goes to show how underrated he is on here. I think it was EDogen that had him and insisted on placing him left as that's what he/people would be familiar with from WC70. He was a proper No. 10, could play anywhere across the front, much like Maradona. Yet with Diego everyone cries wolf if he isn't central and with Rivelino it's probably the opposite.
At one point I had Rivelino down as my 40s man behind the striker waiting to be replaced by either Pelé (straight swap) or Maradona, but would have been happy to go into a final with him there. Would I get to a final with Rivelino there? No chance, which is ridiculous.
Yeah, I was referring to the 80s and 90s ones really. I don't think anyone enjoyed seeing Bayern lose to Chelsea, while many enjoyed seeing Bayern losing to us and wailing on the pitch. I mean from a neutral perspective, not on here, obviously.
It wasn't outright hatred or anything. It was more a case of expecting to see a Breitnigge type partnership and finding they had little interest in that or time for each other. I mean, both playing in the same club and world champions, surely they would have developed a solid understanding and chemistry? Nope, half the time you felt Matthaus wanted to make it clear HE was the big man. It wasn't shooting themselves in the foot material, but more a missed opportunity to gel and really be bigger than the sum of parts.
Do you know what was at the root of their dislike? Much of this was my gut at the time, largely based on me not liking Matthaus already
If Matthäus wanted everyone to remember him as the sole starman in 1990 he really shouldn't have chickend out of the penalty in the final
See above, it was more the gut from a neutral observer who probably had an irrational dislike for Matthaus.
Klinsmann and Brehme were immense, which is what makes it weird. I really liked Brehme and developed a soft spot for Klinsmann at Inter. The quality and attitude from those two may have actually emphasised how far Matthaus had disappeared up his own arse.
Massive idiot, that's all. He was fighting with everyone all the time, Helmer, Brehme, Babbel come to mind. I think even Kahn was part of a group of players who wanted the captaincy taken off Matthäus in 96 and he was only 2 years at the club back then. According to Rummenigge back then, it was the third time players asked to get rid of him or at least make someone else captain so that they could ignore himDo you know what was at the root of their dislike? Much of this was my gut at the time, largely based on me not liking Matthaus already
.I usually think the middle is the best starting place but probably wouldn't with this system.
That said, it had no real bearing on the middle teams' early exits as "The Sieve" all went out before any reinforcement took place. That was just strange, three strong teams that somehow ended up matched to some of the ones best placed to beat them.
Balu, I appreciate your point re: not needing to be a cnut. There's an argument Bayern/Germany haven't faced major adversity so jury still out on that.
Aldo, it doesn't need to be a cnut but you have a point re: players acting IN-GAME and being vocal when others feck up. That has got lost somewhere. It seems the ones that do it tend to be questionable characters and that it can be seen more as "tantrums" than leadership (e.g. Rooney).
It's actually quite scary but I can't think of many, not even closer down here where it was almost a requirement. Who is Brazil's leader? Argentina's? Our own ones for Uruguay are all 30+ and on the verge of retirement. Diego Pérez no longer has the legs to start for us, so he actually stood on the side of the pitch on Friday screaming at everyone as if he were the manager
I think this is appropriate to the topic, a TV commercial done for a grapefruit soft drink in Uruguay, the motto being "cut it with the sweetness". No need to know Spanish to get it (the song is obviously one professing eternal love, etc.).
Aldo, it doesn't need to be a cnut but you have a point re: players acting IN-GAME and being vocal when others feck up. That has got lost somewhere. It seems the ones that do it tend to be questionable characters and that it can be seen more as "tantrums" than leadership (e.g. Rooney).
It's actually quite scary but I can't think of many, not even closer down here where it was almost a requirement. Who is Brazil's leader? Argentina's? Our own ones for Uruguay are all 30+ and on the verge of retirement. Diego Pérez no longer has the legs to start for us, so he actually stood on the side of the pitch on Friday screaming at everyone as if he were the manager
I think this is appropriate to the topic, a TV commercial done for a grapefruit soft drink in Uruguay, the motto being "cut it with the sweetness". No need to know Spanish to get it (the song is obviously one professing eternal love, etc.).
Nice post, I agree with much of it and also agree its worth considering whether it was a good addition to the game - it was actually my idea! And yeah I agree with your conclusion, its a good move. Overall basically I think it just evens itself out.
Getting 1st pick in the first reinforcement stage - IMO it just evens out getting first pick in the actual draft, like you say he got Messi I got Xavi, so switching it around is fair because bottom then gets a chance at the big players like Pele, Maradona, Messi. Also even though Cutch chose Iniesta that was influenced by the decade constraint and players like Platini, Scirea, Falcao and Ronaldo were all there. I think those two orders even themselves out, and then going 1st in the third drafting stage (2nd reinforcement) gives the top teams another chance at Pele, Diego etc.
Overall I think best position is 1st i.e. Isotope, pick Mardona and build a team around him, double pick at the next stage and then 1st choice of all the star names in the last round - if you plan it well this could be huge. Worst is probably somewhere in the lower middle, like 11th or 12th maybe. But even then I dont think its by much, i's all pretty even.